Alan Thornett wrote this piece for the current issue of Socialist Resistance before the letter to the Respect NC was known about. It covers some familiar SR themes.

The Brown bounce is now a central feature of British politics. Taken alongside new Labour’s strong showing in the Ealing Southall and Sedgefield by-elections,- where the Tories came third behind Labour and the Lib Dems,- it has made a snap general election a near certainty.
Of course it means what we mean by “snap”. The is issue is whether it will be in the autumn of this year or the spring of next year – – depending on Brown’s assessment of the durability of the “bounce” and when the problems are likely to set in.
October of this year must still be a possibility since from Brown’s point of view he is riding high and things can only go downwards from here. The crisis of the Tory Party is absolutely profound and they would be in complete disarray if faced with an October election.
But Labour is not ready in organisational terms, so the most likely date must be to coincide with the London Assembly elections in May 2008. One thing is as certain as it gets in politics. By this time next year there will have been a general election – and the most likely winner will be Gordon Brown.
Brown’s agenda is to look different to Blair (in fact his main electoral asset is that he is not Tony Blair) but this does not mean there will be any change from a reactionary government with a hard-line neo-liberal agenda.
Brown aims for the continuation of all the main features of New Labour:- deregulation, privatisation, the war, the replacement of Trident, the new relationship with the employers, and the old relationship with the USA.
On civil rights Brown is not only proposing yet another terrorism bill – but is re-raising the issue of detention without trial and its extension from the current 28 day to the originally proposed 90.
But an election in the next year, whatever month it is held, would also be a huge challenge for the left and in particular for Respect.
During the summer Respect did extremely well in winning a hotly contested council by-election in Shadwell in a very sharp political fight with Labour. This shows that Respect’s validity remains intact: in fact its validity is enhanced by the arrival of Brown.
It shows that Respect’s support remains strong where it has won bases and bastions out of its anti-war stance and the anti-war vote.
In the parliamentary by-election Ealing Southall, however, the story was very different. Respect secured a very poor result, winning no more than any left candidate would get who went into a campaign without adequate preparation and no local base.
The lesson from Southall is that whilst Respect has hung on to its anti-war vote in East London, and no doubt this is the case in Birmingham and several other places, it has not reached out into new areas or generalised its electoral influence across the country.
This is a major problem with a general election and the GLA election round the corner. If Respect does not start an effective election campaign now it could face disaster in a year’s time.
In fact far from preparing itself for a huge campaign Respect has declined as an organisation over the past two years ­ despite warnings from some of us who argued as best we could at the last Respect conference that this was a problem. Then the leadership denied or tried to minimise the importance of the decline in membership and the withering of branches outside of key target areas. But the problem is it was real and it is no better now.
The lesson from Southall is that Respect cannot win in a new constituency unless it has built a base well in advance ­- and that means establishing a viable and active local branch before the election and afterwards.
As we remarked in our last issue (SR 46) despite a discussion at its last National Council on the failure of the McDonnell campaign and the crisis of the Labour left, and despite a number of suggestions on ways that Respect could respond to the situation, the organisation’s leadership took no initiative. Yet the failure of the McDonnell campaign was and remains a major challenge to those who cling to a reclaim Labour perspective.
I made a proposal in June for an initiative towards the Labour left, the trade union left, and the CPB in the light of the McDonnell defeat which could continue the discussion started by the conference organised earlier by the CPB and the one organised by the RMT,- both of which took up the issue of labour representation in one way or another.
As far as I know this has not been discussed. Yet Respect cannot advance beyond its present stage without winning people from the Labour and trade union left. It cannot be successful in the medium to long term unless it wins the best sections of the trade unions into its orbit.
The much-vaunted Fighting Unions conference also lacked focus and failed to make any progress on this key issue: we need a far more targeted, engaging and inclusive approach if we are to succeed in the unions.
At the moment the RMT is considering whether to stand union candidates in the GLA elections. Respect should do everything it can to reach an accommodation with the RMT which would avoid such a clash.
We have to convince the trade union left ­- and than means people like RMT General Secretary Bob Crow -­ that there is a democratic space within Respect in which they can function and have an influence. We cannot simply say “here is Respect, it is the best thing around (which is certainly true) and you should join it or affiliate to it”.
We have to accept that Respect is a start, but only a start in building a genuinely broad left wing alternative to New Labour.
If Respect is to mount a serious challenge in the general election the following is crucial:

  • Respect needs to build itself as a national organisation. This means having much more of a national profile. It also means much more attention to building local branches. It needs effective fund-raising.
  • It must have an elected leadership which is seen to prioritise building the organisation and which works to create an inclusive, democratic space in which people from a variety of political currents can cooperate in leading the organisation.
  • It needs a much more effective means of propaganda, preferably a newspaper, as well as a much more dynamic website, broad sheets and leaflets, which can get Respect’s ideas and policies across in a more systematic way and persuade other elements on the left that we are serious about building an organisation on a firm political basis.
  • It needs a much more serious approach to recruitment. As some of us argued at the last conference 2,000 members is a major under-achievement for an organisation with the potential of Respect.
  • It must have clear socialist politics. This does not mean that we have to mention socialism at every opportunity, but Respect has to operate within a consistent socialist framework. The current leaflet for the GLA campaign, for example, is politically bland ­ and does not mention socialism at all! Almost all of it (apart from anti-privatisation) would be acceptable to a Lib Dem, and all of it would be acceptable to the Greens.
  • Respect needs strong material on the environment and on climate change if we are to challenge the Greens across the country. The strong positions on climate change we have adopted are marginal in most of Respect’s very limited literature. Whilst being strong on the environment we have to be politically distinct from the Greens -­ otherwise what is the point?
  • Respect also needs to address the issue of democracy, including electoral reform ­ which Brown is saying he will raise as a part of a constitutional convention ­ and the need for a referendum on the European constitution, which he has insisted he won’t. Electoral reform is a key issue for the success of smaller parties.
  • On the basis of this platform, Respect should be seeking urgent discussions with left trade union leaders such as Bob Crow, and other currents and organisations to lay the basis for a new and more inclusive alliance at the next election, laying the basis for a new left party.

34 responses to “A wake up call for Respect”

  1. “It must have clear socialist politics. This does not mean that we have to mention socialism at every opportunity, but Respect has to operate within a consistent socialist framework. The current leaflet for the GLA campaign, for example, is politically bland ­ and does not mention socialism at all! Almost all of it (apart from anti-privatisation) would be acceptable to a Lib Dem, and all of it would be acceptable to the Greens.”

    apparently socialism is such a dirty word that the swp daren’t mention it anymore in elections.

    this is a good article imo but i seriously think that respect is as good as dead. the only hope is that some individuals can be salvaged from it and drawn towards a new project.

    also, respect has always been a step back from class orientated socialist politics, yet this criticism is raised only recently. the isg tailed the swp in shutting down the alliance and in going into respect i think. it has also given the swp some ‘left cover’ (internationally also) just by being a token socialist organisation in respect.

    if the isg were ever a threat to the swp leaders they would be expelled from respect or silenced by other bureaucratic means.

    anyway, the criticisms made of respect / swp now are totally valid, so that’s good.

    comradely,

    ks

    Like

  2. Respect is dead comrade… I am going to keep repeating it until the SR comrades awaken to this fact….

    Like

  3. I think TWP sums it up for me really.

    “Yet the failure of the McDonnell campaign was and remains a major challenge to those who cling to a reclaim Labour perspective.”

    Respect is in deep shit. McD got 29 Labour MPs to back him and how many do Respect have? One and his support is pretty unstable and unpredictable. It was a electoral pact made in hell with two unstable political forces built on popular frontist politics. How progressive is it when socialists capitulate to reactionary ideas? And the fact Respect has spiralled away from the labour movement.

    Maybe if Respect expanded its political base it wouldn’t too bad but I can’t imagine that happening stuck in the quagmire of democratic centralism and the cult of personality that is Gorgeous One. Something has to give.

    What I will reiterate to SR is why bother with this mess ‘cos it seems time and time again when a leftie alternative to Labour is set-up it’s doomed from the start (SA was viable and progressive and look what happened).

    Surely you have learnt your lesson by now?

    Like

  4. andy

    Good of Louise to recognise this good and positive aspect of Respect: “built on popular frontist politics”

    I assuem it was meant as a compliment?

    Like

  5. “I assuem it was meant as a compliment?”

    Joke or serious question? Anyway here’s a clue about whether I am being complimentary.

    Trotsky on the Popular Front: “Strike breaking conspiracy”. (Whither France? 1935).

    Like

  6. Hey Louise now go find some of the many quotes from the OM dissing the Labour Party.

    Like

  7. Louisefeminista wants to reclaim Labour

    Sounds like the Waiting for Godot option.

    John McDonnell is a very decent guy, but he is a bit like King Canute thinking that he can stop the tide. One good thing about Galloway is that he has broken with the Labour Party.

    Like

  8. i’m sure louise already knows the many faults and crimes of the labour party.

    i think comrades should be more fraternal to reclaim labour advocates and just debate them in a calm polite manner.

    anyway this is the net so that wont happen i know!

    louise, what i would say is that just because a few attempts to build a party to the left of labour since the mid-90s have failed it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible.

    plenty of revolutions in countries where the objective situation is good have failed. this doesn’t mean that all revolutions will fail. as always, it’s a question of leadership. i’m sure we will agree on this point.

    i think that trying to build a new socialist party is a better use of efforts than trying to reclaim the labour party.

    true, the labour left have 29 mps (some more left than others). why arent they a pole of attraction to thousands of workers and youth then? why arent they organising mass struggles?

    i think the answer is because people view the labour party differently now. even those who still look towards it wont join it.

    on the other hand, a new party, one with serious support from trade union and left wing activists, could become a major pole of attraction. it could attract both workers (who would in the past have supported or been in labour), as well as youth, anti-war etc. etc.

    it could also be far more advanced politically than labour ever was and far more explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist.

    creating such a party isn’t going to be easy as we’ve found out! but i think it’s worth fighting for.

    to an extent, the prc in italy (before it recent degeneration), the wasg/die linke in germany, p-sol in brasil, sp in holland all show what is possible. none are perfect, but they are all examples of left parties that have built big support.

    the more socialists and marxists involved in building a new party then hopefully the better it will be from inception, both politically and more sucessfful.

    fraternal greetings,

    ks

    Like

  9. ks: “i’m sure louise already knows the many faults and crimes of the labour party.

    i think comrades should be more fraternal to reclaim labour advocates and just debate them in a calm polite manner.

    anyway this is the net so that wont happen i know!”

    Thanks comrade, I may disagree with you but you put your arguments across in a polite fraternal manner much appreciated btw.

    I wish that happened a bit more on the left esp. the internet (and there are times I am put off blogging/commenting and retire from leftie politics). It actually depresses me to be honest.

    We all get wound-up and narky and disagree (I too do it) but sometimes it can come across as macho defensive hectoring behaviour and any kind of criticism of this behaviour you come up against defensiveness. It would be nice to debate in a cool headed polite manner and so some respect to each others views.

    So thanks again ks

    Like

  10. On the popular front Lousie, quoting Trotsky (and he is credible, why??) doesn’t cut the mustand for me. :o)

    I could equally give you the refernece to GDH Cole’s excellent pamphlet “The Popular front”

    And it is worth saying that the popular front had a self evident success in defeating Mosley, and a perhaps more controversial success in smashing Nazism (can you get a bigger popular front than the USSR’s bureaucracy allied with the British and American empires?)

    My point here is that we can disagree, and debate in a friendly way, that is all good and proper.

    But there is a problem with the trot influenced left that they quote tendentious and unproven political positions, such as permanent revolution and the united front, as if they are self- evidently true, and without saying why they are applicable or relevent.

    So “popular front” is used as an insult, as if the wrongness of such a political formation is supra-historically always wrong.

    one of the good things about Respect and the Stop the War Coalition is that they are popular front, now there is a problem that the SWP have under-theorised their shift from United Fronts to Popular fronts, and therefore continue to operate with a lot of trot baggage.

    Like

  11. Andy: Yes, we can debate in a friendly manner but it aint just the trots with the problem.

    And there are big problems with the popular front (and so what, I quoted Trotters, I am in case you forgot a Trot at heart and it was a quick response and Old Leon said it all for me…)

    There is a difference between StWC and Respect. StWC was/is a single-issue campaign against the war therefore you will make broad alliances BUT does that mean you want to create an electoral pact with them?
    Another example, defending a woman’s right to choose, NAC for instance (over the Alton Bill) got Tories for Choice (or whatever their name was) on the platform and I think it was Theresa Gorman. She defended a woman’s right to choose but would I want to get into some electoral pact. No, I wouldn’t.

    The popular front is not the way forward and I think you are way way too harsh on Trotskyism. It deserves criticism on many fronts but not on defending the united front.

    Like

  12. fair enough Louise,

    but my main point here is that the hegemony of Trotskyism on the left is more apparent than real – so while people use “popular front” as an insult, they are assuming that everyone agrees with trotskyism, which is ot true.

    Personally i have no problem with the composition of Respect, the problem was the lack of democratic structures.

    In the same way I wouldn’t eat a raw egg, but I will use a raw egg to make a cake. Well some of the constituent parts of resepct were a bit raw, but had the organisatuion been allowd to evolve with democratic structures, then something slse could have been built out of it.

    Like

  13. “but had the organisatuion been allowd to evolve with democratic structures, then something slse could have been built out of it”.

    Yes, true enough and I like I said in another comment further up that if Respect actually expanded its political base then it may have had a chance but yes, one of the biggest problems is transparency and democracy. But the question is, will it be allowed to evolve with two unstable political forces? And the dead hand of democratic centralism?

    Somehow, my optimisim fails me a tad.

    On your point on using popular front as an “insult” (don’t believe I am doing it here I have political disgreements re it) there can be times when people chuck around various terms without fully understanding them and not just re popular front. I think that is what you mean?

    Just think theory isn’t seen as important as it was in my days i.e. basic ABC Marxism.

    Like

  14. yes – i agree

    I know that you personally have a good grasp of the theory, but too often it is simply assumed (not by you) that no-one could possible agree with the popular front, and no-one thinks that trotskism is wrong.

    Like

  15. “Respect is dead comrade… I am going to keep repeating it until the SR comrades awaken to this fact….”

    And how are things going with the McDonnell campaign Tami?

    Like

  16. I really think that Alan is flogging a dead horse as far as Respect is concerned. I still think that the project of establishing a democratic and broadly based party to the left of NuLab is not only worthwhile but essential, but the Respect initiative has failed – buried by a combination of the SWP’s control freakery and incompetence, GG’s ever declining credibility and the failure to attract any other organised forces to it. It isn’t going to climb out of the hole that has been dug for it, so we are going to have to start again – in rather less favourable circumstances this time.

    Like

  17. hi andy,

    it’s true that trotskyists shouldn’t assume everyone either agrees with them or understands their terminolgy.

    anyway, the popular front has a disasterous and bloody history and as a trotskyist i still firmly oppose it, both historically and today.

    i think we agree though that it’s for trotskyists to persuade others with robust debate – not just using ‘popular front’ as a term of abuse. it can only be used as a term of abuse if those involved understand it and formerly adhered to a trotskyist position!

    do you think respect should be more popular frontist and enter into alliance with the greens, lib dems? what about alliance in running councils?

    comradely greetings,

    ks

    Like

  18. ks: I think what you say is important esp. regarding assuming we all agree though, I don’t know, just seems basic theory has fallen by the wayside (maybe I am being unfair).
    I just sometimes see terms chucked around without any thought, debate or understanding. And it comes across as a term of abuse.

    Oh, and I agree with what you say about the popular front.

    Like

  19. Any reports from the SR AGM and your reorientation towards ecosocialism?

    Like

  20. are sr going to do a kind of open ‘entryism’ in the greens?

    ks

    Like

  21. Adam and KS I’ve been so cheesed off by the Kautsky fiasco that I haven’t been motivated to write anything. Maybe at the weekend or maybe another SR supporter will save me the trouble. The “highlights” were that the general line of the Savage Capitalism document was agreed. A proposal from the steering committee to change the name of the paper was deferred until the new year so if anyone has a bright idea for a new name let me know.
    We did not even take a discussion on doing entry work in the Greens. They are petit-bourgeois after all. Though some comrades felt that terms like petit-bourgeois are derogatory rather than a convenient description. However we are keen to work with left Greens and will shortly be co-hosting a meeting with some of them.

    As regards the discussion on popular / united fronts it’s interesting but it’s always useful if comrades define what they mean for the benefit of that small section of humanity unfamiliar with Marxist concepts.

    By and large most people who leave comments on this site are neither abusive nor aggressive. The sneering that I see elsewhere is an obstacle to a proper discussion. On a few occasions I have deleted remarks that were offensive or looked like they’d been written after the third pint

    Like

  22. Ok – good point Liam about what we mean by United Fronts and Popular Fronts.

    Consistently, a criticism is made of Respect that it is a Popular Front, as if the reader will automatically understadn what that means and will automatically assume it is self-evidently wrong.

    For me the question of popular fronts v united fronts is arcane and from a different historical era.

    The question is what the left should in practical terms be doing to shift the political landscape to the left and open greater possibilities for progressive working class politics.

    I would argue for socialists looking how we can intervene to create a more favourable political context, then there is no reason why we should a priori dismiss the idea of long term collaborative working with progressives who do not come from the workers movement. Welcome to the Popular front.

    If we argue that the role of the left is only to make alliances with forces from the workers movement, and only in a practical way to “march seperatley, strike together” in the way advocated by Trotsky, then there are a number of problems:

    i) whether or not Trotsky was ever right, he was writing at a time when there were both mass communist opartries and mass social democratic parties – neither of which is true now.
    ii) the United Front is tied up with the “crisis of leadership” paradigm, of seeking to expose the leaders of the social democratic parties and win them to the communist parties. This feeds into the front organisation type United Fronts that are all too common in the British left, where the main sponsoring group wants to be the only political influence, and therefore sees the “united front” as an pond to fish in.

    If we look at mass political campaigns that have shifted mainstream political opinion, like CND or to a slightly lesser extent Stop the War Coalition they have in fact been prepared to include political forces that do not come from the workers movement, and have permitted their message to be couched in terms which appeal to progressive opinin way outsdiie the orbit of the left. (For example the exemplary work around the Military families)

    Like

  23. In response to ks.

    I don’t know where Respect is going, so i cannot answer whether it should be “more popular frontist” or not.

    I don’t even know what the question means to be honest.

    The question of coalitions is of course a difficult one for the left, and one that has to be faced as soon as you start getting people elected. Given the actual record of the Lib Dems in office i find it hard to see anything progressive about them at all. – but this may reflect my geograhical position in the South West where the Liberals have always been a regional party often to the right of the Tories.

    Colaboration with the Greens would be very sensible though

    Like

  24. […] all about it here, here, here, here, here, here and […]

    Like

  25. Andy. Due to your lax definitions, you’ve gone completely haywire on this issue of Popular Fronts.

    At the risk of teaching you to such eggs…
    Remember that the pre-war call for a mass united front against fascism was made by Trotsky, at a time when the CP in Germany was refusing to ally with the “Social fascists”.
    This did not imply acceptance of the SPD’d politics, but did imply “unity from the top down”
    Only after the disaster in 1933 did the Comintern switch its line to supporting coalitions led by Socialists that were against Socialism!
    e.g. in Spain, where the Popular Front Government refused to nationalise the land and cracked down on workers who sought to occupy factories.
    As described by Orwell in “Homage to Catalonia”
    Stalin then zig-zagged back into his military alliance with Britain and the USA, which entailed crushing the popular resistance movements in Greece and Italy and dodgy dealings in Vietnam which set back the cause of independence by 30 years.

    If you’re saying that Cable Street was a victory fine, but was it really a “Popular Front”?
    All these other examples were demonstrably not. So what’s the balance sheet of this policy?
    The CPGB in wartime Britain was quite happy to join with the Tories and employers against striking workers.
    These weren’t people trying to sabotage the war against fascism, but ordinary people trying resisting attempts by their employers to make them bear the brunt of the cost of fighting the war.
    Such people made up the bulk of the conscripts to the army and suffered the heaviest casualties in both the blitz and the fighting in North Africa and Europe.
    Meanwhile, the ruling class was riddled with pro-nazi traitors and many of them carried on living the high life in Mayfair while the bombs dropped on the East End.

    By the end of the war, the CPGB had taken a qualitative step towards abandoning its traditions and adopting the “British Road to Socialism” – a programme that incorporated many ideas about allying with “progressive forces” which it had learned in wartime.

    Like

  26. Alex

    Well obviouly there are limits fo how far a debate can run in blog comments, so the arguments I pit forward are a bit abbreviated.

    I don’t think there is any mileage in discussing the period where the Comintern were obviously wrong in opposing united class action against the facsists in Germany. Though it is perhaps worth pointing out that the general thrust of the international policy of the United Left Opposition in the CPSU inspired by Zinoviev was also wildly leftist, and contributed to the trade crisis in 1927 (when left oppositionist Rakovsky was expelled from hos position of ambassador to France, and France joined Britain in trade sanctions) and the ineptitude of the left opposition of supporting Stalin/Bukharin against the centre of Tomsky, Chicherin and Rykov allowed Stalin to triumph.

    If the left oppostion couldn’t win in the CPSU where they had support of the majority of the army and navy officers, control of the Leningrad, Moscow and other party machines and at least as much supprt in the party as Stalin, then why we should accept their judegemts elsewhere, I don’t know.

    With regard to Spain – we don’t know do we? The trotskyists have won the argument in the political left consensus. But the fascists won the argument that mattered. In truth no-one in Spain with any forces at their disposal followed Trotsky’s advice, so we don’t know what would have happened. We can be pretty sure though that the fascists would have won much sooner without the aid of the USSR to the republic -Madrid would have fallen.

    Like

  27. Going back to the question of Respect.

    Take a look at their “What we stand for” document:

    Click to access f459.pdf

    Run a search for the word “socialism”. You can try it in “uppercase” or “lowercase”. The resulting hits will be ZERO.

    It’s an open and shut case. The SWP are promoting a public organisation without a socialist programme. The aim is to unite with people who aren’t socialists. It’s a popular front.

    Like

  28. I’d like to be able to engage with this discussion in a substantial way but I’m spending a lot of time trying to correct the Kautsky book for the next printing.

    However at the present time no section of the ruling class is likely to feel a pressing need to make any type of alliance with the radical left. The pressing practical issue is identifying which organisations, parts of organisations and radicalising layers are likely to be part of an emergent left formation. SR’s Savage Capitalism document is quite explicit on separating left Greens from their petit-bourgeois leadership for example.

    These discussions are likely to become very concrete if, and it’s one possibility among many, Respect looks very different in 6 months time.

    Like

  29. I believe Trotsky once said that the united front found its highest expresssion in the soviet. If we proceed from Trotsky’s argument then conversely it follows that the popular front finds its highest expression in the bourgeois parliament.

    In terms of its political content the popular front as developed by the Stalinised Comintern was nothing more a reformist programme painted over with a Marxist gloss. Of course the social democrats had been doing this for a few decades already, but without the Marxist gloss. So Stalin & Co didn’t really invent the popular front, they just invented the terminology as a political hook to hang their class collaberationism on.

    Like

  30. I think the reason I first raised this objection in this thread was I thought it was a bit rich for Louise to criticise Respect for being a popular front, when she is an active member of a neo-liberal party that has brought Sir Digby Jones into the cabinet, and is busy promoting privatisation and imperial war (her party not her individually obviously).

    The question for me is to establish that the dichotomy between United and Popular fronts is a false one or at least one from a previous era, as Nick McKerrill and Murray Smith have argued (I am not implying they agree with me, on the popular front but their critique of the United front as it operates today is a good one).

    The social democratic parties neither have the activist base, nor the influence within civil society for any meaningful united front between them and other left organisations to be relevent. Nor in fact is the labour party even a party of the Labour movement, except in historical baggage.

    So what we are left with is the “United Front” as proposed by far left organisations as pacts with themselves! Or rather in the model of both the SWP and CWI, anyone can join as long as the hegemony of the founding group is never jeopardised. These are not United Fronts, in Trotsky’s sense.

    Now I would argue that while Trotsky’s writings on the United Front are very valuable, as a description of a model of tactic and strategy that in continegent and specific historical circumstances can be relevent.

    But it is not irrelevent that in the specific circumstances of 1927, the United Left Oppositions strategy of failing to make an alliance with the centre (Tomsky, Chicherin, et al) was a disaster that opened the door to Stalin. The United Opposition was a dsastrous United Front of sorts, that failed to recognise that a revolution was impossible, but a broad and pragmatic alliance for a more humane outcome was on the cards.

    By my understanding, (reading the writings of the proponents rather than opponents of the Popular front in the 1940s and 1930s), the concept is to make an alliance with whatever forces in society will agree with specific aims, in an attempt to win a specific issue, or to move the general political context to the left.

    It is in fact more useful to see CND in its 1980s manifestation as a Popular front in this mould than as a United Front, and indeed CND was the last hurrah of the CP, where both the Morning Star and Marxism Today wings worked to keep CND broad and open to all shades of opinions including those who support the general military aims of the british state, but only through conventional weapons.

    With regard to Respect, it clearly is prepared to work with people outside the orbit of the traditional left, who nevertheless have a generally progressive attitude to opposing the war, etc. And who sign up to Respect’s policies, which as Allan Thornett has pointed out may not be explicitly socialist, but would if enacted nevertheless be a bitter pill for British capitalism to swallow.

    I think there was a possibility (now squandered) for Respect to consolidate a shift to the left for a significant section of the population that broke with labour over the war.

    What is interesting to me here is that both Alex and I agree that Respect is a popular front, but I see that as a good thing, whereas he sees that as a bad thing.

    Like

  31. It probably all goes back to the ANL (for you and the SWP) But there’s a difference in that the ANL was formed around a specific objective (stopping the growth of the NF) but wasn’t standing in elections as a political party.
    In fact, the only attempt by the “far left” to do that at the time was the Socialist Unity election campaign (there’s irony)
    It was also clear that the Socialist Alliance was…socialist.
    One could argue about whether it’s programme was left reformist or old labourist, or whatever….
    But Respect is different, it consciously doesn’t describe itself as socialist, or include the word in its programme.
    So whatever reassurances we are offered by SWP’ers to the contrary, it’s a pop-front.

    Strangely some people are suggesting that Galloway represents a healthier direction for Respect than the dominance of the SWP, but I think the opposite’s the case. If Galloway wins, it will shift Respect even further towards Populism.

    As to Louise and the LP, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being in a mass workers party (if it is) with a programme you don’t agree with if you’re trying to get it to adopt a socialist one.

    That’s a different situation entirely to creating a small party where you are the dominant force and giving it a public programme to the right of your own.
    In that situation, something has to give.

    Like

  32. There’s a lot of reason in what Andy is saying here: what some cal united fronts are actually propaganda blocs and ‘red fronts’ in the worst traditions of Stalinism. However, his definition blurs the distinction between united fronts and popular fronts.

    Other comrades are using ‘popular front’ and ‘united front’ in ways that are quite different from the original meanings of those terms and, in doing so, obscure the debate. Unusually, I think even Patrick is a little loose in his comments, which are normally flawless.

    The united front is a tactic in which communists work for joint action with others, and in particular the leadership of the working class masses, to win demands that reflect the objective interests of people. As Andy says, it’s rather hard to apply at the moment. However, the test of a united united front is that that is raises all the demands one support, nor that it calls itself socialist. Nor is compromise a test: a united front could be build on one demand.

    The popular front is a tactic in which unity is built around demands that represent the interests of the rich, and in which the independent organisation of working people is subordinated to the liberal capitalists. Andy’s view that the popular front was successful in defeating fascism doesn’t negate the fact that its strategic orientation was to subordinate the workers to the ‘democratic’ bosses. I take a negative view on the accomplishments of the Popular Fronts but, as he says, its has to be an continuing discussion as it’s a real strategic option.

    Populism is rather different: that’s a longer story.

    Louise may have many grounds to object to Respect, and many might be valid. However, it’s not a pro-capitalist party, nor has it a pro-capitalist platform. I didn’t see it break strikes: it’s a engine for mobilising solidarity.

    On the ‘learn your lessons’ questions — well, if the lesson is that one should return to entrism then it’s cool that we’re not ‘too cool for school’, and we want to continue to find a way towards building an alternative to Labour. Each of these successive regroupment experiences takes us forward, despite the setbacks.

    One final comment: Andy is quite right that the comments format is constraining this discussion. We need a much more interactive and open online forum.

    Like

  33. Thanks Chris – I think your contribution clarified the disagreements really well, and in a very constructive way.

    I don’t agree with the statement that: “The popular front is a tactic in which unity is built around demands that represent the interests of the rich, and in which the independent organisation of working people is subordinated to the liberal capitalists. Andy’s view that the popular front was successful in defeating fascism doesn’t negate the fact that its strategic orientation was to subordinate the workers to the ‘democratic’ bosses. “

    I would argue rather that in certain circumstances it is necessary to seek the widest possible social consensus towards shifting the political compass to the left. This is particularly true when the forces of the left are too weak, organisationally, ideologically and politically to win on their own.

    If they are not too weak then it would be far better to maintain independence.

    BUt there are some times when the left is too weak, and there are important battles to be fought. In my view it was absolutley correct to bring Charles Kennedy onto the stop the war platform for example.

    Now the question here is that if we are not strong enough to win our primary objective by the strength of the labour movement alone, then perhaps a secondary objective might be acheived in alliance with other forces, and obviously that secondary objective will reflect their limitations.

    This is why I think it is a mistake to see a Popular front as being around demands that represent the interests of the rich. It is about exploiting divisions between different strategies of the rich. For example, the wing of British imperialism represented by Churchill was temporarily far preferrable to the wing of French imperialism represented by Petain. They were both imperialists, but one side was prepared to capitulate to fascism and one wanted to fight it.

    It is true that the intellectuals of King Street did go too far in subordinating the CP towards opposing class struggle, but in reality CP organisation in the factories and in the forces was very politically active and militant whatever the party leadership were saying. It is not true that they simply subordinated themselves to the interests of the rich – for example the campaiging over Beveridge, the campaign for a Second Front, the solidarity with Greek communists army in Egypt, etc

    The wing of british Trotskism represented by Ted Grant and Gerry Healy were also much closer to the CP’s position than the position of Jock Haston’s leadership, as Grant/Healy understood that oppistion to the war had to be couched in terms of how to conduct a war to fight Hitler more effectively.

    (Incidently, Alex’s memory is slightly off as the “Socialist Unity” elections campaign were not unique, the SWP was also standing in elections in the late 1970s)

    Like

  34. “Alex’s memory is slightly off as the “Socialist Unity” elections campaign were not unique, the SWP was also standing in elections in the late 1970s”

    Yes, as I recall, Paul Foot stood after the initial SU campaign was announced. None of the attempts were very successful and most of the late 70’s radicalism morphed into the Bennite left and the growth of Militant.

    Nevertheless, I would still argue that there’s a big difference between a united front around a specific objective like stopping the growth of the NF and standing in elections, where you have to present a full programme on all social and political issues – which is really the definition of a party.

    Not including socialism is clearly a departure from even the situation in the LP prior to the removal of Clause 4.

    Why is it necessary, other than to make concessions to right wing propaganda, or the class interests of those who aren’t happy with the term?

    To me, this is just a sign that Respect is viewed as a political pressure group aimed at changing the course of British foreign policy and adding on some reformist demands about social justice – not a whole lot different from the SNP.

    Does anyone imagine that there won’t be a showdown between left and right in such a party sooner or later?

    I suspect it may be happening sooner than you think.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending