The SWP on anarchism, John Molyneux speaking at Marxism 2012

185 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rank
Offline
Joined: 14-06-11
Sep 21 2012 10:55
andy g wrote:
(deep breath)

Hi. My name is Andy and I'm a SWuPy....

gonna try not to proselytize (tough crowd) but Molyneux is very careful to point out he regards class struggle anarchists as "comrades" and does enjoin any anarchists present to join the debate. there is also a little warning to fellow SWP drones not to be sectarian in response.

glad to see we're all on the same page (he says, haughtily.... wink )

It might have put a different complexion on things (in terms of knowing which axe you had to grind) had you 'come clean' on this thread: http://libcom.org/forums/theory/lenins-what-be-done-analysis-28072012?page=13
Or am I just engaging in a 'sectarian' 'witch-hunt'?

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Sep 22 2012 11:07

andy g - To put things in context I'd say that some kind of temporary alliance with elements of the Muslim Brotherhood on the streets was probably unavoidable, given the shared interest in ending dictatorship and military rule. It's then a question of how far you take it - in the case of the Revolutionary Socialists (the SWP's sister organisation in Egypt) as far as calling for a vote for the MB candidate in the presidential elections and attempts to cut some kind of party political deal (see this thread).

I can see that people might have felt there was a reason to vote for Morsi as the lesser of two evils, but then there were probably equally good arguments for voting against him, as I think most of the Coptic christians did. I prefer Jano Charbel's position that 'voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil'. Having a party line calling for a vote for Morsi sounds pretty dire and I can't imagine it's done much for their credibility, least of all with the Copts.

I came across the video in the OP on Hossam el-Hamalawy's site. I'm guessing that it was posted there as part of an ongoing debate between the Revolutionary Socialists and Egyptian anarchists.

I haven't read the pamphlet and I'd never heard of Molyneux before - so my impression from watching the first half of the video is that his approach isn't hostile, more that he's found some arguments which sound convincing, at least to himself and presumably other SWP members, and so maybe they are worth trying to counter.

ocelot wrote:

To be fair, as I can't be watching an hour long youtube at work (or any youtube actually - fuck all this multimedia shite, text rules...)

I hesitated before posting it up for this reason. Still the thread is interesting, wherever it's going.

ocelot wrote:

all I have to go on is Molyneux's pamphlet, rather than the address at Marxism 2012 linked in the OP. I'm just presuming that his presentation basically followed the pamphlet. So whether he mentioned the MB specifically in the presentation I can't say.

I can't remember Egypt being mentioned, though tbh I wasn't giving it my full attention and I haven't watched it all.

-----

Edit:
For what it's worth I've found a blog post by John Molyneux backing the decision by the Revolutionary Socialists to call for a vote for the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, together with a long response by a member of the Revolutionary Socialists suggesting that maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all.

John Molyneux wrote:

The decision in the final round of the recent presidential election of the Egyptian Revolutionary Socialists to vote for Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, against Shafiq, the candidate of SCAF and the counter revolution – a decision I think absolutely correct – has led to a storm of debate, and condemnation, on the international left as well as much controversy in Egypt itself...

Tarek Shalaby wrote:

The intense weeks of Egypt’s presidential elections were tough on everyone. Constant debates – heated debates, and aggressive arguments catapulted all over no-man’s land, and even the tightest of political groups were threatened by divisions.

I personally went through quite an emotionally exhausting time myself, and I’ll recognize that my strong feeling towards my position with regards to the elections (I boycotted both rounds) hindered my ability to successfully carry out fruitful conversations. Interestingly enough, it was a difficult time for Egypt’s Marxist left, themselves barely surviving a shaky road throughout the events.

This overdue post comes after the fiasco has come to an end, and after I’ve had the luxury to look back and reflect. My goal here is to argue that, from my take on Marxist theory, there are fewer reasons to participate in bourgeois elections, and that boycotting should be the likely stance. I say it as a proud Marxist and member of the Revolutionary Socialists in Egypt...

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Sep 21 2012 11:15

Vote for Sharia with no illusions... roll eyes

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Sep 21 2012 11:30

The term sectarianism implies we are all basically on the same side but behave antagonistically towards each other in some way. In fact, libertarian, anarcho- and council-communists are absolutely not on the same side as the SWP, which is nothing more than a left-capitalist party whose 'marxism' is very dubious. While any organisation's weak politics/ideas may be forgiven, what really annoys me about the SWP is its complete opportunism and cynicism.

Over the years, the SWP has been consistent in its approach of being all things to all people at strategic moments. So, we'll see it being sympathetic to islam, when there's a chance of recruiting or making inroads into the 'muslim community'. While it may have been 100% pro-gay liberation at the time of Copeland's Soho bombing, this was immediately buried when they got onto the Respect bandwagon.

Another thing that irritates me is the way the SWP claims anything remotely positve as its own work. The fact that its front organisation, UAF, constantly presents its pathetic efforts as real 'victories' while claiming any autonomous anti-fascist initiatives, that have some success, as the work of UAF is really annoying. But looking on the bright side, as soon as UAF stops recruiting for the party, then it'll be quickly dropped.

Andy g, you seem like a nice enough fella, but I fucking loathe the SWP. Don't take it personally though. Incidentally, I'll have to get a copy of this week's Socialist Worker as it's got an obituary for my aunty Peggy

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Sep 21 2012 13:31
Rank wrote:
[
It might have put a different complexion on things (in terms of knowing which axe you had to grind) had you 'come clean' on this thread: http://libcom.org/forums/theory/lenins-what-be-done-analysis-28072012?page=13
Or am I just engaging in a 'sectarian' 'witch-hunt'?

I wouldn't use a histrionic term like "witch-hunt" to describe the dynamics of an online conversation with absolutely no real world consequences, but here are some problems I have with this sort of thing:

- Andy hasn't made any secret of his membership in the SWP. You just have to click on his username to see his profile, where it's listed as his organizational affiliation. Has been for quite some time. Seriously, am I the only person who looks at profiles?

- In the thread in question, Andy called WITBD "junk Marxism". That's hardly an assessment you're likely to encounter in self-styled "Bolshevik" cadre groups. Seriously, what possible insight does his membership in the SWP offer regarding his arguments in that thread? If anything, if I hadn't known he was a member of the SWP already, I would have been surprised by the fact after seeing the sort of things he stated in that thread.

- This point is relevant to my previous post on the death of the classical workers movement that gave rise to the various tendencies of the revolutionary left: contemporary far-left politics has an utterly dorky Dungeons and Dragons character which is completely divorced from the lived reality of most people in industrialized first world countries. Of course it's good for people to have an anti-capitalist analysis of society, and a desire for revolutionary change, but in most cases, this means that people seek out a particular organization with a particular set of shibboleths rooted in the debates of a workers movement that emerged in the mid-19th century and then ceased to exist between 1973-1989. Just as Trots are bizarre when they make the class character of a long inexistent Soviet Union a dividing line in terms of organization, Anarchists are bizarre when they act like they have to take an urgent moral stance regarding Kronstadt or Barcelona against competing groups of Dungeons and Dragons clubs (or historical reenactment societies, take your pick).

Sorry man, but you ain't Nestor Makhno, and Alex Callinicos is not Leon Trotsky, nobody is readying a spot in the gulag for you, and by the same token, neither the SWP nor any anarchist group commands the loyalty or has roots to any real extent in the contemporary British working class. I just can't muster the absurdity to declare somebody an enemy because of their loyalty to a competing pantheon of Dead Russians.

At least ocelot's criticisms are rooted in contemporary positions regarding attitudes to Political Islam, but all the shit about how all Trots are cynical dictators-in-waiting who are pining for the chance to mow anarchists down like partridges is just chest-thumping bluster.

- Finally, I think a distinction should be made between rank-and-file members of organizations and leading cadres. Lots of sincere revolutionaries pass through all kinds of organizations with politics you or I might consider awful. Honestly, how the fuck would you act in a geographical or historical situation where a large organization with politics you don't agree with commanded the loyalty of the majority of politically conscious workers, like the CPs in post-war Italy and France or the pre-WWI SPD in Germany? Do you refuse to walk picket lines with them, form strike committees with them, or do other practical work for the sake of refusing to sully your beautiful soul? In that case, it's probably better of for all concerned if you do stick to Dungeons and Dragons games and reading about the heroic exploits of Durrutti like he's a comic book character, rather than face the unglamorous task of conducting day-to-day political activity with people whose views you find unsavory.

andy g
Offline
Joined: 24-02-12
Sep 21 2012 18:09

actually, Angelus, I took the party political bit off my profile a little while ago. Not in an attempt to conceal anything - IIRC this isn't the first time I've "outed" myself - but in an attempt to avoid fruitless bickering and closed-mindedness. kinda felt obliged to throw my oar in on this one but quite why I in particular should have felt obliged to declare my allegiances explicitly in the WITBD thread is a mystery to me. Perhaps what I had to say would have been less valid or more easily dismissed?

I fail to understand why some posters feel such vitriolic hatred for the SWP or why they feel moved to suggest it is not broadly on the "same side" i.e. workers revolution, socialist democracy as revolutionary anarchism, whatever our disagreements. To me that mentality is self-defeating but hey, must be my opportunism talking. Anyhow, think this one has served its time, COMRADES! twisted

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Sep 21 2012 18:40

Why vitriolic hatred? Andy g, because you're in the SWP, then you won't have been on the receiving end and are probably unaware of that party's manipulations and, in some cases, what is tantamount to sabotage of certain campaigns. Don't get me wrong, there are decent people in your party, but as an organisation, you need to understand that some people on the outside are automatically suspicious of anything the SWP does on account of our experienced history of dealings with that organisation.

By the way, can't remember the year but it was late 80s, same year as Wapping. Anyway, according to a couple of WSM members who attended an anarchism meeting at Marxism that year, one 'comrade' from the floor said 'where trotsky went wrong was he didn't kill off the anarchists quick enough'. The general response to this was much footstamping, cheering, hoots and applause.

Maybe it's not like that now and fair play, but the SWP is no less into its machine politics.

Theft's picture
Theft
Offline
Joined: 17-08-11
Sep 21 2012 18:40
andy g wrote:

I fail to understand why some posters feel such vitriolic hatred for the SWP or why they feel moved to suggest it is not broadly on the "same side"

It is born out of real practical experience of how the SWP operate, along with it's politics, however this isn't simply a issue of the SWP, but all trotskyist groups as their reformist politics act as a barrier to pro-revolutionary ideas.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Sep 21 2012 18:55
andy g wrote:

I fail to understand why some posters feel such vitriolic hatred for the SWP or why they feel moved to suggest it is not broadly on the "same side" i.e. workers revolution, socialist democracy as revolutionary anarchism, whatever our disagreements. To me that mentality is self-defeating but hey, must be my opportunism talking. Anyhow, think this one has served its time, COMRADES! twisted

actual the swp doesn't support workers revolution, they support their own party taking power. When the swp say they support socialist democracy they are not talking about a direct democracy where all the workers take a part taking the decision that affect them, they most likely mean a system where "socialists" are elected to make decisions for the workers.

What the swp is aiming for and what its does now to achieve that now is directly contrary to communism, and so they are counter revolutionary.

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Sep 21 2012 19:23

Comedian Mark Thomas on the SWP

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Sep 21 2012 19:42
andy g wrote:
I fail to understand why some posters feel such vitriolic hatred for the SWP

At heart I probably agree with most of the arguments against the SWP made here but I think the tone of some of the criticism is over the top and owes something to a past when it was much more successful as an organisation and anarchist groups seemed pretty marginal. It can all sound a bit 1980s. That said I haven't really had any contact with the SWP since the 80s so maybe I'm not talking from personal experience.

Good post from Angelus.

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Sep 21 2012 19:57
Theft wrote:
but all trotskyist groups as their reformist politics act as a barrier to pro-revolutionary ideas.

LOL. Yeah, just last week my neighbors and all the local factories were about to man the barricades, elect councils, and abolish the law of value, but the Trotskyists managed to act as a brake on all this revolutionary activity and corral them all back into reformism.

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Sep 21 2012 20:43

I agree with Rank, disagree with AN above.

The problem is that Andy spent a lot of time on the Lenin thread trying to argue for keeping the issues of Krondstadt, etc "off the table". It was problematic then and looks more problematic now.

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Sep 21 2012 21:00
RedHughs wrote:
The problem is that Andy spent a lot of time on the Lenin thread trying to argue for keeping the issues of Krondstadt, etc "off the table". It was problematic then and looks more problematic now.

You know, people who engage in endless circle jerks about Kronstadt should really think twice about opening their mouths to voice the opinion that discussing value theory is an apolitical waste of time.

Actually, no, fuck that, that puts the two on a equal footing. Whereas I know a metric shit-ton of activists who actually read Capital and even dip their toes in the waters of value theory, I have never, in my entire life, encountered a flesh-and-blood human being outside of cyberspace who has ever brought up a discussion on Kronstadt. Ever.

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Sep 21 2012 21:21
Angelus Novus wrote:
Theft wrote:
but all trotskyist groups as their reformist politics act as a barrier to pro-revolutionary ideas.

LOL. Yeah, just last week my neighbors and all the local factories were about to man the barricades, elect councils, and abolish the law of value, but the Trotskyists managed to act as a brake on all this revolutionary activity and corral them all back into reformism.

Hmm... now, to toe the nihilist communist line or not to toe it in response to this, that's the question.

andy g
Offline
Joined: 24-02-12
Sep 21 2012 22:08

Red, the fact you choose to bring up Kronstadt again speaks volumes. You used it in the WITBD thread as a substitute for reasoned discussion about the actual issue of the thread and, hey presto, you're doing it again now.... this is exactly the mentality I was referring to above. take a deep breath, give yourself a kick in the ass and engage with the real world, bud

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Sep 21 2012 22:12

"engage with the real world" is in the swp

andy g
Offline
Joined: 24-02-12
Sep 21 2012 22:14

serge - if that story is true then the people concerned were tw*ts. It was probably in part a product of the sorry situation of the radical left at the time - a feeling of defeat and practical irrelevance can really mess with peoples sense of perspective. no excuses though - completely out of order. rather like radgraff, theft and others......

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Sep 21 2012 22:36

I had no reason to doubt the WSM members, two of whom I knew very well, were reliable and certainly not prone to bullshit. It's not the only time I've heard of that sort of stuff from the SWP, who, when they're not being nasty about anarchism, are just plain deceitful... as is this case here: http://libcom.org/blog/open-letter-socialist-worker-autonomism-07042011

That said, I'm not too mithered about their anti-anarchism. It's their cynical manipulation of ongoing campaigns that is of far more concern.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Sep 21 2012 23:42

There was this thing in Brighton last year where SWP activists tried to engineer a split in the local anti-cuts coalition but one guy accidentally hit 'reply all' instead of sending it privately..

That said, Andy G does seem quite sound.. not sure how you would defend the Brighton stuff though..

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Sep 22 2012 01:02
Quote:
You know, people who engage in endless circle jerks about Kronstadt should really think twice about opening their mouths to voice the opinion that discussing value theory is an apolitical waste of time.

Actually, no, fuck that, that puts the two on a equal footing. Whereas I know a metric shit-ton of activists who actually read Capital and even dip their toes in the waters of value theory, I have never, in my entire life, encountered a flesh-and-blood human being outside of cyberspace who has ever brought up a discussion on Kronstadt. Ever.

Hey, be on record for saying that Bolshevik massacres of revolutionaries don't matter. Please.

I invite everyone else who feels similarly to post in agreement.

freemind
Offline
Joined: 10-10-08
Sep 22 2012 01:24

It says it all when the speaker is so ideologically hamstrung that he cannot differentiate between a cogent clear anarchist organisation and a Party as he understands it ie;party as revolutionary organic grouping united by ideology and class aims and a hierarchical Bolshevik vertical manifestation purported by the SWP!
Likewise he would not understand the nuances of Anarchist or Libertarian militia/military commanders in Spain or Ukraine.They "commanded" through the consensual respect of their comrades not through the arrogance of rank and ideally would be subject to recall and the general consensus.
Ergo the question of "leadership" and "organisation" can be explained in the same context .
He also takes no account of the progression of a revolution and it's evolution into organisms of class power.He confuses the present context with past occurrences and leads himself into idiosyncrasy and confusion.
Revolutions are not black and white affairs but complexities are inherent in them surely?The speaker in trying to purvey the ideological and historical shortcomings of Anarchism fails to see his own Statist myopia and beyond his own self imposed stricture and the intrinsic links and failures of Statist Communism and the Bolshevist/Stalinist lineage.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Sep 22 2012 06:19

My dislike of the SWP has nothing to do with the 80s or Kronstadt, particularly. In the 00s I was branch secretary of an early left unity project before Respect, in the shape of the Socialist Alliance. I invested a lot of time and energy into this and the whole thing was cynically manipulated by the SWP from the get go. The fruition of this was when later you have a situation where the election of one of its leading members, Lavalette, actually came about because of some backroom agreement with the local imam in my area over his election platform! I shit you not.

They were, and never have been interested in working towards collective goals, there intention is simply to dominate certain arenas of struggle and soak up as much energy as they can, before moving onto the next project. They differentiate from the likes of the AWL, SPEW etc only in the arenas it operates in and the success to which it's able to take advantage of the situation.

If this seems pointless conjecture to some people, on the chance encounters I have with the SWP in union work, they seem to do their level best to shield criticism of the labour party.

andy g
Offline
Joined: 24-02-12
Sep 22 2012 06:35

peeps, I a not going to attempt a blanket defence of everything every SWP member has done ever, principally because I have no knowledge of actions or contexts. I'm not surprised by the comments here but I have difficulty reconciling them with my personal experience of being in or around the organisation since the early 90s (with a few long lapses into inactivity). This could be an issue of perspective (looking inside out and all that), ignorance on my part or whatever but it seems unlikely TBF. Presumably such criticism must have been levelled at me in the past but I struggle to recall instances where they would have been warranted.

on the Brighton thing - first I've heard of it but the e-mails you've linked hardly constitute a smoking gun IMHO. I read them not as an attempt to engineer a split but as an attempt to prevent one that may have been engendered by the NSSN. In my neck of the woods I know efforts by the SP to build a "new national anti-cuts network" have led to fractures over the legitimacy of Labour Party members being involved, I'm guessing that the SWuPy who embarrassed themselves by sending to all was trying to prevent similar things occurring. TBH, given some of the comments expressed here, it is difficult to believe some people actively look for stuff they feel justifies their pre-existent dislike of the SWP even to the extent of reading things into events when they aren't really there.

that said, could be wrong

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Sep 22 2012 08:49
RedHughs wrote:
Hey, be on record for saying that Bolshevik massacres of revolutionaries don't matter. Please.

I'm on record as saying that you're a dork who uses historical episodes of the classical workers movement as material for your Dungeons and Dragons game.

You're no different than nitwit Sparts who call for "arming this" or "supporting that", as if they're geopolitical actors and not a couple of oddballs with a PO Box.

I'm through with this thread, but I'll gladly go on record as saying that anyone who continues to bait Andy at this point is a basement-dwelling neckbeard like Red Hughes.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Sep 22 2012 08:50

Meh when i was younger i considered joining, since it was the first lefty thing i saw, the SWP's (especially the SWSS) behaviour during anti-war stuff, the socialist alliance and so on quickly convinced me otherwise. Ironically of course a lot of those people have left the SWP, either as youdpeople dropping out or people mooching off into slightly more wishy washy offshoots like counterfire and respect.

Any organisation will have its bad individuals/branches but personally i think the SWP often tolerates a much more unprincipled culture than most of the rest of the organised radical left/anarchists, and while i know plenty of decent individuals in it, its bad branches are frankly awful and extremely apolitical hence the massive ''drop out'' rate.

Obviously on a wider note i think their strategies; hobnobbing with labour/imams, lobbying union leaders, encouraging members to be full timers, often ignoring un-unionised workers etc aswell as their theortircal program of a transitional ''workers state'' are not something i'd agree with but then thats not surprising given that this is libcom.

Uncreative's picture
Uncreative
Offline
Joined: 11-10-09
Sep 22 2012 09:01
Angelus Novus wrote:
Theft wrote:
but all trotskyist groups as their reformist politics act as a barrier to pro-revolutionary ideas.

LOL. Yeah, just last week my neighbors and all the local factories were about to man the barricades, elect councils, and abolish the law of value, but the Trotskyists managed to act as a brake on all this revolutionary activity and corral them all back into reformism.

I imagine what he meant was less that the SWP are busy cutting a deal with the Freikorps to crush insurgent revolutionary workers, and more that the sort of activity (and the way they go about it) that the SWP does, doesnt encourage the development of revolutionary politics. I suppose you could just deliberately misrepresent him, though.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Sep 22 2012 12:20
ocelot wrote:
To be fair, as I can't be watching an hour long youtube at work (or any youtube actually - fuck all this multimedia shite, text rules...), all I have to go on is Molyneux's pamphlet, rather than the address at Marxism 2012 linked in the OP.

In case anyone feels like having a go at a detailed response John Molyneux's pamphlet 'Anarchism - A Marxist Criticism' is online here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76696732/Anarchism-A-Marxist-Criticism

So, 'suggestions for further reading' at the end of a work on anarchism: Harman, Callinicos, Molyneux, Lenin, Engels, Marx, Cliff… and George Woodcock.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Sep 22 2012 13:05

I joined the SWP when I was 16. Complete n00b to political activity on like my 2nd ever demonsration. I was surrounded by literally 10 women twice my age who browbeat me into signing up (with questions such as "are you anti-war? Do you WANT them to invade Afghanistan/Iraq, etc?"). I wasn't a revolutionary or a socialist then, but I guess a fraction of my pocket money was good enough for them. Never sold any papers, never went to any meetings, never did anything other than screen their calls for 2-3 years. Finally they called my home number (no idea HOW they got it) and I had a 30 minute row with the woman about how I wanted to leave (I'd repeatedly tried to tell them this via email) and she gave me a lecture about how bad it was to "leave the anti-war movement" (this was circa 2005, just before they all chanted "WE ARE ALL HEZBOLLAH" in Traf Square).

EDIT similarly, a friend of mine in my first year at uni made the mistake of joining Respect at Freshers' Fair on the same grounds (beign an anti-war liberal and otherwise gormless fresher). The SWSS rep foudn out her halls room and doorstepped her on a weekly basis for the entire first year (not sure how she got past security but hey). It reached the stage where she was pretty upset & discussing cotnacting the police.

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Sep 23 2012 14:13

1. With regards to the OP, I have not watched the video nor do I intend to, but I have heard of him before. Charlie Vietch bigged him up on a couple of videos and linked his youtube channel. It seems he was an overt an-cap so I don't know what hes doing criticizing anarchism because usually an caps are pretty keen to affirm that they are anarchists because of their limited simplistic definition of the word.

2. @Angelus Novus, I really liked your long post, post 66, but denouncing anyone trying to make any political point in a political discussion amongst comrades on the internet for being alienated from the real world etc is not really the way forward. Yes, there are some arm chair anarchists that are utterly lost in the past swamped in theory with no experience of actual struggle but I don't think its fair to assume any one on here wanting a discussion on something that is not happening at the moment is one just for doing so. All action and no theory is as misguided as all theory and no action is. Its all about balance.

3. @The people dissing Andy G for being in the SWP, its not on him to defend everything they have ever done at all. How would you feel as a contemporary anarchist being ideologically slated for the mis practices of the CNT in 1936 where the leaders split and co operated with the government? (I really know next to nothing about the Spanish Revolution but I seem to remember reading that that happened eventually). And come on, criticizing the SWP is frankly so easy its pointless and useless.

EDIT: Whoops, forget what I said about Charlie Vietch, that guy is called Stefan Molyneux.