Everything you'll need to know about the Left in the UK and beyond – and it's all in a bite-sized blog.
Full of pictures, anecdotes and jokes.
All the Diversity and Community Cohesion you'll ever need; and it's eco-friendly too.
Love and jihad to all my brothers!
Peace out and whatever. - Paul Austin Murphy
Saturday, 8 February 2014
The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is Wikid!
The Official Wikipedia Article
The Socialist Workers Party (SWP)
Charlie Kimber, of the Central Committee, and Lord Kimber, not of the Central Committee.
The SWP is the largest Progressive (Trotskyist) party in
Britain. It is rumoured to have at least 1000 members. Critics have argued that
most of its members are middle-class students, despite the fact that its
leaders are not students (they are ex-students). Many critics also say that ‘if
you are a first-year university student’, it is ‘compulsory to join the SWP’
(that is if the Deep Greens and Islamists won't have you). The SWP is keen to
stress the fact that it has two members who are working class. (Both of whom
clean the homes of the SWP leadership.)
The SWP has formed and participated in (or ‘taken over’,
‘infiltrated’) a number of campaigns, such as Unite Against Fascism (which it
formed), the Stop the War Coalition (StWC), Respect, Rock against Racism and
Students against Paying Fees Although We Can Afford It. (The punk rock band the
Clash was said to have lent the Party a bob or two in the early 1980s.)
The SWP also incorporates the Socialist Workers' Student
Society, which is actually made up of the entire SWP (except for the
ex-students who are now its leaders). Such societies run weekly meetings on such
things as ‘How to master the mockney accent’, ‘How to pretend that one’s
parents aren’t rich’ and ‘How to memorise the party line’.
Activists in the SWP argued that even though Stalin murdered
50 million or more of his fellow Russians, including workers and socialists,
‘at least he wasn’t an American and a supporter of capitalist democracy’. The
SWP said that ‘Uncle Joe was indeed a fool, but his heart was in the right
place’. They argued that ‘if only Stalin had read Tony Cliff’s Trotsky, he would himself have become a
Trotskyite and probably joined the SWP’.
SWP’s Newspapers and Magazines
The SWP runs a website, originally called Socialist
Worker, which is said to be read by as many as twenty people (although
ten of the twenty actually write the website). The newspaper includes in-depth
analyses of vital political issues (e.g., ‘How can we get more members?’); as well as many photos of SWP students and
Islamists raising their fists (in the style of the SWP logo) and getting angry
at some demonstration or other at some thing or other. The Socialist Review is a more technical and academic publication from
the SWP and is said to be read by no one.
The Central Committee
The leadership is formed by a Central Committee and a
National Committee, as in the Soviet model. (Though the SWP says that it isn’t
based on the Soviet model.) Those branch leaders who agree with the Central
Committee on everything can elect the Central Committee at the National
Conference. As of 2013, the members of the Central Committee include Lord Alexander
Theodore Callinicos and Lord Charles Kimber (both
of whom have are offspring of 19th century Lords and Ladies;
carrying on the tradition of Lenin, the son of a nobleman). Lord Callinicos has
been in the Party for a long time and have sold literally over a 100 books to
people who like reading books written by him.
In 1997, despite being highly opposed to Tony Blair's
policies, the SWP called for a vote for the Labour Party. The idea was to vote
for a Party that the SWP knew ‘would not last very long’, primarily because of
the 10th or 11th ‘deadly capitalist crisis ‘of that year; as forecasted by the
Marxist Futurology Office. John Rees, a leader of the SWP at the time (who’s
from ‘a working-class background’, according to a Wiki article written by a SWP
friend), hoped that the working class would suffer more so that they would then
embrace the SWP and its middle-class revolution.
Recently the SWP was involved in Respect (formed in 2003).
SWP leaders and members realised that brown and extreme middle-class Islamists
had a lot in common with the SWP’s middle class, white and very-angry
membership. The Islamists had even borrowed a certain amount of Trotskyite clichés
from the SWP. Later, around three days after its formation, a degree of
factionalism occurred in Respect. The SWP argued that this is a necessary
factor of all Islamo-Trotskyite politics and was once called ‘permanent
The MP George
Galloway, a full-time exhibitionist, helped in the forming of Respect.
Galloway is well known for liking Arabs a lot (he married one – no, not Saddam)
and also for wanting to destroy capitalism and all things Western (i.e.,
non-Arabic). His love for all things Arabic was shown when he met Saddam Hussein and committed a public
act of fellatio on him in order to smooth Arab-Western relations (which have
been very bad since all Arab countries realised just how shit their countries
were). Then there was a ‘schism’ within Respect. However, not all things were
that good. The group Left List was formed from this split. Then the Left List
split into the Far-Left Split, the Left Split, the Right Split and the Banana
Split. Apparently, the main area of contention was the third sentence of
paragraph two in the chapter ‘Should I Go to Mexico?’ in Trotsky’s seminal
book, How to Kill Capitalists.
The SWP has ‘an extremely open way of recruitment’ – the SWP
is extremely easy to join. You only have to give its leaders money and then you
automatically become a member. The students who do join do not tend to stay
long, usually for three years (the length of their degree course). The rest who
do stay are by then delegates or leaders of the Party.
The Zionist Criticisms of the SWP
The SWP has been criticised by some in the direct action,
anti-capitalist and anarchist movements for its perceived attempts to
manipulate them for its own ends. SWP activists argue that although all these
groups are different from the Party, it is still the case that ‘we all,
basically, still want to kill some capitalists’.
The SWP has also been accused of being overly accommodating
to the allegedly reactionary concerns of some practicing Muslims. It denies
this. The SWP says that although it does accept that brown men have the right
to lock their wives in the bedroom and/or kitchen and carry out Female Genital
Mutilation, as long as they don’t do these things at Walthomstow dinner parties
for the revolutionary-socialist elite, all is fine. In addition, its ‘anti-Zionist’ stance has
been accused of being anti-Semitic. The SWP denies this accusation and argues
that such a rumour ‘has been spread by Jewish scum’. As for gay rights, they
argue that ‘they accept that homosexuality is OK for the Walthomstow Set’, but
‘it may not be right for the Brown Man’.
The SWP has also caused controversy by supporting the
elements of the Iraqi insurgency. It was also rumoured that it was
contemplating endorsing the group Paedophiles Against the Government as well as
Serial Killers Against Capitalism. The SWP, therefore, supports Hezbollah and
all the other Islamic groups which blow American, European and Israeli children
to pieces. Its support, however, is ‘unconditional but critical’.
There has also been criticism and debate in, around and
outside the party about its perceived failure to intervene in, or be a visible
part of, many popular front movements. The SWP says that it will join any
popular front movement as long as they display its banners and uphold the diktats
of the Central Committee (which, they argue, ‘is perfectly fair and indeed
democratic’). Some commentators also criticise the SWP for being sectarian. The
SWP argued that these organisations didn’t need to be Trotskyist in nature as
long as the members read at least one book a week by Trotsky or a SWP member.
Members of other socialist political parties, and ex-members
of the SWP, often claim that it is undemocratic. The SWP’s Central Committee
has told all its members that it is fully democratic and it will not allow any
claims to the contrary. Those who deny the democratic nature of the SWP are
told to leave.
The SWP also says that it can work with other groups ‘as
long as these groups agree with all SWP policy and theory’ and then ‘everything
else is open to debate’. It is also said that the SWP aims to seize control of
united fronts and control them. The SWP responds by saying that ‘the people who
say such things only do so because they disagree with us’. Either that, or
‘they are working for the Zionist Party of Barnsley or the extreme right- wing
Snooker Players’ Union’.
Many left-wing pundits argue that the SWP is not as
revolutionary as Workers Power. And that Workers Power is not as revolutionary
as Permanent Revolution (UK). However, the SWP itself claims that ‘it is more
revolutionary than both these parties put together’ and is ‘prepared for a
punch-up with both parties to prove it’.