Great pamphlet, just like to point out that this isn't just one small group of people sniping - although the Schnews crew did most of the work this is something many people within the anti-capitalist movement have commented on and are fully behind.

It also isn't an attack on SWP/GR members/supporters. It's a critique of a method of organising and and an ideology that is at serious odds with many of the aims and ideals of our movement.

Well done Great phamlet - are you printing it and can we get copies to distribute?

A copule of thoughts

Firstly the name globalise resistance is insulting to activtists all over the world who have been resisiting globally for a long time.

Secondly, lets face it if the ideology that the SWP are selling via the Globalise Resistance loss leader, was the answer to humanities problems then the world would have already changed.


How about a conference/gathering to discuss the ideas in the pamphlet and exhange ideas for building strong local anti-capitalist networks that are based on horizantal not vertical organisation and that don't preach a correct single ideology, be it leninist or any other?

We agree with all this. Although we have to work alongside each other we need a far more inclusive `movement`. The SWP want something different, an exclusive movement.
We need new ideas on how to do things that get rid of that preachy, self righteous attitude traditioanlly associated with the `left`. We need to understand that a 14 year old boy eating a Big Mac is not a criminal. People who work in MacDonalds on £3.70 and hour are not `targets`.
We need to include all those people who are disaffected, including people with whom we may share less socially, for example the farmers and the fuel protestors. For me personally as someone who grew up in a big city - not that it makes me any better or worse - to see fuel protestors (ordinary people whose small businesses were/are in danger of being killed off by the oil companies and the state) it was disheartening to see them described as `class enemies` because they drive cars. It is exactly that sort of statement that makes other `ordinary people` turn around anad walk away, whether we like it or not we all exist within this national system.
Let us take (since we're in the media) the Big Issue. Should the Big Issue have never taken advertising or sponsorship ? Should it have remained a co-op? Why? In order to do what? In order to be marginal? It now sells 250,000 copies a week (thats big) and though it may not be `perfect` , are you? I'm not. And the BI does a better job than any other magazine its size, Private Eye possibly an exception.
We need to present oursleves better, we need to take ourselves seriously (George Bernard Shaw paraphrase " if you've got something important to say dont look like a wanker when you're saying it") we need to be prepared to fail, to be less self-conscious. We need to protest outside/inside/on top of specific targets that EVERYONE IN THE UK can understand, RailTrack, the Inland Revenue, Council Tax offices not ponce around in the middle of town getting mugged off by OB with banners saying "abolish capitalism and replace it with something nice." People all around the UK would have seen that and just snorted in derision...
We'd like to invite everyone to the A Bookfair on October 20th to hear us discuss exactly this at 2pm.
Cheers. Nice one Schnewsers.
adam porter

If you put as much effort into building the anti-capitalist movement as you put into dividing it, it would be truly huge.

You should also try to get your facts right occaisionally. For example, at the outset of the anti-poll tax resistance the SWP did take the view that the way to defeat the tax was by winning the rank and file council workers to the strategy of non-collection, because if they did refuse to collect it the tax would have been sunk without trace(if you don't or can't distinguish between the bureaucratic leadership of the unions and the ordinary members you're throwing away the potential support of 8 million people). However, after an OPEN and DEMOCRATIC debate we changed our strategy.

After the Trafalgar Square demo, unlike much of the official leadership of the movement, we defended the right of demonstrators to defend themselves againt police attacks.

On the question of racism you are correct in a formal sense - the british state is racist - however the consequence of your kind of abstract sectarianism is that you allow baseball bat whealding nazis to terrorise the ethnic minorities because that "is not confronting the real cause of the problem" (my paraphrasing). If that is a strategy that sits comfortably on your conscience good luck to you..

It seems to me that the root of the your problem is this: a few years ago you had a cosy little movement where you were all big fish in a little pond. Now the movement has broadened you want to vet the newcomers to ensure their ideological purity. Add to that a nice dose of conspiracy theory -

"Of course, there are loads of people who’ve got involved in Globalise Resistance and the SWP because they really do want to fight capitalism. It’s easy to mistake the glitz and big meetings for effective organisation, especially when SWP members often simply lie about their real beliefs when out recruiting." -

and you have an enemy which is far more immediate than potent than the ruling class.

Its easy to make an assertion like this but you have to beleive that the SWP is "up to something" for it to sound sensible in the first place.(As an aside, I'd be very grateful if you would e-mail me with details of my "real beliefs" as I'm not sure what they are.)

Us you say above, movements change and this is undoubtedly true - compare the makeup of the Genoa demo with that in Seattle. The 300,000 who marched on the Saturday were overwhelmingly ordinary Italians who wanted to oppose the Berlusconi government as well as the "usual suspects" opposing G8. We have to relate to these people in away which is meaningful to them - and that means working within the trade unions to build rank and file organisations which will oppose the legalism of the leadership. We also MUST attempt to pull away those on the left of the Labour party from its Blairite leaders. The Labour Party Conference is not a G8 Summit (yet): it will be attended by thousands of people who are likely to be on the sharp end of the Governments globalisation policies. If we can win them away from Labour many of them will be in an excellent position to influence other in their workplaces and communities.

The direct action movement has done much to attract the thousands who have flocked to the anti-globalisation/capitalist movement. The flip side of the coin is that many of those will not agree with their strategy. Denunciations are very easy to make, and make the denouncers seem "oh so revolutionary", but they NEVER look attractive to newcomers, or to those who are on the outside and thinking about joining.

An SWP member writes:

"Denunciations are very easy to
make, and make the denouncers seem "oh so revolutionary", but they NEVER look
attractive to newcomers, or to those who are on the outside and thinking about
joining."

Funny, but that SWP have been denuncing anarchists for some time -- I always
find it funny when the SWP attack those who critique their ideas while, at the
same time, print dishonest attacks on anarchism in their paper and magazine.

It seems that only the SWP can critique others, when the others critique them
then the usual call for "unity" appears. One law from the party, one for the
rest of us (as usual)

As for the "real" beliefs of the SWP, well, what can I say, have a look at the
works and actions of the likes of Lenin and Trotsky. Once in power, they
quickly changed their tunes. Indeed, Trotsky argued for party dictatorship
from at least 1920 to his death (funnily enough, the SWP never seem to
mention that little fact in their accounts of his ideas). Any SWP member
like to explain how arguing for party dictatorship fits in with "socialism
from below"? Or how the SWP can use that slogan when Lenin himself
said "always from below" was an "anarchist principle"?

For a critique of Leninism from an anarchist perspective (plus a reply
to various lying articles on anarchism by the SWP), try these webpages:

www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append3.html

in particular:

www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append31.html
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append34.html

My memory of the change of position of the SWP over the poll tax is different from Steve's. As a member at the time I do not recall an open and honest debate. I remember members in some areas of the country, but not others, effectively not towing the party line and getting stuck in to the non payment campaign. Some of these people were intially villified for this.
As the non payment campaign led by Militant took off the SWP leaders realised they were missing out and the position changed. Undoubtedly the SWP then became very important to the non payment campaign and members stood up to the courts and recieved prison sentences in some cases.
BUT, the leadership never once apologised for getting it wrong.
This is what worries me above all else about theSWP. It has a self perpetuating leadership that never ever admits to mistakes. When I have talked to SWP members about the J18 Carnival Against Capitalism, they tell me that the SWP were involved - which they were not.

Why is this important.? Because the basis of the SWP's politics is that they basically have all the right answers. Well many of us believe that they, and you Steve, do not. Including many of us who have looked at your politics closely, have rejected it and are still politically active.

Having said all that, I do think that arguments against the SWP need to step up from the "they're out to recruit and control' level. There are very good reasons why heirachical forms of political organisation are ineffective and why the ideology that accompanies them is not helpful in trying to change the world. These need to be expressed in a clear way.

Also lets not get too hung up on direct action. Direct action is one way to campaign but there are lot of others. And an important part of the anti-capitalist movement both here and abroad has involved the occupation or re-occupation of spaces of various sorts; whether land in road protests, streets in critical masses/ street parties; squat cafes; social centres; or even autonomous zones. All of these give glimpses of the way that we can begin to create the sort of world we want to live in NOW and not wait for a mythical hero to save us like THE party.

"Denunciations are very easy to make, and make the denouncers seem "oh so revolutionary", but they NEVER look attractive to newcomers, or to those who are on the outside and thinking about joining."

See the front cover of the SWP's latest 'International Socialist Journal" to see just how hypocritical this lot are.

What a bunch of fucking losers!

"Anti-globalization"?

What have the Romans ever done for us?

This illustrates my earlier point. (.) and many others are unable to engage in a constructive debate on tactical matters without decending into personal abuse. For the record, the latest issue of International Socialism is titled "Violence, Autonomism and the Left". It doesn't denounce anyone - it contains a series of articles discussing the tactics of some of the direct action groups involved in the Genoa Demo from a critical stand point. What is does not do is accuse those whose tactics it criticises of seeking to destroy or hold back the movement and it certainly doesn't say they shouldn't be involved in it. That is the difference between denunciation and criticism.

The SWP and MANY OTHERS on the left have been critical of anarchists because we disagree with their tactics - that doesn't mean we aren't willing to work with them or anyone else. Just because I disagree with you it doesn't make me think you are a bad preson!

Ex-SWP only supports my point that there was adebate in the party between those who were willing to get involved in the non-payment campaign early and those who weren't. That there was no theatrical act of contrition on the part of the then leadership is irrelevant - the party adapted to events as they unfolded.

yeah THE party , why do the SWp always go on about THE party like the the is spoken in capital letters aint their THE labour party, THE conservative party, THE liberal democratic party, THE socialist party too.

Come on sisters and brothers in the SWp, stop putting THE party above your humanity,
blind obedience to THE party - mmmmm seen that one before and it aint tasty
own up to what goes in each and every one of your hearts, you just aint that certain are you? You don't really know
ideas from the start of the 2oth century, gonna tell us what to do at the start of the 21st?
can't get to a world where some aren't at the top telling most what to do through a party where some are at the top telling most what to do.
Yeah steve or any other of the chosen few in THE party, who really makes up your mind for you? You of the beauracrat paid by the central committee, Shit man you dont even vote for the people who tell you what to do the full time organisers. you want the rest of us to sign up to that? get real

Mind you, dogmatic anarchists piss me off too. Reckon its time we made a new start and not be looking over our shoulders at dead men and dead movements.

Hey Hey Schnews stirring it up - I like it

Ah, this must be that new non-sectarian mood I keep hearing about. Building a more inclusive movement by denouncing each other.. clever.. And just as war's breaking out, what brilliant timing!

So some people being villified is part of an open and honest debate is it?
And I have made your point for you?

For those who have never had the dubious pleasure of attending an SWP conference I will enlighten you to how open and honest debate is conducted.

Debates are introduced at length by members of the Central Committee
Delegates have to write out speaker slips
Members of the Central Committee decide after reading the slips who gets to speak and who does not.
Anyone who does disagree with the line can expect to be followed by a series of people proving theri ideological commitment by attacking those who have disagreed.
The Central Committee put forward a group of people to write up the discussion,. This group always has a central committee member on it.
At the end of the conference the Central Commitee put forward a set of names for the next central commitee (themselves).


Uusally when things are not going to well, someone needs to be blamed. As this cannot be the infalliable leadership, some poor members generally get it in the neck. Uusally these are the people who are still following the last set of orders and are too confused to keep up with the sudden changes issued from the centre. Inevitably this leads to people getting pissed off and leaving.

(Next bit is from second hand information so treat with caution - note Steve that its ok to say I'm not sure some times) Recent example of this sort of scapegoating is the bust up between the SWP and their American clone the IS. The IS treated Seattle in the same way the SWP treated J18 in the UK, largely ignored it. But the IS leadership got it in the neck and the SWP tried to boot them out and replace them, paying for the sins of their fathers me thinks. Anyway there has been a big bust up in the family over this. Both organisations had developed a culture of not being to say we got it wrong so there was no room for conciliation.

Its all right or wrong, yes or no, never maybe, never lots of different paths up the same hill. I am afraid I do not trust absolutism of any sort.

Acts of theatrical contrition by the central committee Steve? how about a simple, oops we got it wrong, this is why and maybe we'll try to listen more to those who has a better idea in the future, hey maybe we could even trust the members. The problem with not being able to say 'oops we fucked up' is that it leads to people re-writing history and we get the ludicrous situation where SWP members claim that they had a substantial presence at J18. Or they act as if the international movement only started in Seattle. That's convenient if you want to ignore movements around the world who have not waited to be enlightened by western marxists to resist or even, in the case of some of the Zapatistas, have looked at marxist theories of revolutionary organisation and have begun to go beyond them

But back to the pamphlet. I think the most important parts of it are not those criticising the SWP/GR but those criticising ourselves.

And I do think there is an 'us' that needs to get our shit together and develop a visible and , credible revolutionary network.

Given that Schnews has kicked this off, any chance of some osrt of bulleting board on your website? not so that we can add more SHOCK, HORROR aren't the SWP/GR awful stories but so we can discuss some of your more positive ideas

I agree with a lot of what has been written in this pamphlet, excellent job as usual Schnews crew...but it is VERY important that those who don't agree with the SWP LEADERSHIP don't alienate the SWPs members, many of whom are excellent, committed and active individuals. Criticise the party and their tactics by all means, but don't refuse to work with people just because they are SWP...because almost all of the time, as the Schnews crew point out, they are entirely genuine individuals who really want to make a difference. Win the debate with argument as SCHNEWS tries to do, not insults.

Much peace,

Matt

So the authors want a non sectarian alliance that includes ...only anarchists... Huh? Maybe thats why they feel marginalised. If you want to win people to your ideas you have to work with them and prove in practice that they are effective. But I guess its easier to blame the Trots? At the moment there is a massive need for unity in action, so whats it going to be?

im not going to talk about SWP's position on the anti-capitalist movement but their own internal democracy can hardly be said to be great. each local group has to be independant for any movement to be truly successful. but the swp's idea of a successful movement is one that gets them elected. loads of people in GR dont want reform but that voice is not getting heard because the party doesnt agree. red rebel is dissolved. im thinking how can every red rebel possibly decide that they want to dissolve and join GR? of course they didnt it was just the party shifting its front. we need greater unity. no one can comprimise their ideas just because some party told them. we need organisation but decentralised organisation which makes sure everyones voice is heard and that no one has authority

These are just a few thoughts about the orginal post

It's interesting that in your 'analysis' nowhere do you talk of what Capitalism actually is.

Capitalism is not threatened by people living in squats or creating 'autonomous' spaces, nor is it threatened by mere direct action on it's own.

It is threatened when ordinary working people strike and stop their labour power from being used to create the profit that runs the system. Because it is a social relation between exploiter and exploited.

There seems to be little or no understanding of what made Seattle a qualitative shift for the Anti-capitalist movement (which has it's roots not only in the direct action in the UK and the Zapatistas but the enormous 1995 strikes in France in 1995 and the revolution in Indonesia and crises in the event of the Asian financial collapse, which is to say that it is a mosiac of a number different struggles and the effects of neo-liberalism around the world) the labour movement joining with the direct action movement is what made that demo a success, this 'teamster-turtle kid' alliance is the idea for a group like GR, to forge links between young people and those involved in the rank and file labour movement. Similarly in Genoa mass parties like the Refounded Communist party played a massive role in getting people onto the streets, far more than the 'direct action' movement in the UK.

Agreed this is something that RTS where doing in part and that was great, but where are RTS now??? It's not the fault of the SWP or GR that the RTS or the 'direct action' movement cannot mobilise people, look at the turnout at the arms fair or Mayday this year....this would make me question my tactics and strategy.

I'm sorry but to say that the SWP do not believe in direct action is an insult to every member who has argued for and taken strike action, often in a hostile conditions, it is an insult to comrades who have died at the hands of police fighting racism. You dismiss people that have been to prison for their beliefs, fought the state in the Miners Strike and god knows how many other struggles.

The key difference is that we want a MASS movement, which by definition no one group can 'control' but where our ideas can make a crucial contribution. This is where some kind of strategy comes in, it doesn't mean not taking action if you don't have the masses with you necessarily, but without there can be no revolution.

The people in Schnews and other simliar groups, whilst I have every respect for there activism I feel do not see a mass movement as important, and place certain ideological barriers to peoples participation (such as the need to be 'non-hierachical') this is sectarian, this is what being sectarian MEANS, putting your own, ideas before the movement as a whole, and before you rush to say but thats what the SWP does, then answer these questions....how many people did we and others through groups like like GR take to Genoa? At least over a 1000 this in turn has an impact on returning home, you can only do that with a level of organisation. Why bother with the Socialist Alliance? Why bother organising an anti-war rally in London which nearly 2500 people attend?

There is also a complete idealisation of your own groups, all the ones I've encountered seem to be run by small groups of nominal 'leaders' (who of course don't call themselves that) who work in closed and highly elitist ways, who are often openly hostile (sometimes violently) to others who want to debate their ideas. You refuse to take power from the Capitalists yet the Capitalist State (Genoa) uses all its power against us - I've even heard people from RTS claim that the Black Panthers (main slogan 'Black Power') wanted to dissolve power!!!!

J18 was great, no one disagrees - but the city of London keeps working.

Direct action activists have contributed much in the bleak times of the 90's to kick the anti-capitalist movement off in the UK....

Do you not think that the impasse you've reached could not be anything to do with your politics????

There are always leaders, someone has to say let's do it, someone has to actualise what everyone else thinks.

Do you not think the people who invented direct action, the working class, and the ideas born from that struggle, Marxism have nothing to offer you?

Anti-Capitalism did not begin in the mid-90's, the left is finally beginning to realign in exciting ways, why not be part of it and engage in fraternal debates and united action rather than mud-slinging and marginalising yourselfs even more.

No-one is stopping you from doing what you want, people will not follow ideas they don't agree with.

Reformist organisation will not go away until it is replaced by revolutionary organisation, let's work to make sure that reformism is put where it belongs, in the dustbin of history.

for unity,

noel x

Quick point before I go to bed Noel; isn't GR a reformist organisation? After all, I've never seen any practical analysis come out of it, no mention of what they want (nicer capitalism?), never any mention of revolution. So are you arguing they should be consigned to the dustbin of history?

GR is an umbrella group designed to unite different groups around a general anti-capitalist platform, you may not like it but most of the population (ie. the ones we have to convince to get involved) will be reformist, not revolutionary - it is only by working together around specific aims that they can be won to revolutinary politics, that is to say in practice and not by moralising about people's behaviour.

noel

A few points:

Masked Man writes:

"So the authors want a non sectarian alliance that includes ...only anarchists... Huh?"

No one has said that. Its funny how some people assume that if you critique Leninist
politics and practice you wish them to exlcude them. No, sorry, we want to discuss
ideas and show why Leninism is elitist state-capitalist nonsense.

"Maybe thats why they feel marginalised. If you want to win people to your ideas you
have to work with them and prove in practice that they are effective. But I guess its
easier to blame the Trots?"

Actually, the only reason the SWP are interested in the direct action movement is
based it has been effective, it works and has proved in pratice how to get people
involved.

"At the moment there is a massive need for unity in action, so whats it going to be?"

Ah, yes, the calls for "unity" -- yes, the SWP can "critique" others but when others
critique them, then they are being "sectarian"! Lovely logic!

Noel writes:

"The key difference is that we want a MASS movement, which by definition no one
group can 'control' but where our ideas can make a crucial contribution."

Have you never read Lenin and Trotsky? They both argue for the need for party
power, for the Bolshevik party to take control. They are pretty explicit about that.
Indeed, they argue for it precisely because they thought only the party could
give the necessary direction for a mass movement or revolution -- and direction
requires control.

"This is
where some kind of strategy comes in, it doesn't mean not taking action if you don't
have the masses with you necessarily, but without there can be no revolution."

No one disagrees with that -- the question is whether those masses are in control of
any revolution. The Bolshevik ideology explicitly argues against that and in favour
of party power (and, indeed, party dictatorship). Changing bosses does not equal
a revolution, sorry.

"You
refuse to take power from the Capitalists yet the Capitalist State (Genoa) uses all
its power against us"

Who is the "you" who will "take power"? Is it the party or the class? Lenin and Trotsky
both explicitly denied that the class could exercise power and instead argued for
party power. Indeed, Trotsky argued for party dictatorship even after the rise
of Stalinism!

Replacing the capitalists with the SWP will be no great change.

"There are always leaders, someone has to say let's do it, someone has to actualise
what everyone else thinks."

Why should these leaders be placed into positions of hierarchical power? Why replace
the thoughts and ideas of millions with those of the 19 members of the Central
Committee? Why should Lenin be given the power to "actualise" what everyone
else thinks?

Anarchists have no problem with giving a lead, but they have a problem with placing
power into the hands of "leaders."

"Do you not think the people who invented direct action, the working class, and the
ideas born from that struggle, Marxism have nothing to offer you?"

Marxism was not "born" from the working class struggle -- Marx was *never* a worker
(and Engels was a capitalist). Rather it was the product of Marx's mind (hence _Marx_ism).
Indeed, Marx attacked workers in struggle who did not follow what he thought
workers should do (the Luddites being an example, and lets not forget Engels
attack on the General Strike!). He was influenced by workers in struggle, but he
was never was one.

Ironically, Lenin refutes Noel's argument -- in _What is to be Done?_ Lenin
explicitly denied that socialism came from the class struggle. Rather, he
argued, it was the product of the intellectuals and arose outside of the
class struggle. For Lenin, the class struggle could only produce reformist
ideas, not revolutionary ones (nevermind Marxist ones).

Marx may have a lot to offer us, but Marxism is pure ideology -- one which hides behind
the rehetoric of being the sole theory of the working class!

This can be seen when Noel argued that RTS, etc "place certain
ideological barriers to peoples participation (such as the need to be
'non-hierachical') this is sectarian, this is what being sectarian MEANS,
putting your own, ideas before the movement as a whole"

You see, when Marxists place ideological barriers to people joining (i.e. you must
support hierarchical structures) then they are simply expressing the needs of
"the movement as a whole" rather than expressing their ideological need to
control movements by creating structures which aid that process.

The logic is simple, when the SWP do it, its good. When non-SWP people do it,
its sectarian.

I should note that Neol is showing parallels with Lenin. In _What is to be Done?_
Lenin notes that the early labour movement in Britain practiced what he
dismisses as "primative democracy" (i.e. self-management). This is to be
expected, as workers generally do create non-hierarchical structures during
strikes (i.e. mass assemblies, mandated delegates and so on). However, he
opposed applying these methods in the revolutionary movement and
instead praised the "professional" (i.e. bureaucratic, hierarchical) unions
which these early revolutionary unions became,

Clearly, Noel is asking us to believe that creating structures which involve
everyone in the decision making process is "sectarian" even though that
*exactly* what every wild-cat strike creates initially! Yes, far better to
apply the "professional" means used by such revolutionary organisations
as the current Trade Unions!

"Anti-Capitalism did not begin in the mid-90's, the left is finally beginning to realign
in exciting ways, why not be part of it and engage in fraternal debates and united
action rather than mud-slinging and marginalising yourselfs even more."

Actually, the pamphlet is part of a debate! To say that it is "mud-slinging" (and
that is rich coming from an SWPer!) is simply a means to avoid the debate. As
normal, rather than debate their politics, the SWPers call for unity! Clearly, its
a case of "we can critique yous, but if you critique us then your being sectarian"!

So, in the interests of debate, perhaps an SWP member would like to answer
my two questions:

1) How is Trotsky advocating party dictatorship combatible with workers' democracy and
socialism from below?
2) How can the SWP use the slogan "socialism from below" when Lenin argued that
"always from below" was an "anarchist principle"?

An answer would be interesting, though I doubt I will get one.

Noel, an ex member of the SWP described the way SWP conferences are run in an earlier post.

I found the description truly frightening, is it true?

And if it is true why do you organise in this way?

Is this the way you would want to run things if you came to power?

Concerned asks:

>Noel, an ex member of the SWP described the way SWP conferences are run in an
>earlier post.
>I found the description truly frightening, is it true?
>And if it is true why do you organise in this way?
>Is this the way you would want to run things if you came to power?

For what its worth, I will indicate what the SWP's Marxism 2001 was like. Its
pretty similar in set-up as ex-SWP describes their conference.

I'll take the terrible meeting on Anarchism as an example (terrible in terms
of the lying nonsense Stack came out with, truly disgraceful). Anyways,
Pat Stack gave the most inaccurate account of anarchism I've had the
misfortunate of ever hearing (visit www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html for
a reply to his original article in Socialist Review).

During the 40 minutes of nonsense, people went round with speaking slips
and you put your name down on it. I was called to speak and had a whole
3 minutes to reply to the 40 minutes of crap Stack had subjected us too,
3 whole minutes to reply to 40 minutes! Not exactly what I call a debate.
Needless to say, after me were mostly SWPers -- none of whom seemed
remotely concerned with the fact that Stack had distorted anarchist ideas
for 40 minutes. Then Stack summed up for ten minutes.

And the SWP call Marxism a "debate"! Makes you wonder what they mean
when they use the words "open", "democratic" and so on!

The one on "This is what democracy looks like" was even better. I got up
to speak and I indicated Trotsky's and Lenin's support for party power
and dictatorship, the suppression of soviet democracy *before* the
start of the civil war and so on. After it, numerous SWPers got up and
said their piece. At the summing up, I asked for a chance to reply --
sorry, no time, even though many of the speakers raised issues on what
I had said and my politics which needed to be replied too. Funnily
enough, there was time for the speaker to spend 10 minutes distorting
anarchist ideas in his "summing up" speach!

Ironically, after I had discussed what the Bolsheviks did in practice,
we were informed to look at the election manifesto (State and Revolution) --
just as the leaflet I was handing out said they would! What was it that Marx
said, judge people by what they do, not what they say about themselves.
The SWP turn that on its head.

(go to www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html for an account of my adventures)

steve wrote in response to schnews:

'If you put as much effort into building the anti-capitalist movement as you put into dividing it, it would be truly huge.'

all i can say to that is erm - they did, and it is.

as to dividing the movement - I don't think the eminently sensible schnews bods would have put so much effort into producing such a one off pamphlet as this if they weren't very concerned by the divisiveness of GR/SWP moving in to jump on yet another bandwagon, and trying to marginalise or throw out whatever they don't like that's already on board.

Noal and Steve, you make some relevant points - can't you seize the courage to make them as individuals in a spirit of equality, rather than ceaselessly defending The Party? When you seem to speak on behalf of a sad old sect, it's very hard for people to take your perspectives seriously.

cheers

Firstly I should point out that I loosely consider myself to be an 'anarchist' that is I believe in moving society towards an egalitarian, sustainable, equal, equitable future based along non-hierachical lines, but am realistic enought to realise that unlike Marxist-leninism this is not something which can be brought about from the top down and must grow from the grassroots up which is going to take a very long time (if not several long times).

My so many long words simply to explain where I stand politically. I'm a pretentious sonuvabitch aren't I?

Anyway, despite all this I am going to stand up for GR. I am doing this more for personal reasons than anything else: GR were the only group who have ever responded to my e-mails and were actually prepared to listen to some of my ideas! Those of the group I have met and/or spoken to seem friendly and prepared to put up with my general weirdness. They do not really represent where I am politically, but this doesn't mean I am not opposed to working with them (or indeed 'using' them) to make the world we all live in a better place.

I also question this idea that they are totally controlled by the SWP. True many of the members of the group, particularly in the steering committee, are SWPers but they seem to really believe in opening the group to all sorts of activists and ideologies.

Still not convinced well here's a story to prove it: The talk of a blockade was at one point a big debate on UK IMC which both I and Guy Taylor where involved. He was opposed to the blockade, I supported it. Now if he truly was opposed to openess and 'democracy' as people suggest, he would simply have ignored this, but he didn't. In a phone discussion he suggested I write a letter to the Socialit Worker supporting the blockade (this failed to happen largely because of my stupidity/general disorganisation),

Love and solidarity!

Every time I see another statement from the SWP I take another turn in my grave. Oh my head. If someone wants an axe to grind please remove mine. Why is there no SWP in Mexico? You have nothing too loose but your chins.

for concerned, please don't believe everything you read from some of the other posters!!!

Why was Genoa so big?

Because the Genoa Social Forum was an umbrella group that included literally hundreds of organisations who worked around a common aim despite ideological differences - this is what a united front means it's nothing sinister.

We desperately need that in this country, that's what the GR thing is about, check this weekends conference (at web address below) it includes people from Bolivia who fought the water privatisation, Pilger, Tony Benn, people from the Genoa Social Forum and the autonomists in Italy and god knows how many others.....is this a bad thing? Is it wrong should it not happen???

I'm not going to apologise for being a Marxist nor being in the SWP my politics come from a life of political activity, similarly I will respect others with different views as long as they treat me fraternally and not as some kind of enemy.

The working class will take power not the SWP, you will not find anywhere in any SWP literature that we want to be the 'new government', the revolution will involve many groups and parties.

Gr has an elected steering committee which is made up of a MAJORITY of non-SWP people, GR is also supported by other parties such as the Greens.

The labour party protest is organised by the SWP, Socialist Alliance, Greens, GR NUJ and thousands of smaller local campaigns, unions and others it was democratically decided that the protest would not blockade the conference, it is not us who are trying to split the movement, do you really think we want to risk the police repressing the march as a whole because a few people don't want to be non-violent, in the current climate where the state is looking for excuses to repress us, wouldn't this be madness???? Do we not want a massive show of strength that leaves people feeling energised to go back to there local communities and workplaces to extend the movement????

and finally, there is a war coming, the world is in recession, it is at this moment Schnews decide that attacking the SWP or GR is the most important thing - this really speaks louder than any words I can write.

fraternally,

noel

Sorry noel but the description of SWP conferences is accurate, I have witnessed and participated in it.

The fact that you lie makes it difficult to take the rest of your arguments seriously

How about being honest, I suspect that you along with lots of other SWP members don't like some of the ways your organisation is run but are not allowed to say so publicly.


During my time in the SWP I put up with the lack of democracy becuase I thought it would change, unfortunately it didn't.

Still never to late

Noel writes:

"The working class will take power not the SWP, you will not find anywhere in any
SWP literature that we want to be the 'new government', the revolution will involve
many groups and parties."

So SWP are going against the resolutions of the Second Congress of the
Communist International? Rejecting what Lenin argued in "Left-Wing
Communism" and Trotsky's conclusions as expressed in "Stalinism and
Bolshevism" as well as other numerous works? In other words, the SWP
reject what Lenin, Trotsky et al considered the fundamental lessons of
the Russian Revolution?

For some reason I don't believe it -- simply because the SWP proudly
proclaim themselves Leninists in the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky.
And, btw, what about Lenin's and Trotsky's support for party dictatorship?
How is that compatible with "socialism from below"? Still waiting for
an answer on that one...

As for the need for party power not being in the SWP literature, well, it wasn't
really mentioned in Lenin's State and Revolution either -- didn't stop the
Bolsheviks taking power for themselves (and suppressing any soviet
which voted for non-Bolshevik majorities).

And, of course, the Russian Revolution initially involved many groups
and parties -- although once the Bolsheviks took power that changed
rapidly. They attacked the anarchists in April 1918, they suppressed
the Mensheviks even after the Mensheviks took a position of peaceful
opposition and expelled any one who broke party discipline, and so
on. In the end, every other group who opposed Bolshevism (but
supported the revoution) was crushed and their members in hiding,
dead or in jail. Including, of course, the workers and peasants who were
meant to be in power under Bolshevism...

But, of course, why let the facts of history inform your political ideas?

Lastly:

"and finally, there is a war coming, the world is in recession, it is at this moment
Schnews decide that attacking the SWP or GR is the most important thing - this
really speaks louder than any words I can write."

that is rich! Of course, if the SWP publish a totally dishonest article on anarchism
then that is fine, but if others produce something critical of the SWP, then that is
sectarian? Is that the case? I think that mentality speaks louder than any words I
can write.

And think about what Noel is asking -- he is asking us all to ignore our politics and
instead "unite" (and let us not forget that was the line *before* the war and the
confirmation of the recession!). Will the SWP do the same? Will they refuse to
attack (sorry, critique) those they disagree with? I doubt it!

And, of course, a pamphlet take time to write -- obviously Schnews had planned this
for some time -- and long before September 11th. And if you visit the Schnews
webpage, you will discover stuff against the war! Clearly, Noel is grasping at
straws in his attempts to avoid discussing the ideas and practice of Bolshevism
and the SWP.

I always find it strange that the SWP publish articles attacking others and justify it
as "pushing the debate forward," yet when others publish articles critiquing the
SWP then, rather than welcome the chance to debate, they rush to condemn it
as "sectarian" and urge us to "unite" -- now, is it just me or does that smack of
hypocrisy?

Yes, there is a war coming and a recession and we need to get involved in resisting
both -- no debate there. The real debate will be in how we do that and what we
aim to get out of it. Mindless activism will get us nowhere. We need to discuss
our ideas and how to apply them. Clearly Noel does not want us to do that and
instead embrace mindless activism -- do not question, do not think, just act....

Sorry, but those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Noel writes:

"for concerned, please don't believe everything you read from some of the other
posters!!!"

Well, obviously anyone should find out the facts for themselves and then make
their minds up. But, really, to call on someone to not believe what others say
seems a tad like desperation rather than a serious political analysis!

Personally, I would have said "please investigate and find out for yourself
whether the comments from other posters are true or not."

And based on this, I would suggest the following webpages as evidence for
what I have said:

www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html
(this for my reply to Stacks lying article, my adventures at Marxism 2001, and
other replies to SWP distortions on anarchism).

www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append31.html
(on Trotsky's support for party dictatorship from 1920s onwards to his death
as well as Bolshevik attacks on democracy before the start of the Russian
Civil War)

www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH5.html
(about Kronstadt, including summary of Bolshevik attacks on democracy
*plus* how the SWP have abused books to distort what happened in 1921)

www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append34.html
(a detailed refute of an SWP article on anarchism plus a section which
discusses how undemocratic the SWP is, based on articles by dissents
from the SWP itself)

as for Marxism 2001, I was there! Its how it was -- 40 minutes of diatribe
(and inaccurate diatribe at that) followed by ten 3 minutes slots do not
a debate make, sorry!

one last thing, talking of the war, I would suggest the following webpages
for resources and information:

 http://www.struggle.ws/stopthewar.html

and

 http://www.infoshop.org/antiwar.html

no war but the class war!

Noel above in this debate you said:

"Agreed this is something that RTS where doing in part and that was great, but where are RTS now??? It's not the fault of the SWP or GR that the RTS or the 'direct action' movement cannot mobilise people, look at the turnout at the arms fair or Mayday this year... this would make me question my tactics and strategy."

When i hear a group like SWP saying other groups should question their tactics and move on, i realise how stuck in the sand your head must be. The SWP has not learnt from situations or changed it tactics for 20 years, It continues to wait for small grassroots groups to start campaigns - then by shear force of burocracy and numbers it decides to take up their 'cause' and bleeds it until the original people leave through fustration. In the process it may have made a few recruits but in the long term thay have managed to turn many away from grassroots organising.

This may seem like a grim view but i have seen it happen in many local campaigns in my area too many times. Now i have learnt to live with the SWP and put up with them because i know many of them as individuals are very commited and are on our side - but i get fustrated when the committee mentality and one-ideology-fits-all rhetoric is spouted - normally by the burocrats and 'leaders'. This is why so many of us are resisting your attempt to 'take over' this movement to let GR and SWP set itself up as the steering committee - too many have worked too hard to inspire people to not wait for leaders. Anyone who saw how predictable and mundain their drives to get people to Prague and Genoa were - realised they only want bums on seats not active thinkers. When was the last time the SWP questioned its tactics or it's attitude to people who want to demonstrate?

After the the late 80's and early 90's - times dominated by boring marches, speeches and paper selling dominated by SWP etc, a new movement began to emerge. Reclaim The Streets was one manifestation of this creativity and lust for life - angry and human. Along with many lesser known (but vital) groups around the country they have given the whole political arena a new energy. The fact that they have decided not to lead this movement is a credit to them not an issue on which to lambast them, The 1000's of people who are and were involved with RTS throughout the country continue to orgainse but don't feel the need to dominate.

From my distant view i see them continue to act and support many actions and large demonstrations without the need to claim all the responsibility and credit, unlike GR and SWP who are trying to jump into the "media gap" left by this autonomous way of working. RTS do seem to be updating their tactics continuously - from the tripods and street parties to their work in Birmingham, City of London and Mayday 2000 - all this time they managed to work with the dockers, tube workers and inspired many to do it themslves - not to follow and sell papers!

And i am not even in RTS but i respect what they do and have done - and my local collective knows that autonomous groups need to work together in spontanious and inspiring ways rather than joining a fictictous umbrella organisation.

Well, this has been a lively and interesting debate,hasn't it!

I don't normally add to them, but when someone writes lies and inaccuracies about things I'm aware of, some first hand I feel I have to inform this readership.

Noel says that the mass demo's in France in the mid 1990's, amongst were precursors for the anti-capitalist actions is an untruth to dissmiss RTS and the direct action movement who kicked it off in this country.

You know as well as I do that those strikes were mainly by the powerful French public sector unions. It was great to see the French state having to backtrack as usual, but are train drivers on the streets for the retention of their retirement at 50 and handsome pensions self-interest or solidarity actions, simultaneously with people in the south such as J18? As usual the strikes which were hated by a large number of French people, and crumbled when one group got some or all of what they were after. I would have mentioned the actions by the French Unemployed Union a couple of years later who occupied dole offices simultaneously all over France, on more than one occasion in response to savage benefit cuts; surely something most anti-cap activists could relate to much more easily?

Secondly you seem to state that RTS actions are run by an secretive elite. Well Noel, in my experience of RTS weekly open meetings, if enough people are up for planning an action, those interested get together and do it. Secrecy then become an issue if the action involves breaking the law.That is why they are cagey about blabbing out all the details in a meeting, and details are kept within a small number which possibly may contain journos and cops You only have to check out some of the bullshit written about them (Sunday Times article post J18 about them buying tear gas and stun grenades from Euston pub bouncers!!) then you could understand this. Also they have had their office raided several times

It's time to quit Noel, you sound like a decent chap, not a rabid Trot, nor one of the sheep that have been in THE party far too long, it might change your life radically which seems scary and difficult, but believe me there are plenty of us out here who are allowed to think and act for ourselves, on our own initiative based on our own belifs that are not that very different from yours.

Junk the party, drop the baggage, start living and start acting, you'll love it!!

I'm all for individualism, self expression and creativity. But there's not much of that going on here, much of this thread just seems like recycled class war hand outs from 1984. People join the SWP because its active, organised and non sectarian. Given that I've helped to initiate and organise coutless gigs, actions and campaigns over the years, I have no idea how to reposnd to the charge of 'hijacking' the movement. Do people really believe that SWP members exist to just sell papers, perhaps you should communicate more and preach about 'individuality' a bit less.

If Anarcho thinks its a crime that he only got to speak once at Marxism in a room of two hundred people then thats up to him. Local SWP groups elect their delegates to conference without any inteference from the centre, any two delegates can propose a motion and the decision of conference is binding, thats democratic centralism, is there organisational conservatism, absolutely, but self evedently there are advantages to being centraly organised, given that that is the nature of the capitalist state we are up against. If you dont want to organise in that way again thats up to you, for me the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. I'm willing to be convinced i'm wrong, telling me that i'm a mindless robot and a parasite isn't going to work.

To suggest that RTS came up with a more open democratic system is simply disonest. RTS had the same problems with ego's, turn over, conservatism and dicisions being made undemocraticaly down the pub after the meetings, that have characterised anarchist forms of orginisation for years. But hey for a time it worked anyway and inspired a whole bunch of people, does that mean that it still fits the situation, I wonder, because of the introverted vibe that you get from the Direct Action movement

The principle difference between the SWP and Anarchist groups seems to me is the willingness of the former to work with 'non revolutionaries'. Events like Genoa and Seattle were both built by coalition building and by putting aside old rivalries. RTS may have been built large street parties without such alliances but now that the movement has grown the situation has changed.

Demanding that there should be a vacuum within which your silence can be heard is a curious notion. The key is surely to fill the vacuum with a democratic tradition that that believes in change from below, because if not the space will be siezed by the reformists or the right. Rant ends, see yall tommorow.