Name: Socialist Workers Party
Website: www.swp.org.uk
Wikipedia entry: Socialist Workers Party (Britain)
Origin: Founded in 1950 as the Socialist Review Group, by supporters of Tony Cliff who had been active in the Revolutionary Communist Party and had mostly been expelled from The Club. Later became the International Socialists, and finally the Socialist Workers Party in 1977.
Political position: Revolutionary socialist; broadly Trotskyist; historical links with Third Camp.
Major figures: Tony Cliff (leading figure until his death in 2000), Alex Callinicos (professor at King's College London), Lindsey German (convenor of the Stop the War Coalition), Paul Foot (journalist, died 2004).
Celebrity members: Former members include comedian Mark Steel, sociologist Laurie Taylor, beer writer Roger Protz and journalists Christopher and Peter Hitchens, Julie Burchill and Garry Bushell.
Membership: Claims membership of anywhere up to 7,000; active membership far less - perhaps 1,000 - 2,000.
Main locations: Hackney, Manchester, Sheffield
Publications: Socialist Worker (weekly), Socialist Review (monthly), International Socialism (quarterly).
Influence: Leading role in the Stop the War Coalition. Influential in European Social Forum; formerly leading role in RESPECT. Set up the Anti-Nazi League and Love Music Hate Racism.
International links: Leads the International Socialist Tendency
Electoral record: Stood candidates in a handful of late-1970s by-elections, with poor results. Began standing candidates again in 1999, initially in the Scottish Parliament election, then as part of the Socialist Alliance, then as part of RESPECT. The RESPECT candidate who polled best were not SWP members, but Lindsey German did well in West Ham in 2005, and there were a handful of SWP members elected as councillors. The split in RESPECT led them to form the Left List, which again polled poorly and has been largely abandoned.
Recent direction: After initial reluctance, became active in the Socialist Alliance in the late 1990s. Assumed leading role in anti-war movement in early 2000s, and tried to build on this by setting up RESPECT with George Galloway and a few anti-war activists, mostly socialists and Muslims. This foundered in the late 2000s, with the SWP splitting away. Membership has declined considerably since the mid-1990s.
Common criticisms: The SWP are often accused of being inconsistent, moving from one front to another, depending on where they see an opening. Many socialist groups have criticised them for working with Galloway and some centrist or right-wing figures. The group is also widely accused of inflating membership numbers.
Future prospects: With the recent split from RESPECT, the SWP needs to find a new direction. This will add to a long list of past directions, none of which have arrested the long-term drop in membership. Still, the SWP remain the largest far-left group in Britain and are likely to maintain reasonable visibility and some influence as a result of this.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Thursday, 25 September 2008
The Death of Capitalism...
While I've been on holiday, capitalism has been on its last legs. At least, if you are a headline writer.
In reality, it's difficult to find anyone who really believes that the current crisis, severe as it is, represents the end of capitalism. The Guardian had an interesting piece taking the viewpoints of various claimed opponents of capitalism. Not one believed that this would be the end of capitalism, and few were optimistic about any progress coming of it.
Why, in a time of capitalist crisis, are people not turning to socialism? Because socialist organisations are in no position to offer a realistic, short-term alternative. This is in part due to the still ongoing collapse of the "official" communist movement. And it is in part due to the failure of socialist organisations to build any sort of significant organisation as a pole of attraction.
For those of us who are socialists, this poses the question of a way forward. Simply waiting for the next inevitable crisis in capitalism is not sufficient. A project simply to bring together existing socialist groups will achieve little without agreement on some basic principles - as pleasant as the Convention of the Left may have been, no-one has any serious expectation of a new organisation coming from it.
Discussion and education are an easy answer, and undoubtedly correct. But then what? The only answer I have is to look at the potential of the internet. Eric Lee, who maintains Labournet, knows a lot about its potential for union organising. He has also written on how it can also threaten union organisers.
So... something which allows discussion, the building of a consensus, anonymous participation while maintaining some vigilance against vandalism and trolling. Sounds like a wiki to me. But unlike existing political wikis, something focussed on outcomes and processes, rather than description and history. Time to register wikisocialism.org?
In reality, it's difficult to find anyone who really believes that the current crisis, severe as it is, represents the end of capitalism. The Guardian had an interesting piece taking the viewpoints of various claimed opponents of capitalism. Not one believed that this would be the end of capitalism, and few were optimistic about any progress coming of it.
Why, in a time of capitalist crisis, are people not turning to socialism? Because socialist organisations are in no position to offer a realistic, short-term alternative. This is in part due to the still ongoing collapse of the "official" communist movement. And it is in part due to the failure of socialist organisations to build any sort of significant organisation as a pole of attraction.
For those of us who are socialists, this poses the question of a way forward. Simply waiting for the next inevitable crisis in capitalism is not sufficient. A project simply to bring together existing socialist groups will achieve little without agreement on some basic principles - as pleasant as the Convention of the Left may have been, no-one has any serious expectation of a new organisation coming from it.
Discussion and education are an easy answer, and undoubtedly correct. But then what? The only answer I have is to look at the potential of the internet. Eric Lee, who maintains Labournet, knows a lot about its potential for union organising. He has also written on how it can also threaten union organisers.
So... something which allows discussion, the building of a consensus, anonymous participation while maintaining some vigilance against vandalism and trolling. Sounds like a wiki to me. But unlike existing political wikis, something focussed on outcomes and processes, rather than description and history. Time to register wikisocialism.org?
Tuesday, 26 August 2008
How to stop the BNP?
The weekend before last, I attended a demonstration against the BNP's "Red White and Blue" Festival. The BNP held an event in Codnor, Derbyshire, last year, with minimal opposition but various reports of fighting and Nazi-style antics, and held a similar event this year.
The demo was organised by Nottinghamshire Stop the BNP. They brought together a wide coalition of local activists, trade unionists, some Labour Party members, and socialist groups (primarily the Socialist Party and Workers' Liberty). At the demo, the organisers were at pains to ensure that a wide range of participants had a chance to speak - unfortunately, some of them had rather too long.
Unfortunately, Unite Against Fascism (UAF) decided to organise a last-minute protest entirely separately. The police invoked the Public Order Act, claiming that the protests brought a serious risk of public disturbance, and this had the fortunate side-effect of ensuring that UAF were compelled to join the main demonstration. They have a report on their website, which tries strongly to give the impression that they organised the whole thing.
There's a reason why the local group organised the demo, rather than UAF. Until the Notts group laid the plans, there wasn't going to be any demo. Some local residents were set against the BNP event, and asked Notts Stop the BNP to put a protest together. They asked the local group because it is consistently involved in local campaigns, and calls for a positive alternative to the BNP - for decent jobs and housing. Unfortunately, UAF doesn't - it says that the BNP are Nazis and that people should vote for someone else. It's not too awful as far as it goes, but it's not hard to see why it has had little impact.
The demo was severely limited by the police restrictions, and amounted to a show of popular opposition to the festival. It didn't attempt to directly stop the event or confront BNP activists. Should it have done? Separately from the demo, the small Antifa group of anarchists attempted to invade the site and threw some stones, to little effect. If there had been more, would this have been worthwhile? The Notts Stop the BNP group doesn't reject the idea, and did prevent a BNP meeting in Kimberley.
Fair enough, but what is needed is a strong movement for decent jobs, housing, and much more besides, showing a positive counterpoint to the BNP's attacks on people from minority groups. The Notts Stop the BNP still needs to go further - many local residents didn't previously know about the demo, and a couple were hostile - but it should be an inspiration for opponents of the BNP across the country.
The demo was organised by Nottinghamshire Stop the BNP. They brought together a wide coalition of local activists, trade unionists, some Labour Party members, and socialist groups (primarily the Socialist Party and Workers' Liberty). At the demo, the organisers were at pains to ensure that a wide range of participants had a chance to speak - unfortunately, some of them had rather too long.
Unfortunately, Unite Against Fascism (UAF) decided to organise a last-minute protest entirely separately. The police invoked the Public Order Act, claiming that the protests brought a serious risk of public disturbance, and this had the fortunate side-effect of ensuring that UAF were compelled to join the main demonstration. They have a report on their website, which tries strongly to give the impression that they organised the whole thing.
There's a reason why the local group organised the demo, rather than UAF. Until the Notts group laid the plans, there wasn't going to be any demo. Some local residents were set against the BNP event, and asked Notts Stop the BNP to put a protest together. They asked the local group because it is consistently involved in local campaigns, and calls for a positive alternative to the BNP - for decent jobs and housing. Unfortunately, UAF doesn't - it says that the BNP are Nazis and that people should vote for someone else. It's not too awful as far as it goes, but it's not hard to see why it has had little impact.
The demo was severely limited by the police restrictions, and amounted to a show of popular opposition to the festival. It didn't attempt to directly stop the event or confront BNP activists. Should it have done? Separately from the demo, the small Antifa group of anarchists attempted to invade the site and threw some stones, to little effect. If there had been more, would this have been worthwhile? The Notts Stop the BNP group doesn't reject the idea, and did prevent a BNP meeting in Kimberley.
Fair enough, but what is needed is a strong movement for decent jobs, housing, and much more besides, showing a positive counterpoint to the BNP's attacks on people from minority groups. The Notts Stop the BNP still needs to go further - many local residents didn't previously know about the demo, and a couple were hostile - but it should be an inspiration for opponents of the BNP across the country.
Friday, 15 August 2008
Do people love Kingsnorth Power Station?
A report out fairly soon will show that most people support the construction of a new facility at Kingsnorth Power Station using carbon capture technology. But this won't be true - or, rather, there's no way to tell from the poll whether it is true or not.
Today, I was called by ICM and took part in a survey. It was lengthy and wide-ranging, asking which supermarket I usually shop in, which car insurer I use, and what I would look for in a new soft drink.
The political questions at the start were of rather more interest. Firstly, they asked how likely I was to vote, then which party I was likely to vote for - mentioning only Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem. They also asked who I voted for in 2005, and then how likely I would be to vote for four parties - Lib Dem, Conservative, Labour and UKIP.
Most interestingly, they asked about the Climate Camp. Had I heard of it, and did I know what its purpose was. They then named Kingsnorth Power Station and asked if I knew who operated it. I was quietly pleased to remember that it was e.on.
The next question had a strong push - they asked whether I would support the construction of the new facility at the power station, emphasising that it would use carbon capture technology as soon as it becomes available, and mentioned a few benefits of this technology. I do hope that ICM tried to dissuade e.on from phrasing it this way. Then, in light of this, would this improve or lower my opinion of e.on.
No doubt this will elicit the information that - when pushed with a question phrased in the most positive manner - most respondents support the new power station and think this reflects well on e.on.
This style of questioning has been debunked on numerous occasions, and there's a good example about the Christian Institute's poll on abortion written by Anthony Wells of the UK Polling Report: "the best way to ask a survey question is to give the minimal amount of information, since for every bit of background information you provide you risk skewing the answer or, by making them better informed than other people, making your sample unrepresentative."
Today, I was called by ICM and took part in a survey. It was lengthy and wide-ranging, asking which supermarket I usually shop in, which car insurer I use, and what I would look for in a new soft drink.
The political questions at the start were of rather more interest. Firstly, they asked how likely I was to vote, then which party I was likely to vote for - mentioning only Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem. They also asked who I voted for in 2005, and then how likely I would be to vote for four parties - Lib Dem, Conservative, Labour and UKIP.
Most interestingly, they asked about the Climate Camp. Had I heard of it, and did I know what its purpose was. They then named Kingsnorth Power Station and asked if I knew who operated it. I was quietly pleased to remember that it was e.on.
The next question had a strong push - they asked whether I would support the construction of the new facility at the power station, emphasising that it would use carbon capture technology as soon as it becomes available, and mentioned a few benefits of this technology. I do hope that ICM tried to dissuade e.on from phrasing it this way. Then, in light of this, would this improve or lower my opinion of e.on.
No doubt this will elicit the information that - when pushed with a question phrased in the most positive manner - most respondents support the new power station and think this reflects well on e.on.
This style of questioning has been debunked on numerous occasions, and there's a good example about the Christian Institute's poll on abortion written by Anthony Wells of the UK Polling Report: "the best way to ask a survey question is to give the minimal amount of information, since for every bit of background information you provide you risk skewing the answer or, by making them better informed than other people, making your sample unrepresentative."
Thursday, 14 August 2008
A new angle on Northern Ireland
Northern Irish politics are an area I keep returning to when contributing to Wikipedia, and I'm becoming increasingly aware of the poverty of sources for some topics.
Election results and many aspects of the Troubles are well covered by ARK and its related sites (with particular appreciation going to Nicholas Whyte). The UUP and some key figures - particularly some in Sinn Féin - are covered by a number of books accessible through Google to greater or lesser extents. There are various reviews of Northern Irish politics giving general overviews, generally not very useful for adding detail to articles.
But try to find information on some other organisations, and you soon come up against a brick wall. Where are the works on the National Democrats, on the later years of the Nationalist Party, or the early years of the Alliance?
This tendency is particularly pronounced when trying to research on the labour movement in Northern Ireland. Key figures barely appear on the web, or at best as footnotes in pieces covering the Parliament. Michael Farrell's work is a more useful source, but his biases are evident in the periods he focusses on and those he ignores.
With that in mind, I'm looking forward to the release of A History of the Northern Ireland Labour Party: Democratic Socialism and Sectarianism by Aaron Edwards. He appears to have also researched the politics of the PUP, which seems a logical starting point for an interest in the later years of the NILP. This should be an area ripe for research, with key figures such as Billy Boyd, David Bleakley still around, and Billy Blease having died only in May. This may be the reasoning for his periodisation, covering 1924 - 58 in two chapters, while devoting three to 1965 - 75.
Discussions of Edwards' work suggest that he is interested in privileging a class conflict model of Northern Irish society over an ethnic conflict model, a position I have considerable sympathy with. Given this, I'll be particularly interested in his analysis of the republican labour tendencies.
Here's hoping that this inspires some more research into the workers' movement - what chance something on trade unionism in the province?
Election results and many aspects of the Troubles are well covered by ARK and its related sites (with particular appreciation going to Nicholas Whyte). The UUP and some key figures - particularly some in Sinn Féin - are covered by a number of books accessible through Google to greater or lesser extents. There are various reviews of Northern Irish politics giving general overviews, generally not very useful for adding detail to articles.
But try to find information on some other organisations, and you soon come up against a brick wall. Where are the works on the National Democrats, on the later years of the Nationalist Party, or the early years of the Alliance?
This tendency is particularly pronounced when trying to research on the labour movement in Northern Ireland. Key figures barely appear on the web, or at best as footnotes in pieces covering the Parliament. Michael Farrell's work is a more useful source, but his biases are evident in the periods he focusses on and those he ignores.
With that in mind, I'm looking forward to the release of A History of the Northern Ireland Labour Party: Democratic Socialism and Sectarianism by Aaron Edwards. He appears to have also researched the politics of the PUP, which seems a logical starting point for an interest in the later years of the NILP. This should be an area ripe for research, with key figures such as Billy Boyd, David Bleakley still around, and Billy Blease having died only in May. This may be the reasoning for his periodisation, covering 1924 - 58 in two chapters, while devoting three to 1965 - 75.
Discussions of Edwards' work suggest that he is interested in privileging a class conflict model of Northern Irish society over an ethnic conflict model, a position I have considerable sympathy with. Given this, I'll be particularly interested in his analysis of the republican labour tendencies.
Here's hoping that this inspires some more research into the workers' movement - what chance something on trade unionism in the province?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)