OUT TOWARDS THE OPEN SEA
The following document was written by Nick Wrack. It was written as a contribution to the SWP’s Pre-conference Internal Bulletin, and co-authored with another comrade still in the SWP. Nick Wrack was recently expelled from the SWP, he is a former national Chairperson of Respect.
OUT TOWARDS THE OPEN SEA
by Nick Wrack
The decision to turn the Party outwards towards working with other radical left forces in society, implemented through the various forms of United Front work over the past few years, was correct. Such a turn inevitably brings with it new problems as the party collectively and comrades individually are forced to confront new situations and to consider different ways of working.
Respect is the most significant and the most important arena for this turn in our work. It arises out of our correct assessment that there is a significant space to the left of Labour which can be filled by a radical working-class force in which revolutionaries can work with others to build a serious electoral alternative to New Labour. Whatever may be said about the strength and length of the Brown bounce, it cannot fundamentally alter this assessment.
Unfortunately, the theoretical arguments that we have put forward to explain our work in Respect have not been fully worked through and consequently not all of the necessary conclusions about what Respect is and how we should relate to it have been properly drawn. This is partly because we have not systematically and regularly discussed these issues as a party. As a result of this absence of dialogue we fail to draw all the correct strategic and tactical conclusions about our work within Respect.
Respect is not a classical United Front. Nor is it helpful to describe it as a United Front of a special kind, unless the ‘special kind’ is more clearly explained. Without further explanation or clarification it can lead to errors in our work, particularly the periodic switching on and off of Respect work, which undermine the possibilities for developing Respect.
Respect is a broad political organisation that contests elections. It puts forward a comprehensive political programme. It is not a union of forces for a temporary fight on a single or several limited demands but a permanent formation around a wide-ranging political manifesto. Whether it is described as a party or a coalition is immaterial. It stands in elections. It has a manifesto. It has branches. It has an MP and councillors. To the wider world and to most people who join it, it is a party. Those who join it see it as their party. They want to build it, make it more successful.
To achieve this means patient, persistent and consistent work at a local level to create, maintain and develop active Respect branches. Without branches that relate to the local working class communities successful election campaigns are almost impossible. This means that we have to put into practice our claim that ‘Respect is not just an electoral organisation’. Because unless we act to build Respect on a regular basis across the country rooted in every locality we will never be able to have successful election campaigns. This is the lesson of Southall. There is a grave danger that we will suffer in the GLA elections in May 2008 as a consequence of our failure to implement this approach.
Overarching strategic objective
The reason for our failure to approach Respect in this way is primarily that we do not see Respect as the overarching strategic objective for the party in this period. Firstly, we treat it as a united front that can be turned on for elections and then forgotten about for the rest of the time. Secondly, although we carry out many united front operations we do not link them all back to Respect. We should constantly be trying to see how we can relate our work in DCH, STWC, UAF and our various industrial interventions to the question of building and recruiting to Respect. There is insufficient strategic thinking about how the work can dovetail towards building Respect. This reinforces the weakness of Respect at local and national level. Respect is seen as just another area of united front work, on a par with the others. It is not. It has to be much more than that. It has to be the most important area of work into which all other areas of work are brought together.
This does not at all mean liquidating the party. On the contrary, it means that the party will carry out work in a broader political milieu comprising trade unionists, anti-war activists, environmentalists, radicals from Muslim communities, etc. Our political ideas will find fertile ground here. Our task then is to explain patiently the ideas of revolutionary socialism whilst building Respect as an active, campaigning organisation with real purchase in the local and national working class.
When we sell the paper or intervene at work, we do so openly as members of the party. But often we do not also identify as being members of Respect. And when we do Respect work it is often not clearly understood how this contributes to the building of the party. Many comrades do not see Respect work as being an opportunity to raise our wider politics but as an electoralist, reformist operation; foot-soldiers for others. It is not surprising that many comrades have rebelled against Respect work as they see it as a watering down of their revolutionary activity. We need much more discussion about how we intervene in Respect as revolutionaries without creating unnecessary divisions with others involved.
This also raises questions about how we relate to others in Respect from different traditions and backgrounds. We should be immensely proud of the work we have carried out within Muslim communities. No other political force has been capable of this. We have correctly argued against those who have criticised us for it. We must not succumb to those criticisms now. Our approach within Respect should be informed by the need to broaden the forces involved. Every new member or group that gets involved should be welcomed and encouraged.
New forces will bring with them their own ideas, habits and methods of work. Inevitably this will mean that discussions and disagreements will arise. Sometimes these disagreements may be sharp, but we should not make them so unnecessarily. Nor should we shy away from raising problems and involving all parts of Respect in a discussion to resolve them. So, for example, if there are issues about sexism or homophobia then they should be tackled at the time, not left for months and then raised as a way to beat those who disagree with us. Any formation that manages to involve people from beyond the (very small) traditional left will inevitably have to confront these problems. Our motto should be “to explain patiently”. That can only help to raise the understanding of all.
Unfortunately, in the recent crisis, charges of sexism and homophobia have been raised in such a way as to brand a whole community or a section of it, rather than as the backwardness of this or that individual. Even worse has been the charge that we are faced with “communalism”. This is an inflammatory charge designed to polarise the debate and can do nothing to resolve disagreements about candidate selection. Anyone who took the time to discuss with the subjects of the accusations would very quickly have to conclude that the term is not appropriate.
It is inevitable, given the electoral successes of Respect, that we will attract people with opportunist inclinations. This is not so shocking. We just need to deal with it. With all things we need most of all a sense of proportion and a sense of perspective. With the launching of Respect we took to the open sea. We need to hold our nerve and carry on, not retreat to the calm of the shore at the first sight of inclement weather. We also need a deft hand at the tiller.
The response from the CC to George Galloway’s’ letter, however, has shown anything but a sense of proportion or a sense of perspective. If we accept that Respect is critically important and needs to continue then that has to inform our response to any difficulty or conflict within Respect. Our approach, as the dominant organised force, has to be such that temperatures are reduced not raised. This is sometimes difficult but necessary.
Firstly, there has been a completely exaggerated description of problems in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham. Secondly, there has been a disproportionate response to these problems and to George Galloway’s document. Instead of engaging with the points that Galloway raised the CC responded by taking the party to a war footing, stating that Galloway had declared war on the SWP, that this was a battle of left against right, of the socialists against communalism and so on. This was to blow the criticisms raised by Galloway so much out of proportion as to engulf the whole of Respect in a crisis that could have been avoided. Lots of comrades involved in small weak Respect branches who look around the country at the absence of Respect branches elsewhere will relate to much of what Galloway said. We should have engaged with his letter, disagreeing where necessary. But to present it as an attack on the work with trade unions and gay rights was a serious disservice to the party.
There are real problems at the heart of Respect. Personal and political relations have broken down between the leadership of the party and other prominent members, Salma Yaqoob and George Galloway. We need to rectify this. We cannot take the view that it does not matter if Galloway walks away or if Salma goes. They are both vital assets for Respect. They reach an audience and have a constituency way beyond what we could reach on our own. The great strength of Respect is that it draws together people from different traditions.
Further, we must not give the impression that we always want to be in control. The left and other new forces who we want to involve in Respect or whatever develops out of it will not get involved if they see the organisation dominated by the SWP. We must ensure that the structures and methods adopted are always rigorously scrutinised to see if they create an impediment to others getting involved.
Where do we go from here? There are massive opportunities to build a left alternative to New Labour. Respect is only one stage in the process. It may be that Respect grows and attracts new forces. It may be that Respect takes its forces into some new formation involving left trade unionists and others. The actual line of development cannot be predicted in advance. We need to be attuned and sensitive to opportunities as they emerge. We must be quick and adept in responding. We must also initiate approaches to others.
In all this our approach should be: “firm in principle, flexible in tactics”. In that way we will build the left without compromising our revolutionary integrity.
All very well, however it begs the question why Nick Wrack as a former member of the CWI/Militant tradition threw his lot in with the SWP. The undemocratic culture, twists and turns should not have come as a suprise to him it was ever thus. It is good that he seeks to apply the principles of working as a revolutionary in broad movements but what were the chances of of this method being adopted by the SWP.
Comment by Macullam — 21 October, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
It was printed in the first IB, co-authored with another well known comrade, so the lead in to the articlae is innaccurate on two counts. (Unless it is a different document - same title and opening paragraph but i haven’t checked every word).
Comment by Muon — 21 October, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
But isn’t this just what the SWP argued for all along, ie them wanting to be a minority of revolutionary socialist within a broader, radical formation? And isn’t part of the problem that Respect hasn’t (yet) turned into such a formation in most places, thus leaving the SWP in the somewhat peculiar position of being a revolutionary pole of attraction inside an organisation that doesn’t yet (outside a handful of places) represent significant forces other than the SWP itself? I think this is why it’s not really relevant to compare the SWP in Respect with for instance Linksruck/Marx21 in Die Linke. The latter is a broad, radical party with a majority that - for lack of a better word - ought to be described as social democratic in the traditional sense. The tasks for revolutionaries in such a formation are obvious, and similar to the ones outlined by Nick Wrack in the above document. But the Respect case, where the SWP basically tries to be both reformists and revolutionaries, seems to be to be a rather different kettle of fish.
Comment by Norwegian — 21 October, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Ok Muon re comment #2
My original draft of the article included the introductinary sentance: “The following document was written by Nick Wrack. It was written as a contribution to the SWP’s Pre-conference Internal Bulletin, but Nick Wrack was expelled from the SWP before he could submit it. Nick is a former national Chairperson of Respect.”
I have corrected this on Muon’s advicie that it was in fact published in the IB.
I hadn’t seen the version prinited in the IB obvioulsy. I had been given the article and asked to print it under MIck Wrack’s name. I removed the name of the other leading SWP comrade who co-authored this with Nick. I have had no communication with that SWP comrade, and therefore do not feel it appropriate to reveal who it is. (You will have to wait until next week’s Weekly Worker I suppose!)
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Norwegian.
There are three points I would make to you:
One: The current crisis in Respect has precisely occurred in those districts where the SWP are in a small minority, but behave as if they are a majority. For example in Tower Hamlets where they expected more than half the delegates to conference, though they only represent 7% of the membership, or in Birmingham where they wanted nearly half the delegates – again vastly out of proportion to their proportion of the membership.
Two: I also take it that you are writing in good faith from the distance vantage point of Norway – and one of the most difficult aspects of judging the SWP, is the gap between what they write and what they do. I have often read descriptions of the SWP by Alex Callinicos, for example, that make the behaviour of the SWP sound wise and subtle, but which owe more to how Alex likes to imagine the SWP might be, than how it actually is.
Three: even if the SWP did have a numerical preponderance, then this would not necessarily cause a problem, provided they actually behaved like Nick Wrack advocates, as I wrote previously when the same issues came up in the Socialist Alliance: http://www.socialistunity.com/?page_id=849
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
yes the naivity / stupidity of nick wrack in joining the swp is beyond doubt.
maybe he thought he could stir things up from within, and maybe he has?
nick should have realised that he was not allowed to join the swp to write documents or make any critical comments, or any serious contribution whatsoever!
he was allowed to join the swp because it was seen as a coup to get a former sp/militant member to join them. he was expected and he expected in return to be given patronage to a good position within the ‘movement’, and in return to keep quiet and loyal to his new masters.
unfortunately for the swp he didn’t stay quiet and loyal, and promply he got expelled. how unsurprising an outcome, not. i’m amazed he lasted this long.
was the co-auther of this document not rob or kevin??? if not, they will be kicked out soon as well.
ks
Comment by ks — 21 October, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
“Further, we must not give the impression that we always want to be in control. The left and other new forces who we want to involve in Respect or whatever develops out of it will not get involved if they see the organisation dominated by the SWP.” Nick Wrack
It seems to me the position of the SWP is at present untenable and from what Nick Wrack says there is rebellion in the SWP membership ranks.
You simply cant CARRY ON runnning around like a blue arsed flies on heat trying to maintain control of all thse ‘fronts’, swapping hats and caps along the way and expect other people to TRUST you while burning yourselves out in the process.
Either you are genuinely committed to something in which case dissolve yourself into it. The present situation for SWP members is a complete and utter head fuck and for everyone else outside. You are trying to do the impossible.
The SWP EQUIVOCATES AND EQUIVOCATES, it did it over the Socialist Alliance, the Scottish Socialist party and now RESPECT, as long as there is that equivocation and ‘the party’ always comes first then there will be no real advance for any organisation which is “dominated” by the SWP.
The methodology is complete madness which probably accounts for why an increasing number of SWP members are leaving the party in droves and or rejecting the Respect work. Self defeating or what ?
Isnt it time this whole reference to ‘revolutionaries’ and ‘revolutionary socialism’ got put into some kind of realistic perspective? Revolution is not on the horizon in Britain for the forseeable future . PERIOD. Further Global climate change and chaos is.FACT.
So relax and put the bloody idea on the far back burner and actually start to get a bit human and normal and try to relate and engage with people.You never know you might actually learn something.
Comment by Robin Hood — 21 October, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
KS - comment #6
the co-author of the document - who I was not going to make any refernce to until Muon (an SWP member from birmingham) mentioned it first.
The co-author is a well known SWP member, and is still in the party. I am not now nor have I ever been in communictaion with him or her, and I have no reason to believe they have behaved in any way that would provide reason for expulsion.
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Fair enough on the corrections.
The swp in brum did not want ‘nearly half the delegates’. they agreed 3 out of 12 in South brum, then it turned out there were 17 places - 4 more than they’d been led to believe (funny that). They wanted 1 more (4 out of 17 is less than a quarter) but didn’t get them.
Anyway I thought you thought the detail was irrelevant and we should concentrate on the politics?
Comment by Muon — 21 October, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Robin Hood: “…from what Nick Wrack says there is rebellion in the SWP membership ranks.”
Sorry to shatter dreams but that is simply untrue.
Robin Hood: “Either you are genuinely committed to something in which case dissolve yourself into it.”
I disagree.
You can be completely committed to Respect without dissolving into it; the Respect model is stronger than that of the late SSP.
The primary fight for the 21st century is not trying to create a left of labour, broad party, it is the proletarian revolution and for that you need the identifiable revolutionary party.
Comment by MRD — 21 October, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
ps glad you repect ppl more than the weekly wanker - I wanted to correct the impression (not necessarily intended) that Nick’s argument was the sole work of an expelled swper and hadn’t seen the light of day.
Comment by Muon — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Shattered dreams? Only a fortnight ago we were being told Respect was united and peace had broken out. Now, we are told there is no rebellion in the SWP ranks. The evidence for this is of course, that they have just expelled 3 leading members, the first time this has occured in many, many years.
We’ll find out how committed the SWP are to Respect next week when GG has the majority of the NC.
Not so committed I’ll warrant.
Comment by bill j — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Bill: “Shattered dreams? Only a fortnight ago we were being told Respect was united and peace had broken out. ”
I think you should be addressing that to someone else rather than me Bill. I never suggested that peace had broken out, as I understand it the SWP beat a tactical retreat over the organiser job on the NC becasue they couldn’t win the vote, and then thwarted the NC in the officer’s groups where they have a majority.
I have never had any illusions that it would be any different
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
bill j: “Shattered dreams? Only a fortnight ago we were being told Respect was united and peace had broken out.”
Yes, because none of this is Galloways fault is it.
Comment by MRD — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
MRD - you impy the current crisis on respect is galloway’s fault, but it is worth reading again what Nick Wrack and comrade X wrote:
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Andy: “MRD - you impy the current crisis on respect is galloway’s fault, but it is worth reading again what Nick Wrack and conmrade X wrote”
That’s fine and dandy if you agree with Nick Wrack, but I don’t.
Comment by MRD — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Actually it was addressed to MRD, sorry for not being specific.
And certainly plenty of it is GGs fault, after all he’s a Stalinist and if SWPers were in any doubt about what that means, which is of course is more than possible given the glowing references he has had over the last couple of years from Rees and German and co., they’ll find out in spade fulls over the next month.
And for that, i.e. painting GG up as something that he’s not, making out his recent antipathy to “Trotskyite poppinjays”, is some sort of turn to the right, that Respect was in any way a principled tactic in the first place, then yes the SWP leadership are entirely responsible.
Comment by bill j — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Oh blimey Bill, we aren’t going to have to start that whole trots v stalinists dance again, are we?
The way you talk about it thereis some ill-defined original sin called “Stalinism” that stains everything that touches it, while a set of socialists with identical practices, almost identical politics, and identical organisations, claim to be untarnished with the sin, because they lost a faction fight 80 years ago.
It sounds like a schism in the early church.
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
MRD comment #16
You say: “That’s fine and dandy if you agree with Nick Wrack, but I don’t.”
Just as a question of interest? Are you as well placed to have observed events at first hand as NIck Wrack? And if not - then why do you doubt his judgement?
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
Well it might sound like that, but as the witchhunt gets into gear in the next few weeks, you’ll find your religious analogy is quite apt.
And btw in calling GG a Stalinist I don’t think this is anything he would disaver from or particularly find problematic. He’s always proudly worn his Respect for Havana, Che and the rest as far as I know.
Comment by bill j — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
“He’s always proudly worn his Respect for Havana, Che and the rest as far as I know.”
Along with nearly very socialist and progressive on the planet.
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Actually, Andy I agree that going through that again would be tiresome. But if you insist on trying to amalgamate Trotskyism with the political trend which murdered Trotsky, his close supporter and countless thousands of others… well you can only expect people to get a little irritated with you. If you don’t want to go through that again, then don’t trail your coat.
By the way, I also agree with you that Bill is being much too loose with the term “Stalinist”. What’s wrong with Galloway’s politics is broadly what you would expect to be wrong with the politics of someone on the middle to hard Labour left. “Stalinism” isn’t really that significant in this context except in so far as the reformist version of Stalinism peddled by the CPGB for so many years still has a minor cultural influence in that milieu.
Comment by Mark P (the Irish one) — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Andy: “Just as a question of interest? Are you as well placed to have observed events at first hand as NIck Wrack?”
If you mean, have I been asked to stand for National Organiser of Respect, then no :]
Alas i completely doubt his judgement, as do a wide number of comrades.
Comment by MRD — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
“If you don’t want to go through that again, then don’t trail your coat.”
LOL Mark - good point!
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
MRD - #23
No I mean have you observed the contentious events at first hand.
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
I havent observed the ‘contentious events’, but i questioned Wrack’s statement that the SWP overreacted to Galloways original letter.
Comment by MRD — 21 October, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Can I just break in here to say how pleased I was that England lost at Rugby?
Comment by johng — 21 October, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
In that case, MRD (#26), the only logical positions open to you are:
1. you think the SWP should never have set up or participated in Respect
2. or alternatively, you assumed that there would never be any substantial criticisms of the SWP within Respect
If any substantial criticism is always to be interpreted as an “attack” on the SWP, then the only basis on which the SWP can work with others is on a leaders-and-obedient-followers basis. Is that what you want to argue here?
The majority of SWP members I know did not feel that they were under attack when they read the first Galloway letter. Like me, they had reservations about Galloway, but also had grave and growing concerns about the Party leadership’s behaviour, so they broadly welcomed the letter and hoped that the ensuing debate would lead to improvements. They have been dismayed by what followed.
Clearly some people thought their interests were under attack when Galloway wrote the initial letter, but many SWP members did not think any such thing. Perhaps there are conflicting interests within the SWP. What or whose interests, MRD, do you think came under attack? Are they genuine political interests, or something else? Try to answer - don’t just batten down the hatches.
Comment by babeuf — 21 October, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
So why the question mark Johng? Bit unsure are you?
There was much relief in the valleys when the final whistle blew.
Comment by cameron — 21 October, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Robin Hood: “…from what Nick Wrack says there is rebellion in the SWP membership ranks.”
Sorry to shatter dreams but that is simply untrue.
Robin Hood: “Either you are genuinely committed to something in which case dissolve yourself into it.”
I disagree.
You can be completely committed to Respect without dissolving into it; the Respect model is stronger than that of the late SSP.
The primary fight for the 21st century is not trying to create a left of labour, broad party, it is the proletarian revolution and for that you need the identifiable revolutionary party.
Comment by MRD — 21 October, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
TO MRD Yawn! Cloud cuckoo land again, you’re away with the fairies, medication time MRD.
And if what you want “is the proletarian revolution and for that you need the identifiable revolutionary party” What then is the SWP doing in RESPECT? Other than to use and abuse as it suits your leadership.
God help us if ever there were the much expected, anticipated and wholly inevitable “proletarian revolution” in the 21st century with the SWP the leading ‘revolutionary party’…… everyone else’s complete and utter nightmare!
Your comments clearly indicate your paticularly poor grasp of objective political realities.
SAME old delusional behaviour ! mmmmm oh dear! Up the medication please.
NEWS FLASH : SWP is RAPIDLY DISSOLVING, shrinking AND shrinking…..members are leaving in droves….read all about it!
Comment by Robin Hood — 21 October, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Not quite as powerful as I anticipated when I saw the author. The points about the inadequacy of “united fronts of a special kind” and wheeling it out for elections are accurate. But a more thorough account of the SWP’s practice in Respect has to deal with its imperative to control everything it touches. That is a big part of what created this mess.
Comment by Liam — 21 October, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
babeuf#28
“In that case, MRD (#26), the only logical positions open to you are:
1. you think the SWP should never have set up or participated in Respect
2. or alternatively, you assumed that there would never be any substantial criticisms of the SWP within Respect”
Neither logical positions or positions i hold
“The majority of SWP members I know did not feel that they were under attack when they read the first Galloway letter… Clearly some people thought their interests were under attack when Galloway wrote the initial letter, but many SWP members did not think any such thing…”
Sorry but the whole ‘many swp members’ doesn’t really wash and is a completely unsound basis for a critique of any party. Hypothetically, i could claim that many members of the CPGB support Respect after speaking to two members.
Though i’m aware that 10% of membership is a reasonable amount : ]
Comment by MRD — 21 October, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
There is a constant and bewildering tendency to both ignore the issues and trade in jargon that is long out of date or at least not much use in day-to-day politics.
Quite how MRD who states ” The primary fight for the 21st century is not trying to create a left of labour, broad party, it is the proletarian revolution and for that you need the identifiable revolutionary party.” expects to be taken seriously goodness only knows.
Nick Wrack and his co-author identify quite clearly the possibilities for members of revolutionary groups and possibilities to help build a broad left of Labour party. MRD may prefer the Bolshevik model, I await with interest the dayt he and his comrades storm Buckingham Palace, an event confidently predicted for getting on for a century now, thats quite some ‘downturn’ to explain away!
Instead Nick Wrack recognises the crucial importance to fill the space New Labour’s headlong march to the right vacated, its called social democracy. Of course there is no point reinventing the Labour Party, thats why Respect’s origins in extra-parliamentary politics, with a base in predominantly Muslim communities is crucial to its evolution.
Investing in council housing, renationalising the railways, cancelling the Trident Replacement, withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan are not in themselves particularly ‘Left Wing’, they are certainly not revolutionary demands. They only appear Left because of Labour’s rightward turn, these are demands that the Labour Party would never subscribe too (a problem the Labour Left sem incapable of addressing).
It is vital that Respect’s core political principles remains pluralism, not the ‘united front of a special type’ which means the SWP operating its control culture unimpeded.A participative, bottom up democracy centred on members taking part, rather than diktat from a Central Commitee and the party line. And a prefigurative practice to set ourselves out in complete contrast to the parties of the Westminster Bubble, including ensuring that communities completely ignored by the body politic represent themselves.
This is a political formation which positively welcomes the contribution of the Far Left but it should not be dominated by, framed by, those organisations. To do so immediately limits its potential. This is what Nick Wrack crucially recognises. Sadly he was unable to convince the SWP likewise, or at least its Central Commitee, and he was summarily expelled. That tells us precisely what we need to know of the SWP’s ability to be a key player in constructing a broad left-of-labour party. It’s practice has now lost the SWP almost all of its former allies, a united front of a very special type indeed. The SWP would like to pretend that they represent the ‘Left’ in Respect and that these former allies are the right. In fact the terms are largely redundant, the SWP are practising an extraordinary conservatism formed by its residual control culture that it practices both internally and externally, whilst its opponents favour a pluralist politics for Respect.
These are the choices this excellent document help us to foreground. So drop the historic namecalling ‘ Stalinist blah-blah’, ‘Reformist blahy-blah’ and the fantasy politics of the revolutionary vanguard and start addressing the key issues Nick raises.
Comment by Mark P — 21 October, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
I wonder if the average Respect member who came out of the Labour Party or was non-alined understands how the SWP operates inside Respect (a Leninist, Democratic Centralist Party). Nick Wracks document gives them some idea of what they may be up against if they want an open deomocratic coalition or future party.
The problem is that the average member did not sign up to set up a REVOLUTIONARY COALITION/PARTY but a new left, Socialist coalition well to the left of ‘New Labour’ that would work with others to form a larger coalition or future Socialist party within the UK political system, even if there are large parts of that current system we would all want to and will change.
Perhaps Nick Wrack would make a good National Secretary (rather than National Organiser) if the vacancy comes up in the near future?? At least he understands that no one party/faction must be allowed to dominate Respect or any of its key committees.
There is room for all if groups/factions/parties can just grasp this one key fact (however it is questionable if a Leninist Party, like the SWP will ever allow this, which will be a loss for them and their members, when it could have been so different had they wanted it. Maybe their members may get them to think again?)
Comment by Anon — 21 October, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
MRD (#32), I can’t help but feel you’re evading my questions.
Given your statement in #26 that you “questioned Wrack’s statement that the SWP overreacted to Galloways original letter”, then I don’t see how you can avoid one of the two alternatives I presented. If you think I haven’t covered all the options, then put forward your own. But if you think that the kind of criticisms contained in the first Galloway letter made it justifiable for the SWP to be put on a war footing (which your #26 implies), then I can’t see how you can avoid the alternatives I provided. So I still wait for your answer.
You also claimed (#32) “Sorry but the whole ‘many swp members’ doesn’t really wash and is a completely unsound basis for a critique of any party.”
This is a red herring. What I said was “The majority of SWP members I know did not feel that they were under attack when they read the first Galloway letter.” I think I signalled carefully enough in that sentence that I wasn’t claiming I had access to some hitherto unknown but authoratative opinion poll of the SWP membership on the question.
The truth is that neither you nor I have any reliable figure. I was merely saying that of those I personally know (which may or may not be representative of the whole), the Galloway letter was broadly welcomed, and the response from the SWP leadership came as an unwelcome shock.
On this basis, and nothing else, I suggested that there might be some interests within the SWP that were effectively under attack, but I questioned whether the political interests of rank-and-file members were actually under attack. If I am right, then going on a war footing may have been in the interests (political or otherwise) of some with the Party, but not necessarily in the political interests of the rank-and-file (i.e. non full-time) membership.
Comment by babeuf — 21 October, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
babeuf#35
I appreciate in the first comment that you said the mjority of SWP members you knew thought a particular way, I quoted your words precisely.
However i objected to the loose term of ‘many’ in: “Clearly some people thought their interests were under attack when Galloway wrote the initial letter, but many SWP members did not think any such thing”, later on in your post.
If, again, you were referring to the comrades you knew then my apologies, however I didn’t read it that way.
Comment by MRD — 21 October, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
but do you believe that the SWPs response to george galoways original letter was reasonable and correct MRD?
Comment by point — 21 October, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
MRD, OK, I think we each accept the other is writing in good faith and not trying to pull a fast one. We’ll both try to avoid any statement that might suggest we know the minds of the whole Party membership.
But I’m genuinely interested, and not just trying to trip you up when I ask (details in previous posts)
1. if criticisms such as those contained in the Galloway letter should be regarded as an attack on the SWP, then how was the SWP ever going to participate in an organisation like Respect in the long term?
2. Do you think putting the SWP on a war footing was in the interests of the SWP as a whole?
I don’t think you’ll quibble with the terms - they’re not intended to be inflammatory; but you can re-phrase the questions if you wish.
Comment by babeuf — 21 October, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
@ Robin Hood
I’ve love to “read all about it”, but your link doesn’t work.
Comment by a very public sociologist — 21 October, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
On the subject of SWP bashing
I think the most damaging thing that has happened from the SWP’s point of view is Tom Delargy taking their side, and some people assuming that he is an SWP member.
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Just to add to the confusion, I should point out that the Mark P who commented at #22 and the Mark P who commented at #33 are totally different people!
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
On the other hand peoples assumptions about this might have to do with the fact that such people have very little experiance of Respect or the SWP. Just a thought.
Comment by johng — 21 October, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
I have to say that the notion that SWP members would have ‘welcomed’ the Galloway letter is extremely odd. Some might have thought he had a few points that needed addressing but at the same time they would have realised this was a political move. which of course it was. You have to have a small amount of political smarts you know.
Comment by johng — 21 October, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
JohnG #42
Undoubtedly so. But as Tom has come out to bat so strongly for the SWP it would be reasonable for people who either don’t know him, or don’t know the SWP to think you were related.
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
it might be reasonable for people who don’t know anything about the swp or respect to think that. i really don’t see why this should be considered ‘embarressing’. if you meant by this that he’s an embarressment in the most general terms i would of course have no objection. but if you are attempting to imply that as an SWP member I should feel in any way responsible for his garbage I’d have to disagree.
Comment by johng — 21 October, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
I’ve read #43 a few times, and the only conclusion I can draw is that johng thinks that any SWP member who welcomed the first Galloway letter must be stupid or naïve - not a basis for further discussion.
I repeat that I don’t have any access to an authoratative poll of the SWP membership on the question, and can only rely on personal experience (which might mean an unrepresentative sample). But then johng is in the same position.
All I can say is that none of the people I’m referring to were ever fans of Galloway; on the other hand I do know some SWP members who could have been described thus, but who are now Galloway’s implacable foes (which suggests they weren’t doing their own thinking at either stage).
Comment by kevin federline — 21 October, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
Oops, that last post (#47) was supposed to be from me, babeuf.
The “kevin federline” tag was a leftover from an attempt at a humorous post on a different thread earlier this evening. The comments-box set-up defaults to the last name-tag used.
Comment by babeuf — 21 October, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Several things strike me as odd about the whole way a number of people debate on here. And before people pull out the flame throwers, I am not raising these to be aggressive.
First, it seems that there is this desire to have it both ways and say: a) the Galloway letter was not really an attack on the SWP and then follow it with b) the main problem with Respect is the SWP, isn’t it great that Galloway wrote the letter, because it allows us to take on the SWP’s “control culture”. Now, if I were in the SWP I would draw the conclusion that such people were being disengenuous (whether they mean to be or not).
Secondly, it is terribly reductionist and not very convincing to argue that the central problem with Respect is the SWP and not reference the broader context, etc.
I would only note that the SWP was key to founding Respect. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that Respect wouldn’t even exist without the SWP? It seems not. It was the SWP who walked through the fire of most of the rest of the left who denounced them for doing so - both to the right and left of the SWP.
If I’m not mistaken, at least based upon contributions here, many, if not most, of the people on here weren’t even members of Respect, struggling to build the organization through the difficult early days, when the SWP was throwing all its weight into it, doing the footwork and trying to prevent people who wanted a simon-pure “revolutionary party” from pushing Respect in a direction that would make it narrow and unattractive to workers breaking from Labour. Now, after all that work, people have rejoined precisely (in the case of Liam and Andy) because the SWP’s “control culture” is being attacked. Surely you can understand why SWPers would question your motives and the legitimacy of arguments from people who are stacking Respect to defeat the SWP - and by stacking I mean you have joined to strengthen one side of the debate against the other.
Which leads me to my last point. I have been through two faction fights in my time on the left. They are ugly, unpleasant experiences that rip your guts out. I know that nobody on either side is innocent of not bending the rules to get a leg-up on the other side. It’s in the nature of the dynamic, the stakes and the goals. As I implied above, it is hypocritical to attack the SWP for packing meetings when you’ve rejoined the organization to do exactly the same thing. This isn’t a condemnation of people who have done so, I’m simply making a point about casting stones in glass houses.
Comment by Canadien — 21 October, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
Canadien #49
Well no becasue Resepct didn’t come from no-where, it was a continuation of work done first through the Socialist Allaince. whch the SWP only joined half way through. Only in the SWP’s own estimation have tey been indispensible (for eaxmple in their own accounts they rarely acknowledge the many yars of the socialist allaince before they joined it). You culd just as easily, and with as much justification say respect would not exist without salma yaqoob.
Also I was a member of resepct but left precisely because of the problems with the SWP’s control which were already apparent in 2004.
I particuarly take objection to this: it is hypocritical to attack the SWP for packing meetings when you’ve rejoined the organization to do exactly the same thing.
I have persuaeded others in my home twon to join Resepct, and we culd have formed a branch and I could have gone to conference as a delegate, but I have no intention of doing so - precisely beacsue I believe it would be opportunist having not been a member for the last two years. So don’t call me a hypocrite.
I rejoined Respect because George and Salma’s intervention have opened the prospect of breaking the log jam, and I wanted to put my money where my mouth is.
Comment by Andy — 21 October, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
Agreeing with Candadien, certainly Respect wouldn’t have been formed without the SWP and yes they did so in the teeth of much criticism of the Left.
Wasn’t that criticism correct?
Comment by bill j — 21 October, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
it seems that there is this desire to have it both ways and say: a) the Galloway letter was not really an attack on the SWP and then follow it with b) the main problem with Respect is the SWP, isn’t it great that Galloway wrote the letter, because it allows us to take on the SWP’s “control culture”.
I don’t know what or who you’re talking about - have you got any examples in mind?
Personally I think there’s an important difference between attacking the SWP leadership and attacking the SWP. I’d never join the party myself, but I know that a lot of good socialists have done so & I’m not going to demand they all leave.
it is hypocritical to attack the SWP for packing meetings when you’ve rejoined the organization to do exactly the same thing. This isn’t a condemnation of people who have done so
Maybe not, but it is a smear - there’s an obvious difference between joining an organisation to strengthen a current within it and manoeuvring so as to pack a meeting.
Comment by Phil — 21 October, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
“I rejoined Respect because George and Salma’s intervention have opened the prospect of breaking the log jam, and I wanted to put my money where my mouth is.”
That’s what I mean by stacking. Simply put: you joined to fight for a side. If there wasn’t a fight you wouldn’t have rejoined.
I didn’t say the SWP were the ONLY reason Respect exists. It’s the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. They were necessary - but alone not sufficient. Ditto Salma, the anti-war movement, Galloway, et al.
bill j - no, it wasn’t. In my estimation.
Comment by Canadien — 21 October, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
“there’s an obvious difference between joining an organisation to strengthen a current within it and manoeuvring so as to pack a meeting.” - Six of one, half dozen of another.
The membership votes for the leadership. Do you think they are dupes? The party is its policies, leadership and public statements. You can’t have it both ways.
Comment by Canadien — 21 October, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Andy wrote: ” particuarly take objection to this: it is hypocritical to attack the SWP for packing meetings when you’ve rejoined the organization to do exactly the same thing.
“I have persuaeded others in my home twon to join Resepct, and we culd have formed a branch and I could have gone to conference as a delegate, but I have no intention of doing so - precisely beacsue I believe it would be opportunist having not been a member for the last two years. So don’t call me a hypocrite.”
Can I call you a hypocrite? Just because you were not brazen enough to put yourself forward as a conference delegate (having only just rejoined Respect), that hardly means you have not done what Canadien accused you of doing: engaging in a faction fight by means of joining Respect, then recruiting others with the same perspective as yourself, simply in order to help George Galloway pursue his witchhunt of the SWP. You boast about not trying to become a delegate. Can you boast that you did not cast a vote at your local branch meeting to send to conference others who would act as your proxies at conference? I very much doubt it. Can you boast that those you recruited to Respect did not similarly cast their votes to send the kind of delegation to conference that will further Galloway’s witchhunt against the SWP? Of course not.
Comment by Tom — 21 October, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
“there’s an obvious difference between joining an organisation to strengthen a current within it and manoeuvring so as to pack a meeting.” - Six of one, half dozen of another.
Your cynicism speaks for itself (whoever you are).
The membership votes for the leadership. Do you think they are dupes?
I think structures of democratic accountability within the SWP are imperfect, and that improving them is not a high priority for the current leadership.
The party is its policies, leadership and public statements. You can’t have it both ways.
I don’t know what the last sentence is supposed to mean. The SWP’s leadership can change; its policies can and do change. The party means more than either; above all, it means the membership. I can respect the SWP cadre without endorsing the leadership or its (current) agenda.
Comment by Phil — 21 October, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
“Agreeing with Candadien, certainly Respect wouldn’t have been formed without the SWP and yes they did so in the teeth of much criticism of the Left.
Wasn’t that criticism correct?”
So Bill J thinks ‘the left’s’ criticism was correct. Very revealing! Which ‘left’? Evidently not just the criticism of Workers Power, but also the criticism of the likes of the AWL, who were by the way the most outspoken opponents of Respect supposedly on ‘the left’. The fact that these criticisms came from racist scabs who who deserve, in the words of Trotsky ‘to be branded with infamy, if not with a bullet’ does not seem to bother Bill J and Permanent Revolution. So is PR going to fuse with the AWL and renounce the original split between Matgamna and Workers Power?
We’re all one happy family on ‘the left’, according to this conception. No we fucking aren’t! These Muslim-baiting scumbags are not comrades at all, not of any genuine opponent of imperialism anyway.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 22 October, 2007 @ 12:04 am
“Which leads me to my last point. I have been through two faction fights in my time on the left. They are ugly, unpleasant experiences that rip your guts out. I know that nobody on either side is innocent of not bending the rules to get a leg-up on the other side. It’s in the nature of the dynamic, the stakes and the goals.” Canadien
Well, Canadien ,I dont think you could have articulated it better if you had tried.
What you say perfectly illustrates why most people dont want to touch the SWP with a barge pole.Thankfully there are a lot other members of the SWP with better sense and they are leaving the SWP in droves.
What are the “stakes” for you exactly?
What are these “goals”?
Comment by Robin Hood — 22 October, 2007 @ 12:04 am
Light refeshments any body?
Comment by Custard and jelly — 22 October, 2007 @ 12:07 am
Ian - what are you on?
Comment by bill j — 22 October, 2007 @ 12:25 am
What’s this about a witchhunt of the SWP by Galloway - looks like a witchhunt of Galloway and allies by the SWP!
Comment by Matthew — 22 October, 2007 @ 12:34 am
“First, it seems that there is this desire to have it both ways and say: a) the Galloway letter was not really an attack on the SWP and then follow it with b) the main problem with Respect is the SWP, isn’t it great that Galloway wrote the letter, because it allows us to take on the SWP’s “control culture”. Now, if I were in the SWP I would draw the conclusion that such people were being disengenuous (whether they mean to be or not).”
This is not as difficult a condunrum as you make out. Unless of course, you believe that the SWP’s worst features are all there is to the SWP. I don’t. I see a socialist organisation with a lot of very good ideas about many questions, with a lot of very decent people in it fighting for a better society the best way they know how. And I also see bad habits, bureaucratic deformations, and serious problems with the way they organise that can damage the movement and often themselves. If you interpret a fairly mild criticism of some of the latter features as a full frontal attack on the former, as you seem to do here, then that is itself highly problematic and an oversimplification of a more complex reality.
It’s what John Rees, if he were inclined to use the logical methods he lays out at some length in “The Algebra of Revolution” (a fine book, by the way, that every Marxist should read) might term a contradiction. Everything has contradictions in it, even Marxist organisations that have existed for half-a-century can develop major contradictions, that can bring them crashing down in some cases. That doesn’t mean that pointing out such contradictions is necessarily an an attack on the Marxist organisation itself. A unresolved contradiction can destroy an organisation and resolve itself negatively; pointing out a contradiction can actually help resolve the contradiction positively and save it from damaging the movement and itself.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 22 October, 2007 @ 12:34 am
But dialectically speaking Respect isn’t a socialist organisation in any shape whatsoever and never was. It was always rather an unprincipled abandonment of socialism in the pursuit of votes.
The socialist (as opposed to the AWL’s) criticism of it is then vindicated entirely.
Built on a rotten compromise, the walls have rotted and the roof’s about to cave in.
It’s the transformation of quantity into quality, if you want to put it in those terms. Eh Ian?
Comment by bill j — 22 October, 2007 @ 12:42 am
Interesting that I’m a cynic because I see no difference between “joining to strengthen a current” engaged in a faction fight and trying to get people who support your view out to a meeting to win a vote, aka pulling the vote - which, by the way, Respect does at every election. Politics is about playing to win.
Robin Hood said: “Well, Canadien ,I dont think you could have articulated it better if you had tried.
“What you say perfectly illustrates why most people dont want to touch the SWP with a barge pole.Thankfully there are a lot other members of the SWP with better sense and they are leaving the SWP in droves.
“What are the “stakes” for you exactly?
“What are these “goals”?”
Hey, thanks! I appreciate it when I articulate without trying. And, I accept your implication. I sadly, am human, and have been caught up in the chaos of ugly political fights in the past. I do hope someday to achieve your angelic stature, who always fights with a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order in your left hand and a bouquet of roses in your right.
As for stakes and goals, I detect the hint of an accusation - though of what, I’m not sure. I don’t live in Britain, so, sympathies aside, I can’t stack anything.
Ian - as for frontal assaults. You’ll excuse my interpretation that this is the case based pretty much solely by what I’ve read on this blog and the attitudes expressed herein. I think we can both agree that love for the SWP is definitely not in the air. What also makes me think this is that following the Galloway document and the reconciliation NC (wherein Rees seconded the resolution by Alan Thornett) NC members representing one side of the debate then recruited a member of the SWP known to be in disagreement with the majority position of the party to a competing position (Nick Wrack, I mean) without consulting the SWP on the question. Perhaps it wasn’t the intention to raise the temperature but you can’t believe that it wouldn’t be interpreted that way.
Comment by Canadien — 22 October, 2007 @ 1:18 am
Sorry, if he dropped the “comrade” he might appeal to a whole load of disenchanted voters. Also what is communalism and what’s wrong with it?
Comment by dave bones — 22 October, 2007 @ 1:32 am
Tom #55
It seems Tom really is a poisonous and distrurbed individual, throwing mud in the nastiest way he can. I have no idea why.
He writes “Can you boast that you did not cast a vote at your local branch meeting to send to conference others who would act as your proxies at conference? I very much doubt it. Can you boast that those you recruited to Respect did not similarly cast their votes to send the kind of delegation to conference that will further Galloway’s witchhunt against the SWP? Of course not”
Well actually we are nt sending s conference delegate for that very reason. We will form a branch, but not until after conference.
Comment by Andy — 22 October, 2007 @ 1:42 am
Matthew #61
exactly I agree
Comment by Andy — 22 October, 2007 @ 1:43 am
Wrack’s argument parallels exactly the dispute that occurred here in Australia within the Socialist Alliance and now echoes within the Democratic Socialist Perspective itself –in effect, whether the SA is “the most important area of work into which all other areas of work are brought together” and not simply another united front (albeit of a “special kind”).
Comrades may like to review that debate (See here.)
I also point out that a similar divide occurred in the CWI when most of its Scottish section committed to the Scottish Socialist Alliance strategy.
Where I would differ from Wrack’s conceptualization is that these formations are indeed partyish and to not treat them as such is a trap.It then follows that if formations like Respect,the SSP, the Australian Socialist Alliance, Die Linke, etc are bona fide new party formations, how does the separate and contained ‘revolutionary party’ relate to them?
I’m not suggesting that’s an easy or comfortable call — but I know that’s an issue that won’t go away.
Comment by Dave Riley — 22 October, 2007 @ 1:52 am
‘Moun’ #9 apparently finds it easier to mask the stupid sectarianism the SWP displayed at the recent Birmingham AGM than challenge it. In what was a repetition of the disgraceful tactics displayed at the Tower Hamlets AGM, he implies some abuse of democracy in the selection of delegates.
The exact final delegate entitlement from Birmingham needs to be clarified (see below) but, once again, the suggestion that something improper has taken place in either renewing or increasing membership prior to the meeting is just more anti-Salma Yaqoob slander from the SWP in Birmingham. The downgrading of the final number of SWP members on the slate did not come from a sense of self-modesty about its role in building Respect in the city, rather a realization that they did not have the numbers to get away with proposing a a disproportionate delegate entitlement.
Find below my letter to John Rees in the aftermath of the meeting.
Dear John,
We have just had a very successful Birmingham Respect AGM tonight. Unfortunately it was marred at the end by SWP behaviour in which they claimed the meeting was ‘unconstitutional’. The SWP apparently feel they should be entitled to around 45% of the delegates to conference despite the fact that no more than half a dozen SWP members were involved in the recent South Birmingham election campaigns and none, to my
Knowledge, were involved in the campaigns in Sparkbrook, Small Heath and Nechells wards.
I note also that while SWP members claimed the meeting was ‘unconstitutional’ this did not prevent them from voting enthusiastically for the SWP motion on civil liberties when it was obviously going to be supported without contention. Apparently SWP commitment to ‘constitutionality’ is very flexible.
I am submitting the names of the 17 delegates to conference, which were agreed by a large majority on the night. There is some confusion about our delegate entitlement in view of the 30 odd membership renewals and applications submitted shortly before deadline. It
is possible that our entitlement is 15 rather than 17. As I said at the meeting, in the advent of any miscalculation of our delegate entitlement, we are more than happy for the national office to clarify this issue and accept their guidance on it. To that end two delegates have indicated they are happy to withdraw their names if there has been some miscalculation on our part. We are also more than happy to recall the meeting if the SWP persist with their allegations that it was ‘unconstitutional’. We would not want anybody to think that our commitment to the democratic process inside Respect is lacking.
Since the only people making these allegations are the SWP I look forward to your clarification on what the national office consider our exact delegate entitlement to be, and whether the SWP would like the meeting to be recalled. On this latter point in
particular, I repeat, we will be very happy to oblige.
Best wishes
Ger Francis
Comment by Ger Francis — 22 October, 2007 @ 2:36 am
“You can be completely committed to Respect without dissolving into it; the Respect model is stronger than that of the late SSP.” - MRD
I find your lack of faith disturbing… Well no, I’m just a bit annoyed that nobody picked up or questioned this. The SSP really isn’t dead, it has taken a beating and been damaged, it has problems still not fully resolved, but is still going. There was a well attended conference this weekend, and discussions generally agreeing on the need for reflection and renewal. It doesn’t help if people are so unsupportive that they actually pronounce the whole party dead. The alternative would be starting a new party entirely from scratch, and that would be a more difficult way, probably smaller, worse in lots of ways, and ridiculous if there’s now a situation where most of us are on the same page now.
“Where I would differ from Wrack’s conceptualization is that these formations are indeed partyish and to not treat them as such is a trap.It then follows that if formations like Respect,the SSP, the Australian Socialist Alliance, Die Linke, etc are bona fide new party formations, how does the separate and contained ‘revolutionary party’ relate to them?” - Dave Riley
I would strongly agree with the first part, some of us have only ever been in the SSP rather than other parties within it, but would still definitely call ourselves revolutionary. Which makes the idea of the revolutionary party “within” a bit strange. Honestly it doesn’t seem like a good idea, it either means a situation of “members” and “special members”, or a situation of “members” and “people to hopefully recruit” - and in the second, does that mean having no real commitment to the larger group (and being dishonest in expecting others to)?
Comment by intergalactic hussy — 22 October, 2007 @ 5:07 am
It is worthwhile looking at Nick Wracks document given that it is the subject of this post, for what it tells us of his ideas and those of the SWP concerning Respect the populist coalition. I would like then to take two short quotes from Wracks document and look at them briefly.
“Respect is not a classical United Front. Nor is it helpful to describe it as a United Front of a special kind, unless the ‘special kind’ is more clearly explained…”
The above is very illuminating in that Wrack takes Professor Callinicos development, read negation, of the theory of the United Front which the SWP first applied to the Socialist Alliance and in essence tells us that it is meaningless. Meaningless because the so called United Front sui generis lacks any descriptive or analytical power of its own. Instead we are gifted with an alchemical illusion that base opportunism is the purest communist tactic. An illusion Wrack correctly rejects as empty of content.
“Respect is a broad political organisation that contests elections. It puts forward a comprehensive political programme. It is not a union of forces for a temporary fight on a single or several limited demands but a permanent formation around a wide-ranging political manifesto.”
Indeed Wrack goes on, in the comment above, to point out that Respect is in no sense whatsoever a united front for limited defensive aims but a fully fledged political party. This is all well and good but what it cannot but mean is that any revolutionary organisation within Respect - other than those comrades who might see their task as the carrying out of an entrist tactic, which might be misguided but is legitimate as a tactic - is already on the road to the total liquidation of itself as a revolutionary organisation aiming at workers power.
Some members of the SWP may well dispute the assertions I make above but they cannot truthfully deny that respect has never been based on a politics that places the working class at the centre of its politics. By definition then it is, for Marxists, sectarian. Comrades might reply that Respect as a political development of the massanti-war movement is not sectarian but I can only retort that by failing to place the organised working class at the centre of its anti-war work, however laudable the work done by SWP cadre was and its truly was I must say, their approach was already sectarian in the proper sense.
It cannot but follow, if for no other reason but chronology, that Respect too was sectarian and in a fashion mosy pleasingly contradictory in nature opportunist given the alliances then made with elements such as the Muslim Association of britain who provided an introduction to the various petty bourgeois communalists now infesting Respect. But given the electoralist nature of Respect, as designed by the SWP misleadership this development was always inevitable.
That these contradictions must be resolved both in practice and in theory is made obvious by Wracks letter of reignation from the revolutionary movement. Wrack resolves the contradictions by falling into an opportunism charateristic of renegades down the ages. The SWP on the other hand now has a chance to resolve the contradictions by re-examining its practice over the past few years. One can only hope that they resolve the contradictions happily and remove those misleader responsible for the present disaster threatening their party.
Comment by Mike — 22 October, 2007 @ 6:20 am
I appreciate intergalactic hussy’s support in my assessment of these partyish formations. Respect is one. There’s no denying it. Just because some socialists think it is something else only ensures that they will miss the core political trajectory that is unfolding under their noses.
All Wrack is responding to, it seems to me, is a self evident fact. Respect is unsustainable as a “united front” just as the Scottish Socialist Alliance and the Australian SA were not.In effect, if you seek to contain these exercises to ‘united front mode’ alone — you are forced by default to hold these projects back, warp or sabotage their trajectory.
It was the experience here in Australia.
But for a revolutionary party — like the SWP or any other (and we can say the same about the SP in regard to their feral Scottish section) — the conundrum is deciding what to do about historical phenomena like these. Turn your back on them? –as the CWI prefers to do. Keep them at arms length?– while you talk up something non existent. Do you concoct a separatist regime? — so that the reformists don’t infect the revolutionists with a political dumbing down.
Or…do you aggressively try to negotiate this new reality and opportunity for the benefit of the socialist project and in your pursuit of creating a new mass Socialist Workers Party that can stand up to social democracy as a honest to god alternative?
In fact, this is the major divide on the far left at the present time — left regroupment (or not!) via new party projects such as these.
So the SWP is not alone in having to deal with it.
No doubt there is a problem of take off and threshold — a question of quality. The German De Linke was a fortunate harnessing of elements, especially that of the PDS — but what I think you’ll find is that the terrain on the far left is being remade in many countries and to go back togroupuscules at ten paces will be a massive cop out and history will be the judge.
I’m sure, there will to be many failures and false starts, mistakes and disasters(as the SSP comrades know well enough) but we aren’t discussing a tactical gadget here so much as new political motion that, in the final instance, you cannot control.
I think Wrack’s title caught the essence of what is being asked of us: out towards the open sea..
Comment by Dave Riley — 22 October, 2007 @ 7:42 am
babeuf,
no i did not ‘welcome’ the fact that there was clearly a damaging fight coming up. i don’t see how that precludes further discussion.
Comment by johng — 22 October, 2007 @ 10:38 am
“But dialectically speaking Respect isn’t a socialist organisation in any shape whatsoever and never was. It was always rather an unprincipled abandonment of socialism in the pursuit of votes.
The socialist (as opposed to the AWL’s) criticism of it is then vindicated entirely.
Built on a rotten compromise, the walls have rotted and the roof’s about to cave in.
It’s the transformation of quantity into quality, if you want to put it in those terms. Eh Ian?”
No, it isn’t. Since Respect is consitutionally committed to a society based on common ownership and democratic control, and is explicitly socialist in its very name as well as its practice of fighting for basic working class demands, Bill J’s statement that “dialectically speaking Respect isn’t a socialist organisation in any shape whatsoever” is demonstrably untrue, utter nonsense, and uses ‘dialectics’ as jibberish in the manner of the News Line.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 22 October, 2007 @ 11:31 am
intergalactic hussy at #72.
I am sure that many of us would have noted and disagreed with the criticism of the SSP, but not commenting should be interpreteted as not wanting to set another contentious debate running.
Comment by Andy — 22 October, 2007 @ 11:32 am
If a branch meeting of a new left party is going to consist of hours of hot air and windbaggery like this SWP/Respect debate, bring back Gerry Healy.
Comment by Doug — 22 October, 2007 @ 11:36 am
It is amazing how these dullards who know nothing about anything presume to lecture people who have been arguing and thinking more seriously then anyone about these questions for the last five years.
A joke.
Comment by Johng — 22 October, 2007 @ 11:38 am
I should say that the above comment was something I posted on Lenin’s Tomb in response to a completely different post. Someone is playing silly here. Post 80 is not me. If this is going on it may account for what I took to be Andy’s over-reaction on the other thread.
Comment by johng — 22 October, 2007 @ 11:40 am
I confirm that comment #80 was made from a computer with a different IP address from the one John G uses.
I think we all need to calm down a bit anyway.
Given that there have been quite a few attacks on my personal integrity over the last few days, I am a little more grouchy than normal.
Comment by Andy — 22 October, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Dear Canadien are you still there? Sounds like you dont really have an idea of what you mean by ’stakes’ and ‘goals’ in this particlar situation. By the sound of it you dont really like rules or roses either. A bit sad isn’t it!
May be you could inform and give some useful insights into your ugly political faction fight? So,what did you learn from this experience which ripped your guts out?
What can you contribute that is positive and constructive from your particular distanced vantage point and infinite experience?
Comment by Robin Hood — 22 October, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
ok Andy, agreed.
Comment by johng — 22 October, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Comment No. 74: The German De Linke was a fortunate harnessing of elements, especially that of the PDS
Surely that should read “a harnessing of elements *by* the PDS”?
Comment by KMS — 22 October, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Ger may feel he has got great politics but his maths is atrocious. 3 out of 12 is 25%, 4 out of 17 is less than 25%. Someone pointed out to the Chair that 30 plus extra members would still only give us 15 delegates but was told to shut up as they were disrupting the meeting.
One other nit picks, it was the South Birmingham AGM, the smaller North Birmingham had an un-contentious AGM/election.
Also Ger, not being honest during negotiations does cause mistrust, and does lead to unnecessary conflict and suspicion.
Comment by the digger — 22 October, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Digger - were you personally at the Birmingham meeting? I ask just to establish the credibility of your account.
Comment by Andy — 22 October, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
PARTYISH PERSPECTIVES: MS points out (Comment #74) that the German PDS was a key element in harnessing the De Linke experience. Point taken — but the remark also suggests another element in play: conscious party building.
Who does that? In the Scottish Socialist Party, the SA here in Australia … in Respect — given the partyish dynamic that exists, who puts in the hard yards to foster the best outcomes from the aggregation that may be coming together?
I think these new left parties can and do form and maybe can even prosper in the same way that green parties have developed over the past 25 years around the globe. But what sort of left parties they are –whether overwhelmingly electoralist, aggressively socialist or not — is another matter entirely.
That’s why I think cadre formations — like the SWP — can have an essential role to play in moulding the process. It’s political underwriting.
This may seem a little schizoid.Why would a “revolutionary party” (such as the SWP or another) merge with some other party formation that wasn’t formally ‘revolutionary’? Or why would such a party constantly try to relate all its work and interventions back to these new party formations(as Wrack urges)? That’s what united fronts are for, aren’t they? They’re supposed to facilitate reformist and transitional interventions while the rev party maintains its political integrity and independence. Even the old entrism sui generus was premissed on the same operating principle: us versus them.
But there’s a very good reason why revolutionary parties would want to and need to do this: there is no other way forward.
How we do that is another question. I think those of us who are committed to that perspective are still learning both from our own experiences and monitoring other peoples’ regroupment projects. But I think the first operating principle is being confident in your own politics — your own revolutionary politics — and negotiating through the shared collective experience of struggle in one and the same party to a new agreement on what to do next. I think that can be done while continuing to assert your own revolutionary continuity so long that it is clear to everyone that this is a voluntary partnership –one as open as you can make it, but one that shares the same over-riding loyalty.
This is not the way the SWP operated in the SSP.
A related issue is the angsty problem of “liquidating” one’s politics. Why commit to these projects, it is argued, if you cannot advance your full program as an everyday method of struggle? Isn’t the revolutionary party supposed to do that separately and autonomously and primarily somewhere else as well? Afterall that’s why the ‘revolutionary party’ was set up in the first place — wasn’t it — it was designed to intervene in its own name ‘everywhere’?
But your everyday run of the mill rev party subscribes to the view, I’d hope, that the essence of politics is struggle and that the revolutionist’s task is to go through that experience with many many others, seeking at all times to advance it and foster changes in political consciousness. If that is so, then why not do that as part of a broader collective within which you seek to advance your own struggle program?
When it comes down to the wire, would you prefer radicalising elements in society to function as isolated atoms in their work places or communities, or would you prefer that they were with you fighting and organising together in the same outfit — the same party?
This essentially what Wrack is arguing isn’t it?
No one is saying that the revolutionists give up their own program or that they don’t continue to organise as a body within these formations. This is not the end of cadre-isation. At stake is where they invest their energies, where they project their allegiance and in whose name they do the bulk of their political work.
On that point I don’t think there’s a ready formula, except one: these party projects have to be as open, accountable and as democratic as we can make them.
Comment by Dave Riley — 23 October, 2007 @ 1:19 am