did you see the monty python film life of brian ?
check the scene when they are in the roman theatre,
how's does it go , the PFLP and the FLPL and we hate them
more than the fucking romans. it sums up the situation
nicely, the british revolutionaries kicking seven colours
of shit out of each other while the ruling classes are having it large.. but I have to say the SWP are wankers...!!!

oh shit we don't stand a chance

SWP has a lot of good people in it, and seems to be mostly on the right side. that said, there is something not quite right with a party which

1. Is run very hierarchically, a few people in charge and little or no democracy for the troops.

2. Has a devotion to newspaper selling which is not healthy.

3. Jumps on any bandwagon it can then tries to claim all the people previously involved as its own supporters.

4. makes up huge numbers of banners for demos then gives them out to newcomers, giving the impression that everyone is SWP when they're not.

5. claims to be 'the only group with an overall stratregic vision for the anti-capitalist movement' (!)

6. doesn't generally support direct action, but perpetuates dead end demontsration techniques like marches to nowhere, rallies addressed by shouty people etc.

7. has some very bad and old chants

8. demonises anarchists many of whom built the movement SWP only woke up to after Seattle.

9. formed and funds Globalise Resistance, whose leaders apparently attempted to persuade (without success, of course) the 10,000 strong Tute Bianchi (white overalls/womble types)in Genova to carry the GR banner at the head of their march to the red zone...

etc etc etc. There's lots more and I'm sure plenty of other people will say why they have a problem, then SWP and GR people will come back saying we're not interested in building a mass movement because we can criticise people on our side too, but not dealing with the real issues.

They will continue to bug me for one mostly because of the arrogance required for one group to think it can move in and lead this movement and become some sort of vanguard for the proles... not a tactic that's worked in the past, and I hope not one that a lot of people are going to be falling for again.

none of which is to say that many SWP people don't do good stuff, let alone that should be driven out or anything, just I wish those good people could recognise the very serious problems caused by the arrogant and backward-looking tactics of the group they've joined, free their minds and come along with the rest of us for a proper party instead of all this social worker shit..

cheers!

succinct and to the point zedhead - nothing else to add except confirmation of your comments

yeah, i agree w/zedhead too, the SWP are on the right path, but the placards they hand out with their logo printed on it and the posters they put up around where i live (Reading) seem to try and give people the idea that they are the spokespeople and leaders of the anticapitalist movement. The amount of SWP paper sellers at gatherings also seems to indicate other motives (other groups/people simply hand out leaflets)

I am a member of the swp and extremely proud of it. Since i joined i have helped the struggles of deportees, strikers, community campaigners, some of them i have helped to win. I have been in an organisation which is committed to co- operating with others in an open an honest way but does not hide it's differences with other groups. I have been in an organisation that is committed to internationalism and has sister group's fighting across the world aginst capitalism,
often in extremely dangerous situations. www.istendency.org


Most of the above seem committed to trial without jury or even defence whnm it comes to the swp. I just can't get over the pig headedness of people who sling accusations at the swp without taking the trouble to see if there is any truth in them, it makes me wonder some times who they are and what their real motives are.
Many of those who contribute to the swp bashing on this sight are plainly mentally unbalanced.-Check out 'Fucktrotscums' regulars for example My suggestion is you read our paper before you decide whether or not we should sell it and as for the accusations of hierarchical and lack of democracy these are just laughable as our party structure is built around two principles democracy and action. Read more atwww.swp.org.uk, www.istendency.org

is that it is the ONLY sizeable, organised, left-wing, anti-capitalist group in the UK, so it draws off many of the most politicised people. the anarcho fragments are tiny and woefully inactive in comparison.

but does anyone believe anything close to the majority of people joining the SWP are genuine Trotskyists?

If you ask someone why they joined the SWP they say because they want to fight against poverty/environmental destruction/growing power of corporations/whatever and they want to do something radical about it.

They do not say: because I want to help create a mass vanguard party to enforce the dictatorship of the proletariat. unfortunately after a few months SWP members do end up repeating this sort of stuff.

there isn't anything wrong in principle either with flogging political papers at demos. it is just that Socialist Worker is so imbued with the correct political line that it is a very dull read. it would be much more widely read if it took a broader approach to political coverage rather than always turning every news article into an explanation of why the Trotskyist strategy is the best.

similarly the SWP could be a really important political outfit if it just loosened the ideological straightjacket and adopted a populist, libertarian socialism rather than this stultifying Trostkyist stuff.

no-one on this site has ever been in a situation where the forces of capital have successfully been beaten, so how can the SWP have "an overall stratregic vision for the anti-capitalist movement"? and if we agree that none of us know all the answers how can the SWP cling so desperately to such a prescriptive ideology?

Normally this yah-boo-sucks-SWP thing isn't worth the time of day, but at the moment a reasonable discussion seems to be taking place, so (as an active SWP member for the last four years) I'm going to attempt a reply to Zedhead's comments.

1. I'm never quite sure what people mean by "hierarchical organisation". The SWP is entirely democratic, of necessity; a voluntary organisation can't function any other way, given that it has no powers of compulsion. We do our thing because we want to do it. There is a full-time party organisation - that's how we produce the paper every week, for example - but as far as possible this is subject to control in both formal conferences and on the ground level: if the paper was rubbish, I wouldn't sell it, and nor would anyone else.

2. Socialist Worker has two roles: first, I think a weekly paper that cuts through the crap in the rest of the media is a good thing in itself, regardless of disagreements over precisely which ideological knife is used. The same applies to other Left papers out there, although obviously I'd claim SW does the best job out of the lot of them. Second, the organisation involved in distributing and selling the paper is part of building a movement: it means regular contact between activists, and provides an instant grass-roots network between them. Very useful when it's necessary to mobilise rapidly - say, against the Nazis, or a PFI scheme, or in support of a strike.

3. I am baffled as to why SWP members should not support protests and activities organised by others. Speaking for myself, I don't want to sit smugly on the sidelines and sneer at the rest of you (as some on the Left do). I'm a revolutionary; I want to change things, which means getting involved. I think the same applies to every other SWP comrade.

4. If you don't like the placards, don't take one; but don't blame other people for doing so.

5. What's wrong with claiming to have an "overall strategic vision for the movement"? If I didn't think that was the case, I wouldn't be in the party. There'd be little point in joining an organisation which had no idea where it was going.

6. We do support direct action - that's why the IST Bloc was attempting to tear down the Red Zone fence in Genoa. But we also think that mass involvement is the decisive factor; if marches and rallies can help build a mass movement - good.

7. On the chants: true. Some are good, some are crap. They seem to be improving of late.

8. We don't demonise anarchists. On the other hand, some anarchists do waste too much effort slinging too much mud at what is really still a very small organisation, rather than concentrating on the real enemy. Having said that, I've happily and productively worked with anarchists before now, along with other SWP members, and sectarian name-calling is only the priority of peculiarly backward minority of the anarchist movement. We disagree in our overall analysis and conclusions regarding capitalist society, but that's no reason not to get involved in activities with anarchist comrades - even with the broader disagreements. As to the specifics: the Black Bloc page in Socialist Worker following Genoa seemed to be pretty much in line with what the vast majority of demonstrators there was saying - I spoke to people from many different tendencies and backgrounds, and I found only one who unequivocally supported the Black Bloc. It was basically correct: the biggest quibble I have is over the omission of two quote marks in a picture caption, muddying the distinction between the "real" and "fake" Black Blocs - a distinction the main text made clear. (Incidentally, I thought the SWP woke up to the movement after J18, in fits and starts, but there you go.)

9. Globalise Resistance: somebody had to take the initiative. That it was the SWP says something, I think, about our effectiveness as an organisation. And frankly, it's worked: go to any GR meeting and see the range of people involved - Greens, anarchists, woolly liberals, socialists, all sorts - and see the activities GR has organised. The movement in Britain has shifted decisively since January - I would suggest that no small part of its broadening appeal is due to GR.

Finally: it is impossible to be an effective SWP member and not constantly engage with what is taking place around you. I've stayed in the SWP because it means any engagement I make is vastly more effective; if I do "good stuff" (and I hope I do), it is because I'm an SWP member, not despite it. I may also do "bad stuff", make politically inept decisions, fail to make decisions or generally fuck up: being in a revolutionary organisation helps minimise those mistakes. I've stayed in because I agree with the principle of democratic centralism as a means of creating an effective, participatory organisation; I've stayed in because I agree with what we have to say about Russia; I've stayed in because I can see the intelligence and commitment of other members. Please don't patronise me (or anyone else) by assuming that my SWP membership is an unfortunate lapse of judgement.

I agree with the point that many make about the SWP paper sellers; the devotion seems almost evangelical. They might be better attaching their name to more interesting publications such as 'Socialist Gardening Monthly', 'The Workers Pub Guide' or 'Class War & Office Supplies' - all of which would be a more interesting read.

1 The SWP urged people to vote for the goverment in the majority of seats at the last election.

2 The SWP are currently opposing direct action against the Labour conference in Brighton because it would upset their friends in the Labour Party.

If you want to understand how different the SWP's politics are to the direct action movement's, well, that's it.

the bloke who made the original post? would be interesting to see what he thinks now both sides of the argument have been put forward - in a fairly friendly way for once.

Having had the unfortunate experience of going to Genoa on THE train I have been forced to re-think my opinion about individual members of The Party.

Up until then I would have given them the benefit of the doubt in that they must have been sucked into The Party because of the lack of any other obvious alternative in the anti-cap movement.

Now however I realise that they are all sheep, happy to believe and repeat what they are told by the central committee. Not one of them has a mind of their own, and that's the way The Party wants them.

To repeat a point made in the previous post, they told members to vote Socialist Alliance where they could and Labour where they had to. They are on the side of the enemy and therefore they are the enemy.

re. Zedheads pointson the SWP. I am not member, alhough i socialise with people who are, have been to a rally of there's, and was with GR @ Genoa. Having come into contact with them here is my own personal (as objective as i can be) analysis.

1. Is run very hierarchically, a few people in charge and little or no democracy for the troops.

THEY SAY POLICY IS MADE DEMOCRATICALLY IN MEETINGS, WHICH THEN BINDS THEIR MEMBERS. HAVING NEVER ATTENDED A MEETING I CAN'T COMMENT AS TO HOW DEMOCRATIC THEY ACTUALLY ARE. I'M SURE THEIR LEADERSHIP GETS THERE WAY, BUT THEN AGAIN THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE SWP LEADERSHIP TEND NOT TO BE IN THE SWP! THEREFORE I WOULD GUESS THE MEETINGS ARE PRETTY DEMOCRATIC, AND THE LEADERSHIP STILL GET THERE WAY PRETTY EASILY.

BUT AS I SAID, I'VE NEVER BEEN TO ONE, SO I AM SPECULATING

ON THE GROUND SWP MEMBERS CAN BE VERY STROPPY WITH THEIR LEADERSHIP IF THINGS GO PEAR SHAPED (AS I SAW AT GENOA WHEN THE COACH DROPEED US OFF ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CITY)



2. Has a devotion to newspaper selling which is not healthy.

I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. AND IS DOES INDICATE THAT THEY ARE DEVOTING RESOURCES TO HOLDING AND BUILDING THERE POSITION WITHIN THE MOVEMENT AS WELL AS BUILDING THE MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE.

THEN AGAIN, IN THE SPIRIT OF SOLIDARITY, IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO PROPOGATE THERE BELIEFS WITHIN THE MOEVMENT, JUST THE SAME AS ANY OF THE REST OF US. I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT WANT TO ATTEMPT TO STOP THEM SELLING THERE PAPERS, ALTHOUGH I AGREE , IT DOES MAKE YOU THINK TWICE ABOUT THERE MOTIVES.


3. Jumps on any bandwagon it can then tries to claim all the people previously involved as its own supporters.

THEY ARE DEFINATLEY GUILTY AS CHARGED ON THIS ONE!!!



4. makes up huge numbers of banners for demos then gives them out to newcomers, giving the impression that everyone is SWP when they're not.

DITTO.

BUT THESE ARE HARDLY CAPITAL OFFENCES.


5. claims to be 'the only group with an overall stratregic vision for the anti-capitalist movement' (!)

WELL YES, BUT THEY SINCERLY BELIEVE IT. AGAIN, ITS A BIT ON THE ARROGENT SIDE, BUT ALL GROUPS THINK THEY HAVE THE PERFECT 'TAKE' ON THE MOVEMENT. THE GREEN PARTY WEBSITE OUTLINES THERE BELIEFS, WHICH THEY STATE TO BE ABSOLUTES, WHILST THEY RECOGNISE THE NEED TO WORK WITH OTHERS TO ACHEIVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE (FAIR ENOUGH). I'M SURE THE ANARCHISTS ALSO BELIVE THAT THEY KNOW THE TRUE PATH. I HAVE MY OWN BELIEFS, WHICH I ALSO BELEIVE TO BE CORRECT. DOENS'T STOP WORKING WITH OTHERS IN THE MOVEMENT (INCLUDING THE SWP)TO ACHIEVE PEACE, JUSTICE AND LIBERTY FOR ALL.

6. doesn't generally support direct action, but perpetuates dead end demontsration techniques like marches to nowhere, rallies addressed by shouty people etc.

WITH GR@GENOA WE WERE ENCOURAGED TO TAKE PART IN DIRECT ACTION, SO MAYBE THEY ARE CHANGING THERE WAYS, WHICH IS A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THEM BY THE LIKES OF RTS ETC.

7. has some very bad and old chants

HAVING BEEN ONLY ACTIVE RECENTLY THEY ARE NEW TO ME, AND I LIKE THEM!!!!!! (BUT THEN I NEVER DID HAVE ANY TASTE).

8. demonises anarchists many of whom built the movement SWP only woke up to after Seattle.

NEVER HEARD/READ THEM DOING THIS MYSELF. I KNOW THE SWP MEMBERS I HAVE MET HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR THE ANARCHISTS. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SWP AND THE ANARCHIST ON THE MOST EFFECTIVE FORM OF DIRECT ACTION, BUT THATS A HONEST AND HEALTHY DEBATE.



9. formed and funds Globalise Resistance, whose leaders apparently attempted to persuade (without success, of course) the 10,000 strong Tute Bianchi (white overalls/womble types)in Genova to carry the GR banner at the head of their march to the red zone...

RE. THE BANNAR, DID THEY? HEHEHEH. NAUGHTY NAUGHTY. AND GOOD ON TUTE BIANCHI FOR TELLING THEM WERE TO GO.

RE GLOBALISE RESITANCE IN GENERAL. GOOD ON THE SWP FOR SETTING IT UP AND BRINGING SOME THING ELSE TO THE MOVEMENT. THEY DID A GOOD JOB IN GETTING A TWO THOUSAND PEOPLE DOWN TO GENOA, MANY OF WHOME MIGHT NOT HAVE GONE ON THERE OWN (LIKE ME). NOW THAT I'VE BEEN TO GENOA, I MIGHT WELL MAKE MY OWN ARRANGEMENTS ON THE NEXT PROTEST I GOTO. BUT I THINK GR IS BRINGING IN PEOPLE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE NOT GET INVOLVED. AND I'M SURE THE SWP LOVE IF GR PEOPLE JOIN THE SWP. THEY ARE A POLITICAL PARTY AND ARE LIKE THAT. BUT SPEAKING FROM EXPERIANCE I NEVER FELT PRESSURED TO SIGN UP TO THE SWP WHILST WITH GR @ GENOA(OR MAYBE THEY JUST DON'T WANT ME!!!).

THAT SAID, AT MARISM 2000 AND 2001 THEY WERE GOING FULL OUT TO RECRUIT AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. I JUST POLITELY SAID NO THANKS.

SO YES, THEY ARE A BUNCH OF SCHEMING POLITICANS WITH ONE EYE ON THERE POSITION WITHIN THE MOVEMENT, AND ARE LOOKING TO RECRUIT FROM IT, AS THERE PAPER SELLING, BANNAR PROMOTING ANTICS INDICATE.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE MOVEMENT ISN'T STRONGER WITHOUT THEM. WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY ARE ABOUT. TO BE FAIR, THERE ARE SO BLATANT THAT THEY ARE COMPLETELY HOENST ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE ABOUT. THEY ALSO BRING A HIGH LEVEL OF ORGANISATION (RE. GR, EVEN IF I DIDN'T TOTALLY APPRECIATE IT WHEN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF GENOA) AND HAVE SOME GOOD THOUGHTS ABOUT HAVE TO ENABLE US TO WIN OVER THE MASSES (WHICH SURELY WE ALL WANT IF ANY OF US ARE GOING TO ACHIEVE ANYTHING).

SO IN GENERAL I GUESS MY REPONSE TO MOST POINTS ABOUT THE SWP IS "YES, NAUGHTY NAUGHTY, AND SO WHAT?"

IN UNITY,

ADAM.

In regard to the Socialist Workers Party, they are a Leninist organisation, they continually refer to the Bolshevik tradition and so on, this in effect means that they are supporters of the establishment of murderous totalitarian police states, something which personally bothers me, especially considering the millions of people slaughtered by the U.S.S.R. (under all it's leaders). Highly ironic then that they produce propaganda such as leaflets entitled "Never Again" when refering to the authoritarians of the "right". I do not like this, can anyone blame me? In regard to their ever zealous publicity operations, paper selling, leafleting, postering, etc.. - sometimes they are everywhere, I do not get the point of people who give out about this, if it wasn't for the fact I had problems with them over slightly more important things it would not bother me, I only wish that libetarians (of whatever current)were as eager to do this (I think the fact that the S.W.P. do it puts them off).

Better Dead Than Red.

how many SWP members does it take to change a lightbulb..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

well the answear is of course, NONE. the lightbulb has to ACHIEVE change through its own strugel.

however, the SWP can supply,

1 umbrella organisation to bring together those wishing to support the lightbulb in its efforts to achieve change "Lightbulb Resistance?"

2 huge "Change the Lightbulb" bannars to be displayed promiently at all lightbulb liberation rallies

3 editorials in Socialist Worker stressing that the lightbulb will only achieve change if drops its reactionary/purist (delete as approiate) stance and adopts a trotskyist strategy in order to achieve change

4 SWP activists to sit on the Lightbulb Resistance Steering Commitee (7 members)

5 Hundred " Socialist Worker : Change the Lightbulb, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!" placards to be handed out at all lightbulb events around the country

6 Pages in Socialist Worker on the suffering on lightbulbs everywhere.

7 thousand pounds raised to allievate the suffering of the lightbulb during its struggel

8 thousand activists to picket sockets everywhere until they see the errors of their reactionary ways and relent to pressure to allow the lightbulb to achieve change.

9 letters from SWP members in Socialist Worker placing the lightbulbs strugel in historical context

10 editorials in Socialist Worker condeming the lightbulb for selling out once change has been achieved.

heheheheh.....

so can anyone tell me how many Anarchists it takes to change a lightbulb??????

A few facts for Terry

Trotsky was murdered by Stalin

Hundreds of thousands of trotskyists died fighting the rise of stalinism in Russia, China, Spain and elsewhere.

THe slogan of the swp and it's forerunners from the 1950s
was 'Neither Washington Nor Moscow but international socialism'

We provided material support to opponents of stalinist regimes In Eastern Europe throughout the 1970's and 1980's.

No member of the swp and it's sister organisations around the world has ever defended dictatorial regimes whether they be of the right or the left.

We believe in socialism from below as do left wing anarchists.

We believe that the working class, and only the working class is capable of defeating capitalism.

We believe the question of revolution is not a moral but a practical question.

We believe the bosses and the state will use every means at their disposal down to war and fascist methods of government to prevent revolution from happening.

We believe we have no time to spare.

We believe the existence of a sizeable revoltionary party which is capable of co-ordinating struggles and providing a forum for dmocratic debate leading to action among militants will make the crucial difference when the time comes.

As it might have in Chile

or in Tianemen Square

and so on

Therefore we believe in organisation.

I was once a swimmer in my youth,selling the paper,handing out leaflets,going to meetings,Marxism in London and
'engaging with the urban proletariat'and all that bland,
tasteless,disillusing shit.I feel perfectly justifying in what I say as I have been through the good ol' Leninist
central 'democracy'and believe the SWP as being the most cynical,negative waste of time and energy I have ever
encountered in any 'left' organisation.the structure is obsessed with itself,the central committee never changed
while I was there,it was the same people every week at the boring,uninspiring preachy 'do it our way'branch meetings,I found the people there the longest had the most sway in decisions and any new recruits were either assimilated or
were forced to leave for being different. I too was a boring hack and for too long I saw seriously-minded experinced people of 'proletarian stock' being patronised for their real life experiences and being talked down to
by upper-class wanker academics.I watched for too long and
saw many decent real fighters come in with hearts on fire and leave in a defeated,bitter,cynical frame of mind without
(unfortunately)any other experience of 'revolutionary stuff'
I advise any swimmers reading this to leave before you get
a clouded tunnel vision head on ya.
Better yet to join another real organisation or even better
still start your own local democracy.

Hi

What other 'real' organisations do you mean
What do you mean by your own local democracy

Tom Byrne wrote:

Since i joined i have helped the struggles of deportees, strikers, community campaigners, some of them i have helped to win.

I am interested in how you did this! What does the SWP do to help these people? How does it win?

Thank You to everyone who contributed to my question. The answers have varied quite a bit.
I see essentially 3 trains of thought since I posted my question.
1. The SWP are wankers don't touch 'em with a bargepole.
2. People who aren't bothered by them.
3. SWP folks who defend the party and its record.

I firmly believe sectarianism is going to get us nowhere and ultimately could cost the anti-capitalist
movement victory (other divisions could equally do so).
We should always have debate within the movement to help things forward.
Every organisation in this movement has something positive to offer, all these experiences should be
drawn upon if the goal of defeating capitalism is to be won.
So let us get on with the task at hand comrades as Marx said:
We have a world to win.

Alan.

Well said Alan.

The main thing is to help provide solidarity through our contacts in the movement, which after fifty years are fairly numerous. and also to provide publicity through our publications. Also to advise people on struggle based on th experience of past struggles and to help organise demonstrations, you name it to add pressure in favour of the campaign. The best way to keep up with what we do is to read our paper which is weekly and reports on struggles around britain and the world. It should be online today at about 3 at www.swp.org.uk

SchNEWS, for a slightly more entertaining weekly read, and a slightly less dull set of contacts... follow the links!

Hello Tom, You will notice in my previous post that I clearly state the U.S.S.R. under all it leaders, the S.W.P. regards as an inspiration the Bolshevik government of the Russian Empire when it was headed by Lenin, No? . As this government carried out massive repression against revolutionaries, and the working class and peasantry in general, and in fact was fairly similar to later Soviet governments (well more repressive than most)consequently I can only conclude that the S.W.P. is bascially in favour of totalitarian police states, perhaps as a "necessary evil".
As for the fact that Trotsky was murdered on Stalin's orders well so what? I'm not talking just about Russia just under Stalin but also when the likes of Lenin and Trotsky were the bosses.
People have also being talking about "sectarianism", well it is not "sectarian" to challenge the S.W.P. about this, if we cannot have debate then we cannot have a diverse but unified movement, I'm not stopping them from disagreeing with me and I'm not saying they should be kicked out!
BTW I believe in organisation too Tom, the S.W.P. does not have a monoply on it!

when I say 'real' organisation I mean an organisation or
assosiation that relates to fellow-humans in a human way
and not in a pseudo-intellectual academic way.An organisation that wants to empower people as opposed to
being the 'tightly-nit-highly-organised-professional band of
revolutionaries'that is going to take power in the name of
the masses.A real organisation that believes in direct democracy through direct action...(when I tried to organise
some direct action all I got was humming and hawing and 'well now thats quite illegal and we really should be
concentrating on the organised working-classes through militant labour unions and besides theory is very important
and as Marx once said'....blah,blah,blah,wank,wank,wank)
I know I'm being bitter and critical but the organisation
is TOTALLY controlled by its 'leaders' and they unlike most
of the people in the SWP are one scary bunch of power-hungry
mother-fuckers,go and smoke some herb with them and see how
bloddy anal they are.I wouldn't worry about them too much
though as this movement is new and fresh,vibrant and colorful with a hundred different heads and arms with a spirit you WONT find in the stale ol' pee of the SWP.

greatly enjoy shcnews and it is quite 'entertaining'
though i'm sure neither of our contacts are dull
and there is of course a huge difference in circulation
and quality of writing with Socialist Worker.

and terry i suppose you think Makhnos dictatorship in the Ukraine wa sthe height of libertarian democracy and his crucifixion of captured bolsheviks and other peasnats and workers he didn't like revolutionary justice

Anarchism has at least as many absurdities, atrocities and failures in it s past as marxism

AS for the swps views on the early years of the russian revolution, it's destruction by civil war, and the rise of stalin, for anyone who is interested follow the link

 http://www.marxists.de/statecap/harman/revlost.htm

dozens mate

first and foremost one to set up a magazine/website detailing how stupid the SWP & other trots are for their approach.

one to carry out 'direct action' in support of the lightbulb by throwing a stone at a copper.

one to explain, in some detail, how the whole lightbulb question was answered in the agrarian collectives of Spain in 1936-37.

one to explain how, actually, anarchists have always beeen on top of the light question from the Diggers, to Mahkno, to Spain, to Paris to "everday struggles in our own communities."

one to slag of the "committee to change the lightbulb" because it is dominated by trots and has a heirarchical/reformist/labourist approach to the issue.

one to explain how the lightbulb is in fact the worst expression of modern capitalism and we should instead work for a return to naturally-lit, sustainable, self-governing rural collectives.

one to get pissed.

one to argue for the building of real revolutionary unions to fight for lightbulb changing - FROM BELOW!

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Slavoj Zizek, professor of philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, delivered a fairly mad but very entertaining meeting at this year's Marxism, during the course of which he told a slightly odd anecdote about his days as a conscript in the army of the former Yugoslavia. The army was made up of youths from all the different bits of Yugoslavia, and Slavoj was making the point that what really tied them together and cemented friendships was the ability to take the piss out of each other, relying on stock national stereotypes: Serbs are thieves, Montenegrans are lazy, Slovenians are miserly, and so on; all possible sides were mocked equally. This, he seemed to suggest, was maybe not an ideal situation, but rather preferable to years of internecine warfare.

We have a similar situation with lightbulb jokes.

Duh! Everyone knows anarchists do not believe in changing lightbulbs we believe in smashing them!
O.K. Actually I'm not a "Makhnovist" so while I believe we can learn some lessons from this movement I do not believe it's it replication in entirely different conditions 80 years later, (unlike the S.W.P. and the Bolshevik Party).
Right come up with some supporting evidence for Makhno's supposed dictatorship in the Ukrainne (actually didn't contempory Bolsheviks criticise the Insurgent Army of the Ukrainne for being too democratic and undisciplined, Trotsky I think in fact, using them in an argument with Stalin over partisan warfare). Please use objective academic historians in your supporting evidence, rather than the propaganda of the Bolsheivk party (who after all were involved in an armed conflict with the Insurgents).
I would urge any one who wants to read about the Russian Revolution to check out Orlando Figes's books, - he's not a Leninist not an Anarchist just a historian (and he says things I disagree with). As regard the supposed crucification of captured Bolsheviks by the Insurgents, well if it actually happened I'm not suprised, I know other peasant rebels across the Russian Empire did similar things (and worse), which is a reflection of the oppression the Bolshevik party dictatorship subjected them to, whereas the old Landlords were often treated quite generously after they had been overthrown - says a lot for socialism doesn't it!

here are a few bedtime books for budding leninists/trots:

Arshinov, Peter History of the Machnovist Movement.

available from freedom books. written by a man who was a bolshevik, joined makhno, went into exile, went back to russia to become a bolshevik again and got murdered in one of uncle joes great party bloodfests. a decent read.


the unknown revolution by Voline
published by Black Rose Books
ISBN 0-919618-25-1

the definative lowdown on what became of the anarchists in bolshevik russia.



the Bolshevik myth by Alexander Berkman
published by Pluto Press
ISBN 1-85305-032-6

more disillusionment. eyewitness acount of the russian revolution and where it went wrong.



the struggle against the state and other essays
by nestor makhno
published by AK Press
ISBN 1-873176-78-3

should speak for it's self.


not that you will ever read them, as they are not on the authorised party reading list. oh well, nevermind keep on chanting.