Why is the SWP so despised by the left?

[bellyscratch]

I'm an ex-SWP member, but mainly left because of my own confusion with revolutionary politics. However, I did also have some problem specific to the SWP too.

I don't know whether they are any worse than other socialist parties to be honest, and can see faults in all of them. I'm just wanting other people's opinions about why they are so despised by the rest of the left more than other parties? I don't want people slagging them off for the sake of it and want opinions based on solid facts.

[Sam_b]

Be prepared to hear a lot of abstract talk of 'abandoning Trotskyism', 'opportunism' and all that rubbish. I think its truly telling at a time of capitalism in crisis that some groups have escalated their attacks on the SWP and are trying to get members to break with it, rather than attacking capitalism and exposing it for what it really is.


I hear there's a book out or something ;)

[bellyscratch]

Also, SWP members and sympathisers should feel free to respond to any criticism too.

[Pogue]

Yeh the publication of that book was waste of time and paper and reading it is a waste of time and brain power.

Its mainly sectarian rubbish. Some criticisms are relevant,like how there are some reactionary elements in the party's coalition,like some members who said some shit about homosexuality being wrong, and stuff about a member calling the pigs in on a strike, but thats one incident from one member. But the SWP personally are opposed to homophobia.

There was that muslim girl who was in the SWP who now works for the Labour government in some group consulting on Islam, but oncemore its one member (or ex-member). But then again the girl said she wasn't actualy a socialist, which leads us to question what sort of revolutionary socialist party attracts people to it who aren't even socialists and are willing to work for the Labour government which is murdering muslims across the globe.

Theres the criticism that they're reformist or revolutionary centrist because they support, or supported George Galloway's Respect project, which was openly non-revolutionary. They've been acused of maniuplating movements such as Stop the War but then again they're the lifeblood of such movements, so thats slightly unfair.

People think they're control freaks and sectarian, most far left groups are sectarian though, and the control freaks thing is debatable. But they've had a few controversies which have led to them being questioned.

I considered joining them once, but I didn't because I'm not entirely sure or trusting of what they're trying to do, what they're doing, etc.

I respect them for organising in StWC and UAF though. Good stuff. They're vocal and they do stuff, which is of course good.

[Revy]

I'll try to not be too sectarian. My problem is, they don't run as a party, but under a "left" front which smacks of Green reformist type electoral politics. RESPECT never seemed like it was emphasizing socialism.

[Holden Caulfield]

RESPECT never seemed like it was emphasizing socialism.
they openly pushed to have tommy sheridans party to not contain 'socialist' in the name as well

[Pogue]

Thats a point. I never liked how they didn't seem to be an independent party with any clear goals or ideology. If I was in the SWP I'd like to know what we were doing, and why, and to be honest I'd be sceptical of working within reformist movements whilst claiming to be revolutionary. But I do still like they're work. They publicise our causes's.

[Sam_b]

elements in the party's coalition

It's not 'our' coalition, per se. And we're no longer part of the RESPECT project.


There was that muslim girl who was in the SWP who now works for the Labour government in some group consulting on Islam, but oncemore its one member (or ex-member)

Nobody, including myself, has been able to find anything that shows she was a member.


which was openly non-revolutionary

This is true. But there are a multitude of other left groups within such things: for example ourselves and the CWI comrades in Solidarity. I wouldn't for one second say that the CWI wasn't a revolutionary organisation. This comes down to the role that socialists have in fighting for reforms but also being in staunch support of a worker's revolution.


:)

WOW, AND AN EDIT ALREADY...


they openly pushed to have tommy sheridans party to not contain 'socialist' in the name as well

Thats a lie. We never had any line on it whatsoever.


they don't run as a party

I don't understand this, we obviously do run as a party. Just not an electoral party. I don't see how this is that relevant or that damning a critique.

[Hit The North]

All revolutionary groups are in the process of recruitment and given that the SWP is the largest group of revolutionary socialists in the UK, it makes sense for the smaller groups to target it. That's not to say that criticism isn't sometime valid, but the amount of critique aimed in its direction should be treated as a testimony to the SWP's relative (and it is extremely relative) success.

[Pogue]

It's not 'our' coalition, per se. And we're no longer part of the RESPECT project.



Nobody, including myself, has been able to find anything that shows she was a member.



This is true. But there are a multitude of other left groups within such things: for example ourselves and the CWI comrades in Solidarity. I wouldn't for one second say that the CWI wasn't a revolutionary organisation. This comes down to the role that socialists have in fighting for reforms but also being in staunch support of a worker's revolution.


:)

Fair enough. I'd like to talk to you sometime about the partie's true position.

[bellyscratch]

Since Respect split, what was the point in the SWP carrying on with it as the 'Left Alternative'? And is there much of a chance of the SWP getting behind something like 'Campaign for a New Workers Party' instead?

[Pogue]

Not a chance, because that campaign has been founded by the much hated and clear enemies of any British Trotskyist party - a British Trotskyist party.

[Sam_b]

Sure thing H-L-V-S. A brief but succinct rundown of our beliefs can be found under 'Where We Stand' in copies of the Socialist Worker.

There's also a Where We Stand section here: http://www.swp.org.uk/where.php, but I think there's a better analysis in the paper.

[Pogue]

I'll buy the paper next time i see it being flogged on a demo or if i go to Housemans or something.

[Revy]

I don't understand this, we obviously do run as a party. Just not an electoral party. I don't see how this is that relevant or that damning a critique.
No, you do not. You run as "Left List" or "Left Alternative". The SWP is nowhere to be found. You are basically hiding your socialism, in a Green-reformist style left-progressive front!

Compare the two:

SWP site (http://www.swp.org.uk/)
Left Alternative site (http://www.leftalternative.org/)

See the difference? This is damning to me, at least. I suppose other people can agree. You're active as the Left Alternative, yet you claim to be also active as the SWP? If so, why the split personality? Come out of the closet :cool: as a socialist movement.

[Post-Something]

SWP is really not that bad. It's by far the biggest organisation in my area and it gets the job done. Any tiny disputes are really uneeded at a time when the left has to stick together. All in all as far as analysis goes I agree mainly with Bob the Builder and Sam b.

[Sam_b]

No, you do not. You run as "Left List" or "Left Alternative". The SWP is nowhere to be found. You are basically hiding your socialism, in a Green-reformist style left-progressive front!


Well thats blatantly bollocks, and telling from someone who doesn't even live in the UK and has no idea how active the SWP are on the streets.

Its also rich coming from a member of the SPUSA, in light of Brian Moore's recent antics.

[Revy]

Well thats blatantly bollocks, and telling from someone who doesn't even live in the UK and has no idea how active the SWP are on the streets.

Its also rich coming from a member of the SPUSA, in light of Brian Moore's recent antics.

I really have no idea, you're right, and your comments about the SPUSA are duly noted.

But I'm going on how the SWP presents itself in its electoral campaign versus its actual party presentation. And there's a difference. In its electoral campaign, a "left alternative" is emphasized, while when presenting the SWP, it rightly promotes socialism.

I'm not really being that hostile towards your party. I'm just not that wowed by the "Left Alternative" nor your history with RESPECT.

I think I'm being more constructively critical than hatefully sectarian. I'm not even in the UK, I have no use for being sectarian, and my party is not affiliated with any international, currently, as none exists to represent us. So I really have no vested interest, except advice on how to present yourselves.

[bellyscratch]

Isn't the Left Alternative just SWP members now anyway, with the odd non-member here and there?

I sort of agree with some SWP members hiding behind the Left Alternative and hiding their socialist ideologies slightly. I can remember once while i was still in the SWP, around the time RESPECT was about to split, I was on the only person from my local area in the SWP who could get to a protest about waste disposal and was specifically told to say I was from RESPECT and not the SWP. At the time I didnt see anything wrong with this so went ahead with it.

[Revy]

Isn't the Left Alternative just SWP members now anyway, with the odd non-member here and there?

I sort of agree with some SWP members hiding behind the Left Alternative and hiding their socialist ideologies slightly. I can remember once while i was still in the SWP, around the time RESPECT was about to split, I was on the only person from my local area in the SWP who could get to a protest about waste disposal and was specifically told to say I was from RESPECT and not the SWP. At the time I didnt see anything wrong with this so went ahead with it.

Thank you for backing me up. :)
Again, it's not a criticism of party, it's a criticism of tactics. I'm sure there are other issues which eternally cause raging debates - but this one - is important and should be looked at, no matter how petty it might seem.

I think the SP went overboard with writing a book about the SWP. That's crazy. But SWP members can't have knee jerk responses to ANY criticism, even from someone across the pond who's completely irrelevant....:D

[Sam_b]

But SWP members can't have knee jerk responses to ANY criticism, even from someone across the pond who's completely irrelevant

There's nothing knee-jerk about it. It was a swipe which has no basis in reality and I called it for what it was.

[bellyscratch]

I thought the book criticising the SWP was actually a joke, and didnt think the SP would go that low. But I just looked on their website and its true.

I've got to say, today my eyes have been opened on some things. I'm still unsure about what party I will join, probably more unsure than I was before today.

[Q]

I thought the book criticising the SWP was actually a joke, and didnt think the SP would go that low. But I just looked on their website and its true.

I've got to say, today my eyes have been opened on some things. I'm still unsure about what party I will join, probably more unsure than I was before today.

It is not "low" at all to have genuine critique on other organisations, especially one that is as troublesome as the SWP. Critique and debate is a process that brings us further. I do recommend the book (it's not that big anyway) as it points out our concerns with the SWP by taking several practical experiences.

[Sam_b]

I think its the timing of the book thats telling...does the CWI not have better things to do during the biggest crisis Capitalism has seen since the 1930s?

Or was it purely a reaction to how successful the SWP has been in engaging with people during this recession?

[Revy]

If I did live in the UK, I'd join the Socialist Party, no question. They present themselves as socialist in electoral campaigns.

[Q]

I think its the timing of the book thats telling...does the CWI not have better things to do during the biggest crisis Capitalism has seen since the 1930s?

Or was it purely a reaction to how successful the SWP has been in engaging with people during this recession?

You don't seem to understand the point. It is because of this important and tumultuous era we are entering that questioning tactics and strategy in how to built a successful workers movement, uniting the left and creating a new foundation for a mass workers party is so important.

The second part of your reaction is a perfect illustration of one of our critique points: instead of building a broad left alternative, the SWP is only interested in short term gains for its own.

[gilhyle]

it gets the job done

Im just curious what that job is that the SWP get done, cos they have been around with thousands of members at times since the late sixties (they are older, but its then that they grew) and the only job they ever seem to get done (with one or two exceptions) is to survive.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Im just curious what that job is that the SWP get done, cos they have been around with thousands of members at times since the late sixties (they are older, but its then that they grew) and the only job they ever seem to get done (with one or two exceptions) is to survive.

Just goes to show, once more, that dialectics is bad news for any party of the left, including the SWP.

Unless, of course, you know of succesful revolutionary party these days.

Or ever...

[bellyscratch]

To expand on this then, what makes the SP any better than the SWP? When I've asked the question about which is better most non SWP/SP members recommend SP over the SWP

To me the SP seem more sectarian to be honest. I can't remember any instances in my experience where the SWP has refused to work with other organisations on the left or printed anything attacking them, yet already I have encountered this happening from the SP, with them hiding certain information about events from the SWP and writing a whole book criticsing them.

I'm not trying to be pro/anti SWP or SP, but just trying to figure out which party i agree with more.

[Q]

To expand on this then, what makes the SP any better than the SWP? When I've asked the question about which is better most non SWP/SP members recommend SP over the SWP

To me the SP seem more sectarian to be honest. I can't remember any instances in my experience where the SWP has refused to work with other organisations on the left or printed anything attacking them, yet already I have encountered this happening from the SP, with them hiding certain information about events from the SWP and writing a whole book criticsing them.

I'm not trying to be pro/anti SWP or SP, but just trying to figure out which party i agree with more.

Could you point out examples where the SP refused to work together woth others and/or attacked them?

And what is wrong with publishing a critique when you think that the strategy/tactics of another organisation hurt the movement? I think that ignoring problems is far worse.

But we could discuss on the merits of publishing the book all day long, or you can read it and comment on what it actually says.

[Yehuda Stern]

Now I get it - the whole anti-dialectics nonsense is at bottom just an excuse for why the SWP isn't going anywhere.

[Q]

Now I get it - the whole anti-dialectics nonsense is at bottom just an excuse for why the SWP isn't going anywhere.

Uh, what?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


Now I get it - the whole anti-dialectics nonsense is at bottom just an excuse for why the SWP isn't going anywhere.

Where did you get that odd idea from?

[Hit The North]

Please, don't let Rosa derail this thread with another disquisition on the international dialectical conspiracy theory :(.

Bellyscratch:
To expand on this then, what makes the SP any better than the SWP? When I've asked the question about which is better most non SWP/SP members recommend SP over the SWP Comrade, you need to sort this out for yourself as there is no objective method for weighing up the validity of the sniping and back-biting that goes on between groups on the Left. You can be directed by two things: (i) Theory - how far you agree with the theoretical and programmatic content of the parties; and (ii) Pragmatism - accepting that both groups are sincere revolutionary socialist organisations, which one can you work with best in your area.

One thing we can be sure of is that the divisions between us are exacerbated by the general weakness of our movement. Joining one or the other and getting stuck into the class struggle can only add strength to our cause and bring us, if only a small degree, closer together.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Please, don't let Rosa derail this thread with another disquisition on the international dialectical conspiracy theory


One thing we can be sure of is that the divisions between us are exacerbated by the general weakness of our movement.

Are you trying to tell us that our 'core theory' has nothing to do with this?

That can only mean we either have another theory we have kept remarkably well hidden, or our 'core theory' has absolutely no practical implications.

I can live with either of these...:lol:

[Pogue]

I think my analysis was best.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HLVS:


I think my analysis was best.

It can't be the best (indeed, it's probably the worst) since you said this:


There was that muslim girl who was in the SWP who now works for the Labour government in some group consulting on Islam, but oncemore its one member (or ex-member). But then again the girl said she wasn't actualy a socialist, which leads us to question what sort of revolutionary socialist party attracts people to it who aren't even socialists and are willing to work for the Labour government which is murdering muslims across the globe.

You have no evidence that this person was an SWP member.

[bellyscratch]

Could you point out examples where the SP refused to work together woth others and/or attacked them?

And what is wrong with publishing a critique when you think that the strategy/tactics of another organisation hurt the movement? I think that ignoring problems is far worse.

But we could discuss on the merits of publishing the book all day long, or you can read it and comment on what it actually says.

Lets say I've spoken to some SP members and they don't have much good to say about the SWP and one told me that they were organising a certain event which should include a broad left group but told me not to tell my SWP friends about it.

Maybe I should read the book, but I'm not going to and will try not bring it up again as I already have done on a couple of occaisions

[bellyscratch]

Please, don't let Rosa derail this thread with another disquisition on the international dialectical conspiracy theory :(.

Bellyscratch: Comrade, you need to sort this out for yourself as there is no objective method for weighing up the validity of the sniping and back-biting that goes on between groups on the Left. You can be directed by two things: (i) Theory - how far you agree with the theoretical and programmatic content of the parties; and (ii) Pragmatism - accepting that both groups are sincere revolutionary socialist organisations, which one can you work with best in your area.

One thing we can be sure of is that the divisions between us are exacerbated by the general weakness of our movement. Joining one or the other and getting stuck into the class struggle can only add strength to our cause and bring us, if only a small degree, closer together.

I realise this and I think i probably am coming closer to a decision about
what I will do, but have learnt from my past experiences of rushing into things and I'm making sure I don't do it again.

[Sasha]

between all the bickering between trotskyst sects, here an autonomus/anarchists/antifa two cents;

The swp, and in my case their dutch sister the IS, are much dispised as an organisation for both their total obsesion with trying to take over/highjack any organisation, action or iniative they stumble upon and at the sametime uterly destroy the spontanity, energy and potential of this organisation, action or iniative.
Also they have an image of not being sincere about the topics they campaing on, whter its racism or an war that is the big talking point of the day, they willl descent on any iniative around that topic, only to jump ship and on to the next bandwagon as soon its out of fasion. They are percieved as an swarm of locust always ready to destroy the next green field leaving the rest of the activists with the mess.

in my circles they are still labeled as "the lolipop brigade", this from the shape of the placards of there (former?) ANL front group, a name that stuck because they still seem to think that the revolution (or even any change) will happen because they strutted around with a few signs and screamed "shame" and "boo" (oh and by selling newspapers offcourse :crying:)

allthough i have met many nice and valuable IS/SWP rank and file actvists in my live, it was 99% of the time after or soon before they left the organisation in disgust.

and as an bonus there is old resentment over the smear campaign and purge of anti-fascist actvists of the stewards group (forerunner of AFA/antifa england) for squadism (cronicled in, for example, this book (http://www.sjakoo.nl/books/8534.htm))

it must be said that aperently this kind of tactics are typicall for most of the trotskyst groups but as the most prominent (and in the case of holland, the only) the SWP/IS takes the flack.

[Wanted Man]

Well, Holland has other trotskyist groups, but the IS are by far the most vocal of them. I'm not sure if their image of insincerity and attempts to take things over are entirely true, but the perception is there for a reason. In fact, this perception seems to be held by communists, anarchists and other trotskyists in almost all countries where they are active. And people who raise these concerns are instantly branded as jealous sectarians, it happens right here on RevLeft, in this thread as well.

I think this mostly exists in Amsterdam, where they seem to fanatically seek for recruits (largely among college students), and maybe don't appreciate much competition. In the province, the organisation that I'm in has worked together with them reasonably well on some issues.

[Hit The North]

psycho, are you one of these comrades who suffers from Enochlophobia?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/38198/enochlophobia_the_fear_of_crowds.html?cat=5

Don't laugh. I hear that it can be quite a debilitating condition for those seeking to build a mass movement.

[Sasha]

nah, no matter how small we are, we dont need to gang press other people in to carying our placards to fake we are with an big group, we are actualy capelble of raising an considerble amount of people.

:edit: and its a bit rich to claim that other people are "against building an mass movement" when you yourself (the SWP/IS) seem to be doing is pissing off the rest of the left, making slanderous alligations and destroying any iniative or potential movement or at least try realy hard to make those movements/iniatives as non-threathening to the status quo as you can.

the IS, gods gift to parlementairy democrats everywhere.... ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psycho:


The swp, and in my case their dutch sister the IS, are much dispised as an organisation for both their total obsesion with trying to take over/highjack any organisation, action or iniative they stumble upon and at the sametime uterly destroy the spontanity, energy and potential of this organisation, action or iniative.

This is a common allegation from the ultra-left, but we have yet to see the proof.

[Holden Caulfield]

Psycho:



This is a common allegation from the ultra-left, but we have yet to see the proof.

'taking over' Socialist Alliance by sheer weight of numbers when a federal system would have been best in a 'diverse' organisation,

I could use more examples, also the UAF have many of their own

[Q]

Psycho:



This is a common allegation from the ultra-left, but we have yet to see the proof.

Just repeating there is no proof doesn't mean there is none, ignoring doesn't help your case.
This is a latest summary of several examples in which said behaviour takes place (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/cgi-bin/more.pl?bkno=342&order=25093&cat=0&nextten=1&findword=0&sortby=).

[Devrim]

This is a common allegation from the ultra-left, but we have yet to see the proof.

Ultra-left is a meaningless term, which actually means 'more left than we are'. I have heard it used by Stalinists to describe the SWP.

Sometimes 'ultra-left' is used as a derogatory term for the communist left. However, this isn't what we criticise the SWP for.

What I think Rosa means is that it is an allegation often made by anarchists, and possibly other libertarian socialists.

I think it is probably true. I am sure others can provide proof. I don't think that it gets to the heart of the problem though.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sometimes 'ultra-left' is used as a derogatory term for the communist left.

Your continued usage of the term "communist left" implies that your tendency somehow has an exclusive monopoly (as if the rest of us aren't commies). At least "left communists" is more conciliatory.

[Sasha]

Psycho:



This is a common allegation from the ultra-left, but we have yet to see the proof.

in the case of the netherlands this is my personal experience o.a. with the kerwin duimeijer herdenking, Nederland Bekend Kleur, several iniatives around the wars in iraq and afghanistan, the fact that they claimed sole credit for several demonstrations where they were not even one of the the main organisers etc etc..

[zimmerwald1915]

Your continued usage of the term "communist left" implies that your tendency somehow has an exclusive monopoly (as if the rest of us aren't commies). At least "left communists" is more conciliatory.
So we should invent a name other than the one we've been using for eighty years just to please you?

[Devrim]

Your continued usage of the term "communist left" implies that your tendency somehow has an exclusive monopoly (as if the rest of us aren't commies). At least "left communists" is more conciliatory.

Well, yes Jacob, as the previous poster says, it is the name that has been historically used for around eighty years. It refers to the left wing of the communist international, and even before that to the left of the Russian Party, and the European part of the Zimmerwald left.

Unlike you we don't have to make up a new word for everything.

Devrim

[Revy]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22communist+left%22 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22communist+left%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HC:


'taking over' Socialist Alliance by sheer weight of numbers when a federal system would have been best in a 'diverse' organisation,

I could use more examples, also the UAF have many of their own

I see; unsubstantiated anecdote constitutes proof for the SP these days, does it?

---------------------

Q:


Just repeating there is no proof doesn't mean there is none, ignoring doesn't help your case.

Your only reference is that 'unbaised' hatchet job, cobbled together by SP hacks, is it?

-----------------

Devrim:


Ultra-left is a meaningless term, which actually means 'more left than we are'. I have heard it used by Stalinists to describe the SWP.

Then it's not 'meaningless', is it?


What I think Rosa means is that it is an allegation often made by anarchists, and possibly other libertarian socialists.

I think it is probably true. I am sure others can provide proof. I don't think that it gets to the heart of the problem though.

But, we already know that you count as 'proof' any old rumouir, just so long as it is directed at the SWP.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psycho:


in the case of the netherlands this is my personal experience o.a. with the kerwin duimeijer herdenking, Nederland Bekend Kleur, several iniatives around the wars in iraq and afghanistan, the fact that they claimed sole credit for several demonstrations where they were not even one of the the main organisers etc etc..

Ah, yet more anecdote. That clinches it.:rolleyes:

But, you originally said this:


The swp, and in my case their dutch sister the IS, are much dispised as an organisation for both their total obsesion with trying to take over/highjack any organisation, action or iniative they stumble upon and at the sametime uterly destroy the spontanity, energy and potential of this organisation, action or iniative.

Now, even if we believed your fairy tales, that would still not constitute proof that the SWP tries to take over "any" organistation, let alone that they endeavour to:


uterly destroy the spontanity, energy and potential of this organisation, action or iniative

2/10 for effort, though, but you really are going to have to try harder...

[Sasha]

tsjeesch, he we go again with "anecdote" "proof" etc etc wjining, this tread is starting to look as one of the DPRK threads or sommething like that...

the OP asked (and this is also the title he gave to the thread) "why is the SWP so despised by (some on) the left?" (insert mine), so i give an explanation why people in my circles cant stand them most of the time, wich is natuarly based on personal experience.
i realy dont know what would count as "proof" for you, that it would be croniceled by an independet scientist with hitstorical references? well sorry neither the IS (/SWP) or the problems that people in the autonomist movement have with them is yet of enough historical significans (our lot dont write that much anyway, we leave that to the armchair revolutionarys) so personal acounts is all you have to go on.
although i dont reaqly see why i bother to write such an lengty answer, it was just an cop-out on your part anyway.