Thinking about joining the SWP.

[Tommy-K]

I've been thinking a lot recently about whether or not I should join the SWP (UK). At the moment, I think I probably will join them, along with the Socialist Alliance (who are affiliated to the vast majority of far-left parties in the UK and aim to unite them all under their common aim). Any thoughts on whether I'm making a right/wrong decision?

[Herman]

It's up to you. Personally the SWP seems to be intellectually strong and coherent. Apart from that, they're also decently large in comparison with other radical leftist parties and far more open in their attitudes.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:41 am
It's up to you. Personally the SWP seems to be intellectually strong and coherent. Apart from that, they're also decently large in comparison with other radical leftist parties and far more open in their attitudes.
That's exactly why they were the party I went for :P

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Tommy-K+October 20, 2007 11:43 am--> (Tommy-K @ October 20, 2007 11:43 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 10:41 am
It's up to you. Personally the SWP seems to be intellectually strong and coherent. Apart from that, they're also decently large in comparison with other radical leftist parties and far more open in their attitudes.
That's exactly why they were the party I went for :P [/b]
Surely you have to agree with their theories and politics?

[Forward Union]

Well I suppose if you're going to join a muslim extreamist organisation, It might as well be the SWP.

[BobKKKindle$]

Yes! In contrast to other organizations, the SWP has been consistent in their support for all groups subject to the occupation of an imperial power, including, but not limited to, the people of Palestine. Despite charges of extremism, the SWP has, historically and in contemporary Britain, had an important role in fighting against the abuse and discrimination of vulnerable communities in the UK, such as Muslims. The SWP has also made numerous important theoretical contributions to Marxism, many of which have rectified flaws in orthodox Trotskyism, for example, the permanent arms economy, which offered an explanation for the post-war economic boom. If you are going to join a party, the SWP is your best choice. Go for it comrade!

[Herman]

Well I suppose if you're going to join a muslim extreamist organisation, It might as well be the SWP.

Ah yes, of course, they're harboring Al Qaeda terrorists, aren't they? I believe all members are required to strap on a C4 belt.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 20, 2007 12:01 pm
Well I suppose if you're going to join a muslim extreamist organisation, It might as well be the SWP.

The mass killings of office workers and air passengers yesterday in the United States have caused horror across the world. We do not know who is responsible for these attacks. But what we do know is that the government of the US and of its leading allies — so quick to condemn yesterday’s events as ‘an attack on civilization itself’ — cannot escape their share of the blame.

For many years the US and Britain in particular have shown themselves all too willing to wage war on civilians — for example, in the 1991 Gulf War and in NATO’s 1999 war against Yugoslavia. These two powers have for the past ten years bombed and blockaded Iraq. The US is the main prop of the State of Israel whose forces have never shown any compunction about massacring civilians in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon. Is it so surprising that some group, in rage and desperation at American policies around the world, should have chosen to turn its own methods against the US itself?

The radical Islamist network fronted by Osama bin Laden has been widely accused of organizing yesterday’s attacks. If bin Laden is indeed shown to be responsible, then it will be yet another case, in the long and sordid history of American imperialism, of blow-back. Bin Laden was one of the key figures among the many Islamists trained and organized by the CIA during the 1980s when the US was trying to dominate the mojahedin in their war against the Russian occupation forces in Afghanistan. The right-wing Republicans now demanding an all-out offensive against ‘terrorist states’ forget that theirs is the biggest terrorist state of all.

None of this justifies the use of terrorist methods, particularly when they are directed against ordinary workers.

This is an article on 9/11 taken from the SWP website. As you can see, they don't condone islamic extremism at all.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 20, 2007 02:03 pm
This is an article on 9/11 taken from the SWP website. As you can see, they don't condone islamic extremism at all.
They have supported Hezbollah and defend the Muslim Council of Britain whose chairman has publicly condemned homosexuality and abortion

[BobKKKindle$]

They have supported Hezbollah and defend the Muslim Council of Britain whose chairman has publicly condemned homosexuality and abortion

The SWP defends all groups fighting Imperialism. However, this support is not uncritical. The SWP membership is fully aware of the tensions between Hezbollah and Socialism in areas such as womens' rights and has evalauted the class origin and material basis of Islamic organisations.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=9462 - Can Hezbollah unite Lebanon?


'Hizbollah is trapped by the major contradictions of Lebanese society - between class and religious sects. Hizbollah was transformed by its role in the resistance from a purely sectarian party to one that appealed to nationalism, yet it is a movement that is still embedded in the Shia Muslim community. It is a party of resistance not revolution.'

(..)

'Yet the organisation also has support among shop keepers and small businesses - this is evident from some of its fee paying schools which cater for more wealthy sections of the Shia community. Its resistance to Israel has created an audience beyond its base, but its political ideology and leadership are embedded in Shia religious beliefs.'

Anarchists did not, one can premuse, take any firm stance during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 20, 2007 01:24 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 20, 2007 01:24 pm)
Tommy-[email protected] 20, 2007 02:03 pm
This is an article on 9/11 taken from the SWP website. As you can see, they don't condone islamic extremism at all.
They have supported Hezbollah and defend the Muslim Council of Britain whose chairman has publicly condemned homosexuality and abortion [/b]
Do you have evidence for this? And place it in context aswell. If they defended him, say, in the opression of Muslims in Britain, then surely they are justified for defending someone with such views. What did they defend him for?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:34 pm

They have supported Hezbollah and defend the Muslim Council of Britain whose chairman has publicly condemned homosexuality and abortion

The SWP defends all groups fighting Imperialism. However, this support is not uncritical.
For what reason? The only people who can effectively oppose imperialism are the working class, not a bunch of religious fanatics fighting to establish an Islmo-fascist and equally exploitative state as that in Israel.


The SWP membership is fully aware of the tensions between Hezbollah and Socialism in areas such as womens' rights and has evalauted the class origin and material basis of Islamic organisations.

And your conclusion was/is to support them.


Anarchists did not, one can premuse, take any firm stance during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

It was Islamo-fascists fighting the Israeli state and the Israeli state fighting Islamo-fascists. What position should we have taken?

[BobKKKindle$]

For what reason? The only people who can effectively oppose imperialism and the working class, not a bunch of religious fanatics fighting to establish an equally exploitative state as that in Israel.

Workers in countries subject to and responsible for imperialism having nothing to gain from imperial oppression, and the liberation of a country, whilist not securing an improvement in the conditions of the working class or the development of democracy, is an important step towards overcoming divisive barriers and revolution. Although not a revolutionary party, Hezbollah did command the support of the proletariat, through the provision of social service programs designed to broaden their support base.


It was Islamo-fascists fighting the Israeli state and the Israeli state fighting Islamo-fascists. What position should we have taken?

Unconditional, but critical support for anti-imperialism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:14 pm

For what reason? The only people who can effectively oppose imperialism and the working class, not a bunch of religious fanatics fighting to establish an equally exploitative state as that in Israel.

Workers in countries subject to and responsible for imperialism having nothing to gain from imperial oppression, and the liberation of a country, whilist not securing an improvement in the conditions of the working class or the development of democracy, is an important step towards overcoming divisive barriers and revolution.
So essentially your argument is that a home-grown ruling class is better than a foreign ruling class?



It was Islamo-fascists fighting the Israeli state and the Israeli state fighting Islamo-fascists. What position should we have taken?

Unconditional, but critical support for anti-imperialism.

This battle is between one ruling class and another and while you may think that a home-grown ruling class is a stage to fight for in the revolutionary struggle, I do not. What you fight for you will achieve.

I and other anarchists do not support religiously fantic organisations which seek to establish an Islamo-fascist state. I support working class organisations who seek to destroy both Islamic-fascism and the Palestinian and Israeli state.

That is obviously not an immediate goal, but it is a framework by which to set a strategy and I support efforts within that strategy. Defending Hezbollah because they are fighting the Israeli state cannot be a stage in that strategy because it will not achieve what you want; It is simply going to achieve an Islamic-fascist state.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think there is nothing wrong with the SWP's line in support of all anti-imperialist forces. Its really a shame that more socialist organizations do not take this line, and choose to stand away from the oppressed. However, I do think the SWP's ferverent anti-communism, arguing what it seems, just as much against the socialist experience as against capitalism is extremely detrimental. That said I only know about the SWP from its website, and what I've heard from other comrades.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:26 am
I think there is nothing wrong with the SWP's line in support of all anti-imperialist forces. Its really a shame that more socialist organizations do not take this line, and choose to stand away from the oppressed. However, I do think the SWP's ferverent anti-communism, arguing what it seems, just as much against the socialist experience as against capitalism is extremely detrimental. That said I only know about the SWP from its website, and what I've heard from other comrades.
Aren't they Trots?

[Herman]

Aren't they Trots?

Many are, yes. There is nothing wrong with this though.

[BobKKKindle$]

This battle is between one ruling class and another and while you may think that a home-grown ruling class is a stage to fight for in the revolutionary struggle, I do not. What you fight for you will achieve.

That is why it is important to engage with these organisations and the communities from which they are able to derive their support, and clearly explain the areas in which we disagree and encourage the working class to develop a collective political identity, so that they are able to create their own organisations or push for changes within organisations that already exist. By refusing to lend support to and build links with organisations like Hezbollah, you are accepting Imperialism, as Hezbollah is currently the most important and possibly the only group taking a militant stand against Israeli ocupation.


However, I do think the SWP's ferverent anti-communism, arguing what it seems, just as much against the socialist experience as against capitalism is extremely detrimental.

I don't understand. The SWP has always defended the October revolution and subsequent uprisings. How are we 'anti-communist'?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20, 2007 03:25 pm
This battle is between one ruling class and another and while you may think that a home-grown ruling class is a stage to fight for in the revolutionary struggle, I do not. What you fight for you will achieve.

I and other anarchists do not support religiously fantic organisations which seek to establish an Islamo-fascist state. I support working class organisations who seek to destroy both Islamic-fascism and the Palestinian and Israeli state.

That is obviously not an immediate goal, but it is a framework by which to set a strategy and I support efforts within that strategy. Defending Hezbollah because they are fighting the Israeli state cannot be a stage in that strategy because it will not achieve what you want; It is simply going to achieve an Islamic-fascist state.
The anarchists as usual seems to be showing good instincts. There is certainly a class difference between this position, and one like the SWP's which would call on workers to sacrifice themselves in the name of national defence.

There is something in the Anarchist position that seem theoretically weak to me though. For us the reason that the left communists oppose Hezbollah is not primarily because it is a religious party, it is because it is mobilising the working class in defence of the state , and national capital*.

Our question to the Anarchists is would it make a difference if this struggle was not being conducted by Hezbollah, but by a more secular party, like for example Amal.

Is the opposition specifically to the religious elements, or is that just a matter of stress?

Devrim

*The fact that they are fully integrated into a Lebanese state that shoots down striking workers is a bit of a negative point as well.

[The Feral Underclass]

No Dev, you are totally right.

[farleft]

I'm not a fan of the SWP, even the socialist party I would say are better but it's up to you.

Do some research and see what best suits your views.

[Redmau5]

Sure, join the SWP. But if the SWP UK are anything like their Irish comrades then remember not to mention your a socialist in public. It seems to be a dirty word for the SWP over here.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:54 pm
Sure, join the SWP. But if the SWP UK are anything like their Irish comrades then remember not to mention your a socialist in public. It seems to be a dirty word for the SWP over here.
swp is a dirty word in britain too unfortunately, their "leaders" have left their members and supporters in a state of utter confusion!
anybody that questions their hierarchal structure is condemned as "sectarian", any member thgat questions the party line is asked "whose side are you on?".
i find the political demise of thye swp quite saddening, they used to be quite admirable in their principled stand against electoral cretinism etc.
now they sound more like new labour and the former cpgb.
i wouldn't join them if you payed me. :(