Respect National Council member expelled from SWP

British politics, Political Organisations, Respect

Respect National Council member expelled from SWP

Even though nothing has been heard from the inside it’s pretty obvious that the Respect discussion must be having its echoes inside the SWP. We can now confirm this because Nick Wrack has been expelled from the organisation for refusing to withdraw his name after being nominated for the new post of Respect national organiser.…

Liam

October 14, 2007

2–3 minutes

Apparently getting chucked out of the SWP is quite a bell, book and candle business. Though as punishments go there are worse. A couple of people I know to whom it’s happened say you aren’t allowed to attend any of their public events including Marxism. My guess is that your good qualities are rarely the subject of a wistful conversation either. Though it does potentially put both Respect and the SWP in the awkward position of not allowing Respect’s national organiser into next year’s session at Marxism.

The list below suggests that Nick is not likely to be the last SWP to be pushed or jump.

Twenty national council members have now supported his nomination (there are 50 members of the NC with 16 now being members of the SWP. This figure will be very difficult for the SWP to beat given that some NC members are not taking a position. The nomination is therefore likely to go through. The list nominating Nick is below:

Position of Respect National Organiser

I wish to nominate and support Nick Wrack for the newly agreed position of Respect National Organiser.

Linda Smith – Chair National Respect
Salma Yaqoob – Vice Chair National Respect
George Galloway – MP
Abdul Khaliq Mian – Newham Respect
Glynn Robbins – Vice Chair Tower Hamlets Respect
Ken Loach – Respect National Council
Yvonne Ridley – Respect National Council
Jerry Hicks – Bristol Respect
Victoria Brittain – Respect National Council
Abdurahman Jafar – Muslim Council Britain
Alan Thornett – South London Respect
Mobeen Azhar – Manchester Respect
Abjol Miah – Leader of Tower Hamlets Group of Councillors
Salvinder Dhillon – West London Respect
John Lister – Respect National Council
Paddy O’Keefe – Brighton Respect
Berny Parkes – Dorset Respect
Ger Francis – Birmingham Respect
Rita Carter – Lewisham Respect
Ayesha Bajwa – Vice Chair Tower Hamlets Respect

There is more detail about this at the Socialist Unity site.

Technorati : British politics, Respect
Del.icio.us : British politics, Respect
Ice Rocket : British politics, Respect

61 responses to “Respect National Council member expelled from SWP”

Andy Newman

October 14, 2007 at 7:45 pm

Rob and Kev have also been expelled, see full story here:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=824

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 14, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Also note that one member of the SWP (Jer HIcks) has nominated Nick.

LikeLike

Reply
Louisefeminista

October 14, 2007 at 7:52 pm

“You aren’t allowed to attend any of their public events including Marxism.”

Does that mean you can’t buy the paper either? I mean, if you attempt to buy it off a new member who may not recognise you does the leadership hand photos to all papersellers with the proviso of the “do not attempt to sell it to comrade X” So, before you sell the paper you have to check the list that the comrade is persona non grata…

Just wondering.

But how can you stop someone from going to a conference/meeting? Violence? Intimidation? Thuggery? And what message does this behaviour signal to the left, that debate is stifled?

SWP are not much different from the WRP. This to me illustrates the political weakness of the left and is not a strength in anyway. I suppose it is fundamentally about control. As the saying goes “it is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven”….

LikeLike

Reply
Red Squirrel

October 14, 2007 at 9:30 pm

But how can you stop someone from going to a conference/meeting? Violence? Intimidation? Thuggery?

Louise, it seems that you haven’t been paying much attention to the Lair during the summer.

LikeLike

Reply
Louisefeminista

October 14, 2007 at 9:44 pm

Yeah, Red Squirrel, I head all about it (and I was paying attention while you were searching for nuts and other food sources in very sunny far-away places:)

But are they going to continue this kind of behaviour to other comrades who have been chucked out or might be chucked out or ‘cos they don’t like them? It really isn’t a good advertisement for recruitment. Next stop WRP.

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

October 14, 2007 at 9:46 pm

Liam, what’s Glyn Robbins relationship to the SWP?

LikeLike

Reply
Red Squirrel

October 14, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Next stop WRP

I will not be particularly sad if the SWP meets this fate.

LikeLike

Reply
More trouble down t’mill « nedludd

October 14, 2007 at 10:42 pm

[…] Council. This letter includes support for Wrack as national organiser and would appear to be enough to beat the SWP if it came to a vote. What is happening here is that members of the SWP within Respect have bought […]

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

October 15, 2007 at 1:06 am

bound to happen, as much as the SWP tries to paper over the cracks
it won’t hold, Galloway wants his own hand picked people in key roles,
if the SWP disagree there will be more spits etc

it is like watching two hungry dogs fighting over an old meatless chicken bone

LikeLike

Reply
Darren

October 15, 2007 at 3:44 am

Isn’t Linda Smith a member of the SWP? At the very least, I always thought she was a fellow traveller.

LikeLike

Reply
S

October 15, 2007 at 7:43 am

“We can now confirm” Has NW personally confirmed to, we, that he has been expelled? Is is this more idle chatter.
Do you support the expulsion or do you see the rightward drift of SWP and former SWP members a good thing?
It appears the MacUaid is participating in openness, practicing what has once been condemned.
Did, we, canvas the NC for the support of NW? what in your opinion is worthy about circulating it on your blog?
How many hits have you received for this posting?

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

October 15, 2007 at 10:24 am

S my sources are reliable and I’m not going to say what they are. I haven’t yet put any wrong information into the public domain.
Do I support the expulsions? What difference does it make? It’s the way that organisation functions which is one of the reasons I would never join it.
SR supporters are supporting Nick’s nomination.
Not as many hits as the WW will get I’m sure.
Prinkipo he’s pretty close to one or two of them. More than that I don’t know.
As for the WRP comparison people began making that after the 2005 conference. I find it hard to disagree.

LikeLike

Reply
Stuart King

October 15, 2007 at 10:36 am

Well, it wasn’t long ago that Liam was promising us “sweetness and light” in Respect, and I pointed out this was to do with the possibility of an imminent election. Now no election and the bloodletting starts.

Anyone who understands the bureaucratic nature of the SWP knows that it cannot tolerate differences in its own organisation, or worse criticism of its leaders. This makes it extremely difficult for it to work in its so-called “special united fronts”, it either has to control them or leave them.

In the Socialist Alliance and in Respect SWP members not only worked co-operatively with other left forces but listened to arguments because it was possible to have debates and discussions not allowed in the SWP. This always leads to differences in the SWP. In a democratic centralist organisation these differences could be argued out, in the bureaucratic centralist SWP people are just expelled. (You can find a longer analysis of Respect and the SA in Permanent Revolution 6).

In fact far from sweetness and light we are heading for a mighty bust up in Respect as the SWP fights to continue to dominate it, and Galloway’s allies fight to prevent it. There is no way John Rees will be knocked off his perch, rather he will take the SWP and fly the coop.

LikeLike

Reply
twp77

October 15, 2007 at 11:02 am

So you’re throwing your lot in with Galloway as a result? This hardly seems the right conclusion to make Liam. Have you seen his latest rant at the Al Quds demo complete with Hezbollah flags and pictures of Khomeini?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n28hJS6-JFo

At 3:50: “My indignation is not so much against the imperialist leaders, not so much against the Zionist leaders…. my indignation is towards those belly dancers, fasting today and in the casinos this evening. Praying today and frollicking in the bordellos this evening. (Cheers and applause) This is my indignation.”

What an interesting assertion from the upposedly secular socialist MP who you support Liam.

It obvious that both primary groupings in Respect are corrupt Stalinists with very little room for anyone from the Labour movement or anyone who has a dissenting voice to be involved. This supposedly new revelation about the SWP does nothing to prop up your false position in supporting the Galloway clique. If anything it further proves the case for how corrupt the organisation as a whole is.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

October 15, 2007 at 12:08 pm

An interesting development, certainly.

I think this should give pause for thought for all socialists and activists who want to build a left alterantive.

When we build a new left we need to learn the lessons- far more open and democratic structures, a debate within and across the working class.

We don’t need united fronts of a special type. We need genuine united fronts in which the left – including Respect and the SWP, including the left ogf the lbaour party and worker militants can co-operate on specific points such as building networks of rank and file workers to make sure the union leaderships organise action on the pay freeze, to support postal workers taking unofficial action and to support the spreading of such action where possible, to support the Karen Reissmann strikers in Manchester, antideportation and all the other progressive campaigns.

Within this we should have an open, honest and fraternal debate whilst making sure the essential work gets done to look at the ways forward. Standing candidates in elections may be a good tactic, if it’s linked to a campaign with a local power base- for example a striking worker- and its designed to build an iorganisation of class fighters.

A more pressing need and something we should criticise the SWP on even more than their antics in Respect for not even attempting to do- is take practical steps towards supporting and where possible building a genuine rank and file movement in the CWU.

LikeLike

Reply
Louisefeminista

October 15, 2007 at 1:01 pm

” “My indignation is not so much against the imperialist leaders, not so much against the Zionist leaders…. my indignation is towards those belly dancers, fasting today and in the casinos this evening. Praying today and frollicking in the bordellos this evening. (Cheers and applause) This is my indignation.”

When I listened to that I was utterly appalled ‘cos who the hell is Galloway playing to as it aint to anything left-wing? There is no real political analysis in his speech just religious ideology. My reading is whether Galloway is making an analogy between sexual liberation with imperialism and the west.. And “frollicking in the bordellos” that made me LOL.

What gives with the bellydancer reference? I have many courses in belly dancing and have met women from were professional belly dancers in countries like Egypt and there has been a clamp down on this form of dance (and remember it is an ancient dance) and one dancer had to have minders ‘cos she had so many death threats.
So what is Galloway meaning about belly dancing, do I take a literal meaning or what?

It makes me even more certain to stick with the Labour Left and socialists who think Galloway is the way forward really need to wake up and smell the rot.

If I were to leave the LP I want to join something that is secular, socialist , and supports liberation politics. Basic demands comrades…..!

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 15, 2007 at 1:22 pm

I cannot believe that Tami and Lousie are so blinded by hostility to Galloway, that they misrepresent his speech in this way.

Galloway is absolutely clear that he is condemning the leaders of the Arab word for their hypocrasy, living the high life, visiting bordellos and yet presiding over misery in their own countries. And he condemns them for being belly dancers to Western imperialism, not as a condemnation of bellydancing, he mentions bellydancing becouse it is a traditiona dance of the region, and the rlers of that region dance for the imperialists.

It has been a long term criticism by socialists of the right that they are religious hypocits, piously praying on Sunday while impoverishing the poor. yet when he turns the same criticism on Mulslim leaders you condemn him for it.

LikeLike

Reply
Phil

October 15, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Yes. Apart from anything else, “if you’re so righteous how come you aren’t poor?” is a staple of *anti-*religious politics. One of the anti-Muslim bigots of the Italian Northern League turned this criticism on the Catholic Church a while back – “stop state funding and let them go barefoot, like friars”.

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Brooks

October 15, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Tami,

Quite accidentally you’ve ended up making an amalgam. Liam says that SR is nominating Nick Wrack, and you respond that Liam has thrown his lot in with George Galloway. Wrack and Galloway are different people, from quite different traditions.

Respect’s National Council, including Wrack and Galloway, now support those democratization measures that Liam has long promoted. Should comrades in SR end their support for the democratization of working class organizations when they win support from people who they don’t always see eye-to-eye with?

I realize that you don’t support Respect and instead favor the Labour party. However, you don’t need to be a supporter of Respect to consider greater democracy within it to be progressive.

Chris.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 15, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Louise: “There is no real political analysis in his speech just religious ideology. ”

This is Louise’s criticism of a speech that starts by prasing Che Guevara, and includes an analysis of the role of imperialism in the MIddle East, and especialy the role of the pro-Western Kingdoms.

Galloway slams into the most reactionary Islamic rulers in the world, in Riyadh and Kuwait, and praises everyone who fights for liberty.

he then uses those mainstays of Koranic recitation: “Fidel is our leader, Che Guevara is our leader, Hugo Chavez is our leader”

One of the criticisms of Galloay is that he allegedly panders ot conservative Muslim opinion. But to use Al Quds day to praise the example of Che Guevara, and promote the idea that Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are the leaders of the anti-imperialist movement is hardly “communalist” politics.

Galloway is clearly mkaing a speech that will polarise between the left and rigt among the Muslim community. Exactly the thing critics of Respect say that it doesn’t do.

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

October 15, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Galloway makes a point about Jerusalem being in the hands of “foreigners”

is that really a statement that socialists or anti-racists should be happy with?

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 15, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Modernity.

Who rules East Jerusalem? Has it or has it not been illegally anexed by Israel?

LikeLike

Reply
Tschistka in der SWP? « Entdinglichung

October 15, 2007 at 2:56 pm

[…] Artikel zu den Ausschlüssen gibt es bei Socialist Unity, Workers Liberty und auf dem Blog von Liam Mac Uaid. […]

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

October 15, 2007 at 3:04 pm

the statement was concerning Jerusalem, as the totality, NOT, East Jerusalem

but either way, are you happy with the idea of saying “that it is the hands of foreigners”???

can’t you see the racist implication of that?

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 15, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Modernity: are you happy with the idea of saying “that it is the hands of foreigners”???

broadly yes

Modernity: can’t you see the racist implication of that?

it isn’t racist.

I have no intention however of debating this further on this thread, as it is off topic.

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

October 15, 2007 at 3:31 pm

The foreigners that Galloway is talking about are Jews, ops “Zionists”

now instead, if someone had said that Bradford was in the hands of foreigners, you would immediately see the racist implications of such a statement

with Galloway can say that “…Jerusalem is in chains, is in the hands of foreigners…”

and you don’t bat an eyelid

that is part of the problem isn’t it, Galloway could say practically anything, and still find hero worship

Galloway could come out with any barely concealed attack on Jews, ops “Zionists” and his remarks would be excused away or the debate closed down, as you wish to, it is very much ON topic

that’s the problem with part of the Left in Britain, some types of racism are more “acceptable” than others, and then you wonder why the Left is so fractured?? the two go together

and don’t get me start on the sneering sexist tone of Galloway’s remarks and his pandering to the gallery, it is a low level, demagogic speech and inability of people to see the racist content is disquieting

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 15, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Modernity, as far as I am aware no part of Bradford is under military occupation.

Oh sorry I forgot. In 1967 Paksitan invaded Yorkshire and illegaly annexed East Bradford, how can I have forgotten that.

LikeLike

Reply
Louisefeminista

October 15, 2007 at 4:37 pm

“Should comrades in SR end their support for the democratization of working class organizations when they win support from people who they don’t always see eye-to-eye with?”

Yeah but Chris B, is Respect actually a wc organisation? Where are its roots in the Labour Movement, for example…. It is doing the opposite..spiraling away from it. If you think that is what Respect is then you are in for a rude awakening…

The Al Quds speech was appalling. Who was Galloway trying to attract, who was he appealing to? Actually, he is giving Hugo Chavez, Fidel and Che a bad name. And why isn’t Galloway’s idignation towards imperialism? He is actually kinda letting imperalism off the hook.

If galloway wanted to make a powerful political speech then why didn’t he expose the links between imperialism and the way they prop up many of the regimes in the Middle east including Israel. Expose the hypocrisy but no, Galloway decides to use it to talk about the bordellos and the casinos etc. Highly moralistic and deeply worrying.

Hey George, hypocrisy is rife in religion.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 15, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Louise you need to listen to the speech again.

Galloway is slamming into imperialism, and the corrupt regimes in the Middle East for being the deputy sherrifs of imperialism.

It is completley appropriate to point out the rank double standards of the saud familly praying and fasting on the one hand, and the other hand living it up themsleves in night clubs, drinking and womanising. At the same time they impose strict observance of sharia law in their own country, nd use their pan-Islamist politicall philosophy to undermine progressive politics in their region.

Galloway is here seeing politics as a way of seeking to influcne those who we disagree with, instead of talking amonst ourselves.

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

October 15, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Andy,

if you can’t see ANY racist implication in Galloway’s use of “…Jerusalem is in chains, is in the hands of foreigners…” then I suggest that you try reading:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/contents.html

btw, is it common nowadays amongst “socialists” to rant on about “foreigners”?? Hmm?

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 15, 2007 at 5:14 pm

yawn

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

October 15, 2007 at 6:39 pm

If you listen to it while awake the meaning of this speech is obvious.
It’s a terrific oraration from GG and I’ve been very sparing of my praise for him in the last year or two. It obviously an attack nf the neo-colonial rulers in the Arab world and that is, without any ambiguity, what the “frolicking in bordellos” reference is about. (I think someone should offer that to Franz Fedinand as their next album title.) As for the rest of it he’s introducing Chavez, Guevara and Castro to a new audience. That’s what propaganda is. He has many faults but he is peerless at this sort of thing. If only he’d deliver a few in the constituency.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 15, 2007 at 8:24 pm

BTW – I think I was a bit to personal in my criticism of Louise onand I apologise.

So sorry Lousie

No hard feelings i hope

LikeLike

Reply
tim

October 15, 2007 at 8:48 pm

so who are the foreigners in Jerusalem Liam?

LikeLike

Reply
Lobby Ludd

October 15, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Moralityblog says:

“…it is a low level, demagogic speech and inability of people to see the racist content is disquieting”

The patronising Morality is forever ‘disquieted’, perhaps he should be a little braver and say what he means – anti-Zionism = anti-semitism. But then, that would exclude himself from any sensible discussion of the continuing atrocities of the current state of Israel. Motes and beams, Morality, motes and beams.

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

October 15, 2007 at 9:17 pm

no LL,

I do suggest that you view Galloway’s speech in full.

when people talk about “foreigners”, and rant on about them as Galloway does, then I think it right to question why some socialists don’t see that is a problem?? It should be

need I spell it out? if the BNP rants on about “foreigners”, then people are rightly concerned that’s its part of their wider campaign to attack ethnic minorities and expound their racist views

if American nativists rant about “foreigners”, you can bet it is related to attacking Latinos

if the FN in France go on about “foreigners”, it is related to their racist and xenophobic agenda

so when Galloway echoes these sentiments, I would expect socialists and antiracists to take note

LikeLike

Reply
babeuf

October 16, 2007 at 2:17 am

Attempting to draw parallels with Palestinians being forced out of Jerusalem, moralityblog said

“If American nativists rant about ‘foreigners’, you can bet it is related to attacking Latinos. If the FN in France go on about ‘foreigners’, it is related to their racist and xenophobic agenda”

Dear me, quite a lot of typos there. Allow me correct them:

“If Native Americans rant about “foreigners”, you can bet it is related to attacking the government and police forces that oppress them. If the FLN in Algeria went on about ‘foreigners’, it was related to their agenda of national liberation.”

Sorted. Happy to be of assistance.

LikeLike

Reply
Alex Nichols

October 16, 2007 at 7:54 am

The truth is, that Galloway’s speech combines appeals to anti-imperialist sentiments, with demagogic cow-towing to religious prejudice and national chauvinism.

Which pretty much sums up his politics.

And Andy, now that you’ve turned on a sixpence and regard “Respect” as *the* vehicle for Socialist Unity, are you going to forget the critique of Yvonne Ridley’s de-facto support for private education you published on your web-site not so long ago?

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 16, 2007 at 8:20 am

No – I think Yvonne should never be a candidate for public office, not only becasue she sends her child to a public school, but also becasue she has publicly praised al Qaeda and the Taliban.

LikeLike

Reply
Alex Nichols

October 16, 2007 at 8:29 am

Andy: “I think Yvonne should never be a candidate for public office…”

Well that’s cleared that one up then!
But it does pose some contradictions for those who intend to work in Respect, given that Galloway is insistent that she play a leading role in the organisation.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 16, 2007 at 10:02 am

Politics is about working with people you disagree with, as much as working with people you do agree with.

LikeLike

Reply
Stuart King

October 16, 2007 at 1:40 pm

But Andy, George Galloway publicly stood before Saddam Hussain and said “I salute you, sir” (NB not the Iraqi people in fighting imperialism ,but “you” , the bloody dictator of Iraq).

Does that make him more suitable to be your Respect MP? If you can swallow that surely you can swallow a few Talian admirers?

LikeLike

Reply
Rosa Lichtenstein

October 16, 2007 at 9:04 pm

One or two of you write as if you think this is a problem only for the SWP/Respect, or even that it is a recent phenomenon.

This problem has afflicted the Marxist left since at least the 1850s.

As far as I can determine, other than Tourish and Wohlforth’s work, few have attempted to analyse this phenomenon (psychologically or sociologically) –, but no one has even so much as asked what the theoretical and/or ideological causes of our propensity to split, expel and control are, why our side is so fragmented (and thus so ineffectual) — and thus why workers ignore us in their tens of millions.
I think I have hit upon part of the reason:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

LikeLike

Reply
Ian

October 16, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Rosa, its because the left has always been small and ineffectual that they have a tendency to split.

Its the same with children. Once they get bored with a toy they move on to something else.Yet if they are organised properly , you have their undivided attention forever. (well until they grow up that is!!)

Anyway, does this phenomenon really an need analysis?

You say you ‘think’ you have hit upon part of the reason? After checking the link you seem to believe you have the answer.

Solidarity

Ian

LikeLike

Reply
cameron

October 16, 2007 at 9:16 pm

On Rob, Kev and Nick

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/692/swp%20party%20notes.htm

LikeLike

Reply
babeuf

October 16, 2007 at 9:57 pm

Ian,

I have a lot of respect for your comments, but that wasn’t one of your best.

You said “Rosa, its because the left has always been small and ineffectual that they have a tendency to split.”

So it’s written into the fabric of the universe that what is small and ineffectual has a tendency to split?

You continued “Its the same with children. Once they get bored with a toy they move on to something else.Yet if they are organised properly , you have their undivided attention forever.”

Are you confident that highly impressionistic ideas on the psychology of children as individuals can automatically be applied to the behaviour of adults acting in a group?

“Anyway, does this phenomenon really an need analysis?”

I believe it does, and urgently, or we’re going to condemn ourselves to making the same mistakes repeatedly when capitalism is only going to leave us so much time before it’s too late for us. I think Rosa is making a valuable contribution to such an analysis.

LikeLike

Reply
Nick Fredman

October 17, 2007 at 1:18 am

Analysing sectarianism and bureaucratic behaviour within Marxist groups in terms of what appears to me to be a highly abstract and idiosyncratic critique of dialectics is not very persuasive. It tells us nothing about the wide disparity between parties and groups with regards to these failings. It’s much more likely these are *potential* failings that can be exacerbated in particular circumstances.

A more concrete analysis in terms of isolation and political errors is mush more useful, such as Peter Camejo’s of how the US SWP degenerated http://www.marxmail.org/camejo.html

LikeLike

Reply
Ian

October 17, 2007 at 5:50 am

Babeuf.

No offence intended. I have a rather cynical view on the history of many small left groups and while some might have experienced limited success they have always at some stage imploded.Why is this?

There are huge lessons to be learnt with the current situation in Respect. But it is my view we shouldnt spend too much time debating it. Respect is a tiny influence (if any) on the many millioned working class.
What the left need to do is to quickly move on as the class struggle wont wait for us.
The entire left should grasp this question of how to orientate towards mass work . While there are many initiatives the left are too split and dont seem to want to unite under common purpose.

Due to this it has led me to not to commit myself to any group at the moment even though I have strong political sympathies to cetain tendencies.My reference to children is meant to be taken as humour. A failure there obviously.

I think Rosa does make a serious contribution but I think she is going to face a long struggle with left groups to get her contribution accepted.

By the way I think the debate on here has been rather good of late. I will try and visit more often.

Ian

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

October 17, 2007 at 8:34 am

I largely agree with Nick Fredman about Rosa;

Her thesis does deserve serious consideration but she is not the first to present a reasoned critique of where (as she puts it) the “theoretical and/or ideological causes of our propensity to split, expel and control” comes from, and Nick makes a good point about Camejo’s contribution.

In my own small way, I also have offered an alternative explanation, though rather less developed than Rosa’s: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=288
I think it is actually more plausible.

And part of the difficulty of Rosa’s critique, which makes it much less convincing to me, is that it doesn’t show how alleged philosophical deviations have actually impacted on the practice of the socialist parties, or even directly on their political theory.

It does read a little bit like a factionally inspired hammer to break the Walnut of John Rees’ theoretical reputation :o)

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

October 17, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Again, you’re forgetting about CLASS, and the class make up of such organisations, that is part of the reason why they are as they are.

Middle class dominated groupings have certain characteristics: big egos, personality clashes, splits, and these problems are not solely confined to the Left, such attitudes are often found in student organisations, community groups, etc and even the Tunbridge Wells residents association!

the splits, acrimonious disputes and conflicts cannot just be explained away by the use of politics, that is PART of the issue, but it doesn’t explain the totality or consistency over time of these splits.

To explain it away, or reach a reasonable hypothesis then other issues need to be included in the analysis: class make up, psychology, personalities, power relationships and politics.

Monocausal explanations do not suffice.

LikeLike

Reply
Rosa Lichtenstein

October 17, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Andy:

“And part of the difficulty of Rosa’s critique, which makes it much less convincing to me, is that it doesn’t show how alleged philosophical deviations have actually impacted on the practice of the socialist parties, or even directly on their political theory.”

And have you read it?

LikeLike

Reply
Rosa Lichtenstein

October 17, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Modernity, whi is offering a ‘moncausal’ account?

I specifically said I thoughtit was *part* of the reason for our failure.

Is it possible to deny that *the* core theory Marxists have claimed to have used for 150 years has absolutely nothing to do with our lack of success?

In a universe where dialecticians tell us everything is inter-connected, apparently the only two things that are not are these two.

LikeLike

Reply
Rosa Lichtenstein

October 17, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Ian:

“I think Rosa does make a serious contribution but I think she is going to face a long struggle with left groups to get her contribution accepted.”

I actually think I stand a 0% chance here, for if I am right (that this theory, among other things, acts as a source of consolation for failed dialectical Marxists), then, like religion, it will take the removal of its causes to eradicate it, or for it to be accepted.

Now, that will happen only after a successful working class revolution.

How we get from here there, though, I will not enter into at this blog.

You will need to read what I have to say to find out.

But one thing you should not do is dismiss my ideas before you have read them.

Sure, no one *has* to read my Essays, but then you should refrain from rejecting what I say before you do that, too.

LikeLike

Reply
Rosa Lichtenstein

October 17, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Nick, you seem to be following me around the internet making the same empty points.

Why?

You have not read my ideas, so what makes you an expert on them?

LikeLike

Reply
Alex Nichols

October 17, 2007 at 6:45 pm

R.Lichtenstein, I did skim-read some of your material a while ago. I thought it was tedious, unoriginal drivel.
Please stop cluttering up threads on several forums across the internet advertising yourself.
It’s very boring.

LikeLike

Reply
Ian

October 17, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Rosa. Do my revolutionary credentials really depend on whether I read your essays or not?

I havent criticised them because I havent read them. Why should I then reject them?

I’ll leave that to others. In the meantime I can see you have put an incredible amount of work into your essays so I will say credit where credit is due.

I still think you will have a long and difficult road to travel if you think you can convince the rest of the left to read let alone agree with your theory.

Please niote that I said to Babeuf that you make a serious contribution.

By the way I notice in a recent Weekly Worker that you strongly disagree with the line they took towards the SWP after you wrote an article from them. I assume you are perhaps a member of this organisation. How does that relate to your position about ‘failed dialectical materialists’?
Will you be conducting a debate with WW over your theory?
Personally I think a debate with them would be useful.

Solidarity

Ian

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

October 17, 2007 at 9:11 pm

I did try to read some of Rosa’s essays.

As an explanantion of why the left is in its current state
“the theoretical and/or ideological causes of our propensity to split, expel and control are, why our side is so fragmented (and thus so ineffectual) — and thus why workers ignore us in their tens of millions.
I think I have hit upon part of the reason:”

I’m afraid I found it entirely unconvincing.

It certainly is a good question but the idea that it is because of a frankly obsure and largely incoherent theory (as dialectics has seemingly become) has no real explanatory power.

As an aside, I think that dialectical materialism is much distorted- as far as I can tell it merely suggests that humanity should constantly adapt and refine our ideas about the world by testing them in pracitce. It’s materialist because it tests ideas in practice and modifies them- dialectical because the ideas change in dialogue and experiment. This seems entirely sensible to me despite the large amount of nonsense written about dialectics.

On rosa’s points I will try and look at them again but I was finding it quite hard going. I’ll give it another go in a day or two no doubt.

The real reasons the left is fragmented and split and sectarian and bureacratic I think are more complex. It is partly do with power of small groups, partly to do with a tendency to take refuge ins terile orthodoxies when reality dosn’t comply with what we would like to beleive etc. May be even to do with inheriting some of the more unhealthy traditions of Russian emigre politics.

But underlying all of these secondary reasons I think is the fact that the lef has failed – being then small there is a tendency to flounder around searching for the right answers and blaming others when we don’t get them.

So why has the left failed? Here I can’t promise any great answers but part of it is I think a failure to adapt to reality- firstly after the second orld war and the new lease of life for capitalism and latterly to the defeat of Stalinism and the new lease of life this has given western capitalism (Stalinism was of course an obscene monster that needed to be dfeated by the organised working class- however as it completely atomised and smashed the working class the triumph of western capitalism has not been an advance for the working class though no one progresssive should mourn any aspects of the stalinist barbarism)

What are the answers?

I’m not claiming to have all of them

But part of it surely is-

humility
open-mindedness
genuine willingness to engage and listen to working class concerns
a real sceintific practice of testing out and modifying our ideas in practice whilst keeping a commitment to working class democracy

Of course some may dismiss all of the above as platitudes. They’re not far off I’ll admit. However, (to adopt another platitude) if we really tried to put them into practice I think we would begin to get genuine results.

LikeLike

Reply
Rosa Lichtenstein

October 26, 2007 at 11:50 am

Jason:

“As an aside, I think that dialectical materialism is much distorted- as far as I can tell it merely suggests that humanity should constantly adapt and refine our ideas about the world by testing them in pracitce. It’s materialist because it tests ideas in practice and modifies them- dialectical because the ideas change in dialogue and experiment. This seems entirely sensible to me despite the large amount of nonsense written about dialectics.”

This is rather like those Christians who try and make the Bible acceptable by ditching the miracles, and the mysticism — and is no less unconvincing.

The fact is that those who ‘lead’ our movement certainly accept this ‘theory’, and, since they also believe that truth is tested in practice, the conclusion one and all avoid is that this ‘theory’ has been tested and found wanting.

Either that, or dialectics hasn’t been used, hence no one will miss it if it is extirpated from Marxism.

The only other conclusion possible is that the idea that truth is tested in practice is wrong, and should be ditched.

As for my explanation:

“I’m afraid I found it entirely unconvincing. ”

But, you haven’t read it yet!

Now, you do not *have* to read my Essays, but please refrain from making misleading statements about them.

However, several of the things you say I do not disagree with, but the idea that *the* core theory that has motivated Marxists since day one has nothing to do with our lack of success is, frankly, ludicrous.

It seems that in a universe where we are told that everything is ‘interconnected’, the only two things that are not inter-linked are the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism and its core theory!

Pull the other one…

LikeLike

Reply
Rosa Lichtenstein

October 26, 2007 at 11:54 am

Alex N:

“R.Lichtenstein, I did skim-read some of your material a while ago. I thought it was tedious, unoriginal drivel.
Please stop cluttering up threads on several forums across the internet advertising yourself.
It’s very boring.”

And Harold Wilson did the same to, and concluded the same about, Das Kapital — you seem to be as brainless as him.

And, if the only thing I succeed in doing is annoying you, I will continue to ‘clutter’ the internet to that end.

Have a nice fume…

LikeLike

Reply
Rosa Lichtenstein

October 26, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Ian:

“Rosa. Do my revolutionary credentials really depend on whether I read your essays or not?”

Whatever gave you that idea?! I have not, nor will I, question your revolutionary credentials on that basis!

“I still think you will have a long and difficult road to travel if you think you can convince the rest of the left to read let alone agree with your theory.”

I agree, but comrades will plough through endless pages of incomprehensible material written by Hegel, Adorno and the like.

Now, my Essays tackle this topic from a completely new angle, and, if I may say so, with crystal clarity.

Nevertheless, I have no illusions that most comrades will ignore my work.

But, that is their problem.

When I write short essays, they moan about their ‘superficiality’!

When I go into unprecendented detail, they pull an ‘Alex Nichols’ on me (and resort to abuse, distortion and lies — he says my work is not original, when 90% of it is; I defy anyone to show otherwise).

“By the way I notice in a recent Weekly Worker that you strongly disagree with the line they took towards the SWP after you wrote an article from them. I assume you are perhaps a member of this organisation. How does that relate to your position about ‘failed dialectical materialists’?”

I used to be in the SWP, and will re-join it when I have finished this project (if they will have me back!).

I have never belonged to the WW mob — I wrote that article for their paper some time earlier, but had I known what they were going to say about the SWP, I would never have written it for them.

[The SWP would not publish such material, I have to say.]

Since I want to see a successful revolutionary movement, and I see this ‘theory’ as part of the reason for our lack of success, it would be foolish of me not to expose it for what it is — despite the almost unremitting hostilty I get from comrades, many of whom treat dialectics as if it had been sent to us from ‘God’.

“Will you be conducting a debate with WW over your theory?

Personally I think a debate with them would be useful.”

I have washed my hands of them — my reply to several letters they published in response to my article can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Weak-Replies.htm

LikeLike

Reply
Idetrorce

December 16, 2007 at 4:44 am

very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce

LikeLike

Reply