SOCIALIST UNITY

27 June, 2008

187 Comments »

1. Kevin, Ghada, Rob and Nick, I’d love to know whether you agree that the way the SWP has worked in RESPECT for the past 2 years has been so wrong. If so why didn’t you say anything then?

   Really does seem that leaving/getting yourselves expelled was purely down to being petrified of not being in George Galloway’s Party…

   Comment by Hanif Leylabi — 28 June, 2008 @ 12:38 am

2. Hanif

   Catch up on the correspondence, hot shot. And don’t waste valuable time. You’ve been following this for nine months.

   Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 28 June, 2008 @ 12:46 am

3. “getting yourselves expelled”

   Ah, it’s all their own fault after all. If only they hadn’t got themselves expelled. They should have been more careful.

   Comment by TLC — 28 June, 2008 @ 12:48 am

4. Azmal Hussain happens to be a very rich business man, the one who did a lot of damage between the relationship of GG and swp. Hussain principles lay in opportunitism as like the rest of them.

   Comment by josie — 28 June, 2008 @ 1:37 am

5. Hilarious - It’s the SWP’s fault that everyone defected, even the one from Respect Renewal.

   I’m glad to hear that Renewal is taking this in their stride and has made some effort to sound non-sectarian “We look forward to playing our part in furthering the left as a whole, not simply our part of it.”

   But the idea of RR winning any parliamentary seats does sound overtly optimistic. Good luck to you I suppose but I don’t see it happening. LL, RR, SP, LRC, CPB are all piece of a jigsaw. I don’t see how any of them have the strength for success alone.

   Comment by Futurecast — 28 June, 2008 @ 4:24 am

6. #1 -”Genuinely nice, a good friend, a bad enemy, crazy dancer and an Iranian Geordie” - Hanif Leylabi’s modest description of himself on his own website. He must have accidentally missed out “political dupe who is never afraid to talk about things he knows nothing about”.

   #4 This Azmal Hussain seems to be such an opportunist he has stayed with Respect, denounced those who have gone to New Labour and pledged to fight for a council that will have a Respect majority. I wonder what you think a principled stand would look like. Of course, he doesn’t care for the SWP very much any more, but then few in Tower Hamlets do, now.

   Comment by sergo — 28 June, 2008 @ 5:07 am

7. The SWP/LL statement on this debacle stated: “The recent split in Respect has created conditions in which New Labour can seek to regain the initiative in Tower Hamlets…”

   Yesterday on the Tower Hamlets thread, I posed this question: “Given that the split was meant to have been on a left/right basis, with the right represented by Galloway and co., I might have expected some of his people to cross over, but not the Left List/SWP members. So what are these conditions, and how did they work to lure a group of SWP members over to the Labour Party?”

   To which the irrepressible johng replied: “The fissure and weakening of the pole of attraction to the left of Labour that Respect once represented Dave. Its quite simple really. On their own neither side has proved strong enough to constitute one. In that situation both will suffer losses of this kind, regardless of formal ideological considerations.”

   Now comes this statement from RR, which, in speaking of the damage inflicted on the group by the SWP, reflects in its own way the analysis offered by johng, except for his desperately non-political final sentence.

   He left unanswered my core question - why did the SWP members defect to NuLab and not the RR councillors? What does this imply about Rees’s left/right split claim? Why are these social forces so powerful that they can wreck the SWP’s plans but leave reformists largely untouched?

   I was of course hinting that in any left/right consideration, the evidence would now indicate that it was Rees’s faction that was on the right. On reflection - and I’m more than happy to be corrected here by those on the ground in TH who work alongside these councillors - I doubt whether left/right considerations are as important in these defections as the vacuum created by the SWP.

   Knocking out the pole of attraction was one thing. But I suspect that after the split the SWP did not have the roots in the community or the community building capacity that Galloway’s forces have, and that once apart, it simply could not provide the support that the political and social support that these councillors needed.

   And that’s not Galloway’s fault - that’s an indictment of an organisation that has flitted from one ‘big idea’ to another without developing a politics that actually has something to say to workers and their families. Whether Galloway and co. can build RR is another matter, but SWP members should now be asking themselves why after decades of political engagement, the party is still unable to build long-term and deep roots in communities that should be its natural constituencies.

   Comment by Dave — 28 June, 2008 @ 7:57 am

8. After the split, when the SWP organised a meeting under the name of Respect, called “our vision for Respect”, they claimed that 80 people turned up. They made a point, quite outrageously in my view, of saying “the meeting was about 50-50 Bangladeshi-white”, as if there was either a genetic test done or identity checks were performed (how can you tell what a “Bangladeshi” looks like?)

   The photo of the event didn’t quite tell the whole story (or support the numbers), which is that the SWP had pressured people from across London to come, so you even had leading SWP members from central London, who had never been to an East London Respect event before, at the meeting. And you suddenly had “an FBU member” from the local area publically saying at the meeting that George Galloway had let people down (of course, in their usual way, they neglected to mention that the “FBU member” was a very long-standing SWP member who, up to that point, had never had any involvement in Respect).

   Point of all this is, since then, the local community has had nothing to do with them. Every meeting they organise is tiny to non-existent - you will see no reports of their meeting on climate change, their meeting on “The BNP, Labour’s crisis and The Left”, which happened only 10 days or so ago - in fact, the last meeting they reported on claimed to have “packed” a room, when not only did it not do so, the room was pretty much all SWP and pretty much all white.

   In the same way that Respect has lost some very experienced and capable activists - people the calibre of Maggie Falshaw and Glyn Robbins are noticeable losses to such a small organisation - the SWP in return has lost every shred of credibility and every bit of its local base. You can see that by the way the vote didn’t turn out in an area where Oliur Rahman, the big leading face of their side and a man who has been a local councillor for several years now, and was re-elected, not just elected, sits.

   Anyway… the split was never a left-right one at local or regional level.

   The truth, however, is that you’re right in the broad sense, Dave: The actual split was a left-right one, with the SWP on the right, taking an ultra-left turn that is still having an impact - not just on the organisation, but on the thinking and debating capacities of its members (witness Hanif Leylabi above, leading student member who rejoined *because* of the split, and set about attacking Galloway as soon as he was given the chance).

   Thing about the culture that is starting to open up in Respect is, we know that sometimes we’ll be to the right, sometimes to the left - we’re honest enough to accept that these are tactical questions. Revolutionaries in Respect know that we have to build to the right of where we are. If there was a textbook on how to be a revolutionary right now, that would be one of the key messages. If we have the best perspective, the clearest views, both of those should combine to tell us that we need to move to meet the class, instead of throwing our hands up and quitting as soon as the going gets tough.

   Comment by tonyc — 28 June, 2008 @ 9:29 am

9. Actually, maybe they first claimed that “up to 80″ people had turned out, and then in the written report changed it to “tens of people came”.

   Comment by tonyc — 28 June, 2008 @ 9:30 am

10. What a wretched opportunist adventure the Respect experience has been!

    Instead of quarreling over who said and did what and when, it might be time to stand back and try to conceptualise the events of the past 5 years: from the SWP’s complete misreading of the long-term political significance of the anti-war movement, to the attempt to build a popular left force on narrow communalist foundations.

    There is a danger that the two Respect projects are maintained, not because they have any real political momentum behind them, but because the rival factions don’t want to be seen by the other to be giving up first.

    In the meantime New Labour will continue to dissolve and many workers will either not vote or tranfer their votes to the Tories or nationalists.

    Can I suggest some lessons to be learned from the past 5 years?

    1. There is no shortcut to building a credible and durable socialist alternative to New Labour. It will require, above all else, sustained and patient agitational and ideological work at grassroots level before wasting time and resources on electoral adventures which only reveal how weak and shallow support for socialist politics is.

    Sometimes in politics you have to scale back your expectations, realise that the objective environment is not favourable to significant political progress, and instead focus on preparing oneself theoretically for when circumstances change.

    2. Do not work with the SWP. They have proven themselves, in the Socialist Alliance and Respect, to be a poisonous, arrogant and sectarian group of control freaks. Re-building the left will require groups to work together in a spirit of honesty, self-criticism, and transparency. The present SWP leadership are organically incapable of operating in such a way. It is therefore essential that they are consciously excluded from any further attempt to re-group and re-build the socialist left.

    Comment by Mike_X — 28 June, 2008 @ 10:08 am

11. “Early soundings of our supporters shows there is still considerable confidence that we have a very good chance of taking not one but two parliamentary seats in Tower Hamlets, which would be a quite incredible breakthrough, and that we can elect a majority of councillors in just under two years time. With New Labour plumbing new depths of unpopularity, in Birmingham, Salma Yaqoob continues to gather the support she needs to become Britain’s first Muslim woman MP.”

    - Like futurcast pointed out, this is a little over-optimistic given all of what has happened in the not too distant past.

    Comment by Leftwing Criminologist — 28 June, 2008 @ 10:14 am

12. But left wing criminologst - it is not implausible based upon the actual votes cast by real voters on 1st may.

    Comment by Dear Koba — 28 June, 2008 @ 10:25 am

13. That would be the same Salma Yaqoob who has been, wrongly but repeatedly, described as the first Muslim woman Cllr in Birmingham?

    Labour has four Muslim women candidates for the next general election, 3 in place of retiring MPs and with at least three ethnic origins between them.

    Comment by Alan Ji — 28 June, 2008 @ 10:40 am

14. On the desperately non-political final sentance, that was entirely intentional. I don’t actually believe at this stage that the ideological issues between RR and LL (whatever these may be) have very much to do with the direction of these individuals. I suspect that the reason why the RR group is holding togeather better is that they had more credible votes and consequently more chance of being re-elected, something which reflected their larger electoral base. Whether this will hold out I’m not in a position to say, but I find it rather strange that the defection of the RR counciler is laid at the door of the poor political education offered by the SWP. Vanguardism lives obviously.

    Comment by johng — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:02 am

15. The present SWP leadership are organically incapable of operating in such a way. It is therefore essential that they are consciously excluded from any further attempt to re-group and re-build the socialist left.

    I’m afraid this is correct, but we should stress both ‘leadership’ and ‘present’. Above all, we need to nail the lie that SWP members are not welcome in RESPECT. Of course, SWP members who stay in (or join) RESPECT may face difficulties in the SWP, but I don’t believe they come under any pressure from RESPECT to leave the SWP.

    Comment by Phil — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:10 am

16. How About posting anything other than this never-ending dribble about Respect!

    Comment by Jim lawrie — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:13 am

17. The SWP is a democratic centralist revolutionary socialist Party. That’s the fact of the matter. Some other facts too…

    The SWP play a leading and vital role in the Stop the War Movement, Unite Against Fascim, Love Music Hate Racism and the student movement.

    Any attempt to build a genuinely pluralist and RADICAL left alternative has to include them.

    Comment by Hanif Leylabi — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:14 am

18. johng writes: “I don’t actually believe at this stage that the ideological issues between RR and LL (whatever these may be) have very much to do with the direction of these individuals. I suspect that the reason why the RR group is holding togeather better is that they had more credible votes and consequently more chance of being re-elected, something which reflected their larger electoral base.”

    John, does anyone in your world have any politics? What you seem to be saying is that the LL councillors were drawn right by a gravitational pull caused by George Galloway’s wrecking exercise, and that the RR councillors have stayed where they are because of electoralist opportunism. There are no conclusions to be drawn about the socialist politics of the individuals concerned, no reflections worth having on Rees’s claim of a left/right split, no thoughts to be had on the SWP’s capacity to educate its membership in socialism.

    In France, it’s known that a good number of PCF voters were drawn into the Front National camp. There is a drift rightwards in Britain today, just as in France. We can either confront this politically, or we can pretend that it’s all beyond our control. Refusing to honestly acknowledge tactical errors on the left goes hand in hand with the latter option. We deserve better from the SWP.

    Comment by Dave — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:54 am

19. Actually my own belief is that responsibility for the defections is fairly evenly shared by the two parties to the dispute and that referring to any of them as ‘rats’, ‘opportunists’ or such like is silly. And yes I think that the reality of the split, and its negative impact on the prospect of the left of the left being a significant pole of attraction are far more of an explanation as to why someone with Ollies politics (for example) crossed the floor (as opposed to failures to cadreise etc). I don’t think its opportunism for people with reformist politics to be drawn to a left of the left alternative, but if the left of the left fails to provide an alternative, I don’t think returning to the main organisational expression of reformism means they’re traitors either. Its our failure not theirs really. So I don’t think that the kind of general understanding I put foward is incompatible with an examination of subjective faults.

    Comment by johng — 28 June, 2008 @ 12:09 pm

20. Phil, the problem with this ‘leadership bad’ ‘membership good’ attitude when it comes to the SWP is that you shoot yourself in the foot. People don’t like to be accused of being sheep. Presumably you would like good old trusty SWP members to join your own organisation so that you yourself can direct their activity. Bit of news - SWP CC are SWP members also, they just work full time for the party as opposed to in normal workplaces or in colleges or not at all.

    Comment by sheep — 28 June, 2008 @ 12:11 pm

21. #7 Dave raises very important issues. The doctoral theses and books still need to be written to get a fuller understanding of the political dynamics of those of the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets. They would have to take account of the political history of Bangladesh, the villages and areas that people have come from, the divisions between Sylhet and those outside Sylhet, religious dynamics and the interaction o fthese various factors with British politics, to list just some of the factors that need study.

    Although some claim to understand what is going on, everyone has a side in the debate and, although some know more than others, no-one has a full picture, anymore than political commentators and scientists have of white British politics.

    The least that the SWP leadership could have acknowledged, when they realised that Tower Hamlets in particular was Respect’s major short-term base of support that could propel it to spectacular electoral success, was their relative ignorance of what was going on there. Yet if you read Harman’s absurd analysis in the International Socialism Journal, it is clear they learned next to nothing from their flirtation with the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets over the last couple of years or so.

    This is very unfortunate because politics in Tower Hamlets is clearly complicated and pretty brutal. From day one Labour people were working hard to undermine the Respect councillors. Some Respect members constantly warned that people would have been sent in as plants to mess Respect up. It sounded paranoid but in fact some events suggest this might have been happening. And the fact that so many rational people thought it possible certainly showed how vicious and cutthroat politics is in Tower Hamlets.

    With a group of willing but politically relatively inexperienced councillors and members of Respect, who had been attracted to Respect because it was anti-war, because it was for the underdog and because it had a loud voice in George Galloway, the SWP, in my view, was probably the only disciplined and coherent force within Respect that could have held together this diverse group of people both against internal tensions and external enemies. There is no doubt that SWP members were held in high esteem in the early stages and councillors and others were looking for guidance and help.

    This would have required both an acknowledgement that there was much the SWP did not know but needed to find out open-mindedly and a commitment to the success of the Respect project long-term. It also meant that the SWP needed to avoid patronising people and not treat them as enemies when they weren’t.

    Sadly, the SWP, and its leadership in particular, showed themselves incapable of either. Rees wrote the councillors off, showed no interest in understanding the complexities of Tower Hamlets politics in general and Bangladeshi politics in particular, listened only to a small number of voices who had their own axes to grind, factionalised against and insulted people who expected Respect to be a different kind of political organisation and imposed preconceived but ill-fitting left/right categories on a situation he was determined to factionalise over.

    The fact is that the councillors and other members of Respect were to varying degrees left wing on some things and not so left wing on others. They certainly did not fit a stereotype of left as the revolutionary left would traditionally define it. But we live in changing times and the SWP had appeared to show some sign of understanding this.

    Unfortunately short termism and opportunism overrode these considerations. Rees in particular appeared to feel the need to satisfy elements of the SWP who were more sceptical of the project by delivering recruits. Hence the trophy councillors Ahmed Hussain and Lutfa Begum, neither of whom ever showed any indication of being a paid up revolutionary socialist or moving towards becoming one.

    This is a huge missed opportunity for the SWP, missed because in the end the leadership just wasn’t good enough. And it has left them in a huge mess. Hanif Leylabi is quite wrong. Left wing projects can and will be built without the SWP, and will have to be unless there is a big change in its leadership. That leadership stands rightly discredited by the way it has jeopardised Respect, misunderstood the political situation and lied to protect and justify themselves. As for johng’s pitiful high-minded pontificating about matters on which he understands so little, the less he says the better.

    Comment by sergo — 28 June, 2008 @ 12:12 pm

22. “How About posting anything other than this never-ending dribble about Respect!”

    Jim this will help you

    You might not have noticed, but articles on this blog about Respect are a minority.

    Comment by a message to jim lawrie — 28 June, 2008 @ 1:06 pm

23. Aplogies for butting in folks -
    - but Wendy Alexander has resigned as the glorious leader of Scottish New Labour…tee hee hee!

    lexander quits as Labour leader
    BBC Scotland
    28 June 2008

    Wendy Alexander quits as Scottish Labour leader
    The Herald (Glasgow)
    28 June 2008

    A by-election has also been announced for a seat in the former New Labour Soviet of Glasgow - it should be a walk-over for the SNP!

    Comment by joe90 — 28 June, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

24. #22 Tuning into this website is optional Jim. Why don’t you go and play with your ferret?

    On a more serious issue, it seems from SWP party notes that the Left List has been dropped. There is a lot of stuff about Brown going down the toilet, how there is a rising tide of anger, and how there is a space to the left of Labour, etc, etc. But absolutely no mention of the Left List as SWP members are encouraged to argue in favour of a “broad electoral alternative to Labour”. Word has it that the Left List is to be “parked” by the SWP, with wags suggesting it is to be clamped and removed to the car pound (or the scrapyard more like).

    How wonderful it is to be able to just leave the mess behind without so much as an apology or an excuse or even an explanation.

    Seems the message has not quite reached Tower Hamlets yet where members are looking forward to a branch meeting on Monday, I am told. And I wait with bated breath to the guffaws of laughter that will meet the first SWP member with the courage or stupidity to stand up in a broader forum and start lecturing everyone on the need for that broad electoral alterantive. Just how many goes does the SWP want to screw that particular front up?

    Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 28 June, 2008 @ 1:18 pm

25. Sorry. In #24, I meant #16 not #22. Is that clear?

    Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 28 June, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

26. Two things SWP members should learn from this.

    1. The RESPECT split was not a left-right split
    2. The whole RESPECT project was unprincipled opportunism for short term gains.

    I find laughable Hanif’s assertion that “Any attempt to build a genuinely pluralist and RADICAL left alternative has to include them.” (the SWP) well i would say that any attempt to rebuild the left is being held back by the SWP leadership time and time again, for it’s own sectarian gains, the Socialist Alliance and RESPECT are perfect illustrations of this. What is more, the SWP is not the force it was a few years ago there is no reason at all why a principled left unity project cannot be built without the SWP.

    I have read LL statement but what i am wondering is how are the SWP leadership explaining to their members that their ‘left wing’ LL council members have defected to the Labour Party? And where does this leave them with regards to setting up an SWP led Die Linke style ‘Left Party’ when no one on the Left trusts them the unions will have nothing to do with them and their friends are jumping ship at the same rate the Labour Party is going down in the polls. All in all, SWP comrades should be saying well done John Rees for leading them from dead end to dead end.

    Comment by Chris S — 28 June, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

27. Can I just say keep it up comrades. Some enterprising soul should pitch a sitcom to BBC3 about all this. Wolfie Smith, where are you now?

    Ha ha ha.

    Comment by pbr streetgang — 28 June, 2008 @ 1:43 pm

28. I don’t think anyone will have to worry too much about working with the SWP. They are retreating rapidly into their own version of the Third Period. They tried to bust up Respect when it began to show signs of becoming bigger than the just the sum of its parts. In the STW movement, as soon as the masses had left the streets they set about grabbing the leadership not through political arguement and exemplary work but by exclusions and splits whittling it down until in many areas it became nothing but an SWP branch meeting. They don’t have to work in the movement, they are the movement.

    Comment by David Ellis — 28 June, 2008 @ 1:51 pm

29. Can I just say keep it up comrades. Some enterprising soul should pitch a sitcom to BBC3 about all this. Wolfie Smith, where are you now?

    Ha ha ha.

    - It’s called democracy.

    Clowns like no. 27 are the first ones to say they support democracy, then when other people actually start to use it, they’re always the first ones to start disparaging it and acting like the empty totalitarian fascist know-it-alls that they are.

    At least these people, on this comments board, take themselves and other people’s views seriously - and don’t pretend that they know everything.

    Perhaps no. 27 can tell us all where the rest of the world is going wrong, as they seem to be implying they know better than everybody else -
    - let’s have it then balloon-head, where is everybody going wrong, and if you are so right, then how come you haven’t been able to put things right yourself?

    Comment by joe90 — 28 June, 2008 @ 2:28 pm

30. #17 - outside the SWP’s own ranks, it is widely distrusted, perhaps now more than ever, and all over the UK it has left a trail of embittered and suspicious people, some ex-members, some merely regretting that they ever came into contact with it. It does seem to be turning inward at the moment, perhaps aware of how cold it is out there.

    Comment by Cliff's Notes — 28 June, 2008 @ 2:31 pm

31. #22 Still sectarian squabbles that are akin to your Stalinism! I lookforward to the time the dead duck that is Respect has been pulled from the pond….It’s too small for sailing!

    Comment by Jim lawrie — 28 June, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

32. I think that the reality of the split, and its negative impact on the prospect of the left of the left being a significant pole of attraction are far more of an explanation as to why someone with Ollies politics (for example) crossed the floor

    The split didn’t just happen, it was engineered by people who didn’t want to stay in an organisation led by Linda Smith and Salma Yaqoob - and one of those people was Oliur Rahman, unanimously elected as leader of RESPECT/LL in November last year. Any explanation of the political behaviour of Oliur Rahman, Tower Hamlets councillor, has to take that context into account.

    Comment by Phil — 28 June, 2008 @ 6:05 pm

33. The fallout from the SWP/LL split with RESPECT and their subsquent behaviour even effects the attempts of people like me in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire trying to build Respect…
    I had to explain to potential new supporters a whole lot of crap when they have gone on-line to investigate Respect and they get the SWP run ‘Respect the unity coalition’ website up first on Google…
    The SWP CC must learn some lesson and fast and as a priority stop trying to sabotage the genuine attempts of socialist activists to rebuild RESPECT.
    Close down the RESPECT- The Unity Coaliton Website NOW!
    A lot of hard lessons have been learnt by everyone… But the SWP CC has to pull back from the travesty of using the RESPECT name on-line.
    I had a 17 year old muslim girl from Worcester contact me and she’d be getting mail from Left List which really confused her, thankfully she is mature enough and committed enough to make some sense of it all. How many others have just been driven away from political action by all this crap?

    Comment by mark anthony france — 28 June, 2008 @ 6:18 pm

34. Any evidence for the above Phil? That Ollie’s main motivation was that he did not want to remain in an organisation led by Linda Smith and Salma Yakoob? And why would that have been? (genuinely no idea).

    Comment by johng — 28 June, 2008 @ 6:32 pm

35. “they get the SWP run ‘Respect the unity coalition’ website up first on Google…”

    I’m working hard to try to end that. Sure, if you search for “Respect” you get them - they’ve a 4 year head start.

    But in the build up to the Bush demo, we were the first result if you typed “bush demo london”, “bush jun 15″, and any other variation. In the last week we’ve been the 2nd from top google search for “anti bnp demo”, although we’ve moved down now. Real world searches during periods of relevant stories (demos, scandals etc.) are putting us ahead of them almost all of the time, which is what matters more I think - although they’ve made damned sure they keep the name “George Galloway” in their site description, which is just vindictive.

    I don’t expect them to close down their site. I expect them to do their best to make sure we don’t ever come top of the search results for “Respect” by keeping it open as “Respect” - perhaps JohnG or Ray can explain where there would be any political merit in doing so, or if they perhaps might agree that, whatever our differences, now they’ll never be able to use the name again and will be changing the party’s name for good soon, they might argue for their organisers to push for the site to be renamed.

    Comment by tonyc — 28 June, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

36. (PS yeah, I was blowing my own trumpet, cos it’s a lot of work crafting your articles, headlines, internal links and incoming links so that google learns to love you - for £500 a day I can teach you how to do it too!)

    Comment by tonyc — 28 June, 2008 @ 7:21 pm

37. Mark - when they phone people up for money, they still say they’re calling from “Respect”. When they answer the phone, they say they’re the “Left List”.

    Devious.

    Comment by tonyc — 28 June, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

38. Perhaps Tony the problem comes because we don’t really accept that we have any less right to the name then you do, don’t accept that ‘we’re not serious’ about building a left alternative, don’t accept that we’re wreakers and devious etc, etc. The difficulty is that when people approach this subject by implying the opposite it doesn’t exactly create a good atmosphere for resolving these differences.

    Comment by johng — 28 June, 2008 @ 7:32 pm

39. ~15 Phil said “Of course, SWP members who stay in (or join) RESPECT may face difficulties in the SWP, but I don’t believe they come under any pressure from RESPECT to leave the SWP.”

    Exactly - one long-standing SWP members who supported the Renewal conference discussed his opinions with a member of the CC and was told that “membership of Respect renewal is incompatible with membership of the SWP”. So he made the choice to stick with Respect and the SWP lost a good trade union militant. Silly really. Perhaps if the LeftList is going to be put out to grass they might like to re-assess that concept. It might begin to undo some of the damage done over the last few months.

    Comment by Clive Searle — 28 June, 2008 @ 7:35 pm

40. The statement is a little snipey for my liking (though no less then the LL statement) but its good to have a statement all the same.

    Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 28 June, 2008 @ 7:39 pm

41. #38

    John.

    The difference is that Respect with galloway, yaqoob etc is a viable electoral project.

    Left List with john Rees, Lindsey german is not.

    So it is ridiculaous to equate the two, and simply a wrecking tactic bt the SWOPs to try to damage the chances of Galloway et al using the Respect name, by you still attempting to associate your selves with it.

    I don’t know how much time you spend talking to trade union activists and left wingers outsdie the SWP, but I can assure you that a number of activists, and quite influntial people who up to recently had some time for the SWP, are now openly hoping that your cult comes a cropper.

    The infleunce of the SWP, and good will towards the SWP is lower now than it has ever been. The fact that you still think that this is no reason to reflect, and no reason to question the authority of the Reees/German idiots is remarkable.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 28 June, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

42. “Perhaps Tony the problem comes because we don’t really accept that we have any less right to the name then you do, don’t accept that ‘we’re not serious’ about building a left alternative, don’t accept that we’re wreakers and devious etc, etc. The difficulty is that when people approach this subject by implying the opposite it doesn’t exactly create a good atmosphere for resolving these differences.”

    I just said that despite the disagreements, you have to accept that you’re not gonna be able to use the name - and that you are changing the name. Your NC has just had a full and frank discussion about it. The name change is happening.

    So, everyone can agree that even if our side is entirely wrong, life is unfair and we’ve got the name - so you may as well change the name of your website.

    Even with that thought experiment - that we’re 100% wrong and you’re 100% right, and that your side has accepted that it must change its name - can’t you agree that there is no political advantage in you keeping a website name that has no value to you (it only confuses your potential voters, according to your side), so you may as well argue for your side to cut its losses and get a new website.

    Comment by tonyc — 28 June, 2008 @ 7:45 pm

43. Andy I’m not in the least unreflective about it, and nor I think are the SWP. As to my ‘cult’ etc, I think we best leave it there.

    Well Tony I’m sure in the near future that will happen.

    Comment by johng — 28 June, 2008 @ 7:52 pm

44. Just to add to that, in relationship to the charge of dishonesty about using the name respect and rights etc (seeing as we’re doing thought experiments, i thought i’d attempt a rational dialogue). one central rr claim has been through all this that when people voted respect they thought galloway or yakoob and not swp. in terms of voting i think there is a measure of truth in this. however its also true however that in terms of people actually being attracted as activists to respect many whether in unions, in the anti-war movement or whathaveyou would have come through the swp, and many of these layers of people would have associated respect with the swp (i think george in what i thought was a not unreasonable post-mortum made the point that people either associated respect too much with him or too much with the swp, largely a function of us not being able to get enough wider forces involved). so when i read you complaining about the use of the name respect to contact activists and suggesting this is just a lying dishonest proceedure i don’t really agree. i think its a genuine problem (probably for both sides). and given that we don’t accept your analyses (that your perfectly entitled to have of course) that we were entirely responsible for the split, it presents us as well as you with a difficulty. but sadly i don’t get the impression that either side feels they owe the other anything, and i think the extremely intense and personalised nature of this fight (partly the product of the fact that there is a split within a split which largely gives the lie to the idea that the SWP were in some sense peripheral to the organisation they got booted out of) has made it genuinely quite difficult to resolve matters. personally i suspect this is likely to be over sooner rather then later though. and andy in terms of reflection, actually i have been, but there are limits to my reflectiveness on a site where my organisation is called a ‘cult’. it doesn’t encourage ‘reflectiveness’ that sort of thing. you can dislike the consequent absence of the correct penitential attitude but i suspect in reality that neither side is any longer very shocked by anything the other does.

    Comment by johng — 28 June, 2008 @ 8:12 pm

45. “we don’t accept your analyses (that your perfectly entitled to have of course) that we were entirely responsible for the split,”

    When are you going to stop arguing with things people didn’t say? In fact, I explicitly told you yesterday that I don’t believe it to be the case, and other people have told you the same thing.

    Maybe you might want to reflect on why you continue to misrepresent our views.

    Comment by tonyc — 28 June, 2008 @ 8:48 pm

46. It’s over johng. I think you’ll find that following today’s Left List council meeting in ULU it’s not just Respect your party’s given up on, but the Left List as well. Keep fighting johng, your side has abandoned the field. I’m sure you’ll raise it all inside your party.

    Comment by Nas — 28 June, 2008 @ 8:55 pm

47. Any evidence for the above Phil? That Ollie’s main motivation was that he did not want to remain in an organisation led by Linda Smith and Salma Yakoob?

    Not what I said (note emphasis), and not the main point of my comment. My point was that Oliur Rahman was an actor in the split, so to blame the split for Rahman’s subsequent move to the Right makes no sense.

    Comment by Phil — 28 June, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

48. Nas - do you have any more information about the Left Lit council meeting and what came out of it?

    Comment by Dave — 28 June, 2008 @ 10:31 pm

49. #47 Oliur Rahman was a key player in the split along with Kumar Murshid and, of course, John Rees. As far as the evidence tells, the four councillors took the initiative to resign the whip not at the SWP’s behest but Rahman’s. He resented Abjol Miah ever since he lost the leadership election in 2006, just after the 12 councillors were elected.

    Rahman admitted his hatred of Miah was his main reason for resigning the whip, and was unable to find a point of policy difference between them. The biggest policy difference before the split was over the appointment of the white chief executive to Tower Hamlets council but this issue saw SWP members Lutfa Begum and Ahmed Hussain on the right. Rahman supported Miah. Apart from that there were no, repeat no, policy differences between the councillors.

    However, the split was encouraged over a long period by Rees who was keen to form a side within the council group, as it turned out on a completely unprincipled basis. And he orchestrated the press conference to maximise damage on Respect once the decision to resign the whip had been taken.

    As for Kumar Murshid, he was denied the possibility of contesting the Labour Party selection for Bethnal Green and Bow. He then came to Respect. Given his left wing reputation it looked as though he might be an asset to Respect, despite the fact he had been only recently acquitted in a corruption trial in which his closest associates went down for significant jail terms.

    However, like Rahman, Rania Khan and Shahed Ali, he soon showed he was completely consumed by the desire to be the Respect parliamentary candidate. Despite the fact that Respect members would not vote for him, anymore than the voters would, he persisted in his delusion.

    When it was clear that he would get no votes in any selection contest, Rania Khan having won the affections of the SWP despite the fact she had no credibility and no chance of election, Kumar did all in his power to split Respect He used his senior position, by virtue of his political experience, to encourage the breakaway. He has now left the Left List which the SWP is now in the process of mothballing, to set up his own party, still suffering his delusions of grandeur.

    This really is a sorry tale in which the SWP leadership has combined sectarianism with extreme stupidity and ignorance.

    Comment by jean van heijenoort — 28 June, 2008 @ 10:39 pm

50. Dave: I hope to have more tomorrow. All signs are that SWP retreating from LL

    Comment by Nas — 28 June, 2008 @ 10:39 pm

51. This is not Nas but authoritative news has reached me that, whatever the outcome of today’s meeting, on which the SWP has an overwhelming majority, the SWP decision has been taken to “park” the Left List, ie dump it, and move on.

    It seems the means for them to partake of the debate on the building of a broad electoral alliance to the left of Labour is to be a Charter of demands. This is presumably being composed at this very moment on someone’s sofa somewhere and is to be promoted by SWP members here, there and everywhere as the property of the movement, despite the fact it will have been drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by the “key” members of the SWP CC.

    SWP members who have managed to preserve any memory of the twists and turns of SWP policy over the last 20 years, will remember the Action Programme of 1998. This was launched without explanation, any explanation, went nowhere and was quietly dropped within a couple of weeks. It seems this is groundhog day and we have gone back to 1998, but in far worse circumstances for the SWP.

    Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 28 June, 2008 @ 10:46 pm

52. Regarding the website, there are a few things Renewal can do.

    1) Left List owns respectcoalition.org, and there is nothing which can be done to change that, but continuing to have ‘featuring George Galloway MP’ in the description is plain dishonest. To be charitable to them, perhaps they have forgotten to change it or do not know how to. A polite letter asking them to do so might do the trick. If not, it’s a clear case of false advertising intended to confuse voters, and probably a matter for the electoral commission. Even if we accept that they have a right to use the name ‘Respect’, they certainly cannot claim that they ‘feature’ an MP who they themselves claim split from them!

    2) If and when conference decides to formally change the name of Respect to ‘The Respect Party’, the website address should be changed accordingly. This will make the nature of the website clearer to those looking for it on Google. It’s not obvious what ‘Respect Renewal’ means to anyone who didn’t follow the split.

    3) Renewal should email organisations who support them and ask them to make sure they are linking to the correct website. This should push the website higher up Google. In any case, the respectcoalition.org website will drop down the rankings as their organisation becomes moribund and their website updates become less frequent.

    There was a messy split, made needlessly messier when one side walked away from negotiations. During the divorce Left List got the website, but Renewal got the electoral name. I think Renewal got the better deal.

    Comment by Jon — 28 June, 2008 @ 10:52 pm

53. Alexander and Nas, thanks for that. Alexander, any idea who this ‘broad electoral alliance’ would include? Presumably we can rule out Respect Renewal and a range of left groupings such as the SP, probably the CPB, etc. Would it be unions? Community groups - and if so which? Who can it possibly bloc with now?

    Comment by Dave — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:00 pm

54. “It seems the means for them to partake of the debate on the building of a broad electoral alliance to the left of Labour is to be a Charter of demands. This is presumably being composed at this very moment on someone’s sofa somewhere…”

    Or maybe is a reference to McDonnell’s charter, which was promoted on the Respect/LL website… Does anyone know if he wrote it while sitting on a sofa, writing on a cigarette package?

    Comment by redbedhead — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:05 pm

55. #50 Dave: I hope to have more tomorrow. All signs are that SWP retreating from LL
    Comment by Nas — 28 June, 2008 @ 10:39 pm

    The agenda for Marxism 2008 is quite remarkable - in close to 100 sessions there is no reference whatsoever to either the R______ word, or L___ L____ for that matter. Even one of their two remaining councillors, Michael Lavalette, is speaking on a quite different topic.

    Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:08 pm

56. Prinkipo Exile @ 55

    That’s disappointing news. I’d hoped there’d be a session headlined: Left List - The Smallest Mass Party in the World.

    (Now I’m showing my age…)

    Comment by Dave — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:11 pm

57. mike x is so right when he says not to work woth the swp. They are to left politics in britian what the wrp were in the 70s and early 80s - sectarian wreckers filled to the brim with MI5 and special branch agents!

    Comment by leigh — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:33 pm

58. Leigh @ 57. I don’t think that’s fair on the SWP. There is a sectarian mentality about the group, and it needs to be challenged, but it’s not acceptable to claim that its politics are defined or even influenced by intelligence agencies and the cops. Nor would I compare it to the WRP, which was far more of a Potemkin Village operation than the SWP - despite its faults - will ever be.

    Comment by Dave — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:50 pm

59. Accusations of ‘communalism’ seem rather unfair, especially in light of the obvious similarity of the SWP to any other sectarian, religious movement.
    They’ve always been stuck in the same, arid dynamic: riding on the back of social movements they find themselves unable to control they vaccilate between accomodation and the re-assertion of their mythical right to leadership. Inevitably, break up ensues.
    There’s probably an equation to model their optimal, critical mass: beyond this number they cannot go without loss of strategic control and ideological collapse. The Trotsky Vector Schwartschild event horizon metric. To be revealed in my next post.

    Comment by Sergioleonine — 29 June, 2008 @ 12:55 am

60. “SWP members who have managed to preserve any memory of the twists and turns of SWP policy over the last 20 years, will remember the Action Programme of 1998. This was launched without explanation, any explanation, went nowhere and was quietly dropped within a couple of weeks.”

    Yes! The satellite IST groups also brought out their Action Programmes as well. Without a word of explanation, the Action Promgramme was furled out by the drone groups shortly after the SWP mother ship did so. These also went nowhere fast and were ditched in order to follow the latest orders from London.

    Comment by Need a movie ticket — 29 June, 2008 @ 1:31 am

61. Dear Need a movie ticket - As someone from an IST group which tried to use the Action Program as a means to bridge the gap between the prevailing sentiment and the need to find concrete expressions to that sentiment - you’re talking out of your ass. Did the experiment work - not really. But, you know what? Sometimes you try things and they don’t work. And we learned something from the experience - drones though we all are.

    Comment by redbedhead — 29 June, 2008 @ 1:44 am

62. Dear redbedhead, Congratulations, you’ve made the definitive, historical statement on the SWP: “Did the experiment work?, not really.” Shame about the research subjects, though.

    Comment by Sergioleonine — 29 June, 2008 @ 2:21 am

63. “1) National Charter
    Across the working class there is a great hunger for a response to the recession and the crisis of Labour. We have agreed to launch a charter which would have popular demands over pay, privatisation, housing, and some wider issues. We want every comrade to raise the charter in their trade union, campaign, tenants’ committee, student union, community organisation etc.
    The charter will be available at Marxism. We want to get as wide a range of signatories as possible and for the support to grow organically. The charter will not be the property of any particular organisation, nor will it recommend a vote for any party. But it can provide a set of demands to unite the opposition to Brown, point a way forward, and solidify opposition to the effects of the recession.”

    Here is the announcement to SWP members that the SWP has moved forward to 1998, as stated in SWP Party Notes last Monday. The charter is not John McDonnell’s charter, nor is it the Labour Representation Committee’s charter, nor is it the product of a meeting of the SWP CC with other players on the left, it is the SWP CC’s charter. But in the quaint and generous world of the SWP “the charter will not be the property of any particular organisation”.

    This is clearly a desperate attempt by the SWP leadership to give their members something to do now they have totally screwed up their electoral front for the foreseeable future. In turn I foresee the charter going the same way its unillustrious predecessor did, but at the expense of a few more trees. Terrible.

    Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 29 June, 2008 @ 6:43 am

64. But the SWP/Respect/Left List is already backing a Charter - John McDonnell’s…

    http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1942

    [QUOTE] The Left List welcomes the 10-point charter issued last week by Labour MP John McDonnell.

    “I’m sure these are a series of demands that will find very considerable support in every quarter of the labour and trade union movement” said National Secretary John Rees. “We in Respect The Left List have been making very similar points in our recent campaigns.” [ENDS]

    There is a pattern developing here, as Sergioleonine pointed out in his foray into sectarian physics. The prospect of anyone else showing leadership cannot be tolerated for more than six weeks by the look of it. Perhaps congratulations are due to Rees for sticking it out with Galloway for as long as he did.

    Comment by Dave — 29 June, 2008 @ 7:29 am

65. “Did the experiment work - not really. But, you know what? Sometimes you try things and they don’t work. And we learned something from the experience - drones though we all are.”

    The thing to learn is that these things should happen organically wherever possible, as the result of some shared experience in the movement, campaigning together, building trust.

    But this has come out of time and space - suddenly, a charter. Maybe it’ll work, maybe it won’t. But it’s hardly the practice of revolutionaries in a period like this, is it?

    The anti-war movement was the right initiative, cos it was the result of talking to different groups and asking if we could get things done together, then seeing what would happen if we tried to organise a big meeting. Organic. It might not have worked, and the SWP might have had to go it alone, but for the right reasons.

    This has come from nowhere. Like the dismal anti-BNP march, it has come because the SWP needs something to try to rebuild its credibility on the left. Like the anti-BNP march, it’s something that could be a brilliant initiative if it was done as revolutionaries should do it, within the movement and with our allies, and not alone. But like the anti-BNP march, you have to question the motive and credibility, given that it comes as the result of a group that couldn’t even get more than 0.68% of the vote when it had as much publicity as it did, and which can no longer even hold public meetings of its electoral front group in Bethnal Green cos only about 25 people tops turn up, all of them bar one or two being SWP members. Why would such a group want to launch its own charter? Why would it do so without talking to the movement?

    If such a group was a revolutionary group, wouldn’t every political instinct tell it to set up meetings with groups up and down the country in the hope of securing allies and names to add to the charter and an agreement to spread it?

    I mean, this sort of thing should be fundamental. It certainly is to us. The Left List organised its own meetings on climate change. But, for example, when we came to discuss Respect holding a meeting on climate change a few months back in Bethnal Green, we said the best thing to do was to see if the actual Campaign Against Climate Change would be interested in holding a public meeting, at which we could have a speaker, and which we could help build (we designed the leaflet for them and helped organise leafleting etc.)

    That’s how you work - look at whether you’ve got allies who you can openly, transparently work with. Build trust in the movement. Don’t just say “you must listen to us - here, sign our charter”.

    Thing is, to address redbedhead directly, I would be thinking this even if I was in the SWP. But there is just no room to debate it. No room at all. What happens is, you read it in Party Notes. Then at your next branch meeting, the CC member leading off will tell you that the CC has agreed to do it, and we want it built big.

    If you disagree with the whole premise, two things will happen: You will be argued down (not argued against), and if you don’t come round, you will be cut out of activity. Actually, there’s a third - you will just drop out and not build it at all.

    Those who might disagree with the whole way the charter has come about will have no way of expressing that within the SWP. It’s a fucking shame, cos if initiatives like this were launched properly, I’d want the SWP to be the leaders of them - I want revolutionaries to be the standard-bearers for this stuff.

    Damn, looks like I’m witch-hunting the party again.

    Comment by tonyc — 29 June, 2008 @ 9:31 am

66. What is more the Convention of the Left which is being held in September will be trying to form charters and organise common action on the Left - If the SWP were serious about bringing a charter for common action to the Left then they would use the discussions at the Convention to form one with the rest of the Left.

    Comment by serge17 — 29 June, 2008 @ 9:53 am

67. I am sure Respect Renewal support McDonnell’s 10 point charter and therefore we do not need to reinvent the wheel.

    What a shambles the SWP cc were in even before the May elections, and their desperate acts since, of wanting to lead rather than stepping back and be part of a broad front, this will play a big part of their demise.

    After their calling the ineffectual anti BNP demo on 21st june which got little support from the Left and Progressive movement they still have not learned the need to work with others.

    64# Dave posts a quote from John Rees

    “I’m sure these are a series of demands that will find very considerable support in every quarter of the labour and trade union movement” said National Secretary John Rees. “We in Respect The Left List have been making very similar points in our recent campaigns.” [ENDS]

    What a make believe world John Rees lives in. The SWP cc have no damage limitation strategy and have no way in removing the Rees lemming from their helm. The SWP project is reduced an object of scorn and farce.

    Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 29 June, 2008 @ 9:54 am

68. re:65

    tonyc, you missed the fourth outcome that if you remain active after beig driven out of the SWP. If you join single issue campaigns or another leftwing group, you will find that you are vilified behind your back, and that you are ignored on activities, in an attempt to isolate you and drive you out.

    Comment by xerxes — 29 June, 2008 @ 10:57 am

69. Prinkipo - (or anyone else), apart from Marxism not discussing what you would like them to be discussing, what do you think of the line-up this year? And the subjects on offer? Interesting? And if a few thousand attend? Interesting?

    Comment by MichaelRosen — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:14 am

70. TonyC I don’t recall you saying that we were not soley responsible for the split, and have never heard any of your comrades say anything else. If you have explicitly said different I’d be very happy to hear about it.

    Comment by johng — 29 June, 2008 @ 12:21 pm

71. I’d be interested, given how many times I’ve said it, in home come you’ve missed every single time I’ve said it. I’m not the only one who has spent a ton of time talking about local politics, the wider political situation, the issues we were presented with, the problems George Galloway can present, and so on.

    Somehow you’ve missed every single example of people saying this.

    I’ll be honest - given that you spend so much time on here and Liam’s blog, if you have missed every single example, I don’t see any point in me going over it yet again - cos I would say there’s a high probability that you will miss that one too.

    Comment by tonyc — 29 June, 2008 @ 12:36 pm

72. well i’ve never seen it tony.

    Comment by johng — 29 June, 2008 @ 12:41 pm

73. #67 “After their calling the ineffectual anti BNP demo on 21st june which got little support from the Left and Progressive movement”

    Well it didn’t get support from Respect Renewal, thats for sure. One banner laid on the ground with no one to raise it. I did see one paper seller and I’m told there was a leaflet distributed. Did it say ‘why we are not marching’ I wonder?

    However there were national trade union banners from the NUT, PCS, TSSA, UCU, NUJ, NASUWT, CWU and FBU. There were also banners from the RMT, GMB and a number of Trade Councils. Geographically, banners came from Glasgow, Barrow, Bristol, Gloucestershire, Nottingham, East London, Homerton, Rochdale, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Croyden, Islington etc. Unite mailed its entire membership with a leaflet for the demo (arriving on the Monday after the demo unfortunately).

    In total near 40 trade union banners were on the demonstration and this is not counting the various home made banners and banners from STWC, Left List etc I didn’t see any Labour Party banners. Not bad for an organisation that “has little support”

    Don’t take my word for it see the photgraphic evidence here http://tinyurl.com/3ua4ev

    Comment by DuncanB — 29 June, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

74. MichaelRosen: I don’t think Marxism 2008 is that interesting. Hardly anything to say on the issue building something to the left of Labour. Not much of substance on the economy. No sign of critical reflection on where the movement is. Just the usual staples that have been there for the last eight years or more. A few thousand people attending won’t be interesting either. There’s been thousands at if for years. What would be interesting would be if there was some move to break out of this staid pattern. Of course, it’s better that a couple of thousand socialists meet and discuss than not. But if they lock themselves into a bunker mentality in relation to everyone else - then you have to admit, that’s a big downside.

    Comment by Nas — 29 June, 2008 @ 2:27 pm

75. “Just the usual staples that have been there for the last eight years or more”

    Not been a bad eight or so years for the left all told though despite current troubles. And the organisation which hosts the event have been quite central to most of it (the good and the bad).

    Comment by johng — 29 June, 2008 @ 2:43 pm

76. JOhn G: “Not been a bad eight or so years for the left all told ”

    WTF !!!

    Where have you been john?

    Comment by Andy Newman — 29 June, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

77. johng: if you say so. But I don’t think there’s much to commend churning out the same staples in the same way over eight years which have not seen a growth of the left in British society, but have seen the modest recovery and then falling back into the ghetto of your bit of it, and have seen the steady growth of the far right. Oh well, forward to Marxism 2009, bigger, better, but the same.

    This kind of thinking is so widespread on the left. It’s one of the reasons why it’s in such a poor state.

    Comment by Nas — 29 June, 2008 @ 2:56 pm

78. in the anti-war movement, amongst other places Andy.

    Comment by johng — 29 June, 2008 @ 3:23 pm

79. Well Jiohn - I think you need a little less of a boosterist assessment of the anti-war moverment.

    We didn’t stop the war, nor have we won the argument with public opinion over Afghanistan, nor has the STW Coalition maintained the breadth of political involvement it started with. And in lrage parts fo the country STW hardly exists as an activist organisation.

    As we approach 300 British casualties, and as British troops look like they are in Aghanistan for the long haul, and Iraq is accepted by everyone as a disaster, we managed to get only 2500 to London to demonstrate against Bush.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 29 June, 2008 @ 3:31 pm

80. It’s important to locate the SWP where they really belong: In many respects they’re outliers for the old, hollowed out Labour/TUC bureaucracy. Beyond this point you may not go! Moving beyond the now redundant machinery of the ‘official left’ challenges their ability to manipulate bureaucratic instruments and build sectarian power bases. I reckon that’s why they often constitute a kind of choke point for the left.

    Comment by Sergioleonine — 29 June, 2008 @ 3:39 pm

81. Well Andy, I think the last period has been a very exciting one as well as of course a terrible one. It was what made a political project like Respect possible in the first place. That the crisis of Labourism is double edged, that we didn’t succede in ’stopping the war’ etc, everybody knows. As to the belief that the SWP is simply an old fashioned appendage, its a familiar enough argument, but hardly sits well with the record of the period since 2001 when it was at the centre of most of what was new and vibrant on the left.

    Comment by johng — 29 June, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

82. johng: sure. And where is the SWP now? The whole point is that it retreated from that engagement.

    Comment by Nas — 29 June, 2008 @ 4:19 pm

83. well ‘retreated’ is one way of putting it Nas. lessons have to be learnt to be sure, but I don’t actually think we’re likely to be quite as irrelevent as you seem to imagine.

    Comment by johng — 29 June, 2008 @ 4:35 pm

84. Sergioleonine #79 Objectively I’d say that is exactly what they have been. Subjectively they are left-centrists, vacillating between revolution and reform. Of course, they are a child of the Cold War (neither Washington nor Moscow) the end of which put them very much in the spot light as the `inliers’ (Stalinists and reformists) fell apart along with the Cold War structures upon which they had come to depend. Naturally they have collapsed under the glare of that spotlight but not before unconsciously doing a valuable spoiling job for the system. Of course, no one will thank them. Good of johng to provide empirical evidence in #80 though.

    Comment by David Ellis — 29 June, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

85. Michael Rosen asks whether some of us consider the subjects on offer at Marxism 2008 interesting. Let’s have a look at some of the talks on offer…

    How do we stop the BNP? Weyman Bennett.
    (See also ‘How do we stop the BNP?’ - Chris Bambery in Birmingham, John Tipple in Harwich, Yuri Prasad in Hornsey, some nameless party member in Bradford - SWP public meetings listings.)

    Pay cuts, recession and resistance. Charlie Kimber
    (see also ‘Pay cuts, recession and resistance,’ Anindya Bhattacharyya in Canterbury - SWP public meetings listings.)

    The roots of LGBT oppression. Sara Bennett
    (see also ‘The roots of LGBT oppression’, Sara Bennett in Cambridge - SWP public meetings listings.)

    1968 the year the world caught fire - Chris Harman and Alain Krivine (now I’d go to that, but not to hear Chris Harman and his sub-GCSE history lessons…)
    (see also ‘1968 the year the world caught fire’, film showing and social in Bristol, Ian Birchall in Derby - SWP public meetings listings.)

    Why socialists defend multiculturalism. Weyman Bennett
    (see also ‘Why socialists defend multiculturalism’, Ian Stone in Birmingham South, Gareth Jenkins in Hackney East and Hackney South - SWP public meetings listings.)

    Now, there’s a whole range of other talks that look really interesting, and if I didn’t have such a low opinion of the SWP’s disruptive presence on the left (and an increasing belief that its sectarianism is now a serious hindrance to the development of a class-based left alternative to Labour) then I might even have attended them. But the deadening familiarity of just those talks as outlined above is a reminder of the SWP’s way of doing business. Work out the line, and then hammer hammer hammer.

    These are just the Marxism talks that are replicated in the latest SWP public meetings listings. Numerous others (see esp. the Fascism talks) have been the mainstay of SWP meetings topics for years. Given the way the well-rehearsed IST lines are pushed in the local meetings, week after week, speaker after speaker, even country to country, and given what I’ve witnessed at past Marxisms, I have no reason to believe that there would be any possibility of alternative ideas (either from the platform or the floor) having any impact on party officials or ordinary members.

    The problem is, Michael, that we all know what is going to be said. Perhaps things aren’t as bad as they were in the days of Militant, when you not only knew what was going to be said, but you knew how it was going to be aid, and what the Grantist hand gestures were going to be. But many of these talks are too much in the SWP’s comfort zone. It’s not illegitimate to want to hear what went wrong with Respect. It’s not illegitimate to want to hear what the SWP thinks about ‘communalism’ or shibboleths. If that makes John Rees or Lindsay German uncomfortable, then so be it. Does it make you uncomfortable too?

    Comment by Dave — 29 June, 2008 @ 6:09 pm

86. I think at long last I’m beginning to get the picture. Thanks Dave. Yes, Marxism 2008 will have leading members of the SWP speaking. Yes, this has been the case at every Marxism that the SWP has organised. That’s because the SWP has organised it and no one else did. Anyone coming to Marxism can decide for themselves whether they want to hear what leading members of the SWP have got to say. Or not. Yep, it’s that simple. There are 200 meetings and plenty of them (i haven’t done a count) will have speakers from all over the world and from many sites of struggle. if a punter wanted, they could come to Marxism and go to a whole stack of meetings and not hear a single SWP main speaker.

    Now, Dave, for some reason which I guess you’ll have to figure out all for yourself, you’ve decided to tell the good people at SU that Marxism 2008 is the same old cheesey stuff, full of the same old SWP speakers. So even when the SWP don’t do what you say they do (control freakery etc etc) and organise an open festival of ideas with plenty of speakers who aren’t in the SWP, you still say that the whole event is SWP hacks doing what they’ve always done. When it clearly isn’t. I tell you what, here’s a game: go through the key non-SWP speakers and tell SU why they aren’t worth listening to.

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/2008/keyspeakers.html

    Comment by MichaelRosen — 29 June, 2008 @ 7:40 pm

87. #84

    Good point Dave,
    I been to Marxisms for many years, but have no enthusiam to attend any more. Not only after what has gone down since last August but because the last few have seemed predictable and stale.
    I used to enjoy them because there was some debate.
    Now it seems far too ‘this is the line’.

    Comment by Halshall — 29 June, 2008 @ 7:49 pm

88. Michael, you asked whether people here thought some of the subjects on offer were interesting. I said that some of them were. You then said that I said that they weren’t. Why you said that, I guess you’ll have to figure out all by yourself.

    What I also said was that what the SWP speakers at Marxism had to say was the same old cheesy stuff. Which it is. You appear to be arguing that that’s OK, because they organised it. Which is, well, interesting…

    Comment by Dave — 29 June, 2008 @ 7:50 pm

89. Yes, Dave, this is how you said some of them were interesting!You’ll remember that your sentiment didn’t end with the word ‘interesting’ but carried on into why in effect their interestingness (!) would be cancelled out:

    “Now, there’s a whole range of other talks that look really interesting, and if I didn’t have such a low opinion of the SWP’s disruptive presence on the left (and an increasing belief that its sectarianism is now a serious hindrance to the development of a class-based left alternative to Labour) then I might even have attended them. But the deadening familiarity of just those talks as outlined above is a reminder of the SWP’s way of doing business. Work out the line, and then hammer hammer hammer.”

    So, it’s not worth attending ‘really interesting’ talks because the SWP is ‘disruptive’ a ‘hindrance’ and the really interesting talks will be surrounded by the ‘deadening familiarity’ of the SWP ones going on nearby. Blimey, what do you do about watching TV, or opening a daily newspaper, or reading a magazine? Or is there a non-contamination process with the mass media, whereby the folks you like in those places aren’t infected by the Tory/Nulab crap surrounding them, whereas ‘really interesting speakers’ are infected by the SWP when it comes to Marxism festivals? Jeez, how many time have I met that story on the left!

    Comment by MichaelRosen — 29 June, 2008 @ 8:40 pm

90. But, Dave, I should have said, I’m not trying to convince you to go. You’ve clearly got better things to do.

    Comment by MichaelRosen — 29 June, 2008 @ 8:51 pm

91. may the good lord give me strength!

    what could anyone learn by listening to Weyman Bennet on how to fight the BNP!

    Comment by Dear Koba — 29 June, 2008 @ 9:09 pm

92. Michael, are you going to the CPGB’s summer school? What about the AWL’s? Do you think their summer schools are interesting?

    Comment by question — 29 June, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

93. Michaelrosen - don’t you think that it’s important for people to discuss and debate why the Respect project hasn’t made the breakthrough the SWP suggested it could?

    Comment by MIchaelC — 29 June, 2008 @ 9:32 pm

94. Yes Michael Rosen - it’s not what’s being discussed that’s signicant, it’s what’s not being discussed.

    Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 29 June, 2008 @ 9:47 pm

95. #75
    “Not been a bad eight or so years for the left all told though despite current troubles. And the organisation which hosts the event have been quite central to most of it (the good and the bad).”

    This truly quite astounding and self-deluding! It has been a terrible eight or so years for the left in Britain not just the SWP but the whole of the left and the working class movement in general in Britain and indeed most places.

    Marxism 2008 I’m sure will be well worth attending but it is also true that there is unlikely to be an honest accounting and self-assessment there, sadly.

    No reason not to go or indulge in knee-jerk anti- left jibes. Far from it.

    But I think the whole of the left needs to undergo some serious self-examination, humiluty and honesty and place ourselves at the service of the working class, to be used a resource, to try to rebuild struggle from the bottom up and think through marxism, socialism and liberation almost from first principles.

    Comment by Jason — 29 June, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

96. Ach Mein Gott! A Marxism ‘Festival’ with the SWP. Not so much Drugs, Sex and Rock n Roll, as Dogma, Sects and very, very dull. Is Weyman Bennet on the Pyramid stage this year?

    Comment by Sergioleonine — 29 June, 2008 @ 10:04 pm

97. Michael @ 89 - you make a good point here, helped by the fact that I didn’t explain myself properly the first time around.

    There are a number of talks at Marxism 2008 that look very interesting. But I’m not going because I think the SWP is now actively and aggressively hindering positive developments on the left, and I don’t want to financially support it in any way - not a penny, not a cent, not a sou. And I’m confident that there are any other number of resources out there that can keep me informed about what the non-SWP contingent have to say.

    FWIW, let me give you a little background on how I got here. I’ve been involved in left politics for about 25 years now, largely through community groups on issues ranging from racism to gay rights (terminology that shows my age). I’ve never been a member of a party but in the early 80s was reasonably close to the SWP, and still have good friends in the party. They’re good people and I have massive respect for them. I’ve attended scores of SWP meetings over the years and have even addressed a few.

    I’ve known for some years that the SWP is fond of the great simplicities. Perhaps that’s necessary for a propagandist organisation, but I always found it slightly jarring when I would read SWP material on areas in which I had some deeper knowledge (say racism, or the Middle East), and would be dismayed at how complex issues were regularly reduced to soundbites centered on the IS traditions interpretations of the world. (That, btw, is why I would be wary of attending other SWP-led sessions on more specialised topics - the scholarship often lacks substance. But that’s another story.)

    I was very hopeful when Socialist Alliance took off, and supported it financially, attending a number of meetings. I was not so taken with the RESPECT project. To a large extent, as is the case with a number of contributors to this blog, I felt the SWP had been conned by Galloway and Muslim obscurantists. Lindsay German’s comment about shibboleths seemed to confirm that. (And don’t get me started on Big Brother.)

    But as the split loomed, and I looked at what both sides were saying, it struck me that Galloway and Co, whatever their faults and blindspots, were at least trying to build genuine political relationships with working people in Bethnal Green and Bow (however problematic), whereas the SWP was trying to cover over these difficult issues (such as communalism and reactionary politics within embattled migrant communities) with workerist cliches on one hand, and revisionist history on the other.

    John Rees played a significant role in breaking up the RESPECT councillors in Tower Hamlets, sold this to the left as a left/right split, and then took refuge in vague formulations when his ‘left’ bloc decamped to New Labour. His acolytes on this blog have done exactly the same. It was a left/right split when it suited them; now it’s just one of those things that happens when the social forces are unhappily aligned. No correspondence will be entered into.

    The story of the RESPECT debacle and the SWP’s role in it is something I’d pay to hear, so long as it was presented in a forum where I didn’t have to hear a well-crafted (and ultimately meaningless) party line for 40 mins, followed by question time largely dominated by party members doing Stephen Pound impersonations. I’m not interested for perverse sectarian reasons. I want to know because I need to know. I want to know because it’s important to the left going forward. You still haven’t said whether you also think it’s important. Looking at the Marxism agenda, it would appear that the SWP doesn’t consider it worth discussing.

    But what do you think? Might discussing what happened help illuminate some of the other topics on the agenda - from race and class, to Islam, to the left in Europe, to alienation in Brown’s Britain, to the Marxist method for beginners?

    Since you so kindly intimated that I’ve better things to do, I can let you know that I’m staying in to wash my hair. Night after night after night. But I am aware that you’ll be doing a turn on Monday night. Michael, it’s not too late for you to knock together a poem on how the SWP took on Galloway and his Bengali shopkeeper cronies, and won - a Marxist Cautionary Tale as it were. That way, you’ll be able to prove all the carping critics wrong and give some small coverage to what has been one of the biggest and most important developments on the left in this past year.

    Comment by Dave — 29 June, 2008 @ 10:12 pm

98. “but I always found it slightly jarring when I would read SWP material on areas in which I had some deeper knowledge (say racism, or the Middle East), and would be dismayed at how complex issues were regularly reduced to soundbites centered on the IS traditions interpretations of the world.”

    genuinely out of intrest what is soundbites regarding the SWP view in terms of the middle east. Cliff, who happend to know a few minor things about the area! wrote many years ago excellent articles on the subject. I am of the view John Rose’s recent book, the myths of zionism is an excellent arguement which is very well researched also his pamphlet from many years ago on Israel is very cogently argued polemic. Books on the intifida, Iranian revolution and recent coverage of Egypt frankly is second to none on the british left. I would be intrested to know what is your disagreement?

    Comment by ll — 29 June, 2008 @ 10:32 pm

99. “It was a left/right split when it suited them; now it’s just one of those things that happens when the social forces are unhappily aligned. No correspondence will be entered into.”

    This really needs to be repeated. It’s the heart of the issue of how the whole thing works.

    Witness Johng, who says that our side entirely blames the SWP for the split, and says he has never seen any of us say anything to the contrary, despite the gigabytes of bandwidth that we’ve spent (seemingly wasted) trying to discuss our hatred of what the SWP has done combined with our attempts to understand the other forces at work, our own actions, wider society etc.

    None of that matters. At the time, when we tried to discuss it the anonytrolls drowned us out, but now, people like John can claim he never saw us say it, despite him seeming to be able to spend all day replying to minor points based upon second hand information from James “Galloway’s criticisms are correct, but the only thing that matters is defending the party” Meadway.

    Comment by tonyc — 29 June, 2008 @ 10:33 pm

100. Several months since I’ve checked into this cesspool Socialist DisUnity blog. You knuckleheads are *still* blithering on about how horrible the SWP is and now how people shouldn’t attend Marxism 2008 because of contamination? For Fs sake. Whatever happened to building your splitoff RR rump?

     Comment by Kevin Murphy — 29 June, 2008 @ 10:48 pm

101. Wow. All that time away, and that’s the best you could come up with?

     Comment by tonyc — 29 June, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

102. Hi Kevin- I’m not sure if it’s entirely fair to lump all people who read contribute this blog into blitherers about how awful the SWP is- though it is an unfortunate tendency of many.

     I try quite hard to avoid it.

     Nor is it helpful to describe RR as a rump- the whole of the left is in a pitiful state in my honest opinion and we need a serious reasssement of how to reclaim socialsit politics as one of working class participation and workers runnning their own lives and struggles.

     This means learning from the socialism of the past including the Bolsheviks who were far more vibrant, far more diverse and far more rooted in working class struggles than all of the left today.

     And it means learning from the mistakes and creating new traditions.

     Are you the same Kevin Murphy who wrote the brilliant book Revolution and Counter-Class Struggle in Moscow Metal Workers’ Factory (reveiwed in the current edition of PR for anyone interested)?

     Comment by Jason — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:07 pm

103. #69, #86 and #89 - Michael, I have the greatest respect for you but disagreed with the position you took over the split in Respect. I agree with you that there are some meetings at Marxism that look interesting, although, for me, only some of the meetings with non-SWP members. But it really is irritating how you constantly get people trying to recruit you to the SWP all the time and personally I find it very irritating that people who have really discredited themselves over Respect and the Left List are getting star billing at the event.

     By the way, I’ve looked through the timetable twice and can’t find your meetings. When and where are you speaking? I would also like to know what you think of the fact that Nick Wrack, Kevin Ovenden, Rob Hoveman and Ger Francis won’t be allowed to attend any of the meetings at Marxism as expelled members of the SWP.

     Comment by sergo — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:16 pm

104. Where do you het that info? As far as I’m aware anyone can attend Marxism?

     Comment by Jason — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:17 pm

105. I’d like to know what Ger would have said about such bans when he was an SWP organiser.

     Comment by Voltaire's Priest — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:17 pm

106. #103 That’s of course if any of them wanted to!

     Comment by sergo — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:18 pm

107. Well yeah may be but where does the SWP say they’re banned? Can you link to this as it would be pretty outrageous.

     Comment by Jason — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:20 pm

108. #104 - I’ve been told the formal terms of their expulsion ban them from selling Socialist Worker and attending meetings organised by the SWP indefinitely. Last time I looked Marxism was organised by the SWP. Ergo, they can’t attend it.

     Comment by sergo — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:23 pm

109. It’s a public event. How can they stop them from attending?

     Comment by Jason — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:27 pm

110. #109 - How about not letting them buy a ticket? Or asking them to leave if they sneak in?

     Comment by sergo — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:30 pm

111. Well yeah but it would just seem very silly. Perhaps it would happen though who knows? But anyway I think the whole of the left need to concentrate on how to build unity in action and fraternal and honest discussion about where we do disagree. The convention of the left seems a good place- as well as the cross union committeesa round strike action and other opportunities.

     Think it will also be worth hearing the ISO comrades from Zimbabwe at Marxism and other events.

     Comment by Jason — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:38 pm

112. Someone just sent me the conditions placed on an expelled member:

     “An expelled member of the SWP cannot attend SWP public events (that includes Marxism /rallies/public meetings), you are also barred from attend SWP internal meetings (conferences / branch meetings / caucuses / fraction meetings). You are also not allowed to sell Socialist Worker.”

     Comment by sergo — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:39 pm

113. Very petty. Anyway why would anyone expelled want to sell Socialist Worker? But back to the mia point how are we going to build unity in action, fraternal and necessary discussion over the ways forward?

     Comment by Jason — 29 June, 2008 @ 11:46 pm

114. I’ve covered this travesty here:

     http://www.scriboergosum.org.uk/revamp/895

     as part of my ongoing coverage of this seemingly endless carnage. That such a fine moment was wasted so utterly by the entirety of the left seems outright bizarre to me.

     Both sides should halt their blame hurling and get on with making a viable alternative to the Labour Party. At the moment it appears to be the Greens and as wary of them as I am it seems like the collective forces here are struggling to match them.

     It is nonsense such as this that make me attempt to evade calling myself a young socialist.

     Comment by Revamp — 30 June, 2008 @ 1:34 am

115. Here’s the session from Marxism 2007:

     Respect – what next?
     George Galloway, John Rees & Ray Homes. Chaired by Rania Khan.
     Saturday 3.45-5pm, IE Logan Hall

     I am sure John and Ray could explain what did happen next and why … and why Rania and George weren’t invited back this year …

     Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 30 June, 2008 @ 4:34 am

116. Prinkipo, I also see John Rees is down for “Marxist Courses for beginners”.

     Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 30 June, 2008 @ 4:48 am

117. “I am sure John and Ray could explain what did happen next and why … and why Rania and George weren’t invited back this year …”

     As I keep pointing out to Renewalists, the SWP doesn’t waste it’s time dwelling on the split. The only thing that would make you happy, Prinkipo Exile, is if Marxism 2008 excluded the SWP. It doesn’t bother me that some of you don’t want to go. It’s your loss. Meanwhile I’ll be having a great time having fraternal chats with socialists from around the world and from all different organisations. I’m sure that may include a few Renewal members. See some of you there.

     Comment by Ray — 30 June, 2008 @ 5:41 am

118. Okay Ray - if you do not spend your time dwelling on the past, where is the session on “What next for Left List?”?

     Is there a “What next?” for Left List?

     Or do you have to wait until the CC have decided the line, before you are allowed to discuss anything through “fraternal chats”?

     Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 30 June, 2008 @ 5:49 am

119. #116 ‘dwelling on the split’ could be interpreted as ‘learning from history’ and ‘drawing lessons’ and being ‘accountable for actions’.

     There’s lots of good points (I’m sure) about Marxism 2008, including lovely Michael Rosen just being there, and I don’t see why you have to agree with everything to get some benefit rom aany meeting. There are downsides, including the attempts at recruitment and a sometimes deadening level of ‘debate’ in which the main intention of a whole line of speakers is to show how much they agree with the line - sometimes feels like ‘groupthink’ and maybe a bit of ‘doublethink’. But all you need is a critical approach and a sense of humour and maybe just one or two people to talk to and it’s over quite soon. If the worst happens and you feel a need to escape well there aren’t any walls and the wonders of the British Museum are just 5 minutes away.

     Now the worst bit (for me) of Marxism 2007 was George Galloway’s amazingly hyperbolic praise for John Rees and the SWP, followed by John Rees equally hyperbolic praise for Galloway and the SWP, leading us to the conclusion that the SWP had got ride of Blair; but even this followed the rich comedy of the Chair mistakenly reading out a note saying ‘only take SWP or Respect speakers’.

     I dream about a fraternal debate with Galloway and Rees discussing the lessons of the last year, in which there isn’t a line of hacks waiting to denounce Galloway; but it iasn’t going to happen there’s always going to be Oli Rahman speaking at the CPGB fringe - surely they realise they’ll need a bigger room!). The SWP are always going to use ‘Marxism’ to build their organisation and increase their influence - it’s what Leninist organisations do, so we should get over it. The fact that even after recent difficulties and mistakes the SWP are going to have a far bigger event than the rest of the left put-together in which a lot of people are going to get an enjoyable introduction to a brand of Marxist politics (no matter what older critics think) can’t be blamed on the SWP. If we don’t like it - let’s do something else!

     Comment by Matthew — 30 June, 2008 @ 9:03 am

120. Just so I am clear……….the SWP is to blame for the defection of the RR cllr to New Labour. Now we have RR people saying there should be more stringent procedure for candidates…..wasn’t that what the SWP were arguing a few years back? We have all paid a price for this..both sides. It seems to me that RR are really on a hiding to nothing. Its base is so localised it has minimum national profile in terms of the movement of course different with GG and Salma in terms of media profile but experince has shown this does not build an organisation. As the issue of pay and public sector wage restraint starts to take centre stage I think RR will find it a problem to be central to this movement. I may be wrong but I think RR are in for a tough time. The possibility of Galloway winning his seat are remote. Even well worn RR members are saying this in private. Question is.without GG where is RR going?

     Comment by ll — 30 June, 2008 @ 9:15 am

121. But Matthew.

     Look at the task that the SWP claim they are intending to acheive - leading a revolution to overthrow the British state.

     Given the class composition of British society, the decline of traditional working class occupations, the traditions of constitutionalism, the conservatism of the trade unions, the strength and experience of the ruling classes, etc, etc, this would be a herculean task, requiring skill, sagacity and nuance in coalition building - (even if you think it is a desirable outcome in the first place)

     The purpose behind all the SWP’s dedication, and discipline is to build such a party that can achieve that.

     Yet the last year has shown the leadership utterly incabable of any tactical or strategic thinking at all - the SWP just exists to promote idiots like John Rees, Lindsey German and Weyman Bennett.

     For there to be no discussion scheduled of what has gone wrong over the last year shows a WRP degeneration in its terminal stages.

     Comment by Dear Koba — 30 June, 2008 @ 9:20 am

122. The comments seem somewhat sterile and unfruitful. If people don’t like Marxism 2008 nobody is forcing them to discuss it or attend it! I think it’s a good conference myself, and many of the leading thinkers and activists of the global social movements have spoken to them (including those hostile to Leninism)

     I will be looking forward to hearing veteran civil rights leader, Eamonn McCann from the Raytheon 9, US historian Howard Zinn, Archaeologist Neil Faulkner on the work of one of my heroes GEM De Ste. Croix, author of Class Struggles in the Ancient Greek World & Paul Mason on the Paris Commune. One criticism that should be made of the organisers is that all the talks that I find interesting are on at the same time, for example, Neil Davidson on the National Question clashes with another meeting I wish to attend. Such bad timetabling is reprehensible and shows the political degeneration of the SWP.

     The ResistanceMP3 site has now been updated: http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/index.html

     Building a left alternative to New Labour (and the nationalists in Scotland and Wales) is an important debate and I’m sure it will be touched upon in many talks at Marxism 2008 (I mean the ones on the wage freeze, trade unions, opening and closing rallies etc rather than John Rees’ talking John Milton and the English Revolution! - Though an interesting parlour game could be here developed finding appropriate quotes from Milton on the split)

     I suspect that the reason that there is no specific talk on the issue, is that such a meeting would probably turn into an almighty three way bun fight between the two sides of the split + ultraleft sects that would result in all non-alligned people attending saying “a plague on both your houses”. You know that, I know that.

     One can imagine heckling, screaming, swearing etc. not very nice. Though one fondly remembers past bun fights, the Revolution Communist Group and International Bullshit Tendencies organised yearly disruptions of Mike Gonzalez on Cuba, the year they stormed the stage to unfurl a banner behind Gonzalez as he was speaking saying “Long Live Peoples Cuba!” or the regular bearpit of the meetings on anarchism in which many a drunken anarchist would turn up to shout down the SWP speaker.

     Comment by Adamski — 30 June, 2008 @ 9:35 am

123. adamski: no, no one’s forcing anyone to attend it. But MichaelRosen asked if people found the lineup interesting. Some of us said, no, not really. Others thought it was. It’s not a terribly signficant question, but Michael wanted views, so he’s got them.

     Comment by Nas — 30 June, 2008 @ 9:45 am

124. My previous entry at #87 should of course refered to Dave’s entry at #85.

     Having looked at what’s advertised this week for Marxism in SW I see no reason to change my view.
     The topic list seems tailored to avoid any suggestion that the ‘left’ has been harmed in any way by the events of the last year regarding the split in Respect and it’s causes and consequences.

     Comment by Halshall — 30 June, 2008 @ 6:40 pm

125. Below is a press release kindly sent to me by the Labour Party tonight. All the news is old news. All that’s new are the pukeworthy comments from the three former Left List councillors. The press release also draws attention to the fact a Lib Dem councillor, who is a part-time clown, has also joined Labour. The second note to editors is thought to refer to Shahed Ali (I told you it’s old news).

     News from London Labour Party - Monday, 30th June 2008

     For immediate use

     Three more councillors switch to Labour in fresh blow to Galloway …

     All three remaining ‘Respect Unity Coalition’ councillors on Tower Hamlets Borough Council, who split from George Galloway’s party last year, have today joined the Labour Party.

     Councillor OLI RAHMAN, the first councillor to be elected under George Galloway’s ‘Respect’ banner in 2004, Councillor LUTFA BEGUM and Councillor RANIA KHAN will all join the group which runs Tower Hamlets.

     Councillor Rahman (St Dunstan’s and Stepney Green) said today:

     “I know in my heart that the Respect Party has no future and that the best way I can help achieve lasting improvements for my community is to work as part of the mainstream Labour Party.

     “The real choice at the next General Election will be right-wing Conservative representation which would be the worst possible result, or a Labour MP like Jim Fitzpatrick who will continue to stand up and deliver what is needed by the local community.

     “It is time to put our differences aside and work together and that’s what I will do.”

     Councillor Begum (Limehouse), who works as a Community Practice Nurse said:

     “Respect is totally split and incapable of delivering anything positive for the people of Tower Hamlets. I stood for council to help make things better for my local community - particularly to improve health care and to fight for a better deal for women.

     “I know that our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is working hard to deliver on the issues that concern people in Tower Hamlets. It is clear today that the only party doing that can change things for the better for ordinary people is Gordon Brown’s Labour Party.

     “I have been encouraged by the vast majority of local residents in my community to join the Labour Party.”

     Councillor Khan (Bromley by Bow) said:

     “I became involved to help make a real difference. The best way to achieve that change is by being part of the Labour Party which is rebuilding in Tower Hamlets and going from strength-to-strength.

     Labour’s JIM FITZPATRICK, MP for Poplar and Limehouse said today:

     “I welcome this boost which reflects hard by Labour’s team both locally at Tower Hamlets Council and nationally at Westminster to be on the side of ordinary people delivering real improvements to their lives.”

     Notes to editors:

     1. Today’s news follows the defection to Labour from the LibDems last month of Councillor RAJIB AHMED who represents East India and Lansbury ward on Tower Hamlets Council.

     2. Confirmation of a further defection to Labour - a senior member of George Galloway’s Respect Party in Tower Hamlets - is expected later this evening.

     For more information, please contact Phil Dilks, Labour Party Press Office on 0778 686 2320.

     All news releases are issued on a check against delivery basis and any portion of the speech not actually delivered should be regarded as private and confidential.

     Reproduced from an email sent by the Labour Party, promoted by Ken Clark, Regional Director, on behalf of London Labour Party, all at 39 Victoria Street , London , SW1H 0HA

     Comment by thin lizzy — 30 June, 2008 @ 11:46 pm

126. Get the sick bag out. These lot are a disgrace.

     Comment by TLC — 30 June, 2008 @ 11:56 pm

127. omg
     how can there’s lot support what they shouted out against
     wankers the lot of them

     Comment by ong — 1 July, 2008 @ 12:03 am

128. I see that SWP ? Left Alternative are organising a pub quiz:
     http://www.respectcoalition.org/?did=1344

     Perhaps we can think of some questions for them?

     Q - Who is the leader and nominatng officer of the Left List?

     Q - Lufta Begum says: ““I know that our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is working hard to deliver on the issues that concern people in Tower Hamlets. It is clear today that the only party doing that can change things for the better for ordinary people is Gordon Brown’s Labour Party.” When did she leave the SWP?

     Q - the SWP had two members as councillors in Tower hamlets, which parties are they members of now.

     Q - how much money do you all pay in subs each month to fund John Rees’s salary

     The Great Left Pub Quiz

     Thursday 10th July 2008

     6:30pm, Shipwright Arms, Tooley Street, London Bridge

     All those years of reading the London free sheets, watching too much telie and attending countless political meetings are about to pay off because… Respect/Left List is hosting a pub quiz!

     6:30pm upstairs at the Shipwright Arms in Tooley St. (near London Bridge)

     We’ll have great prizes so don’t let all of that random knowledge go to waste. Book a place for you and your team now on 0208 983 9671. Tickets are £5 each and you can book in teams of 5, or we can find a team for you. See you there!

     Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2008 @ 12:03 am

129. The spin from them on the press release is like reading the Socialist Workers Left List spin website Labour are welcome to spoiled goods,

     Comment by not shocked by opportunism — 1 July, 2008 @ 12:07 am

130. The discussion on who was on the left and the right in the split isn’t very useful. I would certainly be scathing of the role played by SWP in the split and other events, I can’t see defining ‘left’ and ‘right’ very useful. For example, if we conclude that the tactics of the SWP have been proven to be ultra-left, why would we wish to be to the left of them?
     There’s a little too much subjectivity and, apart from a few contributors, little analysis as to what’s happening in the working class - plenty about the role of new Labour, very little about the weakening of the class and how we respond - although sectarianism is of course a desperate attempt to overcome the crisis being faced.
     To denounce Left List or Respect councillors for joining Labour tells us nothing about either organisation they’ve left, except that they’ve left small organisations as the task of building a replacement for Labour is a little bit daunting.
     Having stayed in the Labour Party for a while when it was fashionable to leave, I can see the point of the Tower Hamlets councillors (even though it is undoubtedly the wrong thing to do). It was easy to leave the Labour Party, but what were you joining? When you asked that question, it was easy to stay put.
     The split, given SWP politics was inevitable as having a mas sorientation and being subsumed within it as the revolutionary wing, rather than the controller was unthinkable. The details may be moral, but are of little importance in the run of things.
     Respect has to learn from the defections, though. If it is impossible for elected representatives to have any impact by remaining in a party to the left of Labour, then they will draw the conclusions that four councillors just have (that three of them were Left List is not relevant).
     It is possible to build a mass base to the left of Labour as has been demonstrated, but a monolithic sect that cannot tolerate the contradictions that are inevitable in any mass movement will never be able to do that.
     It was likely that Respect would survive the first attack on its support better than Left List, as was proven by the May elections, but the political campaigning that will establish it as a serious party of the left again has frankly yet to be done.
     SWP are more concerned about outflanking every other group on the far left, but that isn’t where Respect should place itself.

     Comment by Howard T — 1 July, 2008 @ 1:18 am

131. Definition of chutzpah: “Respect is totally split”, says Lutfa Begum…

     Comment by Phil — 1 July, 2008 @ 7:52 am

132. Public meeting

     Is it time for a New Workers’ Party?
     organised by Medway Trades Council
     Rochester Visitors Centre
     High Street
     Rochester
     Kent
     Tuesday 8th July 7-9.30pm

     Speakers:
     Hannah Sell - Cmapaign for a New Workers Party
     John Rees - Left List (sic)
     Billy Hayes - Gen Sec CWU
     Alan Thornett - Respect

     I wonder if they have thought of selling tickets on ebay for this? It should certainly be filmed for posterity.

     Comment by sergo — 1 July, 2008 @ 8:43 am

133. What odds for John Rees cancelling at the last minute?

     Comment by me — 1 July, 2008 @ 9:10 am

134. Rees cancel? If he had any shame he would. Would spoil the fun tho. Perhaps those SWP supporters out there who subjected us to so much cant about democratic processes could outline their involvement in the rebranding of Rees-pect/Left List to ‘Left Alternative’.

     Comment by Ger Francis — 1 July, 2008 @ 9:25 am

135. “Perhaps those SWP supporters out there who subjected us to so much cant about democratic processes could outline their involvement in the rebranding of Rees-pect/Left List to ‘Left Alternative’.

     The process was perfectly democratic. An email was sent out stating that a final decision about any name change should be taken by National Conference, but as this was some way off, and currently the majority of Respect branches were unable to stand candidates under the name “Respect” and had been using a variety of names, it was neccesary to have a name to campaign under until the Conference. It was suggested that branches discuss what name they would like and email the national office, the final decision would be taken by the National Council after this process of consultation(should mention that our NC has been elected by members unlike RR’s secret NC).

     Obviously if we had been following the RR model of pluralism and democracy a la GLA elections where your candidates were handpicked by George Galloway rather than chosen at a selection meeting, the National Council would have appointed John Rees to personally choose the new name - but that wouldn’t have been very democratic would it Ger?

     Comment by Adamski — 1 July, 2008 @ 9:48 am

136. Excuse me if I’m being thick here, but what is the point of continually renaming what is in effect the SWP? Why can’t they just call themselves the SWP and have done with it, thus saving a small fortune on printing costs, etc, etc? Or is there a belief that contesting elections as the Socialist Workers’ Party is likely to suppress their vote?

     Comment by Dave — 1 July, 2008 @ 9:51 am

137. #135

     Adamski wrote:

     I tend to post on these kind of pages when I’m bored and my comments don’t always reflect a “thought-through” perspective or the finished article and sometimes even just reflect my mood at the time and sometimes I write stuff which is just a bit stupid!

     http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1139#comment-21746

     Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2008 @ 9:53 am

138. #136 I was just responding to Ger’s implication that the process of re-naming wasn’t democratic, if people don’t like Respect - The Left Alternative that’s okay, but Ger’s statement was just factually incorrect, a democratic process was followed.

     The point is that we are not just the SWP. As to re-naming, it was something that was thrust upon us.

     One thing is clear, Respect is effectively dead. Neither component can claim to be the original alliance.

     Clearly any attempt to be part of the process of building a left alternative must start from this reality.

     Comment by Adamski — 1 July, 2008 @ 10:08 am

139. Adamski, I wasn’t actually commenting on your response, and your reply doesn’t respond to mine, either.

     Why do you say “The point is that we are not just the SWP”? What other organisations are in this Left Alternative group? Obviously there are a handful of non-SWP members involved, but why does that warrant another name?

     And what exactly is Left Alternative? Is it an electoral coalition? A political party? A united front? A united front of a special kind?

     I can’t help but think that this is just another exercise by the SWP to create the appearance that it can work with other left forces when it can’t.

     (As for your comment that Respect is effectively dead - well, I’ll leave that for others to comment on, but there appears to be an unhealthy feel of wish-fulfilment there.)

     Comment by Dave — 1 July, 2008 @ 10:21 am

140. and surely couldn’t be called respect - the left alternative? that would be disingenuous again trading off the name respect. and also socialist alternative to a lesser degree.

     Comment by me — 1 July, 2008 @ 10:30 am

141. #136: “what is the point of continually renaming what is in effect the SWP?”

     In order to protect the reputation of whoever dreamt up the notion of a ‘united front of a special kind’?

     Comment by Andy Wilson — 1 July, 2008 @ 11:49 am

142. #141

     In whose eyes does that person still have a reputation worth defending?

     Surely even his MI5 handler is thinking the game has run its course by now.

     Comment by Dear Koba — 1 July, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

143. Of course that is another reason for going over to Labour

     Mich harder for our local KGB to inflitrate

     The IS/SWP was always supposed to be riddled with them - Stasi I mean

     Comment by Socialists for Davis — 1 July, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

144. 142: “In whose eyes does that person still have a reputation worth defending?”

     His own. Sadly he’s still involved in calling the shots, and there’s no sign that anyone else in the organisation is likely do anything to change that - so you can look forward to more fun along similar lines in the months and years to come.

     I don’t mean to say that the leadership all approve of how the Respect split was handled on that side of the fence (I have absolutely no information in that regard, but doubt it very much) yet they have a fine-honed instinct, perfected over many years, for covering one another’s backs, and they definitely freak out at the thought of arguing in front of the children as that may encourage others, with heartfelt grudges and long memories, to start criticising too. They operate on the basis of the proto-Leninist idea that it’s “all for one and one for all” (until they change their minds, that is, and someone gets their throat slit before being chucked off the back of the van…. but the private nature of these demotions means that nothing is truly learned, so there isn’t much consolation there.)

     Comment by Karen Elliot — 1 July, 2008 @ 2:11 pm

145. How very wise Karen Elliott is. Could not agree more. The political degeneration of the SWP leadership proceeds apace. Sad as a lot of their members are very good socialists.

     Comment by jean van heijenoort — 1 July, 2008 @ 2:17 pm

146. One wonders what paid employment John Rees or Lindsey German could secure if they were given the boot from the SWP payroll?

     Comment by Dear Koba — 1 July, 2008 @ 2:22 pm

147. Check out the career trajectories of previous members of the CC after their departure - almost universally they go on to become leading figures in the trade unions or other working class organisations, or to work in campaigning organisations….

     …

     Sorry, my mistake. I meant to say - they go back to college.

     Comment by Karen Elliot — 1 July, 2008 @ 2:44 pm

148. Which reminds me - when I was being expelled from the SWP I was treated to an interview with Cliff and Lindsey G at which the latter accused me of thinking that I was clever than the members of the CC. Naturally, it would have undermined my dignity to have answered such a stupid accusation any other way than by saying ‘yes’ - at which point Lindsey assured me that ‘any of the CC could easily get a job as a college lecturer.

     You can’t make this shit up.

     Comment by Karen Elliot — 1 July, 2008 @ 2:49 pm

149. 148: “I was clever than the members”

     = ‘cleverer’

     but then again, who knows:

     clev·er (klvr)
     adj. clev·er·er, clev·er·est
     1. Mentally quick and original; bright.
     2. Nimble with the hands or body; dexterous.
     3. Exhibiting quick-wittedness: a clever story.
     4. New England Easily managed; docile: “Oxen must be pretty clever to be bossed around the way they are” Dialect Notes.
     5. New England Affable but not especially smart.
     6. Chiefly Southern U.S. Good-natured; amiable. See Regional Note at ugly.

     Comment by Karen Elliot — 1 July, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

150. Hmm, I think Karen is making this shit up.

     I’ve been over the records of the SWP Star Chamber for the past 200 years and nowhere in its dusty pages, bound with the skin of vegans, is there any mention of Ms Karen Elliot and her over-inflated sense of dignity.

     Comment by Smartin' Myth — 1 July, 2008 @ 2:56 pm

151. psuedonym of the month imho

     Comment by Karen Elliot — 1 July, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

152. (Smartin’ Myth)

     Comment by Karen Elliot — 1 July, 2008 @ 3:06 pm

153. #150: “Hmm, I think Karen is making this shit up”

     I’m hurt

     Comment by Karen Elliot — 1 July, 2008 @ 3:29 pm

154. Karen @ #148.

     What a great question to put to a comrade. Lindsay G has obviously decided to model herself on Lyndon LaRouche. God only knows what that makes John Rees. L. Ron Hubbard, perhaps.

     Comment by Dave — 1 July, 2008 @ 3:32 pm

155. #154: “what that makes John Rees. L. Ron Hubbard, perhaps”

     “Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown.”

     “We are slowly and carefully teaching the unholy a lesson. It is as follows: We are not a law enforcement agency. BUT we will become interested in the crimes of people who seek to stop us. If you oppose scientology we promptly look up - and find and expose - your crimes. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone. It’s very simple. Even a fool can grasp that. And don’t underrate our ability to carry it out.”

     Comment by Karen Elliot — 1 July, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

156. Has any one worked out a modern day ‘Liturgy of the Left?’
     ‘Let us call on Saint Tony of Benn,’ for He is With Us,
     ‘And let us curse our Demon Brother, the BNP for he is one with Satan’s Flesh and he Preys on Innocent Souls like unto a Wild Beast.’
     ‘And let us now March in Circles and let the TUC Speaketh and Billy Bragg Singeth Forth’
     ‘For we shall be ever impotent, but the Party shall Waxeth Strong with Paper Sellers’
     ‘And no one shall approacheth who is not Faithful unto Us.
     Our Trotsky, Etc?

     Comment by Sergioleonine — 2 July, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

157. I believe in the one party
     The Socialist Workers’ Party
     Maker of Heaven on Earth
     And of all excuses, visible and invisible

     And in one leader, John Rees [bows]
     The only begotten leader of this party
     Begotten by his party before all rivals
     Leader of the revolution, lightweight of lightweight,
     Very leader of very leader,
     Begotten, not elected
     Being of one substance with Tony
     By Whom all things were made
     Who, for the workers and for their salvation
     [genuflect]
     came over from Tower Hamlets
     and was incarnate thanks to Respect
     and was made almost human
     [rise]
     and was crucified also for us under George Galloway
     He suffered some humiliation and was buried
     But a few weeks later he rose again according to the scriptures
     and ascended into heaven
     and is seated on the left hand (naturally) of a few newly minted Left List councillors
     And they shall come again in glory to judge both the reformists and the schismatics.
     And their bitterness shall have no end. (Until they defect to New Labour)

     And I believe in the CC
     The givers (and taketh awayers) of membership
     Who proceedeth from Tony and John
     Who with Tony and John are worshipped and glorified
     Who spake by the prophets, or at least Chris Harman.

     And I believe in some Wholly Unlikely and Unbelievable Prospects
     I acknowledge one United Front of a Special Kind
     And I look for the Resurrection of our vote
     And the elevation of Lindsay to the London Mayoralty
     Amen.

     Comment by Dave — 2 July, 2008 @ 8:11 pm

158. The elevation of Lindsey? Well, she’s already had plenty of assumption - O lux perpetua luceat eis… Callinicos eleison, Chris H eleison, Callinicos eleison

     Comment by Nas — 2 July, 2008 @ 8:53 pm

159. For He was Born Unto the House of Zion, The Son of Man Ygael Gluckstein
     But He is Glorified Unto Us as Tony of Cliff
     Of One Essence with the One True Party
     Pantokrator Proletaria Europa

     For He has Filled the Hungry with Dogma
     And Hath Sent The Rich away Laughing

     Sorry, that’s enough already.

     Comment by Sergioleonine — 2 July, 2008 @ 9:17 pm

160. Bog in heaven

     The filoque in #157. Is this not this it self the earliest example of the Bernsitian heresy which was to destroy the church.

     Revisionism and dowm with her papal and latin lackeys

     Long live the Greek rite!

     Comment by Socialists for Davis — 2 July, 2008 @ 9:25 pm

161. Quick Question: If Germans’s Lyndon La Rouche and Ree’s is L Ron Hubbard then who’s Richard Seymour, Charles Manson…?

     Comment by Sergioleonine — 2 July, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

162. …more like ‘Squeaky’ Fromme.

     Comment by Dave — 2 July, 2008 @ 10:13 pm

163. #160: indeed, ‘Who proceedeth from Tony and John.’ I’m surprised to see you so committed to Constantinopoli in the 380s. Very Eastern in its roots and actualite the Greek schism, no? Got to be careful where that ends up - with Davis.

     Comment by Nas — 2 July, 2008 @ 11:51 pm

164. “In the STW movement, as soon as the masses had left the streets they set about grabbing the leadership not through political arguement”

     Ummm some facts go missing in this pathetic attack on the SWP………First meeting of the STWC was in friends meeting house London a few days after 9/11 if I remember…….the reason such a quick response, becuase like it or not and I know you don’t the SWP saw the need to oppose the use of this event as a fig leaf for usa aggression, so in fact “Comrades” it was the SWP who set that meeting in motion by contacting others on the left etc, CND opposed it by the way. Its about time this red baiting on this site got a grip of reality and pulled its head fr0om its arse, but I think a few of these contributors feel quite cosy up there already. Nas and Sergio clearly live in their own bedsit land of hatred for the SWP, meanwhile in the union movement SWP members are being taken to court by union right wingers and victimised for being fighters in the movement. I have no doubt in the case of Yunus and tony staunton as well as karen reismann where these two jokers stand and it isn’t with union militants.

     Comment by ll — 3 July, 2008 @ 12:19 am

165. II

     The 11 September attacks took place on a Tuesday, irrc. The SWP meeting in London which filled the small room at the Friends Meeting House on Euston Road took place on the Friday, iirc.

     There were calls at that to hold a wider meeting, which was held the following week. It launched the campaign. CND did not oppose it, but it was not as supportive to what became the Stop the War Coalition as it is now (remember, Kate Hudson was not then the chair and there was a serious effort to prevent her being so, one which included B52-liberals such as Nick Cohen.

     To my knowledge all the people who have been central to the anti-war movement would agree with that account, give or take a few minor inaccuracies.

     Now, on to the victimisations: Respect, its MP, its councillors… the whole thing, in toto, has supported in every way possible the people you cite who face victimisation. In fact, in one case George Galloway for one has offered a level of support which has not been taken up.

     ll, I doubt you speak for many SWP members, but if you do, please tell them the offers of support are extant. We face a common enemy: we should take common action against it.

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 3 July, 2008 @ 1:12 am

166. ll is by the way our old friend jj

     Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2008 @ 1:13 am

167. Andy

     Thanks for that. He’s getting a lot worse. He’s to insignificant a statistical sample, however, from which to draw any wider conclusions.

     On the victimisations issue: this is now very serious. I’m sure someone will correct me, but I cannot think of a single unequivocal success against victimisation for many many years.

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 3 July, 2008 @ 1:22 am

168. Hi Nas

     In truth my sympathy is with the Arians, Raskolniks and Anabaptists - for obvious reasons.

     But yes you are right with Davis. However rember there is a legitimate area where one have have a pious opinion and dogma. Purgotary/toll booths come to mind.

     But these days any theological sandline will do

     Comment by Socialists for Davis — 3 July, 2008 @ 9:59 am

169. Actually both protestant and catholic churches use the Nicene Creed recite it in the same form.

     #163 The crux of the dispute is that the Orthodox Church recite the creed in its original form as agreed by a Church Council - that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Due to theological debates and controversy over Christ’s simultaneous divine and human nature in the West they began to add the filoque that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son! In a sense, there is a certain foundation in the texts, as in the New Testament Jesus informs the apostles that he will send the Spirit after his death.
     More recent scholars have argued that the disagreement is actually in some ways a misunderstanding based on language differences, Latin word for “proceed” has broader connotations than in Greek. Some Orthodox say that there is no problem with the formulation but that there shouldn’t have been an addition without it being agreed by a properly constituted Church Council.

     More than a thousand years later there has been some raproachement between the Catholic and Orthodox Church on these issues including nulling the decrees where each decleared each other to be heretical.

     Hopefully in a thousand years, some progress will be made over the split in Respect . . .

     Comment by Adamski — 3 July, 2008 @ 10:14 am

170. Hi Adamski

     I have to say I always found it odd that Calvinists went for Calcedonian theology and a Caroligian creed. But this is for another day - Keir Hardie are you listening?

     The linguistic bit is in my view a red herring as both sides were equally well versed in greek and latin. CG The Council of Florence

     In terms of schisms I just think we are following in the grand tradition

     Comment by Socialists for Davis — 3 July, 2008 @ 10:41 am

171. If you go the the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, there is a cave round the back of Christ’s tomb, where ownership is disputed between the Syrian church and (IIRC) the Ethiopian Church This legal dispute has been going on for over a thousand years, as neither church will agree to a court that has jurisdiction.

     This means that both churches have to keep all their furniture ina cupboad and bring it out for service,s, and then put it away again afterwards.

     Evem more remarkably, the chappel caught fire several hundred years ago, and neither side has ever had permissaion from the other to repair the damage - they would rather worship in a soot blackened hole than compromise.

     Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2008 @ 10:42 am

172. Ruth Gledhill in today’s Times:

     ‘A senior adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned Anglicans that they risk the destruction of their Church if they insist on making homosexuality a “shibboleth”.’

     http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4258262.ece

     Uh oh…

     Comment by Dave — 3 July, 2008 @ 11:01 am

173. #170 If people want to continue along this veine, it is interesting that the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles contain more books than the Protestant Bible. These extra books included by Catholics were written by Jews in the Greek diaspora and part of a translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, they were relegated to secondary non-canonical status by Martin Luther and included in a lot of Bibles as “the Apochrypha” or not included at all.

     Comment by Adamski — 3 July, 2008 @ 11:03 am

174. “They would rather worship in a soot blackened hole than compromise.” Just about captures it for the sectarian left. Well, actually it does’nt. I doubt the various factions could reach agreement on which ’soot blackened hole’ to worship in. I suppose someone hss to keep the home fires burning in Plato’s proverbial cave.

     Comment by FlimseyGerman — 3 July, 2008 @ 11:08 am

175. adamski: we can all use google. Thank you.

     Comment by Nas — 3 July, 2008 @ 11:16 am

176. I am not sure that you are entirely accurate anyway Adam

     The restriction of the approved gospels was carried out by the Catholic church and there was alsways a dispute between the different churches wover which books to include.

     Martin Luther had no particular bearing on the matter, and the King James bible traditionally does include many books from the apochrypha.

     Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2008 @ 11:24 am

177. I think it’s about times I apologised for some serious sidetracking here. It’s the last time I’ll be led astray by Sergioleonine, I promise.

     (BTW, Andy, it is of course arguable whether the KJV can be considered Protestant as opposed to Anglican. It’s a similar argument to that surrounding the Prayer Book - the Edwardine Ordinal was Protestant, yes, but the BCP no. Of course if you’re an RC they’re all Protestant, but that’s another matt… STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT!!)

     Comment by Dave — 3 July, 2008 @ 11:41 am

178. I advise comrades to use “google” for further clarification as this is not at all relevant to the discussion or Respect. But I believe I am broadly accurate, obviously I have only given a rough sketch of a complex process.

     Today Catholics have a slightly different cannon of what books are included in the Bible to Protestants. Compare the King James version of the Bible with a standard Catholic translation, for example, the Jerusalem Bible and you will see the Jerusalem Bible has books interspersed such as Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon etc. (these books came from the Septuagint a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was used by Jews in the Greek diaspora)

     Up until the reformation all Christians used a Bible that included several books that were later removed from the main bible either placed by protestants in a separate section called “Apochrypha” or often omitted.

     Martin Luther believed that these books while of value, did not have the status of Holy Scripture (remember Luther challenged the Catholic Church’s authority with the slogan “Sola Scriptura” - scripture alone.) Hence in the reformation a debate was reopened as to what should constitute the Canon of scripture.

     Catholics believe that these books are scripture

     Comment by Adamski — 3 July, 2008 @ 11:59 am

179. #177 Dave - “Of course if you’re an RC they’re all Protestant, but that’s another matter.”

     According to some in the Orthodox Church the first protestant was the Pope!

     Comment by Adamski — 3 July, 2008 @ 12:00 pm

180. But doesn’t the first division of books in the bible date back to Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, in the second century?

     You say that the apocrypha is the list of book proscrobed by Martin Luther.

     But the term Apocrypha was associated with the gnostic sect that St Iraneaus polemicised against, and the restriction to only four canonical gospels certainly comes from St Iraneaus.

     My dispute with you is that Martin Luther was not the originator of the non-canonial status of the apochrypha - as you clearly say in #173.

     The origin of the idea of a canon of approved scripture, and non-canonical books being categorised as the apocrypha dates back to St Iraneaus. Luther may well have disputed which scripture was canonical and which was non-canonical - but that debate is one that all the churches have disaggreed about, so it doesn’t put Luther into any different category.

     Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2008 @ 12:27 pm

181. The term Apochrypha has been used in several divergent ways for different groups of books - I think we’re talking about different Apochrypha! There are books referred to as apochryphal that were rejected by the Early Church as not being authentic and never included. Also the writings of the Gnostics and other sects regarded as heritical such as the Gospel of Thomas are also often referred to as apochrypha.

     Sometimes some of the books not recognised as part of the cannon by the Church were very popular. In the Middle Ages there was a popular folk story called “The Haroowing of Hell” or Gospel of Nicodemus that might be described as an apochryphal gospel. This was based on the line in the creed that Jesus descended into dead for three days. In this Gospel, Christ descends into Hell and wrestles with Satan to free damned souls from hell.

     The Apochrypha we are talking about are a set of books that are still included in Catholic bibles that mostly come from a Greek translation of Jewish scriptures made around 300 BC that included books written in Greek by Jews living in the diaspora. They are still included in some protestant Bibles in a separate section called “The Apochrypha” or often omitted.

     “Luther may well have disputed which scripture was canonical and which was non-canonical - but that debate is one that all the churches have disaggreed about, so it doesn’t put Luther into any different category.”

     The debate over the Cannon was pretty much dormant for around 1000 years. It was reopened during the reformation. Your phrase “all the churches” is key. Hence, why I am right to put Luther in a different category.

     Before then in Western Europe there was pretty much only one Church. The reformation led by Luther meant that there was suddenly a plethora of Churches. In the Orthodox Church which has had a less centralised structure different national churches have very slightly different cannons.

     Comment by Adamski — 3 July, 2008 @ 12:40 pm

182. Apochrypha means ‘hidden,’ not false. These documents were rejected because of doctrinal concerns and not on the basis of their authenticity; many of them have a better provenance than the canonical writings.

     Comment by FlimseyGerman — 3 July, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

183. I saw Dara O’Briain on TV once explaing that there is an extra line in either the Catholic or Protestant Lord’s Prayer.

     Comment by skidmarx — 3 July, 2008 @ 2:39 pm

184. #89: Mike Rosen: “the SWP’s way of doing business. Work out the line, and then hammer hammer hammer….”

     I fondly recall standing next to Duncan Hallas at an SWP conference at Shoreditch Town Hall in the 80s, at the refreshments stall in the basement, listening to Cliff speaking over the PA, and Duncan commented, “Jesus, that man really knows how to batter an idea to death”. So, yes, perhaps it does actually constitute a ‘method’.

     Comment by Karen Elliot — 3 July, 2008 @ 3:38 pm

185. Karen…….you really have to get a life, let it go, please do something useful for the movement.

     Comment by ll — 3 July, 2008 @ 3:52 pm

186. ‘Please do something useful for the movement?’ Yeah, I agree, and the most useful action you can take for any movement is to get the SWP completely out of it…!

     Comment by Sergioleonine — 4 July, 2008 @ 8:27 am

187. As I said previously Sergio etc are in fsavour of driving the SWP out……..so they clearly support the witchunt against Yunus and Tony Staunton. Its called scabbing sergio but then I am sure that doesn’t bother you. No wonder this site is used to vent bile against the revolutionary left and say and do nothing in relation to building the support for those fighting back, whatever their political affiliation.

     Comment by ll — 4 July, 2008 @ 9:15 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain

• Recent Comments
  • Ed D on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • Manzil on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • Ed D on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • Ed D on MORE BAD NEWS FOR HARRY'S PLACE
  • Omar on TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • Dave on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • titch mitch on COALITION OF RESISTANCE UPDATE
  • Boab on BLAIR'S INTERVIEW
  • Andy Newman on TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • Rorschach on BLAIR'S INTERVIEW
  • Stuart on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • STP on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • Andy Newman on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • bill on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • Alan Day on POPE WELCOME HERE
• Recent Posts
  • THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • THE BEST EVER RADIO PROGRAMME
  • RADIO WILTSHIRE
  • BLAIR’S INTERVIEW
  • THE 100 WORST BLOGS
  • MORE BAD NEWS FOR HARRY’S PLACE
  • FROM NEIL AND GLENYS KINNOCK
  • THE MIRROR GETS IT WRONG
  • AN INTERVIEW WITH DIANE ABBOTT
• 
  
• about this blog
  • admin
  • comments policy
  • CONTACT US
  • Louise's flickr pics
  • WHO WE ARE
• links
  • 21st century socialism
  • Amandla (South Africa)
  • At Ease
  • Bella Caledonia
  • Bolivia Solidarity Campiagn
  • by-elections archive
  • Challenge (Israel)
  • CND
  • Colombia Solidarity Campaign
  • Commitee for a Workers International
  • Compass
  • David Harvey economics course
  • Democratic Green Socialist
  • Edge of Sports
  • End Child Poverty
  • Frontline (scotland)
  • George Galloway
  • Global Womens Strike
  • granma international (cuba)
  • Green Left Weekly
  • haiti action
  • Hands off Iraqi Oil
  • Hands off Venezuela
  • hegemonics
  • International Socialism Journal
  • international socialist review
  • international viewpoint
  • ISJ & Review (archive)
  • islamophobia watch
  • KEN Livingstone
  • Labour Against War
  • labour left briefing
  • Labour Representation Committee
  • Latin American Workers Association
  • Leanne Wood AM
  • Left Women's Network
  • Links International Journal
  • Marxism Today (archive)
  • Marxist Economics
  • Military Families Against War
  • morning star
  • NATIONAL SHOP STEWARDS NETWORK
  • New Left Review
  • New Reasoner (archive)
  • New Statesman
  • open left
  • Pambuzuka (Africa)
  • philosophy football
  • political economy of football
  • Politics Home
  • Progressive London
  • Radio Galloway
  • Reality Radio
  • red pepper
  • respect
  • Scottish Left Review
  • Scottish Socialist Party
  • scottish socialist voice
  • Searchlight
  • socialist action
  • Socialist Campaign Group
  • Socialist Economic Bulletin
  • socialist renewal
  • socialist resistance
  • SOCIALIST WORKER (New Zealand)
  • socialist worker (USA)
  • Solidarity trade union magazine
  • Soundings
  • Stand Up Tall
  • Stop War Coalition
  • Student Respect
  • swindon stop the war
  • The Poverty Site
  • tigmoo
  • Union Renewal
  • unlock democracy
  • venezuela analysis
  • Witangemot
  • Women of 1970s punk
• other blogs
  • A very public sociologist
  • Adam Price
  • Another Green World
  • Barry Kade
  • Bethan Jenkins AM
  • Beyond the Transition
  • Bickerstaffe Record
  • black looks
  • bleeding heart show
  • blogging Africa
  • Britology
  • Buckdog (Canada)
  • Carnival of Feminists
  • Carnival of Socialism
  • Cedar Lounge
  • Charlie Pottins
  • Che's warlog
  • Climate and Capitalism
  • Cllr Susan Press
  • Colin Fox
  • cosmoproletarian solidarity
  • Darren o'Neil
  • Dave Osler
  • Dear Kitty
  • DebtoNation
  • Dr Nazir Khan
  • fetch me my axe
  • Flip Flopping Joy
  • Gaolhouse lawyer
  • Gaping Silence
  • Gay dissenter
  • Go Fourth
  • Godless Liberal Homo
  • Grace Fletcher-Hackwood
  • Green Party Trade Union group
  • Green ribbon
  • greenman
  • Harpy Marx
  • History's Revenge
  • international Rooksbyism
  • Jews Sans Frontieres
  • Joe Bageant
  • John Gray
  • Justice for Iraq
  • Kasama
  • Ken Macleod
  • Kevin Maguire
  • key trends (John Ross)
  • Labour Home
  • Labour Left Forum
  • LabourList
  • Leanne Wood's blog
  • left click
  • Left Foot Forward
  • Left Futures
  • Lenin's Tomb
  • liam mac uaid
  • Liberal Conspiracy
  • life of riley
  • Louis Proyect
  • lysis
  • Madam Miaow
  • martin wicks
  • MUTINY!
  • Natalie Bennett
  • NSSN south west
  • Ost blog
  • Our KIngdom
  • Paul Flynn MP
  • Paul Mason's idle scrawl
  • Penny Red
  • Pink Pasty
  • Politics in the Zeros
  • prisoner of starvation
  • Rachel North London
  • Random Blowe
  • Rebellion Sucks
  • renegade eye
  • respect blog
  • Rupa Huq
  • Rustbelt Radical
  • Salma Yaqoob
  • selection spotlight
  • Solomon's Mindfield
  • Splintered Sunrise
  • Swindon Roundabouts
  • SWP Notes
  • Ten Percent
  • The devil and all his works
  • The Palestine Center
  • The Soul of Man Under Capitalism
  • The Third Estate
  • Though Cowards Flinch
  • Tony Greenstein's blog
  • Tower Hamlets Respect
  • Trueten
  • UCAPV
  • union futures
  • Unity Aotearoa
  • unrepentant communist
  • We English
  • Wednesday's blog
  • Women of color
• Meta
  • Login
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain