Socialist Resistance was established to help build a credible anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist party to the left of Labour and we are still committed to that project. The Socialist Alliance and Respect were part of this process. Respect has increasingly become unattractive to many socialist and working class militants.
The text below was sent by George Galloway to Respect’s National Council members. It has already been widely circulated and discussed inside the SWP. The SWP are planning to meet George Galloway on Tuesday and then meet the whole of their London membership to discuss it. As this document is of tremendous significance to all us who are committed to building a class struggle alternative to Labour it belongs in the public domain.
Many of the points it makes are reminiscent of arguments that supporters of Socialist Resistance have been making for some time inside Respect and in our press.

 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times


The Shadwell by-election victory has stunned the New Labour establishment, turned the tide in Tower Hamlets and opened up the real possibility of winning two parliamentary seats in East London which, together with the potential gain in Birmingham, would make us the most successful left-wing party in British history.
New Labour’s decision to try to rehabilitate Michael Keith – the former leader of Tower Hamlets council who we first defeated last year – raised the stakes in this election enormously. A victory for him in a ward where we had all three councillors would have thrown us into a grave crisis. Instead, it is Labour that is suffering shattering demoralisation and we are enjoying a post-Shadwell bounce.
Ealing Southall, on the other hand, just a few weeks before, marked the lowest point in Respect’s three-year history. The failure to harvest even the vote we had secured in just one ward of the constituency in the local elections 12 months earlier was a sharp reminder that what goes up can come down and should shatter any complacency about the London elections next May.
It is clear to everyone, if we are honest, that Respect is not punching its weight in British politics and has not fulfilled its potential either in terms of votes consistently gained, members recruited or fighting funds raised.
The primary reasons for this are not objective circumstances, but internal problems of our own making.
The conditions for Respect to grow strongly obtain in just the same way as they did when we first launched the organisation and had our historic breakthrough in 2005.
Anyone who was at the 1000-strong street celebration after the victory in Shadwell will attest that the idea of Respect remains very much alive and, as Jim Fitzpatrick MP said in Tribune, it’s clear that ‘the Iraq war hasn’t gone away’.
Michael Lavalette’s advancing position in Preston shows what can be done with imaginative and dedicated work. In Bristol, around Jerry Hicks, and in Sheffield around Maxine Bowler, we have placed ourselves in pole position to enter the council chamber. But to achieve that we must recognise our serious internal weaknesses which are becoming more apparent and which threaten to derail the whole project.

Membership
Despite being a rather well known political brand our membership has not grown. And in some areas it has gone into a steep decline. Whole areas of the country are effectively moribund as far as Respect activity is concerned. In some weeks there is not a single Respect activity anywhere in the country advertised in our media. No systematic effort has been able to be mounted – in fact, a major effort had to be launched to get back to the levels of membership we had, despite electoral successes, widespread publicity and the continuing absence of any serious rival on the left. This has left a small core of activists to shoulder burden after burden without much in the way of support from the centre, leading to exhaustion and enervation.

Fundraising
This is all but non-existent. We have stumbled from one financial crisis to another. And with the prospect of an early general election we are simply unable to challenge the major parties in our key constituencies. None of the Respect staff appears to have been tasked with either membership or fundraising responsibilities. Or if they have it isn’t working. There is a deep-seated culture of amateurism and irresponsibility on the question of money. Activities are not properly budgeted and even where budgets are set they are not adhered to. Take, for example, the Fighting Unions Conference which was full to the rafters but still managed to lose £5000. The intervention at Pride, where we gave away merchandise rather than sold it, lost £2000.
It is a moot point whether the turn to building Fighting Unions which occupied the National Office for four months was the correct prioritisation of slender resources, following our breakthroughs at the local elections last year. What is not moot is that mismanagement turned an event which ought to have been a money-spinner into a money-loser.
Equally the Pride intervention, which occupied a great deal of the organisation’s time (I personally was telephoned three times to be asked if I would make it, and others report similar pressure) can be compared to the total lack of a presence at the Barking Mela last weekend – the biggest in Europe – or the minimal campaigning presence at the recent London Latin American festival. Again, while it is arguable that Pride was the priority, what is not arguable is that fundraising at it should have been included in the plan.
Further, what ought to have been the unalloyed success of the Pride intervention was seriously marred. Instead of a simple encouragement for members to attend – with a logical emphasis on LGBT members and young people – several members in elected office were subjected to a high-handed “instruction” from the national office to take part. It appeared to them to be some kind of misplaced test of their commitment to the equality programme of the organisation. This is frankly absurd. There are LGBT people who don’t feel comfortable being on a float on a parade. It would be a serious mistake to read off someone’s commitment to equality from their willingness to be dancing on the back of a truck on the Pride parade.
Having done that and spent £2,000 there was no effort to publicise our intervention externally by ensuring that all the relevant media and organisations were made aware that we were the only political party to have a float on the parade.

Staffing

This is a mystery to me and others. People pop up as staff members in jobs which have not been advertised, for which there have been no interviews and whose job descriptions are unclear and certainly unpublished. One staff member was appointed at a meeting at which that same staff member was present, making it obviously embarrassing for anyone to query whether they were the right person for the job, whether they could be afforded or why the job should go to them rather than someone else. This unnecessarily poor management leads to tensions, even animosity and the suspicion that staff are recruited for their political opinions on internal matters rather than on a proper basis. Sometimes the conduct of some staff buttresses this suspicion. For example, at the selection meeting for our Shadwell candidate two members of staff were openly proselytising for one candidate and against another – including heckling – and even after the decision had been taken. This undoubtedly contributed to the exceedingly poor involvement of the wider membership in the subsequent election. No paid member of staff attended the Shadwell victory celebrations and when I asked one of them if they would be attending I was told ‘no, I will be watching the football’. This was noticed widely by the activists wh
o were present at the celebration and commented upon. It is again bad management to allow such culture and practices to proliferate.

Internal relations

There is a custom of anathematisation in the organisation which is deeply unhealthy and has been the ruin of many a left-wing group before us. This began with Salma Yaqoob, once one of our star turns, promoted on virtually every platform, and who is responsible for some of the greatest election victories (and near misses) during our era.
Now she has been airbrushed from our history at just the time when she is becoming a regular feature on the national media and her impact on the politics of Britain’s second city has never been higher.
There appears to be no plan to rescue her from this perdition, indeed every sign that her internal exile is a fixture. This is intolerable and must end now. Whatever personal differences may exist between leading members the rest of us cannot allow Respect to be hobbled in this way. We are not over-endowed with national figures.

Decision making and implementation

There is a marked tendency for decisions made at the national council or avenues signposted for exploration to be left to wither on the vine if they are not deemed to meet priorities (which themselves are not agreed). For example, there was a very useful discussion at the last national council on what initiatives we should explore following Brown’s succession and the then anticipated failure of the McDonnell campaign to get out of the starting gate. Among the varied suggestions were seeking to cohere wider progressive opinion around a minimal five point programme; approaching McDonnell to organise an open meeting in Parliament; seeking a joint conference with the RMT, CPB, Labour left and others; and organising a people’s march to London as an agitational vehicle for rallying forces and struggles against the Brown government. None of these have been seriously followed up. The overall emphasis – that the departure of Blair and the failure of the Labour left’s strategy opened up possibilities for us both to build Respect directly and to place it at the centre of a progressive realignment – was allowed to run into the ground.

Building the organisation

We must be much more systematic in building Respect’s profile in the wider arenas our members are active in. There is no question that struggles such as Stop the War, Defend Council Housing, anti-racist campaigns, activity around trade union disputes and so on are the lifeblood of a progressive political force such as ourselves. But the great lesson of the Stop the War movement in 2003 was that these movements do not automatically give rise to a force that can punch through on the political scene. That requires – as it did when we founded Respect – patient, detailed work and single-mindedness about ensuring that Respect grows out of the wider radical milieu.
Two of our outstanding members are at the helm of Defend Council Housing; many of our members are active in it in their localities. Yet as an organisation we have done far too little to raise the Respect banner inside the campaign and, to put it bluntly, cash in on the work our activists have put in and the turmoil the campaign has caused among disaffected Labour councillors and Labour-supporting tenants and trade unionists.
At the successful Stop the War demonstration outside the Labour Party conference in Manchester in September last year the nationally produced propaganda was for the Fighting Unions conference. It was thanks only to the Manchester comrades that we had a tabloid promoting Respect as a political formation. It was again thanks to the Manchester comrades that we had such a publication for the protest outside Brown’s coronation.
In every area of activity we need to encourage in our members a focus on recruitment, fundraising, establishing the profile of our candidates and unashamedly promoting Respect as the critical force in the wider reconstitution of the progressive and socialist movement.

Internal selections

Then there is the practice of the creation of false dichotomies between candidates for internal elections. Neither Oliur Rahman nor Abjul Miah nor Haroon Miah is Karl Liebknecht. And Sultana Begum is not Rosa Luxemburg. Yet in internal election contests these four contested in Tower Hamlets the divisions between them were deliberately and artificially exaggerated and members mobilised about “principles” which never were. This has led to deep and lasting divisions which show no signs of healing in the current atmosphere. So we must make a new atmosphere. If we are to rally to win the prize of a seat on the GLA, and three members of parliament, we must start right now.
Relations between leading figures in Respect are at an all-time low and this must be addressed. I have proposals to make which are not aimed at a change of political line, still less an attack on any organisation or section within Respect. They are aimed at placing us on an election war-footing, closing the chasm which has been caused to develop between leading members, together with an emergency fundraising and membership drive to facilitate our forthcoming electoral challenges.  Business as usual will not do and everyone in their heart knows this.
The crossroads at which we now stand can take us either down the Shadwell route or the road to Southall.
Instead of three MPs and a presence on the GLA we could have no MPs and no one on the GLA by this time next year. A few honest moments thoughts should suffice to calibrate where that would leave us. Oblivion.
I cannot imagine that any member of the National Council wants to see us arrive at the destination where now lies the wreck of left-wing politics in Scotland and so I hope that these proposals will be considered with the best interests of the Respect project uppermost in our minds.

A way forward


It is abundantly clear for a variety of reasons that the leadership team must be strengthened and all talents mustered. I therefore propose the creation of a new high-powered elections committee whose task would be to rapidly evaluate our election strengths and weaknesses, proposed target seats, supervise the selection of candidates – national and local – and to spearhead a national membership and fundraising drive. This committee must comprise the leading members of Respect, including Salma, Linda Smith, Yvonne Ridley, Abjol Miah (as the leader of our 11 councillors in the central election battleground of Tower Hamlets), me, Lindsey German, Alan Thornett, Nick Wrack as well as the National Secretary.
I also propose a crucial new post of National Organiser, preferably full-time, whose task would be the aforementioned re-organisation and re-energising of the key clusters of Respect support and the encouragement of members everywhere. This position would sit alongside the position of National Secretary. It must be advertised and subject to competitive interview overseen by the elections committee.
While this document may seem stark in black and white it reflects a widespread feeling which has surfaced in various ways – including at the National Council – and it is clear that the status quo, or minor tinkering, are not options. Time is short, renovation is urgently required and we must start the process now.
George Galloway MP

23 August 2007

29 responses to “George Galloway's letter to Respect's National Council”

  1. […] to Liam Mac Uaid for publishing the following letter from George Galloway to RESPECT’s national […]

    Like

  2. Interesting document. If it stimulates a discussion on how to build Respect it could be useful.

    But the SWP leadership probably will shut down debate with usual platitutes rather than have what could be a potentially very fruitful discussion about how to renew and strengthen Respect. GG obviously is not himself above criticism and needs to start acting as part of an organisation rather than freelance individual. As Socialist Resistance put it: we need leadership based upon collective development rather than the personal inspiration of GG and John Rees (whilst recognising that both are very talented individuals)

    Some of the party structures for Respect recommended by SR seem to me like they could strengthen the organisation.

    Really this document should be the basis for a real discussion at the National Conference about Respect.

    Like

  3. “Having done that and spent £2,000 there was no effort to publicise our intervention externally by ensuring that all the relevant media and organisations were made aware that we were the only political party to have a float on the parade.”

    ROFLMAO!

    “Now she has been airbrushed from our history at just the time when she is becoming a regular feature on the national media and her impact on the politics of Britain’s second city has never been higher.”

    Yup, never seen that before.

    Like

  4. Setting aside GG’s obvious hypocrisy that’s actually quite a sober and timely document.

    Can’t see the SWP ever having the balls to face up to it though, it’s just not in their interests.

    Like

  5. Given that Respect financial position is so parlous I’m surprised that their head office have not replied to my generous offer posted a month ago.
    Sadly Rob Hoveman does not seem to thin Ron and George can provide the paperwork.

    Rob
    Ron McKay was paid by Zureikat, and he claims was a business deal rather than Oil cash.
    If it appears in his 2000/01 Tax return I’ll give a grand to Respects Poplar & Limehouse campaign.
    If Galloways Coop bank account received no transfers from his wifes Jordanian Citibank Account (the repository for the Oil cash) in the period 2000-2003, I’ll pay another grand to Respects campaign.
    Let me know
    Tim

    Like

  6. Given Galloway’s complicity in the entire Respect debacle, its not surprise that his criticisms are entirely organisational, with a typical emphasis on elections, fund raising and job descriptions.
    So the issue is really why is George saying this now and what does it mean?
    Given that George is likely to lose his seat at the next election, but has just had his hours doubled on talk radio, while his scottish newspaper column goes from strength to strength, cynics might say, its perfectly obvious….George is looking for a way out, to quote the song.
    And the good old Stalinist that he is, he’s looking to take the SWP down with him.
    Frankly it was always inevitable, only a question of when not if. Respect was always a terrible retreat from socialism and working class politics, hopefully when the denouement finally arrives, if not now, then surely pretty soon, SWP members will able to draw some conclusions about the quality of the leaders that had lead them into this mess.

    Like

  7. I’ve never liked Galloway, but I’m pleasantly surprised by the clarity & cogency of this analysis. Yes, it is all about organisational structure, but structure can be very important in deciding what gets done and what doesn’t – and how the membership is involved in those decisions, both before and after they’re made. This passage in particular made me cringe:

    Among the varied suggestions were seeking to cohere wider progressive opinion around a minimal five point programme; approaching McDonnell to organise an open meeting in Parliament; seeking a joint conference with the RMT, CPB, Labour left and others; and organising a people’s march to London as an agitational vehicle for rallying forces and struggles against the Brown government.

    “All excellent suggestions, comrades. Moving on…”

    You could object that Galloway’s line (and/or my take on it) is naive, inasmuch as there are solid political factors underlying the organisational sclerosis of RESPECT (reasons having to do with the death-grip of the SWP), and he clearly doesn’t address those. I think that would be to underestimate Galloway’s critique (which does after all propose leading roles for Yaqoob and even Thornett). I also think that a lot of the problems with the SWP itself are ultimately organisational – the weird stop/start blend of caution, opportunism and control freakery that the SWP has brought to RESPECT is a culture with quite deep roots in the party itself, and it’s not good for the internal life of the SWP any more than it’s been good for RESPECT.

    Viewed in this light, I think Galloway’s aim is to stir things up within the SWP, perhaps with the longer-term aim of splitting the party and expelling part of it from the New Model RESPECT. How it pans out will depend on how much discontent there is within the SWP, and how deep the divisions within the leadership run – is anyone sufficiently fed up to want to either break with RESPECT or split the party?

    Like

  8. his analysis of the Pride stuff is sending a message to the Mosques in the new constituency.

    Like

  9. There is a lot to agree with in this text even if am still in the dark about why t was written now. This has all been true for a long time. At least since the appalling 2005 conference. There you saw the shade of Gerry Healey.
    The obvious point about it is that GG himself cheesed off a lot of the former Respect members who would now be on his side of the argument.
    The SWP had a big role in this. On several occasions SR supporters and others raised the issue of the acountabilty of elected officials. I argued for something like the MP’s report back to Labour Party GC in Tower Hamlets but was told by the National Seretary that this would not work and given the latitude SWP leaders have I could understand his thinking.
    But this document does provide an opportunity to learn one or two lessons. If these are understood and implemented Respect stands to benefit from them. That is something I would welcome.

    Like

  10. I’m truly saddened that lLia believes that GGs document has any similarities with suggestions put forward by his group in the recent past. Liam and SR naively thought that if democratisd Respect could become a genuine left alternative to Labour hence their suggested reforms of that body. GG on the other hand wants to push Respect further to the right by bringing more of his, mostly petty bourgeois and Muslim, suporters into the leadership of that party.

    While GG may be correct in arguing that the Respect intervention at Pride and its initiation of the Fighting Unions conference lost money this is clearly not his main concern. With his mention of Pride he is sending a signal to his allies that gay rights are unimportant and that Respects monies should be expended in electing ‘community leaders’, usually petty bourgeois elements as we have seen in recent electoral contests, not on campaiging.

    As for his criticism of the Fighting Unions conference losing money this is a direct challenge to the SWP who built that event. After all money invested in building a socialist alternative in the unions is miney well investedfrom a socialist point of view. But from the point of view of GG it is money wasted if their is any danger of offending potential supporters among the union bureaucracy and, far more important, if it does not win votes in elections.

    Respect could, as Liam writes, benefit from the suggestions in the document. But it will be driven to the right and will more and more assume the open character of a populist and communalist party dedicated to electoralism and removed from any contact with the mainstream of the workers movement.

    Like

  11. I think Mike has a point that the particular examples GG chooses are carefully chosen sticks and he is clear which dog he wants to beat with them.

    The specific critique about the SWP’s methods are similar to that that SR, myself and others have made, but GG’s agenda is not ours.

    Havng said that – i would not rule out the idea that if GG wins, then Respect may yet play a useful role in progressive politics. i wouldn’t even rule out rejoining. Let’s see what happens over the next week or so.

    Like

  12. Mike tends to adhere to what Leon Trotsky called the stalinist school of falsification.

    For example, he distorts Galloway’s mention of Pride. Galloway clearly states that Respect made a serious mistake in not publicising and sending out press releases that they were the only political party to have a presence.

    On the Fighting Unions conference, Galloway asks a basic question about why an event that was full to the rafters with over 1000 rank and file trade unionists in attendence made a huge financial loss?

    The key weakness in the document is that Galloway correctly identifies problems in the organisation but doesn’t really provide solutions to resolve them.

    As stated, some of the organisational structures and initiatives suggested by SR would provide a framework to overcome some of the problems identified.

    Such structures would overcome the reservations that some independent and non-affiliated socialists have with engaging with Respect – many people don’t mind working with people they have disagreements with, if there are forums for debate and the leadership can be held to account.

    Respect should also identify itself as an explicitly anti-capitalists, socialist organisation. Every other “broad left formation” in Germany, Scotland, Portugal, Italy etc. are happy to call themselves socialist and anti-capitalist.

    Like

  13. Adam J must be living in an alternative reality if he truly believes that my interpretation of GG’s document is a Stalinist distortion. The fact of the matter is that all my assertions are based on the evidence of the document itself whoever actually wrote it.

    As for the idea that Respect declare itself to be an ‘anti-capitalist’ organisation – whatever that means – does Adam really think that the petty bourgeois capitalists now representing Respect in the council chambers will ever truly oppose capitalism?

    Like

  14. Think comrades are right to be suspicious about Galloway’s motivations and in particualr the examples he uses- Pride and Fighting Unions.

    However, in my opinion, socialists who are in Respect should push for it to be democratised and thus use Galloway’s call to poen up a debate on accountability and democracy.

    Of course Galloway suggesting in advance seems a bit of a negation of his call for democracy but still it could be a useful call.

    I don’t support Respect in its current guise becuase it does seem to me to have made far too many compromises with the petit-bourgeois elements and not represent a truly democratic socialist alternative or be even particualrly moving in that direction.

    However, my challenge to those socialists in it- including those in socialist resistance and the swp- is to make it democratic, try to lnk up with working class campaigns and then see what happens.

    If Respect became truly democratic I think GG and some of the petiti-bourgeopis woulld take their balls away and play elsewhere. Even the fight to make Respect democratic could be useful in taking forward the project for a democratic socialist working class alternative to Labour

    Like

  15. GG mentions several prominent SWP members in his letter all seemingly in glowing terms, am I missing something why is this a diatribe against the SWP.

    The comment about the SWP having… “the weird stop/start blend of caution, opportunism and control freakery that the SWP has brought to RESPECT is a culture with quite deep roots in the party itself” is not a facit of the SWP i recognise, true the party did a bit of learching over the Anti-capitalist agenda in 1999-2001, which coincided withe the death of its leader Tony Cliff, but this just sounds like muck stirring from Phil, and a political bias from the SR/others.
    I do agree with the point he makes that “…Galloway’s aim is to stir things up within the SWP, perhaps with the longer-term aim of splitting the party and expelling part of it from the New Model RESPECT.”
    But with his radio show (and I SAW HIS LIVE SHOW! bit dodgy in parts) doing well he’ll be happy on the celeb circuit doing it with Egweener.

    Like

  16. Hmm, speaking as a resident of Britain’s second city I hadn’t
    noticed that Salma Yaqoob had been particularly high-profile
    lately.

    Like

  17. Lots of people on Harry’s Place are being sympathetic to George Galloway over his custody battle:

    http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/09/04/galloway_wants_to_spend_more_time_with_his_family.php

    Like

  18. ‘Hmm, speaking as a resident of Britain’s second city I hadn’t noticed that Salma Yaqoob had been particularly high-profile lately.’

    Depends how engaged you are, I suppose. Check the Birmingham Mail:

    http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/mail/news/tm_method=full%26objectid=19726853%26siteid=50002-name_page.html

    The print version carries a striking photo of Salma washing the feet of an African-Caribbean women as a gesture of solidarity between Black and Asian communities.

    Her speech at the packed Jesse Jackson meeting was another powerful call for unity:
    http:/www.thestirrer.co.ukjackson-2408072.html

    Like

  19. Galloway may have created an opening to finally allow issues of structure, organisation, behaviour and even politics to be debated properly inside Respect, even if he doesn’t want things to go that far. You could easily use his criticisms to make the case for Respect having a regular (and fequent) paper, with major resources from the participatig organisations being put into it.

    Like

  20. BUt I understand through the grapevine that the SWP are mobilising to ensure they have a majority for the conference. The term I have heard used by a leading SWP figure is “shit or bust”

    Like

  21. […] an activist shareholder who reads the riot act to an under-performing company. He has penned a missive that lists in detail the failings of Respect (his party), including such gems […]

    Like

  22. […] Response to George Galloway’s letter to Respect’s National Council September 19th, 2007 — wellssimon Full text of the letter here. […]

    Like

  23. The present situation is one that requires a serious and non sectarian response. We need not ignore past errors by all and overlook history. At the same time we must recognise the present needs.

    Whether a re-emerging Respect, TUSC, local coalitions, cuts campaigns, anti-fascist activity etc they all have one thing in common. That is the need to acknowledge the need for inclusive, open, democratic and bottom up, not top down ctees which can provide opportunities for closer unity, co-ordination and joint action.

    To turn a cruise ship around, one has to allow for several miles of wasted steam. To turn a rowing boat around it requires a touch on an oar. With many local rowing boats moving in the same direction we can move towards the direction we want and become a strong flottilla of small boats. If we can continue this process then it will permeate to the top and some serious talking may be done.

    At local level in many areas, individual group hegemony and personalities must be, and are being, replaced with the need to work together . This process must be built up and encouraged.

    At a national level, where there are major points of unity then any excuse for not working together must be thrown out of the window. Any differences acknowledged and not used as an uneccessary barrier.

    That means what many of us have been saying for some time. A recognition of the plurality of the Left, for a coalition of resistance to be built involving as many as possible and learning lessons from the positive gains in Europe rather than our negative losses here.

    It also means being able to reach wide masses of people affected by this Condem Govt and dissilusioned with the lack of credible alternatives. We need to show we have a credible option without just assuming anything.

    Remember that fascist vote has increased in spite of the BNP defeats. At the same time many are mobilising around anti-fascist activities across the country. We need to link the anti-cuts, anti-war and anti-fascist activity into a movement that can provide alternative solutions based on the self-organisation of the working class.

    Hopefully those both inside and outside the Labour Party, those on the Left and those moving to the Left can start to be more creative in our approach. What this must not be about is re-establishing hegemony of one group over another.

    Like

  24. Well there are way and ways of establishing a hegemony and if Marxists are not in the business of establishing a hegemony then what the hell are they for. It is time for any serious Marxist trend to end all delusions about unifying the sects. They are sects and by definition cannot be unified. Marxism will win forces from its left only by an untyring critique orf sectarianism, centrism and cultism.

    Marxism must seek to win influence over the labour and trade union movement as a whole by exemplary work, united fronts and its own programme. It must, unlike the sects, put forward a programme of immediate and transitional demands that are distinct from the reformist slop but that must not stop it from concluding united front agreements for specific, practical ends. In a united front the sects and centrists will always drop their programme in favour of the prejudices and opportunism of those they are trying to unite with which means that those forces never get politically exposed. For instance it is possible to have an anti-cuts united front without swallowing the discredited Keynesianism of the defeated blairites and their hangers on.

    I think there is plenty of life in Respect yet (though it is not the be all and end all of our activities) and if the right wing are going to do an SWP in reverse and attempt to wreck the organisation on their way to a lash up with New Labour refugees then that is good for the left in Respect who will then have an electoral umbrella free of both the right wing liquidationists and the left wing centrist sects. The thing is that the only people who seem to have acted in courageous and exemplary fashion in Respect up to now are the left reformists such as Salma and Galloway.

    Like

  25. Hegemony of the working class not hegemony of one sect. A sect is a group that puts itself first and the needs of the class second.

    This cde ignores the fact that Respect is just one aspect of the pluralistic Left. In other areas there are many other formations either existing or emerging.

    United fronts must include all these elements, including Respect. There are many who are acting positively,

    Dave’s comments imply only Respect exists and anything else is a sect. That is both naieve and sectarian. Nor is it very helpful.

    Like

  26. alf: it would help honest debate if you grappled with what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote though I guess you are just making the case for wasting your life for trying to herd cats.

    Like

  27. at least cats show appreciation.
    If I misread then sorry but your article came over as though Respect is the only game in town yet you refer to the need for united fronts correctly. It also seemed confusing in building up only 2 cdes.

    Like

  28. `at least cats show appreciation’

    Not when being herded. No more time must be wasted on the sects leave them to nap and preen and feed and pose. Of course, sectarianism and centrism must be fought politically all the time as must opportunism if only to prevent such moods from infecting Marxist opinion. But mucking about with unity projects with these forces is delusional.

    I mentioned George and Salma, and of course there are many others, because it is illustrative that the left reformists seem more capable of principled exemplary work than most of the so-called rev socialists and that cannot be right.

    Like

  29. Well in many areas, including Brent, Socialists of many varieties are working very closely together on the cuts, fascism and many other issues. This includes those in and out of the Labour Party. We have had successful public meetings and busy mobilising against the EDL. So you must ignore facts on the ground. This is far from dillusional.

    The same is happening in many other areas. Do not counterpose the positive gains by Respect with the recent moves elsewhere.

    We must ensure that where ever there are formations emerging, they work together around principled points of unity and acknowledge each others existence. Through this may be it is not too late to learn key lessons and move forward.

    A non exclusive approach is required, involving the Green Left, TUSC, Respect, Counterfire, Right To Work and many others I do not have time to list. There are many across the country who are doing exemplery work and we must build a movement that does not just rely on a few personalities, no matter how good they may be.

    Like

Leave a reply to David Ellis Cancel reply

Trending