Dead ends and lost opportunities: a brief history of the Socialist Workers Party 1950-1999

by Colin Clarke

This article was originally written in 1999 for an issue of the New Zealand journal Revolutionary Marxist. Unfortunately, neither that issue or any other appeared and the article has been stored on various computers since. While reading the James Heartfield review on the biography of Tony Cliff, I thought it worthwhile finally giving it the light of day as it still stands up quite well. I don’t have the time or the inclination to rewrite or update it so a few worth points are worth making about the article:

1. The article only goes up to 1999 so is out of date. However, the Heartfield review tells you all you need to know about the SWP since that time.

2. For reasons, I no longer remember, the article is written in a really annoying, dismissive tone so try to ignore it.

3. I think the sections on State Capitalism and the Permanent Arms Economy could do with being covered in greater depth and if I was writing the article now, I wonder examine the SWP’s theoretical output in greater detail.

4. The very brief mention of the Anti-Nazi League is inadequate. While the focus of the ANL at a national level was populist, the history of the organisation is more complex. In particular, the working class squads that operated against the National Front in the late 1970s and early 1980s and were expelled from the SWP for their efforts, showed another way forward for the party. This period is covered in Beating the fascists: the untold story of Anti-Fascist Action

Tony Cliff, founder of the SWP

“What is needed is an analysis of contemporary capitalism in terms of its impact on working class consciousness, prescriptions tailored to the weakness and strength of class consciousness today; in fact the recognition that class consciousness is the material with which we deal as socialists with a view to transforming it into a material force in its own right. Without this at its centre, socialist analysis loses its coherence and socialist programmes their reality.”

- Michael Kidron, review of E.P. Thompson, Out of Apathy, in International Socialism 2, Autumn 1960.

“Imagine if we had 15,000 members…and 30,000 supporters: the 21^st October miners’ demonstration could have been different. Instead of marching round Hyde Park, socialists could have taken 40 or 50,000 people to Parliament. If this had happened, the Tory MPs wouldn’t have dared vote with Michael Heseltine. The government would have collapsed.

The prospect is not unrealistic or romantic. The number of socialists organised together is important in determining the outcome of the struggle.”

- Tony Cliff, Socialist Review, January 1993.

INTRODUCTION

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), whether you believe their claims of 10,000 members or not, is the biggest ‘revolutionary’ party on the British left and possibly in the English-speaking world.  It also has a host of affiliated organisations around the world that follow in its footsteps.  For this very reason, notice has to be taken of them. Yet, despite this position of hegemony, there has been very little serious analysis of the organisation.  This current article is, hopefully, a contribution to this discussion.

Next year is the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Socialist Review Group (SRG) from which the SWP grew, so it is a useful point to analyse the tendency, its theories and its claims to be a revolutionary organisation.  This is also a particularly apt time to undertake this investigation, as the organisation is facing a deep internal crisis at leadership level, for the first time since the 1970s, over key issues of strategy, especially standing in elections.

The Anti-Political Party – James Heartfield reviews Ian Birchall’s Tony Cliff

We re-publish below a review by James Heartfield of Ian Birchall’s biography of Tony Cliff. Cliff, founder of what became the (British) Socialist Workers Party (SWP) died in 2000 after a lifetime of being a revolutionary socialist and leader of the SWP and its predecessors. Heartfield’s review is a very perceptive critique of both Cliff, the organisation he led and its theory and practice. It was originally published in Platypus Review.

Tony Cliff

by James Heartfield

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is the largest political party left of the Labour Party, and has been active on the far left since 1977 and before that as the International Socialists since the 1960s. The party was led by Tony Cliff until his death thirteen years ago, and Ian Birchall, who has written this diligently researched memoir, is still a member since joining in the 1960s. Birchall’s “warts-and-all” examination is motivated by a marked unhappiness about A World To Win, the autobiography which Cliff apparently wrote based on recollection, without access to the relevant documentation. Cliff, Birchall remarks, was sometimes abrasive and “often underestimated the contributions of other comrades” (ix, 543). However, whatever its deficiencies, A World to Win narrates the story of the SWP pretty much as it appeared to Cliff, as one that was inseparable from his own life story. And as Cliff made clear, “there was no time in which militant workers were so open to us as in 1970–74,” under the Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath, “not before and not since.”[1] Yet if we take this claim seriously, no organization better embodies the failure of the British workers to take power than the Socialist Workers Party, which has endured for more than half a century, though not for the reasons that its leaders think.[2] Indeed, it might be argued that Cliff’s real achievement was to found a movement that rode a wave of disaffection from mainstream politics, unburdened by too many dogmatic ideas.

Irish trade union members vote ‘no’ to austerity deal – lessons for NZ workers

by Philip Ferguson

At the start of this week trade union members in the south of Ireland voted to reject Croke Park 11, a deal promoted by leaders of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in partnership with the Fine Gael/Labour coalition government in Dublin.  The current coalition, like the Fianna Fail/Green coalition that preceded it, has sought to make southern Irish workers pay for the financial crisis of Irish banks and the meltdown of the so-called ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy.

For several decades the bulk of the union leadership there has pushed tripartite deals with the bosses and the state, a ‘partnership’ model which is often held up by New Zealand trade union leaders as worth emulating.  But these tripartite deals did not deliver to workers even during the ‘good times’ of the ‘boom’ periods in the 1990s and early 2000s.  Now the boom has turned to bust the partnership model has simply locked unions into accepting responsibility for the financial crisis and agreeing to the austerity measures demanded by the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund, known in the south of Ireland as the Troika.

From demobilisation to anger

The leadership of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (the equivalent of the CTU in New Zealand) has engaged in some token rhetoric about ‘sharing the  burden’ of the crisis and they have marched workers up and down the hill and then sent them home a couple of times.  But, in general, they have acted as faithful lieutenants of the state and capital, serving more to demoralise workers than mobilise them.  Over time, the protests against austerity have become smaller and smaller and the main opposition to austerity measures has been a left-led campaign outside the unions against government attempts to impose a household tax.

For instance, on Saturday, April 13, just a few days before the trade union votes, 10,000 people took part in the latest march organised by the Campaign Against Home and Water Taxes.  One of the main groups involved in this campaign is the socialist-republican group éirígí and they had one of the largest blocs on the march, with scores of their activists and supporters behind a banner which read ‘1913-2013 A Century of Resistance!’. The éirígí bloc was awash with colour as participants carried tricolour, starry plough and éirígí flags, as well as placards declaring ‘Austerity isn’t Working – People of Ireland Rise Up!’ and ‘Fight Home and Water Taxes!’ whilst chanting ‘Fine Gael/ Labour hear us clear – We don’t want your home tax here!’ ‘No way – we won’t pay!’ and ‘Fine Gael/ Labour- Out, Out, Out!’ (For a report on this march, see here.)

Now, union members have had the chance to render their verdict on the collaboration of many of their leaders with the austerity programme of the main capitalist parties.  They have clearly had enough of

Same-sex marriage: basic justice but no threat to the system

by Philip Ferguson

Last night the NZ parliament voted in favour of same-sex marriage (including transgender marriage), making NZ the 13th country in the world to accept same-sex marriage.  The vote was decisive, 77-44.

The legislation was a private members bill put forward by Louisa Wall, a Labour MP and famous NZ rugby player.  (The NZ women’s rugby team has won all the rugby women’s World Cup finals.)*

The Marriage Amendment Bill (now Act) will take effect in August and allow same-sex and transgender couples to marry.  It also means both people in a gay relationship can be recognised as a parent of an adopted child.  People getting married will be able to choose whether they are called a bride, bridegroom, or partner.  At the same time, ministers of religion will be able to refuse to marry gay couples and criticise gay marriage from the pulpit without breaching human rights.

The wedding of Lynda Topp and partner featured on the cover of Women’s Day: gay marriage is a basic right, but no threat to the system

Legislation like this requires three separate votes over a period of time.  The first time this legislation came to parliament last year the vote was 80-40 in favour, with some opponents voting for it as they thought it deserved to be discussed.  The second vote, on March 13, was 77-43.

The current government is a coalition involving National Party, ACT (an economically right-wing, socially liberal outfit), United Future (an essentially Christian outfit) and the Maori Party.  The National Party prime minister John Key voted in favour, as did the sole United Future MP, the sole ACT MP, and the three Maori Party MPs.  The sole ACT MP was a National Party MP in 1986 and a very vocal and staunch opponent of legislation that year which legalised male homosexuality (lesbianism was never illegal).  At that time he denounced homosexuality

New Zealand troops leaving Afghanistan

Cleaning up following US bombing of a village wedding in Afghanistan, 2008; New Zealand forces were part of a destructive occupation force, not a liberating one

by Daphna Whitmore

NZ troops leave Afghanistan this month. Their posting, during which ten of their number died, was New Zealand’s longest wartime deployment.

New Zealand official media and  politicians made strenuous efforts to praise the deployments as a useful humanitarian effort, it was nothing of the kind.  NZ military personnel leave Afghanistan in social and economic ruins.  The civilian death toll over the period of occupation numbers tens of thousands.

The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs of Afghanistan announced last year that more than six million Afghan children are living in a critical condition.

Amnesty International reports, “escalation in fighting has left half a million Afghans internally displaced with around 400 more joining their ranks every single day.  The capital Kabul alone houses up to 35,000 displaced persons in 30 slum areas around the city.”

Despite the frequent claims that foreign troops were dispatched to advance their cause, women’s rights are little changed.

Dressed up as a humanitarian mission the NZ soldiers have plenty of blood on their hands.  They have been part of an occupying army since the Labour/Alliance government in 2001 voted unconditional support for George Bush’s war on terror. Labour and National governments have deployed the SAS to Afghanistan repeatedly over the past 12 years, shrouding the missions in secrecy. This subterfuge around the SAS has helped create the illusion that NZ soldiers were there to do good works like build bridges and schools. But the central reason for their deployment was

The stinking corpse of Margaret Thatcher

by Colin Clarke

Introduction

The long-awaited death of Margaret Thatcher and her subsequent funeral has brought out the expected gushing tributes, some of which border on the unhinged. One obscure former British Conservative politician described the situation in the country in 1979, when Thatcher came to power, as the same as in Greece now which is a travesty of the facts; she also went on to say how Thatcher had helped make the world the place it is today. Every possible retired politician and minor celebrity has jumped on the bandwagon of paying their respects trotting out the line that she was a great friend, mother, leader and lot more nonsense. All the mythologies that have grown up around Thatcher (she won the Cold War; emancipated the poor to become entrepreneurs etc.) in the past have reappeared in the obituaries with knobs on.

On the other hand, the same people are horrified that there are people in Britain who are celebrating her death. The liberal press, who have written handwringing editorials condemning Thatcher’s record as divisive (to call her policies divisive is to miss the point; they were meant to be that), but at the same time qualifying that with weasel words of admiration, are outraged at the disrespect shown to her. For my part, it is only good that people haven’t forgotten the class war that she engaged in against the working class in Britain or the completely avoidable Falklands war or the relentless war against the Republican community in the 6 counties, her support for the South African apartheid regime and labelling Nelson Mandela a terrorist, amongst many other things that could be mentioned.

This opposition makes it even more absurd that she is getting a quasi state ceremonial funeral that is costing $10 Million at a time when vicious and continued cuts are being made across the country. The logic of the funeral is that it hammers home to the proles that the woman responsible for the destruction of thousands of lives did her job in reversing the gains of the post war period, destroying working class communities and making the country safe for the rich again. 

Understanding the Venezuelan presidential election outcome

by Tamara Pearson                                                                                                                              Venezuelanalysis.com (April 15, 2013)

Things are chaotic here, as we recover from the surprise, disappointment, and a bit of hurt from the election results, but also go out in the street to express our support for those results, and to defend the national electoral system, one of the best and most secure voting systems in the world in a country which just loves to vote. We move quickly from sad last night to concerned and determined today, as the caceroles sound around the neighbourhoods and the opposition hangs outside the National Electoral Council (CNE) here in Merida, hundreds of them walking around with rocks and glass bottles in their hands, itching to have something to react to.

Still, as the pan clanging sounds around my neighbourhood and people shout “out! Out!” [referring to the government], making it just a little hard to think, it is important to understand yesterday’s results, as that helps us to understand the situation we’re in now, and plan somewhat for the future.

With the vote count updated this morning; 99.17% of votes counted, we see that 14,961,701 people voted this time, down just 214,552 from October’s presidential elections. That makes it clear that around 630-705,000 voters switched sides from voting for Chavez to voting for Capriles. The Chavista vote went down from 8,191,132 votes last October to 7,559,349 yesterday, and Capriles’ vote went up from 6,591,304 votes last year to 7,296,876 yesterday. Maduro beat Capriles then by 1.77% of the vote- close, although other elections around the world have been much closer.

The question though that many are wondering, is why did those voters switch to Capriles, rather than abstain? And secondly, how did the difference between the two sides narrow so much in the last week, given polls leading up to the election were predicting a 10-18% lead for Maduro?

It’s not common for voting trends to change so quickly, especially in the short amount of time that we had for this election. The election was called for 5 weeks after Chavez died, and there were only 10 days officially allowed for campaigning, though Capriles started his speaking tour of the country straight away. However,  this wasn’t a common