BBC documentary: SWP has 7,000 members

[Nigel Irritable]

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.

Far be it from me to defend the SWP (!), but I think that you are wrong about this. Here are some of their achievements:

1) They were the prime movers in the ANL Mk1. Now the importance of the ANL as opposed to other factors in the defeat of the NF is often exaggerated, but it was a significant factor.

2) They provided much of the organisational backbone and (for both good and ill) the political leadership of the Stop the War Coalition. The StWC did not of course stop the war but it was one of the biggest protest movements Britain has seen.

3) They have made basic arguments for socialism and Marxism to large numbers of people and provided some political education along those lines for a smaller but still substantial number of people.

4) They were the organisational backbone of Respect, a small party they initiated and which (unlike the Greens) actually managed to get someone elected to Westminster.

5) They played a (very much secondary but not insignificant) role in building the Anti-Poll Tax movement, after they got over their foolish initial position,

6) They have provided a lot of support for various strikers over the years.

7) They have been a consistent (if sometimes poorly judged) voice for more militant action within the unions for a considerable period of time.

These are real achievements, whether or not you or I like them. They are all things which have mattered to some degree and none of them are things which the Greens managed. SWP members will typically overstate their contribution on these issues and will tend to ignore the also very significant mistakes which their organisation has made, but to be fair the above list isn't trivial.

The Green Party also has some achievements we could list (although it is important not to credit the successes of the wider environmental movement to the party itself), but they are different things. Primarily they would consist of making a contribution to popularising environmental ideas and of building a small but substantial electoral base.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

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).

So you are saying that there are 300 or so "members" in Lancashire. But maybe 150 who pay a sub. And then, what, maybe 75 who are active in some sense?

Taking this at face value (and I'm sure Fisher Gate will weigh in with his observations about what's actually visible on the ground), in what sense are 150 of those people "members"? These are people that by your own description don't pay subs, don't go to party meetings and don't carry out party activity.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

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).

280+ SWP members in Lancashire? Pull the other one! And I meant current Lancashire, not Palatine (look up what that means if you're not sure ...)

 

[durruti02]

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?

there should be .. all paper money ( i may be out of date) used to go back to the branch treasurer and i presume would have been logged and passed up to BbyB .. it would be incredible ( but believable ) if the swp did not analyse their paper sales trends and all .. however people i know used to throw most of their papers in the paladin and make out they had given papers away to people who couldn't afford or at a solidarity price!and even make up some of the money themselves! There was one estate in london i knew well (now long demolished) that the paladins overflowed with dumped SWs every sunday night

 

[Das Uberdog]

I have the membership lists. You gotta remember Preston, Lancaster, Wigan, Blackburn, Burnley, Bolton + others come into that remit.

In response to Nigel; they're not all members in the sense I'd wish them to be, but they pay subs and subscribe to the paper at least.

In terms of further activity I'm not clued in on anything other than Preston (where imho internal party organisation is worse than most places) but we have around 20+ people who you see around (in an activist sense) and a hardcore of around 6-7.

tbh, it's not bad going for the current state of the left.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I have the membership lists. You gotta remember Preston, Lancaster, Wigan, Blackburn, Burnley, Bolton + others come into that remit.

In response to Nigel; they're not all members in the sense I'd wish them to be, but they pay subs and subscribe to the paper at least.

In terms of further activity I'm not clued in on anything other than Preston (where imho internal party organisation is worse than most places) but we have around 20+ people who you see around (in an activist sense) and a hardcore of around 6-7.

tbh, it's not bad going for the current state of the left.

Wigan and Bolton are not in Lancashire - they are in Greater Manchester, which has a population double that of Lancashire.

20+ members of the SWP in Preston? 6-7 is certainly more accurate.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

In response to Nigel; they're not all members in the sense I'd wish them to be, but they pay subs and subscribe to the paper at least.

You are talking here I presume of the half of the official "membership" tally locally that you say above pay a sub?

In terms of further activity I'm not clued in on anything other than Preston (where imho internal party organisation is worse than most places) but we have around 20+ people who you see around (in an activist sense) and a hardcore of around 6-7.

tbh, it's not bad going for the current state of the left.

No 20 odd people who are active in some sense isn't bad at all by the standards of the left at the moment. I've said above that in general, I don't think an organisation which has held together 2,000 (at the upper range) activists over the last period has done badly in membership terms, when you compare that to the problems everyone else has had. In particular I think a lot of the people who sneer at the SWP's size would do well to remember that no class struggle anarchist group has had more than seventy or so activists in decades, that the Labour left gets similar numbers to its youth organisation conferences that grouplets like Workers Power or AWL manage etc etc. Mote in one's own eye and all that.

But it would be terrible if you actually believed, as the SWP purports to believe, that the present period is the best time ever to be a socialist or that we are in a period akin to the 1930s in slow motion (but speeding up), wouldn't it?

And, it's fairly revealing that by your, presumably accurate, account, the SWP has 20 plus people who are in some sense activists in Preston, or maybe 70 who pay some kind of sub, yet claim to have 140 "members". So we have 115 or 120 "members" who don't go to meetings and don't take part in activity. Of that numbers, 70 don't even pay a sub. I really don't understand what purpose, other than deluding yourselves and others, claiming these people as members actually serves.

We both know that by the standards of the Bolsheviks (active under the direction of the relevant party bodies) the SWP in Preston, assuming your assessment is accurate, have 20 odd members and not 140. But we don't have to go back to beardy forefather wisdom to come to that conclusion. Wouldn't it simply be more useful for you yourselves to know that you have 20 odd activists, plus an associated periphery of supportive people some of whom donate money regularly? I mean you know that and the other members in Preston know that already. But in so far as members anywhere else are told anything, it's that you have 140 "members". That can only breed cynicism in your own ranks when people put two and two together and realise that they only ever encounter the same twenty odd people at regional or national events.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

The Green Party voted down a resolution to their 2001 conference linking British foreign policy to the 9.11 attacks, and this is the crap they were coming out with about pulling the troops out of Iraq:

"Respect's position is that troops should immediately be withdrawn and Iraq left to its fate. Fitz-Gibbon comments: "This is a disgraceful, callous attitude because we know Iraq would dissolve into civil war."

From press release: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/1457

Here are some recent quotes from a leading Green:

"Chris Rose, the party’s national election agent, who points out that ‘many Green Party members wouldn’t like to describe themselves as left. If we positioned ourselves as explicitly left it would be dangerous, with no guarantee of success. We need to keep our reputation on the environment.’"

"London Assembly member Darren Johnson, who is not on the left of the party, takes a different view: ‘I’m not a socialist but I feel comfortable about being on the progressive left. Not the far left – we never will be. But we’re the serious party of the left and a potential power broker working with centre left parties, like the SNP in Scotland and Labour in some areas.’" Does this not remind you of the kind of stuff New Labour was coming out with in '97?

Chris Rose again on the Green Party/Tory Coalition in Leeds:

" ‘We say none of the mainstream parties are worth anything. So, if the situation demands it, it doesn’t really matter which one we work with, just what the outcome is. We can’t sit on the sidelines forever.’ "

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article1168.html

I mean why join the Green Party? They give the environmental movement a bad name by associating it with middle class lifestyle politics, and in power they act no different to the mainstream parties, they are more akin to the LibDems than New Labour

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Nigel, do you think it would be possible for the Socialist Party and SWP to work together in some sort of electoral formation?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Nigel, do you think it would be possible for the Socialist Party and SWP to work together in some sort of electoral formation?

Possible yes, but not likely under current circumstances.

Remember that the two organisations have done so before, in the English SA, the Welsh SA and the SSP and continue to so so in Solidarity. None of these have been entirely happy experiences. The SP also tried to get involved in the discussions around the formation of Respect and were essentially told to piss off.

In the context of a genuinely large new left formation arising, I think it is almost certain that the Socialist Party would join it and it is likely that the SWP would too. Absent larger forces the issue becomes much more difficult. The Socialist Party doesn't regard any alliance of the existing left as particularly important in and of itself. Instead it is interested in them in so far as it can contribute to the eventual creation of a mass workers party. The SWP, by contrast has generally seen a small alliance as something which can itself be built (through hard work, making the right strategic choices, etc) into a new mass force. This is a distinction which seems minor, but which has proven extremely difficult to get around in practice.

This is one of the political differences which was at the heart of the problem in the old SAs. The Socialist Party took the view that the alliances had to bend over backwards to accommodate groups of workers moving onto the electoral plane - eg standing aside for the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation, a federal structure to allow such groups to maintain their own identity, run their own campaigns etc. The SP doesn't think that some alliance of the left or of other small forces will be able to recruit it's way to being a mass force. Instead it should see itself as one small contribution to that task and not put it's own interests before encouraging other working class forces to take the stage.

The SWP took the view that building the alliance itself had to take priority and so they took a much less "gentle" approach to outside groups, insisting on standing against the CATP and against shop stewards candidates, insisting on a more centralised structure and so on. This difference was made very clear to me by the SWP speakers at the Socialist Party's Socialism 2000 event. Rob Hoveman and Guy Taylor argued that the SA had established itself as the conduit through which left opposition to and disenchantment with Labour would flow. This was met with total incredulity by the, largely SP, audience. Not only because the claim was at total variance with reality (which it was) but because the SP didn't think that this was even a reasonable goal.

This difference in perspective became even more clear cut with the formation of Respect. Back before the split, the SWP responded with great hostility to the idea that the RMT would stand candidates in London, because as far as they were concerned such forces should fall in behind Respect. This approach, as far as the SP is concerned, gets things entirely arse-backwards. The Socialist Party thinks that this "build the party" (meaning the new formation rather than the revolutionary party as of old) attitude is sectarian and ultimately counterproductive and I'm not sure that the two approaches can really be reconciled at the moment.

It may be that the split and the Left Lists likely poor results will result in the SWP developing some humility on these questions. If that happens, the situation may change. The current signs aren't good however - the Left List is insisting on standing a candidate against an SP councillor in Lewisham, a decision which is baffling in its petty sectarianism.

(You will note, that I've tried to be fair here, attributing the SWP's different approach to a different political conception of how an alternative will be built rather than to malice. I've decided to experiment with being charitable in this thread.)

 

[mutley]

Left list is standing in every area of London so as to get the TV broadcast. Simple as.
Is there a list of areas where the SP are standing this time May?

 

[Das Uberdog]

But it would be terrible if you actually believed, as the SWP purports to believe, that the present period is the best time ever to be a socialist or that we are in a period akin to the 1930s in slow motion (but speeding up), wouldn't it?

We both know that by the standards of the Bolsheviks (active under the direction of the relevant party bodies) the SWP in Preston, assuming your assessment is accurate, have 20 odd members and not 140. But we don't have to go back to beardy forefather wisdom to come to that conclusion. Wouldn't it simply be more useful for you yourselves to know that you have 20 odd activists, plus an associated periphery of supportive people some of whom donate money regularly?

Agree on both points; infact I raised the second at our last regional aggregate with Weyman Bennett where I put a request for someone, somewhere to update the bloody list.

lol, I got the job.

 

[imposs1904]

There's a big chunk of subs-paying inactive members.

A mate of mine bumped into what he thought was a former comrade who hasn't been seen for about 4 years. He asked why he'd left. the guy was most indignant, saying he pays his subs, and gets sent a few SW's to sell.

I thought the figure was about 6K, but was based on pple who eithe rpaid subs, or had been comunicated with and def said they still wanted to be members.

There's def less active though - as Callinicos said in the programme, a layer of those who joined around the miners strike are now in their mid forties, and are slowing down, having kids, being a bit less impatient. There is a newer layer but its not as large.

Wait up, how does that tie in with the SWP being a Leninist organisation? Sorry if this is a daft presumption, but I thought the abc of an vanguardist organisation was that members were obliged to be active on a day to day basis. None of this 'paying your subs and getting sent a few papers to pass on' type scenario.

I must have missed that bit from Tony Cliff autobiography where him and Chanie took a few years off in their mid thirties to raise the kids.

The SWP does not have a membership of 7000, active or otherwise.

 

[mutley]

Wait up, how does that tie in with the SWP being a Leninist organisation? Sorry if this is a daft presumption, but I thought the abc of an vanguardist organisation was that members were obliged to be active on a day to day basis. None of this 'paying your subs and getting sent a few papers to pass on' type scenario.

I must have missed that bit from Tony Cliff autobiography where him and Chanie took a few years off in their mid thirties to raise the kids.

The SWP does not have a membership of 7000, active or otherwise.

Weeelll.. there's leninist and leninist really. You have to work under the directive of the appropriate party body. The comrade concerned hasn't been, erm, given any directives for a while..

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Left list is standing in every area of London so as to get the TV broadcast. Simple as.

Perhaps I should have explained this more thoroughly as this was also an issue in the last London election.

Respect then were very keen to make sure that they got the election broadcast. The Socialist Party accommodated them by arranging for one of its Lewisham councillors to formally register as both a Socialist Alternative and a Respect candidate, thus allowing Respect to gain its broadcast. There was a small section on his election leaflets explaining that he was also standing for Respect so as to allow the left to have an election broadcast.

This time around, the Left List, despite being in a much weaker position than Respect was last time, has insisted on standing its own candidate against the SP.

Is there a list of areas where the SP are standing this time May?

I don't know as I haven't looked.

 

[nightbreed]

Left list is standing in every area of London so as to get the TV broadcast. Simple as.
Is there a list of areas where the SP are standing this time May?

SP candidates standing nationally inc GLA

Area Ward/Constituency Candidate
GLA elections Lewisham and Greenwich Cllr. Chris Flood
Manchester Baguley ward Lynn Worthington
Sefton Netherton and Orrell ward Peter Glover
City of Lincoln Carholme ward Nicholas Parker
Cardiff Adamsdown ward James Mapstone
Cardiff Canton ward Lianne Francis
Cardiff Pentwyn ward Stephen Williams
Swansea Castle ward Alec Thraves
Swansea Castle ward Sarah Mayo
Nuneaton / Bedworth Camp Hill ward Peter Bradley
Coventry St Michael's ward Cllr. Dave Nellist
Coventry Sherbourne ward Jason Toynbee
Coventry Whoberley ward Jim Donnolly
Stoke on Trent Burslem South ward Jane Mellalieu
Sheffield Graves Park ward Alan Munro
Wakefield Wakefield East ward Mick Griffiths
Huddersfield Crosland Moor and Netherton ward Ian Slattery (onbehalf of Huddersfield Save Our NHS)

 

[treelover]

What a waste of bandwidth, we are talking here about a shrinking party, SWP, that is unlikely to ever get .5% of the vote nationally, never mind the smaller sects, spin off, breakaways, meanwhile food prices are rising so much that people on fixed incomes are going without.,

 

[audiotech]

serves them right for expelling so many decent w/c comrades back in the 8ts and 9ts ..

The very few people (based in Manchester and Hatfield) you refer to were served SWP asbo's in the late 70's. That's it.

Your anecdotal reminiscing, of SWP baiting proportions, on this thread is about as funny as your ecological meanderings.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Weeelll.. there's leninist and leninist really. You have to work under the directive of the appropriate party body. The comrade concerned hasn't been, erm, given any directives for a while..

Weren't all SWP members given a directive in "Party Notes" to join Respect after the General Election 2005?

Given that Respect membership was only 2,000 at the last conference (2006), and given that there were clearly several hundreds of people with membership and active in Respect who were not SWP, that suggests an active membership following directives of the order of 1,000.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Perhaps I should have explained this more thoroughly as this was also an issue in the last London election.

Respect then were very keen to make sure that they got the election broadcast. The Socialist Party accommodated them by arranging for one of its Lewisham councillors to formally register as both a Socialist Alternative and a Respect candidate, thus allowing Respect to gain its broadcast. There was a small section on his election leaflets explaining that he was also standing for Respect so as to allow the left to have an election broadcast.

This time around, the Left List, despite being in a much weaker position than Respect was last time, has insisted on standing its own candidate against the SP.



I don't know as I haven't looked.

Standing against the SP is completely sectarian by the SWP. Most Renewal people support a vote for the SP councillor standing in that constituency, not the SWP's stunt of standing a student sabbatical against an effective and respected SP councillor.

 

[mutley]

Weren't all SWP members given a directive in "Party Notes" to join Respect after the General Election 2005?

Given that Respect membership was only 2,000 at the last conference (2006), and given that there were clearly several hundreds of people with membership and active in Respect who were not SWP, that suggests an active membership following directives of the order of 1,000.

Lots of people joined then didn't renew their membership. Some didn't get round to joining at all.

What on earth makes you think I give a fuck who RR think we should vote for in South London or anywhere else? Most of their leading members support Livingstone and the figleaf of RR not having a position on that is just that - a figleaf.

 

[exosculate]

I reckon 2000s, 7Ks is a big fat joke.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Lots of people joined then didn't renew their membership. Some didn't get round to joining at all.

What on earth makes you think I give a fuck who RR think we should vote for in South London or anywhere else? Most of their leading members support Livingstone and the figleaf of RR not having a position on that is just that - a figleaf.

SWP support voting for Livingstone. Even the SP do too.

 

[Vash]

They don't accept people who fill in the online membership forms because they don't want weirdos to join it.

 

[Groucho]

SWP support voting for Livingstone. Even the SP do too.

As second pref sure

 

[exosculate]

As second pref sure

Whose first pref then?

 

[Groucho]

Whose first pref then?

For SWP? Lindsey German

 

[Fisher_Gate]

As second pref sure

If no candidate has 50% of first preferences, second preference and first preference votes are added together for the top two candidates.

So the SWP support Livingstone's reelection for Mayor.

It's very much, a secondary issue which order you put candidates in.

 

[PaulOK]

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......

They have always been very coy about numbers - I asked various CC members about this in the 80's and they would never give a straight answer. Plus their criteria of who actually constitutes a "member" has always been fairly fluid. Cliff used to describe it as somebody who "takes and sells and Socialist Worker" newspaper, when I countered by saying it was a comrade who pays regular dues, regularly attends paper sales, branch meetings and activities, I was countered with, "That's a very Stalinist way of looking at things".

What they do have is an enormous turnover in membership with average membership lasting three years or so...kinda like a "revolving door scenario". Many, usually very young, people will join during a campaign or demo and when that campaign goes down to defeat they will get demoralised a leave. Some will stay but most will drift. That's why they are obessed with "Building for the next march/activity". Their peak membership was aroung 1990-91 in the aftermath of the poll tax (around 5,000). I'd guess it's around 2,500 now and the BNP would almost certainly be numerically stronger than they are. Anyway, it really doesn't matter how many members you have if the politics and strategy are weak.

 

[PaulOK]

it would be terrible if you actually believed, as the SWP purports to believe, that the present period is the best time ever to be a socialist or that we are in a period akin to the 1930s in slow motion (but speeding up), wouldn't it?.

Like their mentor Trotsky in the 30's they have always got things the wrong way around and adopted the wrong analysis at the given period. Their adoption of the downturn theory in the decade between 77 and 87 corresponded with a period when their was still a lot of combativity in the Working Class and millions of WC people still called themselves Socialists. Contrast that with the "Upturn" of the 90's through to now - a truly awful time to be a radical or progressive of any sort with society rapidly moving to the extreme Right (proved by the 200,000 or so votes in London alone that the BNP are gonna get in two weeks time).