SWP Perspective for revolution

by Jemedar Thu Aug 22, 2002 16:33

In a daring assault the SWP have seized Collins Barracks. However no one had told them that it was no longer a military barracks and now houses a museum.

Never the less, Princess Grace got some nice items from the costume & jewelery collection. Joe Carolan made off with the infamous Michael Collins hurley (someone will be upset at that).

The young members got lots of stuffed toys & teddy bears from the toy display.

Konor Kostick being a grand buffoon made off with a grand bassoon. Richie Boyd Barrett as chairman of the military Revolutionary committee hauled off a Spanish Armada cannon.

by Jemedar Thu Aug 22, 2002 16:33

In a daring assault the SWP have seized Collins Barracks. However no one had told them that it was no longer a military barracks and now houses a museum.

Never the less, Princess Grace got some nice items from the costume & jewelery collection. Joe Carolan made off with the infamous Michael Collins hurley (someone will be upset at that).

The young members got lots of stuffed toys & teddy bears from the toy display.

Konor Kostick being a grand buffoon made off with a grand bassoon. Richie Boyd Barrett as chairman of the military Revolutionary committee hauled off a Spanish Armada cannon.

by Mags Thu Aug 22, 2002 16:58

But in the 1930s it was the counter revolution that was just around the corner - or in some places already present.

by mal Thu Aug 22, 2002 17:06

yep they say its like watching the 1930's but slowed down.
i think it means that you see class polarisation at a rapid rate albeit much slower than the 30's. Evedence for this is the resurgence of workers confidence for example the general strikes in italy and spain. While the right are also gaining in influence eg haider, Le Pen.
Whether they see revoultion around the coner or not i'll leave it up to them to tell. But i will say its a damn site more favourable now than the 1980's.

by IST Supporter Thu Aug 22, 2002 17:29

I'll completely agree with Mal when the last few years have been a lot favorable than the 1980's. But I think honestly that we wouldn't attempt to tell people when the revolution could and will be happening.

by x Thu Aug 22, 2002 19:37

Yes - I think it will (except there'll be no God involved, of course).

All the rich, exploiting bosses will meet their day of judgement and the workers will finally enter paradise - a worker's paradise, full of workers. Everybody will be well paid and will not have to work (not even the workers). The SWP cadres will organise it all.

It's coming soon, I tell you!

Repent, ye wealthy and powerful sinners, while ye still can!

The revolution is neigh!

by Chekov Fri Aug 23, 2002 00:19

It is characteristic of the SWP to be always declaring that revolution is just around the corner and pointing at the latest major protest waves in some country as evidence of "the rising tide of militancy". I remember back in 1996 talking to a group of SWP members after I had attended one of their branch meetings. They were sure that there would be a revolutionary wave in Ireland within the next year due to the undeniable rising tide of militancy exemplified by the massive indefinite strikes in France in November and December 1995. Even back then when I was much more naively optimistic than I am now, I found their confidence incredible and argued against their outlook as being ludicrously unrealistic. I only wish I had convinced one of them to a wager on the issue.

To assume that any recent actions of the international workers movement are signs of a revolutionary upheaval is wishful thinking. The general strike in Spain was a stage-managed one-day affair called by the big reformist unions to strengthen their positions in advance of negotiations with the government over the reforms to the employment laws. There is no point in blowing it up to be something that it was not and it is worth noting that the openly revoultionary anarchist unions, the CNT and CGT, were very critical of the tactics employed by the CC.OO and the UGT and really didn't see it going anywhere. It was a purely defensive action and was very limited in its goals and scope. Although I know less about the situation in Italy, I believe that the general strike was of a similar character and certainly didn't show any signs of a revolutionary consciousness among the working class.

In truth the SWP always says (at least in the last decade) that we are experiencing a rising tide of militancy. It helps them to squeeze more labour out of their exploited and powerless members, who are bouyed on by the certainty of imminent revolution, at least until they drop out with shattered dreams a few months later. Hopefully by that time they will have at least recruited their replacements.

To my mind there is no evidence whatsoever of a rising tide of militancy internationally. The mainstream trade unions are still losing memebership and constantly lowering their expectations in a long defensive losing battle. The social democrats have completely given up the ghost and the leninists are a tiny, shrinking and doomed minority without any real influence for their ideas in the class. The one point for optimism in my mind is that more people who are coming active nowadays are very fond of democracy and very unwilling to be used as pawns by authoritarian organisations.

by Pat O'Donovan Fri Aug 23, 2002 01:12

SWP is an outgrowth from Britain, its guru being the late Gluckstein, or Glickstein, or (tony) Cliffstein or whatever his name is. Its main Irish ideologue is Eamonn McCann, who has built a profitable journalistic career attacking Ireland's indigenous revolutionary movement-the republican movement. Whose interests is McCann and the British-based SWP serving? Why do they fear the republican movement to the point of obsession on McCann's part? Why are the views of a few third-rate English academics more important than Ireland's revolutionary thinkers?

by Ray Fri Aug 23, 2002 10:25

Yes, the SWP argue that this is 'the 1930's in slow motion' (although next month this may be the incorrrect analysis, and so didn't really happen. The SWP never actually changes it line, its line has always been the same, and has always been right. Do you love Kieran Allen?)

Seriously, the SWP has two analyses. We are always either in a period of 'downturn', or the revolution is just around the corner.

When the revolution is just around the corner, its vital for all socialists to step up their activity, to ensure that socialist ideas are to the fore in the coming critical period. This is no time for theoretical debates! If socialist ideas don't triumph in the coming period, then fascism will, and its the concentration camps for us all.

The period of downturn is completely different. Workers struggle is at a low point, and socialist organisations are in danger of falling apart or ceasing to exist. In this period, its important to avoid navel-gazing theoretical debates, which are a symptom of the depression caused by the downturn, and can only damage the party. The very existence of socialist ideas is in doubt, so party activists must redouble their efforts, to make sure the banner of socialism survives to the next revolutionary period!

See the difference?

by extemely puzzeled activist Fri Aug 23, 2002 15:17

In an earlier posting someone stated that the 1990s and 2000's are more favourable for revolution than the 1980's!

Are you for real? the 1980's saw open class conflict. The miner's strike, the poll tax, the movements against war etc. It could be said that the 1970s and 1980s opened up class struggle again after the economic boom post war.

Since the downfall of Stalinism and the apparent 'victory' of capitalism, class counciousness has fallen back. To compare the 1930s and 1990s is lunacy.

However I would agree that recent developments could well put class struggle back on the agenda.

by OK - SP Fri Aug 23, 2002 15:48

To say that the late 90s are more favourable to revolution than the 1980s is madness.

Im currently reading Peter Taaffe's book the 'Rise of Militant'. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in the workers' movement in the 1980's.

There is a re-emergence of class struggle recently. The SWP are mistaking this for meaning that the revolution is around the corner.

by Angry Activist Fri Aug 23, 2002 16:13

To say the current period is like the 30s is ridiculous. There has been a rise in the far right but these groups on the whole are not fascist. The SWP claim to be trotskyist, read 'Fascism: what it is and how to fight it'. If you accept the analysis in that pamhlet you will clearly see that the movements ofthe far right are not fascists. They are right wing populists.

by mal Fri Aug 23, 2002 16:32

puzz you are completelt right that the 1980's saw open class conflict in europe and america. That class conflict was sharpest in the U.S and England.
The rise of Thatcher to office came on the failures of labour to deliver. Thatcher the old class warrior knew that the unions had to be stopped. The indignity of the imf resucing the british establishment was humiliating for her class.
Hence the 'Ridely plan' Take on the weakest unions first, beat them through laws denying solidarity. And then you can restructure the economy.
Steelworkers to miners to printers were deafeated.
Whats left.
Nothing you have large scale redunancies. unemployment reaching over 3 million, social services being cut back on, people in poverty.
workers looking over their back, looking at the unemployed scared to join the army of reseve labour, quietly accepting cuts and all sorts of shit. So maybe objectively there maybe ground for your arguement, but sujectively your arguement is arse.
And you say that 1980 ripe for revolution!
You Can only say that because your tendancy got a massive hearing.
Whether you like it or not reformism is never dead it just comes back to life when workers movement is in retreat. And in the 80's you guys benefited. Dave Nellist, Tommy Field, and liverpool.
Workers need confidence, for selfactivity and that comes from not being scared of the dole lines. That counts, unless you think voluntarism is going to achieve your aims.
So yes the Celtic tiger has produced a class that is more confident, and will take the loss of jobs quietly, when the shit hits the fan.
i think IGB could have being abright spark but that failed.
But now is better than 1980. IMHO

by Paul H Fri Aug 23, 2002 17:06

The previous poster believes that a working class has to be well-off before a revolution.

I would agree that there has to be confidence in the class, and a class conciousness, for a revolution to happen.

In Russia in 1917 the workers had experiences years of economic problems and a brutal war that devastated the country.

by jo - swp Fri Aug 23, 2002 19:14

Where going to have a March! so ha ha
Oh do you want to buy a paper?

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Sun Aug 25, 2002 14:48 kevinwingfield at oceanfree dot net

What the SWP actually says
People should read what we actually say about the balance of class forces and the outlook for revolutionaries rather than what our opponents say we say.
Does the SWP believe “revolution is around the corner”?
No. We have never said revolution is around the corner or predicted imminent revolution here.
Those who say we have are motivated either by ignorance or malice -- neither of which is an adequate basis on which serious discussion by serious people can take place.
Does the SWP describe the situation we face as “the 1930s in slow motion”.
Yes. And here’s why.
The later 1960s and early 1970s represent the highpoint of radicalism, particularly in the West. Just a few examples:
In France the student revolt in 1968 detonated the biggest general strike in history and factory occupations. President De Gaulle fled the country until he was sure of the backing of key army generals.
In Italy a huge movement emerged which saw massive strikes, demonstrations and occupations. The far left grew massively.
The US was defeated in Vietnam despite overwhelming military superiority by three factors: (1) The Vietnamese fought determinedly; (2) The massive anti war movement in the states was causing widespread radicalisation and (3) This infected the US army in Vietnam that more and more refused to fight. The civil rights movement; the black power, students and women’s movements all fed this mass movement of revolt.
In the North this was the time of the civil rights movement when masses of Catholics stood up to say they would not accept being second class citizens anymore.
A much more complete description of this period is available in Chris Harman’s “The Fire Last Time” email me for details of the book.
By the end of the seventies, our rulers had got the upper hand again. In France the hegemony of the Communist Party who wanted to do a deal with the French ruling class had politically disarmed the movement and been a major factor in the re-establishment of the authority of the right.
Similarly in Italy, where the right used terrorist outrages as part of a “strategy of tension” In the US with the end of the Vietnam war and the incorporation of many former activists into the Democratic Party, the movement went into decline. In the North the political failure of the Left mean it was Republicanism whose ideas predominated and the mass movement was demobilised as the IRA armed strategy took over.
In Britain, while there had been a growth in the far left, the much larger influence of reformism had managed to demobilise rank and file resistance in the work places.
The eighties saw a large swing to the right. Strike days collapsed; left-wing ideas were eclipsed as Thatcherism and Reaganomics reigned supreme. That didn’t mean there were no important struggles but most were defensive and most were defeated (eg the British miners who had succeeded in bringing down the Tory government in the 1970s but whose industry was destroyed in the 1980s despite a heroic rearguard struggle). In these circumstances the whole of society saw a shift to the right. We described this as a “downturn”.
In the South it will be remembered the SPUC anti abortion amendment was passed 2 to 1 in 1983; the H-Block campaign and the movement it inspired on the streets was unsuccessful and the government was able to impose, vicious cuts in public spending without effective resistance, while the union leaders were able to shut down solidarity action with the two-tier picket and copper faster their collaboration with the government and employers through “Social Partnership”.
In the nineties some of this ice began to break up. In mid-decade there was the re-emergence of important strike waves in a number of countries of continental Europe; In the South we saw the X case and the partial reversal of the 1983 Amendment.
This is all broad brush strokes and not without some over-simplification. But the essential point remains: the beginnings of a revival in the movement and class struggle.
What about the analogy of the 1930s in slow motion?
In 1929 the Wall Street crash was a symptom of a massive crisis of the system. Soon widescale impoverishment and unemployment and the ruin of masses of people was commonplace. When the bottom falls out of the lives of millions of people the middle ground disappears in politics. In Germany as is well known both the Nazis and the Communists grew massively. By January 1933 the Nazis had won state power (thanks in part to the madness of Communist Party policy at the time). Across Europe both the fascists and the communists grew. In Spain the crisis led to revolution and counter revolution and the victory of Franco. The point was a devastating crisis of capitalism left no way out other than revolution or fascism and war.
Today the same features are present but in attenuated form and moving at a slower pace.
The gathering economic crisis is not yet as severe as the 1930s (not in Europe, Japan or USA but Argentina, and much of the rest of Latin America as well as Asia and Africa are every bit as bad) but the graph of economic development is now firmly downward which means that widescale systematic reforms are no longer possible (although politically reformism is still very much alive).
This radicalisation to both the Left and the Right is apparent.
The anti capitalist movement is now a world-wide phenomenon (the 300,000 who marched in Genoa last summer is only one recent example as is the enormous World Social Forum events in Porto Alegre in Brazil last winter) which Sept 11 only temporarily wrong-footed. The massive sales of “No Logo” are another example of an ideological swing. Anti war sentiment is obvious not only in the Middle East and Asia but also in Europe and the USA (despite a massive media onslaught).
On the other hand the Nazi Le Pen was o the run off in the French presidential elections, Berlusconi in Italy share power with Fini’s fascists and Heider’s fascists are in the Austrian government. Many will be familiar with the serious threat posed by the BNP in Britain.
This is the basis of the analogy of the 1930s in slow motion. Obvious it is only an analogy but it describes a reality and points to a challenge: Either the far-right or the far left will shape the radicalisation over the years to come.
It’s about time we got our act together.
I hope this has been of some help..
Kevin Wingfield,
Socialist Workers Party
kevinwingfield@oceanfree.net

by b Mon Aug 26, 2002 00:41

if you can "defend" the swp here on this why not try your hand at the resonse to the swp's open letter on nice? ah go on!

by x Mon Aug 26, 2002 10:49

Still stuck in right and left, eh?

Whenever you wake up you'll find a few other dualities growing in importance, particularly the issue of diversity vs global mono-culture.

Trying to fit today's word into port Karl's theories needs more contortions and gymnastics every day.

Your motives should be respected, but clinging to Karl just makes you irrelevant - which is why nobody votes for you.

by Kevin Wingfield - Socialist Workers Party Mon Aug 26, 2002 13:35 kevinwingfield at oceanfree dot net

If your'e interested you can find my comments posted on that thread.
Kevin Wingfield
Socialist Workers Party

by moses Mon Aug 26, 2002 13:36

Hardt and negri sitting in a tree.
K.I.S.S.I.N.G

by chekov Mon Aug 26, 2002 17:50

Kevin, the conversation that I recounted about 1996 did actually happen, I'm not lying. Also, anybody who has been around the left for a while will recognise the characteristic that SWP junior members tend to have an extremely unrealistic outlook on the proximity of the revolution. Do you deny this? Why would you imagine it exists? Did the SWP's international switch in the early 90's from being a 'propaganda group' to being an 'agitation group' based on the theory that we were entering a period of class polarisation when it was vital that a relatively simple line was propagated to a large number of people in time for the impending revolution?

These questions are not just rhetorical, these are things I've come across from my interactions with the SWP, I'd be interested in the answers.

by Kevin Wingfield - Socialist Workers Party Mon Aug 26, 2002 21:03 kevinwingfield at oceanfree dot net

"Chekov" tells us he had a conversation with a someone or other six years ago and asks me to comment. He also asks me to judge whether he is lying or not.

Are you joking? Serious political discussion is not based on "some bloke told me the SWP thinks this". Or "everyone knows" this that or the other.

I have at some length spelt out the SWP position on these questions above.

Our publications go into greater depth. They are not so hard to find. If you are simply in the business of retailing gossip and innuendo I have nothing to say to you.

Kevin Wingfield
Socialist Workers Party

by Chekov Tue Aug 27, 2002 14:28

This is not innuendo, "Kevin", I'm just asking for clarification of things that I have observed. By burying your head in the sand and pretending that this perspective does not exist in the SWP, you are losing your credibility. The opinions that I have expressed seem to me to be very common among non-SWP lefties, you might want to ignore this but it doesn't help your credibility.

Where in the SWP publications can I find discussion of the agitation group / propaganda group ideas or am I simply misiformed? The only place where I ever saw this discussed was in internal ISO documents which were not available to the public, I'd appreciate a pointer to more information.