SWP gone Green:, genuine or genuine disaster?

[rebel warrior]

Yeah, we know that Tory scum like Zac Goldsmith own 'the Ecologist' magazine. But Rebel Warrior is over the top when he tries to smear the green movment as a whole with this.

I'm not a green, I'm a red environmentalist, but my observerations of the greens show that Rebel Warrior is just nuts here.

We can all see that the Green Party have shifted to the left over the past 10-15 years. So have groups as diverse as FoE and Earth First. This is a result of the revolt against neo-liberal globalisation over the past decade. Come on Rebel Warrior, he baby, you can do better than this hysterical rubbish! Cant you?

Exactly my point - surely the solution for the Left and Green movement is to recognise that what unites it is far more important than what divides it - and we have to stand together and not be divided by minor differences?

Which is why the Green Party for example and the SWP have worked together in the anti-war movement as part of the StWC - and why I doubt very much that say, the Green Party will be launching hysterical attacks on the SWP for coming on the climate change demo and helping to build it.

What I was reacting to was to the arguments at the start of the thread which laid into the SWP for coming on the demo, when surely if anarchists wanted to attack anyone for supporting the Green movement it would be say, corporate cocksuckers like Goldsmith?

 

[Barry Kade]

Well Pilchard ol fella, you yourself have come out with a few good ones here:

Pilgrim:

Climate change is arguably the biggest issue of them all. Its the great leveller that affects EVERYBODY regardless of wealth or power or privilege. Certainly at the Earth First Winter Moot back in February it was a real hot potato. I was there.

Do you really think that its a

great leveller that affects EVERYBODY regardless of wealth or power

When:

A)The poor will suffer first and most, from Bangladesh to New Orleans.

B)The rich and their capitalist class profit from the fossil fuel economy. They are so caught up in competition and the entrenched path dependency of the fossil fuel industrial corporate complex that they cant change. And any change to more sustainable technologies is only made if it can be profitable and under the control of the existing capitalist elites. Its too late to rely on these.

We will not survive if we are lead by those with wealth power and priviledge.

We must overturn them.

PS when you say

...Everybody regardless of wealth or power or privilege....at the Earth First Winter Moot back in February it was a real hot potato.

I doubt if those at the EF meeting were holding this view, or were from such privaledged backgrounds. EF gatherings I've been to have been full of sound anti-capitalist types...

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I think RW's point is why are people getting so hot under the collar about the swp when there are much more threatening forces trying to coopt the Green movement.

So that's it then, if we don't follow the dictat of the SWP CC we've automatically surrendered to David Cameron?

 

[Pilgrim]

Well Pilchard ol fella, you yourself have come out with a few good ones here:

Pilgrim:

Do you really think that its a

When:

A)The poor will suffer first and most, from Bangladesh to New Orleans.

B)The rich and their capitalist class profit from the fossil fuel economy. They are so caught up in competition and the entrenched path dependency of the fossil fuel industrial corporate complex that they cant change. And any change to more sustainable technologies is only made if it can be profitable and under the control of the existing capitalist elites. Its too late to rely on these.

We will not survive if we are lead by those with wealth power and priviledge.

We must overturn them.

PS when you say

I doubt if those at the EF meeting were holding this view, or were from such privaledged backgrounds. EF gatherings I've been to have been full of sound anti-capitalist types...

I can only repeat what was said at the Winter Moot by the folk from Rising Tide.

And climate change WILL affect everybody. It is inescapable, regardless of who you are.

 

[Barry Kade]

I can only repeat what was said at the Winter Moot by the folk from Rising Tide.

And climate change WILL affect everybody. It is inescapable, regardless of who you are.

Does this mean that all humanity will unite to save the planet? Or do we need a new class struggle for survival?

 

[mutley]

He's got a point you know. The anti-war movement did show that.

A lot of those relatively apolitical people who did take to the streets are now sitting at home on their arses thinking "what good did that do, they just ignored (about 1-2% of the entire UK population) taking to the streets."

If a broad front does arise in relation to climate change, new nuclear build or whatever, we'd probably better give some thought to what else to do with all that energy besides 'taking to the streets'. For example, channelling it into some form of local or municipal sphere where it might actually make some difference, and which would be politically empowering for all those people rather than as disempowering as 'taking to the streets' turned out in practice.

I'd agree with some of this, and although my point about blockading power stations before was flippant it would actually be pointless except as propaganda - first there's a national grid so you'd have to blockade loads of power stations, second i seem to remember the miners doing just that, and while a climate change movement that is more powerful than the NUM was would be exciting, i don't think it's on the cards.

So we have the municipal road, which i think Respect (amongst others) can look at, and it's obviously still well worth getting people out on the streets. Noone thinks the demos are enough on their own (they're not enough on their own for stw either).

What i think would be pointless is pilgrims plan to have a caucus of everyone in the world to discuss excluding the swp. And i think most of those concerned about climate change would agree.

Totally agree with Barry Kade about this being a class issue.

What other tactics would people propose?

 

[rebel warrior]

So that's it then, if we don't follow the dictat of the SWP CC we've automatically surrendered to David Cameron?

But how is the SWP by publicising, helping to build and then turning up to a demonstration forcing anyone to 'follow their dictat'?

 

[Pilgrim]

Does this mean that all humanity will unite to save the planet? Or do we need a new class struggle for survival?

Did I say that all humanity will unite to save the planet?

No, I didn't.

FWIW, I doubt very much that the ruling class will unite to protect anybody but themselves. And I doubt very much that they will simply surrender the power, wealth and privilege that they have amassed without a struggle.

As for class struggle, I'm a member of the AF.

So yes, I do think class struggle is necessary. Possibly more necessary now than it has ever been.

 

[Barry Kade]

Hey Mutley: We should blockade the Oil distribution depots over the combined issue of the Iraq war and climate change...

yes, this would have a direct effect...but also I wouldn't underestimate the power of symbols, propaganda of the deed, or symbolic action at crucial moments...

and what 'municiple route' ? Yes. it would be great to have a left of labour electroral presence...but this won't have the power to stop the capitalist class on its own...

all this only makes sense as part of a battle for hegemony to gather the forces to take mass direct action

Pilgrim: Good. So why mouth the liberal hymm to everyone rich and poor?

 

[rebel warrior]

Did I say that all humanity will unite to save the planet?

No, I didn't.

FWIW, I doubt very much that the ruling class will unite to protect anybody but themselves. And I doubt very much that they will simply surrender the power, wealth and privilege that they have amassed without a struggle.

As for class struggle, I'm a member of the AF.

So yes, I do think class struggle is necessary. Possibly more necessary now than it has ever been.

Brilliant - so why spend your time dreaming of how best to exclude and isolate another class struggle organisation (the SWP) from the movement instead of thinking that the real enemy might be rich and powerful multinational corporations who some in the Green movement think are part of the solution.

 

[gurrier]

Takes a proponent of such shite to recognise it... If you strip out the abuse from this post there ain't much left.

With the abuse stripped out the point is that Levien is ignoring the stated motivations of the entirety of the people whose motivations he is describing and instead claiming that they are all motivated by something that has been decreed by the SWP higher-ups.

Expressions of opinions such as this that are completely untroubled by any cranial activity demand abuse.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> What other tactics would people propose?

Well, starting from what would actually be useful for doing something about climate change, I think you can see a number of valid objectives and work backwards to tactics. Demonstrations are useful for energising people, but then they have to do something useful with that energy beyond protesting.

1) New nuclear builds are likely to be rammed down our throats, with at least some support from the scientific community. It's therefore very important to articulate the scientific case for considering alternatives and build credibility around them by implementing them as widely as possible. It looks to me like an investment in putting local PV, solar thermal, CHP and decent insultation into our communities would be more effective than nuclear in cutting emissions. Mobilise some of that energy to achieve this, rather than waving placards. Actually get out there and build sustainable alternatives to whatever high-capital investment non-solutions the government is trying to shove down our throats. Show that it can be done. Get as many people involved as possible and build up their committment around their own community's successes in this area, no matter how small.

2) You can't break the fossil fuels - industrial agriculture - supermarket chain without putting alternatives in place. Organise community food cooperatives, campaign locally to get development land turned over to urban horticulture and local markets rather than the other way around. Get involved in local politics to counteract the power of the property developers and supermarket chains who you are inevitably going to come into conflict when trying to do this. Get all the families in your neighbourhood to understand that if they want healthy, safe, cheap food for their kids, this is a way for them to achieve it and to do something about climate change in the process.

3) Above all, find ways to make people who get involved feel empowered rather than powerless. The overwhelming result of mass marches by STWC was an increase in disempowerment and disillusionment. Let people see concrete results coming from their own work and they'll feel like their involvement counts for something, even if those results are small scale and local.

These are some preliminary suggestions, and maybe they're naive, but from my perspective, concrete action at local/municipal level is the only way to put in place the actual mechanisms necessary to be sustainable. I also think that sort of action leaves no place for SWP tactics to do damage. Let them wave their little placards, sell their papers and dominate their undemocratic steering committees, if concrete action is happening where it actually needs to happen, all that is pretty much going to be an irrelevance. If they really want to help, give them a shovel and a bucket of chicken poo.

 

[Pilgrim]

Brilliant - so why spend your time dreaming of how best to exclude and isolate another class struggle organisation (the SWP) from the movement instead of thinking that the real enemy might be rich and powerful multinational corporations who some in the Green movement think are part of the solution.

The SWP, to me at least, ditched any 'revolutionary' or 'class struggle' aspirations it may once have had with the arrival of RESPECT. Your party, RW, are rapidly becoming reformists. Just another group of tired and cynical political hacks with their eyes on grabbing the levers of power. So don't play the 'prolier than thou' game with me.

And don't try to patronise me by reminding me that 'the real enemy might be rich and powerful multinational corporations' either. I'm well aware of that, thank you very much. Locally, I'm involved in a strong campaign against Devonport Dockyard, owned by Kellogg, Brown and Root who are in turn owned by Halliburton. So I don't need to be reminded of what multinationals can do.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

But how is the SWP by publicising, helping to build and then turning up to a demonstration forcing anyone to 'follow their dictat'?

Please, don't come the fucking innocent with me mate. I've had enough personal and professional experience with the SWP to know that they are far from trustworthy. Their goal is always the same; join an effort and attempt to take it over. Your continued denial of this again shows a level of indoctrination that should serve as a warning sign to anyone inexperienced or naive enough to work with them.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Sounds good to me...

Then the A to B marches would make much more sense...as rallying points to gather the numbers, social forces and legitimacy for such mass direct action!

Thats what a decent 'revolutionary party' that was niether right-opportunist nor ultra-leftist would do....

Again, spot on Barry!

For revolutionaries A - B marches should only ever be a building block to "MASS direct action"! The "MASS direct action" has to be the "highest common denominator" the mass will agree to though. It can't be imposed, however well intentioned.

Frats comrade, Rmp3.

I agree with your other post too. ed to add "the nobody does it better" one.

 

[Pilgrim]

Again, spot on Barry!

For revolutionaries A - B marches should only ever be a building block to "MASS direct action"! The "MASS direct action" has to be the "highest common denominator" the mass will agree to though. It can't be imposed, however well intentioned.

Frats comrade, Rmp3.

I agree with your other post too. ed to add "the nobody does it better" one.

I'd certainly agree that A to B marches alone will probably achieve little or nothing. The problem with the StWC was that the mass marches didn't lead to much direct action, IMHO. It seems to me that most of the DA was carried out by groups and individuals who were at best loosely linked with the StWC. The Fairford and Faslane actions being an example thereof.

And, Anarchist though I am, I wouldn't fetishise direct action to the point of excluding mass mobilisations. In my affinity group we engage in direct action as well as the more conventional forms of protest, such as marches, leafletting, flyposting, public speaking and so on. The two go together, IMHO.

Certainly, mass direct action, or any sort of DA has to go with what the people doing it (and consequently taking the attendant riaks, court, fines, jail, etc) are willing to go for. But, that said, I don't think many people are quite ready for mass direct action yet. Which leaves a place for the smaller affinity group based DA crews to do their thing. When two Trident Ploughshares members infiltrated Devonport Dockyard in 2002 and boarded a the Trident submarine HMS Vanguard, it did more to force the issue onto front pages and raise the profile of the local anti-nuclear campaign than conventional lobbying had done in years. That one single action forced people to take notice of something they might previously have ignored.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Please, don't come the fucking innocent with me mate. I've had enough personal and professional experience with the SWP to know that they are far from trustworthy. Their goal is always the same; join an effort and attempt to take it over. Your continued denial of this again shows a level of indoctrination that should serve as a warning sign to anyone inexperienced or naive enough to work with them.

of course SWP "joins an effort" and tries to promote Revolutionary Socialist methods of working within that effort. Which political organisationdoes not try to promote its method of working in any social movement? we do that because we think it is the best way of taking the working class movement forward, and I'm sure others do it for the same reason.
Frats, Rmp3

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I've read a few posts and there is, I daresay, a needless amount of U75 bickering afoot.

CaCC is a separate movement from any political party. Yes the Swappies were there in some number, and good on them. (More would have come from outside London had it not been for their SWaPfest Conference next weekend)

I was pleased at the huge amount of Green Party there, probably the biggest single contingent. I daresay we learnt a thing or two from the SWP in having the placcards more organised

I have no doubt that every SWP member on that march cares deeply on the subect and has valuable opinions on it. Those that may have gone more in ignorace certainly wont be by now.

The SWP have a more credible line on climate change than the major parties because they recognise neoliberalism as part of the problem. The big 3 will never admit this.

Of couse I think the Green Party better on all areas of policy than the SWP, but gods teeth
if we cant agree on the future of the planet we are screwed.

The most important thing about the demo was the international nature of it, which will continue to grow. Some of the speeches were genuinely worth turning up for too.Monbot gets a slagging on U75 sometimes, I'd like to see his critics show 5% of his public speaking skills.

Back to the SWP, I know its typical of them to hijack movements, all the more reason for non-SWPers to get involved if they are that worried about it. We can hardly expect our Swappie chums to stay at home.

 

[Pilgrim]

of course SWP "joins an effort" and tries to promote Revolutionary Socialist methods of working within that effort. Which political organisationdoes not try to promote its method of working in any social movement? we do that because we think it is the best way of taking the working class movement forward, and I'm sure others do it for the same reason.
Frats, Rmp3

If they just promoted their methods through honest and open debate, rather than forcing their agenda upon groups by underhand means, such as hijacking steering committees, packing meetings and rigging votes, then people might view them with a little less suspicion. There is a huge difference between 'joining an effort', as Rmp3 puts it, and taking it over having driven out dissenting voices. And it seems to be a difference that the SWP CC don't seem to understand.

They might also have a lot more faith in the SWP if they had a track record for making movements more successful, powerful and influential, rather than simply running them into the ground for their own aims. The sorry sagas of the ANL (the BNP are more successful now than ever), the Socialist Alliance (could have been good until the SWP decided to take it over), Globalise resistance (see the pamphlet 'Monopolise Resistance') and the Stop the War Coalition (could have been wonderful, now it seems to be moribund at best) do not exactly inspire confidence that some SWP 'eco-front' wouldn't go exactly the same way.

And while I have nothing against people trying, honestly and openly, to win others over to their ideas, the SWP leadership seem to have a completely unshakable belief that their way is always the right way, and that those who disagree are 'reformists', 'counter-revolutionaries', 'sectarians', 'Tory Anarchists' or 'ultra leftists' depending on their stance on a given issue. Nobody gets it right all the time, but the SWP CC seems to think they do.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'd certainly agree that A to B marches alone will probably achieve little or nothing. The problem with the StWC was that the mass marches didn't lead to much direct action, IMHO. It seems to me that most of the DA was carried out by groups and individuals who were at best loosely linked with the StWC. The Fairford and Faslane actions being an example thereof.

And, Anarchist though I am, I wouldn't fetishise direct action to the point of excluding mass mobilisations. In my affinity group we engage in direct action as well as the more conventional forms of protest, such as marches, leafletting, flyposting, public speaking and so on. The two go together, IMHO.

everybody I know in the SWp shares your disappointment that the demonstrations did not provide a platform for more spontaneous self organised and organised MASS direct actions.

Certainly, mass direct action, or any sort of DA has to go with what the people doing it (and consequently taking the attendant riaks, court, fines, jail, etc) are willing to go for. But, that said, I don't think many people are quite ready for mass direct action yet. Which leaves a place for the smaller affinity group based DA crews to do their thing. When two Trident Ploughshares members infiltrated Devonport Dockyard in 2002 and boarded a the Trident submarine HMS Vanguard, it did more to force the issue onto front pages and raise the profile of the local anti-nuclear campaign than conventional lobbying had done in years. That one single action forced people to take notice of something they might previously have ignored.

to be honest with you, I would put the highly successful direct actions like the one you speak of, and the highly successful demonstrations, in the same category. I would say they both only act as building blocks to mass direct actions. The direct action you describe sounds like a real propaganda victory, but like the demonstrations, it didn't actually achieve the antinuclear aims, or any steps towards it, but hopefully recruited more people to the cause. And likewise the anti-war movement is bigger and better organised now than it was after the war in Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan.

I do see the two forms of action as being in some kind of symbiotic relationship, how could any member of the SWP suggest that the lone man who stood with his shopping in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square was elitist, they wouldn't. Time and time again in history individuals actions have spoke volumes for a movement. But in Tiananmen Square his action was organically linked to a mass movement. Of course direct actions are sometimes going to try to do this, be linked to a mass movement, but fail, just like some demonstrations fail! But I don't think we should ever forget, that the small direct action and a large demonstration are only a building block to MASS direct action, and the MASS organised direct actions of strikes and occupations. [obviously, there are advocates of either method who forget this or do not even agree with it.]

fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Is it just me here, or is there a big gap between the kind of actions being contemplated and any obvious relevance to addressing climate change?

If I'm missing something obvious, please do help me to understand here.

I guess what I'm thinking is this. Most the stuff I'm hearing seems to be about either influencing central government (good luck) or following some hundred year old scripts for an industrial proletariat seizing the means of production.

The relevance of any of this stuff to mitigating the effects of climate change isn't immediately obvious to me. This is meant to be a constructive challenge, but please feel free to flame me if you think it will help

 

[Pilgrim]

everybody I know in the SWp shares your disappointment that the demonstrations did not provide a platform for more spontaneous self organised and organised MASS direct actions.

to be honest with you, I would put the highly successful direct actions like the one you speak of, and the highly successful demonstrations, in the same category. I would say they both only act as building blocks to mass direct actions. The direct action you describe sounds like a real propaganda victory, but like the demonstrations, it didn't actually achieve the antinuclear aims, or any steps towards it, but hopefully recruited more people to the cause. And likewise the anti-war movement is bigger and better organised now than it was after the war in Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan.

I do see the two forms of action as being in some kind of symbiotic relationship, how could any member of the SWP suggest that the lone man who stood with his shopping in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square was elitist, they wouldn't. Time and time again in history individuals actions have spoke volumes for a movement. But in Tiananmen Square his action was organically linked to a mass movement. Of course direct actions are sometimes going to try to do this, be linked to a mass movement, but fail, just like some demonstrations fail! But I don't think we should ever forget, that the small direct action and a large demonstration are only a building block to MASS direct action, and the MASS organised direct actions of strikes and occupations. [obviously, there are advocates of either method who forget this or do not even agree with it.]

fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

Well, if SWP members are disappointed by the lack of mass direct action, as I agree that some were, why didn't the leadership make a public call for direct action? IIRC, at around this time, the SWP line (as spoken by Lindsay German in Socialist Review) was that direct action was elitist and that DA crews should not be trying to impose our elitism on the rest of the movement.

And why didn't the StWC call for direct action? Direct actions at Fairford and Shannon seemed to have an effect, so why not call for blockades, sit-down protests, occupations and the like? If the membership wanted direct action, then the leadership should have accomodated them.

For instance, when there 1-2,000,000 people on the streets of London on -15/02/03, why not call a sit-down protest? We would have stopped the entire capital, and we had the bodies to do it. I was there. That would have been mass direct action, and there would have been little that authorities could have done about it on the day. The only report I've seen of sit-downs on that march was in an article by Mark Thomas, in which he states that those who tried a sit-down protest were moved along by SWP stewards.

 

[TremulousTetra]

If they just promoted their methods through honest and open debate, rather than forcing their agenda upon groups by underhand means, such as hijacking steering committees, packing meetings and rigging votes, then people might view them with a little less suspicion. There is a huge difference between 'joining an effort', as Rmp3 puts it, and taking it over having driven out dissenting voices. And it seems to be a difference that the SWP CC don't seem to understand.

They might also have a lot more faith in the SWP if they had a track record for making movements more successful, powerful and influential, rather than simply running them into the ground for their own aims. The sorry sagas of the ANL (the BNP are more successful now than ever), the Socialist Alliance (could have been good until the SWP decided to take it over), Globalise resistance (see the pamphlet 'Monopolise Resistance') and the Stop the War Coalition (could have been wonderful, now it seems to be moribund at best) do not exactly inspire confidence that some SWP 'eco-front' wouldn't go exactly the same way.

And while I have nothing against people trying, honestly and openly, to win others over to their ideas, the SWP leadership seem to have a completely unshakable belief that their way is always the right way, and that those who disagree are 'reformists', 'counter-revolutionaries', 'sectarians', 'Tory Anarchists' or 'ultra leftists' depending on their stance on a given issue. Nobody gets it right all the time, but the SWP CC seems to think they do.

so basically you are saying the SWP should be involved in organisations, should promote their politics in honest discussion, but should not send their members a long to vote in meetings.

of course organisations believe what they are doing is right. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing it. It usually sometimes afterwards when you realise you've made a mistake.

and be underhanded? Didn't I read earlier in this thread that somebody suggested people should caucuss, to undermine the SWP. if people put much effort into building an alternative, as they do into undermining the SWP, then you may be able to out vote us in meetings you bloody 'reformists', 'counter-revolutionaries', 'sectarians', 'Tory Anarchists' 'ultra leftists'.

fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

 

[Pilgrim]

Is it just me here, or is there a big gap between the kind of actions being contemplated and any obvious relevance to addressing climate change?

If I'm missing something obvious, please do help me to understand here.

I guess what I'm thinking is this. All the stuff I'm hearing seems to be about either influencing central government (good luck) or following some hundred year old scripts for an industrial proletariat seizing the means of production.

This is meant to be a constructive challenge, but please feel free to flame me if you think it will help

To be fair, this thread does seem to have moved away from climate change, but the discussion of the SWP's future role in the Green movement is also on the agenda. If they are going to shoehorn themselves into a Green movement which, IMHO, really doesn't need or seem to want their presence, then I am concerned. VERY concerned. The Green movement at last seems to be beginning to make a breakthrough, with respectable Parliamentary votes in Brighton and a number of councillors elected around the country. There is no need for the SWP to crowbar itself into the Green movement anyway. If left wingers want to vote Green, then the Green party or the Alliance for Green Socialism already exist. Friends of the Earth are doing lobbying and Earth First!, the various environmental protest camps and Greenpeace seem to have environmental direct action well in hand.

The track record of the SWP for taking movements over and then running them into the ground to suit its own ends is of great relevence to those in the Green movement, if that is where the SWP CC sees itself as going. The Green party was wise, IMO, to refuse to have an electoral alliance with the SWP, as the SWP CC has a proven track record of putting its own needs and wants before those of any partners they may have acquired. They simply cannot be trusted to act in good faith.

I don't doubt that there are sincere and committed environmental types in the lower levels of the SWP. But I'm also as sure as I can be that, if the SWP CC orders them to start undermining the Green movement for SWP gain, then many will probably obey such an order. It happened with the Socialist Alliance, it happened with StWC. I'd hate to see it happen to the Green movement as well.

 

[Pilgrim]

so basically you are saying the SWP should be involved in organisations, should promote their politics in honest discussion, but should not send their members a long to vote in meetings.

of course organisations believe what they are doing is right. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing it. It usually sometimes afterwards when you realise you've made a mistake.

and be underhanded? Didn't I read earlier in this thread that somebody suggested people should caucuss, to undermine the SWP. if people put much effort into building an alternative, as they do into undermining the SWP, then you may be able to out vote us in meetings you bloody 'reformists', 'counter-revolutionaries', 'sectarians', 'Tory Anarchists' 'ultra leftists'.

fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

I don't believe in block voting, decided upon in advance. I consider it undemocratic and much prefer to have things decided by a consensus where possible. I find consensus makes it harder for one group to simply show up and dictate to everyone else what is to be done. It can be pretty frustrating showing up to a meeting with an ironclad case for pursuing a particular course of action, only to know from the start that it certainly be voted down. And, IIRC, what happened in birmingham StWC is a shining example thereof.

And your point about political groups doing what they believe to be right is of mixed value, IMHO. Of course, different groups have different ideas, and those ideas should be debated openly, honestly and robustly. But your suggestion that it is only afterwards the SWP CC realise it has made a mistake is questionable. IIRC, the decent thing to do, upon realising you have made a mistake, is to put your hand up and apologise for it. Then try to rescue the situation. It's been a while, if ever, that the SWP CC has admitted fallibility on anything, IIRC. In fact, it would probably be better for the SWP generally if the SWP CC were to do so.

And I wasn't talking about 'undermining' the SWP. I was advocating that the Green movement generally simply let the SWP CC know, in no uncertain terms, that they are not welcome. I wasn't suggesting some dark and secret conspiracy to smash the party, or anything like that.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, let's first ask ourselves the question. What should we be doing about climate change and other green issues like food and energy security and their relationship to 21st century capitalist accumulation?

If we know the answers to those questions, then I'd suggest that we're in a much better position to evaluate the contribution or otherwise of an organisation with an essentially early 20th century agenda like the SWP.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well, if SWP members are disappointed by the lack of mass direct action, as I agree that some were, why didn't the leadership make a public call for direct action? IIRC, at around this time, the SWP line (as spoken by Lindsay German in Socialist Review) was that direct action was elitist and that DA crews should not be trying to impose our elitism on the rest of the movement.

And why didn't the StWC call for direct action? Direct actions at Fairford and Shannon seemed to have an effect, so why not call for blockades, sit-down protests, occupations and the like? If the membership wanted direct action, then the leadership should have accomodated them.

For instance, when there 1-2,000,000 people on the streets of London on -15/02/03, why not call a sit-down protest? We would have stopped the entire capital, and we had the bodies to do it. I was there. That would have been mass direct action, and there would have been little that authorities could have done about it on the day. The only report I've seen of sit-downs on that march was in an article by Mark Thomas, in which he states that those who tried a sit-down protest were moved along by SWP stewards.

I stand by what I said, comrades were disappointed there was not more MASS direct action. People were not inspired by direct actions carried out by SWP members and others, to organise and carry out their own. The student rebellions, though inspiring were not big enough. however well organised the SWP is, if one million people wouldn't wanted to sit down there is nothing they could have done about it. In fact the SW leadership would have rejoiced in being proved wrong, in being too conservative in agreeing beforehand with other organisers what should and should not take place. in other words been proved wrong that the "highest common denominator" was a mass demonstration. but the mass demonstration is what was agreed beforehand, and on the day that is what happened. encouraged by the leadership of membership of SW in parts try to go on to direct actions, but it was the lack of resonance, rather than the constraints of the SWP leadership that was the disappointment.

yes of course Lindsey German would not politically support direct actions that were not organically linked to a mass movement, as would I not. however, it must also be remembered that the SWP and indeed myself put a lot of effort into defending the anticapitalist demonstrations direct actions that put the grass on Churchill's head, smashed up McDonald's etc. [you mustn't mistake hyperbole to make a political point, with outright condemnation, comrade!]

fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sorry to be a nuisance, but ... how is any of that meant to help with climate change? I'm really quite willing to be convinced, but it's not clear yet.

 

[In Bloom]

Well, starting from what would actually be useful for doing something about climate change, I think you can see a number of valid objectives and work backwards to tactics. Demonstrations are useful for energising people, but then they have to do something useful with that energy beyond protesting.

1) New nuclear builds are likely to be rammed down our throats, with at least some support from the scientific community. It's therefore very important to articulate the scientific case for considering alternatives and build credibility around them by implementing them as widely as possible. It looks to me like an investment in putting local PV, solar thermal, CHP and decent insultation into our communities would be more effective than nuclear in cutting emissions. Mobilise some of that energy to achieve this, rather than waving placards. Actually get out there and build sustainable alternatives to whatever high-capital investment non-solutions the government is trying to shove down our throats. Show that it can be done. Get as many people involved as possible and build up their committment around their own community's successes in this area, no matter how small.

2) You can't break the fossil fuels - industrial agriculture - supermarket chain without putting alternatives in place. Organise community food cooperatives, campaign locally to get development land turned over to urban horticulture and local markets rather than the other way around. Get involved in local politics to counteract the power of the property developers and supermarket chains who you are inevitably going to come into conflict when trying to do this. Get all the families in your neighbourhood to understand that if they want healthy, safe, cheap food for their kids, this is a way for them to achieve it and to do something about climate change in the process.

3) Above all, find ways to make people who get involved feel empowered rather than powerless. The overwhelming result of mass marches by STWC was an increase in disempowerment and disillusionment. Let people see concrete results coming from their own work and they'll feel like their involvement counts for something, even if those results are small scale and local.

These are some preliminary suggestions, and maybe they're naive, but from my perspective, concrete action at local/municipal level is the only way to put in place the actual mechanisms necessary to be sustainable. I also think that sort of action leaves no place for SWP tactics to do damage. Let them wave their little placards, sell their papers and dominate their undemocratic steering committees, if concrete action is happening where it actually needs to happen, all that is pretty much going to be an irrelevance. If they really want to help, give them a shovel and a bucket of chicken poo.

Good post, BG

 

[TremulousTetra]

I don't believe in block voting, decided upon in advance. I consider it undemocratic and much prefer to have things decided by a consensus where possible. I find consensus makes it harder for one group to simply show up and dictate to everyone else what is to be done. It can be pretty frustrating showing up to a meeting with an ironclad case for pursuing a particular course of action, only to know from the start that it certainly be voted down. And, IIRC, what happened in birmingham StWC is a shining example thereof.a

yes, but by your political standards you cannot impose that view upon me. I don't have any problem at all with the SWP having a caucass to agree a course of action, just like you have no problem having a caucuss to agree how to "let the SWP know what they are not welcome".

And your point about political groups doing what they believe to be right is of mixed value, IMHO. Of course, different groups have different ideas, and those ideas should be debated openly, honestly and robustly. But your suggestion that it is only afterwards the SWP CC realise it has made a mistake is questionable. IIRC, the decent thing to do, upon realising you have made a mistake, is to put your hand up and apologise for it. Then try to rescue the situation. It's been a while, if ever, that the SWP CC has admitted fallibility on anything, IIRC. In fact, it would probably be better for the SWP generally if the SWP CC were to do so.

And I wasn't talking about 'undermining' the SWP. I was advocating that the Green movement generally simply let the SWP CC know, in no uncertain terms, that they are not welcome. I wasn't suggesting some dark and secret conspiracy to smash the party, or anything like that.

I must admit humility is not a strong feature of the SWP membership or leadership. do you know a political party who does have such a trate? conversely, i a member of the SWp am quite noted on here for acknowledging when I am wrong, it is also noted that is quite rare phenomena on here.

lastly, if you want to waste your time of letting the SWP know they are not welcome instead of building an alternative, that's your choice comrade.

fraternal greetings, resistance MP3