Respect: Document of the Crisis – New book from Socialist Resistance

British politics, Marxism, Political Organisations, Publications, Respect, Socialist Resistance

Respect: Document of the Crisis – New book from Socialist Resistance

Respect as it was originally constructed – as an alliance primarily between the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and George Galloway – is dead writes Chris Brooks. Our new book explains why. Contributors to ‘Respect: Document of the Crisis’ include George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob, Alan Thornett, Chris Harman, Andy Newman, Kevin Ovenden, John Lister, Jerry Hicks,…

Liam

February 3, 2008

1–2 minutes

Respect as it was originally constructed – as an alliance primarily between the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and George Galloway – is dead writes Chris Brooks.

Our new book explains why. Contributors to ‘Respect: Document of the Crisis’ include George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob, Alan Thornett, Chris Harman, Andy Newman, Kevin Ovenden, John Lister, Jerry Hicks, Liam Mac Uaid, Phil Hearse, Linda Smith, ‘Socialist Worker’ New Zealand and Nick Wrack.

The introduction to this 140-page book explains that “Respect stood on the gains of the anti-globalisation and antiwar movements, and on the fact that the anti-war movement had begun to build among sections of Muslim communities who had not previously engaged with British politics.

“But the SWP is painting a dishonest picture of what lies behind the division within Respect. They claim that they are the left in the split and everyone else is on the right (or is naively misguided, which is just as insulting). They repeat their disgraceful attacks on the Scottish Socialist Party, and by implication make comparison between those who support Respect Renewal with those in Rifondazione who have backed Italian Prime Minister Prodi in sending troops to Afghanistan. Such comparisons are ridiculous.

“Disregarding the grandiose comparisons with the splits between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks for the delusions they are, this pamphlet shows the political positions of those the SWP would paint as “the right”.

“Not all the contributions we print here are from Socialist Resistance supporters, of course. But we think and hope that by publishing this collection we can contribute to an important debate, and thus help to build a socialist alternative to the ravages of war and neo-liberalism.”

The book will be available from Socialist Resistance sellers after January 26th for 3.50 pounds or US $7. In February, the book will also be available at Amazon.co.uk and other online bookshops. Using the ISBN number, 978-0-902869-89-9, you can also order from any bookstore.

92 responses to “Respect: Document of the Crisis – New book from Socialist Resistance”

Mike Calvert

February 3, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Liam
It looks an intreresting bedtime read if your crying baby is keeping you up.
Seriously though, if it purports to be documents of the crisis then why is it just one side of that crisis?

Mike

LikeLike

Reply
DCM

February 3, 2008 at 2:18 pm

There’s something tacky, crass and opportunistic about having a book on the ‘Respect crisis’ a matter of weeks down the line. And of course, totally disingenuous and cowardly in only representing one side of the story.

Can’t say I’m surprised though.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy BH

February 3, 2008 at 3:11 pm

You write as though the “other side” was not freely available for anyone to read and anyone coming to this book would no doubt want to get the other side.

If it truly was not available you might have a point, but as it is this just looks like carping. The book is a welcome antidote to the wild propaganda smokescreen which the SWP leadership have laid over this crisis from the beginning.

LikeLike

Reply
Doug

February 3, 2008 at 3:27 pm

You know you’re FI when you publish a book of documents on a split. Cannon would be proud.

The title is misleading. Wouldn’t it be accurate to call it “Respect: Some Documents of the Crisis”?

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

February 3, 2008 at 5:42 pm

DCM and Doug the SWP’s resources are much greater than those of SR. There is absolutely nothing to stop them producing their account of the events. And in what way is Chris Harman’s piece in the current ISJ any less “tacky, crass and opportunistic” than this?

I know you’d probably pretend none of this happened and get round to organising the next street stall but it was an important experience that deserves to be documented.

LikeLike

Reply
kritischlinks

February 3, 2008 at 6:36 pm

DCM wrote: And of course, totally disingenuous and cowardly in only representing one side of the story

According to the announcement, the book also contains an article by Chris Harman. Which side is he on again?

LikeLike

Reply
Stuart King

February 3, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Dont worry, I hear there is a volume coming out entitled “Respect: What Crisis?” by Lindsey German, published by Oblivion.

Given that we might have two Big Brother celebrities going head to head for a seat on the GLA, have Duncan and Socialist Resistance thought of selling the film rights to their new book?

Could be a 2008 blockbuster.

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

February 3, 2008 at 9:12 pm

Respect the Split would make a good film, with all of the warmth and sentimentality of Alien versus Predator requiem

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 3, 2008 at 10:08 pm

But without the special effects.

LikeLike

Reply
redbedhead

February 3, 2008 at 10:20 pm

The world economy is on the edge. Pakistan is slipping into the abyss as the War on Terror unravels in Afghanistan. In the UK you’ve got growing resistance to pay restraint by significant sections of the working class.

And you put out a whole book on a split in a tiny party? It shows where your priorities are – not even on building your side on the ground but on justifying your existence by pointing to the evils of the other side. Don’t you think that’s a pretty pathetic use of your very limited resources? Especially when you couldn’t even find the resources to put something (a 50 word article, perhaps?) in your newspaper about your unique position regarding Livingstone? You lot really are Galloway’s tail.

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Brooks

February 3, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Mike, DCM, Doug,

The book contains Harman’s huge article, which is presented in the name of its central commitee, and is a thorough summary of the SWP’s side of the split. And the SWP represents itself with a single viewpoint.

If the SWP wanted to bring other views into print, doesn’t it have more resources than Resistance?

Chris.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

February 3, 2008 at 10:52 pm

redbedhead, within the next six months Socialist Resistance is confident that we will be able to shape the world economy, have a dominant influence in Pakistani politics and lead the anti-imperialist Afghan masses to victory. But for the last six months we have been distracted by the Respect business and want to leave some documents that may have an educational value in the future.That’s an option open to both sides.

As for being GG’s tail why don’t you do a comparison of our record criticising him over the last few years and that of the SWP. We win the consistency prize and come a poor last in the sycophancy race.

Don’t get me started on how the SWP are arguing a line which is indistinguishable from public sector union bureaucracies when it comes to fighting the pay cuts. I endured a union meeting on Monday night in which four SWP comrades spent the evening endorsing a “strategy” of a one day strike. More of that later.

LikeLike

Reply
DCM

February 3, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Well can this book mark the last chapeter in all of this nonsense? Can we each get on with building our respective (ahem) parties without all the bullshit bickering and muckspreading from ‘socialist unity’ & co?

I am personally more than happy to move on now minus Galloway and his supporters, but somehow I get the depressing feeling that Renewalites are keen to keep this rubbish up for as long as possible, for the hell of it.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

February 3, 2008 at 11:20 pm

DCM have a look at the video of the meeting on Palestine below. Yesterday lunchtime three members of RR were leafletting for it. 120 people turned up and spent two hours listening to politics. That is what you have turned your back on.

20 yards away from where we were leafletting 3 SWP members were asking people to sign a petition. Exactly as they have been for years at the same spot.

LikeLike

Reply
DCM

February 3, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Liam you know full well that we have been getting people along to meetings/fundraisers/election campaigns as well as we always have (and by ‘we’ I am talking about Respect, not the SWP which I am no member of). To try and pretend that we are suffering without Galloway is to be dishonest.

I used to happily defend GG and then he revealed his true colours last November, so now I am just as happily not having much to do with him these days.

I’d like to move on now but as I suspected, you’re not so keen to let this drop.

LikeLike

Reply
jj

February 4, 2008 at 12:11 am

Of course GG gets an audience. That as we well know is not enough. The truth is the ISG cannot even at the first test argue against GG and his backers in relation to supporting KL. No arguement put on the non elected nat exec by ISG members, no article in the former ISG paper when GG article headlined Backing RED KEN etc, Salma signs a letter in the Guardian in the capacity of RR, e mails sent out backing KL, GG hugging KL at the peace reception. The ISG have not been honest enough to put up opposition. I am hearing from a few ISG members that there is real concern to this latest move and the selling of its paper to GG and a justified fear that they will have in reality no influence and end up backing an increasingly rightward moving GG basefd organisation.
In terms of celebrity Tariq Ali was a rather large one- didn’t make the IMG a large organisation due in my humble view to its politics. And lets face it Ali’s politics were a damn sight better than GG’s!!!

LikeLike

Reply
jj

February 4, 2008 at 12:12 am

Also Liam to suggest the SWP

LikeLike

Reply
jj

February 4, 2008 at 12:15 am

Laim
the charge that somehow the SWP just stand around petitioning is pretty standard right wing fare. What about Karen Reisman, Ynus Bakash, tony staunton. What about the role played at all levels in the anti war movement, defend council housing, unite agaisnt fascism and a myriad of other campaigns.
The SWP does not apologise for selling a revolutionary socialist newspaper- I see the ISG thinks its better to junk thta leninist project and sell one which witter on how great Ken Livingstone is!!!

LikeLike

Reply
Canadien

February 4, 2008 at 1:53 am

“redbedhead, within the next six months Socialist Resistance is confident that we will be able to shape the world economy, have a dominant influence in Pakistani politics and lead the anti-imperialist Afghan masses to victory. But for the last six months we have been distracted by the Respect business and want to leave some documents that may have an educational value in the future.That’s an option open to both sides.”

See, now that’s just a dumb reply and an obvious straw man. You can do better than that. The point is: where are you putting your resources and energy? You don’t put out a book on imperialism, the world economy, etc. You can’t even spare the resources to write a 100 word article in the Renewal newspaper arguing your position on the mayoral election. But you can put the resources into compiling, writing, editing, printing, paying for, distributing – another book of articles about a split that has already been done to death all over the internet.
Your political priorities are being determined by internal criteria.
Meanwhile GG is happily arguing his perspective on the way forward as the RR perspective, using his paid staff and higher media profile. You are completely blind to the fact that your “pluralism” is about as democratic as dollar democracy – the more media “dollars” you have in RR, the more control you have over the public position of the organization. It is frankly reminiscent of that old anarchist article “the tyranny of structurelessnes”. In the name of democracy nobody is accountable and therefore the most powerful always run the show.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 4, 2008 at 6:03 am

I think this book will haunt you unfortunately. At the time of the London elections the last thing we need is a book picking apart the Respect split that most members of Respect don’t really care about. Isn’t it more important to use resources to argue the case for a socialist alternative to Livingstone at this moment in time?

It’s a shame that the highly paid Galloway is able to squeeze the resources of socialists in his party to produce a paper and a book promoting his campaign for Livingstone. When socialists could be using their resources to build a campaign for a socialist alternative to Livingstone.

LikeLike

Reply
Lanu

February 4, 2008 at 7:47 am

Socialist Resistance have done the progressive movement a great service in publishing “Documents of the split”.

We don’t want a small cult of people to totally control us, after all we are the vast majority and should have equal representation at every level of the Respect organisation and are more capable than John Rees to develop Respect.
He was in charge of a loss of membership and declining branches. Two issues that anyone would step down or be given the sack. I am surprised that no full postem mortem has been done on him. This latest publication will go some way towards it, if you have an open mind

LikeLike

Reply
jj

February 4, 2008 at 7:59 am

give john rees the sack- well should have put a motion to the respect conference- thats called democracy.

declining branches- has GG no responsibility with his antics to this development!!! lets face it you can’t have it both ways. GG is the highest profile and the public figure blah blah things are wrong with respect but the key figure in the public eye has othing to do with this. poor anaylisis. I am sure you will be happy trudging the streets for strike breaker Ken. By the way when will the membership vote on the KL question!!!
will the ISG ever get to jot a few words in their former newspaper lol will they raise it on the non elected exec lol. bottom line is- have they gone completely awol on the first test with GG, he must be laughing all the way to the……

LikeLike

Reply
Lanu

February 4, 2008 at 8:24 am

What Respect conference? The SWP Respect conference, thats called unconstitutiona l!!!

GG’s August letter was a brave effort to stop the pending collapse of Respect membership.

The Left will not win the Mayoral election. So it is in our best interests to ensure Ken is voted in. I have no vote in it, But it does impact on all of us in the uk.

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Brooks

February 4, 2008 at 10:57 am

Canadien,

Socialist Resistance published several books over the last year: on permanent revolution, on revolutionary strategy, on ecology, on the struggle against Zionism, on Cuba, on religion, and so on. So your criticism about our priorities is groundless: this book is just one more. The real dispute is this: you think these documents should be suppressed, and we think that there’s a lot to learn from the crisis in Respect.

LikeLike

Reply
Canadien

February 4, 2008 at 2:31 pm

“The real dispute is this: you think these documents should be suppressed, and we think that there’s a lot to learn from the crisis in Respect.”

You are imputing motives on the basis of no evidence. Personally, I don’t care what you do with them. I think you’ll sell 20 books – much less than have read all this stuff on the internet already. I just think that it demonstrates your politics when your priority isn’t an external event, like the London elections, but rather attacking the SWP. You are GG’s useful idiots.

LikeLike

Reply
Matthew

February 4, 2008 at 2:37 pm

The critics of this book seem so vitriolically bitter. It’s because they know their arguments have been dishonest and don’t want any accountability for what they did to Respect. While Chris Harman’s account is in the ISJ and on the web they are just hypocrites in their overblown atacks on Socialist Resistance for publishing this. SR has shown its prioities in going over to producing the Respect newspaper.

LikeLike

Reply
andy newman

February 4, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Canadien, better to be a useful idiot than a useless idiot.

:o)

LikeLike

Reply
Martin Ohr

February 4, 2008 at 2:53 pm

It’s hard to believe that ISG put resources into this project rather than arguing within RR for their position in livingstone- a quick survey of the blogs suggests that at no respect meetings, branch, ctte, NC has the ISG position on livingstone been put, no has galloway been challenged on this when he’s raised it while members of the ISG were on the platform with him. It’s an invisible position comrades.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

February 4, 2008 at 2:57 pm

We are one step away from “your mum” territory” so let’s stop now.

For those of you who don’t like the book then don’t buy it. You can use the time you save not reading to find the missing part of this quotation. “Those who do not learn from history…”

Martin a position that is all over the lefty internet is hardly invisible and I suggest you read the post entitled “What I did on Thursday night”.

Matthew the decision to shut down the paper was motivated by a desire to build Respect. The good news is that a high powered SR committee is meeting tonight in a secret location to discuss launching our new magazine. There will be more detail on this in due course.

Reports of our liquidationism have been greatly exaggerated.

LikeLike

Reply
Syme

February 4, 2008 at 3:01 pm

>>> The critics of this book seem so vitriolically bitter. It’s because they know their arguments have been dishonest and don’t want any accountability for what they did to Respect.

That’s a load of old bollocks, I’m certainly very much “like the murphys” about the whole thing. SR are entitled to publish their little booky-wooky and I’m sure it’ll attract a wide audience of young new activists. Or sit on the shelves of a few dozen RR members.

>>> SR has shown its prioities in going over to producing the Respect newspaper.

And what a hotbed of political debate that seems to be. Was Alan Thornett’s article arguing for supporting a left-of-Livingstone candidate in a special supplement? It must have fallen out of my copy…

LikeLike

Reply
margo

February 4, 2008 at 4:32 pm

‘Canadien, better to be a useful idiot than a useless idiot.
:o)’

‘We are one step away from “your mum” territory” so let’s stop now.’

And this is why I hope you blog prevails Liam. There is nothing so tiresome as the playground approach to political debate.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 4, 2008 at 5:57 pm

No one is saying don’t release these articles but the timing is unfortunate when many people post-split in both Respect and RR are now focusing on the London elections. As I and a few others have pointed out, isn’t it much more important to use limited resources to win the arguement in support of German’s candidacy? This election is a fantastic opportunity for socialists to offer a left alternative to New Labour rather than belabour our differences.

LikeLike

Reply
Canadien

February 4, 2008 at 6:19 pm

actually – i prefer to separate my idiocy and my useful/uselessness. when I’m an idiot, I’m just an idiot. It allows me to focus on perfecting it more fully.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 4, 2008 at 6:51 pm

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that RR should want to publish their side of the split. The idea that the gravest crisis in the SWP in nearly three decades should just be forgotten as yesterday’s news is to be frank a bit of a joke.
Why shouldn’t the left want to discuss what went wrong? Why don’t SWP members want to discuss what went wrong? All this lets forget about it and get on with German’s candidacy completely misses the point. German’s candidacy cannot succeed because the SWP have been so terribly exposed by the Respect debacle as utterly unable to co-operate with any other group on the left.
Better I think to forget German’s putitative campaign and undertake a serious re-examination of what was so badly wrong with the SWP’s politics that meant this crisis was inevitable.
But for that unfortunately, they won’t find the answers in SR’s book.
Irony huh?

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 4, 2008 at 8:56 pm

The SWP has co-operated with other socialists and social democrats in many campaigns so it’s unfair to claim that there was a systemic failure to do so in Respect.
What is very clear is that the SWP’s analysis of the rightward drift of Galloway has been vindicated by his call for a vote for New Labour’s candidate, Ken Livingstone.
The split in Respect and the call for a vote for Livingstone are two sides of the same coin. The only way to move on and re-address this is to campaign for a socialist opposition to New Labour in the London elections. This is what was democratically agreed by everyone in Respect. The political situation has not changed in the last six months – Livingstone was always going to face a challange from the Tories because he has pursued neoliberal policies and workers are sick of this.
There has been ample dissection of the split on the internet. A book collating these opinions about a split that occured months ago is not going to inform us about how to engage in the political issues that are relevant at the moment.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 4, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Alex Callinicos on George Galloway;
“George Galloway has come under a lot of flak from the sectarian left-partly because of his natty suits, partly because of some of his views on sexual questions. Sure, Galloway has neither the lifestyle nor the worldview of a revolutionary socialist. Why should he? His past is that of a Labour activist and parliamentarian. None of this alters the fact that he has broken with Labour on a principled basis-his consistent opposition to US and British imperialism. When seeking to reconstruct the left, what matters is not people’s past or a precise checklist of their current beliefs but the direction in which they are moving.”
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article10

So was Callinicos wrong about the direction GG was moving? Or was he just making stuff up to suit the latest whim of the SWP leadership?

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 4, 2008 at 9:58 pm

When Galloway and his followers attempted to get rid of the Respect NS because he is a revolutionary socialist and then, failing to do this, broke away to organise a separate conference and form a separate organisation I think this is quite obviously a lurch to the right.

LikeLike

Reply
Paul

February 4, 2008 at 10:08 pm

andy newman wrote “Canadien, better to be a useful idiot than a useless idiot.”

That’s right, Andy. Never give up.

By the way, all those who seem proud of being useful idiots, you should ask yourself “who exactly finds your services so useful?” Livingstone? Propping up the reformists when standing a socialist candidate does is plain moronic. The radical extra-parliamentary left have no option but to give workers a choise, or we toss votes at the BNP. The growth of the far right under Callaghan, Mitterand, and Romano Prodi.

Additionally, it is essential for the left to determine the limits of broadness of our broad workers’ party. Galloway is a loose cannon. He sets policy and defies others to stand up to him. When Rees finally did, all hell broke loose. And Liam and the ISG swung behind Galloway the second the SWP adopted their attitude towards this problem. No socialist organisation can be built with figureheads who display such contempt to the democratic process.

A second factor that has to be addressed is the problem tackled by the Marxist movement at the end of the nineteenth century, when Millerand entered a capitalist government. Lenin, Luxemburg and the rest explained why socialist representatives can never join a government committed to the priorities of the capitalist system. This is how the the French Stalinists and the Italian post-Stalinists threw away their electability. In the 1930s, Trotsky explained once again the lessons set out by Lenin and Luxemburg. Ger Francis, Andy Newman, George Galloway are oblivious to these arguments. It is pointless even trying.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 4, 2008 at 10:19 pm

But you’re not answering the point. Why did Callinicos cover up for GG when it suited him? Surely this was completely unprincipled?
Doesn’t it in fact demonstrate that Callinicos and the SWP leadership are unprincipled and therefore untrustworthy people?
GG didn’t essentially change at any point during the Respect debacle. He was sincere from the outset. He never pretended to be anything other than a Left Labourite/Stalinist, who enjoyed flash clothes, long cigars and sexism. He never moved left, but then he never moved right either.
None of this caused the SWP any problem at the outset, cos it suited their purpose. It was only later, when Respect slid out of their control that they suddenly discovered it was a problem.
Demonstrating what?
That they are untrustworthy, unprincipled people – that they are “politicians” indeed. And as such not worthy of anyone’s vote.
Which is exactly why a period of reflection and self examination is very much necessary by SWP members if they are to learn anything from this sorry saga.

LikeLike

Reply
X factor

February 4, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Vive la difference!

LikeLike

Reply
X factor

February 4, 2008 at 10:40 pm

(Abusive comment deleted – Liam)

LikeLike

Reply
Paul

February 4, 2008 at 11:14 pm

bill j denies I answered his question. Actually, I did. However, he asks a further question. “Why did Callinicos cover up for GG when it suited him? Surely this was completely unprincipled?
Doesn’t it in fact demonstrate that Callinicos and the SWP leadership are unprincipled and therefore untrustworthy people?”

There are those who argue that democratic centralism should allow members of a Leninist organisation make ALL their criticisms of the majority position public. The CPGB argues this, at least for organisations that are not the CPGB. Neither the SWP nor the CWI nor Workers Power accept this. And I take it that Permanent Revolution have not changed their minds on this point. It is obvious that the SWP have shifted their attitude on a number of key positions lately, and the split in Respect is “justified” by some on the grounds that the SWP’s old position was correct, and their new position can be dismissed as Islamophobic, ultra-left and a variety of other crimes against the socialist movement. I would much prefer the SWP coming out openly, and accepting that there has been a change, and quite a big one. To the extent Chris Harman draws a veil over this, he creates the conditions for those who were in the ascendent in the past (Callinicos and others) retaking control of the leadership. Callinicos was self-evidently someone who was promoted as a spokesperson, and theoretician of the old line. He is clearly keeping his counsel today, in exactly the same way that Harman did until recently. If Harman is to be condemned for rejecting collective responsibility and keeping his mouth shut, when he knew that to do otherwise would necessitate resignation from the central committee, and force him to start a faction fight that would inevitably lead to a split, then the same case can be made against all those who kept their traps shut for years inside Workers Power. The reality is that those who operate inside democratic centralist vanguard parties, from time to time, find ourselves in a minority. This happened to Lenin, for christ’s sake. There comes a point when bureacratic stifling of dissenting voices lead to splits. The idea that there is a sharp dividing line between the democratic and bureacratic versions of centralism is wrong; they shade into one another. Individuals have to take decisions as to when enough is enough. John Molyneux was prepared to sound the alarm a couple of years ago. Had I still been a member, I would have done so long before this. Lenin had to threaten the Bolshevik central committee to publish his view on the February revolution before they would do so. Liebnhecht originally accepted the collective responsibility of the SPD deputies, and refused to vote against war credits. It took Luxemburg to explain to her colleague that there were limits to collective responsibility. There are many occasions of revolutionaries compromising for the sake of unity, and subsequently accepting they were wrong to do this.

LikeLike

Reply
redbedhead (nee Canadien)

February 4, 2008 at 11:19 pm

“Why did Callinicos cover up for GG when it suited him? Surely this was completely unprincipled?
“Doesn’t it in fact demonstrate that Callinicos and the SWP leadership are unprincipled and therefore untrustworthy people?”

Well, here’s the crux of the difference, isn’t it: Callinicos et al would say that things changed, that the pressures of electoralism and careerism caused a shift to the right, which found expression through GG’s changing attitude to a number of questions – the profile and role of revolutionaries in Respect, the balance of principles to “electability” in the choice of candidates (and how candidate selections were run), the attitude to New Labour viz. Ken Livingstone.
You may disagree with this analysis but it is as valid a claim as is yours that nothing has changed.
And the point is that neither side is going to, at this juncture, convince the other. Thus, get on with it. Prove you’re correct by being successful – not by flogging the gory pulp that was once a horse and at which everyone and their mother has had a go.
Of course, if you measure success only by scoring points against the other side, you are a trenchant sectarian – and that’s the point about this book at this moment. The real world questions (eg. livingstone vs a left-of-labour candidate) came second fiddle – in practise – to launching an internally focused book.
As I said before, do what the hell you want. All this hand-waving about one side suppressing your freedom of speech or whatever is a bit Python-esque (as in Holy Grail: “I’m bein’ oppressed”). Liam put up an ad for a book and people responded to its content and relevance. It’s called a debate.

LikeLike

Reply
Phil

February 4, 2008 at 11:23 pm

What is very clear is that the SWP’s analysis of the rightward drift of Galloway has been vindicated by his call for a vote for New Labour’s candidate, Ken Livingstone.

Quite clearly this disproves RR’s story that the split was primarily a break with the control-freakery of the SWP leadership, compounded by personal bitterness between Galloway and Rees, as in this case Galloway would have been only to pleased to call for a vote for Lindsey German. No, wait…

When Galloway and his followers attempted to get rid of the Respect NS because he is a revolutionary socialist and then, failing to do this, broke away to organise a separate conference and form a separate organisation

Claims like this are precisely why we need a collection of documents from the split. (From where I’m sitting Galloway and his allies didn’t break with Rees because of the latter’s revolutionary socialism, didn’t try to get him deposed as NS, and didn’t form a separate organisation. I think we’re agreed on the conference.)

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 4, 2008 at 11:31 pm

The SWP and socialists in the past have made alliances with social democrats, stalinist and others on the left in order to build a left alliance against certain issues such as war, the far right and attacks on workers by the state.
While Galloway was willing to co-operate with an alliance of activists on the left socialists supported him but as soon as Galloway attempted to build a faction in Respect whose aim was to marginalise socialists the SWP challenged this.
None of this changes the fact that all socialist should support German, a socialist candidate, in the London elections.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 5, 2008 at 12:00 am

Actually PR have changed their position on democratic centralism. We do not hold with the Cliffite version (inherited tout court by Workers Power amongst others) that forbids minorities to express their differences externally.
When Lenin was in a minority he never kept his trap shut – not once – I challenge you to find a single example.
And there’s a simple reason for that – socialists fight for the interests of the working class as a whole not a minority clique – the party’s interests never come before that of the class and if a policy is wrong – people need to be told.
All this biting the tongue for the good of the party is total crap.
If you read the PR site then we have made (or at least are trying to make) an honest assessment of where we went wrong. The fact of the split after all confronts us with the fact that we were wrong, at least somewhere along the road and has the fortunate by-product, that we no longer have to pretend we were correct all along, forsaw everything and never made any mistakes. Palpably we did.
All the more absurd then (given my recent personal experience) that the SWP faced with the calamity of Respect’s split can try and claim the exact opposite.
Was Callinicos honest in his covering up, or downplaying (interpret it how you want) GG’s careerism, sexism etc. in my view not, he blatantly knew exactly the character of the man, when he defended him so strongly.
That it came back to bite him is just desserts in my view.
Yes obviously socialists make alliances – it would be a strange and lonely existence if they didn’t (see the current version of Workers Power if you want a living example of what it looks like),
Did the SWP challenge GG? Not at all. They covered his back even during the Big Brother farrago. They only got arsey when he was no longer prepared to tolerate their organisational control. There was no political difference – merely one of hierachical hegemony.
And as the SWP hierarchy, German, Callinicos et al, were all implicated in this sorry episode, and their socialist credentials found very much wanting, I see no reason why we should support German (or any of the others) standing for election.
Unlike Labour they have no mass base. But like Labour they are unprincipled career politicians who offer no way forward for the workers movement.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 5, 2008 at 4:38 am

Respect doesn’t have a mass base yet and that’s the reason for standing a socialist candidate to propagandise and build a left alternative to New Labour. This won’t happen overnight in the current political climate and if we don’t stand a socialist candidate against Livingstone the process will be even slower.

There is nothing wrong in supporting Galloway against rightwing witchhunts. When he is shouting down the imperialists and warmongers all socialists should applaud this. His recent appearance on Newsnight confirms that he retains this commitment to anti-imperialism.

The Respect project is an attempt to build a broad left alternative to New Labour, not an exclusive club for revolutionary socialists. On the other hand it has to be expected that social democrats and stalinists still wedded to labourism will attempt to drag a broad left alliance to the right and in the process try to exclude the revolutionary element of the alliance.

The split is now over. There will never be agreement about the causes of the split but what is most pressing at the moment is to continue the Respect project of building a broad left alliance outside Labour. Calling for a vote for German will enhance this process.

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Brooks

February 5, 2008 at 10:51 am

>>I think you’ll sell 20 books

Canadien, This is an expanded second edition. The first edition already sold hundreds, and there will be a ongoing audience for this book for many years, for as long as interest remains on the vanguard left in the SWP’s contradictions.

Once the design is done, the production and distribution of the book takes little effort, and that is principally done by the printers rather than by SR’s activists in Respect. Actually it’s a far more telling description of priorities that this book has a huge international audience, and that people all over the world are looking to understand the SWP’s choices in Respect.

Chris.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 5, 2008 at 3:56 pm

My impression is that very few activists in Respect are concerned about the split. They are more interested in carrying on campaigning for a left alternative to Labour.

Apart from the few who want to spend their time trying to make sense of the diverse views on why the split occured most activists will be more interested in pursuing the Respect project.

RR’s call for a vote for Livingstone will make many socialists internationally inclined to accept that the right split from Respect due to the hold that labourism has on their politics.

LikeLike

Reply
DCM

February 5, 2008 at 5:27 pm

“So was Callinicos wrong about the direction GG was moving? Or was he just making stuff up to suit the latest whim of the SWP leadership?”

Perhaps he was too optimistic about the way that GG was moving – a lot of us were guilty of a similar optimism in hindsight.

But if you want to go there…

Galloway said as recently as July 2007 that Respect AND the British anti-war movement would not exist without the valuable efforts of the SWP (Marxism, 2007 – you can watch this speech on Youtube). And now they are ‘undemocratic’, had a ‘stranglehold’ on Respect, are the devil incarnate blah blah blah.

He also used to continually say that Ken Livingstone was ‘Blair’s Mayor’ (a nickname I believe he coined) with policies no different from New Labour. He raised his record of privatisation and his unforgiveable support for the police in the Jean Charles case at every available opportunity – anyone familiar with his Top Cat show will be able to tell you this. And now he is one of Ken’s most vocal cheerleaders, lambasting anyone daring to challenge him from the left.

Pretty major turnarounds in a very short space of time. So
was he lying pre-split or is he lying now?

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 5, 2008 at 5:48 pm

He wasn’t lying either time. GG is what he is – a Left Labourite/Stalinist.
When it was convenient for him, i.e. when the SWP leadership were sucking up to him and doing his bidding, he praised the SWP – when they felt the organisation slipping from their control – he denounced them.
There was nothing left or right about it.
What did GG have to complain about at the beginning?
Callinicos was busy suppressing dissent in the party, denouncing critics of the Respect “project” as racists etc. ensuring that the SWP voted against the abolition of the monarchy, a woman’s right to choose, no immigration controls, a workers wage, dropped Lesbian and Gay rights from the manifesto etc.etc.etc.
What did GG have to complain about? He couldn’t have asked for more malleable supplicants.
Isn’t the definition of unprincipled opportunism selling political principles (shibboleths is what the SWP prefer to call them for votes?
Reading his critique of “Red Ken” I don’t think GG’s particularly changed his position on Livingstone either.
And now after German and co have shown they are happy to give up every political belieft they claim to hold in a rush for votes, we are expected to support them as “socialists”. Come off it.

LikeLike

Reply
DCM

February 5, 2008 at 6:50 pm

It wasn’t ‘at the beginning’ though – it was in July 2007. A matter of weeks before the SWP were labelled public enemy numero uno.

That’s the point.

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Brooks

February 5, 2008 at 9:01 pm

>>RR’s call for a vote for Livingstone will make many socialists internationally inclined to accept that the right split from Respect due to the hold that labourism has on their politics.

Ray,

That’s an interesting point of view, however it’s slightly complicated by the fact that the SWP will also be voting for Livingstone with their transferable votes. And it’s also complicated by the fact that people in Renewal share that opinion. The difference is over whether or not to vote for Lindsey German first — and about that their is a difference of opinion in Renewal. So in so far as both the SWP and Renewal is calling for a vote for Livingstone and against the Tory, we are all on the same side.

Let’s keep the unity building up!

Chris.

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

February 5, 2008 at 9:46 pm

The SWP in Preston will be refusing to stand a candidate in Tulketh ward on 1st May, and calling for a vote instead for the Labour candidate. A Labour candidate who voted with the Labour whip against Lavalette’s position on cutting councillors’ allowances at the last Council meeting.

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Councillors-back-their-own-pay.3730554.jp

LikeLike

Reply
bysshe

February 5, 2008 at 9:49 pm

“So was Callinicos wrong about the direction GG was moving? Or was he just making stuff up to suit the latest whim of the SWP leadership?”

a non grammatical responce…

method…

It’s almost a good question. It is about direction.
So it accepts movement.

gg was going in one way and now another — perhaps he is lost.

Perhaps he should have paid more attention to the map reading skills of the isg

A cliché — a stopped clock is wrong a lot of the day

——

Some always loved ken, some have grown to loving ken and some have had loving ken thrust upon them

—–
so

good luck with book, feck the begrudgers.
may it sell well and may you put much energy into selling it.

I have over the years become a collector of what is wrong the SWP tomes. I look forward to adding this to my collection from a charity shop

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 6, 2008 at 12:07 am

Huh?

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 6, 2008 at 12:34 am

Chris, I agree that unity is the way forward which is why I think it’s important to focus on the election rather than why the split occured. We can do two things at once but dwelling on the split does not encourage unity. At this stage there is a difference of opinion that remains unresolved.

bill j, even Left Labourite/Stalinists can be pulled to the left if they believe it will further their political agenda. The whole concept of Respect is about building a broad left alliance not a revolutionary party. Respect is tapping in to the desire among the left to provide an alternative to neo-liberalism and New Labour. It’s also a product of continuous and growing opposition to neo-liberalism among workers.

German is standing in the election to use it as a platform to build a broad left alliance. It’s just one of the strategies socialist are using to pull workers towards the left and draw the left away from Labourism. Socialists are under no illusions that a broad left alliance will be pulled to the right by the appeal of the parliamentary road to socialism but a healthy opposition on the left is also beneficial to revolutionaries. Most importantly, if the left grows through Respect/RR or a unified broad left alliance then issues that concern all of us as workers will be much easier to fight for.

LikeLike

Reply
walls’have’ears

February 6, 2008 at 1:19 am

Surely Galloway has been in politics long enough to make this decision to back Ken,

He is in Parliament every day and as they say the ‘walls have ears’
If there is any possibility that Boris can manage to achieve the vote he needs we are only playing in the Tory’s hands by standing another left wing candidate.

If the SWP had not initiated the split from Respect Lindsay German might have managed to get the lefties on her side- but only if Galloway was out there leading the campaign trail because we all know the SWP on there own with there sanctimonious Stalinist are completely unelectable.

Just asking if anyone knows what has happened to the 10,000 cheque that the SWP banked and did Carol Swords get her money back yet?

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 6, 2008 at 4:40 am

We are playing into the Tories hands if we don’t stand a left candidate. When it comes to argueing neo-liberal politics they are past-masters at it. Livingstone has lost ground to Johnson precisely because he and New Labour have stolen the Tories clothes. It’s hard to tell them apart and when social democrats steal the clothes of the right, voters prefer the original to the duplicate.
Perpetuating smear stories about other socialists does not encourage unity and this is what turns the stomach of activists. People on the left want unity. We are tired of witnessing neo-liberalism destroy lives. Petty sectarian infighting has to be put aside if we are going to build a broad left alliance. The campaign for German is an opportunity to rebuild those alliances. The only people who benefit from our division are New Labour and the Tories.

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Brooks

February 6, 2008 at 9:38 am

>>German is standing in the election to use it as a platform to build a broad left alliance.
>>The campaign for German is an opportunity to rebuild those alliances.

Ray,

We need a left alternative, so I’ll be backing German. However, it would be mistaken to think that German’s campaign is being used as a way to build broad left unity. Were that the case, then the SWP would have picked up the phone to the rest of the left, and to the social movements and unions, and build unity from the bottom up. From the outside, German’s campaign looks like a fait accompli, with no opportunity to discuss the alliances and content, let along the candidate.

In practice, the unity allowed in the German campaign is for footsoldiers to implement the line agreed by the SWP and its closest friends. That is a familiar notion of unity, and not one that will build the broadest unity.

So, let’s look to the future, and see if the SWP are able to participate in initiatives without demanding a hegemonic position.

Chris.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 6, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Germans candidacy was decided democratically and endorsed by everyone in Respect including those who left to form RR. Her campaign is not a last minute decision by a clique of unelected people.
We can return to the issues that created the split such as who was demanding a hegemonic position (Galloway and his supporters or the SWP.) Or we can concentrate on this campaign. As you suggest the campaign seems the most useful focus for socialists.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 6, 2008 at 4:55 pm

German’s candidacy will not unite the left. It won’t even unite Respect.
Will it be socialist? Well until we see her platform how can we possibly know?
All we can know is that from her record she opposes standing as a socialist candidate and therefore it seems very unlikely she has suddenly changed now.
In which case why support her at all?
Not only will she not further left unity – she won’t even openly campaign as a socialist.
Whatever way you look at it, its a waste of time.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 6, 2008 at 8:55 pm

A vote for Livingstone is a vote for greedy PFI fat cats and dodgy New Labour shysters. German is the only candidate campaigning on issues that are important to workers in London.

LikeLike

Reply
Paul

February 6, 2008 at 11:02 pm

bill says of Lindsey German’s campaign “Will it be socialist? Well until we see her platform how can we possibly know?”

He then tells us “Not only will she not further left unity – she won’t even openly campaign as a socialist.”

Since he obviously got hold of her platform between these two sentences, when will he get around to leaking it to the rest of us?

Respect Renewal (with the exception of the ISG, hopefully) are as determined as Permanent Revolution to disenfranchise left-wing activists. Galloway won’t support Respect because they are ultra-left. Bill won’t support Respect because they are not socialist, although this is no problem when it comes to recommending a vote for Livingstone. Respect does not need these people.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

February 7, 2008 at 12:20 am

‘A second factor that has to be addressed is the problem tackled by the Marxist movement at the end of the nineteenth century, when Millerand entered a capitalist government. Lenin, Luxemburg and the rest explained why socialist representatives can never join a government committed to the priorities of the capitalist system….Ger Francis, Andy Newman, George Galloway are oblivious to these arguments. It is pointless even trying.’

Ammm…Paul, I can’t speak for Andy or George, but with two cllrs in Birmingham, hopefully set to hit the heedy heights of 3 or 4 come May, I can assure you the vexed question of whether to enter ‘capitalist government’ has not quite crossed my mind yet…

LikeLike

Reply
Paul

February 7, 2008 at 3:58 pm

As I said previously “it is pointless even trying.” Millerands and Bernsteins of the world, build your capitalist unity network. Just don’t try to pass this off as a project of the left.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 7, 2008 at 5:14 pm

If I were you I wouldn’t be too dismissive of who Respect doesn’t need. Pretty much anyone it can drag off the street I’d say.
You can see German’s platform – in leaflet form – on her website Lindsey4london. I’m surprised you haven’t read it given you’re such a convinced supporter. Or do you not have to know her politics in order to give her your vote?
Anyway here it is;
http://electrespectcoalition.org/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=27

No mention of socialism. No mention of taxing the rich. Not much Ken would disagree with.
So much for your revolutionary politics. Cobblers.

LikeLike

Reply
Mike Calvert

February 7, 2008 at 9:15 pm

When will you all learn the lessons of history? You profess to be marxists, and some even profess to be Marxist revolutionaries! God forbid some of you even even even pretend to be scholars of Trotsky, Lenin and Trotsky! Yet you do not see that the one thing these guys never did was indulge in fantasy politics>
SWP Respect and Provisional Respect Renewal have NO MASS Base. The original base had a small base amongst certain sections of the community opposed to the war but were only able to turn that into votes for Galloway.
The gorgeous one is a Stalinist and the ISG sadly has turned into his bag carriers.
Both wings of respect are doomed to quote sergeant Fraser in dads army!
There has NEVER been a mass break from labour in this country that ever led anywhere, get a grip and smell the coffee.

That moment is still not here yet no matter what we all may wish. I wish there was a huge revolutionary opening and we could seize power tomorrow, but until the situation changes dramatically the place for all socialists is within the labour party. Yourown experiences outside it show that you are only speaking to each other.

Mike

LikeLike

Reply
Mike Calvert

February 7, 2008 at 9:17 pm

I meant to say that you profess to be scholars of Trotsky and Lenin.

i also meant to say The original unified Respect had a small base.

Mike

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Brooks

February 7, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Mike,

Your mate Jim Cannon once wrote that the art of politics consists in knowing what to do next. The observation that Respect, the SWP and Renewal have no mass base it just that – and observation. At times, Lenin and Trotsky also found themselves without a mass base.

Now, the notion that the whole Respect experience has only produced votes for Galloway is highly partial. It’s taken the SWP and its satelites through a decisive cycle. In classic one-step-forward-two-steps-back it’s also developed the basis for greater political independence from the Labour party.

When you say the moment is not there, then that pases the question: what is to be done. Clearly, we need to building the social movements, the campaigns and the daily struggles. But it would be a spontenaist error to think that that is enough. Certainly, one might say that different people bend the stick too far in different directions. However, to say that one should sit in the Labour party, where the space for politics is greatly reduced, fails to relate to the real layer that has already broken with Labour.

Chris.

LikeLike

Reply
Mike Calvert

February 7, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Chris

What layer has broken with Labour? Where? When? A very small minority that could not be persuaded into a party or league formation who were opposed to the war due to faith reasons have broken. An extremely small minority have broken in the trade unions.
The logic of the position you hold is to call for disaffiliation from Labour by the trade unions and for support for RR. At least the Socialist party are sectarian enough to do that! The ISG should be as well.
But you want everyhting: you want to be in the forefront of what might be an interesting development, you want to be with Galloway and not oppose him, you also want ot keep close to labour just in case…which is it?

Outside of the lefty ghetto that we inhabit the real world rolls on and misses RR and SWP-R completely by!

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 7, 2008 at 10:49 pm

It’s a nice fantasy that the left can only exist inside New Labour. And where has this got them? Selling off public services to city fat cats and cosying up to the police. This fantasy flies in the face of a century of workers breaking from Labour and organising for themselves.
Social democrats argued before and after the Russian revolution that the reformist parties were the only way forward for workers despite the wave of revolutionary struggles that swept across Europe. If Lenin and Trotsky had listened to these reformists then there would never have been a socialist revolution in Russia.
It’s mastery over the obvious to point out that we’re not building barricades yet. Lenin and Trotsky didn’t let the reformists pessimistic outlook stop them fortunately. And nor should we drop our politics and campaign for the New Labour apologist Livingstone when we have an excellent left candidate in German.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 7, 2008 at 11:27 pm

But German has dropped her politics (i.e. her notionally socialist and revolutionary ones) in order to “build” Respect.
Her candidacy is not socialist and does not pretend to be one. Now of course Ray, if you think that standing as a non-socialist, and a non-revolutionary is the way to convince workers of the need for socialism and revolution, then you are entitled to your opinion. But can please explain how it does so?

LikeLike

Reply
Paul

February 8, 2008 at 12:45 am

Isaac Newton was fond of saying “I see further than others, not because I am a giant, but because I stand on the shoulders of giants.” A handful of Newton’s students adopted a different attitude. They could not be arsed opening a book, certainly not one penned by a scientific genius. They insisted they could see further even than Newton by engaging in lots and lots of legwork. All that was required was moving closer to the object. One day they decided to prove their point by marching all the way to France. Having piled themselves with plenty of alcohol (to keep out the cold), they marched across the English Channel. When their bodies were washed up the following day, their death certificates entered drowning as the cause. Gravity and ignorance (including ignorance of gravity) played no less a part. When Millerand crawled into a capitalist government, the scientific socialist equivilents of Isaac Newton put pen to paper to stop ignoramuses in the socialist movement suffering a similar fate to Newton’s drunk, pig-ignorant students. Eduard Bernstein explained how those who studied his “Homeopathic Socialism for Dummies” were getting more councillors elected than those who wasted their time reading Anti-Duhring, The Poverty of Philosophy, Ludwig Feurbach and the end of Classical German Philosophy, German Ideology, Communist Manifesto etc, etc, etc. Rosa Luxemburg insisted that Bernstein’s success stories were nothing more than capitalist entryists, and that they were storing up problems for the international working class movement. Even Lenin thought she was exaggerating the scale of the problem, although eventually he realised it was even worse than she knew. I’d explain the moral of these stories to Ger Francis. But what’s the point?

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 8, 2008 at 7:33 am

Well true.

But don’t you think you need to look a little closer to home?

Lindsey German is no socialist or revolutionary.

At least not in public – and probably not after the meeting down the pub.

LikeLike

Reply
Mike Calvert

February 8, 2008 at 8:04 am

But guys

the facts speak for themselves. You name me one example outside of GG, who is no Trot, but old labour/Stalinst/Catholic, of an example where a breach from Labour to its left–in the last 100 years–has led to a significant left group with a parliamentary wing.
I ask again: where is this breach? When did it happen? It has passed the working class in this country completely by.

Why will the ISG not follow the logic of what it is arguing and make a bold call for all affiliated trade unions to break with labour and affiliate to the renewed Respect?
I don’t support such daft moves but you should!!!

Mikey

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Brooks

February 8, 2008 at 10:13 am

Mike,

Your schema is that workers and their allies all have to radicalise in the same way, through the Labour party. Indeed, your goal is not the radicalisation of the vanguard, but “a significant left group with a parliamentary wing”.

Your model is based on the mechanical notion of radicalisations politicising primarily through the Labour party, and consolidating there. That is not happening, and has not happened for 15 and more years. We face a more difficult molecular radicalisation, with no single point of crystalisation.

This point about the unions is a straw doll: we are all against it. We don’t argue for social democrats to abstain, but to become socialisms and – similarly – we don’t argue for unions to withdraw from politics, but to support the candidature of those who defend their interests.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 8, 2008 at 2:21 pm

I fail to see where German has dropped her socialist politics. Don’t socialists fight against PFI, for more public housing, better and cheaper transport and no cuts in public services?

German is campaigning on real issues that affect workers. This is a very good strategy for socialists in a period in which a call to build barricades would appear quite ridiculous. As a Respect candidate she is not engaged in some abstract campaign to read workers the “What We Stand For” column in Socialist Worker.

It’s hardly difficult to connect German to the SWP. She is never allowed to forget it by some quarters of RR. I’d like to give workers the credit of intelligence and believe that they actually think about who they are voting for. So I doubt very much that any Respect voter interested in looking further into German’s politics will find it difficult to discover that Respect is made up of an alliance of different political beliefs. As I stated before bourgeoise elections are not going to recruit workers to revolutionary socialism. At best we can propagandise on issue that are important to workers and continue to organise in the community and workplaces.

Mike where do you want me to start to address your comment? One example off the top of my head is Derek Hatton in Liverpool. Does Arthur Scargill and the miners ring a bell? The Poll Tax Demo and the fall of Thatcher. Livingstone in the 80’s. The Anti Nazi League and the defeat of the NF during the 70’s. And lets not forget the mass strikes of 1926 and 1972.
All of these campaigns were organised outside the Labour Party. In many cases the LP leadership were completely hostile to them or at best played lip service. Any form of progressive social struggle and change occured outside Labour and has been held back by the Labour Party rather than cultivated by it. When it’s in power the LP has repeatedly demonstrated that it’s sole aim is to manage capitalism for the ruling class rather than build a socialist society. It’s time to take off the rose tinted spectacles and learn about the true history of workers struggle.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 8, 2008 at 3:37 pm

You fail to see how German has dropped her socialist politics?
I take it you have read her campaign leaflet where she doesn’t mention socialism once.
If that isn’t an example of dropping socialist politics I would like to know what is.
But then again if you regard an attempt to fight for socialism as synonymous with “a call to the barricades”, then its no wonder she has dropped her socialist politics. It would be
ridificulous for her to do anything else.
A statement which reveals rather a lot about how Socialist Worker regard the struggle for socialism in the current period.
As a “ridiculous” struggle.
Funnily enough this method “the movement is everything the final goal is nothing” in fact the final goal is “ridiculous”, is a truly ridiculous re-run of the revisionist social democrats that you claim to be against.
How ridiculous.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 8, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Even if we take your restrictive (some might say ultra-left) interpretation of how to fight for socialism as accurate this still doesn’t explain why you support Livingstone.
We can argue endlessly about whether or not German is a socialist but are you going to support a left of New Labour candidate who is campaigning on issues that benefit workers or are you going to support a scab who chases after the fat cats in the City?
It’s not very difficult to know who socialists should support.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 8, 2008 at 5:09 pm

So it is ultra left to mention “socialism” on an election leaflet?
Please.
Why should socialists oppose German’s candidacy but vote Livingstone?
If German were to win masses of working class votes it would be possible to vote for her, not because she was a socialist, or because it made her politics any better, but to put the illusions of her supporters to the test.
But of course we know that German will recieve a handful of votes, so there are no illusions to be put to the test.
Or if as we did with the Socialist Alliance, German represented an opportunity to re-group the left within which socialists could argue for their politics then it would also be possible to support her candidacy.
But Respect has no one in barring the remnants of the SWP and a few hangers on, so there is no one to re-group with.
Or if she was fighting for socialism socialists could support her as the election campaign could be an opportunity to fight for socialist ideas – but we know that she won’t mention socialism and indeed her supporters consider any mention of it as “ridiculous” and akin to a call to “the barricades” or for the organisation of a “workers militia”.
It doesn’t seem likely she’s about to change her mind on that one then does it?
Which leaves Livingstone.
Socialists should vote for Livingstone, who is a scabby dog as you say, because Livingstone does have a mass base who will support him against the Tory racist toff Boris Johston.
Those millions of workers need to see what’s wrong with Livingstone in practice, in other words they need to experience his Mayoralty for themselves, and not just be told how bad he is.
Absolutely elementary socialist electoral tactics. Read left wing communism, the most mis-used book in the history of politics, as your attempt to use it in your support shows.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 8, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Millions of workers have had a belly full of Livingstones new Labour policies. That’s why Johnson is doing well in the polls. How a vote for Livingstone will expose his rightward shift you do not say. I say that campaigning for German who is a socialist will expose Livingstone and ensure that Johnsons racism will be challenged. This won’t happen by voting for Livingstone unless you have a cunning plan that the rest of us socialists have not realised.
I’m interested in what you want included in a socialist campaign. It’s no help bandying this word around without explaining what you believe is lacking in Germans campaign. You still haven’t explained why campaigning against PFI, the lack of housing and cuts in services aren’t as relevant to socialists as they are to every other worker in London. Sticking the word “socialist” on a leaflet is meaningless. Stalinists do this and so do social democrats. The important thing in any campaign are the issues being fought for.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 8, 2008 at 7:04 pm

So using “socialist” is meaningless?
That would explain why German is a member of the Meaningless Workers Party, then wouldn’t it?
BTW I didn’t ever say campaigning on this or that wasn’t relevent. It was rather you who said socialism was irrelevent.
And in case you hadn’t noticed German supports Livingstone. Why not ask her why?

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Brooks

February 11, 2008 at 12:26 pm

And one more book from Resistance…
http://resistancebooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/expanded-second-edition-of-ecosocialism.html

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm

bill j, it’s all very well moaning about German but you need to explain what you think a socialist candidate should campaign for otherwise your rhetoric is meaningless.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

February 11, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Bill J, the transformation of Trotskyism into the blackboard socialism of the SPGB many have had as many grouplets as the SPGB had members, but its unlikely ever to gain a mass following for the same reasons they didn’t.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 11, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Well that told me eh?
What I find very interesting/revealing abou the SWPs enthusiasm for dumping socialism (I do remember the days of “we are the socialists”), is how the whole Respect experience, embracing populism and electoralism seems to have poisoned the entire organisation.
This I think shows more than anything that the split between the two Respects wasn’t a left right divide at all, but one over organisational control, as neither side has moved an inch from the populist/electoralist strategy upon which Respect was predicated.
And of course, irony of irony, for all your preaching about size, excuse me if the SWP aren’t the smallest they’ve been in thirty years and by a margin too.
But what should a socialist fight for? Good question and there are so obvious answers.
In the London mayoral elections a socialist would show how the drive for profit was destroying public services and making the lives of working class people intolerable, so far so good, but then they would have to explain how providing answers to each of these questions raised a challenge to the rule of capital.
Take one example
Transport – German even mentions it in her platform, so she must think its important. If you wanted to solve the transport nightmare in London what would you have to do?
You would have to kick the privateers out of London underground, the rail and the buses.
You would have to abolish fares – so transport was free to those who needed it .
You would have to sharply tax the most polluting vehicles – or ban them.
You would need a massive improvement and extension of public transport in the form of tube, railway and bus services.
You obviously couldn’t trust the incompetent money grabbing capitalists and managers to run the lot of it either, so you’d have to let the unions and users control it so it could be properly planned and organised.
How would any of this be brought about?
Obviously by voting Lindsey German and letting her legislate for it as London mayor.
*Joke.*
Any of these points, or even far lower targets, would involve a massive mobilisation of London’s working class, in the unions, communities and user groups.
It would involve strikes, protests and demonstrations.
It would involve taxing the rich punitatively to pay for it all.
it would pose the question of anti-capitalist steps that take us towards socialism.
Of course the reason German doesn’t mention of any of this is simple. She has no serious intention of fighting for any of it so she doesn’t see the point. Nor it would appear do the SWP.
I can sympathise… what a predicament to be in.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 11, 2008 at 10:15 pm

I understand that as socialist we want workers to take over the means of production but in the present political climate I suggest that you relate to the class by recognising the prevailing conditions and vote for German.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

February 12, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Ray you argue that “bourgeoise elections are not going to recruit workers to revolutionary socialism.”

But why are you supporting German standing?

The only point of a socialist candidate standing is to win forces for socialism and or the class struggle, to further strengthen forces to organise against the capitalist government.

Perhaps this is what you mean when you write:
“At best we can propagandise on issue that are important to workers and continue to organise in the community and workplaces.”

But the question has to be asked how does German’s campaign help organise workers in struggle? Not at all as far as I can see, it’s just a list of abstract principles unconnected to real examples, not supported by any union branch, or by a mass base.

If she at least had some socialist politics in there and was using the campaign to precisely mobilise the community and working class in fights against privatisation, repressive policing, for socialist polices on transport, housing, the environment., then may be it would be viable.

Bill’s example shows the sort of things to campaign for on transport- free public transport for London, kick out the privateers, for services run by working class people.

I can’t see how this would get less votes- more importantly if it was tied into real forces organising on the workplaces and communities such a campaign could be used to identify and recruit supporters for socialism and class struggle.

German’s campaign won’t of course because it is focused on neither- barely mentioning socialism (not at all on the campaign leaflet) and no mention of the working class – just a list of worthy enough reforms not connected to why workers should fight for them or how workers should fight for them other than voting Lindsey. Instead of community and democratic control it argues for ‘local government control’. Hardly dynamic stuff! I suspect most voters will think well no thanks.
http://electrespectcoalition.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=18&Itemid=27
Probably they’d think that anyway even on a much more dynamic campaign but you’d at least draw in more forces to the class battle- the whole point of a socialist election campaign to identify and mobilise support for class struggle!

On Livingstone it’s not so much why vote Livingstone- many workers and union branches are already supporting and voting Livingstone. It’s a question of how to best organise workers- including both those who support Livingstone out of mistaken belief that he still represents a fight against right-wing capitalism and those who wouldn’t vote for him (a very small proportion of whom may vote German) to fight against the privateers, the racists, the governments and councils selling off our services.

The whole point is how we can best use these elections to mobilise and organise forces to fight for class struggle.

Jason

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

February 12, 2008 at 5:02 pm

If you were relating to the class by recognising the prevailing conditions then you’d vote for Livingstone.
That’s what I suggest too.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

February 13, 2008 at 2:38 am

The prevailing conditions indicate that Livingstone is a died in the wool neo-liberal and we should vote for German who is a socialist candidate. I doubt very much that the election for mayor will mobilise class struggle. As I stated we need to continue to organise in our workplaces and community.

The point of German standing is to propagandise as she has little chance of being elected. The question is how to challenge Livingstone. Campaigning against PFI and for social housing is not abstract. These are bread and butter issues for workers.

On the other hand, we know that in capitalism there is no way that workers will be allowed to run free transport in London. This is an abstract arguement not a socialist arguement.

I think German has pitched her campaign just right. Respect is not the SWP. German is not standing as a revolutionary socialist. And an election leaflet does not make a revolution.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

February 13, 2008 at 7:26 am

No but it can connect with real living struggles and help identify and mobilise support and thus be part of a revolutionary movement. This seems more like a paper exercise and part of a deep confusion and shematism on the SWP’s part.

LikeLike

Reply