SEA Convention in Derry

national | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis Friday March 05, 2004 16:15 by Janus

Socialist revolutionaries and the use of force

I seem determined to start a row today :) but this is a genuine issue.

I was reading my copy of the Socialist Woker, as all good workers and socialists do, and I read an account of the Convention of the Left held in Derry in February.

It seems 80 people attended, including CPI, SWP, Green, IRSP and non members. Interestingly, in a shocking departure from SW journalism standards, the figure of 80 was described as 'disappointing' and not 'massive' 'larger than expected' or 'a sure sign of the interest among radical workers.'

The thing I'm interested in is that at the end of the meeting the IRSP walked out when it was made clear to them that the SEA's opposition extended to any party with a military wing.

So, fair enough. I'll shed no tears for those child abusing bastards.

And my question isn't really to do with the IRSP, or any Northern based political party, but with the theory.

Revolutionaries accept that a revolution is unlikely to be bloodless. Therefore some sort of armed organisation or structure will be required to either defend workers, or go on the offensive against reactionary forces.

Presumably it would be seen as necessary for this armed group to be under the control of the political section of the revolution to counter a move to rampant militarism.

So basically, if the SWP is a revolutionary organisation, does it accept that force might be necessary, and if it does, does this not suggest that arms, and an armed group subordinate to the SWP, might be necessary to carry out armed actions? In short, does the SWP need an armed wing? Or does it have one already?

And with the image of Marnie Holborrow in olive green battle dress I'll wander away for a bit.

This btw, is a completely theoretical question, but I'm very, very bored.