Nick.jpg

The Respect Renewal Conference was a stunning success.

It took place at the Bishopsgate Institute in the City of London on Saturday 17 November 2007. Notification of the conference had first gone out only on Saturday 3 November. In the intervening two weeks hard work by a team of volunteers ensured a wonderfully uplifting day.

Called at just two week’s notice it could have been a desultory affair. Given that it came after an acrimonious split in Respect it could have been rather depressing. Instead, it was a lively, if at times unpredictable, event attended by over 350 people. [A full credentials report will appear soon.]

As the Morning Star reported (Monday November 19), “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.”

People came from all over the country, with significant delegations from Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest, Dorset, Manchester and Bristol. Birmingham brought a coach load.

The hall was decorated with banners and photographs showing Respect’s successes and from the anti-war movement. Stalls from various left-wing campaigns hugged the walls of the conference hall. A tremendously inspiring video display projected onto the back of the stage images of working-class struggles from the last hundred years.

Behind the scenes a large army of volunteers ensured that the conference was properly prepared and ran smoothly.

There were two cameras video-recording events http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.showvids&friendID=163095405&n=163095405&MyToken=3616ba80-ab8a-422c-bb18-b4d6b298081e

and several photographers taking pictures:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eventful/sets/72157603225002002/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eventful/sets/72157603225002002/show/

http://marxsite.com/rspectrenewphoto.html


At many times throughout the day there was standing room only. Refreshments prepared by a fantastic team of volunteers kept everyone going. A marvellous cake http://www.flickr.com/photos/eventful/2044120430/in/set-72157603225002002/

was eaten by everyone at the end.

When George Galloway’s letter to the Respect National Council,

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=726

containing criticisms about the administration and organisation of Respect, was sent out on August 23 no-one could have predicted that we would end up, just twelve weeks later, with two conferences being held on the same day. No-one could have predicted, and no-one surely wanted, the split in Respect that has taken place.

However, the way in which the dispute was conducted by the leadership of the Socialist Workers Party meant that this split became inevitable. This was recognised by the SWP leadership itself and they entered into negotiations to separate.

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1024

It was an irony that the Respect Renewal Conference was taking place in the Bishopsgate Institute. This was the venue where the four breakaway councillors who had resigned the Respect whip in Tower Hamlets held their press conference on Monday 29 October.

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/trialbyjeory/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=trialbyjeory&tBrand=ELAOnline&tCategory=trialbyjeory&itemid=WeED01%20Nov%202007%2017%3A36%3A30%3A710

That press conference was organised and attended by John Rees, SWP Central Committee member and National Secretary of Respect. This was one of the key events in the developing division, with the SWP leadership condoning and encouraging a split in the Respect group on Tower Hamlets council.

It’s been a pretty unpleasant three months for most of us as we have watched Respect split asunder. This split could have been avoided, if only the SWP leadership had been prepared to discuss criticisms and implement agreed compromises. Instead, at each stage it has increased the temperature of the debate, refusing to implement compromise decisions of the Respect National Council, illegitimately ruling out valid delegations to conference while ruling in other invalid delegates and vilifying those who disagreed with it.

Ludicrous claims of a witch-hunt against the SWP are still being made, despite the involvement of many prominent socialists in the Renewal conference. Criticism, even were it unwarranted, does not make a witch-hunt. The political justification for this by the SWP leadership is that there is a left-right split taking place. Again, this will come as a surprise to those at the Respect Renewal conference who will all identify themselves as being on the left.

A political split on the left is seldom good for either side. It can reinforce the idea that the left cannot be unified, that minor differences always outweigh agreement on bigger issues.

We recognise that this split is a set-back. However, there was a sense of liberation at the Renewal conference which reflected a feeling that we can now get on and do many of the things we should have been doing over the last three years – building branches across the country, linking up with others on the left and promoting our image and politics to a much wider audience.

The spirit of optimism and enthusiasm was demonstrated by the response to the financial appeal in which over £2,000 was collected. This was on top of the registration fee and travel costs that people had already had to pay. Membership forms and standing order forms for Respect Renewal Conference were also filled in or taken away.

There were many speeches, both from the floor and from the platform, which expressed the frustration that Respect’s development had been held back by the controlling hand of the SWP leadership. This is because of the SWP’s approach towards Respect, which sees it as something to be turned on for elections (in very few places) and then turned off. Those attending the Renewal Conference were very much of the view that Respect needs to be built continuously and broadly across the country. It has to contest elections but it has to be more than solely an electoral organisation. In order to win elections you have to be active and present all the time in between elections.

It is clear that Respect Renewal represents the overwhelming majority of non-SWP members in Respect. Our disagreement has not been with the many SWP members who have worked hard to build Respect but with the SWP leadership, whose political approach and behaviour over the last three months has alienated most of those outside the SWP and, indeed, many within it.

The conference was opened by Linda Smith, Respect National Chair. Because of her position as chair, Linda has headed up the list of 19 National Council members who have opposed the bureaucratic methods of the SWP leadership. She has also had to suffer a campaign of vilification from some members of the SWP in an attempt to undermine her.

George Galloway, Respect’s only MP, introduced the first session with one of his usual tours de force.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=22311422

A great way to start conference. He outlined the reasons the Renewal Conference had been called and answered some of the ridiculous charges that the SWP leadership have levelled against him and others on the Renewal side. He poured scorn on the idea that this was a left-right split, or that he was anti-trade union.

Salma Yaqoob, Respect National Vice-Chair, spoke. (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=22320819)

She outlined her opposition to free market capitalism and the idea that there is no alternative to it. She explained how US capitalism relied on its massive military might to dominate economically. She repudiated the charge of ‘communalism’ made against her by the leaders of the SWP, outlining the practical steps she and other Respect supporters have taken in Birmingham to overcome tensions between different communities.

Ken Loach, world-renowned film director and winner of the Palme d’or, calmly outlined some of the reasons for the split and offered some suggestions for the way forward.

Guest speakers Andrew Murray, Chair of the Stop the War Coalition

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=22317944

and Sami Ramadani, Iraqi Democrats against the Occupation,

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=22310376

spoke about the need to continue our opposition against the war and occupations and to remain vigilant about further military actions. They both correctly warned about the importance of the split in Respect not being carried into the Stop the War movement and weakening it.

Anas as-Tikriti, from the British Muslim Initiative, reminded conference that he had relinquished his position as chair of the Muslim Association of Britain in 2004 in order to head Respect’s list in Yorkshire for the European elections. He is one of many talents that Respect has not called on in recent years.

Throughout the day there were many speakers from the floor. They spoke about the reasons for the split and about how to go forward. Inevitably, there were many contributions that dealt with the role of the SWP leadership. Several of these were all the more powerful because they were made by people who have recently resigned from the SWP: sacked union militant Jerry Hicks gave the most impassioned speech, along with Jo Benefield (35 years in the SWP), Richard Searle, Kay Phillips and Nadir Ahmed, a young member from Newham who resigned from the SWP during his speech.

The presence of these and other former members of the SWP should be answer enough to the suggestion that Renewal is right-wing or anti-trade union.

The SWP leadership were given the opportunity to put their case, with Weyman Bennett and Michael Bradley, both members of the SWP Central Committee, called in to address conference. They were listened to politely.

We were very pleased to have Derek Wall, principal male speaker of the Green Party addressing conference in a personal capacity, together with Hilary Wainwright, editor of Red Pepper. We look forward to working with Derek and others from the radical environmental movement in the future. We hope that we can reach out with Red Pepper to the many thousands of unaffiliated people on the left, to work together on the many issues that concern us all.

One of the silliest arguments made by the SWP leadership against those at the Renewal conference is that we reflect the right of Respect. It was amusing to watch the SWP-Respect conference systematically ask each of the speakers that had agreed to speak at the Renewal conference to speak at theirs. This included Andrew Murray, Sami Ramadani and Derek Wall, who quite rightly took up the invitation to speak at both conferences. Derek’s comments on the two conferences can be found at
http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2007/11/two-respect-conference-hear-dr-wall.html

Derek Wall makes the amusing point that Rania Khan, speaking at the SWP-Respect conference, attacked the Renewal conference for having Derek speaking at it – only to then learn that he was speaking at her conference as well.

Brian Caton, General Secretary of the Prison Officers Association, one of the more militant of British trade unions, sent greetings and best wishes to the conference but Nick Wrack stupidly forgot to pass them on.

Several of our councillors spoke. Mohammed Ishtiaq councillor for the Birmingham Sparkbrook ward answered the charge of communalism by explaining that one of his opponents had come from the same village as his family. People had tried to persuade him not to stand against this person but he had stuck to his guns because it was a matter of policies for him, not family or village.

Three councillors from east London who haven’t normally been put on Respect public platforms until now revealed their tremendous abilities, which will no longer be hidden. Councillors Sheikh and Hanif from Newham spoke. Councillor Abjol Miah, leader of the councillors group in Tower Hamlets addressed conference with a powerful speech, showing his prowess as a speaker and his politics as being clearly on the left.

Patricia Armani da Silva, the cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was brutally murdered by the police on 22 July 2005 spoke about the campaign to get justice for Jean. She called for the resignation of Metropolitan Police chief Ian Blair, a demand that was unanimously endorsed by conference.

Francisco from the Venezuela Information Campaign and Penny Duggan from the French League Comuniste Revolutionnaire (LCR) both addressed key international issues and added an important international dimension to the day. Pakistani lawyer and veteran socialist Anwar Dholan spoke from the floor about the state of emergency and repression in Pakistan.

In the final session National Council members Alan Thornett and Nick Wrack

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=22316626

mapped out the way forward for Respect Renewal supporters. Conference endorsed proposals that the 19 National Council members who had called the conference continue to co-ordinate Respect Renewal work over the next six months, along with volunteers who want to help to organise things.

There will be a series of rallies and smaller meetings across England and Wales to discuss and debate the way forward, culminating in a recalled conference either in the Spring or after the May elections next year. Everyone who wants to contribute to the debate will be welcome.

One of the most important announcements was that the Socialist Resistance group, whose members had played a prominent part in building this conference, have agreed to hand over their paper to Respect Renewal. The first edition will appear in time for the Climate Change demonstration on 8 December.

The main message from this conference is that the task of building Respect and the broader opposition to New Labour continues. Of course, there are weaknesses. Emerging from a split means that we have only the skeletal outline of an organisation in most places outside east London and Birmingham. Although there were significant contingents of young Asian men and women from east London and Birmingham,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eventful/2044110202/in/set-72157603225002002/

we do not have anything like as many young people as we want. We need to reach out to young workers. We need to begin work in the further education colleges and universities to recruit students. This work will now begin. There are very few African and African-Caribbean members of Respect and we need to address this issue urgently.

Respect is not the finished article – far from it. We are just one small part of the process of building a new party to represent working class people. We have had fantastic successes in Respect’s short existence, with the election of an MP and several councillors. But that cannot be enough.

We want to build Respect Renewal. But we also want to reach out to everyone else who wants to build a left alternative to New Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories. We want to build a bigger, broader and more unified party of the left, representing the desire of working-class people for change. That is our main task: to work with others to create a radical, left party for all, whatever background or tradition. We have energy, enthusiasm, optimism and – most importantly of all – we have the radical, left-wing politics to appeal to millions.

If you want to join or find out more about Respect Renewal then contact us:

http://respectrenewal.org/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3


Technorati : ,

Del.icio.us : ,
Zooomr : ,

41 responses to “Nick Wrack: Respect Renewal Conference – A marvellous new beginning”

  1. Oi Liam – can you post something on the French strikes??? I want to know what you think and also what the LCR are doing, etc. – I don’t think I can get through yet another “everything was brillant” article about RR!!!

    Thanks.

    Like

  2. The way this article is presently constitiuted makes it very difficult to read. Could you please reearrange it is it is possible?

    Like

  3. Mark P thinks that Nick Wrack should stop talking about himself in the third person. Mark P finds it incredibly irritating.

    Like

  4. Both Nick Wrack and I think Mark P is too easily irritated.

    Like

  5. Mark P readily accepts that he is easily annoyed. However Mark P thinks that many people share his bewilderment when writers or speakers insist on describing themselves in the third person. It’s something Mark P associates with pomposity and the egomania.

    By the way, Mark P thinks that the report itself is interesting.

    Like

  6. Phil Edwards notes that one of Nick Wrack’s two references to Nick Wrack was disparaging, which rather undercuts any impression of egomania, but tends to agree with the general point made by Mark P. Phil Edwards would also like to express his appreciation for Mark P’s fine work on /Sniffin’ Glue/ and in Alternative TV.

    Like

  7. Tami, Liam has asked his chum in Le Puy to write something. He still waiting. She’s not helpful that way. Liam recorded Besancenot talking on French TV yesterday and was going to put up the video but he used a lot of slang and it was pretty difficult to follow. However the December London SR meeting will be a LCR comrade reporting on the French events.

    Nick’s will be the last conference report. Liam wanted to give a range of opinions ranging from flippant Liam, earnest Liam, Nick and Steve whom Liam doesn’t know. Comrade Misery was there. Liam told him that he would carry his (Misery’s) report but he hasn’t delivered though he did say it hadn’t been as awful as he’d expected.

    Is Mark REALLY the Action Time Vision Mark? Prove it by naming the b side.

    Like

  8. “When George Galloway’s letter to the Respect National Council, containing criticisms about the administration and organisation of Respect, was sent out on August 23 no-one could have predicted that we would end up, just twelve weeks later, with two conferences being held on the same day. No-one could have predicted, and no-one surely wanted, the split in Respect that has taken place.”

    I don’t claim any special powers of foresight but the article we produced for Permanent Revolution 6 which came out early September was called “Respect staring into oblivion”. Indeed I had an exchange with Liam over his rather rosy view of the outcome of the August Respect National Council on this blog. If you understood the methods of top down organisations like the SWP and of egoistic chancers like George Galloway then it was very obvious where Respect was going.

    Another prediction: after all the champagne popping around the two rival Respect conferences, the hangovers will set in and the rival parties will hurtle into the oblivion that Solidarity and the SSP now occupy in Scotland.

    None of this is particularly pleasing, not because I ever held any brief for the populist project of Respect, but because it will weaken and discredit the entire far left. Workers, trade unions, members of the left of the Labour Party, will look at these events (and the dispatch of the Socialist Alliance) and just decide to have nothing to do with the left or any such initiatives for a long time to come. And can anyone blame them?

    PS Did anybody see GG’s review of Kylie Minogue’s concert in the Daily Record? A flavour:

    “DON’T get me wrong, I’ve never been down on all Australians. Take Kylie Minogue. For a singer she’s always been not a bad looker. I voted with the majority for a change when her rear was the year’s champion sight. I even bought my woman Kylie’s range of underwear.

    But her ITV spectacular on Saturday was a flat as the coupon of a duck-
    billed platypus ….”

    What do the female (and male members) of Respect Renewal think when they read the sexist ramblings of their “Respect MP” in the national press? In the 1970s the Women’s Liberation Movement would have had his trousers off and painted his balls with pitch. Ah, those were the days!

    Like

  9. Nick – I can understand the need for the RR people to hype up their conference, but there is a need to face reality in the cold light of day as well.

    The charge against ‘Respect Renewal’ and George Galloway in particular is not it and him are ‘right wing’. Rather they represent the ‘right’ in the left wing organisation of Respect (because they launched a witch-hunt of revolutionaries and demanded the removal of ‘Russian dolls’ within Respect). So Roy Hattersley used to be described as a ‘Labour rightwinger’ – it didn’t mean he was ‘right wing’ and indeed now his politics are to the Left of New Labour. Nikolai Bukharin led the ‘Right Opposition’ to Joseph Stalin in the Russian Communist Party. It didn’t mean he was right-wing – he was a communist! That Galloway and Nick Wrack and others still pretend that the accusation against them is that they are ‘right wing’ is starting to tire somewhat…

    The other statement that jars is this:
    ‘It is clear that Respect Renewal represents the overwhelming majority of non-SWP members in Respect’. No that is not clear at all – what is clear is that the overwhelming majority of Respect members – SWP and non-SWP – want a united Respect that decides and discusses things democratically at the sovereign decision making body of Respect – the national conference – rather than refuses to give ordinary members the chance to hear both sides of the argument and then vote accordingly to decide policy and other decisions. This opportunity was robbed of them by the decision of Respect Renewal to split off from Respect and hold a separate rally.

    Like

  10. So George is right wing but he is not right wing. That’s good to know. Is he also a communalist but not a communalist as well? The backtracking was only a matter of time. Shame its come too late.

    What is starting to tire is the ‘let the members decide’ line for a rigged conference, stuffed with SWP delegates, many bogus, and all under the whip to follow a line decided weeks earlier.

    Like

  11. Nick’s opening sentence, “The Respect Renewal Conference was a stunning success”, is the sort of breathless self deceiving optimism that is unfortunately typical, not just of the SWP (in an extreme form) but by most of the left when it wishes to convince itself that everything is marvellous despite appearances. The conference was bigger and more positive than I expected – and I am glad of that – but it still only represented a minority of a very small and declining organisation.

    Ken, Alan and Hilary’s speeches were the most , emphasising that RR is only one small part of a fragmented left, that we can’t build a party just out of the wreckage of Respect, and we have to engage – with a very large measure of humility – with as many streams of our wider movement that we possibly can.

    However, Nick’s insistence that “we have not split from Respect, we ARE Respect” – was not just sectarian but guaranteed to be counter productive in terms of rebuilding some credibility for RR. I was really depressed when he said that if it proved impossible to sort out the details of the separation, the dispute would have to be resolved “in other arenas”. One can only hope that over the next month or two all of that nonsense will be quietly forgotten.

    I suggest that a) RR should leave the SWP with the now entirely polluted and worthless name of Respect and b) concentrate on developing practical and concrete local unity initiatives with anyone on the left (in its broadest sense) and around any issue that relates to the real life experience of working people in specific localities.

    Like

  12. to the outside observer, the SWP has a dilemma, over the past few weeks they have increasingly painted themselves into a corner, bandied claim and counter-claim with team Galloway

    the SWP Central Committee has released documents giving their side of the dispute which, to the outside observer, barely seen tenable and yet SWP activists are left in the invidious position of trying to reconcile reality with the statements of their Central Committee, not an easy task

    SWP activists can hardly say, “well, we got it wrong” or “we underestimated Team Galloway and they managed to outmaneuver us”

    instead poor old SWP activists, like Snowball, have to conjure up false analogies and hope to repair the political cackhandedness of their organisation with a bit of sophistry

    I somehow doubt that the Respect Renewal people will be taken in by the SWP’s fine words

    Like

  13. Yes, Snowball’s contribution is truly remarkable. So they didn’t really mean all that “right-wing” stuff after all.

    Maybe the next contribution will be along the lines of “well…..er….when we said ‘witch hunt’, we didn’t really mean……….”

    Like

  14. No, what’ll happen is that because they, and we, know we’ll all be working together again soon, it’ll be “no you’re alright – it’s them other witch-hunters I don’t like”.

    Like

  15. Snowball can you give a convincing reason why 300+ people who are committed to building a new working class party feel they can no longer work in the SWP imposed framework? Are all their remarks about bureaucratic control wrong?

    And the “right-wing” remarks are downright peculiar. They clarify nothing. When a SR supporter raised the absence of LGBT rights from the manifesto at the 2005 conference was Lindsey German right wing when she accused us of Islamophobia? It is not an constructive method of discussing to set up false, emotive poles in the debate.

    Sean I’m as fed up with puffed up accounts of modestly ok events as you are. But in the circumstances this was a genuine success.

    And can we all keep analogies to the Bolsheviks out of this discussion please? The more useful comparison for Britain is the burst of splits and fusions in from 1916 in Germany but that’s a bit more complicated to follow.

    Like

  16. Hahaha – Thanks for that Liam. Glad to hear there will be a meeting on the French Strikes. I will pop along if it is on a Wednesday (no class).

    Yes Misery has been a lot less miserable of late generally – he has me worried!!! 🙂

    Like

  17. A conference with 300 people is not a stunning success! It’s not bad either. But a rally with people like Galloway, Ken Loach, Tariq Ramadan on the platform should have been a lot bigger! Let’s be honest, while not an embarrassment, in terms of numbers this was not very impressive. Respect have pulled bigger meetings in London over the last three years.

    Nick Wrack’s comments that Respect Renewal represents all of Respect bar the SWP is also self-dellusion.

    Most Respect members oppose the organisation splitting point blank and I suspect feel somewhat disorienatated and I even suspect that many Respect members will just drop out of political activity all together. I think most Respect members don’t see themselves as part of either camp – just members of Respect.

    The majority of Respect branches will contain people who are sympathetic to either faction, but very few branches will want or desire to split into two.

    To be honest, many Respect members will be thinking a plague on both your houses!

    And what the hell has Nick Wrack ever done for Respect? What has been his role?

    Like

  18. On Stuart King’s comment about GG’s review of Kylie Minogue

    The implication of Stuart’s comment is that all right thinking socialists in Respect should be outraged by George’s comments, should denounce it and while we’re about it isn’t this just the sort of thing one expects from a formation like Respect.

    Certainly others have raised such points on the SU site – mainly stick-beating SWP leadership supporters demonstrating the same agile skill in swivelling round from uncritical adulation to sectarian criticism as a young car thief executing a hand-brake turn. Stuart – if I’m not mistaken – at least cannot be faulted for his unrelentingly consistent opposition to both Galloway and the whole idea of broad parties.

    There are two issues that arise here. What attitude do we take towards this article and what, if anything we should do about it.

    Should we allow ourselves to become some surreal reflection of the right’s caricature of leftists and feminists as a moral police force enforcing pre-ordained “political correctness” in public life? Patrolling the dark alleyways 24/7 with trenchcoat and torch – shining a light in the dark shadows, exposing misdemeanours and rooting them out whereever they are found?

    Of course Stuart is not suggesting anything of the sort. I’m being provocative. The reason why that approach is not only a false caricature of the left and women’s movement but wrong is that it would be based on moralism and individualism. It takes the perfectly correct slogan “the personal is political” to an extreme gutting it of any connection to the social, economic, ideological and political context and causes of oppression and exploitation. It is also wholly disproportionate in its focus on the individual, it is authoritarian and for all these reasons it is wholly counterproductive.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with discourse about women’s bodies even in a way that objectifies them. Women engage in this all the time among themselves – including in a sexualised and disparaging or negative fashion. It’s quite possible for men to share in that discourse. Whether this is lending support to oppression and exploitation depends on the context, the audience, what is said, how it is understood etc. Spoken and written words are never abstract.

    If I see a semi-naked woman’s form on the side of a bus advertising some product, I don’t prudishly avert my gaze. It may be impossible anyway. However much I might oppose such advertising, as a heterosexual male, I may find a particular image attractive. My thoughts and feelings can’t be policed. In a limited way I am also being exploited – all advertising takes our natural desires (for food, comfort, happiness, a nice tune or beat, escape from the drudgery of daily life, free time with our nearest and dearest – but mainly for sex) and exploits them to persuade us to buy products.

    I don’t engage in male banter about such images – but it is hardly surprising that men do express their reactions to them vocally. The main problem is the advertising industry and its exploitation of women. The banter is als a problem – because it reinforces this culture and because women are oppressed by it – but it is not the cause and how when and whether this is taken up as an issue is a question of context, degree etc.

    But if my analysis is accepted then a “holier than thou” moralism is hardly going to get anywhere. A single raised eyebrow is sometimes the appropriate response. A flaming row sometimes is. It is a matter of judgement.

    For all that, I think this review (and not having the full link I haven’t read the whole piece and may be wrong if there is other material that places it in a different context) from GG is sexist claptrap.

    I disagree with Andy’s comments on the SU blog that Kylie Minogue market’s herself as an objectified body therefore it is OK.

    She is perfectly entitled to do that and people are perfectly entitled to be entertained by it. Furthermore, my impression is that she, like her mentor Madonna, are not in fact engaging in quiet acts of social criticism – by play-acting the image of the post-60s media commodification of the airbrushed fantasy female. But that doesn’t mean that all who consume this share the same undestanding. Pop Art originated in and largely propagated a similar critique of mass commodity production and the role of advertising and the media in it’s consumption (as the excellent exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery in London shows). It is unlikely that Wharhol-collector and Tory Charles Saatchi shares that critique.

    George’s comments appear to endorse the exploitative objectification of women’s bodies. They are not in a context that in anyway qualifies or questions this, are in a very public media expressed by an elected high-profile politician and therefore carry particular weight.

    What, if anything, should we do about it?

    By definition I wouldn’t be bothering to write this comment if I thought it was wrong to criticise. On the contrary – not coming from the handbrake turn tendency – I have always thought that such criticism is natural and normal. But the tone of Stuart’s comments and certainly the explicit content of many other comments, particularly on the SU blog, indicate that northing short of a ritualised immediate condemnation is called for. Most of this is entirely cynical – motivated from a pre-ordained opposition to Respect and Galloway – and sectarian.

    But the problem is deeper than that. It relates to the issue of whether and if so how you build a broad socialist alternative to Labour.

    If, like Permanent Revolution and their erstwhile comrades Workers Power, you believe that it is written on tablets of stone that thou shalt not build any political organisation other than a revolutionary marxist one, then of course whenever anyone building a broader party works with an individual who ‘s socialism is of a different variety they will always be guilty by association unless immediately differentiating themselves.

    But by definition, if your aim is to build a broader party of the socialist left then it is inevitable that you will co-exist with many who’s personal and political outlook shows that they are prey to the ideology and illusions of capitalist society. 99% of the working class are reformist and are not about to break from this perspective. We are not in a pre-revolutionary situation.

    Those on us who experienced life on the left in the Labour Party – during its vibrant days from the late 1970s to early 1990s – had a daily experience of the contradictions and difficulties this involved. Of course the context of building a left of Labour formation today is different. But the implicit demand for routine denunciation is a sectarian non-starter – better to be more honest about it and stick with your tablets of stone.

    There are a wide variety of other ways in which these types of issues can and should be addressed.

    The most important is developing a culture and practice of accountability in the general sense. Something those of us in SR have been spent years campaigning around in respect. I don’t for a minute expect this particular leopard to completely change his spots. But under the new Respect regime I’m sure that George will face obligations to be accountable. When speakers at the conference raised this he made a point of visible nodding in assent. This will be a complete contrast to the blanket opposition to accountability in the years of governance by the SWP-leadership. The point about accountability is not that, at all times, you control and determine what the elected representative says and does. It is that the latter is answerable to those who put him there – has to justify himself. As part of this process she or he can be publicly criticised or removed. But it is a process, not a mechanical relationship.

    Secondly Respect will have a regular paper – this will give the organisation it’s own profile and cease the uneccessary, false and distorting appearance that GG’s words and actions were all that could be said about Respect’s politics.

    The paper I’m sure will be an eclectic mix in the best sense of the phrase, that will take up issues like sexism and raunch culture in a varied and stimulating way that asks questions as much as posing answers. One can imagine a spread with views from Salma (who described herself at the conference as a liberated muslim woman), from old labour male figures like Jim Rogers former leader of Harlow Council Labour group, from marxist feminists like Jane Kelly, from women trade unionists operating in a male-dominated environment like Linda Smith – as well as those outside Respect with a variety of views and experiences.

    Thirdly socialists and feminists in Respect will continue to raise this issue in discussion and through our own publications and meetings. The current issue of Socialist Resistance has material on this and on Saturday there is an SR meeting on women’s liberation. SR is ceasing publication as a paper, but undoubtedly Socialist Outlook will continue and there will be other avenues to disseminate political ideas and debate of this sort – bulletins, pamphlets, leaflets and the like. Hopefully the ex-SWP comrades will start to organise themselves into a network. Maybe they will produce material as well or perhaps some common framework will develope for marxists in Respect to work together.

    The point is that there is a rich variety of ways in which this issue can and should be taken up. Direct and public criticism of public representatives and their words and actions will always have its place in that political culture, but it is by no means the only one.

    Those who imply it is, betray (at the very least) a lack of understanding, if not an opposition, to the basic concept of building a broad pluralist socialist formation.

    Like

  19. Oh dear Adam

    You really should learn your Respect history. What the hell has Nick done for Respect? Well apart from chairing our founding conference and being the National Chair for a year and then serving with distinction on the NC for the next two years he’s also won the trust of nearly every non-SWP members on the CC with his rational and honest account of Respect’s strenths and weaknesses.

    Like

  20. That should read “are in fact engaging in quiet acts of socialist criticism” – I don’t know how the not slipped in.

    Like

  21. Wrong again!! That should read “social criticism” not socialist. Best stay off the keyboard for a while.

    Like

  22. So Piers while you think GG’s article was sexist. And you think that’s a particularly bad thing because he’s a representative of your group, but while it is possible to use “direct and public criticism” in theory in practice it is inappropriate because;
    “Those who imply it is, betray (at the very least) a lack of understanding, if not an opposition, to the basic concept of building a broad pluralist socialist formation.”

    So in other words you’ll let it slide?

    Like

  23. Clive I know nothing about Nick Wrack and have nothing against him really. But your defence is pretty lame, he chaired a meeting three years ago. “Served with distinction”? In what way? What has he done? Just an honest question.

    Aas a rank and file member of Respect I have had no dealings with him, and he has never set foot anywhere in Wales since Respect was founded.

    Did Nick Wrack address the genuine concerns over the low standards in Tower Hamlets that have meant that we have Respect Cllr’s defecting to bourgeois parties, leading members like the Chair defecting to the LibDems and an MP who according to Liam Mac Uaid hasn’t been seen in his constituency for months? Or is the SWP the only thing allowed to be criticised in Respect Renewal?

    Like

  24. Can someone tell me what position Kevin Ovenden holds in RR? He is prominentlty pictured on the platform at teh RR conference, but I have seen nothing to explain why this is.

    Has he been elected to a leadership role in RR? If so what and when? And if not, what’s he doing on the platform? Most of the other conferenmce attendees seem to have been allocated seats on the floor of the event.

    Seems strange to see him up there, but no report at all of the event mentions him.

    Like

  25. Piers – I agree with Bill here – I can’t quite understand what you’re arguing. The whole point of having the arguments about accountability in Respect was precsiely so you don’t have your elected MP publishing sexist trash under his own name for a few quid.

    I am really, really amazed that the men on the Left participating in this debate who are members of RR have outright refused to recognise what a massive issue this is not just for women in society in general but for women on the Left! How do you think reading a comment from an MP like that is supposed to make women feel about participating in meetings of Respect Renewal – knowing that its MP has made these sexist statements (Andy has claimed they are not sexist) and sees women as objects instead of equals. How, as a female activist, do you have any sort of confidence getting up in a meeting and speaking where this person is consdiered not only the leader but may be chairing?

    This seems to be the question that no one is thinking about (and frankly even PR failed to adequately address this with regards to Sheridan’s sexist behaviour before the SSP split – and no I am not talking about going to a sex club – I am talking about the sexist abuse he poured on the female SSP members)

    You can try to analyze Galloway’s comments in the context of sexist society and claim once again – as other men on the Left have done in this debate – that you have a right to be aroused – fine – no one is trying to deny you that right. But no one I have seen posting on this issue has made a “moral” case for opposing this or said that people should not be sexual beings or have sexual urges or anything else of that nature which is simple non-Marxist rubbish.

    What is being argued is that women on the Left are getting rather tired of having comments like this from Galloway and sexist behaviour like that of Sheridan brushed under the carpet or ignored – and we’re getting pretty tired of the same excuses being used again and again to defend them – whether from the SWP or the ISG.

    If comrades on the Left want to ensure women are included and feel like they are being treated as equals in organisations of the British far left they would be wise to take the issues raised by female activists on the Left seriously.

    Like

  26. The Eight-tentacled Revolutionary Avatar
    The Eight-tentacled Revolutionary

    ‘You really should learn your Respect history.’

    Quite right too. I can think of no better use of a man’s time, than learning the ‘history’ (pretention anyone?) of a coalition that lasted for only three years, fought one general election, got a total of 68,094 votes (0.3% popular vote, less than half the BNP vote), and then split into two Pythonesque splinters, further democralising the disaffected left of Britain, and cementing the neoliberal stranglehold the two-and-a-half-party convergence has.

    History indeed.

    Like

  27. Some questions.

    Kevin Ovenden works for george galloway and assisted the chair in each session at RR conference. For the chair to have an assistant is normal labour movement practice.

    Nick Wrack was chair of the Socialist Alliance at the time Resepct was launched, and was one of the instigators of the Respect project, and represented the SA in negotiations with galloway and yaqoob, Bob Crow and others. he was natinal chair of Resepct for its forst ywar or so. He was the last ever editor of the Militant paper, and his brother is general secretary of the FBU. he later joined the SWP (I have no idea why) .

    The idea that it is sexist to remark that Kylie’s success is more down to her looks than here singing ability is ludicrous. It minimises the real obstacles of increasding the participation of women in politics.

    In truth such middle class linguistic coding and right-on London left sub culture is at least if not more of a barrier to the participation of working class women in the movement than the idea that some of the men might say they find Kylie attractice.

    Like

  28. Andy – in what way were Galloway’s remarks not an objectification of women? Why do you think it’s not a “real obstacle” to women’s participation in politics to have your MP making remarks like this?

    Like

  29. PS – He didn’t just say she was “attractive” – this is a ridiculous inerpretation of what Galloway said.

    Secondly your insistance on calling me and anyone else who raises this “middle class” is pretty appalling.

    I worked in factories where I asked co-workers to take down pictures of nude women. You know what Andy – most of the working class women that I spoke to thanked me for doing it saying they felt upset but would’ve never said anything. The idea that demanding women be treated with respect and not objectified is somehow only the realm of the “middle class” is way off the mark.

    Like

  30. I don’t say you were middle class, but this lingusitic coding is part of a particular strand of moralistic identity politics that came from middle class involvement in the workers movement. The focus came to be the language we use to decribe things, rather than the content and the material conditions. Of course working class people in the movement have also adapted to that current.

    I take my sister as a case in point who is literally the most racist person I know, but who uses New-Labour social inclusion speak to hide the real content of what she says.

    Galloway’s remarks are reflecting a general sexism in society, and Kylie has made a career of self-objectifying herself – she certainly hasn’t made a music career out of her singig ability.

    The question here is how we build an alternative to the objectification of women, and fetishising some unfortunate but hardly extreme remarks by a socialist MP is not the best way.

    Like

  31. i’ve just got far too many criticisms of the old respect, george galloway and the th councillors, so i wont join renewal. no one in renewal has taken up these criticisms or even addressed them in a serious fashion.

    if renewal proves in time to have broken from the opportunist politics of the old respect, if it adopts a programme that places the working class of central importance, if it actually promotes socialist ideas rather than hiding them, if it holds it representatives to account, if galloway starts to act like a workers’ mp and takes a workers’ wage, then i might join it
    .
    alternatively, if none of the above happens but it attracts thousands towards it, and becomes part of a broader left wing party, then i would join it and fight within it.

    anyway best of luck to all renewal activists and i’m following developments with interest.

    karl s

    Like

  32. When Andy wrote that Nick Wrack was chair of the Socialist Alliance at the time Resepct was launched, and was one of the instigators of the Respect project, and represented the SA in negotiations with galloway and yaqoob, Bob Crow and others. he was national chair of Respect for its first year or so. he unaccountably forgot to add that Nick was removed as chair after a campaign ran by…Andy Newman. All water under the bridge now, eh?

    Like

  33. re chjh: I wasn’t removed as chair of Respect following a campaign by Andy Newman or by anyone else. I joined the SWP and stepped down as Chair as it was felt by me and others, inside the SWP and outside, that it would not be right for the SWP to have members in both the position of chair and national secretary. I joined the SWP knowing that it would mean that I would have to step down as Chair of Respect.

    Like

  34. But *as far as I can remember it*, Nick didn’t ‘out’ himself as a SWP member, and neither did the SWP ‘out’ him. Officially he was ‘non-aligned’, ‘independent’, ‘ex-Militant’, whatever. Only when Nick Wrack’s SWP membership was made public – by others – (one day before, or was it the night before a Respect conference?) did he stand down as Chair and not stand for re-election. Without this ‘outing’ Nick would have remained as SWP-preferred candidate to be re-elected as Chair. I’m not saying this is 100% correct, but this the jist of my recollection of events.

    Like

  35. Re KMS: This is completely wrong. i discussed with other people in the leadership of Respect who were not in the SWP that I was thinking of joining the SWP before I did so. When I did join I told people immediately. I remember discussing with George Galloway in his car on the way back from a Respect Officers’ Group meeting to discuss the Hartlepool by-election the fact that my membership of the SWP would mean that I could not stand again as chair of Respect. This must place that discussion in September 2004. The annual conference was 30/31 October 2004, so well after I had joined. There was no attempt to hide anything. Nothing was hidden. When the list of proposed names for the National Council slate was posted on the Respect website it omitted to describe me as being SWP so I immediately contacted Rob Hoveman and the mistake was immediately corrected. My membership of the SWP was not made public by others. It was made public by me. Neither I nor the SWP hid my membership. You are not even 1% correct, never mind 100%.

    Like

  36. ‘In truth such middle class linguistic coding and right-on London left sub culture is at least if not more of a barrier to the participation of working class women in the movement than the idea that some of the men might say they find Kylie attractice.’

    Oh dear Andy. Getting a bit carried away here I feel. Oppression is rooted in more than ‘middle class’ concerns about language isn’t it?
    Babeuf could spot this for a mistake on GG’s part, why cant you?

    Like

  37. ‘self-objectifying herself ‘…this is priceless. Fair game then is she?

    Like

  38. Not even 1% correct?
    “There was no attempt to hide anything. Nothing was hidden.”


    There has been some controversy on whether we were right to propose an alternative slate for the Respect National Steering Committee…..

    It’s central object was to focus on Nick Wrack’s secret membership of the SWP and that the national chair and national secretary should not both be members of a centralised faction inside of RESPECT.

    It was only after we submitted our alternative slate to the executive did they go out of their way to change Nick Wrack’s description on the list to SWP (two days before conference began) the very first time that this has been publicly acknowledged.

    By submitting the slate we not only forced this to happen, this almost automatically means he can no longer carry on as chair. Whoever they chose as ‘independent chair’ may actually influence some of the decision making to be more accountable – if only to that individual.

    Jim Jepps, Socialist Unity Network, January 2005

    My membership of the SWP was not made public by others. It was made public by me. Neither I nor the SWP hid my membership.

    Nick Wrack represents little independent of his relationship with the SWP. And the surely deliberate deception involved in him not declaring his SWP membership would not have been revealed had we not challenged him.

    So it comes as a tactical question of whether, given we could not win, it was right to propose the alternative slate. This is what some ISG members have described as a “sectarian antic”. Now I think this is interesting, because it shows an adaptation to an abusive relationship with the SWP! We should self-censor ourselves so as not to upset them, in an organisation where our membership has formal equality to theirs.

    Every member of Respect has a right to their own opinion about who should be on the NC, and the delegates have a right to hear those arguments and vote on them. Had we not proposed our slate then Nick Wrack’s SWP membership would not have been brought up.

    Andy Newman, January 2005

    http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/voices/talkingrespect.htm

    Whatever the ‘truth’ of the matter, it seems a fair few people had at the time the same version of events that I mentioned…

    Like

  39. I know that this is what Jim Jepps and Andy Newman thought and wrote at the time. Unfortunately, they were wrong then. You are wrong now.

    Like

  40. Fair enough, Nick Wrack. But it shows Karl-Marx-Straße isn’t the only one who was (according to you) wrong, 100% wrong even.

    Like

  41. There’s another good effect of the the renewal of Respect:
    “The number of internet readers of the Weekly Worker has, for reasons I don’t understand, been falling over the last few months. In June we peaked at 47,977 in a single week, but now we are down to 24,725 over the last seven days.”
    http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/698/lrc.htm

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending