SOCIALIST UNITY

10 September, 2008

367 Comments »

1. This is throwing in the towel. They should go the whole hog and negotiate to disentangle from Respect, give up the web address and archive and hand over all the accounts to those who want to continue with Respect.

   The reference to councillors in the North West is to the Barrow Socialist People’s Party, a group of former Labour people, small town reformists.

   Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:06 pm

2. “b) Charlie K and Martin S to go onto the LA steering committee at the conference.
   c) In the run up to October conference the CC should discuss who should oversee the LA work after the conference. In the meantime, Chris, Charlie and Martin can both oversee the work and be the CC point of contact.”

   Which shows, once and for all, that they see, and saw, it as their exclusive property. No “we will discuss with others in the coalition whether there should be changes”. No “we will seek to have Chris, Charlie and Martin elected to oversee LA work”. Note that they separate overseeing the work and being the internal SWP contact - this cannot be interpreted as them talking about how things will work inside the SWP. They’re deciding how the Left Alternative will run - the Left Alternative has no independent life of its own.

   The SWP CC decides what the Left Alternative is going to do, just as the SWP CC used to decide what Respect was going to do.

   Can any SWP members really defend the lies they told about how the Left Alternative was the “real” Respect and that it was a real coalition, and that the Galloway side represented only a couple of people? Who, aside from the SWP, is actually in the Left Alternative?

   “The reference to councillors in the North West is to the Barrow Socialist People’s Party, a group of former Labour people, small town reformists.”

   They have been saying glowing things about them for some weeks now.

   Comment by not quite — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:19 pm

3. “the subjective factors are not so good. There seems little hope of any national figure breaking away from the Labour Party to help create a radical alternative. Warwick Two demonstrated that the major unions have little stomach to challenge Brown. Even the leaders of the smaller unions seem unprepared to take a lead at the moment, and launch a political project to the left of Labour.”

   Interesting how they’re always looking to leaders from on high (according to the second sentence, a Galloway Mark II) to set up something new they can hitch their wagon to. Of course, there’s no point hoping the unions set up/support an alternative to Labour unless within the unions there is democracy and rank-and-file movements to control the political fund. Why hope that someone like Serwotka, who sold out the pensions dispute and won’t co-ordinate action over pay, sets up a new party (even if PCS did allow it)?

   All of section 2 of the CC motion shows they have no direction at all and no idea what they’re going to do next. Just rumble along from campaign to campaign, never mind the politics. Given their past record and undemocratic culture I wouldn’t take their promise of “more discussion” at face value.

   Comment by David Broder — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:19 pm

4. I hope this is a positive development. I fear that Rees and German will kick back hard, however.

   It’s not clear how all this is going to be justified internally or to close allies. If the politics of this aren’t clarified it could go all over the place. I’m not as optimistic as you Andy.

   Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:20 pm

5. small town reformists

   Oooh, the irony.

   Anyway, leaving the personalities themselves to one side for a moment (if you can), is there actually anything new here? It doesn’t read any differently to me from what the SWP has been saying for a few months now.

   Comment by KrisS — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:25 pm

6. Are the SWP CC making decisions on behalf of the rest of the LA? What about the non-SWP members, don’t they get a say?

   Comment by anti fascist fighter — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:28 pm

7. Which decisions, aff?

   Comment by KrisS — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:30 pm

8. ‘The potential for a left alternative to Labour has rarely been greater’.

   I am pretty sure that this is very different to what they were saying after the Respect split

   Comment by anti fascist fighter — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:32 pm

9. Well I think that the decisions are being made by the SWP about how they see their own role in Left Alternative.

   But it is also worth pointing out that the SWP has an absolute majority on the Left Alternative national council.

   Comment by Andy Newman — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:32 pm

10. KrisS - points 3 and 4

    Comment by anti fascist fighter — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:33 pm

11. “Are the SWP CC making decisions on behalf of the rest of the LA? What about the non-SWP members, don’t they get a say?”

    umm coming from the organisation that gets Galloway to single handedly pick its GLA candidates, no vote for its national exec this is a bit rich dont you think.

    Comment by ll — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:33 pm

12. aff - I suppose it depends how you read the SWP. Point 3, to me, is their opinion of the state of the project, which has been what everyone has been saying for a while, including the SWP. And point 4 says “if we believe 3, we should do the following”. Which seems reasonable to me.

    As for “the potential for a left alternative…” - as far as I can recall, they’ve been saying that or thatabouts all along, in varying forms of words, but I could be wrong.

    Comment by KrisS — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:36 pm

13. “Which decisions, aff?”

    b) Charlie K and Martin S to go onto the LA steering committee at the conference. - how can they be sure? How do they know that this will just happen? If they were interested in democracy, wouldn’t it be worded “CK, MS to stand for election to the LA steering committee”?

    Can you explain just that one decision there? The SWP CC has decided who will be on the LA steering committee. They decided, they put the line out to their members, and that’s it. You don’t get a say in it, Kris.

    Oh, and does the final admission - “It does not have wide support outside the party” - merit any reflection at all from those of you (you included, Kris) who insisted that the Left List/Alternative was the real Respect and that it had the support of just about all Respect members inside and outside the SWP?

    Comment by not quite — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:36 pm

14. #2

    Q: “Who, aside from the SWP, is actually in the Left Alternative?”

    A: Adam Johannes.

    :o)

    Comment by Andy Newman — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:39 pm

15. meanwhile here in Sheffield a vibrant campaign against the proposed closure of 16 valued and needed Post Offices has seen protest rallies and lobbies with 50-100 people attending , 15,000 petitioners and a united campaign which has forced the Lib Dem Council to fight the closure programme - at the same time another SWP front is being jettisoned ; no coincedence that there are no SWP members in the P.O campaign , there has been 1 socialist worker street sale in the City since the May elections and there are virtually no active SWP members to be seen - whilst the pantomime of Respect / Left Party ( in Sheffield )/ Left Alternative goes on there are real issues happening in real life and the SWP has virtually ceased to exist in a city this size , i am starting to wonder if this is , quite frankly , a good thing

    Comment by sheffielder — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:41 pm

16. #13

    If the SWP put someone forward, they will get elected. I get a say in it, same as any other member does. But I’m not an idiot, and I can count.

    All of what’s happened merits reflection from us all, of course.

    Comment by KrisS — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:42 pm

17. I for one would welcome putting the past behind us. Both The Left Alternative and Respect have been severely weakened by the split and both in their current form and with their current low membership cannot survive without major changes. Who said what and to whom in the past is not important but what is is the possibility of building a left alternative to New Labour.

    I hold out the possibility that those of good faith both in Respect, The Left Aletrnative the SWP and the CPB (Morning Star) should as of today enter into unconditional talks to discuss the creation of a new Socialist Party within an agreed time frame that would work with those on the left in the Labour Pary, the Green party and others and the left in both Wales and Scoland.

    Or will we miss this small window of opportunity? Much to discuss at the Convention of the Left in Manchester i think.

    Neil Williams
    Secretary Milton Keynes Respect.

    Comment by Neil Williams — 10 September, 2008 @ 9:45 pm

18. Neil,

    Do you really think anyone will touch the SWP with a bargepole after all this? I doubt very much that the CPB/Morning Star will - they’ve only recently had their fingers burnt, I doubt they’ll stick their hands into the SWPs fire. As for Galloway et al, I think the door is well and truly shut.

    I pity the poor Socialist Party who’ll soon have to deal with SWPers swarming around their CNWP events … but I think the SP know how to deal with the problem.

    Jack Y

    Comment by Jack Y — 10 September, 2008 @ 10:08 pm

19. Neil

    That sounds pretty unlikely to me right now, I’m afraid. I’m not sure about “this small window of opportunity” though - why should it be so small?

    Comment by KrisS — 10 September, 2008 @ 10:11 pm

20. All a little sad and unsurprising but (and maybe this is ‘cus I’ve had a couple of pints tonight) I don’t understand the ‘John Rees and Lindsey German resigned from the leadership of “Left Alternative”’ stuff????

    SWP are LA, or at very least controlling force within.

    So who has forced John and Lindsey to resign?

    Is it from within the party, ‘cus if there is any internal opposition movement they do well at generally hiding it, I certainly never got a hint of it (despite looking) when I was a member????

    Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 10 September, 2008 @ 10:36 pm

21. After all the things you posted on your blog comrade Wakefield, I’m surprised to say… I totally agree with you.

    Unconditional talks and plans for unity are the best (maybe only) way forward. CFANWP, LA and RR all together with freedom for smaller groups to exist within a new left umbrella organisation. Something as pluralistic and similar to ‘Die Linke’ or LCR as possible. Look to those who have succeeded and follow their lead.

    I would be interested to see what percentage of the SWP/SP/RR rank and file membership would like to see left consolidation in a coalition.

    I think we can certainly say that the leadership of all of these organisations are most definitely against it. I would hope that we wouldn’t need to have elect a total new leadership to all the left parties to make true unity a reality.

    But if the majority of these organisation’s rank and file are not in favor of it, I guess unity is an arguement we should be making to our fellow comrades.

    Difficult and complex times. A blog called Socialist Unity has a big responsibility to cover things fairly. I’m not sure how happy I am about posting inner-party documents. But I suppose things being out in the open isn’t a bad thing. I just get the feeling internal RR documents wouldn’t end up leaked on here.

    Speaking of which Andy dear, it seems you have guest bloggers from almost every organisation on the left but the SWP, is this a permanent state of affairs?

    Solidarity,
    Futurecast

    Comment by Futurecast — 10 September, 2008 @ 10:36 pm

22. A year ago, George Galloway raised some mild criticisms of the way John Rees operated in Respect. The SWP central committee accused Galloway of demanding that Rees resigned and launching a vicious witch hunt against the left. Now, they have carried through a much more effective hatch job on their own than Galloway ever suggested. Shame they didn’t do it a year ago, because we would probably have a Respect member on the GLA now. The SWP central committee should now apologise to Ken Loach, Linda Smith, Salma Yaqoob, George Galloway and everyone else they accused of witch hunting.

    Comment by Thin Lizzy — 10 September, 2008 @ 10:37 pm

23. Rees and German made blunder after opportunistic blunder, but I don’t think that Galloway comes out smelling of roses either. Whose idea was it to build that disastrous and unprincipled alliance with the jamaat e islami? Don’t think that SWP dreamt that one up alone.

    The vast numbers of principled socialists/radical anti-capitalists/left greens out there - including ordinary members of the SWP - deserve something better than top down alternatives to New Labour dominated by egotistical or inadequate “leaders”.

    Although my roots are in the far left and my instincts still are, I was a member of the Greens for a few years from 1997 - my membership lapsed because my local branch were very dull and too localist, when it was some of the Greens’ global perspective that animated me. But I’m considering rejoining. One of the attractions of the Greens is that they seem to take inner party democracy seriously and their leaders seem to take accountability seriously.

    I would love to see more red-green cooperation as long as the Reds recognise they have things to learn from the Greens not just about the environment.

    I would sooner have people like Caroline Lucas and Derek Wall among the leadership of any new radical formation than the likes of Rees, German and Galloway any day.

    Comment by David Rosenberg — 10 September, 2008 @ 10:56 pm

24. Future cast #21

    Noone from the SWP has ever asked for a guest post to be published here.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 10 September, 2008 @ 10:56 pm

25. I hope we are witnessing poisitive developments but it depends on whether there is now an honest accounting within the SWP.

    John Rees wrecked not one but two promising attempts to forge left unity in pursuit of electoral success, the Socialist Alliance and Respect. The second debacle has produced such an electoral disaster in the form of the Left List, such a direct refutation of Rees’s justification for the wreckage in the form of the departure of the councillors on his side of the split for the Tories and New Labour and such a disaster for the SWP whose reputation lies in tatters and whose members’ morale is rock bottom, that something had to give.

    However, the half-hearted purging of Rees has taken place without honest debate inside the SWP and without explanation so far. No suprise perhaps as the entire SWP leadership dutifully followed where Rees led a year ago. Harman and Callinicos, who have made claims to be the greatest living Marxists, both perjured themselves on matters and about people of which and of whom they knew little or nothing.

    Unless the SWP leadership acknowledges its disastrous mistakes and worse over the last year, and perhaps more importantly acknowledges the disastrous flaws in its perspective both on the long-term importance of building a broad left alternative and how to build and strengthen a revolutionary organisation within it, the rest of the left will be right in treading warily with them. We don’t need the SWP screwing things up a third time. As for Rees and German, high time they went out to work for a living in the real world.

    Comment by john rees is my hero — 10 September, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

26. Joe (20), it’s quite simple.

    Rees was intructed to resign by the SWP CC. Lindsey followed at the national Council in ’solidarity’. I’m informed the Chris Banbery also resigned. Some members of the CC of the SWP have effected a coup against the person - Rees - that they believe has put it into such a palous state - including debts of thousands of pounds (remember it was Rees who built up the huge debts for the SA at the SWP printshop which almost bankrupted them back in 2001).

    There are three ways the SWP can go now.

    1. A back-to-basics, recruit ones and twos, sell the paper, propaganda (as per the 1980s) routine that says the last 9 years were a mistake.
    2. A vicious faction fight with no holds barred - where strangely Rees and German may actually be on the more outward looking, constructive side of the argument.
    3. A serious re-assessment of how they got into this situation where the entire CC are held to account for their errors but overturens are made to the rest of the Left to repair past damage.

    Option 1 will sell more copies of Socialist Worker
    Option 2 will sell more copies of the Weekly Worker
    Option 3 would be the most productive but i suspect will be the least likely. But we can live in hope.

    Comment by End of an Era — 10 September, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

27. David:

    “One of the attractions of the Greens is that they seem to take inner party democracy seriously and their leaders seem to take accountability seriously. ”

    I am not sure that all is as it seems there.

    Secret meetings of the officers group on how to force through constitutional changes. Secret boot camps on leadership for Caroline Lucas’s supporters by corporate trainging companies, briefing them on how to deal with internal dissent, etc.

    There are questions to be asked.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:01 pm

28. #23 What alliance with Jamaat? Your ignorance, in this case, is not bliss, but stupid and dangerous.

    Comment by campaign against real ignorance — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:02 pm

29. Bambery is the perpetual survivor, despite the fact he was a disastrous national secretary for more years than anyone now cares to remember. He has got off lightly in this fight so far, being instructed to come off the Left Alternative steering committee at its conference, when it has already been determined Martin Smith and Charlie Kimber will replace him (and Rees and German), rather than resign immediately. The fact he accepted this, and did not resign in solidarity with Rees, is a clear indication that he has calculated the wind is now blowing hard against the two twits, even though he had backed them to the hilt on every issue through the split. Nauseating.

    Comment by bilko will survive — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:12 pm

30. # 28 - I mean the one referred to, among many other places, and put into political context very well by Delwar Hussein in an article for Open Democracy, which we reprinted (with permission) in Jewish Socialist magazine:
    http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-protest/bangladeshi_3715.jsp

    I suspect that mine and Delwar Hussein’s “ignorance” might not turn out to be as stupid and dangerous as this alliance was.

    Andy - I’m interested in knowing more about the stuff in your response. I had been feeling more inclined towards the Greens lately…

    Comment by David Rosenberg — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:13 pm

31. #15 That’s interesting. Is the SWP really in such a parlous state in Sheffield? I doubt it?
    #23 You have a fundamental problem with everything Respect did and you’re misinformed/ignorant.
    #25 SWP members I’ve spoken to are hoping for a quick coup, with no extended political ructions. Then there might be a more sophisticated leadership that can engage with others and plot out a better line. It’s a pretty cynical view, but it has some plausibility. It does place an awful lot of faith in the new leaders. I can’t see what they’ve done to warrant that.

    Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:17 pm

32. I’d not heard any of that stuff about the Green Party either!

    Well surprised to hear no one ever asked you Andy. I’ve started a blog recently, expect some emails sometime.

    Solidarity,
    F

    Comment by Futurecast — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:21 pm

33. David

    I don’t know all the details, and may have got this slightly wrong, but this is a good starting point:
    http://jamescaspell.blogspot.com/2008/08/this-is-what-democracy-looks-likeor-is.html

    There were a series of secret meetings at gaunts House where the leadership claque around caroline Lucas by-passed party democracy and caucused over how to get the constitution changed, what is damaging here is that the body holding these secret meetings was the constitutional body charged with running the Green party day tol day, the SOC.

    There are also issues that the SOC blurred the distinction between campigning for and raising funds for the Green party, and campaigning for and rasing funds for the caroline Lucas for leader campaign, which was one political current (their own!) wthin the Green party.

    These seem to have been secret meetings of the Green Party’s own officers group, the SOC, meeting behind the backs of the party, without a published agenda or minutes, that they colluded with a corporate training company, OMA, who offered secret support to the Green party leadership on condition that the leadership followed OMA’s recommendations on how to “reform” the Green Party.

    Seeing as OMA also have major corporations, parts of the state and arms companies as their clients, how green is that?

    What is most disturbing to me about this is that no-one in the Green party seems that bovvered.

    Especially as most Green parties internationally are becomming increasingly right wing, is that the path that the Grren od England are going down.

    Also see the red baiting hysteria against the left in the Green party on some blogs - scribo ergo sum and Liberal Conspiracy, for example.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:24 pm

34. Btw all this speculation that there is a coup or will be a split sounds pretty ridiculous to me as a member of the SWP.

    I think people should calm down and not get so excited (particularly posters on the AWL’s web site).

    Comment by Futurecast — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:25 pm

35. Post 25: “John Rees wrecked not one but two promising attempts to forge left unity in pursuit of electoral success, the Socialist Alliance and Respect”.

    Make that three. Sheridan could never have wrecked the SSP without the support of the SWP and they sided with him for exactly the same reason - pursuit of electoral success. Of course instead of benefiting from their opportunism they have instead suffered set back after set back. But also remember the damage that they have done to the possibility of the Left providing an effective alternative to neo-liberalism in the process.

    The SWP are the non plus ultra of sectarianism constantly putting their own interests before those of the working class. The worst of it is that they are big enough to wreck anything that they participate in but tragically also retain the loyalty of some members and fellow travellers who are genuine class fighters.

    Comment by Bill Scott — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:26 pm

36. Left Labour MPs are NOT about to jump ship and join the Campaign For a New Workers Party. End of. And that’s not what the Convention Of The left is about, either

    Comment by susan press — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:27 pm

37. “Left Labour MPs are NOT about to jump ship and join the Campaign For a New Workers Party. End of.”

    What do you mean ‘end of’. How is it _impossible_?

    Comment by Futurecast — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:32 pm

38. Futurecast - I think any reasonable reading of the documents above and what’s happened would show that Rees and German have been bumped, and the people doing the bumping are Kimber and Smith. I mean, there were three CC members in this area of work. There’s now one, Chris B, and he is to be replaced by Kimber and Smith in October. Pretty clear.

    The big issue for you as an SWP member is what orientation you as an organisation are going to have. It’s really unclear.

    I hope you and others argue against going back to a paper sale, union ginger group, branch meeting and ideology perspective. That would be a big defeat for the left as a whole.

    Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:41 pm

39. “Btw all this speculation that there is a coup or will be a split sounds pretty ridiculous to me as a member of the SWP.

    I think people should calm down and not get so excited (particularly posters on the AWL’s web site).”

    It is ridiculous but with nothing else to gossip about and, just in time for The Convention of the Left, the knives are out once more. So much for unity, eh?

    Comment by Ray — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:06 am

40. And what makes Bill Scott’s point @35 so powerful is that he was a member of the SWP for many years.
    Well said that man.

    Comment by Eddie Truman — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:09 am

41. Ray - why have Rees and German resigned from the Left Alternative? Do you think Rees decided of his own accord to give up the position of national secretary of the true descendant of Respect? Why do you think raising this is equivalent to the knives being out?

    No one is gossiping. LA members, who will shortly be asked for money, have a right to know that there’s been a big change in their leadership and they are about to be presented with Kimber and Rees as their guides.

    Or do you think the members should just pay the money and wait for edicts?

    Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:10 am

42. If this is a coup inside the CC then the real tradgedy of it all is the fact that the membership have no say, or no awareness of the splits within the leadership. The SWP needs a democratic culture before it is going to get a better leadership or a better orientation.

    I doubt Rees and German will hot back to be honest, it is the collective life of the CC that would be at stake if any section of the leadership openly began a factional struggle. It is the SWP rank and File that should be in revolt of the debacle of Respect and the shameless opportunism of their leadership.

    Comment by Chris S — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:17 am

43. ‘The knives are out once more’ for Rees and German by the SWP CC - where do you stand on this Ray? Is it a left/right split? Are you a knife wielder or are you going to start a petition against a witchhunt? Some accounting would be useful or will you follow the SWP party line whoever is in charge?

    Comment by George T — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:21 am

44. #42 I think the SWP membership might end up with more of a say over this than they have over the last few years of debacles.
    #43 I’ve been forwarded a petition coming from an address entitled Defend the Left Alternative. I says Stop the witch hunt against John and Lindsey. I’ve signed. Only 1200 to go and it will be more authoritative than the witch hunt petition last year. Perhaps now’s the time for SWP members to say something in their own organisation. I understand that they might not want to here. It can sometimes be a bit hostile. But seriously, they should say something right now inside their own organisation. They didn’t in suffucient number last year and it’s led to a year of disasters. They need to do so now. If not, we all know where this is going.

    Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:37 am

45. *44 Why do you think the SWP will get more of a say? As opposed to any other time?

    Comment by Chris S — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:51 am

46. “I hope you and others argue against going back to a paper sale, union ginger group, branch meeting and ideology perspective. That would be a big defeat for the left as a whole.”

    The SWP didn’t ever cease this perspective, (I think that to do so would pretty much mean wrapping up any struggle for the revolutionary party). It continued to do so while in Respect and will most likely continue whether there is a future electoral alliance or not.

    There is a massive degree of uncertainty about where to go next, but this is something that is symptomatic of the entire global/nation political landscape, it’s something that is true of all of the left. We’re in a time of huge potential but with many commplex decisions to be made.

    Comment by Futurecast — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:59 am

47. #30. If you read between the lines of this article you will notice that the author continously attacks the LMC/ELM. Has author’s like that ever tried to see the positive work that is happening in those places? I doubt author’s like that will ever mention those because their intent in writing only for one purpose - to create mistrust and hatred towards the practising Muslim commmunity based on malicious tales about the Bangladesh independance war. I am sure there has been war crimes, but at the same time there has been groups of secular fundamentalists that have taken it to malicious level to spread rumours in order to fight their perceived enemies!

    Comment by RespectMemberTowerHamlets — 11 September, 2008 @ 1:17 am

48. #26
    “Option 2 will sell more copies of the Weekly Worker”

    LOL

    Comment by Darren — 11 September, 2008 @ 2:28 am

49. The SWP has always faced two alternatives in this period:

    1)Use its resources to build a broad left party to fill the vacuum left by Labours abandonment of social democracy. This formation should have a minimum programme to address the current crisis. It should be both electoral and activist.

    However, to do this the SWP must risk ‘liquidationism’. i.e making a bigger sacrifice by putting more energy and resources into the broader formation than itself, and merely being the revolutionary left wing pole within it. It would have to abandon the modus operandi of being the autonomous paper selling and recruitment unit that it has been since the late 70’s ‘downturn’ perspective, or even since the centralist turn of ‘68. The risks would be no SWP, maybe no revolutionary current, just a rehabilitated social democratic appendage. The potential (and distant) prize would be to be a revolutionary current rooted in a mass left wing formation, connected to tens of thousands of working class activists.

    A good start was made with the socialist alliance, regrouping existing socialists. Respect with Galloway and other electable forces also made a good beginning. Howver, both were sacrificed.

    The reasons for its abandonment of the SA / Respect / LA strategy is that the SWP can not risk the liquidationist consequences of this strategy. This is both through its innate conservatism, acquired over more than 40 years of existence, and / or some shrewd sect building good sense.

    Option B) Continue with the 40 year old sect building strategy of paper sales and recruitment of ones and twos.

    It has of course opted for option two - as we knew it was doing already. Behind all the name calling and bluster from last year during the Respect split, we all knew the SWP was opting for survival in its old form.

    I dont necessarily blame it.

    But it would be nice to have seen revolutionary honesty and clarity in these strategic decisions, rather than all this damaging bluster about Galloway and other former Respect allies suddenly moving to the right or becoming ‘communalist’ etc, that alienated thousands of supporters around the left.

    Rather than being directed by a clear revolutionary leadership, the SWP seems to thrash around in confusion, anxiety and bluster. Pity, coz we all need better.

    Barry Kade

    Comment by Barry Kade — 11 September, 2008 @ 2:45 am

50. #2 “The reference to councillors in the North West is to the Barrow Socialist People’s Party, a group of former Labour people, small town reformists.”

    “They have been saying glowing things about them for some weeks now.”

    It’s a pity they have not noticed them before. The Socialist People’s Party have existed in Barrow-in-Furness (popn 59,182) since 1995 when four Labour councillors set up the party and they got 4% in the Barrow parliamentary constituency as long ago as 1997. I cannot find a single reference to them or their success in Socialist Worker before this May’s elections. Their election material is pure populism: “by the people, for the people”. They even frequently drop the “Socialist” from their name and call themselves just the People’s Party.

    Talk about clutching at straws.

    Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 11 September, 2008 @ 5:36 am

51. It will be more than interesting to see if Messrs, Rees and German have any role in the SWP cc come October. If only they had gone through the divorce proceedings , last autumn.

    Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 11 September, 2008 @ 7:04 am

52. And what makes Bill Scott’s point @35 so powerful is that he was a member of the SWP for many years.

    For over twenty years now I have heard exactly the same criticisms of the SWP from ex-members. The only thing that changes is when those ex-members locate the “degeneration” of the SWP - invairiably it’s not long before they themselves left or were expelled.

    Now of course that doesn’t mean that they are all necessarily wrong. But they can’t all be right, by definition. If an ex-member has something new to say, s/he could be worth listening to on the subject. Otherwise, I’ve heard it all before, comrade, and from people I know and respect much more than I do you. So save your breath.

    Comment by KrisS — 11 September, 2008 @ 7:24 am

53. Anyway, are we all agreed that this doesn’t represent a change in anything very much, except people?

    Comment by KrisS — 11 September, 2008 @ 7:28 am

54. Surely it is now impossible for Rees and German to stay on the SWP CC. They hate everyone else on it (bar possibly the cipher Chris Nineham) and everyone else, more or less, hates them. This is a recipe for paralysis. Either they should do the principled thing and resign or they will have to be bumped.

    Comment by you can't half make a revolution — 11 September, 2008 @ 8:32 am

55. Comment 52. “Otherwise, I’ve heard it all before, comrade, and from people I know and respect much more than I do you. So save your breath” - KrisS.

    As I don’t know you either Kris, or may have forgotten you (late middle age does that), then you’re fully entitled to respect other people more. However if you think that this is just another embittered ex-member lashing out then you’d be wrong.

    I didn’t leave the SWP because I had big disagreements with the party or because I was kicked out. I drifted away in the early to mid-90s because I had a family and commitments and couldn’t make that and party activity balance out. I wasn’t in any group/party for about 6 or 7 years but throughout most of that time my political sympathies on most issues were probably still closest to the SWP’s (they still are on some!). So my views on the party aren’t those of some recently spurned hack but have taken years to form. They were crystalised by my experience of having to work with the SWP for 4 years in the SSP when they behaved abominably.

    I was one of the folk that argued very strongly that the SWP should be allowed to join and operate as a platform within the SSP. What a horrendous mistake that turned out to be. From the moment they joined it became clear that despite clear undertakings that they would no longer operate as a party in Scotland they were intent on doing so. They constantly argued that if the SSP did not join and support their own front organisations then it was we who were the sectarians. In that time they destroyed my local branch driving away many ordinary working class folk and unaligned left activists who had joined the SSP to build it and not the SWP.

    So do I want your respect? You can keep it. I’m more than ready to own up to any number of faults and truly unforgiveable behaviour on my own part during the split 2 years ago (but then I was being treated for clinical depression at the time. What was the SWP members’ excuse?). It’s just a pity that I meet so few SWP members who will admit that their own party has got a single thing wrong ever.

    Maybe all those ex-members aren’t always right but they’re also not all wrong. There’s something fundamentally rotten about an organisation that takes the brightest and best class fighters, chews them up and spits them out leaving itself and the working class weaker.

    I don’t hope that the organisation does a “turn” outward. I hope this is Armageddon and it consumes itself. Unfortunately I think that’s wishful thinking. But anyone thinking of hugging this lot close should remember Cleopatra and that the SWP poison is much deadlier to Left unity than any asp’s.

    Comment by Bill Scott — 11 September, 2008 @ 8:54 am

56. KrisS - “they can’t all be right, by definition” is a really appalling way of dismissing this phenomenon.

    Any Marxist would take the phenomenon you observe (of people locating the “degeneration” of the party to the time just before they left) and realise that this meant a change of consciousness was happening.

    A Marxist would then go on to say “these people cannot just be feeling this as individuals - the phenomenon is so consistent and the accusations are so similar, there must be something connecting them. Let’s look at the material factors that led to all these different people seeming to suddenly realise that the party had degenerated”.

    Marxists would then look for the similarities in their arguments. And a Marxist would find that the accusations are identical, and upon investigation would note that the reason people tend to locate the demise to “just before they left” is because people inside such organisations are complicit in the “crimes” they now realise the party was committing. This would either lead a Marxist to conclude that these people had been brainwashed by a cult, or that they had been so deeply a part of the culture they now reject, they couldnt see it. The “cult” answer is so ridiculous, it would be rejected out of hand. The only other explanation is an organisational and cultural one - a marxist doesn’t blame the person, it looks at the material conditions. And that applies to membership of the revolutionary party, just as it applies to kids playing loud music on a bus: We look at why people do what they do, what led them there, what it means and how to change it. The SWP leadership is not clean of muck, and it’s been ages since they even acknowledged it.

    But also, a Marxist would listen closely and would hear - as anyone reading this site for the last year has seen - that those people who left also say they now realise that it was always like this, and they mostly ignored it because they believed there was nothing better.

    The SWP is not the problem and has never been. Its critics here, including me, think it would be bad for the left if it fell apart.

    The problem is the culture pushed out by the leadership, as exemplified by Ray, who will never debate the issue and, even when he reads that the SWP wants to “intervene” in the CNWP, accuses other people of having the knives out when they argue about it.

    You cannot really believe that everyone at recent Party Councils has genuinely supported the leadership, can you? (there have been almost no votes against the leadership) Do you really think it’s a sign of a remarkable political cohesion that there was barely any dissent at the last Party conference - or is it a sign of a membership that has not had to fight its own leadership and an organisation that has no culture of serious debate?

    The first role of the revolutionary isn’t to fight against the bosses - it’s to develop an ability to fight against the revolutionary leadership. Otherwise there’s nothing Marxist about the organisation - as we’ve seen in the SWP over the last year, things happen by fiat not by democratic debate, and people (including me) are smeared and talked of as trying to wreck the organisation. If you can’t stand up and fight loud against the leadership (internally, in private, for Party Discipline fans out there), you have no hope of leading the class - cos you’ll end up dictating to the class, as Rees and the SWP CC (all of them, every one) has dictated to the SWP membership. Once you’ve developed the ability to debate at the highest levels of your organisation, then you’re fit to lead the class and fight the war.

    For me and everyone I know who’s left the SWP, it’s not that we suddenly realised things were bad. It’s that we always felt they were bad, but there was nothing better, and the good people outweighed the bad culture. We didn’t fight our leadership when we should, and we didn’t try to influence them as we should. To me, conferences were good opportunities to disseminate good practice and listen to other people’s inspirational examples - but we all knew that debate was within strict confines and dissenters wouldn’t really dare speak.

    The issue isn’t really whether you respect the people making these accusations. It’s that they’re made so consistently, the opposite conclusion to yours is true, but modified: There is something very wrong with the culture of the SWP, but the state of the class is so bad that SWP members put up with it or don’t see it. Or, the state of the left is so good that SWP members can ignore it. Either way, the consistency of the accusations can’t be blamed on the people making them.

    Like the issue of fake student delegations to last year’s Respect conference, it’s an issue that can be ignored when everyone’s on the same side, but when things hit a bad patch, you suddenly realise just how rotten things are (that, for example, fake student delegations are a mechanism for ensuring the SWP wins its votes, and we didn’t care before cos we all agreed with the SWP).

    It’s the same thing in the RMT. When we all agree, we don’t notice the political flaws. But now the union has had such huge internal problems in the last few years, you see the fault line that was always there and you see that people who you thought you could trust will actually stab everyone in the back if it means they get their way. You didn’t see it before cos it never came up as an issue.

    It’s a shame that you just dismiss it as “well, they all say it so they can’t be right”, rather than using your input to try to shape things. You’ve had a year where the SWP has absolutely loved you and courted you. I hope you used it as any socialist would use any influence they had - to argue for real activism and real debate and a real move to the left (which, for me, means the broad party model and being willing to give up some control), instead of ultra-left posturing and opportunism.

    “Anyway, are we all agreed that this doesn’t represent a change in anything very much, except people?”

    Sadly, agreed. I don’t know what it means for all the investment you’ve put into the organisation, but unless you’re happy to have no real say (it’s your vote, not your voice, that matters - if your “say” is against the previously agreed line, it won’t matter - you must know this, surely? perhaps you’ve always agreed with the line and so have never felt it) and for all votes to be decided in secret in advance, you’ve got no real role.

    In addition, the fact that the SWP is both a) admitting that it completely controls the fate of the Left Alternative, which it did with Respect (and - surely you can admit this now - went nuclear at the thought of losing that control) and b) sneering at other “groups” and talking of, essentially, wrecking the CNWP if it looks like achieving anything, proves that you’re more right than your post let on: It’s a change of nothing except people.

    “Option 1 will sell more copies of Socialist Worker
    Option 2 will sell more copies of the Weekly Worker”

    That actually made me do a little LOL.

    Comment by tonyc — 11 September, 2008 @ 8:57 am

57. Martin Smith would appear to have staged a leadership coup. It is clear that he is backed by fellow SWP staff member Charlie Kimber and that the theoreticians of the group, Harman and Callinicos, also back him. Assuming then that he is backed by Bam-Bambery this represents a major change in direction for the SWP. Given that this coup has been carried out behind the backs of the ‘party’ membership it is not positive as there can be no possibility for the rank and file of the group to carry out a thorough balance sheet of the last few years of succesive disaterous turns towards electoralism and pop[ulism. It is good however to see the demotion of the two headed beast that has seemed intent on destroying the SWP and has lost the working class scores of organised socialists to anti-working class political outfits such as Respect the populist coalition while more have droped out of politics completely.

    Comment by Mike — 11 September, 2008 @ 9:48 am

58. Neil Williams - it’s a shame you were so nasty and full of vitriol during the split. How quickly you try to ‘put the past behind you’ when it is clear that Galloway did not have many friends other than the SWP after all. Remember how you were going to swoop in and claim the rest of the left for your own once the pesky SWP were out the picture? I certainly wouldn’t be in a political party with George or you ever again - and I was one of GG’s biggest supporters. And his recent actions sucking up to the most hardline, nasty Labour politicians was quite vomit-inducing. Who’d want to be in a party with someone of so few principles?

    Comment by MA — 11 September, 2008 @ 9:56 am

59. Oh god, Tonyc still whingeing away on here - some things never change.

    Comment by MA — 11 September, 2008 @ 9:59 am

60. On the real nature of the Green Party those interested couldn’t do better than talk to some lefty Norwich folk, notably the anarchists, about their councillors (the largest municipal group in Britain). An excellent Norfolk anar magazine, Now or Never, used to publish an insightful (well, witty) regular column, ‘The Secret Diary of Adrian Ramsay’.

    I can’t see this piece on their site, but someone may find it:

    http://nowornever.books.officelive.com/default.aspx

    Comment by Andrew Coates — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:06 am

61. So you were a big supporter of the pesky George Galloway were you MA? Are you still obsessing about the pesky Respect Renewalists?

    How about you put that to one side and instead consider how the left might advance from its current parlous state. Futurecast has a sensible approach. I hope it’s shared by a lot of SWP members - and those close to them.

    Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:08 am

62. 57 maybe they’ll let you back in now, Mike.

    Comment by RobM — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:16 am

63. Never mind comrades, there’s still the ‘People Before Profit’ to occupy ourselves with! Time to build for the next demo and remember to sell the paper!

    On a more serious note, I realise the CNWP hasn’t been a massive success but:

    (we may have to intervene in this conference)

    No, please, please don’t. Please just try not to do any harm.

    Comment by Duncan Money — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:38 am

64. “Oh god, Tonyc still whingeing away on here - some things never change.”

    And you, still putting zero political arguments and sneering at others. From you, and the people like you who can’t bear to discuss things but just throw mud, some things never change.

    Comment by tonyc — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:45 am

65. Tonyc your comments are always welcome. see you soon.

    Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:49 am

66. re no. 64 - but comrades like MA can not discuss politics - for where is the political rationale advanced by the CC for getting Rees etc of the LA exec? There is none. So all that is left for the comrades to do is sneer and sling mud to cover their embarrassment.

    Comment by Barry Kade — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:52 am

67. MA coment 58: “it’s a shame you were so nasty and full of vitriol during the split”

    How wrong can you be. I have consitently argued for talks between Respect and Left Alternative (and whatever previous names they have used)hoping at the beginning that differences could be sorted out and later that at least oustanding issues such as membership, bank account, name etc could be agreed in a comradley way. No such luck however as the leadership of what is now the Left Alternative ignored all such attempts to reach an agreement.

    However its the future that matters and i would like there to be a least a dialogue between Respect/Left Alternative/ CBP (Morning Star). The past is the past and we need to move on. I still have respect for many good comrades in the SWP and I hope many have respect for many of us in Respect. The fact that i think the SWP was wrong about Respect is not the same as “nasty” and full of vitriol”. I have never been nasty to the Left Alternative (or SWP) who have members who I still regard as friends. The exact opposite is true - the spilt in Respect has done sever damage to both sides (but Respect is very much alive and kicking despite what you may read from a few people on this site). But weakened we all are and maybe now is the time to put the past behind us and to talk?

    The decision for John Rees to step down from the ledership of the Left Alternative may open the door to dialogue. So lets push open the door and see shall we? Now I wonder what SWP and Left Alternative members who read this site think?

    Comment by Neil Williams — 11 September, 2008 @ 11:10 am

68. Neil
    to be honest, you have contributed a far amount of vitriol against the SWP over the last years. But hey lets put that in the past.
    I am afraid for all the crowing on this site by RR it is cleat RR is on the road to nowhere.Galloway himself backed New labour in Scotland and no one objected as he has total control. Now this was said about Rees, the interesting thing is, he was and is not above the party and has been held to account.
    Now Galloway appears to able to hand pick candidates, write sexist froth and back new labour,, where is his accountability. It appears there is none. W
    Neil, we will as a left need to work together on all sorts of issues and that should be the first step.

    Comment by ll — 11 September, 2008 @ 11:38 am

69. No, ll, the interesting thing is that up until the point that Rees was ‘brought to account’ by your masters on the CC you weren’t even prepared to voice an opinion that he was in any way at fault and needed to be ‘brought to account’. And, if tomorrow, Messrs Kimber, Smith and Harman issue a correction saying that there was never any criticism of Rees, implied or therwise, he is entirely blameless and it was his idea to step down from LA to spend more time with his family, you will jump into line and deny he was ever held to account because there was never anything to account for.

    Comment by RobM — 11 September, 2008 @ 11:47 am

70. Tonyc #56 sums up extremely well how I as a former supporter now feel about my experiences in the SWP, and I’m sure hits the nail on the head for many ex-members.

    It’s so frustrating that SWP members such as Ray will never discuss the actual issues involved, but can only sneer and ‘freeze out’ critics, treating as enemies even those who still agree with the SWP’s world view but dislike their practice.

    It closes the door on so many ex-members coming back into the SWP’s orbit, and the refusal to tell the truth means that I for one dread their involvement in future ‘unity’ projects as Neil Williams proposes, which is something I do feel genuinely sorry about.

    Comment by steph — 11 September, 2008 @ 11:53 am

71. C’mon ll, whatever you think of GG, you cannot deny his anti-war and anti-racist credentials are impeccable. Plus he is one of the most trenchant critics of neo-liberalism around (just read his recent article in the Star below). I think bitterness from the split is clouding your judgment. Time to move on and resist knee-jerk ultra-leftism.

    The real deficit
    (Friday 05 September 2008)

    Amid debt and decline, left-wing policies offer the answer, writes GEORGE GALLOWAY.
    HE didn’t just say it a few dozen times. It was thousands. “No return to boom and bust.”
    Now, you didn’t have to be a catastrophist or a Marxist to spot the hubris in Gordon Brown’s mantra. The most cursory glance at history shows that there can be no such thing as capitalism without boom or bust.
    Indeed, some of capitalism’s most sophisticated ideological defenders have embraced the cycle of growth followed by recession as a self-balancing system of “creative destruction” in which unemployment, business failure and human misery, to a greater or lesser extent, are all necessary for the economy to emerge phoenix-like into a new phase of expansion.
    That no-one around Brown managed to get him to drop this absurd bombast says a lot about how dysfunctional his court has become.
So, too, did the appalling timing of his much-heralded emergency housing package this week. Did no-one in government alert Downing Street to the imminent report from the OECD rich nations club on the same day predicting recession in Britain?
    Any recession will be bad enough, let alone the incredible apparent assessment by the man in charge of the British economy, Chancellor Alistair Darling, that we face the greatest economic difficulty for 60 years.
    I’m no economics expert, but, from my vantage point on the fringe of the City of London, there are grounds to fear if not the worst then certainly the worse.
    Tower Hamlets starkly shows the vulnerabilities of the British economy that have been exacerbated over more than two decades, making it prone to a particularly sharp slowdown.
    We can see the gleaming spires of the casino economy, where brokers are paid millions in bonuses just for playing with figures on a computer screen. Meanwhile, we have 23,000 people on the housing waiting list and a council eager to divest itself of any responsibility to house its residents and to ship tenants off to one private outfit or another instead.
    Every week, constituents pour into my surgery groaning under a weight of debt. The national average is £23,000 per household, excluding mortgages.
    Individuals in Britain now owe more in loans and on credit cards than we produce each year as a nation.
    This is the legacy of the Blair-Brown years and the Thatcher and Major years before them.
    As against all that, the measures announced by Brown this week are insulting in their miserliness. In my constituency, there are precious few homes that change hands for under £175,000, the threshold of the 12-month exemption on stamp duty.
    The other steps will also pass most of my constituents by. Typically, they are also Byzantine in their complexity. You could understand the logic of this when Brown was quietly shaving a shilling here and there or hiding such iniquities as the abolition of the 10p tax rate over all these years.
    But surely, if only from the standpoint of his own survival, what’s needed is not riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma of tax credits, it’s clear and sweeping programme of measures.
    An emergency programme of mass council house-building would tackle homelessness and overcrowding now and help to gently deflate the housing market rather than let it crash and burn.
    Restoring profit and wealth taxes to what they were under Nigel Lawson over 20 years ago can provide the wherewithal for the public spending that we will need if slowdown is not to become slump.
    And, if corporations say that they cannot operate under conditions which ensure the public interest, from keeping old people warm in winter to saving the environment, then why should they not be told that they have forfeited the right to do business and their operations taken over.
    The nationalisation of Northern Rock, for example, has given the state an instrument with which to cap and lift the debt burden on working people, which, for many, has become as unpayable as that owed by the poorest nations.
    That raises the question of the public, through the state, bailing out individuals. How’s that to be done equitably? It cannot be through market mechanisms, but only through public policy formed democratically and in the interests of the many and not the few.
    This all requires a sharp break with the economic and political orthodoxy of the last generation.
    It’s a point that various people on the left are making. I and others writing in the Morning Star have raised it over the last year. John McDonnell has launched a 10-point policy programme and there’s a very similar set of demands going under the name People Before Profit.
    All these initiatives deserve support and most people on the left will agree with all of them.
    They beg the question, of course, of how we are to get anywhere near to them being implemented. That comes down to politics.
    Whether it is foreign policy (Georgia) or domestic (a windfall tax on the energy companies) the deeper this government’s crisis, the more it lurches to the right, despite the valiant efforts of fine socialists such as McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn.
    The construction of a serious political force based on real Labour values to the left of new Labour has taken more than its fair share of knocks over the last two years.
    But its necessity has grown. Respect, particularly in our heartlands of south Birmingham and east London, is continuing to develop that process, but we are well aware that we are not the finished product.
    The bitter economic forecast and the chilling social consequence predicted in last week’s leaked Home Office study should concentrate the minds of all on the left.
    The millions abandoned by new Labour and the 200,000 who have left the party over the last decade are not interested in the finer lines of division on among the left, the narcissism of small difference that has so often been the bane of the progressive movement.
    They might be interested if the left fired all its guns at the right and was relevant and effective.

    George Galloway is Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. He writes a monthly column for the Morning Star.

    Comment by Ger Francis — 11 September, 2008 @ 11:54 am

72. Is that ll admitting the rees was ‘out of control’? - some honstly even if dressed up as another petty AWL-style attack on Galloway.

    Comment by end of an Era — 11 September, 2008 @ 11:59 am

73. I’d just like to welcome Neil William’s constructive contribution.

    Comment by johng — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:02 pm

74. johng and neil williamson. What a coming of minds

    Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

75. It’s clear that we all need to work better with each other on the left. This doesn’t just apply to the SWP - how many groups are there who count as one of their main spheres of activity turning up at SWP or STW events with anti-SWP or anti-STW propaganda? - but yeah certainly it includes us.

    But there’s no point looking to the CC of any party for that kind of “turn”, is there? I guess it’s best for rank and file of all parties to try and cooperate with each other (course there a lot of the non-SWP “left”ies around here that I find near-impossible to be in the same room as, let alone contemplate working with, whom I would never want to get behind me unless my back was covered in some kind of unstabbable armour, but then we’re all gonna have to make some sacrifices aren’t we), maybe if people start thinking of their organisations as factions within a left movement rather than as the only true Bolshevik party in a sea of SDs, Stalinists, Mensheviks and SRs.

    As I guess I showed in my parentheses, there’s a lot of bile and bitterness to work out, a cycle of mistrust and resentment to break. But this isn’t just the culture of the SWP is it, it’s the culture of the left. And it’s not gonna be easy for any group to lower their defences without fear of an opportunistic attack from their supposed comrades. We need ideas on how to overcome this lack of trust, apart from anything else. Maybe on Christmas day we should all come out for a big football match, and try to hold back on the shin-kicking. Some of the comments appearing on this thread do give me some hope, it’s true.

    In the meantime let’s not get so distracted by negotiating the peace treaty in the far left ghetto that we neglect the world outside. I don’t understand the comments derisive of selling papers and building for demos/meetings. Isn’t that a pretty crucial part of building revolutionary consciousness?

    Comment by Dave — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

76. #68 Nice to see ll is not even a little chastened by having to turn on his head. What I am extremely curious to know is what Rees has actually been held to account for.

    Could it be for completely misleading the Central Committee about the political dynamics in Tower Hamlets (with a little help from Chris Nineham and most fo the small number of SWP members left in the borough)? Could it be for cynically fabricating a fantasy witch hunt allegedely orchestrated by George Galloway (with a little help from shaun Doherty and the Cenral Committee)? Could it be for mismanaging the most successful left electoral formation for 60 years (not quoting the clearly bonkers Alastair Darling) and bringing it to the point of destruction? Could it be for conducting his own witch hunt against comrades who warned that this would be the outcome of the mad trajectory the SWP took last September? Could it be for failing to read the Electoral Commission guidelines on party registration? Could it be for promoting a go it alone electoral strategy with the Left List which was bound to end in very expensive humiliation? Could it be for bringing the SWP to its worst crisis in its history (quoting Lindsey German)? Or could it be for being an egomaniac who has been out of control for as long as anyone can remember?

    His unlamented demise comes just one year after Lindsey German described him as the leader of the SWP. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving pair of twits.

    Comment by schadenfreude — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:23 pm

77. Well I could no longer sit and pretend to support George after the last year - there are too many issues that he is far to the right of many of us on and so anything involving him would end in tears inevitably. His continuous ‘faux pas’ are also way too tiring to defend. Especially when there is not much desire to defend him anymore. His support of a hardline New Labourite in Scotland was probably the last straw. But George is but one person so I don’t think his absence would cause any great hoo-ha amongst the vast majority of the left.

    Comment by MA — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:26 pm

78. “I’d just like to welcome Neil William’s constructive contribution.”

    Which bit in particular? It’s just that a few months ago Neil was trying very hard to isolate the SWP (he denies this but really, it would just take a quick google search if anyone can be bothered) and now he realises that no other part of the left was prepared to touch ‘Renewal’ with a bargepole, him and George are desperate to get their old lackeys back. No doubt for purposes of re-electing George.

    Comment by MA — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

79. All

    It would be a good idea to let MA stew and steam.

    Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:42 pm

80. #78 What planet are you on? It’s the SWP that few want to touch with a bargepole at the moment, except where they feel obliged to. Respect, on the other hand, has very good relations with most of the rest of the left and almost all of the significant left.

    Comment by ground control to major MA — 11 September, 2008 @ 12:53 pm

81. Right well this is all well and good but I’m still not sure exactly what is going on?

    Martin Smith and others on SWP have pushed Lindsey German and John Ress out of the leadership of what remains of the left-list. So much seems clear.

    What their motivation is though remains merky?

    1. Is it becase Lindsey and John disagree with the scaling LA back stratergy?
    2. Is it becasue they just think that Lindsey and John are not very good on a pratical level?
    3. Is it beacause (on some level) they argree with the critisms of Ress that where made during the split?
    4. Is it because they have some major theoretical disagreement with them?
    5. Or none of the above?

    Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 11 September, 2008 @ 1:43 pm

82. Joseph, I think it’s:

    6. All of the above?

    Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 11 September, 2008 @ 2:23 pm

83. In response to Ger
    Its not about denying that Galloway is an anti war MP who has done a great amount for the anti war movement and gives an excellent voice for anti imperialism. These are Galloways strong points,its when its nearer home that the problem arises. Galloways backing for new labour in scotland for a lot of people was a shock. But its not just that, its the sexism which is a regular feature and the anti abortion stuff. Now these are no surprises but its the feebleness with which the left who alligned with him repsond. The sexism is simply seen as ok al la Militant in the 1980’s, some spurious sign that he is from the working class etc. More problematic is his connections with buinsessmen and his pandering to those elements. The situation in Tower Hamlets was we all know full of rotton politics with fake membership and backdoor deals to get to become a candidate. Ger I do think and this is not a slur but a proble with a socialist MP earning £300,000, don’t you think it is a problem?

    Comment by ll — 11 September, 2008 @ 2:41 pm

84. Remarkable! The biggest crisis in the SWP’s history and their supporters want to bang on about …. Galloway’s faults! What planet is this on?

    Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 11 September, 2008 @ 2:43 pm

85. What about:

    The long standing tradition of closing ranks at the time of the firefight then settling scores a year later.

    My understanding is that Rees and German made a series of decisions on electoral strategy in 2007 that were clearly serious mistakes that have snowballed in the year since to engulf every other facet of the party’s work. Rather than openly recognize this, they have persisted with the Lost Left enterprise which moved the party back into the far left ghetto and has died. Worse still, the roll of the dice was that Respect would collapse (indeed it had to do so for the SWP, hence the venom). That it hasn’t and is active in areas where the SWP have traditionally been the biggest force but has itself collapsed adds to the snowball effect.

    The membership is demoralized and bitter about the turn from reality, has left or become inactive so the party finds itself absent in many parts of the UK now for the first time in 30 years. The problem that those involved in the palace coup face is how they turn this situation around without wrecking an organization held together by an increasingly sectarian ‘cadre’ that Rees pandered to by launching the LL and the ‘witch hunt’ cry.

    The tea cup is indeed stormy though there are many good people that need to consider that life does exist outside and will find support and organization available.

    Comment by Chris C — 11 September, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

86. Keep on sharpening those anti-SWP knives in time for the Convention of the Left. Unity is assured.

    Comment by Ray — 11 September, 2008 @ 2:51 pm

87. Prinkipo Exile - I don’t know how representative LL is of SWP members. I’m intrigued by Chris C’s observation about the virtual collapse of the SWP in significant areas. How dramatic is this and is it any worse than the decline of the left as a whole over the last 30 years?

    I agree that pulling off this coup without it leading to a can of worms being opened throughtout the SWP is a very tricky thing to pull off. I guess it’s made a bit easier by the fact that Rees and German are, I’m told, rather despised in the SWP and lack an organised network to hit back.

    The full timers all report to the centre under the control of Smith. Despite his complicity in the disasters of the last year and more I imagine a lot of SWP members will be prepared to put that to one side.

    The big question is what political lessons will be drawn from the fiasco.

    Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 11 September, 2008 @ 2:58 pm

88. No need for stewing/steaming. Just clarifying that I’d never again wish to work with Mr G. And nor would many others. It’s a relief - not a problem.

    Comment by MA — 11 September, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

89. “The sexism is simply seen as ok al la Militant in the 1980’s”

    Excuse me!? Do you have any actual evidence of this i.e. something that was printed by the Militant, said from a public platform etc. Or is this just “Jonny Sectarian so-an-so once heard a Militant member on a demo call Maggie Thatcher a bitch”? Or Militant didn’t want to waste their time coming to tiny little sectlet’s meeting in Croydon in 1984 to discuss the role of the dominant male discourse in the hierarchical, patriarchal labour movement or something equally facinating?

    Comment by Neil — 11 September, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

90. ll: I think Prinkipo has a point. This feels like smoke blowing on your part. The SWP never raised workers wage stuff before. It feels disingenuous doing so now. Ditto GG’s position on Scottish independence and abortion are long standing and predate the split. And I think Ray should chill about the Convention of the Left. The last thing we in Respect are interested in doing at that event is engaging in attacks on the SWP.

    Comment by Ger Francis — 11 September, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

91. New Campaign

    STOP THE WITCH HUNT IN THE SWP

    SIGN HERE

    Comment by Ron — 11 September, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

92. The substantial point still remains; there is room for a genuine alternative to Labour, both as a campaigning party and an electoral group. Now this could take the guise of a coalition under the umbrella term “Left Alternative”, where candidates stand under than name or use that name + an agreed (and these days, registered) desicription. It could merely mean candidates standing as “independent” with the preferred party name on literature (as candidates immediately post-split had to do).

    But standing for election cannot be the sole purpose of any alternative to Labour. As both SWP/LL and Respect found, candidates do not mop up votes if they stand. Any person ”of the left” who wishes to stand (be they from the SPGB, SLP, SSP or whomever) must surely be ready to justify their candidature. If they can prove a backstory, prove they have worked on, in, or for a community, then the next electoral test would be far more successful than what would happen were they to just appear on a ballot paper.

    The scary truth is, of course, that an alternative to Labour has been found across the country. They’re called the BNP. I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it, but it’s happening. The left has to sort its house out, because at the moment, only the right are clearing up the votes.

    Comment by Passing Leftie — 11 September, 2008 @ 4:58 pm

93. MA - You know, this stuff about not wanting to work with GG ever again? It’s bollocks. Sorry, but it is. I’m not saying there’s likely to be a new left-wing electoral coalition any time soon, but he’ll be on the same platform as Lindsey German at the Convention of the Left, and he’ll be at the Stop the War meetings. I don’t find any of what took place last year a ‘relief’ incidentally. It was a horrible mess, and while I make no concessions to the boneheads here who think they’ve had some sort of ‘victory’ which they must ram home by further bashing the SWP (because it’s 90% of their politics), I do think it’s rather important not to evince any sense of triumph about what happened.

    Personally, I note the more constructive gestures here with some satisfaction. Not that I’d want to work with any of the fucking nutters who got pwned by that piece of shit Harry’s Place (’freedom of speech, freedom of speech, squaaaawwk’), but I appreciate the gesture. I kid, of course. A bit.

    Comment by lenin — 11 September, 2008 @ 6:22 pm

94. Incidentally, I’ve just made a complaint to SUN’s service provider. I’ve accused Andy Newman of being responsible for the mysterious disappearance of tonyc. You’re all fucking for it now.

    Comment by lenin — 11 September, 2008 @ 6:24 pm

95. Good to see SU blog coming to life again with the old favourite from last year “SWP cc versus the Rest”.
    Really makes you feel that warm glow , here we go again tearing ourselves apart, how nice to have confirmation that there can never be ‘Left Unity’ only sectarian positioning.

    Or can there be life after death, do we have to tear ourselves apart once more ?
    The W/C or some of them are beggining to stir again, in response to the economic crisis of cap that never really went away but was deffered by unlimited credit and has now burst. Do we join that struggle ‘comrades’ and try to unite in action, or do we carry on as before ? The frolics of the SWP seem to have come to the end of a disasterous chapter, maybe some of the very good comrades who remain can now put aside their reluctance to join up with others on the ‘left’ in action. I’m in Respect but have doubts about how to move forward, and have (I hope no) illusions in GG or anyone else; what matters is more important than Respect, the SWP or anyone else. IE: The building of a mass movement to the left of the LP that can take the interest of the W/C forward by supporting the struggle.

    Comment by Halshall — 11 September, 2008 @ 6:25 pm

96. ‘Lenin’ seems a wee bit “exercised” lately.
    Not so long ago he told me to ‘fuck off’ from his blog, because I dared argue that New Labour (not just Brown) were “doomed” and the windfall tax was a pretty tame, minimalist sort of demand; “tax regime change” would be better.

    Now he’s flinging expletives left right and centre like a chimpanzee whose tea’s not arrived.

    Mind you I tend to think both wings of ‘Respect’, including Mystic George’s are rather optimistic about what can be built to the left of Labour within 2 years!

    Comment by prianikoff — 11 September, 2008 @ 6:41 pm

97. Andy, re 27 and 33

    Refering to the Green Party, I’d agree with you on the blogs you mentioned as being a particularly nasty load of crap.
    However I have yet to find evidence of a rightwards drift in the GPEW.
    In fact the Greens have woken up left issues such as supporting public sector workers etc. As a non-Leninist organisation there is always some conflict between left/right, centralisers/localists or realo’s and fundi’s depending on the issues involved.
    However the SWP always seem to have the ability to unite the left- unfortunately that means united against the SWP, I was a member of the SWP in the early 1990’s and nothing ever seems to change there!

    Comment by Green Socialist — 11 September, 2008 @ 6:48 pm

98. I was talking from a personal point of view - not speaking for anyone else, obviously.

    And I appreciate he will still be on STW platforms, which goes without saying.

    Comment by MA — 11 September, 2008 @ 7:09 pm

99. # 6 AFF

    No. You don’t get a say. That’s the problem with a factionally based organisation. Unless your in one of the factions your effectively sidelined.

    Comment by Jim — 11 September, 2008 @ 7:15 pm

100. Things are moving, MA. You’d do well to heed “Lenin”, who’s showing supreme adaptibility. Yesterday’s zealots are in danger of becoming today’s heretics.

     Comment by Nas — 11 September, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

101. Grren socialist no97

     For sure - GPEW remain a left party.

     The relevence of the gaunt’s House and OMA incidents s that the GPEW is not necessarily a particularly transarent nor democratic party - despites its pretensions so to be.

     In my own expereince I have been consistently amazed at the lack of democracy at local level

     For example elections leaflets the content of which has been democraticaly agreed by Grren party members meetings being unilaterally rewritten by one leading member.

     candidates who have been democratically selected being sidelined, and different candidates unilaterally being put forward instead with no slection procedure.

     A right winger who has never even a member of the Grren party being stood as an officil grren party candidate, even tough this was opposed by the membership.

     Meetings being held that only some members are invited to.

     etc, etc.

     Comment by andy newman — 11 September, 2008 @ 7:18 pm

102. …and right on cue, the Left List logo disappears from the sidebar of the Tomb. Funny that.

     Comment by Jon — 11 September, 2008 @ 8:23 pm

103. #102 It went some time ago. But you’re on the right track. The tanks have been moving onto the lawn for some weeks.

     The more perspicacious SWP loyalists have been adjusting accordingly. There’ll be some others left out on a limb.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 11 September, 2008 @ 9:34 pm

104. #103 Probably, I only noticed it was gone just now. I’m wondering what Adamski, the SWP loyalist who is not a member of the SWP, has to make of all this.

     Comment by Jon — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:13 pm

105. Would I be right in thinking that there was a serious breach of party discipline by at least one SWP Central Committee member at the Left Alternative shindig last Saturday? If so, will this merit a reference to the Control Commission, oops sorry err the Disputes Committee? In which case will there be a public advertisement for witnesses to come forward?

     Comment by fans of the control commission — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:14 pm

106. #105 Indeed. Somehow I think the wheels of justice in this instance instead of grinding slow or fine will grind to a halt.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:27 pm

107. what are you two going on about?

     Comment by confused by in-jokes by anonymous posters — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:29 pm

108. #107 German and Rees let it be known on Saturday that they were resigning under duress - instructed by the SWP leadership. That is a breach of discipline, undermining the leadership in a meeting including non party members.

     But, somehow I don’t think the parties disciplinary mechanisms are going to deal with this.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:44 pm

109. #55 - Bill, no you don’t know me, as far as I know. And vice-versa.

     The “comrade”, and indeed the post, was intending much more generally than specifically. I just meant, really, that that’s how I feel about people telling me how the SWP has changed.

     Your third paragraph more or less describes me, as it goes. Apart from the SSP bit, that is.

     The big thing, for me, is that the SWP is the party that makes me think, and it always has been. I have read material from all sorts of organisations over the years, and I’ve not come across anything that works for me in the way that SWP publications do. I’ve heard arguments from people all over the left and, again, nothing touches me, makes me question, inspires me etc more than the arguments I’ve heard from the SWP. That’s been pretty constant for me, over the past 20-odd years.

     #56 - tonyc - you misunderstand me. Partly my fault, of course. To be clear, I’m only suggesting that I find it all a bit boring. The SWP has its faults. As far as I can see, they are the same faults it’s had for the 20-odd years I’ve had any dealings with the party, including my time as a member.

     I’m not a member, and I can’t see myself joining again. I don’t feel the need to argue that the SWP has a healthy internal democracy.

     I find arguments which run “if you were a Marxist you’d agree with me” to be unpersuasive.

     The thing I did pick up from your post was this:

     those people who left also say they now realise that it was always like this, and they mostly ignored it because they believed there was nothing better

     Some do, many don’t, but either way, they have a point - there is nothing better, as far as I can see, and there also doesn’t seem to be anyone seriously engaged in trying to make something better. And maybe a Marxist might have something to say about that, as well.

     Comment by KrisS — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:53 pm

110. #108 “German and Rees let it be known on Saturday that they were resigning under duress - instructed by the SWP leadership.”

     Let them have the guts to fight for their political positions then. It could only alert the members of the SWP to how deeply bankrupt the organisation has become and how complicit in the errors of the last period ‘former’ Labourite Martin Smith has been.

     Comment by Mike — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:57 pm

111. KrisS - did you play some sort of role in the split in Respect? I’m just trying to understand what your stake is in all this.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 11 September, 2008 @ 11:02 pm

112. I’m not sure what you mean by “stake”, really. I was a member of Respect long before the split. Since the split I’ve been a member of Respect/Left List/Left Alternative, and still am.

     Comment by KrisS — 11 September, 2008 @ 11:10 pm

113. #112 Thanks. So what is your view of how the Left Alternative should proceed. Are you on it’s national council?

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 11 September, 2008 @ 11:13 pm

114. on a separate note , could Andy or anyone else tell me how to access SU articles prior to 2006 , when ‘googling’ subjects a user name and password is required to access the article , thanks

     Comment by sheffielder — 12 September, 2008 @ 8:25 am

115. Anyone thinking there is going to be a rethink in the SWP Central Committee about its attitude towards the break-up of Respect might have pause for thought over a peculiarly unpleasant and stupid review of Mark Steel’s new book by one Alex Callinicos, Professor of European Thought (sic) at King’s College, London, which has just appeared in the little read Socialist Review magazine.

     Callinicos was one of the leading architects of the nuclear response of the SWP to Galloway’s criticisms of the ersthwile Dear Leader of Respect, John Rees. It was he who announced that Respect was over at a meeting with Galloway almost exactly a year ago, just days after Galloway had delivered his letter of criticism.

     And it was he who then showed his snobbish disdain towards Galloway and foolhardy contempt for those few who opposed the CC line at the fateful meeting for London SWP members shortly afterwards.

     At every opportunity in the whole debacle Callinicos would pop up, giving support for Rees in the most mind-numbingly pompous, threatening and invariably ignorant manner. And it was the same Callinicos who perjured his intellect to produce a self-evidently flawed but completely self-serving analysis that the SWP had become victim of a European-wide shift of “social forces” to the right.

     In this contemptible review, Callinicos refers to “Galloway attacking us”, ignoring the fact that it was the SWP who launched the war against Galloway even before the latter had written a word of criticism of Rees.

     It refers to Galloway breaking away from Respect. Funny that, because as far as I am aware there is only one Respect still in existence and it’s the one George Galloway stood for in May.

     Worst of all, it refers to the fact that Galloway’s “trajectory” bore witness to “the immense power of the media and their culture of celebrity to deflect and incorporate”. So this would be the power which has stopped Galloway continuing to be one of the best known and most effective critics of New Labour and its imperialist adventures over Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and most recently Georgia. And the power which has deflected him from remaining the most prominent supporter of Palestinian and Lebanese resitance to Israeli aggression, a role he has maintained for the last 35 years.

     This, of course, continues to be the utterly sectarian view of most of what passes these days for the SWP’s leadership. But it begs two crucial questions. Why has Rees been dumped on, given he simply carried out the generally agreed policy of the SWP Central Committee?

     And what real prospect is there of welcoming the SWP back into genuinely united work whilst the leadership does not acknowledge its crass and disastrous errors over Respect and Galloway?

     Let’s hope that this does not continue to be the SWP’s considered position. At the very least, a lengthy period of silence from the ignorant and insufferably arrogant Master Callinicos would be welcome.

     Comment by campaign against ignorance and arrogance in academia — 12 September, 2008 @ 8:32 am

116. miserable, bitter, read on…..

     What’s Going On?
     Book Review by Alex Callinicos, September 2008

     Mark Steel, Simon & Schuster, £12.99

     How could someone as charming, talented, and funny as Mark Steel have produced as sad and at points as unpleasant a book as this? The answer that Mark himself gives is that the past decade has been a bad one for him.

     Personally, he turned 40 and a longstanding relationship painfully fell apart. Politically, even though mass resistance to neoliberalism and war developed on a spectacular scale, he believes, “The link between the left and youth now seems almost completely broken.” And - partly in response - Mark tells us at the end of the book that he has resigned from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

     Inevitably this last aspect of the book is of particular concern to this review. Mark’s midlife crisis is no one else’s business, even if he chooses to share it with the rest of us (and one can’t help wondering what the woman who Mark consistently calls his “ex-partner” must feel about him ventilating his side of their breakup so publicly). As for the political commentary that runs through the book, it views the SWP and the rest of the left from a great height. It is from this vantage point that we all seem to Mark petty, old and stupid.

     This means it’s hard to know how to argue with him. His political pronouncements reflect an immense degree of detachment from the movements and organisations on which he passes generally damning judgement. I don’t agree with some of the things he says about what the SWP did in the 1990s, but at least they show an insider’s knowledge, for Mark was still quite an active member then. What he says about the past decade evinces a kind of grandiose ignorance that is a consequence of the fact that he’s no longer actively involved in the SWP or indeed anything else.

     What seems to have reawakened Mark’s interest in the SWP was the crisis in Respect. He thinks that the SWP leadership was wrong not to have broken with George Galloway when he appeared on Celebrity Big Brother - an act on whose iniquity he waxes most eloquent - and also wrong to have defended ourselves when the same Galloway attacked us.

     If you think it’s hard to find the logic in this, you will be even more puzzled to learn, though Mark doesn’t mention it himself, that he has publicly associated himself with Galloway’s breakaway from Respect. The only principle one can detect here is that the SWP is always in the wrong.

     Amid the muddle and special pleading, there is much that is both perceptive and engaging about this book. Mark is, for example, eloquent about the immense power of the media and their culture of celebrity to deflect and to incorporate. But, if Galloway’s trajectory bears witness to this power, so too does Mark’s. He tries to generate some pathos from the moment when he cancelled his subscription to the SWP, but the truth is that he’d left us in spirit years before.

     Comment by JFK — 12 September, 2008 @ 8:53 am

117. It is astonishing that Socialist Review got Alex Callinicos to review this book. They must take it very seriously. I would have thought they would have got someone who’s been around a bit but who can do self deprectation and humour (ie not Callincos).

     Pat Stack surely would have defended the SWP’s honour at the same time as rolling with Steel’s gags and points. Who knows, he might even have ended up regretting Steel’s resignation from the party rather than accusing him of being a media trollop.

     I suppose Steel is now formally on the black list. I find it difficult to see how this method is going to allow for engagement with wider forces on the left, whose criticisms of the SWP go far deeper than Steel’s.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 9:15 am

118. Doesn’t Alex Callinicos sound like Ray!

     Comment by observation — 12 September, 2008 @ 9:24 am

119. #115 “Why has Rees been dumped on, given he simply carried out the generally agreed policy of the SWP Central Committee?”

     Well, like, duh! Cos then the rest of the leadership can avoid drawing up a balance sheet which could not but cobclude thtat the turns to electoralism and populism were stupidly wrong in principle. Far better to sacrifice Rees and German the better to protect ‘The Party’.

     Comment by Mike — 12 September, 2008 @ 9:24 am

120. #115 Is this article online?

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 9:31 am

121. Calm down everyone don’t you realise the SWP is now fragmented and that will come clearer come October. Martin Smith has the task of steering them onto the rocks. support the convention of the left

     Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 12 September, 2008 @ 9:38 am

122. Two things. 1. Talk of a coup inside the SWP CC against Rees and German, while fascinating for SWPologists seems overblown, even if Rees and German are publically saying they they were forced to resign their poistions. Left Alternative/electoral politics are clearly being downplayed, a strong emphasis remains on the anti-imperialist politics of the Stop the War Coalition and the lead names in STW are still Rees and German. If they resign those positions, that’ll be convincing.
     2. Callinicos’s review of Mark Steel is typical of the nasty side of the SWP (but it does have a better side!)and I guess it is there to give SWP comrades something to say about a popular book containing strong criticisms of the party without them having to bother reading it. Interestingly Steel recycles much of his contributions in the SWP IB from last year (including the story of how they tried to keep it out) and Alex fails to deal with the cutting edge of Mark’s criticisms. But there are problems with Mark’s book - I was asking myself the same question about the ‘ex-partner’ that Alex does. Mark doesn’t really have a strategic perspective and he seems to blame the SWP in which they find themselves floundering and behaving so destructively, so I think it is a very flawed account of the split in Respect. Still a must read though!

     Comment by Matthew — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:07 am

123. Stwh - #113 - No, I’m not an NC member. The discussion here made sense to me.

     #115 - I can’t for the life of me imagine why anyone would think that the SWP would change its mind about the fundamentals of the split, even if it did have some doubts about some of its tactics over that period.

     After the appalling start with Andy yet again posting another organisation’s internal documents, this thread did show some signs of a worthwhile conversation’s breaking out. Shame about the latest turn back to “the SWP ate my hamster”, but I suppose we should be happy about the good stuff, and ignore the rest.

     Comment by KrisS — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:10 am

124. According to the SWP:

     “In the present period we may see more Convention of the Left type conferences as organisations jostle for position. For instance the Socialist Party claims that it is going to re-launch the Campaign for New Workers Party stating that they have a wider platform which includes
     – McDonnell / Serwotka / Crow and Wrack (we may have to intervene in this conference)”

     If the SP and the SWP are telling the truth here, then McDonnell intends to leave the Labour Party (or be expelled), and join with the SP, and three of the most important left union leaders in launching a new party. Y’all see how significant this is? That coalition would have enough weight and legitimacy to make it the new left electoral pole. All the small trot groups and probably the SWP will effectively have to join as well… it will change the landscape of the left - a new socialist alliance, but with an MP already and union legitimacy.

     That’s *if* the SP and SWP are telling the truth…

     Comment by Tom — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:18 am

125. #123 But the policy has moved on since you attended that meeting in June. The Left Altermative is being wound down.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:25 am

126. I can’t be sure, since I’ve no idea who you are, or what other silly names you may have posted under in the past. But isn’t that what you said at the time?

     Comment by KrisS — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:37 am

127. #126 I don’t understand what you mean. The point is that the policy pursued in June has been changed by the SWP leadership. Maybe you’ve changed your mind as well, which would be fair enough.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:51 am

128. No Tom, the question isn’t ‘if the SP and SWP are telling the truth’. It’s ‘What evidence does the SWP have that the SP has claimed it’s going to re-launch the CNWP with McDonnell etc on board?’

     Incidentally, I’m suprised more hasn’t been made of the fact that Brian Caton has officially signed up to the CNWP. However small the POA may be, the fact that the General Secretary of a national union has publically declared for a socialist party should be something to publicise more.

     Comment by Doug — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:54 am

129. Out of curiosity, how high up is Lenny Tomb in the SWP hierarchy? I mean, does he just speak when the grown-ups speak to him, or would he be senior enough to have a role in this affair?

     Comment by Dustin the Turkey — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:59 am

130. #124 That just sounds like wishful thinking. McDonnell speaking at a CNWP Conference does not mean that he’s leaving the Labour Party. There’s no evidence to suggest this. McDonnell has spoken at meetings of various groups outside the Labour Party. The LRC has spoken at CNWP meetings. McDonnell is on record as trying to bring the Left together. Nothing new there.

     The SP may be speaking the truth as McDonnell may have been asked to speak at the Conference. Perhaps he has yet to respond. That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s endorsing the aims of CNWP leaving the Labour Party. The SWP are just reporting what the SP are saying that McDonnell may speak. Indeed the SWP documents above seem to suggest that there is no-one leaving the Labour Party. No deception on the part of the SP or SWP and probably nothing to get excited about.

     Comment by Julian — 12 September, 2008 @ 11:03 am

131. I don’t really understand the shock and horror about Callinicos’s review of the Mark Steel book. Given that the book is quite hostile to the organisation in which the reviewer is a leading member it seemed pretty balenced really. You wouldn’t expect plaudits would you?

     Comment by johng — 12 September, 2008 @ 11:53 am

132. #131 - Plaudits would be far too much to expect. But honesty and humility would not have gone amiss and surely would have been more appropriate.

     Comment by the revenge of his story — 12 September, 2008 @ 11:57 am

133. #131 There’s no shock and horror. Some of us might have expected better - particularly given the professed desire to move on and reestablish relations with others on the left.

     Instead, we’ve got a more in anger than in sorrow piece from Callinicos. It doesn’t bode well. That’s a shame.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 12:02 pm

134. Well I don’t really see anything dishonest in the review. And I think we all have to learn to agree to disagree about certain things and stop dreaming of humiliating our erstwhile opponents (well as opposed to the real adverseries who arn’t as it happens the Judean Peoples Front). Just how much DO you hate the Romans Witchhunt?

     Comment by johng — 12 September, 2008 @ 12:28 pm

135. #134 We see it differently. That’s fair enough. I was surprised that the SWP didn’t get someone like Pat Stack to review it. But that’s just a matter of taste and proportion.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

136. The correct response was ‘a lot’. At which point I’d have said ‘Right your in…now if there’s one group we hate more then the Romans….’. As it happens I think Mark got pissed off during the ’90s, some of what he says about that period is true some of what he says I disagree with, but I don’t think he has as much of a handle on the noughties, which is pretty much what Callinicos says, and some of this is highlighted by his contradictory take on the Galloway question, which actually he raises, not Callinicos. On that latter point I’d like to clarify that SWP members do work with George Galloway in the STW despite these tensions, something which some comrades seem to have forgotten in the heat of this blog polemic. But no, whilst I think Mark Steel a funny socialist comedian whose work I’ve often enjoyed, I don’t feel any need to show humility towards him, and I’m unsure that inspiring humility is really his lifes project anyway.

     Comment by johng — 12 September, 2008 @ 12:42 pm

137. Perhaps this is simply the SWP Moving Rees and German from what was a major project to another project, leaving Left Alternative to more junior members, considering that it is not to be the priority it used to be. The SWP sattement also seems to indicate they are ready for a wider left re-allignment, with them being only a part of this?

     Comment by JimPage — 12 September, 2008 @ 12:44 pm

138. Why has no-one referred to one of the most hilarious/absurd sections of the book i.e. ‘What do we do with a branch down to 3 members?’ Answer: ‘Split them into 2 branches’ Absolutely priceless.

     Comment by Doug — 12 September, 2008 @ 12:48 pm

139. #136 It’s up to you of course. I don’t think the SWP is so stuffed with talent that it can afford to lose people like Mark Steel. But it’s your party. It would be good if the SWP could work with Galloway. I don’t see why it should be restricted to STW.

     There’s also the question of working with Salma Yaqoob and others in Respect. Who knows, it might mean working with Mark Steel. It might even mean working with your erstwhile comrades in the US.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 12:51 pm

140. Mark Steel recently told Metro “As much as I dislike the power-hungry maniacs running the world, I’m sure I’d make it worse”.

     With that kind of attitude, is he really much of a loss to anyone?

     Comment by RC — 12 September, 2008 @ 12:53 pm

141. steady on there witch hunt lets not carried away.

     Comment by johng — 12 September, 2008 @ 12:57 pm

142. Basically from this blog and comments we can conclude that no one outside or even inside except for the CC and close circle know what is going on with this.

     Some might say, so what, SWP members might say to us (who are not members), mind your own buisness - my problem is I think that there remains a huge sourse of ponecialy positive energy in the SWP, unlike other groups they really have the ability to make things happen (what ever the fualts in picking out the right things).

     Given this it really does matter to people outside the SWP when their top brass are changing and when their outlook changes. I just think its really sad that not only are they presenting no reasoned arguments about the current tragetory and pushing Linsley and John out of the LA to the outside world - they are not even letting their own members into the loop.

     Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 12 September, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

143. “Mark Steel recently told Metro “As much as I dislike the power-hungry maniacs running the world, I’m sure I’d make it worse”.

     Withthat kind of attitude, is he really much of a loss to anyone?”

     What - a humorous sense of his own fallibility and limitations? Yes, we need none of that on the Left. More dour, mindless, unswerving demagoguery, please; why stop now when it’s worked so well so far.

     Perhaps if Rees and German had such thoughts, they mightn’t be in the pickle they’re in today.

     Comment by Dustin the Turkey — 12 September, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

144. No RC it uis actually rather a good attitude to have

     Try reading a history book

     Comment by Young Patriots — 12 September, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

145. As for the review of Mark Steels book, I think it was odd to get Callinocos to review it but (and not having read it this is just a guess) I think Mathew (122) probally gives a good review.

     One thing I would say is that it is not contradictory to think we should have been harsher on Galloway over big brother (he should have got a right slapping for it) but that the SWP’s responce to him over the SWP split was wroung. I happen to agree with Mark on that one.

     Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 12 September, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

146. Joseph there are internal mechanisms for this sort of thing in any organisation and its quite usual for political organisations to have their discussions, reach agreement, and then present their position afterwards. Whilst instant responses are possible on the internet, its not possible to organise meetings and discussions at the same pace. Thats all. Its also considered sensible by most members of any organisation not to comment until such a discussion has taken place. Not just sensible, but democratic.

     Comment by johng — 12 September, 2008 @ 1:39 pm

147. Yes of course, it’s a wonderful attitude. Let’s all go back to bed while we’re at it. I went off Mark Steel some time ago for just this reason - seems more concerned about his next tv/radio gig than the state of the world.

     Comment by RC — 12 September, 2008 @ 1:40 pm

148. “seems more concerned about his next tv/radio gig”

     You mean he was concerned about his livelihood? What a sell out wanker.

     Doesn’t he know he could feed and clothe his kids with his old unsold Socialist Workers?

     Comment by Darren — 12 September, 2008 @ 1:53 pm

149. The discipline issue mentioned earlier is not quite the joke that it seems. It is the signal that a faction fight has begun and the refuseniks wll try to rally support both inside and outside the organization. There is no question that they are aware of the increasing weakness of the party (this is one of the reasons for the reaction to Galloway last year - being rumbled for making false claims about size was not a pleasant feeling, I imagine) and I suspect they have calculated that there is not much to lose.

     If they left the party or were thrown out (a distinct possibility), they could try to gather supporters and seek negotiations on creating an ‘anti-capitalist party’ on the European model. How successful they would be at gathering support or at having any negotiating strength, independent of the party, are variables.

     Btw, huge respect to Kris S who, while on the other side of this debate from me, has given me endless joy for his stand against the FA and the awesome formation of AFCW.

     Comment by Chris C — 12 September, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

150. johng - If Callinicos’s attitude and analysis conveyed in his review is that of the majority faction on the SWP Central Committee, exactly what is their justification for disciplining Rees? Or are we really dealing with a reallocation of CC talent to areas of priority (joke)?

     Comment by justice for john rees — 12 September, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

151. “Well I don’t really see anything dishonest in the review.”

     Callinicos says of Mark that “He thinks that the SWP leadership was wrong not to have broken with George Galloway when he appeared on Celebrity Big Brother”.

     Have you read the book, John? Steel doesn’t anywhere say anything like this. He doesn’t even imply it! Callinicos is misleading his readers. It is not an honest account of what he’s reviewing.

     “And I think we all have to learn to agree to disagree about certain things and stop dreaming of humiliating our erstwhile opponents”

     If that is your sincere attitude, you might want to have a private word with Callinicos asking him to stop mischaracterising his political opponents.

     When someone frames an argument as “Mark says we were wrong not to break with Galloway over BB and wrong to break with him when he attacked us”, there is a clear ideological device at work, intended to ridicule - maybe humiliate - the opponent, to cast them as at odds with the whole party unreasonably, to show that they’ve called it completely wrongly.

     Steel says he was mortified and aghast at what Galloway did over Big Brother, but mostly he was annoyed that there was no open debate in the party about it. He never said the SWP should break with Galloway. So the thrust of Callinicos’s point - that Steel has changed his view of working with Galloway without acknowledging it - falls.

     The things that Steel bangs on about - the big events organised by single-issue campaigns which are busy and vibrant but which the SWP is absent from, and the fact that branches are getting smaller and smaller, are worthy of discussion on the left. Of course I think the SWP’s culpability needs to be addressed, and you think it should be an internal matter - that’s a fair enough disagreement.

     But when an SWP CC member reviews a book and says things which aren’t true it becomes of concern to everyone else. Small concern, yes - but concern nonetheless.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 2:16 pm

152. I’m sorry but the central contradiction Callinicos identifies is there in even what you say yourself and I really don’t understand what the song and dance is supposed to be about. And no just because we’re having internal disagreements at the moment doesn’t mean they’re disagreements between people who thought your lot were right all along. we’ll always disagree about these things but this is becoming a little obsessive really (the latter is to an earlier comment where someone seems to be offended that the SWP does not have the same assessment of the last year that he does, or for that matter the same assessment of the politics of Mark Steels book). Its wise not to start calling everybody liars. There’s always the danger that the thread starts to look like something out of Harry’s Place (you can actually call people “LaIrS” or even ‘LIES, LIES, LIES”. I have a regular correspondent who sends me missives like that.

     Comment by johng — 12 September, 2008 @ 2:36 pm

153. “I’m sorry but the central contradiction Callinicos identifies is there in even what you say yourself and I really don’t understand what the song and dance is supposed to be about.”

     You said you could not see anything dishonest in the review.

     Alex Callinicos says in the review that Mark thought the SWP was wrong not to break with Galloway over Big Brother.

     Mark doesn’t say that, think that or imply that.

     Alex is being dishonest in the review.

     Clear?

     Comment by summary — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:02 pm

154. Where is the contradiction? SWP members and others in Respect should have been given space to object to Galloways engagement in Respect - this needn’t have ment ‘breaking with’ Galloway. They wheren’t - discusion on this issue was shut down from above.

     Similarly Galloway should have been given space to make objections to some of the practice of Respect (even if his objections where not perfect) without having the SWP mobalised against him and presenting him as trying to ’subvert’ Respect to the right.

     The contradictory position is that of the SWP leadership - hear no evil when Galloway is still ‘on side’ but go all guns blazing over any posible fault when he’s not walking the line.

     Comment by Joseph Kisolo-Ssonko — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:04 pm

155. I see tonyc (or is it Ovenden) aka witchfinder general is banging on about justice for Steel. That nasty old Callinicos. Take him outside and burn the SWP witch at the stake. That’s all they’re good for isn’t it? Laugh? We nearly cried.
     The Convention of the Left has never looked more promising.

     Comment by Ray — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:04 pm

156. He does imply that (and certainly has in the past). It all hangs on what you mean by ‘break’ doesn’t it really. This really is like Harry’s Place.

     Comment by johng — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

157. “Mark doesn’t say that, think that or imply that.
     Alex is being dishonest in the review.
     Clear?”

     As mud. If I was going to judge whether Callinicos or an anonymous handle on a sectarian blog had more knowledge of Steel’s thoughts on the matter then guess who has more veracity?

     Comment by Ray — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:10 pm

158. Joseph there was no ‘hear no evil’ position. The position was taken to defend him against attacks and not to back those who wanted to bust him down as a consequence inside Respect. And it just IS a bit curious (and its a wider phenomenan not just Mark) to find people who for one reason or another were a bit critical of the old Respect because they thought the SWP were being a bit too soft who jumped in the opposite direction when the split actually happened. Still one persons contradiction is anothers coherence. I suppose its dialectical.

     Comment by johng — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:11 pm

159. Mark Steel does not say there should have been a break with Galloway over BB.

     Johng, it’s clear what Callinicos means by break - what the SWP did last September. Now’s not the time for sophistry.

     Comment by Stop the wich hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

160. It’s ironic that after the to-do made on SU about so-called anonymous posters (i.e. SWP supporters who use there real names but don’t move in the same circles as the TH Renewal clique) the accusers are all at it themselves.
     I wouldn’t mind if their non-de-plumes had a semblance of wit about them but sadly, even in this department, they are lacking.

     Comment by Ray — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:19 pm

161. “sophistry”

     Big word Kev but splitting hairs won’t help you polarise of this issue for your anti-SWP witchhunt.

     Comment by Ray — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

162. it just IS a bit curious (and its a wider phenomenan not just Mark) to find people who for one reason or another were a bit critical of the old Respect because they thought the SWP were being a bit too soft who jumped in the opposite direction when the split actually happened

     You’ve had a year to get used to this development, in which time it’s been possible to read explanations for this apparent volte-face by several of the people involved (not least A. Newman and L. Mac Uaid). I’m not very impressed by anyone affecting to be surprised and baffled - or, worse, assuming bad faith - at this stage.

     Comment by Phil — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

163. #160 Do calm down
     #158 There’s a difference between wanting greater criticism and tranparency and pressing the nuclear self-destruct button. It’s nothing to do with dialectics but everyting to do with basic life skills.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

164. #157 If I was going to judge whether Callinicos or an anonymous handle on a sectarian blog had more knowledge of Steel’s thoughts on the matter then guess who has more veracity?

     Wow, had his Lordship become so clever that he now has the power of ESP?

     Comment by mindreader — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

165. #159 I’ve read Mark’s book - but not the Callinicos review. I don’t have it with me so I can’t verify the actual words writeen but I certainly got the *impression* as I was reading it that Mark thought that the SWP should have split with Galloway over BB.

     My other comment is that Mark’s ex-partner is an activist. I don’t think the way he deals with her in the book is the most supportative. There is always a challenge in dealing publicly with the personal but I think it important not to damage, consciously or unconsciously, the wider political relationships of these you are dealing with on a personal level.

     Most of us don’t write books about our breakups that are promoted by high street book stores. Mark has an added responsibility.

     Comment by PW — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

166. To be accurate, Phil, L. Mac Uaid was at the forefront of cultivating the anti-SWP bandwagon on SU right from the kick-off of the Respect dispute so it was hardly a volte-face. He has about as much love for the SWP as he has for Galloway. But it’s expedient at the moment for him to continue to remain silent about Galloway. Perhaps in his view it’s the lesser of two evils?

     I agree though that johng should not be surprised or baffled when the anti-SWP knives come out just as they have done in this thread so close to The Convention of the Left. There is no assuming anything when the agenda is well worn.

     Comment by Ray — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:39 pm

167. the complete review by Callinicos is online at socialistreview.org.uk , not that i would normally recommend a visit

     Comment by sheffielder — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

168. This argument about Steel and Callinicos hits the nail on the head.

     SWP position: Hysterical cheerleading for Galloway one moment, and hysterical and shrill denunciation of Galloway the next.

     Marxist position: Make enduring alliances with other left forces you also can also disagree with openly. What we used to call unity of action, freedom in debate.

     Comment by Barry Kade — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:55 pm

169. As someone who liked Mark Steel I am disgusted with his attacks on his former partner. It is really out of order. Steel actually was very hostile to the respect project and indeed had a big dislike for Galloway. If you look at the time when Galloway was under fire from the tabloids etc Steel was fairly absent in defending him. So its ironic he has jumped in with RR but then each to their own.

     Comment by ll — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:57 pm

170. Btw - ‘Ray’ has got to be the most stupid comrade in blogland. He plays only one record - the victim. Every criticism of any SWP position is ‘witch-burning’:

     ‘The SWP-haters are attacking us again, and we are such poor little victims of all this hate, oh dear’.

     You cannot have a reasonable debate with someone who has such a victim mentality.

     The reality is that many of us like and admire much about the SWP. We have worked with it, and been active members of it. But we also want to criticise our comrades.

     But victims can’t be criticised, only victimised.

     Comment by Barry Kade — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

171. “Wow, had his Lordship become so clever that he now has the power of ESP?”

     If I was going to choose between Callinicos, who was Steels comrade in the same organisation, or an anonymous cipher then I don’t need to phone a friend to decide who is more likely to know Steel’s opinion on this issue.

     Comment by Ray — 12 September, 2008 @ 4:02 pm

172. I note that almost everyone commenting on this thread now is an SWP loyalist, and a line seesm to have emerged that Steel’s Achilles Heel is his relationship with his ex-partner.

     Personally, I didn’t particularly like the book, becasue just in terms of personal taste I don’t find his humour as funny on the printed page, but also while very perceptive at times about the SWP, he is still clearly thinking through what he actually beleives in now. Not a bad thing, but Ii suspect his next political book - after he has worked things through a bit more in his head - may well be better.

     Comment by Andy Newman — 12 September, 2008 @ 4:04 pm

173. Oh just quickly: I didn’t accuse anyone of bad faith. Just thought I’d clear that up.

     Comment by johng — 12 September, 2008 @ 4:08 pm

174. A terrific review of Mark Steel’s book can be found here http://splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/summer-reading-mark-steel-asks-whats-going-on/.

     As for Ray’s point I’m going along to the Tower Hamlets Stop the War meeting on Tuesday with the express purpose of disagreeing with George Galloway about his support for Russia. I still disagree with him about all sorts of things. What’s new is that now in Respect disagreement is not considered disloyal, sectarian or suspicious. The conference will demonstrate that.

     The old Respect branch at the time I left it had become absolutely indistinguishable from the SWP branch even down to the Bookmarx stall at the back of the room. The old leadership was squeezing all political pluralism out of the organisation and there was no point whatsoever trying to be active in it if you were a socialist who was not in the SWP. My experience was utterly typical of everyone else’s and is one of the big reasons Respect is as fragile today as it now is. One can call this a “bandwagon” but it’s more like a description of what happened.

     Comment by Liam — 12 September, 2008 @ 4:10 pm

175. Andy , can you help with #114? , cheers

     Comment by sheffielder — 12 September, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

176. “#160 Do calm down
     #158 There’s a difference between wanting greater criticism and tranparency and pressing the nuclear self-destruct button. It’s nothing to do with dialectics but everyting to do with basic life skills.”

     Come on Kev you can do better than that. Even you know that most socialists won’t fall for that NuLab “life skills” baloney. Try to be a bit more subtle about rubbishing the opposition. It might come across less didactic. You are playing to a sophisticated audience after all.

     Comment by Ray — 12 September, 2008 @ 4:16 pm

177. Obsession with another organisation’s internal affairs is the hallmark of sectarianism, and typical for this blog. Draw your own conclusions.

     Comment by christian h. — 12 September, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

178. Sheffielder,

     What article are you trying to reach, can you post me the URL, either here or e-mail me at office@socialistunity.com

     Comment by Andy Newman — 12 September, 2008 @ 4:27 pm

179. Coincidentally, I’ve just been reading Rees’s dreadful book on dialectics and I look forward to being able to point out to him that what looks from a distance like one of the dialectical ‘leaps’ he fetishises is actually just a man being given a long overdue push.

     Schadenfreude aside, though, the point is that with Rees and German shoved to one side (and likely to be shoved even further if they fight back, as I suspect they will) there’s a previously unheard of degree of reckoning and accountability taking place in the SWP that can only bode well. I thought Neil Williams’ response was spot-on.

     Comment by Andy Wilson — 12 September, 2008 @ 4:30 pm

180. #127

     Well maybe we speak a different language, or you’re being disingenuous, or I am. Whichever it is, there’s little point in carrying on, is there?

     #149

     Cheers Chris C.

     Comment by KrisS — 12 September, 2008 @ 4:33 pm

181. “I note that almost everyone commenting on this thread now is an SWP loyalist, and a line seesm to have emerged that Steel’s Achilles Heel is his relationship with his ex-partner.”

     That’s only a recent phenomenon. The thread has mainly been a savaging of the SWP. As for the comments about Steels relationships that has nothing to do with the debate over whether or not he wanted GG out after CBB.

     Steel has exposed his personal relationships in the public domain and as the book is being commented on in this thread then it’s likely that people will comment on the relationships.

     “What’s new is that now in Respect disagreement is not considered disloyal, sectarian or suspicious.”

     It never was. Nothing has changed, except that now you’re in a smaller coalition where the majority still don’t agree with you so you’ll bide your time and when the time is right use similar tactics to increase your relevance and promote your agenda. You’ve got the majority of Trots you don’t like out of the way and you’re banking on increasing your stock with GG. Good luck with that strategy. You’ll need it.

     Comment by Ray — 12 September, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

182. I’ve read Mark’s book and Callinicos’s review.
     Mark appears to me to be very confused and despondent as one might be after all your hopes of a better world come tumbling down.
     As for AC’s remarks, well really no suprises there, as one of the leading ideologues you would hardly expect him to own up to having made it all up in order to engineer a disasterous and uneccessary split.
     Still Mark’s book is worth a read, and it gets funnier as it links to the real and recent events that are hardly yet history and we are still suffering from.
     However it does seem an ecletic mixture of sadness bordering on self-pity with some attempt to suss out (unsuccessfully) what’s really going on.
     I understand that he’s supportive of Respect whilst being scathing of some of the antics of GG, like his personal performance on Big Brother; so the fact that he doesn’t have illusions is consistent with his (and my hopes) being shattered, at least for now.
     Where this leaves JR and LG I don’t really know. I guess their reputations have taken a real bashing much of it self-inflicted. Too much probably to recover from, at least until they can find their it in themselves to come clean. But would that really help them ? Well it might, but more importantly it would help other comrades.
     Pain comes as part of healing, but the scars remain.

     Comment by Halshall — 12 September, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

183. What is remarkable about much of this stuff is that Ray - who used to blog such bile during the split as ‘Unity is Strength’ seems to think it’s all got up to have another go at the SWP in the run up to the Convention of the Left.

     He seems to be unaware that the reason for this debate is that his own SWP ‘leadership’ has just booted John Rees out off the LA leadership - nothing to do with those rogues at RR. This has nothing to do with witch-hunting the socialists but everything to do with the internal politics of the SWP - office politics it would appear that the party’s own members were completely unaware of until Jazz-hands Smith sent out his Party Notes bonus email on Tuesday.

     Ray’s bluff and bluster - along with johng’s evasions may be conforting for themselves. It certainly allows them to avoid deciding whether ditching Rees was a good thing, bad thing or simply ‘dialectical’.

     Comment by End of an Era — 12 September, 2008 @ 5:11 pm

184. #177 When the sectarian antics of an organisation screws up the best chance of an electoral breakthrough for the left in most of our lifetimes, its “internal affairs”, as the purging of Rees is so euphemistically described, is everyone on the left’s business. I am still curious to know from the SWP bloggers what reasons have been given for this purge as Rees’s and the SWP CC’s actions over the split are apparently beyond criticism.

     Comment by for glasnost and perestroika — 12 September, 2008 @ 5:18 pm

185. 182#
     It says everything about the dire state the SWP cc are in when they get one of their international ideologues AC to review Mark Steel’s book and not John Rees , who i believe is the current leader of the SWP. Support the convention of the left

     Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 12 September, 2008 @ 5:29 pm

186. #176 What are you on about? This is no time for trolling.

     Let’s hope actual SWP members understand that there’s a lot at stake here - and it’s not hypocritical moralising about Mark Steel.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 6:12 pm

187. re post # 177 christian h: “Obsession with another organisation’s internal affairs is the hallmark of sectarianism, and typical for this blog. Draw your own conclusions”.

     Respect / Left Alternative / Socialist Alliance - these were attempts to unite as broad a section of of the left as possible. Their crisis is hardly an ‘internal matter’. It affects us all as active socialists.

     Even christian.h commenting from the other side of the Atlantic should know this.

     Comment by Barry Kade — 12 September, 2008 @ 6:23 pm

188. You can make all the excuses you want, the fact is publishing an organization’s internal documents is sectarian, and then obsessing about who “hates” who on the CC of that organization, or guessing the conspiratorial motivations of the leading members (while using decidedly unclever screen names), is even more so - in fact, it’s simply juvenile bullshit. Nothing I wouldn’t expect from this crowd - I’m just pointing it out. If you guys could just grow up a little, it might help.

     Comment by christian h. — 12 September, 2008 @ 6:28 pm

189. #187 My comment on Mark was not “hypocritical moralising”. It was a political comment on his book and the comments on AC’s review. On a personal level, I have always had a friendly relationship with Mark, and will continue to do so. I have no problem, though on politically criticising my friends - inside and outside the SWP.

     Comment by PW — 12 September, 2008 @ 6:34 pm

190. Christian - I was sent an email for the Left Alternative telling me that John and Lindsey had resigned from the LA National Council. No reason was given for their sudden departure. I think it is reasonable for people to be told the real reason - that JR was ‘instructed’ to resign by Martin ‘Bird’ Smith and the rest of the CC of the SWP.

     You may feel that this is an internal matter but if the LA are not prepared to tell the truth to it’s members and supporters then thankfully others are.

     If people could trust what the SWP leadership say then there wouldn’t be any reason for publishing ‘internal’ documents. So quit whinging - if you aspire to be ‘part of the movement’ don’t be surprised if the parts of ‘the movement’ would like a bit of honesty about your intentions.

     Trust is not given automatically - it needs to be earned - and like it or not the SWP doesn’t have much capital in the bank at the moment.

     Comment by End of an Era — 12 September, 2008 @ 6:38 pm

191. christian - 189, & 177.

     Part of these minutes under discussion are from ‘Left Alternative’ - the alleged successor to Respect, which was the alleged successor to the Socialist Alliance. The SWP’s memo’s are about the SWP’s relationship with the L.A - and the rest of the us on the left. Therefore they concern us and how we organise to fight the capitalist offensive.

     Furthermore, if you call us ‘this crowd’ it means you regard us as a homogeneous entity worthy of universal contempt - so why even bother to take part in the debate here? Don’t you have any non-cyberspace comrades to organise and argue with?

     Comment by Barry Kade — 12 September, 2008 @ 6:44 pm

192. EoaE - thanks awfully for enlightening us, you really are very kind. If only any of us were as clever as you, eh?

     Comment by KrisS — 12 September, 2008 @ 6:54 pm

193. EoaE, cut the crap. You can make a political argument against the way the SWP participates in the LA. I happen to disagree, but I can understand people who don’t like democratic centralist groups operating inside broader organizations, especially if one such democratic centralist group happens to have (for whatever reason) a dominant representation inside the organization.

     If that’s your opinion, and you’d rather be in a “pluralistic” organization where the guy with the best PR gets to make all the decisions, that’s your choice. But don’t stay in and then whine about the fact that the democratic centralist group acts according to the principles of democratic centralism.

     (Of course, maybe - probably? - you don’t give a rat’s ass about the LA and are just pathetically looking for some reason to indulge in your childish sectarian games.)

     In any event, my point stands: grow up.

     Comment by christian h. — 12 September, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

194. 188 - try and explain what’s happened with German and Rees or have you simply no idea why these SWP’s comrades are no longer leading the Left Alternative. In your view, do Rees and German merit any criticism for the split in RESPECT and dismal showing of the Left List? If not, why are they being replaced? Also who has decided to replace them - the CC or SWP membership? Clearly it is the CC and the members are left bewildered by this turn of events. Ray - the knives are out in the SWP! Comrades from outside look on and are hoping the SWP membership will wake up to the thoroughly undemocratic decison making going on in their organisation, that has led to the split in RESPECT and now this spate of backstabbing.

     Comment by George T — 12 September, 2008 @ 7:12 pm

195. #173 - granted. I should have said, I’m not very impressed by anyone affecting to be surprised and baffled (e.g. johng) - or, worse, assuming bad faith (e.g. Professor Callinicos) - at this stage.

     Comment by Phil — 12 September, 2008 @ 7:20 pm

196. Thanks Kris and Christian - nice to know displacement activity still has a role to play in politics. Your own CC ditched the person who last year you all went overboard to defend - smashing up the best prospect of building a broad left-of-labour alternative for a generation but apparently we shouldn’t comment. Just accept that you can do what you want. Well if you are happy being told what to do, what to think and when to think it then fair enough but don’t expect the rest of us to treat your version of ‘Marxism’ with anything less than mild derision.

     Comment by End of an Era — 12 September, 2008 @ 7:26 pm

197. Forgive me for not being particularly interested in what you have to say EoaE, since you can’t be bothered to read what others write.

     I don’t have a CC. But thanks for your concern about it anyway.

     Comment by KrisS — 12 September, 2008 @ 7:54 pm

198. KrisS: well,the CC thinks it has you. It’s just changed the leadership, staffing, priorities and profile of your organization. The address might be changing soon.If you’re happy to be treated like that, ok. There’s not that many other takers.

     Comment by Nas — 12 September, 2008 @ 8:44 pm

199. Is anyone going to have a go at pointing out what they think is actually new and different about the approach outlined in these “party notes”? It’s been almost 200 posts now.

     Comment by KrisS — 12 September, 2008 @ 8:58 pm

200. #199 The two principal leaders of LA have been removed.

     The pretence at scaling back of the last couple of months is to be turned into the reality of killing off the LA - except for the unforunate office worker whose job it will primarily be to phone round people asking for money to clear the debts.

     If you really need it spelling out, read Charlie Kimber’s long article in the SWP magazine. No mention at all of the Left Alternative, even on a backburner, as one of the “political fronts” SWP members should be engaged in.

     It’s an acknowledgement that it’s dead. That’s what is new. All that’s left is a big balloon and a mountain of debt, which will be added to so that the LA can have placards on the demonstration next week and keep various people feeding it with greenotes. Your money would be better spent elsewhere.

     If the argument from the leadership of the SWP was that the LA is being wound down and John Rees’s talents are too important to allow him to moulder away overseeing a non-existent organisation so he must be moved to something high profile like, like, the People before Profit Charter, that would be coherent, despite being bollocks.

     But that is not the argument. There is no argument as to why Rees and German have been moved.

     You are going to be in a very small and mistaken minority if you persist down this route Kris.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 9:18 pm

201. Actually Kris there is no change of approach. It’s the same ‘treat the members with contempt - as the only people who matter are the great and the good on the SWP CC’ approach as before but behind the same approach is a change of leadership - personnel as politics - which exposes the stupidity of last year’s split.

     but if it’s the case that you are not in the SWP then I can only say you have even less credibility than if you were. After all if you were an SWP member at least you’d signed up to being told what to do and what to think.

     But since you don’t actually seem to have an opinion as to whether sacking Rees was a good or bad thing perhaps you are happy having others make decisions about your organisation - without even having the decency to tell you the truth about why.

     It’s your choice obviously but please don’t pretend it’s got anything to do with rational politics.

     Comment by End of an Era — 12 September, 2008 @ 9:23 pm

202. It’s clearly not “an acknowledgement that it’s dead”. Otherwise there would be, you know, an acknowledgement that it’s dead. You read it as a death notice, as you have read previous statements and positions as death notices. That’s a perfectly respectable thing for you to do, of course. But you shouldn’t pretend it’s something else.

     Asking me to care about individual “leaders”, or about being “in a very small…minority” - well, good luck, but it’s been 41 years so far without my getting excited about such things.

     In all you’ve said, I don’t actually see where you’ve made any genuine attempt to answer my question.

     The point, of course, is “your money would be better spent elsewhere”. Money and time, I’d put the two together, with the time being a lot more important. And if I see somewhere better to put it, I’ll be happy to. But I don’t. So I’m happy enough to stick.

     Comment by KrisS — 12 September, 2008 @ 9:32 pm

203. Anyroad up, all the best, we clearly still can’t talk about this stuff in each others’ languages, but at least there’s a bit less viciousness around now. Maybe one day.

     Comment by KrisS — 12 September, 2008 @ 9:43 pm

204. Oh KrisS. You have to spot the signals. Pull back now. Seriously. You’ll end up being really used.

     Look - one of two SWP leaders who are being put in charge of the outfit you say you’ll stick with has written a line of march piece in the party’s theoretical organ.

     He mentions lots of areas of work for socialists and front organisations. Not one of them is the outfit you are spending time and money on.

     It is your choice. But please stay active whatever happens.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

205. Now, Now Mr Witch hunt, don’t underestimate the importance of the big green balloon. Who on the left wouldn’t kill to have one of those?

     Comment by End of an Era — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:02 pm

206. #205 I suppose you have to laugh. So long as you then get to grips with what’s happened.

     When you stand back and survey the wreckage on the left in all parts of Britain, it’s not a pretty sight.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

207. Obvious ‘ a big green balloon of a special kind’

     Comment by JFK — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:25 pm

208. from Chas ‘the knife’ Kimber in latest SR

     ‘As well as these specific political questions, what the movement needs is a generalised response to the present crisis. The People Before Profit Charter is an attempt to provide the basis for this - a series of demands which we hope will lead to action. Alongside that we need to develop the political united fronts, initiatives such as Public Services Not Private Profit as well as the Stop the War Coalition, Unite Against Fascism and others’

     Don’t see any mention of the Left Alternative.
     No boosterism for the project and its potential.
     So the conclusion is?

     Comment by JFK — 12 September, 2008 @ 10:58 pm

209. “So the conclusion is?”

     Vote Ken

     Comment by anti — 12 September, 2008 @ 11:03 pm

210. Apologies for my frivolous reference to the balloon. You are of course correct, Mr W. Hunt.

     Perhaps if the parts of the SWP can learn from these recent events then the left as a whole may be strengthened and we all may be able to move forward. Indeed it was Cliff’s ability to think outside the accepted paradigm post-45 that brought the IS tradition into existence. A similar level of independent thought may not be a bad thing now - essesntial perhaps if that tradition is not to suffer any further decline.

     Comment by End of an Era — 12 September, 2008 @ 11:22 pm

211. #210 Here’s hoping. I suppose there are never good moments for a rethink and a change of leadership in any organisation.

     But the circumstances for the SWP today - the annus horribilis and more - probably make a defensive mentality the most likely response. Further demoralisation can then only follow.

     I hope I’m wrong. I do find it amazing, however, that some people can dismiss all this by saying an individual has been held to account while at the same time admitting they haven’t got a clue what he is supposed to be held to account for.

     It’s quite frightening in fact.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 12 September, 2008 @ 11:31 pm

212. T am sure there are a lot of ex-swp monitoring this stuff. When SWP apologists say “But what do YOU do now?” The best answer is that you’ve been living.

     An ex-SWP, I want their meltdown because I think it will be beneficial to radical politics in the UK.

     Whether or not SWP goes into meltdown is of some interest to anyone in this neck of the woods with a serious interest in changing the world. Someone else said it somewhere on this site, but it’s worth repeating - how come when you get attacked it’s sad for the attacker, but when you’re doing well and get praised, it’s important?

     It is okay for people who have suffered from you to voice anger at you; they do not need to come up with an alternative programme or build a bigger demo.

     I think Barry Kade at comment 49 gives the most measured and reasonable comment about them on this thread. (Lots of other good stuff, but he’s standout.)

     I know the rulers are the main enemy. Nevertheless-

     Forward To Meltdown.

     Dave Ruaune

     Comment by David Ruaune — 13 September, 2008 @ 12:19 am

213. Trust in me, just in me
     Shut your eyes and trust in me
     You can sleep safe and sound
     Knowing I am around

     Slip into silent slumber
     Sail on a silver mist
     Slowly and surely your senses
     Will cease to resist

     Trust in me, just in me
     Shut your eyes and trust in me

     Comment by Mr Nineham — 13 September, 2008 @ 12:37 am

214. As Oscar Wilde said on the death scene in Little Nell: “You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh”

     Comment by Molotov — 13 September, 2008 @ 1:50 am

215. #212 “An ex-SWP, I want their meltdown because I think it will be beneficial to radical politics in the UK.”

     Yeah right the disintegration of a group and certain disappearence of many if not most of its activists from left politics would be a gain. For the boss class.

     Comment by Mike — 13 September, 2008 @ 8:43 am

216. #204 - Thanks again for your concern. The Kimber piece in this month’s SR isn’t anything new. I’m not aware that there’s been a single mention of “Left Alternative” in SR. In fact, as far as I’m aware, there’s been one single mention of “Left Alternative” in SW, and that was a meeting notice this week. So you’ll have to excuse me for not being shocked and surprised by your revelations. As I’ve said time after time, there’s nothing new here.

     I appreciate it’s a tiny number of people saying they want the SWP to fall apart, but what do those people think that will actually achieve?

     Comment by KrisS — 13 September, 2008 @ 9:16 am

217. #159 etc on Mark Steel and George Galloway/ does he say the SWP should have split over George’s appearance on Big Brother.

     The book by Mark- which I thought was quite good as an informal, honest, occasionally slightly amusing look at being a somewhat pissed off left activist- doesn’t explicitly say this but does kind of jokingly refer to it. But then there are lots of jokes in it. The point he’s really making, I’d suggest, is to criticise the cultish nature of the SWP.

     He certainly on p184 does say that there should have been meetings and discussions about it. On page 185 he writes:

     “It was as if they were saying about Galloway, ‘When he saluted the courage of a murdering dictator, well we all do that from time to time. And impersonating household pets on Big Brother can happen to anyone. But criticising an SWP member, even suggesting someone needs to work alongside him! WELL, THAT’S IT’ (caps in original- also underlined)

     A few days later, an article in the Socialist Worker, revealed, “Last year George Galloway earned over £300 000. Some tribune of the people!” Had they only just discovered this? A few days earlier if anyone had pointed that out they’d have been roundly denounced for criticising the international leader. I wondered if they’d put out another article that began, ‘EXCLUSIVE. We reveal how so-called socialist MP once went on television and MADE CAT NOISES!’”

     The line about Big Brother is obviously a jokey light-hearted comment- but Mark’s criticism of George’s paean to Saddam is more hard hitting. As indeed the wage.

     He’s obviously also criticising the SWP for breaking over George’s criticism of an SWP member rather than more substantial issues but not necessarily saying that they should have broken at all- as he says elsewhere they knew what Galloway was like. It’s not entirely clear, it’s a chatty memoir not a political tract, but I didn’t read it as saying they should have split only earlier- I didn’t think so. Really the political points in the book are asides rather than a detailed analysis. It’s that sort of book and possibly better for it.

     Comment by Jason — 13 September, 2008 @ 9:45 am

218. #68 “[T]he interesting thing is, [Rees] was and is not above the party and has been held to account…”

     Funny sort of accounting this. Rees has not been held to account for his egotism and his idiocies for the entire time he has been on the Central Committee - for two reasons. Firstly he has been protected by Lindsey German who has been dominant in the SWP over its decision-making. Secondly, because anyone who crossed Rees crossed German and the two of them would then do everything to undermine and even destroy the offender. Witness what happened to the US organisation, the ISO, and its leadership, but the examples are legion.

     Now finally and under pressure from some of the SWP’s remaining international sister organisations, the Central Committee majority has finally moved against him and German. Frankly, it is absolutely amazing it has taken them so long given the scale of the disaster for the SWP that Rees has been responsible for (with not a little help from the rest of the CC).

     But no-one in the SWP, never mind outside, has been told why he has been “held to account”. This is a funny sort of accountability to the poor bloody infantry who pay for this shower, sell the papers, try to build the branches and make the SWP a worthwhile enterprise.

     Perhaps all will be made clear at tomorrow’s National Committee meeting, but somehow I doubt it. One thing is clear though. For the SWP to revive and become a healthy organisation again, the culture that has developed in the SWP will have to radically change.

     Comment by who shot jr — 13 September, 2008 @ 11:19 am

219. I’ve tried, really hard. I’ve restrained myself, for days. But I can no longer hold back…

     Andy, please, add the “n” to the title. Please.

     Comment by KrisS — 13 September, 2008 @ 11:37 am

220. #218 You seem to know a lot about what is happening in the SWP and IST, or are you just bullshitting?

     a) The US ISO was kicked out under pressure form the Greek SEK and Callinicos. German and Rees had nothing to do with it. (at least openly)

     b) Where is the pressure form the IST? Evidence?

     Comment by anti — 13 September, 2008 @ 12:50 pm

221. “What is remarkable about much of this stuff is that Ray - who used to blog such bile during the split as ‘Unity is Strength’ seems to think it’s all got up to have another go at the SWP in the run up to the Convention of the Left.”

     Ah, tonyc again. Weren’t you the muppet who used to whine on about people using their real names? I see that even with your name change the sectarian leopard hasn’t changed its spots. Will you and Kev be reverting back to your real names at the Convention of the Left? It’s easy playing childish games on a blog but your puerile behaviour won’t go down very well there.

     Comment by Ray — 13 September, 2008 @ 1:25 pm

222. Chaps

     One of the important points that Steel makes in his book is how utterly unimportant groups like the SWP and now RR as well actually are

     So in fact it really does not matter what German and Rees or anyone else gets up to.

     We need to think up something a bit more interesting

     PSS Anti I was told the argument between the US and UK wings of the IST was about money

     Interesting ditching the SWP has been the making of them! Increase in membership of 5 times I was told

     Comment by Anonymous — 13 September, 2008 @ 1:25 pm

223. “One of the important points that Steel makes in his book is how utterly unimportant groups like the SWP and now RR as well actually are”

     Somewhere in this thread Steel has been placed on a pedestal and turned into a font of all political wisdom by the anti-SWP sectarians. I suppose when he was in the SWP you were saying the same thing about his judgement? I doubt it. Yet now you are claiming he’s showing us the way out of the crisis on the left. I’m sure Steel would love you for this or perhaps you are Steel. In reality Steel is just another independent socialist blowing in the wind making pronouncements that massage his not inconsiderable ego rather than help the left.

     Comment by Ray — 13 September, 2008 @ 1:39 pm

224. #222 Anonymous - where you’ve been told that the argument between the ISO and the SWP was about money was here. So you’re simply recycling a rumour that Andy Newman started.

     And you may well have been told that the ISO’s membership has increased five-fold, but I don’t think the ISO claim either that level of growth, or that their growth is because of the split with the SWP.

     Comment by chjh — 13 September, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

225. ‘The development of socialist sects and that of the real workers’ movement are in inverse relationship. As long as the sects are historically justified, the working class is not yet ripe to develop as an independent historical movement.’

     Karl Marx

     Comment by John W — 13 September, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

226. cjhj: money was definitely an issue in the SWP split from the ISO. You should ask your leaders what happened to the seven figure sum they got their hands on.

     Comment by Nas — 13 September, 2008 @ 5:53 pm

227. #226 Or maybe you could reveal all.

     Comment by anti — 13 September, 2008 @ 6:41 pm

228. Although I’ve had several good friends who have been in SWP, I’ve never either been in it or supported it. Looking at SWP from outside, it’s always appeared to me to be an organisation that uses so-called “democratice centralism” as an excuse to bully members into constant activitiy for activity’s sake and stop them thinking. However, reading Andy posting of the latest SWP thinking, I have to say that it appears to herald possibly a move in a positive direction. A move away from its very own electoral front and in the direction of - perhaps - genuine engagement with the rest of the left. A recognition that the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party exists and what looks like a more sober and realistic appraisal of today’s situation. Maybe there is a bitter internal struggle taking place between rival SWP factions, and maybe that’s a positive development too. My hope is that SWP members and members of other working-class-oriented organisations can start to learn lessons from mistakes we all have made and take positive steps forward towards building the working-class political party that we all need.

     Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 September, 2008 @ 6:45 pm

229. #220 a) Wrong

     Comment by PW — 13 September, 2008 @ 7:25 pm

230. #226 Totally wrong. There was no money issue in the split between the ISO and the IST/SWP. I can’t prove a negative but I can assure everbody the split was political.

     Comment by PW — 13 September, 2008 @ 7:28 pm

231. #226 Totally incorrect. There was no money issue in the split between the ISO and the IST/SWP. I can’t prove a negative but I can assure everbody the split was political.

     Comment by PW — 13 September, 2008 @ 7:29 pm

232. I saw SWP members setting up a stall outside the Black Country Museum this morning.
     What was going on there?

     Comment by Culture Vulture — 13 September, 2008 @ 7:35 pm

233. “The split between the ISO and IST/SWP” ……erm….what the fuck???? Are there really people on the left today who still take this “fourth international” shite seriously??? Or is it some kind of joke I don’t get? (I really hope it’s the latter)

     Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 September, 2008 @ 7:45 pm

234. 233- Why didn’t you ask them? Shy?

     Comment by RobM — 13 September, 2008 @ 7:45 pm

235. 234- my comment was in relation to 232, not 233!

     Comment by RobM — 13 September, 2008 @ 7:47 pm

236. #229 re #220 a) Wrong

     Wrong.

     Comment by anti — 13 September, 2008 @ 7:50 pm

237. # 233

     The IST doesn’t pretend to be anything more than it is, does it?

     (Steady on the question marks, old chap)

     Comment by KrisS — 13 September, 2008 @ 7:50 pm

238. #236 Anti - I was there - you are wrong. The split with the ISO was agreed by the wholee CC - and they all participated in the various discussions. PS I’m an ex-member of the ISO and also knowwhat happened on that side.

     Comment by PW — 13 September, 2008 @ 7:53 pm

239. Hi 237, Ahh, but is that the real “fourth international secretariat” or the “fourth international (international committee)?” Or is it part of the “All-new improved committee for a fifth international (workers)?” You must admit, this internationalisation of congenital sectarianism is something that the left really should have grown out of by now.
     Anyway, on a more important note, good result today.

     Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 September, 2008 @ 8:08 pm

240. #238 PW -I’m not suggesting that it wasn’t agreed by the whole CC.
     My post was an answer to post #218 that claimed that JR and LG were behind the move to expel the ISO.
     The Greek leadership (I’ve been in the Greek SEK since 1990) were adamant that the ISO should be expelled.

     Anyhow, no need to dwell really, but it pisses me off that some posters here believe it had nothing to do with political differences, and instead think it has to do with money, sex, drugs and whatever.
     PG ate my hamster!

     Comment by anti — 13 September, 2008 @ 8:15 pm

241. A great result, yeah. And a good game too. And a nice debut from Danny Kedwell. Did your lot have a game today? Or do you have to wait to get that logo out of the shirts?

     The IST is “an international current of revolutionary socialist organisations which share the same political outlook and seek to help each other by exchanging experience and other forms of practical support”. There’s nowt wrong wi’ that, is there?

     So what is this new working class political party we need, then? Or are we going to work that out through talking about it?

     Comment by KrisS — 13 September, 2008 @ 8:15 pm

242. I would just like to say that all my comments have been addressed to 366. Its just that the comrade hasn’t made the argument yet, but I definately know its coming.

     Comment by johng — 13 September, 2008 @ 8:19 pm

243. #240 I think the proposal to exclude the ISO from the IST originated in britain - that’s my recollection - but it was agreed be the other groups in the tendency. I know LG and JR were personally supportative of the proposal - as was I.

     Comment by PW — 13 September, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

244. 241, On the politics, I agree - to a certain extent - with the Socialist Party’s CNWP, but I disagree with what I see as their attempt to recreate the Labour Party. I think it should be a party of socialists and communists whose aim is that the working class become the ruling class, i.e. a clearly class-based, non-social-democratic party, but one which doesn’t waste time and energy squabbling over reruns of the squabbles of long-dead Russians. My view is that “democratic centralism” has never worked ever anywhere and should be dumped as an organisational method in favour of a sensible system of accountability and collective responsibility.
     On the important stuff, we’re top of the league mate!!!

     Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 September, 2008 @ 8:45 pm

245. So which particular “we” is it this week?

     Do you come across a lot of people who spend their time doing that? Squabbling about long-dead Russians, I mean.

     Comment by KrisS — 13 September, 2008 @ 9:05 pm

246. Take a look at the top of the conference league.

     No, I don’t meet many to be honest, it was a general reference to the false fault lines along which those of us who are socialists or communists and who want the working class to be the ruling class have separated, wrongly in my opinion.
     People who agree those two key points should be in the same party, while those who are neither socialists nor communists and don’t believe that the working class should be the ruling class should be in other parties.

     By the way, which one’s the proper fourth international, the ISO ot the new IST?

     Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 September, 2008 @ 9:13 pm

247. re#244 Top of the league.
     Karl is it Chelsea, Wolves, Oldham, Bradford, Crawley Town, Southport, AFC Wimbledon, AN.Other?

     #243 PW - The Greek section was livid with the ISO sending its leading CC member to the founding conference of those that had recently split from SEK in Jan 2001.

     Comment by anti — 13 September, 2008 @ 9:22 pm

248. #246 So it’s Crawley, Southport or AFC Wimbledon!

     #246 By the way, which one’s the proper fourth international, the ISO ot the new IST?

     Doesn’t interest the IST nor the ISO. None of the IST organisations are/were in the 4th International.

     Comment by anti — 13 September, 2008 @ 9:25 pm

249. Hi 247, It’s the mighty Crawley Town

     Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 September, 2008 @ 9:27 pm

250. Haha, back with Crawley, nice one. Is that *libel deleted* Steve Evans still there?

     Internationalism is at the heart of any genuine socialist politics. Capitalism is a world system, and can only be effectively challenged by an international revolutionary movement. The founders of the revolutionary socialist tradition played a leading role in such movements — Marx in the International Working Men’s Association, and Lenin and Trotsky in the Communist International.

     On a much more modest scale, the SWP belongs to the International Socialist Tendency. This is an international current of revolutionary socialist organisations which share the same political outlook and seek to help each other by exchanging experience and other forms of practical support.

     Comment by KrisS — 13 September, 2008 @ 9:58 pm

251. 223. By whom

     He was the last SWP member excet for McCann in Ireland with any recognition outside the political fringes. I’d imaginbe he is the only of then from the post Cliff period who will get an obit in a nation paper aport from AC but that is as an acedemic not as a failed politico

     Steel comments on many thing and is helpful enough to be honest about his confusion.

     he has seem is way out of the joy of sects but know that people will need to think this one out by themsleves

     Most of us will fail by the way but so I’m afraid has the Leninist DC party model

     Comment by Anonymous — 13 September, 2008 @ 10:00 pm

252. Totally disagree. Such “internationals” - including those of Lenin and Trotsky, as well as the current 4th,5th and 6th! - have been at best an irrelevant joke and at worst have led to appalling defeats for our class due to their failure to recognise uneven development in different nations.
     The nation state, which will continue to exist this side of communism, is the appropriate level of party organisation and internationalism must take the form of solidarity and support not command and control.
     I know nothing about your “International Socialist Tendency,” but, according to “PW” and “Anti,” you’ve just been booted out of the “ISO.”
     Is this not just another example of the sheer pointlessness of such organisations, which simply repeat, on an international scale, the petty splits that keep occuring domestically?
     Why don’t we look at where, and how, international solidarity has worked and learn from that, rather than mechanically repeating what has failed.

     Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 September, 2008 @ 10:23 pm

253. Good point Anonymous 251. The Leninist DC model has failed. It’s used as an excuse to bully.

     Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 September, 2008 @ 10:27 pm

254. It’s not mine, as well you know. (But the ISO was the IST’s US franchise, until the franchise was taken away. They were the ones who were chucked out.)

     Comment by KrisS — 13 September, 2008 @ 10:34 pm

255. 254 Aaaaaagh……I’m being dragged into the black hole of rival squabbling fourth internationals…..help……aaaaagh!!!!!!!

     Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 September, 2008 @ 10:38 pm

256. @ 221 “Ah, tonyc again. Weren’t you the muppet who used to whine on about people using their real names? I see that even with your name change the sectarian leopard hasn’t changed its spots. Will you and Kev be reverting back to your real names at the Convention of the Left? It’s easy playing childish games on a blog but your puerile behaviour won’t go down very well there.”

     Ray, don’t be such a dick - and other SWP members, please take note of the idiocy in your ranks.

     I’ve posted in this thread twice, both times under my own name. I note that Ray has more than once accused me and Kev of posting under false names, both times without any foundation (it’s not just me who knows you used to post as “Unity Is Strength” - I’m just the person who worked it out).

     Remember, Ray is someone who has never posted under his/her own name.

     As always, grow up Ray. Deal with the issues rather than go round accusing other people of being me. I’m flattered by the attention, but seriously, I’m a much better writer than you accuse me of being.

     Comment by tonyc — 13 September, 2008 @ 11:17 pm

257. #256 To put it simply.
     1. There is a group of organisations around the world that support the ideas of the International Socialist Tendency(IST). It was based on the idea that the Soviet Union was not a workers state, nor a deformed or degenerated one, but a society that was best described as state-capitalist.
     2. The IST has nothing to do with the 4th, 5th, 6th or xth International.
     3. The International Socialist Organisation ISO in the USA was expelled from the IST in 2001 over political disagreements, particularly over the issue of the emerging anti-capitalist movement (but not only this).
     4. Therefore there is no rival squabbling 4th International as the IST, SWP, ISO etc were never in it or claimed its heritage.
     We left that to the other sects

     Comment by anti — 13 September, 2008 @ 11:26 pm

258. “I’m a much better writer than you accuse me of being.”

     I’m offended Tony. I’d have thought that I was at least a good a writer as you are.

     And Ray - time to hone those detective skills - your’s are almost as blunt as your politics.

     Comment by End of an Era — 14 September, 2008 @ 12:26 am

259. Members of the SWP’s National Committee will today begiven the rare treat of seeing a full-scale spat between members of the Central Committee aired before them. It seems that a certain Marxist professor blew a gasket when he heard what happened at last week’s fateful Left Alternative steering committee meeting. Now he is presenting a motion to the national committee which is being met with a counter-motion from Lindsey German. Sounds like a fully-fledged faction fight to me, with the Germanites complaining that they are not being given equal air time. How the mighty are fallen.

     And anticipating all those whingers who complain that it is a disgrace that the SWP’s private business is incresingly out in the open, let me say that if the security services are the least bit interested in all of this, which I doubt, they have multiple superior ways of finding out. The obsessive secrecy in the SWP is to prevent accountability of the leadership to its own membership and to certain basic norms of decency. Sad it takes a faction fight to open things up.

     Comment by schadenfreude — 14 September, 2008 @ 11:36 am

260. What a bizarre justification for publishing internal documents.

     Comment by KrisS — 14 September, 2008 @ 11:47 am

261. But Kris you know as well as the rest of us waht happends today at the SWP’s NC is of not matter at all.

     It will not make tomorrows papers - it is only people like us who enjoy a bit of swop baiting and sectariana who are interested

     by the way the reason for leaking “internal documents” is that they are bloody funny

     Comment by Having a laff — 14 September, 2008 @ 12:34 pm

262. Is there anything more childish?

     Comment by KrisS — 14 September, 2008 @ 12:39 pm

263. Childish and off-putting, and a clear expression of why I feel (as in #109) that “there also doesn’t seem to be anyone seriously engaged in trying to make something better”.

     You’re not serious people.

     Comment by KrisS — 14 September, 2008 @ 12:41 pm

264. Well there is the Convention of the Left www.conventionoftheleft.org
     It’s only a modest initiatvie but if out of it we can get left or socialist forums both to discuss politics and co-ordinate and lan united action that’s good.

     The CNWP seems stalled but IF Serwotka, Crow, McDonnell and a number of militants in the unions become involved in some kind of new party intiative that would be interesting. I’d agree with KrisS for an explicitly socialist party on a fighting action program but if it was a significant move amongs a section of militants it would be worth seriously intervening in, engaging with and building even if it had left reformist politics (quite likely of course but it shouldn’t be assumed a socialist working class program can’t be won). More immediate in priorities, though not counterposed necessarily, would be getting a network of militants in the unions, aniprovatisation campaigns, anti racist and anti deporttation campaigns, climate change and anti imperialist campaigns to begin to rebuild working class resistance perhaps via the Convention of the Left, may be NSSN, trades councils and any other forums.

     Comment by Jason — 14 September, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

265. #259, #260
     Is what happens in the SWP of importance? Yes and no. It is not of any direct importance to working class struggles today and probably won’t make the papers- unless there is a big split and then it might make a couple of sentences in The Guardian or Observer more to take the piss.

     The left is completely marginal to society and that is part of the problem. Potentially, if elemnts of the left, including the SWP as still just about the biggest left group in the UK, can begin to get thier act together it would have some importance. The kind of sad degeneration of the left and its refusal to face reality is interesting if only as a negative case study of whta happens when you almost wilfully cut yourself off from struggles. I say ‘almost’ because obvioulsy the great majority of SWP members for whom I have great respect as sincere activists really do want to revive class struggle. But the party sanctioned sectarian way of operating- using campaigns for party building (however sincerely motivated it is wrong and deeply damaging) and the relentless, exhasuting and ultimately very demoralising lie that we’re always on the cups of a big breakthrough- both do, sadly, cut the left off from society and wider struggles; with a slightly larger group than the SWP having an almost fanatical hatred and suspicion of the SWP- an entirely un-useful attitude bt hardly surprisng (you reap what you sow as the old farmers’ proverb has it).

     Internal documents- should they be leaked? I don’t know. Probably not I guess. But the internal secrecy rule is really foolish. Sure there can be times when you want a relatively confidential discussion over tactics and don’t want gossip and innuendo spread over the internet. But these days it’s almost inevtiable anyway and I (and the other few of us in PR) have come to the conclusion that most debates should be had openly with the right to publish documents in the open and have discussions with fellow militants and activists. Otherwise th eorganisation risks stagnation and being perceived as some kind of outlandish masonic style cult. So whilst I wouldn’t advocate publsihing internal documents I would advocate abolishing the secrecy rule and all this stuff will and does get out anyway.

     Comment by Jason — 14 September, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

266. Serious? Serious?

     Oh come on Kris

     How on earth can you consider the swp to be serious

     One reasopn will do

     Comment by Having a laff — 14 September, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

267. What happens to the SWP is of significance for two reasons: 1. It has been the biggest Marxist organization in Britain for a generation; 2. Historically, it has managed to have impact at a number of levels from the ANL to Respect. If it melts down (there is an interesting discussion being held elsewhere about how long this has been developing), it represents an enormous shift in terms of fragmentation and possible re-alignment. This has its good and bad sides as any period of turmoil does.

     I agree with Kris S that what drew me into its orbit years ago was the intellectual vibrancy of its debate and the strength of commitment of those I eoncountered. For me, the election of Blair as Labour leader marked a shift that the SWP could not cope with and the politics became shrill and mechanical - ‘there will be no honeymoon for Labour’ and ‘the upturn is around the corner’. We still hear it. Then, when it was questioned either through dispute or alternative active engagements, this was met with administrative measures and secret caucuses.

     The most notable thing about every movement that has developed in the last decade is the ad hoc manner of organization, the open grassroots method of decision making and the recognitiion that we are all fallible and need to listen to other experiences and adopt startegies accordingly. It was a feature of the anti-war movement, a feature of the Convention of the Left and, I have found, a feature of Manchester Respect, which I was not certain would be the case. Challenging but exciting.

     I suspect the reason is the degree of ideological confusion that the lack of a perceptible alternative to capital presents. Thus, we are rebuilding with new and different forces.

     Plough Lane, 1977, in the heart forever.

     Comment by Chris C — 14 September, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

268. Oh, and I completely concur with Andy Wilson’s one word review of Rees’s book. If you read your history, you will quickly find that his take on Russian dialectics is drawn from Stalin and his hatchet men via the only book that he read on the subject. ‘The truth is always concrete’….and some get buried under it.

     Comment by Chris C — 14 September, 2008 @ 2:03 pm

269. Jason - yes the convention could be a positive step, I hope some good things come out of it.

     Comment by KrisS — 14 September, 2008 @ 2:43 pm

270. This weeks socialist worker describes the convention on the left as a key rallying point for those concerned with fighting war and free market policies:

     http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15924

     Comment by johng — 14 September, 2008 @ 2:54 pm

271. #269 Excellent.
     #268 Likewise.
     #266 “The most notable thing about every movement that has developed in the last decade is the ad hoc manner of organization, the open grassroots method of decision making and the recognitiion that we are all fallible and need to listen to other experiences and adopt startegies accordingly.”

     I certainly agree this is the right direction to go in.

     “I suspect the reason is the degree of ideological confusion that the lack of a perceptible alternative to capital presents. Thus, we are rebuilding with new and different forces.”

     Perhaps.

     I think we can find clarity again. I reckon I’m fairly clear on things (but that may be self-delusion!) Certainly, though, the left cannot have meanigful clarity whilst it is on the sideline.

     We need to create/ rebuild a movmeent through grassroots organising/ participation and open discussion/ debate along side joint action.

     However, when clarity is found it will be important not to mistake ‘clarity’ with ‘arrogance’!

     Comment by Jason — 14 September, 2008 @ 3:57 pm

272. “The left is completely marginal to society and that is part of the problem. Potentially, if elemnts of the left, including the SWP as still just about the biggest left group in the UK, can begin to get thier act together it would have some importance. The kind of sad degeneration of the left and its refusal to face reality is interesting if only as a negative case study of whta happens when you almost wilfully cut yourself off from struggles. I say ‘almost’ because obvioulsy the great majority of SWP members for whom I have great respect as sincere activists really do want to revive class struggle. But the party sanctioned sectarian way of operating- using campaigns for party building (however sincerely motivated it is wrong and deeply damaging) and the relentless, exhasuting and ultimately very demoralising lie that we’re always on the cups of a big breakthrough- both do, sadly, cut the left off from society and wider struggles; with a slightly larger group than the SWP having an almost fanatical hatred and suspicion of the SWP- an entirely un-useful attitude bt hardly surprisng (you reap what you sow as the old farmers’ proverb has it).”

     Jason you come across as though you are the voice of reason, a mediator who is hoping to get the pesky left see sense, yet you trot out the tired old line that the SWP are wreckers and liars.
     Ask yourself this, if the SWP rank and file are so good and the leadership are so evil don’t you think we would’ve spotted this by now? Or could it be that all of the SWP have a political difference with you and those in Galloway’s party?

     The SWP is the largest organisation on the left so I suppose it’s inevitable that the frustrations caused by the failed strategies of the rest of the left will evolve into the calumny aimed at the SWP. It’s a manifestation of their internalised despair that in an individual would be called self pity.

     When the UK left learns to accept that we can sometimes work together when our aims coincide but political differences will sometimes make this impossible then the sectarian sport of attacking the SWP will stop serving as a sorry excuse for the rest of the left to avoid looking at the flaws in their own political strategy.

     Comment by Ray — 14 September, 2008 @ 4:04 pm

273. Oh Ray - your blind loyalty is so sweet and so self-serving.

     But do you have any idea at all why so many people don’t trust the SWP? Is it all down to our failure to address our own short-comings or could it just possibly be that the SWP sometimes makes one or two errors of judgement. In your eyes have you ever made a mistake - and if not why are you bumping the glorious leader John Rees off the NC of the LA. No answer yet from any of the SWP hacks on here.

     Have you found him something more useful to do or are you still waiting for the new hard man of Marxism Alex Callinicos to give you the new line?

     Comment by End of an Era — 14 September, 2008 @ 5:27 pm

274. But is it the largest Maexist org

     Up until 1991 it was the CPGB and even on the Trot left it would have been the Grantities

     In the seventies the WRP would have got a look in

     In the ninties.nounties - does anyone have any reliable info from an independt source

     From what i can make out the CPB is the biggest today given the #s who signed the rees loyalty pledge last year

     Comment by Having a laff — 14 September, 2008 @ 5:43 pm

275. the cpb is nowhere near the biggest group on the left.

     it has 1000 members officialy (as reported on its own website). as for active members, maybe 150? (and not that active at that)

     a large portion of the 1000 members will be dying stalinists.

     the swp and sp are bigger organisations (maybe even ssp, solidarity, respect, and awl and appeal even if we go by active members).

     best wishes,

     ks

     Comment by karls — 14 September, 2008 @ 6:03 pm

276. which would mean the active marxist left is what 2000 persons?

     Comment by Having a laff — 14 September, 2008 @ 6:24 pm

277. #279
     Ray I came out explicitly against attacking the SWP for its own sake and said as you acknowledge that many members are genuine. And I am certainly not saying the failures of the left are jst down to the SWP.

     However, most of the left including the SWP have at times used campaigns in a way that seems like party building. Not always- the SWP in the Sukula campaign were fine for example. But often I have been in campaigns where the membership lists are kept in the control of one group (not always the SWP but it has been quite a bit- as you say they are the largest on the left so more often than not) and all too often the success or otherwise of intervnetions is seen in these terms with little attempt to bring in wider participation or debate.

     I am not saying it’s always- I’m not even saying it’s most of the time. But it is a definite factor and I think you;d have to be deliberately evading this issue of you can’t see how this is one of the reasons why the left is marginalised. It may well be that a much larger reason is the historic defeats of organised working class struggles and relative room f manouvre of the capitalists to buy off and divide those sections of workers who have a little fight left in them. That is the bugger picture and the SWP (of today at least) are not laregely to blame for that. But that is part of the reason why we all need a good long hard look at ways of working together more openly, democratically and try our very hardest to overcome sectarianism.

     Comment by Jason — 14 September, 2008 @ 6:30 pm

278. #276 Sorry when I dsaid that was in response to #279 that was a typo- I’m not cliaming clairvoyance! I meant in response to #271!

     Comment by Jason — 14 September, 2008 @ 6:32 pm

279. “It may well be that a much larger reason is the historic defeats of organised working class struggles and relative room f manouvre of the capitalists to buy off and divide those sections of workers who have a little fight left in them. That is the bugger picture and the SWP (of today at least) are not laregely to blame for that.”

     Well at least Jason you haven’t completely blamed the SWP for the rise of neo-liberalism and the selling out of workers by the labour aristocracy and the trade union bureaucracy. The fact that you point the finger at the SWP at all for the state of the left demonstrates to me how poor your analysis is of our current situation. If you can’t explain how we got here in the first place then what hope is there of a useful analysis to get us out of this mess?

     What you seem to be evading are the political disagreements on the left that allowed Thatcher and Blair to ram through their political agenda. Your frustration at the state the left is now in because of the betrayals by Labour and TU leadership will not be resolved by joining in condemnation of the SWP.

     Nor will it help our situation if I waste my time dwelling on the so-called, “crimes” of your organisation or Galloway’s or any other potential partner in unifying the left. We might be able to sort out the political disagreements about strategy if the left is not focused on internecine war. But it seems unlikely because a significant number of the small organisations on the UK left have spent many years indulging in sectarian attacks on the rest of the left and that’s not an easy habit to break. As Duncan Hallas once pointed out, the SWP broke out of this type of moralism many years ago so it’s sad that many socialists on here can’t do the same.

     For example the Convention of the Left is nearly upon us and leading Galloway supporters are using aliases to continue their sectarian attacks on the SWP. They know they can’t be open about this on the eve of the Convention so they hide behind a pseudonym. Do you really believe, Jason, that they really have any intention of reaching unity?

     So when you claim that the SWP has a political agenda when it works with others then this is correct. The agenda is to build the campaign and the SWP. They are not mutually exclusive aims. But what you can’t or won’t admit is that every other left organisation has its own political agenda. And this thread is another example of this sectarian agenda in action.

     Comment by Ray — 14 September, 2008 @ 9:54 pm

280. “Is it all down to our failure to address our own short-comings…”

     Read my last post about why the left is where it is. Your deliberately exclusive focus on the SWP is contributing to dividing the left even further. Not very helpful on the eve of a convention aimed at forging unity. Go away and think about what you really hope to achieve at this convention, Tony.

     Comment by Ray — 14 September, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

281. Ray - please cut the crap and address the topic of the thread:

     In what way does forcing the resignation of John Rees help your agenda for building the SWP?

     Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 14 September, 2008 @ 10:09 pm

282. Jason
     this really is a distortion of the truth but don’t let that get in the way of a good story. PLease let us know which campaign it was where the memberhsip[ list was held by only the SWP and that this was used to build SWP events/membership.
     If you are going to make serious allegations lets back them up, so which campaign and where?
     many thanks

     Comment by ll — 14 September, 2008 @ 10:09 pm

283. #281 If you read my post carefully you’ll notice I said this was a feature not only of the SWP but of others sometimes- NOT all the time but quite often campaigns have been led in that way. There are numerous examples as I think almost anyone involved in left politics of the last couple fo decades would admit in candid moments. Detailing them would be really quite petty and counter-productive- that’s not th epoint. The point is to change our culture of operating. You’re not seriously suggesting that these things don’t happen now and again?

     #278 I don’t point the finger of blame at all, Ray, at the SWP or anyone else excpet of course the thugs of the ruling class who will stop at nothing- mass murder, genocide, even destruction of the planet itself- to pursue profit. Try reading my post more carefully.

     But I am saying that the left- all of the left to greater or lesser degrees, I was explicit in not focusing ‘exclusively on the SWP’ (”not always the SWP …I am not saying it’s always- I’m not even saying it’s most of the time. But it is a definite factor”) - have had problems adapting to this and sometimes can behave in sectarian ways.

     That doesn’t mean we’re to balme for the barbarities of capitalism- war, oppression etc. It means though we need to seriously, maturely and creatively think about how we cna begin to rebuild a working class movement that can begin to make a difference.

     Comment by Jason — 14 September, 2008 @ 10:24 pm

284. “Go away and think about what you really hope to achieve at this convention, Tony.”

     You’ve been told twice now that you’re accusing the wrong person of posting under a pseudonym.

     This is exactly the MO you used when you poisoned this site last year: Attack after attack after attack, ignoring every point made that countered your own, and when your lies and distortions were proved to be so, you refused to even own up to them.

     So, once again: I’ve not used any other names on here. I’m not you, Ray - I don’t post under a false name.

     You were accusing the “End Of An Era” poster of being Kevin Ovenden yesterday.

     Bit stupid, really.

     Comment by tonyc — 14 September, 2008 @ 10:32 pm

285. Hey Ray - here’s an offer. You post under your own name and I’ll post under mine. And for your information I’m neither Kevin O or Tony C.

     But the day you post under your own name may well be the day that you actually engage with an argument rather than try and subvert it into your own rather pathetic agenda of SWP as the eternal victim.

     Comment by End of an Era — 14 September, 2008 @ 11:22 pm

286. # 278 - “the Convention of the Left is nearly upon us and leading Galloway supporters are using aliases to continue their sectarian attacks on the SWP”

     You’re not paranoid Ray. They’re out to get you.

     Who can find this sort of drivel credible?

     Comment by Liam — 14 September, 2008 @ 11:28 pm

287. Jason
     come on we are big enough and bold enough. You have stated here that the SWP have kept hold of name lists and of course denied them to others for the purpose of using those said lists to build their organisation. Now as far as I can see this is a pretty serious accusation and as a SWP member would not agree to. So in the interests of helping me Jason please name the campaign where this happend. We can then tsake this up and change this terrible practice. Of course you will have no problem in stating here the name of those campaigns and the areas, i.e I am not asking for names of comrades.
     On the other hand Jason if you choose not to name the campaign and area, then we can all assume you are a bullshitter who has made this up for narrow sectarian band wagon jumping motives, but you would never do this would you.

     Comment by ll — 14 September, 2008 @ 11:38 pm

288. “Who can find this sort of drivel credible?”

     You sectarians are a gift that never stops giving. It’ll be a laugh to see the disguises that go with the aliases at the Convention of the Left. Who are you coming as Liam?

     “But the day you post under your own name…”

     Yeah, “Ray” is such an off-the-wall name how could it be genuine like, “End of an Era”?

     “You were accusing the “End Of An Era” poster of being Kevin Ovenden yesterday.”

     Pay attention Tony, Kev is “Stop the witch hunt”.

     Comment by Ray — 14 September, 2008 @ 11:59 pm

289. But ‘Ray’ is not your real name so nobody knows whether you are as ridiculous in real life as you are on the blogs.

     Are you actually coming to the Convention Ray - I’m surprised you would dare with all those witch-hunters out in force. Best stay at home - safe in your imaginary world where the SWP do no wrong, John Rees is still top dog and somebody actually cares what Martin Smith thinks about jazz.

     Comment by End of an Era — 15 September, 2008 @ 12:21 am

290. Just catching up with this thread. Read all the way to the end, more thoroughly at the start and with with diminsihing focus. Barry Kade # 168 and elsewhere - you really do know what you are talking about. Excellent insight. Hi Andy Wilson, how are you comrade, sound points as ever.

     It does seem like a palace coup within the SWP. A classic case of ‘not in front of the children’. Contrary to the essence of revolutionary socialism and the fundamental deepening of democracy that this entails, the SWP has habitually confined arguments of importance to the leadership, treating the membership as grunts or sheep who could not be trusted with a complex argument. (In my experience politicised workers have been head and shoulders above the clever leaders os the SWP for decades.) The membership then get presented with a series of starkly counterposed and spuriously imbalanced positions (mixed up with a heavy doses of loyalty to the leadership, bullying by local organisers etc). If there are dissenting voices, usually composed of the relatively new and honest, they get marginalised, crushed or co-opted. (The exception to this rule are charlatans who pose as dissenting voices but really are posing and crave the CC’s attention and some sort of important role in the party.)

     The CC then wins the vote locally and nationally, and the process develops of the honest comrades withdrawing, dropping out, not raising their voices. The leadership becomes self-perpetuating locally (since ther CC gives privileged information to its local trustees whom are despised by them for thie lack of independent judegments and guts, but hey they are loyal) and nationally. And so it goes…and has done for two decades or more.

     I suppose the big question now is…will the argument at the top lead to any honest accounting and deep reflection amongst the comrades. Will it be a Stalinst states’ type situation (see Ian Birchall’s Workers Against the Monolith) where the bureauacrcy has to appeal to and align with members in order to pursue their position? Or, will there be honest debate and accounting. SWP members with longer memories should be thinking very deeply about some quite fundamental questions. For example. Why has it been necessary to operate over the last three decades as if the UK were Tsarist Russia where democracy had to be sacrificed? Why is it that in many districts it is essentially the same cadre that now leads as did so twenty years ago? Why is there such a culture of opposition to dissent? Why all the expulsions and exclusions, the black lists against ‘untrustworthy’ members? Why the fear to argue a dissenting position inside the party? Why is is it that so many 1,000s of members were lost that should still be members? Why the consistent undermining of initiatives led by others on the left? Why the distrust of so many on the left towards the SWP who should have a common interest?

     If the debate inside the SWP does not attempt to answer quite fundamental questions of democracy and accountability then it will simply recycle the old problems and may even become the WRP Mark II. If the debate focuses in recent events, the role of Rees and German alone then it is missing musch bigger questions. How the feck can Bambery and Callinicos emerge from all this unscathed? Culpable, culpable, culpable.

     Comment by Insider — 15 September, 2008 @ 12:23 am

291. #281 Can only speak from my own limited knowledge but Lambeth Defend Council Housing would be one such campaign where this was happening last year. Some of us got our own back though once we realised it - because all the right-wing nutters we then came across while campaigning were passed on to the SWP as “revolutionary contacts”. We never did actually find out exactly how the SWP contact visiting went on those estates afterwards but we do have a pretty good idea. Ha-ha-ha!!

     Comment by Stockwell Pete — 15 September, 2008 @ 12:48 am

292. #286 Yeah I knew you’d come out with that! But thanks #290 for one example. I could give several. But it really wouldn’t serve much purpose. I’ll give one. We had a very successful campaign meeting in a suburb of Manchester, with several meeting sof over 50, a few years ago against the continuing sanctions and war on Iraq- a few years prior to 2003, back in 2000 or so and the list of contacts was in the hands of an SWP member who refused to let us have access to it when they decided to move on tot heir next bg thing. That’s just one example- that one involves the SWP. I’m sure there are others involving other groups. I said it was a problem, an occasional problem, of the whole left.

     There are other times- e.g. the Sukula campaign in Bolton where the behaviour of the SWP comrades was exemplary even if we very occasionally had some slight political differences- that;s fine and to be expected. But there was no underhand or dshonest acting out. That may be more common than the other. But it’s complete naivety to think that sectarianism isn’t a failry common experience of working on the left.

     Comment by Jason — 15 September, 2008 @ 1:00 am

293. The overwhelming fact is the SWP cc are not the force for change that they assume they are.

     Recent blogs have highlighted their methods of non -cooperation with other on the left as described in #291. Its more blatant than that, with denying a prominent left speaker onto an UAR Oxfod platform and on another occasion accusing him of pandering to muslim extremists. Smearing a Birmingham councillor and communities as communalist.
     Anyone who does not see through the SWP cc are beyond redemption and reconciliation need their head examined as the SWP cc are as non-trustworthy and worthless as a dodgy cheque

     Support the convention of the left

     Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 15 September, 2008 @ 3:42 am

294. “Pay attention Tony, Kev is “Stop the witch hunt”.”

     No, “Ray”, you are accusing Kev of being “Stop the witch hunt”, and you are accusing me of being “End of an era” - are you now accepting that once again, you’ve been shown up as the paranoid idiot you are?

     The most anyone on the left ever gets by way of an apology from the current batch of loyalists in the SWP is a diversion, which is what you just did.

     So, I accept your apology.

     Comment by tonyc — 15 September, 2008 @ 8:24 am

295. “We had a very successful campaign meeting in a suburb of Manchester, with several meeting sof over 50, a few years ago against the continuing sanctions and war on Iraq- a few years prior to 2003, back in 2000 or so and the list of contacts was in the hands of an SWP member who refused to let us have access to it when they decided to move on tot heir next bg thing. ”

     So JASON
     1. This is the only example and involves 1 comrade in the SWP.. Hardly a pattern unless of course the conspiracy theory is your attempt at marxism.

     2. What was the”Campign meeting” on Iraq a few years ago? was it STWC by any chance. What was the next big thing this SWP wanted to do? More to the point given your organisations complete nonsense hostility to STWC do u really think you are in a position to bang on about

     Comment by ll — 15 September, 2008 @ 9:52 am

296. whoever stop the witch hunt is
     It is clear Ovenden knows RR is a busted flush, hence the panic from Ovenden and Hoveman. Privately of course they are saying they think the project is knackered and Galloway hasn’t got a hope of re election. Personally I think they are right about this. Whatever the differences Ovenden and Hoveman are pretty thoughtful people and will be under no illusions about the end that is coming. It is sort of amusing in that Liam’s bunch jumped aboard and gave away their paper, which now never seems to appear because they thought Galloway was the way to build their organisation, it would appear that once again the tradition of the IMG of completely missing the boat remains intact. The last 40 yrs for these people has been one long cock up and you would have thought they would have learnt. Ah well, they will dream something new up over the next few years no doubt. Thornett, its surely time for the retirement home?

     Comment by ll — 15 September, 2008 @ 9:59 am

297. “Anyone who does not see through the SWP cc are beyond redemption and reconciliation need their head examined ”

     fucking hell Ted (Larry) Nugent is at it again.. the spirit of stalinism is alive, using psychiatry for political debate. The spriti of this convention is going to be a real welcoming affiar!!!!! If RR leading members want to attack the revolutionary left then Larry Lamb will go far in RR while it lasts lol

     Comment by ll — 15 September, 2008 @ 10:03 am

298. ll - What is Rees being held to account for?

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 15 September, 2008 @ 10:25 am

299. Kevin,
     This was discussed at the democratically elected national exec of the SWP, Remember the one that members get to decide who is on it, I just make that point because RR has a national exec hand picked by you and Galloway. Indeed Galloway is ok to support New Labour in Glasgow against the left and not one peep is heard about it. Galloway decides who shoul;d be the candidates in the London election, the RR membership are denied a right to even vote ont he candidates. so come on Kevin lets hear something about the democratic absence in your organisation.
     Personally Rees shoudl eb brought to account for letting Ovenden and Hoveman go to work for Galloway as it was clear they were about to scab and put Galloway’s career before revolutioanry politics. My view for what it is worth is that Rees became to cosy with Galloway for too long. But the debate inside the SWP will remain there from my point of view. Now how about some news on the debates between Galloway and the RR leadership on backing New Labour? indeed was there any debate, or perhaps Galloway’s article on Kylie’S backside!!!! or sex in the city and who is fancied and other vital issues facing the working class today. I am sure there must have been debate over these issues. Indeed did you all agree to support Livingstone becuase there wsas no meeting of the membership to go for this line, did you all agree to organise a breakaway from the 100,000 anti fascist carnival to set a “Counter rally ” of “100″…Where was that master stroke dreamt up!!! let alone discussed?

     Comment by ll — 15 September, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

300. ll/jj - please grow up or go away. You post a series of lies, distortions and facile nonsense about organsiation of which you are not a member and expect to be treated as a serious commentator. Yet not once will you actually say what your own position is on what’s going on in your own party. Do you agree with ditching Rees - remember it was worth going to the wall last year over a proposal that another member of the SWP be allowed to work alongside him. What changed?

     Comment by End of an era — 15 September, 2008 @ 1:00 pm

301. There’s something very disturbed about Ray and ll’s fixations. Unfortunately, I think the fantasizing is going to get a lot worse.

     Meanwhile, let’s hope most SWP members opt for a more constructive approach.

     Comment by Stop the witch hunt — 15 September, 2008 @ 1:10 pm

302. Blimey, I wish I’d known there was a 100,000 strong anti-fascist carnival going on at the same time. It must have been a pisser for you as you were, presumably, elsewhere at the 60,000 LMHR event.

     Rob

     Comment by RobM — 15 September, 2008 @ 1:20 pm

303. Whenever I see the illustrious cadres forthing at the mouth and biting their computers, it reminds me of the Mark Steel description of the Marxism meeting when Galloway and Rees were introduced as ‘international leaders’ of the anti-war movement and got a standing ovation!!

     It must take so long to scrub yourself in the morning, especially when the new puritans are in turn denounced with alarming regularity.

     However much ll squeals, the whole strategy is implicated from head to toe.

     Comment by Chris C — 15 September, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

304. this is second or third hand but what I this is what I heard - john rees and lindsey german got absolutely hammered at the meeting yesterday. the cc majority argued that they had wanted to bring this argument out into the open months ago but the minority had effectively threatened to split the organisation if this happened. various cc members said that the debate should now be furthered through the branches

     Comment by Kostya Orlov — 15 September, 2008 @ 1:42 pm

305. Are people still really talking about this!!?. At first it was interesting but it’s really not that important. The fact that this post has so many comments while other articles on this site on more important topics have so few tells you all you need to know about the sectarian bun fighting nature of the British left. It’s really pathetic and shows us why the left has been an abject failure over the last 20 years and why it’s going nowhere any time in the near future. Come on people see some sense there’s a whole wide world out there and more important things going on in it than this. And i know people reading this will ask “If it’s that unimportant the why are you reading it?” but it’s just i read this about a week ago and am shocked to find people still commenting on it. I just think it’s important that the left in this country pulls it’s head out of it’s arse and starts engaging in the world outside sectarian gossip, we can leave all that crap to our comrades at the Weekly worker, we have a movement to build.

     Comment by Paul C — 15 September, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

306. Amen!

     Comment by Calvin — 15 September, 2008 @ 2:49 pm

307. #306 Calvin I concur!

     Comment by mark anthony france — 15 September, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

308. Rubbish - the is more fun than re-runs of Citizen Smith

     Who here remembers Speed for example?

     Comment by Having a laff — 15 September, 2008 @ 3:10 pm

309. II is right about one thing, the silence of Respect Renewal about Galloway’s support for New Labour against the left in Glasgow East was an absolute disgrace.

     Comment by Eddie Truman — 15 September, 2008 @ 3:27 pm

310. #296 - Kevin Ovenden can speak for himself but my private thoughts on the prospects for Respect and for George Galloway’s election as MP for Poplar and Limehouse are the same as my public ones. We have about 18 months to capitalise on New Labour’s well-deserved unpopularity and to build on the base we have established in Tower Hamlets and in parts of Birmingham to give ourselves the best chance of getting three MPs elected. I would certainly have been more confident that we can achieve what would be an unprecedented breakthrough for a party to the left of Labour, had it not been for the completely avoidable events of the last year. But I can assure ll that New Labour has not written Respect or Geoprge Galloway off, so I don’t know why unpleasant little sectarians like him/her think they know better.

     #299 - ll’s despicable comments about scabbing clearly shows he/she is completely ignorant of the events of the past three years as well as being a particularly unpleasant sectarian, something all his/her posts remarkably consistently demonstrate. Indeed, ll is so sad I almost feel sorry for him/her - but not quite.

     Comment by rob hoveman — 15 September, 2008 @ 5:49 pm

311. No, “Ray”, you are accusing Kev of being “Stop the witch hunt”, and you are accusing me of being “End of an era” - are you now accepting that once again, you’ve been shown up as the paranoid idiot you are?

     You’ve repeatedly ‘outed’ me as people who I’m not, which has included naming them on here, even though they’re not public figures. You’re the hypocritical shit who owes them an apology.

     Comment by Dave Festive — 15 September, 2008 @ 6:14 pm

312. #299 ll you sound like a throwback and your comments here are hampering the attempts of our party to finally move on after a disastrous year. The majority of the cc have accepted that mistakes were made and that there were problems with Rees. I fervently hope that, as seems to be the case, lessons are being learnt and we will all be the better for it. Your arrogance at claiming some kind of clairvoyance about what was going to happen just seems to me to be an attempt to justify continued sniping at ex-comrades. Now that you have to admit that Rees was wrong, you can’t resist a few insults in an attempt to justfy yourself. Stop your sectarian comments you are giving us a bad name. If we are going to work with others on the left in future (including Respect members) we can do without your nonsense. Let it go.

     Comment by DrDoolittle — 15 September, 2008 @ 7:41 pm

313. aka ‘Doctor Doolittle talks to the animals’

     Comment by Karen Elliot — 15 September, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

314. Ah, but would they squeak and squawk and speak and talk to us, Karen? That is the question…

     Comment by RobM — 15 September, 2008 @ 9:08 pm

315. “Stop your sectarian comments you are giving us a bad name.”

     If you had anything to do with the SWP, like going to your branch regularly and being involved with activities you’d know that there isn’t an anti-Rees sentiment in the SWP. This has been made up by the sectarians on SU who hate him because he had the chutzpah to call Galloway on his attempted coup. This thread is another laughable attempt at encouraging a split in the SWP. Its puffs up the bravado and offers a glimmer of false hope for all those sectarians who want rid of us.
     As you seem to believe there’s an anti-Rees faction in the SWP I seriously doubt whether you are in our organisation. If you have managed to con your way in to spy on us then Dr Do Little certainly sounds like an alias that fits your level of input into the SWP. But then it’s par for the course on SU for sectarians to impersonate members. Remember Dodgycheque anyone?

     Let’s hope you lot leave off your pathetic attempts at creating discord in the SWP during the Convention. The Left has got better things to be getting on with and it’s soooo tedious dealing with this juvenilia. I’m not even going to bother any more. Toodleloo!

     Comment by Ray — 15 September, 2008 @ 10:03 pm

316. Ray are you for real? Read today’s Party Notes. Or maybe you are the imposter and don’t get it.

     Comment by DrDoolittle — 15 September, 2008 @ 10:15 pm

317. I think it would be better for all of us if you didn’t bother any more Ray - it can’t be good for your health to be so twitter and bisted.

     Comment by steph — 15 September, 2008 @ 10:17 pm

318. Ray - ‘he had the chutzpah to call Galloway on his attempted coup’…… that worked out well for him didn’t it. What a master stroke.

     I for one am not in favour of Ray giving up. I find his comments here highly amusing and they are most welcome

     Comment by anti fascist fighter — 15 September, 2008 @ 10:31 pm

319. Dave, you’re such a laugh. Just like Ray and “ll”, your fantasy life where you’re the good guys and everyone else is out to get you are worthy only of ridicule. Your memory is also really, really shit.

     This is the problem with trolls. Hard to keep up with just how crap the fantasy world is. Look at poor Ray there, so confused now that he can’t even work out that his claims have been contradicted in this very thread. Or you, Dave, claiming a few months ago that Galloway supporters paid activists to go leafleting for him.

     Really, an anonymous troll has nothing to say about what people should and shouldn’t do. Especially when he gets it as wrong as you do.

     Comment by tonyc — 15 September, 2008 @ 10:38 pm

320. I have a funny feeling that Ray may be a fulltimer, maybe even a high profile member. Don’t know why, just his style of arguement seems familiar. An inability to deal with any political points, dodging the issues and a complete disregard for reality.

     I could be wrong.

     Comment by anti fascist fighter — 15 September, 2008 @ 10:49 pm

321. I think Ray is more like Father Jack, Drink ! Feck ! Arse !

     Comment by JFK — 15 September, 2008 @ 11:00 pm

322. RR, it is true the outlook looks very poor, we need to be honest about it. We will give it our best shot but I doubt that even a million apperances on talk sport can get George elected. We tried to cosy up to new labour viA the GlasgoW by election but still haven’t received a phone call from Cruddas. So come comrades lets do it for George, pound those streets for him. We know that if we lose that one its curtains for the left in general.

     Comment by kevin o — 15 September, 2008 @ 11:03 pm

323. #322. troll trying too hard to clever

     Comment by JFK — 15 September, 2008 @ 11:09 pm

324. Or not enough….How redundant can it get?

     Comment by Chris C — 16 September, 2008 @ 1:06 am

325. Re - 215
     #212 “An ex-SWP, I want their meltdown because I think it will be beneficial to radical politics in the UK.”
     Yeah right the disintegration of a group and certain disappearence of many if not most of its activists from left politics would be a gain. For the boss class. - Mike

     It is not quite that simple, whether the destruction of the SWP will be beneficial or not. Simply because an organisation maintains lots of activists in play does not mean that on the whole they are a good thing. The SWP in my experience are far better than WRP (of whom, thankfully, I have no direct experience), and I would say that on the whole they didn’t do me much harm, and helped me in some ways.
     Nevertheless, I think that the meltdown of the SWP (and it’s not clear yet that that is what is occurring) is to be welcomed - loss of activists temporarily is less of a cost than screwing people up forever. The disappearence of something which doesn’t work is not a gain for the boss class.

     Comment by David Ruaune — 16 September, 2008 @ 1:10 am

326. The SWP is just approaching in its usual confused way soem form of reality, following a series of wild exaggerations and stupid over-estimations of the strength of the left, combined by an exaggeration of their own importance.
     It’s still combined with posturing rubbish, though. The NUT, for example gives political support to no one. It’s never been an affiliated union.
     To talk about NUT supporting left candidates is a non-starter.
     They’ve woken up to the world situation and perhaps realise the threat that NATO is and for all their crimes, the Stalinists were accurate about imperialist’s intentions in relation to Russia.
     The SWP’s politics is being seen for its inadequacies. Their size is due to their organisation skills, not their politics. Their location outside of the Labour Party when disaffection with Blair mounted and the collapse of the Soviet Union were factors no doubt in making them appear large, just as Militant became large by being in the Labour Party at the right time.
     They will remain larger than anyone else as no other formation can grow, although Respect can consolidate itself as an election force, that is true.
     The left as a whole needs to be more objective, it’s not just the SWP who are blessed with an overdose of wishful-thinking. It’s not the TU/ Labour bureaucracy who are responsible for the state of the Labour movement per se. The imperialist offensive that was clearly launched in hte Reagan-Thatcher years managed its political dirty work and now we are facing the economic realit of this strategy. It’s not automatic that the working class fight back because things are bad. Isolation of the left - SWP contribute much, but not all towards this is the problem.
     It’s a rocky road ahead and by all accounts the SWP CC are irrelevant.

     Comment by Howard T — 16 September, 2008 @ 7:12 am

327. The SWP cc are a sore on left politics and should be democratically removed from all positions in the progressive movement.

     This is the problem with our movement, we are too tolerant with the likes of german and rees . Will they be questioned at the convention of the left for their smearing of the left representatives, falsely accusing them of pandering to muslim extremists. This is the only confrontational arena to ask these questions. You rarely get the opportunity any where else

     Of course the “Jelly yellow Left” have a checkered history of tolerating the the abusive polemics of the SWP cc and will shy away from asking hard question. The will probably want a controlled, without incident convention like new labour across the road.

     Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 16 September, 2008 @ 7:49 am

328. 326 - Respect can consolidate itself as an election force, that is true

     comrades please, let a little reality shine through the curtains. the only thing that respect may win over the next couple of years will be a manchester allotments marrow-growing contest.

     Comment by Hans Moleman — 16 September, 2008 @ 8:24 am

329. Silly Ray asks “Remember Dodgycheque anyone?”

     Well I think we do and it turns out that old dodgy was right all along. The cheque was dodgy and the money must be paid to the electoral commission. A quick look at the Electoral Commission website will confirm - unless Ray wants to suggest the the words ‘impermissable donation’ (refreing to a £ 4,636.28 donation from Khansaheb Civil Engineering as a cheque in US Dollars) is just another ruse got up by the pesky sectarians over at RR.

     Now you may remember that Alex ‘the knife’ Callincos referred to this donation from the Middle East a ’some obscure cheque’ but that later even the SWP conference agreed it was a bif iffy despite the Left List National council thinking it was all above board (no doubt with a few judicious distortions from their Glorious Leader). So why so long before the person who solicited this Dubai-ous donation was held to account? Or did he really do no wrong?

     Comment by End of an era — 16 September, 2008 @ 8:39 am

330. Hans Moleman is clearly mis-informed - marrows indeed!!!! In fact one Manchester Respect member has already won second prize in the Levenshulme Allotments Society ‘dish of fruit’ category. It’s a solid beginning with real potential to take the main prize next year.

     Comment by Clive Searle — 16 September, 2008 @ 8:42 am

331. The Left Alternative are indeed beginning to deal with reality. Looking at the newsletter they’ve just produced you can see a subtle shifting of position. They state, ‘We came out of Respect and stood as The Left List in the May 2008 elections’ (my emphasis) rather than claiming to be Respect themselves. Little is said about existing councillors or candidates or electoral work in general. The focus is on regrouping progressive forces around the People Before Profit charter rather than claiming to be the one true left alternative, as was claimed after May 1st. Instead, ‘The crisis of New Labour shows that the need for a strong left alternative is even greater than ever before. We’re working to make that alternative a reality.’

     This must surely be welcomed. Full marks to the new LA leadership for at least acknowledging the weakness of their position and trying to rebuild, but I suspect it’s a case of too little, too late. Most people and organisations who are interested in building a left alternative have had their hands burnt already, either in the Socialist Alliance or Respect. Hence the focus on the Barrow Socialist People’s Party, who to my knowledge have not yet had the pleasure (ahem) of working in the same organisation as the SWP.

     Comment by Jon — 16 September, 2008 @ 8:44 am

332. Jon
     I can tell you working inside the same organisation with one Galloway has not really been a bed of roses has it!!
     BB, Livingstone, backing New Labour in Scotland, Sexist paper articles, Xmas with Aziz, Anti abortion…………need we say more. Oh and is allowed single handedly to “Select” the London candidates, not allowing members to have a vote on who should be the candidates, if this happened in New Labour there would be uproar rightly from the Left. I am afraid Jon because its GG RR members wet themselves in delight and say we cannot be allowed our say leave it to the great George. Well I for one had had enough and to say RR is a democratic organisation is bollocks. It is a one man band, he says what goes and if people don’t like it then tough. The national exec has never been elected and guess who selected it… yes thats right George Galloway.When Jon are you able to wake up and smell the coffee.Galloway is a busted flush, the war as a declining issue makes it a lot harder for Galloway and RR. On a lot of issues he stands on the right.

     Comment by jack — 16 September, 2008 @ 9:09 am

333. Wow, the trolling by SWP members has got really sophisticated, hasn’t it?

     Comment by tonyc — 16 September, 2008 @ 9:16 am

334. Now, now Tony, when I was in the party we used to go out of our way to make the younger members feel welcome. Let ll/jj’s thirteen year old brother have his say.

     Comment by RobM — 16 September, 2008 @ 10:25 am

335. Well SWP can hardly hold the moral high ground vis-a-vis Respect. I was at the Respect founding conference when the SWPs fawning admiration for GG’s indefatigability led them to vote down a workers wage for any MPs it gets, a no-borders position on immigration, and taking an anti-monarchy position as a principle of Respect.

     The speeches by loyal SWP members to put down these amendments were dreadful with Paul Holborow’s pleading, about how George Galloway couldn’t possibly be expected to carry out his work on a worker’s wage, possibly the worst.

     I never joined Respect as a result of that founding conference and subsequent opportunistic forays with dubious political tendencies in Tower Hamlets. When the split happened many of the people I was more sympathetic to were in Renewal but as were at least two of the people, who locate themselves on “the left” that I feel most political contempt for - GG and Yvonne Ridley - and they still have leading positions in RR, and in GG’s case a dominant position.

     Whether you feel Jack is an SWP troll or not - his points about the democratic deficit in RR surely need proper answers, and if they can’t be answered then the very many independent leftists who find no place in New Labour and are looking for a real, democratic alternative, will need to see RR doing something about this before it might hope to pick up their support

     Comment by David Rosenberg — 16 September, 2008 @ 10:29 am

336. #332 Interesting how posting a relatively complimentary comment about Left Alternative results in a tirade against their former comrades. Perhaps I shouldn’t have bothered.

     #335 There is a democratic deficit inside Respect which needs to be remedied. There needs to be a properly delegated conference which will vote in a new NC. In future, candidates need to be selected by majority vote at branch meetings.

     The selection of candidates by the NC during the last election was a one-off caused by the extraordinary nature of the split, which left the party with little in the way of structure or leadership and unable to fight an effective election campaign. It may have been necessary for the survival of the party, but it should not be repeated.

     Comment by Jon — 16 September, 2008 @ 12:15 pm

337. It’s a bit weird for somebody like who has consciously avoided the far left for quite a while – just been a union rep at work, there’s initial cred established that will perhaps shield me a little from the polemical blows that may come - to enter a forum like this. Hears goes, although perhaps I’ve missed the boat on this issue, the polemics have moved on.

     I, like I suspect thousands of others former SWP members, read Mark Steel’s What’s Going On? whilst on holiday and thought it generally excellent – and not just because I can relate to some of what Mark says about the death agony of a relationship with kids involved. Bored at work the other day I scanned the net for a SWP response and was astounded to find the review posted above in this thread by Alex Callinicos. I didn’t expect that the comrades would exactly like the book but the terse dismissal of What’s Going On? has to be read several times to be believed. Callinicos refers to it as ‘sad’ and ‘unpleasant’ whilst generally betraying Steel as completely out of touch, an embittered activist of yesteryear whose growing detachment culminates in him leaving the fold of the SWP.

     There you go then. Nothing else Steel touches on – on the down side the disingenuous accounting of the decline in SWP membership, the dodgy analysis of the endless opportunities to build and build, the chronic underestimated of the damage to the left/socialism of the collapse of the USSR, on the up side the vibrancy of current environmental movements and so on - is worth engagement as his book is only a dismal testimony of personal woe. As such ‘it’s hard to know how to argue with him’ says Callinicos.

     Actually, What Going on? is remarkably free of bitterness aside from a moments when he discusses his divorce - where yes he probably does go too far and may live to regret doing so. There’s irony, frustration, a growing despair but no rancour. He contextualises the SWP obsession with ‘the right line’, commiserates with those who work day in day out for the organisation and regrets the party’s demise as it contains some of the best writers and activists around. The only figure he does lampoon for his vanity is John Rees, not a favourite on this site I think, but even here he doesn’t name the man, referring to him only as ‘the national chair of Respect’.

     In other words he doesn’t do what he says he finds increasingly distasteful about SWP over recent years: getting personally very nasty when anybody deviates from the line, certainly when they dare to criticise the party. He is very funny about the polemical bashing he received when he raised his head above the parapet over the Respect debacle last year. Blind to the irony, that’s what Callinicos continues to do in his review. ‘If you can’t get the ball get the man’, as it were. Personal attack designed to humiliate is something that he specialises in. An acquaintance still in the SWP tells me that when John Molyneaux raised fairly mild criticisms of the lack of inner party democracy, it fell to Callinicos to denounce him as a phoney whilst unpicking the inconsistencies in his arguments at the SWP conference.

     The irony is furthered by the fact that there is so much in the case of Prof Alex Callinicos to get personal about had somebody as able as Mark Steel been inclined to do so. Where would you start? His conceit, intellectual snobbery schooled at Balliol, self importance, camel coats, moneyed background, academic career spent imitating (unsuccessfully) Perry Anderson, aristocratic neck that wouldn’t survived the French Revolution? The list is endless. But that’s just the point Mark Steel doesn’t write as just another sectarian keen to put the boot into the left/a specific far left party. The end of his book is actually quite invigorating and optimistic for anyone who sticks with it not just to pour scorn.
     Sam

     Comment by Sam — 17 September, 2008 @ 9:01 pm

338. Ok Sam, so what next?

     Comment by Karl Stewart — 17 September, 2008 @ 9:27 pm

339. Sam - No offense but maybe you should write your critique of Callinicos’ review to Socialist Review, rather than here. a) it’s not related to this discussion (for what it’s worth) and b) it would be more useful in its proper context.

     As to the content, I’m not in the SWP but a lot of what you say comes across as a whiney - that Callinicos’ disagrees with Mark Steel, that Steel received a “polemical bashing” when he “raised his head above the parapet”, just like John Molyneux, etc. Um, both Steel and Molyneux had their dissenting views published in the Internal Bulletins. Was there a response - yes. But that’s how these things work - you argue your corner and you expect (and would hope, I’d think) people to defend their corner with equal passion and commitment - otherwise, how are we going to fight the capitalist state if we can’t take even take a comrade writing a sharp rebuttal. In any case, agree or disagree, it’s not self-evident that the conclusion is as Steel (and Sam) would have us believe since Molyneux remains an active, high profile and committed member of the SWP.
     As for Steel not getting personally nasty because he didn’t call Rees by name, it was pretty obvious who he was referring to - you knew it, anybody on the left who’d heard of Respect knew it. Using someone’s title (eg. Respect’s only elected MP? Who could I be referring to?) does not mean you’re not being personal. And since you laud this as a quality and then go on to make fairly juvenile remarks about Callinicos’ background, you don’t have much credibility on this score.
     Again, as for Callinicos’ response - I don’t think anyone would be surprised that a member of the SWP CC would disagree with Steel. Is it terse? If it is, it’s a pretty long “terse” review - as long as any other review in the magazine. And it’s not unreasonable to point out “His political pronouncements reflect an immense degree of detachment from the movements and organisations on which he passes generally damning judgement. I don’t agree with some of the things he says about what the SWP did in the 1990s, but at least they show an insider’s knowledge…” And since Callinicos explains what he means by this point, it is not simply dismissive - even if you disagree with his analysis.

     Comment by redbedhead — 17 September, 2008 @ 9:53 pm

340. nb - I say I’m not in the SWP simply to indicate I don’t know the specific concrete experiences that Mark Steel has had, not because I’m trying to hide the fact that I’m a member of the IST.

     Comment by redbedhead — 17 September, 2008 @ 9:54 pm

341. Hi - What next? Well, like other people using this blog from the far left, of I’ve been thinking of joining the Greens. Whiney post Redbedhead (like that name), excuse me for not knowing what the IST is? Socialist Review, do you think they would print such comment? As for debate, disagreement, this can be robustly put without descending into acrimony, thinly veiled abuse or character assassination as a way of avoid engagement with the political issues. This has probably always been a characteristic of the far left but seems particularly pronounced when times are bad, parties and movements become introverted and turn to internal splitting and squabbling. It’s an aspect of Steel’s disillusion as you’ll know if you’ve read What Going on?-? As he puts it describing the Respect debacle,

     ‘The road to madness involves a thousand incremental steps. You accept that the most important issue of the day is to win this localised feud, so you justify making outlandish accusations, no matter that they’re starkly opposite to everything you said 6 months earlier. Then if some people wonder what on earth you’re doing, they have to be denounced in glorious prose, possibly involving monkeys, and anyone who objects must be unmasked as a stooge. Until eventually you’re like these warring neighbours on television who insist it’s obviously utterly reasonable for them to poison the other one’s fish.

     Eventually, having, discovered they’d made an administrative error (in preventing him from contributing to pre SWP conference debate) and I was a member after all, they agree to print my article in a later edition, which they followed with their own replay. It seemed to quite flattering to have been granted my own personal page of abuse, like having your own portrait drawn by one of the street artists you find at tourist hot spots. Maybe this could be an imaginative source of revenue for left-wing parties, in which they offer personal denunciations in Trotskyite language as a special gift. So you could request one for your dad’s sixtieth birthday, give a few details and back would come a closely typed page of vitriol beginning: ‘Stan’s continued forays into Southport Bowls Club display the extent of his decline into petit-bourgeois wood rolling. His claim that “It keeps me active and stops me getting under your mother’s feet” is frankly laughable bourgeois individualist justification we would expect from this stooge of Bill and Eileen who openly admits he organises teas for the home matches’.

     To most people this must simply confirm what they already thought, that the organised Left are as depicted in the Life of Brian. But it hadn’t always been like this’.

     It seems to me that Callinicos’s terse review – by that I mean curt – review in dismissing Steel’s observations, criticisms as just the voice of disillusion, individual unhappiness and detachment continues in this sort of vein – even if he doesn’t mention Southport bowls club.

     Comment by Sam — 18 September, 2008 @ 9:47 am

342. Well thanks for that Sam. I am by no means closed to critiques of the SWP, its role in the Respect debacle etc, but if that is the standard of Mark’s book then I won’t be shelling out for it (and I was considering doing so).

     Comment by swp member — 18 September, 2008 @ 10:41 am

343. ALL HAIL MARK STEEL. HE IS FAMOUS AND THEREFORE HIS OPINION OF A PARTY HE HAS HAD VIRTUALLY NO INVOLVEMENT IN FOR A DECADE IS PARAMOUNT! THE LEFT HAS NO CONNECTION WITH YOUTH, LET’S GET INTO THE GREENS ASAP, AT LEAST THEY DON’T HAVE TO GO TO WORKPLACE SALES AND WEEKLY BRANCH MEETINGS. THAT’S A VIBRANT MOVEMENT THAT ALSO FITS IN WITH MY NEWLY DEVELOPED LAZYNESS.

     Comment by Hans Moleman — 18 September, 2008 @ 10:41 am

344. http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/737/swpdumps.html

     A fun place to read about the car wreck that is the SWP

     Couldn’t happen to a niucer bunch of people

     Comment by The Vengence of History — 19 September, 2008 @ 11:59 am

345. Hans you would seem less mad if you didn’t use capitals for everything. Have you read his book?

     Comment by Chris S — 19 September, 2008 @ 12:17 pm

346. ‘the car wreck that is the SWP’ Vengance - this ‘car wreck’, even on the most conservative estimates, is still about double the size of the nearest competitors (the SP). Don’t write our obituary too soon.

     Comment by swp member — 19 September, 2008 @ 12:56 pm

347. swp member - as they say ’size doesn’t matter’. I think what is meant in this context is that the SWP is in some kind of trouble, not that it will cease to exist.

     It hasn’t been the best year to 18 months in the party history really, has it?

     Comment by anti fascist fighter — 19 September, 2008 @ 1:06 pm

348. I think it was Alex ‘the knife’ Callinicos himself who pointed out that size was no detriment to an organisation becoming a sect - this in realtion to the ISO, the first of Alex’s many victims in his masterly stewardship of the colonies.

     it’s true that the SWP aren’t going to disappear. But whether they can make a positive contribution to the whole left or retreat to the methods of the 80s (albeit in very different circumstances) is still to be decided. But don’t expect the membership to have much a say in it - they seem fully prepared to have all the main decisions of the last year made for them. Why change the habit now?

     Comment by End of an era — 19 September, 2008 @ 1:25 pm

349. ‘It hasn’t been the best year to 18 months in the party history really, has it?’
     Absolutely true. But the swp retains a large layer of very serious cadre, and a geographical spread that is the equal of any other left organisation I’d say. That’s recognised by the sensible people on here to be fair.
     As for the idea that the membership have no say in the way forward, i’d say that the membership have asseted themselves in quite a concerted manner over the last few months, it’s just not stuff that’s happening in public.

     Comment by swp member — 19 September, 2008 @ 1:40 pm

350. Sorry that’s ‘asserted’ not ‘asseted’

     Comment by swp member — 19 September, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

351. that sectarian Karen Reismann has sectrianly and dreadfully won by a massive margin a seat on UNISON Health Exec. Awful news I know with her talk of resisance and having an all out health strike to support her, clearly a sectarian.

     Comment by ll — 19 September, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

352. asserted and asseted. good contribution from swp member.

     Comment by johng — 19 September, 2008 @ 1:52 pm

353. ‘the car wreck that is the SWP’ Vengance - this ‘car wreck’, even on the most conservative estimates, is still about double the size of the nearest competitors (the SP). Don’t write our obituary too soon.

     “competitors”, eh?

     Good luck to you in the competition. (Can anyone enter?)

     Play yer cards right and you might get a Best Of Breed rosette.

     Comment by Kevin Williamson — 19 September, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

354. #349: swp member said “But the swp retains a large layer of very serious cadre”. Although I am sure that is true, It really is a pity that your argument was undermined just two posts later in the shape of ll/jj.

     Comment by Embarassing relatives — 19 September, 2008 @ 2:52 pm

355. oh of course. You and ohers attack the SWP for anything, when it comes to a victimised militant who had an unprecedented strike in her defence and the Union has droppped all support for her. She then wins by a mile a contested seat on the health exec……what does this site say about it? zero, nothing, not interested, why because she is in the SWP and you can’t say anything positive about them can you.
     So its been a bad year, some of us are in for the long haul. My view is that there is a sea change inside the SWP and this is a good thing. F

     Comment by ll — 19 September, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

356. Now,
     Lets look at RR record on democracy
     No elected national exec
     Galloway single handedly picks candidates for london elections!!! yes thtas right members were not given the right to choose the candidates.
     Drop support for Lindsey German abd back Livingstone.. no members meeting no vote.
     Galloway, joind wiht the bigots and argues for a return to the backstreet abortions…not come back and defended by socilaists in RR for doing so!!!
     RR backs New Labour in Glasgow by election and scabs on the scottish left..

     with this record.. well pot and kettle comes to mind.

     Comment by ll — 19 September, 2008 @ 3:08 pm

357. #356 - It’s not as if Galloway moved rightwards after the split with the SWP. Remember, abortion rights (much like opposition to the monarchy; workers’ wage; open borders; women’s and gay rights, the list goes on) were never a “shibboleth”.

     Did the “socialists” in Respect Mk I ever hold him to account? Not only was there no public discussion, but every SWPer resolutely defended all of his behaviour from the get-go. Now they’re defending something else entirely… although most SWPers won’t dare say what they think about Rees because they don’t know how out of favour he is yet.

     Comment by David Broder — 19 September, 2008 @ 3:14 pm

358. To SWP member at top you have 1400 members but now closer to 700 - from claimned 10.000 in the 80/90s

     What in the love of God to you consider to be failure. Have the cc invested all your cash in HBOS shares ?

     More to the point how is the John and Lindsey.

     Will they split

     Do tell - i’m agog

     Comment by The Vengence of History — 19 September, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

359. #270: “This weeks socialist worker describes the convention on the left as a key rallying point for those concerned with fighting war and free market policies:”

     Why does SW do that? It is not a convention of “those concerned with fighting war and free market policies” (”policies”!), it is a convention of Trot groups with a coterie of social democrats, Stalinists and their supporters.

     Unfortunately the prevailing mood appears to be “we’ve all been too argumentative in the past, so let’s water down our politics and restrict ourselves to weak social-democratic anti-cuts and anti-war campaigns”, rather than “there’s too much sect-ism and too little debate and real argument, we as a collective of activists ought to be able to debate openly and make decisions democratically”

     Comment by David Broder — 19 September, 2008 @ 3:19 pm

360. People I have spoken to where I live don’t even know about what’s happening in the SWP. Not much chance of membership discussion when they aren’t informed of developments. The local branch even has a Rees loyalist NC member

     ll - your arguement rather strangely seems to centre around ‘RR aren’t democratic, so why should we be’. But am glad that you think a seachange is a good idea as this is the opposite from what you have previously argued

     Comment by anti fascist fighter — 19 September, 2008 @ 3:21 pm

361. Are there any Rees loyalist left apart from Shiboleth?

     Comment by The Vengence of History — 19 September, 2008 @ 3:38 pm

362. “glad that you think a seachange is a good idea”

     Yeah, the sea change is that the SWP is never again going to get caught up in sectarian bun fights like it did towards the end of Respect. I know you and your ilk would love to see us disintegrate but how many times have we heard this over the years from individuals who hop in and out of left organisations like a new suit and from sad little sects who are constantly warring internally and with the rest of the left. They have been prophesising the end of the SWP since its inception and have formed a whole sub-genre of the left who slavishly follow our progress. So tell me exactly which organisations have split over the last thirty years and which one has remained intact? Do you need a clue?

     Comment by Ray — 19 September, 2008 @ 4:22 pm

363. Comrades,

     perhaps we’re jumping to conclusions.

     LG and JR resigning from their positions in the LA could be due just to the SWP withdrawing from what’s left of the LA shambles and trying to relaunch itself ?

     Sure their cred [ and that of the SWP generally ] is shattered, but it’s also clearly harmed the cred of the ‘left’ [ that to the left of and outside the LP ] as a whole, so it should be no cause for smugness.

     Does anyone here have any reliable information as to why LG and JR did this, other than just conjecture ?

     Comment by Halshall — 19 September, 2008 @ 4:25 pm

364. Halshall - we know that John Rees was instructed to resign from the the leadership of the LA by the rest of the CC in vote that was carried 10 to 4. We know that Lindsey resigned in solidarity.

     What we don’t know are the resons given for this sacking as the CC are so politically secretive about the disagreements within their ranks. (One wonders whether they still meet in that empty room in Stoke Newington swimming baths so as not to be overheard by Special branch).

     We also don’t know what the ridiculous ll/jj means when he says “My view is that there is a sea change inside the SWP and this is a good thing.” because according to his regular rants over the last year the SWP has never done anything wrong. So why the need for the sea change?

     Comment by End of an Era — 19 September, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

365. I really think that this post discussion has gone to weed and should be left to die now, but I couldn’t let ll get away with that fucking bollocks about us not supporting Karran Ressimann.

     There is overwhelming support for Karan in Respect (there is an article supporting her in the new Respect paper) and this blog has posted articles in support of her. I for one rang her last night to congratulate her and let her know our union group was sending her a message of support.

     Whatever our differences over the Respect split and the internal nature of SWP democracy we can still unite on issues that matter.

     Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 19 September, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

366. “Halshall - we know that John Rees was instructed to resign from the the leadership of the LA by the rest of the CC in vote that was carried 10 to 4. We know that Lindsey resigned in solidarity.”

     “We” know no such thing. It’s pure conjecture based on antipathy and sectarianism towards the SWP. The question is how does this latest manifestation of spite help the left in the run up to the Convention?

     Comment by Ray — 19 September, 2008 @ 4:54 pm

367. Ray - the response to the seachange was priceless. Thankyou for your ever enduring Dave Spartness. I never said that I would like to see you disintergrate. Then again that is the stock answer whenever there is ever criticism of the SWP practice or lack of democracy.

     Comment by anti fascist fighter — 19 September, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain

• Recent Comments
  • bill on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • Ray on TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • Ray on TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • Ray on TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • 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
• 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