huff...puff....sigh...............

If you came to this conclusion recently... then sorry but you woke up a bit late.

But that's good news to see people waking up! Personally I live to the day to see an organised extra-parliamentary left movement in Britain... to see Marxists that I could call comrades without fearing that they will stab us on the back.

Fuck the SWP and the SSP! Fuck all of them who co-operate with the UK police state!

The SWP only want to take the lead as leaders to chain us and rule us all again after the capitalist parties have been 'ousted'. They are no alternative ... blah blah ... .. .

No war but the class war!

Must the SWP debate go on, and on, and on ... .. . Do they really matter? ... No ... .. . Let's work beyond them ...
They are history ... a thing of the past ... Only one way now ... Anarchy, brought on by the working class revolt to bring Peace to the working class through the end to all oppression by leaders, bosses, cops, figures of authority etc. etc, etc

BlackVeilCommunications.

The very fact that people are ALWAYS moaning and groaning (ad nausueum) about the SWP on this site demonstrates that the SWP is politically effective and makes a positive impact on the class struggle. If it didn't, they would be ignored on this site (like Thomas' organisation). If you don't accept this you obviously haven't read Paul Foot's brilliant investigative expose of tax-avoidance and PFI in the UK Customs and Excise in the latest "Private Eye". This is investigative journalism at its finest.

By discussing what the SWO do so often, you show that it is only far left organisation that does matter and that it is capable of delivering a real blow to the Establishment. The fact that Blair was forced to conduct a touching heart to heart with his family about possibly having to leave office, just before the recent Iraq war, indicates how close we actually came to toppling this jumped up non-entity from power.

Yes, there are political problems with the SWP. Basically, (and contrary to the views of Thomas, Greenstein and assorted left liberals/anarchists), the SWP isn't Trotskyist enough. By Trotskyist I mean the politics and pratices of Trotsky, not his present day "continuators"--they are not the same thing.

Instead of whining negatively about the SWP all the time, wouldn't it would be more productive to discuss how we can all build on the amazing recent successes of the Stop the War Coalition--for which the SWP worked bloody hard and deserve some credit? This is in fact the only way that the SWP can be influenced politically. They have changed a lot since Cliff died--for the better IMHO. I think they are more open to persuasion.

"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"

what a pile of wank - have you ever read any Green Party material?

When have anarchists ever really made a different to the 'movement'?
Apart for the people who disgrace the acitivst community (and i suppose the anarchist community as well) by trashing up shops, picking fights with people who are not extremist enought, and by hurling molotovs at the police, that is.

Not Trotskyist enough? Presumably they should all be getting whacked with ice-picks?!

Mark Thomas's organisation ignored? Which organisation? Don't know if he's actually in a Party, but in the past he's supported the Socialist Alliance, Voices in the Wilderness, CND and Campaign Against the Arms Trade. Haven't heard of any of them myself.

We're talking about them because they're effective? An interesting approach to logic, but hardly one I can follow. They are talked about so much not because they are effective, nor because they are the 'worst' Socialist group, but because of their ubiquity. They seem to be everywhere and controlling everything and in many cases, not controlling it very well.

Tony Blair came close to leaving office? Bollocks he did! That was a bullshit publicity stunt intended to convince a gullible public that the invasion of Iraq was a point of "principle" for him.

Disgracing the activist community? Yes, of course. Don't fight back. Submit. Lay down and die.


Sorry its so incoherent, but most of the important points are there somewhere. In conclusion there are some good people in the SWP, some of whom I get on very well with, but I don't much care for it as an organisation. Thank you. Goodnight.

Tony Greenstein says "My only claim to fame is being Secretary of the only independent Unemployed Centre in Britain."

Nothing is independent of class struggle. This liberal notion of standing above class struggle and commenting on the world while doing nothing to change it is typical of middle class commentators like Greenstein.

Why do people like the comedians Thomas and Greenstein oppose the SWP? - because we are trying to lead a movement that would otherwise be a mush of liberal and confused ideas. We organise properly, which of course annoys the liberals and pseudo-revolutionary poseurs - the thing they really hate about us is that we ARE organised and that thousands are joining us!

Politics isn't about feeling radical for a few years because you throw things at the police. It's about the day to day work of, yes, selling papers that give an alternative view of the world to ordinary people.

But then if all you want is to part of a 'radical' little group cut off from the world (eventually in a commune, no doubt) rather than change the world you would have contempt for people actually trying to change it.

Criticism of the SWP only helps the capitalists. Stop it!

Real marxists are people like Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Panekoek who really believed in SOCIALISM. Lenin and Trotsky were tyrants who established the worst tyranny ever. Read some of their quotes, don't have them exactly, but on anarchist sites you can read em, stuff similar to:

of the course the party has the right to assert its dictatorship contrary to the passing moods of workers democracy (trot)

and all sorts of stuff about how party dictatorship is the only way. Trotsky believed in party dictatorship. They terorrised the workers and peasants and crushed them totally. There was a possiblity of real socialism and revolution had Russia gone well, followed by Germany, Italy, etc. Lenin and Trotsky crushed this. They set up a state capitalist dictatorship.

If you are a real marxist then you should be against Lenin, as Marx said something like 'we will have nothing to do with those who say that the workers are either too ignorant or unwilling to liberate themselves', which is what Lenin said. Marx didn't want a tyranny, but Lenin did.

I can understand Trotskyism being popular in the past as people see Stalinism and don't like it and Trotsky's famous etc, but now we have the internet I can't see any reason for Trotskyism- all you have to do is go to the anarchist faq site or something and you can easily see Trotskyism for what it is and dismiss it.

Rachel wrote:

"The very fact that people are ALWAYS moaning and groaning (ad nausueum) about the SWP on this site demonstrates that the SWP is politically effective and makes a positive impact on the class struggle."

This clearly outlines the SWP's insane doctrine that constructive criticism is not only counter-revolutiouary thoughtcrime, but actually a sign of success!

"If it didn't, they would be ignored on this site (like Thomas' organisation)."

What organisation?

"If you don't accept this you obviously haven't read Paul Foot's brilliant investigative expose of tax- avoidance and PFI in the UK Customs and Excise in the latest "Private Eye". This is investigative journalism at its finest."

And therefore Paul Foot IS the SWP?

as a side note - thomas j - pls read some history before reinforcing stereotypes (re anarchists). anarchists were instrumental in the russian rev, spain, paris '68. marxists have repeatedly acknowledged this importance, used this, then throw them away (actually - worse than thrown them away). - also totally agree with statement re swp.

On Indymedia it's always a case of anarchist this, anarchist that, anarchist the other... What about all the others, say Marxists, or just plain enviromentalists or people who are for some reason against war? I get the feeling that anarchists seem to think that any other type of activist is somehow inferior to them, (strange how the SWP is being slagged off by such people for the very same reason, they seem to be the standard anarchit scapegoat for the movement's shortcomings), and go about accusing them of sectarianism, authoritarianism, and so on.
Why is it that non-anarchists are never mentioned in this newswire, except when they are being berated by the high-and-mighty, 'my flag's blacker then yours' anarchists?

And regradless of what the actual term 'anarchist' means, for 95% of people it will always mean the afformentioned molotov-hurling, police-hating, McDonalds-trashing stereotype.

Interesting comment above that the real Marxists are Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannonkoek. What is the difference between Luxemburg and Pannonkoek and the Leninist tradition? Luxemburg has never had power. She is a matyr and thus is not responsible for any mistakes. Maybe, tho, if Luxemburg were more Leninist the German revolution would have succeeded...This is the thing also with anarchism, it is 'pure' because it has never had power in the first place. Not taking power is almost built into anarchism.It champions romantic losers but reviles any force that can actually deliver change. For that reason, anrchism and the though of Luxemburg and Pannokeok is a dead end. It is merely romantic, but to affect real change real political solutions are necessary. Unfortunatley, anarchism does not have these solutions. Also, is Stalin really that bad? I do not think so. He is a genius of socialism (his essay on anarchism is worth reading) and he destroyed the Nazis. The SWP and anarchism are two sides of the same coin of defeat.That traitor Krushchev and his successors made a travesty of the original thought of Stalin. The successor of Stalin is Mao. Maoism is the most successful revolutionary movement of the 20th century and there are maoist struggles currently around the world. This should be the model we follow. Long live the thought of Stalin and Mao. It is a shining path to the future.

"Not taking power is almost built into anarchism."
>>That's the whole point of anarchism!

"Also, is Stalin really that bad? I do not think so. He is a genius of socialism (his essay on anarchism is worth reading) and he destroyed the Nazis."
>>While the USSR's role in the defeat of Nazi Germany isn't denied by anyone, this hardly excuses the millions of people that died as a result of his regime (probably far more than died under Hitler). With geniuses like that it's no wonder people don't want to have anything to do with socialism.

"Maoism is the most successful revolutionary movement of the 20th century and there are maoist struggles currently around the world."
>>Define "succesful". China is hardly a model of socialism and hardly bothers to pretend otherwise anymore. As for North Korea, the less said the better.

The SWP is a political cult.

It has a long and glorious history of almost doing something each time its ninjas managed to get out of bed to change bedsheets.

It is yesterday's "party" with yesterday's men who failed to raise an army. Yet it claims all the time an intellectual expertise for the workers (whom they assume dumb without their leadership). It also follows yesterday's hero Trotsky who moved at trot pace and always comment on the side rather than be directly involved in the dirty task of getting something done or even slightly forward.

The delusion of their s that they have a role to play somehow gets pissed on by the fact that the working class that it always harp about thinks bollocks about them. A good test with any SWP member is to ask them to name 3 working class person they know. This is harder for these dreamers than to name3 pubs and that is where they would congregate to discuss their historical role in the changing of the world. And that is after they have done party duties like hanging outside tube station to sell fishnchip wrappers which they are obliged to pay out of their own pockets first.

Ask these footsoldiers things political or even simple social facts like "can you wake up in the morning without mum's help?" and you will be met with a dazed look like "I must ask mum that one...". Life for the recruits do not exist beyond collect them wrappers, pay for them, and hang around tube station getting abused by the working class (hahaha and the toffs), then finishing the day of hard work in a pub with another comrade over several pints worrying about the working class.

I have my first direct contact with the SWP during the Vietnam WAr days when they used to sneak up to the very front of the march to unfurl their banners and pretend they were the organisers. And I used to have to do them in (and I enjoyed it immensely too) when these poor wretches woke up dazed and without any instruction by theeir party apparatchiks as to what to do when the glorious working class didn't welcome them.

The post up there somewhere is right - we do not need to have a go at the SWP - why bother about them yesterday's party lead by yesterdays almost-beens?

I agree very much with Tony Greenstein's take on the SWP.

The real problem for me is that the SWP is a highly contradictory organisation. As many people taking part in this discussion have already indicated - yes, their members are very active, hard-working and all the rest of it, and they have made a very important contribution to the anti-war movement through the Stop the War Coalition. However, the down-side to them is that their "control-freakery" which, apart from hacking a lot of people off, can seriously distort and diminish the potential of the movement. For example, the SWP could have argued within the STWC for the formation of local People's Assemblies after February 15th in an attempt to bring local activists of all descriptions (trade unionists, peaceniks, anti-caps, anarchists, greens etc) together in a common cause. This could have really strengthened all the movements we have today - activists could have made all sorts of links with one another. Why didn't this happen? Well, if you ask me - I think it was because the SWP has a series of other satellite organisations (Globalise Resistance, ANL, SA, Campaign Defence of Asylum Seekers etc) that would be jeopardised and maybe even rendered obsolete by such a development. They need to keep all these campaigns separate from each other because it is easier for them to maintain control of them all in this way.

Of course, this "control freakery" hasn't just happened in the anti-war movement - a similar accusation can be made against the SWP in relation to the Socialist Alliance (which they are slowly strangling to death), the anti-fascist movement (by "parachuting" the ANL into areas, waving silly lollipops and shouting themselves doo-lally before disappearing again), and the anti-capitalist movement (where Globalise Resistance is deservedly known as "monopolise resistance" by many dedicated activists).

So I think it might be helpful in future to start thinking about distinguishing between the SWP's leadership (invariably bad) and their rank and file membership (sometimes very good - if you're lucky!!). The "control freakery" of the SWP stems from a bureaucratic internal party culture where a relatively small number of "leading members" decide on the party line and then issue instructions to the rest of the organisation (by the way, this has nothing to do with Lenin and Trotsky and everything to do with Stalin). If any member steps out of line and starts to question things they soon come under pressure to either conform or leave. In some respects, Mark Thomas is quite correct to describe the SWP as a sect. In fact, it is re-assuring to know that many of their best members do leave - they claim to have 10,000 members (they have done this for years) but the real figure is closer to 2,000 to 2,500.

But the problem for the rest of us is that even two thousand relatively well organised activists can punch far above its numerical weight in today's movements. We don't have an equivalent counterweight to them at the moment do we? I know some of you doesn't think this matters too much and that you can just get on and do your "own thing" - but on balance I would have to disagree. It is for this reason that I think that "we" (certainly other revolutionary socialists, but hopefully other political tendencies as well) have to eventually develop a strategy to defeat the SWP. I think an important component of this strategy will be to continually expose the machinations of the SWP leadership within the various movements that exist today and, in the process, to try and detach sections of the rank and file from them. In this way their ability to control and direct things will be reduced. All of us will need patience for this task.

If I can end on a personal note - like Tony G, I'm in my late 40s and I have been a revolutionary socialist for nearly thirty years now. Having said that, most of the "organised" revolutionary left today makes me cringe at the moment - I'm sure if I was a twenty-something I wouldn't touch any of the left groups with a bargepole - I might even be an anarchist!!

Cor Blimey Thomas J! Er you are whinging about anarchists slagging off other people: Look at the start of this thread, initiated by Tony Greenstein who says he is NOT an anarchist. Just cos someone slags off the SWP doesn't automatically mean they are a McDonalds trashing anarchist. Keep your bigoted opinions to yourself please.

>Just cos someone slags off the SWP doesn't automatically mean they are a McDonalds trashing anarchist.

Did I ever say that?!!!

>Keep your bigoted opinions to yourself please.

What your basicaly saying is that anyone who dares to criticise anarchism is a bigot, and should shut the f--k up? Right?

Well wrong, I will NOT shut up, I have every right to pass comment in this newswire as the next man.

And yes, I still stand by what I say regarding anarchism. If people like you are what anarchists are really like, surely the SWP can't be all that bad (and no, I am not a member of the SWP, or a CIA/MI5 agent provocoteur before you hurl those accusations at me!)

"Did I ever say that?!!!"

Er, well not in so many words...

"(strange how the SWP is being slagged off by such people for the very same reason, they seem to be the standard anarchit scapegoat for the movement's shortcomings)"

My point about your bigoted comments was that you seem to regard anarchists in the same way the Daily Mail does. You are perfectly entitled to say that though. I just wish you would not resort to stereotypes thats all. If you came up with some intelligent comments then i might listen to you.

And i'm not an anarchist and have never chucked a molotov or trashed a McDonalds, and no i don't like the SWP. Does that compute??

That from what the stuff I have read by so-called 'anarchists' on the newswire is that the seem to precive any other activist as inferior to them, in much the same way that the SWP does. I dislike the SWP's attitudes to the movement as well, but what I am trying to get across is that many of the 'anarchists' on Indymedia seem to think that their view is the only valid view, and everone else is a dreaded 'sectarian'. Attitudes like that make them as bad as the SWP.

Also it seems that the only groups worthy of mention in the newswire are anarchist groups, what about Greens, Marxists (as in how Marx meant, not what Trotsky/Lenin/Stalin and the SWP meant), or just plain anti-capitialist? You just cannot just dismiss someones opinion because it differs from your own.

And for how I regeard anarchism? If you mean 'true' anarchism, and not the type mentioned in the tabloid press or the afforementioned one-track minded people, it's a nice idea, but without a power base I am skeptical that it will become a viable option, people tend to need leadership and guidance. I am very wary of ideologies that try to create a perfect world, as at the end of the end that is just impossible.

Dear Thomas,

you wrote:

"I am trying to get across is that many of the 'anarchists' on Indymedia seem to think that their view is the only valid view, and everone else is a dreaded 'sectarian'."

please tell me one JUST one person in this article, who says that he is an anarchist and who believes that he is the only onepolitically right. I don't belive that there are politically right ideologies. As an anti-authoritarian primarily and anarchist secondarily I believe that differentiallity must be fully respected!

Furthermore my personal experience and the collective experience of the international freedom movement (which in recent centuries is the anti-capitalist movement) has tought me that ALL beliefs/ideologies (for me anarchy is NOT an ideology) must coperate and fight together for the common good against the globalised capitalism....... AND our struggle passes through EVERY aspect of our every day life, of the every day life of the workers and of the common people. But the parliament is a place neither for workers nor for common people, and NEVER in the history of human kind any of the individuals involved in the ruling oligarchy ever made things any better for us.

We fully respect all left and humane ideologies and beliefs as long as they don't cooperate with the state its suppresive mechanisms... and during the last months we 've done once more the mistake to trust the SWP and SSP parasites in the name of unity, but this was the last time ever.

As someone said above I 'd love to see more people get organised away from parties who support the capitalist system.

I don't want to see people becoming anarchists... I want to see people understanding that they can live without leaders and bosses! The bosses need us but we don't... United we can take control of our lives.

SOLIDARITY - SELF-MANAGEMENT - RESISTANCE

an individual from AAR collective

Imagine a left in Britain without the SWP. Yes, the SWP is rotten to the core and has been so for decades. The leadership has transformed the SWP´s international sister organsiation into dsifunctional sects. Foot isn´t the SWP. Also, I don´t think anything got better since Cliff died.

The Problem is, can anyone come up with a better idea, a better organsiation? Please no fashion anarchists! Anarchist organisation prooved to be a gigantic failure: Spain 1936!

Imagine a country without an SWP type party, take Germany for instance. The Cliffites "fucked" their sister organsiation there into a small disfunctional group of control freaks without anything to control, apart from a few school students. No one takes them for serious. Trotskyite organisiations dont´t play any role in Germany. But is the situation there any better? Numerous groups, - anarchist in organisation - but not in ideology, dominate the left, the result being pseudo-revolutionary symbol-fetishist battling with the police and endless life-style discussions. They don´t get anywhere. A revolutionary left doesn´t exist in Germany. I tell you, it could do well with a rotten SWP.

Believe me, the SWP in Britain may be rotten but it is functional. Without it, the left in Britain would be as a litter of blind puppies, that´s the sad facts.

"Anarchist organisation prooved to be a gigantic failure: Spain 1936!"

And so we can write off anarchism solely on that point, can we?

It does strike me that you don't really have to worry about who is to run the revolution, as there's not much side of one yet.
I would humbly suggest that if you really want your bickering to have any relevance whatsoever, you should be directing your efforts to shifting the debate left / @-wards. For the moment, whether it's robotic SWPers or chaotic ineffective anarchists, no-one really cares....

Believe me, the SWP in Britain may be rotten but it is functional. Without it, the left in Britain would be as a litter of blind puppies, that´s the sad facts.

I thought the SWP were the blind puppies, they havn't noticed how outdated their view of 'left', 'right', 'workers' etc is

'Who the f*** wants to be a worker?' - a friend

Hmm..

A: 'The only way to stop war / defeat fascism / overthrow capitalism is by raising slogans against the whole system all the time, refusing to work with left-wing MPs, trade unions or any other reformist / old-fashioned / boring groups, and to take to the streets!'

B: 'Sorry, us over here don't agree. We think we need to build a broad-based movement, work with left-wing MPs and other reformist groups and especially unions, and measure our actions to match the mood of that broad coalition.'

[Debate, more debate, yet more debate.. eventually a vote in which the majority support B.]

A: 'Sell-out bastards! I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive campaign, so how come you haven't accepted my ideas? It's all the SWP's fault. Bastards! I'm going home, I'm never working with you lot again.'


Tell me I'm wrong..

You have hit the nail on the head kurious...

Anarchy and anarchism is such a cliche, isn't it? Ranting on about revolution while blaming everybody for the lack of progress but themselves...

Back in reality the man in the street just thinks you're a bunch of loonies! Not my personal opinion, but the average worker/proleatarian/whatever doesn't give a fuck about revoulution - he/she just wants to live from day to day, and hear about real soultions to real problems, not all this anarchist utopian crap!

The majority of these self-styled revolutionary groups, be they anarchist, revolutionary socialist, Marxists, whatever, are so far removed from reality, and the real lives of the real working class that I wonder if this movement is really for real at all....

"A: 'The only way to stop war / defeat fascism / overthrow capitalism is by raising
slogans against the whole system all the time, refusing to work with left-wing MPs,
trade unions or any other reformist / old-fashioned / boring groups, and to take to
the streets!' "

Given that working with "left-wing MPs" and "trades unions" has been *so* successful
for the last one hundred odd years, I find it funny that people are still suggesting it. But
what can history really teach us?

"B: 'Sorry, us over here don't agree. We think we need to build a broad-based
movement, work with left-wing MPs and other reformist groups and especially
unions, and measure our actions to match the mood of that broad coalition.' "

Which explains why fascism is being defeated, why the war in Iraq was stopped and
why capitalism is on its last legs!

"[Debate, more debate, yet more debate.. eventually a vote in which the majority
support B.]"

Surely some assumption here?

"A: 'Sell-out bastards! I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive campaign, so
how come you haven't accepted my ideas? It's all the SWP's fault. Bastards! I'm
going home, I'm never working with you lot again.' "

Yawn...

"Tell me I'm wrong.. "

you're wrong.

With respect I think you missed my point! You may agree with A rather than B, fair enough; but my point was that it's no good for either A or B to throw teddy and storm out every time they lose the vote. Otherwise talk of 'broad based' 'non-sectarian' campaigns is so much hot air.