“Any weapons won from the police in battle can immediately be used against them.”
The prospect of the SWP going off into an ultra-left tail spin can be illustrated by the SWP blog, Lenin’s Tomb.
An SWP member using the pseudonym Roobin, has been given a column to write:
When open class struggle with the serious prospect of social revolution breaks out, war of manoeuvre, the better organised a class is the more likely it will hold positions gained.
…
I want to illustrate the point about organization as a product of war of position in a slightly unusual way: through street encounters. The first physical line of defence for the ruling class is the police force. The moment when cohesion of the ruling class has weakened enough so the unity of the lower classes can come together, enough to set a significant portion of them into action, is when the police appear.The bad news is the police will never be won to our side, not as a rule. They are handsomely paid for their jobs, very tightly controlled and ideologically marshalled by their superiors. Most importantly they are hardened by regular contact with the public. The moment the armed forces are set on the public is an intense psychic test for a revolution, as the members, especially the lower members, of the armed forces are simply not trained for the situation.
The good news is, given preparation (the opportunity for which, of course, is normally denied), the average citizen can match a police officer blow for blow. A police officer has access to hand arms, in particular clubs, but the ordinary citizen can get and/or easily improvise these. The same is true of body armour and self-defence. The police have roadblocks, the people barricades. The police can use sturdy, powerful vehicles, so can the public. The police can use tools such as water cannons to disperse a crowd but a resourceful crowd can use similar devices to reverse effect. The police can use small firearms. Even in Britain it is not impossible for a member of the public to get hold of some. Any weapons won from the police in battle can immediately be used against them.
…
During the anti-G8 demonstrations in Germany recently there was a very successful direct action that blocked the railway line to the summit resort. The police blocked every road route toward the resort. The marchers approached a blockade as a mass before raising a set of flags and dispersing in large, pre-organised groups into fields of shoulder high corn, following the flags. The police had not planned for this and could not cope with it; their organisation had been broken.
Louis Proyect has already commented on this.
Roobin is already somewhat ridiculous at suggesting that the British Army have no training or experience at confronting the public. What about the war in Ireland?
But how utterly bizarre his attitudes to rioting are. Roobin has clearly never actually fought the police, nor been on picket lines like at Wapping, or Orgreave or the Warrington Messanger. He has certainly never been in a real riot like we had in Brixton or Bristol in the early 1980s: I remember being actually quite frightened, as well as exhilarated, when the police turned round and withdrew from St Pauls.
The Police don’t only have organisation, they also have the power of arrest, the full power of the courts and prisons behind them, they have the ideological support of the public, and the press, they are backed by the politicians. They can exact terrible revenge, for example look at what happened to Winston Sillcott.
Even with the example like the Trafalgar square riot against the Poll tax, the police only lost because they had underestimated the size and determination of the protesters, and had the police seriously intended to suppress the march they would have prepared better.
The police are seriously armed, trained and equipemed for riot control, and Roobin is living in a fantasy world if he thinks the left can or should prepare to fight them
The fact that squadist juvenilia like this is now hosted by a semi-official SWP site is a wonder to behold.
“The fact that squadist juvenilia like this is now hosted by a semi-official SWP site is a wonder to behold.”
this has to be the biggest non story yet on this site. Really if a blog comment now counts as official SWP policy… well, best get a grip.
Meanwhile leading RR member is going to take the largest TU leader to court and then stand against him without any consultation with the rest of the left. Of course RR deny it has anything to do with them!! now thats a story and a half…
Comment by tim — 3 June, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Your hyserical attacks on the SWP are becoming tedious.
Comment by Adamski — 3 June, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
“They can exact terrible revenge, for example look at what happened to Winston Sillcott”.
And indeed any miscarriage of justice (with the Tottenham Three, there was Engin Raghip and Mark Braithwaite as well as Winston Sillcot).
But the post written by Roobin just reminds me of the stuff I heard as a teenage, “smash the state, comrades…”
The only street fighting revolutionary in town. Kinda grew out of that mindset by the time I was 18….. And to be honest it’s utterly macho and anarchistic daftness (sorry Roobin but get a reality check)
I mean, it is not like we are in a pre-revo situation…or have I missed sumat..? Sticking out the barricades and all power to the soviets (I wish but it aint there……)
And Andy includes the miners’s strike and the cops brutality and Wapping. That first anniversary at Wapping clash with the cops gave me nightmares and witnessing men and women demonstrators up, close and personal getting beaten up by riot cops really is still imprinted in my mind.
Saying that, I remember the French students in the late 80s when they clashed with the cops, wearing protective clothing etc in their fight against the cops.
Comment by Louise — 3 June, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Adamski: “Your hyserical attacks on the SWP are becoming tedious”.
Why is a hysterical attack? The post by Roobin is utterly bizzare and sixth form anarchism…
Comment by Louise — 3 June, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
#4 When he not drooling over middle of the road politicians , Not a day passes without some Tabloid-style exposee of the SWP by Andy. I use the phrase “Tabloid-style” intentionally.
His phrases are very strange: “SWP SAYS”, so is this from an SW editorial? Or quote from a member of the CC or prominent member? And his use of the phrase “semi-official”. An opinion piece by one Roobin is apparently evidence of some ultra-left turn by the SWP.
I’m not a member of the SWP, but as far as I can see, the main preoccupation of SWP members at the moment seems to be on the industrial front and anti-war + anti-racist activity.
Comment by Adamski — 3 June, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
The street fighting post is rather daft, though I’m not against a bit of a flight of fancy now and again, seeing it as something worth dedicating a reply blog post to is also rather daft.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 3 June, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Hey, Lenin’s Tomb is OK. And surely #1 is right, that it hardly constitutes SWP policy.
This controversial post has provoked a lot of debate in the comments section, some of it quite interesting.
It would be bad for the web if nobody was ever allowed to blow off steam, or speak figuratively, for fear of being quoted out of context & condemned elsewhere.
Comment by Strategist — 3 June, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Andy should be more worried that his organisation is handing out leaflets indistinguishable from a LibDem leaflet:
http://birminghamrespect.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/sparkbrook-april-08.pdf
Comment by Adamski — 3 June, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Thanks Louise
The point here is this article was not only posted in the SWP’s house blog, but also has attacted a number of comments from SWP member’s none of whom have commented on how ridiculous it is.
I worked with a woman whose husband was at the battle of the Bean Field, and even he as a copper dishing out the violence was severely traumatised by it. the police are trained for violence, and have the full support of the state and civil society when they are called upon to use it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
“SWP SAYS: “Any weapons won from the police in battle can immediately be used against them.”
Well, the SWP says nothing of the sort. A foolish article in a SWP supporting blog says that. Infantile as it is (and odd that ‘Lenin’ thought it worth publishing), I don’t think it tells us anything about the trajectory of the SWP, if indeed it can be said to have one.
Comment by Lobby Ludd — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
I’m a little more concerned that a Respect Renewal Councillor boasts in a headline on his website: “EAST LONDON BUSINESS LEADERS BACK RESPECT”
I’m surprised that Galloway, Leader of Respect Renewal’s review of Sex in the City hasn’t had a similar profile on this site?
Comment by Adamski — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
One waits with bated breath for Andy’s next post: John Rees ate my hamster,
Comment by Adamski — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Its rather odd that someone who claims to be occassionally inspired by Gramsci can so misread a post which borrows a metaphore from him. It might have been more interesting to focus on the politics of the post which was to do with the anti-war movement, its legacy, and the current situation. But, no. An out of context quote and a ridiculous allegation of ’squadism’. The post is in context, the opposite of ultraleft.
Comment by johng — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Adam
Given that Louis proyect has already written about this, and spent a lot more time and effort on it than i have, perhaps you will be cluttering up his comments box as well?
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
I wouldn’t necessarily interpret Roobin’s batty article as representing the SWP “line” on anything. Richard Seymour has a taste for the “cringe-worthy” as somebody commented on my own blog on this issue. Nobody could possibly interpret Yoshie’s apologetics for Ahmadinejad as reflecting SWP policy, for instance. In general, I think that Richard’s political and intellectual independence is a good thing, even if it occasionally results in opening up the doors to boneheaded gaffes such as Roobin’s.
Comment by Louis Proyect — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
I don’t think there is formally anything particularly wrong in the lenin’s tombs article, the sentiment is more or less lifted from ’state and revolution’ although it lacks much of the clarity of the real Lenin and is p’haps not entirely relevant for the political situation we are now in.
I have some sympathy with Adamski, given there is so much else you could be writing about this does seem like a huge waste of time, not to mention something of a mis-representation of the facts. If the SWP are saying anything then they are saying it in their own publications, not flying a kite for it on a blog. Sadly this sort of mis-representation happens all the time and passes into collective consciousness.
BTW, while I was camping in devon last week without internet access I saw over someones shoulder an article in the daily mail that Galloway is suing ITV because he appeared in an episode of the Bill as a crooked east end MP- is there any truth in this, doesn’t seem to be reported anywhere on the RR website?
Comment by martin ohr — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
JOhn G
I have read Roobin’s article a few times now, and it is very hard to see what possible insight Roobin has gained or seeks to impart about Gramsci.
The metaphor of war of position and war of manoeuvre from Gramsci is about winning hegemony in terms of the socialist left and the working class organisation putting themselves ideologically and politically at the head of all those forces in society who have something to gain by social change, which provides a political context that is constructive for socialist politics.
Gramsci was not literally talking about building up organisation to fight the police.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Nor I take it was Roobin. He was talking about the importance of organisation and using tactics on demos as a metaphore. Having said that of course, Gramsci was interested in taking on the police and was an advocate of armed revolution. But lets not get into that.
Comment by johng — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
So John, when Roobin writes:
That is a metaphor? It is a very detailed metaophor isn’t it?
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
the figure in the Bill episode allured to by Galloway contains a scene where by the crooked MP is seen supporting rock against racism. Now GG states this shows its based on him. But anybody knows GG did diddly squat to build the LMHR carnival and sotod in field with 100 supporters a good 20 minutes down the road from the 100,000 carnival attenders,wouldn’t speak at the carnival becuase he wanted to speak on murdoch’s tv station instead, his supporters attacked the carnival before and after the event and now oppose the march against the BNP being built by UAF and the Unions.
Andy of course is scrapping the bottom of the barrel with this article. Really as someone above said what about a look at Galloways sexist rant called a film review of course Andy thinks this was a very good article!! These days Andy can’t get enough of GG.but a few years ago was always ranting and raving how bad he was.. maybbe the power which goes along with a seat at the nat exec of RR even though you need not be elected to it.. a bit like being the London candidate for RR as Clive Searle says himself the whole slate was dreamt up by Galloway because …. well he doesn’t give any reason other than GG is the boss. What an outfit!!
Comment by blyth — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Ahem, I thought I might say hello (twice in one lifetime, get me!). Now:
(1) Andy, you are a very, very silly man. This is tilting at internet windmills.
(2) I do like the bit where you say:
“The Police don’t only have organisation, they also have the power of arrest, the full power of the courts and prisons behind them, they have the ideological support of the public, and the press, they are backed by the politicians. They can exact terrible revenge, for example look at what happened to Winston Sillcott.”
Which is not a bad way of putting flesh on the bones of my point about organisation.
(3) The entire article is NOT an argument for squadism. As I said IMMEDIATELY BELOW THE POINT YOU TAIL OFF:
“The point is the police rely upon superior organisation and centralised control, not firepower. There are relatively few police officers in any country, never enough to deal with a general movement of people. This is one of the reasons why movements should be as numerous and broad as possible, to reduce the harm to life and limb to a minimum. When 2 million people are intent on using Hyde Park for a demonstration there is nothing the state can do to stop them (without seriously upping the ante).”
It is an argument for mass movements with grassroots participation. All the stuff about firearms is to illustrate that they are NOT what make the police effective. The point is not about tooling up but organising large numbers of people.
Maybe you ACTUALLY believe the things you are saying and your anger is not synthetic. In which case you can rest easy now.
Comment by Roobin — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
I’m no fan of the SWP (or Leninist Autocratic parties generally), however I’ll have to agree, one post on a Blog ran by a supporter of a party does not mean that is the parties position.
Comment by Scott — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
Can I declare myself to be the first (known) ex-member of the SWP (1991-2003) to have rejoined because of the nonsense red-baiting appearing on this blog.
Comment by HarrodsisBurning — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Well roobin, Richard himelf says the reason he published it is because “This is an interesting post, as I see it, about tactics and force in protests and demonstrations.”
That is the way it reads.
You are quite wrong to say that the power of the police is through its “superior organisation and centralised control” its stregth derives from through the ideological acceptance of the police by wider society, and the political support they enjoy.
Indeed your clarification reinforces the ultra-leftism.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
#23
I hope you will be very happy together.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Andy probably searches under his bed for ultra-lefts
Comment by Adamski — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Jesus people - take a look at yourselves - this has to be the most piddly little debate this site has hosted for a while.
Andy - there really are bigger fish to fry - I think you need to take a few mnths break from internet watching, let the other SU commentators take the wheel for a few weeks and just relax a bit.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
#24 Andy: ‘You are quite wrong to say that the power of the police is through its “superior organisation and centralised control” its stregth derives from through the ideological acceptance of the police by wider society, and the political support they enjoy.’
It’s both surely. Andy; you are going to have to tackle the real Lenin in order to demostrate that it is only Hegemony and political support that sustain the police and armed forces.
I notice that you have changed the title of the post, can you explain the reasons for the change rather than just changing it and making peoples responses in the comments look kind of stupid.
Comment by martin ohr — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Andy your attempt to seperate organisation and ideology above suggests that you ought to read Gramsci a bit more. He was most opposed to the notion that ideology can be seperated from its organisation, and covered a lot of pages on the subject. Given that much of his writing was directed against Bordiga, whom he was politically infatuated by for longer then he ought to have been, perhaps, in truth, Andy Newman is a rabid ultraleft.Bordiga it should be said was fond of making eight hour speeches. Is Andy like that? I think we should be told.
Comment by johng — 3 June, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Yes its a detailed metaphore. Its not a simplistic metaphore.
Comment by johng — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
#23
“Can I declare myself to be the first (known) ex-member of the SWP (1991-2003) to have rejoined because of the nonsense red-baiting appearing on this blog.”
2003 seems a strange time to leave the SWP. Was it just before or just after the SWP led a march of 2 million in London?
Comment by Darren — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Next time I write, Andy, I will spell out E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G. for you. Fergudnessake:
“You are quite wrong to say that the power of the police is through its “superior organisation and centralised control” its stregth derives from through the ideological acceptance of the police by wider society, and the political support they enjoy.”
The start of the post was about how political questions arise, generate movements, which in turn generate organisation, and how this has a lasting effect. I suppose I should have chucked in a potted history of the police as well. Of course that’s how the police arose and continue to cohere. It’s implied in the existence of any organisation. Stop the War’s effectiveness derived from its wider acceptance in society.
Comment by Roobin — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Much more interesting than Andy’s nonsense is the news that the new kids on the block in Nepal have now abolished the monarchy with the King given 14 days to leave the palace!
Comment by Adamski — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
I don’t think a history of the ideological acceptance of the police force in either this society or capitalist societies generally, could be seperated from a history of their organisational effectiveness or their monopoly of armed force. In general, as with many other things, ideological acceptance is premissed on force and its excercise, which is in turn dependent on organisation. As Gramsci understood it the two are bound up with each other.
Comment by johng — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Congratualtions on finding a subject SWP members in this country might find interesting (slightly).
I’m reminded of Mark Thomas’ joke after the Poll Tax Riot:”We pay the police’s wages, why shouldn’t we beat them up every now and then.”[Aha, I hear you say. The SWP really are ultra-lefts like that anarchist]
“Roobin is already somewhat ridiculous at suggesting that the British Army have no training or experience at confronting the public.”
They don’t have experience of confronting masses of workers(institutionally I would guess since 1919). I think you can see from archive footage of Grosvenor Square and from the 70s that the police have got better at dealing with hostile crowds (from their point of view).
Comment by skidmarx — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Martin #28 - I changed the title because I agreed with those who corrected me that the SWP itself hadn’t said this, only one member. Some of the people commenting here don’t need any help from me to look kind of stupid.
John G, well done for using your usual methods of obfuscation and inpenetrability to obscure the issues. Of course organisation and ideology are linked, but that is not what we are talking about. Why are you defending roobin’s article so robustly if it is indeed so different from mainstream SWP thinking?
Arguing that the power of the police is more derived from politics and ideology than organisation doesn’t negate the importance of their organisation. Indeed it me and not Roobin who discussed both their phsical preparedness, and their political and ideological support. He only mentioned their organisation. Yet it is me - who mentioned both - who you accuse of seperating them. Why? becasue you are more interested in point scoring.
Jospeph #27. thanks for your concern. You will note that there is hardly any “internet watching” on this blog. perhaps you are mistaking me for someone selse?
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Fair enough Andy, replace ‘internet’ with ‘SWP’.
I think you do a grand job with most of the stuff you post up here but I really think you need to try avoid over-jumping on SWP stuff - now if those councilors do swtich to Labour that would be something worth having a debate over.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
Joseph
Everyone needs a hobby :o)
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
#37 ‘…now if those councilors do swtich to Labour that would be something worth having a debate over.”
Any news yet?
Oh and if Nas appears, could s/he let me know what s/he actually means when s/he said the SWP leadership are treating the Greek comrades with ‘utter contempt”. Or is it like most of NAS’s posts, just made up?
Comment by anticapitalista — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
“Why are you defending roobin’s article so robustly if it is indeed so different from mainstream SWP thinking”
Because it was a perfectly sensible article and not at all ultraleft. To state that the advantage that the police ultimately have in confrontations is not to do with hardware but to do with organisation points away from ultraleftism. to use this as a metaphore for wider politics also points away from ultraleftism. i still have an affection for standard usages of terms like ‘ultraleft’, ‘right wing’ etc, etc, and object a bit when the terminology is misused. Its also true that your attempt at a rebuttel was just silly or (?) quite possibly, “right wing”. :). The fact that it is grotesquely ungramscian was just icing on the cake, and a bit of an indulgence on my part. But as you point out, we all have our hobbies.
Comment by johng — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
For what its worth I thought it was a useful and thoughtful piece about the contemporary situation. Whether or not it reflects “contemporary SWP thinking”.
Comment by johng — 3 June, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
What puts it firmly in the camp of ultraleftism is for example the claim that the organisation of the German police was “broken” by direct action around the G8.
This ludicrously overestimates the significance of direct action, and the ideological and politicall impact the relativley small protests have.
One wonder whether the German police realised that their “oranisation had been broken”, or what proportion of the german population relaised that the capitalist state was tottering in the aftermath of this heroic action.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
Indeed, Louis Proyect points out that the following hymn to black bloc methods from Roobin comes AFTER the more sensible point about large mubers being needed to demonstrations.
Perhaps John G can enlighten us what Gramscian metaphore this is employing?
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
Ah, yes - in the last analysis the ’state is a body of armed men’. Until then, there are contradictions in the relationships between classes, so we have nice police constables who can join in the dancing at festivals and soem do align with our class (their attitude to leafletting and flyposting if its the firefighters or the ambulance workers we support, for example).
In the end, they have political masters and their class character is well documented. Doesn’t mean we donm’t make demands for their accountability and question their powers.
I’m not sure this reflects in any way the serious thinking inmside the SWP - or any one else on the left. No mention of establishing workers militias to be really consistent with our taking of power!
I can’t honestly see SWP members handing out this material or SW advocating what in this context would only be seen as advocating violence against police, rather than defensive strategy of the masses. No, SWP have some daft analyses , but put this one to one side.
Comment by harold — 3 June, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Andy - why don’t you wade through some other SWP/IST blogs and start dredging up every disagreement you have?
If you can conclude that Roobin’s post is somehow representative of alleged trends in the SWP, then surely I can conclude that your rabid anti-SWP sectarianism is representative of strong trends within RR. Of course.
Comment by djn — 3 June, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Andy,
I accept that we politically differ about Direct Action. In the SWP we don’t make a fetish out of it (indeed one of the main criticisms of us is that we did’nt do enough, especially around STW) but we certainly do participate in it, as and when appropriate, which, in my view is quite often even when in war of position mode, are heavily involved in it. Its important even at the most mundane levels of struggles to be familiar with this sort of thing (think for example of your confrontation with that nasty security guard, and your calculations, in a given situation of what you could, and could not get away with: partly the product of your own experiance, but that experiance in turn is shaped by organisation and its legacies) and it is wrong to disown those in the movement who take part in it or seek to label them as the main problem or whathaveyou. Its a tactic sometimes appropriate sometimes not. The metaphor is quite clear and very Gramscian. He is discussing the question of ‘organisation’ and its importance and pointing to what happens when it falls apart: not to the dissolution of the bourgoise state apparatus. Your misreading and selective misquotations from the article strike me as either a bit juvenile or on the other hand, simply dishonest. I prefer juvenile because I’m a pleasent sort of chap all round.
A concrete example of where we might differ would be over orgreave. the reason the police could beat the miners at orgeave (literally and figuratively) was not because of the technical equipment at their disposal, nor because of general ideological beliefs about the police force but because the rest of the trade union movement did not turn out alongside them. This happened for a number of reasons to do with the balence of class forces etc, but ultimately the reason was the absence of networks of socialists who could have ‘organised’ to pull that off. They were, in the end, better organised then us. Both organisations and organisation are always decisive. And this is the point Roobin was making. To waffle in the abstract about general ideological beliefs without investigating their basis is a most ungramscian thing to do.
Comment by johng — 3 June, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
Andy, you muppet.
That last quote is illustrating tactics, not strategy, making the utterly obvious and uncontroversial point that, you know, if you’re creative and flexible in your actions, you can outwit the police and other state forces opposed against you.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with black bloc methods, unless you think any sort of direct action is “black bloc”.
Comment by Martin Wisse — 3 June, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
“unless you think any sort of direct action is “black bloc”.”
‘And there’s the rub’ he cries with the kind of insane relish hitherto only seen amongst orthodox trots on the discovery that a political opponent has a past affiliation with an alien -ism. Ah Socialst Unity. What would we do without it?
Comment by johng — 3 June, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
I am obviously getting old and grumpy.
The original article was the overexcited kind of thing you would expect from ‘Student Grant’.
The fact that the odd nod towards Gramsci was thrown in somehow has provoked others into acting as if this was something worth discussing right now.
I don’t give a fuck what Roobin thinks, and I can’t be arsed to explain why.
Comment by Lobby Ludd — 3 June, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Hate to have to say it, but my experience of the SWP and direct action is a dim one. During the G8 in Edinburgh, I was involved in an impromptu demo along Princes St along with another 300-400 people. Things were going swimmingly, the police were on the backfoot as we proceeded to bring the entire street to a halt.
That is until an SWPer arrived and split the demo by encouraging protesters to get on two buses for Gleneagles that only materialised because of the action we’d taken.
Talking the talk is one thing…
Comment by John W — 3 June, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
#31/Darren: part of my reason for leaving, (but only a part), was a disagreement I had with most of the comrades at the time about whether the SWP was right to be pulling out the Socialist Alliance or not. I thought we were wrong.
It’s an odd thought now to think that I was in agreement with Andy on that one. (You know, back in the days when Andy did useful stuff, rather than spending hours on the internet trawling to find someone to have a fake row with.)
My reasons for rejoining the party probably aren’t much of a surprise:
+ The SWP leadership has got most of the important things right in the past ten years - no matter how hard the last year has been
+ The SWP has a capacity to revive and reinvent itself to cope with what I think could be some quite hard times over the next couple of years
+ The SWP has a more interesting and talented student cadre than it’s had in more than a decade
+ The SWP doesn’t have much serious competition, and in so far as it does: I don’t like or trust Galloway or the Gallowayites.
Comment by Harrodsisburning — 3 June, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
Well I’m sure we’ve occassionally done wrong things on demonstrations (and more besides). Recognising that organisation is important does’nt mean your organisation is always right, and good general principles about the subordination of tactics to a strategy of mass politics does’nt neccessarily mean in each case that the balence will be perfect. But without such general principles you’ll only ever be right accidently. We don’t therefore, either equate direct action with the black block, in yet another of AN’s sudden lurches to the right, or on the other hand fetishise direct action as an end in itself. Even when we get it wrong, both on demo’s and off them, its good to be surrounded by people who have a grasp of these fairly basic principles, which is why I suspect folk like anon have re-joined despite disagreements back in the day. The baby with the bathwater approach of some in RR is a lot more disturbing then this or that tactical error to many of us.
Comment by johng — 3 June, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
I read the post. It was interesting and it seemed to make some good points. I dunno, hardly Class War style “go out and have a riot now! No, now! I know there’s only three of you and a dog!” rhetoric.
If we don’t talk about stuff like this now when do we? I’ve seen far crazier stuff out there with far less substance.
Comment by Rusu — 3 June, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
Andy (#43), you’ve got me a bit worried now - have we got any large mubers to bring on the demo against George Bush next week?
Comment by steph — 3 June, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
Roobin’s article is faux juvenile leftism on prozac. Says a lot about him. Not sure much can be deduced about anyone else.
A significant issue is, however, that there has been no serious confrontations between a movement of the left or of the trade unions or of the working class for 15 years or more. For me, this is to do with the wider social configuration, rather than with technique. And the technique, when it comes, will not come from the far left, but from those who are currently a very long way from that way of seeing.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 4 June, 2008 @ 12:08 am
“Hate to have to say it, but my experience of the SWP and direct action is a dim one. During the G8 in Edinburgh, I was involved in an impromptu demo along Princes St along with another 300-400 people. Things were going swimmingly, the police were on the backfoot as we proceeded to bring the entire street to a halt.
That is until an SWPer arrived and split the demo by encouraging protesters to get on two buses for Gleneagles that only materialised because of the action we’d taken.
Talking the talk is one thing…”
John W - your wrong I’m afraid I was there and plenty of comrades stayed and were part of that street demo (some got arrested too), but we weren’t there to block Princes Street, we wanted to demonstrate at Gleneagles so the ‘fight’ with the police was about forcing them to take us there, which they did in the end, and if you think it was just the SWP that wanted to do that you are wrong again, Heida Gulliani, Carlo’s mother was sat next to me while we blocked the road waiting for the buses, maybe you’d like to explain to her how she helped the police stop ‘your’ wonderful direct action…and just for the record the people on the megaphones trying to convince people of this were SSP people not us.
Comment by noel — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:16 am
“plenty of comrades stayed and were part of that street demo (some got arrested too)”
John was one of those arrested Noel.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326381.html
I was already at or near gleneagles by that time so don’t know exactly what went on in the day. But, the ‘edinburgh 5′ inlcuded two SWP members among the 5 described as SSP members.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:26 am
Noel
I don’t know who you are, but I speak as one of the six people who led this action. We took it in response to police efforts to block buses leaving from Waterloo Place to travel up to Gleneagles. When it became apparent they were doing so we got the people left waiting to march along Princes Street. Of those involved in leading this action, I was the only one who was a member of the SWP. In fact, at the start of this event the two main players involved were myself and Raphie De Santos of the SSP (he and I are no longer on good terms but I’m sure he will back up what I am saying). Others joined us as things progressed, none of whom were members of the SWP.
We reached the Mound, where a phalanx of police were lined up and a stand off ensued. They wanted to lead us off Princes Street up the Mound and we wanted to continue along Princes St. During this time, people came up from behind and warned us that someone was on a megaphone back in the middle of the crowd urging people to get on the two buses that had suddenly materialised. The police, realising that their attempt to impede protesters going to Gleneagles had backfired, tried to get us off Princes St by producing the buses they’d held back. We’d called their bluff and succeeded in putting them on the back foot. Anyway, I and others went up and began arguing and remonstrating with the individual concerned (I won’t reveal his name but those involved know who he is). Two buses were not enough to take everyone who was part of the action and it was wrong to leave people behind, especially as we’d seen the police laying in to protesters only two days prior. To me those protesters who got on the buses and were willing to leave others behind and at the mercy of the police were as bad as scabs crossing a picket line. The individual concerned wouldn’t listen, hadn’t even accorded us the respect of talking with those of us at the front of the demo before taking the action he did, and in so doing split what was a spontaneous but effective action.
Now this is fact. I was there from start to finish and I’m sure there are many others who will substantiate my version and recollection of what took place. In fact, it’s on film. A documentary was made of the G8 mobilisation and clearly shows what happened.
Comment by John W — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Jim
But, the ‘edinburgh 5′ inlcuded two SWP members among the 5 described as SSP members.
Reply:
You’re wrong, Jim. As I said, at the time I was the only one of the six main players arrested who was a member of the SWP.
One of the reasons I left was due to what took place and the fact that no action was taken by the SWP to discipline the their comrade responsible for instigating the split in the demo.
There were six involved. Five of us were arrested on one charge and another was arrested on a separate charge.
Three of us went on to join Solidarity, the other three remained in the SSP after the split.
Comment by John W — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:46 am
My mistake John, I thought that Vanessa Fuertes and Kevin Connor were SWP members.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:53 am
I read the original item on Lenin’s Tomb. I did not take it seriously. It struck me as just an expression of couch commando time. About twenty to twenty-five years ago, I read a book called “Revolutionary Violence” which examined political violence, particularly by the left internationally. I remember it stating that most small left groups in Western Europe might pay lip service to “arming the workers”, but it was just a case of repeating phrases from old pamphlets, with no practical content.
Not that long ago, the Weekly Worker had a front cover with a still from the film If… and carried an article with an allegedly Communist call for access to military training. This was mere radical posing. The WW are essentially men and women of peace, except in their journalistic lives.
Comment by rote kapelle — 4 June, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
jesus christ, what is this argument even about? you all need to stop taking sides in these nonstories..fucking hell. it was childish to write this armchair soldier article and also childish to criticise it as an SWP policy.
over 60 comments on this bollocks! the left can be ridiculous sometimes. this bitching doesn’t help anyone, you shondes.
Comment by marcus — 4 June, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
“To me those protesters who got on the buses and were willing to leave others behind and at the mercy of the police were as bad as scabs crossing a picket line”
Now THATS ultraleftism on prozac (aside from anything else it makes no sense at all, in terms of who would be at the mercy of whom).
Comment by johng — 4 June, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Johng
Now THATS ultraleftism on prozac (aside from anything else it makes no sense at all, in terms of who would be at the mercy of whom).
Reply
What on earth are you talking about? Were you in Edinburgh in that week? If you were you would have seen regiments of police up from London and Greater Manchester tooled up and intent on violence. They’d already steamed into protesters on the Monday in Princes St and now, here we were, two days later defying them and marching through the centre of the city again. The only reason they backed off initially was due to balance of forces. And now here we had around 50 or 60 leaving on buses.
I’ll say it again, those that left on those buses were guilty of leaving us to the very real possibility of being attacked by riot police.
How the hell is it ultraleft to point this out?
Comment by John W — 4 June, 2008 @ 5:32 pm