Has anyone noticed the contradictory positions that the SWP hold on the question of armed struggle? After September 11, the SWP declared in the pages of Socialist Worker that this was an event much like other urban guerrilla actions and dug up a few quotes from Trotsky to back their claim that this event would not shake US capitalism and the US state.
Taking Trotsky's views out of context, they suggested that once the smoke of the explosion clears or the panic engendered by an assassination of a government minister dies down, the old regime carries on much as before and the revolutionary movement has not gained anything.
Yet following the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine's assassination of the racist Israeli cabinet minister Ze'evi they declared that this was a positive act of resistance.
Firstly, I should point out that I reject the SWP's dogmatic position that they generally seem to hold to on the question of armed struggle. Not only can armed struggle boost the morale of the oppressed and exploited, but I believe it can also bring tangible gains to the revolutionary movement; whether in terms of propaganda, the release of political prisoners, or ultimate the overthrow of capitalism and the state.
Now to return to the SWP's position as regards the action of September 11; their argument that this was a guerrilla action similar to other guerrilla actions in the past is clearly incorrect. Unlike other urban guerrilla actions undertaken over the past few decades this action was undertaken against the centres of US power on US territory. This had not taken place before on such a large scale. The American New left in the late 60s and early 70s had undertaken guerrilla actions in the US but not on a scale coming anywhere close to that of September 11. And it was the grandiose scale of the attacks of sept 11 that made this a new type of guerrilla action.
Action on this scale against the one remaining superpower was bound to create a new response from the largest capitalist countries. This action was clearly going to change the rules. A new period of history was about to begin! Nevertheless, the SWP misjudged this and simply dug up the old quotes from Trotsky to suggest that the world would continue much as it had before!
Now as regards the Ze'evi assassination, the SWP, when they could have applied their argument derived from Trotsky (not that I would agree with it), changed tack and applauded the action! Come on comrades, at least be consistent and follow the logic of your arguments! Although I too thought that this assassination was a positive act, the SWP's support for this action when understood within the context of their condemnation of most other urban guerrilla actions -whether in Ireland or elsewhere- clearly smacks of opportunism.
If there are any SWP members reading this then please reply. I would be fascinated to see you attempt to defend such contradictory positions!