Skip to content or view screen version

SWP condemn direct action as 'elitism'

Jules | 18.11.2002 13:48

Lindsey German, chair of the Stop the War Coalition and leading Socialist Workers Party member, accused people involved in non-violent direct action of 'elitism' in a major article in this month's issue of the SWP's Socialist Review.

While discussing the success of the recent 400,000 strong march in central London, German counterposed big marches to non-violent direct action:

"When we talk about direct action and civil disobedience we mean mass direct action which can involve large numbers of trade unionists, students and peace campaigners. If small groups of people want to go off and do their own thing, or spend time training in non violent direct action techniques, that is fine, but they should not try to impose this elitism on the rest of us."

A recent anti-war demonstration in Brighton was attacked by police with batons and pepper spray. Without the non-violent direct action training undertaken by those involved, including local SWP members, the demonstration would have been ended by the police.

NVDA is used by hundreds of groups across the United States as a part of the masive anti-war movement. NVDA training played a major part in the success of the action against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in 1999.

German counterposes her support for "mass direct action" to the "elitism" of training for direct action. This allows her, and the SWP in general, to claim they are supporting direct action in an abstract way while condemning it in reality - appearing radical to young people wanting to take action against the war while steering the movement away from any form of protest that goes beyond traditional marches.

Tactics, including illegal actions, unacceptable to the middle class Labour Party members that the SWP hopes to win to its party are condemned. While condemning direct action as elitist, the SWP voted for the government in the majority of seats in the last general election.

Clearly the SWP plays a major role in organising anti-war activity in Britain. Any support is welcome in this broad movement, including that of groups like the SWP who vote for the government.

In the coming months anti-war activists will have to decide whether to let the SWP's prejudices against illegal and direct activity restrict opposition to this war to legal, and in themselves ineffective, marches and demonstrations - or whether to welcome, build, train for and organise a wide range of protests against the coming invasion of the middle east and all the horrors it will unlease.

Jules
- Homepage: http://www.swp.org.uk/SR/268/SR3.HTM

Comments

Hide the following 23 comments

No leaders

18.11.2002 14:16

Why does anyone have to listen to the orders of the Stop the War Coalition or the SWP? Why bother arguing over this point? Personally, I think they are an irrelevance and that we should all continue doing what we're doing, regardless of what a single SWP party hack says. I believe we should try to sabotage the military-industrial complex by attacking their production facilities and closing them down. The Ploughshares women did this with the BAe Hawk jets destined for the East Timor killing fields and were acquitted by a court of law. We should take their lead and storm the arms factories, army barracks, airfields and naval facilities and cause maximum destruction to property. If the SWP doesn't like it, then they can be left on street corners to sign pointless petitions. But they should remember that if we make progress, then they should not attempt to create a band-wagon out of it for their own purposes.

uno

Infighting...

18.11.2002 15:07

The argument I think that is being made is that NVDA can, and often does, just involve a minority of dedicated campaigners, who excel in actions, but may fail to involve others - thus opening themselves to charges of elitism.

However, you can argue over what different actions aim to achieve. So long as you have publicity, a NVDA stunt can gain lots of attention, such as Greenpeace are very good at. But merely breaking into an army base repeatedly doesn't gain support, and is away from the public eye, meaning that people who may be your supporters don't feel involved.

But that isn't an argument against direct action, it is an argument for trying to include as many people as possible in direct action (e.g. put on buses, advertise it well - such as the 'Weapons Inspection' called by Cambridge Students Against the War at RAF Lakenheath on Thursday Dec 5th, plug plug)

Otherwise, have marches and 'pointless petitions' as well - have you never thought that the point of a petition is not to actually petition anyone, but just to connect with the public? Besides, the SWP argued for and secured over 20 occupations of university buildings on Oct 31st, and that would count as direct action, albeit very fluffy direct action.

Matt

this is dishonest

18.11.2002 15:09

This is an extremely dishonest attack on the SWP. Nowhere does the SWP or Lindsey German condemn direct action. In fact the article you are quoting from is calling for direct action, but involving the masses, not just a small number of people. But the SWP doesn't even condemn the sort of action where three people chain themselves to railings - we just say that mass action is far more effective.

I and the rest of my SWP comrades would love to see the storming of arms factories by mass groups of people. The point is, you will never achieve that succesfully until you have the masses on your side. Believing that you and four of your mates can do it themselves is just lazy, because you can't be bothered to engage with the majority of people.

So quit this pointless SWP bashing and concentrate on something useful.

Ben

ben from oxford

We must include many forms of activity!

18.11.2002 15:34

We can try to get 'the masses' on our side; good. But if we wait for a hige crowd before we storm aspects of the war machine we'll be sitting around for ever. In the present circumstances, for a range of reasons (one of which is security against infiltration) people will gather in ad hoc or informal groups to take direct action.

How is this 'imposing' themselves on the rest of the movement? German seeks to state what is acceptable direct action and to locate that formly within the reptoire of her own group.

A Stop the War 'coalition' that can't embrace those who take direct action in smaller groups -- many of the STWC or SWP members -- is a sham!

Yps

could i point out to ben from oxford

18.11.2002 15:36

just to point out that fidel and che guevara , with a few of their mates, did exactly what you say in cuba in 1959!, while the official communist party was negotiating peacefully with the batista regime. but then, of course, ben (from oxford, that well known revolutionary hotspot!) will tell us it was the wrong sort of revolution, that since it hasnt achieved endorsement from the SWP, that since castro doesnt subscribe to British Commonwealth social-democratic values (take a look at where the SWP orginises across the world!) the achievement wasnt worth anything. the cuban revolution has lasted 4 decades, with precisely the mass support ben (from oxford) could only dream of.

completely made up name!

could i point out to ben from oxford

18.11.2002 15:36

just to point out that fidel and che guevara , with a few of their mates, did exactly what you say in cuba in 1959!, while the official communist party was negotiating peacefully with the batista regime. but then, of course, ben (from oxford, that well known revolutionary hotspot!) will tell us it was the wrong sort of revolution, that since it hasnt achieved endorsement from the SWP, that since castro doesnt subscribe to British Commonwealth social-democratic values (take a look at where the SWP orginises across the world!) the achievement wasnt worth anything. the cuban revolution has lasted 4 decades, with precisely the mass support ben (from oxford) could only dream of.

completely made up name!

DA as compliment to mass actions

18.11.2002 15:37

I think this quote from Michael Albert puts the arguement into perspective:

"Our movements need to have a militant edge that graphically displays a rising tide of anger and commitment, but which also remains in close touch with the main body, operating to propel its growth. In other words, if aggressive civil disobedience is the largest manifestation of our dissent at the targets we pick, it will have little power. On the other hand, if aggressive civil disobedience grows naturally from and resides comfortably atop a growing mountain of broader dissent, with hundreds of thousands and then millions of people in country after country involved below but no less visibly than those who are most confrontational—then we will be on the road to serious social change". Source - New Targets.

ZNet subscriber

Tictacs

18.11.2002 15:39

I think you are all missing the point about small groups carrying out direct action. If you try to advertise a mass direct action, you will inevitably end up with police repression and infiltration. Imagine declaring your intention to invade a nuclear submarine base three months in advance - this lacks the element of surprise. Small bands of people turning up unannounced can lead to a more effective action. This isn't elitist, as German maintains, but a tactic employed as part of a wider struggle. As I said, the SWP can continue shouting and petitioning, but it shouldn't impose its elitism on the rest of us. Moreover, it should not patronise and marginalise others who are not necessarily willing to cow-tow to its leadership. A bit more tolerance and a little less judgementalism and perhaps we'd all achieve some progress.

uno

Spreading divisions in the antiwar movement

18.11.2002 16:15

Look, what X or Y said about direct action is irrelevant. It will happen if people want it to happen. "Ben from Oxford" probably doesn't exist.

Those who want to weaken the antiwar movement are desperate to open up cleavages between the SWP and the rest of us. There are going to be fake pro- and ant- SWP postings used on the web to manipulate a response. Don't rise to the bait. Don't play their game

Duppy Conqueror

Eh?

18.11.2002 16:53

Lindsay German, SWP hack and StWC leader, opened up a rift by accusing smaller, non-aligned groups of elitist. She has obviously lost the plot or she doesn't understand what's happening at the grass roots. Either way, she has insulted a wide range of anti-militarist and pacifist groups - Ploughshares, War Resisters International, Greanpeace and Campaign Against the Arms Trade - who have been in operation long before the SWP jumped on the anti-war bandwagon. They have been carrying out anti-military direct action in small groups, but certainly don't deserve German's vitriol. If the SWP apologised for this mistake, then I am sure we can all put aside our differences get on with the task in hand -- STOPPING THE WAR!

Uno

Read German's article

18.11.2002 17:03

I wonder how many people have actually READ Lindsay German's article before pontificating about it?

Here is the URL:

 http://www.swp.org.uk/SR/268/SR3.HTM

The fact that the anarchists are bitching about the SWP once again probably means they are feeling threatened by the success of their efforts to build the Stop the War Coalition. Poor dears.

Mutley

Read the postings

18.11.2002 17:16

The URL for German's article was supplied by the first poster.

I'm sure calling anyone who raises what seem to me to be pretty important issues about how we build an anti-war movement 'pontificating' and 'bitching' is the SWP's way of promoting unity.

Grow up.

bitching anarchist

uno you freak

18.11.2002 17:40

SWP jumping on the anti-war bandwagon? The SWP has existed and consistently opposed wars since before half of those organisations you name were thought of.

The only vitriol around here is coming from those who seem to have a knee-jerk anti-SWP reaction without bothering to find out the facts of what the SWP actually stands for.

I do exist, and I find it puzzling and saddening that people want to slag off the SWP for no reason to the detriment of the anti-war movement.

ben

Read carefully: there is no vitriol there

18.11.2002 17:44

As someone wrote earlier in the thread: don't rise to this anti-SWP vs SWP vs anarchist nonsense. Its all a pot being stirred by troublemakers.

What this person German said is:

"Nor does it rely on a small and self appointed elite to carry out the protests. One tradition of the peace movement has been moral protests carried out by the few to represent the views of the masses. When we talk about direct action and civil disobedience we mean mass direct action which can involve large numbers of trade unionists, students and peace campaigners. If small groups of people want to go off and do their own thing, or spend time training in non violent direct action techniques, that is fine, but they should not try to impose this elitism on the rest of us. Instead we should be building the movement outwards, by establishing groups round workplaces and unions, organisations such as 'Out Against the War' which aims to organise gays and lesbians, 'Artists Against the War' and much more."

I don't find that very controversial as a statement, if you read it carefully in context. It is a deliberately perverse misreading of the text to argue that German made a "vitriolic" attack on Greenpeace/Ploughshares etc. who use 'direct action' tactics.

Be cool my friends. There are some agent provocateurs abour.

Harry Potter

Accusations of elitist

18.11.2002 18:10

Ben: Why am I a "freak"? Is it because I disagree with you? Am I not allowed to criticise what the SWP says about me and my comrades, who prefer not to be a part of the StWC? Am I supposed to shut up when we are accused of elitism simply because we are doing our own thing?

As for claiming that the SWP has existed longer than any other anti-war group, I think you had better do a little bit of research. The SWP has, admittedly, taken an anti-war line and has distributed a lot of placards whenever a war hits the headlines. But other DA groups and individuals have been working hard throughout "peacetime" against militarism and are not necessarily within the SWP-StWC-GR orbit because they do not share the same ideology. However, they will continue to attend demonstrations and see themselves and their tactics as part of a broader anti-war movement. So, why does Lindsay German call them elitist because they choose to do something more than "mass actions", which only happen once every three or four months? Is it because they are using their own initiative?

Uno

Freaky

18.11.2002 18:15

Ben: Why am I a "freak"? Is it because I disagree with you? Am I not allowed to criticise what the SWP says about me and my comrades, who prefer not to be a part of the StWC? Am I supposed to shut up when we are accused of elitism simply because we are doing our own thing?

As for claiming that the SWP has existed longer than any other anti-war group, I think you had better do a little bit of research. The SWP has, admittedly, taken an anti-war line and has distributed a lot of placards whenever a war hits the headlines. But other DA groups and individuals have been working hard throughout "peacetime" against militarism and are not necessarily within the SWP-StWC-GR orbit because they do not share the same ideology. However, they will continue to attend demonstrations and see themselves and their tactics as part of a broader anti-war movement. So, why does Lindsay German call them elitist because they choose to do something more than "mass actions", which only happen once every three or four months? Is it because they are using their own initiative?

Uno

lighten up and do summat

18.11.2002 19:49

Q: How many anarchists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A:-none anarchists never change anything

Q:how many SWP'ers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None- you don't CHANGE the lightbulb you SMASH the lightbulb

Why not rather than carry on with this endless and pointless debate we stand up from our computers- get some white paint go outside to a public place and draw an outline of a figure on the road (police chalk line style). write the anti war slogan or url of your choice in the figure and repeat thousands of times throughout the country- this would certainly make clear the level of opposition in the county and be an effective recruiting tool for the anti-war movement- dont talk do

jmayler

jmayler is Einstein in disguise...

18.11.2002 23:23

What a great idea. Why bother at a revolutionary attempt to change capitalism or an attack on the real causes of war and violence? Let´s all just paint some crap in white on the road.... jmayler you may have something there...

dumbo

SWP=No Thanks!

19.11.2002 09:18

Ben:
The SWP have tried to control or destroy every campaign ive ever been involved in so please dont make me sick with your SWP whining...its time we activists stopped beating round the bush and tell the SWP to eff off! Rememember they arent a huge organisation and we 'freaks' as Ben/SWP smears us outnumber the S(hits) on W(orking) P(eople) massively..
Victor

Victor

Only illegal direct action can stop this war!

19.11.2002 10:07

So people like the SWP have used legal means to try to stop wars such as the Vietnam War, The Falklands War, The Gulf War, The war against Serbia in 1999 and the war on Afghanistan and failed in every attempt to stop a war! Only tyhe use of effective direct action aimed at directly stopping the war machine will have any effect!

Harlequin
- Homepage: http://www.internationalism.plus.com

uno...

19.11.2002 12:31

You are a freak because you misrepresent the SWP's position, and then attack it for statements and actions it has not made! And you just did it again! You claim I said the SWP is the oldest anti-war organisation. Any one who reads your post after having skimmed mine will think get the distortion of the truth which you create. What I actually wrote was that the SWP has been around for longer than the organisations which you name. These were:

Ploughshares:
From  http://www.tridentploughshares.org/html/ploughs.html:
"Ploughshares actions started in 1980 in the USA..."

War Resisters International:
From  http://www.wri-irg.org/en/index.html:
"War Resisters' International was founded in 1921..."

Greanpeace:
From  http://www.greenpeace.org/history:
"In 1971, motivated by their vision of a green and peaceful world, a small team of activists set sail from Vancouver, Canada, in an old fishing boat. These activists, the founders of Greenpeace..."

Campaign Against the Arms Trade:
From  http://www.caat.org.uk/intro/index.html:
"Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) was set up in 1974..."

The SWP grew gradually out of the IS so it is difficult to say exactly when it came about, but the Socialist Worker newspaper, one of the most characterstic things about the SWP, was first published in 1968.

Therefore, like I said, the SWP has been around for longer than most (3 out of 4) of the organisations you named. And because I am right, you say I said something I didn't say which is obviously untrue to anyone! And then you say these other groups campaign against war in peacetime, as if to say that the SWP doesn't, which of course it does - our analysis (which is not controversial these days) is that the capitalist system creates war, and therefore campaigning against capitalism is campaigning against war.

Now before someone tells me to stop arguing and do something useful, let me just say I am defending the SWP against malicious and dishonest attack and I would much rather be doing something else, but if people attack the SWP I will defend it. Later I will be handing out leaflets to advertise the anti-war demo in Oxford on the 30th (12.30 Manzil Way plug plug plug).

Actually you are probably not a freak, apologies to any genuine freaks out there. You are just a lying fuck and you really piss me off.

ben

SWP

19.11.2002 12:55

Ben
stop telling them our secret SWP business! They are just canon fodder for us fulltimers to boss about..oh shit ive pressed the wrong button

Grr

good one!

20.11.2002 13:04

So the SWP are trying to be secret and covert? Anyone else think they're, like, really really bad at it?

Or, ah, maybe it's a double-bluff, maybe they reckon no-one will believe that the people wearing SWP badges and carrying Socialist Worker placards and selling Socialist Worker are actually SWP members. Too obvious, see? Clever stuff this covert activity.

most amused