Galloway on RESPECT
Thanks to Liam Mac Uaid for publishing the following letter from George Galloway to RESPECT’s national council.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times
The Shadwell by-election victory has stunned the New Labour establishment, turned the tide in Tower Hamlets and opened up the real possibility of winning two parliamentary seats in East London which, together with the potential gain in Birmingham, would make us the most successful left-wing party in British history.
New Labour’s decision to try to rehabilitate Michael Keith – the former leader of Tower Hamlets council who we first defeated last year – raised the stakes in this election enormously. A victory for him in a ward where we had all three councillors would have thrown us into a grave crisis. Instead, it is Labour that is suffering shattering demoralisation and we are enjoying a post-Shadwell bounce.
Ealing Southall, on the other hand, just a few weeks before, marked the lowest point in Respect’s three-year history. The failure to harvest even the vote we had secured in just one ward of the constituency in the local elections 12 months earlier was a sharp reminder that what goes up can come down and should shatter any complacency about the London elections next May.
It is clear to everyone, if we are honest, that Respect is not punching its weight in British politics and has not fulfilled its potential either in terms of votes consistently gained, members recruited or fighting funds raised.
The primary reasons for this are not objective circumstances, but internal problems of our own making.
The conditions for Respect to grow strongly obtain in just the same way as they did when we first launched the organisation and had our historic breakthrough in 2005.
Anyone who was at the 1000-strong street celebration after the victory in Shadwell will attest that the idea of Respect remains very much alive and, as Jim Fitzpatrick MP said in Tribune, it’s clear that ‘the Iraq war hasn’t gone away’.
Michael Lavalette’s advancing position in Preston shows what can be done with imaginative and dedicated work. In Bristol, around Jerry Hicks, and in Sheffield around Maxine Bowler, we have placed ourselves in pole position to enter the council chamber. But to achieve that we must recognise our serious internal weaknesses which are becoming more apparent and which threaten to derail the whole project.
Membership
Despite being a rather well known political brand our membership has not grown. And in some areas it has gone into a steep decline. Whole areas of the country are effectively moribund as far as Respect activity is concerned. In some weeks there is not a single Respect activity anywhere in the country advertised in our media. No systematic effort has been able to be mounted - in fact, a major effort had to be launched to get back to the levels of membership we had, despite electoral successes, widespread publicity and the continuing absence of any serious rival on the left. This has left a small core of activists to shoulder burden after burden without much in the way of support from the centre, leading to exhaustion and enervation.
Fundraising
This is all but non-existent. We have stumbled from one financial crisis to another. And with the prospect of an early general election we are simply unable to challenge the major parties in our key constituencies. None of the Respect staff appears to have been tasked with either membership or fundraising responsibilities. Or if they have it isn’t working. There is a deep-seated culture of amateurism and irresponsibility on the question of money. Activities are not properly budgeted and even where budgets are set they are not adhered to. Take, for example, the Fighting Unions Conference which was full to the rafters but still managed to lose £5000. The intervention at Pride, where we gave away merchandise rather than sold it, lost £2000.
It is a moot point whether the turn to building Fighting Unions which occupied the National Office for four months was the correct prioritisation of slender resources, following our breakthroughs at the local elections last year. What is not moot is that mismanagement turned an event which ought to have been a money-spinner into a money-loser.
Equally the Pride intervention, which occupied a great deal of the organisation’s time (I personally was telephoned three times to be asked if I would make it, and others report similar pressure) can be compared to the total lack of a presence at the Barking Mela last weekend - the biggest in Europe - or the minimal campaigning presence at the recent London Latin American festival. Again, while it is arguable that Pride was the priority, what is not arguable is that fundraising at it should have been included in the plan.
Further, what ought to have been the unalloyed success of the Pride intervention was seriously marred. Instead of a simple encouragement for members to attend – with a logical emphasis on LGBT members and young people – several members in elected office were subjected to a high-handed “instruction” from the national office to take part. It appeared to them to be some kind of misplaced test of their commitment to the equality programme of the organisation. This is frankly absurd. There are LGBT people who don’t feel comfortable being on a float on a parade. It would be a serious mistake to read off someone’s commitment to equality from their willingness to be dancing on the back of a truck on the Pride parade.
Having done that and spent £2,000 there was no effort to publicise our intervention externally by ensuring that all the relevant media and organisations were made aware that we were the only political party to have a float on the parade.
Staffing
This is a mystery to me and others. People pop up as staff members in jobs which have not been advertised, for which there have been no interviews and whose job descriptions are unclear and certainly unpublished. One staff member was appointed at a meeting at which that same staff member was present, making it obviously embarrassing for anyone to query whether they were the right person for the job, whether they could be afforded or why the job should go to them rather than someone else. This unnecessarily poor management leads to tensions, even animosity and the suspicion that staff are recruited for their political opinions on internal matters rather than on a proper basis. Sometimes the conduct of some staff buttresses this suspicion. For example, at the selection meeting for our Shadwell candidate two members of staff were openly proselytising for one candidate and against another - including heckling - and even after the decision had been taken. This undoubtedly contributed to the exceedingly poor involvement of the wider membership in the subsequent election. No paid member of staff attended the Shadwell victory celebrations and when I asked one of them if they would be attending I was told ‘no, I will be watching the football’. This was noticed widely by the activists who were present at the celebration and commented upon. It is again bad management to allow such culture and practices to proliferate.
Internal relations
There is a custom of anathematisation in the organisation which is deeply unhealthy and has been the ruin of many a left-wing group before us. This began with Salma Yaqoob, once one of our star turns, promoted on virtually every platform, and who is responsible for some of the greatest election victories (and near misses) during our era.
Now she has been airbrushed from our history at just the time when she is becoming a regular feature on the national media and her impact on the politics of Britain’s second city has never been higher.
There appears to be no plan to rescue her from this perdition, indeed every sign that her internal exile is a fixture. This is intolerable and must end now. Whatever personal differences may exist between leading members the rest of us cannot allow Respect to be hobbled in this way. We are not over-endowed with national figures.
Decision making and implementation
There is a marked tendency for decisions made at the national council or avenues signposted for exploration to be left to wither on the vine if they are not deemed to meet priorities (which themselves are not agreed). For example, there was a very useful discussion at the last national council on what initiatives we should explore following Brown’s succession and the then anticipated failure of the McDonnell campaign to get out of the starting gate. Among the varied suggestions were seeking to cohere wider progressive opinion around a minimal five point programme; approaching McDonnell to organise an open meeting in Parliament; seeking a joint conference with the RMT, CPB, Labour left and others; and organising a people’s march to London as an agitational vehicle for rallying forces and struggles against the Brown government. None of these have been seriously followed up. The overall emphasis – that the departure of Blair and the failure of the Labour left’s strategy opened up possibilities for us both to build Respect directly and to place it at the centre of a progressive realignment – was allowed to run into the ground.
Building the organisation
We must be much more systematic in building Respect’s profile in the wider arenas our members are active in. There is no question that struggles such as Stop the War, Defend Council Housing, anti-racist campaigns, activity around trade union disputes and so on are the lifeblood of a progressive political force such as ourselves. But the great lesson of the Stop the War movement in 2003 was that these movements do not automatically give rise to a force that can punch through on the political scene. That requires – as it did when we founded Respect – patient, detailed work and single-mindedness about ensuring that Respect grows out of the wider radical milieu.
Two of our outstanding members are at the helm of Defend Council Housing; many of our members are active in it in their localities. Yet as an organisation we have done far too little to raise the Respect banner inside the campaign and, to put it bluntly, cash in on the work our activists have put in and the turmoil the campaign has caused among disaffected Labour councillors and Labour-supporting tenants and trade unionists.
At the successful Stop the War demonstration outside the Labour Party conference in Manchester in September last year the nationally produced propaganda was for the Fighting Unions conference. It was thanks only to the Manchester comrades that we had a tabloid promoting Respect as a political formation. It was again thanks to the Manchester comrades that we had such a publication for the protest outside Brown’s coronation.
In every area of activity we need to encourage in our members a focus on recruitment, fundraising, establishing the profile of our candidates and unashamedly promoting Respect as the critical force in the wider reconstitution of the progressive and socialist movement.
Internal selections
Then there is the practice of the creation of false dichotomies between candidates for internal elections. Neither Oliur Rahman nor Abjul Miah nor Haroon Miah is Karl Liebknecht. And Sultana Begum is not Rosa Luxemburg. Yet in internal election contests these four contested in Tower Hamlets the divisions between them were deliberately and artificially exaggerated and members mobilised about “principles” which never were. This has led to deep and lasting divisions which show no signs of healing in the current atmosphere. So we must make a new atmosphere. If we are to rally to win the prize of a seat on the GLA, and three members of parliament, we must start right now.
Relations between leading figures in Respect are at an all-time low and this must be addressed. I have proposals to make which are not aimed at a change of political line, still less an attack on any organisation or section within Respect. They are aimed at placing us on an election war-footing, closing the chasm which has been caused to develop between leading members, together with an emergency fundraising and membership drive to facilitate our forthcoming electoral challenges. Business as usual will not do and everyone in their heart knows this.
The crossroads at which we now stand can take us either down the Shadwell route or the road to Southall.
Instead of three MPs and a presence on the GLA we could have no MPs and no one on the GLA by this time next year. A few honest moments thoughts should suffice to calibrate where that would leave us. Oblivion.
I cannot imagine that any member of the National Council wants to see us arrive at the destination where now lies the wreck of left-wing politics in Scotland and so I hope that these proposals will be considered with the best interests of the Respect project uppermost in our minds.
A way forward
It is abundantly clear for a variety of reasons that the leadership team must be strengthened and all talents mustered. I therefore propose the creation of a new high-powered elections committee whose task would be to rapidly evaluate our election strengths and weaknesses, proposed target seats, supervise the selection of candidates - national and local - and to spearhead a national membership and fundraising drive. This committee must comprise the leading members of Respect, including Salma, Linda Smith, Yvonne Ridley, Abjol Miah (as the leader of our 11 councillors in the central election battleground of Tower Hamlets), me, Lindsey German, Alan Thornett, Nick Wrack as well as the National Secretary.
I also propose a crucial new post of National Organiser, preferably full-time, whose task would be the aforementioned re-organisation and re-energising of the key clusters of Respect support and the encouragement of members everywhere. This position would sit alongside the position of National Secretary. It must be advertised and subject to competitive interview overseen by the elections committee.
While this document may seem stark in black and white it reflects a widespread feeling which has surfaced in various ways - including at the National Council - and it is clear that the status quo, or minor tinkering, are not options. Time is short, renovation is urgently required and we must start the process now.
George Galloway MP
As I have stated on Liam’s website, the document could help stimulate a very fruitful discussion on how to strengthen, renew and build Respect. But the SWP leadership seem to have responded in a typical fashion:
“Sadly, last week George sent out an eight page document to all members of the Respect National Committee outlining major concerns about the direction Respect is going in. George’s document also makes a number of criticisms about the way the Respect Office operates.
The SWP disagree with George’s claims and we have sent a letter to the 14 SWP members on the Respect National Committee refuting the technical issues George has raised.
Obviously the situation is very serious for Respect. The SWP is 100% committed to the Respect project and is currently doing everything it can to keep the show on the road. Next week a meeting will take place between George and the SWP to attempt to resolve the issues he raises. We will be holding a members meeting for all SWP London members to discuss the outcome of the above meeting. We will also be holding meetings for members outside London soon. “
Why should having a debate within an organisation about it’s direction be greeted as “sadly, last week George sent an eight page document”?
Usually I find that thrashing out disagreements and debates strengthen and clarify and organisation, as long as all participants in the debate are honest and don’t make personal attacks.
Comment by Adam J — 31 August, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Rather than the SWP leaders just meeting with GG to resolve the issues he raises at a private meeting (though it’s entirely natural that leading members of Respect meet with each other) , shouldn’t the document begin a process of a general debate over how to build Respect that should culminate in a debate at the national conference of Respect?
Comment by Adam J — 31 August, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
I get the impression GG wants out (to spend more time with his half-witted TalkSport listeners and lucrative column). Otherwise, he wants complete control of Respect: social democracy with a Stalinist at the helm looks about as mouth-watering as the loony Trotskyists currently steering Respect to destruction. Given that GG basically, and truthfully, calls Respect amateurish, incompetent and politically inept, where is he going? Crucially, GG must have known that this would have been leaked and that Respect’s enemies would have a field day.
The second lesson in politics: a “secret” letter is *not* meant to be “secret”. After all, the SWP’s secret “party notes” or whatever it’s called seems to find itself to a lot of people who aren’t in the SWP! But that raises a further question: why would the SWP draw attention to it? Perhaps they want GG out?
I find the stuff about fund raising not entirely surprising. If I remember correctly, Bookmarks, the SWP bookshop, did an offer in which if anyone stumped up something like £100 then they would get all subsequent books published by Bookmarks free (or was it half price?). They soon realised that they’d go bust running such a financially crippling offer and somehow got out of it. Perhpas they hadn’t read a series of books entitled “Capital” by a certain Mr Karl Marx.
I’m surprised that Respect is still going. Given its utter incompetence - sorry GG but amateurishness would be a high benchmark - the fact that this absurd “coalition” is still alive and kicking is a wonder. The SWP has to be congratulated, though. They took a major movement, and one that was willing to give the stupid SWP “intellectuals” a lot of slack, and they took a once-in-a-lifetime movement down a blind alley, did a u-turn and threw itself into the gutter. The SWP “intellectuals” found that the gutter was far too pleasant and searched out a sewer and threw the whole movement into it. Anyone who complained about the surroundings was purged. “This is no gutter, you running dog, this is the party, er, coalition of your dreams. Take some more soma.”
All of this coming from GG, however, reminds me of that great saying that satire died the day Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. How do you top that? If Kissinger is number one, GG’s comments on Respect must be up there fighting for second place with Trotsky’s denunciation of Stalin. Though everything he says is true, the fact that it comes from him doesn’t make it any more palatable. Bitter herbs.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 31 August, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
Now, where is the SWP’s letter to there fourteen NC members? maybe one of them would like to put into the public domain the SWP’s responce?
Comment by scott — 1 September, 2007 @ 12:14 am
I think that is very unlikely to ever get leaked Scott.
But given that Galloway’s letter is in the public domain, I am fairly confident that the SWP will publish a substantive response. But the may take a little while to work out exactly how to respond.
Comment by Andy — 1 September, 2007 @ 12:53 am
It was said that Galloway would’ve liked the CPB to join Respect to give the unity coalition some balance (I suspect their politics are closer to GG’s than the SWP) and also to better draw left Labour activists away from Labour. The CPB decided not to dump Labour for Respect - perhaps mindful of what had happened to its predecessor, the Socialist Alliance.
Now, given that the CPB cannot pursue its policy of backing Labour as “the party of labour”; indeed the Scottish and Welsh parties took part in elections to the devolved institutions. Given the inability to successfully field a left challenger for either Brown or Alexander and rumours about further centralisation of power at Labour’s conference, there could be motion towards the open arms of George Galloway.
What interests me is what will become of the Socialist Party’s Campaign for a New Workers’ Party… Any chance of a re-run of the Socialist Alliance, getting it right this time?
Comment by Charlie Marks — 1 September, 2007 @ 1:47 am
Much of George Galloway’s excellent document is written in the kind of coded language typical of much of Left debate. His target is clearly the particular way of working of the SWP in RESPECT and the impact this has had in particular on the Muslim activists RESPECT has attracted. The latter have little or nothing in common with the SWP’s political tradition and whilst Stop the War brought the two together these differences haven’t taken that long to erupt. This has led to the SWP fighting both a kind of turf wars to win candidate selection battles which it has lost, while adopting the shameful tactic of seeking to marginalise those who disagree with its line and might emerge as the basis of an alternative to their leadership, Salma Yaqoob.
I hope Andy is right. That the SWP issue a public response and that there is a proper debate on RESPECT’s future. The temptation however will be - as the SWP party notes is clearly trying to do - is to reduce these to ‘organisational issues’. George Galloway’s document is hinting at RESPECT developing as a properly constituted, democratic part rather than the ‘half-life’ of a coaltion or as the SWP fatuously describes it ‘united front of a special type’. The debate needs to be broken into the open. George Galloway is certainly right that RESPECT ‘punches below its weight’, winning elections in 2008 will be crucial and are probably necessarily its first priority but this cannot be divorced from the need to both professionalise and democratise RESPECT as a party. These are not narrow organisational questions as the SWP suggests, but a political issue in terms of just how crucial RESPECT becoming a left-of–Labour party is, one that cannot afford to be held back by the SWP’s pseudo-Leninist way of working in what it would prefrer to keep within a ‘united front of a special type’ orbit.
Comment by Mark P — 1 September, 2007 @ 9:33 am
Charlie
My understanding of the debate in the CPB over Respect is that while Griffiths and Haylett were in favour,and Griffiths toured the brances arguing for it, they lost the vote. But those who voted against were not all in the camp of thinkiing it necessary to still support Labour - a strand of the no vote were in favour of a new left party, but didn’t want to be in an organisation dominated by the SWP.
BUt also rememebr that if the SWP leave Respect, then in most parts of the country it will cease to exist, and may be even less able to break out of its inner city strongholds in East London and Birmingham.
It is worrying to me froe xample that galloway continues to push Yvonne Ridley.
Comment by Andy — 1 September, 2007 @ 10:31 am
There’s a number of possible outcomes. A party that took its democratic structures seriously would be of much greater appeal to a broad swathe of activists who have given up on ‘reclaiming Labour’ than something treated by the SWP as a ‘united front of a special type’. But that appeal won’t be immediate.
RESPECT is effectively moribund in most parts of the country - as indicated by George Galloways’ citing of the almost total lack of public activity and indeed internal party culture, so it is unclear what the SWP have contributed on this front in any case.
In the short term a turn to those geographical areas of obvious strength, including those that have been neglected (eg Leicester where Yvonne Ridley got a huge vote in a 2004 Patliamentary By-Election yet since then Respect has hardly existed or contested elections) would be no bad thing. The issue for George Galloway is whether such a turn will keep the likes of Michael Lavelatte, Jerry Hicks and Maxine Bowler on side whilst at the same time launching such a critique of SWP practice. If he can’t RESPECT will lose the activists in those few places outside of East LOndon and Birmingham where it stands a chance of any kind of breakthrough. But even if it did, and the choice lies with Lavalette and others not Galloway who clearly recognises and values their efforts, then building RESPECT from below, developing genuine local bases and models of political intervention is a far better future than the current set-up.
Crucial in all this remains Salma Yacoob. It doesn’t do us much good going over local disputes more than 5 years old. The fact is that if Salma wasn’t being marginalised by the SWP in the way that George Galloway finally reveals she could emerge as RESPECT’s co-leader. She is an absolutely central figure as she combines RESPECT’s base in Muslim communities with a genuine grasp of the potential for a new politics. It was Salma who originally co-authored the ‘Crossroards in British Politics’ dicument with George Monbiot which eventually became RESPECT, tho’ the document was immeasurably better then the outcome. In Birmingham RESPECT’s success hasn’t been dependent on either the trappings of celebrity nor the SWP. And Salma’s extraordinary vote in the 2005 General Election was for me the result of the night. To come from nowhere and push the Labour incumbent so close showed RESPECT’s potential, which has tragically been squandered largely by the posturing of the SWP. There is just the chance that this could now change for the better.
Comment by Mark P — 1 September, 2007 @ 11:23 am
George is a Dylan Fan
Comment by tim — 1 September, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
How utterly revolting to see self proclaimed socialists taking the side of the petty bourgeois elements in Respect against the degenerated forces of the SWP. And what emty fatous illusions concerning the prospects for Respect the likes of Mark P display here! The truth of the matter is that respet was and is an unnatural populist alliance between a degenerating revolutionary socialist group and pety bourgeois parochial communalist elements presided over by the decidedly dodgy figure of GG.
Face facts chums Respect is never going to break out of its limited bases among Muslim groups. Not with the SWP and certainly not without them. In fact the best thing that could happen to the SWP is for them to be so provokedby GG that they have no option but to quit Respect. one can only hope that if that scenario materialises, which I strongly feel it will not, that they leave the liks of Rees and german behind in Respect the opportunist alliance.
Comment by Mike — 1 September, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Mike
There are two games at play here.
i) what would happen to respect if the SWP loses a fight within it
ii) what would happen to the SWP if its Respect perspective blew up in its face.
Personally i think that GG’s document is a shit or bust play from him. If he wins then he may feel that jettisoning the SWP might ditch some of the negative baggage of Respect - perhaps enough to prevail in the strongholds, and so he lives to fight another day, or at least define his exit strategy without being compromised by the SWP. If he loses then he can walk away from Respect now - putting all the blame on the SWP. I wouldn’t pre-judge the issue, and wouldn’t prejudge who might be interested in respect minus the SWP.
I also note that GG refers to the national secretary in his doceument by the name of the post not the current office holder, so i wonder if he is looking for John Rees’s scalp?
For the SWP the stakes are very high indeed, because the current leadership may be publicly defeated by GG in respect, then their authority within the SWP would be damaged and their international reputation would be severely compromised as well. Then what happens?
We could speculate that that part of the SWP who have always been hesitant about the left regroupment projects might stage a coup, especially as they probably already have control of the paper, the theoretical journal and the party machine anyway. They could immediately bolster their reputation by a reconciliation with Chicago, who are more on their wavelength. It is perhaps also worth saying that John Rees is no longer employed by the SWP, so if he was booted out of Respect his authority would be weak. What I think would emerge would be the reinvention of the SWP of 1986.
Comment by Andy — 1 September, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Andy, as an expert on SWP twists and turns would a 1986 version of the SW be a good, bad, or indifferent thing? And whilst you’re speculating should such an exit occur what do you reckon then happens to RESPECT, does it have the possibility of becomg a more attractive party for the broad non-Brownite Labour Left to join anmd build?
Mike. OK we’ll agree to differ. I’m a champion of the popular front. The broadest possible party of the non-Brownite Labour Left. RESPECT’s problem in my view, clearly not yours, is nothing to do with its strong base in a number of localised and predominantly Muslim communities. This is a highly signifiant breakthrough and vetarans of a post-war Far Left that has remained almost exclusively white for its entire sorry history could do with a bit of humlity when criticising RESPECT for that achievement. Its failure rather is two fold.
1. To broaden out that base to other groups similarly disenchanted with Blairite/Brownite Labour.
2. To foster a party culture of self-education, debate and policy development which enriches the entire membership by sharing experiences and dialogue. Quite different from the far left’s pseudo Leninist practice of ‘cadre development’. The lack of this latter practice is what has frozen RESPECT at the level of a corporatist colation, something the SWP were entirely happy with until they started losing out on the candidate selection turf wars.
If you want to satisfy yourself with a purist revolutionary vanguard of a few hundred at most, fine. How much have such groups achieved in Britain in the past 100 years. Whether its RESPECT or another formation I’m more interested in a broad left-of-labour party which can meaningfully pressure Labour from the Left. Thats what at stake here. The outcome, that much I entirely agtree with you, remains uncertain.
Comment by Mark P — 1 September, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Andy, I suspect that you are correct in saying that IF the SWP were edged out of Respect that it would revert to something resembling the organisation as it was in 1986. Naturally my application to rejoin would be submitted to the CC (as an expellee I cannot rejoin through a branch) immediately despite my having serious criticisms of the SWP circa 1986. More seriously the SWP of 2007 is far more compromised than that of 86 was and so too are the leadership elements who have not been central to Respect such as Chris Harman if only beause they have gone along with this disgusting charade. Such elements are also bitterly hostile to the ISO and Shawki personally or so I’m given to uerstand by those who know.
In reply to Mark Ps decent and honest post above I note that the ‘white left’ has in the past won considerable support amongst non-white groups by stressing the commonality of class. Unlike Respect which is built ona n unacknowledged capitualisation to a soft communalism not dissimilar to that which once won the Labour Party a following among what were then recent immigrant groups.
Comment by Mike — 1 September, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
It is worrying to me froe xample that galloway continues to push Yvonne Ridley.
Yes - Cde Pearn’s critique of the party’s primarily-Muslim-identifying base can’t entirely be discounted. Nevertheless, I think this is a powerful - and potentially explosive - document. Here’s my comment from Liam’s blog:
I’ve never liked Galloway, but I’m pleasantly surprised by the clarity & cogency of this analysis. Yes, it is all about organisational structure, but structure can be very important in deciding what gets done and what doesn’t - and how the membership is involved in those decisions, both before and after they’re made. This passage in particular made me cringe:
Among the varied suggestions were seeking to cohere wider progressive opinion around a minimal five point programme; approaching McDonnell to organise an open meeting in Parliament; seeking a joint conference with the RMT, CPB, Labour left and others; and organising a people’s march to London as an agitational vehicle for rallying forces and struggles against the Brown government.
“All excellent suggestions, comrades. Moving on…”
You could object that Galloway’s line (and/or my take on it) is naive, inasmuch as there are solid political factors underlying the organisational sclerosis of RESPECT (reasons having to do with the death-grip of the SWP), and he clearly doesn’t address those. I think that would be to underestimate Galloway’s critique (which does after all propose leading roles for Yaqoob and even Thornett). I also think that a lot of the problems with the SWP itself are ultimately organisational - the weird stop/start blend of caution, opportunism and control freakery that the SWP has brought to RESPECT is a culture with quite deep roots in the party itself, and it’s not good for the internal life of the SWP any more than it’s been good for RESPECT.
Viewed in this light, I think Galloway’s aim is to stir things up within the SWP, perhaps with the longer-term aim of splitting the party and expelling part of it from the New Model RESPECT. How it pans out will depend on how much discontent there is within the SWP, and how deep the divisions within the leadership run - is anyone sufficiently fed up to want to either break with RESPECT or split the party?
Comment by Phil — 1 September, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Thanks Mike. I am aware of the antagonism with Shwaki and co, but I was suggesting that despite that, it would be an easy win for the SWP if they wanted to get a success under their belt quickly, and establish that “under new management” was a good thing.
Mark - i think the outcome of a 1986 style SWP would be a defeat. The largest far left group retreating into introversion and internal discussions. this has been pretty much the experieince of the un-official state-cap groups internationally. Interesting and often nice people generating clever and often insightful critiques of modern capitalism, discussing them among themselves, and having almost no impact on the wider left, let alone society.
Comment by Andy — 1 September, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Mark - the second part of your question. “what do you reckon then happens to RESPECT, does it have the possibility of becomg a more attractive party for the broad non-Brownite Labour Left to join anmd build?”
I dunno - I will watch what happens. There are two parts -
i) what happens in the lead up to conference, and whether a process of debate starts that might attract people like me to rejoin Respect. this partly depends upon whether GG is serious about changing Respect, or whether he is looking for an exit strategy. it also depends upon whether some sort of “democracy platform” is launched to back GG’s position.
ii) what happens in next year’s elections. If they maintain their electoral base in Birmingham and East London, then respect remains a player, if they lose their electoral base then there is nothing but a corpse to fight over.
Comment by Andy — 1 September, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
From the SWP response to the letter:
“The SWP disagree with George’s claims and we have sent a letter to the 14 SWP members on the Respect National Committee refuting the technical issues George has raised.”
I think that tells you much about how not to be a socialist party. The ‘SWP disagree’ - just who are the SWP here?
They(who?)sent a letter to ‘14 SWP members on the Respect National Committee refuting the technical issues George has raised’ - does this mean ‘gave them the line’?
Am I wrong in thinking that there is something wrong that the abstract ‘SWP’ tells its members on another party’s national committee what is actually,/i> happening on the said committee and elsewhere in the party?
Comment by Lobby Ludd — 1 September, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
This is a genuine question: was there a formal (democratic) meeting of the Respect members in the Poplar and Canning Town parliamentary constituency which resulted in George Galloway being selected as their candidate to stand against Jim Fitzpatrick at the next General Election?
Comment by Darren — 3 September, 2007 @ 9:35 am
It is a good question Darren, and one I have asked myself on another blog, to which an SWP blogger replied to the effect that surely any constituency would be delighted to have GG as their candidate.
Comment by Andy — 3 September, 2007 @ 11:09 am
an SWP blogger replied to the effect that surely any constituency would be delighted to have GG as their candidate
Now that attitude is part of the problem, not part of the solution. (Never mind if it’s passed nem. con., you put the damn motion and you minute the result.) This goes back to what I was saying about organisational questions being political - the decisions taken in the name of a socialist party must have some claim to being the expression of the actual thoughts & deliberations of its members, not just to fit what the leaders think the members want. Even democratic centralists recognise this, surely.
Comment by Phil — 3 September, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
Phil: “the decisions taken in the name of a socialist party must have some claim to being the expression of the actual thoughts & deliberations of its members, not just to fit what the leaders think the members want. Even democratic centralists recognise this, surely.”
It may be possible to envisage democratic centralism that wasn’t dominated by the leaders (the old IMG for example?), but the Healy/Cliff/Grant model has been to assume the leadership is correct.
This is even theorised quite explicitly in Cliff’s four volume biography of lenin, where the constant theme is Lenin overcoming the bolsheviks through his individual genius, even where it meant suspending democracy.
Comment by Andy — 3 September, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Poor Cliff, four long bad books on Lenin and one good short one on Rosa. Oh well!
Comment by Mike — 3 September, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
greetings
http://ollysonions.blogspot.com/2007/09/galloway-considers-next-move-in-fight.html
Comment by olly onions — 3 September, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
True Mike
And even worse books about Trotsky :o)
Comment by Andy — 3 September, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
I have always rated Isaac Deutscher’s bio of Trotsky, whatever Tony Cliff says about the Ivory tower.
Deutscher has a prose style far more elegant than the preachy, didactic tones of some party builders.
Comment by Adam J — 4 September, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Brown’s accession may seem to have staunched the flow of “old labour” out of the party (perhaps forgetting his responsibility for handing control of the economy to the Bank of England, legalising PFI, and providing unlimited warchests for Blair’s imperial adventures). Some say Labour membership is even growing (though this would probably be due to John McDonnell’s campaign to raise the issues of war and privatisation).
But trade union action against Brown’s public sector parsimony could now lead to a winter of discontent - the reason Brown might consider getting a snap election in first.
Having helped initiate the development of socialist alliances, I have argued for left involvement in elections - as a platform for socialist opposition, and as part of campaigning (not a substitute for it). The ups and downs of the last 10 years, particularly in Scotland, leave lessons we still need to absorb. Seeking “power” and building up “leadership”, in a system not of our choosing, puts socialists under pressures of the unaccountable mass media and bourgeios parliamentary institutions. Should we stop standing in such elections? Meanwhile, a broad anti-war movement seems too dilute to form a political party. Should we stop just “stopping the war” - a war which we havent stopped - when we still face the class war?
These are difficult questions. But it may be time to try to develop an understanding across the left - industrially and electorally, in the interests of the environment and equality - about how we could work together, in and out of elections, against consumer capitalism, inhumane imperialism, and all the warmongers who are still running the country.
Comment by John Nicholson — 5 September, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Yeah John - I think one of the things we need to think about is the way that elections put a great deal of pressure on small political organisations and individuals.
There is a lot of quite sensible criticism which asks why the left have ended up relying upon the Galloways, Scargills and the Sheridans. But actually the electoral process, particularly with first past the post, does require the manufacture of a media image, and it does put a lot of pressure (personal and political) on the candidate/spokesperson.
Even in the small way I have been involved in elections and in creating a media profile to do so I have found it quite a burden.
I think that if we are involved in elections we need to have a much better understanding of this pressure, and the party needs to provide a much more disciplined structure for both supporting and guiding the candidates/ elected reps.
The SSP did make a good attempt at building the correct relationship with the MSPs, but even then the ego of Sheridan was too much. BUt I am absolutley 100% convinced that they did the correct thing by standing up to him in the interests of truth and principle, but the fact that Solidarity got many more votes than the SSP does confirm the distorting effect of the celebrity candidate.
At this stage I don’t even know what might come out of Respect, becasue while GG’s critique is correct, he has up until now been part of the problem, and it is not at all clear whether he would be prepared to accept the discipline of a democratic organisation.
Comment by Andy — 5 September, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Many of us are aware of the dogmatic tactics of the SWP, but reading what has happened to Respect one wonders whether it has not been infiltrated by Special Branch or MI5?
Comment by Jim — 24 November, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Andy I am not into the cult of the individual
I do see the need of a prophet and GG fits into that category. Martin Luther King Jnr would have had a lesser impact on the civil rights movement, if he had not a free rein to challenge the system.
Malcolm X was another spokeperson that was unfettered to air his views on behalf of the many.Both were accused of being mavericks
GG at the Senate stood alone against the most reactionary neo-cons. His good qualities outweigh any percieved impedient that some feel embarressed about.
He does have a knack of saying as it is and we should be glad of it and that he is on our side. Prophets are loved by the masses who identify with their cause, and are hated by sects George never set out to undermine the SWP they did it themselves
Comment by Its a boy — 25 November, 2007 @ 12:25 am
online soma pl online soma prescriptions
Comment by online soma shipping — 4 January, 2008 @ 6:30 am