A reply to “The record: The SWP and Respect”
The contribution from the SWP’s Central CommitteeThe record: The Socialist Workers Party and Respect about the debate in respect is welcome, as an attempt to develop a substantive political argument; although it is unfortunate that they frame the discussion in terms of a non-existent witch-hunt, which raises the temperature unnecessarily.
Part of the difficulty of the debate is that the two sides do not seem to share the same frame of reference of what it is about. For those critical of the SWP, the organisational relationship between the SWP and Respect is how they perceive the political problem; whereas for the SWP such criticism is taken to be symptomatic of a deeper underlying political differences. Let us see if we can make sense of both points of view.
In reply we need to first consider the political context in which we are seeking to build a broad party.
THE CONTEXT
It is worth looking at the degree to which social democracy has vacated the political landscape, because occupying this space is the task that Respect has set itself. Any analysis of the possibility of creating a viable left alternative should start with looking at the Labour Party. Left candidate for the Deputy Leadership, Jon Cruddas MP, has explained:
“Since Labour won the 1997 election, it has shed 4.5 million voters, the vast bulk of whom fall into four main groups.
• The manual working class, which has seen well-paid jobs exported to low-wage economies
• Public-service workers, who resent private-sector penetration and government “reforms”
• Black and ethnic minorities, who have reacted against the Iraq war and ministerial racist scapegoating
• Urban intellectuals who have switched, largely to the Liberal Democrats, over the war.
A recent YouGov poll revealed that 15 million people self-identified as Labour voters, but one-third of them said that they would not vote Labour under present circumstances. “
In addition, the Party has lost 200000 members since 1997.
The New Labour project has been utterly triumphant, as evidenced by the failure of John McDonnell’s left leadership challenge to get on the ballot paper, or gain the support of a single major union. The neo-liberal right within Labour have irreversibly and structurally embedded their victory into the party’s DNA. The rules and constitution have been changed to eliminate the levers that the left used to exercise influence; the conference is a meaningless rally; the social composition of the membership has shifted hugely towards managerial types; the neo-liberal and imperialist policies mean no activists under 30 would look at the party as anything remotely progressive. Ward meetings are sparse and poorly attended, and the party apparatus is an empty shell in most of the country. Milbank prevents left candidates being selected and what is more the reduced powers of local authorities have removed the base from which the left has in the past built support from the bottom up.
The union link now exists more in form than in content. Whereas in the past union branches used to send delegates to GC meetings in each CLP this practice has almost disappeared, lay activists and even full timers are much, much less likely to be LP members than they ever were before. The only concession won by the affiliated unions was the sop of the Warwick agreement before the election, none of which polices have been implemented. And now they have relinquished their right to pose policy motions to conference.
The aspect of hope in the situation is that the Labour Party may have irrevocably been won for the right, but the political views of its electoral base have not followed and are now to the left of it. And some unions articulate political opposition to PFI, private equity and inequality.
As long as the Labour Party relies upon union funding, and active support from trade union officials during elections, the Labour Party will remain organically connected to the Labour movement. The Unions wish to have influence over government, and will not abandon the Labour Party, as there is no other viable option for them to pursue.
But what is very interesting is the degree to which the unions now find themselves in the position of directly being the ideological opponents of neo-liberalism without the intermediate role of the Labour Party. We see this for example with the GMB’s campaign over Private equity, or the RMT’s campaign for public ownership of the railways. What is lacking is a pluralist and inclusive political movement that can pick up these ideological challenges posed by the unions, and relate them to the wider general public.
So the Labour Party has a broadly progressive electoral constituency, and historical links with the trade union infrastructure, but it is in continued antagonism with both of these elements. Nevertheless, although the Party no longer articulates the aspirations of these support groups, they do provide a constraint upon it, and mediate the transformation of the Labour Party, so that it appears less dramatic than it is. But that constraint is definitely more one of form than substance.
Any attempt to build a pluralist and inclusive opposition to New Labour must recognise that the processes of change within the Labour party, the tension between New labour’s neo-liberalism and the trade unions, and the increasing age profile of Labour’s electoral support, are causing a protracted period of decomposition of the Labour Party. But it is going to be a long process.
The three challenges for the left outside the Labour Party are to somehow connect with the Labour Party’s electoral base, which is broadly to the left of the Labour Party itself; to create a natural pole of attraction for activists; and to create a credible vehicle to provide political representation for the trade unions. What is more, we have to be able to do this while still maintaining a creative dialogue with those activists still in the Labour party.
These objectives flow from the composition and traditions of the British labour movement, and the current state of left politics in England . Unless and until a “tipping point” is reached where an electoral alternative to Labour can credibly win elections, then Labour’s electoral base will stay largely intact, decaying slowly.
In particular we need to recognise that the space vacated by the Labour Party cannot be filled by the revolutionary left groups, whether operating as a United Front (of a special type?) or not. What is missing is a social democratic party, and any such party must involve the creative energies and enthusiasm of thousands of activists who have their own ideas independent of the control of any central committee.
But neither can it mean a recreation of Labourism, because to succeed any new political formation must go beyond these three tasks. We also need to recognise the degree to which society has changed.
THE CHANGE IN SOCIETY.
In December 2006 trade union membership stood at just 28.4% of the workforce, and this includes the membership of staff associations. What is more, the general level of class consciousness and trade union experience has sharply declined so that even when unions do recruit members they struggle to find workplace representatives.
If a new mass party is to be built then the trade unions do have the prestige, personnel and finance to make a huge difference. The role of socialists is to encourage the unions to put the value of their special relationship with the Labour party to the test, and draw the necessary conclusions. But this will be a long process, and the social base of organised labour is probably no longer sufficient to sustain a mass progressive party.
In 2005, the Labour Party received just 9,562,122 votes (35% of those who voted, compared to 49% in 1945) and socialist parties to the left of labour received merely around 120000 votes. Organisations to the left of labour barely reach 10000 members, even if we include the Green Party.
Increasingly the three main parties seem indistinguishable, which plays a large part in increasing cynicism, and decreasing electoral participation. But the converging political consensus in the Westminster bubble of politics is a betrayal of the ideological divergence in society at large.
As Salma Yaqoob has written
“The broad constituency in favour of peace, equality and social justice is growing. On many issues it is even a majority in society. Millions of people are against war, against privatising and running down the welfare state, against racism, and for greater equality. There is an opportunity to be a voice for these millions, and to offer an electoral alternative to the parties of war and injustice.
“The challenge for Respect is to be able to work with, and be a voice for, this growing broad progressive constituency. This constituency includes people who remain tied to Labour or other parties such as the Greens. We have to work patiently to build up our vote at a local level. But we also have to be part (and almost certainly a minority part) of a much wider network of alliances.”
There does need to be a socialist strand within respect, because Respect stands for a break from neo-liberalism and imperialism. But the advantage of Respect is that it does not only orient on the minority of the working class who are in trade unions or who are class conscious. This is an important constituency, but it is not the only progressive constituency.
Thirty years ago Eric Hobsbawm remarked that the “common style of proletarian life” no longer existed, which of course has an impact on the viability of building a mass party based on those who self-identify as working class. There is considerable lifestyle divergence today, and much less conformity. Any broad progressive project needs to be permissive and tolerant of people from very different social, cultural and religious backgrounds, rather than regarding the specific sub-cultures of the political left and trade unionism as normative.
We need to be building bridges to those campaigning against racism, against sexism, against homophobia, in defence of the environment, against ID cards, in defence of asylum seekers. Working within communities, defending their services and campaigning against cut-backs. It means building practical solidarity with progressives in other countries, and learning from their experiences, and recognising that the English left has more to learn than to teach.
The big and exciting opportunity to pull the whole political context to the left involves collaborative working within this rainbow coalition. It means working with people we may find we have strong disagreements with, but if we are prepared to listen to them, then they will be prepared to listen to us. This requires a democratic internal party structure for Respect because rules need to exist to empower people to participate. We cannot build a successful coalition if we privilege one political group with disproportionate influence.
THE UNITED FRONT OF A SPECIAL TYPE
Although the SWP are rarely explicit that they see their role in Respect as privileged, it is inherent in their theory of a united front of a special type.
In the SWP Central Committee’s submission to the party’s Pre-conference Internal Bulletin #1, they write:
“In the SWP’s answer to the SSP some years ago we criticised their “definition of the united front” as limited to “single issue campaigns of limited duration (i.e. the kind of campaigns that have been most common on the British Left in recent years)”. We argued: “this is far too narrow a definition. Indeed, in the work most commonly associated with systematically elaborating the idea of the United Front, Trotsky’s writing on fascism in the 1930s, we find an altogether broader approach.
“the trade unions are, for instance, described as ‘the rudimentary form of the united front in the economic struggle because they unite revolutionaries and reformists in common struggle over wages and conditions. Trade Unions are of course neither single issue nor temporary organisations. Moreover Trotsky describes the soviets themselves as united fronts: ‘The soviet is the highest form of the united front’….
…
“It seems that if, at one extreme, the trade unions and, at the other extreme, the soviets can be described as united fronts we are not making any great theoretical innovation in describing the ‘new broad parties’ as a united front of a special type.”
It is not clear what the SWP really means. Even if we accept the relevance of Trotsky’s writing on this, all they have established is that there is a precedent for this terminology. But for a theory to be accepted as useful, it must have more than precedent, it must also be consistent with other broadly accepted theories, it must explain the known facts, and it must be useful as a guide to action.
INCONSISTENT THEORY
Firstly, whatever incidental remarks Trotsky may have made about the united front being applicable to soviets and trade unions, the main thrust of his writing was concerned with the strategy that communists should adopt in campaigning alongside social democrats over concrete and specific issues, under the assumption that mass social democratic organisations already existed. The political context of the current broad party projects, the SSP, Respect, die Linke, Rifondazione, the Australian Socialist Alliance, et al, is that they are seeking to occupy a social and political space within the workers movement which has been vacated by traditional social democracy. And as such, one of the necessary pre-conditions of Trotsky’s united front is missing.
The specific example given by the SWP, that of trade unions, shows how extending the united front analogy to a broad party remains problematic. Within trade unions, Marxists work alongside other militants, either within broad lefts or rank and file networks, with the aim of taking forward the whole workforce and solving together with the other activists the problems that arise, as they arise. Marxists in the trade union movement do not seek to organise workers outwith the mass organisations. Therefore, should we accept the idea from the SWP that trade unions are united fronts, then the closest analogy to how Marxists work in trade unions would not be the SWP’s relationship with Respect, but would instead be the idea of working as a platform within a broad party. The SWP’s current theory and practice of working in trade unions is inconsistent with their theoretical approach to broad parties.
Thirdly, the examples given by the SWP Central Committee document of successful united fronts they have been involved in, the first Anti-Nazi league, and the Stop the War Coalition, are clearly not relevant to the question of broad parties. It is understood in any narrowly focussed campaign that the participants are only united over the specific issues of the campaign, and may therefore be politically active over other issues in other organisations. That is not true of political parties, where it is clearly expected that the primary focus of a member’s political activity should not involve building another political party!
DOESN’T EXPLAIN THE FACTS
Three years ago I criticised the SWP’s understanding of Respect. Callinicos had described the process thus:
“In many ways Respect had begun to crystallise as a distinct political entity before its actual formation, on the basis of a common approach to key questions that developed in practice among actors from very different backgrounds within the StWC. … four main forces that came together to form Respect. The first was symbolized by a person, George Galloway, representing those longstanding Labour Party members whose disgust with the Blair government was so absolute that they were prepared to break with their old party. The second was constituted by those elements of the far left that were not blinded by sectarianism and therefore recognised the historic opportunity offered by the anti-war movement. Chief among these was the SWP, but it also included other elements of the SA, and individuals like the great film director Ken Loach. The third consisted of a variety of ‘ethnic community’ activists and intellectuals —most prominently from a Muslim background, but also involving many in Turkish and Kurdish organisations. Finally, there were significant numbers of trade unionists—on the extreme left of the awkward squad, Mark Serwotka of the Public and Commercial Services Union and, much more equivocally, Bob Crow of the RMT, along with many local officials and rank and file activists, particularly in the RMT and the FBU.”
This was always overblown. Galloway proved to be the exception not the rule, and he was not followed by others from the Labour Party. Very few socialists outside the SWP joined or have stayed in Respect, and the SWP has actively worked to thwart rival currents within Respect. The appeal to trade unionists was if anything less than the Socialist Alliance enjoyed. But the big success was a genuine and historic breakthrough among some inner city working class communities with a high proportion of Muslims, where the anti-war vote from Muslims tipped the balance towards Respect being electable.
Former Respect national executive member, John Nicholson described Respect at the outset as: “It is a coalition of the Socialist Workers Party (certainly not convincing all its own members) and sections of the “Muslim Community” (some excellent local anti-war campaigners and some significant members of the Muslim Association of Britain), together with one individual, George Galloway MP.”
Since then, the significance of Galloway has increased, as he won his historic election victory, faced down the US senate, and despite the wobble with Big Brother, has generally managed to use his media profile to good effect. What is more the Muslim support for Respect has moved from being a potentiality, to actually delivering an electoral base. The defence of Shadwell ward in a by-election earlier this year was utterly crucial in demonstrating the robustness of the electoral base.
What is more, although Respect’s conferences have proven to be unnecessarily confrontational events, Respect has developed a broad range of policies consistent with being a left social-democratic party – transcending the limitation hoped for by Alex Callinicos that its programme would remain of “relatively minimal, meaning that Respect is a pluralistic organisation in which diverse viewpoints coexist”
So, the actually existing Respect is very uneven. In Birmingham, East London and Preston it has built an electoral base, and in those few areas has modest but significant membership. In the rest of the country, Respect is largely the SWP, plus a few individuals. It has also had a programmatic development consistent with a political party.
To describe this as a “united front” of any sort, is simply mystification.
NOT A GUIDE FOR ACTION
The reason that the SWP prefer the formulation “united front of a special type” is that it is an ex post facto theoretical justification for their preferred practice – which is trying to build two organisations in parallel, the SWP and Respect. But when relating to wider campaigns, and in the unions, they wear their SWP hat. On demonstrations they carry Socialist Worker placards, they sell their own newspaper (Socialist Worker) and have blocked launching a Respect paper. They seek to recruit to the SWP, not Respect. They have also blocked Respect moving towards becoming a political party under the control of its own membership, viewing Respect as a coalition, allowing the SWP to act independently.
Maintenance of the SWP as a separate organisation from Respect, while the SWP also seek to be the main political axis within Respect was always going to be problematic.
Alex Callinicos described the SWP’s approach to Respect in his article REGROUPMENT AND THE SOCIALIST LEFT TODAY”, [IST bulletin #2,] “in such broad coalitions it is essential for revolutionaries to retain independent organisation in order to combine building the coalition with the objective that gives this work its meaning—the construction of a mass revolutionary party.”
This is why Respect had to remain a coalition: “a federal organisation that individuals can join and to which organisations can affiliate while preserving their autonomy. The programme, while principled, is relatively minimal, meaning that Respect is a pluralistic organisation in which diverse viewpoints coexist. This structure is critical if the existing forces within Respect are to have the breathing space they need to work together.”
The need for there to be an organizational separation between revolutionaries and reformists is the constant theme of the SWP. Most clearly stated by John Rees: “Genuine unity in action depends on separation on matters of principle such as reform and revolution. We cannot properly determine those immediate issues on which we can unite unless we also properly, and organisationally, separate over matters of principle.”
John Rees expressed his view of the SWP’s role very clearly: “In this project the socialists in Respect, who have the clearest understanding of the general situation in which we operate and the greatest organisational ability to create the alliances, have a crucial role to play. Where they are capable of engaging and leading the wider forces, Respect will succeed. If they fail, Respect will fail. There is too much at stake to allow this to happen, and too much to be won not to succeed.”
The “United Front of a Special Type” involves a two tier membership, where the SWP build their own organisation, but seek to play the decisive political role in guiding Respect. As John Rees admitted, the SWP believe there is too much at stake for them to fail to be the leading force within Respect, so other members of Respect who see it as their main political project must rotate around the SWP’s agenda. Non-SWP members of Respect believe that building Respect is worth doing in its own terms, and is not only worth doing as a step towards “the construction of a mass revolutionary party”. Fundamentally the SWP has a different agenda to other Respect members.
The Socialist Alliance also foundered on the rocks of the united front of a special type. As Alex Callinicos described the process
“In the absence of a substantial ex-Labour presence, the SA suffered from a structural imbalance, given that the SWP greatly outweighs the rest of the British far left combined. When, as we usually tried, we applied a self-denying ordinance, we were still, like the elephant in the room, a looming presence. When we asserted ourselves, however democratically, we caused resentment. The Socialist Party and a few well-known ‘independents’ cited ‘SWP dominance’ when they walked out of the Alliance. Usually they had their own reasons for leaving, but in truth the SWP did dominate the SA—not by intention, but by default, in the absence of sufficiently strong participation by forces from a reformist background.”
What is revealing here is how static and schematic Callincos’s views are of the living, working relationships on the left. Why should the SWP need to be counterbalanced by “forces from a reformist background”. Was reform or revolution a practical issue in Britain over the last few years and I missed it? Surely the issues facing the Socialist Alliance were all essentially non-revolutionary, and reformists and revolutionaries alike were faced with trying to relate to the class struggle. In fact the Socialist Alliance did have some significant allegiance from people from the Labour Party, but they did not foresee the need to self-organise themselves as a counterbalance to an SWP playing not only by different rules, but a different game.
When Callinicos talks about the SWP asserting itself he is describing exactly the same process as Mike Maquesee has: “a block of SWP members who have arrived with a pre-determined line and set of priorities”.
As I wrote in 2004: “If the SWP doesn’t change its method of operation within Respect I have no doubt that the project will fail. It may do well enough to continue in a bureaucratic form until the next election, and George Galloway may even get elected in East London . Nevertheless no stable structure can be built on the basis being advocated by Alex Callinicos.” Tragically I have been proven correct.
The United Front of a Special Type has not been a successful guide to working, because it has ended in failure – as judged by the SWP’s own terms of reference. Not once but now twice. As Lady Bracknell said: “To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness”
A FAILURE IN THEIR OWN TERMS
The SWP’s position is most starkly put in Alex Callinicos’s letter to the SWP’s sister organisations in the International Socialist Tendency. It concludes:
“There is no doubt that the crisis in Respect is a major reverse for the process of left realignment in Britain. Nevertheless, the SWP remains strongly committed to this process, both in Britain and on an international scale. “
If the “SWP remains strongly committed to this process, both in Britain and on an international scale.”, then where do they go from here?
In those parts of the country where Respect is largely them and a few others, then that in itself represents a failure of the SWP to build Respect. In these areas, the non-SWP members of Respect will be confused, and may stay with the SWP. But at a national level, the SWP has lost all its allies, from the political left, from the trade unions, and from the anti-war Muslims, and they have lost Galloway.
They have also lost considerable political capital, respect and trust, and may not be welcome in future left regroupment projects unless they change. So if they really do have a strategic objective of left regroupment, and building a broad electoral alternative to Labour, they are in a terrible position. If they cling to the united front of a special type formula, then it will be of a very special type – only with themselves!
THERE WAS ANOTHER WAY
Given that the space that Respect fills is that vacated by social democracy, then the majority of its support and membership will come from those who wish to create a left social democratic party. The battle for Marxists within such a party is to prioritise class struggle, and always promote the independent interests of the working class.
Much is made by the SWP of the need for separate revolutionary organisation, but this fails in two ways. Firstly, as we see with the awful role of leading SWP member Jane Loftus in the recent postal dispute, being a revolutionary in formal terms is no guarantee of someone being even a decent militant.
Secondly, it is only through the process of fighting for reforms that the issue of finally removing the obstacle of ruling class resistance comes up. The opportunity for removing forever the power of the capitalist class arises as the culmination of the process of uncompromising reform; and therefore a mass class struggle party dedicated to such uncompromising reform is a more fruitful path than recruiting ones and two (or even tens and twenties) to a stand alone revolutionary group. It will be the mass party that eventually settles accounts with capitalism, and the place for Marxists is within it. Creating a new left social democratic party includes within it the potential to win that party to class struggle.
There is an alternative way of working to the SWP’s model. The best description I have read of the way Marxists should work in broad parties is from Murray Smith:
“I am convinced that the role of revolutionary Marxists today is to build broad socialist parties while defending their own Marxist positions within them, with the aim, not of building a revolutionary faction with an ‘entrist’ perspective, but of taking forward the whole party and solving together with the whole party the problems that arise, as they arise.”
There is a weakness in Murray’s understanding though, because he has taken a particular feature of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), the dissolving of the leadership faction into the structures of the broad party, and taken that to be a necessary feature.
Arguably a new and pluralist political formation will take a time before it develops its own mechanisms for training and educating activist, and the pre-existing socialist groups have a valuable role both in developing individuals, and in facilitating debate through generating alternative policy suggestions. Such platforms could continue to organise and produce publications, provided the public face they present is building the broad party. Indeed some flexibility can be allowed even then, and in Australia the DSP are committed to building through the Socialist Alliance, but still have an independent youth group, due to the different tempo of politics with students and young workers.
Organised platforms can militate against politics rotating around cliques and intrigues. But to be productive the platforms have to strategically subordinate themselves to the building of the broad party.
The tragedy is that the political experience and organisational ability of the SWP are indeed extremely valuable within Respect, but the precondition that comes as the price of their participation is too high to pay. As long as the SWP believe that they are uniquely gifted, in John Rees’s words, with “the clearest understanding of the general situation in which we operate and the greatest organisational ability to create the alliances”, and as long as they believe that the stakes are too high for their views not to prevail, then they will never allow non-SWP members of Respect to participate in full ownership of the project.
THE PULL OF ELECTORALISM.
The SWP say that problems started after the elections:
“The successful candidates were all from a Muslim background, despite the substantial white working class vote for Respect and the mere couple of hundred votes that stopped non-Muslim candidates winning in Tower Hamlets. This led to opponents of Respect to spread the idea that it was a “Muslim party”. The other problem was that electoral success led to something familiar to people who had been active in the past in the Labour Party but completely new to the non-Labour left-opportunist electoral politics began to dominate Respect.
“There were even cases when people said that if they could not be Respect candidates they would stand for other political parties – and one of the Respect councillors in Tower Hamlets did switch over to Labour after being elected.
“For such people their model of politics was that increasingly used by the Labour Party in ethnically and religiously mixed inner city areas – promising favours to people who posed as the “community leaders” of particular ethnic or religious groupings if they would use their influence to deliver votes. This is what is known as Tammany Hall politics in US cities, or “vote bloc” or “communal” politics when practiced by all the pro-capitalist parties in the Indian subcontinent. It is something the left has always tried to resist.”
Now there are a number of things to be said here.
Firstly, the SWP have made a great deal of the fact that of the two councillors elected in Tower Hamlets, one resigned in disillusionment, and one switched to New Labour. But, it was inherent in the way that Respect was launched and built that it was not the product of a long period of prior cooperation, trust building and convergence, the negative side of which was that some fall out was inevitable. But resignations and defections, particularly from opposition groups, is the daily coin of every political party in almost every council in the country.
Secondly, even in the areas where Respect does have an electoral base they are still the opposition group, not the party of power, so real opportunists will chose Labour not Respect.
Thirdly, in choosing a candidate with particular village or tribal connections to help get the vote, this is no different in principle from selecting Jerry Hicks to stand in Lockleaze in Bristol. Part of the reason he was able to get a good vote has been his personal and family roots in the area. In electoral politics the individual candidates matter. In the particular case of the Shadwell by-election it was vital to choose the most electable candidate, as in some ways the viability of the whole Respect project hung on that election. This is only a question of seeking a level playing field with the other parties. There is no question of Respect actually seeking to represent only sectional interests in the council chamber, so the charge is at best mischievous.
In the case of Birmingham, a huge mountain is being made out of a molehill, in terms of all the candidates this year being Pakistani men. The fact that their sitting councillor and most high profile spokesperson is a woman, that last year there were four women candidates, and the fact that women were encouraged to put themselves forward this year, shows this is just a blip.
But the most important evidence that the charge of electoralism is misplaced, is that it has not manifested itself in policy terms at all. The SWP argues that the emphasis on electable candidates represents “a fundamental shift of sections of Respect away from the minimal agreed principles on which it had been founded – a shift towards putting electorability above every other principle, a shift which could only pull Respect to the right.” Yet breakaway councillor Oli Rahman conceded that there are no policy differences on national and international issues, and there have been no significant differences on local issues either.
For the SWP to present this as a left/right issue over whether or not people like them being revolutionaries, is absurd because revolution is not on the political agenda. Over the actual issues that are confronting respect there has been no left/right polarisation, and people join Respect and stand as candidates for Respect knowing it is a radical left wing party.
WHERE NEXT?
The debate about who did what and said what, and the mechanics of the split have been done to death. It is the nature of faction fights that the temperature gets raised, and seemingly trivial events are blown out of all proportion.
But we are now in a position where it is clear that the SWP’s way of working is not acceptable to a significant section of Respect’s membership, including the MP, most councillors and a majority of non-SWP national committee members.
Accusations and counter-accusations surround the 17th November conferences. But at this stage no-one is listening, we are just exchanging abuse. Let us stop it.
It is hard to see how the SWP can persevere with their Respect, without any significant non-SWP allies, and with the loss of political capital. The loss of the SWP members is also a blow for Respect renewal.
And neither of the actually existing Respects has sufficient appeal to the rest of the socialist left and to trade unionists. This is partly because the way Respect was launched and built in its first months excluded many former activists from the Socialist Alliance. There are others who have objections to the SWP, or Galloway, or both.
But any successful left regroupment project must engage with the actually existing activists. They are vital both for their political experience, but also their ability to develop rooted campaigns around practical issues in trade unions, workplaces and communities.
In parallel with, and overlapping with, Respect but not in competition with it, we need to develop socialist unity. This can also embrace practical cooperation with left activists from the Labour party and Green Party. Our objective should be to unite without preconditions, but to promote debate, practical cooperation and convergence. We need to build bridges to other socialist groups and individuals, even if they don’t share our immediate vision.
Respect Renewal will emerge with most of the political capital from the respect project, the very significant assets of Galloway and Yaqoob, and the electoral base.
It needs to set itself three tasks:
i) Moving to a more traditional party model of organisation, with membership, scheduled meetings, and accountability.
ii) Recognising that on the basis of its strongholds and elected positions it can be a major player in building bridges, in a patient long term way, with other progressive forces, including those in the Labour Party (most obviously the supporters of Ken Livingston), the Greens, Plaid Cymru and others.
iii) Opening a renewed dialogue over cooperation with the political left and trade union militants, without any preconditions.
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION
Finally, a lot of damage has been done through the Russian Doll model of working. Hundreds perhaps thousands of activists have been alienated by the way the left groups have regarded individuals as expendable cannon fodder. The current crisis in respect had its prequel in the Socialist Alliance, and few of the SA activists remained in Respect.
Some of the same methods we have seen recently from the SWP in Respect, were used in the Socialist Alliance. Some of the individuals who are now critical of those methods used them in the past. It is not enough simply to let bygones be bygones. We also need a process of forgiveness and honesty about what the far left in this country have done to each other.
If we are prepared to be that brave, we will win back many of the friends and comrades who have become cynical and disillusioned.
Excellent and stimulating thought provoking article.
Below just some immediate responses and thoughts
1.
I think any kind of genuine reconciliation between sections of the left and infact within Respect itself, will only come about by groups such as the SWP showing themselves to have ‘changed’ and be perceived to have genuinely changed.
So that they can and work ‘with’ other people and groups as ‘against’ people, not trying to determine and dominate by their own set of rules and frames of reference.How likely that is who can possibly say. Leopards and spots.
2.
I think much more analysis of the state of trade unions is required and the extent to which the majority of the trade union leadership still play ball with New Labour, stitch up their members interests both within and without the structures of New Labour and have been complicit in assisting in the complete gutting and erosion of any kind of democratic debate within the party.
More emphasis I feel needs to be given to the struggle against anti trade union legislation and the members campaign to disaffilate from New Labour and redirect the members dues in the form of the political fund towards a radical left alternative which itself involves trade unionists and ideally trade unions, without the importation of wholly undemocratic block voting and other such dodgy practices .
3.
As you so rightly say the idea of REVOLUTION is not on the agenda, not now not for a long long long time if ever, so isn’t it time all these so called revolutionaries came to terms with this glaring reality and started dealing with the situation as it is.
4.
Suffice to say that for as long as the Left bickers amongst itself , sews the seeds of division and distrust, this further putting back the urgent need for genuine unity and consildation of the prospects for creatindg a radical left alternative. The BNP moves and grews into this huge vacuum and gap of mass disillusionment and alienation from ‘poliitcs’. We can ill afford to remain divided and need to build principled unity and develop practical alternatives in our politics at every level from local community to local councel’s, from regional and to national,from European to international.
5.
Respect’s launch ” was not the product of a long period of prior cooperation, trust building and convergence, the negative side of which was that some fall out was inevitable”.
This needs to be born in mind in terms of Respect’s renewal and how it works to create a genuine and fruitful dialogue with others such as other sections of the Left,Trade unions and trade unionists, community groups and activists, anti war activists, wobbly New labour voters / members/counsellors, Labour Left, past and present etc etc
Comment by Gramsci's breakfast — 12 November, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Excellent. I’ll have to reread this at length.
Comment by Splintered Sunrise — 12 November, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
A really useful sober analysis of the state we’re in, Andy. But I still wouldn’t be surprised if some dismiss it as knee-jerk anti-SWPism. But anyway, I’ll be recommending as many people read it as possible.
Comment by a very public sociologist — 12 November, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Andy, while I salute your indefatigability in pushing Galloway’s stereotypical notions (rooted in Western propaganda) about Leninists being ‘Russian dolls’, I remain unconvinced that such a cheap caricature of the theory and practise of revolutionary organisation helps to truly serve the purposes of ’socialist unity’…
Comment by Snowball — 12 November, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Just noticed this:
‘It will be the mass [reformist] party that eventually settles accounts with capitalism’ - Andy.
Andy, could you perhaps explain how you see this process happening? How can a social democratic party overcome the power of the undemocratic state machine? When has a social democratic party ever ’settled accounts with capitalism’ on any level?
Comment by Snowball — 12 November, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Snowball, if you deliberaltey insert an extra word into a sentence of mine that changes its meaning completely, then you can hadly exptect me to defend it.
I did not write: ‘It will be the mass [reformist] party that eventually settles accounts with capitalism’
I wrote: ‘It will be the mass party that eventually settles accounts with capitalism’
I wouldn’t express myself in quite the same terms as Murray Smith, but as he says:
The question of state power is not currently posed, the task at the moment is to shift the political landscape to the left, and Marxists who believe that ultimatley we need to overthrow the capitalist state can argue that poistion within the broad party, which would be preparatory to the big debates that would be necessary within the party at a historical juncture when that question becomes relevant. But it is not the current dividing line in the movement, which is between class struggle and neo-liberlism.
And within the unions between militancy and bureucratic conservatism. Given the disastrous role of jane Loftus in the CWU, at least one SWP member is not on the right side of that divide, ,and instead of distancing yourself from her, you have put her on the platform of Respect-SWP conference next week! Bettern a class struggle militant sceptical of revolution, than someone who capitualtes in the day to day struggle but beleives in a future revolution :o)
Comment by Andy — 12 November, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
If Snowball looks at the SWP leadership’s perspectives document he will find that they describe the relationship between the party and the fronts as a series of concentric circles with the SWP in the middle. That’s just a two dimensional version of the Russian dolls image.
Comment by Nas — 12 November, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
for a theory to be accepted as useful, it must have more than precedent, it must also be consistent with other broadly accepted theories, it must explain the known facts, and it must be useful as a guide to action
Shout out to the critical realist posse! An end to mere bourgeois falsificationism!
we are now in a position where it is clear that the SWP’s way of working is not acceptable to a significant section of Respect’s membership
Yes. The sad thing is, as I wrote back on September the 1st, that the weird stop/start blend of caution, opportunism and control freakery that the SWP has brought to RESPECT is a culture with quite deep roots in the party itself, and it’s not good for the internal life of the SWP any more than it’s been good for RESPECT. But if keeping substantial numbers of SWP people on board means reforming the party - and if reforming the party means splitting the party - then perhaps even optimists like me should concede that it’s not likely to happen.
Comment by Phil — 12 November, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Andy emphasises in bold, ‘what is missing is a social democratic party’. He sides strongly with Murray Smith in an old debate with John Rees in which Smith said,‘the social democratic parties and to a very large extent the Communist parties are finished as vehicles for working class aspirations’. Smith is tragically wrong as the painful experience of the SSP in Scotland has shown. It is wrong to underestimate the hold that established reformist parties have on workers, even if they are not delivering reforms.
The effect in Scotland was for the SSP to peak and move into decline whilst it, as a party, focussed more and more on matters parliamentary. This is, in any case the SWP analysis..http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=247&issue=112.
The same dynamic was present in RESPECT, or at least that is the main contention of the recent SWP CC document that Andy is currently reveiwing. The pattern of looking more to electoral opportunism. It was the SWP seeking to point this out that led to Galloway et al to split.
Andy suggests Jerry Hicks may owe some relative electoral success to his family connections. I hope this is not significant. When Galloway took on Oona King, surely for the vast majority it was a political battle between pro war and anti war positions. That’s fine. But if the type of activity is characterised more by non political attemts to gain electoral respectabilty, then we have a problem indeed we have a move to the right. If the SWP is guilty of colluding with this approach for any length of time then it is just as well that they have sought to correct it. The problem is that in doing so, they have faced a witch hunt, a coup, a lock out, a split, call it what you will.
Back to Scotland for an analogy. When Sheridan decided not to put his views to the SSP conference he took the honest step of forming a separate party. Galloway et al have suddenly ‘discovered’ that the RESPECT conference that they regularly attended may challenge the alleged pull to the right and the heavy media focus. So unlike Sheridan, they split, call a separate event but still call themselves RESPECT.
Surely one thing we can all agree on in the left is that such behaviour is pretty contempable.
Comment by stuart — 12 November, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
I think Andy makes an important point regarding the importance of building movements. We in the SWP can get blinkered into thinking we are the bolsheviks and we are in 1917 conditions. As scientific socialists we should start from where we are in concrete terms, but never lose sight of the ultimate goal. The revolutionary project is about how we get from where we are in real terms to the final prize of building communism.
Comment by Martin — 12 November, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Stuart - it is also true that Jerry is an excellant trade union militant and impressive local activist. But clearly it is corrent to stand someone rooted in a locall community if the opportunity exists.
In Scotland, the weighting of their work towards Holyrood was an acknowledged problem, a consequence of growth and success, that they were in the process of debating and redressing when Sheridan blew up. The Sheridan crisis was a particularlity that touo can not draw much from in general conclusons. The fall in the combined left vote was dramatic, but without the split vote they would still have returned an MSP in Glasgow, and remember a large part of the radical left vote went to the SNP, and has not been lost forever from the left.
Comment by Andy — 12 November, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Sheridan “blew up”, did he? Well what next?
Comment by Jesus Christ — 12 November, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
There’s a different take on the SWP article here
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1779
Comment by bill j — 12 November, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
I am old bulding site navvy. I have had no formal education. When I read all the smoke screens put out by educated nitwits, I find it insulting.
The truth has nothing to do with Respect’s political direction. Its all about neanderthal man (John Rees)futile effort of clubbing socialists who have the temerity to stand up to him. Please spare me the marxist analysis.
Comment by larry — 12 November, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
A very positive, useful contribution on the debate on the future of Respect. I agree in full with its contents and have reposted it on the Respect Supporters Blog.
The list of speakers for the Respect Renewal Confrence is beginning to look good and reflects the need to look outward and to build a wider ‘coalition’ well beyond those who are currently in Respect.
Thanks Andy
Neil Williams
Comment by Neil Williams — 12 November, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
I guess the point I don’t understand is why you think there is room “to the left of Labour”, and in particular why you think any gap can be filled by some other party, rather than by the Unions using their power in the existing structures to effect change within Labour, whether in rules or policy. Quoting Cruddas in this is a bit dishonest, since he is clearly calling for a rebuilding of the Labour Party, not looking to bolster the cause of a new party.
The fact is that working people look to the Labour Party in the first instance, unless that party is rebuilt then they’re more likely to slide in to apathy or fascism than anything else, IMHO. I don’t see anything else in the current environment that proves otherwise. And I don’t see anything that suggests that it will be easier to build a new left party than reclaim Labour, given the Union role.
By the way, if you want to get outraged about something, try this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7090667.stm
Mainly because Remploy is a case of work being valued over profit.
Comment by Graham Day — 12 November, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Don’t you mean ‘instead of those currently in Respect’ Neil?
Good luck with yet another ‘new’ party.
Comment by MA — 12 November, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
MA, can’t you respond to a real issue?
Comment by Graham Day — 12 November, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
Graham Day (#16) said: I guess the point I don’t understand is why you think there is room “to the left of Labour”, and in particular why you think any gap can be filled by some other party, rather than by the Unions using their power in the existing structures to effect change within Labour, whether in rules or policy.
Graham, we’ve already had several years of “unions using their power within Labour”, and all that has brought us is a long series of strikes being sold-out, national demos cancelled, and the steady erosion of workers’ pensions, working conditions and morale. What have got in return for all this “good will” towards Labour from the union leadership? At most, vague deals like the Warwick Agreement that have all been reneged upon. Now critical motions can’t even be put before the Labour leadership at conference, saving them the bother of the time-honoured listen-and-ignore approach.
The log-jam has to be broken, since failure and demoralisation are cumulative. Our experience with the anti-war movement has shown again that unless it can hit the profits of big business, the left lacks teeth.
There are different models being put forward on how we can break out of this downward spiral - the Respect Renewal Conference will attempt to embark on an open-ended debate about this. There are others with different models - this doesn’t strike me as a disaster for the left at the present juncture.
But continuing to rely on the leadership of the unions reclaiming Labour today seems more like a counsel of despair or a religious mantra than a serious political programme.
Comment by babeuf — 12 November, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7090628.stm
Today, a homophobic killer was sentenced to life, with a recommended minimum of sixteen years in jail. However, the state that locks up this deranged thug, and his accomplices, is the very same state that breeds such social misfits. Homophobia is a Frankenstein’s monster that long ago broke the chains forged by capitalism. Like anti-semitism of old (and Islamophobia today), homophobia once served a useful divide-and-rule purpose. However, the three main parties of British capitalism, most of the mass media and other capitalist institutions have moved on. Those members of the capitalist class who are sexually attracted to their own sex have proven too influencial for the class as a whole to alienate, to be pushed into the arms of militant gay rights’ movements with links to the far left. There is also ‘the pink pound’ - and profit is, after all, king. While the capitalist class have moved on, however, there has been no ‘truth and reconciliation commission’ between the homophobic Doctor Frankenstein and the vicitms. The propertied classes never have, and never will, acknowledge their role in unleashing these reactionary forces in society. They might lock up those who get caught killing “poofters,” but the blood will never be washed off their hands. That is why this reactionary force, like anti-semitism, will retain it’s hold on backward elements within our own class. And with murderous consequences. That will remain the case so long as the propertied classes own and control the means of production, distribution and exchange; while they have a monopoly on the means of destruction; while they maintain overwhelming control over the means of mental production: the mass media and education system. So long as capitalism remains intact, then an economic system based on the anarchy of the market means that all our living standards are precarious; and that means that all the old scape-goats might have to be dragged out of the closet. If workers can be distracted from class struggle by anything else, then gay members of that class will be sacrificed, as will Jews, if necessary. That is why socialists have to organise to replace this system, why we have to be genuine anti-capitalists, rather than modern Bernsteins, like Salma Yaqoob. And it is why socialists have to use their propaganda, and any legislative powers they have, and their organising abilities to eliminate the conditions where gay bashers crawl out of the sewer, by making speeches in parliament, the council chamber, and by mobilising for Gay Pride. And that is why Respect should feel enormous relief that George Galloway has left the building. It is why Respect can celebrate the fact that everyone who wants to win votes on the basis of their LACK of strong support for gay rights have been purged from it’s system. All that remains for Respect to do now is flush the toilet and wash it’s hands.
Comment by Tom — 12 November, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
That’s a beauty Tom.
How does the SWP feel about having Tom Delargy as it’s most militant supporter ?
Tom Delargy is a member of Solidarity in Scotland and a uncompromising supporter of Tommy Sheridan.
Comment by Eddie T — 12 November, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
I’d like to take up Martin’s comment (#10) as an excuse to make a few points based on my own experience.
MARTIN:We in the SWP can get blinkered into thinking we are the bolsheviks and we are in 1917 conditions.
ME: I don’t think thats’ true at all . “We in the SWP” may be people who’d like to be in 1917 conditions but the problem the SWP and all similar outfits deal with day to day is that now it’s not that particular context. And what’s more you are marginal to so much political discourse and within the workers’ movement. Thats’ been the historical sentence since World War II.
The tried and standard reflex is one that has sentenced groups like the SWP and the like to a purely propaganda existence wherein you in effect “advocate” 1917 as your primary political intervention while you wait it out until ‘your day in the sun comes around. The challenge and opportunity offered by this particular regroupment perspective — eg; Respect, the SSP, the Australian SA, Dir Linke,etc — is to break out of that propaganda template and actively engage with some ongoing and organic coming together. It requires that the circle spirit that constrains the Marxian left be transcended.
MARTIN:As scientific socialists we should start from where we are in concrete terms, but never lose sight of the ultimate goal. The revolutionary project is about how we get from where we are in real terms to the final prize of building communism.
ME: Thats’ the scary bit. Its’ also the most difficult to negotiate relative to opportunities that may arise. If you haven’t heard it yet, you certainly will, but the argument is that projects like these are an excuse to “liquidate” your revolutionary politics and drown them in a social democratic swill so that your advocacy and intervention will be dumbed down.
The SWP’s answer to this in regard to Respect and the SSP was to insist that the reformists and the revolutionaries be kept apart in autonomous organisations behind the wall of separate programs. It then becomes a problem of management — of how to ensure the reformist exercise doesn’t get in the way of the revolutionaries doing their more important party building work. In effect, you impose a hierarchy of activity upon this divide you yourself manipulate while orchestrating a rigid loyalty.
But the core challenge is to bring those two perspectives together and integrate them into the one party building exercise. The problem is that in this particular context, exercises like Respect where this separatism was imposed are unsustainable. The world doesn’t play by the SWP’s rules. It didn’t in Scotland. It isn’t in England and it was the same here in Australia.
Thats’ three strikes by the way. .
The problem is not that these projects develop in a partyish direction. The problem, if you choose to address it, is how are you going to make the best of that opportunity. So if we are indeed “scientific socialists” we are being asked to ,in effect, put our schemata aside and embrace the dialectical possibilities that are now unfolding with these exercises.
To be blunt — I think it is the most difficult and arduous ‘intervention’ you are likely to ever do. No certainties. No black and whites. In effect you have to rely on your perceived line of march and the core principle that Lenin was so fond of employing. Using Napoleon’s words it goes ‘ s’engage et puis on voit’ (fight then see).
So how do you preserve the promise of 1917? How do you keep your eyes on the prize?
I think in that regard it’s important to firstly recognise that the world doesn’t fit the rigid template we so often ascribe to it. Thats the “reformism ” we have been taught to distrust .”Reformism” is almost passe under capitalism because its not allowed to take root today so the dynamic of that impulse for reform can have a much sharper edge which makes other things possible — such as party like formations which develop strong anti capitalist and socialist perspectives. This is why these parties need to be much more than electoral vehicles.These aren’t ‘revolutionary’ in the sense that the SWP’s program consciously is but they are an unfolding aggregations that hold the promise of generating something quite significant in way of regroupment politics.
Where they end up and who joins and leads them can have a lot to do with the active engagement of cadre forces schooled in revolutionary Marxism. Forces like the membership of the SWP .
Thats’ where the Australian experience is useful. It’s not that we’ve attained this massively broad new left party already but we’ve survived and suffered no major crisis; we’ve consolidated the project and reached out and networked with considered partnering – at the same time as preserving a dedicated Marxian cadre core. It is possible to do this without ‘liquidating’ that core’s revolutionary politics.
The tragedy is that the rest of the far left in Australia– a left which is in part schooled in the traditions of the SWP — cannot see, let alone accept, that. The tragedy is that the rest of the far left could enrich and qualitatively improve the dynamic and strength of this project; enrich it as a unity and ideologically socialist exercise — if it chose to actively engage with it on shared party building terms.
In regard to s’engage et puis on voit’ Trotsky wrote:” To put it differently, once engaged in t don’t be excessively preoccupied with canon and precedent, but plunge into reality as it is and seek there the forces necessary for victory, and the roads leading to it.”
Comment by Dave Riley — 13 November, 2007 @ 2:35 am
Andy, it is impressive that you’ve gone to this length to generate a political analysis of the origins of the crisis in Respect. You’ve clearly put a lot of thought into this and - aside from the patronizing nonsense about Russian Dolls - it is a useful contribution. However (ah, the inevitable “however), I’m afraid that I’m still not convinced because I think you have a number of false premises, which lead you to a fallacious conclusion.
1. You wrote: “The political context of the current broad party projects… is that they are seeking to occupy a social and political space within the workers movement which has been vacated by traditional social democracy. And as such, one of the necessary pre-conditions of Trotsky’s united front is missing.”
You have criticized others for viewing the present crisis through an “organizational and institutional” lens. But here you are guilty of the same thing in relation to the United Front. Of course when Trotsky is writing about Germany the battle seemed more straightforwardly between the KPD and the SPD. However, one of the strengths of the SWP analysis of reformism is to locate it as the majority current of consciousness for working people in capitalist society. For various historical reasons it may or may not find expression in a mass social democratic party and that party may occupy many places on the political spectrum (or even in multiple parties within a single country - think of France, for instance). The method of the United Front is thus not simply one of Revolutionary Party A sets up an agreement with Reformist Party B over a certain set of demands. The U.F. is a broadly descriptive method to approaching the problem of how to build the maximum unity in action around a limited set of pressing demands - that can be with a Labour-type Party, a trade union leader, a popular political leader not attached to a party (eg. Jose Bove or Galloway, etc) and any other number of possibilities, which vary by size, scope and content. The art of the U.F. is to know how to apply it in the concrete circumstances without thinking that the general theory is a cookie cutter or a magic key to solve problems without direct, detailed analysis.
2. “The SWP’s current theory and practice of working in trade unions is inconsistent with their theoretical approach to broad parties.”
See number 1 above - every situation requires specific analysis above. However, the SWP works with others but maintains its own independence, its own policy and campaigns for it independent of the union leadership when it disagrees with them. That, to me, seems to fit the model of the united front.
3. “That is not true of political parties, where it is clearly expected that the primary focus of a member’s political activity should not involve building another political party!”
See, now this depends on how you see the role of a particular type of political party. If, as the SWP sees it, Respect is primarily a vehicle for the left-of-Labour electoral sentiment to find expression, then it is entirely reasonable that the SWP operates freely outside of that venue. As long as the SWP doesn’t compete electorally with Respect they are free to do as they wish. That, in practice, is precisely the relationship of the affiliated unions to Labour. For example, New Labour may support the war but the affiliated unions are free to support the StWC, as long as they don’t run candidates against New Labour.
4. “To describe this as a “united front” of any sort, is simply mystification.”
Again, I think you are being schematic and missing the point that the UF is a general method, which requires concrete content.
5″ “The “United Front of a Special Type” involves a two tier membership, where the SWP build their own organisation, but seek to play the decisive political role in guiding Respect… Fundamentally the SWP has a different agenda to other Respect members.”
The argument of the SWP is that they should seek to win leadership of Respect (or any united front for that matter) by demonstrating in practice that a revolutionary strategy is more capable of winning than a reformist one. It is not by skullduggery or conspiracy, which is counter to the goals of a united front, which are 1) to win whatever struggle(s) it was set up to fight and 2) to win broader sections of the working class. Such winning can’t be by coercion or trickery, by definition. It is because of number 1) that the SWP’s agenda is not “different” from the rest of the Respect membership. Number 2) indicates that there is also a debate about how to best realize the mutually agreed agenda.
6. “Why should the SWP need to be counterbalanced by “forces from a reformist background”. Was reform or revolution a practical issue in Britain over the last few years and I missed it?”
For the simple reason that the point of building a party like Respect or, indeed, the Socialist Alliance, was precisely to draw those disillusioned with New Labour towards a more radical, principled alternative. Those 200,000 who have quit New Labour are quite rightly called “forces” but, in the best case scenario, those forces would be organized through the trade unions, constituency parties, et al. This is exactly what has happened in Germany where significant chunks - forces - have broken from the SPD.
As for reform v revolution, this is always relevant as a question of tactics and strategy - not as in “arm the working class” stopped clock politics. Do we orient on mass mobilizing or the actions of elites? Do we rely on union leaders or seek to build the strength of the rank and file? These questions are answered by reference to one’s overall view of what needs to happen to win deep and long-lasting social change - is it about a particular reform in and of itself - which could be taken back in the future (see the NHS, et al) - or is it about HOW you win a reform to leave behind a residue of confidence and consciousness embodied in organizational form?
As a final note: You can disagree with the SWP’s model for involvement in Respect and other broad formations but it is not really convincing to portray it as elitism or “Russian Dolls” burrowing away conspiratorially behind the scenes. A revolutionary party exists for the principal idea that the working class has contradictory consciousness (else they would all be socialists and internationalists) and an organization of the most class conscious needs to cohere to fight for leadership by convincing workers of the need (ultimately) to overthrow the system in the long term and, in the short term, to rely upon their own strength to win and defend reforms. This task can only be achieved where the party is able to act in a united way, to push for the same policies within given struggles - both to have the maximum impact on the largest swathe of people and to test the ideas in practice. This was, for instance, key in launching the Stop the War movement post-9/11. It was also key in launching Respect and winning the electoral victory of Galloway. That people suddenly find this method abhorent when previously it served them well is not a reflection of a sudden change of strategy or tactics on the SWP’s part. Rather, I would argue, it is conjunctural - basically, the SWP’s opponents don’t like to lose (none of us do, after all) and realize that the discipline and size of the SWP within Respect is a barrier to the direction they wish to push in. Galloway is seeking - and has succeeded - in united around himself a coterie of people from different backgrounds by playing to the choir, as it were. By putting forward a critique which is all things to all people, as evidenced in his opening salvo. He has succeeded in making the SWP the scapegoat for the real world problems of Respect. This too, I guess, is a united front of a special type. Sadly, it is not a very principled one and I think that it will find itself in difficulty as soon as one section tries to push its agenda (another Big Brother? MP’s on a workers wage? Accountability?). Without the SWP they will have to face a new demon of their own creation - each other.
Comment by Canadien — 13 November, 2007 @ 2:39 am
Very interesting, just a bit of background on Australia.
The DSP (well most members of it, but I won’t go into that right now), and most other members of the Australian Socialist Alliance I would think, wouldn’t define SA as left reformist or left social democratic. These, I would say, are more established ideological positions that are more clearly limited to change within capitalism. Part of the ISO’s “united front” persepctive her was to keep things social democratic, by opposing SA having a broad socialist goal, and by opposing various positions (I recall open borders and strict opposition to public funding for private education) they deemed too radical for what they perceived as the main audience, in Laborite “reformists”.
We’d see SA and similar projects more as “anti-capitalist” or “class struggle” formations, more along the lines of Murry’s “strategically non-delimited” formation, but maybe more fluidly than he, in that we wouldn’t exclude development into a more explicitly revolutionary organisation. There is also already a relatively succesful left social democratic organisation in Australia, maybe “of a special type”, called the Greens. In any case with varied problems in SA over the last couple of years (along with continuing strengths), we’ve both needed to re-prioritise our existing revolutionary organisation somewhat, and also stress more the need for broader realignment. A couple of excerpts from a resolution of ours:
32. The DSP continues to see the struggle to build a broadly based anti-capitalist party as a stage in the struggle for a mass revolutionary party in this country. This has been our view since our 11th Congress in January 1986, when we affirmed that: “Only the creation of a serious anti-capitalist alternative, necessarily founded on a complete break with Labor reformism, can open the way to working class victories in the struggle against the bosses’ attempts to make working people pay for the capitalist crisis. Revolutionaries therefore place a high priority on helping to develop such a political alternative — a broadly based party that consistently counterposes defence of the interests of the workers and their allies to the illusions of class peace fostered by the ALP and the trade union bureaucracy. The road to building such a political alternative lies along the line of seeking unity among all who are willing to break with Labor reformism and to encourage the most broadly based action in defence of the interests of workers and their allies.” (Resolution on “The ALP and the fight for socialism”, available in the pamphlet Labor and the Fight for Socialism). We are confident that, while such a broad left party necessarily begins with an incomplete class struggle platform and a broad socialist objective (i.e. does not have an explicitly revolutionary program), in the course of united engagement in mass struggles, it will steadily and democratically develop its program in a more explicitly revolutionary direction.
33. While the Socialist Alliance has adopted as its perspective transforming itself into a multi-tendency socialist party, this is just a beginning of such a new party project. If there is a new rise in the class struggle, new potential partners will be drawn into the project for a new party and the Socialist Alliance may have to become part of or be transformed into or be supplanted by new structures for best organising the strongest political voice for anti-neoliberal resistance.
From http://www.dsp.org.au/site/?q=node/28
Comment by Nick Fredman — 13 November, 2007 @ 4:52 am
Oh, Tom. Can we please drop the Galloway soft on gay rights meme?
Check this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KNHpunf1jzI
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mZnMIa6UN0Y
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BNroXUT40b0
Comment by Charlie Marks — 13 November, 2007 @ 5:19 am
Babeuf. With regard to the unions and ‘reclaiming Labour’.
Relying on the Unions as they stand now,will not ensure any success on the political front bar broad anti neo liberal fronts as what I understod Andy to be saying. There is a huge task facing the left to reclaim the unions let alone reclaiming Labour, a task the non labour left seem equally inept at doing as well as their inability at forming a new ‘workers ‘ party.
Grahams point does stand insofar as an active union movement that fights back in the workplace during an upsurge of union militancy will ultimately express itself politically in the Labour Party.
As much as I would like workers to suddenly desert to a new party , it hasnt happened and as history proves time and time again wont happen.
Comment by Ian — 13 November, 2007 @ 7:28 am
Canadien makes an attempt to defend Prof Callincos innovative concept of the United Front sui generis but fails dismally. Fails very dismally in fact for whilst he talks of the ‘method’ of the United Front he makes no efforts to explain what that ‘method’ consists of and how it relates to specific situations. One such starting point would be to explain the theory of the United Front and how it can be related to specific struggles.
Glancing through the record of the early Communist International and the Trotskyist movement too I cannot find a single example of a United Front in which a revolutionary group formed an openly non-socialist party with forces to its right. That this is no accident is born out by Duncan Hallas, a founding leader of the SWP, discussion back in the late 1970’s as to why the SWP would not have a joint electoral slate with other socialists.
The full article by Duncan Hallas can be read at neprimerimye blog. It is otherwise unavailable.
Comment by Mike — 13 November, 2007 @ 8:20 am
Well actually Canadien #23. seems to have conceded that the SWP are wrong.
Firtsly he concedes that the political context is that organised social democracy has created a vacuum:
“However, one of the strengths of the SWP analysis of reformism is to locate it as the majority current of consciousness for working people in capitalist society. For various historical reasons it may or may not find expression in a mass social democratic party and that party may occupy many places on the political spectrum (or even in multiple parties within a single country - think of France, for instance). “
Then he admits that the SWP want to prevent Resepct moving to be more than an alliance between the SWP and Galloway, over a limited set of demands:
“The method of the United Front is thus not simply one of Revolutionary Party A sets up an agreement with Reformist Party B over a certain set of demands. The U.F. is a broadly descriptive method to approaching the problem of how to build the maximum unity in action around a limited set of pressing demands - that can be with a Labour-type Party, a trade union leader, a popular political leader not attached to a party (eg. Jose Bove or Galloway, etc) and any other number of possibilities, which vary by size, scope and content.”
So Canadien agrees that the crisis is that the SWP do not see the task as creating a long term organisation, they see it as an electrial pact, that will provide a more fertile context for them to build the “revolutionary party”. This is the cause of the tension with those who want Respect to become a political party in its own right.
I am also interested in Canadien’s comment: “Do we rely on union leaders or seek to build the strength of the rank and file?” Is he here breaking from the politics of the SWP of alinging with the CWU bureuacracy in the current postal dispute?
I am quite serious:
Jane Loftus (SWP member, and CWU president) admittedely voted againstt the deal, but under the union’s rules as an exec member you have to regiester dissent if you wish to campaign against a decision of the full exec. Jane delibertaletly did not register dissent, and is not campiagning for a no vote. She is completely silent and inactive.
Post Worker has not produced an issue since the vote no campaign started, and has not (to date) updated its web-site.
The last issue of Post Worker contained an articel by Billy Hayes, even after it was obvious he was going to sell out.
A key issue for militants is whetehr there are seperate votes on the pensions and pay issues. Jane Loftus has used her position as union president to side with the bureaucracy, Billy Hayes and Dave Ward to prevent two ballots.
Individual SWP militants are doing a brilliant job, but Jane Loftus has completely let them down.
What is the SWP’s position? Publiclay put distance between them and Jane? No - they boost her up as star speaker at Saturday’s SWP-Respect conference.
Confused? I am.
Comment by Andy — 13 November, 2007 @ 8:49 am
umm seems like a new post worker out this week, oh also new SWP leaflet to be distributed at as many workplaces as possible, delegation work to be put in place in relation to the Manchester strike and also strike in Glasgow, urged to builld the peace conference and the day of action re Iran. Those swines in the SWP do all they care about is themselves.. unlike GG of course who earns 300,000 grand a year to redistribute to the poor .. what a hero. By the way Andy I see he cites Bhutto as a personnel friend for the last 25 yrs..says a lot doesn’t it? didn’t she support the attack on the red mosque?? which killed hundreds?? some friend!!
Comment by jj — 13 November, 2007 @ 9:43 am
JJ I am glad there is a new Post Worker. Are you willing to allow there to be a democratically elected editorial board for Postworker as a result of this dispute.
And Jane Loftus?
Did she oppose seperate ballots for pay and pensions?
Did she register dissent to allow her to campaign for a no vote?
Has she campiagned for a no vote?
Why are the SWP endorsing her failure, but putting her on the platform for SWP-Respect conference? It is like the position of CWU president is more importnatt than what she does with it.
Straight answers please.
And if GG is so bad, then why shack up with him in the first place. You are sounding more like the AWL every day.
Comment by Andy — 13 November, 2007 @ 9:51 am
And errr, JJ
Your criticsm of GG is that he subordinates everything to getting votes from Muslims, and then try to insinuate some guilt by association that GG didn’t oppose the assault on the Red Mosque.
Shome mishtake shurley?
Comment by Andy — 13 November, 2007 @ 9:54 am
“I think Andy makes an important point regarding the importance of building movements. We in the SWP can get blinkered into thinking we are the bolsheviks and we are in 1917 conditions. As scientific socialists we should start from where we are in concrete terms, but never lose sight of the ultimate goal. The revolutionary project is about how we get from where we are in real terms to the final prize of building communism.”
Comment by Martin — 12 November, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Dear Martin,
Yes, well, keep on taking the medication dear.
Good spoof though!
“I guess the point I don’t understand is why you think there is room “to the left of Labour”, and in particular why you think any gap can be filled by some other party, rather than by the Unions using their power in the existing structures to effect change within Labour, whether in rules or policy. Quoting Cruddas in this is a bit dishonest, since he is clearly calling for a rebuilding of the Labour Party, not looking to bolster the cause of a new party.” Granham Day
Graham.
Maybe it has escaped your notice that since 1997 New Labour has lost over 200,000 members yes that TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND MEMBERS and over 4 1/2 million voters yes that’s FOUR AND HALF MILLION VOTERS.The number of people who are alienated and disenfranchised from the whole political process is massive.
There exists a huge political vacuum to the Left of New Labour just as there exists a vast crisis of political representation.
The New Labour apparatus with the comlpicity of the trade union leadership has stiffled internal democracy once and for all as was evidenced at the last New Labour conference, such that there is no resal possiblity of rebuilding the ‘Labour party’ as far as I can see.
Obviously if you want to continue pissing in the wind and banging you had against a brick wall in an ever shrinking room then that is your choice.
Comment by Gramsci's breakfast — 13 November, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Continue banging your head against a brick wall by all means except you are going to get one hell of a head ache and isn’t it prettty futile?
Comment by Gramsci's breakfast — 13 November, 2007 @ 10:05 am
‘Maybe it has escaped your notice that since 1997 New Labour has lost over 200,000 members yes that TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND MEMBERS and over 4 1/2 million voters yes that’s FOUR AND HALF MILLION VOTERS.The number of people who are alienated and disenfranchised from the whole political process is massive.’
Gramsci. There is no doubt about this.
But you have to agree that attempts to set up a new party of labour since the demise of Clause 4 have been miserable failures.There seems today to be no clarity as to how the left are going to get out of this rut.
I wouldnt advocate joining labour to reclaim it in its current state.
I view the only force for change in that area has to come from the unions (and not the TU leaders please note).Reclaiming the unions as forces of change may be on the agenda now.
Maybe we should temporarily forget about campaigning against three overtly capitalist parties at elections and look towards other means of defeating neo liberalism and imperialism.
I think the Labour Left has just as much say on this as Respect, Respect Renewel, CNWP, etc etc etc……..
Comment by Ian — 13 November, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Ian that is a very good point.
The model of manchester is very useful. The Socialist Unity group there brings together left activits, some fromwhat used to be the Socialist Allaince, the CPB, Respect, Permanent Reviolution, ISG, and some non-aligned individuals. they then coopoerate on practical campaigns, and have some political debate outside electral politics.
North manchester Respect is seeking to be a parallel and overlapping political project, but also involving itself in the electoral arena.
Running both projects in parrallel, but also seeking to involve wider cooperation, with for example the Green Party left, or labour left (if they exist) can lead to future trust building and convergence
Comment by Andy — 13 November, 2007 @ 10:25 am
SWP rocks! If Lenin was alive, he’d be on our side.
Comment by Joey Deacon — 13 November, 2007 @ 11:41 am
News Alert
Update: I asked my source what happened to Murshid, and was told:
Again, all part of the split. He still wants to be PPC for BGB, but Galloway’s backing Abjol Miah, so he’s taken umbrage and joined the Rees/Rahman group. He then accuses Miah et al of “village politics”.
Comment by tim — 13 November, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Oli Rahman’s windows were smashed last week. And I’ve just received this email from the Respect Offfice:
Councillor Oli Rahman physically attacked
Three attackers kicked Councillor Oli Rahman to the ground, inflicting internal bruising and ripping his clothes, in an incident near his home in Tower Hamlets last night (Sunday 11 November).
This is the second attack on Oli. In the first incident his front window was shattered in the middle of the night when attackers threw a brick through it. Oli’s mother has also been threatened.
Last night’s attack follows threatening emails sent to both Oli Rahman and fellow Respect National Council member Mehdi Hassan.
In a separate incident Mehdi Hassan received the following email threatening both him and Oli Rahman.
—–Original message—–
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:16:02 +0000
To: mehdi@respectcoalition.org
Subject: (no subject)
medi you and fucking oli are traitors you owe your careers to george,
without george you will all be signing on soon and if i see the pair of you im gonna kick the shit out of you both.
These incidents have all been reported to the police.
Oli Rahman said: ‘I will not be intimidated. I will not be bullied. I will not be threatened. I’m confident that
the vast majority of Respect members will support me and condemn these disgusting, cowardly assaults.’
Comment by Chris Edwards — 13 November, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Gramsci’s breakfast, these “lost voters” aren’t turning out to vote for anyone else though, except maybe the BNP. As I said, people are sliding into apathy or turning to fascism, they’re not crying out for a new “left of Labour” party.
The last 10 years have seen how many attempts to set up a new left of Labour party? The SLP, Socialist Alliance, SSP, Respect… all failures. It’s not just me who’s banging their head off a brick wall…
The key to the situation is with the Unions - the organised working class. And if the working class can’t effect change in their own organisations, then how can they change society?
Comment by Graham Day — 13 November, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Incidentally, democracy at Labour Party conferences is a fairly recent event, the block vote usually acted to keep “controversial” policies out. It was the upsurge in union militancy during the sixties that broke this up and democratised the conference. The Right then started changing the rulebook - but rules can always be changed back, if we organise to do it, like they did.
And Gordon Brown is still better than Ramsay MacDonald…
It may be useful to look at things other than through the prism of the last 10-20 years.
Comment by Graham Day — 13 November, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Interesting points. Er wouldn’t the obvious thing to do be to bring some of them up at the er Respect conference?
Comment by John Mullen — 13 November, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Mike - You’re right, I didn’t elaborate on the method of the united front for the simple reason that it has been elaborated elsewhere, including in the document that Andy is replying to.
Andy - Generally it is best to engage with the actual arguments people make, rather than constructing straw men that are easier targets. Let’s just take a look at a couple you have built:
“Firtsly he concedes that the political context is that organised social democracy has created a vacuum”
My point is that IT DOESN’T MATTER. Reformism always has representatives - both individual and collective - because reformism is a permanent feature of capitalism (the contradictory desire to improve conditions alongside acceptance of the overall capitalist set-up). What changes are the conjunctural expressions of reformism - the existence of particular organizations and/or individuals who represent that majority trend. You are obsessed with the organizational/institutional expression rather than the concrete. In any case, the Labour Party CLEARLY has not completely abandoned the field, as you may have noticed the involvement of Tony Benn et al in the StWC.
“Then he admits that the SWP want to prevent Resepct moving to be more than an alliance between the SWP and Galloway, over a limited set of demands”
See, now this is just stupid. I never argued this, I said, as above, that the specific circumstances, specific expressions and therefore specific TACTICS are fluid and conjunctural. The point is that there is more than one way to cook an egg. You are being utterly dishonest.
“So Canadien agrees that the crisis is that the SWP do not see the task as creating a long term organisation, they see it as an electrial pact, that will provide a more fertile context for them to build the “revolutionary party”. This is the cause of the tension with those who want Respect to become a political party in its own right.”
Not a long term organization? John Rees has, for the record, said that the task of building an alternative to labourism is a long term task. Nobody anywhere has said that Respect had a best-buy date or wasn’t long term. This is either a deliberate lie on your part or simply fantasy. And I said that people are won to the revolutionary party, if at all, by revolutionaries being the best at building Respect - or whatever other struggle.
“I am also interested in Canadien’s comment: “Do we rely on union leaders or seek to build the strength of the rank and file?” Is he here breaking from the politics of the SWP of alinging with the CWU bureuacracy in the current postal dispute?”
This particular slander is answered elsewhere.
Well, Andy, you have demonstrated that you are unable to engage honestly with arguments that challenge your own ideas. There’s always the possibility for misunderstanding in a debate, ˙different terminology, different experiences. And the good debater always takes account of that in a charitable way. However, your response goes far beyond honest mistake. If that is the method of Renewal, to lie about your opponents’ views, you’ll be in for a lot of trouble very quickly.
Comment by Canadien — 13 November, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Canadien
I was being sarcastic, not lying.
Where has the issue of the SWP’s problems with Jane Loftus in the post been refuted? Which you describe as a slander, but I assure you is true.
Comment by Andy — 13 November, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
What are the odds against those Gallowistas who spent days trying to prove that Oli Rahman had engaged in coalition talks with the lib dems spending any time finding out who amongst their supporters have been having rather more physical ‘talks’ with Rahman.
Comment by Josh — 13 November, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Andy - I have no idea about Jane Loftus role. I was refering to your claim that the SWP was “aligning with the CWU bureuacracy in the current postal dispute?” This was answered by jj in post#29.
Sarcasm v. lying - you were misrepresenting what I was saying and then attributing those positions to me. I’m afraid I couldn’t see the “sarcastic” look on your face while you were doing it but in any case misrepresentation is a form of lying.
Comment by Canadien — 13 November, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
No canadien
JJ pointed ut that a new edition of Postworker was coming out, in repsnse to my observation thata there had not been one. So there was no slander from me, there was a perfectly true statement.
he did not explain why Post Worker included content from Billy hayes, nor the behaviour of SWP member and CWU president Jane Loftus. It is the behaviour of Jane that i am interested in, and the fact that the SWP have not distanced themselves from her position.
Comment by Andy — 13 November, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Canadien
No reasonable person readfing my comments would think that I was misrepresetning what you said, I was just quoting you and then pointing out that an opposite conclusion could be reached from your arguments.
i suggest that you shoudl try lowering the temperture.
Comment by Andy — 13 November, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
“No reasonable person” and therefore all who disagree are, by definition unreasonable. It is not a reasonable reading at all. It is partial quotes and not engaging with the arguments by creating straw men. But, whatever…
As to JJ, he said more than just a Post Worker had come out. He also talked about other initiatives to support the postal workers, including delegation work. You, however went further than just critiquing the tardiness of Post Worker, you said that the SWP were “aligning themselves with the CWU bureaucracy.” That’s a more significant criticism than what you’re now trying to portray. Since you knew of neither the new issue of Post Worker, nor the other initiatives to support the posties, I’m afraid you’ve undermined your own credibility viz. your other critiques of the SWP in the postal dispute.
Comment by Canadien — 13 November, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Canadien
Yes you are being unreasonable by fetishising the manner of the way I debated with you rather than the content.
Specifically over the CWU dispute, I have been very specific of what my criticisms of the SWP are.
They have not publicaly distanced themselves from Jane Loftus, who is CWU president and an SWP member.
Jane is not campaigning for a no vote.
She has not registered her “dissent” which is a constitional requirement for her as a postal exec member to campiagn againist the majority decision
Post Worker carried content from Bily Hayes, when it was already clear he was looking to negotiate a shoddy deal
Postworker has been slow to produce an addition for the vote no campaign.
The initiative to kick off the no campaign from the grassroots came from a Labour Party member and a syndicalist - these are the comrades who have been making the running, alonmg with Dave Warren from the exec. Post Worker has not been in the lead of these developments.
Jane Loftus has sided with the bureaucracy over the question of their being one ballot for both pay and pensions, which the left and the militants want seperate ballots on these issues.
Given all that, the SWP are putting Jane Loftus on the platform for Saturday’s SWP-Respect conference. This seems to be publicly endorsing her at exactly the time they should be makig it clear they repudiate her actions in the CWU.
If you cannnot answet these very specific points, then don’t tell me I am “slandering” the SWP over theit handling of the CWU dispute. This doesn’t take anything away from the excellent militancy of SWP grassroots posites, or the solidarity work that the SWP branches are doing.
Comment by Andy — 13 November, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
“DON’T get me wrong, I’ve never been down on all Australians. Take Kylie Minogue. For a singer she’s always been not a bad looker.
I voted with the majority for a change when her rear was the year’s champion sight. I even bought my woman Kylie’s range of underwear.
But her ITV spectacular on Saturday was a flat as the coupon of a duck-billed platypus.
With the sound down it was a good night in - though how those backing singers and dancers escaped without chilblains I’ll never know.
But in stereo, it was a cats chorus. I don’t mind if “the greatest small country in the world” will use her iconic image to promote the games, but let us have the opening song sung by anyone rather than her. We should be so lucky.”
Andy.. this is the latest fantastic article tackling sexism by your glorious leader.. umm not only is he on your platform but he is your star speaker!!! indeed you and your chums feel he is to be unaccountable to the membership such is his greatness.. now Andy do you subscribe to this sexist rubbish or are you going to challenge this nonsense.. perhaps a contribution from the floor at this sat’s love in may go down well… I don’t think so. ps pass on the article to Hilary Wainwright lol
Comment by jj — 13 November, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
Andy.. any chance of cendeming the assault on a socialist Cllr by a couple of thugs and the pro GG threatening e mails to another TH leading member of respect. I know when Rahmans house was bricked you seemed unable to find the time to condem this attack but I am sure this was an oversight on your part. You hav always stated that violence is not part of the way of debating.
Also keen to see a report from the RESPECT TH meeting 80+ people 50% of whom were Bangladeshi’s which was described as an excellent launch for RESPECT without the intimidation which had been previously witnessed.. also major step forward Bangladeshi women were all allowed to take part in the meeting which I am sure Andy would see as a positive thing. Could Andy let us know how many delegates will be at the GG love in.. I mean people who are elected to go to the “Conference” I see that non members are encouraged to go.. do they get a vote… will there be a vote or is this a backward leninist tactic which will need to be dropped.
Comment by jj — 13 November, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
jj, there’s no proof that this attack has been done by the emaillers, or that it’s an attack by GG’s supporters. Be careful that you’re not becoming a tool of those, like the state and the fascists, who would organise this sort of provocation exactly to deepen the divisions.
Also, where were you when Martin Smith and his team assaulted one of their former members at Marxism, pinning him to the ground, searching his pockets and leaving him badly bruised. We’d like to see the SWP objecting to violence in the Labour movement as quickly as Abjol, Liam and others in Tower Hamlets have condemned the attack.
Comment by Jane — 13 November, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
thanks for that condemnation Jane.. any comment about GG sexist drivel would be welcome
Comment by jj — 13 November, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Jane……….If Oli has been attacked by “Fascists or the state” as you speculate.. shouldn’t GG condem it then??? why the silence.. its like simon and garfunkel round her!!
Comment by jj — 13 November, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
Canadien wrote “You’re right, I didn’t elaborate on the method of the united front for the simple reason that it has been elaborated elsewhere.”
My friend you did not elaborate on the method of the United Front because if you had done so you would have revealed the truth that the so called United Front sui generis has nothing in common with that method. The method of the UF was that of a politically limited alliance between revolutionary and reformist forces primarily within the workers movement for defensive purposes. This can be ascertained by the reading of the original documents of the movement and a study of the various articles run by the IS/SWP in its publications over many years.
Now this method has nothing at all in common with the formation of Respect. Respect being a long term alliance between forces, of which the majority of the ‘reformists’ stand outside the workers movement ideologically, based on a shared political program. In other words Respect was constituted as a common propaganda bloc between forces with fundamentally opposed class interests, at the level of rogram, and it is that which has destroyed it in the end whatever the reason for the tinder catching flame.
Comment by Mike — 14 November, 2007 @ 5:22 am
Excellent analysis of the decline of the LP and what it means for the far left! Makes me wish you were on the SWP CC…
Comment by Binh — 14 November, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
#57 This is no doubt, a US based fascist, engaged in internet fraud, denial of service attacks and probably someone harbouring violent sociopathic tendencies.
Possibly wears a uniform too.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 31 December, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Unfortunately the #57 you were referring to has been deleted Alex, so noone will know what you were talking about!
Comment by Andy — 31 December, 2007 @ 5:04 pm