I'm all for people doing the right thing at the right time, whatever form of action they chose. I just wish that when I was locking on to something there were more of us, because even one person makes a big difference in those circumstances. I know alot of people get freaked out by the idea of getting arrested, but the sky doesn't fall in when it happens. Generally speaking its gloriously mundane in this country compared to others. Being on marches, I always felt, "isn't there more to it than this?" but on a direct action I always knew why I was there, and the lucidity of those moments stay with you forever.

i am not a member of the SWP and while they do deserve some criticism, do not go overboard. The SWP are the biggest force on the left and as such cannot be ignored. While they do tend to monopolise, at the same time in lots of places without the SWP there would in fact be very little. To have a separate coalition without the SWP would be ineffective and fairly useless. Furthermore, are you opposed just to the SWP or to any Trotskyist or Marxist-Leninist groups? Any group with a theory? For one thing is clear, while i certainly have problems with the SWP, anarchism has no solution or political analysis whatsoever apart from a few vague platitudes and cliches about freedom. I think if STW organised on the basis of anarchism, it would not have attracted the numbers that it did and it would be no serious threat to anything. Direct action is a good thing but it is not an end in itself. Direct action is effective only when there is mass support for the action. Without it, it is useless. The sad thing is that, for all the radical rhetoric, most anarchists are just left liberals. they are not revolutionary and in practice are opposed to any revolutionary action. Direct action, chaining yourself to fences etc are merely symbolic gestures, they do not actually affect anything. Yes the people are brave and yes they are good people, but there action is only on the level of the moral. smashing a window of Mcdonalds does not actually harm Mcdonalds in any way. If you really wanted to
radically change the system, you would need mass working class action, organised labour, trade unions etc. For these things you need a political party with a good political theory. Simple anarchist cliches and platitudes are empty of all content and they lead to a nowhere. The SWP certainly need criticism, but as part of the anti war movement of which they, maybe unfortunately, are the leading party.

Well done to the 'stop the war coalition' for holding tediously boring meetings instead of advocating direct action, 'threatening' to organize mass civil disobedience before the war which never was advocated again once the slaughter had begun and, 'managing and containing' millions of angry people on boring pointless marches which all led to
'containment' areas surrounded by cops where people were made to listen to the bullshit rattlings of pop stars, celebs and lying politicians.

Never trust the s.w.p. they just want to rule us like the rest of the parasitical politicians! (...and sell millions of copies of the 'socialist wanker' to boot)

The cop slaves of the state and the govt warmongers will have been patting the marxists on the back for this one!

Against their war and against their peace!

divide and conquer,its what the cia set up the swp for.
fucks sakes
its the same story over here in the ole emerald isle
whats this i here about the swaps printing porn in the seventies. any left?

>The sad thing is that, for all the radical rhetoric, most >anarchists are just left liberals.

Agreed! But some of us arent.

they are not >revolutionary and in practice are opposed to any >revolutionary action. Direct action, chaining yourself to >fences etc are merely symbolic gestures, they do not >actually affect anything.

Those actions are symbolic and marching is...? But trashing fighter jets, burning donw govt buidings and showing your non compliance with the system through attacking manisfestations of state power and there representatives it more powerfull.

>level of the moral. smashing a window of Mcdonalds does >not actually harm Mcdonalds in any way.

No it wont but people arounf the world are burning them down an blowing them up. Again this is symbolic, but MCd's is a pretty powerfull symbol of imperialism around the world.


If you really >wanted to
>radically change the system, you would need mass working >class action, organised labour, trade unions etc

Absolute lefty BOLLOX! And it aint gonna happen. I want to destroy power not just tinker woth control of it. Whate decade/century do live in?

Lets not fall out over this one peeps:

There is a political philosophy which reconciles both the perfectly reasonable Marxist recognition that the workers won't get nowhere until they're organised and the anarchists' totally legitimate fears that "revolutionary" political parties are prone to power-freakery.

Its called anarcho-syndicalism, the red and black flag can still be seen on demonstrations across Europe and beyond, wedding the black flag of the anarchs to the red flag of socialism.

Anarcho-syndicalism believes in the organised working class but through the most democratic manifestations of radical trade unionism and decentralised decision making.

We don't need elitist lefty demagogues to tell us about revolution but neither do we need pratts claiming that the need for organised workers' resistance is "lefty bollocks" or outdated. Scattered acts of crusty radical chic are nothing more than an excuse for The State to crack down on all progressive politics.

One final thought: anarcho-syndicalism is the only form of anarchism to have been tried (in Spain during the Civil War - see Orwell's account of a "red and black" village in Homage to Catalonia) and it has always seemed to me to be the best way of negotiating this political pitfall.

There, I've said my piece.

Splottski? Heh heh heh... you wouldn't be the same bloke who jumped onto a stretch limo durng an anti-war protest and shouted "Freedom Now! Chairman Mao!"...?

Heh heh heh... I loves it, I does...

Nah! Anarcho-Syndicalism sucks too - it still relies on mass society, division of labour, specialization, representation, and lots of boring fucking meetings! Not to mention our alienation from the natural world - which in my opinion we need to re-integrate ourselves with. What we neet is a through critique/analysis of the TOTALITY of power.Anarcho-syndicalism is just a strategy to enable an anarcho-communist society. And even Anarcho-Communistas in the Anarchist Fed dont see Anarcho-Syndicalism as being relevant in the present (see 'beyond resistance'? by the AF). Nit that i'm advocating the AF or anarchist communism. reading the above mentioned pamhlet was depressing. Made me think why would i risk my life in a clash with the world most powerfull states just to go to EVEN MORE meetings, and deal with other peoples rubbish- from what they see as 'essential production'- and on the rest of domestication, alienation, ecocide goes unaffescted by the 'anarchist' revolution.

It seems as though Mark Thomas is saying (and these are not his actual words but some made up ones that paraphrase Mark in a mildly unkind way ).....
"I don’t like the Socialist Workers. They’re weird and boring at the same time - not like me, I’m normal and interesting too. I’ve got a friend who used to be in the Socialist Workers, but he got old and tired and married and the kids take up so much time, so he left. He told me they do weird boring things like having meetings all over the country to discuss things and organise stuff. They even ask their members to give them money to help them run their party .. . Cult ! Pravda ! The SWP are just a bunch of loony Russians. I only like having meetings were people pay me money and I make them laugh - its fun. Nobody likes the Socialist Workers because they don’t have flares. I bought some flares - they are just a subtle boot cut, really . Those Socialist Worker people have their own newspaper they make and sell in smelly places like shopping centres. My friend who used to be 'one of them' told me they sell their newspaper outside factories and offices . Why bother ? Why not just have a column in the New Statesman, like me (where I wrote this piece) - everyone who reads that is jolly nice. That SWP lot had funny ideas about campaigning against the war - they wanted to make an effort to get trade unions to be involved - why bother ? All those big demonstrations , they are a bit weird and boring too. Why not just have photogenic stunts…err.. I mean 'Direct Action' - that would be more inspiring and make a big difference. Like on my show on the telly where I go and bother the Security Man at that bad place up the road, and my friend films it. Notice me ! Notice Me ! Its so much harder to get noticed on those great big demos - I didn’t like all that sitting in the road all over the country when war started either - the important thing is to have one special small demo at a time where I can go to and be noticed, especially doing something silly and funny. Next time we have a protest we should make up a rule 'No Socialist Workers - they're not our friends' . If we don't, they will turn up and spoil it by organising big thingsand being busy all over the country and sending out the wrong press release . Its important only to be busy in places beginning "Br" like Brighton and Bristol.

Some people call those Socialist Workers 'Monopolise Resistance' - well actually , I got that idea of those SchNews people, but I won’t name them, I’ll just take their slogan (After all, if they turn out to be weird and boring too, I don’t want to have them hanging around) . I’ll only name “Quakers” because they sound nice, especially in the New Statesman. “Carnival” , that sounds nice as well, so I can feel radical, and not upset anyone at the same time.

I hope those people at Indymedia will delete any messages which make fun of me or say funny names - making fun of people isn’t very nice and shouldn’t be allowed. Especially if its me . Especially I hope they delete messages by that that Bernard Righton. I hope they delete any messages from him , and also delete any messages complaining that his message has been deleted - oh, they already have."

Note - no actual words from Mark Thomas have been used in the above material

To George M and other anarchist drunkards - You oppose mass working class action? How else is change - radical change - going to come about? I dont think a bunch of crusties drinking their special brew and banging on bongo drums are capable of delivering a better world, or even any significant change whatsoever. Direct action in conjunction with other factors, including working with left labour and SWP and trade unions is actually a significant force that can bring about real transitional changes. You oppose all power? What does that mean in any concrete sense? NOTHING.It is an idealist call. Either all power is abolished or i take my toys home and i wont play anymore. Please grow up!! Things are not that simple we have to try and influence things by all the possible means, inc. the labour party, TUs ,etc while at the same time not forgetting our fundamental call for revolutionary overthrow. I call you anarchists liberals because you ultimately rely on the goodwill of the ruling classes to bring about change. Smash a window of Mcd = Mcd is morally bad = you consumers should not go to Mcd = Mcd profits are harmed = anarchist victory? Imagine unionising the Mcd workers, Mcd workers going on strike, would that not be a hundred times more effective? You rely ultimately on consumers as a force for change, on the middle class as a force for change, you just do not admir it. this is why anarchists are basically liberals, while true marxist revolutionaries rely on the power of the working class, who actually produce everyting. You have the audacity to ask what century i am in? Anarchism was a failure in the past and it is a failure now. All power to the working class.

> You oppose mass working class action?

Of course not. Anarchism is based on it. We just don't equate party power
with working class power.

For more details on what anarchism is really about, visit "An Anarchist FAQ"
at  http://www.anarchistfaq.org

There you will find lots of anarchist analysis of capitalism and how to get rid
of it. And the sections analysing Marxism shows how *not* to do it...

And for those interested, there is an appendix replying to numerous Marxist
distortions on anarchism.

Leon Splottski
Oh my god what a well read and thought out view of anarchism you have. Just about smashing McDonalds windows and Special rew and bongos.

To the poster mimicking Mark Thomas - I agree totally with your comments re MT's comfrtable liberal sideline criticisms. But that dont change the fact that MArks comments on the role of the SWP in the SWC are very relevant and need discussion.

As for destroying power - idealist? And the revolutionary overthrow of this society involving the TUC/unions/SWP is realist? Not this side of ecological/industrial collapse nobhead.

>Anarchism was a failure in the past and it is a failure now. All power to the working class.

And authoritarian communism has been a success all over china, cuba, the soviet union, north korea? Yep all great stories of the liberation of the working class and Lenin, trotsky, mao and stalin never murdered no working class people and were NOT mass murderers?

As for morality well i oppose morality as just another power structure imposed upon me.
And as for 'delivering a better world' NO I DO NOT INTEND to deliver anything for anyone - this is not a public service and i am not the vanguard or the working class.

"while true marxist revolutionaries rely on the power of the working class, who actually produce everyting"
Well I want to see the end of production-not the running of production by the new boss (same as the old boss but more brutal)

Leon Splottski writes:

> To George M and other anarchist drunkards -

Nice to see the discussion start on a deep note! It indicates well the poverty of the contribution.

> You oppose mass working class action? How else is change - radical change - going to come
> about?

Lets quote an anarchist:

"To make the revolution the mass of workers will have to organise themselves. Resistance
and the strike are excellent means of organisation for doing this. It is a question of organising
societies of resistance for all trades in each town . . . against the exploiters . . . of federating
them . . . Workers' solidarity must no longer be an empty word but practised each day between
all trades and all nations." Kropotkin

Does that answer the question?

> I dont think a bunch of crusties drinking their special brew and banging on bongo
> drums are capable of delivering a better world, or even any significant change whatsoever.

So do I, but that is not what anarchists argue for.

> Direct action in conjunction with other factors, including working with left labour and
> SWP and trade unions is actually a significant force that can bring about real
> transitional changes.

I doubt that "left labour" or the SWP could do anything. Real change will happen when
working class people take direct action. To quote an anarchist:

"the Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers' organisations
which carry on the direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector -- the State.
Such struggle, better than any other indirect means, permits the worker to obtain some
temporary improvements in the present conditions of work, while it opens his eyes to the
evil done by Capitalism and the State that supports it, and wakes up his thoughts concerning
the possibility of organising consumption, production, and exchange without the intervention
of the capitalist and the State." Kropotkin

How does that sound?

> You oppose all power? What does that mean in any concrete sense? NOTHING. It is an idealist
> call.

It is usually taken to mean the abolition of hierarchical power over society. In other words,
no more bosses. Positively, it means worker' self-management of production and society.
I can see why a Marxist would have problems understanding this. Wasn't it Lenin who
explained that socialism was compatible with "one-man management" and the rule by the
Bolshevik party?

> Either all power is abolished or i take my toys home and i wont play anymore. Please grow up!!

Paging Mr. Kettle. A Mr. Pot is looking for him.

> Things are not that simple we have to try and influence things by all the possible means, inc.
> the labour party, TUs, etc while at the same time not forgetting our fundamental call for
> revolutionary overthrow.

Ah, yes, the Labour Party. Electing that was such a good idea! Yes, invading Iraq does
"influence things"...

> I call you anarchists liberals because you ultimately rely on the goodwill of the ruling classes
> to bring about change.

As opposed to Marxists who seek to replace the ruling classes with themselves? But the quotes
above show that our Marxist is talking bollocks. What a surprise.

> Smash a window of Mcd = Mcd is morally bad = you consumers should not go to Mcd =
> Mcd profits are harmed = anarchist victory?

So we should tolerate rampant exploitation and oppression? Interesting.

> Imagine unionising the Mcd workers, Mcd workers going on strike, would that not be a
> hundred times more effective?

Which anarchists support. The McDonalds Workers Resistance has a strong anarchist feel to
it. And if you read what anarchists actually say, we support workers organising at the point of
exploitation. In other words, our Marxist friend raises a strawman argument...

> You rely ultimately on consumers as a force for change, on the middle class as a force
> for change, you just do not admir it.

And so our Marxist friends ignores such anarchists as Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman and
so on. Interesting that he says that we do not "admit it" -- presumably this means he cannot
find anarchists actually saying what he wants us to say, so he uses his superpowers of
mind-reading to discover what we "really" mean! Impressive...

and the "middles classes"? So anarchists rely on a class Marxists say don't exist?!?!?!?

> this is why anarchists are basically liberals, while true marxist
> revolutionaries rely on the power of the working class, who actually produce
> everyting.

Well, what can I say. Bakunin was obviously pulling our leg when he argued that
The "workers' world . . . is left with but a single path, that of emancipation through
practical action . . . It means workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses. It
means trade-unions, organisation." Anarchists, he said, aimed for "the social (and therefore
anti-political) organisation and power of the working masses of the cities and villages"
while the "future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by
the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes,
regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal."

As was Kropotkin when he said it was "the mass of workers we have to seek to organise.
We . . . have to submerge ourselves in the organisation of the people . . . When the mass
of workers is organised and we are with it to strengthen its revolutionary idea, to make the
spirit of revolt against capital germinate there . . . then it will be the social revolution."

Pretty clear on the central role of the working class. But obviously our Marxist friend
will inform us what they "really" mean!

> You have the audacity to ask what century i am in? Anarchism was a
> failure in the past and it is a failure now.

Oh, yes, social democracy and the Russian revolution were *so* successful... If these are
"successes" you don't need failures :)

And both Marxist "successes" confirmed Bakunin's critique of Marx!

> All power to the working class.

Lets quote Trotsky on that one:

"The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is for me not a thing that one can freely accept or
reject: It is an objective necessity imposed upon us by the social realities. . .The 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."

Sounds more like "all power to the party." Or does "dictatorship of a party" mean something else in
Marxist-speak?

If you are interested in what anarchism is really above, visit  http://www.anarchistfaq.org -- you will
also find the anarchist critique of Marxism plus replies to Marxist distortions on anarchism.

Splottski seems to think the SWP have relevant policies. They have effective techniques for indoctrinating conformity to the Leadership, they are great troops on parade - when they can easily retire to espresso sucking while yakking their half baked Marxist dogmas.

They did not organise to swamp the bases of the foreign occupiers in Britain. Thet did not even organise the sabotage of a single load of ammunition. And they are in no way organised to make a Revolution should the circumstances arise..

Were they better Marxists they would know that Marxism is a science, not a dogma, and if properly used today is a basic tool for understanding what is going on. Unfortunately they are not blinkered, they are blindfold. So much so they probably will not recognise the Revolution when it happens.
Just as they do not see the Fascist Revolution that has overtaken / taken over the Labour Party.

Unfortunately Anarcho misreads History: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was crushed at Kronstadt when the Dictatorship of the Central Committee of the Communist Party was imposed by Trotsky. The Kronstadt garrison were singing the Internationale when they were shot down by the misinformed and ignorant troops from central Asia Trotsky had to rush in to do the job.

Local troops loyal to Trotsky knew that Kronstadt stood for the policies Trotsky himself had been futilely advocating previously in the Central Committee. They were "politically unreliable" to the Central Committee.

The next big mistake was the institution of high salaries for apparatchicks, and special shops. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was, in that way, formally buried.

Agressively progressive taxation is probably the best way forward now. It is what the Globalising Fascists most want to prevent.

And there was me thinking that the real enemy was the ruling class and their wars, it turns out it's a smallish trostkyist group who are to blame for everything!

One little point, if all of you have so much better political ideas and programmes than the SWP, how come they are 100 times the size of you?

The SWP are reformist, opportunist mensheviks, not Leninsts, Bolsheviks or Marxists–which explains their bureaucratic, authoritarian policies far better than Mark Thomas or our anarchist comrades here. The STWC was a pacifist, popular frontist, Labourite roadblock, not least because of the SWP leadership. But the problem isn't the rejection of 'direct action' tactics or the Swapper School of Falsification. Menshevism and Stalinism have a lot in common–that explains the bureaucratic tendencies exhibited by our pseudo-Trotskyist parasites.

> Unfortunately Anarcho misreads History: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was
> crushed at Kronstadt when the Dictatorship of the Central Committee of the
> Communist Party was imposed by Trotsky.

The Bolsheviks were disbanding soviets back in spring of 1918. The dictatorship of
the party was a reality by then. Lenin and co were admitting it by 1919 and making
it a central aspect of their ideas. And it was imposed when Lenin was in charge.

> Local troops loyal to Trotsky knew that Kronstadt stood for the policies Trotsky
> himself had been futilely advocating previously in the Central Committee. They were
> "politically unreliable" to the Central Committee.

The Kronstadters argued for soviet democracy. Trotsky was not advocating that
after 1918. He was calling for party dictatorship in the late 1930s.

for the truth about Kronstadt visit:

 http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html

In Ireland the SWP are akin to bloodsuckers, with the ability to suck the life out of any rebellion. Whilst we do admire them for their futile persistence, thats about the sum total of their efforts. The SWP have the ability and knack for hijacking protests which other people have started and organised. In the late 1990's whilst neglecting to organise conferences to highlight the Liverpool dockers plight, they consistently managed to butt in, spout a load of hot air and hijack these meetings, which they didn't organise, or fork out any expenses for. The rank and file members seem to exist to do the dirty work of their reverred leaders, with a rigid hierarchial structure within the organisation. The organisation itself was also easy for security force/intelligence operatives to infiltrate, due to the changing high rate member turn over. With new members coming and going constantly, the group had the ability to appear radical in rhetoric, winning the trust of other non party activists, whilst in essence being far from radical in action, this weakness was exploited by intelligence services, whose members infiltrated it and used it to spy on other activist groups. SWP members complained of being worked to the bone, burned out, used up and spat out, as the party hierarchial system kicked in. The SWP actively promotes its superficial right on radical student chic, in order to attract middle class students and wooly liberals, these are the only people it wants to attract, because it knows where the money is and it knows after a while fickle students tire of being revolutionaries and knuckle down to study, to become tomorrows professionals. We just have to look at Peter hain, Jack Straw and other so called ex student elite revolutionaries to see where their commitments lie.

They also directly attempt to sabotage attempts at organising direct action when it conflicts with there party building exercises. EG they put counterpublicity out sating the MEnwith Spybase anti-war action was cancelled despite the fact that it was blatantly now! One can only imagine the idea of this was to attract more people to there fruitless march in London.

To anarchist drunkard,
I do not believe that authority, discipline, order, and heirachy and a centralised state are bad in themselves.It just depends on who is in control, and yes we Marxists would like to have this power. Yes, things need to be imposed on others, especially the ruling class.If you side with the ruling class, either consciously or mistakenly, like the Krostadt sailors, you deserve to be crushed. If you are serious about change you have to ask yourself how is it going to come about? You cannot answer this. You know in your heart what i say is true, which is why you try so hard to deny it. You do not want to give up your 'freedom' and join a party. Would you rather have Cuba as a US puppet state than a socialist state, however imperfect?There is no anarchist alternative in the case of Cuba. I think it would be hard to argue that Cuba would be better off as a US puppet state and still be an anti-imperialist. China, Cuba, USSR and others have been a great success especially if you remember the situation of those countries before socialism. (This is where i do not agree with the SWP and their crazy doctrine of State capitalism which anarchists also hold) Anarchism has no comparable achievement. anarchism does not exist as a serious alternative in any 3rd world countries.Anarchism is not a threat. Why? Because it cannot deliver the goods. Fighting for transitional changes as well as the revolution is important. Furthermore,i am well aware of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman etc. In fact, i probably know these writers far better than you. Are you aware of the hidden authoritarian agendas of Bakunin, the anti-semitism of Proudhon and Bakunin? The reformism of Kropotkin and Rocker toward the ends of their careers? In many anarchist groups, in order to maintain the equilibrium of no leaders, it is necessary to in fact have a hidden power to maintain this equilibrium.And yes, i have had experience of this. The dogma of libertarianism often creates a far more heinous authoritarianism based on morality and force of personality. REad a life of Bakunin if you doubt the things i say. Emma Goldman did not support the workers revolution in Russia and ran away to the US. She would support, in the last instance, the US and other imperialist forces over the Bolsheviks and any workers forces. And i think ultimately, so would you. But there is hope. Remeber, one of the best anarchists, Victor Serge joined the Bolsheviks. Many an anarchist has become a communist, but never has a communist become an anarchist.

Well was Marx a Communist? Is not the object of the Marxist Communist Parties to achieve a position where the State withers away from disuse. It seems to me that the intention is to achieve Anarchy. Every Communist intends to be an Anarchist!

There is a fairly small dispute over the means. Assorted Communist Parties insist that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat can only be exercised through the Dictatorship of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.

Persons corrupted through the state system of compulsory indoctrination called education will find it almost impossible to think of workable alternatives. It seems that Splottski did not mitch off enough school. He is trapped in Hierarchies, and Dogmatic Marxism.

Those Anarchists who did not follow Emma Goldman out of the control of the Central Committee were soon shot or sent to Gulags. That does not help to achieve the withering away of the State, -unless you shoot everyone.

>I do not believe that authority, discipline, order, and >heirachy and a centralised state are bad in themselves.It >just depends on who is in control, and yes we Marxists >would like to have this power.

And that is why you are authoritarian and it is completely pointless for people fighting for liberation to build any links with you or people like you.

>Yes, things need to be imposed on others, especially the >ruling class.If you side with the ruling class, either >consciously or mistakenly, like the Krostadt sailors, you >deserve to be crushed.

Once more what more evidence do people need NOT to work with the likes of YOU and the SWP? Anarchists, dissidents and other 'undesirables' would be labeled 'counter revolutionaries' and ruthlessly killed.

>If you are serious about change you have to ask yourself >how is it going to come about? You cannot answer this. You >know in your heart what i say is true, which is why you >try so hard to deny it.

Absolute crap!

>You do not want to give up your 'freedom' and join a party.

I do not want to join a pary because my revolt isnt a single issue revolt against 'capitalism' but about ALL manisfestations of oppression and power. The State (all states) are my enemy as, centralised power is my enemy, and a system that oppresses nature is my enemy - not JUST CAPITALISM or the CURRENT ruling classes. YOU would be the NEW RULING CLASS.

>Would you rather have Cuba as a US puppet state than a >socialist state, however imperfect?There is no anarchist >alternative in the case of Cuba. I think it would be hard >to argue that Cuba would be better off as a US puppet >state and still be an anti-imperialist. China, Cuba, USSR >and others have been a great success especially if you >remember the situation of those countries before >socialism.

I waht way has communism been a success for these countries and the people in them? Are you saying the murder of Stalinetc was justified? Part of a long term strategy?

> anarchism does not exist as a serious alternative in any >3rd world countries.

Anarchy has been practised for milennia by variosu stateless indigenous socieites.

>Anarchism is not a threat. Why? Because it cannot deliver >the goods.

Authoritarian communism is NO threat, what world do you live in? the left is dead...

>anarchist has become a communist, but never has a >communist become an anarchist.

Murray Bookchin has.

I do not respond to your comments re the 'classical' anarchists you mention because i see my theories or narchy and those of my closest comrades very differently. You mention 'morality' but all the anarchists around me are ANTI morality.

The most important past of being an anarchist to me is being ANTI AUTHORITARIAN and fighting authoritarianism - this is whether if is state capitalism, state communism, or wankers like you that would have people wgho strugle for more than a new set of bosses shot, and who say that the mass murder of stalin etc was a good thing (implied in your comments on USSR etc).

I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT DEBATES ABOUT THE SWP AND OTHER AUTHORITARIAN STATISTS think of the comments made this guy. Do you still see it as 'in-fighting' is your critique of capitalismyour only critique?

Jesus no wonder people think your all a bunch of tossers!

What a bunch of mindless drivel, can you actually use any more words to call aspade a spade?

Say what you want and keep it simple.

I found myself staring beyond the screen after about line two.

MT's piece was amusing and designed to provoke some comment but hey, theres comment and theres people who want to get out a bit more.

Enough from me

Splottski wrote:
"If you side with the ruling class, either consciously or mistakenly, like the Krostadt sailors, you deserve to be crushed. If you are serious about change you have to ask yourself how is it going to come about? You cannot answer this. You know in your heart what i say is true, which is why you try so hard to deny it."

Good lord, Splottski, you have been roundly proven wrong on matters of history, so you resort to insane ramblings such as being able to diagnose what is going on in people's hearts... for god's sake, get a life. You can't see what is in anyone else's heart, so stop deluding yourself with this silly notion of being the only person to have understood the universe - or are you the second coming and the rest of us haven't noticed?

And wetting your pants with notions of "crushing", christ, scary. S&M fantasist! What about a modicum of respect? You're the worst advert for Splottskism I have come across in recent years.

And you still haven't answered my original question - wasn't that you who leapt onto the bonnet of the stretch limo, and exactly how does that square with your dismissal of direct action? Lets here it now from the fundamentalist

I am a marxist, not a member of any party and certainly not an anarchist. My only claim to fame is being Secretary of the only independent Unemployed Centre in Britain.

I fully agree with Mark Thomas's critique of the SWP. They have a terrible history of setting up 'united fronts' which they treat as playthings through which they can recruit members. In the Socialist Alliance, which they have all but destroyed, they refuse ANY internal democracy (they have Tony Blair's slate/fixed list system). They refuse to help build a Scottish Socialist Party type organisation in England and Wales with which we could challenge New Labour, indeed they found space for all sorts of wishy washy liberals on the February 15th Peace Demo platform in London but noone from the SA was able to speak.

The SWP's sectarianism has led us to the situation where the ANL claims to be the only anti-fascist group in existence. It's sole strategy is to label the BNP 'Nazi' rather than fascist. Not surprisingly the BNP is gaining huge support where it stands (an average of 17% for its 209 candidates). Yet Julie Waterson claims at the SA Conference that the BNP has been marginalised and the ANL is on the point of crushing them. THe ANL is undemocratic, controlled by SWP fulltimers and with no independent or healthy life of its own.

Absolutely agree that when the SWP talk about Globalise Resistance it means Monopolise Resistance. Actually its even worse. They talk anti-capitalism in GR and when working in STWC they refuse to even mention socialism or class issues. It's no surprise that the main beneficiaries of the Peace Movement were the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats. THe latter ended up supporting 'our troops' and the Green Party do not see any connection between capitalism, war and the environment, believing as most (no not all!) of its members do that capitalism itself can be greened.

The SWP suffer from the same faults as most far-left sects. They believe that by building themselves they build a movement for socialism and against capitalism. In reality they destroy any such movements.

Tony Greenstein

Just thought I should let you know (in case you hadn't twigged) that the "George Monbiot" who contributed to this discussion is not actually George Monbiot. I am. I suspect too that the "John Vidal" who sent a message is not the John Vidal who writes for the Guardian. Just in case we get even more abuse for things we haven't said ...

GM

SWP district organisers are trained how to respond to questions on the subject of Kronstadt. The correct reply is "Yes, we should have shot them down like partridges." One trainee reportedly said this during D.O. school and got themself a big hug off the chief drone national organiser.

Mmmm, and I'll have relish with that.