The SWP may be a pain in the ass but I doubt they'd do something like this. Is it possible that the people who discouraged others from helping the GSF/IMC crews were undercover cops?

I'm just suggesting one theory - I have no evidence to support it because I wasn't there. Can anyone else shed some light on what went down?

I don't know if it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's at least the kernel of voracity there. Thw SWP and Globalise Resistance have a dodgy reputation, look what they did in Prague and on Mayday...

Maybe we need to start thinking about reclaiming our movement and putting forward a coherent anti-hierarchical message to stymie the SWP/Globalise Resistance 'off the shelf' ready made protest politics. We all sit around bitching about them, perhaps we should get out and do something.

Your comments DISGUST me, it may be nice for you to know that my friend and comrade was Richard, yes who was one of the beaten Britain's and his partner Nichola who is in GR, yes the one's on the front of the papers who only just escaped alive, as did many of our members who were staying in the people's house. And had to be hid in local cafe's behind shutters to escape beatings.

Other comrades were having to leave on charted buses and trains.

OK????

SATISFIED YOU PATHETIC SECTARIANS.

I think your missing the point, The most amazing thing about the protests in Genoa was that hundreds of thousands of people came together from all political background, greens, trade unionists, socialists, anti-debt campaigners etc. To talk about reclaiming your movement for some elite group is nonsense, the movement is far, far bigger and more important than to allow that. i also agree with Noel, your sad sectarian comments are not welcome when many of our friends and comrades have been and still are hurt and in danger. Don't you know who the real enemies are?

Noel, you talk about Sectarianism then what about last
weeks Socialist Worker!!!! There was a picture of
uniformed police with police dressed like activists
with masks. SW put the caption as " Police pictured
with members of the Black Bloc" . Now considering
that not everyone in society knows what the Black Bloc
is you add to the repression of Anarchists by saying that they associate with police and are police infiltrators. If a
police man is wearing a black hooded sweatshirt
HE IS STILL A POLICE MAN not a part of a Black Bloc.

@K

Noel:leaving on charted trains and buses, fucking sheep as usual

What the hell is wrong here? We've witnessed some incredible solidarity in the last few weeks and now, instead of building on that, people on both sides seem determined to destroy it. Did the SWP not permit people to go to help the GSF? I doubt it VERY much, consideirng that some of their own members were in the centre, being beaten by police. And does it matter that they leave and arrive in a group for security? Of course it fucking doesn't! Grow the fuck up already; the movement is more important than a bunch of self-important sectarian idiots; and they are present both in the SWP AND their opponents.

Unite, we're not nearly strong or big enough to split.

Matt

Matt is right. What the fuck are you speaking about?. Is the police writing in this pages to divide us?. Fuck that!. People and groups organise themselves as they want. If you don't like someone tactics don't join them, but for fuck sake don't waste your energy fighting among ourselves. Think twice speak once.

Many small people in many little places doing many little things can change the face of the world. Imaging if we join forces.

For a different world

Even if it is true it does not *mean* anything.

If it happened it may have been a mistake (in HINDSIGHT), or then again, maybe they would not have been able to do anything to help, or made things worse as the cops react 'in fear of their lives' and kill dozens of protesters.

Who the hell knows if it were the right decision or not (even if it were true), demonstrations are not a science with a right (anarchist) way and a wrong (SWP) way to go about things.

Stop baiting the SWP.

The information about the swp prevention of solidarity to the attacted indymedia and school was revealed not by anarchists or other anti authoritarian people but from over 10 people that had come to Genova with the buses that the swp have rented. They had made known this fact when we were returning from Genova with the ship in an open meeting of over 400 people and in front of the leaders of swp that they haven't denied anything. The political meaning of this fact is to clear out our illusions about the divercity of a movement that is being built through political agreement in a "high level".

anarchists from thessaloniki Greece.

The SWP/GR did motivate lots of people to get genoa and do seem to be more or less on the right side but their tactics are very dubious and I think negative for the overall cohesion, diversity and strength of the movement.

I overheard a SWP man telling a large group at the convergence centre in Genoa:
'remember we are the only group with a strategic vision for the anti-capitalist movement and we must make sure that everyone here understands that.' then his troops were sent off to gain members, and sell papers and those dumb little bandanas that swpers were all wearing.

some friends of mine came on the GR train and they arrived in the middle of town in the middle of a riot, no time to find out what was happening, who was where, even where to put down their rucksacks... not exactly a responsible way to deal with new protestors in a militarised scenario.

on the other hand I wish that non swpers could be as organised as GR in terms of public meetings etc but as long as swp/gr aim to be guiding the rest of us we have a very serious problem. at the demo outside the italian embassy on saturday newspaper sellers were like wasps and the SWP banner had pride of place at the front - i didn't blame the samba band for going to the pub tho it left the rest of us stuck with the chanters... several of my mates, long term activists included, felt very uncomfortable with the enclosed shoutyness and moved away from the demo, (which only really came alive when the swp left and the samba band came back...)
my own tactic with all trots is to try and communicate with them as individuals and persuade them that they are welcome in the movement as people, but only if they go away and dump the papers, the hierarchies and dominating tendencies, the useless shouty tactics etc and come back without their party allegiance but with their own energies freed to work as equals with others.

anyone else got proposals?

Don't the SWP always use any sniff of dissent to their own (rather peculiar) aims? Aren't they always hijacking any spontaneous worker revolt and making it look like the work of 'extremist agitators' ? I wouldn't be surprised at anything that lot got up to - they have a 'vision' after all, and what is more dangerous than that?

Just out of interest, what was your problem with the 'shouty techniques' on Saturday? It was meant to be a make as much noise as you can demo, after all!

Matt

sorry guys, but you're so ridiculous! it's always the same... if we finally managed to establish a huge anti-capitalistical movement, you can be sure that there will be a dumb reason to split it up into various groups.
i don't live in the UK, however it's the same in every country!

don't you know what SOLIDARITY means????

I agree that it is very unlikely that there is any truth in this story. whatever we might think of their ideology SWP members are motivated by the same hatred of injustice as the rest of us. provided they do not try to lead the movement they should be welcome in its ranks.

so this kind of unsubstatiated attack on a part of the movement should not be tolerated. equally the SWP should apologise (some chance!) for that bollox about the BB in the latest issue of their paper.

but if you look at this stuff closely I don't think you need to be so paranoid about the SWP being political vampires. the very fact that they use GR as a front indicates that their ideology (Trotskyism) is not relevant enough on its own. similarly have you noticed the word 'Fuck' makes it onto SWP placards these days? the only other time I've seen this happen is during the Poll Tax revolt when they (and the rest of the Trots) were left floundering because a successful popular movement was developing that wasn't based around trade union/workplace activism. instead they were outmanouvred by the libertarian left (sounding familiar?) and so attempted to make their propaganda/strategy more populist.

I personally hope ultimately all this stuff this will convince the SWP (once the remains of the Cliff-era leadership retires) that they need to think again and hopefully they will move in a more libertarian direction. The very fact that they are in the Socialist Alliance must show they are rethinking their strategy pretty fundamentally.

no to sectarianism, but yes to comradely critism

I'm a member of the SWP and it just amazes me sometimes how people spend time and energy slagging us off when we are obviously not the enemy. You know who the enemy is. So we disagree about methods of how to fight that enemy, but why does that mean you have to be so vitriolic about us. I happen to think it is a good thing that there is an organised party that can do stuff like print a newspaper and _actually get it distributed_ to trade unionists and workplaces etcetera. If I go and stand outside the local post office I can sell Socialist Worker to workers there and actually get the message accross to ordinary people that it's the bosses that are screwing us over. You tell me if that happens with Green Anarchist or something like that. I don't think it does.

I think we need an element of organisation that can help to get the whole working class involved in order to defeat capitalism, and I think a socialist party like the SWP is a good way to provide that organisation. You don't. The most offensive thing I am going to call you because of that disagreement is naive. So why the hell are you so offensive and counter productive towards us?

I agree that it is very unlikely that there is any truth in this story. whatever we might think of their ideology SWP members are motivated by the same hatred of injustice as the rest of us. provided they do not try to lead the movement they should be welcome in its ranks.

so this kind of unsubstatiated attack on a part of the movement should not be tolerated. equally the SWP should apologise (some chance!) for that bollox about the BB in the latest issue of their paper.

but if you look at this stuff closely I don't think you need to be so paranoid about the SWP being political vampires. the very fact that they use GR as a front indicates that their ideology (Trotskyism) is not relevant enough on its own. similarly have you noticed the word 'Fuck' makes it onto SWP placards these days? the only other time I've seen this happen is during the Poll Tax revolt when they (and the rest of the Trots) were left floundering because a successful popular movement was developing that wasn't based around trade union/workplace activism. instead they were outmanouvred by the libertarian left (sounding familiar?) and so attempted to make their propaganda/strategy more populist.

I personally hope ultimately all this stuff this will convince the SWP (once the remains of the Cliff-era leadership retires) that they need to think again and hopefully they will move in a more libertarian direction. The very fact that they are in the Socialist Alliance must show they are rethinking their strategy pretty fundamentally.

no to sectarianism, but yes to comradely critism

I DONT SEE ANY EVIDENCE THEY HELPED

To those who criticise the SWP for having a vision and for persuing its "peculiar aims": really, this movement will lead tot nothing at all if we don't sober up and develop a real strategy, define real aims, and clarify our 'vision'. I am not an SWP member, but I have worked with International Socialist Tendency people quite a lot and I appreciate their contribution to the struggle. The SWP is one of the few groups that have fought capitalism consistently and coherently for many years. They are not motivated by vague misgivings about the ozone layer disappearing or people not having enough to eat; they do not advocate substitute solutions like 'fair trade'; instead they have had an analysis of what is now being called globalisation all along. And they are aware of the dangers that lie ahead: the movement being claimed and consequently castrated by the social democrats, or being institutionalised in a way that makes effective democratic control of its leaders impossible, and so on.
Frankly, I am fed up with people saying that marxism is a nineteenth century ideology and therefore a bad thing. Not only is this a very meagre way of making a point, but marxism is obviously alive and kicking, it's being renewed every day through discussions amongst comrades and through experiences in the struggle. It is above all a method of analysis and a strategy that has been succesfully applied to a great many situations. Too many anarchists, on the other hand, have rather confused ideas about the causes of all the bad things they denounce. They often don't really have a clue as to who the enemy is, they have no strategy, and they're unable to convince people as to what is the next step in the struggle.
Let's discuss things. Let's not attack people simply because they have clear ideas. Let's not confuse authoritarianism with being well organised. Let's fight the capitalist world disorder together and be prepared to learn.

As someone who finds it hard to join any organisation and keep a 'party line', I still don't understand this hatred of the SWP. OK, so they think they're right and many think they are wrong. So what? Isn't this what expressing an opinion in a debate is about? No-one is obliged to join them or agree with them. If an SWPer annoys you, walk away. Don't get all weepy and stamp your feet just because they are doing things the way they want and speaking their mind.

Rejecting the SWP wholesale and condemning it as the 'enemy' because of some of its sectarian statements about anarchists is sectarian in itself. Actually, it has raised important issues about police infiltration in the Black Block and some of the vagueries of the philosophy of anarchist elements in the movement. Should we use that as constructive criticism or ignore it as same old Trotskyite bullshit? I think perhaps we should take them more seriously. I also think they should consider criticism levelled at them, instead of dismissing it. Perhaps if we all accepted that we can be wrong and that criticism is a good thing, then we'd move further on.

Really, it's jealousy that elicits this anti-SWP hatred because they're successful at organising certain things (posters, placards, sloganeering), although they've so far failed to be taken seriously as a 'vanguard party'. If you don't like the SWP's pomp, then do it yourself - as many people do. You are not forced to be a part of their movement.

But as for the ridiculous rumour that the SWP stopped people from helping those smashed up by fascist policemen, what a load of shit! I know Richard Moth, one of the guys that was nearly killed by the fascists, from the time when we were students at SOAS. He's an intelligent and decent SWPer, as well as a good drinking comrade. He was as much of a victim of the Italian state as anyone who was at the GSF or IMC during the police attack. I doubt whether the GR or SWP would wish to have seen the brutality meted out to their members.

alright.. urbanparanoia have given the swp a real hard time here in sheffield.. we still do not trust the fuckers and if what i am hearing from comrades around the world is right.. they did fuck off and leave some of the comrades to a beating.. indeed days after they was calling for the release of their comrades, not a word about the other three who was also being beaten etc.. indeed on saturday in sheffield we was helping globalise resistance and one of the old hacks just could not deal with anarchist showing them unity.. if any one is being sectarian then it is the swp doing what they know best: being sectarian, which in our thought means intolerance to any one who aint on there side (people with different viewpoints/ ideas are dangerous to them..) all to often we have seen this from old hacks of the swp.. we are not attacking the swp outright here.. just letting people and some of their members know about the swp and how at times they can be as sectarian as the anarchist movement.. in our eyse sectarian means intolerance and surely there ain't room for both?

one love mozaz

I really can't let this one go without comment.

Dan says of the SWP: "Actually, it has raised important issues about police infiltration in the Black Block and some of the vagueries of the philosophy of anarchist elements in the movement. Should we use that as constructive criticism or ignore it as same old Trotskyite bullshit? I think perhaps we should take them more seriously."

it doesn't raise any important issues - it is a straightforward attempt to smear the anarchists. look back at issues of Socialist Worker from any demo that got a bit out of hand and the same story always rears its head.

at the risk of sounding like I'm making a cheap point (which is not my aim) do you seriously think that if the police are infiltrating the BB they are not doing the same thing to the SWP and similar groups? where then are the pictures of cops at GR/SWP meetings & actions in Socialist Worker?

also many on the libertarian left are here because they've been through the Trot treadmill and prefer the "vagueries" of a diverse movement to the stultifyingly rigid ideology pumped out by the SWP and similar. Trostkyism was originally a valuable part of left thought, but it has not had anything new to say since the 1940s. why should we listen to it now?

I went to Genoa on the GR train. I found out that it was actually an SWP train. I had an discussion with a recruiter who, when I complained about the undemocratic structure of the party, said that the party wasn't supposed to be a microcosm of a future society, but a "command unit"(?!)

After being told what to do, and told what was in my best interests, all weekend, I was thouroughly worn out. At one point someone who was walking away from the "block" was confronted by the "management" (as I now call them). "I'm responsible for my own life you know" the activist said politely. "NO YOU'RE NOT" said the manager!!!!!

When we were gathering ourselves to leave at the end of the weekend, I suggested leaving in a small group so the cops would not be suspicious. "Your staying here, NOW!" I was informed. Needless to say me and another young comrade said we were autonomous and left.

I didnt meet one SWP or GR activist I disliked that weekend. I did, however, receive patronising orders from many members of the SWP management team. It was like a badly organised school trip.

I'm not a bourgeois individualist. I am happy work as part of a large group. I will not, however, allow myself to be pushed around by a small elite group of managers using classic Stalinist methods. I challenge any SWPer to explain what methods they were using if they were not Stalinist.

I was worried by what I saw. If Genoa had been a real revolutionary situation and the International Socialist Tendancy were leading it, GOD HELP US!!!!

BYE

the description of this fact is not an anarchist rumour in order to attack indirectly our political enemies swp (there is no reason ,in terms of politics , to do something like this because the swp in Greece has almost no existence).the information was revealed in an open meeting with the participation of over 400 people as we were returning from Genova with the ship. It was made by a group of people that had come to Genova with the bushes that the swp had rented and the leaders of swp haven't said anything in the meeting.
the rest of the story is even more disgusting the swp the next day of this meeting were calling to a show about Genova with the title "the big victory of solidarity. the meaning of this comment is not to disorientate our struggle against power to a dispute with the swp but to clear out the illusion of the movement's diversity constructed to digest it's radical direct action in order to have more institutional recognition

I'm not surprised that the SWP ordered you about and generally tried to take charge on the GR train. I'm no great fan of Trotskyist organisations myself, but that is NOT the point...you don't have to travel with them or agree with them, but like it or not they are a large part of the movement in Britain, and smearing them is hardly going to help. We have to live with the fact that all of us have to work together.

Matt

FUck troT ScuM.

They are not a large part of the movement. They are part of their own movement. They'll fucking sell you out like the unions do. They are NOT A LARGE PART OF THE MOVEMENT. They have a lot of flags and banners which make it seem like they are bigger than they are. They come on demo's for superficial reasons based around getting their fist logo seen and as many people recruited as possible. They make fucking loads of profit from the shirts they steal of the backs of their members.

They oprerate like a corporation. I am ANTI-CORPORATE.
They constantly try an squeeze money out of everyone, just like capitalists. I am ANTI-CAPITALIST
They impose their authoritarian, alienating, statist views on everyone.

FUck troT ScuM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS This is not sectarian. Is it sectarian when I slag off capitalists? NO!

So this aint sectarian.

ANYWAY, FUCK OFF, I'M GETTING PISSED

I am glad to see that this discussion has not degenerated into a childish squabble and that we are all engaging in an intelligent analysis that enriches our movement, whatever it's there for. It really gives me hope for the future that one day we will live harmoniously, without dogma to divide us and the gratuitous use of the word 'fuck' to pollute our language. I really feel proud that I am marching alongside tolerant and free-thinking activists who wish to change the world for the better. Now, what are we all marching for ... ?

At about 11:30pm a group of 40 of us were around a campfire of burning palettes in the Convergence Centre dancing and listening to bazooki music played by Greek comrades. A comrade ran over to us shortly after to give the news that the Independent Media Centre had been smashed up and people beaten. Several van loads of people drove away upon hearing the news. There were no more than 250 of us left in the camp when we saw at about 12:15 6 tanks drive past and a convoy of some 10+ Carabineiri vehicles.

There were about 50 people sleeping on the tarmac in sleeping bags. Another 50, overwhelmingly male, were at the Eastern gate shouting at the passing Carabineiri and arguing with others to leave the camp and go up the hill to the Indymedia Centre. Around the camp there were groups of 10-20 people arguing about what to do. I went around 7 groups, suggesting a quick assembly to decide what to do collectively. There was a lot of paranoia and emotion as you can imagine. The women comrades were overwhelmingly in favour of sleeping in a collective mass with look-outs. Some were calling for us to retreat into the marquee and put up cameras for surveilance. Some were calling for us to retreat and hide in the bay. People had drank a lot and tempers were high. One Italian women, had a breakdown and
started wailing. I urged people not to be rash and to stay together. Myself and my affinity group felt extremely insecure as we felt there was a police mop-up operation going on and that we would all be next.

We decided to join our Greek IST comrades with about 50 of us sleeping collectively in a barricaded part of the camp. We saw the tanks return from East to West past Piazza Rosetti at about 3am. I do not know how many people left the camp after we slept about 3:30am. I am a member of the SWP and marched with GR. I saw no comrades dictating to anyone what they should or shouldn't do. I don't know who has spread this malicious idea. Everyone, from all political persuasions were extremely scared that night and worried for those at the IMC. We did not find out about the school raid until we returned to the UK early Monday morning.

By 7pm on Saturday night, GR had left as had all the other groups of the international left who had stalls in the Convergence Centre. I don't know about the poltical merits of what people decided to do that night in the Convergence Centre, but it seemed sensible not to venture out into an unknown situation as a tiny group who were not exactly lucid.

Please feel free to email me for further information.

Mike Taylor
Bristol SWP

Anarchists and other non-aligned revolutionaries fought alongside the SWP's forerunners, the bolsheviks, during the Russian revolution. Then they were denounced as counter revolutionary and shot and imprisoned under the orders of those heroes of the Socialist Workers, Lenin and Trotsky. That's where elitist, authoritarian socialist politics leads.
The SWP aren't on the same side as the rest of us: what we want is an end to the global domination of corporate power. What the SWP want is more members: to them, each cause is just another recruitment opportunity. In this way they ape the behaviour of the corporations, cashing in on every new trend. Setting up front organisations like Globalise Resistance is a cynical ploy to attract inexperienced protestors who would otherwise be hard to pull in to the party.
The calls for solidarity with these people are misplaced.

Hey Kids! Let's calm down! The Trot's don't have the power to mess up this glorious chaos! They've all got their lucrative University contracts to think of for one thing. This movement will organise itself when it needs to - it's power is in its indefinability. It's positive! We certainly haven't killed anyone, and don't wish to. I think the hearts of most people support the questions you and others are asking, and I am stupid enough to think there are answers to this interminable alienation that don't involve murder. These events are causing a wave of true democracy.

I agree with the comment above to the effect that the Leinist factions are not part of the anti-capitalist movement but rather have attached themselves to the movement for their own reasons .i.e recruiting members and building their own power base.
As a comrade observed above, the SWP behave like managers. This is because mamagement of the workers is what they aspire to. In every country in the world where Leninist groups have come to power they have consistently acted to liquidate autonomous working class activists and their organisations through repression and murder.
I don't agree with the argument of the commentator above that it was lack of left unity, which lead to Franco's victory in Spain in the thirties. Rather I'd say it was the misplaced faith of the working class organisations in anti-fascist unity which allowed the Leinist and their bourgeois allies to undermine the revolution by denying arms and resources to the revolutionary sectors and by disappearing and murdering activists of the anarchist organisations and of the independent Marxists of the POUM.
As the German Marxist Otto Ruhle memorably remarked: the struggle against fascism begins with the struggle against bolshevism.

Leninists try to rubbish the ideas of anarchists and left-wing Marxists as being naive and vague without actually addressing the content of these ideas because they are loath to acknowledge to their troops that there exist alternatives to their pre-packaged ideology.

Ultimately bolshevism is revolution as spectacle - it is all takes place on the level of appearances so as to mask the emergence of a new class of managers on the backs of the workers. This is why the SWP/GR swamp protest with their banners and placards so that they can create the image that they are synomous with the resistance - so that they can capitalise on the situation to recruit and drain the energies of the naive and unwary.

look at how many replies this posting has after it. how come there aren't 30-odd postings about what kind of society/economic structure we aim to replace capitalism with. the only conclusion is that we are more interested in proving the correctness of our own "line".
this obsession with sectarian point-scoring is a waste of fucking time.

Listen. all of this ridiculous sectarian stuff
attacking the SWP is terrible. the SWP is a
revolutionary socialist party. always has
been, always will. Our comrades were
amongst the people being beaten in the school.

I for one have just spent the past week helping
free everyone and making sure that
Straw/Blair?berlesconi are nailed
for this outrage. But I was also at the school,
just about to join my friends inside when
the Police raided it. I spent the next
3 hours trying to get them out.

but i have to tell you IF YOU'D COME UP
THERE YOU"D HAVE BEEN MASSACRED.

I saw the whole thing happen.

I then spent 3 hours getting through police
lines to find people in hospital. And I'm very
very angry at the beatings, but also the
reasons they were allowed to happen.

I'm sorry, it is pretty much proven that the
tactics of the black block allow the police
and fascists to infiltrate our movement and
beat the shit out of us. Ever wondered why the GSF/Indymedia centre were raded why the
black bloc camp wasn't?

"The Black Block was an instrument of
the police-it was a clear strategy," says
Luca Casarini, a leader of the White Overalls non-violent movement. I'm not saying
everything was organised and planned
n advance, but they used and helped
he hooliganism to justify the crackdown."

You have to join the real movement. Stop
believing you own it and owe no responsibility to it.
Accept the disipline of the mass organisers
(The GSF was 700 groups-but you couldn't
agree to support it). And stop slinging
mud at genuine people in an attempt to
cover up you mistakes.

Face up to it.

The Police are using you.

This is not a slag off, it is a tip off.

you twat

how can you seriously tell people to stop mud-slinging one moment and accuse the anarchos of being the stooges of the state the next? only sectarianism against the SWP is bad, not by it?

turn the point on its head. if you are genuine revolutionaries do you seriously think the SWP/GR haven't been infiltrated? and if so how do YOU know that your party line on the Black Bloc isn't deliberate misinformation spread by inflitrators to de-radicilise the movement.

you can't have it both ways. the sectarian stuff about the SWP is out of order, so is the sectarian stuff about anarchos by the SWP.

cRITISISING THE swp IS NOT SECTARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cRITISING THE TORIES WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERERED SECTARIAN

swp ARE ABOUT AS CONSERVATIVE AS YOU CAN GET!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Ultimately bolshevism is revolution as spectacle - it is all takes place on the level of appearances so as to mask the emergence of a new class of managers on the backs of the workers."

Couldn't have summed it up better

i am sorry to write more on this subject. I have just
spent the last week and a half getting people out of
prison (everyone, we made no distinctions when we
spoke with the press etc., it's just I am a personal
friend of Nicola and Richard so could only speak
about them and what they were like.)

I have only just caught up with the debates and
feel I have a right to
contribute.

What I want to say is that it IS NOT SECTARIAN
to discuss about the Black Block/Police. This is
a real problem for the movement and one we
need to think about VERY SERIOUSLY.

Because, if true, it endangers ALL OUR LIVES
and it is not good throwing a fit about it
when it is raised

If the swp is being sectarian and capitalist (!)
then so are;

1) Stefano Agnoletto who is the brother of Vittorio, spokesperson for the Genova Social Forum

see

 http://uk.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=7978

also

2) Wu Ming

see

 http://uk.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=7580

3) A barcelona demonstrator

see

 http://uk.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=7638

4) Munkle

see

indymedia (lost the link)

5) The photo the Socialist Worker published is at

 http://uk.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=8045

6) Luca Casarini, a leader of the White Overalls

(Quote already given)

But somehow only the SWP is singled out !

I would be glad of non sectarian debate. But instead
things like

"deliberate misinformation spread by inflitrators"
(do you mean Luca?)

"They've all got their lucrative University contracts
to think of for one thing" (oh yeah Richard, a care
worker, is a Dean of Oxford on the side)

"The SWP aren't on the same side as the rest
of us" (Er who's us?)

"FUck troT ScuM." no need to say anything

"They are not a large part of the movement. They
are part of their own movement. They'll fucking
sell you out like the unions do." (like when?)

"They make fucking loads of profit from the shirts
they steal of the backs of their members" (EH?)

"SWP in Greece has almost no existence"
('cept 1500 members)

"Twat" who me? yeah that's why ive just
spent 6 days and £300 trying to free everyone
from prison.

You see that's not a political debate. That's just
insults. And it's really got far too serious for insults.

I repeat. I am not insulting the BB. I am (like
so many other people NOT in the swp) pointing
out WE HAVE TO THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT
OUR TACTICS AND THE POLICE/STATE.

Its no good throwing a hissy fit because actually
the movement IS MUCH BIGGER THAN ALL
OF US. and none of us have the right to endanger
it and its members.

finally as an example of the problems we face
in uniting

"they (the swp) are welcome in the movement
as people, but only if they go away and dump
the papers, the hierarchies and dominating
tendencies"

er, who elected you leader? Isn't that a bit hierachical
and, er, dominating?

For what its worth Paul Robinson IS NOT IN
THE SWP and yet we raised hundreds of pounds
to give to his friends (NOT IN THE SWP) to help
him out.

We want fraternal debate and discussion. But
the movement belongs to no one. Not Socialist,
not greens, not even anarchists.

see also the GR site

 http://www.resist.org.uk/paulrobinson.html


richard

Spokespersons for the institutional left are not as straightforward as they would like to appear about the question of violence. At crucial times, they can show an appalling ambivalence verging on opportunism.

Whenever they can, they say how thrilled they are the importance of the mobilization and at the great determination of those mobilized. At the same time, they point out violence coming from some groups of radical and anonymous protesters as a possible demobilization factor - which, by the way, cannot be verified in reality.

They condemn radical protesters like the Black Bloc as coward and hooligans whose aim is to turn the demonstration into a riot. But as soon as one of these radical and anonymous protesters is killed, an obscene "recuperation" takes place: they use him as the indispensable martyr of police brutality who was led to violent action by social misery.

We condemn this condescension toward a militant who was unjustifiably killed while acting for his political conviction: the courageous politically motivated actions of Carlo Giuliani cannot simply be assimilated to socio-pathological violence. But we can say without a doubt that the ones who are willing to defend this kind of idea - and we have to include even the father of this militant - constitute the real danger facing the growing mobilization.

Extract from the statement on Indymedia by
Collectif de réflexion sur l'air des lampions


Spokespersons for the institutional left are not as straightforward as they would like to appear about the question of violence. At crucial times, they can show an appalling ambivalence verging on opportunism.

Whenever they can, they say how thrilled they are the importance of the mobilization and at the great determination of those mobilized. At the same time, they point out violence coming from some groups of radical and anonymous protesters as a possible demobilization factor - which, by the way, cannot be verified in reality.

They condemn radical protesters like the Black Bloc as coward and hooligans whose aim is to turn the demonstration into a riot. But as soon as one of these radical and anonymous protesters is killed, an obscene "recuperation" takes place: they use him as the indispensable martyr of police brutality who was led to violent action by social misery.

We condemn this condescension toward a militant who was unjustifiably killed while acting for his political conviction: the courageous politically motivated actions of Carlo Giuliani cannot simply be assimilated to socio-pathological violence. But we can say without a doubt that the ones who are willing to defend this kind of idea - and we have to include even the father of this militant - constitute the real danger facing the growing mobilization.

Extract from the statement on Indymedia by
Collectif de réflexion sur l'air des lampions

Spokespersons for the institutional left are not as straightforward as they would like to appear about the question of violence. At crucial times, they can show an appalling ambivalence verging on opportunism.

Whenever they can, they say how thrilled they are the importance of the mobilization and at the great determination of those mobilized. At the same time, they point out violence coming from some groups of radical and anonymous protesters as a possible demobilization factor - which, by the way, cannot be verified in reality.

They condemn radical protesters like the Black Bloc as coward and hooligans whose aim is to turn the demonstration into a riot. But as soon as one of these radical and anonymous protesters is killed, an obscene "recuperation" takes place: they use him as the indispensable martyr of police brutality who was led to violent action by social misery.

We condemn this condescension toward a militant who was unjustifiably killed while acting for his political conviction: the courageous politically motivated actions of Carlo Giuliani cannot simply be assimilated to socio-pathological violence. But we can say without a doubt that the ones who are willing to defend this kind of idea - and we have to include even the father of this militant - constitute the real danger facing the growing mobilization.

Extract from the statement on Indymedia by
Collectif de réflexion sur l'air des lampions

having been following/part of this debate for the past few days I have to say the attitude of the SWP members has totally changed my opinion.

as you can read above I started off defending you lot against something I still regard as a sectarian slur. but all you have done throughout this debate is repeat the same party line bullshit.

when you think about it saying the BB is playing into the hands (if not actively doing the bidding of) the state and fascists is a much bigger sectarian attack than the initial comment. some mentioned the spanish civil war earlier - well the kind of attack the SWP makes sounds very familiar to what the spanish CP was saying about the POUM at the time doesn't it?

you say that we need to debate the BB's tactics because of the way they impact on the movement. OK but let's also debate the impact of SWP tactics. why use front organisations? why attack the anarchist movement or ignore the bits you don't like? why focus on certain Genoa detainees and not others? why not be up front with your new recruitsa and tell them you believe in dictatorship and killing elements of the left that don't agree with you where necessary.

if you are so up for debate why not suggest to your leaders that Socialist Worker run a special issue where everyone on the left comments on SWP strategy. As I am sure you are aware there is a great deal of criticism on the left (not just from anarchos) about SWP tactics and there has been for years - why don't we read about it in Socialist Worker? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

also as far as I can make out none of the SWP members have answered the point made by one contributor about why Socialist Worker left out the non-BB anarchists in its who's who of the Italian left. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I notice the way you take my question about infiltration and try to apply it to the White Overalls. no - I am asking you SWP members how you know that YOUR organisation is not inflitrated by the state and that YOUR political line has not been developed to do the state's work. you have asked it of the anarchists and they have tried to reply. now let's ask the same question about the Trotskyists. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

the bottom line is that you just don't listen to what people say. all you do is repeat the party line.

Tom,

I am sorry but I still think you are missing our point.

For a start we never condemn violence by the protesters. We disagree with the tactics of the BB.
I debated the question of violence on indymedia when
people in Gothenburg were being attacked for
using violence. We believe that the violence of
the state is the real violence and that they
do not have a monopoly on it. I defended violence
by protestors.

What i think (maybe my party also, but you may be surprised that I used my own expiriences of Genoa)
is that the BB, by seperating themselves from
the MASS movement, were treating the
movement in a sectarian manner. We saw with
our own eyes the Police chase the BB after
scirmishes, but the BB lead the Police (mistakenly
no doubt) into areas where people were not prepared.

It is one thing to beat a retreat from a battle
ground. It is another to run though pacifists
with the police on your tail. Now you may argue
that the Police would have beaten the others
anyway. Or that the BB had no choices re the
layout of the City. You are probably right. But think
about it for a moment (before getting all Party
line on me).

To engage in battles with the Police, seperate
from other demonstrators is your right. But to do so
in a City like Genoa where you have no control as
to your lines of retreat is tactically foolish and politically
selfish. You will inevitably end up winding the cops
up then bringing them to other peoples protests
and spaces.

You have no right to do that.

now you say;

"I notice the way you take my question about
infiltration and try to apply it to the White Overalls"

I didn't. what i said was the white overalls make the same points as we do about the BB/police and you dont slag them off (actually they are a lot harder than the SWP)

to repeat the quote;

"The Black Block was an instrument of
the police-it was a clear strategy," says
Luca Casarini, a leader of the White Overalls
non-violent movement. "I'm not saying
everything was organised and planned
in advance, but they used and helped
the hooliganism to justify the crackdown."

In genoa itself the white overalls tried to
stop BB members from doing some of their
tactics. setting fire to a bank is usually fine.
But a Bank under people houses (as most
were) that then have to be evacuated by the
firebrigade is bloody stupid. the Fire Brigade
Union supported the demos. the refused to
teach the Police how to use water cannon. they threatened strike action if called out to do so.

THEY WERE WELL PISSED OF WITH THE FIRES.

And they are a section of the working class of genoa.

You see tactics have to be THOUGHT THROUGH
BY THE WHOLE MOVEMENT NOT TINY LITTLE PARTS OF IT.

So lets think about Police infiltration. Firstly I
am not going to repeat the evidence. If you
refuse to believe it still you are always going to
close your eyes to it. So you ask about the
Police and us? Well firstly to imply that Police
infiltrators have been spreading the rumours
is just plain silly. Unless you think the white
overalls and other people quoted in my posting previous are Cops aswell. Fact is, we all saw
dodgy stuff. At the school that night suppossed
black block passed by and two minutes later
the police turned up.

THEY WERE WAITING ROUND THE CORNER.
ie working with the the so called BB infiltrators.

Now stop. I am not saying the BB is the Police.
I am saying the Police is USING the BB as a
cover and PLANTING people to do so.

They didnt follow where these BB went. They
stopped where they wanted to attack.
THE GSF/Indymedia.

Do we have police spies in the SWP?
I've no doubt we do.
But we are an open party. everything we do is deliberately open. you can read everything we
do in our paper. No doubt our phones are
tapped. So what? We can't be used in the
same way. We are a party of thousands of
people and a cop would have to fit into our
disipline which is (as you know) to build a mass movement and a revolutionary party. We were
tight in Genoa and led thousands to saftey after numerous attacks by the Police. We forced the
Police back when we needed to, but retreated
safely also. We didnt tear off with the cops
chasing us, into areas held by pacicfists. I have
fought the Police when I have to. The ANL has
forced its way through Police lines when we can.
But if you want to fight the police, go and smash a window in oxford street but don't run into a hospital afterwards.

"We didn't why focus on certain Genoa detainees
and not others".

As I have said the campaign made no distinction
when we talked about the attacks and the inocence
of the people. But when asked what the people did
or where they lived I only knew about my friends.
Do you think the British Consul or Italian State
would have told me who they were?

No.

ANYONE COULD PICK UP THE PHONE TO THE PRESS. If you didnt-sorry.

But as I have said we raised hundreds of
pounds for Paul Robinson.

Why would we do that??
He isnt a member. His friends aren't. You are
misguided if you think we wanted the State to
keep suppossed anarchists but free the socialists.

how would that happen? how would that benefit us?
You think we want to see people beaten up or killed
cause they dont sell socialist worker?? Thats just a
slur. ONE OUT ALL OUT, was what we said.


"you believe in dictatorship and killing
elements of the left that don't agree with
you where necessary."

Dictatorship of (by) the proletariate (working class).
ie over the old ruling class until they are beaten
properly. There is not the space to debate Kronstadt.
but Killing the left !!!

i would love to have this debate openly. One of the places was the GSF organising comittees. But the BB
would not attend considering themselves seperate
from the mass movement. I would like open meetings
where we can talk, but we cant do that if you start of
emails with

"You twat"

hardly as you say

"I started off defending you"

We have a right to be in this movement as you do. But it
usually feels like a one way street of insults (already
listed). Debate is not insults.
and just about everone else agrees with us about
the BB. look at all the evidence listed previously.
And you know it tom. I'm sorry.

GR is not a front. The commitee is Greens,
independents, non aligned and SWP. We want a mass
movement where we are a small part of it. Honestly.

But we march with everyone else and we try and build it
outside of young brave fighters who want to fight the police all the time.

Have the BB thought about marching with us? (ie the
300,000) maybe they could act as bodygaurds (but with
disipline) rather than going off on there own for some
punch up.

this is too long already. there is much to discuss.
but please lets all stop personal insults (which tactical discussions are not) and think about the politics instead

richard

I don't know anything about the account mentioned by a Greek comrades. I was in Genoa, and wasn't at the convergence point but in Carlini when IMC school was attacked.
But When I was in Nice for the demos against the EU, when word went around the sports hall that the Italians where being stopped on the border, many of us left the Hall to protest at the Nice main train station - and a SWP speaker sent out a message, that the reason the Italians where stopped was 'becasue they refused to pay their train fare'. I checked on this point a number of times when I returned - and this alligation was completely false, my cynicism wondered whether this was because the SWP at that point due to numbers where largely dominating the protests in Nice.

I'm not trying to label everybody in the SWP, I know alot of sound people in there - but the genuine people I think need to sort out the hacks who are much more sectarian and than anyone.
In solidarity
Dazza

PS: Last point: While on the hill looking over to where the White overalls - where battiling with Police, getting tear gassed and water cannoned ( I had come from the pink block)
I met a load of SWP's sitting around in a park, having just arrived. They asked me what was going on and I replied ' I think that's Ya Basta, trying to get to the red zone' One women made a snidy 'Sshh' - I thought fine words of solidarity.
Seize the time.

Richard
I repeat that I think the comment that started this chain off is an unsubstantiated slur, but I also feel that you and other SWP members have in return instigated an un-needed bout of shit-stirring and have replied with your own slurs. I don't even support the BB, but they (and you) should be defended against sectarian attacks.
I also agree that we should talk about something more constructive - for instance what we are putting on the table instead of capitalism in terms of society/economy.
trying to be comradely
Tom
PS cheap shot but the first swearing in this discussion came from the SWP corner

Two comments to add really.

In Genoa there was a briefing re the direct action day where swp were told in no uncertain terms to "Always obey the stewards immedialty. When they give you an order you follow it without question immediatly, you do no ask why, you do not argue, you obey immediatly!"

Last night at the Globalise Resistance London Genoa report back rally at Conway Hall there were at least 8 people outside the entrance selling the Socialist Worker paper and to get into the hall I had to pass by three people who asked me to join the swp and two who asked me to join GR. GR may have all sorts of people participating but the senior members are swp and the organisatoin that GR has the closest links with is certainly the swp.

I am sick and tired of certain sectarian elements in the movement attacking the SWPand other left-wing groups. Instead of attacking the powers-that-be, police violence or the scourge of capitalism, there are people who devote all their time and energy to attacking other political organisations. There is one sectarian group who have even devised their own web site, "SWP vampires" - their only raison d'être is to dig up dirt on the SWP organisation - "please write in if you have any shit on them". The web-site is totally parasitic by definition no other reason for it to exist other than to attack another organisation! Perhaps its motives are far more suspect. Draw your own conclusions - an organised smear campaign perhaps? Some individual called for "death to all SWP fronts". What the hell? In Belgian Indymedia and other organistaions building for the protests in December in Belgium, we have Green, Trotskyist, Anarchist, Stalinist and non-aligned individuals working together. We might not like each others' politics but that doesn't stop us organising together. You should stop the smears but on no account stop the debate or discussions on different theories coming out of different political organisations. We should be attacking our real enemies and not each other. Some tossers will not agree but you have your reasons don't you? For others who want to see the anti-capita&list movement grow, build for the protests in Belgium and hope to see thousands of you from Britain in Brussels on 13/14/15 December. Despite some misinformation the biggest demo will be on the 13 (Thursday). See you there.

Its interesting to see that when the SWP smear anarchists (as they usually
do, as seen by numerous inaccurate diatribes in their publications --
for example, Pat Stack's terrible article in Socialist Review) then they
argue its "debating the issues." However, when anarchists reply and
discuss SWP and Bolshevik politics, its called by the SWP "sectarianism."

I have no problem in discussing the BB tactic. LIke all tactics, it must be
discussed. Saddly, the SWP do not do that. The Socialist Worker after
Genoa basically lumped all BBers in with the fake "Black Block" organised
by the state. They also failed to mention the majority of the Italian
anarchist movement in their pathetic "Who's who on the Italian Left."
When asked about this on a previous indymedia thread, no member of
the SWP provided an explaination. I doubt any on this thread will
either.

SWP Richard writes:

"Dictatorship of (by) the proletariate (working class).
ie over the old ruling class until they are beaten
properly."

Let us quote Trotsky on this one:

"The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is
for me not a thing that one can freely accept or reject: It is an
objective necessity imposed upon us by the social realities -- the class struggle, the
heterogeneity of the revolutionary class, the necessity for a selected
vanguard in order to assure the victory. The dictatorship of a party
belongs to the barbarian prehistory as does the state itself, but we can
not jump over this chapter, which can open (not at one stroke)
genuine human history. . . The revolutionary party (vanguard) which
renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the
counter-revolution . . . Abstractly speaking, it would be very well if the party
dictatorship could be replaced by the 'dictatorship' of the whole
toiling people without any party, but this presupposes such a high level
of political development among the masses that it can never be
achieved under capitalist conditions. The reason for the revolution
comes from the circumstance that capitalism does not permit the
material and the moral development of the masses."
[Writings 1936-37, pp. 513-4]

and, of course, this:

"The very same masses are at different times inspired by different
moods and objectives. It is just for this reason that a centralised
organisation of the vanguard is indispensable. Only a party,
wielding the authority it has won, is capable of overcoming the
vacillation of the masses themselves." [The Moralists and Sycophants]

Now, these comments just repeat similar ones Lenin produced in
1920/21 (and ones by Trotsky in 1920, 1923, 1927). If the SWP does
stand for "dictatorship by the class" then they are *not* Leninists!
But they are and so I would suggest activists take their claims with
a very large pitch of salt.

Richard writes:

"There is not the space to debate Kronstadt.
but Killing the left !!!"

Which is, of course, *exactly* what the Bolsheviks did! They
rounded up and shot their opponents on the Left -- obviously
if the Leninists do it, its okay...

and as for the SWP being an "open" organisation, well, obviously
its not. The Central Committee does not invite other people in
to report on its decisions. They are taken secretly (even from their
own members).

There is, of course, a reason why people don't like the SWP -- its
because of their politics and their activities. For an introduction to
why anarchists and other revolutionaries dislike the SWP visit the
following sites:

www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html
(this contains replies to SWP distortions on anarchism)

www.infoshop.org/faq/append3.html
www.geocities.com/CapitolHIll/1931/append3.html
(these two contain replies to Leninist attacks on anarchism).