No alternative?
Some reports of the Respect National Council meeting on 29 September suggest that an amicable compromise was agreed and that all is well. That was not the impression given at the SWP’s Party Council meeting held the following day.
Over 200 delegates gathered in central London for the meeting, the core of the SWP’s cadre from across the country. On arrival we received a document containing all the main documents so far published in the Respect debate – from the SWP Central Committee, John Rees/Elaine Graham Leigh, George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob and Alan Thornett/John Lister, plus (for good measure) a view from the SWP in Ireland (an uncontroversial piece agreeing with the British leadership). This was the first time the party had circulated the non-SWP documents, though clearly many members would have seen them on various left websites.
Unfortunately it quickly became clear that this was not a meeting for examining the complexities of this debate. It was a case of: which side are you on? (I believe Chris Harman put it in those exact terms). Pat Stack announced from the chair that after the debate, the meeting would vote on the CC and Rees/Graham Leigh documents. No amendments would be accepted. (And clearly no alternative documents could be heard, since no agenda had been issued and no call for such alternatives had been made.) As usual, the CC speaker who introduced the debate (Rees) had twenty-five minutes to elaborate the CC’s position, while everyone else had four minutes, making it difficult to present a coherent case.
However, there certainly was a debate. It lasted over three hours and a number of long standing members opposed the CC position in forceful terms. The CC line amounted to this: Galloway had launched an attack on the SWP and attempted to split it. There was a left/right battle being fought out in Respect and on the right were Galloway and his allies, some of whom were in danger of succumbing to communal politics. The electoral achievements of Respect had led to these pressures and dangers and the SWP had to counteract them and defend the idea of Respect as a “united front of a special type”.
Now this is a remarkable turnaround. In the first years of Respect, the SWP leadership would countenance no public criticism of Galloway. Indeed, at meetings on Respect at the Marxism event, John Rees introduced Galloway in such terms that I half expected him to descend from heaven rather than walk in the door. But now it is open season – every long suppressed criticism is coming out and being used to justify the CC’s new line. Equally, if anyone used the term “communalism” in relation to Respect a few years ago, they were denounced as sectarians and Islamophobes. Now the CC itself is using the term to attack its opponents in the coalition.
The truth of course is that there has been no sudden lurch in Galloway’s politics. He has always been in some senses a contradictory figure for the radical left. He was not an angel when we agreed to form Respect with him and he is not a devil now that the SWP has fallen out with him. He remains a consistent opponent of war, imperialism and racism yet I still scream inwardly (to avoid people staring) when he defends his appearance on Big Brother.
The reason that the SWP lurches from one extreme position to another is rooted, I believe, in its method of work; in a lack of openness and a stunted democratic structure within the party. The (lack of) coverage of this debate in Socialist Worker is one example. To date, there has been one wholly inadequate report following the Respect NC statement which mentioned that some people were ready to write Respect’s obituary but failed to make any reference to the participants in, or terms of, the debate. Anyone whose only source of information on the subject was SW must surely have been rather confused.
When the whole future of Respect is at stake, surely that is worth mentioning in Socialist Worker? The debate about what type (special or otherwise) of party or coalition we need is not one to conduct behind the backs of SW readers, Respect members or potential members. Nor, within the SWP, can the debate be properly held when only the CC documents are put to a national meeting on a “take it or leave it” basis. When Gordon Brown says the only vote Labour members will have is to say yes or no to the manifesto before an election, we do not accept that it is an adequate expression of democracy in the Labour Party, and we should not accept it in our own organisation. Had other documents been invited, we could have heard the alternative view at greater length, and I got the feeling there was much more that could have been said by those opposing the CC position.
The SWP will not split over this. Some of the members – well known cadre, I might add - who were arguing against the CC were criticised in very strong terms and I can only guess what their intentions might be. Despite the chair saying that everyone who opposed the CC line would be called to speak, at least a couple of us were not, but that would not have altered the overall balance in the debate. The bulk of SWP members seem happy to go along with the view that this is a left/right battle and they know which side they’re on. There is a tendency for dubious contentions to be seized upon and repeated until you believe them. The SWP’s style of polemic is not its finest feature.
As for my intentions, I have been an SWP member for 17 years, but frankly I’ve had enough. This is a bit of a wrench for me, since I feel that I learnt the core political ideas and principles that I hold from the SWP. But for some years I have felt my belief in the good things that the party does being qualified by frustrations at its practises and methods. I agreed with many of the points made by John Molyneux when he challenged the CC at conference a couple of years ago (and was disappointed to see him backing the leadership so fulsomely at the weekend), but his words went unheeded. I have come to realise that without a more open and democratic approach, it will never be the party it wants to be; the party the radical left needs. I will stay in Respect and align myself with those who want an inclusive, democratic party that fights for peace, justice, equality and socialism.
Is this the same Nick Bird?
Andy, I bet that the WW/CPGB crowd are pissed at you and Liam for nicking their main selling point.
Comment by Darren — 2 October, 2007 @ 5:01 am
Have Respect selected in Gethnal Green yet?
Galloway,by the way, told Talksport of his “candidacy” months ago.
Comment by tim — 2 October, 2007 @ 7:46 am
It’s the pseudo democracy of this type of “debate” that is so unappealing. In other political traditions it is customary for each side to be given equal speaking and reply times, equal access to resources to produce documents and for amendments to be permitted in order to allow a synthesis (or compromise) to emerge.
Comment by Liam — 2 October, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Interesting article. Glad to hear there are some who stop to question within the SWP. I’m interested in what John Molyneux said in the past.
If any one can fill us in on what he said at conference a few yuears ago I would be most appreciative.
The SWP?..What are they like eh ? bless their cotton socks, the loves! When will it ever learn ?…WELL THEY WONT! Thankfully some have and some will.
Comment by P. — 2 October, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Yes Darren, it is the same Nick Bird.
It is worth saying that Nick is a very capable socialist and PCS activist, and would therefore a great loss to the SWP - he is exactly the type of comrade who thinks for himslef and is prepared to speak up when he thinks the party is making a mistake. In most political organisations that would be considered an asset!
Comment by Andy — 2 October, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Interesting article from Nick.
I can vouch for what Andy says as well - I used to buy SW from Nick in my home town of Lowestoft when I was younger, good bloke.
cheers
Paul
Coventry
Comment by Paul Hunt — 2 October, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Paul
Did you know Ian Stewart as well?
Comment by Andy — 2 October, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Just seen this over at LIam Mac uaid’s blog:
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/respect-the-swp-view/
The relevent sections from the SWP’s internal mailing “Party Notes”
“Last Sunday’s Party Council was a serious meeting about Respect which overwhelmingly endorsed the strategy and political direction the CC has pursued.
John Rees led off the discussion on Respect. The general line he took was based around the two documents - the CC document, and John Rees and Elaine Graham Leigh’s statement to the Respect NC (both sent out with Party Notes over the last few weeks).
A wide ranging debate took place and those who disagreed were encouraged to contribute.
At the end of the session on Respect, both documents were voted on and both documents were carried overwhelmingly with only two comrades voting against.
206 delegates attended Sunday’s Party Council, although observers did not attend this meeting, 3 comrades who disagreed with the general line put by the CC did attend as observers.
Every branch should organise a second half report back on the Party Council.
Respect NC
The Respect National re-call Council took place last Saturday. Comrades tell me that because minds were seriously focused on the possibility of a snap general election the meeting was constructive. Despite saying that he had quit the Respect NC, George Galloway did attend and said that he was considering standing at the next general election.
Sadly George Galloway and another Respect NC member continued to snipe at the SWP in the meeting. This was not popular amongst the middle ground of Respect. The overwhelming mood of the Respect NC was for unity.
Lindsey’s motion on the national organiser was carried unanimously with only one minor amendment made.
The other key debate at the NC was over the question of how many candidates to stand if there is an early election. Some members of the NC argued that we should only stand a few, others believe we should stand in a lot of places This is a difficult question that requires further thought and discussion Comrades should contact John Rees to talk about their area.
The united position that came out of the Respect NC is welcome. But it is clear that the political tensions are still there.”
Comment by Andy — 2 October, 2007 @ 11:57 am
andy, not that i can remember although i may remember the face. mainstays were nick, rupert mallin, steve mynott and martin palmer who i can’t quite remember the name of. someone i played football with at school had an uncle who started selling the weekly worker and simultaneously entered the local labour party at the same time - this also coincided with the arrival of an interesting bloke called steve m, which caused a stir on the lowestoft left, and then the same steve left the town under a cloud. although i was only in town a few times a year by then so not sure what the left is like now.
good people and committed to socialism
Comment by Paul Hunt — 2 October, 2007 @ 11:59 am
not just an ‘interesting’ comment but an honest, useful and important one, nick. thanks for letting people know in this way.
as usual, there is no exaggeration or re-writing history here. galloway is the same galloway. it was the swp who were at fault in denying their own socialism to support him (dreadful apologia speeches in favour of him not having to live off a workers wage, or why libertarian commitments had to be ditched - right back to the founding event in early 2004) - and more at fault for denying the rest of the socialist left the ability to participate in any meaningful way.
in the longer term, this may just be the turn of the wheel - swp reverting to more isolationist position, industrial action, no rank-and-file stuff - but this time the whole of the left has been weakened (including the swp) and there is no happiness to be taken from developments.
and nothing has been learnt about how to work together across the left. i think that is what we should still, all, be aspiring towards.
Comment by john nic — 2 October, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
If the SWP is willing to lose extremely capable and intelligent activists like Nick, they’re playing a stupid game.
My views on the SWP are known and I’ve never understood how all the very best activists I know have found themselves enslaved to a deranged organisation, especially when they have so many reservations in private. The word “disipline” always seems to make its way out.
Even if the SWP leave or came to their senses - a big ask, I grant you - would Respect be that much better? GG wants complete control (a Stalinist social democrat, as a friend once accurately described him) and doesn’t want what so many Lefties want: that is to say, a broad Left Party. The vague idea floating around that GG is saving Respect from the clutches of the SWP is pretty eccentric.
No one ever said it would be easy, but, then agian, no one ever said it would be this hard either.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 2 October, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
My condolences to Cde Bird it must be a real wrench to quit a group one has spent many years trying to build. That the Rees-German clique are willing to lose such experienced and capable cadre speaks much for their lack of seriousness.
However it has to be said that Cde Bird has quit the SWP not in order to build a revolutionary organisation but to participate more fully in a populist organisation that is a block to the building of both a revolutionary organisation and a new Mass Workers party in the long term. That all the internal critics of the SWP dreadful lack of a democratic culture are forced to move to the right in this way should tell us something of the low leel of communist education and idealism in the group. It also indicates, to those wlling to see, both the qualitative and quantitative low level the workers movement is in today that it is not seen as an alternative to the quite banal populist electoralism of Rspect.
Comment by Mike — 2 October, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Mike, and your co-thinkers on the conservative Left, you just don’t get it do you?
Your conservatism defines revolutionary politics as a group of a few hundred, immersed in their Marxist texts, preaching about the working class that they have little or no experience of outside of a cosy world of trade union meetings. And yet this conservative left will make claim after claim that yourselves,. and only yourselves represent the working class, and seriously expect to be able to build a ‘Mass Workers Party’. What serious evidence do you have any achievement in that direction by the self-appointed ‘Far Left’.
Meanwhile a huge constituency has emerged entirely distrustful of the WestMinster bubble, made cynical first by an illegal war and resentful of the surveillance society this has shaped, ripped off by PFI, lumbered with the Trident replacement, amazed by the lack of courage over taking action to reverse Climate Change. None of this is revolutionary socialism, its a new common sense. And at the core of this emergence is a community whose faith and skin colour the Left would once have paraded as proof of its anti-racist credentials yet would spectacularly fail to engage with, learn from - yes that unfamiliair trait that the Far Left can never understand humility - and involve. Thats why the Far Left has always been overwhelmingly white despite its platitudes on race.
Thats why your position is conservative and doomed. Its simply a variant of the similar conservatism of the SWPs turn against Respect’s pluralist potential. Narrow, predictable and we’ve heard it all before.
Comment by Mark P — 2 October, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Respect’s pluralist potential.
The Corrupt MP George Galloway?
Comment by tim — 2 October, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Tawfiq, in post 11 I think you raise a very interesting point as regards the shape of some putative broader left formation. Reading Andy’s material on the German situation makes me wonder just how people see such a formation might emerge from the current environment in the UK.
Comment by WorldbyStorm — 2 October, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Thanks to those who know me for your kind words.
To Mike I will say that (unsurprisingly) I do not view my trajectory as to the right. I agree with much of what Mark P says here. The measure of a party’s programme cannot simply be who is the most (ultra) ‘left wing’ or who trumpets their revolutionary intentions the loudest and most often. If that were so then we should all recognise the Sparticist League as the vanguard of our movement, yet it cannot be so because they have about six members.
The question is rather: who has the strategy for building a radical left movement, for winning the majority of the working class to socialist ideas and for creating the conditions in which there is the potential for a serious challenge to neo-liberalism and capitalism itself. This debate did manifest itself at the SWP national meeting, with some arguing for the urgent need for a broad party/coalition against neo-liberalism, only to be rebuked by John Molyneux for not stressing the need for revolution.
I have explicitly not rejected the core political ideas of the SWP. Indeed the SWP is right about, for example, the dangers of opportunism that come with electoral success and the belated recognition of the need for democratic accountability of elected representatives. What I have rejected are the SWP’s methods and internal culture which in fact alienate far too many potential allies and prevent it from achieving its aims. I no longer believe in that certain ‘Leninist’ form of organisation which is not appropriate for the conditions we find ourselves in.
Comment by Nick Bird — 2 October, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
“I agreed with many of the points made by John Molyneux when he challenged the CC at conference a couple of years ago (and was disappointed to see him backing the leadership so fulsomely at the weekend), but his words went unheeded. I have come to realise that without a more open and democratic approach, it will never be the party it wants to be; the party the radical left needs. I will stay in Respect and align myself with those who want an inclusive, democratic party that fights for peace, justice, equality and socialism.”
How bizarre that someone who claims he supported John Molyneux’s critique of the SWP CC a few years ago stuck with the party despite losing the votes at conference that year finally opts for quitting when all the essential criticisms Molyneux made of the SWP CC’s attitude towards Respect are embraced by the CC. So what if the CC don’t acknowledge that Molyneux was right all along. When comrades move in the right direction you support them. I am not convinced that the majority of the CC will stick with the position they argued that provoked Nick Bird’s resignation. In fact the way they voted at Respect’s NC suggests a certain lack of confidence. But Respect is now coming apart at the seems. The new project must demand democratic accountability of elected politicians, which the Tower Hamlets’ businessmen will never accept, which Galloway will never accept. Nick might want to back Galloway and the Tower Hamlets businessmen’s attitude towards homophobes, but the SWP never should. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude best summed up in Lindsay Geman’s shibboleth’s remark was disasterous for the SWP. Finally they are waking up to the reactionary consequences of this popular front approach. And now is the time for Nick Bird call it a day!
Comment by Tom — 2 October, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
Nick, you’ll have the understanding and sympathy of more SWP members than you might think.
You said “The bulk of SWP members seem happy to go along with the view that this is a left/right battle and they know which side they’re on.”
But as you rightly point out, with internal democracy at such a low, there’s no reason to think that the election of delegates was an exception. I know cases where “safe” delegates were selected rather than elected (and there were probably many more instances of this); in other cases, comrades didn’t see the point of putting themselves forward as delegates just to take a lot of flak down in London. So the vote at the end of Party Council isn’t representative of the mood of SWP members around the country.
Anyway, good luck for your future political activities!
Comment by gracchus — 2 October, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
But whether or not its a move to the right, you do as you say have the same attitude to revolutionary socialist politics. You regard them as a problem to be sidestepped, rather than a tool to use, as a guide action.
That’s why I don’t think there’s any mileage in just reconstructing another left “project”. If people can’t even see the point of socialist politics then there really is not basis for agreeing to unite in a party.
Better in my view to see where we can fight together and have a thorough re-appraisal of why the left is in such a hopeless mess.
Comment by bill j — 2 October, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Tom said “Nick might want to back Galloway and the Tower Hamlets businessmen’s attitude towards homophobes, but the SWP never should.”
That’s a disgraceful insinuation. If you’d said that any time over the last couple of years, the CC would most likely have called you an “islamophobe” and told to clear off. Nick can defend himself (although I suspect he may not want to descend to your level). As for Galloway and gay rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZnMIa6UN0Y
As for Tom’s other comments (on the CC), to the extent that they’re coherent, they bear little relation to reality. Molyneaux made a stand for democracy three years ago - now he’s abandoned all of that. The CC, meanwhile, is performing another exercise in “bending the stick” the other way. Suddenly all the nostrums of yesterday are stood on their head, and the Galloway cadres have to be replaced by anti-Galloway cadres (by expulsion or “re-education”). As for the talk of democracy in Respect, “democracy” is just the new buzzword, and the CC’s current trajectory shows that they’re even less likely than Galloway to implement it. Sunday’s meeting had very little to say about democracy - it was more like Stalin in 1928, correcting his former right turn with a new “left” turn to pull the rug out from under his enemies and to fool those standing in the middle.
Comment by gracchus — 3 October, 2007 @ 12:11 am
“Galloway and the Tower Hamlets businessmen’s attitude towards homophobes.”
George Galloway’s attitude to homophobes, eh? That’s crap -he supported equalisation of the gay age of consent long before it was official Labour Party policy. Equalisation of the Age of Consent was not in the 1997 Labour Party manifesto, but GG supported Edwina Currie’s defeated bill to equalise it at 16 in 1994.
And what has whether or not someone is a ‘businessman’ got to do with their views on the gay question? Is Alan Duncan not a businessman? Is Edwina Currie not a Tory and a representative of business? And it’s not even as if there were any evidence of these alleged ‘businessmen’ being ‘homophobes’. It’s not ‘businessmen’ or ‘homophobes’ this is sounding off about. Its Muslims. A nasty stereotype, nothing more.
August Bebel said anti-semitism was the socialism of fools. This is the latter-day version.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 3 October, 2007 @ 12:12 am
Ian said “It’s not ‘businessmen’ or ‘homophobes’ this is sounding off about. Its Muslims. A nasty stereotype, nothing more.”
Thanks, Ian, well said. I forgot to include that when I was going down my checklist of complaints against “Tom”.
Comment by gracchus — 3 October, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Ian Donovan defends Galloway from my allegation of opportunism towards homophobes. Care to explain why Galloway not once but twice criticised a sitting Labour MP for his strong support of gay rights? Galloway may not himself be homophobic. However, he clearly has an opportunistic attitude towards other homophobes. Galloway’s attitude towards homophobes in Respect is a variation of Clinton’s attitude towards gays in the military: Don’t ask, don’t tell. However, Nick, Galloway, Thornett and others want to help homophobes get elected to office. If they vote at Westminster or wherever to limit the rights of gays, then he is fine with this, as, apparently, are Nick, Ian and Thornett. What we have here is an opportunistic anti-SWP block. I applaud John Molyneux for backing the right side here because, as Chris Harman explained we are dealing with a left/right split, and it is a case of which side are you on. As for the politics of the communalist businessmen in Tower Hamlets, can any socialist be surprised that they downplay postal workers’ strikes? Their class interests make this inevitable. In fact, when the SWP walk away from Respect, then the Muslim businessmen will stop even paying lipservice to the S, T and one of the Es in their name. If Nick, Ian, Thornett and other socialists want to expend their energies canvasssing for a homophobic, anti-abortion, anti-working class force that allows it’s elected representatives to do what the hell they like… Every last one of you will split from Galloway within a few months yourselves. If it has not wound itself up before you find the integrity to do this.
Comment by Tom — 3 October, 2007 @ 12:31 am
I don’t know if Gracchus is using his real name, but he might want to remove the quotation marks from my name. It is pretty obvious that he is not the smartest tool on the left. I can’t work out what point Ian Donovan is trying to make. He seems to think that because some Tories and businessmen are gay this is relevant to my argument about their homophobia. It is not. It is an indication of the rottenness of the Respect project that socialists and workers have been rejected as candidates in favour of one businessman after another. It is because Galloway supports this that the SWP have finally (not nearly soon enough) come to their senses. The charge of communalism made by John Rees and the rest of the SWP leadership is absolutely correct. The only reason businessmen are selected in Tower Hamlets is because these businessmen have remodelled Respect in their own anti-working class image. They have recruited non-businessmen to Respect. But only those who reject class politics as much as they do. They recruit those whose politics derives from theological texts. They march against imperialist wars, against Islamophobia, and other uncontentious issues, but always find something else to do when Gay Pride comes along. Coincidence? Pull the other one. It is racist to argue that Muslims have to be homophobic just as it is bigotry to argue that all Catholics (including pratcising Catholics) have to be homophobic. However, even if some of those Muslim businessmen are themselves not homophobic, clearly they are unwilling to take a stand against homophobia, in the council chamber or Westminster if they get elected. That is why no socialist can campaign for such people. And it is why Ian Donovan, Nick Bird and Thornett will themselves all distance themselves from Respect shortly after the SWP walk away.
Comment by Tom — 3 October, 2007 @ 12:43 am
“Tom”, if you think the non-SWP currents within Respect boil down to a project “to help homophobes get elected to office”, you might do well to ask the all-wise CC how they remained blind to this for so long - or are we to believe evidence only cropped up just around the time Galloway wrote his first letter?
This sudden “left” turn by the CC has nothing to do with political principles, and everything to do with deflecting criticisms in such a way as to avoid having to answer them, and to help ensure that SWP members don’t even think about them. If this “left” turn was genuine, the CC certainly wouldn’t use smear tactics that result in the emergence of thinly-veiled racism at lower levels of the Party.
This is the thinly-veiled racism of former comrades like “Tom”, who has come back to impose a second dose on us, even after he was exposed, helpfully adding “communalist” to the mix the second time around for the benefit of the slow-witted amongst us.
I say “former” comrade not because I don’t belong to the same organisation, but because I cannot call myself the comrade of someone who is prepared to write such things. Now if he turns out to be a right-wing troll posing as an SWP member, then I will make due apologies, but it says a lot that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between such trolls and some of the cruder SWP sub-cadres who imagine they can display their loyalty to the CC in such a repugnant fashion.
Comment by gracchus — 3 October, 2007 @ 1:00 am
It seems to me that the the Respect dispute has created a major opening for real regroupment politics in England. It is not simply a falling out between George Galloway and the SWP. At stake, it seems to me from what I’m reading, is the prospect of advancing Respect as a regroupment vehicle that is accountable, open and democratic without being held hostage by the key stakeholders who have tended to restrain its trajectory.
It remains to be seen how much of a crisis this may become for the British SWP, but it’s clear that theres’ a lot of concern about the outbreak of disputation which they’ve been unable to contain :
As Nick Bird describes the SWP position :”Galloway had launched an attack on the SWP and attempted to split it. There was a left/right battle being fought out in Respect and on the right were Galloway and his allies, some of whom were in danger of succumbing to communal politics. The electoral achievements of Respect had led to these pressures and dangers and the SWP had to counteract them and defend the idea of Respect as a “united front of a special type”.
Don’t we in the Socialist Alliance here in Australia know that mantra of the special kind of united front!
But that aside there’s this crude naivete in vogue both here and among sectors of the British far left that asserts that “regrouping” into broad multi tendency pluralist parties is not the pressing dynamic; that all that’s feasible is a hybrid electoralism and anything else is a recipe for programatic dissolution.
From where I’m sitting, I fear it is too late to be so proscriptive. That in one form or another these ‘new parties’ fostering a ‘new and regrouped’ left will come into being in dribs and drabs; unevenly perhaps and often stumbling and tenuous– but in a sense this is the “new left” in the same way that there was a ‘new’ and ‘old’ left divide 40 years ago.
It amazes me therefore that this far left seeks to resist changes to the same mode they’ve been stuck in for the past 40 years. That when it comes to elections — in the case of the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) and Socialist Alternative (the two main state capitalist groups here emanating from the SWP franchise)– all they are offering the world this time around is an urgent first preference vote for the Greens.
I call it Panglossian politics.
So we are told that all we can hope for in way of advancing the socialist agenda is the Greens. We are similarly informed by dint of a few selective excuses that left unity and regroupment isn’t possible. That the problem with the Socialist Alliance was that it was too hard on the Australian Labor Party(according to the ISO)! Or that left regroupment is a political fantasy (SAlt).
Or — what horrors! — that the SA was so infected with the chancre of the Democratic Socialist Perspective (DSP) boogeyman that the great bulk of the SA membership not so aligned(which includes trade union and indigenous activists & leaders, new groupings of socialists coming together in regional centres, migrant activists, etc) isn’t worth bothering with. So these others, all signed up socialists, are to a man or woman dismissed out of hand or ignored as incidental to the main problem of the all too persuasive presence of the DSP.
So when Respect runs into difficulties I think we all need to sit up and take note because, at least, according to the ISO prescription, Respect is the way it should be done if we are to do anything at all together …primarily because Respect leaves these outfits’ organisational and political integrity in tact.
But I think we also need to consider the fact that after the petulant exit from the SA here almost a year ago of its far left affiliates the project did not collapse, did not flounder nor go belly up. That, in fact, the internal life of the Alliance has improved markedly since the far let generated factionalism has declined. And the SA fronts this coming federal election as the largest and most contained and best organised and only national left and socialist project in the country.Even though these others cannot bare to breath its name when discussing who to vote for.
Comment by Dave Riley — 3 October, 2007 @ 1:30 am
Mark P wrote “Your conservatism defines revolutionary politics as a group of a few hundred, immersed in their Marxist texts, preaching about the working class that they have little or no experience of outside of a cosy world of trade union meetings. And yet this conservative left will make claim after claim that yourselves. and only yourselves represent the working class, and seriously expect to be able to build a ‘Mass Workers Party’.
Meanwhile a huge constituency has emerged entirely distrustful of the WestMinster bubble…”
Which is a non-response to my politics Mark. For a start I’ve little interest in the trades unions as such and see them as nothing more than organisations in which revolutionaries must work so as to avoid complete isolation from those few of our fellow workers who have at least a minimum of class consciousness. The point of a genuinely revolutionary politics being to maintain and develop class consciousness and organisation and not to privilige the existing, neccesarily bureaucratised, organisations of the class, still less the revolutionationary organisation itself.
It is because of this point of view that places the class at its centre that I’m of the opinion that a new Mass Workers Party, while urgently needed, cannot be blt at present. It follows that projects such as Respect, or indeed the more principled CNWP, are both traps and diversions from the construction of a revolutionary group that places the class at the centre of its work and theory.
Now the above might well be seen by some as ‘conservative’, although I fail to understand how, and the attempt of Respect to develpp a mass following by breaking out of its toeholds among some of Britains Muslim communities as radical, but it cannot be denied that thus far that breakout has not happened. And I would argue will not and cannot happen due to the class contradictions at the heart of the Respect project.
In the light of which I consider that the creeping split between the SWP and the Galloway-Yaqoob petty bourgeois wing of respect is a positive development for socialists in this country. Although when it emerges from Respect I fear that the SWP will be weaker, in many ways, than it was prior to its immersion in the electoralist cesspit.
Comment by Mike — 3 October, 2007 @ 1:32 am
Gracchus, I agree entirely. If Tom is a genuine product of the CC’s latest turn then God help us. I have no desire to engage with his slurs, other than to concur with your admirably restrained comments.
Comment by Nick Bird — 3 October, 2007 @ 1:42 am
” Care to explain why Galloway not once but twice criticised a sitting Labour MP for his strong support of gay rights?”
Complete racist garbage, admirably exposed by Islamophobia Watch, which incidentally is produced by opponents of Respect (a Livingstone supporter and an SSP supporter who is not exactly fond of Galloway given his backing for Tommy Sheridan). Unlike Tom, however, these comrades can spot a reactionary smear when they see one:
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/9/18/mp-accused-of-using-gay-issues-to-win-muslim-votes.html
“I can’t work out what point Ian Donovan is trying to make. He seems to think that because some Tories and businessmen are gay this is relevant to my argument about their homophobia.”
The point that I am making is crystal clear and extremely simple. It is not ‘businessmen’ Tom is objecting to by accusing them of homophobia, it is Muslims. On the basis of a crude stereotype, without any evidence whatsoever (other than propaganda lies by the likes of Peter Tatchell, whose stereotyping of Muslims and even their defenders sometimes puts him in similar political territory to the late Pim Fortuyn). A careful reading of Tom’s posts indicates that he is not a representative of the SWP CC, who would undoubtedly have more sense than to post crap like this. He is almost certainly one of Matgamna’s Muslim-baiting toerags, stirring the shit. One good thing that was done at the Respect founding conference was when Sean Matgamna was roundly heckled when he came out with this kind of reactionary shite - pity he wasn’t pelted with rotten fruit as well.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 3 October, 2007 @ 10:55 am
I don’t know if Gracchus is using his real name, but he might want to remove the quotation marks from my name.
I don’t know if Gracchus is using his real name either, although if he is I’d like to congratulate him for his fine work on Noggin the Nog. More to the point, neither Gracchus nor anyone else (except you) knows whether you’re using your real name. You could provide a surname, an email address, or a link to a blog where these can be found. Until you do, “Tom” it is.
Comment by Phil — 3 October, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Phil said “I don’t know if Gracchus is using his real name either, although if he is I’d like to congratulate him for his fine work on Noggin the Nog.”
Thanks Phil, but that was Graculus, the big green bird, not Gracchus (you should give google or wikipedia a try some day).
I dislike writing anonymously, but in my situation I needed anonymity in order to give my support to Nick Bird. When the Islamophobic “Tom” appeared, I realised I still needed anonymity otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to voice some necessary criticisms.
As for Ian’s speculation that Tom is really a provocateur from the Association for White Liberty, I’d like to think so as well, but he seems too well rehearsed in current SWP lore, even if in his hands it spins off into outright racism.
Comment by gracchus — 3 October, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Ahhh yes, but are you named after Grachus Babeuf or the Gracchi brothers of ancient Rome?
On the subject of Noggin the NOg, of course Oliver Postgate was the son of raymond postgate, at one time a prominent CP intellectual, and Oliver himslef was a conscientious objector in WW2.
The socialist sub-text of his work is a little nearer the surface in Ivor the Engine than in Noggin though.
Comment by Andy — 3 October, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
I’ll go for the brothers Gracchus, tribunes of the people, advocates of redistributive justice.
Glad you share my thoughts on Oliver Postgate. He also managed to get the first (and last?) atonal theme music for a children’s TV show past the BBC authorities (the Clangers).
But I sense you’d like to move on from this thread, hence Mayakovsky and the web statistics.
Comment by gracchus — 3 October, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
that was Graculus, the big green bird
Great green bird, I think. I did know - I just couldn’t resist the gag.
Comment by Phil — 3 October, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
Gracchus, if you’re in the SWP, you should have the courage of your convictions to voice any concerns that you have openly within the party and not just anonymously on a non-party website. I myself am in the SWP and while this has been an interesting thread, I won’t be contributing to it; but if any SWPites who have constructive criticisms to make regarding the debate within Respect would like to contact me at nctwall@hotmail.com I would be interested to hear from them.
Comment by Nick — 4 October, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Nick
As you are in the SWP you must be aware that the only forum available is the pre-conference Internal Bulletins, and that “factionalism” leads to people being expelled.
It is less well known that submissions to the IB are sometimes edited - this happened a few years back to a submission by Jim Jepps concerning the socialists allaince, where a passage critical of the CC was edited out by the CC.
Now I don’t know but i suspect that comrades like Gracchus will indeed use the mechanisms available to them within the SWP to raise their point of view, and we know that such opinions were expressd at Party Council.
But they are understandably cautious about not getting expelled for “factionalism”, hence the need for pseudonyms, etc.
Comment by Andy — 4 October, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Hey there English socialistas! Get a load of this here in Australia: All unions should back the Greens and comment thread here. Socislit Alternative follows the same line bit no “please explain’ is forthcoming
Comment by Dave Riley — 9 October, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Oops I meant this url for comments: here.Is it relenvat to a thread on Respect & the SWP? Trust me, folks, it is very relevant.
Comment by Dave Riley — 9 October, 2007 @ 12:59 pm