Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Political Parties

Template:Election box metadata

Is he really a member or former member? He's such a right-winger I think it may be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.61.17 (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is. It's on his page, there's no source, but I think it's well known. A lot of people joined and left the IS/SWP as students with remarkably little effect on their long term politics. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was raised before here. Clockback really is Peter Hitchens, by the way. Philip Cross (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism page is clearly written by SWP supporters. The wording of the criticisms is vague, the wording of rebuttals (such as the sockpuppet below "...despite the existence of an annual delegate conference...") sounds ultra-impressive and specific, without giving much actual information.

It's a way of confusing the argument and putting up a smokescreen. Straw men! Unsigned comment from 81.157.17.172

Actually, what you are describing is not, in itself, sockpuppetry. Read sockpuppet. --Duncan 21:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/Archive 1

Criticism

I think the section on criticisme needs rewording. I think all political organizations are accused by their opponents or rivals of being "undemocratic" . We need a more precise characterization of the accusations if any. Something like :

"The centralized structure of the SWP, despite the existence of an annual delegate conference, is considered by some other Left groups as undemocratic. "

What do you think ? Johncmullen1960 11:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also looks a bit weak to me. We could do with a bit more detail on who has made this criticism and perhaps quote it directly, then look for an SWP response to it. Warofdreams talk 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any substantiation available for the "largest party of the left" claim? Presumably this is actually Respect? MarkThomas 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends whether or not you consider Respect a.) a party, and b.) of the far left. Personally I would say 'no' on both points, in which case the 'largest party of the far left' claim applied to the SWP is probably true, though difficult to verify - and as such is probably best left out of the article. Guy Hatton 09:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since most SWP members are not in Respect, it's quite possible that Respect is smaller than the SWP. However, it clearly is a party, and on the far left. --Duncan 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which simply goes to demonstrate what I suspected already - that there will be many shades of opinion on this. Is Respect a party? It describes itself as a coalition, and as some of its constituent parts are parties in their own right, I think that's where the important distinction lies. As for 'far left', it's clearly not a revolutionary working-class organisation, hence not 'far left' in my book, but that's just my opinion. Guy Hatton 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we review political party then Respect perhaps does qualify: it styles itself as a coalition, but its leaders and members refer to it as a party interchangably. Of course far left is troublesome, in so far as it's perjorative and rarely used to self-describe: perhaps you might not think that most organisations that are or were far left are revolutionary working-class organisations. But Respect's positions do align well with the EACL, in which it participates, and is a coalition of leftists. --Duncan 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP goes, a lot of these things are down to common perception - Respect appears to the public to be a party, even if internally it is considered some kind of coalition or front. I also don't particularly trust statements from most political parties, particularly those of a more doctrinaire disposition, about membership - they nearly always inflate such figures or put a positive gloss on them. There is no objective source on party memberships in the UK and one only needs to look at such figures claimed for Labour and the Tories to see what a quagmire they are. MarkThomas 07:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SWP is definetly the largest far-left party in England. The SWP has around 5k members, all of the others claim to be in the hundreds. While the SP is alittle over a thousand. Even if there isn't a 100% factual source it is entirely common knowledge. No left wing party in the UK claims to have more. All on the far left know the SWP is dominant at least in numbers.

This is just fantasy and long out of date - where are these 5000 members? The SP definately has almost 2000 members, they pay subs and send delegates to Congress. The SWP's 'membership' is comprised mostly of people who once attended a meeting , or used to be members before they saw through the organisation. The maximum number of members of the SWP in any one place at 'Marxism' is about the same as at the SP's 'Socialism' events - I'd say they are no bigger anymore. The largest Party on the left, as the saying goes, is FORMER members of the SWP, many of whom are probably still 'on the books' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotboy (talk • contribs) 09:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section on practice, because it seems to me that the SWp is not only differentiated by its theories. Open recruitment, no permanent factions, and a central emphasis on publications are important elements of what the SWp actually do. Naturally each of these elements is criticized - in politics if you'r enot being criticized, it's because you're not doing anything ! Johncmullen1960 08:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy has recently deleted a para saying "The SWP support the contributions of totalitarian Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin to Marxist thought. They maintain that the revolution only became oppressive under the leadership of Joseph Stalin.[1]" I have to say that this appears to be correct - isn't it true that the SWP considers itself Marxist-Leninist but is anti-Stalin and pro-Trotsky in very general terms? Why the removal Guy? MarkThomas 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that there is a far more NPOV way to put this, whether Lenin was 'totalitarian' is part of the accusation the SWP's stance disputes.--JK the unwise 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "totalitarian" means (according to Wikipedia) "the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the official state ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour unions, churches or political parties." This appears to be an extremely accurate depiction of exactly what V.I. Ulyanov set out to do and did in high (self-appointed) office. In fact, it appears that JK yours is the POV, and an extremely minority and sectarian leftist POV at that. I would prefer that Wikipedia articles like this tell the truth about organisations. SWP supports Marxist-Leninism, which is a totalitarian and anti-western liberalism and anti-democratic model. Let's say so. MarkThomas 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As JK has already said, the application of the term 'totalitarian' is highly controversial. It is commonly deemed perjorative in regular usage, and hence in this context probably unencyclopedic. Unfortunately, the broader definition you quote is not, I think, how most people would interpret it. Even then, that is most certainly not what Lenin set out to achieve - whether or not it was what actually happened in the latter part of his leadership is another debate. Also, the term 'Marxism-Leninism' has a particular meaning amongst socialist organisations, and would never be applied to any party which claimed to belong to the Trotskyist tradition, as the SWP does. Lastly, I felt very strongly that the source citation was being grossly misused - the article in no way supported the claims being made.

Hope this clarifies my reasons for removing that paragraph. Guy Hatton 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe then you should "fix" the totalitarian article. We will await that with bated breath. :-) I think I see small piglets flying over. Totalitarianism isn't any more pejorative than saying "Leninist" and if we're being accurate we should say it. If the SWP suddenly took power in the UK, as is their dream, would we have democracy, or would we have Supreme Leader Rees (presumably in a job-share with Supreme Leader German!) and a Stasi-style "Industrial Brigade" to keep order, beat up the Tories, etc? The latter I suspect. But of course it's not totalitarian because it's Bronsteinism! Puh-leeze. MarkThomas 10:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Guy Hatton 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to discuss, don't revert things that don't happen to fit in with your extreme-left POV then. MarkThomas 11:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion I do - hence the explanation above. Inane sarcasm, on the other hand, gets short shrift. End of story. Guy Hatton 12:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sarcasm, just genuine joy that you understand a different sense of "totalitarianism" to (most) of the rest of us. MarkThomas 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original statement made the assumption that Lenin's leadership can be correctly categorised as totalitarian. The SWP doesn't accept this, and the article on totalitarianism marks the categorisation of the Soviet Union at any time as authoritarian as being controversial. It doesn't even mention Lenin's period. So the discussion about the term would be best held at talk:totalitarianism - where I see there is already a lively discussion on various applications. Warofdreams talk 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to limit discussion about the SWP's policies on this article. Just because the totalitarian article doesn't specifically mention Lenin is irrelevant. I have clarified the SWP's beliefs in the lead section. MarkThomas 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Where has anyone tried to limit discussion about the SWP's policies? This clearly isn't the place to decide whether Lenin was a totalitarian leader; that has very little to do with the SWP's policies. The introduction to an article should strive to be based on uncontroversial factual statements; controversial statements should be in the body, where they need to be sourced and attributed. The statement you are proposing is clearly controversial, given the objections to it on this discussion page. Warofdreams talk 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

II think Mark has misread the SWP article he linked to in the section we are discussing. The section we are discussing says of the SWP: "They maintain that the revolution only became oppressive under the leadership of Joseph Stalin.[2]". In fact, the article stresses the degeneration of the revolution in 1920, and Lenin's opposition. Incidentally, the SWP would not call itself marxist-leninist, in so far as this means anti-Trotskyist. --Duncan 22:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, in case anyone reading this talk page has just skimmed the article, that there is already a discussion of the SWP's relation to the Marxist tradition in the section named "Theory". It notes that they see themselves as standing in the tradition of Trotsky and Lenin and that they seek to distinguish themselves from what they see as the separate tradition of Stalin. Has anyone got anything constructive to say about how this section could be improved, if improvement is necessary?--JK the unwise 07:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some confusion. Some say the SWP is in the Leninist tradition and others not. If it is, then the question arises as to Lenin's totalitarian methods. I suspect the latter is in fact the case. Only one question remains - which of the SWP leadership will head up the secret police? :-) MarkThomas 08:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SWP is a Leninist party, but does not call itself Marxist-Leninist. Here's its leading theorist Alex Callinicos: "I wouldn’t call myself a ‘Marxist-Leninist’ because this implies adhesion to some version of the Stalinist orthodoxy that became institutionalized from the mid-1920s onwards. But I have no qualms about calling myself a Leninist when it comes to revolutionary organization."[3]. Although it is into Lenin big time (see its founder, Tony Cliff's, three part hagiography of Lenin), it does not see Lenin's period of rule as an "ideal society" (again, see the final installment of Cliff's trilogy, which highlights the problems with the period after the 1917 revolution). So it is rather unfair to make these sort of designations. I think that the section on Theory already more or less adequately captures the SWP's position. It might be worth augmenting the State Captalism subsection with something that makes clear that the SWP sees the USSR as becoming state capitalist only after Lenin's death - which differentiates the SWP from other proponents of the state capitalism theory, such as left communists.

As for totalitarianism, it is utterly un-wikipedian to describe things as totalitarian as if this can be stated as a matter of fact. If it is worth saying - under the Criticisms section - that some people see it is totalitarian, then this needs to be done by citing solid examples, such as Nick Cohen or Oliver Kamm [4] BobFromBrockley 11:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to it than this though. If the SWP has a revolutionary Leninist agenda, then it must have a number of secret intentions and presumably a "plan of action" for taking over the Army, the Police, the security services, etc. This would be useful to include in the article. Clearly the SWP has both secret agendas and published agendas and likes, as do a lot of extremist political factions, to misportray its aims in public. It absolutely must be the case that the SWP would for example have a secret police if it came into office. Searching for references for something so obvious may be difficult, since it is also utterly insignificant. :-) MarkThomas 11:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah the SWP doesn't have a secret plan of action to take over the army. That's a misunderstanding of what kind of revoltuion the swp is in favour of. A Revolution is to be carried out by millions of workers, a fair part o fthem organized by a mass party ( say a couple of hundred thousand absolute minimum). So for the present period the aim is to persuade people that a revolution is possible and will go better if the party is bigger, not to sit around in groups of a few thousand making secret plans of action. not serious. Mark, I know it's not your ideas, but I am surprised to don't know more about their internal dynamic... Johncmullen1960 08:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt that the SWP would have a secret plan for taking over the various arms of the state. We're hardly in an immediate pre-revolutionary situation, so it wouldn't exactly be an urgent issue, and most Marxist organisations hold that it's not possible to plan in any detail the post-revolutionary society before the revolution. At present, I would imagine that the SWP's main secret aim is to get people from the various campaigns it has set up to join the party. The reason that you won't find references for your claims is that they are purely your own supposition. In the article, we need to stick to facts or significant and sourced opinions. Warofdreams talk 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the lack of sources would just be because the "mainstream" media don't believe the SWP are important enough to warrant much investigation, although they are mentioned from time to time in the Guardian-Observer. I believe Respect earned them a few mentions when Galloway was at his most ridiculous. Apart from that, they are beneath the radar. As with a lot of fringe groups, I would question them really being notable enough for a mention on WP, except perhaps in the cult sections. All that pressure to sell newspapers gradually changes one's grip on reality, and I fear some of this page's defenders suffer in that way, as they do on other similar articles. :-) MarkThomas 12:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources on the SWP, just not on your suppositions. We have many articles on things seldom mentioned in the mainstream media; this alone is not evidence of lack of notability. In my experience, the SWP are mentioned from time to time, anyway. Warofdreams talk 14:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs updating regarding the 2007 split in Respect and the allegations by George Galloway and others of Control Freekery. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly needs updating on facts of respect split... control freakery is such a vague and non-political thing to accuse an organization of though. Is it really notable, in the mouths of someone like GG who doesn't hesitate to use colourful phrasing...Johncmullen1960 (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, it wasn't actually George who said that, but rather Linda Smith, the National Chair and Leader of Respect.--Charliewbrown (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just deleted this sentence "In February 2008, Pat Smith was charged with perjury in connection with the evidence she gave in the case."

This is because it is now one year later. IF the person was found guilty, we need to say so, if they were cleared, same thing. To leave the sentence just like that seems a bit like trying to muddy their name. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion that follows this article, it seems the SWP are big fans of the Labour Party and it's achievements: http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Tory-leader-tackles-top-issues.5117326.jp does the article reflect this attitude to the Labour Party adequately? Riversider (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now twice reverted anonymous editors who dispute the idea that a large proportion of the SWP's claimed 6,000 members are inactive, paper members, despite the evidence of a long-time leading member, Lindsey German. The idea that the SWP has 6,000 active members is clearly false, as anyone who has been to their events recently will tell you. There might be 6,000 people paying some level of subs to the SWP but that is not the same as active members.Haldraper (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Perhaps the major problem facing the party, over and above any specific strengths and weaknesses in any area of work, is that the level of passivity remains extremely high. Of around 6,000 registered members, probably the majority are totally or near totally passive. Perhaps a tenth of this figure attended pre-conference aggregates, despite controversies which usually help raise attendance." the evidence? adidas (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the evidence. There is no way of verifying the 6,000 members claim - I'd guess that most are ex-members who still give a bit of money - but the number of active members can be measured by turnout at SWP events and it sure isn't anywhere near 6,000.Haldraper (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that paragraph can be an evidence, the second sentence of this article -"It claimed to have around 6,000 members as of 2008"- would not be a 'wrong statement' I think. adidas (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the SWP publishes, or its leaders offer comment on, the number of active members, where activity is defined as attending national events. Attending pre-conference aggregates is not required for membership of the SWP. There is a difference between being a non-member and being a member. If the SWP leaders make comments (as they have, even in internal discussions) about the membership of their party then we can reference that and state it. But the formally registered is the real membership, not the number of members who attend pre-conference meetings. Since the outcomes of pre-conference aggregates are largely predetermined, not attending might not indication total passivity. --Duncan (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, have you read Mark Steel's book 'What's going on?'. As someone who joined the SWP in the late 70's and recently left, he describes the dramatic fall off in their membership - shrinking branch meetings, national events etc - and also the leadership's attempts to cover this up by never taking people off the books even if they've not been seen or paid any subs for years. It's a bit like the Catholic Church with lapsed communicants, you never leave, just move into a separate accounting column marked 'not as active as they used to be'. If I was guessing, I'd say the SWP has a couple of thousand people regularly paying subs and maybe a third of them are active.Haldraper (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've come on this talk page because I saw the 6000 members statement and it immediately struck me that qualifying it with "although a large proportion of these are paper rather than active members" is totally POV. This is the case for just about any party. Do you think everyone in the Conservative Party turns up to all the meetings? Of course not. Labour Party sub-constituency-level branches with dozens on their books seem to attract less than a dozen to their meetings, and usually no more than a couple of apologies are sent. For every regular who turns out most of the time and bothers to let someone know when they can't there are plenty of members in name only who send in their subs and don't feel motivated to involve themselves beyond that. This is all assumed when hearing a membership figure by anyone who knows anything about political parties or other mass-membership organisations and how they function. What would be notable is evidence that nearly all members participated actively in any party bigger than a handful of founders. There is no justification for specifying that the SWP has plenty of inactive members unless anyone can point to research showing clear evidence that SWP members are disproportionately passive when compared against those of other parties. 79.64.177.124 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is one person's views on party membership, so how can you possibly say that "a large proportion of these are paper rather than active members" based on the evidence of one person? If you want to be fair and impartial then state that Lindsey German made the comment that she thought a lot of these members were inactive, as the eveidence only points to that. The other side to this is the ridiculous notion that party membership can be reduced down to attendance at a party aggregate or meeting, or even a basic level of activity. I'm wondering how many members the Labour Party could claim if we applied the same standards to it. Johnathan Rook (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last two comments wildly miss the point. The SWP presents itself as a Leninist combat party composed of revolutionary militants bound by the discipline of democratic centralism. The idea that you can be regarded as a member of such an organisation - rather than loose, reformist parties or the conservative party - by paying subs and never turning up to any meetings or events is frankly ridiculous. What it points to is that the SWP keeps lots of people on its books who in other Trotskyist groups would be regarded as ex-members/sympathisers. As to the idea that German's comments are just 'one person's views on party membership', that is strictly true but as the person in question was until recently a longstanding leader of the group it does carry more weight than if me or you say it based on anecdotal evidence.Haldraper (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The idea that you can be regarded as a member of such an organisation - rather than loose, reformist parties or the conservative party - by paying subs and never turning up to any meetings or events is frankly ridiculous." Do you have a source for your special rule? --84.64.85.77 (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a 'special rule', it is the practice in all far left groups I know. The claim that the SWP has 6,000 members is therefore highly misleading (as well as being unreferenced given it is German who makes the claim and there is no way of independently verifying it). I therefore propose to remove it.Haldraper (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of that. The reference is to an internal bulletin, by L.German (a member of the SWP!), which is in no way an independent source. I will therefore remove the "largest" claim and replace it with, "one of the largest"

70.81.135.168 (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. I removed the claim that it had 6,000 members based on the same internal document for that reason. I do think the SWP, although smaller than it was, is still the biggest group on the far left but there is unlikely to be an independent, verifiable source to back this up.Haldraper (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One might ask which other far-left party could claim to be the largest... Paul Foot, in his obituary of Tony Cliff in the Guardian says "when the Communist party, with its (comparatively) huge roots in the organised working class, collapsed in 1989, the SWP became by far the largest and most confident of the socialist organisations to the left of the Labour party."[5]. An article in the Times says the following: "Beyond the limits of the Labour party there exists an ever-spinning whirlpool of organisations competing for your affections - and subscriptions. The largest is probably the Socialist Workers party (SWP). It claims 8,000 members, while its rivals in the revolutionary rush say the true figure is less than 2,000. Most of the other assortments of socialists, communists, Leninists, Marxists and Trotskyites have trouble pushing their numbers up into the hundreds."[6] I think we're pretty safe with "largest far-left party in the United Kingdom". Fences&Windows 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's formal membership is larger than Respect, the CPB and the SP added together. --Duncan (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I too agree that the SWP is the biggest far left group. The problem is finding an independent, verifiable source, rather than a member like Foot or German saying 6,000 or an opponent organisation saying under 2,000. To make a comparison, you would also need membership figures for other far left groups. How big's the SP for example? I could make a pretty good guess but I don't know how you'd find out without joining.Haldraper (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether an independent source can ever verify an organisation's membership. If organisations or their leaders state a figure, then we can reference that statement and should do so with comfort wince we know the general statement - larger than the others - to be true. One point to compare could be attendance at flagship events, which is often lower than paper membership. --Duncan (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, there are two problems with that. Firstly, as you know, membership in a Trotskyist group involves regular activity under the discipline of the group. It is not like the Labour Party where you can pay your subs once a year and you're a member. To say the SWP has 6,000 members (as opposed to ex-members/sympathisers who occasionally give them some money) is therefore misleading. Secondly, even if you couch it as 'the SWP claims a membership of x thousand ', many people will take that as good coin, even if the claim was for say 20,000. In any case, do other Wiki pages on political parties give membership figures?Haldraper (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hal, on your first point: your definition is yours. Most Trotskyist organisations have some members who are not involved in regular activity under the discipline of the group. And discipline is quite different in different organisations: in some groups in Britain, the culture is that you need to clear who you are dating; other are happy if you come to most meetings and pay up. The SWP is of Trotskyist origin, but it's no more Trotskyist than the ISO, US SWP, the AWL, the DSP and so on. So even if Wikipedia used your definition of what a Trotskyist group is, the SWP would not be a Trotskyist organisation. On a global scale, the organisations containing most people who consider themselves Trotskyist would also be eliminated. On your second point: The question is should Wikipedia use it if political parties give a membership figure. I think we should, it's useful and encyclopedic: as we all agree, its useful to be able to day that it claims to be the largest far left party in Britain, and to reference it. We don't have to cite the specific number, just reference it to support the statement that it's the largest. --Duncan (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, I've done just that with a ref to one of their IB's which usefully also discusses the concept of registered and unregistered members.Haldraper (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few sizable political formations around that may or may not qualify as 'parties', but which stand in elections: Solidarity and SSP in Scotland, TUSC, Respect in England. Some would describe Green Party as 'left'. Very hard to justify any claim to be 'largest' in such an uncertain and fluid environment, particularly after recent splits/expulsions/defections. There are also big difficulties in defining 'largest'. Biggest number of card-carrying members? Biggest number of affiliated Trade Unionists? (TUSC would win this one), numbers of candidates standing in elections? Largest in terms of 'influence'? Largest in terms of newspaper circulation (Morning Star), or website hits (Weekly Worker)?Riversider (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the negative connotations of the phrase "far left", would it not be better to replace it's use in the opening sentence with "revolutionary socialist"? After all, in the reference it is phrased as "largest revolutionary party" and not "largest far left party". Jh39 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using "revolutionary socialist" is that some other groups would dispute this categorisation, suggesting instead that the SWP are "centrist", "opportunist" or "infantile leftists". The term "Hard Left" is preferred by many on the left to "Far Left", and is wide enough for groups like the SWP to share with those who would dispute any designation of them as a (or 'the') revolutionary socialist formation.

Riversider (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose whether the party is actually particularly 'revolutionary' is debatable, but really, 'far left' implies a revolutionary party also. Seeing as the party claims to be a revolutionary Marxist party, and the reference says 'revolutionary socialist', I'd still argue that 'revolutionary socialist' would be a better term than 'far left'. Jh39 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have almost never heard the expression "hard left" used in Britain on the revolutionary left...Johncmullen1960 (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to include the statement of the Labour Party being capitalist. First, it's just extraneous, but secondly the source is The Labour Party: a Marxist History by Tony Cliff and Donny Gluckstein - Cliff was the founder of the SWP, so while it's a good source for what he thought of the Labour Party, it's hardly an independent source. Fences&Windows 01:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of examples of citations referring to Labour's neoliberalism on the talk page of the UK Labour Party WP article. Riversider (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The children's author has a rather tenuous relationship with the SWP. In an edit comment of 09:18, 9 February 2007 (which appears to be genuine) he says the following: "technically I'm not 'associated' with the SWP. I'm approached to write articles for the journals or speak or perform at events. I do this on a strictly one by one basis". See the talk page of the Rosen article. Philip Cross (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rosen is not a member of the SWP. Someone keeps posting this up and linking to a Weekly Worker article which calls him a member without citing any evidence. He sometimes writes for SWP publications and appears at the SWP's Marxism festival but it is widely known that he is not a member. --Righteous Triangle (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried removing it but the person has re-posted it. If the poster would like to discuss it here that would be great. --Righteous Triangle (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the stuff on the recent SWP-organised RTW conference in Manchester for three reasons:

• Recentism.
• Unencyclopaedic/fan tone.
• Undue weight: one meeting in the fifty year history of a political tendency does not warrant such prominence, especially when it is not true as the anonymous editor claims that it was "one of the biggest conferences the SWP has ever organised". Chris Harman in 'The Fire Last Time' describes SWP industrial conferences in the 1970's of over 3,000. Haldraper (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much too long an article for a tiny group of young fools coupled with a literal handfull of adult looney tunes still waiting in vain for "The Revolution". No mention is made of the number of MP's elected in the last election. Or the one before that. Or the one before that. Or...72.209.63.226 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, there are people who don't believe that Mps change the world more than other phenomena such as campaigns, strikes etc. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a POV statement - I've tagged it as such - and unable to be supported by a verifiable second party source. Haldraper (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Trotsky's death preceded the establishment of the Israeli state by several years, this does seem to be a rather bold claim.

Trotsky's actual writings on the Jewish Question can be found here: marxist internet archive

The general (rather prescient) theme is that Zionism on the basis of capitalism will be a reactionary dead end, but that under socialism, it could be possible for a Jewish state to exist, and for conflicts between Arabs and Jews to be resolved:

The very same methods of solving the Jewish question which under decaying capitalism will have a utopian and reactionary character (Zionism) will, under the regime of a socialist federation take on real and salutary meaning. This is what I want to point out. How could any Marxist or even any consistent democrat object to this? (1937)

The conflict between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine acquires a more and more tragic and more and more menacing character. I do not at all believe that the Jewish question can be resolved within the framework of rotting capitalism and under the control of British imperialism.

And how, you ask me, can socialism solve this question? On this point I can but offer hypotheses. Once socialism has become master of our planet or at least of its most important sections, it will have unimaginable resources in all domains. Human history has witnessed the epoch of great migrations on the basis of barbarism. Socialism will open the possibility of great migrations on the basis of the most developed technique and culture. It goes without saying that what is here involved is not compulsory displacements, that is, the creation of new ghettos for certain nationalities, but displacements freely consented to, or rather demanded by certain nationalities or parts of nationalities. The dispersed Jews who would want to be reassembled in the same community will find a sufficiently extensive and rich spot under the sun. The same possibility will be opened for the Arabs, as for all other scattered nations. National topography will become a part of the planned economy . This is the grand historical perspective that I envisage. To work for international socialism means also to work for the solution of the Jewish question. (1937)

Trotsky’s last comment on the issue before his death was:

“The socialist revolution is the only realistic solution of the Jewish question. If the Jewish workers and peasants asked for an independent state, good — but they didn’t get it under Great Britain. But if they want it, the proletariat will give it. We are not in favour, but only the victorious working class can give it to them”( 15 June 1940 )

This is a very different position than that currently held by the SWP.

Riversider (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a running edit war about a section stating that this particular journalist made criticisms of the SWP in 1993. The journalist does not have a Wikipedia page and looking on Google does not seem particularly notable. She is of course entitled to her opinions but I don't see they carry more weight than yours or mine. Looking at the source cited (a semi-editorial piece based on a TV investigation) it's not at all clear what her criticisms of the SWP are, as a range of left wing groups are denounced for a range of ills. As it stands, this section is just innuendo alleging "violence" but not even backed up by the cited source. Specific criticism from the (respected investigative journalism) "World in Action" program would be a different matter. Does anybody have any? As it is I'm blanking this section. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. My beef with the IP editor, and the reason I reverted, was simply the refusal to explain properly and failure to engage in discussion when asked. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Socialist_Workers_Party is no longer being linked to on the main page! --90.208.224.157 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor removed a passage describing the May 2011 invasion of the British conciliation service arguing that it contained only one reliable source and was given undue weight. As the incident gained plenty of mainstream coverage at the time, the later point is difficult to sustain. Added two mainstream sources, and precised the defence of the activists by Martin Smith for balance. Philip Cross (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section on recent activity is not neutral, because it gives undue weight to internal conflict and controversy. These are important, but the section "recent activity" should mostly talk about what the SWP typically does.

I would disagree with this. An article on the conservative party would not be complete without a section on the Eurosceptic wing of the party and their disagreements with the leadership. Where longstanding members of the Central Committee resign from the organisation, this is a notable event in the life of a party. While the SWP pretends it has no internal conflicts (and makes them unconstitutional, apart from a short period during conferences), it's impossible to prevent an organisation applying praxis not to generate internal disputes, it's pretty basic dialectical materialism to understand that "there's no progress without conflict". The SWP's inadequate methods for enabling internal disputes and discussions are not an excuse for such disagreements to be disregarded in an article looking objectively at the SWP. Riversider (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The role played by Tony Cliff in the founding of the SWP seems to be being progressively downplayed. His photograph has disappeared from the article, to be replaced by one of Hallas, and the information about his ideas and practice (which differ significantly from the current practice of the SWP, particularly around standing in elections) seems to be no longer included. Is he being edited out of history? Riversider (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]