SPEW vs SWP

[adipocere12]

Hi all,

Can someone please tell me what the differences are between these two UK parties? They seem similar to me except their opinions on the USSR.

Thanks

[The Idler]

They are similar but they have different leaders. They both come from the same original group.

[bricolage]

The SWP is a sinking ship having haemorrhaged most of its core membership after covering up sexual assault within the 'party'. Five years ago you wouldn't have been able to set foot on a University campus or a left-leaning demo without being assaulted by their newspapers and petitions; not so any more.

The SP is still about and keeps pretty close ties to both the Labour Party and the trade union bureaucracy which can lead to it adopting some pretty shitty positions.

[adipocere12]

How about in terms of tendency?

[bricolage]

They are both Trotskist and yes have different opinions on the Soviet Union. The SWP maintains Tony Cliff's idea of it as state capitalist whereas the SP have one of the degenerated or deformed ideas of it, I don't really remember which.

Tbh though I don't really know if tendency or opinions of the USSR are the best reasons to decide whether to join an organisation. Sure it can be important but if agreed with Cliff's idea I still wouldn't want to be in a group of rape apologists and if I agreed with the deformed/degenerated theory I'd still avoid a group that takes part in nationalist adventures like No2EU.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

One is an irrelevant Trotskyist sect in the UK, the other is an irrelevant Trotskyist sect in the UK.

[The Idler]

The SWP likes to have members to sell their papers, SPEW likes to have members infiltrate trade unions.

SPEW supports No2EU and nationalisation. SWP like to exaggerate their own importance and claim credit for all sorts of campaigns. SWP like to support foreign nationalisms like in the Middle East.

Both run front campaigns. Once you're an active member you're expected to do as you're told even if you disagree.

[Sewer Socialist]

They are both Trotskist and yes have different opinions on the Soviet Union. The SWP maintains Tony Cliff's idea of it as state capitalist whereas the SP have one of the degenerated or deformed ideas of it, I don't really remember which.

Tbh though I don't really know if tendency or opinions of the USSR are the best reasons to decide whether to join an organisation. Sure it can be important but if agreed with Cliff's idea I still wouldn't want to be in a group of rape apologists and if I agreed with the deformed/degenerated theory I'd still avoid a group that takes part in nationalist adventures like No2EU.

I don't want to change the subject, but what is the difference between the "deformed" and the "degenerated" analyses of the USSR?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't want to change the subject, but what is the difference between the "deformed" and the "degenerated" analyses of the USSR?

The USSR is always called a degenerated workers' state (as in, no-one calls it a deformed workers' state, not that people don't call it state-capitalist and socialist and whatever). There was a revolution but it degenerated. The glacis states are always called deformed. Capitalism was overthrown, we Trots of the orthodox persuasion claim, in highly irregular circumstances, and the resulting state was in many aspects a copy of the USSR.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

SPEW likes to have members infiltrate trade unions.
Lol, how do you 'infiltrate' a trade union? You'd have to be a worker in the industry the trade union organises within, join the trade union, pay dues and then argue within it in favour of your positions. That's some James Bond-level infiltration. :rolleyes:

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

iirc SPEW germinated out of what was left of the Militant Tendency after they were expelled from the Labour Party in the eighties and nineties

[Kingfish]

Lol, how do you 'infiltrate' a trade union? You'd have to be a worker in the industry the trade union organises within, join the trade union, pay dues and then argue within it in favour of your positions. That's some James Bond-level infiltration. :rolleyes:

The same way a person would infiltrate anything whether its Scientology and the IRS or the police in political groups.

You simply don't make your allegiances and opinions evident whether through omission or outright falsification to other members whilst seeking an influential position in the power structure (in this case the union bureaucracy).

[Red Son]

During my brief membership of SPEW in my teens, there was a lot of focus on selling papers and we / the more senior members hated the SWP, especially during the Socialist Alliance years. I remember a fair amount of Monty Python-esque sniping that tarnished by view of them both.

[Hit The North]

The same way a person would infiltrate anything whether its Scientology and the IRS or the police in political groups.

You simply don't make your allegiances and opinions evident whether through omission or outright falsification to other members whilst seeking an influential position in the power structure (in this case the union bureaucracy).

Which, of course, would be completely fucking pointless and I doubt this corresponds much with the political practice of SPEW in the trade unions.

[The Idler]

Which, of course, would be completely fucking pointless and I doubt this corresponds much with the political practice of SPEW in the trade unions.
Here's a recent meeting SPEW held
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Marxism/General_strike/19494/22-10-2014/leicester-socialist-party-a-one-day-general-strike-defeat-the-cuts
Leicester Socialist Party: A one-day general strike - Defeat the cuts! Wednesday 22nd October 2014 7pm - 9pm King Richard III pub, Highcross Street, Leicester Speaker: Tessa Warrington, PCS branch organiser HMCTS Leicester

So Tessa Warrington is PCS branch organiser calling for a general strike to defeat the cuts. Hmm. Is this good for PCS members? Is this good for workers generally? Why is Tessa calling for this? I'm gonna take a guess is that its whats perceived as good for SPEW first and foremost.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Here's a recent meeting SPEW held
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Marxism/General_strike/19494/22-10-2014/leicester-socialist-party-a-one-day-general-strike-defeat-the-cuts
Leicester Socialist Party: A one-day general strike - Defeat the cuts! Wednesday 22nd October 2014 7pm - 9pm King Richard III pub, Highcross Street, Leicester Speaker: Tessa Warrington, PCS branch organiser HMCTS Leicester

So Tessa Warrington is PCS branch organiser calling for a general strike to defeat the cuts. Hmm. Is this good for PCS members? Is this good for workers generally? Why is Tessa calling for this? I'm gonna take a guess is that its whats perceived as good for SPEW first and foremost.
Yes, it would be good for workers to organise across trade unions for general strike action. There's been multiple strikes by various unions sometimes within a few days of each other (fire fighters, hospital workers, teachers, council workers etc). Each time a new wave of strikes are commenced there's hints of the trade unions co-ordinating and building a strike together on the same day/stretch of days but it is never followed through and alone the strikes are easy to ignore or to paint in a negative light. Strike action, unified across many different workplaces, would have a stronger impact than these segments of the working class being divided. It would have a greater economic impact to the detriment of the capitalist class. How you could envisage that being only good for a tiny section of the far left is beyond me.

[Hit The North]

Here's a recent meeting SPEW held
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Marxism/General_strike/19494/22-10-2014/leicester-socialist-party-a-one-day-general-strike-defeat-the-cuts
Leicester Socialist Party: A one-day general strike - Defeat the cuts! Wednesday 22nd October 2014 7pm - 9pm King Richard III pub, Highcross Street, Leicester Speaker: Tessa Warrington, PCS branch organiser HMCTS Leicester

So Tessa Warrington is PCS branch organiser calling for a general strike to defeat the cuts. Hmm. Is this good for PCS members? Is this good for workers generally? Why is Tessa calling for this? I'm gonna take a guess is that its whats perceived as good for SPEW first and foremost.

Don't you believe that socialists should be organising in their trade unions to push for greater unity in the economic struggle?

Also, in what sense has comrade Warrington "infiltrated" the PSC? Are you in a trade union? If not, then why? If yes, what do you do with your socialist politics?

[The Idler]

Yes, it would be good for workers to organise across trade unions for general strike action. There's been multiple strikes by various unions sometimes within a few days of each other (fire fighters, hospital workers, teachers, council workers etc). Each time a new wave of strikes are commenced there's hints of the trade unions co-ordinating and building a strike together on the same day/stretch of days but it is never followed through and alone the strikes are easy to ignore or to paint in a negative light. Strike action, unified across many different workplaces, would have a stronger impact than these segments of the working class being divided. It would have a greater economic impact to the detriment of the capitalist class. How you could envisage that being only good for a tiny section of the far left is beyond me.
I don't envisage that being only good for a tiny section of the far left. I'm not a strikist so I don't think every strike is always the best thing to do in all circumstances to further the cause of socialism. Many strikes end in defeat, the miners strike for example, some working-class communities have not recovered from that.
The interests of SPEW are not the interests of the unions, and promoting a general strikes as a panacea often ends up demoralising the working-class.

[Hit The North]

I don't envisage that being only good for a tiny section of the far left. I'm not a strikist so I don't think every strike is always the best thing to do in all circumstances to further the cause of socialism. Many strikes end in defeat, the miners strike for example, some working-class communities have not recovered from that.
The interests of SPEW are not the interests of the unions, and promoting a general strikes as a panacea often ends up demoralising the working-class.

Working class communities have not recovered from the assault of capitalism against them - let's get it straight. You sound like a cappie apologist. Blaming the fate of the mining communities on their failed attempt at resistance is nothing short of disgusting.

More widespread solidarity action across the labour movement would have won that strike - exactly what all decent socialists were arguing for at the time.

[The Idler]

Don't you believe that socialists should be organising in their trade unions to push for greater unity in the economic struggle?

Also, in what sense has comrade Warrington "infiltrated" the PSC? Are you in a trade union? If not, then why? If yes, what do you do with your socialist politics?
Socialism is political, so socialists should be organising (probably in a political party) to contest political power.
The working-class of which a small part are socialists, should be organised in trade unions to win better conditions. This is the grounds for the greatest unity in economic trade union activity. This is the unity most effective for maximum membership and maximum effectivity.

I am a trade union member and most trade union members are not socialists and do not support the political objectives of socialism. Socialists duty is to try and change non-socialists into supporters of socialism in broadly similar way as any political ideology. It is not to constantly call for general strikes in trade unions for dubious promises likely to fail like 'defeating the cuts'.

[The Idler]

Working class communities have not recovered from the assault of capitalism against them - let's get it straight. You sound like a cappie apologist. Blaming the fate of the mining communities on their failed attempt at resistance is nothing short of disgusting.

More widespread solidarity action across the labour movement would have won that strike - exactly what all decent socialists were arguing for at the time.
The only apologetics is those 'socialists' saying to striking workers who elect capitalism that you can stop pit closures and win that strike. They weren't consciously trying to resist the assault of capitalism against them, they were trying to keep their jobs. As a worker your duty is to support them in this aim, not trying to transplant your own ends on top. As a socialist your duty is to make socialists and the way to do this isn't to hijack strikes like this for your own ends.

[Hit The North]

We've been here before. Your bourgie version of Marxism is boring.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Many strikes end in defeat, the miners strike for example, some working-class communities have not recovered from that.
I can't believe you'd take this stance. It's the fault of capital that people are living in poverty in the former mining communities, not those workers who dared to fight for their conditions. And, Idler, many strikes also end in victory. It's a gamble workers wouldn't take arbitrarily.


The interests of SPEW are not the interests of the unions, and promoting a general strikes as a panacea often ends up demoralising the working-class.
SPEW doesn't believe that a general strike would be a cure-all for the current trials the working class face. There's been (I think) over twenty general strikes in Greece since the recession and the working class are not liberated. It would, however, be workers organising across many different industries to deal a blow to the economic policies of the current government. It might not be a sustained blow, or one that achieves an immediate victory, but it would be more than the current malaise the working class has found itself in Britain.

[bricolage]

I don't envisage that being only good for a tiny section of the far left. I'm not a strikist so I don't think every strike is always the best thing to do in all circumstances to further the cause of socialism. Many strikes end in defeat, the miners strike for example, some working-class communities have not recovered from that.
The interests of SPEW are not the interests of the unions, and promoting a general strikes as a panacea often ends up demoralising the working-class.
I don't think you have a clue about the miner's strike.
The planned closure of the pits was what caused the strike not the other way around. Even those miners that did not go on strike still saw the pits closed down. The strike was defeated because 1. coal could keep being produced by those miners that were not on strike 2. the NACODS strike that would have shut the pits that the NUM had failed at was called off at the last minute 3. the strike (unlike those in the 1970s) was not joined by solidarity actions from workers in, for example, railways or steel. Thatcher herself admitted that if it had spread here the state would not have been able to win. So ok we can have an argument about whether strikes, including the miners strike, 'further the cause of socialism' (but I'll of course disagree with you), but for you to claim that strikes aren't always in the best interests of workers because sometimes they end in defeat... and then to use the miners strike as an example of this (!) is ridiculous. It's pretty obvious that the miners strike was defeated not because there was too much of a strike, but because it didn't spread far enough.