New Book on the SWP

by XXXX Wed Nov 19, 2008 17:52

Well Observer have you discovered a unique new way to avoid paying for things if so would you please share it with the rest of us. You ask for free propaganda for workers.
How do you suggest that free propaganda for workers should be provided? You say put the book about the SWP online. Would that mean it is being provided to workers for free?
No. Any person who wanted to access the book would have to buy a computer, pay for access to the internet and a broadband subscription. If, like most people they then prefer to read a book on paper, (not on a computer screen which is very restrictive as it restricts where and when you can read, as well as being hard on the eyes) you will have to have a printer, paper and ink all of which cost money.
Nothing is free not even access to political ideas and unlike yourself the majority of people don't object to paying especially when the books, papers or magazines are reasonably priced and are not being produced to make profit or enrich the authors. How much does this book cost that it prompts Observer to call for it to be free...£25, £15, £10...no the vast sum of £6...get real Observer the Socialist Party will not be enriched as you call it by printing and selling a book for £6.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Wed Nov 19, 2008 13:57

Because publishing a book costs money. Selling it helps to recoup those costs. Eventually, once the costs or a substantial portion of the costs have been covered, the Socialist Party generally puts its publications online. If it did otherwise, pretty soon it wouldn't be in a position to produce books, magazines etc.

If you want the book, you have two choices. Buy it now and help pay for its production or wait until costs have been covered and get it free at some point in the future.

by Observer Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:21

May I ask why the SP don't put this book by Taaffe online now, rather than wait? Then we can all evaluate the fruits of his wisdom, without having to boost the SP's coffers to do so.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Nov 18, 2008 18:32

James:

A little while ago you were vehemently denying that the SWP were dropping significant elements of their own politics or pushing a non-socialist, non-class based alternative. You argued that this came down to my claims versus your claims and that no further progress was possible. When I respond with a quite considerable amount of evidence to back up my point of view - evidence which other people can check if they are so minded - you end the discussion. I think that anyone reading can draw their own conclusions.

Here's a more up to date version of the same thing:

Your search - site:people-before-profit.org socialism - did not match any documents
Your search - site:people-before-profit.org "working class" - did not match any documents.
"Socialist" gets three hits, one of which refers to the Dutch Socialist Party and one of which refers to Joe Higgins!

JP:

As you are probably well aware, the Socialist Party has been a prominent presence at all of the protests against the budget cuts so far. And regardless of the state of your eyesight, the Socialist Party has so far distributed tens of thousands of leaflets about different aspects of the cuts. Unlike some people it seems we are capable of carrying out both agitational work and political discussion and debate at the same time.

And by the way, my problem with the SWP is not just that they have for some reason ditched terms like socialism. The issues goes beyond terminology - it isn't as if they have substituted some explanation of democratic workers control of the economy for the term. They have dropped those very concepts in their electoral and other broad work.

As for our meetings on left unity, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The Socialist Party is trying to assemble a broad slate of left candidates for the forthcoming local elections. We want to unite the serious candidates on an agreed and principled basis, as a small step towards creating a new working class party. We will see how other forces respond. But regardless of whether we work with other people for an election that does not mean that we will suspend our critical faculties when it comes to their politics and methods.

by socialistworlddotcom Tue Nov 18, 2008 15:02

Videos of Socialism 2008 which took place in London on 7 - 9 November are available and include videos of a debate between the Socialist Party and the SWP.

You can view them here -

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6614

by socialistworlddotcom Tue Nov 18, 2008 13:50

James SWP your flippant replies are reflective of the flippant attitude your party has to politics and doesn't surprise me at all. You haven't even tried to answer any of the points that have been raised here about the SWP in Ireland or Britain and I assume it is because you are not capable of giving any credible answers.

Rory SWP - Rory Hearne was a member of the SWP when he stood for PBPA in the elections and I think he was the editor of Socialist Worker at the time.

JP SWP - If you think that it is unimportant that a socialist makes no mention of socialism in their election material or doesn't tell the electorate that they are a member of a political party, that they hide their politics and try to pretend they are something else then you need to seriously question why you are even involved in politics. I would not want to be associated with someone who is that dishonest. Also are you seriously try to argue that the Socialist Party has not been campaigning against social partnership and the cutbacks?

E SWP - When the CWI did entry work into the ex-social democratic parties we never hid our politics or revolutionary programme and we consistently criticised the right wing and left leaders of those parties and at the forefront of our work was a campaign for a socialist programme. That is why they expelled us all.

by Politico Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:09

The above thread, reminds me of the quote, which roughly goes. College politics is so petty and nasty, precisely because there is so little at stake. Both parties are trying to convince us that they are the light, both parties are tiny, both parties fight like cat and dog. These parties cannot work together, never mind run the country. Both parties are talking nonsense while the country goes down the tubes. Get a grip people, and come in to the real world.

by rory - none Tue Nov 18, 2008 09:46

rory hearne's not in the swp...
and so doesnt suprise anyone that he wouldnt mention the swp in his materials....
he quit a while back....

by james - SWP personal Tue Nov 18, 2008 09:37

so sorry for not taking a thread on indymedia as seriously as our desperate comrades in the SP seem to have done! :-)
YES i was flippant in my replies...WHY? because i dont see any valid criticisms to reply to...
this is my last post on this thread as it will GO NOWHERE!!!

does this attack by the SP on the SWP signify an attempt by the SP to consolidate their own members? you know..attack someone in order to rally the ranks etc!?

BYE!

PEOPLE before PROFIT meeting tonight WYNNES hotel 7:30pm TUES 18th NOV
speaker inclu. Vincent Browne and Joan Collins....
RESIST the BUDGET CUTS!

by JP - - Tue Nov 18, 2008 09:14

Deeds not words my millitant friend. I didn't see one SP leaflet on the pay deal and the sp have been very quiet recently with the cuts. Oh that's right your busy bickering with the swp over the inclusion of the words socialism in their literature. Oh they will be flocking to your meetings on left unity now. Go to bed Mark- its well past bed time.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Nov 18, 2008 02:13

James wrote:
"yeah thought that letter might have been dodgy... :-)
but anyway still doesnt get us any closer to bringing this 'debate' to any kind of conclusion...
you say we act a certain way..i say we dont...
you say we believe certain things which i know for a fact we dont..."

You thought that letter might have been dodgy, but you still went and dug it up? That's not a very honest or serious approach to political debate, is it?

On the issues you mention, Lukacs, the experience of Militant in the 1980s, your theory of reformism and how that relates to your current practice, there is no point in simply referencing opinions you might have in passing. If any of these things are in your view important, you should make your case about them. I certainly would be interested in seeing the kind of tortuous logic that could get from History and Class Consciousness to the tepid left-liberalism of People Before Profit.

You say that there is no point in having this debate because it reduces quickly to competing claims about what the SWP do and believe. This is a bizarre characterisation of the discussion. Firstly, I'm not interested in making any strong claims about what you do or do not believe. I'm not a mind reader. I'm interested in what you actually do in practice, and on that score anyone reading has other evidence to rely on beyond my claims and your claims. Some people will have read People Before Profit leaflets, or looked at its website or heard SWP leaders speak on its behalf.

After the last election, because of a similar discussion to this I actually went and looked through a great deal of People Before Profit election literature. This wasn't the most exciting hour or two I've ever spent but I was fed up of having SWP members resort to blank denial in discussions on this site or elsewhere when I raised some of these issues. Below is what I found. I'll leave it to others to decide if the evidence fits with my view that the SWP in its electoral work is soft peddling its beliefs and writing its socialist views out of the picture, or if it fits with your view that the SWP is doing no such thing.

"socialist", "socialism", "SWP", "Socialist Workers Party" and "working class"

In response to similar bluster from another SWP member on this site, I actually undertook the deeply tedious task of searching through the election material of two randomly chose SWP/PBPA candidates. These were Rory Hearne, who stood in Dublin South East, and Richard Boyd Barrett, who of course stood in Dun Laoghaire. I went through their material (and there was a lot of it) looking for any uses of the words "socialist", "socialism", "SWP" and "Socialist Workers Party". I started by taking a look at Rory Hearne's material.

Rory is a long standing SWP activist and socialist. He appeared on the ballot paper as non-party. His election posters described him only as a member of the People Before Profit Alliance. In other words there was no mention of any of the above words on the ballot or on his posters. I've just gone through the array of press releases on his website. Again none of them mention any of the above words. There is a biography of the candidate on the website, which lists a whole range of political campaigns he has been involved in, but strangely omits his involvement in the SWP and doesn't mention his socialist beliefs.

I then moved on to the rest of his extensive website and to his main election leaflets. The first of the leaflets again omits all of the above words and phrases. So does all of his website bar the fifth page, which is a description of the People Before Profit Alliance. There in a sidebar, "socialists" are included in last place in a list of types of people who are involved in the PBPA. There is no reference to Rory being a Socialist or to his SWP membership. His two other leaflets include a similar section in the small print, listing the "Socialist Workers Party" as one of a wide range of components of the PBPA. Again no reference is made to Rory being a socialist or an SWP member.

In conclusion, some of Rory's material made reference in the small print to the SWP or socialists as one component part of the PBPA amongst many. Most of it did not even do that. None of it described him as a socialist or as an SWP member.

Then I took a look at Richard Boyd Barrett's material.

Richard again is a long standing SWP member and socialist and is, like Rory a member of the central leadership of the SWP. Like Rory, he appeared on the ballot paper as non-party. Again, like Rory his posters described him only as a member of the People Before Profit Alliance and made no reference to his SWP membership or to his socialist beliefs. There are no less than 27 press releases on his website. I've just bored myself almost to tears by going through all of them. Unsurprisingly not one of them mentions any of the words "socialist", "socialism", "SWP", or "Socialist Workers Party". This includes the assorted press releases which explain who Richard is, what he stands for and what his views are. I think some of us may have started to discern a pattern at this stage.

Similarly the biography on his website and the section on what he stands for make no mention of his long and ongoing involvement with the SWP, nor do they mention his socialist views. The first of his main election leaflets again makes no reference to any of the above terms.

One of his leaflets and the corresponding page on his website to the one I mentioned above include ,on a sidebar, "socialists" as the last group amongst a series of types of people involved in the PBPA. They do not mention the SWP, nor do they mention that Richard is himself a socialist. A second leaflet is a minor exception to this pattern - buried in the small print on page 2, it refers to "socialists like Richard" as one of the groups involved in the PBPA. This is the only place in his huge quantity of material where he is described as a socialist. Nowhere at all is reference made to his membership of the SWP. I then decided to start looking for the phrase "working class" in the People Before Profit Alliance election material. I didn't currently have time to do as thorough a search as I carried out above, but I did look through Richard Boyd Barrett's website and his three main election leaflets. The number of times the phrase "working class" was used was... zero, although there was a brief bit about "workers rights" to join a union in one of his leaflets.

So in 44 pieces of election material examined, covering two different SWP leaders standing as PBPA candidates we find: One reference in the small print of a leaflet to Richard Boyd Barrett as a socialist. No references to Rory Hearne as such. No references to Richard as an SWP member. No references to Rory as such. A more limited search showed no references to the the working class or to class politics at all.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Nov 18, 2008 00:51

To E:

Once more, disagreement and debate are a vital part of building a socialist movement and that will sometimes involve criticising the mistaken ideas and methods of other organisations. That's much healthier than a forced unanimity, where disagreements are swept under the carpet until inevitably they raise their head and bring the fudged "unity" down with it. Sectarianism does not mean criticising some small group on the left. It means putting the interests of your small group over those of the wider workers movement. Shouting "sectarian" is not an all purpose defence that allows a left wing organisation to avoid criticism.

You say that you "could" write a criticism of the strategy of Militant when it was part of the Labour Party. Why don't you? I think that there's much to be learned from the experience - from an experience of Marxists working in a very much broader and more significant party than the People Before Profit shell, the advantages and disadvantages of that tactic and the things that Militant got right and the mistakes that it made. If you have something important or useful to say about it, by all means do so. You don't get "non-sectarian" brownie points for keeping your trap shut if you have something of merit to say. I don't think that socialists should take some vow of Omerta where they agree not to mention political issues if they might involve criticising some policy or other.

it's interesting that you mention that there are lessons to be learnt from the Respect fiasco. But again, you don't tell us what you think those lessons may be. Personally I think that the Respect experience should be very instructive for Irish socialists. We had a socialist organisation looking for allies to its right (by no means an unreasonable thing to do) and making a whole series of organisational and political compromises to do so. We had an "alliance" with little real existence on the ground getting a substantial number of votes, off the back of some, in my view, very unprincipled tactics and approaches. We also saw an organisation where the structure was ruthlessly controlled by the SWP and where disagreements were solved (or rather hidden) through diplomacy at the top rather than open debate in the ranks. And finally we had the whole dismal collapse and the bizarre sight of the SWP running around saying things about their former allies that they vigorously denounced other people as "islamophobic" for saying just a few months earlier.

As for your final point about "learning to work with others on the left", the cheek of that coming from a member of the SWP takes my breath away.

by JP - - Mon Nov 17, 2008 23:52

Funny that Bertie-Fagans (aka SP member) I listened to Richard Boyd Barrett speak on RTE radio recently with Eamon Dunphy and talk openly about his membership of the SWP, of socialism. In fact the issue of swp and pbp arose in a question and RBB declared himself a socialist and a member of the swp. Check out the rte website if you don't believe me. Word of advice to sp members here- (many decent sp members out there that don't believe the rot by members on here).stop the rot.

by E - not really ex swp Mon Nov 17, 2008 21:52

To comrade Mark and "I never said I was Lenin" Stephen, you really cant take the high moral ground on this tread after unleashing a torrent of sectarian sniping, Regardless of what you believe, or allege, you have no creditbility to debate with swp members. I could spend many a useless hour argueing that all the years you remained in the labour Party you had to hide your revolutionary programme and canvess for vile right wingers who never supported womans rights.
I could , but I wont as it is silly at this stage. Respect failed, we tried it but it failed. The idea of Respect at the time of the Iraqi war was valid, it was historic that an anti war MP beat a pro war Labour one... and a great pity fellow socialists couldnt celebrate it at the time.Are there lessons to be learned , yes, without doubt, but you Mr Boyd are not one that any member of the swp will listen to on this or any issue. Until you demostrate that you can stop lieing on what the swp say, mean and stand for no one will listen to you. Until you learn a little humility on your own parties less than perfect history no one will listen to you and until you show that you can work with fellow socialists without resorting to this rubbish no one will listen to you.

by james - SWP personal capacity Mon Nov 17, 2008 21:38

yeah thought that letter might have been dodgy... :-)
but anyway still doesnt get us any closer to bringing this 'debate' to any kind of conclusion...
you say we act a certain way..i say we dont...
you say we believe certain things which i know for a fact we dont...
i dont believe richard boyd barrett has 'renounced' marxism for a second unlike taafe who on many occasions in the 80's declared that socialism was achievable through parliament and the Labour Party once it had accepted the Militant programme (can provide concrete quotes if ye like!)...
now THAT's centrism!
the core of SWP analysis always lay in the marxist tenet that 'the emacipation of the working class is the act of the working class' ...which is why we opposed the imperialism of the USSR in the 'people democracies' of the Eastern Bloc...
Tanks cant impose socialism from above...neither can councils negotiating...
but we also have always recognised the analysis provided by georgi luckacs in 'history and class conciousness' that the objective structure of capitalism both conditions the atomisation and alienation of the worker and forces him to struggle against that same alienation.. upon this we build a theory of reformism and how to relate to it as a concrete determinant of present day struggle...
PBP is our attempt to apply our theorys to pratice,and the arena of class struggle not the SP will put it to the test...
seeing as that is the case you can disagree with our perspective but to call us opportunist or unprincipled is out of line....

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Mon Nov 17, 2008 20:39

This is fairly dismal stuff, James and John, from both of you.

John:

There is little or no content to your post, other than to imply that the Socialist Party has somehow ended up outside "the broad movement" criticising it. That's nonsense on an impressive number of levels for a post so short. What "broad movement" is the Socialist Party outside? For that matter what "broad movement" is the Socialist Party criticising? Changing your name to "People Before Profit" does not make the SWP into a "broad movement", no matter how hard you may wish it so. Disagreeing with the SWP, even if the SWP is wearing a nice, fluffy, broad, hat is not the same as taking a sectarian attitude towards a real movement.

As for a "united front of a particular kind", this would presumably be a kind so special that it involves none of the things a united front normally involves. No mass organisations. No open debate and disagreement. No limited tactical objectives. In which case why distort an existing, clearly defined, category rather than coming up with some new, different, name for your new tactic?

James:

Are you serious? Your response to the measured criticisms that have been made on this thread is to dig up a ten year old article written by a CPGB/Weekly Worker member, filled with the usual mix of delusion and outright lies that that particular publication specialises in? I could dig up dozens of similar Weekly Worker articles making stuff up about the SWP instead if you like, but I won't because the source is completely unreliable and I prefer to ground my arguments about politics on facts and ideas rather than the decade old rantings of fantasists.

You add in your other post the claim that you agree that there should be open debate about political issues. I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps you would be better off telling that to some of your anonymous party colleagues from earlier in this thread who were so busy feigning outrage at the very idea that somebody might publish a detailed criticism of the SWP's ideas.

As for whether or not someone was correct in saying that some SWP leader recently argued that socialists shouldn't openly push socialist views, I can't say as I wasn't at the meeting in question. What I can say is that in practice the SWP have done everything they can to avoid openly arguing for socialist politics or a class analysis in People Before Profit, in the anti-war movement and in other campaigns and forums. Instead they try to present themselves as the most fervent believers in whatever set of limited reforms a campaign is concerned with.

Let me be clear about something before I finish. SWP members have tried to portray the difference between the Socialist Party and themselves as being about whether or not we should work with others outside our ranks or whether or not we would support a broad party of the working class. This is a deeply and deliberately misleading way to pose the issue as the Socialist Party has an extremely long and effective history of working with people outside our ranks (a rather more successful history of that than the SWP has managed, by the way) and has made it very clear that we want to see the creation of a new working class party in Ireland.

Our criticism is not of the SWP wanting to work with broader forces, but of the opportunist and politically unprincipled way in which they seek to do it. The dropping of open socialist politics. The preference for liberal or populist platitudes instead of class politics. The sectarian attempts to present themselves and a handful of allies as "the broad movement". The combination of approaches so familiar to those on the left who have had the unpleasant experience of dealing with the SWP of the happy clappy public talk of unity combined with the ferociously sectarian backroom manouevre.

by Bertie - Fagans Mon Nov 17, 2008 18:48

The two SWP members should answer what has been written in the posts by the SP members. James you have dragged up an imaginary division in the SP. The Weekly Worker is the political equivalent of Hello magazine. You have posted an article from the Weekly Worker 304 Thursday September 16 1999 by someone who claims to be a member of the SP. And that is meant to be a serious reply to what has been said here! No such argument ever even took place in the SP.
What has any of that nonsense got to do with the points that have been raised here about Respect and People Before Profit Alliance?
Richard Boyd Barrett, who keeps very quiet about his membership of the SWP these days, said in a public debate only last week in UCD that he deliberately did not speak in public about socialism because it would alienate people.

by john - SWP personal capacity Mon Nov 17, 2008 18:05

that SP debate is old and the letter james published is from a few years back but its still relevant...

as for the definition of the 'united front'...PBP is a united front of a particular type...

and i think james understood the definition of 'sectarianism' i think what he meant was the type of group that because it puts its own interests first ends up outside the movement making criticisms of the broad movement that dont lead anywhere...

by james - SWP personal capacity Mon Nov 17, 2008 17:27

Pat Strong of the Socialist Party demands that the organisation's leaders come clean on differences over the SWP and left unity

The recent correspondence between the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (see Weekly Worker September 9) and rumours of a split in the Socialist Party executive committee regarding the question of closer links with the SWP once again raise basic questions concerning our attitude to and practice of internal democracy and revolutionary openness.

A statement by the party's industrial organiser, Bill Mullins, has been circulated to SP members of Unison, allegedly adopting a hardline anti-SWP stance. It urges comrades not to participate in the SWP's lobby of the Labour Party conference on September 26, and condemns that organisation's approach to left unity and its response to the witch-hunts currently taking place in Unison. (I say 'allegedly', because, not being a privileged member of comrade Mullins' inner circle, I have not been permitted to see the document!)

In contrast, loyalists speak of a faction, headed by general secretary Peter Taaffe and national organiser Hannah Sell, that apparently wishes to explore the possibility of closer links with the SWP. However, speaking at a public meeting in Leicester on September 13, Peter Taaffe, in response to an SWP intervention from the floor urging support for the lobby, stated: "As Blair is totally insulated from workers - he has his money from big business - the lobby is a waste of time. It won't change anything, no matter how big, no matter how well attended, so, although individual comrades will be attending, we are not supporting the lobby."

After the meeting, though, the truth was rather different, when Taaffe bluntly asked SP comrades, "Why should we build anything that benefits the SWP?" While this short-sighted sectarianism is not in the least surprising, what is of rather more concern is that the wider issue of left unity is 'debated' in this manner. Other than the publication of the SP/SWP correspondence in Members Bulletin No37, the entire issue has been and is being conducted over the heads of the rank and file. It remains the province of the executive committee.

It is surely a disgrace that only a tiny section of the membership have had sight of Mullins' document. Furthermore, how can an organisation claiming to operate on the principles of democratic centralism (or unity) exclude virtually its entire rank and file from any discussion, never mind one that is so important for the revolutionary movement today as left unity?

Of course, this type of behaviour is symptomatic of the political bankruptcy infecting not just the Socialist Party, but much wider sections of the British left. Quite apart from the need to include as much of the class as possible in discussions, quite apart from the importance of allowing workers to distinguish "which leaders are pursuing this or that line" (Lenin), the sharpening of your individual and organisational political programme which results from engaging in informed and often heated exchanges is not only valuable, but is indispensable to the building of a living, breathing, vibrant revolutionary party.

Alas, the converse is also true. The suppression of debate, the policing of your own members, their emphasis on bureaucratic, organisational and administrative forms - these lead as surely as night follows day to a stagnant, moribund political culture where comrades are recruited at the lowest political level and remain there. This results in a kind of political leprosy, with whole chunks dropping from the main torso. For further proof, you need only consider the recent events in Liverpool, Manchester, Pakistan and Scotland.

What is more, such stagnation is inevitably reflected in the pages of your organisation's paper. You will search the pages of The Socialist for signs of a healthy internal life or even for meaty theoretical articles. No, pure agitation is all that is on offer - ain't life hard and, my word, ain't Blair a bad man!

Of course, the justification for this 'dumbing down' approach is the crass idea that the consciousness of the class has been thrown so far back that "The main task facing us now is to win support for a socialist programme and for socialist ideas generally" (Members Bulletin No18, June 1996). As if somehow genuine revolutionaries arguing for a clear revolutionary programme are prevented from discussing with less advanced elements of the class!

This patronising attitude speaks volumes about the kind of society SP loyalists are seeking to establish. Revolution is not about the self-liberation of our class; it is not about raising the working class to the status of a ruling class: no, what we are in effect saying is 'we know best' - involving the class in debate at the highest possible level will only confuse them - after all, their consciousness is very low, isn't it?

Comrade Taaffe, we urgently need to think again. We need a political and cultural revolution, where comrades are recruited, integrated and educated at the sharpest political level; internal bodies need to be fully open and democratic. Debate must involve all sections of the party, the left and our class, and, of course, our paper needs to reflect this.

The idea that anything less will be sufficient to build a genuine revolutionary party with the vibrancy and confidence to lead our class to power is laughable.

At the moment, sadly, the only thing growing in our party is philistinism and demoralisation.

by james - SWP personal comments Mon Nov 17, 2008 17:16

the 30 time delay means that my last post wasnt a reply to your comment as i hadnt read it when i posted....

by james - SWP personal comment Mon Nov 17, 2008 17:11

i do agree that there should be open debate but lets not resort to lies!
the statement that SWP leaders say that we shouldnt talk of socialism in the present period is a complete and utter ridiculous lie!
i find that statement quite venomous and malicious and as a member find it suprising that i've never come across such statements...in fact when Chris Harman from the SWP in britain spoke here in Wynnes hotel a few wks ago he explicitly stated that there was NO excuse for socialists to be defensive in any way about their views...
so maybe the leadership of the SWP has a hidden agenda that not one of our members or organisers have noticed?
trotsky said that 1 in 5 workers is a complete reactionary...1 is a potential revolutionary and there are usually 3 in the middle..
the socialist party want to organise the 1 socialist in every 5...and ignore the rest!
the SWP want to organise the 1 in every 5 but then build a broader organisation that includes the 3 in the middle...
so funny the SP are so terrified of 'diluting' their politics and so they plan to remain in their self referential little sacred pool and dream of red flags and lines in the sand...
i'm sure hope the mass opposition to the recession that's on the cards might help shake them from the clutches of this infantile disorder

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Mon Nov 17, 2008 16:37

James, there are significant problems with the case you put forward.

Firstly on definitions:

1) You don't seem to be clear on what precisely a "united front" is. It's an alliance between a mass revolutionary party and a mass reformist party around limited, agreed goals. Within that alliance both parties continue to openly and vigorously argue out their differences of opinion with the intention of winning over the supporters of their ally, even while the two parties collaborate on the agreed issue. Even leaving aside the issue of whether some useful approach along these lines can be used by smaller organisations, this clearly has little or nothing to do with the People Before Profit Alliance.

What you are describing may be a front but it is not a "united front", in the sense that Marxists have used that term for the last eight decades.

2) People Before Profit may well be intended to give people some experience of "self organisation", but there is no evidence that it is capable of doing so in practice. The branches of People Before Profit, to the limited extent that there even are functioning branches, are entirely led by members of the SWP or a handful of other long term left activists. This isn't people "self-organising", it's the SWP trying to organise them, which may or may not be a good thing but it isn't the same thing.

3) You also don't seem clear about what the term "sectarian" means either. It has nothing to do with criticising anybody. Criticism is a healthy part of political discussion. Neither has it anything to do with whether or not an organisation joins some broad front or other. Sectarianism is putting the interests of your small group ahead of the interests of the wider workers movement.

These kind of definitions matter. It is difficult to make progress in a discussion with someone who insists on using "self-organisation" to mean "organised by my group", "united front" to mean "whatever my group is doing this week" or "sectarian" to mean "critical of my group".

Secondly on the main content of your post:

The Socialist Party has no problem with the idea that a new working class party may well not have a full revolutionary socialist policy. In fact, we consider it likely that it won't. However, there is a lot of political room between a revolutionary socialist programme and the kind of leftish liberalism peddled by the SWP with its People Before Profit hat on.

Marxists will no doubt have to be flexible and to make concessions to accommodate people with more reformist views in any new party that emerges. That's quite different from what the SWP have done, which is to make endless, unnecessary concessions to political forces which don't actually exist in People Before Profit. There isn't some powerful wing of people with reformist ideas that you've made some kind of agreement with. There is just the SWP, and a handful of other long time socialist activists, pretending to be something they aren't.

What's more, the actual political concessions made by the SWP have been so dramatic as to gut People Before Profit of any significant socialist or working class content. You aren't even pretending to be radical reformists with class based politics along the lines of the left of Old Labour. Instead you are pretending to be leftish liberal community activists. Look through the election literature of your candidates in the general election. There are some worthy reforms pushed in their material. But there is little or no mention of socialism or the working class or class politics, the kind of thing that even the likes of Emmet Stagg or Michael D Higgin of a couple of decades ago (ie when they were left wing social democrats) would have had no problems with.

Instead of trying to encourage workers to form a new party, something that will no doubt require some time and patience, the SWP has tried to jump ahead. They've declared the new party on behalf of the working class, they dominate its structure and they've decided its (leftish liberal) politics. All that the working class have to do now is be good little boys and girls and flood into the structure the SWP have so thoughtfully provided for them. This is the opposite of encouraging "self-organisation" and it is "sectarian" in the actual sense of the term.

by james - SWP personal response Mon Nov 17, 2008 14:21

do people enter into struggle and immediately raise red flags? are we at that kind of level of struggle in ireland (or the UK for that matter?)...People before Profit is designed as a form of 'united front' , in other words a vehicle for those who are disatisfied with the mainstream social democratic parties but have not yet come to accept the necessity of revolution.. its function then is to give a political home to working class activists to give them the experience of self organisation which is vital in the development of any kind of revolutionary conciousness...the emancipation of the working class is the act of the class after all...
this SP pamphlet wont change a thing..whether or not people join the SP, the SWP or PBP is a matter of each of those organisations proving themselves in struggle to working class people.. we have to prove our theories...and win trust...
the SP would have had no time for the workers council or the cordones or any other broad vehicle of the masses because they're not 'pure' socialist organisations...
that's the spirit!...isnt that why we(the left in general) failed to stop hitler?
or maybe we should wait until 'history' itself or 'objective' development automatically throws up a mass workers organisation? isnt that fatalistic?
sectarianism is to stand outside broader organisations and criticise
opportunism is to dissolve yourself into the broader movement
the SWP remains the SWP within PBP and so is at least trying to balance between honesty about ones own politics and the deveopment of some kind of broad left unity...

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Mon Nov 17, 2008 00:12

To Observer and others. No one from the Socialist Party has compared any of our members to Lenin, that level of comment is childish and pathetic.
If you believe that politics, ideas, discussion of tactics and method of political work are all irrelevant then that's your choice. This being the premise of your politics or lack of politics then what political parties say or argue for on various issues must be irrelevant to you.
Does it not matter what a political party says or does?
In Britain the SWP through Respect were allied to and promoted people politically, asking the working class to vote for them even though they opposed a woman's right to choose, opposed gay rights and equal rights for women. Some of these allies of the SWP went on to join New Labour, the Liberal Democrats and even the Tories. These political issues and developments according to you are not worthy of comment and are irrelevant.
Leading members of the SWP, a party that proclaims itself to be Marxist have publicly stated that it is wrong to argue in todays world for socialism. Is this not worthy of comment?
Respect was proclaimed to be the new force that would transform British politics - this was supposedly the way forward for the working class. It failed. This has caused a crisis in the SWP in Britain, as well as and far more significantly damaged the idea of trying to build a new working class party. The Respect fiasco has strengthened the so-called "left" union leaders in Britain who oppose splitting with New Labour. "Leave the Labour Party" they say "and end up like Respect!" Is this not worthy of comment? Or should what happened with Respect just be ignored, brushed under the carpet - not to be mentioned again - mistakes to be ignored, not discussed and no attempt made to learn from what took place.
What is worthy of political comment? Should the left only criticise the politics and actions of the right? And then if you don't have political analysis what constitutes right and left?
The Labour Party claim to be on the left, as do Sinn Fein, should socialists and Marxists be uncritical of them also - do they fit into the same catagory as the SWP - those who should never be criticised!
The lets all just join together because there is more that unites us than divides us approach to politics was tried by the SWP - it was called Respect - and it was a disaster.
Maybe if some people read this book or carry out their own independent "research" on the issue and try to learn from the mistakes of others then similar mistakes will not be repeated in Britain and may be avoided in Ireland.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Sat Nov 15, 2008 16:08

I wouldn't perhaps use precisely the same example as Stephen, preferring to use more modern ones, but I think his point is fundamentally correct. Ideas matter. Politics matter. Methods matter. It is better to have an open and honest discussion of these disagreements than to hide them in the name of a "unity" that will fall apart as soon as one of the hidden disagreements becomes an issue.

As for getting this book abroad, it can be purchased from any location from the English and Welsh Socialist Party's online bookshop. In addition, it will eventually be placed online for free, as is the Socialist Party's practice with almost all of its publications.

by redjade Sat Nov 15, 2008 14:00

Michael G: 'But I will buy the pamphlet.'

I am too far away to be able to buy it - perhaps it will be released via the net (CC) creative commons style and then I can read it for free. Then, we could all have an informed discussion.

(CC) ... http://creativecommons.org

by Michael Gallagher Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:10

Are we still in the maze of which are the genuine socialists?
Speaking from the experience of having being in both parties, all I can say is that both parties have their faults and both have their merits as well as having 'good' comrades and 'not so good' comrades.

I wouldn't rejoin either for one simple reason, -and I'm talking from experience- both had a certain undemocratic streak in the way they conducted their business within their ranks, as well as other unsavoury bad habits.

But I will buy the pamphlet.

Roll on the revolution!!

by Observer Sat Nov 15, 2008 09:41

It is interesting how Trotskyists invariably justify their present practice by referringt o events 100 years ago - in Russia. While we can all learn from history, it is preposterous to claim some kind of unfailing direct line with one series of events in one country at one particular time in history. In other words, history may offer points of comparison, but it also offers points of difference that are sometimes more important than the similarities. A great deal has changed in 100 years - above all, we have the experience of the calamity that befell Russia and the socialist movement after the Bolshevik seizure of power, a seizure which within a year had effectively killed off all opposition within the country and disenfranchised the workking class in whose name the seizure took place. If Stephen Boyd and his allies are going to quote history they do so at their peril. Selective renditions of Lenin's alleged 'acccomplishments' look garish at this stage of history.

Beyond that, and for all the faults of the historical Lenin, any suggestion that Peter Taaffe is in the same league shows how a small sect which spends most of its time talking to itself can develop enormous delusions of grandeur. In Taaffe' case, studying his output, I would say that even delusions of adeuacy would be out of place. But to compare his role to that of Lenin is crazy. The difference is like that between listening to an opera one night, and X Factor auditions the next.

Time to move on.

by Kerenskegrad Sat Nov 15, 2008 07:13

Yep, Lenin expended lots of pamphlet and speechifying energy explaining the differences between the bolshy and menshy ' lines' - and history has detailed just what happened to all those Mensheviks and Old Bolsheviks from the third decade onwards. The soviet revolution gobbled up its own children.

by Blenin - none Sat Nov 15, 2008 01:38

"what do the working class care about the theoritical differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks......" would have been thrown at him in his day. Was Lenin correct to devote so much of his time to exposing the false politics and methods of the Mensheviks?"

So the gospel according to Mr Boyd is that the SP are the Bolsheviks of Ireland with the SWP filling the role of the Mensheviks. Some would call this arrogant!

There's a big world out there guys. Wake up!

by redjade Sat Nov 15, 2008 00:20

'Some would have also said that Lenin was wasting his time'

ahhh, that's what we all aspire to be - a Lenin.

Now this thread starts to make sense.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Fri Nov 14, 2008 22:53

Anyone familiar with the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky or James Connolly, will be aware that they wrote numerous polemical articles, pamphlets and books against those who they believed were fradulently claiming to be Marxists and socialists. Lenin spent twenty years writing and arguing against the ideas and methods of the Mensheviks. Some would have also said that Lenin was wasting his time, that he should be instead uniting with those of "similar" beliefs etc, "what do the working class care about the theoritical differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks......" would have been thrown at him in his day. Was Lenin correct to devote so much of his time to exposing the false politics and methods of the Mensheviks? Of course he was. The success of the October Revolution, which the Mensheviks opposed is proof of that. Today, just as then, there is a duty on Marxists to have clarity of ideas, programme and method and those who offer a false perspective should be opposed and exposed. The SWP just like the Mensheviks in their day should be exposed, which is why this book is welcomed.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal Capacity) Fri Nov 14, 2008 03:05

While I appreciate your newfound enthusiasm, I think that perhaps you are going a little over the top. Tell you what, we'll have a chat about it at your first branch meeting on Tuesday.

by E - eX swp Thu Nov 13, 2008 20:30

I agree again Mark. I think we (I say we cause i feel close to you now), I think we should try to convert all those misguided souls in the SWP. Without a real conversion to the SP they are likely to wander in the purgatory of single issue campaigns forever, or decend into the hell of reformism.
Our Task is surely to save their revolutionary souls, and in the process wage an unyielding holy war against all unbelievers who are trying to guide them astray.There is no party but the SP, the SP is great,repent all ye heretics and infidels.History has proven our greatness and our correct strategy on everything from the former workers states of USSR, to ignoring national liberation struggles near and far away, to our masterful leadership of the bin tax struggles.One voice, one party, down with the unbelievers.

I will keep thursdays free for mass conversions of ex swpers, and a little rebirthing or baptism ceremony would be nice I think.

Oh and mark I wouldnt bother given a long and frankly boring history of any of the above issues, some people just arent worth it!

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Nov 13, 2008 00:03

John E:

I quite agree that the average person in the street or most people who are angry about the latest range of savage government cuts won't have much interest in this book. The Socialist Party are not likely to go door to door in Mulhuddart or Swords selling this book. But that doesn't mean that there is no audience for it, or no audience worth speaking to. The SWP, shrunken though it is nowadays, still has many members who are genuine in their desire for a socialist world and an end to capitalist exploitation. It is possible to convince some of them to work in more constructive ways, but not if people hold back from making substantial political arguments to them.

There are also many people who get involved in various single issue campaigns, who want to fight against the government or against the rule of business interests, but who are burned by the antics of the SWP. There can hardly be a person on the hard left in Ireland who hasn't at some stage had the unpleasant and often quite disillusioning experience of involvement in an SWP front. Many, as a result withdraw from the left in general. These people too may be open to an argument that the left is not all like the SWP and that most of the rest of us have very strong disagreements with them about both political ideas and appropriate methods.

Political ideas and methods matter. It is important that the left talk about their disagreements, where those disagreements are significant. And if we are going to try to clarify our differences and win people over to our way of thinking, there is nothing wrong with taking that task seriously.

E:

See, this book is working already. You've been convinced to do something more constructive and you haven't even had to read the thing.

by E - eX swp Wed Nov 12, 2008 22:20

Just want to really agree with albatro and Mark P. There is no content in my comment, how could there be mark? I have been in the swp so long I badly need to be told what to think by "genuine " marxists like you, with your decades upon decades of work and service to the working classes.
And to albatro i suggest we set up a self help group for all those trying to overcome every being involved with any cause that may have had SWP members involved..maybe every wed about 7 would suit, I am busy getting lessons on Tuesdays from the great marxists in the SP.

by Albatrot Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:21

As someone who would participate in a real mass workers party I think debate is important. I definitely wouldn't participate in anything dominated by the politics of the SWP. I've participated in fronts that were dominated by the SWP and its a pointless excercise. Their constant flip flopping between ultra-leftism and reformism is a danger to the workers movement and needs to be highlighted.

by John E - none Wed Nov 12, 2008 09:28

To be honest Mark there are 2 of you in it.
But there is a point in the fact that at this time of massive anger over budget cuts, a pay deal and the potential crisis facing capitalism that the Socialist Party choose to promote a book like this- when there is so much going on- to suggest that this (meaning the book) is what is needed is a farce.
To the ordinary working person, these squabbles are meaningless and in fact boring. At least the swp seem to want unity of some kind- whether it be real unity, but at least they are focussed on the situation at the moment and looking to work with others, the socialist party seem more focussed on sectarian nonsense. In fact I remember the sp in Ireland producing a lengthy pamplet on the politics of the swp a few years back at a time when there was tonnes happening in the 'real' world. And how much further did that pamplet get us in the fight for socialism? Answers on a postcard to...

People who are angry and ready for a fight-back have NO interest in this nonsense- the sp need to get their collective heads out of the sand.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (Personal capacity) Tue Nov 11, 2008 22:49

Was there intended to be some content to that last post, E? Perhaps you hit the submit button by accident? Or is the lack of any substance a result of you getting worked up about a book you haven't actually read?

by E - eX swp Tue Nov 11, 2008 20:06

Where can I sign up for lessons on "genuine" marxist politics and strategy, do you organise night classes, around 7 every Tuesday would suit me. Particularly interested in your great previous sucesses on strategy like staying in the Labour party till they chucked you out, ect ect. Do we have to pay more if one of the great marxists give the lesson.. like Boydo or Hadden?.. worth every penny I say.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Nov 11, 2008 15:55

Actually Dearbhla, the open discussion of disagreements, of ideas and of methods, is absolutely essential to both socialism and to any hopes of "left unity".

The argument that disagreements shouldn't be discussed now because important things are happening in the world is disingenuous at best. It is always possible to point to important events in the world, no matter what is happening, and to therefore claim that it is a diversion to discuss our disagreements. No matter what is going on, people who are opposed to debate on the left can always find some task to point to, to deny the need for what might be an uncomfortable discussion. But doing so is deeply wrong headed. The fact that particularly momentous events are taking place in the world economy makes political clarity more and not less important. When the left is very peripheral, mistakes and foolish ideas matter less than they do in a period when we might expect the left to grow and have more of an impact on society.

By the way, I think from your mentions of Ireland that you may be under the impression that this book has been produced by the Irish Socialist Party. It has not been. It was published by the English and Welsh Socialist Party and deals with the politics of the British SWP (although those politics are for all intents and purposes the same as those of the Irish SWP). Last weekend, the English and Welsh SP invited the British SWP to debate at the Socialism 2008 event, on the subject of how to build a revolutionary organisation today. I understand that the room was packed, which indicates that quite a few people on the left have an interest in debating politics and ideas.

I have to confess that I am baffled by your reference to challenging reformism in Ireland. Far from "challenging reformism" the SWP are currently engaged in a project to create a reformist party of their own. People Before Profit, to the very limited extent that it is an organisation at all, is a reformist organisation. Watering down socialist ideas, to a point where even terms like socialism and working class are dropped, is not a challenge to reformism. It might be a challenge to currently existing reformist parties, but it is not a challenge to reformist ideas.

How precisely are we to challenge reformism by presenting ourselves as reformists?

by Dearbhla - SWP - personal capacity Tue Nov 11, 2008 14:31

A bit ironic that you've chosen to post this under the banner of socialism & left unity. It's hardly likely to help that cause. Obviously parties of the left are perfectly free to criticise one another in print form but it seems bizarre to produce such a booklet at a time when imperial armies and financial institutions are stretched to breaking point, when there is growing anger at the government and when many sections of a confused anti-war movement are demobilising following the results of the US election.

If thousands of people were queuing up to join the ranks of the SWP, one might understand the need to ensure that these potentially fiery revolutionaries had given full thought as to whether Russia was degenerated, deformed or state capitalist but that's not the reality. Understandably the SP needed some introspective analysis following the outcome of last year's disastrous election but greater left unity, not less, is what is needed if a successful challenge to reformism is to be built in Ireland.

The last booklet came out before I had joined the SWP and helped in my decision as to which party seemed more sensible (although admittedly both have more than their fair share of eccentrics). If debate about organisation and tactics is what is needed, it might be more productive to organise a fraternal meeting between activists (the sensible ones) of the two parties to hammer out who stole whose schoolbag, what lessons can be learned and whether it really matters to real people in the real world.

by Albatrot - Independent Socialist Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:51

If the SP and the SWP came together without discussing their differences then the new group would be less than the sum of the parts. Have we not learned our lesson of what it means to get into bed with the SWP leadership from the Socialist Alliance and Respect in Britain. There you have two attemtps at left unity that the SWP wrecked in a systematic fashion by trying to control them. Then you have the opportunistic way in which they approached the bin tax campaign here and their tendency to put the cart before the horse - set up a front group and then ask everyone else to join "your" front. I don't fully agree with the SP criteria for a new left formation but they are right to be wary of the SWP given the experience of the past.

by Historian Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:50

You have it in essence. Only thing to be added is that if either of these awful sects were in power they would not be writing pamphlets about one another, they would be torturing and murdering. And no more difference between them than Seventh Day Adventists break aways.

by me Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:08

don't forget your differences just put them aside for the sake off chance if not change will never come 2+3=5 two different numbers can make one bigger one

by Mark P - Socialist Party (oersonal capacity) Mon Nov 10, 2008 23:14

The idea that the left would do better if only we would forget our differences and avoid disagreeing with each other may be superficially attractive but it is deeply wrong. Sometimes it's put forward by people in a disingenuous manner - somebody is criticising my group, so I will play to the gallery by pretending that there is something inherently nasty and unreasonable about openly arguing disagreements. Sometimes however, it's put forward honestly and for that reason it's worth engaging with.

Ideas matter. Political disagreements matter. Political methods manner. Unity built on trying to hide real disagreements or gloss over incompatible methods will last only until the issues where we disagree rear their heads or we attempt to work with each other in a campaign or struggle and those incompatible methods collide. This may be unfortunate. But it is true, and trying to ignore it has been the undoing of a large number of campaigns and "united" parties down through the years.

Criticising the politics and methods of other organisations and political currents, where those ideas and methods are flawed, is not some nasty hobby engaged in by nasty people. It is a duty of anyone who is serious about building a healthy and powerful left. Firstly, people can be won over by reasoned argument. Secondly, even when no agreement is reached, ideas and disagreements can be clarified. And ironically, the clarification of disagreements actually makes working with people easier than a forced and unreal "unity".

It is not an insult to SWP members to criticise the mistaken politics of their organisation. The Socialist Party recognises that most SWP members are motivated by the same opposition to injustice, the same desire for a socialist future, that motivates our own organisation. One of the audiences this short book has been produced for is SWP members, many of whom will just have happened to join the SWP as the first thing they saw on the left and who may be open to better ideas and methods. SWP members, in my experience, rarely have much knowledge of the history of their own party or of the differences between the politics of the SWP and the views of others on the left.

The Socialist Party does not spend a great deal of time on polemics against other organisations. Our activity is concentrated overwhelmingly on helping workers in struggle, fighting against racism and sexism, and working in the communities. However, clarifying ideas within the socialist movement is itself a part of advancing that movement and when we do produce detailed polemics against the ideas and methods of others on the left they are generally worth reading. I would suggest that E, me and sillybilly would be better off reading this book and evaluating it on its merits than getting on their high horse because someone on the left dared to raise their disagreements with some other organisation in an open and clear way.

by E - FORMER SWP Mon Nov 10, 2008 20:56

I just read your pamplet.. I cant believe how wrong I was struggling for years in trade unions and my community with the SWP,.my God this pamplet has changed my life and all for just 6 euros!! Where can I join the SP, I am going to tell all my friends about this pamplet. And to think I almost wasted more of my time fighting the global capitalist system or worrying about the planets future when I should have been in a group with such a blindingly brilliant analysis of other left groups.Do you hold regular meetings on this? Maybe you could do a trilogy with volumnes on the WSM and WRP.. Thats what the working class need now, get another print run ready, the first is bound to sell out.

by me Mon Nov 10, 2008 19:26

I just wish they could all get along i believe this is the best chance in decades for the left wing movement in Ireland but they have to stand together as one. The babylon system is starting to show the cracks to the general public and people are angry on the streets of the island week in week out people are out there protesting out against social injustice.NOW IS THE TIME FOR LEFT UNITY UNITE & FIGHT THIS IS OUR CHANCE

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Mon Nov 10, 2008 16:20

The English and Welsh Socialist Party produced this book because the British SWP is the other major organisation on the socialist left there and it is very useful to have a clear account of the differences between the two groups. There are many situations where new activists encounter both organisations and having a detailed explanation of where the organisations differ and where they agree is helpful. Particularly given that the experience of working with the SWP can all too often drive people away from the socialist left in general.

The E&WSP produces a fairly constant stream of books and pamphlets, including in the last couple of months publications on China and the worldwide credit crisis. A critique of the SWP is not central to their work, but it will help to clarify political and organisational disagreements and for that reason it should be welcomed. The Irish Socialist Party produced a pamphlet on the politics of the SWP some years ago. It was a very good and sharp analysis at the time, but the SWP has changed a lot since, from a highly sectarian group then to one that has watered down much of its politics now. Hopefully this new book will provide a similarly clear and penetrating account of that organisation's current incarnation.

It was all too predictable that anonymous SWP supporters would appear on this thread and complain about how mean it is for anyone to criticise them. "Sillybilly" for instance has at least picked an apt name. Firstly, only the most foolish of electoralists would measure the size and weight of a party by the number of councillors it has. The Socialist Party currently has more than the SWP (which isn't difficult as the SWP has none), but that doesn't make the Socialist Party right or even "bigger". Secondly, if the SWP win council seats (and on this occasion, I think that they finally will) they will have done so not on the basis of their alleged politics and principles, but by hiding their real views and presenting themselves to voters in the guise of a non-socialist, non-class based, front group.

by Chicherin Mon Nov 10, 2008 14:51

>Maybe there getting worried that the SWP will be a the biggest left >party after the 2009 local election.

Well no chance of that as the SWP will be standing as PBPA who tend to avoid mentioning the word Socialism. If the 2007 Generalelection is anything to go on then the PBPA will not be standing as a Left Party and certainly not a revolutionary one.

by Albatrot - Independent Socialist Mon Nov 10, 2008 13:58

I don't get why people have a problem with this, particularly anyone calling themself an Anarchist. Internal debate is the life-blood of the Socialist movement and any contribution to this debate - including any reply by the SWP, or for that matter an Anarchist critique of both is to be welcomed. Personally I find Peter Taaffe grotesquely boring in style but that doesn't change alter the validity of his point. Of course anyone claiming to have "all the answers" obviously has an inflated idea of themselves.

by sillybilly Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:15

Seems to me, the SP, must not have anything better to do and write this book. They should write a book about there own organisation becoming a sect of the left. Maybe there getting worried that the SWP will be a the biggest left party after the 2009 local election.

by Freeloader Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:01

They're all wrong except us. Our way to socialism is the most scientific. If you want to find the golden fleece follow our leadership. Really, these sectarian groupuscules are imitating the dogmatic hectoring of religious fringe sects. They might claim to be post religious, but they haven't left the dogmatist religious mindset behind them. Stalin spent almost two years studying in an orthodox seminary before going into politics - and look at the murderous inquisitions he instigated during the 1930s onwards.

by Black Guard - Anarchists Of Cork Fri Nov 07, 2008 23:06

I think this is nonsense. The SP and SWP should merge. There is no differecne between them other than about egos and whose is the biggest. I mean if you measure their similarities - their underlying analysis of this and that - they are identical.....

Why does no one listen to me about this: I speak the truth here!

by Séamus Fri Nov 07, 2008 20:38

This book was written to reach socialists who are aware of the policies of the SWP. This includes SWP members who can still be won to a genuine Marxist approach.

We hope to educate them against the wrong methods of the SWP, which can only prepare further political cul-de-sacs and a weakening of the left in the task of rebuilding the labour movement on socialist and Marxist lines.

Because the Socialist Party has all the right answers?

by Jerry Cornelius Fri Nov 07, 2008 17:39

You can buy the book here:
http://socialistparty.org.uk/books/thatbookframe.htm?bk...o=342

You should be able to order it through Hodges Figgis, Waterstones, Books Upstairs.

by Interested Fri Nov 07, 2008 15:56

Is it possible to buy this book anywhere in Ireland?