UK Socialist Groups

[georgestapleton]

Hey,

I moved to England a few months back and still haven't got my head around the make up of the left over here.

I'm an anarchist communist and am in the WSM back in Ireland and in L&S over here. And recently joined the IWW.

I'm wondering what the membership of UK groups is.

In terms of what I know or think I know.....

AF: 120ish

L&S: 15-20

SolFed: 60ish

Class War: 30ish?

SWP: 1000?

SP (CWI): 200?

The Commune: 10?

Sparticists: <20

IBT: <10

ICC: 20ish

SPGB (WSM): 30-50ish?

Alliance for Green Socialism

Alliance for Workers Liberty: 60ish

A World to Win

Campaign for a New Workers’ Party: <20

Communist Party of Britain: probably quite high but inactive 500+

Communist Party of Great Britain: 50-60

European Left Party Network

Green Left

Labour Representation Committee: 100?

Left Alternative

Permanent Revolution: 30?

Respect: ?????

Revolution - Socialist youth movement: 60?

Scottish Socialist Party: ??????

Socialist Resistance: ????

Solidarity: Scotland's Socialist Movement

Workers Power: 60?

-------

I dont even know who some of these groups are but got them off the convention of the left website.

Any help on figures? Its funny I always thought the british left was massive but outside of the SWP I doubt theres a single group with an active membership over 500.

[thejambo1]

george, the left in britain are very vocal and tend to talk themselves up as being way bigger than they actually are. also plenty of leftist/anarchists belong to no organisation. when you go onto some of these groups websites they are very good and professional looking and then you find out the membership is one man and his dog!! its very depressing.:(

[georgestapleton]

Yeah that's what I thought. But it'd be good to know what size other groups are.

I figure the anarchist movement in Britain could become the dominant pole one the left without to much difficulty. But its hard to tell cos its not clear how big the groups are on the left in Britain.

[Killfacer]

A lot of those onesa are pretty much dead/not even proper socialists. I guess arguably the largest is the SWP, but if like me you think they are not so good (i got an infraction recently so i better be nice) then it leaves you in a bit of a sticky situation.

Your question and the answers you will receive sum up the problem pretty well, we are splintered and insignificant.

[Sam_b]

SWP: 1000?

Multiply that by six and you're on the right track :)

[Sam_b]

We used to be that big, not anymore however.

[Devrim]

Multiply that by six and you're on the right track :)

You are joking, aren't you? You are not really claiming that the SWP has six thousand members.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

SP (CWI): 200?i dont know the exact number but i know it is considerably more than that

[Sam_b]

You are joking, aren't you? You are not really claiming that the SWP has six thousand members.

This is the figure that the National Secretary has. I assume he has a better idea than yourself.

[Asoka89]

Im from the States, but I always thought that SWP's numbers were somewhere around 3k-5k, makes some sense, lost some members lately and theres some inner party conflicts now over the whole RESPECT business, louisproyect.wordpress.com there was an article up today on it

[Die Neue Zeit]

george, the left in britain are very vocal and tend to talk themselves up as being way bigger than they actually are. also plenty of leftist/anarchists belong to no organisation. when you go onto some of these groups websites they are very good and professional looking and then you find out the membership is one man and his dog!! its very depressing.:(

The CPGB is the only one that's humble about itself:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/750/750.html


However, the Weekly Worker is noticeably different from the SWP’s Socialist Worker and SPEW’s The Socialist. Firstly, and not unimportantly, the CPGB is a much smaller organisation than both those two groups.

[...]

Despite what the opportunists say whenever we criticise them, the Weekly Worker strives to tell the truth - above all, the truth about the state of our organisationally and ideologically fragmented movement and the mass party that is urgently needed. As a result we consistently achieve a level of income comparable to significantly bigger organisations. Hard politics plus frank criticism and self-criticism makes partisans and wins commitment.

[...]

Naturally the success of the Weekly Worker - and we are far from complacent - provokes fits of jealousy. Perhaps the most stupid, but most revealing, accusation is that our paper is nothing but the “gossip sheet” of the left. That would be accurate if we specialised in reporting who is sleeping with whom or who is wearing what. But we hardly do that. Instead of sleeping partners and fashion sense, the Weekly Worker concerns itself with vital issues such as the economic crisis, the imperialist war threat and the inadequacy of the left response; the SWP leadership split, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty’s social-imperialism, the need for the unity of Marxists as Marxists; theoretical questions of revolutionary strategy, a workers’ Europe, Israel-Palestine, a working class response to rapid global warming, etc. To describe such content as “gossip” is quite clearly a surreal departure from the truth. Those who peddle such nonsense certainly display both a profound lack of seriousness and an inability to grasp the left’s crucial role as the bearer of our movement’s traditions, history and hope for the future.

[thejambo1]

fair point jacob. i actually have read a bit of stuff that the cpgb put out.

[The Feral Underclass]

The SWP national secretary may have 6,000 names on some paper, but that doesn't mean they're members in any meaningful way.

[Devrim]

This is the figure that the National Secretary has. I assume he has a better idea than yourself.

I don't believe that the SWP has 6,000 members. When I worked in the UK (80s)they used to claim to have about 4,000. By all accounts they have certainly shrunk since then.

If he claims 6,000, I think he is lying.

Devrim

[The Idler]

Have a look at my List of Left-Wing Parties in the United Kingdom (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=96420).

[nuisance]

Well should the SWP really boast at having that many members? It really doesn't say much for the organisation if that many members could make such a small rate of activity.

[thejambo1]

they could well inflate their membership. worked for the bnp!! look how many were on there list that was leaked that had actaully resigned or died etc. and if they are inflating their membership that is shit really.

[Sam_b]

When I worked in the UK (80s)they used to claim to have about 4,000. By all accounts they have certainly shrunk since then.

Wrong. In fact the party recruited the most in the 1990s, accumulating in our biggest numbers around 1997, before then reducing quite significantly in size.


It really doesn't say much for the organisation if that many members could make such a small rate of activity

What do you mean by 'small rate of activity'?

[Hit The North]

they could well inflate their membership. worked for the bnp!! look how many were on there list that was leaked that had actaully resigned or died etc. and if they are inflating their membership that is shit really.

WTF?! Let's look again at Sam-b's statements:


Multiply that by six and you're on the right track :)Immediately followed by...


We used to be that big, not anymore however. So he isn't claiming that the SWP currently has 6,000 members, but is freely admitting that we have shrunk since then - although we're still miles bigger than the second largest.


Originally posted by TAT
The SWP national secretary may have 6,000 names on some paper, but that doesn't mean they're members in any meaningful way. Yes, we have to distinguish between active members and non-active supporters (usually latent or ex-members). The ratio between the two groups has certainly not been shifting in our favour. Maybe things will change to our advantage soon. Who knows?

But we do know that on the Left we are small, divided and petty with each other.

The automatic reflexive loathing of the SWP, which this thread is a good example of, proves it. :glare:

Btw, georgestapleton, where did you get your figures from?

[Devrim]

Wrong. In fact the party recruited the most in the 1990s, accumulating in our biggest numbers around 1997, before then reducing quite significantly in size.

If this is true, and I do take the figures with a packet of salt, it would be even worse I think. The first reason is that to have grown like that in the 90s, which were terrible years for both the class and communists internationally, would basically show that there was absolutely no relationship between the struggles of the working class, and the growth of the SWP.

More to the point it would suggest an inverse relationship between levels of class struggle and SWP membership. That I can quite believe seen as the SWP have dived head first into single issues and identity politics. Whether the SWP can re-emerge from them now that there is an upturn in class struggle remains to be seen.

The second reason is that it is many people's perceptions that the SWP lower presence and visability than in those years. If you are growing yet becoming less visable it says something.


The automatic reflexive loathing of the SWP, which this thread is a good example of, proves it. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/glare.gif

I think a lot of people do dislike the SWP. Maybe you should ask yourselves why. I don't think that they are criticsed more than any other tendency on here though, which considering their size is actually surprising. They just shout the loudest about it when they are criticised.


but the fact remains that the SWP is the largest revolutionary group in the UK at the present time

It isn't a fact. Whether the SWP is a revolutionary group is a subjective opinion. I don't think that it is.

Devrim

[Magdalen]

Wrong. In fact the party recruited the most in the 1990s, accumulating in our biggest numbers around 1997, before then reducing quite significantly in size.Your membership numbers started reducing the year you endorsed New Labour, what a surprise... :) :tongue_smilie:

[Pogue]

Stop turning this thread into SWP bashing, its pointless and boring and sectarian.

The IWW has 200 members in the UK, and this is still growing, according to our statistics. I think we're the revolutionary group with the most rapidly increasing membership, if rapid can be used in such a way :p

[paul c]

The SWP is roughly about 2000 members and the SP (i am a member) has about 1600, though thats what i heard in about August and we've had quite a few new members since then cos of the economic situation.

[Sam_b]

Your membership numbers started reducing the year you endorsed New Labour, what a surprise...

Okay, i'll bite. Where's your proof? It goes against our tactic of getting workers to break with the party. I suspect you're coming out with an outright lie.

And we have much more members than 2000.

[thejambo1]

this thread has been a wee bit railroaded, it shouldnt be an attack against the swp. it should really be about the poor state of the left in a country the size of the u.k.:(

[Devrim]

The IWW has 200 members in the UK, and this is still growing, according to our statistics. I think we're the revolutionary group with the most rapidly increasing membership, if rapid can be used in such a way :p

The last time I was in the UK (October), I spoke to people about this, and they were openly laughing at the IWW's membership claims.


this thread has been a wee bit railroaded, it shouldnt be an attack against the swp. it should really be about the poor state of the left in a country the size of the u.k.

I think that it is useful to have an idea of how big the various groups are. I think that lying about membership figures is something that is very typical of bourgeois politics. I do though believe the figures stated at the start of the thread for the main anarchist organisations, which at least seem to be honest about it.

Devrim

[Junius]

The Wildcat pamphlet 'How Socialist is the SWP?' (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/swp.html) put the SWP membership at 4000 in 1985.

[Q]

The Wildcat pamphlet 'How Socialist is the SWP?' (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/swp.html) put the SWP membership at 4000 in 1985.

I guess that is nice to know for historical references?

I can confirm the SPEW to be around 1600 members as of November.

[georgestapleton]

This thread didn't help much.

The figures I gave came from guess work.

The SWP figures don't really interest me as much as the others. I know roughly how big the SWP is but the rest of the politically organised left I can't work out.

Like if the SPEW is 1600 people, I'm impressed, but a bit a baffled cos I live in Coventry where they are strongest and havn't seen or heard a thing from them.

[Q]

Like if the SPEW is 1600 people, I'm impressed, but a bit a baffled cos I live in Coventry where they are strongest and havn't seen or heard a thing from them.
I don't know how big the coventry branch is, but you could contact them and find out?

[georgestapleton]

Ha ha ha. I'm not going to phone up a political group and say: Hi you don't know me but I want to know how many members you have.

I've heard from local socialists that they are pretty poor, which is a shame because, although I have major difference with them politically, by enlarge their members are good working class activists in Dublin where I'm from.

[Zurdito]

This is the figure that the National Secretary has. I assume he has a better idea than yourself.

No way is the SWP 6000 active members. I have talked to your own members (cadres) who told me that you have 3000 active members...and I think they are way overstating it.

Do you even get 6000 people to Marxism? I thought the number was more around 1000, forgive me if I am mistaken.

In which case, I wouldput yourmembership at under 1000 - which is nto a disaster in itself as it owuld still make you proportionallylarger in Britain than the Bolsheviks were in 1905.

But to claim you have 6000 members is deluded, sorry. For national STWC marches less people than that show up around Britain, and these are mobilisations of much of the left, and run basically by the SWP.

So if you have all these members on paper, maybe you should cross them off, because they don't seem to be active.

[BobKKKindle$]

Do you even get 6000 people to Marxism? I thought the number was more around 1000, forgive me if I am mistaken.

I have no idea how many people turn up to Marxism each year, even though Marxism is still the largest annual gathering of the radical left in the UK, but this is of absolutely no significance when it comes to the size of the SWP, given that Marxism is a voluntary and open event involving a range of different speakers, many of whom are not members of the SWP. I'm a member of the SWP, but I've never attended Marxism, whereas I have attended Socialism - the annual event of SPEW. It is perfectly understandable why someone living in Scotland or a town in the north of England would not bother to come all the way down to London for the sake of one weekend.

[Sam_b]

It is perfectly understandable why someone living in Scotland or a town in the north of England would not bother to come all the way down to London for the sake of one weekend

Its much more than one weekend....its five days! But I get your point.

Zurdito, I never claimed that the SWP had 6,000 active members. I bet a fair proportion of our members have demanding jobs and families and thus can't be active. Should they not be allowed to be in the party?

[Pogue]

Different and moreimportant question - how many revolutionary socialists do you think there are in the UK?

[Magdalen]

Okay, i'll bite. Where's your proof? It goes against our tactic of getting workers to break with the party. I suspect you're coming out with an outright lie.

And we have much more members than 2000.

You said it yourself, that the SWP's membership peaked in 1997, and had reduced significantly in size since. Look back to the first page.

For a party that claims to be 'getting workers to break with Labour', the SWP seems seem awfully comfortable sharing platforms with the likes of Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn. It also seems perfectly happy to receive the second votes of Labour supporters in Scottish Parliament and London Assembly elections. In 2003, then SSP leader Tommy Sheridan encouraged Labour voters to give their secondary support to his party. In 2004, Socialist Worker stated that, 'The two vote system means voters in London have the marvellous opportunity of voting for Lindsey German (Respect mayoral candidate & SWP Central Committee member) as first choice and Ken Livingstone as second choice. That ensures RESPECT gets the maximum vote, while also ensuring there is no way for a Tory or Liberal to sneak in.' German herself later backed this up, saying 'I wouldn’t be in favour of standing against someone like Jeremy Corbyn who has a very good record even though he is Labour'. Darren Johnson, the Green Party candidate at the time condemned Respect's strategy, saying that ‘there is no way that I am campaigning for the Labour Party that has taken Britain into the war in Iraq and has downgraded our public services'. Even the Greens have a more moral stance than the SWP! Unsurprisingly, RESPECT received only 3.2% of first preference votes in 2004. In 2008, the Left List, the SWP's latest electoral front, received a tiny 0.7%.


Marxism is a voluntary and open event

You were very quick to boot Rock Around The Blockade out when we challenged Mike Gonzalez's lies on Cuba by erecting a large banner on the stage next to him. :)

[OneNamedNameLess]

Poor Sam b lol. Give him a break.

Personally, I thought the SWP was rather large for a revolutionary party in the UK and I did read somewhere that their membership was 6000. Of course how many active members as some have already suggested remains an issue.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but did membership not increase considerably around the time of the outbreak of the Iraq war? I'm sure the new influx withered away though.

[Zurdito]

Zurdito, I never claimed that the SWP had 6,000 active members. I bet a fair proportion of our members have demanding jobs and families and thus can't be active. Should they not be allowed to be in the party?

What?

An average British person who works and has a family doesn't have the time to be active?

Are you joking?

And no, if someone isn't active you shouldn't cite them as a member, it's compeltely misleading and meaningless. Going around saying you have 6000 members when you can only mobilise less then a 1000 is bullshit

People who as a general rule ar enot active, weekly, in branches and in their workplces or places of study, should be counted as sympathisers, not members.

The same, bobkindles, goesfor the argument about members of a party who can't even be bothered to make the effort to attend the annual national event, ever. You are talking about dying for an armed revolution when you think traveling from Scotland to London is too much of an effort? Give me a break, people.

[Led Zeppelin]

In which case, I wouldput yourmembership at under 1000 - which is nto a disaster in itself as it owuld still make you proportionallylarger in Britain than the Bolsheviks were in 1905.

Where did you get the figure for Bolshevik membership?

Not that I dispute it or anything, I just want to know where I can find it. :)

[Q]

What?

An average British person who works and has a family doesn't have the time to be active?

Are you joking?

And no, if someone isn't active you shouldn't cite them as a member, it's compeltely misleading and meaningless. Going around saying you have 6000 members when you can only mobilise less then a 1000 is bullshit

People who as a general rule ar enot active, weekly, in branches and in their workplces or places of study, should be counted as sympathisers, not members.

The same, bobkindles, goesfor the argument about members of a party who can't even be bothered to make the effort to attend the annual national event, ever. You are talking about dying for an armed revolution when you think traveling from Scotland to London is too much of an effort? Give me a break, people.
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this.
Being active in the organisation, within your capabilities, is an explicit demand we have for every member. Activity of the membership is absolutely vital for an organisation working on the principle of democratic-centralism (an inactive membership obviously cannot be a democratic counterbalance to the centralistic leadership). Furthermore can someone who is only a member on paper not be consolidated as a revolutionary fighter and leader of the working class as being active is an integral part of that process.

Of course I'm only stating the obvious, right dear SWP'ers?

[Zurdito]

Where did you get the figure for Bolshevik membership?

Not that I dispute it or anything, I just want to know where I can find it. :)

I can't remember where I originally read it, but I searched just for you. ;)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap20.htm#n2



Thus, in its Report to the Third Congress of 1905, the St. Petersburg Committee claimed a total Bolshevik membership of 737. [2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap20.htm#n2) The Menshevik Iskra claimed in April 1905 that the Mensheviks had 1,200-1,300 members in St. Petersburg. [3] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap20.htm#n3) So total party membership in St. Petersburg in the middle of 1905 was some 2,000. By January 1907, the Bolsheviks had 2,105 members, and the Mensheviks 2,156 – a total of 4,261. [4] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap20.htm#n4)

A similar growth in membership occurred all over the country. On the evidence of reports presented to the second Congress (1903), membership of the party could not have been more than a few thousand – excluding the Bund. [6] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap20.htm#n6) However, by the time of the fourth Congress in April 1906, it is estimated that membership had grown to 13,000 for the Bolsheviks and 18,000 for the Mensheviks. [7] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap20.htm#n7) By 1907, the total membership of the party had increased to 150,000: Bolsheviks, 46,143; Mensheviks, 38,174; Bund, 25,468; the Polish party, 25,654; and the Latvian party, 13,000. [8] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap20.htm#n8)

[Devrim]

Lindsey German on SWP membership numbers:

Of around 6,000 registered members, probably the majority are totally or near totally passive. Perhaps a tenth of this figure attended pre-conference aggregates, despite controversies which usually help raise attendance.
So the SWP has about 600 members who attend 'pre-conference aggregates', i.e. are involved in the political life of the organisation. I think that is more indicative of the size than the number of 'registered members' that you can sign up in freshers' week at universtiy and never see again.

Devrim

[Jorge Miguel]

CPGB-ML - 50 million.

[Sam_b]

This is going to be fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun!


You said it yourself, that the SWP's membership peaked in 1997, and had reduced significantly in size since. Look back to the first page.

You're simply trying to look into things that aren't even there (including, it happears, any evidence to back up your claim that the party supported New Labour in 97). Memberships for several groups waned in 1997, due to working class people supporting the Labour 'bounce' and putting their confidence in the party: it was after all eighteen years of Tory rule that came before it. Its almost the same sort oof thing as we're seeing right now in Scotland with the emergence of the SNP: the buoyance of the nats has seen left parties squeezed.


For a party that claims to be 'getting workers to break with Labour', the SWP seems seem awfully comfortable sharing platforms with the likes of Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn.

Do you mean the SWP as a party? Or, more likely, as SWP members in STWC sharing a platform with fellow members of the organisation?


It also seems perfectly happy to receive the second votes of Labour supporters in Scottish Parliament and London Assembly elections. In 2003, then SSP leader Tommy Sheridan encouraged Labour voters to give their secondary support to his party. In 2004, Socialist Worker stated that, 'The two vote system means voters in London have the marvellous opportunity of voting for Lindsey German (Respect mayoral candidate & SWP Central Committee member) as first choice and Ken Livingstone as second choice. That ensures RESPECT gets the maximum vote, while also ensuring there is no way for a Tory or Liberal to sneak in.'

This is also an exceptionally odd position for you to be taking. Is the RCG's class analysis so short that it doesn't understand the still significant amount of support that Labour holds within working class communities? If 'we' can get a second vote for working class Labour supporters (and I use inverted commas here precisely because you appear to ecquate our work within coalitions as merely being the 'party'), it is a clear signal that the left can cause a break from New Labour politics. At the end of the day i'd probably say that a Labour administration is preferable to having in the tories, but of course I won't make any excuses for the neo-liberal, imperialist nature of Labour. Look at the Tory controlled GLA and its pushing through of public service cuts.

What it really amounts to here, by my reckoning, is yet another minescule ultra-leftist group which feels effortlessly more comforatble openly attacking the SWP rather than making a decent critique against the current capitalist system. Thus refelcting a strategy, of course vigourously denied, of trying to get party members to break with the SWP and join them. I mean, look at the RCG's pamphlet on the economic crisis by David Yaffe. Half of it is an attack on the SWP and its position rather than addressing the real issues on the economy!


And no, if someone isn't active you shouldn't cite them as a member, it's compeltely misleading and meaningless. Going around saying you have 6000 members when you can only mobilise less then a 1000 is bullshit

I doubt that the hundreds of thousands who joined the Bolsheviks after 1917 were all active, would you say? By redefining what is meant by 'membership' your arguments seem exceptionally hollow. People who aren't active as a rule but pay subs to the party, sell the occasional Socialist Worker in their workplaces, can only join in activity every so often because of other commitments: these people should not be considered members?

Fortunately we don't discount people who have shown commitment to the struggle.


Of course I'm only stating the obvious, right dear SWP'ers?

See above. And I think its very rich that a CWI member is talking about 'commitment' where the CWI's record on the War in Iraq, or at least its failure to mobilise to its potential, placed economic cost before human cost in its analysis (The Socialist, especially during 2005; CWI's statements during SSP conference, 2004) is absolutely appalling. As well as its disgusting analysis of resistance groups in the middle east, the rhetoric of 'against war and terrorism', which only shows a complete lack on understanding and a way of stigmatising people who feel absolutely helpless.

All I can say is if we have only a 'few hundred' 'active' members, and the unsubstanciated claims made, funnily enough, by people who have nothing to do with the SWP; then it really does put into context how much more active the SWP is. I don't see the CWI every week in Glasgow, or in Aberdeen, or in Edinburgh.....saying that I hardly ever see the SSP either. Fair play to AFed, they're out in Buchanan Street every week.

Some of the part-time revolutionaries on here need to get their own organisations sorted before trying to smear the SWP.

[Magdalen]

You're simply trying to look into things that aren't even there (including, it happears, any evidence to back up your claim that the party supported New Labour in 97).Back in 1997, the electoral slogan of the SWP was 'Vote Labour or socialist'. In reality, 'or socialist' was only added as an afterthought, after hundreds of 'Vote Labour' posters had been fly-posted around Britain. The SWP's slogan in 2001 was similar, 'Vote socialist when you can, vote Labour when you must'. In the aftermath of the 1997 election, John Rees penned a detailed article in International Socialism entitled 'The Class Struggle under New Labour'. In this article, Rees claimed that Labour's 'rhetorical gestures in the direction of reform', would give socialists a platform to demand that 'to demand that the inconsistencies in Labour's policy are eradicated'. According to Rees, the working class movement had 'drawn hope and confidence from Labour's electoral victory over the Tories'.


Do you mean the SWP as a party? Or, more likely, as SWP members in STWC sharing a platform with fellow members of the organisation?At the time I wrote the remark you quoted I was thinking of last year's 'Convention of the Left', which was held concurrently with the Labour Party conference in Manchester. Key speakers included Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, and none other than Lindsey German. German was there as a representative of the SWP, not of STWC. I've also been told by comrades that attended that one of the biggest applauses in the half-empty hall was reserved for a woman who announced herself as a 'delegate to the Labour Party conference'.


This is also an exceptionally odd position for you to be taking. Is the RCG's class analysis so short that it doesn't understand the still significant amount of support that Labour holds within working class communities?The RCG's class analysis isn't odd, but the SWP's certainly is. A quick search of Socialist Worker online reveals only one reference to the phrase 'Labour Aristocracy'. This is in an article by Trevor Ngwane, a South African anti-poverty activist, from August 2002! As early as 1882, Engels wrote to Kautsky that 'There is no workers' party here... and the workers gaily share the feast of England's monopoly of the world market and the colonies.' Lenin expanded on this, principally in 'Imperialism and the Split in Socialism'.


If 'we' can get a second vote for working class Labour supporters (and I use inverted commas here precisely because you appear to equate our work within coalitions as merely being the 'party'), it is a clear signal that the left can cause a break from New Labour politics.This is not a 'clear signal that the left can cause a break from New Labour politics' (and even if it was a 'clear signal', the strategy failed abysmally). A clear signal of a break from Labour (old and new), would be a complete rejection of Labour and its racist, imperialist policies.


What it really amounts to here, by my reckoning, is yet another minescule ultra-leftist group which feels effortlessly more comforatble openly attacking the SWP rather than making a decent critique against the current capitalist system. Thus refelcting a strategy, of course vigourously denied, of trying to get party members to break with the SWP and join them. I mean, look at the RCG's pamphlet on the economic crisis by David Yaffe. Half of it is an attack on the SWP and its position rather than addressing the real issues on the economy!This is a utterly ridiculous suggestion. The RCG has better things to do than to attempt to poach members from the SWP. The RCG can also make a decent critique against capitalism, but judging by current evidence, the SWP can't! Take a look at leading SWP member Chris Harman's latest excuse for a pamphlet, 'Capitalism's new crisis: what do socialists say?' In the pamphlet, Harman does not even attempt to explain why the British left is at its lowest ebb in a century, makes schoolboy errors about the laws of capitalism, and doesn't mention the words 'imperialism', or 'labour aristocracy' in 34 pages. David Yaffe, meanwhile, examines the reasons for the weakness of the oppurtunist left in Britain, of which the SWP is the largest part. The main theme of the pamphlet, of course, is imperialism, an area which the RCG has distinguished itself in the analysis of for over 30 years, an area which Harman refuses to touch. The SWP has no right to condemn critics of its opportunistic policies as 'ultra-left' and 'sectarian', for exposing it for what it is.

[Sam_b]

Back in 1997, the electoral slogan of the SWP was 'Vote Labour or socialist'. In reality, 'or socialist' was only added as an afterthought, after hundreds of 'Vote Labour' posters had been fly-posted around Britain.

About three months ago now, our front page was a mock-up of the Tory's 'Labour isn't Working' poster. Does that mean we support the Conservatives?


The SWP's slogan in 2001 was similar, 'Vote socialist when you can, vote Labour when you must'.

At a time where the Tories tried to reposition themselves to the right of Labour, on the cutting of public services and racist immigration laws, I think this was the right slogan to take. Or do you believe that a Tory government would not be worse for the working class?


In the aftermath of the 1997 election, John Rees penned a detailed article in International Socialism entitled 'The Class Struggle under New Labour'. In this article, Rees claimed that Labour's 'rhetorical gestures in the direction of reform', would give socialists a platform to demand that 'to demand that the inconsistencies in Labour's policy are eradicated'. According to Rees, the working class movement had 'drawn hope and confidence from Labour's electoral victory over the Tories'.

This tactic was also shared by the likes of the SSP in later years. It didn't materialise, but at the same time it wasn't just the SWP's analysis that was wrong.


At the time I wrote the remark you quoted I was thinking of last year's 'Convention of the Left', which was held concurrently with the Labour Party conference in Manchester. Key speakers included Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, and none other than Lindsey German. German was there as a representative of the SWP, not of STWC. I've also been told by comrades that attended that one of the biggest applauses in the half-empty hall was reserved for a woman who announced herself as a 'delegate to the Labour Party conference'.

Such applause which had nothing to do with the SWP. Berate all you like but we both know that RCG have shared platforms with representatives of a rigid, oppressive and autocratic state structure: it just happens that that particular structure belongs to Cuba.


The RCG's class analysis isn't odd, but the SWP's certainly is. A quick search of Socialist Worker online reveals only one reference to the phrase "Labour Aristocracy". This is in an article by Trevor Ngwane, a South African anti-poverty activist, from August 2002! As early as 1882, Engels wrote to Kautsky that 'There is no workers' party here... and the workers gaily share the feast of England's monopoly of the world market and the colonies.' Lenin expanded on this, principally in 'Imperialism and the Split in Socialism'.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Labour still holds a lot of sway in working class communities and amongst its population. Unless, that is, you are rejecting working class supporters of Labour outright.


This is not a 'clear signal that the left can cause a break from New Labour politics' (and even if it was a 'clear signal', the strategy failed abysmally). A clear signal of a break from Labour (old and new), would be a complete rejection of Labour and its racist, imperialist policies.


I would argue the Green party's 'second vote green' was a success for them as they were able to force many of their issues into the Scottish parliament. This would not have happened if they had rallied for a first preference. How many working class people who define themself as Labour would vote for a small coalition or party over it? Not a lot, I would say.


David Yaffe, meanwhile, examines the reasons for the weakness of the oppurtunist left in Britain, of which the SWP is the largest part.

Which is funny in a pamphlet about the economy, this is the point. Why does the RCG feel so threatened that it has to put this into a pamphlet on the economy? Ironic coming from a party that supposedly has 'better things to do'.

[bellyscratch]

so many parties, and I'm still confused on which one to join :(

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your organization is a front group for the SWP, so perhaps you should join the SWP. However, you could also consider joining the SPEW, CNWP, or the CPGB (PCC).

[Pogue]

For gods sake this SWP bashing is annoying me. If you actually went out on a demonstration you'd see they're one of the better groups around, at least they're active and get things done. The SP are good too. Such stupid sectarianism and divisions. A comrade is a comrade. And this is coming from me as an Anarchist. I can't be fucked, in the face of the enemies of capitalism and the state in front of us, to spend time criticising people with the same goals as me. Especially when most criticism coems from people with no actual real life political experience of these groups or indeed the movement.

[Sam_b]

Your organization is a front group for the SWP, so perhaps you should join the SWP

More lies. Where's your proof?

[Pogue]

More lies. Where's your proof?

Might I also add that once more, I regularly interact with the SWP and the StWC and I've never been pressurised into joining the SWP. The StWC functions seperately although obviously and rightly so the SWP is around on the demonstrations and they're mentioned as being behind it. But its not forced in your face, its hardly ever mentioned, and unless you researched it you wouldn't really know it. I suggest oncemore that comrades go into the real world and deal with the real life rank and file SWP.

[bellyscratch]

Your organization is a front group for the SWP, so perhaps you should join the SWP. However, you could also consider joining the SPEW, CNWP, or the CPGB (PCC).

I used to be in the SWP and StWC is not a front for it. I was working on a StWC stall yesterday at the Gaza solidarity protests and NONE of the other 4 people working on the stall were in the SWP. In the area where I live, although the SWP are the largest party within the local group (as they are the biggest socialist party in the country) they probably make up about 50% of the active membership. In one of the towns next to me, SWP have a tiny minority of the active membership.

I totally agree about stopping all this SWP bashing. I mean I have my fair share of criticisms of them, otherwise I wouldnt of left. But they do a lot of work in my area, and in the particular city I live in, they are the only active group on the left. I still do a lot of work with them and have/will do work with all other revolutionary left groups in my area, such as SPEW and RCG.

I just can't understand it, in a time like now with the economic crisis, environmental crisis, imperialist wars and occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, mass disolusionment with mainstream politics, the potential rise of the far right. We're still bickering between ourselves. The left is so weak right now and its an embarressment.

Lets start working together without all the slagging off!

[Socialist Scum]

I'm in the SP myself. Well- I think I am. They never called me. I don't really like joining a party, but are restricted to doing much due to the fact I have to join some silly "Youth wing" of it. Does the SWP have such a youth wing, or can I just join the party and buy some leaflets to hand out? Haverfordwest is such a political bore. 2 BNP members (Husband and wife) and boring polticians. Socialism could really hit hard here too.

[bellyscratch]

I dont understand why you have to join the SP youth wing and not the party? Are you under 16 or something? I think you can join the SWP fully or join their student society (or both). Im sure a SP member would be able to explain their procedure to help you out.

[The Idler]

so many parties, and I'm still confused on which one to join :(
I used to think there was only the SWP. I sometimes wonder if any members of left parties have any idea of the number and diversity of left parties in the UK.

[Socialist Scum]

I dont understand why you have to join the SP youth wing and not the party? Are you under 16 or something? I think you can join the SWP fully or join their student society (or both). Im sure a SP member would be able to explain their procedure to help you out.

15, so the expect me to be a young molotov throwing thug. If there are any SWP or SP people on here, help me out.

(I have friends in London trying to join all these left-wing parties together, they arn't doing very well. One man left, I'll keep his name safe, "because he said the SWP are a bunch of wankers", to quote him. So it's not looking good).

[Pogue]

15, so the expect me to be a young molotov throwing thug. If there are any SWP or SP people on here, help me out.

(I have friends in London trying to join all these left-wing parties together, they arn't doing very well. One man left, I'll keep his name safe, "because he said the SWP are a bunch of wankers", to quote him. So it's not looking good).

I considered trying a similar thing. I'd like to see it happen.

[bellyscratch]

15, so the expect me to be a young molotov throwing thug. If there are any SWP or SP people on here, help me out.

(I have friends in London trying to join all these left-wing parties together, they arn't doing very well. One man left, I'll keep his name safe, "because he said the SWP are a bunch of wankers", to quote him. So it's not looking good).

Yeh, i think you have to be 16 to join them fully, might be the same with SWP too to be honest. It shouldnt make much difference for a new member, and by the time you're 16 then you can join fully. I wouldnt worry about it too much, just make sure you are doing something active.

Is there many socialists where you live or is it pretty isolated? If its the former, then it may be good to get in contact with them, whatever party they are in and work on something you can do together. If its the latter, then, I'd start by just talking friends around to your way of thinking, and once you have a couple of friends wanting to be more active then do something together. Its hard to try and get out and do something on your own, and it will get quite frustrating at times.

[bellyscratch]

I considered trying a similar thing. I'd like to see it happen.

Me too!

[Sam_b]

If there are any SWP or SP people on here, help me out.

I don't think there's any age for joining the SWP: I think I was 16 when I first joined (back when up north we were the Socialist Workers Platform of the Scottish Socialist Party). So that shouldn't be a problem.

If you're a student at uni or college, our student group (Socialist Worker Student Society, SWSS) is pretty active on most campuses.

[Pogue]

I don't think there's any age for joining the SWP: I think I was 16 when I first joined (back when up north we were the Socialist Workers Platform of the Scottish Socialist Party). So that shouldn't be a problem.

If you're a student at uni or college, our student group (Socialist Worker Student Society, SWSS) is pretty active on most campuses.

I never got a reply from the SWSS :(

[Sam_b]

Did you ever phone them up?

[Q]

I'm in the SP myself. Well- I think I am. They never called me. I don't really like joining a party, but are restricted to doing much due to the fact I have to join some silly "Youth wing" of it.
As far as I know there is no age limit to join the SP. Send a mail to your local branch or national office, I'm sure they'll help you out. Contact addresses can be found on the website (http://socialistparty.org.uk/).

[zider]

As far as I know there is no age limit to join the SP. Send a mail to your local branch or national office, I'm sure they'll help you out. Contact addresses can be found on the website (http://socialistparty.org.uk/).

There are also the telephone numbers of the regional organisers, so it might be worth him giving the organiser for Wales a call.
Why I'm trying to help someone sort out membership of SPEW is beyond my comprehension :confused: :laugh:

[Bilan]

There is a list in this forum " Political Organisations" which has lists of UK socialist groups: from anarchist, to Leninist, to Trotskyist, to whatever.

[Socialist Scum]

As far as I know there is no age limit to join the SP. Send a mail to your local branch or national office, I'm sure they'll help you out. Contact addresses can be found on the website (http://socialistparty.org.uk/).

I got my calls and emails since that post. Also they sent me several hundred coloured leaflets, all for free. Nice people. I recommend the SP.

[K.Bullstreet]

You're just a bunch of silly lefties (who probably don't wash and all have dreadlocks). Stop arguing, get out there and do something! All these silly acronyms mean nothing to the average person on the street. :rolleyes:

[K.Bullstreet]

PS. The SWP are actually a New Labour front group aimed at recruited as many students as possible. Fact! ;)

[paul c]

I'm no fan of the SWP myself but you must surely realize how ludicrous you're being. Just think about about it if they were than why would they have backed Galloway in the 2005 election as part of RESPECT agianst a loyal New Labourite. Why did the Labour party in UNISON hound a good SWP militant out of the union and his job harassing him to the point where he had a nervous breakdown. Any way someone who calls himself an Anarchist (code for hippy) Communist saying that we all have dreadlocks and don't wash can be taken with a pinch of salt. Given your incredibally ill informed views i suspect it is you who needs to "get out there and do something".

[scarletghoul]

In before giant facepalm image

[Tower of Bebel]

i dont know the exact number but i know it is considerably more than that
1600 iirc.

[Pogue]

I'm no fan of the SWP myself but you must surely realize how ludicrous you're being. Just think about about it if they were than why would they have backed Galloway in the 2005 election as part of RESPECT agianst a loyal New Labourite. Why did the Labour party in UNISON hound a good SWP militant out of the union and his job harassing him to the point where he had a nervous breakdown. Any way someone who calls himself an Anarchist (code for hippy) Communist saying that we all have dreadlocks and don't wash can be taken with a pinch of salt. Given your incredibally ill informed views i suspect it is you who needs to "get out there and do something".

I am an Anarchist but I am not a hippy. No Anarchists/Anarcho-Communists I know think we should all have dreadlocks and shouldn't wahs. Stop trolling please.

[paul c]

I'm not trolling, in fact my post had a point I backed my argument up with some fact. All you did was make up a silly accusation about a revolutionary party then a childish insult, I'll admit what I said about anarchists wasn't true or very grown up and I shouldn't have said it, I stick by what I said about the insane accusation you made. If you seriously think the SWP is a New Labour front group then please back it up with some evidence. I've given just 2 of many reasons why I don't really think it's credible to say that the SWP are a front group for Labour. If you're gonna make that type of accusation the burden of proof of on you really.

[Pogue]

I'm not trolling, in fact my post had a point I backed my argument up with some fact. All you did was make up a silly accusation about a revolutionary party then a childish insult, I'll admit what I said about anarchists wasn't true or very grown up and I shouldn't have said it, I stick by what I said about the insane accusation you made. If you seriously think the SWP is a New Labour front group then please back it up with some evidence. I've given just 2 of many reasons why I don't really think it's credible to say that the SWP are a front group for Labour. If you're gonna make that type of accusation the burden of proof of on you really.

Go back, look at who posted what, then try again. I wasn't the one who Said the SWP are a front group for Labour, idiot.

[Dr Mindbender]

I have no idea how many people turn up to Marxism each year, even though Marxism is still the largest annual gathering of the radical left in the UK.

I've been to marxism twice, i'd say it's easilly in excess of 10 000.

[Cunning_plan]

From my limited experience the SWP is a lot of posers with little politic... I'm more than happy to be proved wrong on this though. That lots of the active left are not party associated stands to reason. We often meet and contact through varied forums and through other more specific interest groups. It's easier to argue an issue at a time...

[paul c]

Ok my apologies, I was just going through the commments quickly and didn't notice. It was an honest mistake. And I'm not trolling it's just that what K.Bullstreet sais was really stupid and annoyed me a little bit

[welshboy]

I find these hurried denials that the SWP is not a front group for neo-labour quite telling. The lady protest too much.

[paul c]

Like I said i'm no fan of the SWP and I don't partcularly like their politics (not enough class analysis, uncritical support for radical Islamists) but if someone's gonna make accusations I'd like them to back it up with some eveidence.