Liam redux

, , ,

ROYAUME-UNI: Scission de Respect (The LCR's view)

This report from Rouge is a short account of recent events in Respect. Thanks to Andrew and Rob for the translations. You will see in the first paragraph that next week’s issue will have accounts from both sides of the split. The LCR has a weird obsession with informed democratic discussion. Will they ever learn?…

Liam
4–6 minutes

This report from Rouge is a short account of recent events in Respect. Thanks to Andrew and Rob for the translations.

You will see in the first paragraph that next week’s issue will have accounts from both sides of the split. The LCR has a weird obsession with informed democratic discussion. Will they ever learn?

une-2233 La scission de Respect représente un échec pour la construction d’une alternative de la gauche radicale. Le présent article revient sur la discussion qui se déroule en Grande-Bretagne. Il sera suivi, la semaine prochaine, des contributions de deux protagonistes du débat, Alan Thornett (ISG) et Chris Bambery (SWP).

La création de Respect, dans la foulée du mouvement antiguerre de 2003, constituait une étape prometteuse du rassemblement de la gauche radicale et de construction d’une alternative au New Labour. Cette coalition regroupait des militants syndicaux et associatifs, des militants de la gauche travailliste révoltés par le libéralisme de Tony Blair, des opposants à la guerre en Irak, des musulmans, et des militants révolutionnaires de différentes sensibilités dont, entre autres, le Socialist Workers Party (SWP) – principale organisation de l’extrême gauche britannique – ainsi que nos camarades de l’International Socialist Group (ISG, section britannique de la IVe Internationale). Malgré un système électoral particulièrement injuste (scrutin majoritaire à un tour), Respect réussissait à faire élire un député, George Galloway – ancien député, exclu du Labour Party pour son opposition à la guerre, aux prises de positions parfois controversées –, ainsi que plusieurs dizaines de conseillers municipaux.

Paradoxalement, ces succès viennent de déboucher sur une scission. L’arrière-fond politique du débat – qui s’est envenimé – est constitué par les réponses divergentes données aux interrogations sur la fonction et la nature de Respect. Pour le SWP, Respect devait rester essentiellement une coalition électorale – « un front unique d’un type particulier » – et ne pas chercher à se substituer aux partis politiques existants. Cette conception permettait évidemment d’empêcher tout « empiètement » sur son intervention propre sur tous les fronts de lutte. À l’inverse, les autres composantes de Respect et de nombreux militants non encartés souhaitaient aller plus loin, ne pas limiter l’intervention de Respect aux campagnes électorales mais, au contraire, agir de plus en plus en tant que Respect dans l’ensemble des mobilisations. Et, en conséquence, construire Respect comme une force politique à part entière, pluraliste et dotée d’une structuration démocratique à la base.

Après avoir longtemps « protégé » George Galloway contre les critiques (fondées) qui s’exprimaient dans les rangs de Respect, la direction du SWP a récemment dénoncé avec virulence son caractère « incontrôlable », ainsi que les dérives « communautaristes » et électoralistes qui, selon elle, se faisaient jour dans certaines sections locales de Respect.

George Galloway, pour sa part, a repris à son compte une série de propositions de fonctionnement faites antérieurement par nos camarades de l’ISG. Finalement, la scission s’est matérialisée, le 17 novembre dernier, par la tenue de deux conférences concurrentes. L’une était essentiellement animée par le SWP et quelques alliés. L’autre, regroupant la grande majorité des autres composantes, a décidé le lancement d’un nouveau mouvement, Respect Renewal.

François Duval

The split in Respect represents a setback for the construction of a radical left alternative. The present article reviews the discussion which is unfolding in Britain. It will be followed, next week, by contributions from two protagonists in the debate, Alan Thornett (ISG) and Chris Bambery (SWP).

The creation of Respect, in the heat of the antiwar movement of 2003, constituted a promising stage in the regroupment of the radical left and construction of an alternative to New Labour. This coalition gathered together militants from trade unions and campaigns[?] , militants of the Labour left revolted by the neo-liberalism of Tony Blair, opponents to the war in Iraq, Muslims, and revolutionary militants of various currents among which, inter alia, were the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) – principal organization of the British far left – and our comrades of the International Socialist Group (ISG, British section of the Fourth International) . In spite of a particularly unjust electoral system (first past the post with only one round), Respect succeeded in getting an MP elected: George Galloway – former MP, excluded from the Labour Party for his opposition to the war, with sometimes controversial positions – as well as several dozen councillors.

Paradoxically, these successes have just led to a split. The political basis of the debate – which became vicious – was constituted by the divergent answers given to questions about the function and the nature of Respect. For the SWP, Respect was to remain primarily an electoral coalition – “a united [the French version should surely have uni instead of unique] front of a special type” – and not to seek to replace the existing political parties. This conception obviously made it possible to prevent all “encroachment” on its own interventions in all kinds of struggle. Conversely, the other components of Respect and many militants not in organised currents wished to go further, not to limit the intervention of Respect to election campaigns but, on the contrary, to act more and more as Respect in all mobilizations. And, consequently, to build Respect as an independent political force, pluralist and equipped with democratic structures at the base.

After having ‘protected’ George Galloway for a long time against (well-founded) criticisms which were expressed in the ranks of Respect, the leadership of the SWP recently denounced with virulence his “uncontrollable” character, as well as the “communalist” and electoralist drift which, according to them, was becoming apparent in certain local branches of Respect.

George Galloway, for his part, took up again on his own account a series of proposals on functioning made previously by our comrades of the ISG. Finally, the split materialized, on 17 November, with the holding of two concurrent conferences. One was primarily animated by the SWP and some allies. The other, grouping together the great majority of the other components, decided on the launching of a new movement, Respect Renewal.

7 responses to “ROYAUME-UNI: Scission de Respect (The LCR's view)”

  1. RobM Avatar
    RobM

    Le Poisson Du Babel says:

    The scission of Respect represents a failure for the construction of an alternative of the radical left. This article reconsiders the discussion which proceeds in Great Britain. It will be followed, the next week, of the contributions of two protagonists of the debate, Alan Thornett (ISG) and Chris Bambery (SWP). The creation of Respect, in the tread of the movement antiguerre of 2003, constituted a promising stage of the gathering of the radical left and construction of an alternative to New Labour. This coalition gathered trade-union and associative militants, militants of the Labour left revolted by the liberalism of Tony Blair, of the opponents to the war in Iraq, the Moslems, and the revolutionary militants of various sensitivities of which, inter alia, Socialist Workers Party (SWP) – principal organization of the extreme British left wing – like our comrades of International Socialist Group (ISG, British section of IVe Internationale). In spite of a particularly unjust electoral system (majority poll with a turn), Respect succeeded in making elect a deputy, George Galloway – former deputy, excluded from the Ploughing Party for its opposition to the war, with the sometimes discussed standpoint -, like several tens of city council men. Paradoxically, these successes have just led to a scission. The political innermost depth of the debate – which was envenimé – is consisted the divergent answers given to the interrogations on the function and the nature of Respect. For the SWP, Respect was to remain primarily an electoral coalition – “a single face of a particular type” – and not to seek to replace the existing political parties. This design obviously made it possible to prevent all “empiètement” on its own intervention on all fronts of fight. Contrary, the other components of Respect and many not inserted militants wished to further go, not to limit the intervention of Respect to the election campaigns but, on the contrary, to act more and more as Respect in the whole of the mobilizations. And, consequently, to build Respect like a political force with whole share, pluralist and equipped with a democratic structuring at the base. After “having protected a long time” George Galloway against criticisms (founded) which were expressed in the rows of Respect, the direction of the SWP recently denounced with virulence its “unverifiable” character, as well as the drifts “communautarists” and electoralists who, according to it, were done day in certain local sections of Respect. George Galloway, for its part, took again on her account a series of proposals for an operation made before by our comrades of the ISG. Finally, the scission materialized, last 17 November, by the two concurrent conference holding. One was primarily animated by the SWP and some allies. The other, gathering the great majority of the other components, decided the launching of a new movement, Respect Renewal. François Duval

    Like

    Reply
  2. oh dear Avatar
    oh dear

    I love the bit about Galloway being excluded from the Ploughing Party. Best thing I’ve ever read on this blog.

    Merci au poisson du Babel.

    Like

    Reply
  3. oh dear Avatar
    oh dear

    “Get stuck in a rut with the Ploughing Party”

    Like

    Reply
  4. Tom Avatar
    Tom

    In a reassuring article headed ‘Respect national council passes unanimous motion’, editor Chris Bambery writes: “Fingers were poised last Saturday evening, ready to email out Respect’s political obituary. This followed much spin in the media and from New Labour about Respect’s imminent demise. Instead the Respect national council, which met in the afternoon, unanimously passed a resolution spelling out campaign priorities and making moves to strengthen the party in light of a possible general election” (September 29).

    This was Chris Bambery’s response to the Newsnight feature on the tensions between Galloway and his supporters on the one hand and the SWP on the other. The SWP have lost some of their own people because they were expected to sell a paper that argued nonsense, under his editorship. And this is the individual that is supposed to defend the SWP’s position! The SWP is in a mess because of Bambery. The united front of a special kind has been an unmitigated disaster. It lead to the destruction of the Socialist Alliance, and will lead to a split in Solidarity between the SWP and everyone else, very, very soon – unless the SWP drops it immediately. Unfortunately, Harman (who should know better) argues in his document for a continuation of this disasterous policy. This not only will this not repair the damage done to Respect; it will lead to the splitting away of of the remaining independents. Since it has alienated the rest of the organised left (as opposed to isolated individuals who were thought to be more managable), the SWP force those driven out not only to withdraw support at elections, but to stand candidates against the SWP’s vehicle for a united front of a special kind. We have just witnessed in spectacular fashion that even when the organised left are kept out of such a “united front”, the non-organised left pack up shop also.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Tom Avatar
    Tom

    Liam introduces this article by mocking the SWP’s inability to give us both sides of the split in Respect. However, the choise of Bambery is not a good one, if the LCR is serious about giving both sides. Those who have split are found of quoting SWP leaders who are not Chris Harman. The reason? Harman has clean hands. He bears no direct responsiblity for the disasterous line peddled by the majority of the central committee. He simply accepted collective responsibility and kept his gob shut. The same cannot be said of many others, Bambery being preeminent among them. Callinicos was the theorist of this disasterous political united fron line, a strategy that destroyed the Socialist Alliance, and is on the verge of splitting the SWP from the rest of Solidarity. And it has proven useless in Respect. Unfortunately, Harman is fighting with one hand tied behind his back. In defiance of the logic contained in the rest of his article, Harman concludes by defending the political united front, which will not only lead to a split in Solidarity, but to the SWP losing the small number of allies in Respect that have not already left with Galloway. Bambery, Callincos and all those who demanded the recruitment of Muslims as Muslims, irrespective of class or politics, who canvassed for those who dismiss gay and women’s rights as “shibboleths”, who argued that trade unions should restrict themselves to promoting trade, and who think that employers and employees share the same interests, who dissmissed the charge of homophobia and communalism when this was first pointed out to the SWP in the past… These SWP leaders are not fit to represent the SWP in defence of the new line. On the contrary, they need to be exposed before the SWP rank and file. And voted out of leadership positions. If Harman and Molyneux try to pass Bambery and Callinicos off as being fully on board with the new line, then they discredit themselves. The SWP leadership’s line has changed. And changed dramatically, even if there is a pretence still that this is not the case. Those who try to argue that there has been no change come across as either liars or fools. Allowing those responsible for peddling the old discreditted line to now advocate the new line, while pretending there is no contradiction is to hand the SWP’s critics who have left to form Respect Renewal a propaganda victory. The longer Harman and Molyneux take before publicly admitting that the line has changed, and that those responsible have to be held accountable, and voted off the central committee (unless they recognise their errors and plead for forgiveness), the harder it will be for the SWP to retain a hardcore of credible activists. SWP members will simply refuse to sell a paper that says one thing today, the exact opposite tomorrow, while pretending nothing has changed. Furthermore, it is clear from reading the comments of SWP members on the Galloway supporting blogs that many of these are in headlong retreat, calling for the raising of the white flag. Unless those responsible for the mess the SWP now find themselves are exposed before the rank and file, the more likely it is that they will bide their time before mounting a counteroffensive.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Duncan Avatar
    Duncan

    Thanks for this Liam.

    It is now also at:
    http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1411

    Like

    Reply
  7. Tom Avatar
    Tom

    I have been accused of sexism for questioning Salma Yaqoob’s sole authorship of the first of many Resepct Renewal replies to Chris Harman’s ISJ article. A ludicrous accusation. Still, given the source of the allegations, nothing unusual. What will I be accused of when I question Chris Harman’s sole authorship of the article that appears in the ISJ? The That article is over twice as long as the one that appears in International Viewpoint. The latter apparently the one that Murray Smith, Salma Yaqoob and Alan Thornett et al responded to. At any rate, the concluding sections of the ISJ article is out of place with much of what precedes it. It goes to enornous trouble to appease all those who are responsible for the SWP’s falling out with pretty much all it’s allies in the electoral arena: in the SSP, SA, Respect and now Solidarity. I had hoped that Harman was going to clear up the appalling mess left by Bambery, Callinicos and the majority of the central committee for the last few years, including Lindsey German and John Rees. I had hoped that the latter two had finally come to their senses, and would help Harman drag the SWP into a Marxist attitude towards elections. However, the pretence by Callincios and Bambery that they are fullysigned up to the stance adopted by Harman has allowed them both to act as the defenders of the new line in Socialist Worker and in the papers of the ISG’s international comrades. Lying in this way has allowed them to retain their positions in the central committee, which is an absolute disgrace. There appears to have been zero debate at the SWP’s conference to openly admit that the line has changed, and that Nick Wrack, Kevin Ovenden, Rob Hoveman, Julie Waterson et al are right about this, as is Galloway, Thornett and the rest of Respect Renewal. Chris Harman’s attempt has defended the political united front. That invites yet more non-responsible mavericks to become the SWP’s senior coalition partners, standing alongside them to Westminster, the council chamber etc. Thus can do nothing but but sow seeds of confusion within the SWP rank and file. This has been a wasted opportunity from Harman’s point of view. Harman’s defence of the political united front approach will lead to further splits within Respect. It is guaranteed to lead to a split between the SWP and their comrades in Solidarity. And these splits are likely to happen sooner rather than later. When the shit hits the fan, Bambery, Callinicos and co will resolve the contradictions in Harman’s article by denouncing everything that was good about it. The inevitable further split in Respect and the virtually inevitable split in Solidarity (unless the SWP denounces their Scottish leadership’s internal document) is guaranteed to lead to a catastrophic split within the SWP. Because Harman has gone to so much trouble to absolve Bambery and Callinicos of responsbility for the mess in Respect, he is in a much weaker position than should have been the case. It is obvious that Callinicos and Bambery will simply wave the white flag and call on Galloway, Yaqoob et al to forgive and forget, probably even before May’s elections. To show good faith, Galloway will demand sacrificial lambs. Chris Harman? That’ll do nicely.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Tom Cancel reply

Trending