-------- Original Message -------- Subject: (en) UK, Marxism 2004: The beginning of the end for the SWP? Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:33:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Worker <a-infos-en at ainfos.ca> Reply-To: a-infos-en at ainfos.ca To: a-infos-en at ainfos.ca
________________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
News about and of interest to anarchists
http://ainfos.ca/ http://ainfos.ca/index24.html
________________________________________________
July 10th saw the first day of Marxism 2004, the annual week long conference of the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP). The SWP is the biggest party in what passes for a revolutionary movement in the UK which, sadly, is still dominated by Leninism. Given the visibility of the SWP in the country, it is fair to say that it is the party most would-be radicals come across when they first get involved in politics. This is aided by the SWP's policy of creating front organisations to dominate and control any protest movements that develop in the hope of gaining new members for the party.
In the last few years, they created "Globalise Resistance" as a conduit into the anti-capitalist movement and, more successfully, set up the "Stop the War Coalition" (StWC) to protest against the invasion of Iraq. Out this they have created their latest front, "RESPECT -- The Unity Coalition."
RESPECT is an electoral front, undoubtedly a product of the one election success of the Socialist Alliance (SA). The SA was a grouping of various Leninist revolutionary parties which the SWP joined and took over by weight of numbers. Their one election success occurred when their candidate to a local council was backed by the local Mosque. During the anti-Iraq war protests, the StWC worked closely with Muslim Association of Britain.
On February 15th, over one million people marched in London and tens of thousands protested in Glasgow. Thinking themselves head of a mass movement, the SWP tried to exploit their position as the main body behind StWC and use the anti-war movement to get themselves elected. RESPECT was formed earlier this year in a hope to gain the votes of the thousands who took to the streets against the war. The SA was jettisoned, as were basic socialist principles. In order to get the Muslim organisations on board such things as homosexual and women's rights were downplayed. The idea of a "workers wage" for any elected members was voted down at the founding convention, undoubtedly to keep recently expelled Labour MP George Galloway happy. Galloway, who was kicked out the Labour Party for his opposition to the Iraq war, is habitually called the RESPECT MP but, of course, no one voted for him on the RESPECT ticket. This did not stop a min-cult of personality surfacing during the RESPECT election campaign. His picture was on every leaflet and the ballot papers said "Respect -- the Unity Coalition (George Galloway)." In this, it should be noted, RESPECT is not alone. In Scotland, the Scottish Socialist Party does likewise with Tommy Sheridan.
And as in their anti-war speeches, the SWP leaders did not use their media opportunities during the election to raise clear anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist politics. They even argued that RESPECT would be a fighter for Muslims, refusing to point out that the Muslim community is as class ridden and hierarchical as any other. Class politics were rejected in favour of crass opportunism on a massive scale. Given that Leninists tend to justify standing in elections as a means of raising socialist politics, the RESPECT campaign can only be judged a failure. Its popular front, cross-class collaboration simply raised vague populist, anti-corporate ideas, suitable for the wettest concerned liberal.
All of which is a striking confirmation of anarchist arguments against electioneering. Usually, socialist parties need to get elected before they move to the right. The SWP, however, moved to the right in a feeble attempt to get into office. With their glorification of Galloway, they put the emphasis on a few leaders and not on the ability of the mass of the population to change things by their own efforts. The focus for social change was moved away from collective class struggle in the community and workplace to the acts of isolated individuals at the ballot box.
Unsurprisingly, the actual election results of the new party did not meet rhetoric (particularly given how the SWP and other Leninists simply could not understand the nature of the February 15th protests). Before the 10th of June election results, leading members of RESPECT (and the SWP) predicted a million votes and members elected to the London Assembly and the European Parliament. This did not happen, but this did not stop the SWP leadership proclaiming a "breakthrough" when they achieved a mere 1.65% of the vote across England and Wales (which is only a quarter of the predicted votes). They did do well a few areas with large ethnic minorities, so confirming the initial opportunistic reason for the SWP's change in tactic.
While they uncritically accepted the election results, the SWP leadership were much more critical of their membership. Pointing to the few good results, they complained (like all good bosses) that comrades elsewhere simply were not working hard enough. Yet this simply does not explain the failure. While the leadership argued that RESPECT election results reflected the fact that it had only existed since January, the fact is that the SWP itself can be traced back 50 years. Clearly its influence is less than it could be, given its prominence in left-wing circles for the last few decades.
Clearly, RESPECT has failed. But where now? What of the SWP? Simply put, the SWP looks like it is trouble. It has failed to capitalise on its prominent organising (and controlling) role in the StWC. It has not recruited as it would like (or predicted) from the anti-war movement. The party leadership has recently decided to sell off its printing press (probably to help manage the heavy debts it incurred during the anti-war marches and election campaign). Nor has RESPECT drawn in anti-war people.
This can be seen from Marxism 2004. As usual, anarchists took the opportunity to leaflet the event (the leaflet, a general introduction to anarchism, is available at http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho.html). Having done so twice before (in 2001 and 2003 -- both leaflets can be found on the same webpage), I noticed a significant change in both numbers and attitude of those present. While before the typical SWP member ignored those outside, refusing leaflets and discussion, it was the case that new people drawn in by struggles and campaigns would take literature and even come to meetings. At Marxism 2003, for example, anarchists held a well attended meeting after Marxism finished on the Saturday.
Numbers in 2003 did seem down from 2001. This year was more noticeable. The lack of numbers was commented on by members of every political group I talked to -- anarchist, Marxist and Leninist. While the SWP leadership could explain the lack of numbers in terms of the by-election campaign in Leicester RESPECT was running, it seems unlikely it would send it most inexperienced members (and potential recruits) away from its most prestigious annual event. Given that as recently as 2000 the SWP boasted of having 9000 members, the fact that RESPECT claims a mere 3000 members is significant. In spite of its turn to the Asian community, the number of non-white faces was the lowest I have seen. Given this, I doubt I will attend Marxism 2005. It would be pointless if only Leninist hacks are attending it.
Marxism 2004 seems to confirm that the SWP has over stretched itself. Moreover, it is doubtful that many within its membership can be happy with their party's swing to the right. The opportunistic rejection of basic principles in order to gain votes cannot have sat well with any committed socialist in its ranks. For the less principled member, it cannot bode well that this violation of principle achieved so little and did not discourage the leadership in the slightest. Ironically, given the SWP's personalised approach to politics and their consequent demonising of Blair, the parallels to the Labour Party under Blair seem all too clear.
The other sects on the Leninist left also seem to sense that the SWP are in a bad way. The (frankly loony) Spartacus League were there in numbers and every other Leninist party had leaflets urging SWP members to think about what their party is doing. Sadly, their solution (namely build a new mass workers party) is simply repeating the mistakes of the past. If Marxism 2004 does represent the beginning of the end for the SWP, it is doubtful that the other smaller Leninist parties will gain members from the implosion. Hopefully, if the SWP does go then it will have the same effect as the collapse of the USSR and drive another nail in the coffin of Leninism in the UK.
Anarchists have an interest in making sure that happens. We have an alternative to the dead end Leninism has forced the revolutionary movement into for the last eight decades. One which sees the importance of learning from history rather than repeating it. The question is, of course, will the British anarchist movement be organised enough to present a viable alternative to those who want to change the world rather than just the bosses?
*******
********
****** The A-Infos News Service ******
News about and of interest to anarchists
******
INFO: http://ainfos.ca/org http://ainfos.ca/org/faq.html
HELP: a-infos-org at ainfos.ca
SUBSCRIPTION: send mail to lists at ainfos.ca with command in
body of mail "subscribe (or unsubscribe) listname your at address".
Options for all lists at http://www.ainfos.ca/options.html