the SWP-name and shame their stupid actions from past and present.

Your setting the bar pretty low IMO.

They refused to condemn this incident .

They agreed their electoral platform for 'Socialist Alliance Against the War' in Preston with the local Imam and didn't consult the Socialist Alliance.

'We are all Hezbollah'.

At Visteon demos they would flood the place full of activists and placards but didn't do any of the donkey work such as leafleting the local community.

Having paid up revolutionaries is a problem of a strategic sort but its hardly a stupid action.

Ally, this is a bit like saying "list all the wars of the 20th century".

Surely the biggest damage of recent history was their destruction of the anti-war protests.

Check out this:

UCH - SAVAGED
NOT SAVED
The SWP – doing Bottomley's dirty work for her:
Q: What have Virginia Bottomley and the SWP got in common?
A: Amongst other things, they both claim that University College Hospital (UCH) has been saved.
About 700 jobs and hundreds of beds have been lost, and the main Cruciform building – which everyone associated with UCH – has been closed. Yet for different, equally-manipulative reasons, the “Health” Minister and the “Socialist” Workers' Party are both agreed on the lie that “UCH has been saved”. Goebells - “The bigger the lie, the more it is believed” - would have been proud.
What's left of UCH?
Well – now merged with the Middlesex, there's the administration – really useful if you've had a heart attack. And there the Accident & Emergency – but that was never scheduled for closure in the first place. Instead, as with all A & E's without a hospital attached, it's been left without adequate back-up, giving patients just 48 hours to stay before being moved on. There are, however, 40 or so extra beds for those who need intensive care, who can now stay on a bit longer. Nevertheless, staff are now complaining that whereas before it used to take just a couple of minutes to move such patients to a specialist ward in the old Cruciform building, now it takes up to half an hour to get to the Middlesex because of heavy traffic. What's more, the recent death of a six-month-old baby at UCH A&E shows how dangerous it is to have an A&E separate from the specialists (now based in Middlesex) who were previously on site; at the same time the cuts ensured that the equipment for monitoring the baby wasn't working. It looks like the parents are going to sue the over-worked nurses involved, using the Patients' Charter. The much-lauded Charter is used intentionally to blame individual health workers in order to fend off attacks on the real murders: the managers and accountants who push through the cuts demanded by Bottomley and her genocidal government.
Apart from this, there's a private wing (great!). Also “saved” (we're not sure they were planning it for closure originally anyway) are the Urology department (much reduced), the clap clinic and Obstetrics. And there's a new children's ward: however, at the Middlesex there used to be two children's wards, and now there's only one – which means that between them, one children's ward has been lost, even though on paper UCH's has been “saved”. Similarly, by classifying some beds which were previously the Middlesex's, and by counting the beds existing towards the end of the run-down of the UCH, the health authorities can claim that UCH has lost “only” 70 beds instead of the 300+ that have really been lost. Lies, damned lies and statistics. Moreover, three weeks after Bottomley said the UCH had been saved, it was announced that the latest plan was to sell off the whole UCH site (the land fetching millions on the property market) and to move parts of the UCH to various other hospitals. If this comes about UCH will merely be an administrative label on some bureaucrat's door.
To say all this means the hospital has been saved is like saying that a formerly healthy adults, aho has had both legs and arms amputated and is on a life support machine, has been saved. Well, technically yes – but it hardly constitutes the victory the SWP like to make it out to be.
With saviours like these, who needs grave-diggers?
During the Vietnam war, an American general declared, “In order to save the village, it had to be destroyed.” With UCH it's more a case of “in order to destroy the hospital, it had to look like it was saved.”
Virginia Bottomley says the UCH has been saved, for similar reasons to the government saving coal mines in 1992 – to stop people fighting together, to reinforce the ignorance and confusion about what's happening to the hospitals and to divide up the fight to save them into isolated campaigns for each hospital, separated from a more general movement.
But why does the SWP proclaim “We saved UCH” when those SWP members who have worked and struggled at UCH – some of whom are genuinely fighting to win – know perfectly well this is bullshit? As in all hierarchies, the individual has to repress their point of view and preach “the party line”. During the strike, SWP strategy was designed to gain the maximum publicity and to show how radical they were compared to the union leadership, by pushing for demands that they knew the leaders would not meet. The predictable sell-out of the strike by Unison was the “victory” the SWP wanted: confirmation of something they knew beforehand would happen; but did nothing to undermine. In fact, they had encouraged a faith in the union which they knew would inevitably be betrayed. It was only afterwards that they needed to find a happy ending, so that they could encourage others to repeat the tragedy at other hospitals. The SWP's main concern was recruitment to a self-proclaimed image of themselves heroically and successfully leading the working class to victory, even if this victory is a myth. For them this is more vital than the development of any real struggle by the poor, honestly facing the horrific extent of their defeats and the reasons for them.
The struggles at UCH
During the struggles at UCH the SWP did everything to minimise the efforts of non-SWP members. During the work-in aimed at stopping the closure of Ward 2/1 in Nov – Dec '92, SWP members played as much a part as anyone else involved in the struggle – though it was probably the support of the junior doctors which really won this battle, admittedly only a temporary reprieve. In the strike of Aug – Sept '93 they played a more significant part – not all of it helpful by any means. For instance, they did much to ensure that the cheerful demos which had previously disrupted traffic got turned into boring routine affairs. And in the occupation of Ward 2/3 in September, admittedly suggested by an SWP member, though broken into by a non-party hospital campaigner, they did much to dampen the high-spirited atmosphere. When occupiers met with a few SWP union stewards to discuss the occupation, the occupiers were told the stewards represented the decisions of the strike committee, and these decisions were: vetting to decide who should be allowed into the occupation, to be carried out by the branch secretary and chair, both SWP members. People would have to book themselves onto a formalised rota days in advance just to be able to spend a night there, reducing the occupation to a chore and duty, killing off the social dynamic going on. The effect of these changes was miserable: a lot of people, particularly locals who visited regularly, were put off from coming. And there seemed little point in giving out leaflets encouraging people to come, if they had to be vetted first. People now felt they were only there with the tolerance of certain officials, and no longer joint partners in the struggle.
The openness of the occupation; with free debate flowing back and forth informally, was replaced with an atmosphere of intrigue and secret whispering. It was only later found out that these demands of the SWP union officials weren't at all proposed by the strike committee: it had been an SWP manipulation from the very beginning.
The second occupation of Ward 2/3 was organised by us – UCH Community Action Committee – without, unfortunately, a strike at UCH, and completely independently of any political party. We had hoped to extend the occupation of one ward by getting loads of people back from a TUC Health Service demo on November 20th. We failed, even though the occupation took nearly three weeks to be evicted. During this time, the SWP were even less supportive than the rest of the media – the occupation only got a mention after the evictions. We could never, of course, pretend that “we saved UCH” - not just because it hasn't been saved but, more vitally, because if UCH had been saved it could not have been down to us, but due to a more general and much more combative movement, involving a considerably greater section of the working class than the few people who initiated the occupation. Unlike the SWP, we have no pretension to being an indispensable vanguard, able to win victories on our own. And, of course, UCH has been, by and large, a defeat, and to ignore that is to confuse and demoralise any chance of a fightback, which is where the SWP and Bottomley have so much in common.
If a fight is to develop to save the hospitals or to stop the horrific attacks on the poor, it will not only have to bypass the parties and unions, but attack them as enemies and obstacles to our struggle. Our health and our lives cannot be “saved by the professional liars of the Left, Right or Centre, but only ourselves organising not just an organisation with a name on a banner or logo on a leaflet, which is just an image, but organising specific actions and critiques, correcting our weaknesses and failures.
UCH Community Action Committee, c/o BM CRL, London WC1N 3XX

from
http://libcom.org/library/occupational-therapy-university-college-hospital-strikes-occupations-1992

Leeds SWP's role in the Leeds uni occupation was pretty minor, but funny: They had one quite nice genuine guy who was really heavily involved, and the rest of them kind of stayed away until the occupation discovered a working photocopier, at which point they turned up en masse, photocopied a bunch of their literature, then left. Also an anti-war demo in Leeds at the time requested a speaker from the Leeds occupation, so the occupiers elected a non-SWP delegate to speak, and when they got there the SWP/STW leadership tried persuading them that they must have got it wrong and obviously they'd actually elected the one SWP member as the real legitimate delegate of the occupation.

Turning up to do a Stop the War stall in about 2006 to find that it was flying a Hezbollah flag was pretty fucking cringeworthy as well.

er, very old news - while some of yez (one or two) may remember their "vote labour with no illusions" when the tories were last in power they were pimping copies of their paper over here with covers exhorting the working class to "vote Sinn Fein with no illusions"!!!

"Shame on you, Tory Blair, shame on you for turning blue!" - actual SWP chant

SWP sounds like a mixmash of the ISO (in numbers, trying to hijack actions) Workers World Party (creating the largest front groups, defanging movements) CPUSA (supporting the major left party) and the Sparts (insane pushing of papers).

I sincerely hope that we don't get a party that combines all of this stuff.

Dead End

SWP sounds like a mixmash of the ISO (in numbers, trying to hijack actions) Workers World Party (creating the largest front groups, defanging movements) CPUSA (supporting the major left party) and the Sparts (insane pushing of papers).

I sincerely hope that we don't get a party that combines all of this stuff.

plus the adventurist voluntarism of the weirder parts of metropolitan maoism

this thread is the number one hit for "SWP" and "stupid" on google

Dead End

SWP sounds like a mixmash of the ISO (in numbers, trying to hijack actions) Workers World Party (creating the largest front groups, defanging movements) CPUSA (supporting the major left party) and the Sparts (insane pushing of papers).

I sincerely hope that we don't get a party that combines all of this stuff.

I thought the US ISO was pretty much modelled directly on the SWP? The ISO used to be part of the SWP's international (until they got kicked out for not keeping up with the constant shifts in direction) and I got the impression they got their politics pretty much directly from the British mothership. Quite a lot of those characteristics (trying to hijack actions, creating the largest front groups, defanging movements) I wouldn't think of as being specific to any one party, it's just how you'd expect the dominant leftist group to behave in any situation, no?

Around 1990 AFA organised a 5000 strong march through East London.For years the Left had ignored the struggle on the streets waged by AFA against Fascist scum and merely dismissed the BNP/NF as an irrelovence.When they saw the effect of AFA's initiatives on local working class youth however they had the front to go on Capital Radio and claim they organised the march.Also when a demo for victimised Anti-Apartheid militant Moses Mayekiso was announced the SWP declared they were boycotting the event but still turned up at the end of the march to sell their paper!Slags!

888

"Shame on you, Tory Blair, shame on you for turning blue!" - actual SWP chant

The idiots are still telling us to vote Labour-that bastion of working class advancement!

freemind

Also when a demo for victimised Anti-Apartheid militant Moses Mayekiso was announced the SWP declared they were boycotting the event but still turned up at the end of the march to sell their paper!Slags!

Why did they say they were boycotting it?

I wouldn't exactly call it "stupid" because it was very effective in obscuring the question of war, nationalism and imperialism, but during the Cold War (and since) the SWP has supported various murderous regimes under the guise of "national liberation" and "genuine national and popular movements" - ie, excuses for supporting various imperialist regimes and factions that is used far wider than the SWP.

On another thread recently, which I can't find, someone remembers the SWP's support for Iran during the 1980s Iran/Iraq war. The latter, with Saddam as their place man, was backed and armed by Britain and America and encouraged to go to war against Iran. Iran wasn't overtly backed by the Russians - they were arming both sides - and wisely decided not to tread on Nato's toes too much in this instance. Nevertheless it was a full blown imperialist war.

The SWP wrote at the time, "we have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime", that is the religious autocracy that was defending the needs of Iranian imperialism at the time. The SWP also said in relation to this: "there will be instances where it is wrong to strike" (ie, for workers to strike against war) and "socialists should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort" (Socialist Review, December 87 and Socialist Worker, 28.11.87).

Their slogan, "Neither Washington, nor Moscow but International Socialism" was a cover for supporting capitalist regimes and proto-states from Korea, throughout the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. In short supporting factions engaged in imperialist war everywhere. I remember that during the Eritrean/Ethiopian war of the late 70s, the US changed sides backing one lot of gangsters against their earlier pawns. I believe that this caught the SWP out and they had to change sides also - opposing US imperialism by backing a previous US imperialist construction.

baboon

I remember that during the Eritrean/Ethiopian war of the late 70s, the US changed sides backing one lot of gangsters against their earlier pawns. I believe that this caught the SWP out and they had to change sides also - opposing US imperialism by backing a previous US imperialist construction.

Actually, this must have been abiout the Ethiopia-Somalia war around the Ogaden, not the Ethiopian-Eritrean thing. Somalia was a Russian ally/ satellite; Ethiopia under Haile Selassi was in the US pocket. Then, a coup overthrew the Ethiiopian emperor (1974), and a military dictatorship in 'Communist' mantle ensued (probably a nutritionally deformed workers state). The regime became allied to the USSR, Somalia's leader became a US ally. Both regimes actually were not that dissimilar in their repression. The conflict was a simple territorial war connected to imperial rivalry.

The Ethiopian-Eritrean thing was a bit different: a national liberation struggle, first rather Maoist in leadership, later shaking off that ideological mantle, against Ethiopian o[ppression. Yes, the Eritrean movement was bourgeois in essence, not working class revolutionary, libertarian communist or anything like that. But it was not just a "US imperialist construction".

All this, however, does not change the essence of deserved criticism at the position-shifts of the SWP in wars like these. To think that I have swallowed things like this for years ... :-S

One thing: some of the stories I read above even sound weird in my cynical ears. If I wanted to convince people on the edge of IS groups (I have been in the Dutch IS for many years and am still in touch with a lot of members, mostly the more critical ones), I would need somewhat more backing of the allegations with evidence.

With reference to Rooier above, I’m not being pedantic but it was the war around Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia in 1977. Here’s a quote from World Revolution no. 13, August 77:

“America’s continuing advance is also emphasised by the latest turn-abouts in the Horn of Africa. The (Ethiopian) Dergue has gone over to the Russian bloc in its desperate search for arms but its rule is becoming more and more precarious. The Eritrean and Somali guerrillas already control vast tracts of territory and the Dergue’s authority is maintained only through a few besieged garrison towns. It has been forced to recruit a huge peasant army to stem the guerrillas advance, but such a hastily assembled force is inherently unstable. In the Ethiopian capital the military junta is engaged in a campaign of mutual extermination against the underground opposition of led by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party, an ‘independent’ Stalinist grouping which wants Ethiopian state capitalism to be administered by the civilian ‘people’s government’. Thus the Dergue is being suffocated on all sides. America can count itself well rid of the unstable colonels of Addis Ababa; it has already begun to equip the Eritrean and Somali forces directly and indirectly (this poses an ideological problem for certain leftists); ‘non-imperialist’ Russia is helping the Dergue against ‘revolutionary’ internal opposition and against the sacred right of the Eritrean people to self-determination, while ‘imperialist’ America is now supporting ‘the heroic struggle of the Eritrean people’ (...) Meanwhile Somalia – once virtually a Russian base – is growing much less friendly to the USSR and is moving rapidly towards the western bloc. With Sudan, Egypt, Somalia, an independent Eritrea and Djibouti in the US camp, and with South Yemen increasingly coming under the control of Saudi Arabia, the US will have completed its rout of the Russians from the Red Sea region and will have gained almost undisputed control over the sea routes between Europe and Asia.”

The point is, as roo suggests, the whole framework is imperialism and national movements, all national movements play their role in this framework. We saw it yesterday, we see the same today. The positions of the SWP were not stupid but effective in Britain and elsewhere in diverting questions about imperialism, often the actions and lies of one’s own imperialist power, into questions of supporting one side or the other. Or simply of being against one side – usually the Americans and de facto supporting national or “peoples” movements. Elements in The Commune still appear to be falling into this leftist trap today

Seems that Baboon and I were both right. I remembered especially the Somalia/Ethiopia shift; I was not aware that Eritrea was so related to that conflict as well. Thanks for clarification.

On the politics of it all, I am moving towards the conclusions Baboon formulates: no support for any sides, not between imperialist powers, not even when national liberation movements - national states in the process of becoming - are involved. How that should work in practice - for instance, today around the Gaza aid flottilla massacre, exacly what our attitude should be - I am less sure. But that is for another place.

the UAF.

I'd have to nominate that thing where they tried to agitate against Nazis by mentioning all the groups the Nazis killed, and conspicuously avoided mentioning Jews.

Angelus Novus

I'd have to nominate that thing where they tried to agitate against Nazis by mentioning all the groups the Nazis killed, and conspicuously avoided mentioning Jews.

this one:

http://entdinglichung.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/ein-flugblatt-des-grauens/

fuck, amazing

the worst of Duncan Hallas:

"Hands raised as if to embrace the whole meeting, passion distorting his face, his voice rising to a high, emotional scream, he appeals for support in throwing out the Trotskyist Tendency.

"Comrades! This has gone on too long. It has gone on year after year for three whole years! It should not go on any longer." Hand-chopping the air in an unconscious mime: "Comrades: we must put an end to it now. Find a solution!" Large swathes of the meeting have by now begun to giggle uneasily, but he is too high to come down or notice that he has lost most of his audience. "Comrades, I say it again: there has GOT TO BE A FINAL SOLUTION!" Most of the meeting is by now squirming, giggling or laughing in open derision. IS was still a living political organisation in November 1971."

found here

Tommy Ascaso

I was in a meeting yesterday where the SWP were calling for us to work with the Labour Party to fight cuts.

this seems like the new party line. i still have a flyer from less than a year ago urging us to "rage against labour". oceana has always been at war with eurasia etc.

oceana has always been at war with eurasia etc.

beautiful.

and do not forget the cover-up of a rape committed by a full-time functionary of the German clone org of the SWP in the mid 1990ies, he was simply sent to another city to continue his work there and remained a member of their leadership for a couple of years

Entdinglichung

and do not forget the cover-up of a rape committed by a full-time functionary of the German clone org of the SWP in the mid 1990ies, he was simply sent to another city to continue his work there and remained a member of their leadership for a couple of years

Wow, wonder if the SWP has any idea how close its operations are to the Catholic church...

ncwob

Entdinglichung

and do not forget the cover-up of a rape committed by a full-time functionary of the German clone org of the SWP in the mid 1990ies, he was simply sent to another city to continue his work there and remained a member of their leadership for a couple of years

Wow, wonder if the SWP has any idea how close its operations are to the Catholic church...

Well, Trots were being branded as Jesuits from very early on, so color me surprised.. :roll:

Tojiah

ncwob

Entdinglichung

and do not forget the cover-up of a rape committed by a full-time functionary of the German clone org of the SWP in the mid 1990ies, he was simply sent to another city to continue his work there and remained a member of their leadership for a couple of years

Wow, wonder if the SWP has any idea how close its operations are to the Catholic church...

Well, Trots were being branded as Jesuits from very early on, so color me surprised.. :roll:

the Mandelites expelled their Japanese section in 1991 because of a culture of sexism and sexist violence in this organization and only recognized a women-only group for around a decade as their official Japanese affiliate

i know i'm resurrecting an old thread, and i know this is report is from the CPGB:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=93
but its still pretty bad. (although nothing on some of the stuff in this thread!)

whats funny is that they criticise the SWP central committee:

If you fall out with the central committee that is what happens to you.

and then go on to present their own central committee as heroic:

The CPGB's Provisional Central Committee will be writing to Respect's national council asking for it to investigate the matter

On July 7, the second day of full Marxism, Socialist Workers Party national organiser Martin Smith physically assaulted comrade Simon, a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Tower Hamlets branch of Respect.

Fixed.

On the march for Ian Tomlinson, despite being asked specifically not to by the Tomlinson family the SWP set up a stall and sold their paper.

But, lets just thank our stars that they don't have brains. just imagine trots ruling this country.

KriegPhilosophy

just imagine trots ruling this country.

then you'd be the u.s.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.html

There are a couple of interesting quotes at the start of this RevLeft thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/jew-free-holocaust-t98069/index.html?

Devrim

Edit: Actually I just looked through the whole thread, and its not bad, worth a read if you have nothing better to do.

petey

KriegPhilosophy

just imagine trots ruling this country.

then you'd be the u.s.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.html

Oh that's a deep thought-provoking article :roll:

FYI, Leon Trotsky's great-granddaughter, Nora Volkow, has been director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Farce

freemind

Also when a demo for victimised Anti-Apartheid militant Moses Mayekiso was announced the SWP declared they were boycotting the event but still turned up at the end of the march to sell their paper!Slags!

Why did they say they were boycotting it?

I can't say this is the reason but I recall there were folks on the left here who didn't support Mayekiso because his wing of the South African union movement was pushing a "workers charter" that was significantly more radical than the ANC. Some also accused those of us who did support him of trying to build a "cult of personality". Not at all like was done with Mandela of course.

There's always this:

‘The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists.’
Socialist Worker, No. 137, 11 September 1969

Is there anywhere a decent article on the history of Trotskism in Britain? And any good articles critical of the SWP that covers the type of things in this thread but constructed into a proper article?

T La Palli

Is there anywhere a decent article on the history of Trotskism in Britain? And any good articles critical of the SWP that covers the type of things in this thread but constructed into a proper article?

there is something in Robert J. Alexander's International Trotskyism, 1929-1985. A Documented Analysis of the Movement, the stuff about Britain isn't online but the book should be available in every decent university library ... some more stuff (also mostly not online) of varying quality in Revolutionary History ... for half-decent articles with a lot of (often entertaining) gossip, look at the articles of Sean Matgamna on the AWL homepage ... for the pre- and early history of British Trotskyism, there is e.g. stuff by Martin Upham, Reg Groves and Sam Bornstein

definitely rubbish is Ted Grant's History of British Trotskysm

I wouldn't exactly call it "stupid" because it was very effective in obscuring the question of war, nationalism and imperialism, but during the Cold War (and since) the SWP has supported various murderous regimes under the guise of "national liberation" and "genuine national and popular movements" - ie, excuses for supporting various imperialist regimes and factions that is used far wider than the SWP.

]As Baboon points out it’s a mistake to critique the SWP as stupid, or bureaucratic, or opportunistic. They function as a left faction of capital. Down through the years, they’ve lined up behind butcher after butcher of the working class, pushing the Trot lie that there are progressive factions of the bourgeoisie that can be given ‘critical’ support. It’s been more than 30 years since I’ve been at one of their public meetings, but well remember the aggressive hostility I met for denouncing their support for Khomeni in Iraq and Mugabe in Zimbabwe’s seizure of power. They claimed both were victories for ‘progressive forces’. Just like their support for Ho Chi Min, the MPLA, the ANC, Sinn Fein etc etc. etc and, today, murderous bourgeois shits like Hizbollah, the SWP have workers' blood on their hands. And that’s without getting into their support for the unions, and the Labour party (‘critical’ support of course), and their current campaign against Tory cuts that seeks to mask that the cuts were being carried out by the last Labour government and who made no secret of their plans to carry out far worse attacks if they’d been elected, and the fact that similar, and worse, cuts are being overseen by Labour governments in the likes of Spain and Greece. Their support for anti-fascism also ties in with their defence of Democracy and their world view that there are ‘progressive’ as well as reactionary bourgeois factions (though clearly many posting on this site fail to see the reactionary nature of anti-fascism, too.). They function well using their apparently radical rhetoric to hoover up militants struggling to develop a political understanding, and tying them to bourgeois politics, often burning them out and spewing them out into demoralisation.

Murray McDonald

There's always this:

‘The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists.’
Socialist Worker, No. 137, 11 September 1969

which conflict is this about?

shug, good post.

Palli, general articles, I'm not sure, but the Carry on recruiting pamphlet about the SWP is a good one:
http://libcom.org/library/carry-recruiting-why-socialist-workers-party-dumped-downturn-dash-growth

Steven.

which conflict is this about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Riots_of_August_1969

SWP Dismissing poll tax non payment as futile

Twenty things you never knew about him (most here will do)

http://www.anarchist-theft.net/theft3 If i remember right it was put together by someone in AF.

Not on the SWP, but i was interviewed by one of the people who did trotwatch about my time inside Workers Power many years ago, though not sure if it was ever published.

http://swp.ie/content/egypts-revolution-continues-despite-poll

SWP Ireland: Vote Muslim Brothers in the 2nd round

In fact the choice is clear. A vote for Shafiq would be a vote against the revolution.

A vote for Mursi is a vote against the legacy of Mubarak and for continuing change.

Revolutionary activists will not enjoy voting for Mursi.

If they do not do so, however, they are likely to experience the real nightmare scenario—a president cloned from the dictator they overthrew last year.

Mursi is not in a strong position. The Brotherhood has struggled since the start of the revolution.

Its leaders have tried to make deals with Egypt’s real rulers—the generals of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).

At the same time they have been under great pressure from their own members and supporters to deliver further change.

They have suffered many splits and defections as it becomes clear that they can’t meet the people’s needs and expectations.

There was striking evidence of the wish for change in Hamdeen Sabbahi’s first-round vote.

He was backed mainly by workers, urban poor and revolutionary activists. He presented himself as one of the people.

Sabbahi had none of the advantages of the Brotherhood, with its national network of branches.

Nor did he enjoy the benefits that Shafiq—who was backed by SCAF and much of the media—did.

Yet Sabbahi carried Cairo, Alexandria and most cities heavily involved in the struggles of 2011-12, ending only 2 percent behind Shafiq.

This was a vote for the revolution on a scale which surprised even Sabbahi’s own supporters.

Egyptians will be better off with Mursi as president and an unstable Brotherhood in parliament than with Shafiq in office. Shafiq is backed by generals who wish to bring the revolution to an abrupt end.

Now it is time to put Mursi to the test—and to continue struggles over jobs, wages, union rights and for radical political change.

The RevSoc in Egypt are pushing the line as well, there close allies iirc.

Havaan

The RevSoc in Egypt are pushing the line as well, there close allies iirc.

Jano Charbel

Dear #RevSoc comrades: Supporting the #MuslimBrotherhood's bid for #EgyPresident is a policy which is neither revolutionary nor socialist!

True, Ahmed Shafiq is the counter-revolution's presidential candidate. Yet this doesn't make Mohamed Morsi "the candidate of the revolution"

Hey @3arabawy thanks for unfollowing me my dear friend. U can also block me if you want:-) I still won't support #RevSoc's pro-Morsi stance.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. [Via @fazerofzanight] #Egypt #EgyPresident #Boycott #FuckMorsi #FuckShafiq!

http://twitter.com/#!/janocharbel

Edit: from Jano Charbel's blog (originally posted here)

Standing against the "electoral" counter-revolution in Egypt

Wow, this is so bad it's almost funny.

In their statement on the elections, RS call for a 'national front' as well:

We therefore call on all the reformist and revolutionary forces and the remainder of the revolutionary candidates to form a national front which stands against the candidate of counter-revolution, and demands that the Muslim Brotherhood declares its commitment to the following:

1. Formation of a presidential coalition which includes Hamdeen Sabbahi and Abd-al-Moneim Abu-al-Fotouh as Vice-Presidents.
2. The selection of a Prime Minister from outside the ranks of the Brotherhood and the Freedom and Justice Party and the formation of a government across the whole political spectrum in which the Copts are represented.
3. The approval of a law on trade union freedoms which clearly supports the pluralism and independence of the workers’ movement in contrast to the draft law proposed by the Brotherhood to the People’s Assembly.
4. The Brotherhood’s agreement with other political forces on a civil constitution which guarantees social justice, the right to free, quality healthcare and education, the right to strike, demonstrate and organise peaceful sit-ins, the public and private rights of all citizens, and the genuine representation of women, the Copts, working people and the youth in the Constituent Assembly. We cannot fail here to call on the Muslim Brotherhood and all the political forces to put the interests of the revolution before party-political interest and to unite against Shafiq so that we do not deliver our revolution to its enemies as easy prey.

http://muftah.org/revolutionary-socialists-statement-on-egypts-presidential-elections/

Prior to the Egyptian intifada RevSoc were actually decent. As soon as bourgeois democracy (regardless of how fake it still is) was instituted, RevSoc started behaving just like the SWP. Disappointing and pathetic.

I got stopped by an SWP newspaper seller last week, who told me about some meeting he wanted me to go. I'm not very good at saying no to people, so i tried to think of an excuse about why i couldnt turn up on this tuesday evening. problem is i dont think that fast either so i ended up saying "sorry i won't be able to come on tuesday, i've got something on on tuesday, i can't remember what it is, but i've got something on...' :lol:

the guys face was quality

So it looks like the line is now 'vote Islamist without illusions'.

Khawaga

Prior to the Egyptian intifada RevSoc were actually decent. As soon as bourgeois democracy (regardless of how fake it still is) was instituted, RevSoc started behaving just like the SWP.

The Egypt Independent published this fairly sympathetic profile of the Revolutionary Socialists back in January. I'd be interested to know how it corresponds to Khawaga's impressions of them.

Jano Charbel and Omar Halawa

"We want to bring down the state, yes this is what we want, and I don’t know why people laugh when I say this. Indeed, the best solution for Egypt is to bring down the military’s state and build a new one.”

These are the words of Sameh Naguib, a member of the Revolutionary Socialists movement, recorded in a clip that has been circulating over the past few weeks on online social networks. His words, and those of his comrades, have sparked widespread controversy over the nature of the ideas espoused by this movement and the political ideology of its members.

For example, three members of the Muslim Brotherhood filed a complaint in late December with the public prosecution against some of the movement’s members, including Naguib, claiming that they are inciting unrest with the aim of overthrowing the state ― and even conspiring to burn down state facilities. 

But members of the group purport that their call is for a radical transformation of the Egyptian state and how the military wing has come to be its strongest and most privileged institution.

“The democratization of Egypt depends on the occurrence of a real revolution in which sovereignty and priority is given to the demands of the masses,” said Ahmad Ezzat, a member of the Revolutionary Socialists. “However the SCAF’s idea for democratic transformation is a deal which it made with a number of elitist liberal political forces and others, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, who represent the majority of voters, to draw up a road map for the country which will ensure it has a semi-permanent position allowing it to intervene in the country’s governance.”

The group seeks to push 25 January toward a socialist revolution. Yet, following the recent parliamentary elections, the character of the state appears to be drifting toward Islamism rather than socialism, with Islamist coalitions reaping about 65 percent of the seats in the People's Assembly.

For Hisham Fouad, a labor journalist and founding member of the socialist group, a presidential or parliamentary democracy is not the ideal way to establish a socialist society or workers’ state. “We don’t believe that parliamentary politics are the best way to represent the will or interests of the masses. This system serves to protect the interests of businessmen and the wealthy ― those who can afford the expenses of electoral campaigning.”

Echoing Fouad, Ezzat believes that the Islamists’ established power in parliament is leading Egypt away from the revolution.

“Unfortunately, most political forces work toward their own personal gains and have completely abandoned the revolutionary dream of change to the end, in particular the Islamist forces that after having succeeded in reaping the majority of votes in parliament completely abandoned the idea of completing the revolution,” he said of the Islamist majority in the People's Assembly, which was seated a few days ago.

Predating the 25 January revolution by two decades, the Revolutionary Socialists group was established in 1990 by a group of youths from Egyptian universities around the time of the demise of the Soviet Union and breakout of revolutions against socialist regimes in Eastern Europe.

In light of its Marxist–Leninist or Trotskyist orientation, the socialist group welcomed the collapse of the USSR ― saying it was a “degenerated workers’ state,” and failed experiment in “state capitalism” or “market socialism.”

At its onset, the group was interested in filling a void in the Egyptian left, especially in the wake of what it viewed as the failure of economic liberalization policies under presidents Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak.

Despite their working-class orientation, most of the group's members ― some claim the membership is in the thousands ― are students and professionals. Very few blue-collar workers or farmers populate its ranks.

This month, the organization launched an open-ended campaign dubbed “The Square and the Factories are One Hand” in an attempt to unify workers and street protesters toward realizing the revolutionary demands of “Bread, freedom and social justice.”

This campaign demands the establishment of a monthly minimum wage (of LE1,500, or about US$250) and a maximum wage (not more than ten times the minimum), issuance of a new trade union law, continued right to strike or protest, establishment of independent unions, legal collective bargaining, and fixed contracts for full-time laborers, among other demands.

With the eruption of the 25 January revolution, the group's members have revisited their vision for a socialist state. Some members believe that forming parties can be an important act in the transitional period to ultimately bring about a socialist state.

Egypt’s Trotskyists ― who include the Revolutionary Socialists and Socialist Renewal Current ― have been instrumental in establishing the Workers Democratic Party and the Socialist Popular Alliance Party, respectively.

"We supported the establishment of the Workers Democratic Party so that Egypt will have a party that reflects the demands of laborers in general,” said Ezzat, who acknowledges the limitations placed on class-based parties in the Political Parties Law.

While the Socialist Popular Alliance Party has been registered, the Workers Democratic Party is not yet official.

But Fouad believes a socialist state will be realized through other means.

“The best way to represent the toiling classes is through elected workers’ councils and farmers’ councils, which directly represent the will of their constituents,” he said. “These councils will serve to facilitate the self-organization and administration by these laborers in a socialist state.”

Many criticize the Revolutionary Socialists ― along with other Trotskyist movements ― for their centralized and vanguardist approach to working-class and revolutionary politics, a criticism they find hard to shake off.

According to Fouad, “Although a number of Leninist and Trotskyist parties have indeed followed this policy in the past, we ourselves are not vanguardists.”

“This revolution, as with all others, was led by progressive elements in society. We are merely an organization for the most progressive of these elements,” he added.

As he further explained, “We believe in democratic centralism. In this sense we fully support freedom of expression, opinion and dissent. Our centrality is based only on the unity of our democratic will.”  

For many activists and observers, the Revolutionary Socialists are important as a radical political voice, yet they are far from being able to bring down the state, as Naguib suggested.

Ashraf al-Sherif, a professor of political science at the American University in Cairo, said the movement will not be able to radically transform Egypt because its political project is based on seizing control of the state. This would require its presence in all state production sectors, which at the moment the group is too weak to accomplish, he said.

“In most cases of democratization, moderate movements will prevail in the end rather than radical ones such as the Revolutionary Socialists, as [socialist] policies are directed more toward protest than reform,” he said. “Clinging to radical ideas does not usually serve the owners of these ideas.”

And while many, even within the Egyptian left, criticize the Revolutionary Socialists for sticking to what many perceive to be an outdated Trotskyist ideology, the group's members say their policies are based on their own vision of the events taking place in Egypt. Seeking a classless society ― indeed a classless world ― they argue that the majority of conflicts in communities are the result of class conflicts, even when they take on other forms such as political conflict or sectarianism.

The call for a vote for the Muslim Brotherhood, alongside the call for what could most charitably be described as a popular front government, is absolutely bizarre. And it's not just the Egyptian grouping going off the rails, they have been echoed and supported by the British and Irish SWPs.

It's not something that is remotely in keeping with their "Trotskyism" - backing electoral candidates from ruling class parties and even more so calling for a government "across the political spectrum" are as unacceptable in that tradition as they are in Anarchism. I've no idea what they are playing at on this one.

In the tradition of Cliffism, which is what the SWP and its ilk really are, it seems to be par for the course.

Khawaga

In the tradition of Cliffism, which is what the SWP and its ilk really are, it seems to be par for the course.

I don't think it really is. I don't think that Cliff would have gone along with something like this. It is in line with their more recent progress though.

Devrim

Ok, I stand corrected.

While I am posting on this thread, the Turkish sister section of the SWP supported the Turkish government in its referendum in 2010, and were congratulated by the Prime Minister afterwards:

Tayip Erdoğan

"Bu değişikliğe destek veren CHP’li, MHP’li, BDP’li kardeşlerimi tehditlere aldırmadan sandığa giden kardeşlerimi kutluyorum. Başından itibaren “Evet” diyerek desteğini veren Saadet Partili kardeşlerimi, BBP’li kardeşlerimi, Hak-Par’lı kardeşlerimi, Bağımsız Ülkücüleri, Kürt Aydınları, Devrimci Sosyalist İşçi Partili arkadaşlarımı kutluyorum. Başından beri evet diyen AKP’li kardeşlerimi kutluyorum. Genç Siviller’i kutluyorum."

The bit in bold translates as "I congratulate my Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party friends". Also mentioned alongside them are "his brothers" in the Saadet Party (Islamicist), and the Büyük Birlik Party (ultranationalist)

A link can be found here.

Devrim

Devrim, I think it's pretty clear from the bit in bold that the Prime Minister is in fact talking about you!

It's also in keeping with the SWP's past electoralist relations with the Muslim Association of Britain, the UK affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I also seriously doubt whether Cliff would have been so accepting of the overt anti-semitism of the MB world-view.

xslavearcx

I got stopped by an SWP newspaper seller last week, who told me about some meeting he wanted me to go. I'm not very good at saying no to people, so i tried to think of an excuse about why i couldnt turn up on this tuesday evening. problem is i dont think that fast either so i ended up saying "sorry i won't be able to come on tuesday, i've got something on on tuesday, i can't remember what it is, but i've got something on...' :lol:

the guys face was quality

I've told a few Trot papersellers, "no thanks, I don't read the capitalist press".

Peter

xslavearcx

I got stopped by an SWP newspaper seller last week, who told me about some meeting he wanted me to go. I'm not very good at saying no to people, so i tried to think of an excuse about why i couldnt turn up on this tuesday evening. problem is i dont think that fast either so i ended up saying "sorry i won't be able to come on tuesday, i've got something on on tuesday, i can't remember what it is, but i've got something on...' :lol:

the guys face was quality

I've told a few Trot papersellers, "no thanks, I don't read the capitalist press".

it is fun to tell some SWPers, that you prefer the AWL's press ... even better to tell Sparts, that you like the IBT's journal 1917

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2012/06/06/egypt-vote-muslim-brotherhood#comment-30462

Egyptian Revolutionary Socialists apologise to their membership

In a surprising announcement that appears to come from the leadership of the Egyptian Revolutionary Socialists, they have apologised to their membership for the statement released on May 28th. See http://www.e-socialists.net/node/8812

The statement of apology, which is only available in Arabic, indicates that the manner of the debate around the call for a vote for the MB was inadequate. It distances itself from, at least it doesn't repeat, the call for a vote for the Brotherhood in the forthcoming presidential run-off this week-end. The apology acknowledges the lack of consultation with the membership and indicates that there may well have been considerable dissent amongst them. The apology does not however make a clear break with the idea of making alliances with Islamists, or in this case casting a vote for the MB, on principle.

This follows a conference of revolutionary forces at the week-end and a major mobilisation yesterday called by that conference which likely attracted in the order of 100,000.

At both events opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood was considerable. Not only is there great alarm from the Coptic Christians about the Brotherhood, never mind the concern from secular socialists, but the Brotherhood were also highly aggressive at Tuesday's demonstration against anyone who advocated a boycott accusing them of being 'traitors'.

Hopefully the culture of criticism of the SWP flawed formulae will continue within the Egyptian Revolutionary Socialists.

IS Tendency and related trotskyists arguing amongst themselves in the comment sectoion of a John Molyneux (old school SWP leading member, not the worst of them but here sticking to the Party Line at all costs) article. Apparently the ISO (US IS Tendency club, kicked out the tendency on SWP initiative around 2000) is opposed to the vote-MB-without-ilusions-policy here, ; the RS defends their decicion, here.

Interesting quote from the latter:

AFTER MONTHS of debate on these issues in Egypt, revolutionaries and socialists have struggled to get the balance right in terms of the approach towards the Muslim Brotherhood. In all honesty, many of us face tremendous pressures from anarchists and ultraleftists who have been touting the line of describing the Muslim Brotherhood as a fascist organization.

Now, while the characterization of the MB as simply 'fascist'seems mistaken to me - they are reactionary, but there are different forms of reaction - , the pressures that "anachists and ultraleftists" seem to be able to create, sounds encouraging. Trotskyists are not having it all their way in the mass movements, and that's a good thing.

Damn those anarchists and ultraleftist with their infantile opposition to popular fronts with Islamists, they are always trying to wreck the progress of the vanguard of the soon-to-be union bureaucrats.

"...John Molyneux old school SWP leading member, not the worst of them..."

Ummm...is this the same Molyneux who wrote in a pamphlet about the SWP "socialist" future that technical experts "if absolutely necessary...will have to perform with workers' guns at their heads"

If he isn't the worst, i dread to meet the SWP's worst!!

Socialist Banner, a blog by the SPGB which concentrates on Africa recently posted (or more honestly, plagiarised another post) about Egypt.

http://socialistbanner.blogspot.com/2012/06/going-beyond-unions.html

Yes, that is the same Molyneux. And yes, they have MUCH worse, I can assure you from experience. There are nuances within SWP politics...

ajjohnstone

Ummm...is this the same Molyneux who wrote in a pamphlet about the SWP "socialist" future that technical experts "if absolutely necessary...will have to perform with workers' guns at their heads"

Better than Trotsky's actual real life enforced on millions line where if you are a worker you will have to perform with a technical expert controlled gun at your head.

This is not a stupid action, but tis funny nonetheless. In New Zealand, the Socialist Workers' Organisation, sister org. to the British SWP, produced a poster that said 'Imagine a world run by people like us.'

Except the only person shown in the poster was the leader of the SWO. Imagine a world run by people like him, indeed.

I wonder if other SWP franchises around the planet did the same?

(This was at the height of the 'global justice movement' (or woteva it is now called) in 2000 or 01).

freemind wrote:
Around 1990 AFA organised a 5000 strong march through East London. For years the Left had ignored the struggle on the streets waged by AFA against fascist scum and merely dismissed the BNP/NF as an irrelevance. When they saw the effect of AFA's initiatives on local working class youth however they had the front to go on Capital Radio and claim they organised the march.

Was this the ANL, of which Andrew 'TEH WORKERZ WEREN'T GRAYTFUL!!11!' Marr was a member...?

Anti-Nazi League: Don’t Believe the Hype

wojtek

Was this the ANL, of which Andrew 'TEH WORKERZ WEREN'T GRAYTFUL!!11!' Marr was a member...?

No fucking way, as in Andrew Marr ? As in this dude ?

Turning up to picket lines and trying to sell their crappy paper, no-one ever knows who they are, we only ever see them when there's a strike

Hierarchy, recruitment for recruitment's sake

SWP paper seller

Pay me for it? Lol, I didn't do it for my benefit. All the papers I sold were to keep the regional organiser in paid employment. I will never forget as long as I live, being stood in the pouring rain at 4am, selling socialist workers off the back of my Vespa at a post office sorting depot. Just as I got home, dried, and into bed...I got a call.........How many did you sell??? I then got a bollocking for not pushing sales hard enough.

Croyd, I jumped the gun a bit. Marr may well have been an ANL member, but he doesn't mention it in his autobiography, he just says he wore 'his most important badges - [his] Anti-Nazi League badge, his CND badge and his Eastern European Solidarity Campaign badge' to a BBC traineeship. Marr fits Peter Wilby's description of the 'unskilled middle-class' journalist perfectly (tbf he admitted as much - though I don't think he would nowadays! ;) ). Either way I don't rate him.

SWP paper seller

around 15-16 years ago, the German SWP clone Linksruck offered a kind of 1st class membership to a spokesperson of the SU of Munich University who had some leanings towards SWPism: becoming a member without having to sell the paper and without having to perform related duties but the with the possibility of quick promotion ... the SU guy however was a decent fellow and made this offer public, exposing that the Linksruck members were in fact members a two-tiered-society

The following is from a discussion on Galloway's rape apologism

http://www.socialistunity.com/time-for-the-left-to-stand-up-for-galloway/#comment-617753

Andy Newman, Socialist Unity

The long term editor of Socialist Worker used to have a reputation that “no means yes”, and when he vistied some districts, experienced comrades in the know sought to ensure he was not left alone with young women.

When women who had been assaulted complained, they were diminished and hounded out of the SWP. I know of one occasion when a victim of sexual assault was sat down with a senior woman CC SWP member who told her to keep quiet for the good of “the party”, excusing the behaviour because “capitalism fucks everyone up”, and then warning if she didn’t keep quiet then no-one would believe her, and the SWP would destroy her reputation.

During the 1980s there was a strange phenomenon of several angry young womwn comrades who used to talk about the sexism of this leading comrade, but they had been intimidated out of explaining what had happened, and instead the discusion often focussed on seemingly trivial details, like the fact that he always referred to women socialists by their first names, and male comrades by surnames (lenin and marx, but Rosa and Clara, for example)

To fnd an organisation that systematicaly for decades covered up sexual assault and who intimidated women who complained into silence praised in this was is disgraceful.

Even worse, I know of an IS/SWP district in the 1970s who colluded in silence and looked the other way when a leading industrial militant was raping his own step-daughter: the individual in question had previoulsy been in the IMG, who had also covered it up. When as a young 17 year old I confronted him at a party and asked him loudly if he was still fucking his duaghter, it was me cautioned by the SWP, while the truth of thse allegations was quietly ignored.

from Chris Bambery's new group in Scotland:

http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/blog/racism-and-riots-why-the-protesters-are-right/

There is a long history of this vicious cycle – the most memorable example being the so called ‘Salman Rushdie affair’. The version most westerners get to hear goes like this: brave artist lampoons dangerous religion and is threatened by book burning fundamentalists. The real story is that Rushdie wrote a semi-literate anti-Muslim polemic, ‘The Satanic Verses’, which portrayed Muslim men as sexual predators and Muslim women as inviting of sexual violence.

Rushdie knew what he was doing of course; his accusations are established slanders against Muslims. Liberals were sent into a senseless frenzy by protests against the book. To be frank if I found a crowd of Jews burning copies of a book that perpetrates the blood libel I’d pass some matches, my attitude to the ‘Verses’ is much the same.

Fucking Chris Bambery. One of my favs. :D

I was in the Dutch IS back then when the Rushdie thing happened in 1989. I know for sure that the position - basically taken over from the SWP, of which Bambery was am influential member - was: Defend Rushdie's book, as a serious work of art, oppose the threats against him and his freedom; while opposing the misuse made by Islamophobic rigt-wingers of the whole affair. Bambery's position now is much different, and much worse. Even Trotskyism can degenerate below its usual levels...

God, its stuff like that pish about the rushdie affair that makes it very difficult for me to engage with lefties. and its worse given that i come from the same city as that group which means that the chances of rubbing shoulders with the likes of the above is probably pretty high. think ill just stick with the internet as far as engaging with the left goes...

rooieravotr

I was in the Dutch IS back then when the Rushdie thing happened in 1989. I know for sure that the position - basically taken over from the SWP, of which Bambery was am influential member - was: Defend Rushdie's book, as a serious work of art, oppose the threats against him and his freedom; while opposing the misuse made by Islamophobic rigt-wingers of the whole affair. Bambery's position now is much different, and much worse. Even Trotskyism can degenerate below its usual levels...

Basically while Tony Cliff was alive we thought the SWP couldn't possibly get any worse than it already was. Then he died and we were proven oh so wrong.

Years later, during a brief engagement with a local TC affiliated (non-militant) antifa initiative, the muppet-woman the SWP had appointed to be their lead on the thing was chairing a meeting where we were discussing outreach to various areas of the town, in preparation for something or other. She volunteered herself and her even more dim sidekick to go up and do the Jewish neighbourhood in the town - on a Saturday. When she asked why myself and another AFA com were spluttering with laughter, we explained why Saturday might not be the best day to go up and do outreach there. "Well I don't know", says she "I don't know anything about Jews, I've never even met one.". To be fair, it stopped us laughing. Took us a while before we could even talk, having to pick our jaws up off the floor first. This was the best the then SWP had to offer as their chosen "leader" for the local antifa alliance thing. I guess that's what happens when you get into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.

http://www.socialistunity.com/gotcha/

Martin Smith, former National Secretary of the SWP, has been bumped off the Central Committee. After previously being forced to resign as National Secretary following allegations of him abusing his position of power to harass a woman SWP member in Birmingham. This was handled so poorly by the SWP that I understand the woman felt unable to continue in SWP membership, and when Martin Smith stepped down he was given a standing ovation at SWP conference, with delegates stamping their feet, and chanting support. This is quite extraordinary, and indicative of a culture which colludes in sexism in order to protect the institutional interests of the SWP.

I recall an incident where a rather big demo was halted by a police line and a scuffle broke out with the cops, some baton charges went our way, some bottles and flagpoles theirs with some horse brigade charges and snatch squads running amok in between. Amid all this chaos there were like 5 members of the Dutch section of the IST, standing almost in front of the whole mess, holding up their newspapers and trying to sell them. I thought it was some kind of monty python sketch or whatever.

To complete the whole picture, when we got kettled, the cops made the crowd an offer, those who were 'good protesters' could pass through their narrow lines, being inspected one by one if they matched the ones being wanted for trashing a police van and de-arresting a comrade. Those who wouldn't do that were considered suspect/guilty by default. So instead of linking arms and trying to march through the police lines, the IST and the CWI members present walk up to the cops, tell them they have nothing to do with the 'troublemakers' and get a free pass, being booed by the whole crowd. Typical.

ocelot

I guess that's what happens when you get into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.

can i mention again their support for the muslim brotherhood in the light of whats happening in egypt just now?

I haven't seen, haven't looked for anything regarding the SWP's support for the Muslim Brotherhood but from the posts above I take it as read.
It's yet another example of the nationalist SWP supporting the needs of British imperialism, the latter supporting the MB in Egypt and again in Syria which, when I last looked, this imperialist war was being characterised by the SWP (and others) as a "revolution".

xslavearcx

ocelot

I guess that's what happens when you get into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.

can i mention again their support for the muslim brotherhood in the light of whats happening in egypt just now?

Although, to be fair, the Revolutionary Socialists (the Egyptian sister party of the SWP and member of their international) is now part of the National Salvation Front, opposing the MB... alongside the likes of Ahmed Shafiq and the other feloul they called for a vote for Morsi ("with no illusions", presumably) against, as they were then the "lesser evil". But hey... "T-t-t-hat's Dialectics, Folks!"

I've been trying to find a quote from one of the leading SWP members from a few years ago. I didn't read it directly, it was quoted in some critical article on them. It was one of them lamenting the fact that they hadn't been organised enough to incite a bigger protest than the one that took place (sorry for vagueness), and that if the protest/demo had just been 21,000 people instead of 19,000 or whatever the SWP could have marched straight into Buckingham Palace and "taken power". It was mental. Any ideas?

This was in relation to the protests against plans to shut a huge swathes of mines in the early 90s - the full interview is here :

THERE IS pressure from ordinary workers on the trade union leaders.

The TUC called a 300,000 strong Sunday demonstration for the miners. They are not in the habit of calling demonstrations like that. The pressure was so massive that they had to do it.

When the employers fire their big guns again, there will be pressure on the trade union leaders to do the same things. The current situation is only temporary.

The class struggle hasn’t disappeared. Fights still take place and the role of socialists is crucial.

Imagine if we had 15,000 members of the SWP and 30,000 supporters: the 21 October miners’ demonstration could have been different. Instead of marching round Hyde Park, socialists could have taken 40 or 50,000 people to parliament.

If that had happened, the Tory MPs wouldn’t have dared vote with Michael Heseltine. The government would have collapsed.

This prospect is not unrealistic or romantic. The number of socialists organised together is important in determining the outcome of the struggle.

Over the last three months the Socialist Workers Party has recruited 2,500 people. We could have recruited many more because our ideas fit with the ideas of tens of thousands of workers. Every member is valuable because another confrontation like 21 October is coming.

Ah, 'twas Cliff himself, thank you very much.

my god ^^ that one is my favourite.

He doesn't explicitly say "and then we could have taken power", but that's clearly the implication. Just goes to show the cadres don't just view their party as the nucleus of a future revolutionary party, they see themselves as the actually existing revolutionary party, they actually think of themselves as leaders-in-waiting.

I read it as him claiming that a large demo outside parliament would have intimidated MPs into voting a certain way. Which is, as has been proven many times all round the world in the last couple of years, utter cock.

http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/swp-goes-islamist/

SWP joins Islamists at protest against Quilliam Foundation at Plymouth University

Entdinglichung

Dead End

SWP sounds like a mixmash of the ISO (in numbers, trying to hijack actions) Workers World Party (creating the largest front groups, defanging movements) CPUSA (supporting the major left party) and the Sparts (insane pushing of papers).

I sincerely hope that we don't get a party that combines all of this stuff.

plus the adventurist voluntarism of the weirder parts of metropolitan maoism

So in that case they're like ISO + WWP + CPUSA + the sparts + Kasama

Do they like to fight nazis and sell papers where every headline is "SMASH [insert whatever]"? Or have they got a cult of personality around some very mediocre guy who pretends to be exiled to France? Cos then they'd be like a giant red dragonzord made of every single American leftoid outfit

Fnordie

[Do they like to fight nazis and sell papers where every headline is "SMASH [insert whatever]"?

no that's everything ian bone has ever done

the croydonian anarchist

Fnordie

[Do they like to fight nazis and sell papers where every headline is "SMASH [insert whatever]"?

no that's everything ian bone has ever done

lol yeah, but i was talking about PLP, whacked-out stalinist party in the us. class war was way more clever and erudite.

SWP motion forced off Student Council agenda due to claims of defamation

https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/whereismyfrontpage?src=hash

This weekend we produced an edition of The Student, which would have been released on Tuesday October 21.
The newspaper was due to contain an article about a motion entitled ‘Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) Off Campus’, which was going to be heard at Thursday’s Student Council.
The motion has since been removed from the Student Council’s agenda; the SWP have argued that the motion was defaming.
To publish the paper with this article, given these claims, would now put The Student at severe risk of legal action from the SWP, since the motion is no longer going to be read.
In the event of any legal action, The Student's editors would be liable for any and all damages and legal costs.
When we sent the paper to the printers, this motion was still due to be read, and thus, we were reporting on the contents of a public meeting.
The Student’s editors have removed the page containing the article from each paper manually. We will be distributing the paper around campus as normal with the article in concern removed.
‪#‎whereismyfrontpage‬

on the 16th July, the Austrian SWP-clone "Neue Linkswende" (NL) called in Vienna via social media for a demonstration against the coup in Turkey, around 1200 people turned up (far, far more than usual when the NL calls), mostly supporters of the UETD (Union of European Turkish Democrats, a front of the AKP) and also a large group of fascist Grey Wolves ... the latter attacked a Kurdish restaurant