SWP's calls for state censorship of the BNP are rather silly

[Q]

I thank you Bob, for actually providing some backbone to your position towards the CPGB. This is something substantial that I can respect.

Perhaps it is an idea to write a letter as a reply to the article for the next issue of the WW, to give your view on how things went down? They do provide the platform.

[Uncle Ho]

It always makes me wonder why the Weekly Worker constantly focuses on issues around other left groups than issues concerning the working class. Then again this makes more sense when I remember a CPGB member on a recent demo saying they don't really "care about the working class". Maybe because they're so alienated with the struggles that have been going on?

I'll try to respond to this nonsense tomorrow or Saturday.

If British "socialists" are anything like their American counterparts, it's because they're all little bourgeoisie brats born with more in their trust fund than most workers will make in their lives, who have never worked a day in their lives and are pretending to be socialists to impress that cute girl who sits next to them in Art History.

[Vanguard1917]

Nope.

Are you denying that it's a slogan used by your party's leadership?

The reality is, of course, that the SWP supports a wide range of state measures against the far right, from sacking workers who support the BNP to banning books from libraries.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I believe it was Weyman Bennett who coined that term, so yeah basically SWP.

[BobKKKindle$]

Are you denying that it's a slogan used by your party's leadership?

The reality is, of course, that the SWP supports a wide range of state measures against the far right, from sacking workers who support the BNP to banning books from libraries.

It was used by Weyman Bennett in his capacity as a representative of UAF, and so whilst he is also a leading member of the SWP, him saying that does not represent the SWP's position. The effect of being part of a united front is that leaders often themselves being forced to argue in favour of positions that they may not personally agree with if the other groups and forces that are part of the united front have supported the position against the arguments of more radical forces like the SWP, the point however is that we in the SWP still fight against calls for censorship and in favour of radical tactics, and we accomplish much more by being part of that united front than if we remained outside of it and made calls for socialist revolution in isolation from broader forces.

The SWP has of course been willing to act independently of UAF when doing so does not conflict with the obligations we have as a component of that united front. For example, when the demonstration of the EDL in September was not banned by the council in Birmingham, as had initially been requested by Salma Yaqoob, the local UAF leadership decided not to hold a demonstration against the EDL, and yet, because we knew that it would be wrong to allow the fascists to walk through a city centre in one of the most diverse towns in Britain, the SWP did hold a demonstration, in conjunction with other anti-fascists, independently. In this context it is wrong to assert that UAF is simply an SWP front, as otherwise this sort of thing would never happen. Nonetheless it would be wrong for Weyman Bennet to go against the decisions of UAF in his capacity as a representative (i.e. rejecting censorship and calling for socialist revolution) in terms of what he says about their policy because that kind of behaviour would ultimately lead to the collapse of the united front once its more moderate sections realized that decisions reached by democratic majority were not being implemented.

[YKTMX]

Neither at that meeting nor at any other point have the SWP ever said that the BNP should be banned. I should know, I am the chair they keep referring to.

Absolutely. I am utterly bemused. This is the most outrageous straw-man ever.

If you don't know the difference between "No Platform" and calling for the "State" to ban a political party, you're a fool.

[Vanguard1917]

It was used by Weyman Bennett in his capacity as a representative of UAF, and so whilst he is also a leading member of the SWP, him saying that does not represent the SWP's position. The effect of being part of a united front is that leaders often themselves being forced to argue in favour of positions that they may not personally agree with

So you're claiming that Weyman Bennett is in fact against state suppression against the BNP outside of his capacity as UAF leader and that it's the UAF popular front which makes him passionately demand that the state should arrest and imprison people because of their politics and that it should restrict free speech? Do you have any evidence to back up this bizarre claim?

And i wasn't talking about the UAF before; i was referring to the SWP elite itself -- which supports workers being sacked because of their support for the BNP, supports banning far-right books from libraries, and supports laws against anti-Islamic speech. These are well-documented facts.

[fidzboi]

I think people are still criticising the approach because it's still a stupid approach.

You don't need to like the positions of the CPGB or the party itself to see the fundamental value in what they are doing. They consistently challenge some of the radical lefts most basic assumptions, which is something that the other organisations on the left seem unwilling to do. That provokes thought, discussion, argument, the things that clarify and, when needed, correct our politics. And the whole Griffin on Question Time saga seems to suggest that we really need to partake in more of this.

I've been uncertain up until now as to what exactly I thought would be a good response, but with the benefit of hindsight I think it's safe to say that our actual response was misguided.

After spending the day browsing internet forums, I'd say the SWP and UAF have come of worse than the BNP, and even if you have a profound hatred of the SWP, you won't welcome this. The popular perception seems to be that the anti-fascists acted in a manner that would justify the characterisation of the far left as 'Stalinists'. By that I mean the common conceptions of what 'Stalinist' politics represent, anti-democratic, repressive and authoritarian politics.

This doesn't just affect the SWP of course, all of us will suffer tarring from this particularly odious brush. The SWP are the biggest socialist party in Britain, which means, whether you like it or not, they are the flag carriers of socialist politics in this country. Which means that their public face is transplanted onto all radical orgs regardless of whether they agree with the SWP or not.

People have noticed that Griffin wasn't really allowed to make any points, that he was ganged up upon by the panel, that the chair was somewhat abrupt, that the audience was obviously biased and selected, with the high proportion of 'ethnic' audience members also not going unnoticed. On top of this, we all would have witnessed how all three politicians fell over each other in their attempts to be more anti-immigrant than the rest, Griffin didn't even need to speak to win this portion of the debate.

Indeed, the polite and 'gentlemanly' manner in which Griffin conducted himself amid a barrage of hostility, will have done him and his party no harm. Whilst most people, including it seems a large proportion of the far left, seem to have been turned off by the SWP/UAF approach. We look like jackasses, Griffin looks like a decent fellow, and once again we see no real critique of the mainstream political parties. (Unfortunately Greer didn't criticise the political elite around her once, which I found surprising as I thought she was vaguely left wing.)

Could the SWP/UAF petitioned to be allowed a panellist? Yes. Would they have got a panellist? Perhaps. Even if they had got one, would that panellist have risen above the trivial and offered a clear socialist viewpoint? I don't know.

It appears the idea of the left wing critique has gone missing. In this instance, as I've seen others on this forum mention, we could of pursued a twofold programme: (1) focus the debate on immigration and offer a critique of all establishment parties as well as the BNP, a position that would have culminated in a 'pro-immigration' (there must be a better term than that, anyone?) protest the night of the show; (2) try and get a left wing perspective on the show, one which would have answered the first question by saying 'Churchill was a vile racist old ****, and I think it's quite fitting the BNP choose to basque in his glory'.

This didn't happen, instead we've come off looking like a bunch of numpties. And whilst a large, flagship party like the SWP will not only make mistakes, mistakes are excusable, but refuse to rectify them once they've had the benefit of hindsight, there is a fundamental need for people like the CPGB to challenge the ingrained mantras of the left.

Human politics, like human beings, gets more and more complex as time goes on, yet 'progressives' are stuck repeating the same ancient formulas that have by no means been vindicated by Mr. History. That is something we need to think about, and then sort out.

[Tower of Bebel]

WW, just like CPGB, is heritage. Simple. They write about it themselves. That's not a secret.

Of course it is supposed to be read by workers. They hope everyone will read it. But they also envisage the formation of a workers' party through the existing left (not only the radical left though). That's why many articles are devoted to what other parties think and do. Not only the SWP or the AWL, but also the Labour party, the Labour representation committee, etc.

And if you have a problem with it you should address this problem head-on. Not by retorically asking how a worker would respond to the headlines, or "how they do it" (continuous criticism), but by both addressing its contents and the overall 'method' involved.

Sure, I question the headlines (not only the lay out), I question the way they generalize about Trotskyism, their vote for Labour, etc. Of course! It's almost impossible for me to support them uncritically and still be part of an organization they criticize.

But if it weren't for the fact that there's a certain discrepancy between what people say or write about them (lunatics, sectarians, gossip rag, etc.) and what they are I wouldn't even really bother to defend them.

Where's the gossip? What's so sectarian? I just think that the CS, when they intervene during meetings of the SWP, "prove" that they're inexperienced. People who're nuts don't produce a weekly paper and receive more than 1000 pounds a month. Don't tell me the world's gone mad!
And worse of all, some cheap criticisms affect my own organization, even though the CWI differs, from a certain point of view, so much from the CPGB!

So for the off-topic discussion guys. But BK, make sure that this blunder will be published in the next issue of the WW so that those who read it know how they falsified some recent SWP-history.

[bricolage]

Postal workers commenting on this yesterday at mount pleasant were mildly interested, some of them went and showed up at the demo.

A demo about a split in the SWP? Eh.

[Yehuda Stern]

It was used by Weyman Bennett in his capacity as a representative of UAF, and so whilst he is also a leading member of the SWP, him saying that does not represent the SWP's position.

Then again, Weyman Bennett also said something about how Jews should go back to New York. This was never denied by the SWP leadership, so we can accept it as being true. Still he remains in the SWP leadership, and is allowed even to be the SWP's man in UAF. Tell me, Bob, since Bennett hasn't been condemned or censured for that, can we just assume they simply fit in quite well with the SWP leadership's positions (like the "Jew free holocaust")?

Actually, when you couple this with SWP member Sabiha Iqbal becoming a government adviser a while back, the picture one gets of the SWP is an organization where one can do and say anything one wants as long as it isn't at the expense of the leadership's authority. Does that sound like a revolutionary organization to anyone?

The effect of being part of a united front is that leaders often themselves being forced to argue in favour of positions that they may not personally agree with

One would think this would be a perfectly good argument against participation in such rotten political blocs. But no:

we accomplish much more by being part of that united front than if we remained outside of it and made calls for socialist revolution in isolation from broader forces.

Nonetheless it would be wrong for Weyman Bennet to go against the decisions of UAF in his capacity as a representative (i.e. rejecting censorship and calling for socialist revolution)

In other words, it's better to be a reformist among reformists than to be a revolutionary in a smaller group. Just like how Lenin and Trotsky joined the popular front because that would've been far more fruitful than calling for a workers revolution "in isolation." We all remember Lenin's dictum: "better more, but they don't have to be that great."

The SWP claims its tactics allow it to be non-sectarian while at the same time not selling out its political positions. Facts paint a different picture.