SWP: The Elephant In The Corner?

ireland / britain | anarchist movement | debate Saturday June 04, 2005 19:28 by Mark Scantlebury - Trident Ploughshares mark at scantlebury8205 dot freeserve dot co dot uk 10 Chudleigh Road, Lipson, Plymouth, Devon, UK, PL4 7HU 07811 582 742

A call to exclude the SWP and its many front groups from Anarchist movements, non-Anarchist community groups, and general struggles.

The attack is directed at the leadership of the SWP, NOT the rank and file membership.

Also contained are some other points regarding Anarchist organisation, or lack thereof, and the damaging effect that this has upon the sreading of Anarchist ideas and influence.

First off, and in response to the probably inevitable claims from Leninists that may result from this article, this is NOT, repeat NOT an indisriminate attack rank and file members of the SWP. I am NOT, as the SWP leadership is so fond of doing, blaming the membership for the ills of the SWP. This is a criticism of the leadership and not rank and file members.

Having once been a member of the SWP, and a pretty active member at that, I have absolutely no quarrel with the average rank and file member, although any party hack, Trotbot, Robotrot or senior SWP figure will probably claim otherwise. I don't, and they are liars if they claim otherwise.

From personal observation, I can safely say that the problem lies not with the average member, many of whom are fine people as committed to social change and justice as anyone else, but with the leadership. There is a saying within the British Army that the ordinary enlisted personnel are 'Lions led by donkeys'. I happen to think the same of the SWP.

Of course, we cannot just turn to the SWP as though they are the Devil Incarnate, and seek to blame them for all of the ills that currently beset the activist scene in Britain. It isn't their fault that they are often better organised than us, that they can get meetings and speakers booked, coaches to demo's, banners and placards mass-produced and so on and so forth. Our own organisation can vary widely from group to group. From the really well sorted to the practically non-existent. Anarchist organisations have at best a patchy reputation for reliability, depending on which groups and individuals one chooses to work with.

Many of us are also guilty of living in the past, Kronstadt being a key issue, often referred to by Anarchists as being a prime example of the evils of Leninism. While such events are an important part our collective history, it remain a fact that the average man or woman in the street probably doesn't even know where Kronstadt IS, much less cares what occurred there over eighty years ago. If we want to advance Anarchism, then we need to live in the here and now, not in the events of a world that has largely ceased to exist. The only people who can make Anarchism more relevent in the wider world, and beyond the activist ghetto, are Anarchists themselves. We need real policies for real people, and, it has to be said, we aren't always good at articulating the policies we have now, let alon make new ones for a new millenium.

A principle reason for conflict between Anarchists and Leninists is the issue of the State. Anarchists want no State, while the Leninists seek a State with ever more power and influence over the individual, and view non-Statists as their natural enemies. But considering the SWP in particular, they seem unable to run a bath with an adequate level of democracy and individual freedom, let alone a Marxist State. Membership of the SWP has been dropping and continues to drop, however many front groups (such as Gloalise Resistance or Unite Against Fscism) they seem to create. A key problem for the SWP is not recruitment, but retention. If they had held on to even half the number of people they have recruited, then they would almost certainly have a much more credible image than they do, and be that much greater an obstacle to the spread of Anarchist ideas and influence.

With this in mind, I suggest an alternative to simply dismissing rank and file SWP members as natural enemies, Trotbots and so on. With the incredible turnover of SWP recruits, many of whom seem decent people who may respond to our ideas if given the opportunity, it strikes me that we should be getting to know rank and file members as they become disillusioned with the SWP, and offering them Anarchists alternatives in place of the dead ahnd of Leninism that is holding back the Anarchist movement so much. SWPers may complain that we are poaching recruits, but it isn't as though they aren't serially guilty of offences of that kind through their various front groups. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We don't preach to people, or rant, or rave, or adopt the patronising line that we are politically pure and thus automatically know what is best for them, if only they will surrender their free will and follow us blindly. These are SWP tactics, and if we want to convince people that we are better, or at least different, to the SWP then we need to set an example. An example of taking on the lies and bullshit of the SWP Central Committee with honest and open debate.

And why should we do this? Because Leninists in general, and the SWP Central Committee in particular, have no compuntion whatsoever about resorting to attacking even their fellow Leninists, never mind Anarchists, in order to get their way. Sectarian attacks on other groups and independent activists, as at the European Social Forum durining the disruption of a rally. The SWP leadership claimed that this was a racist attack when they knew full well that it was merely a protest at the secretive and almost entirely undemocratic nature of the event. Outright lies, such as the SWP line about the Black Bloc at Genoa and latterly New York, and the SWP leadership's condemnation of direct action as being 'elitist'. The backroom deals and packing of meetings, and the pretty obviously rigged vote that gave the SWP control of Birmingham Stop The War Coalition. The lack of solidarity shown to anybody at all, when it is the interest of the SWP leadership to do so. All of these are blatant attacks upon other activists and groups, ordered by a Central Committee that acts only in its own interests and damn those of others.

An opportunity exists to drive the SWP out of revolutionary politics for good, in the unlikely form of the RESPECT Coalition. If RESPECT succeeds, and I realise that this is a very big 'If', then it seems increasingly obvious that the SWP Central Committee (who now seem intent on careers in electoral politics) may finally do the decent thing and leave the revolutionary pitch to those who actually mean it. If they look like succeeding, then I suggest we do everything in our power to push them as hard as possible in that direction. Force them out of the revolutionary scene for good, and give ourselves that much more room to grow and operate. If RESPECT fails, then the SWP Central Committee will be back again with renewed purpose, sniffing around for recruits, packing meetings, rigging votes, and poaching members. We have the chance to get this monkey off our backs NOW, if only we have the will to make it happen. Leninism is a dying corpse, but the corpse can still kick us in its death throes.

we have established that the SWP leadership are a threat. But a threat to whom exactly? Certainly not a threat to the power of the State, but far more to Anarchists, independent groups and individuals that get in its way. Consider the lies about Anarchism, willingly circulated by the SWP elite. Consider also, the criminal ineptness of a leadership that has seemingly wilfully exposed other activists to real danger. I refer to the infiltration of RESPECT by the BNP moles, Joe Finnon and Diane Stoker. They were swiftly promoted to positions of influence, with access to files, accounts and contact details of members and supporters. They were NOT outed by the SWP. Instead, they had to out THEMSELVES before the SWP leadership was even aware of their existence. And what was the response of the SWP leadership, when these two clowns outed themselves? It was to state that they had got more work out of them than their real masters had! The fact that members and supporters, not only of RESPECT but also of the Green Party, among others, could have found their personal details in the hands of 'Redwatch' or of other violent fascists didn't seem to matter to the SWP leaders. Nor did they work out, with their characteristic lack of savvy, that showing unswerving commitment to the party line (no matter how inconsistent, contradictory or ridiculous) and always being available to work hard for the cause are precisely the things that infiltrators would do in order to secure supposedly confidential information.

And consider this also: If two rank amateurs found it so easy to infiltrate a supposedly die-hard revolutionary organisation, and had to out themselves becaus SWP security was so utterly inept, then how safe are SWP rank and file members from MI5 or Special Branch? Obvious answer: Not Very. Because of the absolutely rigid authoritarian structure of the SWP, as perpetuated by the (always immune to criticism) SWP Central Committee, only ONE single solitary infiltrator on the SWP Central Committee would give MI5 or Scotland yard full and prcise details on any change in policy, and before even the SWP membership knew about it.

Compare this with an autonomous organisation like Trident Ploughshares. Now, I'm not even for a second claiming that TP is invulnerable to infiltration, or that veneryone MUST follow our example. But it is the organisation I know most about and so I wil stick to what I know. TP is a much harder nut to crack and for a number of reasons.

TP has a decision making body known as the Core Group. The Core Group refers as much as possible to the grassroots membership before making its decidions, and it encourages the local affinity groups to act as autonomously as possible. It is openly acknowledged that communications such as telephone, fax, text messageing, email and snail mail are not safe for sensitive discussions, so many internal issues are dealt with by word of mouth. Members are also sought out by word of mouth and are usually known before being enlisted. Nothing about actions is discussed except by word of mouth. This means that, for the State to have a full overview of TP operations, it would be necessary for it to have an infiltrator in every affinity group. plus the Core group. Now which is the more secure and safest for the grassroots members?

It has to be said that there may well be opposition to a concerted attack on the SWP leadership. Reasons I have heard stated vary from "Attacking them makes them seem as if they are worth something." Well, they ARE worth something, and that something is unlimited trouble. Another idea was that a concerted attack on the SWP leadership might serve only to harden the attitudes of the rank and file membership. I disagree, on the grounds that the vast majority of SWP recruitsleave within weeks or months of joining, and many of those who do stay become Trotbots, incapable of deviating from the leadership's line, no matter how poor that line may be. Besides, I am not advocating aa policy of simply writing off rank and file SWPers. I am suggesting a concerted effort by Anarchists to isolate the decent, rank and file members from their increasingly autocratoc, malignantand supposedly omniscient Central Committee.

It has also been suggested that the SWP leadership would simply mount a counter-attack against us. This is hardly likely, for the simple reason that they already attack us whenever it suits them anyway, and are probably laughing at our lack of a concerted and united response. There have been lies and spin about the storming of the stage during the European Social Forum (it was portrayed as a racist attack), lies about the activities of the Black Bloc at genoa and more recently New York (an SWP Central Committee meber claims that the Black Bloc provoked a police charge, which has been denied by eyewitnesses who actually saw what happened), the disgraceful treatment of independent activist Steve Godward, and the deliberate vote rigging (via a huge number of 'new' member joining right before a crucial vote) that saw the SWP leadership take over Bimingham Stop The War Coalition had to be be seen to be fully believed.

It has also been suggested that we merely sit back and allow the SWP to wither on the vine. Hardly likely, as the SWP has been around in various guises for decades, and the parasitic cabal currently in control would rather run it into the ground than admit defeat.

One other suggestion was that we should simply concentrate on building our own groups and activities. Just ignore them and they will go away. Time and again this suggestion has proved to be a disaster. The SWP leadership will always seek to control a cause, once it looks like gaining mass appeal. If they can't take it over, then they will either wreck it from within or set up yet another of their increasingly tired and politically bankrupt 'popular fronts', such as Unite Against fascism or Globalise resistance, and take over the campaign by the back door. If the SWP leadership were content to start their own campaigns and leave us to do ours, without interference and control freakery, then this option might stand a chance. In the light of historical fact, it stands no chance whatever of success.

Finally, and to be honest quite disturbing, IMHO, one activist suggested that they had "More in common with the SWP than non-class struggle Anarchists." How can any Anarchist say, hand on heart, that they have anything in common with the leadership of the SWP? Something in common with ordinary, rank and file members maybe, but for an Anarchist to say that they have more in common with the SWP Central Committee than with other Anarchists, class struggle Anarchists or not, is to me the height of foolishness and naivety. Until we recognise that Marxist Leninism, and the SWP version in particular, is an enemy, then we are doomed to watch the SWP and its seemingly self-appointed and self-perpetuating leadership relentlessly use and abuse our struggles and causes for their own ends. And these are ends that have little or nothing to do with the emancipation of the working class or the building of a new society, and everything to do with replacing one form of tyranny with another.

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss...