butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It's just a flat out lie mate. Look at the RESPECT figures. We've done all this on here, and from internal docs. 7000 is a joke. 1800 is more like it.
BBC documentary: SWP has 7,000 members
- Thread starter Squatticus
- Start date
no you've got to divide it the number of universities!!
.. so c70 unis .. so100 in each?? is that possible?? ..unlikely .. butchers i right is reckonPrince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
Why doesn't Alex Callinicos stand for election where there are lots of working class workers?
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
Still thinks that the idea of "Left List Lovelies" would work a treat with Daily Star readers.
lewislewis
Lumumba Cymru
Not as many members as Plaid Cymru!
JHE
.
In the rather friendly R4 documentary, the Social Workers' membership was presented as having grown bit by bit, stage by stage, to the claimed 7,000 now. No decline was mentioned.
Here's a more accurate history of it:
In the early/mid 70s the IS (as the Social Workers were then known) was reckoned to have 4,000 members. Though the total fell and rose and fell after that, for many years anyone who asked was fobbed off with a rough estimate of 4,000 members. That was the line in the 80s: about 4,000 members.
In the early 90s, at the time of popular campaigns against pit closures, the Social Workers were dishing out membership cards to anyone within shouting distance. It had always been very easy to join the Social Workers, even with a low level of agreement with Social Worker doctrine, indeed even with very little idea of what the group was, what it believes and what it is trying to do, but in the early 90s the dishing out of cards became more frantic.
The Social Workers reached 10,000 members, or so they claimed excitedly to anyone who would listen.
That then became the new tide mark below which the Social Workers did not wish to admit having fallen even though it was pretty clear that they no longer had 10,000.
In recent years they have been forced to concede some decline, but don't want to admit they've shrunk a lot.
Mark Steel's article before the Social Workers' last annual conference gives a reasonable account of the decline and the daft pretence that everything's hunky dory.
But don't forget, boys and girls: "There's never been a better time to be a socialist!"
Here's a more accurate history of it:
In the early/mid 70s the IS (as the Social Workers were then known) was reckoned to have 4,000 members. Though the total fell and rose and fell after that, for many years anyone who asked was fobbed off with a rough estimate of 4,000 members. That was the line in the 80s: about 4,000 members.
In the early 90s, at the time of popular campaigns against pit closures, the Social Workers were dishing out membership cards to anyone within shouting distance. It had always been very easy to join the Social Workers, even with a low level of agreement with Social Worker doctrine, indeed even with very little idea of what the group was, what it believes and what it is trying to do, but in the early 90s the dishing out of cards became more frantic.
The Social Workers reached 10,000 members, or so they claimed excitedly to anyone who would listen.
That then became the new tide mark below which the Social Workers did not wish to admit having fallen even though it was pretty clear that they no longer had 10,000.
In recent years they have been forced to concede some decline, but don't want to admit they've shrunk a lot.
Mark Steel's article before the Social Workers' last annual conference gives a reasonable account of the decline and the daft pretence that everything's hunky dory.
But don't forget, boys and girls: "There's never been a better time to be a socialist!"
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I think it's fairly unlikely that the SWP have 7,000 members of any sort, active or inactive, unless they are hidden under a rock somewhere. Their claim for the total paid sale of Socialist Worker is about that that and that includes all of the papers sold on paper rounds, stalls and demonstrations. Unless they have a few thousand of these members in stasis somewhere, ready to be rolled out as shock troops come the revolution.
That said, you have to remember that different organisations have different membership criteria. The SSP used to claim 2,500 members at its peak. It never had anything like 2,500 people who were activists in any sense but the claim wasn't a lie - an SSP member was anyone who signed a form and bunged them a few quid. I'd be quite willing to believe that the SWP has a few thousand members on that basis. Now the SWP supposedly does have activist criteria for membership, and on that scale well the figure is probably something like the numbers Butchersapron is throwing about. 2,000 or so people who are active in some sense, pay their subs, go to the odd branch meeting and so on sounds reasonable to me as a guess at the upper range.
More than that just doesn't fit with the visible evidence of numbers in different cities, the paper sales, or anything else.
Mind you, I don't think it's too bad to have held together that number of activists, an an associated periphery, over the last period. Everybody on the left has had a bad time of it over the last twenty years. The CPGB died, as for all intents and purposes did the WRP, as did a bundle of smaller groups. The Socialist Party is clearly smaller than Militant once was. The Labour left went from a movement of tens of thousands to a bewildered rump. This last collapse is perhaps the most spectacular - the LRC and the Campaign Group, the two last surviving bastions of the Labour left can get a couple of hundred people to a conference. The Labour left's attempt at a youth group mustered the kind of numbers that Workers Power or the AWL would be just about satisfied with for their youth fronts.
That said, you have to remember that different organisations have different membership criteria. The SSP used to claim 2,500 members at its peak. It never had anything like 2,500 people who were activists in any sense but the claim wasn't a lie - an SSP member was anyone who signed a form and bunged them a few quid. I'd be quite willing to believe that the SWP has a few thousand members on that basis. Now the SWP supposedly does have activist criteria for membership, and on that scale well the figure is probably something like the numbers Butchersapron is throwing about. 2,000 or so people who are active in some sense, pay their subs, go to the odd branch meeting and so on sounds reasonable to me as a guess at the upper range.
More than that just doesn't fit with the visible evidence of numbers in different cities, the paper sales, or anything else.
Mind you, I don't think it's too bad to have held together that number of activists, an an associated periphery, over the last period. Everybody on the left has had a bad time of it over the last twenty years. The CPGB died, as for all intents and purposes did the WRP, as did a bundle of smaller groups. The Socialist Party is clearly smaller than Militant once was. The Labour left went from a movement of tens of thousands to a bewildered rump. This last collapse is perhaps the most spectacular - the LRC and the Campaign Group, the two last surviving bastions of the Labour left can get a couple of hundred people to a conference. The Labour left's attempt at a youth group mustered the kind of numbers that Workers Power or the AWL would be just about satisfied with for their youth fronts.
Spion
I hear ya
I've no more evidence than anyone here. But it's not beyond the realms of possibility, given the numbers of passive people who are older and just take a few papers. Those actually active would be a minority of that, but even then the bar for SWP membership in terms of activity isn't high is it? Their membership figures never did mean much because of that, and the regular churn
Is there a way of getting solid information on paper sales figures?
It never ceases to amaze me how many people who claim to despise the SWP are nevertheless obsessed with the minutie of its internal structures.
Probably calculated in a similar way, and about as relevant to the price of fish, tbh.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
lewislewis
Lumumba Cymru
If what people are saying about the SWP's membership figures is true then the party has less members than Plaid's entire trade union section (obviously only people in Wales are usually members). It is striking that any political party now has difficulty getting members especially as students seem less politicised than they would have a few decades ago (sweeping generalisation here).
But, it's possible to think that if the economy globally is going to slump in the next few years there may be an upsurge in the politicisation of people, and certainly more people will be attracted to the more radical causes. Could be interesting.
But, it's possible to think that if the economy globally is going to slump in the next few years there may be an upsurge in the politicisation of people, and certainly more people will be attracted to the more radical causes. Could be interesting.
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
I think the definition of a member is what is most disputed here. If you take the SWP definition (which seems to be anyone who ever carried a placard on a demo, once donated, attended a meeting or bought a paper) then 7000 might not seem such an unreasonable figure to some. But if you take the definition of a member as someone who is regularly active and does party work on a consistent basis then I, at best, have enormous difficulty in swallowing a figure of 7000 active members.
After all, it is, believe it or not, harder to get into the French Foreign Legion than the SWP.
The Greens (GPEW) claimed 7,019 in their last accounts return.
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
Being both a former member of the Greens and the SWP, I have much less trouble believing this than I do the SWP's claim. Of course, the same caveat about activity being a part of proper membership still applies, but in my experience the Greens tend to run things with a much greater honesty, accountability and internal democracy than the SWP Central Committee choose to run the SWP.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
This illustrates the point I made above about definitions of membership. I'm sure that the Green Party figure is broadly reflective of the number of people who have signed something and bunged them a tenner at some point. The Greens aren't lying when they say that they have 7,000 members, it's just that Green membership doesn't mean anything.
In terms of actual activists - that is people who actually go to the odd branch meeting, engage with the structures of the party and take part in external activity even on a sporadic basis - I have little doubt that the Greens are smaller than the SWP. And considerably smaller at that.
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
I'm sure Matt S could clear this one up for us in record time, although I doubt that the Greens are considerably smaller than the SWP and, even if they are, they certainly seem to have considerably greater influence.
But do they? In Birmingham they stand in every ward, every year, get barely modest results and seem pretty much irrelevant to political life. I'm told that where they have councillors they immediately get sucked into the minutiae of local services, and are indistinguishable from honest lib-dems. They are obviouslu part of a wider environmental consciousness, but I don't think the Greens created that.
If you compare that to the SWP's modest influence in the NUT and Unison in some localities I think you could make a case for the SWP making more of a difference to events.
Ok they do have MEP's. There is that...
(puts on flack jacket).
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Tory/swp it's all the same.
You'd do yourself a favour to get out of brum now and again.
You'd do yourself a favour to get out of brum now and again.
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
Exactly, they have MEP's and quite a few councillors and, as such, have a greater political influence than the SWP have or are likely to have, at least for the foreseeable future. Also, the Greens don't make any pretence at being hardline revolutionaries or Marxists or whatever, they are basically environmentally conscious liberals, so being similar to the lib dems is hardly damning. And councillors are supposed to be involved in the provision of local services last time I checked.
Regarding a wider environmental consciousness, didn't RESPECT savage the Greens when their offer of an electoral pact and joint slates was refused, despite the fact that it would have been illegal under electoral law and against Green Party policy? I was a member of the Greens at the time and I seem to recall there being quite a bitter falling out between the two groups over that.
There's also the issue of comparative influence to be considered. The Greens seem to have a far greater influence in the mainstream in terms of Green ideas and mainstream electoral politics with MEP's and councillors elected across the country. What does the SWP have? Basically a few RESPECT councillors, no MEP's and now no MP, and with little prospect of even getting many councillors elected come the elections in May.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I think you are missing the point a bit here. What I was saying is that comparative size is very much dependent on what precisely you are measuring.
In terms of actual party activists (defined in my last post) it is an absolute certainty that the SWP have more of these and considerably more than the Greens do. At the other extreme, if you are comparing the number of people willing to tick Green as opposed to SWP in some election ballot, the Greens would clearly have a much greater support.
If you are measuring "members" in terms of the number of people who signed something once and bunged them a tenner, then both parties make similar claims (the Greens claim, what? three hundred more?). I'm willing to accept that the Greens have less form for lying about stuff like this, so they probably do have more. But this is an almost entirely meaningless measure. It doesn't measure activist numbers (where the SWP are clearly larger) and it doesn't measure passive support (where the Greens are clearly larger). It doesn't measure anything of interest at all.
To use some other examples, the Communist Party of Britain claims to have 800 or 900 members. This may even be true if you remember that nearly all of these people are pensioners who bung them a tenner, take a card and do nothing else. In terms of actual activist numbers or votes - ie numbers that actually indicate something - they have practically nothing.
If you measure political influence in terms of elected representatives, then clearly its no contest.
But the first thing I'd say is that the relatively large number of Green councillors and 2 MEP's haven't made any big difference to politics that I've noticed (though I'm prepred to be convinced otherwise).
The second thing is that political influence isn't just measured in elected representatives. My union mag is full of pictures and quotes from ppl I know are SWP, speaking at the last conference in support of strike action. I know of other SWP members involved in a certain key local govt dispute, who have reached the point where they're thinking about how they'll organise if/when the bosses try to victimise them.
The Greens, by contrast, seem to me to be tailing social change, not making it.
I don't know about Respect 'savaging' the Greens. An offer was made, it was turned down, there were a few sharp words but if that has caused deep scars then the Greens must be a fairly thin-skinned bunch. And electoral pacts aren't against electoral law.
My central point is this. I know the SWP have made a modest difference in union struggles, and have helped bring us to the point where April 24th is gonna be a big day. I don't know of any comparable stuff done by Greens except in electoral terms. As they've got 2 MEP's and 100 councillors I'm prob wrong. But I can't see it.
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
IIRC, and I think I do, the RESPECT leadership (the SWP CC) tried to make significant capital out of the refusal of the Greens to enter into an electoral pact. And, while electoral pacts in and of themselves aren't against electoral law, this one would have been because RESPECT were not registered with the Electoral Commission as a political party at the time the offer was made. Hence, such a pact at the time would have been a breach of electoral law.
I'd also make the point that joint slates are against Green Party rules, at least they were when I was a member anyway, so even if the pact had been legal it would have been ruled unconstitutional.
I can believe that the RESPECT leadership (the SWP CC) were not aware of this.
So the Greens, if they were so minded, would have had to change their rules, and wait a bit for Respect to get registered, which it duly was. Hardly grand larceny.
Anyway I'm off for a curry cos that's what we do in Brum. If you can convince me the Greens have made a big difference I'll be pleased - global warming scares the shit out of me. I'll look back later.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Nearly all pensioners?
Those with good health are more active than you think Nigel.
I'm not a pensioner and nor am I am a card carrying member of the CPB.
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
But what have the SWP done with all these members? If they do have 'considerably more' members than the Greens then the Greens seem to have achieved considerably more with considerably less.
Not a ringing endorsement of the leadership of the SWP, by any standard.
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
I'd argue that the Greens, especially as a part of the wider Green movement, have made a considerably greater difference than the SWP and, if Nigel Irritable is correct, done so with considerably smaller numbers and probably smaller resources.
Regarding the electoral pact, the fact that the Greens were neither prepared to change their constitution (and why should they?) or wait for RESPECT to be elected may suggest that they viewed the prospect of being in cahoots with the SWP CC with a certain dislike. If so, why would that be, I wonder?
And, there's something else to consider. If the SWP CC were unaware of a fairly basic rule of electoral law, why are they considered fit to lead a party? ANd, worse, if they were aware of the law and of Green Party policy on joint slates, this makes their vilification of the Green Party for refusing a joint slate and electoral pact all the more cynical and does them no favours.
Spion
I hear ya
I reckon the next 10 could be pretty 'interesting'.If the last stinking 10 reactionary years has been the best time to be a socialist, I'd hate to see what their idea of a bad time to be one would be.
Already we've got:
* Strikes and protests across the world as commodity prices rocket.
* An increase in strikes in Europe as the credit crunch slows down economic activity (combined with the above price rises).
* The first tremors prefiguring inter-great power rivalry and possible war as the US/the west starts to feel the pinch from China wanting geopolitical power more in line with its economic weight
All hold their dangers, but also opportunities for opponents of capitalism to make their case why this system is inherently unjust and murderous
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
In response to Fisher's jibe on Lancashire membership numbers, Preston alone has around 140 members. Lancashire as a whole is easily double that.
Number that pay subs? I don't know - probably half. Active members? Less, but we've recently mobilised alot of dormant activists in East Lancs and Wigan (where things are very vibrant atm).
Number that pay subs? I don't know - probably half. Active members? Less, but we've recently mobilised alot of dormant activists in East Lancs and Wigan (where things are very vibrant atm).
chilango
Ha! Ha! Armageddon
As a card carrying (though we don't have cards
) armchair GPEW member and ex card carrying (we did have cards) SWP activist member I'd like to make 2 points...1) Its really nice to be in a Party where you can be an armchair member choosing when/where to be active and not be harrangued by the self made martyrs
2) I reckon my armchair membership of the GPEW has had as much impact as my hyper activism in the SWP (i.e. not that much).
