Salma Yaqoob on the future of Respect
Challenges for Respect
by Councillor Salma Yaqoob - National Vice Chair
George’s document accurately outlines the two biggest challenges and responsibilities we face today: “to build Respect directly and to place it at the centre of a progressive realignment”. In order for Respect to rise to these challenges there are some foundation stones that must be in place.
Firstly, if Respect aspires to be a coalition of individuals and organisations from quite divergent political backgrounds, but united against imperialism and neo-liberalism, it is imperative that the internal political culture inside Respect is one that is at ease with difference and pluralism and not threatened by it.
Secondly, Respect has to proactively seek to embrace the broadest currents of progressive opinion if it is to fulfil the aspirations behind its launch.
The need for Respect
The need for a party to the left of Labour is more urgent than ever. This is confirmed for me on the second Tuesday of every month, when I attend the meeting of Birmingham city councillors. It is indicative of the sorry state of affairs of the Labour Party that they are regularly outflanked to the left by the Tories.
Under New Labour, wealth inequality and privatisation has increased dramatically. Gordon Brown calls on public-sector workers to accept a cut in their real level of pay, while 1% of the population owns one-third of all personal wealth in this country. Where the Tories only managed to sign 100 PFI deals with big business, Brown has delivered more than 600 wasteful and privatising schemes.
Meanwhile, Liberty argues that the government is ‘laying the infrastructure of Orwell’s Big Brother state’ and we see the ever-increasing beat of US war drums against Iran.
Despite the significant obstacles the first past the post system poses for smaller parties, I remain convinced and committed to the future of this project.
The broad constituency in favour of peace, equality and social justice is growing. On many issues it is even a majority in society. Millions of people are against war, against privatising and running down the welfare state, against racism, and for greater equality. There is an opportunity to be a voice for these millions, and to offer an electoral alternative to the parties of war and injustice.
Facing realities
Despite the growing number of people who oppose imperialism and neo-liberalism, the balance remains in favour of the parties of war, privatisation and racism.
Tony Blair won the 2005 election in the face of mass protests against the war. The growth of the BNP across the country far exceeds our own modest successes. Yes, Labour will lose seats at the next election. But the vast majority of them will be lost to parties to their right.
Respect therefore faces a situation where there is widespread and growing sympathy for the type of ideas we espouse, but where the parties of the right are increasing their stranglehold on electoral politics.
In a situation where our opponents remain far stronger than us, it is essential that we seek to operate in the most consensual and pluralistic manner possible, open to cooperation with all those, regardless of party, who share our commitment to peace, equality and justice.
This will be impossible if Respect is perceived as the property of a single organisation. To build a coalition of like-minded individuals and organisations we must go the extra mile in our efforts to include different voices and experiences. We have to consciously and proactively demonstrate to all those outside Respect that they have a place in our coalition, and that by joining us they are signing up to a genuine coalition in which no single component of it is in a position to impose its views.
If our coalition is currently insufficiently broad, it is all the more important that we act, and are seen to act, in such a way as to reflect the coalition we want to be.
The challenge for Respect is to be able to work with, and be a voice for, this growing broad progressive constituency. This constituency includes people who remain tied to Labour or other parties such as the Greens. We have to work patiently to build up our vote at a local level. But we also have to be part (and almost certainly a minority part) of a much wider network of alliances.
George has pointed to the urgency of initiatives in the aftermath of Blair’s resignation to capitalise on the space for a discussion on left realignment. This discussion is also taking place outside Respect. For example the recent Morning Star Conference and articles. And, in a different way, they are taking place in and around the Labour Party.
We have not been bold enough in taking initiatives to further this potential dialogue.
Respect needs a more democratic and inclusive internal political culture
Having taken the first steps towards bringing together a new party to the left of Labour we need to encourage an internal culture that is far more inclusive and participative.
If it is not seen that we operate in a genuinely collaborative manner, if we cannot manage our differences in a non-factional manner, we have no hope of being the pole of attraction to those disaffected with Labour and looking for an alternative. George’s proposals about strengthening the role of the national office with a new national organiser to work alongside the national secretary and a revamped officers committee are changes that need to be introduced. In the run up to conference we should also conduct a thorough examination of our current practice.
Why is it that Respect has such an uneven profile not just across the country, but also even within areas where we have made headway like London and Birmingham? How do we make ourselves more attractive to those disaffected with the current political system but nervous about Respect?
How can we improve our public events? How do we strengthen the political depth of our activists and better shape the political culture within the organisation? Is the slate system the most democratic method of electing delegates to our national bodies? Is it the case that we convey the impression that Respect is dominated by a single organisation? If so, what can we do about it?
Many members have expressed dismay that while their organisation is in the midst of this debate, no reference to it is made on our website and they have to scour the net to glean a greater understanding as to what the debate is actually about. There should there be space on our national website for internal discussion and the posting of internal documents.
Damaging allegations
Unfortunately, the manner in which this current debate is being conducted is a bad advertisement.
Misrepresentation of views is perhaps a feature of these kinds of rows, but that does not make them any more excusable.
It is, unfortunately, necessary to deal with two rather unpleasant allegations that have been introduced into this debate.
Firstly, it is not the case that I oppose the diversity of Respect candidates in favour of Muslim men as claimed by the SWP.
As one of the few Muslim women in a prominent political position, I am more aware than most of the obstacles that are in our way, and the importance of bringing more woman (in particular) into leading political positions.
In Birmingham, four out of five candidates in the 2006 local elections were women. But in 2007, only one woman sought a nomination. All the other nominations were from Asian male candidates. In the only contested election the one woman prospective candidate was defeated but I wrote to Socialist Worker (10 February) specifically urging SWP members to come forward as
candidates for any of the other 33 wards that we could have contested. No other nominations were made, leaving us with 7 male candidates.
Even more upsetting have been accusations around “communalist politics” in Birmingham as reflected in the SWP Party Notes of 7 March 2007.
The allegation of communalism has been thrown at Respect from our enemies, and it is disturbing to see echoes of it inside Respect. Only those ignorant of my record, or hostile to my work, could make such a charge.
The fault line of ‘communalist politics’ in Birmingham has most recently been between African-Caribbean and Asian communities who often feel in competition with each other over council funding. These tensions tragically ignited in Lozells where two young people lost their lives. There is no political figure in Birmingham more closely associated with trying to address these tensions than myself.
That is why I initiated the women and children’s Peace March in the aftermath of the Lozells riots which received very high local news coverage. That is why Respect supporters took great risks, behind the scenes, to ensure there was no retaliation from Pakistani gangs in the aftermath of the desecration of Muslim graves in Handsworth cemetery. When I spoke from the platform of the recent Jesse Jackson rally to a 600 strong (and overwhelmingly African-Caribbean) audience, I used my time to call for black and Asian unity. It is not accidental that I was the only politician to speak at the recent march in Lozells against Gangs and Guns organised by the Council of Black Led Churches.
Furthermore, both in my newsletters and within the council chamber I have specifically championed the issue of poor educational attainment of white working class boys from disadvantaged backgrounds.
If I wanted to pander to conservative pressure inside the Muslim community, appearing on Question Time and opposing the imposition of Islamic dress on women, opposing the criminalisation of women in the sex industry, or opposing homophobia in the local media, would not exactly be the best way to go about it!
It is hard to think of a more damaging allegation than that of communalism. It can only sour relations between us and give ammunition to our enemies.
False divisions
Differences have to be discussed with restraint, and communication and dialogue is the key. Unfortunately, since I disagreed with John Rees over an issue of tactics in July 2005, I don’t think I have received more than 2 phone calls from him. Personal feelings are not the issue. The National Secretary should be able to maintain working relationships and act as a link to all parts of Respect. He should consult widely to learn from everyone’s experience.
It is disingenuous also to make references to my inability to attend National Officers meetings when no effort was made to act on my request to hold meetings on web cam to facilitate those of us who don’t live in London and have childcare and family commitments. A leadership striving to be as inclusive as possible would be imaginative and proactive about encouraging participation, especially of those with childcare and family responsibilities.
It is also disingenuous to misrepresent the issues at heart as being about whether John Rees should or should not resign. Neither George nor myself have called for John Rees’s resignation. In our meeting I commented to John that had I been in his shoes I would have stepped down, but I also made it explicit that I was not making this a formal demand in any way and was advocating only those demands outlined in George’s document. For the SWP to report this as a formal call for his resignation is a deliberate distortion, designed perhaps to distract from the real issues raised.
What I find most insidious about these allegations is not only that they are false, but that they have been deliberately circulated to foster divisions and exacerbate differences within Respect.
If the SWP leadership had issues of concerns about the political direction in Birmingham, particularly if they felt something as serious as a ‘pandering to communalism’ was taking place, the very least I would expect is that these concerns would be communicated directly to myself or raised openly inside Respect. Neither has happened.
Instead, it appears these claims, and others, are designed entirely to marshall SWP members with pseudo ideological cover in what is really a drive for control. Overall it has hindered not helped Respect and no doubt has been counter productive for the SWP itself. The interests of one factional bloc have been put above the broader interests of the Respect itself. This method has caused confusion and poisoned relations between people who otherwise had got on well up to that point.
This highlights an important issue of principle for Respect if we are to be seen as a genuine coalition and not a front for one component part - whether that is the SWP today or a ‘independents bloc’ tomorrow. We have to build into the culture, and maybe also the constitution of Respect, safeguards that compel us to work in a collaborative and not a competitive manner. In our internal dealings we have to enact the values of openness, transparency, pluralism and democracy that we espouse in broader society. In this way there will be consistency between our goals and our process, which will only strengthen us. It involves short-term compromise for long term gain.
My experience with ordinary SWP members had overwhelmingly been a positive one. They are committed, sincere and hard working activists. I value their contribution to Respect and other campaigns. I do not want to see the SWP outside Respect, and I continue to hope that they will play an important role in building Respect. I have been saddened by the unnecessary deterioration in relations.
Conflating legitimate criticisms of the National Secretary with allegations of plots to ‘subordinate’ socialist elements in Respect, also only compounds our problems. The notion that ‘the socialist left’ is in danger of being subordinated inside Respect can only be read as patronising. The inference is that, without a guiding hand, the rest of us (especially Muslims) would quickly gallop to the right and pander to all manner of prejudices. I do not accept that the SWP is the sole guarantor of the progressive values around which we have united.
While the well from which I draw my commitment to social justice may be a different one, it is every bit as deep. It was out of this very commitment to genuine progressive values that I helped initiate Respect.
Respect needs to build on its electoral strengths
On a national scale, our electoral successes are modest. But, in particular areas, we have really made an impact.
In East London, Birmingham and Preston we have developed a real base, with much of our support coming from Muslims. This is a strength, which we should celebrate. Opposition to the war on Iraq ran deepest among Muslims. Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, in particular, are among the most disadvantaged in our society. The constant attacks on the views and way of life of Muslims have produced deep anger. All of these factors serve to highlight the inadequacy of political representation at a local level, and the very limited representation for Muslim communities at a national level.
The fact that Respect has won a serious base in some Muslim communities is a tremendous achievement for all of us. For the first time, a part of the genuine left has sunk deep roots in some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. In a period where racism is on the rise, and multiculturalism is under attack, the importance of this is hard to overestimate.
We have been much weaker in areas where this combination of factors is not as strong. But this is not, as has been unhelpfully suggested by the SWP, evidence of a lack of commitment to ‘widen and diversify Respect’s working class support’.
George’s letter specifically highlighted the contributions of Michael Lavelette in Preston, Jerry Hicks in Bristol and Maxine Blower in Sheffield - all white, socialist candidates. No one in Respect thinks that we are, or should be, a ‘Muslim party’. On the contrary, what we have tried to achieve is the coming together of people from very different traditions and backgrounds by stressing the common ground between us. This vision, which was at the heart of the discussions which led to the formation of Respect, remains as strong today as it was then.
There are whole swathes of white working class areas that feel abandoned. We need an honest discussion inside Respect about what we have committed to these areas, apart from rhetoric.
It is not true, either, that this argument is about whether Respect should withdraw ‘into the electoral common sense that only particular ‘community leaders’ can win in certain areas.’
But the reality is that the strongest candidates will invariably be those who are the most locally rooted. This is electoral common sense. The Respect brand is simply not strong enough that we can parachute candidates into areas where they have no local roots and hope to do well.
Wherever this method has been applied the outcome has been poor and damaging to us.
Sustained local community activity is the key to ensuring strong local candidates and every potential Respect candidate should aim to be a ‘community leader’ if they are serious about trying to win. Part of our role is to be able to bring the respected and rooted local activist (or ‘community leader’) into the wider progressive alliance that we have created, and for us all to be strengthened by this common ground.
We need an open and frank discussion about the state of many Respect branches.
Too often we just do not undertake the hard slog of embedding ourselves in local communities by consistently addressing their local issues and concerns.
Building coaches for anti-war demos, or working in your trade union is important. If you want to get be elected as a councillor the electorate will also want to see the same passion and commitment about the local issues that are impacting on their lives.
Too often our organising skills are not focused enough on consistent local campaigns, advice surgeries and following-up on casework. Similarly attending resident associations or neighbourhood forums is rarely a priority, although these are often the arenas where local people gather to express their concerns.
We need to combine in our local work both a commitment to campaigning around the big political issues and addressing ways these link to specific local issues that impact on people’s day-to-day lives.
We need to work consciously and patiently to consolidate and extend our vote in our existing strongholds. And, where we are weaker, we need to begin to act as if we were already local councillors. The crisis of political representation extends right down to ward level. We have to be willing and able to offer an alternative now.
Conclusion
There are many people outside Respect who should be in Respect. By accepting George’s proposals we have an opportunity to strengthen a culture of participation and pluralism that clearly signals our willingness to be a genuine coalition. We have an opportunity to show, in practice, that
we are a home for those seeking an alternative to the right wing consensus.
There are many more people outside Respect, who share many of our principles but who, for a variety of reasons and party loyalties, may not join us at the moment. Our willingness to be open and flexible in co-operating and sharing ideas and experiences is vital for the future of us all.
My vision for Respect is of a coalition which acts to support all those who share a commitment to peace, equality and justice. In building Respect we have to act in a way that strengthens this broad progressive constituency and does not divide it.
Well, that’s one hell of a strong contribution. This kind of thing shows Respect’s true potential: to recruit and develop the kind of cadre from a scapegoated minority that have the potential to lead the whole working class. The powerful leftist thrust in this should be obvious, notwitstanding the different vantage point and trajectory to the left. “Communalism” my elbow.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 21 September, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
I think the key task Ian is to ensure this documetn is distributed as widely as possible.
I was intending to go anyway to next Tuesday’s Oxford AGM, to be addressed by John Rees. I think it is well worth leafleting the meeting with this paper from Salma.
The point for me here is that whatever happens within Respect, the general proposition of how we need to build is correct: pluralistic, democratic and rooted in local campaigning.
As is Salma’s very sensible point that we need to build and strengthen the broadly progressive political constituency, rather than seek to divide it.
Comment by Andy — 21 September, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
This is a powerful and important document. But I would make the point that precisely because Respect has functioned as a coalition rather than a party it has managed to avoid developing a meaningful democratic functioning.
Comment by Liam — 21 September, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Absolutely true Liam.
But the two are not exclusive propositions.
The internal relationships within Respect need to be transparent and democratic, and that means that all members need equal chance to get their voice heard, which means party structures.
But the external relations of Respect need to be about consensus building with the broader progressive constituency.
The only way to do this, given that electoral politics (especially under FPTP) is inherently divisive, is to consistently work in between elections on local campaigning and building bridges with other activists and the wider community. That also means being prepared to deal with the world as it actually is, and with the level of consciousness that actually prevails.
Comment by Andy — 21 September, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Salma should be the first Muslim woman MP.
She’s moving away from the loons at the central Birmingham mosque and should look at potential seats in Birmingham.(she has and is courted).
Galloways talk of Bethnal Green should be (and I think will be) ignored.
Ladywood.
Shift parties Salma.
Comment by tim — 21 September, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
Without meaning to disagree, I think Salma make valid points.
But 1) I don’t think that the structures proposed by SR and Galloway are identical and I prefer the former.
2) I think the SWP have a genuine case about Tower Hamlets, there is obviously a problem. The Vice-Chair defects to LibDems, another councillor defects to Labour, a guy who stood for the tories one elections stands for Respect another election.
Comment by LJ — 21 September, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
Tim, please, let’s not go down the ’she’s being courted by Labour’ road. Salma has made it very clear that she is standing for Respect in Birmingham:
http://www.thestirrer.co.uk/respect-1209071.html
Lj, obviously some problems in Tower Hamlets. The issue is whether the SWP help or hinder in sorting them out. The message coming from both Salma’s and George Galloway’s documents in that they method of Rees’s in particular is proving highly damaging.
Comment by left unity — 21 September, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
“I was intending to go anyway to next Tuesday’s Oxford AGM, to be addressed by John Rees. I think it is well worth leafleting the meeting with this paper from Salma.”
Sounds great. Maybe you could ask Mike McNair to help you distribute it;-)
Seriously though, all these documents have already been circulated within Respect in my part of London (admittedly only one borough), though much more can and will be done to promote the crucial pre-conference discussions ahead, that have to take place much more widely.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 21 September, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
I have Galloway’s proposed motion to the NC, and I will publish it tomorrow. I could have published it today but didn’t want to overshadow Salma’s contribution to the debate.
I was also going to publish SR’s motion to the NC, but I see that liam has already done so.
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/proposed-nc-resolution-to-conference-alan-thornett-and-john-lister/
One thing this whole debate has thrown up is that the documents have only been published for the membership of Respect to consider because of blogs run by Liam and myself, neither of us were even members of resepct when it started!
Not only has there been no publishing on Respect’s own web-sites, but not even on the blogs of SWP bloggers or Neil William’s ultra loyalist “respect blog”.
(I don’t discount the fact that the Weekly Worker has also published stuff, but I think this may have been recycled from stuff Liam and I have got our hands on)
Comment by Andy — 21 September, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
Ian
Salma’s document has been circulated in your area by respect? When did that happen?
Comment by Andy — 21 September, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Left Unity - you’re presuming that Respect will still exist.
Comment by tim — 21 September, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
And by the way, I didn’t say Labour.
Comment by tim — 21 September, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
All these Respect documents, from both sides have been circulated in the past week or so. We have an information email list that we use for announcements and a certain amount of discussion material at times. Nothing heavy, no flame wars or anything, but interesting information/discussion material gets circulated by email server through the secretary (which is me).
These documents certainly come into that category. Our local e-list is a very useful organising tool; more should try it. We have to supplement it with postal mailings periodically of course, though those are generally for important leaflets etc. It’s probably helped our branch to keep going and maintain some real activity when others have had a more difficult time.
We also have the beginnings of a useful local website: see www.southwarkrespect.org.uk
Comment by Ian Donovan — 21 September, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
Too many documents, I’m starting to get Respect document fatigue!
Comment by LJ — 21 September, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
I think that is far from typical Ian, As Salma says in her document:
“Many members have expressed dismay that while their organisation is in the midst of this debate, no reference to it is made on our website and they have to scour the net to glean a greater understanding as to what the debate is actually about.”
Comment by Andy — 21 September, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
She’s a very competent bourgois politician: she has nothing to do with working class politics, or working class Muslim men and women. She’s a petty bourgoise small capitalist who doesn’t (to the best of my knowledge) even belong to a union. She played a rotten, undemocratic role in politics and the anti-war movement in Birmingham. she has promoted small (and not-so-small businessmen within Respect, and has been a major factor in ensuring that it always was, and always will be, a pro-business, communalist, right-wing outfit. she’ll end up in the lib Dems. The fact that Galloway and his new friends Thornett and the ISG now want to court her against the SWP (which she once applied to join, only to be turned down by John Rees), doesn’t make matters any better; it just shows how right-wing and desperate the ISG has become.
Comment by Jim Denham — 22 September, 2007 @ 12:13 am
’she has nothing to do with working class politics, or working class Muslim men and women’
She only represents one of the most deprived wards in Birmingham.
Comment by left unity — 22 September, 2007 @ 12:35 am
And if respect in Birmingham has nothing to do with working class politics then it is strange that someone with such a long track record in class politics as Raghib Ahsan has joined them.
Comment by Andy — 22 September, 2007 @ 12:48 am
On most of the big questions most of the time Respect’s public figures are much less objectionable than 85% of Labour Party members. Civil liberties, war. That type of thing.
As one of GG’s constituents I’ve provided regular accounts of his performance as a MP which include descriptions like “unelectable”, “priapic self-publicist”. I’m told that the people Jim thinks are his friends talk about him in similar language but it’s not normally how friends talk about each other.
We are watching and participating in Labourism’s slow death as a party of the working class and this turmoil in Respect is part of that process. It’s possible to make all sorts of carping remarks about individuals who are evolving but you need to locate it in the decay of the Labour Party.
Comment by Liam — 22 September, 2007 @ 1:04 am
I’ve a fair bit of respect for Andy and Liam but this backing of the Galloway-Yaqoob petty bourgeois soft communalist wing of Respect against the socialist wing of the SWP is disturbing. After all without the SWP Respect is highly unlikely to be viable other than in parts of Brum and East London. How then could it attract new layers of support from those white workers which all concerned have noted are not at present attracted to Respect?
As for Ms Yaqoob as I noted years ago she may well make a very good MP one day. The question remains for which party.
And in the meantime the largest socialist group in Britain has suffered a self inflicted wound which was easily predictable. The greatest pity of it is thatthe buffoons who forged the weapon that struck the blow at the socialist politics of SWP will remain in charge despite their manifest unfitness for leadership. Rees and German should be dumped!
Comment by Mike — 22 September, 2007 @ 1:13 am
In the interests of democracy and democratic debate this important document is now posted with others, from John Rees etc on the future of Respect on the Respect Supporters Blog at:
http://respectuk.blogspot.com/
Let the debate begin and a 1000’s flowers bloom!
Neil Williams.
P.S. There will be many who will criticise me for doing this but without democratic debate inside Respect how can we begin to build a Socialist alternative to ‘New Labour’. We will be judged on our actions as well as our words.
I hope when I am sent to the salt mines some of you will visit me (joke!.)
Comment by Neil Williams — 22 September, 2007 @ 2:17 am
Neil.
Catch Up.
I doubt whether Yaqoob is dim enough to ally woth Galloway.
A corrupt MP turned chat show host is not a future.
Comment by tim — 22 September, 2007 @ 2:43 am
Want a view?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_4670000/newsid_4679900/4679986.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1
Go 21 minutes in.
Se a corrupt MP and, well, an embarassing parade.
Couldn’t understand where his Uday fellating came from?
Watch Rob Hoveman shut the doors.
But he’ll take the cheques for George out of the building.
Comment by tim — 22 September, 2007 @ 2:54 am
Jim Denham:
>She’s a very competent bourgois politician: she has nothing to do with working class politics, or working class Muslim men and women.
Jim, you are an uber-sectarian who does NOTHING for the left but disgrace us. When Lenin wrote of “clowning and empty phrase mongering” he was refering specifically to your sort. I was going to write that one Salma is worth a thousand Jim D’s, but it would be an error to give you a positive score (no matter how small). You are worth minus 1/1000th of a Salma.
Rohan G
Comment by Rohan G — 22 September, 2007 @ 7:45 am
Tim, why do you always go on about Galloway fellating Uday? Is there any evidence this took place? Not that I’d like to see it…
Newsnight’s Michael Crick’s jumping up and down at this story because it makes him nostalgic for his trot-sniffing days in the early eighties when he took part in the witch-hunt of marxists in the labour party. (Last night’s spot won’t help rumours of the CPGB(PCC) being state assets, by the way.)
I just hope that the end result isn’t neil being sent to the salt mines with the severed heads of his blooming flowers…
Comment by Charlie Marks — 22 September, 2007 @ 7:59 am
Mark Fischer’s performance on Newsnight was apalling and self-serving.
But Respect should surely not have refused to talk to Crick on the doorstep of their office, it was not clear to me who said on camera ” we don’t like newsnight”, but surely they should not be in the employ of a politial party with an MP!
Comment by Andy — 22 September, 2007 @ 10:43 am
hoveman,andy.
Comment by tim — 22 September, 2007 @ 11:03 am
I just watched it again, and it doesn’t sound like Rob.
Comment by Andy — 22 September, 2007 @ 11:08 am
The key about Salma Yaqoob’s document is that is absolutely clear, and honest, in outling the direction in which Respect should evolve. A pluralist party, centred on membership participation, bottom-up democracy and prefigurative practice. The latter quite rightly shaped by a local turn, basing the practice of our progressive politics in community activism.
A further strength is that unlike John Lister and Alan Thornet t, and George Galloway which tend to be prescriptive in their pluralism, seeing a broadened Respect in terms of the CPB, RMT and Bob Wareing MP joining in, Salma doesn’t presume to dictate the potential breadth of Respect which if it is to fulfil its potential must surely be as broad as all those disinclined to join Brownite Labour’s headlong to the right, and you don’t have to be very far out on the left to share that disinclination!
The various positions being offered to the Respect National Council are in such stark contrast, John Rees and Elaine Graham Leigh’s are at almost complete loggerheads with Salma’s, that unless there is the ‘mother of all fudges’ there must be outcomes. The start, not the end, of a process.
Comment by Mark P — 22 September, 2007 @ 11:10 am
without the SWP Respect is highly unlikely to be viable other than in parts of Brum and East London
I don’t think anyone’s saying “SWP out of RESPECT” - just that the relationship between the two needs to change. If that line prevails and the SWP responds by flouncing out… well, it’ll be a gamble, but I think it’s one worth taking. (Hopefully some of the better SWP/RESPECT comrades would jump the right way.) In any case, your formulation implies that RESPECT is currently only kept going by the SWP machine - would it really be worth having on that basis?
Comment by Phil — 22 September, 2007 @ 11:16 am
“Mark Fischer’s performance on Newsnight was apalling and self-serving.”
Are you that surprised? The opportunism of the CPGB… but
Respect shoulda given an impromptu interview as they probably have someone dealing with the media (don’t they?)
They wheeled out Oona who may be right on lesbian and gay rights but this coming from a woman who happily backed an imperialist war occupying another country that indulges in discrimination against the Iraqis, stealing their oil, destroyed infrastructure and imposing John Negroponte backed death squads….
Regards to Salma Yaqoob’s document, there’s no analysis of the political situation inside and outside Respect. Just a basic set a demands and to me it could have written by a Lib Dem.
Like I have said before, you can build a single issue campaign with a broad alliance of people but not on an electoral basis. Because people will bring their own set of political ideas which will need challenging by the Left. Surely it is about engaging and breaking those ideas as opposed to capitulation?
The problem with these groups is that Respect is run by a democratic centralist org. that imposes rigid party discipline and that is the wrong thing to do. You need a looser structure based on education. And debate and engaging with people in an open way that may actually change ideas.
Comment by Louisefeminista — 22 September, 2007 @ 11:26 am
“Mark Fischer’s performance on Newsnight was apalling and self-serving.”
Indeed. What is funny about them, of course, is that amongst all the talk of democracy and opening up Respect to realise its potential, they are just about the only people calling shrilly (from the outside) for purges and expulsions from the SWP *and* Respect.
The thrust of their recent rubbish sort of reminds me of what they used to say about the late Roy Bull and his EPSR group - they “get horny for a purge”. Today, the CPGB are getting well “horny for a purge” - an Islamophobic one that is - of everyone who ever supported the Respect project. They would like to purge Salma Yaqoob, George Galloway and all their supporters from Respect, and they would like to purge Rees and everyone else who ever supported Respect from the SWP. For all their ‘democratic’ verbiage, their Stalinist heritage is certainly reasserting itself.
The funny thing about them is that for all their bizarre antics in Respect, including publicly calling for people *not* to vote for many of our candidates (including Salma Yaqoob), none of their people have ever been kicked out of Respect membership. Remarkable. And yet here we have these people one minute wittering on about “democracy”, and the next advocating expelling people all over the place. I suppose you could put it down to a strange form of political schizophrenia.
Was it not old Harold Wilson who went to Moscow in the 1970s, got drunk and rambled on about how the Soviet gerontocracy had the right idea about how to deal with ‘Trotskyites’? Mark Fischer’s chummy-chummy act with the anti-’Trotskyite’ witchhunter Crick sort of evokes that for me, even if the roles are somewhat reversed.
Incidentally, if it was Rob Hoveman who told Crick effectively to fuck off at the door, then good for him. I suppose we should find a slightly more sophisticated way to turn the tables on Newsnight, but that was a sneak, doorstepping attack, and he was quite right to tell that Blairite shit to bugger off.
The CPGB core cadre were never interested in democracy in Respect. They were interested in promoting a Islamophobic agenda not that different from that of Matgamna and co. They have published attacks on Respect from racist bastards like Brett Lock, who supported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon last year, supports Israeli murder in Gaza, etc. Its not that much of a leap for them to jump into bed with Michael Crick.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 22 September, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Mike Pearn: I’ve a fair bit of respect for Andy and Liam but this backing of the Galloway-Yaqoob petty bourgeois soft communalist wing of Respect against the socialist wing of the SWP is disturbing.
Thanks for the kind words, Mike.
I think that you and I both agree about the disastrous state of the left.
The “revolutionary” socialist groups are smaller and older than they were, with a lower level of politics and only marginal influence.
The hard Labour Left of McDonnell and the Campaign group are hopelessly conservative, trying to act as if nothing has changed since the early 1980s, and repackaging policies from that era. Most strikingly no one on the Campaign group / LRC left seem able to explain exactly what their strategy is! Meanwhile Broown has removed the final vestiges of influence tat individual left members could have on the party – the response of the MCd left – carry on regardless, with no analysis of where they go from here!
A recovery led by the unions is constantly hampered by the low level of class consciousness, and difficulty in recruiting and holding workplace reps, and even where workplace reps do come forward they have rarely experienced industrial action.
Generally the overall context is one where the left is marginal: ideologically, politically and organisationally.
Where we differ ( and it is a big difference) is what to do about it.
You seem to think that in these circumstances it is important to maintain the ideas untarnished, and if necessary retreat to being essentially a propaganda group, waiting for things too get better. That is, that we should steer left. A sort of message in the bottle for the future.
I believe that there is no guarantee things will get better without conscious human intervention, and this means steering to the right, to try to build a better context for the left to recover.
This is why I thought Jon Cruddas’s deputy leadership campaign was more important than McDonnell’s leadership campaign, because Cruddas was giving the unions an opportunity to signal opposition, but also Cruddas was very intelligently popularising a realistic and intelligent appraisal of the current situation – a sense of perspective utterly lacking from McD’s camp.
That is also why we need to try to build a broad coalition out of the progressive strands in society, even if there are some contradictions between them. What we should aspire to is something like Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition – except that given that England is a generally more left wing society than America, we could do better.
So far so good for Respect, as a potential vehicle for that.
But such a political coalition need not, and should not, mean an organisational coalition that ossifies relationships, particularly as it means Respect has danced to the objectively conservative tune of the SWP. The SWP have put the interests of their remaining in control before the interests of healthy organic growth, and they are also very afraid of new ideas that have not sprung from the heads of their own CC.
Paradoxically, the coalition nature of Respect’s organisation has prevented it becoming a broad electoral and social coalition.
In this regard, Salma Yaqoob’s position (which is pretty much what she has been saying all along from even before Respect was launched) is spot on.
Comment by Andy — 22 September, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Louise: Respect shoulda given an impromptu interview as they probably have someone dealing with the media (don’t they?)
You would think, wouldn’t you!
In fact this is just another side of SWP incompetence.
The officer’s group should have forseen that the mainstream press would be interested, and briefed the office staff with what to say, along the lines of: “all organisations have internal debate, it is healthy to do so, it is up to the memebrs what happens next, decided at conference in Novmeber, etc”
But the officers do not seem to have forseen this, and there is no competent press officer.
Indeed it is worth going back to the way Anna Chen was replaced, depsite the fact that she was almost the best press officer the left had every had, becasue she was too independent.
Comment by Andy — 22 September, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Ron McKay.
And his credibility is zero given
a.Threatening Newsnight journalist with violence over the Asian voice cash.
b.Telling the press that Galloway and his wife maintained seperate bank accounts.Exposed by Galloway to Parliament as untrue.
c.Receiving cash from Fawaz Zureikat into his personal account.
Best keep Oil for Fists Ron away.
Comment by tim — 22 September, 2007 @ 11:53 am
“The hard Labour Left of McDonnell and the Campaign group are hopelessly conservative, trying to act as if nothing has changed since the early 1980s, and repackaging policies from that era. Most strikingly no one on the Campaign group / LRC left seem able to explain exactly what their strategy is! ”
Well, LRC conference is in November as well so go along and listen to what we have to say re way forward. Oh, and read the latest Labour Left Briefing for further analysis.
And my politics don’t depend on what decade I am in…
I don’t cut my politics to fit 1980s fashion (to misquote Lillian Hellman)
I base my politics on where it is the best to fight New Labour and that is in the belly of the beast!!
Comment by Louisefeminista — 22 September, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Btw comrade Newman, a bit off topic, but you were on radio yesterday talking about twinning a town in Palestine with Swindon? Thought you were good esp. explaining why Palestine… seemed like the radio host was a bit allergic in his reaction to anything politics sounding (maybe I am wrong sounded like it)
Comment by Louisefeminista — 22 September, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Blimey - how did you hear that? Thanks for the interest in tracking it down.
There was a better interview on GWR earlier in the week.
BTW - thanks for the compliment.
Comment by Andy — 22 September, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Well, I am not totally London-centric or indeed submerged in the cosmo world of the London left scene that I am unable to see past Islington.
Comment by Louisefeminista — 22 September, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Salma Yaqoob’s article gives a fascinating insight into the inner workings of Respect and clearly confirms the ruthless,’grubby’ and messy ways of how the SWP work and operate which in turn are so damaging to any organisation.Remember the Socialist Alliance experience after the SWP took control of it then junked it when it no longer served their purposes…..the similarities in terms of ‘abuse’ of responsiblity and ‘misuse of power’ and influence are uncanny but of no great surprise.
‘Trust’ and ‘cooperation’ are a vary valuable and hugely underrated value within political organising.
In my opinion,I dont really see how the SWP can possibly change(Anger management and cognitive therapy for John Rees and group therapy for the whole party perhaps!)as this is how they have always operated because their main concern and (self)interest is in maintaining CONTROL within organisations,which is why many people find the SWP a complete TURN OFF.Whenever they get involved in campaigns or movements eg anti Poll tax, anti racism, anti fascism,anti globalisation,anti war,trade unions…they seek to control and manipulate.
Sadly,because the whole mentality of the party seems not to include self reflection on such matters, there inevitably is no real possibility of change or transformation in the way they operate…their bullying style. Just as it was with Militant so it is with the SWP….the complete stupidity of both was revealed for all to see when they sided with the buffoon Tommy Sheridan and the whole fiasco bringing about the appallingly damaging split within the Scottish Socialist party.
(And now Galloway is talking about standing Respect in Scotland!Unity of the Left..I dont think so!Madness!)
The first and foremost aim of the leadership of the SWP is always to try to recruit people for the SWP and use them as they see fit and determine any discussion and debate from on high,which makes it very similar (though different) to the centralising and controlling instincts to New Labour, which also are a complete turn off for hundreds of thousands of acivists which is why they have left in their droves since 1997.
This next week and beyond is a crucial moment for the Left outside and the Labour Left within New Labour,as prozac Prime minister Brown(This Saturday’s Guardian) tries to con and seduce the remaining party members,trade unionists and voters and the alienated British public(into joining or rejoining the party)that his New ‘New’ Labour project is about adopting more ‘modern progressive’ and ‘policy consultative forums’ of discussion within the name of ‘party/national unity’(in advance of a possible General Election).
When infact he is taking away any last remaining opportunity and space for any real membership and Trade Union representation and open and transparent debate and discussion and influence on party policy,in advance of a possible General Election and for the future.
While there is an ever hopeless and desperate attempt by the Labour Left/CPB/Socialist appeal to try to ‘reclaim’ the party,it is interesting that Tony Benn’s recent comments in response to these ‘proposed’ changes and the ongoing gagging orders for the forthcoming conference next week, perhaps indicate that more people will simply decide to quit New Labour and quite rightly ask themselves What is the point of staying or joining?(Whether Tony Benn himself will publicly leave his ‘dear Labour’ party remains questionable)
Such a further haemorraging of support from Blue Labour,the present turmoil within Respect and the vital development of ECO-SOCIALIST perspectives in the light of GLOBAL CAPITAL CLIMATE CHAOS coupled with hugely positive advances and debates within Venezuela(and throughout Latin America) about new forms of SOCIALISM,should only further prompt a more healthy and wider discussion and debate of the crucial question….A new Left party and the basis for such a party.
Comment by P. — 22 September, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Andy to some degree you are correct in that i do think that a period of transition from downturn to advance is one in which the revolutionary left should hold its ground and not go in for opportunist adventures. That said opportunities should be taken when they present themselves but not at the expense of principle and Respect was from the beginning unprincipled.
Unprincipled in that it was aways going to be based on a cross class alliance between socialists and petty bourgeois elements. That many of the latter happened to be Muslim is of little real importance. What was essential was that Respect was based on this unprincipled alliance and worse yet was dominated by forces with no real respect for political democracy in the shape of Galloway on the one hand and the Rees-German clique on the other.
This dreadful error, of forming Respect, was deepened for the SWP by the lack of any real appreciation of the concept of what is and what is not a workers party. An error that meant that the SWP is unaware of how and when to go begin agitation for a new Mass Workers Party. (Similarly the SP does not understand when hence the moribund nature of its creature the CNWP). Instead collapsing into an electoralism so grotesque that not even the centrist mish mash of the Socialist Alliance was enough to contain it.
Comment by Mike — 22 September, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
“An error that meant that the SWP is unaware of how and when to go begin agitation for a new Mass Workers Party.”
could you expand on this? are you saying that the swp (and others) should not be in favour of creating a new broad workers’ party, and fight for it to adopt a socialist programme, but should just build the ‘revolutionary party’? anyway please explain as maybe i miss understand your point.
cheers,
ks
Comment by ks — 22 September, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
“The first and foremost aim of the leadership of the SWP is always to try to recruit people for the SWP and use them as they see fit and determine any discussion and debate from on high,which makes it very similar (though different) to the centralising and controlling instincts to New Labour, which also are a complete turn off for hundreds of thousands of acivists which is why they have left in their droves since 1997″
All that matters to the SWP is the SWP. When is in your political DNA that you are the vanguard of the class and that all others who are not part of the Party are potentially suspect then anything can happen. What was suprising to me is that the whole RESPECT project lasted so long with the SWP on board. It is ironic that the SWP are now bandying about allegations that they have been fending off about themselves for the past few years.
A split will happen sooner or later now that the SWP have decided to take the ball away.
Comment by PaulOK — 22 September, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
In reply to KS my point is that the SWP have no conception that with the decline of Labour as a party rooted in the working classes that there is an objective space in politics in which a party based on the exploited can be built. In fact their conception of ‘the party’ is purely ideological and ignores the need for the party to be based in the first instance on the class itself.
Which is why they could adopt the position of building a party that is NOT, in the first instance, based on the working classes but is inclusive of all classes but the big bourgeoisie. That party being respect and that startegy being a populist strategy.
By way of contrast the SP do understand the nned to base any new Mass Workers Party in the class itself even if they do not understand that unless the class is moving forward such a party cannot be built even when there is an objective political space for such a party. Which is why the CNWP is going nowhere fast.
Anyways I would suggest a reading of the writings of Engels around the time of the foundation of the ILP and the writings of Trotsky in 1938/39 when the possibility of building a new Mass Workers Party in the USA was a real one. Writings the SWP ignore and the SP misunderstand.
Comment by Mike — 22 September, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
“This dreadful error, of forming Respect, was deepened for the SWP by the lack of any real appreciation of the concept of what is and what is not a workers party. An error that meant that the SWP is unaware of how and when to go begin agitation for a new Mass Workers Party. (Similarly the SP does not understand when hence the moribund nature of its creature the CNWP). Instead collapsing into an electoralism so grotesque that not even the centrist mish mash of the Socialist Alliance was enough to contain it”
Indeed and what does this all mean? It’s all very well simply carping on and making sneering comments about other parties of the lEFT, different from your own point of view and politics but it doesnt make for a very informed or constructive debate and discusssion in terms of clearly defining an Socialist alternative to Brown’s neo-liberal New New Labour.
What is a workers party? What is your definition?
What is a new mass workers party? What is your definition?
The Socialist party’s campaign for a new worker’s party may not be all you want it to be but surely it is necessary to think about how The Left in all its complexity and differences and those sympathetic but not actively involved in the Left, can come together with all its strengths and weaknesses and create a viable alternative…have you been involved in creating anything better?
I have to say that the sneering comment about ‘the centrist mish mash of the Socialist Alliance” is plainly ridiculous.When you say ‘centrist’ what are you referring to exactly? or are you of the opinion that it was a worthless exercise and you dont value the massive amount of time,effort,patience,trust and cooperation that went into developing the Socialist Alliance,which started to break down decades of mistrust and yes hatred between various sections of the Left,otherwise know as sectrarianism in a multitude of forms.The Socialist Alliance brought together,albeit for a limited period of time but vitally important nevertheless,Left groups which hadnt talked to eachother for years nevermind be seen standing in the same room.
Such division was and never can be any basis for unity and for a time there was CONSTRUCTIVE discussion,albeit limited debate, but most importantly there was precious UNITY about what the various different 57 types of ‘Socialism’ could AGREE ON..
The lessons of the Socialist Alliance (which is still active in parts)and what its strengths and weaknesses were and the reasons for its demise should be discussed and reviewed in a positive light,so that such lessons are clearly learnt.A movement which seeks to change society needs to learn lessons so that the same mistakes are not repeated.For one it was far too white,male and SWP dominated…
Now I dont believe in the desperate efforts to reclaim the Labour party just as I dont have sufficient faith or trust in Respect as being the new left party due to the machinations of Galloway and the SWP.Personally I am interested in the ongoing discussion and clarification of the basis and foundation,the form,the content and crucially the fundamentally DEMOCRATIC process on which a broad coalition of the Left and beyond can UNITE to start to bring about a new Left party,which is fresh,tolerant,accessible,imaginative,vibrant,transparent,positive,hopeful,determined,intelligent,diverse,appealing,exciting,analytical,accountable,responsive,fighting,
creative,self reflexive,open,diverse,dynamic and yes caring, amongst a million and one other things.Where active members,groups and parties can genuinely pool their talents,creativitiy and resources and further develop vibrant alternative media which can start to challenge the domination of the airwaves by corporate crap and engage with the many not the few.In the process dissolve their animosity and distrust and grow to trust and develop a new confidence and political culture.
May be I’m dreaming but is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the Morning Star may one day be transformed into a genuinely relevant widely read,interesting and engaging fighting daily paper of the Left based on the vast array of journalistic talent and resourses contained within the diverse Left groups and parties from its presnt day largely limited,drab,dull paper thin sad CPB dominated reclaim Labour mantra. Is the Socialist Labour party beyond discussing and comunicating with other sections of the Left? Why does the WRP waste thousands of pounds every year bringing ut a daily newspaper which no body reads? How come Democracy now.org in the is alive and kicking in the states and there appears to be no real debate here about how we can create an similar type of left media here which could reach out to thousands.Isnt it hugely positive that Socialist Resistence have started to realise the enormity of the crisis we are living in and discuss eco-socialism and incorporate an immensely valuable and critical analysis of the Global ecological crisis as a consequence of the wholly unsustainable capitalist imperialist dominated world we live in,which we all face to varying degrees on a daily basis.
A Left party which can appeal and connect to people in a human way and which can encompass and embrace differences of opinion with tolerance but has a collective vision of a better future, a viable and sustainable Socialist future, because with the onset of Global climate chaos and without wanting to sound like some kind of horseman of the apocalypse, we actually really dont have much time left to repair the damage and get things right and continue to indulge the absolute luxury of having so many different ‘Left’ groups,parties and factions in competition with eachother.
We need to come up with solutions and new solutions and form new broad Green,feminist,anti racist,anti fascist,internationalist,social movement alliances,locally,nationally and internationally while further developing and strengthenning anti war, anti capitalist and anti imperialist alliances world wide which point to a viable and sustainable living and breathing transformation of the predominatly hideously selfish,greedy,individualist, conservative, neo-liberal capitalist,monarchist,imperialist society and World in which we live today,which is deeply ingrained by inequality and oppression,vast divisions based on class,gender,sexuality,race,disability and ability in a multiude of forms,to different way of living and working,a more cooperative,collective,caring society.It may not be revolutionary but it depends what one defines as revolutionairy.If a revolution were possible in todays Britain all well and good but at present I dont think the likelihood is very high. That is not to say that the system is in DEEP CRISIS it is.
But are the vast percentage of British people ever going to join a party of the so called Revolutionairy Left? No,I dont think so,not now not ever. We can makes as radical critiques of the world we live in,which is all very necessary but the task is to change it in relevant and necessary ways with mass support as is being discovered in Venezuela, where a clear majority of people living in grinding poverty finally decided enough was enough because they ultimately ‘didnt have much lose’,they saw the truth of neo-liberalism all to clearly and unmasked the beast and are now creatively building an Socialist alternative to the neo-liberal capitalist nightmare in alliance with other countries such as Cuba,Nicaragua,Bolivia,Ecuador and mass movements fighting back against US and British imperialism throughout Latin America.
Here in Britain in the imperialist heartlands many people,of the working class,perhaps a majority,who are doing ‘very nicely thank you’,coopted after nearly thirty years of neo-liberal capitalism,have a lot to lose with much invested in security and comfort irrespective of the appalling state of normalised division and inequality, work,jobs,housing,property,sex,tradition,history,identity,patriotism,
WAR,violence,status,power,class,domination,aspirations,personal lifestyle,celebrity bollocks,fame and fortunes,wealth,pensions,banks etc etc etc.
It is a very different situation and requires very different strategies for Socialist change and transformation.
Comment by P. — 22 September, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
http://foranewleftparty.blogspot.com/
you may be interested in my blog ‘p’
ks
Comment by ks — 22 September, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
News flash: It has now been confirmed that Gordon Brown while in a short moment of intimacy with Margaret Thatcher last week in No 10 has contracted blue tongue disease. While it has been well known for many years that Brown along with his former colleague Blair were both prone to indulging in a daily blue rinse, this is the first time that a serving Prime(mate)Minister has contracted the disease from a former Prime(mate) minister. He has been suitable medicated for the foreseeable future which basically means that his his longstanding daily dosage has been upped.
Comment by P. — 23 September, 2007 @ 12:02 am
P. in no sense is it legitimate to describe my comments above as ’sneering’. They were written with a deep feeling of sadness that the far left groups could engage in utterly futile and self destructive behaviours as they have exhibited over the past few years in their desperation to break out of isolation.
However…..
The fact is that the Socialist Alliance adopted a method of political action, electoralism, that was at a programtic level to the right of the majority of its constituent parts. Such a course of action cannot be described other than as a centrist fudge. The idea that it broke down sectarian barriers and developed a culture of trust as you suggest is total nosnse given the actions of both the SP and SWP. Not to mention the minnows for sake of good taste.
Anyways you ask what a workers party is. I can only answer that the answer lies in the question. Similarly your question as to what is a new Mass Workers Party surely answers itself? But following the views of Marx I would suggest that a workers party is one that stands against petty bourgeois nonsense such as feminism and greenery and adopts as its goal workers power.
Comment by Mike — 23 September, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Rohan: I am very happy to sdtand by my record in the labour movement, and have it compared to Salma’s (or anyone else’s). I know a reactionary bougeois politicain (Salma) when i see one…and also a fascistic hooligan (Galloway and Ger Francis). I am quite confident with my left-wing credentials, but I have to admit that if the day ever came when the likes of Galloway, Francis and Salma were to be recognised as “left-wing”, then I’d have to say “I am *not* left-wing”. But it will never happen, and these chalatans will be exposed for what they are.
I never thought I’d say it, but in the present dispute the SWP is on the left: galloway and co (including the truely pathetic Alan Thornett) are on the right.
Comment by Jim Denham — 23 September, 2007 @ 12:27 am
how mental! have you been drinking or something?
how is salma a ‘reactionary’?
i don’t know her, but i’d say she was surely more of a left-liberal?
i’m by no means a galloway supporter(!) but he is not a ‘fascistic hooligan’!
i’ve never met ger but my friends in birmingham have a low opinion of him. he may be a hooligan but i seriously doubt he is fascistic.
it’s this kind of hysterical name calling that makes awl look very stupid.
ks
Comment by ks — 23 September, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Salma is a bourgeois politician with *no* connection to the working class. When “Respect” collapses (as it will, very shortly), she will move on to the Lib dems, taking her brother’s business interests with her. Whether she chooses to remian linked to xxxxxxxxxx Ger francis, is another matter.All I can say is that then xxxxxxx Francis has tried to physically assault me before now, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
(I have edited out some personal abuse in Jim’ comment here - Andy)
Comment by Jim Denham — 23 September, 2007 @ 2:05 am
Both Salma Yaqoob and George Galloway’s documents show they are deluded by the notion that somehow Respect will be able to repeat its limited local successes at a General Election by a method of arithmetic growth, if only they can curb the sectarianism of the SWP.
It’s very likely that a General Election will be called within a month and the main attacks against workers’ living standards will take place once Brown is re-elected for another 5 years.
Respect will be very lucky to even retain one MP, but what’s more important is providing the organisation and policies which can recapture the 100,000+ people who have left Labour since 1997 and provide them with the politics necessary to fight back against the coming attacks.
Respect’s main problems are not simply organisational, but stem from its political programme and the methodology of a “left” electoral bloc.
I’d suggest people look soberly at the terminology being used by Salma Yaqoob in her document.
She speaks of a “progressive realignment”…”a coalition of individuals and organisations from quite divergent political backgrounds, but united against imperialism and neo-liberalism”.
This theme is repeated throughout the document and is clearly aimed at an electoral alliance which includes “people who remain tied to Labour or other parties such as the Greens”
No wonder that there’s a revived interest amongst members of the CPB in joining Respect, since this analysis is strongly echoes the traditional “Anti-Monopoly Alliance” of “Progressive Forces” contained in the “British Road to Socialism”.
The fact that the proposed coalition is described as anti-imperialist is its most positive feature, but this is certainly not a socialist programme.
Yet, as Chavez discovered in Venezuela, “neo-liberalism” is not simply a policy, which can be swapped for another one, while international capitalism continues to dominate the economy.
That’s why he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to form an organisation with an explicitly socialist programme.
Neither Salma Yaqoob or Galloway are proposing any such thing and, while it’s quite possible that she might continue to evolve to the left, relying on this happening is simply a policy of “waiting for lefty”.
The SWP leadership aren’t offering a clear-cut answer either.
An examination of their political line ever since the time they formed “Globalise Resistance”, shows that they share many of the same political assumptions as their current allies.
Since they effectively scuppered the Socialist Alliance, they have consistently blocked against those who defend an openly socialist organisation and labelled them “sectarian”.
The consequences of this policy of winning quick electoral success are now being played out in Respect. The biggest threat it faces is not so much electoral oblivion, but becoming so organisationally and politically diffuse that it fractures through lack of clarity in the face of political events.
The SWP leadership at least understands the dynamics of the current situation more clearly than its opponents, even if it hasn’t ditched the ideological baggage it has acquired in the past few years.
The Banking Crisis and Credit Crunch are clear indications that we face an unstable situation in the near future. Even if massive intervention by Bank of England has stemmed the worst effects of the Northern Rock collapse, it’s unlikely that the crisis in the banks will stop there. It’s entirely possible that intervening to save bankrupt banks will in fact, bankrupt the Exchequer.
Under the circumstances, what will be required is an Action Programme to meet the coming crisis which can be fought for in the unions, aimed at breaking with the policy of privatisation of industry, housing, transport and health which have dominated the economy under Thatcher and Blair.
That’s the real dividing line between the Brown, Cameron, Campbell and the Greens on one side and Socialists on the other.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 23 September, 2007 @ 10:00 am
“Under the circumstances, what will be required is an Action Programme to meet the coming crisis which can be fought for in the unions, aimed at breaking with the policy of privatisation of industry, housing, transport and health which have dominated the economy under Thatcher and Blair.”
That doesnt sound like a full-blooded socialist programme to me. A full-blooded socialist programme involves advocating a frontal attack on the political and economic power of the ruling class, their expropriation. ‘Break with the policy of privatisation’ is basically a defensive demand for an end to the neo-liberal attacks.
Which is correct, of course. We are not in a position to agitate for offensive, socialist demands for expropriation etc at this point. We can, however, agitate for an end to neo-liberal attacks, using the parliamentary platform as a means to strengthen the working class politically and lay the basis for future offensives. Hence the pitch of Respect’s agitation against the neo-liberal project and its attacks.
It’s strange to hear someone attack Respect for not advocating a bold socialist programme, only to turn round and themselves advocate an ‘action’ programe (i.e. a programme to fight for in the here and now) that is (a) itself not really ’socialist’, and (b) not that different from the thrust of Respect’s agitation.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 23 September, 2007 @ 10:24 am
“P. in no sense is it legitimate to describe my comments above as ’sneering’. They were written with a deep feeling of sadness that the far left groups could engage in utterly futile and self destructive behaviours as they have exhibited over the past few years in their desperation to break out of isolation.
However…..
The fact is that the Socialist Alliance adopted a method of political action, electoralism, that was at a programtic level to the right of the majority of its constituent parts. Such a course of action cannot be described other than as a centrist fudge. The idea that it broke down sectarian barriers and developed a culture of trust as you suggest is total nosnse given the actions of both the SP and SWP. Not to mention the minnows for sake of good taste.
Anyways you ask what a workers party is. I can only answer that the answer lies in the question. Similarly your question as to what is a new Mass Workers Party surely answers itself? But following the views of Marx I would suggest that a workers party is one that stands against petty bourgeois nonsense such as feminism and greenery and adopts as its goal workers power”
Comment by Mike — 23 September, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Thanks for the dialogue and reply Mike.Apologies for referring to your’sneering’ comments.I share your sadness and exasperation with how the Socialist party(formerly off shoot of Militant) and the SWP.
I also think again there is a great deal to learn from how the Scottish Socialist party came about and what then happened over the appalling Sheridan macho saga.
I do howver take exception to your sweeping statement that ‘feminism’ and ‘greenery’ are ‘petty bourgeois nonsense’. All these terms need to be clearly defined and different people from different perspectives define the same terms in diffferent ways.
Are saying that you dont think a marxist analysis of the global ecological crisis in which we all are living is not of any relevance or importance then I have to wonder what sort of planet you are living on.The Left cannnot afford to live in denial of the reality of this situation and stick its head in the ground …nor can it simply pay lip service to ‘the environment’ and think it will all be sorted out when the Revolution comes and the workers take power…!!!!
Similarly,it may not have occured to you that the majority of left groups are dominated by men, run by men, more specificllly white males and maybe that has some bearing on the way politics is conducted in a predominatly macho style. When you use the term ‘worker’ are you thinking of men or of women and men? Do you not consider that maybe the perilous state of many left groups reflects the fact that many women find Left politics very alienating because it is so male dominated and macho. The issues of POWER and the politics of equality,work,pay parity,domestic labour,sexual reproduction, child care,domestic violence,sexuality,sexual violence etc etc are vitally important issues which need to be addressed for “all” workers ,women and men.You sound like the 60’s never happened and dont seem to understand why the Womens movement came about nevermind why it was important for thousands of suffragettes,many of whom were Socialists fought to win the vote for which women were sytematically denied for so long.Of course there are different types of feminism and greens but personally I dont think it is important that the Left inscorporates both socialist/marxist feminist and green/ecological perspectives into its analysis amongst others.
In respect to the Socialist Alliance I am simply trying to illuminate what I thought were its “positive” aspects which surely is an achievement.It didnt change the world no.It did change ,albeit for a time ,the way some of ‘the Left’ related to eachother before it self combusted and of course we need to look at that closely.The rivalry between the SWP and the Socialist party and their MACHO machinations are an ongoing issue.
I never said that it broke down all sectarian barriers and it was some kind of all trusting love-in of left groups..it wasn’t but i do think some trust and some barriers were broken down and that is important because it shows that it is possile and that groups and mentalities can change to what extent is another question.If we dont believe in the possibilities of the Left overcoming their sectarian divides there what hope is there for any kind of realignment or future cooperation given the present situation/crisis on the Left and in terms of political representation etc etc.
I am very interested in your suggestions of ‘workers party and ‘new mass workers party’ but I fail to see how they speak for themselves.As it stands at the moment the terms are simply terms. Could you please expand on how these parties could come about and how they would be different and how they would be structured and what they would believe in.It is not self explanatory.
Your goal of WORKERS POWER is all very well but is it relevant or possible and what exactly do you mean by this?
Comment by P. — 23 September, 2007 @ 11:00 am
you may be interested in my blog ‘p’
ks
Thanks ks I have seen your blog and read it regularly and think it is a very creative and positive initiative.P
Comment by P. — 23 September, 2007 @ 11:02 am
And by the way, Galloway will be lining up with Widdecombe on the upcoming abortion debate.
Jamaat will like that.
Comment by tim — 23 September, 2007 @ 11:02 am
#53 I.D “It’s strange to hear someone attack Respect for not advocating a bold socialist programme, only to turn round and themselves advocate an ‘action’ programe”
I criticized “Respect” for not being a Socialist organisation. Something explicit in its “What we stand for” statement and in the comments made by Salma Yaqoob and Geo.Galloway in the documents on this site. I wasn’t criticizing it for not being in a position to implement Socialism.
Respect shares that problem with the SWP, SPGB and a host of other organisations which have the word “socialist” in their party name.
But I can’t see why it’s been necessary to drop the word (and the political objective), other than as an attempt to court non-socialist forces.
That seems to have been the motive at the time that the STWC was attracting millions of supporters onto the streets. Exactly the same method is used by Salma Yaqoob in her document.
But there’s no real evidence that this helped Respect recruit any more people as a result.
Until the majority of the working population are convinced of the need for Socialism and act on it, it will be necessary provide a programmatic bridge using immediate and partial demands,
That’s something that you and the SWP should still understand, maybe Salma Yaqoob doesn’t yet and perhaps Geo Galloway doesn’t want to.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 23 September, 2007 @ 11:43 am
It’s not ‘explicit’ in its ‘what we stand for’ that Respect is not a socialist organisation. It is ‘explicit’ in Respect’s consistution that Respect stands for a society based on common ownership and democratic control, which as far as I am concerned means it stands for a socialist society in terms of its objectives. If you want socialist rhetoric, I suppose the organisation that has so much of it that it comes out of its ears is the SPGB, but in reality it is meaningless verbiage coming from them.
I’m not very impressed with programmes of demands that allegedly act as a bridge, according to various schemas. Often in the past, the bridge has led various small organisations to the brink of lunacy and not much else. I would like to see a deepening of the understanding of socialism in the consciousness of our class, but in my view propagandist expositions of socialism, or various schemas of demands, are no subsitute for practical experience of struggles as the motor of a change in consciousness.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 23 September, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Well fair points may be. But never mind the past (except to learn the lessons), let’s concentrate on what we do now.
Practical experience of struggle is the motor for changes in consciousness may be but on its own that’s pretty abstract- so what do we do?
I suggest working class activists across Britain, including the socialist groups, drawing in the trade union rank and file, e.g. from RMT, FBU, drawing in ac tivists from Respect, from Labour left and actually organising for solidairty with the postal workers, with Karen Reissmann strike (herself a Respect member whose Unison mental health branch is involved in a militant fight against cuts and to defen her jpob against a witch-hunt-not that you’d know it from the website- actually it is buried there number 13 down the list), with Fremantle workers, Remploy, other struggles, migrant workers, antidpeortation cmapaigns etc.
This can and should be done- not primarily to fight an election or form a party but to connect struglges, raise support, act together.
Within such meetings it can be deabted and discussed where and when standing candidates in elections can aid this class struggle and to begin to win more people to the trade union movement and the possibility of a workers’ party.
Socialists should not do backroom deals- we are for open struggle. We stand for a scoiety run and managed by the working class with the capitalist fat cat robbers who tread on the faces of the poor, expropriated and treated as anyone else (once they’ve faced charges for the crimes many of them commit every waking second of their lives).
If some of our ideas are rejected by the democratic mass meeetings- fine. We’ll live with that and abide by the democratic decisions.
These are all pracitcal suggestions. I’m willing to participate in putting them into practice and getting union members, campaign members and political organisation members along to such meetings. E-mail me if interested whatnextsteps@yahoo.com
The question is who else is prepared to make such practical steps?
Comment by Jason — 23 September, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
So Salma when will Birmingham Respect, or any Birmingham Respect Councilllor, be pride of place on a Birmingham PRIDE event?
Comment by Anthony — 24 September, 2007 @ 5:17 am
There seems to be a great deal of confusion about what everyone seems to define as “Socialism”
Comment by P. — 24 September, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Anthony, Birmingham Respect has had a presence at Pride and you will see Birmingham leaflets specifically aimed at the event on the website.
Is this the same Mike who took the healyite/SLL approach towards a large demonstration in Cardiff against the invasion of Lebanon? He actually boasted that he went into town specifically NOT to attend the march, but instead laugh at it!
I’m don’t have Mike’s grasp of dialectics, but not sure how this advanced the goal of workers power? And his crass dismisal of central topics such as ecology and womens liberation as petty bourgeois is also quite Healyite.
To turn to his (slightly) more substantial point. He argues that revolutionaries should respond the state of play with New Labour by going ultraleft and building a mass revolutionary organisation.
As I see it, the current situation is not that the electorate has moved leftward abandoning reformism to move towards revolutionary politics. But rather that the reformist parties have moved rightward abandoing their traditional supporters.
The shift does present opportunities for revolutionaries to win sections of working people to revolutionary politics, but fundamentally I don’t think that the SWP can fill the vacuum left by the rightward shift of Labour.
A broad workers party built around concrete transitional demands and trade union struggles, fusing together movements that are in opposition to the status quo could provide a bridge to revolutionary politics for some workers, in the sense that unity in action around concrete demands enables revolutionaries to work alongside the most militant sections of reformists and push them towards revolutionary methods of mass struggle.
Face it, if the revolutionary left wasn’t building left alternatives to Labour like Die Linke, SSP, Left Bloc, Respect etc, all that would happen is that others would be building them, and the revolutionary left would be marginalised.
Comment by Adam J — 24 September, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Let’s get real….those sad lonely people/groups that a still thinking that there could be a Socialist Revolution in Britain and are working towards that goal, are living in cloud cuckoo land.It’s not going to happen!Britain is a massively wealthy and rich imperialist ‘conservative’ country, where under Prozac Prime minister BROWN the economy (for the moment apart from woopsy duckets like NORTHERN ROCK)is seen to be doing well, as are a large section of the British working class,many of whom it should be understood were won over by Thatcherite ideas in the eighties.
This is not like the situation in Latin America,Asia or Africa where millions live in grinding poverty while their countries resources are sysyematically looted by the local elite ruling class and by British and other multinationals and their cash crops and manufacturing bases produce cheap products to suit ‘our’ affordable and wealthy Western lifestyles at the expense of cheap sweatshop labour.’Our’ relative affluence is at the expense of someone else’s grinding poverty.
This country is deeply immersed in imperialist and capitalist ideology and perhaps a helpful touchstone for this is the huge support there still exists for the Monarchy and the Armed forces,which is not often discussed by active socialists as it reveals how deeply conservative and reactionairy many working and middle class people are in Britain.
If you are doing very well nicely thank you,I’m alright jack then you are likely to be only interested in any kind of politics which advances your wealth and greed,so that you can have two,three cars instead of one,two,three houses,two,three holidays instead of one and if think you that the likes of Beckham and Mourinho and other celebrity footballers etc etc deserve to be multi millionaire’s then there lies a huge problem.
This is not to say that many people are not doing well,dont have cars,houses,holidays or wealth in this society and dont exist impoverished living in poverty or working for poverty wages..they do,millions live and work in filthy and appalling working conditions(especially migrant labour) and on pitiful pensions, in the full sense of the word and an ever increasing wealth divides exists between and within classes.
Increasingly more people are alienated from the rotten and corrupt and profoundly undemocratic political system under which we live but again that doesnt necessarily lead to a political orientation towards the Left and Socialist ideas.They simply dont vote and often have no intertest in any politics or are being seduced by drugs,shopping or the racist fascism of the BNP and or nihilistic gang violence,crime and the very lucrative drugs scene,which is all the more reason why the Left needs to really get its act together and provide a clear and attractive Socialist alternative.
That said it still doesnt mean that it is necessarily the case that most people are to the Left of New Labour(which in the present circumstances would not appear to be hard)or are clearly opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is the line often touted by the likes of Tony Benn and Lindsey German…wishful thinking.
I simply believe that Socialists,however they define themselves,first and foremost need to make a very sober analysis of the situation we now find ourselves in and the possibility of change.
How do you win people over to the ideas of Socialism?
Comment by P. — 24 September, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Adam,
Mike doesn’t need me to stick up for him, as he is quite capable of doing so himself. But I don’t think his positioon is quite what you say - he recognises that there is no possibility of a mass revolutionary party. He is basically arguing for a small propaganda group - the danger for the SWP is that if Respect splits they may end up following the directions advoacted by Mike by default, now there is something to worry about!
Also the question of abstention from issues such as feminism, anti-imperialist stuff, is not so much Healyite, I would argue that in Mike’s case it is a continuation of the “workerist” tradiation of the IS - and in fac may have been the more healthy part of the IS tradiation, as opposed to Cliff’s party building.
Comment by Andy — 24 September, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
But back to the question in hand.
I think it is good that this debate is bringing up a recognition of the fact that the left is very marginal at the moment. We need a very sober assessment of what has changed in the outside world.
We cannot seek to infleunce mass politics unless we start with the actually existing level of political consciousness and organisation.
Comment by Andy — 24 September, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
I was drawing a parallel with the SLL who infamously attended the 1968 Grosvenor Sq demo to hand out leaflets explaining why they weren’t marching - with Mike boasting that he went into Cardiff City Centre last summer not to attend the large demonstration against Israel’s destruction called by the local Stop the War Coalition but to specifically jeer and laugh from the sidelines.
A very effective marxist tactic?
Comment by Adam J — 24 September, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
I’m afraid to say that I have never read Marx or Engels, have never had long discussions about “dialectics” or differing brands of socialism. What I do know is that I am a semi educated blue collar worker with a large family who lives in a council house, and that I believe in free education and public sevices, equality between people of different races, religions, genders and sexual orientation, an end to expansionist and imperialist wars, a strong democracy with an equal say for all, etc, etc. So at polling time what do I do? I am often not even given the choice of three candidates at the ballot box, let alone someone I might actually support.
So, I joined RESPECT, and worked to raise their profile and the profile of the issues I beleive in. Wioth reasonable success, having stood candidates in the local elections and gaining 10%. I am not a member of the Socialist Worker Party, nor am I ever likely to be. I am not a revolutionary, a “Trotskyite”, a “Stalinist” or any other label that people may care to throw around. I am simply working for what I believe in, issues which it seems to me that most of the people here also share a common belief. It amazes me that these shared common beliefs and the obvious danger facing the country and the people from the policies of New Labour are still not enough to unite people in a common organisation to electorally stand up to the establishment parties and provide a real alternative.
If you don’t like the way RESPECT is run, then join and change it. Remember the old saying, which is as true now as it ever was,
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
Comment by Dan — 24 September, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
“We cannot seek to infleunce mass politics unless we start with the actually existing level of political consciousness and organisation.”
Hope you dont mind me using your quote Andy but I just want to use it to expand on the very valid and positive point you made.
From where I’m sitting I try to gauge a sense of of political consciousness and help develop it as best I can ,of course,depending on the extent to which I can identify with the actual politics which is why website’s and blogs and other forms of mass media are crucial to help support and develop an alternative awareness and consciousness about issues,different viewpoints and discussions,critiques of the prevailing dominant ideology of capitalism.
All too often I feel ‘the Left’ in all its weird and not so wonderful 59 varieties either at best forgets or simply neglects the importance of how to communicate,through thoughtlessness,poor organisation,lack of imagination or creativity and at worst activiely prevents the development of ideas through operating in a bullying confrontational style,preventing real discussion and debate where consciousness can and could grow and develop eg how many dull,boring conferences have we all been to where there really is no discussion and if there is then its from the platform with the panel of ” experts” saying the same old things eg Marxism…a great opportunity for discussion and debate as touted by the SWP and creative thought you would think but somehow(in my experience at least) all that positive energy and thought among interested participants goes untapped as they dont or anrent really allowed to express themselves and there own thoughts becuase they intent of the organisers is to allow for limited discussion with the proviso that the party line is given pride of place and is not really up for debate and discussion.
Similarly ‘the Left’ is very good at producing a mass of writing and papers galore but who reads them? Even if they can ever get hold of copy other than on a march(which,I would hazard a guess, most people never go on or experience) occasional street corner or in a shopping.The vast percentage of the British public(I would hazard another guess) have never heard of most left groups nor read a left paper I would imagine.The Morning Star ‘used to be’ in many papershops near where I live.Two copies only.No one ever buys the other copy or if they do then you are very curious as to who it is.Most peoplenever even ntotice it. Most shop assistants ask what it is and often think its a freebie and cant believe you pay 60p for it.
Now ‘if’ we had a genuinely attractive and yes, well marketted/publicised sizeable non sectarian Left daily newspaper newspaper,combining all the best talents and qualities of left journalism,style,and design,culture ,politics,arts,media,sport etc which used the format for stimualting debates,far more so than does happen within the MS at present.Obviously there are huge problems of financial resources and distribution involved.And without wanting to sound sectarian who is ever going to believe in a Communist party in Britain ever again.I would say that most people’s(uninvolved in Left politics..what do we mean by Left politics?) idea of Socialism has been clconditioned by ‘the media’ and they equate Socialism with Stalism and what happened in the USSR and Eastern Europe and to some extent how ‘the media’ present Cuba.Interestingly the case of Venezuela is a bit more problematic though of course their is a huge effort to present Chavez as a vicious dictator etc etc.
I am not making any new revelation other than to say that we all have a consciousness,most of the time we are saturated by class,racism,sexism, consumerism,the importance of wealth,fame and fortune and celebrity bollocks etc etc capitalist and imperialist idedeology on a daily basis and are consciously kept in ignorance of knowledge,events,our history,our culture by misinformation,disinformation or ommission (ie ignorance).
What we,the Left, need to do much more if we were able to be more focussed and raise whatever resourses is create more creative accessible forms of media like Democracy Now.org,like Telesur in Latin America,like community media in Venezuela or Australia or the US,like Znet,like Venezuela anlysis.com,so we can reach out to more people and present discussions and debates involving people whose voices and experiences arent usually heard eg Strikers ,migrant workers,marginalised perspectives,left critiques of the mass media presentation od news,etc,stories.
More and better interactive well designed websites,e newsletters,videos,films,songs,radios,tv,theatre,design,graphics,posters,leaflets but less bloody papers.
Comment by P. — 24 September, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
well I am not a RESPECT fan, ok I am biased being in another political party and remain like most of us sceptical about Galloway and the SWP but I was impressed by the following from Salma
‘If I wanted to pander to conservative pressure inside the Muslim community, appearing on Question Time and opposing the imposition of Islamic dress on women, opposing the criminalisation of women in the sex industry, or opposing homophobia in the local media, would not exactly be the best way to go about it!’
She deserve credit for articulating Islam and values of liberation, a combination which is more common than most of seem to be aware
Comment by Derek Wall — 25 September, 2007 @ 12:33 am
More and better interactive well designed websites,e newsletters,videos,films,songs,radios,tv,theatre,design,graphics,posters,leaflets but less bloody papers…actually we need more FOCUSSED ENERGY CREATIVITY AND IMAGINATION far less ANAL DOGMA and hot air,more music les moaning,less diatribes more dynamics,more images,huge images,brighter banners,focussed photos and less rants as well as if you get the chance to intervene in the BBC,local radio,the Labour party conference then do it…Apparently they now test Labour party delegates “tongues” on entry into the conference centre in Bourne…mouth and if it’s blue then your in and if its red your out.
Someone should have told have told Gordon Brown not to get too close to Thatcher,it’s not right,he was was bound to catch something really nasty, there again the poor dear hasnt been well for quite awhile
NEEDED at The “Labour” not New Labour unless you’re Mandelson Conference.One Norman Willis(Is he still alive or was he ever?)plus white piano in duet with Neil Kinnock or better still Bill Clinton for one night only.
Didn’t Gordon just have them reeling in the aisles?
Comment by P. — 25 September, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Comment 64 “I simply believe that Socialists,however they define themselves,first and foremost need to make a very sober analysis of the situation we now find ourselves in and the possibility of change.
How do you win people over to the ideas of Socialism?”
Good question- certainly no one recently has had much success.
I like Dan’s slogan post 68 United We Stand, Dvided We Fall- (though he then links it with a plea to join Respect).
We should be united in action, for example in support of the postal workers, against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, having imaginative exciting community based campaigns- these can be very plural and very democratic. We don’t have to agree on the politics but unite around action for a specific goal.
The working class could have stopped the war against Iraq; we can win future battles; but getting there is very difficult.
The left is very marginal at the moment as several posters have argued. I’m nt sure if there’s any way round pointing to the fact that when people begin to organise- sometimes just on a very local level they can win for example at Haggerston School http://permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1577 also not entirely by coincidence one of the schools to come out on strike against the Iraq war.
How do we begin to build socialist consciousness? From small modest victories, learning our own power and socialists being explicit that working class ordinary people do have the creativity, brains and talents to run our own lives, workplaces , communities. If we really want a a Britain, a world, with all the talents then let’s have real democracy.
That’s all socialsits are arguing for. Some- for example the SWP- seem to imply that this is beyond the ken or understanding of ordinary people that revolution, workers’ militia etc put people off. But actually if you argue for society and workplaces being run democratically with workers’ and service users’ representatvies then is this so frightening? If you say we support the right of soldiers to refuse to obey illegal orders and to organise for their own safety in the army and support the right of communities to be able to defend themselves is this so alienating? I don’t think so. But if people don’;t support it yet fine- no one is forcing them to. Let’s keep the unity in action, whilst disagreeing on ideas.
If or when the left or any new organisation is organised openly/ democratically on the basis of mass meeetings then it would be time to join and imlore everyone to join. It doesn’t sound like such a big ask to me. I’m certainly prepared to put work into it.
Comment by Jason — 25 September, 2007 @ 2:27 am
I have great respect for Salma. However, I think she glosses over a key point made by the SWP CC statement “The Record: the SWP and Respect”. I am referring to the 2007 Birmingham Respect council selections. If Salma is committed to ensuring that there should be a gender and ethnic balance in lists of candidates presented to the electorate, then why did she not use her considerable political influence in Birmingham Respect to ensure that there was such a balance of candidates to choose from in the first place–in all the wards? Standing a list of 7 middle aged Pakistani men in city experiencing racial tensions between Asians and black people was a bit of an own goal, don’t you think? It played into the hands of the Right who claim that Respect is “just a Muslim party”. Why
did Salma not do everything possible to assist the lone, white SWP woman? The reformist’s antipathy to the SWP? Despite all the donkey work done by the SWP?
Suggesting, as an after thought, that an SWP woman might still stand in another ward won’t wash I’m afraid. It sounded like damage limitation after the event.
1) why were there not strenuous efforts made to ensure that women and other ethnic groups were nominated in all 7 wards in the first place–as was the case in 2006?
2) Standing in yet another ward would have gone against the sensible principle of concentrating forces in a few constituencies.
Salma says that Respect should not become the property of a single organisation–referring to the SWP. Very true. Doesn’t the same apply to ethnic communities and genders too? Electoral success brings with it opportunist careerists–from all communities–who will try to jump on the bandwagon. New blocs of members being signed up in the week of elections etc. etc.
Salma talks about “SWP control freakery”. Yet ex-SWP member Jerry Hicks informs us that only 2500 of the SWP’s total membership of 6000 were members of Respect. If the SWP had really wanted to control and dominate Respect then all 6000 would have been instructed to become members of Respect and they could have completely swamped the brnaches–it is, after all, a disciplined, Leninist party which can make that demand of its memebership if it so wishes. Why didn’t it? In view of the fact that it did not, what price “SWP control freakery” in Respect?
The SWP say that its approach to united front work always leads it to be a minority, e.g. on the National Council, but also in terms of membership And one reason for the way the slate system was devised was precisely to avoid an SWP majority.
If the truth be known, it was not “SWP control freakery” that was a problem in Respect. Rather, it was narrow, sectarian antipathy towards the SWP by rival far left organisations jealous of their numerical strength (e.g ISG), opportunist careerists, backward male chauvinists and bigots. And last, but not least, reformists such as Galloway and Salma who were worried that the SWP might win the arguments at the conference for a mix of class struggle methods of struggle alongside electoral methods rather than old Labour electoral cretinism.
And no I am not an SWP member. I don’t agree with their theories of state capitalism and deflected permanent revolution. And I think their notion of democratic centralism is too centralist for this political time and context. In a period like the present, I would emphasise more the democratic side. The SWP’s problem in a nut shell is that it is not Trotskyist ENOUGH.
I have been impressed by the incredible amount of work that the SWP have put in to Respect, the StWC and the fight against the BNP. I will try to work with people on both sides of the split which is an absolute disaster for which Salma and Galloway must accept most of the blame by undermining the conference.
Life of Brian episode 99.
Comment by Chris Edwards — 7 November, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
A Reply to Salma Yaqoob’s “Challenges to Respect”
8th November 2007.
Salma begins by saying the it is “imperative that the internal political culture inside Respect is one that is at ease with difference and pluralism and not threatened by it.” She later says: “we need to encourage an internal culture that is far more inclusive and participative.” Later still she says “ Is it the case that we convey the impression that Respect is dominated by a single organisation? If so what can we do about it.”
She does not mention the name of the organisation. But we can surmise that it is the organisation that for the past six years has been perhaps the key driving force behind the most successful anti-war movement in living memory–the Stop the War Coalition. It is also the organisation that managed to get one of its members elected as a councillor on an anti-war ticket– Micheal Lavallette–who stood as a Socialist Alliance Against the War candidate—long before Salma (or George) was elected on a similar basis.
Salma is talking about the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Her inclusivity does not apparently extend to tolerance of the SWP. Perhaps she does not like the revolutionary socialist agenda of the SWP, being a reformist herself? Perhaps she does not like the SWP’s emphasis on class struggle? Does she wants Respect to stick to old Labour electoral cretinism?
It does not occur to Salma that one of the reasons why some Respect branches are composed almost only of SWP members is narrow, muddle-headed, sectarian antipathy towards the SWP resulting from the fact that they are revolutionary socialists? This hostility is evident in the post-reformist Labour left, the egoistic trades union bureaucracy, the Islamophobic Greens and among incorrigible sectarian outfits like the Socialist Party and other far left organisations. The list is lengthy. While the SWP is willing to work with others, others are not willing to work with it for a variety of sectarian political reasons.
While arguing for inclusivity, pluralism and participation, Salma goes on to reject “factionalism”: “If we cannot manage our differences in a non-factional manner, we have no hope of being the pole of attraction to those disaffected with Labour…” This is simply wrong. There is a contradiction here. Everyone wants unity and harmony in political life where possible. And comradely relations and elementary respect and courtesy are qualities to be encouraged. Civility costs nothing. However, it is simply not realistic, and in fact downright undemocratic, to deny the right to factional struggle.
Disagreements–at times sharp and heated–and political differences over political principles, strategy, tactics political assessments, judgement-calls, etc. etc. are normal, inevitable and actually an indication of a lively, healthy internal life in a political party or coalition. Stuff happens. People—even anti-war activists—are human: rows, squabbles, bust ups, personality clashes, fallouts over personal conduct, petty jealousies and psychological insecurities all contribute—whether we like it or not—to the internal life of a political organisation. The challenge is to draw out and elucidate the real, important political issues and separate them from the apolitical static.
Factionalism—the right to organise internally to struggle, in an orderly way, for what one thinks is politically vital–is good. It is healthy. And it needs to be openly recognised and institutionalised in the party constitution. Different schools of thought need to be represented on leading bodies in proportion to the votes they receive at national conference. That is the best way to avoid splits. It is the suppression of factional struggle that is unhealthy. The SWP’s internal regime has problems in this regard, but the other strengths of the SWP have to be taken into account as well. Its dedication and commitment to the anti-war movement has been second to none. Politics is a dynamic phenomenon characterised by the clash of ideas externally, between parties, and also internally within parties.
Politics is a struggle. It can at times be a very rough, bruising business. “I am a short swordsman in Spartacus’ army. I am surrounded by Caesar’s legions here,” said George in Parliament during his recent suspension “hearing”. George is an old hand, a tough, experienced political operator who can give as good as he gets and understands that politics is at times a bloody business. And he has now turned his guns on the SWP. Likewise the SWP, in order to survive in the fractious world of British left politics, has learned to fight its corner when it is under political fire. There ought to be a more comradely approach to one’s allies, you might think, but when rows develop, as they do, people’s toes can get trodden on, overly sensitive feelings can get hurt and egos bruised. That is the reality of politics. A thick skin is necessary. However much we might wish for the internal culture of Respect to be fluffy and harmonious, this is simply a denial of the reality of human political relations. It is not a question of seeking disunity and encouraging or worshipping factionalism for the sake of it, but of recognising that it is a necessary requirement at certain times of political crisis. Allowing the right to form factions and “oppositions” is a way of relating to each other in a civilised way—with each side formally acknowledging the political differences. People need to have the right to organise to defend themselves and their point of view when they think important issues are at stake.
Salma complains of “unpleasant allegations”, “misrepresentations” being a “bad advertisement” for Respect. Political discussion, rows and bust-ups frequently involve this kind of thing. It is universal. We may lament the fact, but it happens in all parties–not just the left parties. Salma has every right to defend herself when she thinks she is being misrepresented. However, internal ructions are not unique to Respect and the development of a political crisis and a bruising political bun fight is no worse an advertisement for Respect than it is when it happens in other political parties. Outside onlookers know this sort of thing happens from time to time in all parties. It is entirely unremarkable. What is actually damaging and a bad advertisement is a premature, unnecessary split before a conference has been held. Before the whole of the membership has been given a chance to try to resolve the issues. People see these kinds of unnecessary splits on the left as yet another episode in The Life of Brian. That is what is really damaging.
What are the origins of political differences within left organisations? Some arise from the conflicting class forces within the party—usually via pressure from powerful political forces outside the party which create political confusion within the ranks and sometimes even within the elected party leadership. Left parties do not exist in a vacuum. There are powerful reactionary class influences surrounding them. A current example: Islamophobia in the Green Party.
Another source of conflict arises from the different class and ethnic origins and life experiences of party members. The patronising “know it all” over-confidence associated with some (not all) comrades from middle and upper class backgrounds—e.g. professionals and intellectuals. The insecurities and lack of confidence of some people from working class and other oppressed backgrounds. Geographical location can also be a source of friction: the North-South regional economic and cultural divide and the metropolitan/provincial dichotomy (evident in Respect at this time).
Accepting the ideas of socialism and the need for organised activism does not automatically dissolve the habits and modes of conduct acquired by party members during their upbringing in vastly different social, ethnic and educational backgrounds. They do not disappear overnight when comrades take out a party membership card. These left-overs from a comrade’s past often linger in their conduct either consciously or unconsciously. These can be a source of friction within left organisations. An organisation composed mainly of students and intellectuals can become uninhabitable for working class people and other oppressed social and ethnic groups unless these problems are openly recognised and addressed. People have to be made conscious of the importance of personal conduct towards other comrades from different backgrounds. The opposite problem is often found in blue collar trades unions—contempt for “middle class lefties.” The British radical left has traditionally had an overwhelmingly white membership—non-whites have been vastly under-represented. Respect has broken that mould as a result of the recent wars and the attacks on the Muslim community, but it has so far failed to make inroads into the Afro-Caribbean community.
The task in the present Respect crisis is to assess accurately the importance, the decisiveness or otherwise, of the disputes. This can only be done properly at a national conference. Salma’s document appears to be an attempt to talk up the issues, make mountains of a molehills, in advance of the conference. That is a pity because there is a lot at stake if Respect splits without giving the membership the chance to debate the issues calmly and rationally.
Comment by Chris Edwards — 8 November, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
proud with you, so i interest to follow you way
081327032151 Indonesia
Comment by Arfinali — 25 August, 2008 @ 4:10 am
FROM:AMINA AND AHMED HASSAN
TELE/ 0022505393038
(amina_hassan1985@yahoo.com)
DEAREST ONE,
ASSALAM ALAIKUM AND MAY THE PEACE OF GRACIOUS ALLAH BE WITH YOU. PLEASE I HAVE A PROBLEM WHICH WE NEEDED A HELP FROM YOU. WE HAVE DECIDED TO WRITE YOU FOR HELP. WE HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR YOU. HOWEVER IS NOT MANDATORY NOR WILL I IN ANY MANNER COMPEL YOU TO HONOUR AGAINTS YOUR WILL. WE ARE IN A STATE OF DELINMA AND YOUR PROFILE PUSHED US TO SEND YOU THIS MAIL.
MY FATHER WAS ONE OF THE MINISTERS OF JOHNNY PAUL KOROMAH’S REGIME IN SIERRA-LEONE.DURING THE INTERVENTION OF THE ECOMOG SOLDIERS TO RESTORE THE PRESIDENCY OF ALHJI TEJAN KABBAH FROM JOHNNY KOROMAH, MY FATHER AND MY MOTHER WAS AMONG THE 23 EXECUTED MINISTERS.
BUT BEFORE THE DEATH OF MY FATHER THERE WAS A DEPOSIT OF USD12…5 MILLION MADE BY MY LATE FATHER IN ONE OF THE FINACIAL BANK IN COTE D’IVOIRE. BUT MY CONDITION AND POSSIBILITIES MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO APPROACH ANY PERSON FOR RECOMMENDATION.
EVER SINCE THEN WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING HELP FROM OUR CAMP BECAUSE WE ARE STAYING IN REFUGES CAMP. I HOPE YOU WILL BE TOUCHED TO UNDERSTAND MY REQUEST. I WILL LIKE YOU TO PROVIDE OR LOOK FOR A LUCRATIVE VENTURE WHERE THIS MONEY CAN BE INVESTED ON TOGETHER WITH YOU. WE HAVE AGREED TO INVEST OUR MONEY VIABLE IN ANY OVERSEAS COUNTRY THROUGH YOUR ASSISTANCE AND DIRECTIVES.
BEFORE PROCEEDING WE WILL GET TO BE MORE FAMILIAR AND ALSO GO INTO AN UNDERSTANDING WORKING AGREEMENT BECAUSE OUR FAMILY’S FUTURE NOW DEPENDS ON THIS VERY MONEY. WE HAVE AGREED TO GIVE YOU 20% OF THE TOTAL SUM OF USD12.5 MILLION FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE TO US.
WE SINCERELY WISH TO INTRODUCE AND MAKE YOU OUR BUSINESS PARTNER AND ADVISORY CONSULTANT OF OUR PROPOSED INVESTMENT IN YOUR COUNTRY. SO IF YOU CAN BE ABLE TO ASSIST US PLEASE DO URGENTLY REPLY US SO THAT WE WILL LINK YOU FOR FURTHER DETAILS, AND DON’T FORGET TO GIVE US YOUR PRIVATE TELEPHONE NUMBERS WHILE REPLYING
THIS LETTER.
I AM IN A SINCERE DESIRE OF YOUR HUMBLE ASSISTANCE IN THIS REGARDS. YOUR SUGGESTION AND IDEAS WILL BE HIGHLY REGARDED.NOW PERMIT US TO ASK YOU THESE FEW QUESTIONS./
1. CAN YOU HONESTLY HELP US AS YOUR CHILDREN?
2.CAN WE COMPLETELY TRUST YOU?
3.WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT IN QUESTION WILL BE GOOD FOR
YOU AFTER THE MONEY IS TRANSFERD TO YOUR ACCOUNT? PLEASE CONSIDER
THIS AND GET BACK TO US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THANKS AND BEST REGARDS
MY SINCERELY REGARDS
AMINA HASSAN AND BROTHER AHMED
Comment by FROM:AMINA AND AHMED HASSAN — 11 October, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
looks like a buiness venture for George!!
Comment by ll — 11 October, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
What a piece of detritus sad little ll is. Do you write for the Daily Mail by any chance, or is it the Sun?
Comment by sadder and sadder — 11 October, 2008 @ 11:42 pm