Thoughts on Swerps, Enrager & background builders!

[Mitch]

These are two interesting posts from enrager (now libcom? I'll bob them in full below this post as not enough space here, you can find the thread at:

enrager.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=49877&sid=a8719c5152df344ddab21584edb6454e#49877

They are belated replies, and I read between the lines on this, but also understand that trust takes time to build. I'm gonna respond to these in more depth on enrager when I get time, but for the moment I'm in agreement with a lot of the comments here, and I did notice that the Swerpies were sniffing around quite a bit on May Day. These are good reminders to take care me supposes, as their top down approach, their drive to control is always gonna be there.

Good god, we're never gonna hear the end of bloody George Galloway's win in Burnley. But this guy's got some real cookie belief's - homophobia and anti-abortion to mention two! A foul human being, he's a loud mouth as well, and a one man band so will probably move away from the Swerps soon.

What I don't understand is how so called socialists within the Swerps can stomarch it all. I remember at one Marxist forum I attended ages ago in Pendle someone saying that Respect's manifesto looked like the old Labour Party. I agree with Pilgrim that they are leaving revolutionary politics behind, and all steam ahead on their new road to election politics. But I'm moving the other way, towards revolutionary politics and anarchism so we will be in conflict here always.

I think Pilgrim (below) is being a bit hard on this 'shaking the tree' scenario. I've been involved in various campaigns and in East Lancs Lets and other things locally, and I don't judge why people can't quite commit, or perhaps don't turn up as I think people have different backgrounds and difficulties that mean they can only do a little, or come occasionally, or even support in the background. It could be a variety of reasons from depression, to abuse in the past leaving confidence and self-esteem in tatters (I've been here too).

My attitude here, is to focus on people. Spouting punitive values down on people that are broken is bloody ridiculous and we should be looking to help, with practical support. That's what East Lancs Lets is about for me, and I've learnt the importance of this from women like Sheila Rowbotham, and I picked it up along the way from my own experience and supporting my mother through a lifetime of severe depression. I learnt a lot from my mother.

I think personal experience is the biggest motivator to action, and we don't talk about it enough, our backgrounds, why we come to do what we do and believe what we believe.

What do others think about these posts above? I would challenge Pilgrim's comments about 'shaking the tree'. Social misfits, as he refers to certain people, may have had horrendous backgrounds and experiences. I'd want to find out and try to help here, listen to them. If I got to a point where people were getting left behind, and I wasn't listening or trying to understand then I reckon I might as well pack it all in.

They miss things on Enrager/Libcom. I think Lustbather's posts are a good example. I've known men in Burnley like him. They bark loud because noone is listening - and occasionally if you read between the barks there are some good ideas, and if you start listening, seeing the ideas, the bark starts to disappear. Probably I'd see a bit of meself in him! Maybe Bryan you'd identify with this? titter! Took me a while to see what you were doing through the barks. Some people just don't make it easy for you to understand how much they care and want power in the hands of the people!

I think Lucy's idea of trying to meet each other moving forward is the way to go. I guess from my perspective I'm currently nursing a few bruises though. These recent arguments between anarchists on the board didn't come on to a vaccuum, they came just after a hard and lonely isolating run of confronting the Swerps way of doing things in Burnley. We were battered already from that! It was very damaging. But we seem to be building our confidence up again, with the help of some women friends, one woman in particular in Burnley who works in the background, I don't know if she's quite aware of how much she helps. She thought of East Lancs Lets, and now there is this Women's Project in Burnley and Nelson bringing women together. We will build our confidence through these too. Like Hannah Mitchell, I send my love and friendship to these people who work quietly in the background. They make things happen by building confidence in others. Pilgrim could learn from them.

[Mitch]

LUCY AND PILGRIM'S POSTS BELOW:

enrager.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=49877&sid=a8719c5152df344ddab21584edb6454e#49877
POST FROM LUCY/ENRAGER
Quote:
Lucy's post also touches a nerve - I've seen many individuals in Burnley bullied in a similar fashion, many friends crushed. This keeps me focused in a determination to confront Leninism/SWP in the community. But you have to be sharp to undercut their hold for they are well organised. They burrow into communities, win over networks, dominate community groups and hob nob and do deals with local labour councillors and so forth.


yeah, it can be really disheartening and it has made me very angry when groups where there have been good people working well together get politically vulturised in that inimitable SWP way. Our experience in Manchester when Stop the War impolded was particularly heartfelt and bitter for me cause myself and many friends were involved in it for a long time. The SWP were there but in benign mode for a long time and at one point, there were anarchists, swppies and other various socialist/leftie groups and interested individuals sitting down and creating stuff together.
Then orders came in from SWP central committee that STW groups had to affiliate to the centre and i think payment was mentioned. So many people got pissed off with this and with the way that the SWP became increasly heavy handed over controlling the group in line with central committee directives. Things got worse and worse, leading to the breaking away and formation of other groups and it eventually cumulated in a public row at a STWC conference in Manchester which platformed that pregnant dog Lindsey German and was entirely SWP stage managed where I was so f**king angry at what they had done I came out shaking. Some of the SWP members I'd known for ages and I'd trusted them for a long time and the implosion of Manchester STWC kicked me sideways cause I hadn't seen before at first hand what the SWP are capable of doing when they want control of a group as a political vehicle for themselves.

The postscript to all this was an old political acquaintance of mine was a member of the STWC central committee and told me of a conversation about "we have to bring Manchester into line". i.e crushing our stupid ideas of working together and creating an SWP ruled satellite pod. We lost the battle, although other things came from that experience including a radical reappraisal of my own politics.

Quote:
You have to understand how they work in a community like Burnley - it's different fighting leninism here in a smaller town than say Manchester where you have bigger anarchist networks to bolster your confidence.


I don't think there are bigger anarchist networks supporting each other in Manchester. It might look that way but the reality on the ground is small groups of people who occasionally might do things together. Having social or formal/informal groups like AF, SolFed, red/yellowbricks people etc doesn't mean they are particularly supportive of each other except in the loosest way (like someone is putting on a picnic or a film night so bits of other "groups" might tell others and turn up). In terms of political action, its the same but possibly even more stratified cause you trust who you know.

Quote:
then you finally connect with wider anarchist networks, and they begin to rip each other to bits.


i am still pretty positive about people working with each other and not ripping each other to bits. groups do sometimes tear into each other but i think there is a loosely connected network and, despite the odds, sometimes it holds. not the local suppport you need necessarily to tackle local ingroup politics and the conflict and problems raised from that but if you'r doing stuff in burnley then tell me and i'd come if i can and try to get other people to come too. I told people on this board about a deportation in London and appealed for help and a group of people i have never met got people together and went to the airport to try and stop it. (which was massively appreciated by everyone involved, so once again, thanks). i couldn't have just rang some stranger up and appealed with them to get their arse to the airport. support from other people and groups in what you are trying to achieve does exist and, (bitterly frustrating as politics can be), sometimes unexpectedly it works.

I think we need to make the effort to meet each other whenever its possible. i also think that sharing and learning stuff from other peoples experience is important because i don't see any other way around the problem of polarisation and ripping each other to bits within the anarchist network except to try to strengthen those relationships.

some of us mancs went to brum to meet people at the nursery social centre squat and i met really good people creating a squat as a community centre for people living in the area and who are still fighting for the garden paid for by lottery money and ripped off by the council. some of the people who squatted the social centre came to manchester mayday. also i respect people from CAG who have fought to stop the loss of the bus station and people from Nine Ladies who fight to stop the quarry companies and all the other people and groups i've met and sometimes worked with who actually do good nuts.

ultimately, i'm trying not to drown in feeling that its all about little groups, sometimes antagonistic/sometimes apathetic. i've had to cancel anti-deportation stuff i really passionately care about twice recently cause people just haven't turned up to share out the responsiblity and it has made feel kinda wary but i still think if we try to meet each other and talk and not judge people straight off and try to connect up and support each other, work out the politics and complications , and take it from there. thats the only answer i have.

POST FROM PILGRIM ENRAGER
Personally, I think we need to deal upfront with the damage so frequently done by the SWP. If they are so set on electoral politics, which is looking more and more likely given that they now have an MP to play with, we should be looking to push them firmly in that direction.

We could start by only allowing those Swappies who we know and trust into our meetings, and make it clear to the Swappies that if they want to go down the electoral road, fine, but that they should have the good grace to go quickly and leave the revolutionary pitch to those who actually mean it.

If RESPECT is a success, which is a slim but definite possibility, then maybe they will be less and less interested in interfering with revolutionary politics. But if RESPECT fails, and I have already heard it said that Galloway doesn't intend to stand for election again, or if Galloway does the dirty on the RESPECT leadership (the SWP CC) then they will once again be sniffing around our issues and movements. If they attempt this, then they should be swiftly and firmly shown the door with a united campaign of opposition to their return to revolutionary politics by the back door.

There is only so much 'bending the stick' that we should be prepared to take from the SWP, or other Leninists for that matter. Personally, I believe that only with the demise of Leninism altogether, hastened by a concerted and united campaign from Anarchists, will we see the advancement of Anarchism in the UK, and the beginnings of the society that we all so desperately want to see.

It's no good sitting back and just wanking off about how bad the SWP (and other Leninist groups for that matter) are. We need to accept that our own organisation is at best patchy, with some really sorted groups and some that have at best limited organisation and in some cases no organisation at all. A lot of criticism is directed at the SWP for being 'professional revolutionaries', but personally I don't see anything wrong in adopting a businesslike, organised and professional attitude if it gets us where we want to go.

Maybe it time to shake the tree, and see which slack, lazy and uncommitted members of the Anarchist movement (I'm thinking in particular of the lifestylists and social misfits here) happen to fall out. If people aren't performing, then they need first to be given an honest opportunity to mend their ways. If they won't, then maybe we need to dispense with their services, such as they are.

[octoberlost]

Mitch, I followed a bit of the thread, and as you know I put my tenth penth in. I feel that the SWP are a spent force politically because the prosepect of a Leninist style revolution is impossible in this day and age (leaving aside the fact that its undesirable) - with declining union membership and change in work patterns, moving away from more centralised workplaces, like mining, ship-building etc. Your typical workplace now is around about 20 people with supervisors etc, and with the workforce typically being un-unionised.

This means that winning over bureaucracy, which is the essence of Leninism and its bastard offspring Trotskyism, is not desirable and is dying on its feet. This doesnt mean they cant be a pain in the arse, and working class militants will more often than not hear from the Trots and the sects long before being exposed to libertarian ideals. Theyre are very specific reasons for this, mainly they appear more organised and disciplined, but scratch this surface and you will find it is at odds with the very concept of socialism, at least as we understand it. So we have to engage with them and put forward our ideas when we work with them in campaigns - anti-racism, anti-war etc.

The problem comes in how we work and interact with others. The core of our politics is decentralisation and a rejection of state and capitalist control in favour of co-operation. This means that we are disorganised, we sometimes accept an 'anything goes mentality' and in such cases offer no valid way forward to people looking for an altenative. But it doesnt have to be this way....

[Mitch]

octoberlost said:

Mitch, I followed a bit of the thread, and as you know I put my tenth penth in. I feel that the SWP are a spent force politically because the prosepect of a Leninist style revolution is impossible in this day and age (leaving aside the fact that its undesirable) - with declining union membership and change in work patterns, moving away from more centralised workplaces, like mining, ship-building etc. Your typical workplace now is around about 20 people with supervisors etc, and with the workforce typically being un-unionised.

This means that winning over bureaucracy, which is the essence of Leninism and its bastard offspring Trotskyism, is not desirable and is dying on its feet. This doesnt mean they cant be a pain in the arse, and working class militants will more often than not hear from the Trots and the sects long before being exposed to libertarian ideals. Theyre are very specific reasons for this, mainly they appear more organised and disciplined, but scratch this surface and you will find it is at odds with the very concept of socialism, at least as we understand it. So we have to engage with them and put forward our ideas when we work with them in campaigns - anti-racism, anti-war etc.

The problem comes in how we work and interact with others. The core of our politics is decentralisation and a rejection of state and capitalist control in favour of co-operation. This means that we are disorganised, we sometimes accept an 'anything goes mentality' and in such cases offer no valid way forward to people looking for an altenative. But it doesnt have to be this way....

Good god man, have you swallowed a theoretical dictionary.

You are forgetting people's experience on the ground, and my reaction to the Swerps locally sits within my broader reaction to any organisation or individual for that matter, political or otherwise, that seeks to take control over other people's lives and tell them what is right and wrong.

I had a particular confrontation with Swerps round here because they set themselves on some sort of pedestal in Burnley and Nelson, another ominous group telling people what to do, with an agenda. If confronting that is wrong, then I beg to disagree Dr Lost.

[octoberlost]

What Im saying is that rejecting centralised leadership, doesnt mean we have to be anti-organisation. I think a platform, even if its only a local set of principles is better than a group unitying because they share similar radical views. Do you catch my drift?

[Fred]

" I feel that the SWP are a spent force". (Quote.)

Octoberlost.

We have to be careful, the fact seems to be that politics today are fluid. All the so-called organs of the "working class in struggle," The Bolsheviks, the Social Democrats i.e. Labour as well as the various trotters such as Militant ,SWP and WRP have failed in their role of saviours of the working class. This doesn't mean, that there's no place for them in the scheme of things.. It's too early! The problems that beset us are still here in profusion and others are on their way. It would appear that the ruling class recognise this and so should we. The Labour Governments addiction to "Control Measures," such as ID cards, their constant cossetting of the polis and the incessant refusal to listen to the complaints of the lower and middle classes show that something is ,'brewing,' at least to my mind. The SWP, is not much of a force, I agree. It has however the potential to present itself ,on offer , as it were for the 'leadership' stakes of the working class. The position of the SWP, is in many ways like that of the BNP. It has very little to offer at the present, but it is there and should not be dismissed easily at this minute. We only have to look at the history of Militant in the 70s and 80s. A movement that stood far off on the sidelines for 20yrs or so, that had an iron discipline and a paper that was unreadable was brought to the front ,not by its own abilities but as a counter weight on the left to combat the disorder and riots brought on by Thatcher's misrule. At that time the Labour Party collapsed and was totally rejected .Fires were burning in the centres of about 30 towns and cities throughout Britain. Thatcher's friends were talking about "Private Armies." Trouble loomed and then there came the light. Militant!
It got time on TV and in the press that normally politicians of any kind would kill for.When it began to believe its own propaganda it was ditched by an ungrateful government.It later proved that it was incompetent and unsympathetic to working class demands. But for a few fleeting moments it had its moment of glory.
The SWP are no different in many ways.But they are there and shouldn't be written off. Don't write them off. We should oppose them , because they offer nothing to the working class but , "blood, sweat, toil and tears". We already have these. Having said that, we should not refuse to work with such organisations on single issues, the most obvious being anti-fascism and civil liberties.
What we should do is work on our ideas and offerings so that we can put them forward in a clear ,convincing and compelling manner. We have to dominate the political left,not with sticks and stones but with our assurance in our policies and presentations.

[Mitch]

octoberlost said:

What Im saying is that rejecting centralised leadership, doesnt mean we have to be anti-organisation. I think a platform, even if its only a local set of principles is better than a group unitying because they share similar radical views. Do you catch my drift?

I'm not sure I do actually - can you spell it out with an example. I think you're getting at purity here, but I'm not sure.

Centralised leadership has always been out for me, I came into active politics as a libertarian minded already although I didn't know to call it that back then. But it's no surprise to me I've ended up in the anarchist camp, it all fits with stuff I was thinking about a couple of years ago - bottom up organising, doing things for ourselves, and something which rarely gets said in the same breath as anarchism, but should be all the time, and that is a deep caring for your fellow and fellowess human beings.

I'm not anti-organisation, but I would debate the approach of bottom up organising in various contexts, as I think there can be different styles that work in different places.

Round here it's essential to listen to the community and their concerns, not to come in with an agenda of how you think people should organise.

I agree with Fred about working with different people on single issues, but this can throw up many dilemmas for those on the anarchist leaning side.

Here's an example, this week in the Nelson Leader there is a letter from a Swerp anti-fascist organiser. I've gotta say that she's one of the best organisers around anti-fascism that I've seen, but I disagree with so many of her arguments, her letter goes like this:

"BNP WAS REJECTED
Once again, Pendle can be proud that the BNP failed to gain any seats here in the recent elections.

The reply to the BNP's message of division and racism is 'NO' from people who are getting on with their lives together in our mixed community. As long as the BNP tries to make inroads in our towns and villages, people will turn out in their thousands to stop them through a truly democratic process"
(Nelson Leader/letters/Friday, May 20th 2005, p.15)

The dilemma is pretty obvious - a truly democratic process is that Searchlight line of argument - use your vote to stop the BNP. But that doesn't make sense to me as I challenge top down government/I don't participate and vote now - but I sure as hell will work hard in anti-fascist campaigns locally - but more than that you take on the responsibility of challenging racism and fascism wherever you find it in the community - that's the real hardwork.

Can I just add that I'm currently feeling quite isolated from much anarchist organisation out there - and I'm not sure how the hell this came about. It's all bloody ridiculous - and I'll tell ya this I'm pretty disgusted at the degeneration of the anti-casualisation thread on libcom at the moment, currently resorted to an analysis of where, how what to get a leaflet translated into polish.

And Dr Lost, you can go boil ya carrots again, rambling on about hardcore punk Crass when I'm trying to have a serious debate about Milla Jacovich's spectacular appearance. Also, have you frightened off pilgrim permanently, and what the hell goes on with these wild arguments between anarchists that do and don't eat meat. Well titter worthy this!

Libcom is growing on me though, I often feel at home with a bunch of LOONS. You're wrong 'ere Fred, some of them do care, and I sure wouldn't say no to a bunch of anarchist students and younger anarchists helping us here in Burnley and Nelson.

Urr, I haven't yet worked out why I keep killing threads on Libcom - is it me charm - titter ;D

Grrrrrrr, growl grrrrrrrrrr

[michele cryer]

LOL re LOONS on LibCom or what not...

I agree with your sentiments about that forum, there might be a lot of banter but I feel they mean well!

Any and all help from them mucho appreciated!

[Mitch]

www.worldbeardchampionships.com ;D

[michele cryer]

Teeheehee...A vast improvement, I must say! ;D

[octoberlost]

I think personal experiences should inform your politics and you should act on that...nothing more or less should be asked.

[michele cryer]

Well said Octoberlost