Here is a draft of a piece I’ve written for International Viewpoint. This is how it describes itself:

International Viewpoint, the monthly English-language magazine of the Fourth International, is a window to radical alternatives world-wide, carrying reports, analysis and debates from all corners of the globe. Correspondents in over 50 countries report on popular struggles, and the debates that are shaping the left of tomorrow.

In August this year Respect’s member of parliament (MP) George Galloway wrote a document to the organisation’s National Council (NC). At the time it was generally believed that Gordon Brown would announce an early general election and Galloway was clearly alarmed by Respect’s utter lack of preparation. Among his key points were

· Despite being a rather well known political brand our membership has not grown. And in some areas it has gone into a steep decline.

· We have stumbled from one financial crisis to another.

· With the prospect of an early general election we are simply unable to challenge the major parties in our key constituencies.

· There is a custom of anathematisation in the organisation which is deeply unhealthy

· 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.

Respect’s National Secretary John Rees is a leading figure in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Rees judged the document to be an attack on the SWP. Over the following weeks the SWP claimed that they were being attacked on account of their socialist politics and that a “witch hunt” was being organised against them.

Two camps rapidly formed on the NC. One comprised the SWP members and some allies and the other consisted of Galloway and nineteen non-SWP NC members including International Socialist Group (ISG) members Alan Thornett and John Lister.

The two day annual conference was scheduled for the weekend of 17th and 18 November. It quickly became a major source of contention. The SWP argued that it was the legitimate decision making body and would go ahead as planned. The other camp argued that there was strong evidence from all over the country that SWP branches were being instructed to get as many of their members elected as delegates as they could. In some confirmed cases SWP full timers tried to argue that delegations be comprised entirely of SWP members. Equally controversial was the selection of large numbers of student delegates, many of whom were not paid up Respect members. Another disputed issue was the election of delegates from Tower Hamlets, the borough which contains Galloway’s constituency. Two rival delegations both declared the other one illegitimate.

The outcome was that on Saturday 17th November both sides of the dispute held separate conferences thus making the split de facto. Each conference attracted about 300 people. Supporters of Socialist Resistance, the paper which the ISG helps produce attended the Respect Renewal conference. This was the conference which began to organise the majority of non SWP Respect supporters.

The Communist Party’s newspaper The Morning Star said of the audience “The hall was packed out with a genuinely diverse crowd – young and old, men and women, black and white, Asian, Muslim, Christian and those of no faith, plus trade unionists and socialists from different traditions.”

Linda Smith, Respect Renewal’s chair and an official in the Fire Brigades Union, opened the conference by declaring that it is the real Respect and that the other conference had no legitimacy.

George Galloway in his opening remarks observed that four years after its founding Respect has lost half of its membership and now has only 2500 paid up members. He argued that the SWP’s leadership didn’t want Respect to grow too large because they feared they would lose control of a large organisation. Summing up his politics he said “We set out to create a mass, broad party for working people. That party needs pluralism and democracy.”

Salma Yaqoob spoke twice. After Galloway she is Respect’s best known public figure. She directly referred to the Venezuelan revolution as an example of how some societies are rejecting the neo-liberal model and explained how Respect in Birmingham is trying to build itself as the anti-communalist organisation.

Among the guests addressing the event was Penny Duggan of the LCR. She reported on the strikes in France and told the audience of the LCR’s commitment to building a broad party that will incarnate the resistance to capitalism in France.

Summing up the discussion Nick Wrack remarked on the participants’ “feeling of liberation”. Even though the organisation had been split down the middle the people in the hall, who formed the core of independent activists and contained significant numbers of Bangladeshi members from Tower Hamlets were determined to carry on building a party. He added that members need to see Respect Renewal as a part of a process towards building a broader party that will include people from the Communist left, the Labour Party and environmentalists. This process will start with a series of meetings and discussions across England and Wales in the coming months with organisations and individuals. George Galloway added that members will be invited to submit documents outlining their ideas on Respect’s development and that the acting leadership would be doing the same. There will be a conference after the May elections to develop a programme.

Speaking on behalf of Socialist Resistance John Lister said that the organisation was willing to cease production of its monthly paper and hand over its financial resources as well as its production facilities to allow Respect Renewal to begin producing a monthly paper. This decision was welcomed and agreed by the conference. Socialist Resistance will shortly be discussing how to maintain its own public profile in the light of this step. . The first issue of Respect Renewal’s paper will be ready for the climate change demonstration in December. The new publication will be different from the well designed but uninspiring, apolitical tabloids that Respect has traditionally produced. It will have analysis, discussion and give branches something to organise around.

The split is Respect is a temporary setback in the construction of a class struggle mass party in Britain. However the choice was either a separation or a continuing slow decline. The Respect Renewal conference demonstrated that there are several hundred people who have tried working in Respect for three of four years and have concluded that its old way of working was stopping it from growing. In most parts of the country branches met infrequently or only to elect conference delegates. Many members felt, rightly or wrongly, that the SWP treated it as their own property and felt that the pain and disruption of a split was a necessary price to pay to allow the organisation to develop.

The omens are promising for the relaunched organisation’s future. Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester and parts of London sent along enough people to quickly establish viable, dynamic branches. A leadership and infrastructure are emerging quickly. This includes Salma Yacoob, Alan Thornett, Rob Hoveman and Kevin Ovenden. These last two were also recently expelled from the SWP.

The conference was a big success. Salma Yaqoob said that she had arrived with a heavy heart but was leaving with a light heart. She had reason to. We were present at the significant next step in the creation of Britain’s class struggle, anti-imperialist working class party.


Technorati :
,
Del.icio.us : ,
Buzznet : ,

48 responses to “Britain: Launch conference of Respect Renewal”

  1. Liam wrote:

    “In August this year Respect’s member of parliament (MP) George Galloway wrote a document to the organisation’s National Council (NC). At the time it was generally believed that Gordon Brown would announce an early general election and Galloway was clearly alarmed by Respect’s utter lack of preparation. Among his key points were

    · Despite being a rather well known political brand our membership has not grown. And in some areas it has gone into a steep decline.

    · We have stumbled from one financial crisis to another.

    · With the prospect of an early general election we are simply unable to challenge the major parties in our key constituencies.

    · There is a custom of anathematisation in the organisation which is deeply unhealthy

    · 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.”

    I will address points two three, four and five later. However, here is my opening salvo in response to point one:

    Given his concern about an insufficiently large membership, has Galloway’s electoral machine grown in any sense since his bid to crush the SWP, to reduce it to nothing more than a squad of cheerleaders for himself? That was the only option on offer to John Rees and the rest of the SWP. They were told to commit hari kari as an organisation. And this offer was grasped with both hands by Nick Wrack, Kevin Ovenden, Rob Hoveman, Nick Bird and a couple of others whose names escape me. Any failure to surrender to this dictatorial ultimatum would result in the SWP having to pack their bags. They could do so voluntarily or by edict from the gorgeous one. As it turned out, Galloway went for option two: he locked them out of their offices, and their property was confiscated, at least for a time. The SWP was given not a moment’s notice. Of course, no bonaparte advertises a coup in advance.

    Despite the lies by his toadies on the pre-conference national council, Galloway’s initial intervention WAS designed to destroy the SWP as a Leninist organisation. Either that or purge them from Respect. That much is clear to everyone, whatever lies are now employed to cover up what actually happened. The fact that EVERY other organisation that describes itself as ‘Leninist’ justifies the expulsion of Wrack and co for breaches of discipline speaks volumes. The fact that Thornett’s group denounces these expulsions only proves just how far the British section of this Fourth International has moved away from Leninism.

    Secondly, with the inevitable split dynamic contained in Galloway’s intervention, a split between whatever fans Galloway could cobble together and the SWP core activists, and all those whose attitude to politics extends beyond “My Galloway, right or wrong,” how on earth was this intervention supposed to quantitatively strengthen Galloway’s electoral machine? ‘Respect Renewal’ is presumably built on some kind of Tardis-like technology. Galloway’s troops have declined dramatically as a consequence of his intervention. The SWP’s base in the universities, the unions, their organisational strength within the anti-war movement… all this means Respect will win a steady stream of young activists from within the working class, so long as they play their cards right, which means continuing with the recent perspectives. Alas, looking at Respect’s conference, it is obvious that the composition of ‘Respect Renewal’ is tilted away from youth. Additionally, while it is great for left-wing organisations to have Asian and Muslim supporters, there appears to be a disproportionate appeal to such people, a disproportionate appeal that will assist the BNP’s propaganda about this organisation. The basis upon which Respect Renewal is being built in Tower Hamlets will exacerbate tensions that will make life more difficult for Muslims. The communalist basis upon which Abjol Miah wants to build his appeal plays into the hands of all the Islamophobia in British society. By bowing down to Abjol Miah’s flawed perspectives, Galloway is indirectly contributing to the problesm all Muslims will face. Of course this is not his intention, but it is the inevitable consequence of what he is doing.

    It is absolutely clear from Abjol Miah’s speech at Galloway’s rally that his appeal to Muslims is on the basis of religion, NOT class. Some anti-capitalist!Together, the communalist businessmen had the financial resources to take out many paper memberships of Respect for their family, their non-unionised employees and other friends an apolitical Muslims in their “community.” However, they are utterly incapable of drawing together an army of footsoldiers essential to build any kind of electoral machine, other than by appealing solely on the basis of race, religion and ethnicity.

    Additionally, it is obvious to me that the cause of Respect’s inability to grow prior to Galloway’s intervention was the exact opposite of what he argued in his original letter, and since. If Galloway wanted an answer to the problems of Respect’s growth, then he would do well to consult a mirror. Examine it very, very closely George, and wake up to what has been staring us all in the face for a very long time. GALLOWAY was the problem – although the communalist businessmen ran him a very close second. Thornett, Loach and co boast about how they condemned Galloway’s appearance on Big Brother, while John Rees and the rest of the SWP members on the national council chose to turn a blind eye to just how much damage he did to Respect then, as on so many other occasions. Ok, a very good case can be made for the SWP having made a mistake in their drawing a veil over this catastrophic error on Galloway’s part. Clearly, by tippexing out of the published minutes any substantial condemnation of Galloway’s behavior, John Rees and co merely invited him to go on the rampage again and again. Galloway drew the conclusion that he was above criticism, that he could in fact get away with murder. Therefore, when John Rees had the temerity to instruct all Respect’s elected representatives to attend Gay Pride. John Rees did this in the hope of finally nailing the ‘lie’ that the presence of so many non-socialist Muslims made Respect’s commitment to equality a dead letter. Unfortunately for John Rees and the rest of the SWP, this instruction merely acted as a catalyst for the homophobic businessmen. They put their foot down. Just as Galloway had won his free vote on abortion, the Tower Hamlets communalists now demanded their free vote on gay rights, and their right to vote with their feet, when Gay Pride came knocking on their door. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy towards homophobes fell apart at that point. John Rees finally realised that. And when he did what he had to do in the hope of remodelling Respect into an attractive option for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, ALL the anti-democrats rose up in rebellion. Their rallying cry was “pluralism,” the last refuge of the anti-socialist liberal. Thornett and co enthusiastically leapt onto Galloway’s anti-SWP bandwaggon without caring a jot about the political content of the split between Galloway and the communalist businessmen, on the one hand, and the SWP on the other. This was opportunism motivated by career advancement inside Galloway’s fan club.

    So, what happens next? In my humble opinion, liberated from the anti-Leninist witchhunters, the homophobes, the anti-abortionists, the communalists, the businessmen, the SWP and the rest of Respect can finally attract more of the kind of people it needs. However, the existance of the CWI-sponsored CNWP/NSSN, John McDonnell’s supporters and key union leaders like Mark Serwotka, Bob Crow, Matt Wrack means that Respect cannot be the solution in and of itself. It will need to work with others, negotiating informal electoral pacts even with a few left-wingers in the Green Party and the Labour Party. Respect will inevitably grow as a part of this process, not as an alternative to it. In the long term, the Respect brand might be surrendered for something better. The fact that international supporters of Thornett’s group felt unable to boycott the genuine Respect conference, wheras Mark Serwotka did feel able to boycott Galloway’s rally must have came as a body blow to Liam. And that is why I find his optimism puzzling. Having listened to Galloway’s speech, Abjol Miah’s speech, and read the bile from Respect Renewal supporters on Andy’s blog, Liam must know that Respect Renewal CANNOT be a home for him. I guess he is just not ready to admit that he has made one hell of a mistake.

    Like

  2. Personally,(rude comment deleted) The late Roy Bull was a marginally better writer, and probably more lucid.

    Like

  3. Liam, you’re report is a little disingenuous.
    You skip over the genuine issues that the SWP have raised, for example, the rise of petit bourgeois elements into the leadership of Tower Hamlets Respect., the defections of leading membersof TH Respect to New Labour and LibDems etc. (one Respect Councillor had stood only 2 years previous for the Tories!)
    Also George Galloway had a problem because the National Office of Respect called him 3 times to suggest that he should (as Respect’s most well known figure) attend London Pride. Do you think the Respect National Office were wrong?
    You yourself criticised Galloway more viciously than John Rees! Do you think that Galloway is suddenly going to tour white working class estates in Bethnal Green or become a brilliant constituency MP – the guy has let Respect and himself down.
    He is a brilliant anti-imperialist and orator and had the potential to become the Nye Bevan of his generation, a genuine tribune of the opressed. While head and shoulders above any New Labour or LibDem MP, he is not punching his weight as a Respect MP and a tribune of the oppressed

    Like

  4. To put it more bluntly, I was very sympathetic to Socialist Resistance’s analysis of Respect and how to build Respect, but I couldn’t defend them walking out of Respect and setting up a rival organisation nor could I throw my lot in with the small businessmen and petit-bourgeois elements that RR alligns with. Things may have come to a split but Thornett, Galloway and Yacqoob should have delayed walking out as long as possible.
    You praise the RR conference – but 300 people at a rally with Galloway, Loach, Tariq Ramadan and other high profile speakers is tiny.
    RR has no potential to become a nationwide organisation and will be a local phenomenon in areas of Brum, TH and South Manchester.
    Rather than resulting in two vibrant organisations or even one, this split will demoralise many Respect members and supporters.
    Two months ago, Respect having 2-3 MPs, Lindsey German on the GLA was a possibility – now it’s unlikely.

    Like

  5. If there is a split, it should be a temporary separation and all sides should be working towards re-uniting Respect and drawing in wider forces.

    Like

  6. I agree with the final post of Adam. RR must make an initiative for a wider regroupment with forces like the CBB, RMT and involving a working relationship with the LRC. Certainly any suspicion of diva politics would hinder that since only a democratic and accountable regime will sustain a wider regroupment. There is still the problem of the SWP, who must be positively engaged with but cannot be allowed to play glove puppets with a broad socialist party.

    Like

  7. Sorry “CPB”. I also think that Adam’s second post was overoptimistic about Respect at that time.There had been a slump in membership and in many areas respect was just an address list in the back pocket of the local SWP organiser.

    Like

  8. “Two months ago, Respect having 2-3 MPs, Lindsey German on the GLA was a possibility…….” Hmmm….really?

    I think that’s a highly over-optimistic view of where Respect was at the time of the Galloway letter.

    Like

  9. Tom yours is the most cogent attempt I’ve read to put the other side of the case. Thanks. To do it full justice would take another 1200 words and I won’t be able to do that today. Perhaps other readers can respond to some of Tom’s point in the serious and comradely way in which he made them.

    Our view is that the points raised by GG were pretty modest and they were shared by many NC members. Have a look at the video of Ken Loach which you can track down at SUN. It would have been easy to have reached a mutually satisfactory agreement on them. One can speculate about why the SWP’s leadership didn’t roll with the punch but the fact is that they opted to see it as “a declaration of war”. That was John Rees’ phrase. My source for that is Alan Thornett.
    Was GG out to wreck the SWP as a Leninist organisation? Our view is that what was rankling not just him, but large numbers of other people in Respect, was the manner it which the SWP was using its numbers and discipline to determine the outcome of every decision in Respect. If everyone involved with Respect Renewal is so keen to smash up democratic centralist organisations then the CPB better start getting worried about the approaches that will be made to it. The issue here is that the SWP was requiring all its members to vote the same way on even the smallest tactical issue. This is a misapplication of democratic centralism. Some comrades refer to it as bureaucratic centralism. In typical Respect branches it had a suffocating effect.

    Describing some of the key people involved in RR as “fans” of GG is unconvincing. Several of them have been his consistently sharpest critics and he has read their articles and watched their videos. This is relevant to what Adam J has commented. For the first time RR is developing a genuinely collective leadership rather than an alliance between an unpredictable figurehead and the SWP’s core team. GG will have to get used to having to work with people who disagree with him and have a record of saying so,
    It’s true that the attendance at the RR conference was older than one would have hoped for. But the significant difference is that everyone there was committed to building branches and a national ongoing organisation. Why is it that in large parts of the country, even places that have traditionally been fertile for the left like north London, Brighton and Liverpool the Respect branches are so weak? That is going to change.

    The Labour Party experience of winning the party mainstream to an acceptance of the right to choose and LGBT rights is an important one. It wasn’t done behind closed doors or set aside because it was controversial. These issues were fought out in branches and at conferences. SR supporters were raising these right from the start in Respect and Lindsey German called us Islamophobes for doing so. But you don’t win the argument on this issue by raising it only when you want a stick with which to beat people with whom you disagree. That is the manner in which it has been raised in recent weeks. In any case the RR conference next year is certain to take firm positions in defence of these rights. The balance of forces at Saturday’s conference made it inevitable.

    Here is a rhetorical question Tom. When did you uncover all “the homophobes, the anti-abortionists, the communalists, the businessmen”? That phrase could have been lifted from the AWL.

    Adam the economic centre of gravity in the Bangladeshi community is petit bourgeois. Everyone knew that right from the start. That put a responsibility on socialists in the organisation to introduce a political differentiation and begin giving a real political education to the membership. You do this with a political newspaper, pamphlets, educationals, discussion groups. This did not happen. The temporary leadership that was ratified on Saturday is committed to this process. At the same time the political centre gravity of the organisation is on the class struggle, socialist left and that is where the organisation’s, despite the setback of the split, the future lies and that is why RR has committed itself to open discussions with other forces on the left.

    Like

  10. It’s even less likely now!
    I do think that Liam’s account is a little dishonest given his own vicious criticisms of Galloway on this blog.
    Does he think that Galloway will change now that Alan Thornett is his new right hand man?
    While Socialist Resistance may argue that the problems in Tower Hamlets were caused by the SWPs methods of building Respect as a loose coalition they have consitently glossed over the genuine problems that have arisen in that borough.
    Tower Hamlets should have been a beacon to the rest of the UK with 12 “socialist” councillors and a “socialist” MP who would be in the words of Michael Lavalette, “community shop stewards” and “tribunes of the oppressed”.
    While (unlike the Greens, LabourLeft, Plaid, SNP) not a single Respect Cllr has voted for neoliberal cuts and attacks on working people or formed coalitions with LibDems or Tories (I don’t give much credence to Ted Jeory) it is clear that Respect’s performance in Tower Hamlets has been disappointing and the faction that Liam/SR/Respect Renewal are alligning with are on the right wing side of the debate.

    Like

  11. Adam “collective leadership” is not code for “right hand man”. The old Respect did not have a collective leadership. GG was a figurehead. JR took all the major decisions depending on what the SWP’s priorities were.

    All the rude things I said about GG are still up. They were true when they were written but, for reasons few understand, he has decided to have a fight to create a new kind of party. It coinicides to a large extent with the concept of the party that we want to build. Should we reject him because he has behaved foolishly on several occasions or should we work with him when we agree with him?

    Ken Loach said on Saturday that the NC was given virtually no information about money, membership of much else. The new leadership will not face these limitations and the audience in the hall were the majority of the independent activists.

    By this time next year the political framework of RR will be clear, including the balance between the left and right. Our intention is to engage in the struggle to shape it and build it.

    Like

  12. Adam, when you say: the faction that Liam/SR/Respect Renewal are alligning with are on the right wing side of the debate.

    I don’t know what possiible evidence you have for that. The four rebel SWP councillors do not seem to have behaved any differently from the others, and there have been no real policy differences.

    And also is it your view that the “left wing” is always correct? What does “left wing” means in that context. Are the Sparts more likely to be correct, they are certainly left wing.

    Like

  13. Perhaps your comrades from Birmingham could fill you in on how South Birmingham Respect has operated (home of Cllr Yaqoob and Cllr Ishtiaq). Regular members meetings, no. Large membership, no. Pluralist leadership no.

    I was struck listening to Georges speech how he lays all the problems of Respect at the door of the SWP but does not have any self criticism (does he not know how many members Respect lost due to his appearance on Big Brother?).

    About the emerging new leadership of Respect Renewal, did anyone elect them? Would not that have bee a good democratic start to Respect Renewal?

    Like

  14. The Disreputable Octopus Avatar
    The Disreputable Octopus

    Andy, you might be smarter than me, but isn’t it intellectually dishonest for you to suggest that your splinter group isn’t to the right of the Respect you left behind?

    You and Liam have both been critical of GG’s rightward indiscretions in the past, in the ethereal days when the Rees doctrine was to see, hear, and speak no evil regarding overfed Scottish playboys. And it’s surely impossible to deny that Respect Renewal took most of the explicitly non-socialist activists and community leaders, while the Respect ‘Coalition’ is largely the ‘revolutionary socialists’ of the SWP, SWP-sympathetic socialists, and left-wing SWP-sympathetic activists from various fields.

    Adam is right (correct). The Renewal socialists have made a deal with the right, because you dislike the SWP even more. I’m different, because I’m outside of the bubble. I’ll always side with the socialist against the capitalist.

    I doubt whether you can sincerely disagree that the majority of Respect’s right-leaning members and supporters followed the Galloway/Miah Renewal splinter.

    Also many of the remaining non-SWP Respect Coalition Muslim activists are (while not at all SWP) also Marxism attendees – I saw some of them speak from radically left-wing convictions at that event.

    Perhaps that’s the crude (but honest) way of looking at the remnants of Respect: a Muslim party containing socialists preoccupied with Islam, and a Socialist party containing Muslims precoccupied with socialism.

    But what do I care? You know I’m all about the big one.

    Like

  15. Diggers comments are spot on.
    Members of the ISG in South Birmingham know full well that the attempt to lay low membership figures at the door of the SWP is most definitely not the case in Respect’s second most successful area. I believe Sparkbrook branch had two members meetings in the year that it existed (one to selct a candidate, one to select delegates to a city-wide committee) and had just a handful of members (I believe 6!) at the start of the autumn.
    The South Respect branch hasn’t met since electing delegates on 19th October, and the decision to go with Respect Renewal was taken at an invite-only meeting.

    I’d endorse Adam J’s comments, but with little hope of seeing it happen unfortunately.

    Like

  16. Well, Cllr Rania Khan and Oliur Rahman clearly identify themselves as socialists. Rania Khan explicitly identified herself as anti-capitalist. Kumar Murshid is happy to call himself a socialist.

    Would the Respect Cllr who stood for the tories two years ago and then left Respect do the same?

    Would the Chair of TH Respect who defected to the LibDems identify himself as anti-capitalist?

    I’m sure that Abjol Miah is a decent guy, against war and privatisation, and obviously represents a disaffected and angry layer of the Bengali community, and so it was quite right that he was a Respect candidate, but I find it worrying that the LEADER of my party in it’s flagship council doesn’t explicitly define himself as a socialist or anti-capitalist. Given that Respect aims/aimed to be a qualitatively different party to the mainstream parties or traditional social democratic parties this was a problem

    A broad socialist party would pull in people from the “petit-bourgeoisie” and diverse elements but it worries me that these forces had become the leadership of Respect in Tower Hamlets.

    Cllr Harun Miah is another example, I’m sure he too is a decent guy, broadly supports Respect etc. But is he a grassroots activist? I didn’t hear of him being an activist in the anti-war movement? Or Defend Council Housing? Or a trade unionist? Or any community campaigns? Yet he is suddenly a Respect Councillor.

    You wonder what the criterion had become in Tower Hamlets Respect for selecting candidates it doesn’t seem to rest on being someone who has a record of standing up for working class people or a representative of a grassroots campaign.

    I find it odd that in Tower Hamlets that people (usually middle aged men) who seem to have only recently joined Respect, are politically naive are continually selected as candidates on the basis of their “standing” in the community (but usually only one section of the community).

    Now I have no problems with these individual councillors or candidates but when this (from looking on in the outside) seems to have become a very prevalent trend in Tower Hamlets with corruption and pandering to the networks of patronage etc. it is a problem. Would you not agree that while Tower Hamlets Respect has some magnificent achievements particularly in the defence of council housing, it has been disappointing in terms of the high standards that we as socialists would demand of a group that was the official opposition on a town council?

    Andy for someone who posts a blog concentrating on the minutiae of Respect affairs your ignorance is offensive and your deliberate refusal to face up to facts is disappointing, you have consistently glossed over the issues and behaviour that you would never endorse in Swindon, so why should it be supported in our flagship council?

    Concrete examples of these things have been consistently brought to your attention but you just ignore them. If John Rees told members of Respect to fuck off you would be up in arms, but it’s okay for Galloway to be verbally abusive to Respect members many of whom were the people who put up the posters for his big meetings and went on the knocker and leafleting to get him elected

    Like

  17. The Disreputable Octopus Avatar
    The Disreputable Octopus

    Your kindness is a credit to you, Adma, but I’ll have to agree with some of it.

    ‘I’m sure that Abjol Miah is a decent guy’
    Whoa. Not if the claims of female Respect councillors or female Begali TH Respect members attempting to participate in branch meetings are accurate (the breadth of testimony to support them would suggest so).

    ‘against war and privatisation’
    Against war, yes, and for reasons we can imagine. I’ve seen no evidence of Miah’s committment to oppose privatisation.

    ‘and obviously represents a disaffected and angry layer of the Bengali community’
    I’ve lived among Begali Eastenders in TH, and I doubt that very much. I think you might find that the unifying characteristic of Miah’s Bengali pocket is not the one repeatedly oversold. Miah represents a small and wealthy layer of the Bengali community.

    ‘and so it was quite right that he was a Respect candidate’
    I assume you mean for his TH ward, not for the next general election’s Bethnal Green and Bow constituency. Miah is Galloway’s handpicked successor for the parliamentary constituency he’s vacating. TH Respect branch democracy sidelined again.

    Like

  18. The Disreputable Octopus Avatar
    The Disreputable Octopus

    ‘adam, and ‘disagree’, first sentence. sorry.

    Like

  19. To be honest, I know little/almost nothing about Abjol Miah, accept what I read in this article:
    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,,1968769,00.html

    He comes across well in the article, as a school kid leading his school out on strike in protest against racism and someone who wants to change society (even if not a socialist)

    Like

  20. The Disreputable Octopus Avatar
    The Disreputable Octopus

    I finally read the linked Guardian article, and for me that raises more questions than it answers.

    I don’t like careerists, and I don’t like players.

    Honest, hardworking activists make much better councillors. Tower Hamlets is the home of the Poplar rebel councillors, and they were everything Abjol Miah is not. Tower Hamlets Pravda, aka ‘East End Life’ reports glowingly how Abjol Miah has benefitted from training course the council provide councillors, training them how to run the council. Please. We were supposed to be different to the careerist capitalist parties.

    Miah has more in common with Michael Keith than George Lansbury.

    Like

  21. Disreputable octopus’s reamrks are incredibly revealing

    “And it’s surely impossible to deny that Respect Renewal took most of the explicitly non-socialist activists and community leaders, while the Respect ‘Coalition’ is largely the ‘revolutionary socialists’ of the SWP, SWP-sympathetic socialists, and left-wing SWP-sympathetic activists from various fields.

    Adam is right (correct). The Renewal socialists have made a deal with the right, because you dislike the SWP even more. I’m different, because I’m outside of the bubble. I’ll always side with the socialist against the capitalist.

    I doubt whether you can sincerely disagree that the majority of Respect’s right-leaning members and supporters followed the Galloway/Miah Renewal splinter.

    Also many of the remaining non-SWP Respect Coalition Muslim activists are (while not at all SWP) also Marxism attendees – I saw some of them speak from radically left-wing convictions at that event.”

    So the split was in her/his terms between revolutionariy socialsts on the one hand, and the rest.

    Well I never signed up for the idea of a broad party as a front for revolutionaries. People like Abjol Miah are left social democrats (who by the way has been involved in opposing stock transfers of council housing for those saying he has done nothing agmats privatisation).

    The question of revolution is a moot one in a non-revolutionary situation. The space is for a left social democratic party in which revolutionary marxists can participate.

    the SWP never understood this (see Callinicos complaining in SW that “reformists” have “returned to type”)

    Like

  22. more ultra-leftism from Disreputable octopus:

    “‘East End Life’ reports glowingly how Abjol Miah has benefitted from training course the council provide councillors, training them how to run the council. Please. We were supposed to be different to the careerist capitalist parties.”

    But don’t you realsie that we have to know how to run the council? Think of even revolutionary socialists who have run councils, like John lawrence and the Club in St Pancras, or the Militant in Liverpool – they have to be able to do the job, not just shout “to the barricades”

    Like

  23. The Disreputable Octopus Avatar
    The Disreputable Octopus

    What is revealing is how easily you believe I am something I am certainly not.

    If you want to misrepresent me, Andy, you’d do much better not to highlight what I actually said so clearly in that nice yellow box. How did you do that?

    ‘the Respect ‘Coalition’ is largely the ‘revolutionary socialists’ of the SWP, SWP-sympathetic socialists, and left-wing SWP-sympathetic activists from various fields.’

    That doesn’t mean solely ‘revolutionariy socialsts’, nor does it mean ‘a broad party as a front for revolutionaries’.

    Let me break down what I wrote using my rough understanding of grammar, not your prejudical reaction. I never suggested it was wither of the two things you claim I said. Here it is again:

    the Respect ‘Coalition is largely [COMPOSED OF THREE THINGS]
    [THING ONE] the ‘revolutionary socialists’ of the SWP
    [THING TWO] SWP-sympathetic socialists
    [THING THREE] left-wing SWP-sympathetic activists from various fields.

    Three different things, only one of which is explicitly or implicitly ‘revolutionary’.

    I’m not really a ‘revolutionary socialist’ myself, so I appreciate your concerns, but to direct them at what wrote was in rash error, which I’m sure is beneath you.

    Perhaps you meant Abjol Miah is as a social democrat in the SDP sense?

    I’m not a (centre-left) social democrat either, perish the thought. I just love democratic socialism though. Can’t get enough of it.

    I think your bit’s more revealing than mine, Andy.

    Are we all about the social democrats now? I thought it was ‘Socialist’ unity?!

    Like

  24. The Disreputable Octopus Avatar
    The Disreputable Octopus

    ‘more ultra-leftism from Disreputable octopus:’

    Please, Andy. I know you’re smarter than this. Just don’t call me an anarchist. Someone did that once; it was horrible.

    ‘But don’t you realsie that we have to know how to run the council? Think of even revolutionary socialists who have run councils, like John lawrence and the Club in St Pancras, or the Militant in Liverpool – they have to be able to do the job, not just shout “to the barricades”’

    Run the Council? It’s New Labour controlled. Until recently Miah was the leader of the opposition. I don’t believe either of the examples you cite took any more authority sponsored training for their council office than did Lansbury. Correct me if I’m wrong, but those you cite, surely in the case of Militant at least, were ‘trained’ and developed through radical socialist activism, probably largely through their own hard work and activist experience.

    I hope you didn’t mean to compare Abjol Miah to the Militant Liverpool councillors though. That really would be beneath you!

    Like

  25. You put things in a block by using

    blockquote

    and

    /blockquote

    each in pointy brackets

    I apologise if you think I was trying to misrepresent you, but if the split is over those who align themsellves with revolutionary socialism, and those who do not, and in a period where there is no revolution on even the most distant horizon, then that is a really different perspective of what a broad party can be from mine.

    By a left social democrat, I mean someone who is broadly left labour.

    I see a broad progressive party as occupying the space of the Labour party at its best, but without the right wing of the Labour Party, and – for example -allowing the participation of revolutionary marxists.

    If the “left-right” split is not about policy in 2007, but is about revolution in 1917 or never never land in the future, then that is not really a “left/right “split, but a “planet earth/ laa laa land” split.

    And the Lbour councillors in Liverpool willhave been able to avail themselves of the traditional expertise of the Labour group in learning the ropes. the Respect councillors are quite right to take the training courses.

    Like

  26. International Viewpoint, the monthly English-language magazine of the Fourth International,

    Just to point out that I always assumed that ‘monthly magazines’ were actually *published on paper*. Which has not been the case for International Viewpoint for a good few years (I should know, I even had a subscription once, which came to an unexpected end for exactly this reason. Didn’t a comrade in Greece publish it?).

    At the same time, Inprécor is the French *monthly magazine* (i.e. on paper) of the USec, and even the small, moribund and politically split German sections are able to manage a almost-monthly printed version, >Inprekorr. I hope the article is more accurate than this incorrect self-description of the site it is to be published on….

    Like

  27. The Disreputable Octopus Avatar
    The Disreputable Octopus

    One of those apologies nobody wants and I don’t understand. ‘I’m sorry if you feel…’ always sounds to me like the fault lies with the listener. But now we have resumed constructive debate, for which I thank you, I can respond more seriously.

    ‘if the split is over those who align themsellves with revolutionary socialism, and those who do not’

    I can understand how my use of ‘SWP-sympathetic’ reads like ‘those who align themsellves with revolutionary socialism’, but it does not mean that, nor was that my implication.

    ‘SWP-sympathetic’ to me means people who may agree or disagree with the SWP doctrines, but are broadly sympathetic to the SWP on the whole, and would like the SWP to be another (non-dominating) component of their party. Like me.

    Frankly, following heavy-handed recruitment of intelectually vulnerable young people at Marxism, not all SWP members are genuinely ‘aligned with revolutionary socialism’, let alone the ‘SWP-sympathetic’ comrades I’m describing. I’ve met SWP ‘members’ (‘subscribers’ fits them better) who have even less comprehension of revolutionary socialism than I do, and I’m not either!

    I’m talking about left-wing activists: anti-war, anti-fascist, pro-environment, pro social justice… activists who are sympathetic to the contributions of the SWP to these campaigns. And I maintain that they are generally, although oif course not without exceptions, to the ‘left’ of some of the explicitly non-socialist ‘social democrats’ (I’m still unsure of your definition) who are hostile to radical socialism of either the revolutionary or ‘democratic’ strands, and hostile to the involvement of the SWP, who have split with the Respect Coalition in favour of Galloway’s Renewal.

    ‘If the “left-right” split is not about policy in 2007, but is about revolution in 1917 or never never land in the future, then that is not really a “left/right “split, but a “planet earth/ laa laa land” split.’

    I agree entirely that if that is the split, then that is arse of the highest order. But I disagree that the split is about that. I believe, as I stated originally, that the split is about shotility to the SWP.

    Some of it is justified, some of it is not.

    And that returns us to the central argument already well in progress.

    I stand by what I suggested about the split having taken liberals and conservatives one way, and socialists the other.

    I think you know that some of your new colleagues in the Renewal party will pose the same problems for socialists in Renewal as they did for the SWP in the original Respect.

    ‘And the Lbour councillors in Liverpool willhave been able to avail themselves of the traditional expertise of the Labour group in learning the ropes. the Respect councillors are quite right to take the training courses.

    True, but what are they learning? How and why to fight Thatcherism (neoliberal conservatism) seems to have been what they learned. Abjol Miah won’t have learned any such thing on the official Tower Hamlets local authority training courses. In a socialist party, councillors tactics for council administration should surely be learned from socialist struggle, as it was for Militant councillors in Liverpool and Lansbury’s Rebels in the East End. That is all the learning needed for socialist councillors. Lavalette’s pamphlet on the Poplar rebels is a good read on the suject of how socialist (and social democratic) councillors should behave.

    It’s not all about proving we can be efficient administrators. It’s about standing up and fighting for the people we represent. The TH courses may help with neither, but certainly won’t help with the latter. They benefit Abjol Miah, but they don’t benefit Respct, socialism, or the residents of Tower Hamlets.

    On that, I think, we still disagree. But at least now the debate has progressed from semantics and witness discrediting to real issues.

    ‘Shop stewards of the community’ is what Lavalette says elected councillors should be. I agree with him. I don’t think Miah has behaved in this way. I also fear Miah would interpret ‘the community’ more selectively too.

    Like

  28. Karl Marx Strasse:

    The two rival German section of the USFI may be “small, moribund and politically split” but their small resources are on a similar scale to that available to the anglophone USFI groups. The Australian group is dead, the Irish group consists of about half a dozen people, the British group well under forty, and the two rival US groups are both small as well.

    These are not groups that are in a position to produce and sell a printed monthly international magazine in addition to whatever national publications they manage.* They tried and they failed and in that context a website makes much more sense for them.

    *Come to think of it, what do these groups produce nationally? The Irish group abandoned publications some years ago. I think that Socialist Action in the US have a monthly paper, while the group in Solidarity has nothing. The British ISG has an occasional magazine and was contributing to a nominally, but not really, monthly magazine with a few independents involved.

    Like

  29. My point, Mark P, was that Liam’s introduction to this article – even if qualified with ‘this is how it describes itself’ is not entirely accurate (to be friendly).

    As a one-time member of one USec group, I am aware that International Viewpoint for years had very little to do with the anglophone sections whatsoever (as I said, printed and published in Greece!) – but it was meant to provide comrades or interested observers who do not read French or German with an insight into world politics from the USec’s standpoint and into internal USec debates.

    Regardless of all that (and why the Germans can do it, if the combined ‘strengths’ of the anglophone sections can’t): International Viewpoint is only a magazine in the sense in which this website (or mine) is. i.e. it isn’t one.

    Even if it’s a website that is only updated once a month(!). I haven’t updated Karl-Marx-Straße for a while, but I’m not claiming to be the political current with the truth and recipe for the future of humanity (though, most of the Mandelites being so liberal, they probably wouldn’t put it like that!)…

    Your point that ‘what do these groups produce nationally?’ is a relevant point regarding the ISG. Handing over a paper that will probably mainly still be written by your own people or your political friends is a clever move, if you haven’t got enough people (and they haven’t got enough elan) to sell it yourself. The ISG’s erstwhile comrades from Socialist Action know more than a bit about producing other organisations’ publications while actually controlling the line – and getting them distributed. (I refer to ‘Socialist Campaign Group News’).

    Like

  30. Karl you are finding subterfuge where none exists. Sometimes people do things for exactly the reason that they say they are doing them. We were serious at the start when we said Respect should have a paper. This is one way of proving that assesrtion.

    SR supporters will actively seek to be a minority on the editorial board. If the paper us mostly written by us and people close to us then it would not represent a significant step forward.

    As for the IV caption I think that is more likely to be sloppiness than an attempt to deceive the proletarian vanguard.

    Like

  31. What is it about sections of the Trotskyist left and paranoia?

    I point out to Lenny Leninology that the BBC confuse Classic Respect and Respect Renewal in their report, and he tells me that this is yet more evidence that the BBC are obviously out to get the SWP on this (unfortunately, a quick email to BBC Online led to them correcting their report).

    I point out that the ISG’s ex-comrades from Socialist Action get other people to pay for and distribute their paper because they are too tiny to do it themselves, and that this is a clever move in such circumstances – circumstances as no doubt exist in the ISG as well. I also note that the USec international news website describes itself as a ‘magazine’, when it hasn’t been for at least 3 years (and wonder why you quote this incorrect information – as a good comrade, I’m sure you’ll know which sections of your party press actually still get published), and you suggest I’m ‘finding subterfuge’.

    I’m sure the proletarian vanguard are listening, and are taking note.

    SR supporters will actively seek to be a minority on the editorial board. If the paper us mostly written by us and people close to us then it would not represent a significant step forward.

    I bet the new, improved, bigger Socialist Outlook will be more visibly held by ISG members on demonstrations then. As if such a paper contains mainly the politics of George Galloway and his closest friends I can’t see the political advantage of you selling it. Or is there some kind of 1950s SLL plan where (as in Tribune) the ‘correct’ paragraphs (or all articles by Thornett, Lister and yourself) will be carefully underlined using a red biro and a ruler? Or will there be a letters page with lots of contributions from the ISG?

    Like

  32. It is true not everything is prefect in South Birmingham. But we’ve not done too badly. There are not many areas that can boast two Respect councillors. I can assure Digger and Moun however that membership is being taken more seriously now. But perhaps the SWP bloggers on this site can lead by example and show us how it should be done. Maybe Digger can tell us how many trade unionists (or anybody else for that matter) he has signed up in the last year? And maybe Moun can counterpose a good branch model from his own experiences of building a branch in Kings Heath? On second thoughts, maybe not. It takes a particular type of arrogance to preach of others what you don’t do yourself.

    SWP members would better serve their own organisation by dropping the victimhood and waging a proper fight over the sectarian dead end their leadership is taking them into.

    Like

  33. I think it’s silly to go on about International Viewpoint not being a magazine because it’s only on the web. Print it off and you’ve got the hard copy magazine and for only the cost of the printing. Socialist Outlook is a rare magazine rather than a paper. I think we can be generous in praise of Socialist Resisitance for turning its paper over to Respect Renewal, let’s see how it turns out before being too cynical. It fits in with the political argument they’ve making since I’ve known them from Socialist alliance days.

    But what happens to the Ecosocialist turn they took earlier this year?

    Like

  34. Hello, I’ve tried getting this question answered over at the SOCIALIST UNITY SITE But no one seems to want to talk to me :(. I was just wanting to know what Hilary Wainwright had said and what her and Anas Altikriti had to say about their relationship to RR. The other question I had was did Tariq Ramadan show? I saw he was advertised as speaking at an academic coinference in Leeds that day so i wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t make it but just wanted to know. Any body willing to talk to me?

    Like

  35. Conrad – I took ten pages of notes. I wrote down Hilary’s name and then stopped.

    She made some references to the experiences of the women’s movement and said something about forms of organisation and leadership. Someone else will have to fill in the gaps for my mind must have been on other things.

    Matthew, the ecosocialist thing will continue. We are still fairly certain that capitalism will not resolve the issue of climate change in a way that favours the working class and the poor.

    As I’ve mentioned we will be opening a discussion about our profile and the balance of our activities. The results of that will emerge early in ’08.

    Like

  36. Thanks Liam, Hilary not particularly impressive then! :-). Anything on Altikriti? And am I right about TR?

    Like

  37. Birmingham Respect Member Avatar
    Birmingham Respect Member

    Tariq Ramadan recorded a video message for the conference which was played at the end of the morning session.

    Like

  38. Thanks BRM, maybe you can help me in another way. I have recently moved to Brum to do a year’s study and am looking to get involved in Respect are there local meetings. I’m based off the Bristol Road in Birmingham South

    Like

  39. “Frankly, following heavy-handed recruitment of intelectually vulnerable young people at Marxism”

    For gods sake. And your side speaks of ‘victimology’. Unbelievable.

    Like

  40. Birmingham Respect Member Avatar
    Birmingham Respect Member

    Conrad Noel: If you want to get involved call 0781 217 2885.

    Like

  41. Conrad Noel

    Not trying to ignore you, I have just been hoping someone else would answerr :o)

    Or that the speeches might be posted on the web.

    Hilary made the point that the crach between “leninist” organiational practices and the building of a wider movement was inevitable, and that it relates back to her argument in “Beyond the Fragments”, and I would add that Bea Campbell also wrote usefullly on this same subject.

    HIlary argued that there needs to be a process of building a left movement that is worder than building a party, though it includes building parties.

    Generally what she said was constructive and supportive. I understand why Liam wouldm not have taken notes, and it is not becaise HIlary was unimpressive, but rather that she said exactly what i would have expected her to say!

    Anas Altikriti spoke very impressivly and underlined the way that some of the leading figures from a Muslim perspective are progressive capable politicians, and reaffirming the positive parts of Respect.

    Like

  42. Conrad Noel, are you a young theology student?
    ie. your choice of nom-de-plume

    Like

  43. Not that young Adam! Middle aged Anglican priest from Leeds spending a year doing an MPhil in Brum at Centre for the Study of islam and Christian-Muslim Relations

    Thanks BRM I’ll give the number a call

    Thanks Andy BTF was something that influenced me at nineteen after 3 years in Militant and then a year in SWP to leave Trotskyism behind given to me by my Sociology A Level tutor at Further Ed college. Wasn’t it Lynne Segal who was then in Big Flame, Sheila Rowbotham who had been in IS and HW who was ex IMG who coauthored it?

    Like

  44. ‘Disreputable Octopus’ is missing the point about why International Viewpoint is no longer printed centrally, but distributed as .pdf and then reprinted locally. Over the last years the costs of litho printing and of airmail have gone up, while the quality and price of digital printing have fallen. There is no practical or political reason to print the magazine in one location and ship it around the world, when it is cheaper and faster to distribute it electronically.

    IV is a service for a very widely distributed international audience. Bundles of the magazine were shipped to sections around the world, but the time lag between the articles being translated and the magazine arriving became increasingly problematic as the internet developed and expectations shifted.

    By the time we moved over to online distribution, increasing costs were driving the costs of subscriptions beyond the means of the readers we wanted to attract.

    Moving over to digital distribution in 2005, the readership of IV has exploded, with the average number of readers increasing every month. We have had 750,000 unique visits since then, and more subscribers to the electronic monthly versio than to the print magazine. It’s a huge step forward, and the money saved on print and post has been poured into more translations.

    For Liam’s article, that means that it’s had 75 to 100 readers every day on the IV site, and more at other sites. With the print magazine, it would still be three or four weeks away from reader’s letterboxes.

    Like

  45. Elephantitis of The Tentacles Avatar
    Elephantitis of The Tentacles

    Duncan,

    The Disreputable Octopus said nothing about why International Viewpoint is no longer printed centrally, but distributed as .pdf and then reprinted locally. Karl-Marx-Straße wrote something on that subject, commented on by others.

    It wasn’t me.

    Like

  46. Sorry for that. I must have looked down instead of up for the signature, or some such nonsense.

    Like

  47. Wasn’t it Lynne Segal who was then in Big Flame, Sheila Rowbotham who had been in IS and HW who was ex IMG who coauthored it?

    Hence ‘Beyond the Fragments’, although it’s a great, evocative title in its own right.

    Like

Leave a reply to Duncan Cancel reply

Trending