Bash the SWP - why is it such a popular sport?

[neprimerimye]

Sorry to sound like a broken record but I’m not prepared to let this myth go unchallenged the SWP and STWC where not opposed to the school student protests but fully in support of them

I agree; however I would like to ask do you think there was any chance of the working class taking action against the war as a class? I don’t think there was; the level of industrial struggle is currently at a very low level and I find it unlikely that people would taken class action (i.e. strikes) against war when they are not striking on day to day issues. Maybe more could have be made of the possibilities but as you may remember the fire fighters strike took place during this period and again the SWP put a lot of energy into supporting that strike and trying to link it into the war.

On the subject of small scale none violent DA. I don’t see much difference between that and demonstrations, neither could have stopped the war on there own and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Demonstrations however involve far people which is way the STWC put its weight behind them rather than blockades at military bases again I don’t think it is true that the STWC coalition actively opposed these things but rather in the interest of involving the maximum number of people it focused on national demonstrations.

Incidentally are me and MC5 an exception to the rule that ex-SWP members are the most vitriolic against it

Sound like a broken record all you want. But reread my post and you will find I did not alege that the SWP blocked the school student protests.

As for the point concerning the working class I thik you miss the point. Certainly economic struggles being at a low point would ordinarily mean that political strikes are extremely unlikely. In fact they are extraordinarily rare in any case. But the point is that in the past the SWP has campaigned for workplace anti-war groups to be set up while this time around they put virtually all their efforts into demonstrations to the exclusion almost opf work specifically directed to the class at the point of production.

As for the SWP misleadeship blocking NVDA actions that is a matter of fact. They did not just focus on national demonstrations but actively sught to deter local groups intending to take part in NVDA actions from doing so. One more push anybody?

 

[liberty123]

The thing that irritates about them is that they hyjack demos with a ready supply of banners bearing whatever the demo is about but emblazoned with SWP on them, trying to make it look like the marchers are supporting them.

 

[ska invita]

As for the SWP misleadeship blocking NVDA actions that is a matter of fact. They did not just focus on national demonstrations but actively sught to deter local groups intending to take part in NVDA actions from doing so. One more push anybody?

Let see how the STWC react to this (forgive CnP, cos no link exists):

The upcoming change in Labour leadership should be an opportunity for a
radical change in British foreign policy: withdrawing British troops from
Iraq and Afghanistan, scrapping Trident, and making a firm public commitment
not to support any future attack on Iran. Instead Tony Blair's replacement
by Gordon Brown - the man who bankrolled and supported all Blair's wars -
means that it will be business as usual.

The anti-war movement must respond by stepping up its resistance.

In a recent open letter (see [A] below) six prominent figures in the
anti-war movement join us in calling on the Stop the War Coalition 'to
organise mass nonviolent civil disobedience at the Labour Party conference
in Bournemouth this September' - an action that would complement and extend
STW's existing lobbying of Labour MP's, Councillor's and Constituency
Officers (see http://tinyurl.com/2vb9s3).

We strongly urge all members of the Coalition to support this call, and
all groups on the STW Steering Committee to raise this matter at this
Saturday's (5 May) Steering Committee meeting. A sample motion to this
effect, which could be tabled and voted on at this meeting, is reproduced in
[D] below.

Gabriel Carlyle (Voices UK)
Milan Rai (Justice Not Vengeance/ Peace News)

********************************************************
The open letter itself:

[A] CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AT THIS SEPTEMBER'S LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE: AN
OPEN LETTER FROM GEORGE MONBIOT, HAIFA ZANGANA ET AL.

On 28 April 2003, US soldiers fired on a crowd of unarmed demonstrators
outside a school in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, killing thirteen civilians,
including two schoolchildren. Two days later, a US soldier fired a machine
gun at another group of unarmed demonstrators outside a US army base.

These incidents, and similar killings in Samarra and other towns in the
'Sunni Triangle' - for which no US soldier was ever put on trial - played a
critical role in sparking the Sunni insurgency against the US/UK occupation.

To date, at least 186,000 Iraqis have been killed by US-led forces
(according to a Lancet-published study that we now know was regarded as
'robust' by the Ministry of Defence). The proportion of Iraqis who regard it
as acceptable to attack 'coalition forces' has tripled from 17% in 2004 to
51% in 2007.

We demand a fundamental change in British foreign policy, not merely a
change in the leadership of the party in Government. We demand a
commitment to peace and justice. This means withdrawing all British troops
from Iraq and Afghanistan (as favoured by over 53% of British people in a
recent YouGov poll), rejecting the renewal of Trident nuclear submarines,
and publicly opposing any US assault on Iran.

If these changes are not made then we call on the Stop The War Coalition to
organise mass nonviolent civil disobedience at the Labour Party conference
in Bournemouth this September.

Nadje al-Ali (author 'Iraqi Women: Untold Stories from 1948 to the Present')
Iain Banks
Gabriel Carlyle (Voices UK)
Denis Halliday (former UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq)
George Monbiot
Milan Rai (Justice Not Vengeance/ Peace News)
Hans von Sponeck (former UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq)
Haifa Zangana (author 'Women On a Journey: Between Baghdad and London')

anyone care to bet they reject it?

 

[TremulousTetra]

As for the SWP misleadeship blocking NVDA actions that is a matter of fact. They did not just focus on national demonstrations but actively sught to deter local groups intending to take part in NVDA actions from doing so. One more push anybody?

this is not true, in fact completely the opposite is true. Not only in my area did we take part in non-violent direct actions, we were pointed in that direction by local and national leadership.

however, to my memory, it is true the party prioritised the national demonstration over the blocking of the base.

Incidentally are emanymton, MC5, and me an exception to the rule that ex-SWP members are the most vitriolic against it

 

[TremulousTetra]

The thing that irritates about them is that they hyjack demos with a ready supply of banners bearing whatever the demo is about but emblazoned with SWP on them, trying to make it look like the marchers are supporting them.

just like Greenpeace, the Labour Party, the TUC, the trade unions, stop the War, CND, etc ad nauseam.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

The dispute was about whether to demonstrate in London or at RAF bases.

In fact, both forms of demonstration were symbolic in terms of confronting power

Where I live in Wales, at the time, I thought it was more effective to organise protests in our city centre rather than take buses to RAF Fairford every weekend, as their are loads of ordinary working people who would see our protest in a city centre and might even join it, whereas the protests at RAF Fairford would be dominated by the already converted and be seen by fewer people.

Surely the walk-outs and street blockades that took place on the day of war were civil disobedience?

And the main thing is mass direct action.

I certainly endorse this call.

At the 2001 Labour Conference shortly after 9.11 the original aim was to organise a blockade and it was only the heavy presence of the military and armed police that changed the minds, but I think this should have been the aim at Manchester and endorse above call

 

[audiotech]

Thanks justuname - thats absolutely right - and what a dissapointing post from MC5 - is that really what you think of NDVA?

I recognise that my comments were flippant and a bit short. It's just that I have a distaste for acronyms. Sorry.

 

[ska invita]

just like Greenpeace, the Labour Party, the TUC, the trade unions, stop the War, CND, etc ad nauseam.

aye, which kind of goes back to the fact that SWP are the best organised and best at making banners and best at getting street sellers out etc., victims of their own success!

 

[emanymton]

Sound like a broken record all you want. But reread my post and you will find I did not alege that the SWP blocked the school student protests.

To me you seemed to imply it, but never mind.

As for the point concerning the working class I thik you miss the point. Certainly economic struggles being at a low point would ordinarily mean that political strikes are extremely unlikely. In fact they are extraordinarily rare in any case. But the point is that in the past the SWP has campaigned for workplace anti-war groups to be set up while this time around they put virtually all their efforts into demonstrations to the exclusion almost opf work specifically directed to the class at the point of production.

There was plenty of talk about workplace groups I think the weakness may have been in the SWP’s lack of any real base or influence in many workplaces rather than at a political level. Of course that weakness may be political and be a result of too much focus on political campaigns and not enough basic industrial organisation.

As for the SWP misleadeship blocking NVDA actions that is a matter of fact. They did not just focus on national demonstrations but actively sught to deter local groups intending to take part in NVDA actions from doing so. One more push anybody?

I agree with Resistancemp3 the SWP did push its members towards direct action. I may concede however that the leadership of the SWP did have negative attitude towards actions not organised by the SWP or friendly groups

 

[neprimerimye]

There was plenty of talk about workplace groups I think the weakness may have been in the SWP’s lack of any real base or influence in many workplaces rather than at a political level. Of course that weakness may be political and be a result of too much focus on political campaigns and not enough basic industrial organisation.

I agree with Resistancemp3 the SWP did push its members towards direct action. I may concede however that the leadership of the SWP did have negative attitude towards actions not organised by the SWP or friendly groups

Very little discussion as to building workplace and union anti-war groups in my opinion. The only real work around the unions being done by Labour Against the War a group the SWP had very little contact with.

Of course as you say the weakness was political. A result of placing large scale unfocused demonstrations and show piece rallies at the centre of an anti-war strategy when the real need was to build in the class itself. I note that the SWP now appears to think that the unions can be rejuvenated by anti-war activists entering them.

I'm glad you appear to concede that the SWP negatively impacted on actions outside their control. A rather sectarian form of operation some might think.

 

[butchersapron]

The isolation of Bristol STWC is proof enough of that.

And talk of workplace groups is easy enough, but why was there no workplace led walkouts? The SWPs empty mouth talk about it is one factor, but the damping down of activity that might go a bit too far helped to develop that, the feeling that things were actually possible - there were tens of thousand so people ready to block the courts, fills the jails, and fuck shit up, actually do something that might spur others on as result. But that option was sidelined and ridiculed (i knmow why and i suspect that you do too) - that line was wrong, it's been proven ineffective by events. Don't defend it now.

 

[mk12]

resistancemp3 said:

"Incidentally are emanymton, MC5, and me an exception to the rule that ex-SWP members are the most vitriolic against it"

You're not a member

 

[emanymton]

I'm glad you appear to concede that the SWP negatively impacted on actions outside their control. A rather sectarian form of operation some might think.

Nothing rather sectarian about it, it was out and out sectarian. Any opposition towards actions was I think based on hostility towards the individuals and groups involved rather than the action itself. There was a (correct in my view) focus on large demonstrations but it is not a complete either or dichotomy. My group used small scale Actions involving a dozen or so people (and a few lengths of chain) to build for the Feb 15th Demo

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm glad you appear to concede that the SWP negatively impacted on actions outside their control. A rather sectarian form of operation some might think.

he didn't actually say that. He conceded they had a negative attitude.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I agree with Resistancemp3 the SWP did push its members towards direct action. I may concede however that the leadership of the SWP did have negative attitude towards actions not organised by the SWP or friendly groups

could you just expand on this opinion. Do you mean members of the leadership as individuals held opinions which were negative towards actions organised by people/groups they didn't like? Or do you mean as party policy? If it was as a policy, how did this shape actions towards all the people/groups? What effect did it have?

I have come across many people in the SWP who have very hostile attitude towards some groups/individuals, usually through historic bitter experiences, but as an organisation they have always argued against sectarianism. Preferring to take the road, "if we can work together, then let's just ignore each other".

 

[fanciful]

I think there is a general problem with the left which raises organisational issues above political ones. Thankfully as a result of the internet that's a lot harder to do than was previously the case. But I know myself that there are countless incidencies of sectarianism on all sides, there's no point anyone pretending their particular trend is completely innocent.
All of which stems I think from downplaying the importance of political agreement and constructive debate based on a real assessment of how socialists should intervene in the working class movement.
All of these short cuts, new workers party, Respect etc. are all attempts to short cut history, the SWP were just bigger and therefore more obvious than most not particularly different methodologically.
If we are really going to get anyway where we need to start from the politics get that worked out, decide where we can agree or not, co-operate or not, where we can make progress, test out different ideas in practice and maybe we can then go forward.

 

[fanciful]

double post

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think there is a general problem with the left which raises organisational issues above political ones. Thankfully as a result of the internet that's a lot harder to do than was previously the case. But I know myself that there are countless incidencies of sectarianism on all sides, there's no point anyone pretending their particular trend is completely innocent.
All of which stems I think from downplaying the importance of political agreement and constructive debate based on a real assessment of how socialists should intervene in the working class movement.
All of these short cuts, new workers party, Respect etc. are all attempts to short cut history, the SWP were just bigger and therefore more obvious than most not particularly different methodologically.
If we are really going to get anyway where we need to start from the politics get that worked out, decide where we can agree or not, co-operate or not, where we can make progress, test out different ideas in practice and maybe we can then go forward.

but what happens when you don't think it is possible to agree with some of the left? I don't think you can wait till all the left agree, it is never going to happen.

Personally, I don't see anybody on the left as an enemy of the SWP, and reserve that categorisation for people like the Conservative party, the fascists, the bourgeoisie etc. If people just did that I would be very happy with the left manoeuvring.

 

[tbaldwin]

They might if any of that were true.

Some militant anti-fascists accepted the line that it was pointless chasing after the NF after they'd been driven off the streets, whilst being wiped out in the 79 election and then splitting into four. There were others that didn't and ended up in prison of course.

There were feminists who accepted that 'Women's Voice' was a ghetto and understood that class was more important.

Oh, and have you got any evidence for your last point? You might want to contact some of the women in Frickley Ladies Action Group (FLAG), or ex Frickley miners who will clarify that you are talking horseshit.

Yeah cos all the people who disagreed with the SWP over winding up the squaddists ended up in prison........erm MC5

Oh and the women who didnt agree with the Middle Class leaders of the SWP that there idea of Class struggle was so much more importnat than womens rights were all wrong.........

And the SWP never took 33% of money collected for the miners to produce there pro miners propaganda is also wrong...
Thats not what x members of the SWP told me.....But maybe they lied or were just mistaken?

 

[audiotech]

Yeah cos all the people who disagreed with the SWP over winding up the squaddists ended up in prison........erm MC5

Oh and the women who didnt agree with the Middle Class leaders of the SWP that there idea of Class struggle was so much more importnat than womens rights were all wrong.........

And the SWP never took 33% of money collected for the miners to produce there pro miners propaganda is also wrong...
Thats not what x members of the SWP told me.....But maybe they lied or were just mistaken?

Sadly, some squaddists did, which was my point.

Womens' rights and fighting for them has alway's loomed large in the SWP.

Was the ex member your sectoid mate Durutti? Your last point is a lie and a smear and you know it is.

 

[october_lost]

It goes without saying the SWP are bad, in fact they are pretty awful on every front you can imagine - top-heavy organisation, too much emphasis on party building, very little real politics, no pluralism in any aspect of their activity, no internal culture, refusal to treat other groups/campaigns as equals, patronising, front groups which are overtly reformist, making overstated claims about their activity and far too many liberals and students involved.

Despite all this I cant help but feel a lot of anger towards them is frustration that they are the biggest show in town, Im still divided as to whether there existence is a good thing or bad thing, probably more the later....

 

[justuname]

The letter above calling for civil disobedience at Labour's conference is published in the Guardian today http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2071982,00.html

I doubt the SWP/STWC will support this call. A few years ago when there was an attempt at something similar in Brighton, leading SWP/STWC person Chris Nineham argued that attempting to blockade the conference would "give the media an excuse to call us mad extremists" and "isolate us from potentially massive support". Instead he called on activists to "give encouragement to those in the Labour Party fighting Blair".

That kinda sums it up. The only time I have ever heard the SWP say they support direct action is when others are doing it anyway and they want to tone it down - condemning anything illegal, defining standing around outside places as 'direct action', voting down attempts to do anything vaguely confrontational and generally trying to bring everything back into their comfort zone so they can control things.

I'm not making some macho point here about NVDA being better that other things, it's just a tactic though a very useful one, and I don't doubt that a lot of SWP people are doing what they think is the best thing.

I just think the routinism, lack of imagination and delusional fantasies about their own importance displayed by the STWC/SWP's leadership goes a long way to understanding why 'the left' in this country is so disconnected from people. But of course they'd deny that too...

 

[october_lost]

The only logic I can see behind the ghastly diaster that was the STWC is that it was a platform to launch some the SWP leadership into the mainstream and develop a party/front off it.

 

[emanymton]

could you just expand on this opinion. Do you mean members of the leadership as individuals held opinions which were negative towards actions organised by people/groups they didn't like? Or do you mean as party policy? If it was as a policy, how did this shape actions towards all the people/groups? What effect did it have?

I have come across many people in the SWP who have very hostile attitude towards some groups/individuals, usually through historic bitter experiences, but as an organisation they have always argued against sectarianism. Preferring to take the road, "if we can work together, then let's just ignore each other".

I think you are right in that it was not official party policy, but those members with hostile attitudes often seemed to include CC members, district organisers and other leading members which had an impact on the amount of support given to actions called be the hostile groups and people. As you say though it tended to be do nothing to help them and discourage our members from getting involved rather than any actual harbourage.

 

[emanymton]

I should add that it comes the other way as well, and is in my experience often worse. I have for example encountered self described anarchists who have called me a fascist and defaced SWP posters with swastikas, while a friend of mine once saw someone (who again probably called themselves an anarchist) threatening to bottle people doing a paper sale at an ant-war demo. None of which would be considered reasonable behaviour by anyone in the SWP when directed towards other people in the ant-war movement.

 

[october_lost]

What could possible get people so wound about the SWP as to threaten them emanymton*




*No Im not condoning violence

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think you are right in that it was not official party policy, but those members with hostile attitudes often seemed to include CC members, district organisers and other leading members which had an impact on the amount of support given to actions called be the hostile groups and people. As you say though it tended to be do nothing to help them and discourage our members from getting involved rather than any actual harbourage.

I should add that it comes the other way as well, and is in my experience often worse. I have for example encountered self described anarchists who have called me a fascist and defaced SWP posters with swastikas, while a friend of mine once saw someone (who again probably called themselves an anarchist) threatening to bottle people doing a paper sale at an ant-war demo. None of which would be considered reasonable behaviour by anyone in the SWP when directed towards other people in the ant-war movement.

FUCKING SPOT ON
have had my own experiences. And it is what really pisses me off about the arrogant ignorant fuckers who used to post on here. Everything they accuse the SWP off, they do themselves with spades.

Coming back to your original point yes individuals do do it, and they are wrong IS THE PARTY LINE. That puts some kind of perspective on it, especially when you put in comparison to the excuses of October_lost. They are never honest enough, in my experience on here, to openly criticise their own when they try to suggest SWP is the enemy. I don't expect them to agree with us. I don't expect them to kowtow, I don't expect them not to fight for the strategies that they believe in. What I do expect adult left politicals to do, is NOT treat other leftists as the enemy. This isn't politics, it is complete childish rubbish.

 

[october_lost]

'Our own'. Sorry mate, just cos some knob calls himself an Anarchist doesnt mean I have to apologise for his/her antics. Parties on the other hand are supposed to be disciplined vanguards of the opressed, if theyre members behave a particular way, in some small part it relates to their organisation chooses to orchestrate events. If someone in my organisation behaved like mentioned, I would be having words

 

[TremulousTetra]

'Our own'. Sorry mate, just cos some knob calls himself an Anarchist doesnt mean I have to apologise for his/her antics. Parties on the other hand are supposed to be disciplined vanguards of the opressed, if theyre members behave a particular way, in some small part it relates to their organisation chooses to orchestrate events. If someone in my organisation behaved like mentioned, I would be having words

Cop out, and you know it. You're not so shy when it comes to telling SW members what they should and shouldn't do.

 

[Zeppo]

I have nothing against the SWP myself but do not agree with everything they say or do. The trouble with all left type organisations in particular those who think they are the vanguard. Is that this sort of elitism breeds the sectarianism of "we are the ones who know best everyone else sucks". Meanwhile the rest of us get on with our lives - exploited and messed over by captialism.

The left needs to learn a little humility maybe then it can grow.