While SWP was overcharging students and the poor a newspaper"Livingstonia propaganda", anarchists were busy building a movement- when SWP entered the doors of the movement with its papers, they started helping the reactionaries by throwing out the anarchists.

It's funny the way you talk about the SWP as if it were a person................................instead of about 5 people who write all the books, the newspaper and develop the "party line".

intercommunal violence in scotland, locals on a scottish workin class housing estate in scotland, vented their anger at the influx of refugees and asylum seekers into their housing estate, refugees and asylum seekers are being housed in tower blocks etc in this estate. one so called local was quoted by the capitalist media as saying"they(the refugees) were living it up in luxurious housing superior to that of hers", the refugees and asylum seekers are crowded into tower blocks, cramped and unhealthy conditions, just the same as this lady. some one or people is stirring up shit there because the refugees are living in worse or similar conditions to this local. who could possibly stirring up shit here, people who want to divide and rule. whilst this workin class lady is busy blaming and targeting refugees, she is not thinkin about the real villains in the picture, the ruling class elite and establishment who are grinding her and workin class kids into the dirt, who have allowed the smack epidemic in scotland to take hold, who actively encouraged smack pushers, whilst simultaneously clamping down on soft drugs.this was done for a purpose and that purpose is the war the ruling elite establishment hav been waging against the poor and workin class in our cuntry. flooding our areas wif smack to pasify and divert the workin class from their true destiny rebellion. wake up woman and see who the real enemy is, we are all just niggers to the rulers of this land. why the rich will not accomodate the refugees in their leafy suburbs, cos they want interracial strife, divide and conquer.

I'm not personally in the SWP, but a few of my friends are, and I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that they are absolutely commited in bringing about radical social change through democratic means.

You mention that the SWP paper misrepresents Anarchists and tries to propagate the equation: Anarchists = Black Block = Violent Police Provocateurs.

Firstly, let me just say, that there some Anarchists on here are not entirely innocent of misrepresenting the SWP or SWP bashing either...

...but lets not turn this into a childish debate about who said what...

The July 28th edition of the SWP (no 1759) there is considerable talk about Anarchists and the Black Block in Genoa. This is probably what you are referring to.

I have not yet had a chance to read the issue myself in it's entirety, but I can tell you that one of my friends who is in the SWP, expressed 'concern' about the way Anarchists were represented in that issue.

I cannot speak for the SWP party, but from what I have gathered by speaking to a few of their members, it seems that they are *not* deliberately trying to demonise the black block or the Anarchists (in an attempt to ideologically discredit them). The issue that the members of the SWP I had with the Anarchists who also used Black Block tactics was precisely over that - tactics.

None-the-less, I will pass on your comment to either the web-site of the SWP, or a couple of the SWP members themselves, and see if they are prepared to make a statement or give a reply.

Do you have an email address to send it to? Or should it, perhaps, be posted on here, publicly?

it iz no coincidence that during the political term of the new labour government, nazis are growin in strength. why ?becos tinpot hitler tony blur and his right wing national socialist party is encouraging their grass roots, nazis to become more active. new labour iz dragging socialism through the mud, and prostituting it wif all kinds of nazi scum(bush, berlosconi .this is why during the last 4 years nazis are becoming more high profile. thanks very much tinpot upperclass public school boy hitler tony blair and his totalitarian fuckin police state. they cannot stand any critisms what so ever, they can only rule this cuntry, when the people are divided, fighting amongst themselves over race, thats why interracial aggro is encouraged it distracts from whatever tony and his fuckin capitalist bandits are up to, whether it be pukering up to bushes arse or butchering local industries. dont be surprised if mi5/6 members is organisin nazi activities on behalf of herr blair.STIR IT UP herr tony

They won't stop telling lies about anarchism until we stop telling the truth about bolshevism, i.e. that it's a load of state capitalistic authoritarian bullshit.

"The Black Block is made up of a very small self selected elite who act in a paramilitary manner. It keeps apart from the organising of mass demonstrations. Then it uses them as cover for attacks on property and the police..."

Fuck off.

I am a school student and I was in genoa. I am alos in the SWP and I am very happy to work with Anarchists. I feel that to say that SW equates the black bloc with all anarchists is wrong. From how I see it SW is being critical of the tactics of the BB because we feel that it leaves themselves open to infultration.

I have no problem with the true members of the BB (ie the people who are not infultrators). OK I might not agree with their tactics and the way in which they go about fighting capitalism, but we are both fighting the same enemy. I'm not gonna slag any member of the BB for smashing a window or cop. The only way that I will criticise them is the way in which they leave them selves open to being taken over by infultrators.

I think that maybe you have taken things out of context.
Remember we are both on the same side. You dont agree with our tactics and we dont with yours. But we are fighting the same enemy so lets just get on and smash capitalism.

cheers

Thanx for commenting,

Actually this article refers to Socialist Worker 1760 4 August 2001, not No 1760 as you suggest. Though both issues are similar in that they only use word anarchist when talking about a police infiltrated black bloc, whilst neglecting to acknowledge the pressence anarchist activists in groups as diverse as the base unions of the COBAS to the WOMBLES.

As for your last question, I think I would like members of the SWP to make their reply public if they can, as I have made my appeal to them in public.

who is the swp run by?

ie. who is on the party hierarchy?

surely if the black block has been infiltrated, as the swp claim, then why not them?

do they still think anarchists are counter revolutionary?

sectarianism is divisive, why not ask the anarchists from 1917-1921; oh shit, they all got shot.

Carlos was shot by a cop, not by his comrades.

work together, not always agreeing, but working together, unity.

WANTED: Anticapitalists

Job Description: Millions of the people wanted urgently to improve their world

Skills: tolerant, analytical, tactical, organised

Socialists welcome
Anarchists welcome
Trade unionists welcome
Environmentalists welcome
Non-aligned activists welcome


REMEMBER GENOVA

"Il Pueblo, unito, demacia vencido"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> Remember we are both on the same side.

Evidently we are not.

> You dont agree with our tactics and we dont with yours.

I'll say!

> But we are fighting the same enemy

No, we are fighting against all forms of authority and inequality. You on the other hand are opposing authority and inequality in the current system so that you can replace it with another which is just as authoritarian and unequal. After your "revolution" we won't be fighting the same enemy, we'll be fighting each other and you know it.

> so lets just get on and smash capitalism.

I couldn't agree more. But that means resisting attempts to re-establish capitalism in the name of a "workers' state" as much as it means destroying bourgeois rule.

In response to the SWP members and sympathisers here who reckon the newspaper was a one off, you should be aware that it is consistent SWP policy to attack anarchism. Articles in the Socialist Review have regularly painted a completely dishonest picture of anarchism, as do SWP meetings on topics such as "leninism vs. Anarchism", or "Why we need a party". The SWP attacks anarchists as not understanding the role of the working class (bollocks - read Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malanesta, Class War etc), being un-democratic (what? and that from leninists!) and as being elitist (just about arguable re the black bloc, I reckon). The rason for this is because anarchism is becoming more and more attractive to anti-capitalist activists, and the leninists reckon their party membership will suffer. How comes no anarchists were invited to speak at the Globalise Resistance conferences? simple answer - we have attractive and creative ideas which the SWP don't want their membership to hear.

I would point out though, to Lemming in particular, that its a mistake to discard all swp members as leninists. loads of people join the swp because they're so noticable, without really undewrstanding what its about. They should be told about the history and legacy of bolshevism, but many of them are committed anti-capitalists, who have simply been fed crap.

The SWP are, as someone pointed out, infamous for producing inaccurate
articles about anarchism. Last year they published what must be the most
down-right lying article on anarchism I have ever read in _Socialist Review_.
It was by Pat Stack and I sent in a letter in response (this can be found at
www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html if anyone is interested).

At the end of the letter I asked the members of the SWP to raise the
question *why* such an obviously inaccurate article was published
in their magazine. What happened? Nothing. At Marxism 2001
Pat Stack repeated the same account of "anarchism" at the meeting
"Marxism and Anarchism." After 45 minutes of near total lies and
distortions, I got 3 minutes to reply -- which I did (how is that for
"debate"? Obviously a real discussion is the last thing the SWP
hierarchy wants).

Now, after 6 months after I asked the membership why the SWP published
such an inaccurate article, they let him repeat it at Marxism. This can mean
only one of three things:

1) That the majority of SWP members do not care for the truth.

2) That the majority do not bother themselves about what their
party leadership does.

3) That the majority does care but the SWP is so undemocratic that
their voice cannot be heard.

Whichever option it is, it does not look good for the SWP!

Given that a comrade from the SWP replied to my letter and did
not comment at all on the fact I had shown Pat Stack to be a liar
suggests a lot. Indeed, the Socialist Review refused to print my
reply letter (due to "space considerations"). Funny that when I
sent in my original letter I was told they wanted to debate the
issues! After attending Marxism, I now know *exactly* what they
mean by debate -- they get to distort anarchism, you get a
fraction of the time to reply, then they reply and that is it --
"sorry comrade, we have run out of time..."

Hopefully those in the SWP who are of goodwill will organise an
internal revolt over what the SWP have been doing for the last
year or so against anarchism. However, given the apparent lack
of response after Stack's disgraceful article, all I can assume is
that the undemocratic nature of the SWP will hinder any such
protest.

for more on SWP distortions on anarchism visit:

www.geocities,com/CapitolHill/1931/append31.html

www.geocities,com/CapitolHill/1931/append34.html

www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html

I am a highly disillusioned SWP member. I joined the party after Marxism 2000, which was an enjoyable and informative conference where I met many like-minded people.
However, I've become tired with the pressure of selling the Socialist Worker, standing around at stalls begging people to sign futile petitions (what's the point in a revolutionary party petitioning the capitalist state), and worst of all participating in the Socialist Alliance (why is a revolutionary party putting candidates up in the elections - didn't Marx's Communist Manifesto reject this reformist style of politics?)
The trouble is that you can't opt out of these things if you're a member of the SWP. OK, you can say your piece, but generally the directives come from the rather obscure leadership. I had to make a whole number of excuses as to why I couldn't campaign for the SA and now I'm being shunned for not pulling my weight - and not selling papers, making more donations and being active in my trade union. I don't want to shout a lot on street corners because I'd look like a jerk and it doesn't really advance anything.
I am considering leaving the SWP, but there really isn't any other active, organised group in the revolutionary left. Anybody got any better ideas?

A bloke from Workers Liberty (?) in an earlier discussion made a really good point which was that the youth membership of the SWP is much more radical than the party line. They are very into the anti-capitalist/green side of stuff. He also argued, anyone got a reply to this, the way the SWp organise in unions is almost syndicalist - ie developing rank & file blocs.
If you think about it why would any normal young person go and join a Trotskyist outfit like the SWP in the 21st century? Trostkyism is merely an oppositional faction within the authoritarian socialist movement that has not developed theoretically (arguably it has tactically through the use on entryism) since the 1940s.
I think the ONLY reason most young Swuppies join is because the SWP is the only organised outfit around that sounds radical. The problem for the libertarian left is that we do not have a single national organisation worth getting involved in. Is there an argument therefore for trying to stoke up a libertarian revolt within the SWP?
The SWP is changing - the Tony Cliff era leadership is dying out and the younger ones will have seen how the SWP has failed to appeal to ordinary folks throughout the 90s despite trying to piggyback on all kinds of issues - anti-fascism, the mini miners revolt, anti-capitalism protests, CJA etc etc.
The very fact that the SWP is looking at the SA in any serious demonstrates that they are fundamentally questioning their own tactics. Also, as said above, the fact that the SWP feel the need to stoop to these fit-ups and smears about anarchists suggests they fear being seen as not radical enough.
Unfortunately libertarian lefties/anarchists have little to crow about. until we have a serious national organisation - and the AF, SolFed, CW are not it - young militants will continue to get pulled into the SWP, get disillusioned and drop out of political action.
I'd also be interested to see how many anarchos on here have been in the SWP at some stage - I was.

The SWP's criticism (as an organisation) is based partly on the historical experience of anarchism, which in its finest hour, namely the Spanish Civil War eventually joined with the Spanish state because it had no alternative to capitalist power.

Now the criticism of the Black Bloc (which before we get carried away involves a few hundred activists at best) is based on strategy, if you read a few pages after the articles you're all criticizing, there is mention of the COBAS unions etc...on the 300 000 demo in Genoa. it's interesting that none of the Anarchists talking here presume to even think about the possiblity that the strategy may be flawed. Remember this is important, strategies matter when people start getting killed.

Anarchism is of course a variety of things and I have no problem working with many of the anarchists I know despite our political differences. One of the problems of Anarchism is that it is such a multifareous thing -Although there are some distinct ideas to do with notions of the 'individual' which I think are ahistorical and not true. Also there is a presumption that the 'movement' is somehow theirs (though of course they aren't elitist), as if people like myself and many others who are Marxists and in the SWP have never been on or involved in J18, RTS demos etc...BUT this movement goes way beyond the direct action crowd now, important as things like J18 were, they are part of a larger picture that includes the french general strikes in '95, the zapatista's struggle, etc...and Seattle was a qualitative shift because of the way the labour movement became involved. Genoa was a mass demo involving thousands of organised working class people.

From my direct experience, I have never been in a socialist meeting where people are shouted down for having a different set of ideas (as happened at the Anarchist bookfair last year), nor violently and forcibly thrown out of 'open' meetings for being a leninist (as happened in the intial Mayday meetings). This seems to me to be the negative side of some anarchists who rather then engage in debate repeat dogma.

Actually I would say as a socialist, it was Marxists that want an Anarchic society (ie.one without government) but its the GETTING THERE that is the crucial thing and to get there I would say you need organisation that is capable of beating the centralised state of the capitalists. It seems on this question the anarchism is lacking and can provide no answers, whether you look at Bakunin or modern day stuff, whereas Marxism can.

On this we have to agree to disagree, this does not mean joint effort cannot made together, as it is ONLY practice that will resolve these problems.

So can we get on with getting more people involved now???

peace,

noel

Isn't this anarchist/swp thing missing the point a bit? You don't need obscure references to events in Russia 80 years ago to point out the problem with the SWP's politics - they vote for the government!

At the last election this meant that in seats where a socialist alliance or similar candidate wasn't standing - the majority of seats including, for instance, that racist Labour MP in Dover - the SWP argued for people to vote for the labour government's candidate.

I think it's a bit sad that the only way some anarchists seem to be able to criticise the SWP is by attacking socialism as such. That's daft and gives the SWP a lot of ground in a movement made up of lots of people with lots if views. I'm not an anarchist, but I don't want to see our movmement dominated by people who vote for the government, think handing out leaflets is an action, attack the zapatistas, ya basta, anarchists, whoever and are trying to take our movement back to the dead end 'protests' of the 80s where you march from a park to a square, listen to Tony fuckin Benn and go home.

So - who in the SWP is going to justify the fact that you voted for the Labour government in the last election?

Look, State Socialism is over. Especially in the UK. (Sth America and Africa and some European countries have different experiences) Most people will never forgive it for betraying them. Unions, the Labour Party...please, they were great in the 1880s - 1948 but after that they pissed on us and they still do.
Just take a look at the election result in Hartlepool (Mandelson 22,000 Scargill 922) if you want a resounding rejection, by ordinary folk like me, of Soviet-inspired Victorian age socialism.
The new democracy movement was started by and born out of environmentalists, anarchists and the fucking pissed-off. Generally radical people who don't want to be in political parties. What legitimacy does a `party` have anyway? Even the major three parties are no more legitimised by their existance than any other group.
There's no doubt that many SWP members are OK people but to the chap/woman who wants to leave but `can't` - don't be daft. Do something on your own, with people you trust. You'll make more headway and have a better time doing it. Seing the SWP in action, seing how quickly they attack others on the `left`, how they try and discredit others is very disillusioning.
As for the bullshit about `infiltration` in the Black Bloc. This is from people who weren't there, never followed the BB around and didn't see who they were or what they were doing. Its just rubbish and silly games...

adam porter (YZ magazine)

Noel writes:

>The SWP's criticism (as an organisation) is based partly on the historical
> experience of anarchism, which in its finest hour, namely the Spanish Civil War
> eventually joined with the Spanish state because it had no alternative to capitalist
> power.

Having been to the meeting on the Spanish Revolution at Marxism 2001 I can
say that the SWP's criticism of what the CNT did is so flawed as to be useless.
Anarchism does have an alternative to capitalism power (namely a free federation
of workers' councils/communes). The trouble in Spain was that the CNT refused
to implement libertarian communism because of the greater danger of Franco.
This was a mistake, but the SWP "analysis" (if you can call it that) of what
happened does not bother to place the decision into context.

Looking at Aragon, there the anarchists *did* start to implement their alternative
-- a federation of workers councils -- and did so very successfully. Funny that.
Same organisation, same politics, different decisions. Of coruse the speaker at
the Marxism meeting failed to discuss this, even after I brought up this obvious
point.

oh, btw, do you know what Trotsky said about Spain? He argued that the
"anarchist leaders" should have imposed *their own* dictatorship (which,of
course, fits nicely with his support of party dictatorship position he had
held for decades previously). One SWP "comrade" actually stated that
he agreed with Trotsky on this as the CNT leaders "represented" the
workers -- which is, I am sure all would agree, a strange definition of
"workers' power"!

for a detailed discussion of Marxism and Spanish Anarchism visit:

www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append32.html

"Now the criticism of the Black Bloc (which before we get carried away involves a
few hundred activists at best) is based on strategy,"

Nope, sorry, the SWP have clearly smeared the Black Block and basically
argued that BB equals police agent (and, of course, that BB=anarchists,
forgetting 1) that many BB-ers in Genoa were Marxists and 2) that a
minority of anarchists support the BB tactic).

"if you read a few pages after
the articles you're all criticizing, there is mention of the COBAS unions etc...on the
300 000 demo in Genoa."

And no mention by the SWP that the Italian anarchist federations (and other
groups from France, etc) took part in the COBAS demo! Why *did* the SWP
ignore the non-BB anarchists in Italy in its "Who's who on the Italian Left"?
I'm still waiting for an answer from the SWP comrades -- it does not look
good that they constantly refuse to answer the question.

"it's interesting that none of the Anarchists talking here
presume to even think about the possiblity that the strategy may be flawed."

And that assumes that the anarchists here support the tactic. Most anarchists
do not (not that you could discover that from the SWP). Yes, those people
(anarchists and Marxists) who use the BB tactic should rethink their ideas
based on what happened in Genoa -- I'm sure they are.

Now, why is the SWP basically equating anarchism with the BB and refusing
to mention the majority of anarchists who do not support it or the majority
of anarchists in Italy?

"Remember this is important, strategies matter when people start getting killed."

Indeed. Given the history of the Bolsheviks killing people who disagreed with
them (or called for soviet democracy and other such things), I wonder if our
SWP comrade will be re-thinking his support for Bolshevik ideas?

For more on anarchism and Leninism visit:

www.infoshop.org/faq/append3.html
www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html

And for the comrade who asked for an alternative to the SWP, visit the
anarchist FAQ (www.anarchistfaq.org) and have a look at the links page
-- there are dozens of anarchists groups listed there from all across the
world -- www.infoshop.org/faq/links.html

You will find the webpage of all the UK anarchist groups with the
Anarchist Federation, Class War and the SOlidarity Federation.

Neol writes:

"Actually I would say as a socialist, it was Marxists that want an Anarchic society
(ie.one without government) but its the GETTING THERE that is the crucial thing
and to get there I would say you need organisation that is capable of beating the
centralised state of the capitalists."

No, actually, the crucial thing is that you beat the capitalists and do not
replace them with a new set of bosses. Given that, Leninism failed in
Russia. Yes, they beat the capitalists but they did so only to replace one
centralised state of bosses with another.

Moreover, the actual process of destroying soviet democracy, working class
freedom, workplace democracy, soldier democracy and so on, all started
*before* the start of the Civil War. Faced with workers rejecting them at
the soviet elections, the Bolsheviks disbanded the soviets and repressed
the workers' protests. Little wonder Lenin, Trotsky and Zinoviev all argued
that party dictatorship was essential (you know, to over come the
"vacillations" and "waving" of the working class -- i.e. the people who
Leninists claim will be in power under their system)

"It seems on this question the anarchism is
lacking and can provide no answers, whether you look at Bakunin or modern day
stuff, whereas Marxism can."

Given that Bakunin argued for workers' councils as the framework of a
revolution, does this mean that "Marxism" rejects this? After all, the
Bolsheviks used the soviets purely for themselves to take power so
maybe I am correct?

So, like Bakunin, modern day anarchists argue for a federation of workers
councils based on mandated, recallable delegates, a workers militia to
defend the revolution, workers self-management of production, as the
means of destroying capitalism. If this is "no answer" then what is?
Party dictatorship, as Trotsky argued?

An answer would be interesting.

Neol writes:

"Actually I would say as a socialist, it was Marxists that want an Anarchic society
(ie.one without government) but its the GETTING THERE that is the crucial thing
and to get there I would say you need organisation that is capable of beating the
centralised state of the capitalists."

No, actually, the crucial thing is that you beat the capitalists and do not
replace them with a new set of bosses. Given that, Leninism failed in
Russia. Yes, they beat the capitalists but they did so only to replace one
centralised state of bosses with another.

Moreover, the actual process of destroying soviet democracy, working class
freedom, workplace democracy, soldier democracy and so on, all started
*before* the start of the Civil War. Faced with workers rejecting them at
the soviet elections, the Bolsheviks disbanded the soviets and repressed
the workers' protests. Little wonder Lenin, Trotsky and Zinoviev all argued
that party dictatorship was essential (you know, to over come the
"vacillations" and "waving" of the working class -- i.e. the people who
Leninists claim will be in power under their system)

"It seems on this question the anarchism is
lacking and can provide no answers, whether you look at Bakunin or modern day
stuff, whereas Marxism can."

Given that Bakunin argued for workers' councils as the framework of a
revolution, does this mean that "Marxism" rejects this? After all, the
Bolsheviks used the soviets purely for themselves to take power so
maybe I am correct?

So, like Bakunin, modern day anarchists argue for a federation of workers
councils based on mandated, recallable delegates, a workers militia to
defend the revolution, workers self-management of production, as the
means of destroying capitalism. If this is "no answer" then what is?
Party dictatorship, as Trotsky argued?

An answer would be interesting.

try looking at this in another way. i put it to you that the fault with the SWP is NOT that they are Marxists, but that in fact, they are FAKES AND POSERS, having more in common with the turn of the century SOCIAL DEMOCRATS, sometimes referred to as Orthodoxists. Building up a state-friendly captulationist ideology at a low ebb in the fortunes of the workers struggle at this time, they were typified in the names of Bernstein, Kautsky and Kerensky. Dont attack them for Leninists and Trotskyists as you will lose the argument by having accepted their false premise. And dont blame Trotsky for Stalin; why did he have him killed ? Admittedly, Trotsky was anti-anarchist, but Lenin was surprisngly tolerant in certain circumstances.

We shall begin in 1920 and Trotsky's infamous work _Terrorism
and Communism_. In it we discover Trotsky arguing that:

"We have more than once been accused of having substituted
for the dictatorships of the Soviets the dictatorship of
the party. Yet it can be said with complete justice that
the dictatorship of the Soviets became possible only by
means of the dictatorship of the party. It is thanks to the
. . . party . . . [that] the Soviets . . . [became] transformed
from shapeless parliaments of labour into the apparatus of the
supremacy of labour. In this 'substitution' of the power of
the party for the power of the working class these is nothing
accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. The
Communists express the fundamental interests of the working
class." [_Terrorism and Communism_, p. 109]

Of course, this was written during the Civil War and may be
excused in terms of the circumstances in which it was written.
Sadly for this kind of argument, Trotsky continued to argue
for party dictatorship after its end. In 1921, he argued
again for Party dictatorship at the Tenth Party Congress.
His comments made there against the _Workers' Opposition_
make his position clear: "They have made a fetish of
democratic principles! They have placed the workers'
right to elect representatives above the Party. As if
the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship
even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing
moods of the workers' democracy!" He stressed that
the "Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . .
regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working
class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every
moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."
[quoted by M. Brinton, _The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_,
p. 78]

He repeated this call again, two years later. Writing in
1923, for example, he argued that "[i]f there is one
question which basically not only does not require revision
but does not so much as admit the thought of revision, it
is the question of the dictatorship of the Party, and its
leadership in all spheres of our work." He stressed that
"[o]ur party is the ruling party . . . To allow any changes
whatever in this field, to allow the idea of a partial . . .
curtailment of the leading role of our party would mean to
bring into question all the achievements of the revolution
and its future." He indicated the fate of those who *did*
question the party's "leading role": "Whoever makes an
attempt on the party's leading role will, I hope, be
unanimously dumped by all of us on the other side of
the barricade." [_Leon Trotsky Speaks_, p. 158 and p. 160]

Which, of course, was exactly what the Bolsheviks had done
to other socialists (anarchists and others) and working
class militants and strikers after they had taken power.

At this point, it will be argued that this was before the
rise of Stalinism and the defeat of the Left Opposition.
With the rise of Stalin, many will argue that Trotsky
finally rejected the idea of party dictatorship and
re-embraced what McNally terms the "democratic essence"
of socialism. Unfortunately, yet again, this argument
suffers from the flaw that it is totally untrue.

(continued in part 2)

Let me start with the Left Opposition. In the _Platform of the
Opposition_, it will soon be discovered that Trotsky *still*
did not question the issue of Party dictatorship. Indeed, it
is actually stressed in that document. While it urged a
"consistent development of a workers' democracy in the party,
the trade unions, and the soviets" and to "convert the urban
soviets into real institutions of proletarian power" it
contradicted itself by ironically, attacking Stalin for
weakening the party's dictatorship. In its words,
the "growing replacement of the party by its own apparatus
is promoted by a ?theory? of Stalin?s which denies the
Leninist principle, inviolable for every Bolshevik, that
the dictatorship of the proletariat is and can be realized
only through the dictatorship of the party."

It repeats this principle by arguing that "the dictatorship
of the proletariat demands a single and united proletarian
party as the leader of the working masses and the poor
peasantry." It stresses that "[n]obody who sincerely
defends the line of Lenin can entertain the idea of
'two parties' or play with the suggestion of a split.
Only those who desire to replace Lenin's course with
some other can advocate a split or a movement along
the two-party road." As such, "[w]e will fight with
all our power against the idea of two parties, because
the dictatorship of the proletariat demands as its very
core a single proletarian party. It demands a single party."

Trotsky did not change from this perspective even
after the horrors of Stalinism which McNally correctly
documents. Writing in 1937, ten years after the Platform
was published, he repeats this position:

"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."
[Trotsky, _Writings 1936-37_, pp. 513-4]

This point is reiterated in his essay, "Bolshevism and
Stalinism" (written in 1937) when he argued that a
"revolutionary party, even having seized power . . .
is still by no means the sovereign ruler of society."
["Stalinism and Bolshevism", _Socialist Review_, no. 146,
p. 16] Note, the party is "the sovereign ruler of society,"
*not* the working class. Nor can it be said that he was
not clear who held power in his system:

"Those who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the
party dictatorship should understand that only thanks to
the party dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift
themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the
state form of the proletariat." [Trotsky, Op. Cit., p. 18]

Which was, let us not forget, his argument in 1920! Such
remarkable consistency on this point over a 17 year period
and one which cannot be overlooked if you seek to present
an accurate account of his ideas during this period. Finally,
we can quote Trotsky from 1939 (a position which echoes
his comments from 1921):

"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_,
p. 59]

Such a position hardly in the spirit of individual freedom
or democracy. Rather it means the promotion of party power
over workers' power -- a position which Trotsky had argued
consistently throughout the 1920s and 1930s.

Now, I wonder what the SWP will say about this. After all
Trotsky's position is pretty fundamental to his ideology.
And the SWP place this arguer for party dictatorship in
their hall of heroes and influences...

Frankly, I find these endless historical lectures on the Russian revolution boring and irrelevant. The SWP were not there, as I remember. Why don't we just get on with fighting the suffering and misery generated by today's capitalist system and accept the difference in tactics? These kind of arguments have not prevented the death of over four million people in the massacres in central Africa during the 1990s. These petty quarrels have not stopped the starvation in the Sahel, US imperialism in Latin America, oppression in China, the subjugation and mass murder of Chechens and Iraqis.
So let's stop these fucking stupid debate and address the real problems out there and not engage in this fucking self-obsessed white middle-class obsession with bitching and sniping. You are a bunch of fucking morons if you think this 'debate' will get you anywhere.

Thanks to all 4 commenting - though it seems like anarchos in a ratio of 3 to 1 slagging leninists - although I do think the actions of the bolshevik leaders early 20th century Russia indeed was terrible - I think that this type of argrument can degenerate into pointless "our side right - your side wrong" type debates -I'm much more concerned with the here and now -

I'd much rather that SWP members of good will would stop the faction editing Socialist Worker from smearing anarchists and spreading division and we could then get on with doing something positive like trying to get the over 1700 asyslum seekers held in British prisons out or stopping privatisation and replacing it with control by working communities

all power to the imagination
love John

Luther: It is true that although the SWP are Marxist-Leninists (neo-Trotskyists who viewed the USSR from Stalin onwards as state-capitalistic, to be exact), the ideology of their members can be quite diverse, from fairly libertarian socialist to vaguely social democratic. When I first became 'political' a few years ago I looked to the SWP simply because they were so prominent and my parents had been members. It wasn't until I read a copy of Organise that I started to learn about anarchism as anything other than believing in chaos and disorder.

Someone else: You seem quite close to the politics of Red Action (www.redaction.org), a group that split from the SWP over disillusionment with the cynical opportunism of the party leadership. Today they are not so much Trots as autonomist Marxists who share quite a few things with anarchists (especially the belief in the need for militant anti-fascism).

The Socialist Party Of Great Britain (www.worldsocialism.org/spgb) share even more things in common with anarchism (in fact they pretty much are anarchists). If neither of these groups appeal to you (and forget old skool Trots like Workers Power (www.workerspower.com), revisionists like the CPGB (www.cpgb.org.uk) and Stalinists like the RCPB (www.rcpbml.org.uk) - they're worse than the SWP!), try explicitely anarchist organisations like the Anarchist Federation (www.afed.org.uk) or the Solidarity Federation (www.solfed.org.uk), or start your own group. Or don't join a group at all - be a freelance revolutionary like me :)

Dan: I think discussing the events of the Russian revolution is essential, as not only is it an example of state socialism VS anarchism in practice, it is the single historical event that groups like the SWP draw most of their politics from.

Dan Brett writes:

> Frankly, I find these endless historical lectures
> on the Russian revolution boring and irrelevant.
> The SWP were not there, as I remember.

So its "irrelevant" to try and learn the lessons
of history? Sorry, no. Unless we learn from history
we will make the same mistakes. Obviously its in
the interests of Trotskyists to hide the true ideas
and actions of their leaders, but is it in ours?

And as for the SWP "not being there," well, since
they defend the Bolshevik ideology and the actions
of the Bolsheviks, its pretty clear that any
discussion of the SWP's ideology must take into
account its practice -- particularly as the SWP
point to it as the great example to follow!

> Why don't we just get on with fighting the
> suffering and misery generated by today's
> capitalist system and accept the difference
> in tactics?

lets not discuss politics? No, sorry, you cannot
effectively fight something unless you are for
something. And it is not a question of "difference
in tactics" but rather a question of means *and*
ends. I do not accept that someone who supports
party dictatorship is "on my side" and that it
is a question of "tactics."

> These kind of arguments have not prevented
> the death of over four million people in
> the massacres in central Africa during the
> 1990s. These petty quarrels have not stopped
> the starvation in the Sahel, US imperialism
> in Latin America, oppression in China, the
> subjugation and mass murder of Chechens and
> Iraqis.

sorry, but using guilt as a weapon is just not
on. And a discussion of the best way to end
capitalism is hardly a "Petty quarrel."

> So let's stop these fucking stupid debate
> and address the real problems out there
> and not engage in this fucking
> self-obsessed white middle-class
> obsession with bitching and sniping.

oh, after guilt, its the labelling. "middle-class"?
sorry, no. "self-obsessed"? sorry, no. But I
am white? yes. but is it a "stupid debate" to
discuss the best way to destroy capitalism? I
doubt it. Mindless activism soon ends up in
reformism.

> You are a bunch of fucking morons if you
> think this 'debate' will get you anywhere.

okay, lets not discuss the politics of the SWP
or anarchism and instead work together -- just
as the anarchists and Bolsheviks worked together
in 1917. What happened? Oh, yes, the Bolsheviks
repressed the anarchists, destroyed soviet
democracy and workers self-management and
helped path the way for Stalin.

Yes, only a "fucking moron" would wish not to
repeat *that* particular series of events again.

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

the seems applicable to many Leninists. Now, will
one of the SWP comrades answer some of the
following questions:

1) Why did SWP ignore the majority of anarchists
in Italy in its "Who's who of the Italian Left"?

2) How can Trotsky be considered as a socialist
when he argued for party dictatorship?

3) How can the SWP call their ideas "socialism
from below" when the include him in their list
of ideological leaders?

4) Will they raise the issue of Socialist Worker
and Socialist Review reporting of anarchism in
their party?

I doubt we will get an answer -- after all, as
Marxism 2001 showed, they don't seem to be
interested in debate. Rather, they want us to
help them into power...

excellent analysis, i can only add: some people in this debate/movement seem to have a very strange view on history, read it or we are condemned to carry out the same mistakes as in 1917 0r 1937.
i read a letter in the guardian last year about a persons reaction to the mayday conferance, he stated that he was disgusted to find that 'his/our' movement was being taken over by anarchists and marxists. this sentiment seems to come from middleclass, green, eco, monbiot, type people(sorry for the sectarianism, but it made me truly angry) that seem to forget that when we say we want change, we mean the whole fucking lot, not just to have another revolution as happened in russia or spain, but to build on their respective mistakes and to learn the lessons they taught us. the french revolution created the middle class, hegal said that it was the end of history ie. that nothing greater or better could ever be achieved. i believe that history hasn't ended, the middle class achieved their goals, we can still do the same.
the swp are a party, and i for one am not going.

what has it achieved in the last ten yrs in the UK in terms of getting libertarian ideas over to ordinary people?
organisationally the AF and SolFed are tiny in comparison to the SWP and we don't even have a decent regular mag/paper since Class War splintered.
we need a decent active national organisation and regular periodical. then we wouldn't need to re-hash these arguments with Trots because there would be a proper libertarian movement that would attract the militants who currently get sucked into and spat out of the SWP & similar.

OK, first I would like to state my position - I am a member of the SWP, my knowledge of anarchism is limited to the contents of Daniel Guerin's book 'Anarchism' and thirdly, and probably most importantly, I don't think all this Trot/anarcho bashing is going to resolve the original issue. While I agree that it is important to have political debate, I feel that rehashing all the same arguments about Russia and Spain that you can find for dime a dozen anywhere else on the internet is not going to get us anywhere.

As I recall, the original issue was about misrepresentation of anarchists in SW. I don't usually read British SW [living in NI], so I haven't been able to study the issue in question in great detail; however, from what I have read, I have found a few sweeping generalisations as regards anarchists and the Black Block which probably should not have been made. However, the diversity of anarchism does often make it hard to make accurate comments about anarchists - for example, we could be talking about the non-political anarchists, who are anarchists in the pejorative sense of the word - all they want to do is cause chaos and break stuff; and of course, there is no way to define them separate from the political anarchists who have read Proudhon and Bakunin and the rest and know exactly what it is they stand for, and so we talk about 'just' anarchists and the political anarchists get very upset and thus starts yet another round of Trot/anarcho bashing. The end result is, of course, that we don't feel any more inclined to be nice to you, and you likewise. Thus this whole 50 feet previous of '1000 things that are wrong with the SWP/anarchists' is a bit pointless and not getting us anywhere.

The real problem, I feel, is that instead of trying to promote understanding between groups such as the SWP and anarchists, every disagreement sparks a recall of a thousand other disagreements, and old vendettas get hiked up again and everybody ends up sulking at everyone else and writing nasty things about them in their respective publications. The person who sparked off this whole debate put in a plea for understanding and education between the 2 groups - sadly, they were ignored.

-"Brothers, brothers! We should be struggling together!"
-"We are!"
-"No, we should be united against the common enemy!"
-"The Judean Peoples' Front?"
-"No, the Romans!" [Monty Python's Life of Brian]

Look, in all honesty, I think we should all be united in overthrowing capitalism - it's bigger than all of us arguing here, and we need to be united and strong in order to win. This does not involve arguing about Russia and Spain constantly, but rather, trying to build a relationship based on the common ground we have. I will support the Black Block and the anarchists who are getting denounced by the world's press because the alternative is siding with the capitalists who denounce you. And all I ask, is for the same level of support in return.
I think quite a few people here have missed the point that we are all actually on the same side here, the anti-capitalist side. I know, as one comrade pointed out that the SWP advocated voting Labour where you couldn't vote SA, but the point of that is that we do not get a tory govt where people can be tricked into thinking that things would be better under Labour [which we know it wouldn't].
We are revolutionaries, same as you [pretty much]. So let's stop promoting division, and start working together to overthrow those capitalist bastards.

DROP THE PARTY LINE, THERE IS NO PARTY, YOU CLEARLY UNDER STAND THE PROBLEM, MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND, THERE IS STRUGGLE OUTSIDE OF THE SWP. FIND IT.

Well 'IT'S NOT SO BAD', I may recognise that there are problems that need to be resolved, but the fact is that the SWP is the most active left-wing organisation around in this country at the minute. My local group of anarchists, the Syndicalist Solidarity Network, are not terribly active or organised and the only one of their members who went to Genoa got there by himself and not through any kind of organised fundraising [and promptly got himself arrested for maliciously carrying an anarchist flag - step forward one John Blair] - they didn't even show up the last time we picketed the Gap. [I mean no offence to the SSN, they are a small organisation here, so things like this can be a problem - I am just highlighting them as the only anarchist group in Belfast]
While I may see problems with the SWP, not least of which, as one comrade drew attention to, the fact that they allowed an horrendously inaccurate article about anarchism into Socialist Review, they are more active than anyone else I see around at the minute. And let's face it, we're not gonna get a revolution without activism.