If you dont like marxism dont go, thousands have chosen to go and if you dont like it dont go. Surely you have better things to do like getting people to go to genoa like we have been doing for weeks. I'm an anti-capitalist and i'm in the SWP. I'm not going to let anyone tell me I cant be part of protests because i'm in the SWP.

Really all this sectarianism is pittyful

see you in genoa!!!!!!!!!

"If you dont like marxism dont go, thousands have chosen to go and if you dont like it
dont go."

So, you are encouraging people *not* to go to Marxism and get involved in the "debate"?
How interesting... Perhaps because if they did go, they soon would realise that the
SWP do not have real debates. For example, at the "Marxism and Anarchism" debate
Pat Stack distorted anarchism for 40+ minutes. You are limited to a 3 minute reply.
How the *hell* are you expected to reply to 40+ minutes of distortions in 3 minutes?
You cannot, simple as that -- some "debate"

"Surely you have better things to do like getting people to go to genoa like
we have been doing for weeks."

yes, I must not tell other people of my experiences at marxism 2001, nor discuss
politics and (most definitely) not do so with humour... That will push forward the
debate, comrade, eh?

and don't you have better things to do than showing you have no sense of
humour -- after all, that was a whole 10 minutes you wasted when you could
have been getting people to go to genoa (and selling the paper). Don't you
realise that is 10 minutes more that capitalism will continue? I hope you
feel guilty!

"I'm an anti-capitalist and i'm in the SWP. I'm not going to let anyone tell me I
cant be part of protests because i'm in the SWP."

and where did I say that the SWP should not be part of the protests? Rather I
attempted to show the limitations of Leninism and reflect my own experiences
at Marxism 2001 by humour. I'm sorry, the revolution is a serious business
and I should not make fun of the afflicted.

"Really all this sectarianism is pittyful"

what sectarianism? Can others not critique the ideas and actions of the SWP and
the Bolsheviks? It seems funny that an SWP member can argue this after their
paper and journal produced two of the most inaccurate and distorted accounts
of anarchism I have seen in a long time. But I forgot, when the SWP attack
anarchism, then it is "debating the issues" but when anarchists reply to those
attacks and discuss why they oppose Bolshevism, then that is "sectarian."

Double standards or double think?

thanks for replying comrade, your lack of humour definitely proved my point

"my dogma had no nose. How does it smell? Terrible"

The last time I had a similar such argument with a swappy I was accused of sectarianism. Is this the same person or 2 people repeating the party line?

He pretty much said he'd only be involved in the group organising for Genoa if he could promote the SWP. Says it all really...

don't you think anarcho sarcasm is getting a little stale comrades? I mean, fuck me , law of diminishing returns.

Also if the AF produces leaflets slagging off the WDM and Drop the Debt how does that help build non sectarian unity on the streets of Genoa

still hope to see you there though

"don't you think anarcho sarcasm is getting a little stale comrades? I mean, fuck me , law of diminishing returns."

No -- how can Monty Python be stale? They rock and will
always do!

"Also if the AF produces leaflets slagging off the WDM
and Drop the Debt how does that help build non sectarian
unity on the streets of Genoa"

given that Marxism 2001 had two meetings on anarchism,
one of which was absolutely terrible in its distortions
and lies about anarchism (namely Pat Stacks), I cannot
help thinking that this comment is a joke. Yes, comrades,
the SWP can attack anarchist ideas and history, but if
anarchists dare discuss *their* ideas and history, then
we are being "sectarian." Unity, comrades, means not
questioning the SWP's politics!

This quote by Kropotkin springs to mind:

"basically the words 'Let us not discuss these
theoretical questions' come down to this: -- Do
not discuss *our* theory, but help us put it into
effect."

so the SWP's policies is now "don't talk politics"?
surely not! and where did I ever say that the SWP
(or anyone else, for that matter) should not turn
up to demos?

"still hope to see you there though"

but please, please, please, don't talk about our ideas,
pretty please?

yeah, this is hilarious. lighten up trots, if you can't have fun in the revolution i don't want to be part of it. you should be able to laugh at yourselves, anarchists do quite frequently. anyway, it's always good to criticise different views, it stops things going stale and stops certain groups taking over.

as to criticising drop the debt, why not, they're reformist? just because someone is anti-capitalist doesn't necessarily make them on the same side as others. some fascists are anti-capitalists, but i hope no one considers them on our side.

anyway, incase you haven't seen it, here is the address of the rather amusing AF's spoof of the Globalise Resistance thingy:  http://burn.ucsd.edu/~acf/desist.pdf

1. More fool you Anarcho if you actually took the time to go to Marxism (a distorted form of Marxism, I might add)

2. Monty Python *sounds* much funnier than it looks written down

3. You both seem to have brains infested with ideology and, therefore, feel the need to bang on about comletely irrelevant crap which doesn't actually prove valuable to the *movement*

Both of you, GET OUT OF THE 19th CENTURY!

(PS. This is supposed to be constructive critism, so i want you two to kiss and make up.......Go on.....it wont hurt......promise....

That "desist" thing is fucking funny as fuck!!!!

I am actually going on the Globalise Resistance train, and I hope to be distributing it!! (if i can afford the copies!)

Cheers you lovely bunch of paving-stone throwing Anarchists, you've come up trumps again!

"1. More fool you Anarcho if you actually took the time to go to Marxism (a distorted
form of Marxism, I might add) "

actually, it had its moments (for me anyway). It also resulted in this little sketch which
has brought some joy to many, many people across the world (and hopefully more
will join them as it gets sent around the world).

so, more fool you, for not seeing the humour in all this!

"2. Monty Python *sounds* much funnier than it looks written down"

yes, but hopefully people reading it will use their imagination and impose the
new worlds on their memories of the sketch. I will, of course, happily admit
that if you haven't seen the Dead Parrot Sketch, all this may be lost on you,
but sod it!

"3. You both seem to have brains infested with ideology and, therefore, feel the need
to bang on about comletely irrelevant crap which doesn't actually prove valuable to
the *movement*"

talking of the *movement*, it would seem somewhat strange if it failed to look at
and analyse history and learn some lessons. Mindless activitism anyone? Also,
of course, as the SWP are seeking to join (and ultimately control) the *movement*
perhaps it would like to know what their ideological forefathers did when they got
into power? No, surely not, surely the *movement* will just switch its brains off
and not bother thinking about such a trival thing as *history* when it is trying to
move forward? What is more valuable to the *movement* -- unquestioning
acceptance of Bolshevism or an analysis of what it did when it had the chance?

And, no, I'm not being "sectarian" as I am *not* arguing that the SWP is not welcome.
I'm just arguing that we should be aware of where the SWP (and those like it) are
coming from. And is it "completely irrelevant crap" when the SWP want to transform
the *movement* into an organisational mirror image of itself (as one pissed-off
SWPer said was their stated goal)?

"Both of you, GET OUT OF THE 19th CENTURY!"

actually, Bolshevism was a 20th century development, as were all the examples
I raised. And I'm sorry, but since when did looking forward mean we have to
ignore the past?

" (PS. This is supposed to be constructive critism, so i want you two to kiss and
make up.......Go on.....it wont hurt......promise...."

depends if its a Glasgow kiss or not :)

For a more serious analysis of my experiences at marxism 2001 visit www.ainfos.ca
I'll probably be posting my comments on uk.indymedia tonight, cause I think the
*movement* would benefit from learning how the SWP debate and organise --
plus their plans for the *movement.*

If we act like we are all one big happy family then we will wake up to discover
that the SWP is our Big Brother.

Thanks for your comments (Kropotkin wrote most of his stuff in the 19th century, although I agree that the principal stages of Bolshvism were 1903-1905 [shit, 3 years out!]- sorry for my historical inaccuracies!)
I am fully aware of the methods of the SWP and of their dogmatic ways (as I think most people are) but I tend to think they are irelevant (as I think most people do) and banging on about them is hardly going to be productive. Bolshevism has not been prominent in the majority of social upheavals throughout the course of the 20th century and I dont believe the 21st century will hold any glory for them.

You must have a lot of time on your hands Anarcho......perhaps you are a full time employee of the Anarchist Federation! :)

Read Iain McKay's account of Marxism 2001 below. It's a bit rich to hear the SWP accusing anarchists of being sectarian when they're the ones trying to impose their party leadership over this decentralised movement!

Dont you just love ideology. mmmmmmmm...ideology.

(ps. If your going to critise an ideology, do it dialectically from the standpint of the "everyday" rather than criticisisng it with another ideology. You just go round in circles. IDEOLOGY IS DEAD - LONG LIVE DIALECTICS)

I find it very intersting that the SWP call their event "Marxism" as I feel that Marx, more than anyone (OK maybe not anyone), realised that the State was actually a an articficial body that represented a society that was separated and alienated. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" means dicatorship be the WHOLE of the proletariat i.e. THE COUNCILS. Marx never mentioned the role of the party, let alone the centralised beauraucracy that is the SWP. This is not just an argument between anarchists and "Marxists", but an argument between psuedo-Marxists (SWP) and Marxists (in the Council Communist tradition).

The unfortunate thing about this whole debate is how elitist we ALL sound

PEACE

I've been in the SWP for thirty years, on and off, and your parody of democratic centralism is, er, mildly amusing, but incorrect. Also, your (incorrect)listing of historical events lacks any analysis of the traumatic events surrounding them.
The simple fact remains that while the ruling class is organised and with armed forces at its disposal, a revolutionary situation will require similar organisation from us. If we fail to take on the state, it will wipe us out.
Anarchy is not a good blueprint for this, principally because of the petty sectarianism that is, in fact, its raison d'etre.
And I don't believe you were at Marxism at all, or you would have found far more inspiring things to write about.

I whole heartedly agree that the proletariat has to be organised to take on the capitalist class. What confuses me is the rather patronising idea that this organisation can only come with a revolutionary party. What hope is there for the future "communist" society if the workers have to be "lead" by a band of "professional revolutionaries", as I've heard the SWP call themselves?

Revolution can only occur when the class consciousness is obtained by the WHOLE proletariat. Only by making the proletariat - and sub-proletariat (notice that I am not focussing solely on workers, but those who choose not to work in the capitalist system, squatters, etc. [an area ingnored by SWP and many anarchists, I feel])- the agents of social change (not the party) can a truly non-hierarchical communistic society come about. In a revolutionary situation, each industry and community should be organized, LOCALLY, allowing for a more democratic way of operating the means of production. Production should also meet LOCAL needs so as to lessen the environemental damage caused by excessive use of transport. This is a world away from the idea of having a strong, centralised state.

As far as "democratic cenralism" is concerned read (or re-read) Gramsci's "The Modern Price" section "On Bureaucracy" and then think to yourself whether the SWP is an example of "bureaucratic centralism" which "indicates that the leading group is saturated, that it is turning into a narrow clique which tends to perpetuate its selfish privileges by controlling or even by stifling the birth of oppositional forces — even if these forces are homogeneous with the fundamental dominant interests".

N.B. Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't the Central Commitee of the SWP stayed almost the same for at least the past 15 years? Thats democracy in action!

PEACE

I was lucky (or unlucky) enough to go to SWP Conference a few years ago (dont ask) and I was amazed when they were electing the central commitee. They used a "list" system, so basically the "bureacracy" already knew who they wanted as their central commitee, and they put this to the conference. This wasn't what amazed me (pretty common practice for Party elections), what amazed me was what happened when it came to voting. I noticed one of the delegates refusing to vote for a particular member on the list, fair enough. However, all I heard was people around him mumbling "why hasnt he voted" and "has he got any better ideas". Some people genuinely had a problem with this bloke not voting. I know that it is unfair to suggest that this represents SWP as a whole, but it was a bit disturbing.

Anyway, that was quite a boring aside. Sorry about that!