What is it about the SWP that causes so many people on here to start accusing them of monopolising the resistance (which would be impossible anyway), and why does the 'anarchist' contingent seem hell bent on getting rid of them, and accusing them of 'parastisim', 'vampirism', etc, and of wanting to recruit members away from them? If people want to join the SWP they will join the SWP, if not, they won't.

For the record I am not a member of the SWP, but I would just like to know what it is about those three letters that causes 95% of the non-Trotskyist/non-socialist activists on here to explode in a fireball of insane fury.

Yours sincerely, TJA

The SWP work with police to control and stifle dissent. Their organisation is hierarchical and undemocratic and they use their funds (they own the printing press East End Offset hence the uniquitous SWP placards) to monopolise existing dissent and protest.

Don't whine. Organize.

I agree with your views (although this is hardly new) however it is important to distiniguish between the party and individuals. I don't like/agree with the SWP's politics or strategy, but there are good anti-capitalists who belong to them for whatever reason. At times like this we need to (with open eyes) work with whoever we can.

I have been worrying about the SWP's role too, though I do agree with the last person that there are some good people who have just landed in the Organisation, so we shouldn't scape-goat individuals...But it isn't individuals we have to worry about : It is the party machine.

The problem with SW isn't just that they are authoritarian and ideological-as an organisation they are a real liability for the movement I think:
1)DEMOS/ACTIONS: despite their fantasies they are really crap leaders and invariably make bad decisions that lead people into dead ends or vulnerable situations.This is because they are used to working very bureaucratically and to well rehearsed 'acceptable' formulas for demos- and so don't know how to judge things when develoments become more spontaneous...I have been on LOADS of demos where they have managed to lead huge groups of people ,not just party faithful,straight into traps set by the police (It could be said that the samba band has managed to lead a fair few into being cornered by the police too, but least things are fun when they are around!), or of they are not leading people into being cornered, they often accidently mess up stuff by being inept - On a walkout I was on last Thurs, SW were trying to control the road blocks that were occuring (via their control of megaphones) and making really crap decisions about when to stop and start... I must emphasise that I wouldn't be in favour of them if they were 'better' leaders, but just
to say that as an Organisation they are no good at judging things (which can also be shown from the fact that they are still trying to petition against the war, thinking this will bring people into the movement, when the world is already way ahead of them!)
2) LOCAL ORGANISATIONS: In fact I am less worried about their activities on demos etc than on a local level because actions have a life of their own and at the end of the day the moods either there or not (and we can easily ignore them if the mood is right)- but in local groups, they do manage to get much more of a stranglehold, and channel all our energies into their bureaucratic fantasies, and kill the spirit as well as put people off getting involved..I am sure that, as with the poll tax, we need to be organising on a local level now, and not just stay within our marginalised anarcho scenes- but I am really put off trying to get things going round my way, because I know that as soon as we get a group together, SW will jump on it and I will have to waste all my energies trying to fight them off (like Buffy said!), rather than being able to do real activities.... If anyone has any ideas as to how we can deal with this dilemma please email them because it is something we urgently need to deal with. Cheers.

Yawn yawn... scarcely worth commenting on, except that - once again, on the same day tens of thousands take part in direct action in their communities, after the two biggest marches in British history, after unprecedented mass school student strikes - a shower of whingers are wasting their time on another (small) section of the movement. Life's too short; particularly if you're in Iraq. We have a war to stop.

SWP = sheep with placards

The SWP are willing to work with any anti-war activists; the (coppers'?) narchs, on the other hand, are not evidently not. An agent provocateur would do exactly the same--try to split the anti-war movement by stirring up pointless, time-wasting squabbles between its component organisations.

Democratic centralism means electing accountable, recallable, officers to represent their electors: nothing more, nothing less. That has got absolutely nothing to do with autocratic "heirachies". Don't confuse the bureaucratic centralism of Stalin with the genuinely democratic centralism of Lenin and Trotsky. And don't listen to the lies of the anarchists about this--they just echo the slanders of the right wing about Lenin and Trotsky. The Anarchists have never led a successful revolution and never will so they are in no posiiton to lecture anyone on the subject.

It is true that democratic centralism has been negated by the SWP and some other Trotskyists in the past, but that does not invalidate the notion of genuine democratic centralism. It is common practice in all working class organisations to take decision through majority vote and to elect recallable officers--and that is all that democratic centralism entails.

In order to consolidate Stalinism, Stalin first had to physically DESTROY Leninism and Trotskyism--not "continue" it. If Stalinism was really the "continuation of Leninism", why did Stalin first have to kill or "disappear" every single member of the 1917 Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party except himself? The Anarchist have no answer to this.

People who reject the notion of democratic centralism are really bureaucrats afraid of their own undemocratic tendencies. They also have a cynical view of human nature: people cannot be trusted to represent their comrades so we must do away with the notion of representation, elected officers and accountable leadership. Instead we must be in a state of permanent assembly. Well sorry, but that is just not practical or necessary.

Mutley -you authoritarian socialists have had your chance in Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea ... and you've failed. Economic inefficiency, mass murder, environmental destruction, end of personal freedom, artistic expression, independent working class organisation (it was Lenin not Stalin who created the secret police, ended indpendent trade unions)... history has proved Bakunin was right in his critique of Marxism ... but really this isn't the time or place to get into this. I am happy to work with SWP members, pagans, christians whoever to stop this war.

"Democratic centralism means electing accountable, recallable, officers to represent
their electors: nothing more, nothing less."

Actually, it is a lot more than that. Democratic centralism places decision making power
into the hands of the central committee, which the membership is expected to follow. As
such, it is centralised but its "democratic" in the same way that Parliament is democratic.
As Mr Blair shows, electing an officer does not make him representative (and we can recall
him in a few years...)

"That has got absolutely nothing to do with
autocratic "heirachies". Don't confuse the bureaucratic centralism of Stalin with the
genuinely democratic centralism of Lenin and Trotsky."

If you read Trotsky on Lenin's party and its "genuinely democratic centralism" he
admits that it had its bureaucratic elements, against which Lenin had to fight in
1917 in order to get the Bolshevik party to be revolutionary. This is well known and
its disgraceful that a Leninist does not admit to it. For more details:

 http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH8.html

"And don't listen to the lies of the
anarchists about this--they just echo the slanders of the right wing about Lenin and
Trotsky."

I wonder if anyone would take this argument seriously if it was phrased like this:

"Don't listen to the lies of anarchists about the earth going round the sun -- they just
echo the right-wing on this!

Sadly, just because the "right-wing" say something does not make it false. Nor does
it mean that anarchists have the same analysis or arguments as the "right wing" on
Bolshevism. That is a lie and a slander in itself. But what can we expect from a
Leninist? Visit the following webpage for a detailed exposure of SWP lies about
anarchism:

 http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho.html

"The Anarchists have never led a successful revolution and never will so they
are in no posiiton to lecture anyone on the subject"

So the russian revolution was "successful"? I don't think so. Unless you think
Bolshevik party dictatorship *over* the working class and state capitalism is
"successful". And this had developed by spring, 1918, *before* the start of
the civil war.

If that is a "success" we don't need failures!

"It is true that democratic centralism has been negated by the SWP and some other
Trotskyists in the past, but that does not invalidate the notion of genuine democratic
centralism."

Ah, yes, even if all examples of "democratic centralism" don't work, it does not invalidate
the notion!

"It is common practice in all working class organisations to take decision
through majority vote and to elect recallable officers--and that is all that democratic
centralism entails."

Actually, it does not. Quite the reverse. Let me quote an article on this subject
( http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/democracy.html):

"With regards to whether the referendum could be used as a means of setting policy
within the party, Trotsky argued that it was "not possible to answer this question
except in the negative." He goes on to argue that "whoever is in favour of a referendum
must be in favour of imperative mandates," which meant "that every local has the right to
compel its representative . . . to vote in a definite manner." This meant that a "party
decision is simply an arithmetical total of local decisions." While allowing the right for
locals to vote on "every question," he considered it right that the representatives could
ignore that decision as they had "the right to weigh all the arguments" made at the party
conference. The party members only had the right to "subsequently deprive him of its
political confidence" while implementing the decisions they had no part in determining,
either at conference or subsequently."

Lets remember that the "imperative mandate" is the system which is common practice
in revolutionary working class organisations (like the Paris Commune). Significantly,
Trotsky is against this alleged "common practice" and what "democratic centralism"
"entails"! And if your read Lenin, you would know this was the case. He *dismisses*
"primitive democracy" in working class organisations. He notes that "in the first
period of existence in their unions, the British workers thought it was an indispensable
sign of democracy for all members to do all the work of managing the unions." This involved
"all questions [being] decided by the votes of all the members" and all "official duties" being
"fulfilled by all the members in turn." He dismisses "such a conception of democracy" as
"absurd" and "historical experience" made them "understand the necessity for representative
institutions" and "full-time professional officials."

Needless to say, this move anyway from "primitive democracy" was also marked by
bureaucracy by "professional officials" -- and this problem surfaced in Bolshevism as
well, as Trotsky admitted (sometimes!).

"In order to consolidate Stalinism, Stalin first had to physically DESTROY Leninism and
Trotskyism--not "continue" it. If Stalinism was really the "continuation of Leninism", why
did Stalin first have to kill or "disappear" every single member of the 1917 Central
Committee of the Bolshevik Party except himself? The Anarchist have no answer to this."

We don't need to. Just because the people in charge change, it does not change the
nature of the society. As a Marxist, the poster should know this. If Blair loses the next
election, does the UK become more or less capitalist? Neither, as the social relations
have not changed. The same with Stalinist Russia. If you look at the social relationships
in society, they had not changed from Lenin's time. One man management, party
dictatorship, suppression of opposition and working class revolt. The same system,
just a change in personnel.

That Leninists point to changing personnel rather than looking at the social relationships
in a society says it all. But apparently a society is socialist if Trotsky and Lenin are in
charge but not socialist if Stalin is! Truly "scientific" socialism in action :)

For more on the real differences between anarchism and marxism visit:

 http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html

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

 http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append3.html

 http://anarchism.ws/left.html

I agree with the points people are making about keeping our eyes focussed on the real enemies and issues, but it has to be said that, where I live at any rate, the SWP/STWC IS now acting as a brake on the movement. SWP activists are always the ones urging caution and trying (often unsuccessfully, I'm pleased to note) to stifle any militancy or creativity. And I know that SWPers will quite reasonably point out that they've done a great job of building the STWC, but that don't really change the fact that we haven't actually stopped the war!

If an A to B march of 2million bodies didn't stop the war in February, then a smaller A to B march in March (or, indeed, April 12th) ain't likely to stop the fucking thing either. We need to be forming smaller decentralised affinity groups and contemplating effective resistance.

"The traditions of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living... a beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he has assimilated the spirit of the new language and can freely express himself in it only when he finds his way in it without recalling the old and forgets his native tongue in the use of the new."

- Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire...

Gawd, I always thought the SWP were the nastiest groupuscle on the British left, until I actually met and worked with anarchists. In my experience, both groups are patronising vanguardists, keen on foisting their pet projects on people without discussion, and more than anything, 'recruiting,' be it to a party or a hilariously earnest lifestyle of mung beans and samba. It's a misguided elitism, no matter how it's couched in euphemism. Just because you rant about 'democratic centralism' or 'autonomous actions', doesn't mean you're escaping the mistakes of the past. That would require an immanent critique of one's own activity, something that is sadly lacking in all sections of the left at the moment. Escaping the ideology and thinking for yourself. How does that sound?

One guy shouts 'occupy', another comes along and screams 'blockade'. By implication, the 'mass' is supposed to follow these professional revolutionaries. I'm fucking sick of it. Let's see a bit of democracy. For sure, these old hacks have certain skills that are useful for the movement, but that is no reason to treat newcomers with contempt for not being on message, or for having their own ideas about how to do things. It’s the age old story: remember the Russian Populists ‘going to the people’, only to return disappointed that the people did not think like them. Despite its protestations, both Leninist and anarchist vanguardism refuses to enter into a dialogue, and believes that if only it shouted loud enough, the world would follow.

Before anyone accuses me of attempting to split this movement, let it be said that you'll do that yourselves unless you seriously think about what you're doing. Lets move beyond these sterile ideological debates and try and stop this war, before moving on to changing the world.

Jay-B: "the SWP/STWC IS now acting as a brake on the movement. SWP activists are always the ones urging caution and trying (often unsuccessfully, I'm pleased to note) to stifle any militancy or creativity"

Well not every one at such a march want's to get involved in any militant action, they want to protest peacefully without risking arrest. I am not such a person, but out of the 1.5m at the London march in Feburary, probably only a few thousand at most would want to stage militant action. If they wanted to do so, they are quite free to do that, and they is nothing that the STWC (or the SWP for that matter) can do to stop them, they merely organise the march, they don't dictate what goes on (if would be futile if they tried to anyway).

I am sick of 'anarchists' who criticise anyone who's flag is not as black as theirs, who slag off more 'mainstream' groups (like the SWP, STWC, Socialist Alliance, CND, Greenpeace, et al), and denounce them for just having different views to them.
These 'anarchists' are everything they they accuse the SWP of, their way is the right way, the one solution, and everyone else is wrong.

I expect I will get a lot of abusive replies to this, all I say is, you're wasting your time, I have better things to do then participate in flame wars.

Despite what some people seem to believe, the politics of the SWP are basically sound (unlike other left-wing sects such as the Sparts or the AWL). They are anti-capitalists, anti-war, anti-nazi. To claim that by joining in these movements they are 'hijacking' them is ridiculous - members of the SWP are some of the most active and dedicated members of far left radical movements.

Further, the claims that the SWP want to impose State control run by them shows a complete lack of understanding or knowledge of the SWP. They are not Stalinists. The rhetoric of the SWP talks of democratic workers' councils - not of hierarchy or State power. Democratic centralism is not supposed to be the blue-print of society - it is an effective way of running a political party, with policy agreed democratically at conference (factions are allowed to form temporarily in the SWP before conference) and then stuck to (in theory, at least).

And yet. The SWP do have big problems. I'm not worried by the paper personally - every group on the left sells a paper or gives out leaflets, and just because the SWP is the largest group doing it doesn't mean you should condemn them for it. I think the Socialist Worker is a pretty good read.

Problem one, they claim to build movements, yet much of their time on demonstrations is spent recruiting people to the party, people who may have never even heard of the SWP before the demo, yet go away signed up and paying subs by direct debit. This is problematic because people are not making an informed choice as to joining the SWP (something I did have, and have chosen not to join). They do not know anything about how the SWP operates, what democratic centralism is, the debates between anarchism and trotksyism etc. The SWP sets itself up as the link between all the movements on the left, whereas in reality it is just one of many groups campaigning widely on the left.

Problem two, lack of radicalism. Spontaneous protests, autonomously organised are called 'adventurism' by the SWP. Despite their considerable base of dedicated activists who could be the seed for mass civil disobedience, the SWP is conservative and withdraws from attempting to set off radical actions. Yet when an action has started, the SWP will be at the front with the megaphones. The SWP talks of mass movements, which is why is concentrates on marches, but if it fails to radicalise the anti-war movement, in what sense will it have succeeded?

But their are problems with 'autonomists' as well. Primarily a worrying tendency to sound like terrorist cells, planning small direct actions to take out targets. There is a lack of recognition that even taking out a Tornado jet with a hammer is SYMBOLIC. It may cost them money to replace, but that'll come from all our taxes! The obvious appeal of more radical protest means that rather than attempt to build a mass radical movement, some anarchists take the short cut to small radical movements, disparaging and ignoring those who won't block roads, blockade military bases or derail trains.

Rather than complain about the SWP all the time, the radical left has to build a 'movement of movements' themselves. Quite how that will happen is at the moment not very clear. Anarchists often seem to believe that organisation per se is oppressive - but organisation is exactly what is needed if we are going to bring the mass of the population with us. A minority cannot bring about the revolution.

The SWP can't stop anyone taking more militant (read:effective) action? Yeah, they can and they do. There's a whole bunch of idealistic young people round here; they've been instrumental in some of the most inspiring and effective spontaneous actions I've seen in years. And I've seen the SWP collude with the police to try to dissuade them! That has an effect, when an older activist is telling a younger one that what they're doing is, well, really just a little childish and if they were SERIOUS they'd be trying to flog papers.

But it's cool. You're wandering around with your little preconceived notions in your head. So if I diss the SWP I must be a mung-bean munching n@rch, yeah? It's all good!

For what it's worth, I haven't got much time for sectarianism. But if the SWP feels the same way, it might be worth asking why they've decided to hold a Stop the War Conference in Brum next Sunday, in direct competition with one they're welcome to attend, but haven't been involved in the planning of? Or why their local organiser has threatened a local activist, who's a victimised firefighter, with complete withdrawal of SWP support if he dares to chair the non-SWP conference?

In other words, don't shoot the messenger!

People hate the SWP for different reasons. Some hate it because they are just against all 'hierarchical' organisations (mostly anarchists). Others hate it because its politics are realy very moderate compared with the tradition it claims to represent (mostly people of a more Marxist-Leninist type). It should not be forgotten that the SWP is very soft on Labour and British imperialism. It still does not totally oppose Labour, only some of its leading personalities.

Throwing in the USSR, China etc doesn't help here at all and is really very ignorant. For decades the SWP had the slogan 'neither Washington nor Moscow but international socialism'to make clear its total rejection of the socialist countries. Naturally it did not want to be associated with Britains enemies, that would not be very respectable and would have alienated its traditional allies in Labour. It even complained that Thatcher was allowing British beef to be exported to the USSR and said 'workers around the world are cheering' when the USSR collapsed. Presumably they are now cheering as workers die 7 years younger on average in Russia now under capitalism and imperialism is free to launch whatever wars it wants without finding any opposition from a USSR.

The problem is many people just moan about the SWP without understanding the problem in its politics. It is not just a question of its method of organisation (democratic centralism also produced very revolutionary parties and organisations, parties that imperialism puts on lists to be destroyed as dangerous or 'terrorist' as well as people who ally themselves with former Foreign Secretaries and leaders of the Lib Dems. It produced a FARC as well as an SWP). This political trend is not limited to the SWP but extends to many other organisations in Britain and abroad. It is found all through the history of capitalism because always alongside the revolutionaries were the opportunists. Alongside the Bolshekivs were the Mensheviks, at the same time as Lenin was Kautsky.

On the other hand while Marxism-Leninism produced revolutionary parties and revolutions and changed the lives of millions and millions of people for the better (yes it made some errors and wrong policies), anarchism produced none of these things. Neither did the reformist/Trotskyist tradition that the SWP is part of.

People hate the SWP for different reasons. Some hate it because they are just against all 'hierarchical' organisations (mostly anarchists). Others hate it because its politics are realy very moderate compared with the tradition it claims to represent (mostly people of a more Marxist-Leninist type). It should not be forgotten that the SWP is very soft on Labour and British imperialism. It still does not totally oppose Labour, only some of its leading personalities.

Throwing in the USSR, China etc doesn't help here at all and is really very ignorant. For decades the SWP had the slogan 'neither Washington nor Moscow but international socialism'to make clear its total rejection of the socialist countries. Naturally it did not want to be associated with Britains enemies, that would not be very respectable and would have alienated its traditional allies in Labour. It even complained that Thatcher was allowing British beef to be exported to the USSR and said 'workers around the world are cheering' when the USSR collapsed. Presumably they are now cheering as workers die 7 years younger on average in Russia now under capitalism and imperialism is free to launch whatever wars it wants without finding any opposition from a USSR.

The problem is many people just moan about the SWP without understanding the problem in its politics. It is not just a question of its method of organisation (democratic centralism also produced very revolutionary parties and organisations, parties that imperialism puts on lists to be destroyed as dangerous or 'terrorist' as well as people who ally themselves with former Foreign Secretaries and leaders of the Lib Dems. It produced a FARC as well as an SWP). This political trend is not limited to the SWP but extends to many other organisations in Britain and abroad. It is found all through the history of capitalism because always alongside the revolutionaries were the opportunists. Alongside the Bolshekivs were the Mensheviks, at the same time as Lenin was Kautsky.

On the other hand while Marxism-Leninism produced revolutionary parties and revolutions and changed the lives of millions and millions of people for the better (yes it made some errors and wrong policies), anarchism produced none of these things. Neither did the reformist/Trotskyist tradition that the SWP is part of.

At last! All this anti-war nonsense has distracted us from fighting the real enemy, the SWP! SWP members are stupid brainwashed sheep! SWP leaders work for MI5! And they refuse to condemn reactionary Muslim headscarves...

Forget the war; the SWP are worse imperialists than Bush and Blair! We must drive them out, along with all their Labour / Green / LibDem / trade union / Christian / Muslim / Jew friends! Purity is strength!