I put myself on the mailing list for the socialist alliance (I wanted to keep up with their progress although not a member myself) so I didn’t put my phone number down they then later caught up with me got my phone number and phoned my two days later with incredibly aggressive tactics even though I wanted to finish the conversation. (Fortunately I had done my research before they phoned.)
Although they claim to be a revolutionary party they are part of the socialist alliance, which is not, they still tell their supporters to vote labour even when they have been betrayed time and time again.
They claim that the anarchists are "useless", "reactionary", "sectarian" and "isolated from the working class” I have one thing to say to the SWP if that’s what you think of them you could you stop canvassing them and stop making false promises to your members and others to whom you preach.
Question: If the purpose of the SWP was revolutionary why has it allied it self with the Muslim clerical elite?
Would Marx, Engles or Lenin do such a thing?
Surely the best way of obtaining support from the Muslim community is via the grass roots, I think it was the good ole' workers power that said this was an old fashioned popular front. Of course allow Muslims into the party and stuff but trying to get them to join by going to their clerical elite? Does anyone see the irony? It is like George Bush going to Tony Blair and securing the support of the British people on the war on terror and the battle against Iraq.
The members of the SWP must be nearing the end of their tether after having to defend their leaders actions. First he was heard telling a member to canvas the anarchist types because they are not very "politically minded". (is that a euphemism or what?) Now he has a popular front.
It seems the SWP's policies only include getting stuff through government and getting more support.
I recommended the readers of the socialist worker to read something of Bakunin or George Orwell.
I used this argument against him and he claimed that I “didn’t know the policies” so also attacked his more “revolutionary” side and went after the old Russian Bolshevik propaganda. I talked about how the Bolsheviks decreased democracy in Russia even before the white army attacked and before every capitalist country within however many miles attacked and before Lenin fell ill.
Before I start hearing the words “splitter” and “shut up” and being labelled sectarian I shall make a closing comment I would like to make a disclaimer:
I am not sectarian as you can see sectarian is:
adj
Have, relating to, or characteristic of a sect. -not a member of a sect
Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
Narrow-minded; parochial. - That’s is entirely subjective (if I was narrow minded I would not be canvassed by such a wide range of groups)
n.
A member of a sect. - again not a member
One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.-subjective
I am not advocating any viewpoint in this article I merely give constructive criticism to others.
And before you say "why don’t you create an alternative then?"
I am getting involved and are planning more, i am not going to get personal and explain but..... At least I don’t live by the promise that if we huff n' puff and walk all the way from a to b then a government that has listened to what people want a handful of times in 500 years will open its ears and listen again.
Peace
Ernest
Comments
Hide the following 14 comments
I am scared
23.06.2003 19:18
old algey the church cat
e-mail: bobbydavros@the localchipper.com
This is not news
23.06.2003 22:06
Not news
Censorship?
24.06.2003 00:17
Antid Oto
A Meaninful Comment
24.06.2003 09:08
First of all, I am a member of the SWP. But I still want you to pay attention to what I'm writing. I think, Ernest, that one of the reasons anarchists get such silly labels attached to them, is that too often on sites like this, people claiming to be anarchists [although whether or not they would even know Proudhon if you beat them round the head with 'What is Property?' is quite another matter...] tackle arguments by people writing in support of the SWP by simply calling them brain-washed drones who are just spouting the party 'line' rather than engaging with the argument on its own level. I don't know why some people don't like anarchists - personally I'm quite fond of my local anarchists who can always be relied on to stir up shit if they think it's getting boring. Left wing people are the nicest in the world, and anarchists are no exception.
Secondly, with regard to the 'vote for Labour' question - yes, we do do that to an extent. The idea is that wherever there are socialist candidates [SA or other] standing in a constituency, obviously we want people to vote for them. The problem is that there aren't socialist candidates standing in every constituency in Britain [yet...], so rather than encouraging voter apathy, we would suggest to people in those constituencies to vote for Labour to try and reduce the number of Tories about. The point about this is that we know Labour are evil bastards - BUT, they're the lesser of two evils. I know that the lesser of two evils is still evil, but if I can't vote socialist and I had to choose whether to let Labour or the Tories run this country, I know which one I'd pick [mind you, there's not much difference these days, but that's the theory at least...]
Thirdly - the Muslim clerical elite. OK, I'm usually based in Northern Ireland where we don't really have one of those, but I'll tell you what I think is going on there. One of the ideas that the SWP has is that when you're doing the broad-front-coalition thing, like with the war, you're engaging people on one issue. I imagine the Muslim clerical elite have a lot to answer for, but the point in this particular case is that they were against the war, and as long as they're against the war, we're willing to protest alongside them. We know they're not perfect [possibly the biggest understatement of the day], but if they're the enemies of our enemies, well, they may not be our friends, but we'll have them around for now. Just 'cause we agree with a group on one issue, it doesn't mean we're supporting their whole ideology - 'cause in this case we definitely don't.
And, quite frankly, you can attack the Bolsheviks all you want. They didn't get their international revolution and so everything went down shit creek without a paddle. Things like the war against the 'White' armies merely accelerated a process that was already underway due to the lack of international support. Events like Kronstadt, which I know anarchists love to quote in the 'Russia was crap' argument, were merely extreme manifestations of a revolution gone horribly, horribly wrong.
OK, that's my two cents. Would anyone like to propose a counter-argument that isn't based along the lines of 'the SWP are crap, therefore you are by association so shut up'?
Caroline
why are you still a member?
24.06.2003 10:47
I don't really care what people think about the anarchists all i will say is that the anarchists actually do stuff not just walk from a to b. My main poin was the aggressive tactics used by the SWP to get new members (this seems to have been mised).
Allying with the muslim clerical elite on the immediate need to prevent war i don't mind but.... a permanent alliance surely isnt the way to go. (As i pointed out the grass roots support must be the way.)
As for the labour question i would say that using a "left wing" party to put through right wing policies must have been ingenius - almost as good as that nationalist myth created a couple of hundred years ago. I bet is was one of those tory masterminds that thought up that as well.
The reason i posted this (as i stated in my article) is because the agressive tactics used do worry me that some people might join or go to their meetings before they know all the facts or are ready. The reason I added all the other information is because it gives a little bit of background knowledge to anyone that is thinking about joining the SWP.
As for the Bolsheviks i was more bothered about the way they seemed to centralise everything and therefore take the power from the proletariat to some new rulers and therefore create a new ruling class. - anyway that debate is for some other time (maybe that marxism thing?????)
sorry if a bothered you by forcing this article upon you and making you read it(!)
peace
Ernest
p.s if you were really that bothered you could have read the intro and chosen not to read the rest of it.
Ernest
e-mail: shakleton_7@hotmail.com
Terrifying
24.06.2003 11:01
I say these things not to present myself as Che Guevara but to point out that if you're even vaguely anti-system, anarchist or whatever, you are actually going to face stressful situations. If somebody trying to sell you Socialist Worker knocks you off your perch, then you really should withdraw from society and grow roses on Rockall.
The Crimson Repat
SWP vote for the government
24.06.2003 11:49
The SWP vote for the government. Anti-capitalists don't.
It's this attitude to Labourism that all the other stuff follows from. 'Actions' are never too confrontational because we don't want to alienate middle-of-the-road Labour people. The SWP's approach is always geared around recruiting disillusioned Labour Party members and bends to their legalistic prejudices to do so.
The SWP's role in anti-capitalist activity is fairly obvious - big sect-like rallies, little if any direct action, claims of leadership made to all newcomers, speaking as often as possible (under various aliases) control of mailing lists, bank accounts and positions in organisations (pre ferably with some non-SWP members that agree with their broad approach.
The point isn't to realise what the SWP are up to - the point is to organise better and wider so they don't fuck everything up. And, quite honestly, we're not always so good at that.
xx
anti-government extremist
people can make up their own minds...
24.06.2003 12:17
jackson
Bearded 19th century men
24.06.2003 20:21
I am personally sceptical of anarchism and anarchists, though I am also dubious about whether the Marxist left like the SWP could handle real state oppression without folding. My abiding image of anarchists is May Day 2002, in central London. I saw police arrest somebody and then a knot of anarchist-looking young people gathered and screamed obscenities at the cops, one of whom waved a truncheon and screamed "fuck off" at them. But nobody pushed things any further and the one arrested stayed arrested.
Half an hour later, I saw the very same anarchists drinking alcohol in the middle of a kind of street party amid a cloud of hash smoke, and the same cops leaning against a wall nearby, exchanging relaxed pleasantries with each other, and one of them was PC Fuckoff.
My impression from that and other scenes is that anarchism is not really a political viewpoint, just a highly individual quest to dress strangely and pour as much alcohol and drugs into yourself as possible.
The Crimson Repat
what is an anarchist?
24.06.2003 22:28
oi!
The SWP do bully people
24.06.2003 23:38
This is a general pattern and not an isolated incident and this is also on-topic for Indymedia as far as I'm concerned.
snowball
what is an anarchist?
25.06.2003 10:32
Unfortunatly i think that the left is historicly very authoritarian and the SWP and other leftist groups seem to have a "we know best so we should be the voice of the working class" atitude. After I countered the SWPer's policies he did go into a show of "I dont think you understand" (repeated many times).
Also i have have to admit getting hold of thier policies is quite difficult even their web site does not have a full list it just has some selected articles from their newpaper. Compared to REVO, the SA of socialist party it is like taking blood from a stone. As for the Bolshevik propaganda because every leftist group uses that as their revolutionary model it is difficult getting non-biased stuff about their centrist policies.
I am not old enough to remember the old communist party but i have been told by an ex-SWPer that they are very similar to them in their policies and attitudes.
As for the main point about them they do by their own leaders words they do go after those that are not very "politicly minded". Unfortunatly all we can do about that is increase awareness about it and try our best to inform people about their party policies i dont have a clue how to get them to change their policies at all.
peace
Ernest
Ernest
I'm a member of the S. W. P. too.
25.06.2003 13:47
I really like annarchists. I think our eventual aims are exactly the same, real socialism is the anarchy, that anarchists aspire to. The speech by Noam chomsky on my website "future government" is excellent.
I totally agree with the criticisms of the swp web site. I have been down to London to talk to people about trying to get something done about it, but the techie guy who does The site say's he has too much work on, and I believe him.
that's why I produced my site. It has a united front of speeches. and I think it is as good as source as any to find out what the S. W. P. his about, and quite a lot of other groups on the left. to
If people have suggestions for MP3 files they think would be appropriate for the site, or authors who I could try and look for , please make suggestions. If people have suggestions of how I could promote the site, all other sites that would make links please contact me. At the present www.geocities.com/resistancemp3 gets between 2,000-3,000 visits per month.
Marks
e-mail: resistancemp3@yahoo.com
Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/resistancemp3
SWp critique
29.06.2003 11:26
Well, lets not get into another pointless SWP are crap debate. I was interested by Carolines comments, because most SWP don't seem to bother using these webboard to debate their ideas. In fact, some of them don't seem to enjoy debating ideas at all (I just had an SWP members in Halifax throw a free anti-fascist pamphlet back in my face because it had a critique of the ANL in it and she 'wasn't interested!'). I am in workers power by the way, so yes I do have a political agenda! ;)
However, I agree with the line of the labour party vote, for the imple reason that many class concious workers still regard the Labour party as, in some sense, 'their party' and as such they have ot be broken from it. The correct line for the labour party vote is 'vote labour but organise to fight!' It does keep out the tories and liberals and it also helps to shatter the illusions the workers have in labour. Why do people think that the unions are talking about disafilliating the political fund NOW? They were not talking about it in the 80s when labour was in oppositon (and appeared very left).
As for the muslim cleric thing, Caroline all I have to say is that the SWP is creating a popular front with the stalanists and the Mulsims! What I gather from what Rees said they are standing in next years european elections on a broad left anti war stance. That's it. No mention of socialism, no mention of independent working class action. I mean the Socialist alliance was a reformist project with lots of problems (lack of votes for one thing) but at least it stood for socialism! My question for all SWP members now is, what is this new lelectioral parties line opmn womens rights going to be? or on abortion, gayrght and os on? If you are calling on the british working class to vote for mulsims who do not agree with a socialist programme then we are all in deep s**t.
Simon
Sheffiled WP
Simon
e-mail: Dante_SH88@yahoo.com
Homepage: http://www.workerspower.com