SOCIALIST UNITY

13 September, 2007

79 Comments »

1. Well, that was boring. GG’s valid but ironical criticisms have been defended by a verbose document that talks about Metronet! Which one of the SWP “intellectuals” thought of such a brilliant strategy of boring the reader to death? Could be any of them.

   The soon to be defunct Repect was the people’s party, er, I mean “coalition” (the coalition of people’s hearts, in people’s hearts) - just like Pavarotti (the Tenor of people’s hearts, in people’s hearts) and Anita Roddick (the herbal soap millionaire of people’s hearts, in people’s hearts).

   Anyway, congratulations to GG and the SWP for taking a great movement and making it into a laughing stock. No wonder George Monbiot bailed out before it even got going.

   Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 13 September, 2007 @ 11:04 pm

2. This is a completely disingenuous article. It is designed purely to divert attention away from the destructive factional manner John Rees has abused his position as National Secretary, which is at the crux of Respect’s internal troubles.

   It is nonsense to portray Rees’s critics as those who oppose attempts to ‘widen and diversify Respect’s working-class support’ when Galloway’s document, and his earlier article in the Morning Star, specifically highlighted the urgency of initiatives to this end.

   The suggestion that people like Salma Yaqoob want ‘overwhelmingly male and Muslim elected representatives’ is more rubbish. See her letter to Socialist Worker (Feb 10) challenging their coverage of the Birmingham selection process of candidates for the recent May local elections:

   “Socialist Worker (Debate at selection meeting, 3 February) reported a selection meeting for a Respect candidate in Birmingham.
   I am concerned that a misleading impression is being created of the debates in Birmingham Respect. There is no dispute on whether Respect should be a “representative and inclusive coalition”. Our selection procedure is very open – any member is entitled to nominate themselves or someone else. Established branches select their candidate. For other areas a city-wide committee decides. Last year out of the five Birmingham candidates selected, four were women. This year only one woman candidate submitted a nomination. All the other nominations were from Asian male candidates. So far seven have been selected. It is wrong to problematise this, especially in light of the huge under representation of ethnic minority representatives in Birmingham City Council. There are, however, 33 other wards in Birmingham for which we have not selected a candidate. I see no reason why we should not stand in other wards, and why we cannot find good women candidates to put themselves forward for selection. There are several experienced SWP members in Birmingham who would make excellent candidates. I hope they, and others, can be persuaded to stand on behalf of Respect.”

   Salma Yaqoob, Respect councillor, Birmingham

   Comment by left unity — 14 September, 2007 @ 12:57 am

3. Does Ger Francis’s attendance at the September 4th meeting confirm AN’s hunch that it was Francis who wrote Galloway’s original document?

   Also, read Peter Manson’s article in the latest WW about the SWP special meeting at ULU’s Manning Hall on the 7th to discuss the Galloway document and the implications for the Respect project. Am I reading this wrong or is his reporting of the detail of the meeting suggest that the CPGB have friendly sources within the SWP? I’m presuming he didn’t get a press pass to attend the meeting in person.

   Comment by Darren — 14 September, 2007 @ 5:23 am

4. On first reading, I think this response confirms my view that the SWP represent the more progressive side of this spat than the pro-Galloway side.
   As the document says: “The SWP has made plenty of compromises and is ready to make more in the future.” Too many in my view.
   Cack handed and insensitive the SWP leadership may be, but Galloway has zero record of defending socialist politics, but a long one of collaboration with bourgeois nationalism and stalinoid politics.
   A Galloway nominee as GenSec, or even Galloway himself would be a blow against the right.
   It’s all too reminiscent of the way Scargill divided the left in the SLP, first using the Helicopter as his righthand man, then Brar-strapping him and his supporters. Net result:-organisational irrelevance.

   One hopes that Alan Thornett won’t be dumb enough to fall for the sucker punch a second time.
   At least the SWP are showing a more healthy understanding of Labourism than the standard ritual denunciation, which has only succeeded in producing short lived splinters since the days of the ILP.
   That’s a far healthier position than the one Galloway and his supporters take, which would lead Respect into the role of a small “mass party”, with zero prospects of winning power at a national level.

   Comment by Alex Nichols — 14 September, 2007 @ 9:23 am

5. re # “A Galloway nominee as GenSec, or even Galloway himself would be a blow against the right.”

   Bloody hell, I certainly didn’t mean that!
   It would be a blow against ***the left and socialists in Respect****.

   Comment by Alex Nichols — 14 September, 2007 @ 9:26 am

6. It is quite extraordinary that this key debate in the only left-of-labour party to return an MP to Parliament since the CPGB in 1945 is conducted entirely in semi-secrecy.

   Congratulations to Andy for the Freedom of Information. But what does it say about commitment to transparency and democracy within Respect and the SWP that not one single mention of this debate taking place appears in either’s publications, websites or sympathetic blogs. I know the SWP is sometimes described by others as a ’sect’ and prides itself on adherence to 1917-style Democratic Centralism but the total failure of transparency reveals how party discipline is almost always exerted at the expense of honesty and accountability.

   As for the SWP response, it is almost entirely disingeneous. Galloway has already highlighted the key contribution of Michael Lavelette in Preston, Jerry Hicks in Bristol and Maxine Blower in Sheffield. All white, socialist candidates for Respect so to suggest he is seeking to narrow Respect’s base is quite simply a distortion. Likewise his support of Salma Yacoob in the face of the SWP’s attempted internal exile of one of Respect’s best public figures hardly suggests he is trying to reduce the number of women taking a leading role in Respect either.

   Instead the SWP are seeking to use such false accusation to obscure George Galloways’ core point. The necessity for a party culture, founded on participation and transparency, combinerd to a professional approach to party communications and membership. This is what John Rees and other key SWP activists in Respect have been responsible for failing to create. Why? quiote simply they treat Respect as a ‘united front of a special type’. They are not interested in a party that will evolve into something bigger, broader and considerably more democratic than their Leninist fantasy world of a vanguard party. If it did they would of course lose control, what the SWP values more than almost anything else.

   George Galloway is hardly a paragon of virtue but he is a product of the traditional labour movement which for all its faults has a tradition considerably more democratic than the world of Central Committees, recommended lists as a model for party elections, near non-existent internal debate which the SWP inhabits.

   The national conference of Respect this year will have an outcome, that much is certain.

   Comment by Mark P — 14 September, 2007 @ 9:54 am

7. Darren,

   I see that not only Ger Francis but also Glyn Robbins were in Galloway’s corner. Glyn is not in the SWP, but has been close to them.

   The composition of GG’s delegation contradicts the argument by the SWP that this is a retreat to the right, or into a “muslim ghetto”. The very fact that Salma yacoob is Respect’s leading woman member makes a nonsense of the idea that GG’s faction is male dominated, it is the SWP who are tryign to squeeze out this leading woman.

   There is an obstacle though which is that Ger Francis (with Salma) were responsible for the mother of all undemocratic stitch ups in Brum with STW and the socialist alliance. Any platform that seeks to convince people that it will be more democratic can only be credible if Ger makes some public sign that he has changed.

   Comment by Andy — 14 September, 2007 @ 11:05 am

8. In the meantime it seems a Limited Company selling tickets to Georges gigs is being run out of the Respect Offices.
   Wonder which SWP member is behind that?

   Comment by tim — 14 September, 2007 @ 12:38 pm

9. Andy,

   Everyone who participated in the struggle in Birmingham STW knows that an enormous amount of heat was generated, and there is no doubt that in the heat of the battle, the polemical tone got out of hand on occasions.

   At the end of it all, though, the issues were resolved by a vote in open meetings attended by well over 100 people. There never has been any remotely serious rival to Birmingham STW, and it continued to mobilise on a scale never before seen in this city.

   I appreciate that some people still have strong feelings about the events surrounding Birmingham Stop the War. But outside of a very small number of people who remain bitter about their defeat, things have long since moved on from those debates. Most of the people who were involved on both sides have found themselves on speaking terms, and co-operate both in Stop the War and other campaigns that have come along in the meantime.

   I think it is worth pointing out, though, that the Birmingham ’stitch up’ (to use your term, which I don’t accept!) was not the *cause* of the conflict. The debates were (and this was quite explicit on both sides) over the influence of Muslims (and Salma Yaqoob in particular) in the coalition.

   For the first time, the left had found itself participating in a genuine alliance with Muslims, which made it possible to mobilise on a truly mass scale. The school strikes in Birmingham, where more than 4,000 school students left their schools and occupied the city centre, was an exceptional experience, and followed directly from this alliance.

   This was a new experience for the majority of the left, and it produced great turmoil. The so-called ’stitch up’ was the final act in a long struggle between those who saw the alliance with Muslims as an enormous gain (both for the anti-war movement and the left), and those who argued that STW was allying with, or encouraging the growth of, ‘fundamentalists’ - a term which was also applied to Salma Yaqoob.

   History now repeats itself - whether as tragedy or farce remains to be seen. The SWP, the majority of which at the time were firmly on the side of the left-Muslim alliance, now fear the ’subordination of the socialist left’ in Respect.

   There are two main issues posed by this crisis in Respect. One relates to its internal culture and systems of democracy and participation. The other relates to how Respect can build on its existing base by broadening itself and turning outwards. Both require abandoning the sectarian reflexes currently dominant in the SWP.

   The SWP may or may not be able to impose its will by force of numbers. But any victory would be a pyrrhic one. The SWP do not have any electoral base of their own whatsoever. Despite their predominance on the far left, their actual influence on the wider movement (not to say society as a whole) is very weak. Taking the first steps towards coalescing a party to the left of Labour will require a far more open, relaxed, and participative ‘regime’ if those who gravitate towards it are not to be repelled.

   But, more fundamentally, Respect faces the question of how it is to turn outwards and be part of a something bigger and broader. Gathering together the fragments of the far left (a search for the holy grail if ever there was one) would not amount to a row of beans.

   The issue we have to face is that there is a sizeable proportion of society which is anti-war, against attacks on the welfare state, against racism and for equality and social justice, etc. This is not reflected in votes to the left of Labour - indeed, Tony Blair was re-elected in the midst of the Iraq war, and the rise of the BNP massively outstrips the rise of the left.

   Respect has to find ways of co-operating and allying with these (largely unorganised) but progressive currents whether they remain with Labour or not, and whether they think Respect is the answer or not. Respect has to defend its existing electoral bases, and work patiently to expand them. But simultaneously it has to work to be part (and not necessarily the dominant part) of wider networks, discussions, campaigns and alliances.

   From what I have seen of your site, you have a lot to contribute to these discussions. As is so often the case, former adversaries can turn into allies. Arguments over who was right or wrong in a previous struggle are sometimes interesting, but mostly fruitless. Right now, we need to concentrate on the issues posed by the Galloway letter and the SWP’s response. We may all be surprised who lines up on each side.

   Comment by Birmingham Respect Member — 14 September, 2007 @ 1:25 pm

10. Thank you very much for that “Brum respect member”

    I do agree with everything you say here. In particular about the need for people who have been on the different sides of past disagreements to put it behind them: “former adversaries can turn into allies. Arguments over who was right or wrong in a previous struggle are sometimes interesting, but mostly fruitless.”

    At the time I actually did support the substantive position of the SWP over Birmingham STW, and I still do.

    I think the problem lies more with the method with which it was done, and I find the account given by Sue Blackwell and Rumy Hassan credible, and matching my own experince of working with the SWP, and Ger’s actions at the time were those of a typical SWP full-timer, not individual short-comings.

    I would personally be delighted if Ger Francis has outgrown those political methods of the SWP, and we can put all that behind us. The fact that Ger is now playing the constructive role he seems to be doing in working with Salma and Galloway is strong evidence that this is the case.

    I am actually greatly encouraged by recent developments, and think that a positive realignment can come out of it.

    Comment by Andy — 14 September, 2007 @ 1:44 pm

11. ” Respect has to find ways of co-operating and allying with these (largely unorganised) but progressive currents whether they remain with Labour or not, and whether they think Respect is the answer or not. Respect has to defend its existing electoral bases, and work patiently to expand them. But simultaneously it has to work to be part (and not necessarily the dominant part) of wider networks, discussions, campaigns and alliances.”
    - Birmingham Respect Member

    Absolutely. Too many on this and assiciated blogs sem to imagine that combining the forces of the Far Left is what Respect should be about. Such a myopic conception of politics surely reached its blogging low-point on Dave Osler’s blog when leading members of Far Left outfits numbering members of less than a hundred and of zero inflouence were described as ‘Hackney celebrities’. Known in a world of hard core political activists perhaps, but nobody outside that closed world in Hackney would know them, let alone in the country as a whole.

    Respect if it is to have a genuine renewal will need to reacvh out, engage with, learn from other communities and social movements of far, far greater weight than the likes of the SWP, Socialist Party, Socialist Resistance and their ilk. Thats how the initiative began with Salma Yacoob and George Monbiot’s excellent discussion document. George Galloway , and he deserves huge credit for this, picked this up and forged a significant alliance with radicalised sections of the Muslim community. It stinks when sections of the Left who have spectacularly failed, never mind the rhetoric, building alliances with Black and Asian community hold their hands up in self-righteous condemnation at the way Respect has shaped this alliance with some degree of success.

    But that development has become frozen by the SWP’s control culture, and now those Respect have allied with find they don’t like the SWP’s outdated, highly conservative, ways of controlling alliances it seeks to dominate (aka the ‘united front of a special type). This provides a moment of rupture and growth. If Respect follows the direction outlined by Birmingham Respect member above then this rupture opens up really exciting possibilities, dependent of course on those that the SWP have so spectacularly alienated (do these people EVER engage in self-criticism??) remaining with, rejoining Respect to give it the human resources to flower.

    Comment by Mark P — 14 September, 2007 @ 5:14 pm

12. “Brum Respect member” may be right that the SWP has far less influence in society or the movement than the heat and light of some discussions might suggest. He is also right that an SWP victory against George at the conference could be a phyrric one. But equally, If George does claim the head of John Rees, and the SWP walks, then George’s victory would be scarcely less phyrric. Consider Respect without the SWP. It would have lost its mayoral candidate, and at least two councillors, restricting its base of elected representatives to east London and a single ward in Birmingham (that’s assuming the councillors in Tower Hamlets that have joined didn’t go as well). Salma Yaqoob would have to win Hall Green without any help from the SWP in Brum, which is an awful lot of canvassing in areas where Respect has no track record. A victory there would mean the whole project had new life, but there is absolutely no margin to lose people. In Bristol, Manchester, Sheffield and Cambridge, many if not most of those who have delivered the half-decent votes in those areas would leave as well. Whether enough activists would be left or could be recruited to rebuild Respect as a national organisation is doubtful at least. For all the weakness of the SWP, it has a national network of extremely hard-working activists that would be sorely missed if an attempt was made to continue Respect without them.
    Of course, the SWP might take such a defeat (John Rees getting the chop)on the chin and hope Lindsey gets in and gets them back some clout, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they walked.
    To be honest, for me the hopeful point is where the SWP document says
    ‘Regarding the three points with which George concludes his document – the strengthening of the Respect national office by the appointment of a national organiser, the creation of an elections committee and an end to the supposed ‘anathematisation’ of Salma Yaqoob - we hope that it will be possible to come to agreement around the three proposals raised by George and have made it clear we are happy to discuss these’. Some formulation where John Rees stays, but with a complete reorganisation at a national level with a national organiser and a new committee might work. But it is clear that if GG insists on the head of John Rees on a plate, there will be all out war, and probably bugger all left whoever wins.
    Some Chinese sage once said that in a war, you should always leave your enemy a golden bridge to retreat over. Otherwise they fight to the death. If George doesn’t learn from that, there’ll be precious little left to fight over by the new year.

    Comment by Muon — 14 September, 2007 @ 5:29 pm

13. Well, Muon, that’s assuming that if the CC decides to walk, the whole (or virtually the whole) SWP follows. I don’t think that assumption can be made.

    As for Rees’s position, why should the SWP (as opposed to John himself) make that a line in the sand? Is there nobody else capable? Not even in the CC of all the talents?

    Comment by Splintered Sunrise — 14 September, 2007 @ 5:46 pm

14. Sure, it’s assuming a whole bunch of things, my point is that for all the weaknesses of the SWP they’d be missed big time in Respect. I doubt it would survive but i might be wrong.

    Comment by Muon — 14 September, 2007 @ 6:18 pm

15. I wonder if Rob Hoveman will go.
    Given his involvement in the Limited Company being run out of Respect headquarters?

    Comment by tim — 14 September, 2007 @ 6:53 pm

16. And also.
    The status of Galloways attack dog “Sideshow Ron” McKay. Oil for Fists Ron has been given special privileges to order the students around.

    Comment by tim — 14 September, 2007 @ 7:07 pm

17. Looking at the bigger picture, Gordon Brown is a clever operator, but the gap between him and the unions is widening. The neo-liberal agenda of the labour government is in complete coontradiction to the interests of the trade union leaderships, let alone their members. And as I have remarked upon before there is an increasing trend for the unions to step up to the plate and fulfill the role of political opposition, for example the overwhelming vote (90%) at the TUC for a referendum on the EU Reform treaty, and their campaigns over private equity, PFI, rights for agency workers, etc.

    What could come out of this current argument in Respect is a new constellation of friendships and allainces that can work more constructuvely with that current in the unions, and wider forces. Remember as well that Resepct without the SWP would be much more attractive to a layer of ex-labour people.

    If Respect can maintain any of its electoral base in next mays election, (and I am confident it can) then that is a possible foundation to build upon.

    Given that some 25% of the SWP London memebrship apparently argued against the CC’s position (a level of opposition not seen since the debates about Women’s Voice and the “downturn c. 1980), then the authority of the CC is severaly damaged, and I would predict that a layer of the SWP most committed to Respect may well stay in respect, whatever happens. (It is also likley that the SWP would not choose to expell them for doing so)

    Comment by Andy — 14 September, 2007 @ 7:27 pm

18. I would predict that a layer of the SWP most committed to Respect may well stay in respect, whatever happens

    I’m sure that’s right. I’m more concerned about what happens if the CC manages to get its way. There’s something Kremlinological about the lines being drawn - nobody really thinks Galloway is standing up for party democracy, or that the CC wants to eradicate any hint of communalism. As far as I can see the competing lines essentially boil down to “build a weak and diffuse coalition as an element in the SWP’s longer-term socialist programme” and “build a weak and diffuse coalition without preconditions, but in the hope that it will eventually become less weak and diffuse”. The CC line sounds more socialist, but I think in practice it’s less constructive.

    Comment by Phil — 14 September, 2007 @ 8:00 pm

19. No organisation likes losing members, hard-working activists in particular. But Respect has to consider the potential gains as well as losses. George Galloway’s paper argues for a democratic, participative party, left-of-labour. The SWP, since Respect’s inception until recently, have ben one of Galloways’ key allies and have effectively staffed and run the organisation. Events have proved the SWP incapable of sufficiently changing from their Leninist way of working, aka ‘the united front of a special type’ to realise the potential of Respect. Instead they have sought to control its development in order to ensure that they remain its core with the influence they expect and demand.

    This is a major limiting factor. For Galloway to win, at the 22 September National Council, and the 16/17 November party conference he is surely going to have to take a significant layer of the SWP in Respect with him. But they key will be hgow quickly and effectively Respect can reorient towards a much broader audience than the membership of one, small, far left party. There needs to be a clear and public rupture with previous ways of working immersed in the discredited practice of the far left, transform the party culture into an open, learning, empowering environment which utilises Respect’s greatest strength, the most multicultural membership of any party through learning from one another, evolving a core sert of values. And at the same time commit itself to the huge effort of returning George Galloway as an MP and increasing the vital base of councillors. The latter in particular demands a ‘local turn’ of activism which the SWP’s fixation with London demos was largely ill-suited.

    Its a big ask. Nothing is certain, but there will be outcomes to assess in the very near future. Meantime those posting on other blogs informing us that this is all irrelevant, the ‘real battle’ is in the Labour Party might just stop and consider the current size and influence currently of the Labour Left. Nobody in their right mind would assume that respect can renew itself to become a viable party to the left of Labour. But to pretend likewise that the Labour Left is particularly effective right now is sectarian nonsense.

    Comment by Mark P — 14 September, 2007 @ 8:27 pm

20. George used Respect to maintain his income stream and then launch a media career.
    Now he’s off.
    How difficult is that to understand.

    Comment by tim — 14 September, 2007 @ 8:35 pm

21. This is all excellent news: let’s hope that this reactioanry, communalist rump simply goes away and dies.

    Comment by Jim Denham — 14 September, 2007 @ 10:26 pm

22. I’ve rejoined Respect. It has its faults but neither Rees nor Galloway would be seen dead with Margaret Thatcher.
    For reasons that no one else understands GG has opened up a debate on every essential question regarding the nature of a broad socialist party. You would need to be a seriously hard core entryist not to see this as one of the big milestones on the road to the creation of an alternative to Labour. There are strong indications that this conversation is taking place inside the CPB as well. This is a very good thing and may contribute to the next stage in this process in a very positive way.

    Comment by Liam — 15 September, 2007 @ 12:30 am

23. Do we never learn? History is littered with examples of the ability of The Left to self destruct with petty in-fighting. I will readily admit that I am not up to speed on the particular internal politics involved within Respect but there is clearly a dire need for a truly Left Wing party. This is particularly important given that New Labour have dropped any pretence of being even vaguely Socialist.

    If Respect can avoid imploding then there is ample opportunity for them to capitalise on the current disillusionment within traditional Labour strongholds - particularly the unions. In order to succeed however they must demonstrate that consensus can be reached and that disparate groups can exist within a coalition without recourse to the minutiae of idealogical differences.

    I would happily co-exist with Greens, Anarchists, whoever if the end-game was the rejection of everything that is currently wrong with UK Gov and an agreement that we need a new direction. The compromises along the way would be a small price to pay.

    Comment by Highlander — 15 September, 2007 @ 1:01 am

24. The results of the Stonebridge bye-election are in:-

    Zaffar Van Kalwala Labour 1,432 51.9 ELECTED
    Sandra Elina Wiltshire Liberal Democrats 864 31.3
    Sarah Cox RESPECT 237 8.6
    Funmi Aladeshe Conservative 177 6.4
    Brian Orr Green 51 1.8

    Sarah Cox is a very dedicated SWP’er, who’s been active in the area for years.
    I’m pleased to see she beat the Tories and the Sarah Tether effect wasn’t repeated.
    But I see no evidence whatsoever from this vote that Respect has achieved a stronger position in the area than the Socialist Alliance had a few years ago.

    Comment by Alex Nichols — 15 September, 2007 @ 10:04 am

25. The other point I’d like to make is that some people are spending too much time focusing on this internal spat and ignoring the wider political and economic situation.
    The effects of the Credit Crunch are beginning to unwind with a vengeance this September. First Barclays and now Northern Rock have been forced to go to the Bank of England to maintain their cash-flow.
    I doubt if they will be the last banks to do so, given the heavy inter-bank borrowing that has become the norm in recent years.
    The only solution being offered by the Economic pundits is a cut in interest rates, i.e. create more load debt to buy your way out of loans not collateralised against real values.
    This is how major depressions start.
    If the government is effectively being forced to keep the financial sector afloat with unlimited supplies of liquidity, why shouldn’t it get anything in return?
    Yet Brown relinquished all control over interest rates in his first act as Chancellor and his only solution will be to arrange a bank merger.
    The obvious point is that if it provides the money, then failing banks should be nationalised.
    Don’t underestimated the effect this will have on the unions as it unwinds, because there will be huge pressure on public sector finances, pensions, pay and inflationary pressures.
    The unions will have to develop a response and they will certainly come into increasing conflict with the Labour Leadership, at a time when Brown is moving towards the Liberals and Tories.

    Comment by Alex Nichols — 15 September, 2007 @ 10:17 am

26. There are two reasons why Respect could never and will never be able to broaden out its appeal to large sections of left-wing opinion:

    1 George Galloway
    2 The SWP

    That’s it.

    Comment by pmg — 15 September, 2007 @ 10:20 am

27. I think the developments in Respect are interesting and may provide opportunities for activists to think through the arguments about what sort of left project or party is needed.

    In response to point 27- think this is largely right in many ways. It has been the lack of democracy and the lack of an attempt to engage with the wider working class that has put many people off. However, if activists within Respect use the current disputes coming up over pay, and some of the disputes over privatisation and other issues to call mass meetings where policy, program and candidates are selected in an open manner- not just one side mobilising its forces temporarily but genuinely engaging with the working class- then may be we could have candidates in elections or big united front campaigns in particular areas well worthy of support.

    My belief on evidence so far is that this is not going to happen because of both the SWP CC and GG who for different reasons don’t want such a genuine rank and file controlled political organisation. But try it- I may be wrong and would be happy to be so proved. Or I may be partly right and the struggle will lead to a new united front organisation being founded.

    On post 9 I think Andy is right that there and perhaps could be again exciting connections of the left with a wider section of society, in many cases, Muslims, over the issue of the war, Andy mentioning the school strikes in Birmingham. This however was from the antiwar movement not Respect per se though Respect certainly tired to relate to it.

    On post 26 I think we should be cautious of predicting any meltdown or massive effects flowing from the current issues in banking. But the impulse- relate politics to the class struggle- is spot on.

    There is, independent of whether or not there’s a crisis in banking, plenty going on to relate to: the menatal health workers’ strike in Manchester http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0709/karen3.html, the Freemantle strike in London http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=3491, the prospect of public sector pay struggles, antiwar activities, antideportation struggles and struggles for justice in education and jobs, the fight against the BNP etc.

    Comment by Jason — 15 September, 2007 @ 11:08 am

28. What is striking about this debate (both in the documents and on this blog) is that, as with the SSP split, it isn’t about political points but cliques and organisational questions.

    What is happening now was going to happen at some point, it was inevitable and shows the flawed method of organisations like the SWP and Socialist Resistance.

    RESPECT was said to have come out of the mass anti-war movement, but reality that was a nonsense, it was a creation of the SWP and Galloway and the fact that revolutionary socialists (overwhelmingly the SWP) dominated the membership and and delegates despite being about 0.000001% of the population showed that it never connected properly with real working class forces.

    Now it is one thing if revolutionary socialists have entryist tactics into reformist organisation that come out of the organised or mass working class to try and win them over or split them into a mass revolutionary organisation. This is done through revolutionaries openly arguing for their politics, which can be done as revolutionaries will be the minority in such an entryist so if it is won to a revolutionary programme this will reflect real forces and not something being “imposed”.

    But the method of RESPECT is entirely different. It is revolutionary socialists acting as shadow reformists to attract genuine reformist forces which don’t exist in RESPECT. In reality all this method does is to re-enforce illusions in reformism as the vast majority people won’t buy a copy of SWP or SR and will just see the left reformist politics of RESPECT.

    I really don’t see how this method is supposed to work. Is it that at a given point after years of campaigning and voting for reformist politics in RESPECT and at elections revolutionaries jump up and say “many things we have been arguing and voting for are actually wrong and this is what we should do!”.

    So if this tactic was “successful” it would have just led to another Old Labour organisation where revolutionaries had re-enforce reformist, great. But more likely is that something like this will happen where the tensions build up as opportunistic policies start causing more and more tensions and the organisation pulls itself apart. It’s a failed method which the SSP and RESPECT have been good examples. But anyway get back to what organisation changes are needed and which clique said what to who.

    Comment by CR — 15 September, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

29. Well, many- probably all- of CR’s comments are valid. But the point is how do we get out of this mess?

    I think there is something to the proposal that we should promote united front organisations- such as trade union councils on a local level where they can be used or campaigns around strikes- and start co-operating much more in campaigns and class struggle. This call should be put out to all working class people- trade unionists, those in the labour party, Respect, SP, anyone interested, asylum seekers, college students.

    Inside Respect I think the argument should be for maximum democracy, for deciding poilicies, program, candidates in mass public meetings. Of course revolutionaries would then have to judge whether an election challenge e.g. by a local striker, was worth it in terms of drawing more people into a campaign against privatisation.

    May be it would be. It doesn’t mean that a revolutionary should suddenly pretend to be something else- we should be open that only by having the working class in control and running things ourselves can we have liberation, public services, equality etc. But we it might well be worth having an electoral challenge even on a less than optimal policies if that was what the majority of people involved for voted for- and be open about differences.

    I can’t see Respect with GG and the SWP CC in charge- or now seemingly at loggerheads- achieving that but the debate inside Respect is part of this process.

    Comment by Jason — 15 September, 2007 @ 2:19 pm

30. CR and similar co-thinkers hanker after an organisation in which the Far Left, revolutionary socialist organisations, are of some considerable significance. But the space for Respect is infinitely larger than this, if is ever going to be successful the Far Left should be a tiny component in terms of numbers and influence.

    The fact that posters here bemoan the lack of influence of the Far Left in Respect, criticise the fact that Respect is simply Left-of-Labour reveals the extraordinary lack of ambition and vision of socialists today. The Labour Party is firmly part of the Westminster neo-liberal consensus, its aspirations to representb the working class, intent and capacity to build a base in workin-class communities near non-existent, and its active involvement and commitment to social movements fast disappearing. Any remaining intellectual/theoretical commitment to the renewal of socialist values and principles won’t last much longer either.

    Of course Respect is much, much too small to take on any or all of these responsibilities. But it can at least begin to set an examplem practice a prefigurative politics founded on participation and democracy, break out of the Westminster buibble which defines how party politics is organised. To achieve this it cannot base itself on the modes and ideas of Leninist, vanguard parties. This is an entirely different project. respect is not the LCR in France, the PRC in Italy, if there is an international compartison The Left Party in Germany is perhaps closer.

    If you want Respect founded on ‘a united front of a special type’ (copyright The SWP) then your intent immediatyely limits the scope and potential of the organisation. The links and base, particulasrly in East London, Birmingham and Preston with the Muslim community is at least the beginnings of a party of an entirely new type. The current dispute, in particular the critique by George Galloway, which must be read surely as a self-criticism given his early enthusiasm for how John Rees and other SWP cadres led Respect, is simply the beginning of renewuing Respect as a left-of-Labour party. For this to be a success the Far Left should quickly become an insignificant forece within it in terms of numbers and influence. This is a key challenge for Respect’s renewal, will the Far Left activists who remain in Respect, SWP and others, have the courage to truly buy into this broad vision?

    Comment by Mark P — 15 September, 2007 @ 5:24 pm

31. The SWP’s response is interesting, obviously as it sees GGs attack as an absolutely unacceptable assault on its organisational hegemony within Respect, but also because of the frankly apolitical nature of the reply.
    They have been busy claiming to their members that the reason for the impending split or crisis, is as a result of GGs move to the right, but their document hardly proves their case.
    Sure it mentions the fighting unions conference and Pride, but only in terms of broadening the membership of the party, not as a political priority for the left in the UK. In fact its main complaint seems to be that it objects to “Asian male” candidates predominating on electoral lists. In other words it poses its defence of its hegemony in terms of equal ops!
    Which reveals something else, if an when GG does split, he’ll denounce the SWP as Islamophobes, anti-Muslim etc. in exactly the same way that the SWP have denounced the left for not supporting Respect over the last couple of years.

    Comment by bill j — 15 September, 2007 @ 5:46 pm

32. Jason #28 “On post 26 I think we should be cautious of predicting any meltdown or massive effects flowing from the current issues in banking. But the impulse- relate politics to the class struggle- is spot on..”

    It’s up to a socialist organisation to provide solutions, not just solidarity. When the rosy future that capitalism promises begins to turn cankerous, then it’s not a time for socialists to exhibit caution and just focus on everyday issues.

    There will always be disputes, but just hopping around from one dispute to another is not the way to create a stable party. It leads to a collection of mindless activists, who burn out within 3 years.

    My point is that this economic crisis won’t just go away. It stems from the adventurist expansion of credit that has gone on since the 90’s, which was accompanied by globalisation.

    But the real surplus value created came from cheap labour economies, while local demand for their goods has increasingly depended on borrowing against inflated house prices by consumers. Quite simply, as confidence erodes, the chain of debts is being called in and at the end of the line, someone finds out there’s nothing there.

    The evidence is that it’s spreading across the banking system like a contagion and will begin to hit consumer demand, manufacturing and even the government’s ability to raise revenue by the New Year.

    That means the unions and the Brown cabinet are on a collision course.
    It’s already clear that Brown is an ephemeral sell-out politician of the Ramsey McDonald ilk.

    The whole “Respect” project is far too small time to deal with the situation and will probably implode. Some of the best elements within it may form part of a socialist opposition to Brown and New Labour, but in my view not Galloway and his supporters, who are crass populists.

    Comment by Alex Nichols — 16 September, 2007 @ 2:07 pm

33. [quote] CR and similar co-thinkers hanker after an organisation in which the Far Left, revolutionary socialist organisations, are of some considerable significance. But the space for Respect is infinitely larger than this, if is ever going to be successful the Far Left should be a tiny component in terms of numbers and influence.[/quote]

    You seem to be missing my point. Whether someone hankered after that or not is kinda besides the point, as you have to face reality.

    RESPECT not only has a revolutionary organisation in it that is of considerable significance, it is totally dominated by revolutionary socialists. The SWP has the majority of members and the majority of delegates. And as revolutionary socialists are about 0.000001 % of the population this puts pay to the idea that RESPECT came out of the mass anti-war movement. It didn’t, it came out of the SWP and Galloway.

    The point I was making was that revolutionary can’t create an organisation where “the Far Left should be a tiny component in terms of numbers and influence” by acting as shadow reformists in order to attract real reformist forces. The SSP and RESPECT have clearly shown the flaws in the is method. As said most likely it will lead (probably fairly quickly) to fractures as opportunism evently comes to a head. But even worse if this method did lead to any “success” in terms of the organisation grows it will just re-enforce illusions in left reformism.

    Galloway expressed this when he said RESPECT was in the tradition of Keir Hardy. What a reformist, anti-marxist tradition?

    The method of revolutionaries carrying out entryism into reformist organisations that come out of working class organisaitons and struggle is a totally different kettle of fish than the method of the SWP in RESPECT, which is now being exposed as the totally flawed method that it is.

    [quote] if there is an international compartison The Left Party in Germany is perhaps closer.[/quote]

    Totally wrong. The Left Party (with all its flaws) came out of mass working class organisations, RESPECT was just set up by Galloway and a tiny revolutionary socialist organisation.

    [quote] For this to be a success the Far Left should quickly become an insignificant forece within it in terms of numbers and influence.[/quote]

    And this is done how exactly? The SWP has already voted down its own politics to ensure they can be shadow reformists and ensure RESPECT has an artificially created left reformist manifesto (as real reformist forces are almost totally absent). Now as said this method is totally flawed, but I can’t see what more they can do in order to follow that method.

    Comment by CR — 16 September, 2007 @ 4:55 pm

34. In reply to 33, socialists should indeed seek to provide solutions as well as solidarity- though unless we are active in building solidairty, meanigful and effective mobilisations of the working class to actually win then all our solutions will remain hot air.

    The ‘caution’ I spoke about was to be cautious in predicting the imminent collapse of capitalism because of a current problem with Northern Rock http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6244202.stm

    Socialists can and should point to this as yet another example of capitalism gambling with the savings of working class people and being a crisis ridden system bound to fall at some future point under its own inherent instabilities, whilst continuing to ransack the earth, spreading war, misery and oppression.

    But should we predict the imminent collapse of capitalism? No- not unless we want to appear like some millenarian sect always preicting the end of the world. If we do that many people will just laugh or think ‘oh, it’s those lot, they’re always saying that,’ if they don’t ignore us completely.

    It also should not divert us from the very real tasks ahead- Brown and the unions may be on a collision course, but as sure as sure as anything the union bureacracy will sell us out. So socialists must be for building local alliances of workers, cross union committees, trades’ councils etc to begin to push for action and prepare workers for the necessary action we will need to take ourselves. My concern is that excited predictions of imminent economic collapse and crisis spreading like contagion can tend to defelct from these essential if somewhat prosaic tasks (though of course if a crisis did spread like contagion unless rank and file workers get organised the working class will still be sold out by the TUC bureaucrats); especially if the collapse doesn’t come imminently then socialists arguing this will look a little silly.

    As for post 31 Mark P, CR has answered some of this- Respect is already largely dominated by self-avowed revolutionaries etc.

    Actually I’m sure CR would be more than happy for there to be mass organisations which on the basis of the current number of revolutionaries would mean revolutionarie being a small minority (though perhaps Mark P is himself being pessimistic in assuming that revolutionaries cannot grow in size!)

    The question is how to get there?

    Firstly I’d suggest by building genuine united front organisations - united front meaning united in action, despite having a whole range of politics.

    Secondly, if activists whether in the swp, Respect (but not swp), LP, trade unions or other organisations could use thew current crisis in Respect to say what we need is to build a mass working class party- invite all sides in Respect, invite those unions and Labour lefts who supported McDonnell, build for it in ordinary trade union branches and communities for a genuine and completely democratic party or organisation leading to a party.

    Within this socialists should openly argue for our views- for working class solutions, rank and file led organisations, an end to privatisation and war, for a strong public sector run by workers and consumers, financed by progressive taxation on the rich, people before profit, fought for and administered by democratic organisations of the working class etc.

    It may well be that workers drawn into these debates will vote these down for more explicitly reformist solutions- if though such a party or organisation represented a real move in the working class for working class political independence from New Labour and was signifcant, socialsists should definitely participate in it, arguing for our views openly, accepting the democracy of the wider movement.

    This is a completely different model than the swp putting forward its own left reformist program negotiated in secret with various petit-bourgeois figures and other people it decides on, stage managing the whole thing and presenting it to a wider working class who- having been almost entirely absent from any of these decisions- give it short shrift.

    There has to be a better way!

    Comment by Jason — 16 September, 2007 @ 5:43 pm

35. CR I’m not sure whether we’re in agrement, or not!

    AGREED The reality of Respect is that it is in large part dominated by a revolutionary socialist organisation, the SWP.

    AGREED Respect has lagely failed to attract former Labour Party activists to take a central role in the organisation, or previously unaffiliated socalist activists, including Stop the War activists.

    Where perhaps we’re in disagreement is what priority should be given to remedying this, and how? You seem to indicate that the SWP as a revolutionary socialist organisation wsould be ill-advised or ill-equipped to act as the core of a party aiming to be a Left-of-Labour Party. You describe this as ‘reformist’.

    I would question the real-life validity of your terms. The purpose of a ‘revolutionary party’ in early twenty-first century Britain is to exist on the margins of society, perhaps influencing the odd mass campaign but overthrowing society? Come on. The political consensis has been dragged so far to the right by Blair/Brown that to simply have a party that stood up for social democracy would be a considerable step forward and certainly any such party would be significantly to the left of Labour.

    Respect, if it is to succeed, will be neither revolutionary nor reformist. Its policies will be mostly social-democratic, its practice open and democratic, practicing a prefigurative politics and committed to extra-parliamentary social change. None of this is ‘artificial’. What has however proved to be a huge obstacle is the SWP puroprting to support such a broad conception for Respect, aka ‘united front of a special type’ while restricting its actual growth and potential by seeking to maintain its control.

    The SSP example is entirely different. Its demise was down principally to the fall-out of the unseemly spat with Tommy Sheridan. Prior to this the SSP had carried out a near wholesale transformation from its origins in the MIlitant Tendency towards the basis of a Scottish left-og-labour party.

    As for Germany’s Left Party. The point I was making was in terms of its domination by Social-DEmocratic politics, to the left of the neo-Blairite SPD. Of course we cannot engineer such a basis for Respect but that, if it is to succeed must be the aim of Respect politically and practically.

    Respect can cope with a core provided by the SWP, Socialist Resistance, or in the future Communist Party of Britain but only if these leftist activists share in, and commit themselves, to the vision of forming a left-of-labour Party. Respect has succeeed in this breadth in one particulr, but key, direction, radicalised sections of muslim opinion in some geograpgical areas. But it needs to succeed in a similar way in all sorts of other directions too. George Galloway’s document exposes the severe limitations of the SWP in commiting themselves in practice to this role. Their tendency to control organisations to their own ends effectively precludes such a role. Yet this remains the key to Respect’s success rather than outdiated contrasts between reform and revolution coined at the start of the twentieth century a century ago.

    Comment by Mark P — 16 September, 2007 @ 5:51 pm

36. Comrades, This is my take on Respect that I am shamelessly plugging and here it is…

    http://stroppyblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/respect-things-can-only-get-better.html

    Comment by Louisefeminista — 16 September, 2007 @ 7:38 pm

37. The view on the SSP is a little romanticised - the SSP pushed a brand of communalism known as nationalism, subordinating class politics to nationalism.

    Louise is on her own planet, with Labour’s membership withering with socialists leaving in droves, She argues that all socialists should be in the Labour Party!

    If any socialists sucecssfully push left wing ideas in Labour they are expelled: Galloway over imperialism, Militant over attempting to enact left wing reforms at local government level.

    Comment by Adam J — 16 September, 2007 @ 8:39 pm

38. It’s seems you’re contradicting yourself Mark. On the one hand you say Respect can cope with a core of the SWP, on the other hand you say the SWP’s tendency to control organisations for their own ends precludes them from such a role.
    History has I think passed this whole discussion by anyway, as it would appear that GG cannot permit Respect to have a core of the SWP one way or another.
    So what’s the way forward for the left? Not I think to waste all its efforts pretending its differences don’t exist in another broad party organisation, or quasi party organisation a la Respect, but rather to be honest about where they can agree or disagree and to work together on that ad hoc basis to see how far co-operation can develop.
    If Respect splits, it’s a huge opportunity for the Left to re-think the various failed regroupment exercises of the last few years, Socialist alliance SSP, Respect etc. and look at developing a real way forward out of all the mess.

    Comment by bill j — 16 September, 2007 @ 9:01 pm

39. #35 Jason “…should we predict the imminent collapse of capitalism? No- not unless we want to appear like some millenarian sect always preicting the end of the world. ”

    That’s not what I was predicting, especially as captitalism never has, and never will, “collapse” of its own accord.
    It’s just that this time, I think the situation is more serious than even most of the left realise.

    Ironically, because they are frightened of crying wolf, they are now in danger of being too complacent! Partly, because in the past, some of them have spent almost *all* their time indulging in catastrophist fantasies.

    I think there are genuine reasons to believe that it may be very difficult for capitalist goverments to intervene to stem this crisis. Just see how politics change when the vista is no longer one of unending growth, unlimited credit and ever-increasing personal prosperity.

    I don’t find that much to disagree with in what I read of your other comments, although I would continue to stress that I think supporting the Galloway, Francis, Ridley, Yaqub bloc against the SWP will render “Respect” even more useless in facing the situation I’ve described.

    It’s true the SWP are hopeless at organising campaigns with represenative democratic structures (worse than most trade unions) but let’s remind ourselves of Galloway’s recent politics, often announced via “Talk Sport Radio”

    * “I’m less left wing than people think…”

    * Support for Barak Obama’s candidacy for US Presidency

    * Opposed workers wage for workers representatives

    (to name just a few)

    I’ll leave the “curse on both your houses” stuff to the CPGB internet abstentionists.
    In this case sides have to be taken, even if both sides may be inadequate.
    Louise is probably more right about the Labour Party than you realise. But Socialist Appeal have better politics than all the sects. Take a look at what their comrade Erik De Bruyn has done in the Belgian SP, for instance.

    (I’m not sure Louise really goes to Ward meetings in a cat suit, but if she does I’d vote for her, as long as she doesn’t appear on Big Brother in it)

    Comment by Alex Nichols — 16 September, 2007 @ 9:28 pm

40. Adam: Yeah, planet Reality is where I live. Come visit any time.

    Alex: agree with a lot of what you say about Respect.

    Re the cat suit I do own a very supa duper bespoke one but don’t wear it to LP meetings as they might get the wrong idea and induce heart failure (and we are losing enough members as it is). And no fear, Big Brother is not for me….

    Comment by Louisefeminista — 16 September, 2007 @ 9:46 pm

41. “It’s seems you’re contradicting yourself Mark. On the one hand you say Respect can cope with a core of the SWP, on the other hand you say the SWP’s tendency to control organisations for their own ends precludes them from such a role.”

    Bill its not contradictory at all. For Respect to succeed it has to aim to evolve into a Left-of-Labour-Party. This will be in the main social-democratic, Labour has shifted so far to the right that’s what Left-of-Labour means nowadays. But to be successful it must be pluralist, practice a prefigurative politics and be rooted in both community action and social movements. None of this precludes, even less prohibits, the contribution of far left groups. But if they seek to control or reproduce the party in its image (aka the SWP version of ‘the united front of a special type’ then they will doom it to failure. This has been the suicidal approach of the SWP here, in stark contrast for instance to the social-democratic Left Prty in Germany in which the far left play a minor, but essentially constructive role.

    “History has I think passed this whole discussion by anyway, as it would appear that GG cannot permit Respect to have a core of the SWP one way or another.”

    We will have an idea of the shape of any fallout following Respect’s National Council meeting this Saturday, the proceedings of which we can only hope will be properly maxe public. Given George Galloway’s fulsome praise of SWP members Michael Lavalette, Maxine Blower, Jerry Hicks it is quite clear that this is no red-baiting exercise. This is simply what the SWP would prefer to present it as. Rather it is the beginnings of a critique of seeking to control and shape Respect by the practice, and to the benefit of, the SWP by their members involved primarily at a national level. The fact this critique has come from George Galloway may surprise some of his long-time critics but it certainly does not invalidate it. Galloway has always been an ‘old Labour’ figure, a left-wing social democrat. To his credit he has never pretended to be anything else, rooted in the Labour and Trade Union movement he is simply trying to drag Respect back to some basic standards of democracy and accountability. If this can be fused with participative and prefigurative forms pioneered by the social movements and the humanism of faith communities, most notably Islam, then a genuinely new and radical form of party organisation could yet emerge.

    Comment by Mark P — 16 September, 2007 @ 10:25 pm

42. I took the praise for the three swpers as a crude attempt at divide and rule, certainly I gather this is how they see it.
    The problem for me is that lefties see left wing politics as a problem to be ditched at the first opportunity, in order for them to embrace “social democratic” politics.
    We need to remember why we were against those politics in the first place. They don’t work. They involve a fundamental compromise of the class interest of working class people.
    The problem is that socialist politics have been presented as a useless set of slogans to be shouted at people, rather than as a set of tactics and strategy to guide our actions in the class struggle.
    I can’t see any future for a united “party” type organisation at the present time. Rather I think we need to reassert the validity of socialist politics in every arena of the class struggle, rather than looking for the first opportunity to ditch them, as a barrier to what we really want to do…crappy electioneering.

    Comment by bill j — 17 September, 2007 @ 12:16 am

43. Its easy to speculate as to what will happen within Respect in the months leading up to its conference. We do know that moribund branches will send delegates that aren’t really entitled to and that the Muslim small biznessmen bloc will mobilise its support similarly to back Galloway. We also know that the SWP leadership have little sense of tactics and will not withdraw Rees from his position but will seek a showdown on the basis of personalities rather than politics. A game in which they are doomed to fail given that the personality of Rees is repugnant to all concerned. As are his politics I might add.

    In light of which we know that Respect will be significantly damaged regardless of whether or not the SWP flounce out of it. In other words it will not serve as any kind of electoral alternative to Labour despite the best wishes of many posters on this blog. It will implode and its implosion was predicted by many comrades who wisely stayed out of the unholy alliance.

    The real question for me is here does this leave the SWP and its current leadership? It seems that the CC is firmly united behind Rees and the most openly revisionist elements who pushed Respect in the first place despite the misgivings of many older comrades. Any losses will be marginal and the likes of Ger Francis and Rob Hoveman, if he jumps, matter not a jot simply providing the leadeship clique with voodoo dolls to demonise. So what is happening in the SWP? Any guesses?

    Comment by Mike — 17 September, 2007 @ 1:53 pm

44. There are probably two outcomes from this dispute in Respect. The SWP wins, in which case it is difficult to see anything other than Galloway walking away. The attractive force of Respect with little more than the SWP is pretty much zero. Or galloway wins. The SWP might walk out or might stay, but the attractive force of Respect dominated by Galloway is liable to be…pretty much zero.

    For Galloway to raise the spectre of ‘democracy’ is a touch ironic given his rampant individualism. The man who said votes are more important that members has now suddenly discovered the importance of…members and functioning branches.

    This debacle only underlines that you cannot build an organisation which is founded on agreements by the boys at the top, a marriage of convenience, rather than and agreement on principles.

    Comment by Martin Wicks — 17 September, 2007 @ 2:20 pm

45. Just seems to me that some of the worst sectarians are just flouncing around peddling their wares over this business without actually any perspective about how to rearm the working class with some political expression of its class interests. Short of the growth of some tiny, generally itself bureaucratic and narrow-minded micro-sect, of course, which will simply not happen.

    If anything bad were to happen to Respect, it would most likely be because of the failure of the left, and primarily the SWP, to overcome the cold-war legacy of sects that recruit purely to the often dubious insights of some guru. Hopefully that will not happen. If it did, it would be necessary for whoever has the energy to do so, to build another broad left-wing project to challenge New Labour at the polls. If Workers Power or Permanent Revolution are so wonderful, why don’t they stand for election on their supposedly principled programme?

    Answer… because if they did, they would be just joke candidates, like the Barnesites or the WRP-Newsline, or the CPGB are when they do the same. In reality, this is a perspective so sterile and absurd, that these people are reduced to hoping desperately that something bad happens to any attempts at building a broader based left party, so they can hope to resume recruiting to their particular sect in the ones and twos.

    Why - because the consciousness of the broad mass of the British working class, while considerably to the left of New Labour, is not in itself remotely revolutionary at this point. It will not vote for posturing revolutionary sects - it can, however, be drawn into political struggle to reconquer a series of gains, from trade union rights to rolling back privatisation to decent welfare, that have been lost in recent memory. These demands are not themselves revolutionary, but in today’s political conditions they can only be reconquered by class struggle methods - and in particular by a party whose propaganda and politics is open-ended, capable of both ‘old Labour’ and revolutionary interpretations.

    The ability of revolutionaries to provide real leadership in struggle over these questions, using the ballot box as a means to bolster struggles for these kinds of aims outside the electoral framework, will determine and shape the future influence of Marxists in a re-politicised working class movement. That also means learning to work systematically, in a common organisation, with people with only a partial consciousness in some way - maybe in some cases a narrowish trade union consciousness, in other an anti-imperialist consciousness which can also have its narrowness - without going into paroxysms if the left does not immediately get its own way.

    Marxists have to learn to persuade others to follow our leadership through leading by example and hard work, not by ultimata and certainly not by self-defeating excommunications of the people we are supposed to be working with. And certainly not by flouncing out as Workers Power did at the end of its half-hearted participation in the Socialist Alliance in the period leading to the launch of Respect.

    And as light relief, regarding Mike Pearn’s personalist remarks about John Rees’s supposedly unattractive personality, I can only wonder if he realises that mentioning such things would immediately make those who know him laugh out loud, given his own deeply unattractive political persona, which manages to combine venal prejudice and complete insensitivity to oppression with the most absurd toytown sectarian verbiage.

    Comment by Ian Donovan — 17 September, 2007 @ 4:33 pm

46. I can agree with some of what Ian Donovan on post 46 says but despite clearly laying out what should NOT happen- the growth of a bureaucratic and narrow-minded sect, which (though a slightly unfair description of the SWP we all sadly recognise) as he rightly points out won’t get us anywhere, he is a bit thin on details or practical suggestions about how to actually get there.

    Ian does say:
    “the consciousness of the broad mass of the British working class, while considerably to the left of New Labour, is not in itself remotely revolutionary at this point. It will not vote for posturing revolutionary sects - it can, however, be drawn into political struggle to reconquer a series of gains, from trade union rights to rolling back privatisation to decent welfare, that have been lost in recent memory. These demands are not themselves revolutionary, but in today’s political conditions they can only be reconquered by class struggle methods - and in particular by a party whose propaganda and politics is open-ended, capable of both ‘old Labour’ and revolutionary interpretations.”

    Indeed the vast majority of workers are not at the moment revolutionaries- probably only about .01% of the population- but if we could form rank and file organisations aound fighting demands, to aid workers in struggle and draw new ones in, that could be a step forward. It would be excellent if the left and others who don’t necessarily see themselves as socialist or revolutionaries could form vibrant functioning rank and file netowroks in the unions, local cross union committees to help with current struggles such as the mental health workers strike in Manchester, the Freemantle care workers’ strike in Barnett, antideportation campaigns, the postal strike, against the war, Indeed I agree with Ian that it would be good to get away from what he terms the legacy of sects (though he can’t seem to help having a dig at a group he presumably doesn’t like towards the end of his post and then launches a sl;ightly nasty and completely irrelevant attack on an individual-but I’ll leave that aside for now, excpet to say physician heal thyself!)

    Primarily, of course this does not mean necessarily electoral challenges but if an election challenge can help take forward the struggle in a particular area by identifying and mobilising more support, and making explicit political questions about who rules in the NHS (for example) public need or private greed, the workers and patients or PFI fat cats, then it can be an excellent use of resources.

    Socialists in all these cases should openly argue for our views- for working class solutions, rank and file led organisations, an end to privatisation and war, for a strong public sector run by workers and consumers, financed by progressive taxation on the rich, people before profit, fought for and administered by democratic organisations of the working class etc.

    Of course we should use accessible language, speak in the terms that make sense to workers, but we should definitley not conceal our views or hide our true program to be revealed at some later date. Instead we should seek to engage workers in dailogue through a shared participation in struggles.

    Perhaps, out of the arguments in Respect those socialists and leftists who genuinely want to broaden the struggle should put out a call to turn what is left of Respect into a mobilising base for the class struggle and put out an invitation to others to join in, whether in Respect or not, whether in a left group or not, whether revolutionary, reformist or undecided, so we can have a debate and actually perhaps form something better than either Respect or Socialist Alliance.

    Comment by Jason — 17 September, 2007 @ 6:01 pm

47. The Freemantle workers can be contacted via here http://www.wewillnotbesilenced.org/
    and Manchester mental health workers here http://www.reinstate-karen.org/

    Comment by Jason — 17 September, 2007 @ 6:09 pm

48. Jason

    “Indeed the vast majority of workers are not at the moment revolutionaries- probably only about .01% of the population- but if we could form rank and file organisations aound fighting demands, to aid workers in struggle and draw new ones in, that could be a step forward.”…

    “Primarily, of course this does not mean necessarily electoral challenges”

    What I dont agree with here is the primacy of ‘rank and file movements’ over ‘electoral challenges’. A rank and file movement does not offer a political alternative to the working class as a whole. At the most, it offers an alternative to the bureaucracy in a particular trade union -usually on issues specific to that industry. Such things can be very useful in strengthening the fighting strength of the unions and resisting sell-outs, but they do not provide a political alternative in themselves.

    Whereas standing in elections means contesting with the existing political parties for the political allegiance of our class … or at least making a start in doing so. The whole idea of building ‘rank and file movements’ now and postponing challenging Labour to some other undefined time sounds like syndicalism to me. In times of many strikes, a pan-union rank-and-file movement can emerge, though usually this is the initative of a pre-existing party. But when there is no party, even in an distorted sense as with the old Labour Party, that represents the class in any way, it is party politics that is ‘primary’.

    The attack on sect politics in my previous post was not, by the way, directed at the SWP primarily. Some of the things the SWP have done in Respect partially prefigured a break with sect politics - though only partially given their continued attachment to the view of Respect as a ‘united front of a special type’. Hopefully they will not draw back from the engagement, and dump the latter halfway house idea.

    My criticism was directed against many of Respect’s opponents and critics, particularly those who object to the whole idea of a broad party aiming at the class as a whole with an open-ended political platform of basic class demands. Many of whom share all the weaknesses of the SWP, but none of their virtues, both on tactics and in elements of strategy. I dont have any particular axe to grind against Workers Power or their splinter group PR, they are by no means the worst … but I was responding directly to one of their people’s postings on this thread.

    And there was nothing personalist about the last part of my post - the criticisms are political if you examine them. Though given the enormous number of crude personalist attacks on Respect’s leaders by others claiming to be on the left, and the complicity of some (such as the individual I attacked) in bourgeois witchhunting of Respect leaders, it might have been understandable if there were.

    Comment by Ian Donovan — 17 September, 2007 @ 8:56 pm

49. Socialists talk much of unity,respect and solidarity in action but what do we see.

    Over the years we have had sectarian hatreds on the left which still run deep.More recently over the last 10 years and more with the severe rightward Thatcherite shift within the Labour party we saw the slow but steady growth and development of the Socialist alliance. Once the SWP joined the alliance after having shunned it for years, they took control of it,acted undemocratically(no change there then),used it for their own selfish purposes(as per usual)gutted it and then spat it away as they scampered off with Gorgeous George to form their new ‘front’ party Respect.Now they seemed to have bitten off more than they can chew, by running thenselves ragged and spreading themselves so thin,with dire financial costs and consequences,trying to keep all their control positions going within and from their own beloved party through to attempting to mainly recruit through Respect for their own purposes to Unite, STWC etc etc.

    They entered the Scottish Socialist party after years of shunning it just as they had done the Socialist alliance.They then promptly left when the appalling Tommy Sheridan saga came to its final climax,joining and supporting the buffoon Sheridan bringing about huge disappointment,despondency and division amongst thousands of former Scottish Socialist party voters,with the result that the SSP was wiped out in the recent Scottish elections and the advance of the Scottish Left alternative seriously set back for possibly many years to come.

    The SWP of course took a late interest in the Global anti-capitalist movement and the World Social Forums but only with it in mind to try to control the movement but had no interest in expanding the forum idea, of openning up discussion,debate and dynamic participatory politics because they are a rigidly controlled ‘democratic centralist’,so-called ‘Socialist’, so-called ‘revolutionary’ party.

    When all is said and done thousands and thousands of people were involved in the SWP, especially during the 80’s but now many are washed up,burnt out because the party simply does what it does best ‘uses’ people for it own ends and then spits them out again.

    The point is that the The Left both in Britain,Scotland and throughout the World,however that may be defined and this is a defining moment,can ill afford division and further sectarianism but when respect and trust are continually trashed by some for their own selfish needs and controlling purposes then no real progress will ever be made.

    Until the left shows itself to be clearly democratic,transparent and responsive and most of all trustwothy then it will never gain peoples trust and support,it will never be able to unite.WE CAN ILL AFORD TO BE WORKING SEPARATELY,NOT NOW NOT EVER.

    This message goes out to all involved in whatever constitutes the left from the SWP to the Socialist party,Workers Power, Workers Liberty,Labour Left,Socialist Labour,Solidarity,SSP,CPB,Socialist Action,the Green Left,ex Labour party voters,members,ex members of all the above,Socialist Resistence etc etc etc

    Unity is strength

    Comment by P. — 17 September, 2007 @ 10:49 pm

50. Poor deluded Ian Donovan would now appear to believe that I’m opposed to Respect the Populist Coalition for reasons of ‘venal prejudice’! Quite what this bizarre phrase is intended to mean is, shall we say, obscure. Although i do admit to being prejudiced against a project which has carrioed the largest far left group in britain far to the right and has in any case failed to make the breakthrough predicted by the misleadership of the SWP.

    As for sectarian verbiage I can only refer Ian to his own past history in a variety of pro-Stalinist sects. That said I look forward to issue 3 of the absurdly named ‘Revolution and Truth’. With respect to the political personality of John Rees I note that it is the leader of Respect who regards this bankrupt individual as expendable. I simply echo Mr Galloway in this instance.

    Comment by Mike — 17 September, 2007 @ 10:52 pm

51. comrades may be interested in this new blog i’m making

    http://foranewleftparty.blogspot.com/

    Comment by ks — 18 September, 2007 @ 12:19 am

52. “Poor deluded Ian Donovan would now appear to believe that I’m opposed to Respect the Populist Coalition for reasons of ‘venal prejudice’! Quite what this bizarre phrase is intended to mean is, shall we say, obscure. Although i do admit to being prejudiced against a project which has carrioed the largest far left group in britain far to the right and has in any case failed to make the breakthrough predicted by the misleadership of the SWP.”

    Perhaps smearing Salma Yaqoob as in some way associated with ‘terrorism’ has something to do with ‘venal prejuidice’. Or self-confessed refusal, reaffirmed only recently on this site, to defend George Galloway against the state witchhunt that has been going on for years now - while parroting every smear that it comes up with.

    Pearn has a nerve to talk about ‘moving to the right’, since he is an Islamophobic witchhunter, the ‘left’-posturing cover for the likes of Harry’s Place. Whinge and whine about this as much as you like, Mike - I will not cease to remind people of this crossing class lines each time he postures about his ’socialist’ purism.

    Comment by Ian Donovan — 18 September, 2007 @ 10:29 am

53. Ian,

    What you say may or may not be correct, but the absolutely least important aspect of the current debate about Respect is what Mike Pearn thinks about it, and we shouldn’t let ourselves be distracted down that road.

    Comment by Andy — 18 September, 2007 @ 10:50 am

54. “…the absolutely least important aspect of the current debate about Respect is what Mike Pearn thinks about it, and we shouldn’t let ourselves be distracted down that road.”

    Well, that certainly is true. More to the point is the discussion about the necessity for a broad party of the left, which I believe is indispensable. I’m very glad that Mark P and Liam have rejoined Respect. Have you decided to do the same, Andy?

    Comment by Ian Donovan — 18 September, 2007 @ 11:39 am

55. Probabaly.

    Specifically I will decide after saturday’s national Council meeting of Respect, which will give an indictation whether it is worth joining at this stage or not.

    Comment by Andy — 18 September, 2007 @ 11:50 am

56. Well then, the games afoot. This discussion here and elsewhere is very interesting to monitor. Good luck to all who decide to explore what may be new options.

    Comment by Dave Riley — 18 September, 2007 @ 3:19 pm

57. What indications exactly will you be looking for?

    Comment by Muon — 18 September, 2007 @ 6:24 pm

58. Sorry I should clarify that’s a question to Andy and its not a facetious one.

    Comment by Muon — 18 September, 2007 @ 6:31 pm

59. http://foranewleftparty.blogspot.com/

    my new blog is under construction still but please take a look!

    ks

    Comment by ks — 18 September, 2007 @ 6:56 pm

60. Muon,

    I don’t know exactly :o)

    What I am looking for is some indication that the grouping around George Galloway are serious.

    Comment by Andy — 18 September, 2007 @ 7:38 pm

61. Serious about what? Will an absence of clown suits and fart bombs suffice?

    But seriously.. Does it have to be Rees’s head on a plate? Reform (ie a deal with the SWP) or revolution inside Respect?

    Comment by Muon — 18 September, 2007 @ 8:08 pm

62. The indication surely must be that George Galloways’s document, excellent as it is, proves to be the start of the process, not the end of it.

    A process towards what exactly? A participative party, which practices a prefigurative politics and values a creative pluralism as a strength rather than privileging the rigidity of party discipline which inevitably reveals itself as a weakness.

    A party that aspires not to be an amalgam of tiny far left organisations but to become a party of the Left-of-Labour. Understanding that such a party with Labour’s headlong rush to the right will be predominantly social-democratic, yet rooted in subverting the cosy consensus of the Westminster Bubble by being rooted in social movements.

    At any rate, those are the indications I would advise those hopeful of Respect’s future should look for. They won’t erupt in an instant, rather Respect needs to edge itself along that trajectory. How George Galloway’s document is received by the National Council will be a vital step along that way. Shamefully, it will be the first opportunity for Respect to democratically debate the perspective he has intriduced to the party. That in itself is a measure of the failure to develop a democratic, participative party culture which the SWP have ben content to preside over. Personally I wish George Galloway had moved earlier to open up this critique, but no matter. What matters is that he has initiated it, and the SWP Central Committee have chosen to oppose him.

    Comment by Mark P — 18 September, 2007 @ 8:14 pm

63. Andy. The grouping around Galloway is very serious. But not about building a working class party.

    Ian. Do please learn to read. I pointed out that Salma Yaqoob had lied with regard to her earliest political activity. That is a fact just as it is factually correct to point out that the individuals she was concerned to have repatriated to Blighty were arrested in the company of a GIA terrorist. Just as it is factual to point out that the same men filmed themselves in Albania carrying weapons while they later claimed their trip was to learn Arabic. And Albania is not an Arabic speaking country.

    Comment by Mike — 18 September, 2007 @ 9:12 pm

64. By the way could Ian kindly explain what ‘venal prejudice’ means.

    Comment by Mike — 18 September, 2007 @ 9:13 pm

65. nasty prejudice I would imagine. it certainly fits the target anyway.

    Comment by johng — 19 September, 2007 @ 4:49 pm

66. Interestingly in Elaine Graham Leigh and John Rees’ reply to George Galloway is quite interesting too.

    For the first time they are talking about the necessity of demoncratic structures and mechanisms to make Galloway and Respect cllr’s accountable, making sure that Galloway is accountable to the NC etc.

    Also talking about the need to firm up the socialist nature of Respect.

    Maybe we can pick out the best bits of GG and his opponents letters and put together a nice organisation.

    Comment by LJ — 19 September, 2007 @ 6:16 pm

67. I note johng, post 66, is as lacking in understanding the meaning of the words venal and prejudice as Ian D.

    One cannot but wonder if the SWP is guilty of this newly invented ‘venal prejudice’ in describing some of their fellow Respect members as reactionary.

    Comment by Mike — 19 September, 2007 @ 7:09 pm

68. LJ. Where does this reply from Elaine Graham-Leigh and John Rees appear?

    Can you post it here for information and debate? The fact that none of this debate EVER appears on Respect or SWP websites or sympathetic blogs is one sorry indicator of the consequences of sacrificing free and open discussion for supposed party discipline and unity from above.

    Comment by Mark P — 19 September, 2007 @ 7:40 pm

69. #67 “For the first time they are talking about the necessity of demoncratic structures”

    Rule by demons? Respect meets Buffy the Vampire slayer….

    ” Maybe we can pick out the best bits of GG and his opponents letters and put together a nice organisation. ”

    What best bits? So far, all I’ve seen in the exchange is populist versus organisational sectarianism.

    Read Socialist Review and you’ll find that the SWP’s main target is “neo-liberal policy”. So are they suggesting a better policy to run capitalism.

    Listen to Galloway on Talk Sport Radio and he says Barak Obama must be supported as the best candidate for the US Presidency “who has a chance of winning”

    Is it suprising that Respect doesn’t include Socialism in its name or programme?
    I think not.

    Comment by Alex Nichols — 19 September, 2007 @ 8:01 pm

70. In response to the query, what does ‘venal prejudice’ mean, we get the response from John Game:

    “nasty prejudice I would imagine. it certainly fits the target anyway.”

    No need to imagine, look up the word ‘venal’ in a dictionary - it means: susceptible to bribery; corruptible. What ‘venal prejudice’ means is unclear, if there is any meaning at all.

    Of course the actual meaning of the words doesn’t really matter.

    The signal is ‘I don’t like you or your politics’, but more important ‘I am a clever person who can use words that are unfamiliar to most, and they make me look resolute, just like my forebear - Lenin.’

    Comment by Lobby Ludd — 19 September, 2007 @ 10:45 pm

71. “Venal” is a word that implies corruption, and indeed bribery. In this case we are referring to the corruption of socialist politics by the kind of bigotry that throws the association of ‘terrorist supporter’ at someone like Salma Yaqoob, involved in a defence case for her own brother who was arrested and tortured by a foul dictatorship for providing some accused men with a legal defence, but not at say, Gareth Pierce, who is the world-renowned civil rights lawyer who actually LED the legal defence team that Salma Yaqoob’s brother was part of.

    ‘Venal’ means that Mike Pearn is a Muslim-baiting bigot who by his bigotry corrupts the left and the working class movement, and who has no place in any left project. Or at least one worthy of the name, anyway, one that stands up to Islamophobia and the ‘war on terror’.

    The kind of smears that Pearn peddles, if they were believed by anyone of consequence (which they are not, coming from such an obviously bigoted source), could conceivably lead to people being killed by the police, or attacked by vigilantes. No doubt if that were to happen, Pearn would jump for joy. So ‘venal’ is not only appropriate for Pearn, it is actually a bit mild.

    Comment by Ian Donovan — 20 September, 2007 @ 10:44 am

72. Ian/Mike

    Please let this go - it is distracting from a real debate and is just an exchange of insults

    Comment by Andy — 20 September, 2007 @ 11:28 am

73. “Please let this go - it is distracting from a real debate and is just an exchange of insults.”

    Well, I for one do not find this kind of thing pleasant, but something of an unpleasant duty. But Andy, whether you like it or not, the whole issue around Respect is not simply about ‘democracy’ and the real or imagined flaws of the SWP, but it is also intertwined with the question of Islamophobia and the anti-Galloway witchhunt. There are mixed motives among Respect’s critics - some are simply exercised by the desire for a democratic left-wing party, others are Islamophobes who would be quite happy to see Respect’s allegedly ‘Islamist’ supporters - and George Galloway of course - victimised and crushed by the state. Or as Pearn’s mate Andrew Coates said of the recent attack on Galloway by the bourgeois parties in the Standards Committee: “I hope they finally get him”.

    There are also mixed motives among Respect’s defenders - I am opposed to the kind of fossilised version of ‘democratic centralism’ that became prevalent on the left in the Cold War (which I think bears little resemblance to democratic centralism at its best, i.e. in the pre-revolutionary Bolshevik Party). But though I’m also for a democratic organisation, I will ally even with the practitioners of the flawed D-C I referred to earlier against people who mouth off about ‘democracy’ but whose real agenda is Islamophobic.

    Unless you take account of these mixed motives, and draw the relevant conclusions about who you ally with and why, you will get nowhere with the rank-and-file of Respect, I’m afraid. I’d lay odds there are many SWP members who dislike the way the SWP deals with debates etc, but who will side with the SWP leadership, warts and all, against opposition that includes virulent ‘left’ Islamophobes. You dismiss this kind of thing as ‘an exchange of insults’ at your peril. There are issues of principle involved here.

    Comment by Ian Donovan — 20 September, 2007 @ 11:56 am

74. Ian

    Islamophobia is one thing, an argument about what “venal prejudice” actually means is another.

    As you know I am quite happy to take up the cudgels against left islamophobes myself (for example on Dave Osler’s blog), but unfortunately it is easy for such debate (as proven by Osler’s blog) to get distracted into an exchange of insults.

    That is what I amm seeking to avoid here.

    Comment by Andy — 20 September, 2007 @ 12:11 pm

75. “Islamophobia is one thing, an argument about what “venal prejudice” actually means is another.”

    Maybe. But that was the apolitical way in which our Islamophobe tried to defend himself, and it had to be answered in the way it was posed.

    Comment by Ian Donovan — 20 September, 2007 @ 12:28 pm

76. Maybe, but it does show that inflamatory language makes it easier for people to avoid the real issues. By using the word “venal” it gave an opportunity for the debate to go down a side ally.

    I am not criticing you, I have more than once fallen into exactly the same mistake, particularly on Osler’s blog where th climate of “debate” is quite confrontationla, and it is hard not to adapt to it, especially when faced with the almost open racism of “Sue R” for example.

    Comment by Andy — 20 September, 2007 @ 12:37 pm

77. Fair enough.

    Comment by Ian Donovan — 20 September, 2007 @ 12:51 pm

78. I’m afraid this whole depressing spat simply confirms what many socialists felt three years ago. Respect was established on an opportunist basis. It failed to establish secular, socialist principles at the heart of the project. It asked socialists to dilute their politics to attract sections of Muslim opinion that were far from radical (little mention of women’s liberation or gay rights in Socialist Worker for example). Similarly, everyone turned a blind eye to the erratic opportunism of George Galloway (anti abortion statements, reformism, Stalinism, self promotion, to name but a few). Stunningly, there is never a mention of the worrying penetration of the BNP in many white working class areas. Instead of united front politics we are seeing anaemic Popular Frontism.
    No wonder so many on the left are feeling disoriented and let down.

    Comment by Alan Gibbons — 22 September, 2007 @ 5:44 pm

79. Well it had to happen it always does the left fighting the left. This is why we can`t win the people trust. It makes the left an EASY target for the right.

    Comment by George Dutton — 24 October, 2007 @ 10:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain

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

HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain