My life in the SWP: a memoir

national | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis Thursday April 01, 2004 14:11 by M. K. - None

When I jopined the SWP, the local branch, comprising some half-dozen members, was (rightly) pouring all of its energy into the newly emerged anti-capitalist movement. I made the decision to join quickly after starting my first year at college.

Before this author relates the story of his own involvement with the SWP, let him give you one piece of advice: Kids, don't try this at home. As a Dublin high-school student, yours truly was a diligent reader of the left-wing press, both big and small, reliable and zany, thoughtful and dogmatic. As a result, he had honed his skills at being able to tell the real deal from the charlatans, and the committed from the merely cultish. Therefore, he knew what to expect from the Jehovah's Leninists, and joined them only out of curiosity, with plans to get out as soon as possible. The inexperienced and the less wary may be in for an unpleasant surprise, so be forewarned.

So why did I join an insular clique whose methods I found ineffective and often juvenile, and which I knew I would leave at the first opportunity?

To be crudely frank, I was curious. They claimed to advocate that synthesis of all militant movements for social change that socialists at their best have always promoted - a prospect that was, is, and ought to be appealing to many activists. One should never doubt, though, that the SWP's priority is not the support of all militant movements for social change, but rather the use of progressive movements as recruiting grounds for the SWP (a process which the organization's commissars see as ipso facto synonymous with "building the socialist alternative"). The few who stay in the group for more than a few months see the high attrition rate not as a sign that the SWP itself might be doing something wrong, but as proof positive that not everybody is cut out to be part of the would-be Vanguard of the Revolution. The result is the creation of the hardened cadres the group was designed to create.

When I jopined the SWP, the local branch, comprising some half-dozen members, was (rightly) pouring all of its energy into the newly emerged anti-capitalist movement. I made the decision to join quickly after starting my first year at college. It seemed the rational thing to do at the time for several interrelated reasons: most importantly, the minute I showed interest, I was besieged with demands to join. These were fast acquiring the irritating quality of a broken record, and as long as the expedient would do no harm, the simple desire to do what was necessary to shut them up was good enough for me. Second, I had a hunch that being on "the inside" would put me in a better position to do what I could to reign in the damaging tendencies I was sure the Trots possessed. In hindsight, I can't help but conclude that I was more or less correct in making the decision I did. Being a member, and an active one at that, allows you to see the logic behind the SWP's sometimes bizarre behavior.

Most have contact with the SWP only because of one of their vaunted weekly "public meetings"- you know, when they practically bathe their habitat in posters inviting the public to come hear the SWP's take on a particular topic of social, political, or historic interest, and end up invariably offering the same solution: Join The SWP. But beyond these, there are the "cadre meetings," which are members-only events where the apparatchiks see to it that the foot-soldiers are behaving in a manner conducive to "building" the organization. (Incidentally, while use of the verb "to build" is fairly common- especially on the left- in reference to parties and coalitions, the SWP has an inordinate fondness for the word. They build the SWP. They build *Socialist Worker* paper sales. They build "fightbacks." They build meetings. They damn well build near everything. Their use of the idiom has reached a point where it is devoid of content and is little more than a rhetorical device) The meetings are also intended to consolidate members' adherence to the theoretical line of the organization, which- despite the leadership's insistence otherwise- is more or less written in stone. Because the SWP is so small, those who disagree with one aspect of the line or another are not technically unwelcome in the organization, but when members voice these disagreements, the response of the commissars is to say: "Well, we'll have that argument." And they do not lie; the argument follows shortly. The understanding, though, is that those disagreements that do exist will eventually be pounded out of the deviationist, and that said member will eventually recognize the error in his/her thinking.

An arcane but illustrative topic is the SWP position on the Soviet Union. Here, as elsewhere, the group has a set dogma: unadulterated glorification of the early years following the Revolution coupled with unadulterated vilification of the years following the death of Lenin and the eventual expulsion of Trotsky. The position is free of nuance; all of the problems that arose during the early years are blamed on circumstance, and while the SWP admits that the Bolsheviks made "mistakes," they can acknowledge no fundamental problems with Bolshevik theory, practice, or organization.

Similarly, they acknowledge none of the positive effects of the later USSR on world politics (such as the fact that the Soviet Union defeated Hitler, or that its indispensable aid to the African National Congress struggle against apartheid were, on the whole, good things). Personally, I found the SWP position doctrinaire. But in any event, one would think that we could all agree to disagree, as the vast distance in time and the incredible difference in circumstances between Russia in 1917 and Ireland 90 years later would have rendered the entire subject sufficiently unimportant. Not so; anyone who has spent more than five minutes in conversation with an SWP member knows that they have the capacity to talk endlessly about the Russian Revolution and the necessity of accepting their assessment of its history. Granted, no historical event is entirely devoid of lessons for current practice, but no matter what a person's position on what happened in Petrograd in 1917, it should be obvious that Leninist theory and organization hold very little relevance for practice today. Tactics and strategy originally developed for use by a persecuted band of revolutionaries in early-twentieth-century Tsarist Russia would have to be altered unrecognizably to fit the circumstances of the 21st century Ireland. But the SWP does not recognize this fact, and that is the real reason for their obsession with the Defense of October.

The group makes no secret that its organisation is clearly to be modeled on classic Leninist lines, with an emphasis on the principle of "democratic centralism." This principle states that debate within the organization is to be unrestricted, but that once the entire party votes on a particular question, all members are obligated to defend that position in public as the position of the party. To a degree, this position makes sense; it is argued that at some point action needs to be taken without the group being hamstrung by infighting. But in practice, the result is even more infighting, as orthodox members sow suspicion of those who voice dissident opinions or who seem otherwise insufficiently committed.

And while the Trotskyite movement has always claimed to be a more democratic alternative to Stalinism, Trotskyite organizations have historically been plagued by factionalism to a greater degree than any other "democratic-centralist" movement of similar pretentions. Historically, those who have disagreed with a party line in some way have been expelled or forced to quit (usually with mutual accusations of counter-revolution) and subsequently formed their own organizations, which subsequently split as well, and so on.

"Cadre meetings" are festivals of both Maoist-style "self-criticism" and backstabbing of other left activists, as well as speculation on the loyalties of those members who do not attend them. In the case of suspect activists, without and sometimes within the organization, the term "middle class" and "petty bourgeois" get thrown around a lot. It would be too simple of me to point out the fact- and it is a fact- that those members who come from the most privileged backgrounds are the most likely to use this term as apejorative. The issue is not whether the SWP is itself petty-bourgeois; rather, the SWP is merely *petty*. That is why one shouldn't feel the slightest bit guilty about criticizing them. Granted, left unity is important, and we should never offer encouragement to the red-baiters and witch-hunters of the right. But the SWP has no problem with castigating other progressive groups for alleged inaction, nor does it hesitate to take a piss on any and all activists who do not meet the standards of this self-appointed Vanguard of the Working Class.

Red-baiting is a serious problem which has had disastrous consequences in Ireland, but the SWP belittles this terrible history by dismissing any and all criticism as "red-baiting ." Its members are literally unable to tell the difference between a statement such as "Go back to Russia, you commies" and a statement more along the lines of "Look, I don't want to buy your newspaper, I'm just here to support issue x." Similarly , even though the last thing the Movement needs these days is a lot of senseless infighting over who is or is not a Genuine Prole, the SWP uses the term "middle class" to refer not to a person's class, but to anyone who disagrees with the SWP, which through a dialectical process holds the *real* "working-class" position.

As with all sects, supreme emphasis is placed on the sale of the organization's newspaper. There is little I can say about this newspaper. For the most part, the Irish *Socialist Worker* is made up of exhortation, of exhortation, and of exhortation principally composed of crude slogans.

One of the more surreal moments of my SWP experience surrounded the sale of *Socialist Worker*. At one cadre meeting, we were discussing the reluctance of branch members to sell it. As you can imagine, I was one of the worst offenders: I would carefully hide my copies of the paper under my petition. After asking people to sign the petition, I would merely thank them, and they would generally be on their way. Rarely did I ever bother to make the pitch for the paper, and then only to placate a nearby SWP comrade. In any event, other members were somewhat reluctant as well.

The stories of SWP fanaticism and incompetence could go on, but by now the reader should have a sufficient understanding of the nuttiness of the sect. That does not necessarily solve the problem of how to deal with them, however.

In my personal case, I was the first to jump on a proposal by the SWP leadership that we initiate a broader coalition, Globalise Resistance, to incorporate all who were interested in acting in solidarity with the anti-capiatlist movement.. The SWP intended the group to be a front. The commissar told me flatly: "No, we don't do that," but of course I knew otherwise. I quickly realized the extent of the SWP's disengagement from reality. The SWP repeatedly suggested that "we" had to "give the lead," per their usual habit of thinking themselves the true leaders of the movement. But I left, I just had had enough.