The SWP has participated in (or ‘taken over’, or ‘infiltrated’) a number of campaigns such as Unite Against Fascism, the Stop the War Coalition, Respect, Rock against Racism and Students against Paying Fees Although We Can Afford It. (The punky rock band the Clash was said to have lent the Party a bob or two in the early 1980s.)
The SWP has an ‘industrial department’ which hands on obscure books by Trotsky and Rosa Luxemberg to unions members and also informs them as to how misinformed they are. The SWP also incorporates the Socialist Workers' Student Society, which is actually made up of the whole of the SWP (except for the ex-students who are now its leaders). Such societies run weekly meetings such as ‘How to master the m/cockney accent’, ‘How to pretend that one’s parents aren’t rich’ and ‘How to memorise the party line’ (Islamists, for some reason, are good at this).
The National Committee consists of 50 members elected annually at National Conference. You can only elect members who agree with the Central Committee. At least four party councils a year are to be arranged by the Central Committee, at which people who agree with each other can meet up with other people and then agree with each other. At these councils two delegates from each branch, as long as they agree with the leader of the branch and the Central Committee, can put their hands in the air as the need arises.
The large size of the group meant that they adopted a position of working in the Labour Party in order to reach an audience of over eight and recruit a few curious bystanders.
Through campaigning with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (though the SRG believed that there could be a revolutionary and class-conscious use of the nuclear bomb) and the new Labour Party youth movement, the Young Socialists, the Socialist Review Group was able to review things in a socialist kind-of-a-way and was able to recruit among the new generation of activists. By 1964 it had a membership of 10, one of whom was a genuine cockney geezer.
In addition, according to a group historian, ‘The IS position was always one of conditional support for the IRA, and other bad boys with guns, in their fight against imperialism.’ The ‘condition’ was that the IRA should not blowup any members of the IS, though it could blowup other far-left parties if it felt the need.
In January 1977, IS was renamed ‘the Socialist Workers Party’ because it had a sexier ring to it. Also, the inclusion of the word ‘workers’ told everyone precisely what the Party was: a party of middle-class former students and lecturers at the London School of Economics..
The MP George Galloway, a full-time exhibitionist, helped in the forming of Respect. Galloway is well known for liking Arabs a lot (he married one – no, not Saddam) and also for wanting to destroy capitalism and all things Western (i.e., non-Arabic). His love for all things Arabic was shown when he met Saddam Hussein and committed a public act of fellatio on him in order to smooth Arab-West relations (which have been very bad since all Arab countries realised just how shit their countries were). Then there was a ‘schism’ within Respect. However, not all things were that good. The group Left List was formed from this split. Then the Left List split into the Far-Left Split, the Left Split, the Right Split and the Banana Split. Apparently, the main area of contention was the third sentence of paragraph two in the chapter ‘Should I Go to Mexico?’ in Trotsky’s seminal book, How to Kick Capitalist Ass.
The SWP’s Clever Stuff
Duncan Hallas, a founding member of the IS, predecessor of the SWP, the TCP, the OCD, the ARC, and the FUK, wrote: ‘The founders of the group saw themselves as mainstream Trotskyists, differing on important questions from the dominant group in the International, such as ‘Are shoes really right wing?’ and ‘Is that a full stop or a comma in the final line of Trotsky’s Manifesto?’.
Because it sees itself as Trotskyist, the SWP describes itself as a ‘revolutionary socialist party’, rather than as a ‘socialist revolutionary party’, or a ‘socialist party of revolutionaries’, as other parties ‘mistakenly’ do. The SWP stands in the ‘tradition’ of Leon Trotsky. It is compulsory for all members of the SWP to attend the Church of Leon once a week, as well as to read at least ten thousand words of his ‘glorious’ words each day . In addition, one must bow when one uses the name ‘Trotsky’ and finish with the utterance, ‘Praise be His name’. The SWP also shares many of the political positions of Trotskyist groups, a tradition rooted in Marxism and Leninism. (Marx, as student members of the SWP often tell non-members, liked to spend all his days at the British Library and then finish off by going ‘down’t pub’ to meet up with his fellow cockneys… Or did he spend time in the pub, with other cockneys, and then go to do his work at the British Library?) In common with other Trotskyists, the SWP defends the body of ideas codified, fuck-long back, by the first four Congresses of the Communist International and the founding Congress of the Fourth International of Leon Trotsky in 1938. (For those interested in historical political minutiae, get a nerd to dig out a dusty book for you.) The Congress of 1937 was not as good as the one of 1938. However, some experts on this say that the Congress of 1939 was even better than that of 1938. (It is said, by some Leninist historians, to have included a pretty decent light show at the end.)
The SWP, which has at least 1000 members, tends to promote the view that the reliance on direct action by small groups is ‘elitist’, and instead favours ‘mass mobilisations and strikes’ which are made up of the masses and run by the ‘vanguard’ elite that is the SWP.
The SWP has also been accused of being overly accommodating to the allegedly reactionary concerns of some practising Muslims. It denies this. The SWP says that although it does accept that brown men have the right to lock their wives in the bedroom and/or kitchen, they do not have the right to sow their vaginas up (unless this operation is voluntary). In addition, its anti-Zionist stance has been accused of being anti-Semitic. The SWP denies this accusation and argues that it ‘has been spread by Jewish scum’. As for gay rights, they argue that ‘they accept that homosexuality is OK for the Islington Set’, but go on to say that ‘it may not be right for the Brown Man’. The SWP are also suspicious of gay activists because all of them, apparently, are ‘Zionists’.
The SWP has also caused controversy by supporting the elements of the Iraqi insurgency. It was also rumoured that it was contemplating endorsing the group Paedophiles Against the Government as well as Serial Killers Against Capitalism. The SWP, therefore, supports Hezbollah and all the other Islamic groups which blow American, European and Israeli soldiers to pieces. Its support is ‘unconditional but critical’. This means that it will support Hezbollah and Hamas even if they have blown up an infant school in Israel, but only as long as they can give the bombers as few dirty looks at the next Hezbollah-SWP dinner party. The SWP also contemplated supporting Timothy McVeigh’s bombing campaign until they realised that he is both American and white.
There has also been criticism and debate in, around and outside the party about its perceived failure to intervene in, or be a visible part of, many popular front movements. The SWP says that it will join any popular front movement as long as they display its banners and uphold the dictats of the Central Committee (which, they argue, ‘is perfectly fair and indeed democratic’). Some commentators also criticise the SWP for being sectarian. The SWP responds by saying that ‘just because all local branch members share the same enormous bed, use the same condoms and masturbate one another, that does not mean it is a sectarian party’. Nevertheless, the SWP has, for example, started campaigning on climate change in the past decade because it says that Trotsky was himself a Green and also smoked a lot of dope. It was also involved in the Anti-Nazi League but, it is said, attempted to change it into the Anti-Everything League. The SWP argued that these organisations didn’t need to be Trotskyist in nature as long as the members read at least one book a week by Trotsky or a SWP member. The SWP was also accused of being ‘opportunist’ with these organisation but it argued that ‘it only wanted to bring about the Revolution’ (which just happened to be lead by the SWP). They denied using them as front organisations because it was plain to see, from the banners and posters such groups used, that the SWP was running the show.
Members of other socialist political parties, and ex-members of the SWP, often claim that it is undemocratic. The SWP’s Central Committee has told all its members that it is fully democratic and it will not allow any claims to the contrary. Those who deny the democratic nature of the SWP are told to leave.
The SWP also says that it can work with other groups, ‘as long as these groups agree with all SWP policy and theory’. And ‘anything else is open to free debate’. It is also said that the SWP aims to seize control of united fronts and control them, such as the Stop the War Coalition. The SWP responds by saying that ‘the people who say such things only do so because they disagree with us’. Either that, or ‘they are working for the Zionist Party of Barnsley or the extreme right- wing Snooker Players Union’. The SWP says that it is organised, very tightly and strictly, as a ‘democratic centralist organisation’ (see the work of Lewis Carrol and recent work on the Cretan Liar). Conference delegates are elected by party branches which are run people who go to the Conferences and uphold the dogmas of the Central Committee. Branches can select any delegate they like, as long as he or she agrees with the branch leader, who attends all conferences and upholds the Central Committee line, and also follows the dictats of the Party hierarchy. Thus there is said to be much room for debate of other views, as long as the debater does not become a branch leader or delegate. The delegate then has much room to debate at Conference, as long as he only accepts the Central Committee’s directives. Thus the SWP is a democratic party which also believes in extreme centralism.
Because of all this, some leftists, and all the non-leftists who know about them, surprisingly accuse the SWP of being centrist. SWP members who say this are immediately thrown out of the Party. Those outside the Party who say this are ‘Islamophobes’, ‘Zionists’ and other words with the suffix ‘ist’ on the end.
It is also said that the SWP ‘vacillates between revolution and reform’. That is, the SWP believes in revolution only when it is the SWP that is leading it. And it believes in reform only if that reform is ‘the complete abolishion of Parliamentary capitalist democracy’. Others have said that the SWP believes in revolution only before breakfast, perhaps up to eight of them, and reform when it is feeling a little sleepy. Small left-wing groups (the ‘sub-atomic left’), such as Permanent Revolution (UK) and Workers Power, argue that the programme of the Respect coalition is reformist because it does not believe that all capitalists should be burnt at the stake and that nuclear weapons are never acceptable - ‘not even in a bona fide revolution!’.
Many left-wing pundits argue that the SWP is not as revolutionary as Workers Power. And that Workers Power is not as revolutionary as Permanent Revolution (UK). However, the SWP itself claims that ‘it is more revolutionary than both these parties put together’ and is ‘prepared for a punch-up with both parties to prove it’.