SOCIALIST UNITY

10 June, 2009

AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE SWP

Filed under: Unity, SWP — admin @ 8:00 am

Dear comrade,

Labour’s vote collapsed to a historic low in last week’s elections as the right made gains. The Tories under David Cameron are now set to win the next general election.

The British National Party (BNP) secured two seats in the European parliament. Never before have fascists achieved such a success in Britain. The result has sent a shockwave across the labour and anti-fascist movements, and the left.

The meltdown of the Labour vote and the civil war engulfing the party poses a question—where do we go from here?

The fascists pose a threat to working class organisations, black, Asian and other residents of this country—who BNP führer Nick Griffin dubs “alien”— our civil liberties and much else. History teaches us that fascism can be fought and stopped, but only if we unite to resist it.

The SWP firmly believes that the first priority is to build even greater unity and resistance to the fascists over the coming months and years. The BNP believes it has created the momentum for it to achieve a breakthrough. We have to break its momentum.

The success of the anti-Nazi festival in Stoke and the numbers of people who joined in anti-fascist campaigning shows the basis is there for a powerful movement against the Nazis.

The Nazis’ success will encourage those within the BNP urging a “return to the streets”. This would mean marches targeting multiracial areas and increased racist attacks. We need to be ready to mobilise to stop that occurring.

Griffin predicted a “perfect storm” would secure the BNP’s success. The first part of that storm he identified was the impact of the recession. The BNP’s policies of scapegoating migrants, black and Asian people will divide working people and make it easier to drive through sackings, and attacks on services and pensions.

Unity is not a luxury. It is a necessity. If we do not stand together we will pay the price for a crisis we did not cause.

The second lesson from the European elections is that we need a united fightback to save jobs and services.

If Cameron is elected he will attempt to drive through policies of austerity at the expense of the vast majority of the British people. But the Tories’ vote fell last week and they are nervous about pushing through attacks. Shadow chancellor George Osborne told business leaders, “After three months in power we will be the most unpopular government since the war.” We need to prepare for battle.

But there is a third and vital issue facing the left and the wider working class. The crisis that has engulfed Westminster benefited the BNP.

The revelations of corruption, which cabinet members were involved in, were too much for many Labour voters, who could not bring themselves to vote for the party. One answer to the problem is to say that we should swallow everything New Labour has done and back it to keep David Cameron, and the BNP, out.

Yet it would take a miracle for Gordon Brown to be elected back into Downing Street. The danger is that by simply clinging on we would be pulled down with the wreckage of New Labour.

Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS civil service workers’ union, has asked how, come the general election, can we ask working people to cast a ballot for ministers like Pat McFadden.

McFadden is pushing through the privatisation of the post office. Serwotka proposes that trade unions should stand candidates. Those who campaigned against the BNP in the elections know that when they said to people, “Don’t vote Nazi” they were often then asked who people should vote for.

The fact that there is no single, united left alternative to Labour means there was no clear answer available. The European election results demonstrate that the left of Labour vote was small, fragmented and dispersed. The Greens did not make significant gains either. The mass of Labour voters simply did not vote. We cannot afford a repeat of that.

The SWP is all too aware of the differences and difficulties involved in constructing such an alternative. We do not believe we have all the answers or a perfect prescription for a left wing alternative. But we do believe we have to urgently start a debate and begin planning to come together to offer such an alternative at the next election, with the awareness that Gordon Brown might not survive his full term. One simple step would be to convene a conference of all those committed to presenting candidates representing working class interests at the next election.

The SWP is prepared to help initiate such a gathering and to commit its forces to such a project. We look forward to your response.

Yours fraternally,

Socialist Workers Party

130 Comments »

I think this should be welcomed whatever as should similar calls from Bob Crow, AWL, Socialist Resistance etc. More than this- in parallel with it and hopefully leading to antional conference- we should start local intiatives, trade unionists, campaigners, left groups to start rebuilding class struggle, support for the strikes in the RMT and CWU, the Linamar strike, occupations and parent and student led protests against privatisation etc.

Comment by Jason — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:06 am
As a General Election could be imminent the best way forward for the next election is to use the “peoples Charter” as a basis for Left Unity at that election. The PCS, RMT, FBU etc are already signed up.

The left should not stand against candidates from the main parties who agree to fight for the issues on the charter, and theose parties who sign up should agree not to stand against each other, having only one candidate.

This doesnt require a new party, doesnt need parties to fold or be swallowed up, doesnt need a “brand’, simply an agreement.

Issues as to who is best placed to stand should be decided by a panel, hopefully of independent trades unionists.

This was already proposed by Tommy Sheridan befoe the EU elections and I proposed it at a Solidarity all-members meeting in January where there was some agreement but no vote as the SWP and CWI members at that meeting were far more interested in talking about Celebrity Big Brother and issues around Coolio and Ulrika Johnson.

Comment by Jim Monaghan — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:18 am
Onwards to left unity! This is a great statement. If you play your cards right, you might end up with another shot at building a united left coalition.

Comment by Kieran — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:22 am
It is a very good letter but the trouble is no-one trusts the SWP any more. Part of the reason we are in this mess is because a promising initiative like the Socialist Alliance was partly sabotaged by the SWP a few years ago. We do have to unite, but can we?

Comment by Stockwell Pete — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:23 am
I think it is impossible to unite in a short space of time, The SSP wont be part of anything that involves Solidarity, Salma Yaqoob has already launched Respect’s call for “unity” with an attack on No2Eu and SLP and announced that they will stand in more seats as “respect’.

Attempts at uniting the left must be given time and be open, there is no use trying to rush something for the next GE and failing.

Get behind the charter in the short term and have a real discussion, above board and honest, for the long term.

Comment by Jim Monaghan — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:28 am
I welcome this statement, but unfortunately I just don’t think that it is going to be possible to overcome “the differences and difficulties involved in constructing such an alternative” (if that means a new left organisation) before the next election.

The first problem is one of trust. Respect, SWP and Socialist party; we all have our reasons for not trusting each other. There has been too much politicing and jostling for power for us to easyly just start taking what each other say on face value without looking for ‘hidden motives’ and such like. (In fairness mostly by so called ‘leaderships’ rather then grassroots)

The second problem, and this I think is bigger and more important than the other, is that we just don’t agree about what kind of radical left alternative is needed. Of course those from different traditions shouldn’t be expected to converge on any exact formulation but we need a minimum idea of the kind of platform we are to unite on and the kind of action we are aiming to take (e.g. electoral/campaigning/mixture). All this needs much more fraternal discussion.

Given these problems, I think that uniting around the people’s charter (whatever its faults) is a very good idea. I don’t think that such unity is undermined, for example, by our proposal in Respect to aim to stand a large chunk of people under our name as those candidates could obviously be part of a charter coalition, as could independents, SWP, socialist party and (maybe) the very very few left labour party members standing (I’d have to be convinced on that last one).

The SWP’s conference will not be the place where a new left organisation is born but maybe it could be a place where the Charter plan, or similar, could be made more concrete. Lets get behind it and other initiatives.

Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 10 June, 2009 @ 9:16 am
#6

I think that uniting around the people’s charter (whatever its faults) is a very good idea. I don’t think that such unity is undermined, for example, by our proposal in Respect to aim to stand a large chunk of people under our name as those candidates could obviously be part of a charter coalition, as could independents, SWP, socialist party and (maybe) the very very few left labour party members standing (I’d have to be convinced on that last one).

But is this diametrically opposed to the aims of the charter, which was to win a million people to pledge support for basic social democratic demands, and great efforts were made to insist that this was NOT about opposing the Labour Party per se

Comment by Andy Newman — 10 June, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Although i do not think this will lead to BNP street marches (why would it), all in all a very positive move by the SWP

I hoep that other parties do not dismiss this in their usual sectarian way

If the BNP wins have proven anything, it is that the best, last hope for stopping the BNP is building that left alternative

Comment by JimPage — 10 June, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Stop thinking about the BNP… who are the dickheads giving publicity away.
Start sussing out what is socialism and how to achieve it.
Start thinking about cooperatives.

All you seem to do is worry about Fascism .. stop it.

YOU SEEM ONLY CAPABLE OF FIGHTING AGAINST SOMETHING NOT ACTUALLY BUILDING SOMETHING FOR

LOOK AND MAKE CO-OPERATIVES

Comment by Steve — 10 June, 2009 @ 9:34 am
> “But is this diametrically opposed to the aims of the charter, which was to win a million people to pledge support for basic social democratic demands, and great efforts were made to insist that this was NOT about opposing the Labour Party per se” - Andy

Well, my view is that the charter as merely a petition is useless at the very least it needs to be turned into a democratically run organisation that brings people together to debate the way forward.

Better still if we just take it off the labour movement bureaucrats and use it as a tool for organising people to stand together though remaining their own identities at the next election. If they complain, well as far as I can see they are doing fuck all with the charter at the moment so we have every right to use it for more useful purposes.

Other alternative - Still use a charter to unite us but let them keep theirs and come up with a new one, this time by holding democratic mass meetings across the country.

Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 10 June, 2009 @ 9:40 am
I’m affraid this ultra-left sect who are hemoraging members are not in a position to call a unity conference. Because of their past opportunist actions and present ‘Vote for Anyone but BNP’ policy they are not to be trusted. By all means they should be part of the post-election-way forward debate but not at the centre of it. Sorry SWP, but you’ve used up all your goes!

Comment by Henry — 10 June, 2009 @ 9:42 am
This is a welcome statement of intent by the SWP. Sure, we all have trust issues where the SWP are concerned but despite this I’d rather have the human and material resources the SWP has being part of a left unity process than being left outside to do their own thing.

This weekend leading figures from No2EU will be meeting up and discussing the way forward from here. What is most likely is an alliance where participants accept a list of common demands but have the freedom to give them their own emphasis in the areas they stand candidates. Given the fractious nature of the far left and the gallons of bad blood this to me seems a sensible way to proceed in the short term.

Comment by a very public sociologist — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:08 am
What do you propose as an alternative, Henry? Join the Labour Party? The Greens? Or a smaller left sect? What was wrong with the *tactic* (at this election) of calling for a vote for anyone but BNP? OK, it’s arguable that in hindsight it didn’t work, but neither did No2EU, and Labour had a lot more to do with winning the BNP those MEPs than the SWP did!
There is a gaping hole in electoral politics where the left should be. Lets get together and fill it, before it’s too late.

Comment by coffee — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:11 am
The SWP initiative is to be welcomed- it should be supported but it will be interesting to see who is at the conference. I suggest that if it doesn’t include the forces behind NO2EU- Bob Crow, Nellist and the SP and CP/Morning Star and also the PCS- then it would be still-born.

And if it does not hammer out a non-aggression pact with Respect then it would be utterly ludicrous. I would hope Galloway is big enough to rise above all the shit of the past but would like to see the SWP making a formal approach to Respect (as well as the others above) rather than just leaving the open letter on the table for individuals to sign…

Comment by RobM — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:14 am
Andy, the Charter should be about trying to implement the policies contained in the that charter, not about whether it opopoes the Labour Govt. As Labour MPs in the commons are the main supporters of the charter, I would involve not standing against them. This would, in turn, pressurise those Labour MPs whose seats are in danger to get behind the charter to secure the suport of the wider movement.

Developing the charter as a tactic for the GE wouldnt even need the support of all of those involved. In theory, the Labour MPs could still see the charter as a petition while the wider left could treat it in a different way, as a guide on where to stand, which seats should be contested and as a genal agreement not to stand more than one left candidate, where there are no sitting “charter” MPs.

There would be no need for parties to rebrand themslves as “charter’ candidates or to invent a party.

I feel that this, as a temporary move, would be achievable for the next GE.

Comment by Jim Monaghan — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:17 am
#13 coffee
There needs to be a coming-together-conference of the Left such as suggested by #12 above. What I am saying is that the SWP cannot/should not be the driving force or it will end in tears.
SWP-Lite may sound soft and cudderly now but that is an act. They will revert to form very quickly.
Yes, be part of it SWP but never be in control!

Comment by Henry — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:28 am
I’m not sure why we need to limit discussions to some charter. Better to have an open discussion and formulate policies, democratically on the basis of votes, from there rather than have a preset agenda I’d suggest.

Comment by Jason — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:30 am
After slagging off the peoples charter as not currently actually doing anything (in my post above) I have just received an email telling me about launch in Manchester:

Manchester Launch Meeting
7pm, Thursday 25 June
Mechanics Institute
Princess St, Manchester M1 6DD

Speakers:
Matt Wrack, general secretary, FBU
John Hendy QC, Chair, Institute of Employment Rights
Karen Reissmann, nurse, UNISON activist (pc)
John Macdonald, regional organiser, RMT

Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:33 am
This is a welcome statement.

This is pure silliness though:

The Nazis’ success will encourage those within the BNP urging a “return to the streets”.

No-one ‘within the BNP’ is uring a return to the streets. The last person to seriously advocate this was John Tyndall and he’s dead.

Comment by Duncan — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:40 am
Is the SWP a national party for all British people ? I’m not aware if it operates in NI or not.

Thanks

Comment by John — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:41 am
The Nazis’ success will encourage those within the BNP urging a “return to the streets
#19 - Duncan, BNP confidence is high, almost euphoric. To some in the BNP, their electoral progress will be seen as a green light to get violent. Many within their ranks will want to torch Asian shops, attack socialists and gays. The ‘respectable’ wing within the BNP will oppose violence but party disciplin on this matter will be fragile.

Comment by Henry — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:49 am
#20 the Irish SWP operates in the north of Ireland

Comment by bunty hoven — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:04 am
I don’t think there’s much chance of the SWP rebuilding trust in the movement until they’ve done something about Martin Smith’s awful dress sense. Can’t some kind soul take him shopping? I know SWP full-timers aren’t paid much, but really!!!

Comment by Deckchair Socialist — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:05 am
he is the mods
he is the mods
he is
he is
he is the mods

Comment by fhtagn — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:10 am
#17 there is no need to “limit” discussions to a charter. There could easily be a tandem tactic of developing a workable arrangement for an imminent national election based on the charter, alongside longer term plans for a left alternative for the future.

We have to look at what is achievable, there is nothing in the history of the left in the last ten years that suggests that all parties can cone together as one force in a short space of time.

Comment by Jim Monaghan — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:19 am
It may be a daft question but who has the SWP sent this out to? Did it originally appear on their website?

“The fact that there is no single, united left alternative to Labour means there was no clear answer available.”

What is left out of this political equation is the Labour left, many responses re the state of the Left from comrades outside the LP ignore the Labour left… I find that very problematic.

Also, what about leftie Labour MPs (John McD. Jeremy Corbyn….) who have constantly challenged and fought against neoliberalism? Will the left outside the LP support them or stand against them?

Comment by Louise — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:23 am
#26 neither of your questions are daft Louise. Both quite perceptive.

I picked this up off Liam’s blog, and I have no idea who it was addressed to.

And it also raises the question on the Labour Party, not just the handful of MPs that meet the SWP’s approval but surely the left cannot seem indifferent to whether labour or the Tories form the next government.

Comment by Andy Newman — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:27 am
#25 fair point but even in the short time available there should be some real dicsussions and votes coming from the floor- that’s essential for the kind of left we need to build.
#26 it is on their website. I think it would be foolish to stand against left MPs such as McDonnell and Corbyn- I suspect others would agree. The Labour left should be apporached- certainly for support for workers’ action and an idea of an alliance of different campaigns and struggles. That was partly what the Convention of the Left tried to do. But for an electoral challenge to Labour whilst I’m all for involving the Labour left it would be problematic wiuldn’t it? I was once nearly sus[pended from the Labour party for supporting a candidate against Labour although somehow (not sure how) my argument that that candidate’s policies more faithfully represented the kind of class politics that Labour should espouse won the day (that was near on 20 years ago though)

Comment by Jason — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:33 am
#26 In reply to question 1, it is published in today’s SW, has been emailed to all SWP members and is published on the website. I would guess it has also been sent out to leaders of other left organisations and left wingers within the unions.

Comment by cthulhu — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Louise/ andy et al

The crucial question is

What can the left agree on in terms of what they would like to come about. I know many people in support of co-operatives but are lacking the energy and resources to get them going. A small cooperative would be a great start in unity.

Comment by Steve — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:38 am
What a farce, if the SWP/UAF,and others etc was serious they would acknowledge and act on the most damaging bill going through Parliament: the Welfare Reform Bill, nothing symbolises the failures of the far left as do the weak or non existent response to these brutal changes in the welfare regime. Its in the Lords now and will be law in October, then the shit will really hit the fan and racism/support for the far right will rise expontially not least as ‘indigenous’ claimants of all ethniciities are forced to compete for minimum wage jobs with migrants from around the world on pain of losing all income,

many will look around for scapegoats, etc …

if they took this bill seriously, it would be sign to much of the public, particualarly at the bottom , that they get it,
instead we have pathetic egg action squads of students, etc…

Comment by frenetic — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:57 am
There is a paper copy of this letter - with four spaces at the bottom for people to be kept in touch about this initiative. So it does look a little like one of those petitions the SWP use to build a contact list. That said - and notwithstanding all the caveats about trust - I’m sure Respect will send representatives along to the conference when and if it happens. I’m sure there will be meetings with members of the SWP CC before then. I’m informed that contacts have already been made.

I’m pretty sure that most Respect members have no enthusiasm for being in the same organisation with the SWP for the foreseeable future. And there is no need either. But we - and the whole Left - have everything to gain from cooperation and consultation and non-agression pacts.

Respect may have embarked on a process of standing more widely than previously envisioned but we will have no intention of standing against left Labour MPs, Greens (where then have a good base/chance), Bob Waring, Dai Davies, Val Wise, Dave Nellist, and others that a future No2EU based block (though please change the name) throws up, or any others on the left with a serious chance.

But we do need to have some serious debate about not challenging each other. We may not always agree but surely talking is better than not.

Comment by TLC — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
“The SWP is prepared to help initiate such a gathering and to commit its forces to such a project. We look forward to your response.”
Mmm… the thing is there is already the Convention of the Left that could be the focus of such discussions and yet it doesn’t warrant a mention here.

Comment by Eddie Truman — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
This letter from the SWP is welcome. I would like to see the left organise around an electoral pact based on one defining principle: that of a belief in greater equality of outcomes - of a need to narrow the gap between rich and poor. I believe this simple organising principle could allow a coming together of all progressive forces to the left of the mainstream parties who believe only in greater equality of opportunity.

An electoral non-aggression pact or co-operation with the Greens is absolutely essential.

If a new left party comes out of it later then all the better but that seems impossible at the moment. I would also like to see any new left formation led by people who have never held any prominent position in any of the left groups and - even then - subject them to annual election. New faces for pity’s sake!

Comment by Egalitarian — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
The Nazis’ success will encourage those within the BNP urging a “return to the streets
#19 - Duncan, BNP confidence is high, almost euphoric. To some in the BNP, their electoral progress will be seen as a green light to get violent. Many within their ranks will want to torch Asian shops, attack socialists and gays. The ‘respectable’ wing within the BNP will oppose violence but party disciplin on this matter will be fragile.

Comment by Henry — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:49

Henry

I dont agree with your analysis of what they will do. As it is very important we get their future tactics right so we can respond accordingly. Say, for example, they intend to turn over Socialist paper sales over the next few weeks, we can respond by beefing up security accordingly. However, if its to be a tactic, for example, of cultural politics (which is one thing I think they will move into) then its beefing up LMHR for example.

Otherwise we end up deploying people in the wrong way, for the wrong fight

Comment by JimPage — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Pardon my cynicism but haven’t we heard all this before from the same source, or have you forgotten about the (engineered)split in Respect only 18 months ago?

If only there could be (yet another) coming together of the ‘Left’ in a federation, but would it grow any more than the last time?
And who would really be in control?

Comment by Halshall — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Why not have aserie sof local meetings with trade unionists, campaigns, struggles to debate the way forward and have open democratic debates with votes?

Comment by Jason — 10 June, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
I ve got a great idea why dont we set up a new party
lets call it Socialist Alliance

this is all so last year comrades

remind me how socialist Alliance were beaten in Wales by the Monster Raving Looney Party even the SDP gave up after that humiliation

Comment by Tim — 10 June, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
All of the above are valid and we cant afford to rule anything out. I dont any great optiimism for the hopes of unifying the left before the next election and have slighlty more (but not great) optmism for the chances overall.

But there is no “one path” to this, the CotL and the Charter and every other already established group will be platforms to discuss ideas and all should be encouraged as well as individual groups holding their own internal and external meetings.

Comment by Jim Monaghan — 10 June, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
Is it me or the SWP having a problem paying their full timers after the financial black hole that was the Stoke event?

Yesterday outside Parliament still isn,t up on the web site, I wonder why?

Comment by terryfitz — 10 June, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
#14 And if it does not hammer out a non-aggression pact with Respect then it would be utterly ludicrous

I’ve said before that it might be a mistake for a new formation to stand against George Galloway’s Respect in its few remaining areas of viability, but perhaps socialists within it should consider joining a new socialist movement without pre-conditions, leaving those who wish to put their own interests above the movement to continue on their own merry way.

Comment by skidmarx — 10 June, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
I think it’s just you Terry!

Comment by Steve — 10 June, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Some of this doesn’t make sense, why the hell would the BNP want to take to the streets again? They are doing very nicely at the ballot box thank you.
The left have this fantasy that many BNP voters either A. Don’t know what the BNP stands for. Or B.Are just making a protest vote etc etc yawn yawn. My experience is that most BNP voters know exactly what the BNP stands for.

Comment by Eddy — 10 June, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
“joining a new socialist movement without pre-conditions”

What new socialist movement is this then?

Comment by TLC — 10 June, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
That isn’t the experience of most UAF or Hope not Hate campaigners Eddy.

Comment by Futurecast — 10 June, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
Funny, I thought that Respect was a left alternative to Labour. I know why doesn’t the SWP admit they got it wrong and rejoin Respect, now that would be interesting.

Comment by Shaun Cohen — 10 June, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
#46 Shaun

Now that may be a very positive move.

Will the SWP put their money where their mouth is and make such an approach to Respect directly, to heal old wounds and to show ‘good faith’?
And also ‘pour encourager les autres’.

If we are talking ‘left unity’ again, then it must be solid and honest this time round.

‘Those who fail to learn the lessons of the past……….. etc, etc.’

I understand from this week’s SW that the SWP Democracy Commission has reported to it’s first conference.
I would like to think that it’s not all smoke and mirrors, so come on SWP let’s have some real attempt at showing ‘left unity’ and speak to Salma and George; we can’t go in the totally marginalised way that the left of Labour has become since the Respect debacle.

If this is going to mean a truly fresh beggining then we better start now, and get it right this time !

Comment by Halshall — 10 June, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Shaun,

Galloway told SWP to ‘fuck off’. Galloway and supporters boycotted the RESPECT conference (but managed to keep the name through bureaucratic means). SWP analysed a rightward shift in RESPECT (Galloway) and events since have most certainly borne out such a diagnosis.

However, that was then. People on the left should be mature enough to accept differences in political interpretations past and present but nevertheless work together when the situation demands just that.

Comment by stuart — 10 June, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
SWP analysed (sic) a rightward shift in RESPECT (Galloway) and events since have most certainly borne out such a diagnosis.

Evidence please.

Comment by TLC — 10 June, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
#48 Stuart

Couldn’t agree with your 2nd para more.

‘…………..work together when the situation demands just that’

Comment by Halshall — 10 June, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
#44 What new socialist movement is this then?

The one the SWP is proposing. The one every other group on the left is now proposing. The one that Socialist Resistance is saying the SWP would have to be a part of.

#49 SWP analysed (sic) a rightward shift in RESPECT (Galloway) and events since have most certainly borne out such a diagnosis.
Evidence please.

“In the case of Galloway and the circle around him the decline of the anti-war movement from the peak it achieved in 2003 combined with pessimism about the capacity of organised workers to mount effective resistance to the attacks mounted by New Labour and the bosses. The conclusion was that the way forward for Respect lay in sustaining alliances with local Muslim notables who could deliver votes. But this reasoning—and the split that it produced in Respect—was overlain by a growing reconciliation between Galloway himself and New Labour. This was reflected first in his support for Ken Livingstone’s unsuccessful re-election campaign for Mayor of London in May 2008 and then in his rallying to the aid of Gordon Brown’s beleaguered government during the Glasgow East parliamentary by-election that July, when a Blairite candidate was defeated by a massive swing to the Scottish National Party.”http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=484&issue=120

Though others may want to move on from the split in Respect and see how to construct a united left.

Comment by skidmarx — 10 June, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
TLC,

As soon as Galloway and co. ditched the SWP they were endorsing the New Labour mayoral candidate despite RESPECT having agreed to stand their own democratically selected candidate. Livingstone stood on an overtly pro City agenda. Since then Galloway (whether democratically agreed with RESPECT or whether by personal wish) went on to endorse a New Labour candidate in Scotland. Yaqoob is cuddling up to the far from left Compass people, Andy Newman (NC member)seems to in the defend Brown lesser evil camp, ‘defend Labour against Cameron’ and all that. Whether RESPECT acts as a cohesive body or whether everyone just does their own thing is far from clear. Either way it’s an unmistakable shift to the right, something an SWP presence would have checked.

Anyway, I was merely responding to your inaccuracy when you talked about SWP ‘rejoining’ RESPECT. That was misleading. The point now is for the left in general to pull together and hopefully capture the success of RESPECT in its early days under the impetus of anti-war feeling. And better still, pull in even stronger forces this time around.

Comment by stuart — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
That’s not evidence just becaus it’s been written in the ISJ 0 that is an opinion.. And the reconciliation with ‘New Labour’line is just post-split justification for smashing up the Respect in the first place. This is a fine old canard that is regularly trotted out in various forms by supporters of the SWP from time to time (GG going back to Labour, Salma getting a safe seat, Kay Phillips about to stand for Labour, etc) It’s nonsense and the SWP (and their supporters like Skidmarks) would be better served by arguing the facts rather than the assertion of moving rightwards. After all, the SWP wanted Ken Livingstone re-elected as well (hence the second preference vote)though they chose direct their fire at Ken rather than Johnston.

As for the concept of a new socialist movement - surely the SWP is proposing to hold a conference based on a petition and open letter. Aren’t we jumping the gun by calling it a movement?

“Though others may want to move on from the split in Respect and see how to construct a united left.” This from someone who never misses an opportunity to denigrate Respect or rehash his own opinions about the split. Please!!

Comment by TLC — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
#52 yes, yes, yes… and all sorts of people claimed that Galloway and Yaqoob would be standing for Labour at the next election, and some of the same people called for a vote for New Labour at this election (including something called Permanent Revolution, no?)

#53 I’m afraid an article from Alex Callinicos doesn’t amount to much. The article itself simply repeats the fair-story constructed principally by John Rees at the time of the Respect split and regurgitated by Chris Harman in an embarrassing “theoretical” article.

Comment by ferrier — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
#52 yes, yes, yes… and all sorts of people claimed that Galloway and Yaqoob would be standing for Labour at the next election, and some of the same people called for a vote for New Labour at this election (including something called Permanent Revolution, no?)

#53 I’m afraid an article from Alex Callinicos doesn’t amount to much. The article itself simply repeats the fairy-story constructed principally by John Rees at the time of the Respect split and regurgitated by Chris Harman in an embarrassing “theoretical” article.

Comment by ferrier — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Stuart - “Anyway, I was merely responding to your inaccuracy when you talked about SWP ‘rejoining’ RESPECT.”

Why I never mentioned the SWP rejoining Respect. (Not sure either of us want that)

As for the other points you make - fra form exhibiting a drift to the right - are all within the general framework of what Respect was set up to do - as an umbrella coalition to bring the progressive left together. To do this you need to address forces to your right.

So ask yourself this question. Are you indifferent to a Tory victory at the next election - or do you really not care? If you are serious about a conference of the left then it might be better not to draw your dividing lines to sharply to the left.

The task at the moment is for the left to direct their arguments to those to the right of them. That is where the debate is being held. If the forthcoming conference is just about addressing the existing far left then I’m afraid it is doomed from the start.

Comment by TLC — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
SWP:- “One answer to the problem is to say that we should swallow everything New Labour has done and back it to keep David Cameron, and the BNP, out…….
Yet it would take a miracle for Gordon Brown to be elected back into Downing Street.”

Maybe so. But it will take an even bigger miracle for any organisation to the left of Labour to replace the Labour Party within a year, let alone be capable of defeating both the BNP and the Tories in the process!

So anything set up on the basis of trying to outcompete the LP in every seat will rapidly fall flat on its face.

Trying to “impose” the People’s Charter on local MP’s makes more sense. But I doubt whether that will be possible everywhere.

So, the answer is YES, we do have to tell people that it might be necessary to “bite the bullet” to keep out Cameron and his right-wing “Militant Tendency” in the BNP & UKIP.

If there’s an imminent danger of fascism in Britain (which there isn’t), a united front with the Labour Party, including its reactionary leadership, would be absolutely essential.

If the SWP (or SP) don’t accept this, they gone off the rails of their entire political history and tradition.

Taking a stand between Labour and Tory where there is no alternative is also a basic class position.

For those remaining in the LP in the Labour Left and Unions, the crisis over expenses and the collapse of the Labour vote should be an opportunity to build their influence and challenge Brown. They should be supported in any efforts to do so.

In the meantime, those thinking of independent electoral initiatives have to recognise the defensive nature of the situation they will face at the next election and avoid delusions of grandeur.

Comment by prianikoff — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
“despite RESPECT having agreed to stand their own democratically selected candidate”

For some reason, you neglected the second part of that sentence - your version is a perversion of what happened.

The second part would be “, a decision which it was agreed would be reviewed if it looked like Ken Livingstone was seriously under threat from the Tories”.

I mean, for fucks sake, before the split Lindsey German openly said she wanted Livingstone to win the election. There’s having revolutionary politics, and then there’s applying revolutionary politics to real life. In the case of a broad left-wing party, that would’ve undoubtedly meant the whole organisation deciding to withdraw from the mayoral race. The only reason the Left List went ahead with the candidacy was, as admitted by Lindsey, to stunt Galloway’s chances (and these people want us to trust them again?)

And any revolutionary worth their salt would accept that we have to build to our right, to make our tent big enough that people to the right of us join it. It’s elementary.

Most of what you say seems to be misty-eyed regret that Respect isn’t run on democratic centralist lines.

Well, the ridiculous sight of almost the entire SWP going along with the “witch-hunt” narrative, believing the fake stories about “hate emails” and threats etc., shows that having your entire membership agreeing with the party line isn’t exactly healthy either.

As far as I’m concerned, having diverging left wing opinions in one organisation, from people such as Andy and Mark Perryman, is challenging and forces me to analyse and rethink my politics all the time - far more than in groups like the SWP, where, as the Respect wrecking operation showed, a line could be handed down and the full-timers could be completely trusted to ensure that everyone followed it.

Comment by external bulletin — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
#53 As for the concept of a new socialist movement - surely the SWP is proposing to hold a conference based on a petition and open letter. Aren’t we jumping the gun by calling it a movement?

Aren’t you nitpicking by insisting that it is not?

“Though others may want to move on from the split in Respect and see how to construct a united left.” This from someone who never misses an opportunity to denigrate Respect or rehash his own opinions about the split. Please!!
I don’t denigrate Respect. It’s your split from it I have frequently found reason to question. And almost every time I’ve done so I’ve received a torrent of abuse rather than any argument. At least your current comment contains some argument. Please continue in such a manner.
Salma Yaqoob’s staement on the euro-elections contains more references to socialism and the left than usual. I would tend to interpret that as an attempt to discourage those with a class-struggle orientation from jumping ship.
Isn’t a canard. As stuart points out, having backed the nomination of Lindsey German, RR supporters suddenly found her candidacy a distraction, even though there was nothing preventing a second preference vote for Livingstone (an idea backed by Andy Newman, though on the euro elections I think he did correctly point out that a vote for the Greens would be more likely to stop the BNP getting in than one for No2EU). And Galloway supporters here, most notably Phil and tonyc said we should all shut up about the de Menezes killing so as not to embarrass Livingstone.
Just because something was in the ISJ doesn’t mean it’s neccesarily true. But Galloway’s support for Labour in Glasgow East is a fact, more could be adduced if I could be bothered, but perhaps we should move on from Revenant to see how a united left movement might be constructed.

Comment by skidmarx — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
The amusing thing about your position, Stuart, is that not even the SWP central committee now claim it. Where have you been for the past few months? Did you not read the SWP conference documents that spilt the beans about some of the realities of the engineered Respect split? Or did Lindsey German not admit that the only reason for the Left List was to spoil against Galloway? Now, that strikes me as right wing political practice.

Because it moved so much to the right, Respect was able to play a major role in the Gaza solidarity movement and launch Viva Palestina, the single most important delivery of solidarity to Palestine in the last year (about to be topped by the US column). We also noticed how Galloway and Yvonne Ridley were so right wing that they got Respect to call the first protest outside the Israeli embassy on 28 December that started the movement.

Then, there is the rightwing tactical support for the Greens in the North West to stop the BNP when others abstained on who to vote for (preserving purity, maybe a la HM Hyndman?). Incidentally, this is where the key discussion on non-aggression pacts should be held.

Keep taking the anti-depressants, kid.

Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
I thought the SWP may be making moves in this direction when I read Martin Smith’s interview with Ken Loach in Socialist Review:

//…”Obviously I had big hopes of Respect, but the split happened. We are our own worst enemies really in the way that we constantly fragment. We have all got to learn the lessons from Respect. I really hope we can start to all work together in the near future. Don’t you?”

And of course I agreed. We continued to talk about the economic crisis and our fears that the fascist British National Party would do well in the Euro elections.

We both came back to the question of the left working together. Loach argued, “My feeling is that we need to think of the regroupment of the left in Britain in terms of the European left now. The European left is a project obviously bigger than any one group. I am very encouraged by the events in France right now and the development of the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste. The European left, which is so big, will just swallow up the differences between the different groups on the left over here.

“I’ve been in meetings where we’ve talked about this for 45 years, and organisationally are we any further forward in all that time? If you want to be depressed, that’s the depressing thing.

“On the optimistic side the need just gets more and more intense. It was urgent after the Iraq war, but now even more urgent with the collapse of the banks and increasing unemployment, industries closing down and so on, and the environmental disaster that’s awaiting the next generation. The pressure to unite just gets bigger and bigger.

“Every left meeting I go to is based on the fact that the crisis is about to engulf us all. It’s not in the distant future. It’s unfolding before us now. We’ve got to get together at some point. Living in separate tents isn’t going to solve anything really.”

One memorable line in the film is when Cantona turns round to his struggling friend and says prophetically, “He who is afraid to throw the dice will never throw a six.”

With the European elections now past us, maybe it’s time to pick up the dice again.//

By the way, I thought he did pretty well on Channel 4 News & Newsnight defending the protests against Griffin yesterday.

Comment by Nick Bird — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
“The SWP is all too aware of the differences and difficulties involved in constructing such an alternative. We do not believe we have all the answers or a perfect prescription for a left wing alternative. But we do believe we have to urgently start a debate and begin planning to come together to offer such an alternative at the next election, with the awareness that Gordon Brown might not survive his full term. One simple step would be to convene a conference of all those committed to presenting candidates representing working class interests at the next election.

The SWP is prepared to help initiate such a gathering and to commit its forces to such a project. We look forward to your response.”

……………………..

A positve move by the SWP and one I welcome. Whatever the good and bad points of the N2EU campaign it did show in a small way that Left groups/parties cold work together while maintaining their own indentity within the overalll campaign.

We all need to move on and put the interests of working people first but time is short and any discussions need to occur over the summer months so that activity/action and campaigning can start in September at the latest (we need to offer “hope” to working people so that in despair they do not turn to the BNP) bearing in mind a sping/early summer election in 2010(and taking into account the many comments that NO2EU was set up so late and was not inclusive enougth).

There is much in the Peoples Charter to recommend it as a starting point for discussions. I would also like to see any campaign support/campaign for the Independent Socialist candidiates such as Blaenau Gwent People’s Voice and Bob Wareing (deselected by New Labour) and a number of Left Labout MP’s who are anti war and anti privatisation and for constitutional reform (Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell,Kelvin Hopkins and others). I think we could all agree that PR should also be a major issue on the agenda .

Lets not forget the need to deny the scum BNP a platform while campaigning for alternative, progresive, socialist policies - it would attract many young people into activity (remember the BNP at Oxford university and the huge anti racist student turnout). I believe UAF yesterday gave a positive example of democratic direct action that many (not just on the Left)people have welcomed.

So let talks begin that should also include the SWP, Respect the No2EU supporters (+ those in Wales and Scotland), tade unions and the Greens (if they will take up the offer)and others.

Respect doing its own thing with dozens of paper canidates is not the way forward unless it is part of such a broad progressive coalition/alliance, and I am hopeful it will be, as this is what I will be working for.

Comment by Neil Williams — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
“ But it will take an even bigger miracle for any organisation to the left of Labour to replace the Labour Party within a year, let alone be capable of defeating both the BNP and the Tories in the process!” #57 priannikoff
Of course but the idea should be to:
1) Have local meetings leading up to a national conference of campaigns, rank and file trade unionists, the left on how to take on the bosses, fight Labour’s attacks, fight the BNP and the rest
2) Out of this process decide on workers’ candidates of struggle against Labour on democratically decided policies

This is not building a new party let alone one capable of winning an election but it is uniting around common fighting demands and using elections to raise politics of how we can have a different society.

It can be a step towards a new workers’ party as well perhaps but there is a battle here and now to defend jobs, to fight the rise of racism and scapegoating and to bring people back into self-confidence to organise to win.

There is of course a very sensible argument not to stand against left MPs or in Labour marginals and of course where possible using the unions if we can making demands on the Labour MPs.

#56 TLC
“The task at the moment is for the left to direct their arguments to those to the right of them. That is where the debate is being held. If the forthcoming conference is just about addressing the existing far left then I’m afraid it is doomed from the start.”

Certainly our audience needs to be beyond the far left- working class communities affected by Labour’s attacks and the recession. We need to address the arguments from the right- whether racists or nationalists like the BNP and UKIP- or free market policies of the Tories or the bail out of the banks Labour whilst letting workers go to the wall.

It certainly means talking to and undertaking joint action with Greens, Labour lefts, reformists and all sorts of people. But this doesn’t mean toning down demands for example for workers’ control or a local community being in control of facilities. Of course if people vote for reformist policies but it is a genuine grassroots campaign then fine. It is about talking to people and organising with them. The calls for unity from the SWP, Bob Crow, no2eu, the SP, the AWL, Socialist Resistance and many in respect are to be welcomed, embraced warmly and engaged with I think.

Comment by Jason — 10 June, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
#62 “…let talks begin that should also include the SWP, Respect the No2EU supporters (+ those in Wales and Scotland), tade unions and the Greens (if they will take up the offer)and others.”

Deja Vu Strikes again.

To give some credit to the SLP, they did at least show that refusing to abandon the label SOCIALIST still pays electoral dividends in this country. Joe Higgins showed much the same in Ireland.

In that respect, RESPECT and No2EU represent an opportunist step backwards from the Socialist Alliance.

I’m also not very impressed by the results of the NPA in France, which carried out a similar opportunits manouevre and lost votes. Achieving considerably less than the joint votes of LCR-LO in the past and less than the Parti de Gauche (which weren’t much to write home about)

Anything that happens between now and the next election must NOT be based on some wild delusion of “after the break up of Labour..US”.

Anyone who operating on that basis is simply delusional.

Comment by prianikoff — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
The obvious response to this is to say, “great”, lets see if the SWP do what they say.

People who are cynical about the SWP have all sorts of good reasons for that, but there are those for whom its an obsession.

Comment by Armchair — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
#63 Jason. If you talk in public about the “struggle against Labour”, you are going to piss off at least 20% of the electorate immediately. They won’t even bother listening to your sensible points.

We should be offering 100% support to those in the Labour Party who want to fight against the right wing leadership of the PLP.

We should be supporting those on the left of the LP who want to change policies in order to stop the Tories winning the next election and the BNP and UKIP increasing their vote.

Comment by prianikoff — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
My initial thoughts are, that if they was any kind of arrangement with the SWP, you’d want to take hostages as a guarantee against misbehaviour, like they did during the Russian civil war.

Secondly, this is the SWP of 2009, not even the one prior to the split, in 2007
Its a smaller organisation, not leaner, just meaner, paranoid and frankly, those who went along with the guff about the reasons for the spilt, I wouldn’t trust to work out anything for themselves.

Their Democracy Commission as reported in this weeks SW, came to the startling conclusion that they had ‘revealed a culture of top-down leadership’

Brillant thing hindsight. I wonder if any of them might wonder why there’s a certain amount of cynicism to their overtures.

Still won’t stop them having their caucuses.

Hostages, the only way forward, it’s firm but fair.

Comment by Bill Bo Baggins — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
Abandon thread.
Turning into yet another SWP-Respect BOREATHON.
I never joined RESPECT and probably never will.

Comment by prianikoff — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
Dear The Left,

Our last two puppies died for some reason.

Can we have another one? We promise we’ll look after it and feed it and walk it and take care of it and love it for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever!

Awwwwww, pleeeeeeeeeeeease?

Yours,

The SWP

Comment by The SWP — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
#66 “If you talk in public about the “struggle against Labour”, you are going to piss off at least 20% of the electorate immediately. They won’t even bother listening to your sensible points.
prianikoff ok shorthand here but I spose you’re right to correct me to something like ’struggle against the attacks on services’ e.g where they are trying to close down schools, privatise facilities etc.
and yes I agree that we should support Labour lefts and take united action with them.
“Abandon thread.
Turning into yet another SWP-Respect BOREATHON.”

Yes but for the sake of campaigns such as the car workers to save jobs, Barrow parents to stop school clsoures and a thousand other campaigns up and down th eland we should not abandon the struggle for unity in action

Comment by Jason — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Neil Williams has a very poor memory or he indulges in sado masochism Have you forgot Bishopgate 07 and 08. We want nothing or direct association with the SWP.

Comment by sychohohohophantic larry — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah

fuckers

Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
67 “Their Democracy Commission as reported in this weeks SW, came to the startling conclusion that they had ‘revealed a culture of top-down leadership’.”

Who’d have thunk it, eh? Ha-ha. Well, it took them about 25 years to work that out, but at least the poor dears are trying to improve their behaviour now. That’s what counts, comrades.

Comment by Stockwell Pete — 10 June, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
Let the SWP first give an honest account of their role in wrecking RESPECT, let them withdraw the lies about witch-hunting and Galloway’s shift to the right, and then I’ll believe they’re approaching seriousness. Until then, I’ll take this for what it sounds like; the lachrymose and manipulative whining of a repeat offender who’s made a living from insincere apologies. My advice? Don’t unlock the front door, tell the kids to stay away from the windows, and tell them you’ll call the police if they don’t leave now. Then, first thng Monday, slap an ASBO on the lying bastards.

Comment by Another Dave — 10 June, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Post 71
“Neil Williams has a very poor memory or he indulges in sado masochism Have you forgot Bishopgate 07 and 08. We want nothing or direct association with the SWP.”

Yes i remember it all I was there. Not everything the SWP said was wrong and not everything Respect said was right either (and this is the view of many in Respect today). The energy, socialist ideas and membership of the SWP is missed in the current Respect which was more balanced with the inclusion of the SWP despite its many faults.

I do not intend the repeat the who was right or wrong here for what is important is the need to move on and take up the offers from No2EU, SWP, Salma Yaqoob and others who are stateing they wish to talk about the election and progressive forces and parties working together in some way. Its what i joined Respect for and now we have this one chance (maybe for some years to come) to see what can be achieved.

I hope the Greens will also consider entering into these discussions as a Green/Red Red/Green combination would appeal to the largest numbers of working and progressive people (and no one I hope at this stage is suggesting that parties do not stand under their own party name but perhaps (to be discussed) also refering to the alliance name in their own campaigns and on the ballot paper).

Comment by Neil Williams — 10 June, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
Neil is right: don’t let past mistakes or bitterness divert us from building a fighting left based on practical unity to rebuild the class struggle.

Comment by Jason — 10 June, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
I agree with Jim Monaghan about the People’s Charter being a good short-term rallying point, but I think candidates should stand under People’s Charter or some similar label rather than their individual party, in order to avoid confusion - if nothing else, if any Labour (and there are plenty of socialists in Labour) or Lib Dem people join and decide to stand, someone who doesn’t know who’s standing for the People’s Charter isn’t likely to vote for any of the big three parties’ tickets.

As to what Henry said, I have my fair share of issues with the SWP - not least of which being those you identified - but somebody has to make the first move and it may as well be the SWP. And quite frankly, *no* organisation should be at the center of this project. If anything, there should be no constituent organisations at all, and everyone involved should participate as an individual. That’s the only solution to the partisanship and the sectarianism which has been the curse of our movement for decades, and even that isn’t perfect but it’s a step.

Comment by Kaze no Kae — 10 June, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
The question is whether this is a serious offer at all. Open letters tend to be used by the SWP and others claiming Trotskyist heritage as a device to make propaganda aimed at looking to be the unifier or the organization with the correct strategy while simply treating it as a recruitment tool in reality. This is what TLC’s mention of the petition like character of it sounds like to me.

Approaches to other organizations with a view to discussing joint slates and non aggression pacts are a more fruitful activity than open letters. I would welcome joint campaigning in target areas and deployment of candidates in a manner that reflects the reality that no left organization has roots in every part of the country now (even the Green party).

The claim that the SWP is the biggest left organization is difficult to quantify though German admitted in December that they had barely 600 active members. Judging by recent efforts and the sense of panic in the organization, it is now much less. Sunday’s national meeting was ‘depressing’ according to reports with a genuine sense of alarm that the SWP had entirely missed the boat around a number of issues of late.

Perhaps a rethink of the whole philosophy of a vanguardist organization is in order? It could fruitfully start with abandoning the time worn device of the open letter to the left.

Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 10 June, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
#78

It is nice of you to be so concerned, and to make your suggestions. I’m sure we’ll bear them in mind.

Meanwhile, what are we going to do about constructing a united left electoral alternative?

Comment by KrisS — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
By the way I’ve jsut been told that the BNP are using the Martin Smith interview on newsnight as part of the prophaganda on youtube

Don’t have the stomach to google it but if so it does no good to the SWP cred

By the way thought the above from the SW was very positive

A good start after the last few years

Comment by Vengence of History — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
#79 `Meanwhile, what are we going to do about constructing a united left electoral alternative?’

Ignore you lot for a start.

Comment by Reality check — 10 June, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
A new left formation can only succeed if the left trade unions take the lead and play a leading role and left MP’s join. The divided and waring sects on the left have tried and failed. -SA & Respect. Any new party that hopefully develops will only develop if those sects looking to build their own petty organisation are out numbered by hundreds of rank and file activists.

Comment by Nick Long — 10 June, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
I’m really alarmed about the BNP win, yet it was hard to find someone to vote for on June 4th. I don’t think the SWP can form a credible electoralist alternative, and I really wish Respect had worked, but I’m worried, like everyone else, that we’ll just have the Respect mess all over again if we try to set something else up.

However, despite saying all that, I’m so worried about the next election and I just want to see someone on the left doing something, I’m not bothered who it is as long as something is happening, if the SWP is the group that can get it together then good on them.

Also, the BNP will use violence, history shows this is part of what the Nazis are, I’m not clear why people are atacking the SWP for saying this, it’s a fairly acknowledged way that the Nazis organise and grow.

Comment by AC — 10 June, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
#81 ‘Ignore you lot for a start.’

…. Come on, this sectarianism is precisely what we don’t need.

#81 ‘A new left formation can only succeed if the left trade unions take the lead and play a leading role and left MP’s join’

Existing MP’s would certainly help, in that they would give the campaign a higher profile and a direct link to parliament, but I’m not sure they’re essential. I definately agree on the unions though

Comment by Kaze no Kae — 10 June, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
KrisS (79),
As I said to you earlier, the SWP letter is a positive contribution to the aim of building a working-class political organisation and serious comrades will welcome it.
Bob Crow’s call for talks on taking this process further is a step forward too and this must be part of the same process.
No-one expected No2EU to set the world alight politically, and yes of course errors were made, but the experience of comrades working together for working-class politics was invaluble.
Despite the hysterical - and frankly laughable - denunciations here by Newman and his fellow neo-euro comms and despite their tireless efforts to disorientate and confuse, the signs are that the serious working-class political organisations are now, at last, all convinced of the need to work together.
And it will be a unified, wholly working-class led and orientated movement - not a namby-pamby “progressive alliance” that simply subordinates our class to the bourgeoisie.

Comment by Karl Stewart — 10 June, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
So the SWP want everyone to leave their political baggage at the door and join a unitary party? No factions/platforms - One party?

Comment by Daisy — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
A worthwhile initiative but 15 years later than it should have been

Lets hope a class struggle socialist organisation can emerge which is
fully under the control of the rank and file membership and has politics adequate to the task in hand . But given the nature of
the socialist left and recent history it will not be easy.
A possible step forward for sure

sandy

Comment by Anonymous — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
#80

Part of the argument about events like the egging is that it shows the Nazis in their true colours. If you actually look at that BNP video of Martin Smith’s interview it’s full of comments threatening violence and rants about Jews (and Muslims, obviously - consistency is hard for them). Rather than doing “no good to the SWP cred” (I’m sure you meant UAF cred) anyone reading it will be in no doubt what’s at the core of BNP ideas.

Comment by M — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
TLC,

Yes, you never said anything about ‘rejoining’ RESPECT. What threw me was that you challenged me whilst I was questioning Shaun Cohen’s notion of rejoining RESPECT(see post 46)

As to your post 56, you deny a shift to the right but then talk about the need to engage with people to the right in response to my giving examples of rightward shifting by RESPECT. Whilst engaging with those to our right is fine in principle it becomes counter productive when that amounts to defending Brown or defending New Labour. As the Open Letter says, it becomes very hard to counter the BNP potential voters (and for that matter relate to any trade unionists fighting cuts) if we say defend New Labour. Both main parties will look to impose savage spending cuts, we should steer well clear of alliances with New Labour (though not left wing MPs).

External Bulletin post 58- The argument about supporting Livingstone is false, German as RESPECT candidate gave second preference vote to Livingstone in 2004 and did exactly the same in 2008 as Left List candidate. It was RESPECT (Galloway) who altered their position - my point initially. It seems RESPECT RENEWAL ‘reveiwed’ the situation after ridding themselves of the SWP by not attending conference.

And as for German simply standing only to damage Galloway, that doesn’t seem credible, regardless of how she may have worded a sentance in a debate with leading SWP members- if the sole intention was to damage Galloway why would Left List devote resources to areas outside London where they also stood? Left List stood where they may have influence both in and out of London - disappointingly as it turned out.

Dirty Red Bandana post 60- yes, Galloway is usually excellent on the Middle East, no problem there, however issues closer to home can be more problematic.

Anyway, the one thing I didn’t want to happen was the discussion to degenerate into sectarian squabbling, against the spirit of the letters from SWP and No2EU - I only entered the debate to correct what I saw as an important inaccuracy. However, a few posters are basically saying that people like me should have no place in a new left formation as we accept the ‘SWP version’ of events around RESPECT and not the version they choose to believe. People should be able to make their judgements based facts as they see them and then move on- we should agree to differ without placing sectarian barriers against who can join and who cannot.

Comment by stuart — 10 June, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
The trouble is Stuart your facts , as you see them, do not chime with the facts as those from the other side see them. But as you say it’s up to you.

I’ve no idea who you are Stuart so I’m sure you can be in any new formation you wish (though I’m not sure the SWP is actually proposing one - they did have one called the Left alternative but they took down it’s website last week so perhaps they are preparing something new - or as the letter says a ‘conference’ to discuss unity)

But it does you no favours to imply that Respect is “defending Brown or defending New Labour” - if you think we are doing this then clearly you wouldn’t want us in your new formation either, would you?

Comment by TLC — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:04 am
I’m afraid that talk of unity from some quarters, those who continue to justify the SWP raising the temperature in Respect and forcing a split, is simply unconvincing.

It also poses a question: if the SWP found Galloway and Salma Yaqoob too right wing to work with, then what on earth makes anyone think that the party and its supporters will get on happily with others in a united or federal grouping? Unless this is a proposal to unite the hardest of the hard left, in which case irrelevance beckons.

There’s no getting around this - there appears to be a serious debate emerging on the broad left, which extends beyond the hard left of the Labour Party and most certainly includes the Greens. It is there, not in some leftist ghetto, that productive and collaborative developments might take place.

If the hard left in Britain is shooting at, say, 2 percent of the national share of the vote and no concentrations of support capable of mounting a challenge for a Westminster seat, rather then 1 percent of the national share with the same weakness, then fine.

But you shouldn’t be surprised if others make more serious efforts to impact on the electoral process.

And you shouldn’t be surprised if they are pretty contemptuous of those who bleat about some supposed sociological law that those who don’t go with the sects, however large, are on some conveyor belt to the right.

It’s astonishing reading some of the things on this blog and some people’s failure to self-reflect. According to quite a few of the commenters on this thread and other related ones, Galloway and Yaqoob ought by now to be firmly ensconced as Labour candidates in safe seats or rallying to Gordon Brown.

Perhaps they might want to claim that somehow the ‘objective situation’ (a truly omnipotent substrate of our world, that one) has changed.

If so, it was John Maynard Keynes, I believe, who said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?’

Comment by Ferrier — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:36 am
‘And as for German simply standing only to damage Galloway, that doesn’t seem credible, regardless of how she may have worded a sentance in a debate with leading SWP members- if the sole intention was to damage Galloway why would Left List devote resources to areas outside London where they also stood?’

This is an interesting example of tendentious argumentation.

1) Not only did Lindsey German write that, an avid SWP blogger, who remains loyal to his party, confirms that that was the intention of leading figures (it’s over on the blog run by Richard Seymour).

2) Standing elsewhere does not at all refute the thesis that a central motivation was to damage Galloway’s chances in London. Indeed, quite a few of the SWP interventions elsewhere were not under the Left List banner. They appear to have been run somewhat differently from the London campaign which from a distance seemed obsessed with Ken Livingstone and did not situate itself within a broader sentiment to stop Boris Johnson.

3) The media releases by the Left List following the London elections were atrociously sectarian and betrayed the motivation. They showed no sense of solidarity with others on the left. For example, nowhere did they aggregate the left vote to give some indication of what the election revealed about the collective position of the left in the poll.

Instead, they relished in what they called Galloway’s failure to achieve a ‘career-saving vote’ and the fact that Respect did not win in one of the wards it contested in the constituency Salma Yaqoob will fight. The bitter crowing was an awful indictment of what had happened to the SWP.

No, I’m sorry. That episode was thoroughly depressing. Perhaps there’s a rethink now. But if that is to be serious, I would have thought it needs to go beyond the private sphere and lead to some change in public position.

You can’t seriously talk unity if you continue to maintain that Galloway panders to homophobia and distances himself from trade unions to appease businessmen, that Yaqoob is a communalist, and that Linda Smith is a union ballot-rigger, and everyone else who didn’t agree with the SWP at the time is subject to this supra-historical, super-natural political g-force pulling them to the right.

At this point on the Marxist left someone usually talks about Leon Trotksy’s call for the KPD to unite with the SPD despite the latter’s culpability for the murder of Rosa Luxembourg.

But, the SWP is not a mass party like the SPD, and analogies can be very misleading.

Comment by Ferrier — 11 June, 2009 @ 2:02 am
I think that sometimes, and maybe this is one of them, this blog ought to be run by Randy (rather than Andy) Newman.

You know the final apocolyptic line of the song no doubt:-

………………………….’ they all hate us anyhow, so just drop the big one now’.

Comment by Halshall — 11 June, 2009 @ 4:33 am
TLC/Ferrier,

Just as RESPECT was built on the back of the Iraq war along with on going anger against New Labour generally - recent developments such as two BNP MEPs and the crisis in parliament, the economic crisis, further New Labour crisis etc raises new obligations and possibilities. Those on the left should seek to come together without sectarian distraction.

On the question of Left List and Galloway, I think the sources you use for your allegations are limited. German was engaging in a debate with others, there were disagreements and the German/Rees position was that of a minority. Rees sought to justify taking the PFI cheque and was overruled by the CC. You cannot base an argument around what some individuals may appear to say. The SWP should be judged as an organisation.

It is true that the SWP predicted that RESPECT would not flourish following the ditching of the SWP. It was argued that RESPECT is too narrowly focused in two specific localities, it will rely on a communal type vote rather than a political left vote, it will rely on ’stars’, careerists or influential individuals within communities. Ditching the SWP will not alter that basic problem (I suspect they were ditched because they would be critical of such a political - or apolitical- strategy). Nothing that has happened since has proved them wrong.

But that was then. Whatever one thinks of the split in RESPECT we are now in a different situation. And one issue that cannot be ducked is how we relate to New labour as it takes on the Tories. This can be dealt with through fraternal debate although I have to say that backing New Labour will undermine any attempt to undercut the Nazis and will create distance between the political left and those who are being stuffed by Brown, Darling etc. But people can voice their opinion accordingly.

Comment by stuart — 11 June, 2009 @ 7:49 am
‘Those on the left should seek to come together without sectarian distraction.’

And in the next breath…

Respect ‘will rely on a communal type vote’

Poor Stuart just can’t help himself.

Comment by Ger Francis — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:25 am
The letter, if a genuine attempt at unity is to be welcomed. How it works in practical terms remains to be seen. I know non-SWP forces will be understandably cynical and there should be some kind of reflection on previous false starts and acknowledgment of the mistakes made.

There seem to be many calls for unity etc. at the moment. I just can’t help feeling that it is a little bit after the horse has bolted.

Comment by Steve — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:35 am
Stuart, have you read the documentatation of the split caused by the SWP. I know you are one of the nightmarish virtual spokepersons that Martin Smith depends on, in some attempt to confuse issues. Who knows you may be a member of the cc.
If that is the case then we can only see you as a disruptive force on the blogtalking up unity but sowing seeds of doubts as a virtual blogger.
We have the facts irrespective of your quest to bend them. Read the documents, both from Respect and your organisation and it has nothing to do with in your words “(I suspect they were ditched because they would be critical of such a political - or apolitical- strategy). It was more about John Rees and his cult of the personality Your own cc moved against him. So cut out the crap

Comment by sychohohohophantic larry — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:55 am
BTW they were not ditched . they walked out. the door is open to individual members of the SWP. I dont support that Respect position

Comment by sychohohohophantic larry — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:03 am
the SWP/ANL/UAF position is completely bankrupt; it appears that they believe that now just as Griffin’s strategy is paying dividends the BNP will abandon it and return to street politics-
“The Nazis’ success will encourage those within the BNP urging a “return to the streets”.

This would mean marches targeting multiracial areas and increased racist attacks. We need to be ready to mobilise to stop that occurring.”
we are expected to believe that having spent the last 20 years rejecting just this approach and removing from the ranks of his party those who still held to the old Tyndall ways Griffin will suddenly readopt them to provide the SWP an opportunity to fight them. ludicrous.

Comment by darren redstar — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:04 am
“This can be dealt with through fraternal debate although I have to say that backing New Labour will undermine any attempt to undercut the Nazis”

Good job nobody on the left is doing this then, eh? Respect has set out to attempt in our limited way to pose an alternative that can undercut the BNP. It going to be a dirsty business of going toe to toe with them (over housing, resources, services, cuts, as well as immigration and racism) in places like Blackley, Halifax, etc. No left force can currently imagine that they have the forces to be able to do this in every area but we can do something in the areas where we each have a presence. So we had best start working together - to avoid the rather stupid waste of resources that saw UAF and Hope NOT Hate leaflets delivered within houyrs to the same addresses in areas where the BNP had little support but large areas going undelived due to lack of resources.

We also wouold benefit from non-agressiuon pacts in key seats- - and indeed support for each others candidates. But that is not going to happen successfully if tired old arguments about communalism, ‘asisn businessmen, ‘about to join New Labour’ etc are trotted out with tiresome regularity.

Picthing your arguments to the right is not the same as moving rightwards. In the battle between The Tories and Labour at the next election - where the left at best can currently expect to win just a handful of seats - are you really suggesting that you are indifferent as to who wins. Obviously i would prefer a raft of respect victoreis at the next election but that is not going to happen. At best we may get three (and that will be an absolutely mammouth task), the Greens have a hope in two and there are one or two independents who can win plus afew remaining labour leftwingers.

In that situation I know who i’d prefer to win the remaining seats - and it aint Daavid Cameron - even though Brown et al are entirely responsible for their current parlous state.

Comment by TLC — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:25 am
#94

“And one issue that cannot be ducked is how we relate to New labour as it takes on the Tories. This can be dealt with through fraternal debate although I have to say that backing New Labour will undermine any attempt to undercut the Nazis and will create distance between the political left and those who are being stuffed by Brown, Darling etc. “

The importnat distinction here is that when we discuss the labour Party, we must also factor in its affiliated trade union members, and the millions of broadly progressive voters who self-identify with it; we are not just talking about the PLP, or indeed only the individual membership.

For example, Compass, who are clearly NOT new labour, have 4000 members and 20000 people on their mailing list.

There are literally thousands of activists in UNITE, GMB, and UNISON who have an exasperated and attenuated, but still active, loyalty to the Labour Party. New Labour has almost no support from labour Party supporters in the unions, and for example Derek Simpson, Paul Kenny and Tony Woodley, Billy hayes, none of them support New Labour

This progressive constituenct cannot be addressed by assuming that laburism is completely dead, and failing to take the sides of Labour against the tories would cut us of from the best instinct of many key activists.

Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Workers Power have produced a response to the open letter. You can read it here:
http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,2017,0,0,1,0

Comment by John Bowman — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Thanks for the qualification Rachel,

I agree with you, I wasn’t suggesting that the left only stand in seats where it has a good chance of winning but that in most seats the choice of victor will be between Labour and the Tories (and the left won’t be standing). The left will not be a position to stand in most seats for a wide variety of reasons -at least it doesn’t look that way at the moment. But the left should stand much more widely - but always with an eye to the overall political picture in each constituency.

Comment by TLC — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
#103

That is why Workers Power welcomes your call for a conference, commits itself to work hard to build the conference among workers and youth, and will attend such a conference with the aim of persuading the delegates that it is time to go beyond alliances and joint tickets. Instead we should agree to set up a new party and begin a democratic debate on its structure and above all on its political programme.

Please don’t bother.

Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
Darren - read it again:

‘The Nazis’ success will ENCOURAGE those within the BNP urging a “return to the streets”.

This would mean marches targeting multiracial areas and increased racist attacks. We need to be READY to mobilise to stop that occurring’

It’s not saying its going to happen or that it would be the BNP leaderships next move - it’s saying it’s a possibility. And after such a sustained period of disciplined electoral activity, can we discount the possibility of Griffin letting his dogs of the leash for a bit of a run about? Look at Luton for example.

Comment by swp member — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Some measure of how utterly irrelevant (at best) and counterproductive (at worst) the SWP/UAF is to anti-fascism can be measured by Nick Griffin’s response to his egging. He didn’t attack the SWP. He didn’t attack UAF. Instead he blamed the Labour Party and David Cameron. He didn’t attack the SWP because most listeners and readers would have little idea what he’s talking about. He can get more wavering supporters on line by bashing well-known hate figures than by obsessing on the far-left swampland, which would make him look small and petty. And quite clearly, with the BNP’s increasing mainstream electoral success there is no mileage in his getting into a pissing competition with the likes of Martin Smith, who couldn’t pick up 9% of the vote if he went around handing out free beer. Griffin’s now playing for serious money, and the SWP is still stuck in 1978, having a slanging match in Brick Lane. For chrissakes, people, get out of this ghetto, stop agonising about how to bring tiny sects on side, and start building a politics that obliges you to speak to the people who matter, rather than the repeat offenders of the SWP.

Comment by Another Dave — 11 June, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
The BNP are already planning a march in East London through a front organisation on the basis of support the troops in
Afghanistan. I think the plan is for the last weekend of this month. Hopefully the egging will have deterred them.

Comment by Chuckles O'Hare — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
I understand he complained about left-wing students and teachers as far as the egging itself went. That is suitably vague for his purposes.
Fascists (and others) are often a little vague about their targets. The Nazis, for example, often talked about the “Marxists” as the enemy, a vague term which included not only the KPD but even the SPD, which did not formally ditch allegiance to Marxism until the 1950s. They also tended to refer to the KPD as the “Bolsheviks”, partly to tie them in with the Soviet Union.

Comment by Faust — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
Of course, it is to be welcomed the posiive open lettter to the Left from the SWP just as is the equally constructive response from Workers power.

Snide comments from Andy arent in any way helpful, nor is clinging on to the wreckage that is so tainted, now an unmitigated disaster which goes by the name of New Labour / Labour party, which a massive swathe of the British people have now clearly shown that they will now not touch with a barge pole.

The SWP goes so far as referring to a united left group not actually calling for a new party whereas Workers Power is calling for a new party.

Personally,I dont feel calling for a non agression pact between the various left parties at next elections is going to make much difference.People want a clear credible Left party alternative.

The SWP is correct in thinking the Left needs to be part of a creative and dynamic, massive UNITED AND DEMOCRATIC movement opposed to fascism,sexism,racism and homophobia, capable of breaking the momentum in support for the BNP but we,the Left, have to present a credible alternative in the form of a new broad left party not just another cobbled together Left list for the next election.

Equallly calling for a vote for anyone excep the nazi BNP or even the “Labour Party” is simply a failed and bapolitically bankrupt and in my mind plainly stupid strategy.

We need a new fighting UNITED BROAD LEFT PARTY.FACT.

All the myriad component parts of the Left have to look at themselves honestly and see how in the past they have either helped to hinder, frustrate and or desTroy previous left unity initiatives.What´s more it is necessary that such actions be admitted to openly.Disunity is not an option just as further squabbling between the various 57 varities of Left is futile.

Any genuine future Left unity project inevitably requires a new understanding, a building of trust and a HEALING OF OLD WOUNDS, past injuries and damaging present practices, inorder to help bring about such a vital trust.

It´s completely pointless to go over and over and over the differences on the Left and over and over again the whole history of past sectarian spats and battles…… past failures.

WE ALL need to move forward with determination and with a clear aim and purpose of building a genuine TRUST,CONFIDENCE and UNITY in the Socialist , anti fascist and anti racist movement and beyond.

Comment by Fleabite — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Folowing from Andy’s points ( 102) The Labour Party remains a important arena for political realignments and is not going to vanish. Note yesterday’s Cruddas defence of James Purnell to see how a ‘new pragmatism’ might be constructed that can appeal both to traditional Labour opinion and remain bound by the basic parameters of existing government policies.

Policies will be recast before the election and ‘class’ language will be more apparent. Byrne, this morning on Today, repeated several times the Tory plan to cut taxes for the very richest. Definitely, a sign that the Tories will be put under pressure on policies and the Labour leadership will seek to mobilise its traditional support.

Several different axes of Labour loyalism can be discerned among union Labour loyalists and there is not going to be a wholesale desertion even though there are real prospects of union support for electoral interventions independent of the Labour Party. The prospect of a Tory win always mobilises support and opposition to government policies needs to be cast in a language that does not add to the credibility of the two main bourgeois parties.

The twin approach, in relation to the Labour Party, of encouraging a left/centre rapprochement to isolate the Blairites along with strengthening the organised Labour left is productive but the real pressure comes from union action and mass action.

Comment by Nick Wright — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
“The BNP are already planning a march in East London through a front organisation on the basis of support the troops in Afghanistan. I think the plan is for the last weekend of this month. Hopefully the egging will have deterred them.”

Can you, or anyone, say any more about this?

Comment by external bulletin — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Calls for unity based on existing left groups, Marxism, “advanced sections” (!?) of the working class or the trade union movement will just not deliver the numbers required to make any significant impact. I would invite anyone who disagrees to show me their legions.

Given the lack of a viable class basis for a renewed broad left formation it seems clear to me that the basis for unity will, instead, have to be a simple, powerful and over-arching idea with broad appeal.

Greater equality of outcomes fits the bill. It is to the left of the mainstream (which only believes in the meaningless mantra of equality of opportunity) and social democrats through to revolutionary socialists should be able to get inside this tent relatively amicably. I can only conclude that anyone unable to get inside this tent is content to carry on with their own particular vanity project which presumably entails talking to small groups of people they already know and fantasising about the imminence of revolution.

Having staked out the ground on the basis of greater equality of outcomes, appeals can then be made to the Labour/labour movement left to desert the moribund New Labour project and maybe some LibDems from the left of that party. It will also provide a base from which to take greater equality beyond the “left ghetto” which is essential if there is ever to be a durable, progressive majority in the UK. Unsavoury as some may find it - we have to talk to the “middle classes” but this can be done on a principled egalitarian basis and does not have to mean “selling out”.

Comment by Egalitarian — 11 June, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
#113 I would invite anyone who disagrees to show me their legions.

Why don’t you show us yours?

Comment by skidmarx — 11 June, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
Children, children! There is already a mass, united and non sectarian movement against the BNP. It is called Hope Not Hate. It has somewhere in the region of sixty local autonamous branches around the country and, unlike UAF/SWP, doesn’t tell lies about its activities.

A quick ring around today to people actaully involved in the movement, as opposed to talking about starting one, reveals that most people think that this latest SWP inititive is a sign of weakness now that the whole opportunistic UAF campaign has collapsed. I also understand that they will be told to fuck off by the mainstream movement. They are after access to money that has now been withdrawn by the trades unions.

It seems that the only union that they are creeping around that will stand them is the NUT which has now established a political fund which the SWP CC have their eye on to pay the salaries of their full timers and as the NUT is runnig alive with Trots they may well be successful. It is their last chance as it seems the Stoke shambles has nearly bankrupted them.

They tried to latch onto the memory of Blair Peach to raise money, the squalid little scum bags ,but the Friends of Blair Peach and his family have made it absolutely clear that they are not wanted. They are, however we understand, still trying to collect money ” for the family”. Absolute pieces of shit.

Terry Fitzpatrick,
The Friends of Blair Peach,
Southall79 @Googlemail.com

Comment by terryfitz — 11 June, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
“Children, children! There is already a mass, united and non sectarian movement against the BNP. It is called Hope Not Hate” terryfitz

Get a life!

UAF and Hope not hate have actually got to “work together and organise together” inorder for there to be even a beginnings of a mass, united non sectarian movement against the BNP.

To say other wise as you do, terryfitz,in your smug complacency is both quite foolish and self delusional and simply perpetuates negative, unhelpful and further divisive sectarianism, which serves the cause of anti fascism not one jot and only gives further strength to the enemy.

It´s time to unite and fight fascism and racism not open up new divisions or deepen old wounds.

Wake up stupid!

Comment by Fleabite — 11 June, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
ANDY - REARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC

Andy´s comments to me sound like nothing except for rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Remaining Labour activists can do all they like but the fact remain, New Labour Labour has lost hundreds of thousands of members and millions and millions of voters (ongoing) and as far as I can see there doesnt appear to be a hope in hell of winning them back.Carry on rearranging hthe deck chairs all you like, youre just going to go down with the sinking ship.

The present pushmepullyou antics of what´s Left of the Labour Left only serves to further disillusion and disorientate voters and activists alike such as the insanely nonsensical demands of some HOPE NOT HATE Labour activists for people to “vote Labour” to keep out the BNP.

Simply trying to selectively play “the Labour party” off against “New Labour” just doesnt wash if ever it did.The one is tainted,thoroughly discredited and the other is seen by many as guilty by association.Both are sinking fast………….

You dont need a docrorate in political studies to know that when millions of people feel thoroughly alienated from the present deeply undemocratic,corrupt and unrepresenative political system,as well as feeling deeply disillusioned and betrayed by New Labour (even if they may well have voted Labour over decades) they are simply are not going to stay with New Labour or the Labour party.Fact.

If the Left of the Labour party wants to gain any kind of credibility,then dump Labour and contribute to a urgently needed Left convergence and realignment,a genuine unity on the Left towards building a new Left party.

Comment by Fleabite — 11 June, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
Correction: “unrepresentative”

Comment by Fleabite — 11 June, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
We,the Left need to work out an agreed and viable SOCIALIST VISION which can be successful in winning broad support and can be built and developed in the here and now.

Comment by Fleabite — 11 June, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Colleagues,

An alternative approach to yet another reformulation of the left is here: http://www.iwca.info/?p=10141

Comment by Paul — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
N.94. Stuart, we both know you are being a bit ‘incongruous’ in your claims about why you have chosen to drench this thread with SWP apologia. It is evident from your remarks that you have neither been politically involved for the last six months (hence you clearly do not chime with the admissions of your own central committee, its former members or leading members as expressed on this blog and in pre-conference articles in November and December) nor that you entered the debate to correct inaccuracy. You entered with a deeply outdated and poorly formulated abstract prejudice of the split narrative that you received from others and accepted like a lamb.

When you talk of Respect’s attempts to relate to forces to the right of itself, you descend into nonsense. Isn’t the task of even revolutionary socialists in a democratic centralist organization to relate to workers and forces to the right of themselves? If not, who do you talk to? Do you just fall into sectarian squabbling about who is the more pure revolutionary and float endless kites about left unity while behaving in thoroughly sectarian ways?

What was the reason for Respect? The collapse of Stalinism destroyed the concept of socialism for a generation (despite the one-sided euphoria of the SWP). It also destroyed the ideological glue of social democracy so Labour parties started embracing neo-liberal ideology. In Britain, there were two additional factors that shaped events: the defeat of the miners provoking a retreat of the working class and a mass social movement against imperialism.

Respect led to the biggest and most sustained electoral breakthrough for the left of Labour since 1945. This is simply too important to let a self-obsessed and politically rudderless organization wreck. Unfortunately for the SWP, it survived and is now rebuilding the ambition to create a mass left of Labour force that comes from a historic alliance of the Asian working class and the political left. At the moment that neo-liberal consensus collapses, Respect will relate to forces to the right of itself as the rupture points will occur in areas and with groups that we may not have considered until now. It is precisely the right move to make at this juncture.

Had you actually been active in the city where you live, you may have been availed of the opportunity to witness how Respect builds in communities and initiates campaigns on domestic issues (some of which I mentioned before but you ignored). You should also note that ‘being good on the Middle East’ is not just about the Middle East. It is internationalism and builds confidence to campaign in the UK.

Anyway, the Pleasure is mine.

Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 12 June, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Bill Corr

I believe that a study of the membership of Police Battalion 101 which carried out thousands of murders of Jews in Eastern Europe in the early days of the holocaust showed that not a few of its members were former socialists and communists from Hamburg. I bet many of them gritted their teeth as well.

Comment by Armchair — 16 June, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
Bill Corr

Fuck off and die ya Nazi fuckwit!

Translate that into whatever language you want.

Comment by WTF — 16 June, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Reply to the SWP from the commune: http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/reply-to-socialist-workers-partys-open-letter-to-the-left/

Comment by communard — 17 June, 2009 @ 12:00 am
And a reply from the SP: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/585/7477

Comment by Anonymous — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
Reply from PR here

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2747

Comment by bill j — 24 June, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
Workers Power have written a response to the SP’s reply:
http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,2046,0,0,1,0

Comment by John Bowman — 29 June, 2009 @ 11:53 am
The international provisional committee for the immediate reunification of the Secretariats of all marxist Internationals into a fighting workers communist samurai vanguard (bolsheviks) have issued a response to workers power: http://www.you-micro-sects-are-all-self-delusional-self-important-idiots/

Comment by Andy Newman — 29 June, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
Dear Andy Newman

Please don’t assume that the response you linked to speaks for the entire tendency.

Yours

The international provisional committee for the immediate reunification of the Secretariats of all marxist Internationals into a fighting workers communist bolshevik vanguard (samurai-leninist)

Comment by external bulletin — 29 June, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Splitters !

Comment by Eddie Truman — 29 June, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
See “Ordinary Men” by Christopher Browning, re Police Battalion 101. It was recruited mostly from natives of Hamburg, a city where before 1933 there was a high SPD and KPD level of support, and relatively little for Nazis. A former KPD member in the battalion claimed to have refused to take part in shooting Jews, as did a former SPD member. A key episode in the book is the Jozefow massacre, where the commander of the battalion (unusually) gave his troops the choice of not participating in a massacre of Jews in occupied Poland. A minority took him up on the offer. Browning thinks these mostly over-age troops from a relatively left-wing and cosmopolitan city in Germany were not exactly ideal Nazi material, but by and large they killed, became more callous with experience and some even took sadistic enjoyment in it.
It has to be said that the battalion had an above average number of Nazi Party members, and other historians have questioned the extent to which its members were “ordinary men” to the degree claimed by Browning.

Comment by Faust — 29 June, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

10 June, 2009

AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE SWP

130 Comments »

Leave a comment