We are going to re-launch Socialist Resistance as a quarterly magazine and the statement below describes what we want it to be. We aim for it to be the leading  class struggle and ecosocialist journal in English. We have started working with some interesting new people recently and there must be lots more out there that we have still to meet. We are in the process of pulling together a group of activists who are interested in collaborating in the new project. You can contact us if you are interested.

Socialist Resistance – What is it?

SocResistMastSocialist Resistance is a magazine produced by a group of people who are convinced that capitalism is a system that offers most of humanity a future of war, environmental catastrophe and poverty.

We used to produce a monthly paper called Socialist Resistance but we shut it down so that its resources could be used to allow Respect Renewal to have a paper. We have now decided to launch a quarterly magazine.

 
We are Marxists because we can see that human society is divided into conflicting social classes. We take the side of the working class, the poor and the oppressed in Britain and internationally. Our political activity has the aim of putting society under the democratic political and economic control of working class people. They are the majority of the population. Political control in Britain today is in the hands of tiny numbers of politicians and business people who make the decisions that affect all our lives. They are much more concerned with profit than human need. We are revolutionary socialists because it is clear from history that social classes only give up power when they have been overthrown by a revolution.

Some of us are in the International Socialist Group which is the section of the Fourth International in Britain but many of us are not. We are keen that our magazine is seen as a space in which a spectrum of Marxists, socialists and environmentalists from all sorts of backgrounds can collaborate both in the practical sphere and in working out the ideas needed to change the world.

New class struggle parties

Supporters of Socialist Resistance argue that the Labour Party has become so right wing that, even though millions of workers still support it, the big job for socialists in Britain is to help create a new anti-capitalist party that supports workers’ struggles, defends asylum seekers, women’s rights and opposes imperialist wars. We are working hard to make sure that Respect Renewal is a success because we think that it is an important step along this road. Our supporters in Scotland are in the Scottish Socialist Party for exactly the same reasons.

We are in favour of the rebuilding of the fighting strength of the labour movement and democracy in the trade unions. Socialist Resistance members are active in their workplaces and trade unions fighting to defend and extend workers jobs and conditions through mass action. We are also active in trying to building fighting democratic broad lefts within our unions.

Socialist Resistance stands in opposition to racism and Islamophobia and to the oppression of women, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people and disabled people. We believe that the most effective way to fight these forms of discrimination is through the coming together of those who directly experience them.

Ecosocialism

Revolutionary socialists have always been in favour of the development of the economy, on a global and national basis, to meet the needs of humanity. But that doesn’t mean we favour the production of an increasing number of commodities of any type whatsoever.

Much of what is produced under capitalism is socially useless, and either redundant or directly harmful. Some products – like cars – harm the environment directly; others are useless and just use up huge amounts of the planet’s resources.


Our critique of the so-called ‘commodity spectacle’ does not mean we are against all further economic development, especially in the third world. Neither does it mean that decisive new inventions in the future should not be applied, and the level of technology should remain stagnant. New development and production can be planned and go ahead if it meets human needs and is not environmentally destructive.

We are the only Marxist organization in Britain that calls itself ecosocialist. We know that the ruling class will look for solutions to the environmental disaster that capitalism has created, but they will try and make the poor, the working class and the developing world pay. They will also carry on destroying the environment as a result of their need to make profits. It is the people who are young today who will have to live with the consequences of this capitalist created disaster. We therefore want the working class to develop their own solutions. Young people will have a big part to play in this fight.

Why we produce a magazine

From our political practice we have learned that it is necessary for Marxists to produce their own distinctive publication. We write for and sell Respect’s newspaper. But there will be occasions when we will disagree with some of Respect’s tactics or policies. By producing our own magazine we are able to argue our positions more fully and clarify what we think. It also allows us to explore history and ideas in more depth than a newspaper does. Having our own magazine is also important for us because along with our books, leaflets and meetings it allows us to organise independently around things that we think are important.

If you want to support a magazine that is socialist, revolutionary, ecologist, feminist and anti-imperialist join us in trying to change the world

80 responses to “Whatever happened to Socialist Resistance?”

  1. Ecosocialism…what an ugly word.

    No wonder your the only people in the English speaking world to use it.

    Like

  2. Commodity spectacle?!

    I bet your the only people to use that phrase too.

    Like

  3. RF – thanks for the feedback. If we are going to quibble about language then it should be “you’re the only people…”.

    Like

  4. Have any of you read Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’?

    Like

  5. Sorry Liam, terrible typo.

    Like

  6. I am glad to see this is being re-launched but it is quite clear that this is because you recognised that the new Respect publication could not offer you the democratic space for debate. That in and of itself should make you reassess where the RR project is going.

    Regardless, it’s good to have you back in some form.

    Like

  7. Tami we really aren’t as liquidationist as our reputation makes people believe. I wrote the document about this before Christmas following an internal discussion. We seized the opportunity to help Respect develop its own paper but it was always a no brainer that we would produce something of our own. The constraints are time and resources.

    Like

  8. who is in resistance that isnt in the isg?

    is resistance actually an organisation that you join?

    ks

    Like

  9. KS – Liam for one….

    Like

  10. So is the ISG also keeping its own magazine going?

    Not to be unduly disparaging, but give the long term inability of the ISG publication and the publications which the ISG form the core of to keep to a publishing schedule, this seems a bit ambitious.

    Like

  11. Glad to hear this and I am hoping 2008 will be a good year for common work between ecosocialists in different political organisations.

    Just a few years ago there was no organised ecosocialist activity over here so this is progress….4 or 5 different groups are involved in the Ecosocialist International from the UK

    Incidentally SERA back in the 1980s was very good and published stuff like Raymond Williams ‘Ecology and Socialism’.

    Like

  12. >>Not to be unduly disparaging, but give the long term inability of the ISG publication and the publications which the ISG form the core of to keep to a publishing schedule, this seems a bit ambitious.

    Mark, what are you talking about? ‘Socialist Outlook’ has been a pretty regular three-time-a-year magazine for some time. Outlook has been a very regular publication since 88. A new issue went on sales last weekend.

    Like

  13. Keeping your own seperate organisation and your own seperate publications, is your involvement in RR some kind of united fron of a special kind?

    Like

  14. Digger has a point, wasn’t the SWP accused by some members of RR of not commiting itself to Respect because it retained it’s own publications? This has always been common practice by organisations on the left when forming united fronts so I see no problem with any organisation in a united front retaining its own identity.

    Like

  15. ‘Our political activity has the aim of putting society under the democratic political and economic control of working class people. They are the majority of the population.’

    This all sounds a bit wishy washy. What does it mean?
    It could mean anything. Does ‘working class’ equate socialism? Answer . NO. Just as ‘trade unionist’ does not necessarily mean anything other than some one is a meber of a trade union. What sort of trade unionists is another matter.

    There all sorts of people out there who are working class. This use of the term in this way merely perpetuates the idea that there is this great homogenous mass of people out there.. the working class who are opposed to capitalism. There isn’t.

    Some love the system, some hate it,some are filthy rich, some live in depressing poverty,many aspire to be rich,some struggle against it, some maybe socialists, some are fascists, racists, many are tories, many are blue labour, many support the monarchy, many support British imperialism and imperialist wars, some have fought in them believing they are fighting for Queen and country.

    While I welcome the very positive movement of Socialist Resistence in taking on Global climate change and the whole global ecological crisis and incorporating into your marxist analysis and welcome the development of eco socialist ideas.

    I nevertheless think there needs to be some serious re-thinking about what you mean when you talk about ‘the working class’ as discussed above. As well as how you are going to connect your ideas with working class people, how are they to take power and what form of democracy it would be?

    Is it remotely likely that ‘the working class’ are going to ever take power in Britain? What do we mean by this?

    Given ‘we’ (Those of us awake on the planet,who are working together in common struggle and solidarity against the crisis of capitalism and imperialism) have about 10 years left, before, by all scientistific accounts we reach the ‘TIPPING POINT’, to try to bring about a global reversal of the present suicidal global capitalist imperialist polices resulting in global climate change and catastrophe?

    How do we do this? How do we win support?

    Dont we need a relevant strategy for struggle here? A global strategy.

    A strategy for the radical transformation of the global capitalist economy away from the use of fossil fuels and production of carbon emissions ,simply to help stabilise the global eco system as part of a longer term development and struggle towards a democratic,sustainable, just and equitable form of Socialism, all based on the assumption that the left and greens, environmentalists etc can and will unite on a progressive eco socialist platform and will be able draw huge support from ‘the working class’ internationally.

    There is a great need for a relevant, viable and fundamentally sustainable GREEN SOCIALIST VISION for the Planet. The speed and urgency of global climate change indicates very clearly that our time for struggle is limited, our room for manoevre is narrowing and our choices are severely limited.

    Global climate change is the issue of our time, our lives and our existence

    Like

  16. Regroupment
    First all those who support the Usec. I think there are 2 groups. I gather the differences have disappeared.
    Then or in parallel the ex-swp people. There is a danger of a drift where splits like the SWP one occur.
    In fact why not try for a major regroupment now
    Fraternally
    Jim Monaghan

    Like

  17. On keeping your own publications:

    SW is a weekly paper. That means that – if the SWP had been prepared to put its money where its mouth is – Respect could have had a weekly paper. The SWP could have kept its other publications – even increased the frequency in some cases – and they wouldn’t have got in the way of selling the Respect paper.

    This is how SR and the ISG operated when RR was formed – we sacrificed our (almost) monthly paper to enable us to help produce an (almost) monthly RR one. The new SR will be a magazine format – not competing with Respect. The ISG will now discuss how its publication will function – producing something that supplements Respect and SR, not competes with them.

    RR is NOT a united front – it is an alliance, hopefully on the way to becoming a political party. Revolutinaries within such a party have to behave differently from how they do in a united front.

    Like

  18. Interesting that you believe that the SWP should have sacrificed it’s paper for an alliance that has split due to political disagreements. Perhaps you would now consider it prudent of the SWP to have retained it’s independence in said alliance.
    It’s seems inconsistant to me that you believe the SWP should have sacrificed it’s paper yet this was not the position you took of your own paper until the split. And if disolving the independence of your organisation in RR is necessary then this is inconsistant with your arguement that you may still retain sole control over your other publications.
    Perhaps the same consistancy should be extended to the pay of Respect MP’s. It remains incongruous that Galloway is one of the highest paid MP’s yet your small organisation is required to sacrifice it’s independence by handing it’s main publication over to RR. I believe there is a financial disparity in operation here.
    I sincerely hope that you’re never in the position where RR becomes embroiled in a political disagreement and you lose the monthly paper that I presume you have spent many years and much resources developing.

    Like

  19. Dear Ray,

    I do think you need to come onboard with the new technology. Today you can produce a newspaper with nothing more than some copy and a computer. Giving your paper over to RR meant they stopped producing SR and used the computer and distribution network to get the new Respect paper off the ground.

    They weren’t handing over a printshop.

    What’s significant is that SR were prepared to give their full support to the RR project, whereas the SWP were never prepared to give over their weekly newspaper to Respect- for fear of losing control.

    That was their choice but it always left the SWP pushing SW at the expense of Respect on demos, etc.

    A socialist resistance magazine can compliment a Respect newspaper. SW was always in competition with whatever Respect could have produced. Which is why every suggestion for a Respect publication was so vehemently opposed by the Rees-German axix.,

    Like

  20. TLC, if, as you claim the production and distribution of a paper is so simple then why didn’t all the groups involved in Respect offer to pay for a weekly paper instead of trying to force the SWP to hand over theirs? Galloway isn’t short of a bob or two. You’re just perpetuating the usual anti-SWP propaganda. It sadly does not help build a left alliance.

    Like

  21. Ray you’re dodging the question. A paper wasn’t an issue of resources – the SWP were against having one.
    As in the Socialist Alliance so in Respect.

    Like

  22. The question was why didn’t the SWP hand over their paper to Respect and I, along with many other socialists, rejected that proposal.
    Respect pre-split (including all current RR members and leadership) decided not to have a paper otherwise there would’ve been one. This was a joint decision by Respect and is not the sole responsibility of the SWP. Please acknowledge the responsibility of everyone involved in that decision rather than blaming it on the SWP.

    Like

  23. Incidently it is simply untrue to suggest that Socialist Worker was ‘always in competition’ with Respect. Socialist Worker carried constant material on Respect. There seems to be an enourmous amount of bad faith and selective memorialising going on here. Less so though, it should be said, then on some of the pottier threads on SUN.

    Like

  24. joghng

    You may have carried material on Respect in SW but you opposed having a Respect paper because it would be competition with SW. You saw Respect as an electoral front and were not serious about building it as a party (less than a third of your claimed membership were actually ever in Respect). This was instead of correct view that the buidling of revolutionary parties was not on the immediate agenda. As a consequence marxists should put the building of a broader class-struggle party as their number one priority. In your case this would have meant ceasing SW and behavng in a non-controlling way to make all non-alligned socialists and ativists feel that Respect was not being bureacraticlly controlled by a centrally organised force. Your incorrect approach proved to be a disaster with the independents and your own members deserting in droves. As you did in Scotland in you have set back the building of socialism by years if not a decade. Muppet Marxist and Toytown Trots sums you up.

    Like

  25. Ray: “Respect pre-split (including all current RR members and leadership) decided not to have a paper otherwise there would’ve been one. This was a joint decision by Respect and is not the sole responsibility of the SWP. Please acknowledge the responsibility of everyone involved in that decision rather than blaming it on the SWP”

    Sorry. Simply untrue. SR campaigned for 3 years for a Respect paper and the Respect Party Platform for the 2 years of its existence. It was put to the vote at more than one Respect AGM and rebuffed. But something like a third were in favour.

    The SWP were rigidly against, supported by Galloway and some others. That it never happend is entirely down to the SW CC. This was for the all the reasons Raphie and others have outlined.

    John Lister in particular deserves the socialist equivalent of an OBE for his tireless (and sometimes tedious) attention to this issue.

    Like

  26. “This was instead of correct view that the buidling of revolutionary parties was not on the immediate agenda”

    “In your case this would have meant ceasing SW and behavng in a non-controlling way to make all non-alligned socialists and ativists feel that Respect was not being bureacraticlly controlled by a centrally organised force”

    Can anyone spot the contradiction?

    Anyway its garbage. The SWP was absolutely central in making Respect work, both organisationally and in terms of getting people elected. Without the existence of an organisation like the SWP Respect would never have been possible. So the argument falls at the first hurdle.

    The SWP had as much right as any other force inside the alliance to argue its position, and indeed having a paper was not a serious priority for most involved. Retrospectively telling stories claiming this as some sort of concerted attempt to stop Respect growing, is fantasy politics. I’m sure the comrades in the ISG were always enthusiasts for a paper and i’m sure this was a position honourably held.

    But it was never a huge issue for anyone else and the idea that it was represents part of the obsessive demonisation of the SWP which seems at the moment to be the main feature and raison d’etre of RR. I hope it ceases to be like that soon.

    Like

  27. johng – it is completely true that “the SWP was absolutely central in making Respect work, both organisationally and in terms of getting people elected.”

    The problem for everyone else was that the SWP’s leadership concluded from this that Respect was its property. All the principal decisions about Respect were made by the SWP and Respect was never allowed to develop its own authoritative leadership body because there was a large group of SWP members who would always vote the same way whenever there was a debate over even fairly minor tactical questions.

    This method of winning votes by strength of numbers rather than politics is a standard procedure. It is inimical to building united fronts, broad parties or long term working relationships and more than any other aspect of the SWP’s practice is the one that needs to be critically examined by those who have been trained in it.

    Like

  28. No-one who wasn’t in SR cares.

    Like

  29. Piers, you claim one third wanted a paper which means that two thirds didn’t therefore can you not accept this democratic decision? Just because you argue something doesn’t make it right. As far as I’m concerned you lost the arguement and the rest of Respect has nothing to answer to you for.
    What you do in RR is up to you and if you won the arguement for a paper then that’s what you wanted but please don’t claim that the SWP are the bad guys when the decision at the time was a political one made by the majority of Respect.

    Raphie, the concensus in Respect is that it is a left alliance and no organisation in it has ever been expected to dissolve itself. Where do you get the idea that the SWP were supposed to abandon years of building its organisation just to please a handful of independents by dissolving itself into Respect? It’s also quite politically niave to believe that the SWP were going to suddenly abandon it’s organisation when this has never happened in the past. Don’t you think that if the SWP were interested in entryism and dissolving itself in a reformist organisation in order to gain influence it would choose the Labour Party instead of the small group of activists that comprise Respect?

    As for controlling Respect it appears that the SWP didn’t do a very good job of that because it couldn’t stop a group centred around Galloway from leaving to form RR. It couldn’t even control its own members when a few of them defected to RR. Nor could it control the selection of election candidates to its recommendation. Not much control skills there then. The split was caused by political disagreements over whether to follow the democratic process set up by Respect or whether to ignore that and follow the political decisions of Galloway. The SWP chose to follow the democratic process in Respect.

    It’s a shame that there are still some activists who are unable to accept that the split has occured and that we now have to move on if we want to build a left alliance. I’m happy to say that on the ground there are many people involved in building Respect but it seems that on the internet there are still pockets of hostility. Throwing insults around, Raphie, is not contributing to building a left alliance.

    Like

  30. I’m sorry Ray but you simply cannot be allowed to get away with the idea that “The SWP chose to follow the democratic process in Respect.”

    The SWP chose to ignore the constitution of Respect and allow delegates to a conference from so-called student branches that were made up of ficticious members ie people who were not members of Respect.

    I’ll illustrate with an example from Greater Manchester. I have a email from Elaine Graham Leigh setting out the delegate entitlement for November 2007 from Greater Manchester at 8. After some explanation that there were in fact four branches in Greater Manchester, not one, this was increased to 9 delegates – based on one delegate per ten members.

    Now I also have an email from the local SWP organiser post-17th November stating that there are 13 delegates plus two observers at the Westmister Conference from Greater Manchester. Now considering that three elected delegates – half the North Manchester branch delegation and the Stockport delegate – refused to attend that conference because they considered it unconstitutional we are left with a mystery. Where did the extra delegates come from? The answer has never been forthcoming.

    You see domocracy requires sticking by the rules – ie the constitution – we all agreed to when we joined Respect. Once the SWP decided to abandon those rules, any pretence at following “the democratic process in Respect.” is just so much bluff and bluster.

    Now if you believe that non-members of Respect should have the same entitlement to representation as paid up members then that is your right but please less of the sanctimonious rubbish about ‘democratic process’

    You see if you are really serious about ‘building a left alliance’ you need to recognise that some poeple have less flexible approach to democracy than the SWP leadership.

    Like

  31. And of course there’s the wider issue of what democracy means in practice.

    To me, democracy means being able to freely argue my position, and to freely change my mind during the debate.

    It’s something you tend to have a blind spot for in the SWP – I certainly did, until I started getting pissed off with it.

    If you go to a caucus before a Respect event and are told that it’s vital that you vote a certain way (or are explicitly instructed to vote a certain way), you cannot call it democracy if that vote is then won by the SWP position. SWP members in Respect who disagree with that position will still vote for it cos they’ve been told to. Motions can be won or lost on the say-so of the SWP CC member in the caucus.

    This should be obvious, but like I said, you get a blind spot for it.

    Remember, a key SWP member, at one of the last of the old Respect National Council meetings, attacked his opponents for meeting together beforehand and agreeing a position.

    It never occurred to him that every single SWP member would vote the way Rees told them – cos almost all of them would’ve been in a caucus of had a personal conversation with Rees.

    It’s not wrong in principle, but it’s wrong to call it democracy.

    So, when people argue that we should’ve “let the members decide” at the SWP’s 17 November Respect conference, I’d throw that back to the people saying it: The members of Respect who belonged to the SWP weren’t deciding anything, not in the way that the rest of the world understands.

    Their votes, and their participation, were decided in advance for them.

    All of this is in addition to Clive’s very good points about fake delegations. Just going through the membership list, it’s clear that the SWP allowed people to join Respect and become delegates right up to the conference – past its own deadline. So even in “proper” delegations, the rules were broken.

    But even where delegations are chosen according to the rules, it still isn’t democratic – SWP caucuses will decide who is to be voted for in Respect meetings,

    Like I said (cos JohnG will come back with some distortion of what I mean), there’s no problem with this in principle, and sometimes it’s absolutely vital.

    But not if you’re trying to build a broad coalition of the left.

    Like

  32. Ray says;
    “As for controlling Respect it appears that the SWP didn’t do a very good job of that because it couldn’t stop a group centred around Galloway from leaving to form RR. It couldn’t even control its own members when a few of them defected to RR.”

    Well at least something’s finally clicked.

    Like

  33. So Clive, are you claiming that the students weren’t allowed to be included in Respect democracy even though they had paid their membership? It was agreed that Respect would build student groups and in the unions but somehow you’ve forgotten that decision by all the leadership including Galloway. If we’re going to talk about dodgy membership lets bring up the buying of block votes in Tower Hamlets by Galloway’s election chums shall we?

    As for being told howto vote at a conference that is a caricature of how the SWP organises interventions. SWP members aren’t forced to vote in any direction. The SWP does have an opinion on what it thinks is the best way to vote but whether comrades agree with that depends on how convincing the arguement is. All political organisations organise in this way even when working in alliances. Whether its opinion is upheld is a different matter.

    If you think that the SWP and every other organisation doesn’t propagandise for their point of view then that is politically niave. A good example of this in operation is when Galloway and his supporters split from Respect. It wasn’t just a coincidence that a faction decided to organise their own conference on the same day as Respects it was an organised opposition where the people involved held a line and acted upon it. All this moaning about the SWP organising around its own agenda is just hypocrisy coming from people who blatantly ignore the rules in Respect, plot to try to disrupt its conference and go off and form a separate organisation. This is hardly the actions of atomised individuals but a very well organised faction who were determined to pursue their own agenda regardless of the democratic process in Respect.

    You’re right billj, those organisations complaining about the SWP controlling everything in Respect just use that excuse when they can’t get their own way.

    Like

  34. I’m letting myself get sucked in to the whole split debacle once more by individuals who can’t seem to move on. This type of arguement is pointless and just reinforces divisions so let’s discuss how best we can work together.

    Like

  35. On the paper (yet again):

    The ISG, SR and others were engaged in a political debate in Respect to persuade it to launch a paper. We failed, but if we had been successful, the SWP would have been faced with the decision of what to do with SW. If we had been successful, and the SWP had changed its mind and come to support the idea of a Respect paper, then presumably they would have also come to some compromise about SW – or even abandoned it and put their resources into a weekly Respect paper.

    If they had been in opposition, then I suspect that a Respect paper would have still been non-viable: on some issues you need near-consensus and not just a simple majority and a Respect paper without editorial, financial and selling input from the SWP wouldn’t have worked.

    We didn’t feel any need to give up SR: it would have been an empty gesture in the face of SWP (and Respect conference) hostility to a Respect paper. We would readily have done this if conference decisions had not gone against us.

    The argument that the subsequent trajectory of Respect justified the decision to block Respect having a paper and retain SW is completely specious. IF the SWP had decided to put all its paper’s resources into Respect, then it and Respect would have been completely different organisations. We can’t tell what the situation would be now.

    It would have signalled the abandonment by the SWP of the “United Front of a Special Type” and its real commitment to building a broad party. This would have enhanced the prestige of the SWP in Respect and in the wider left, rather than produced the mess it finds itself in now.

    Why people think giving up a paper – especially with the provisos about maintaining other publications that I mentioned earlier – is tantamount to dissolving your organisation – is completely beyond me.

    Like

  36. Ray, on February 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm Said:

    “So Clive, are you claiming that the students weren’t allowed to be included in Respect democracy even though they had paid their membership?”

    What about the meeting of a Respect Group in a London Univ attended by 8 members, plus an SWP full-timer, where they were meant to “elect” 12 delegates, on the basis of 116 people who’d signed a sheet at fresher’s fair?

    Like

  37. Ray writes:

    As for being told howto vote at a conference that is a caricature of how the SWP organises interventions. SWP members aren’t forced to vote in any direction. The SWP does have an opinion on what it thinks is the best way to vote but whether comrades agree with that depends on how convincing the arguement is. All political organisations organise in this way even when working in alliances. Whether its opinion is upheld is a different matter.

    This is simply untrue. The issue I left the SWP over was being told in very forceful terms by JOhn Rees that it was completely unacceptable for me to argue a different position or vote differently from him on the Socialist Allaince national exec, even though it was over an issue where there had been no prior caucus, and we had had no prior discussion.

    Like

  38. That’s interesting, Ray.

    Do you have a prediction about how long it might take Rees to go the way of Gerry Healy?

    Like

  39. The SWP discuss issues then tend to vote the same way in Respect.

    The ISG and SR discuss issues then tend to vote the same way in Respect.

    The SWP continued their own publications and so did the ISG and SR.

    SWP bad, ISG/SR good!.

    Like

  40. Yes Digger, that’s exactly it. SWP members “tend” to vote the same way in Respect.

    Except that’s just not true and you know it.

    SWP members are instructed on which way to vote and are completely pushed out if they don’t do as they’re told. You might be in the happy position of never having wanted to vote against the CC and having never had to discover this.

    If you break the party line, you’re expelled or pushed out. You get ignored, worked around, lied about. You know this.

    But as with so many like you, you prefer to lie about it and couch it in terms such as “tend”.

    Why do you feel the need to deceive people like this? What have you got to hide? Surely people like you think it’s the SWP’s greatest strength, its “democratic centralism”?

    Like

  41. “So Clive, are you claiming that the students weren’t allowed to be included in Respect democracy even though they had paid their membership?”

    Let’s put this to bed now before you make up any more nonsense. What I’m saying is that students should have the SAME rights as other Respect members who had paid their subs. But that people – students or otherwise – who hadn’t paid subs should not get votes at a Respect conference. You may be happy for the SWP to throw out the Respect constitution I was not.

    You see I have the membership list for the whole of Greater Manchester. There were almost NO students on it. So why should they have been given voting rights at a conference? The SWPs new found attachment to democracy in Respect is an illusion.

    Like

  42. Worth bearing in mind as well that they refused to let the chair and vice chair see the list of student members.

    This was before the split, so there can be no nonsense about Linda and Salma not being chair and vice chair.

    We’ve been through every file on every computer, and there is no sign of any student members at all. Given that Respect is a registered political party, one might question why these supposed “members” do not appear in any Respect database at all.

    All student details were held by the SWP exclusively. Now, for organisational purposes that might make sense – but don’t be under any illusion: these people were not members in any accepted sense.

    Doesn’t matter when there’s no controversy. Matters a lot when the SWP is claiming that it wants to “let the members decide”.

    Like

  43. I think there is also an issue about whether students are counted twice. I know of one SWP member who was one of the few who was active in their local Respect, and was counted in the local branch delegation, but then went to University in October and was counted again for their student branch.

    In the Labour Party, in order to be double counted, you at least had to pay an additional fee and become a member of the student organisation seperate from the party. It would have been more sensible for Respect to have followed this approach, but in its absence it should have been clear: one (paid up) membership = one entitlement for delegate basis.

    Like

  44. TonyC did you notice how quickly you slid from “If you go to a caucus before a Respect event and are told that it’s vital that you vote a certain way (or are explicitly instructed to vote a certain way)” to “SWP members are instructed on which way to vote and are completely pushed out if they don’t do as they’re told.”

    You must know that party members attend many meetings without having a caucus first. You must also know that that if there is a caucus it would be because a sinificant decision was likely to be made at a meeting, the issues are discussed and a position arrived at. In those circumstances you are correct, members are then expected to vote on the basis of the outcome of that discussion.

    Just as Andy will know that on an important body like the Executive of the Socialist Alliance, on major issues you would expect the SWP to speak with a collective voice.

    Now some people think this is bad and that the SWP should have disolved itself into Respect and not continue to operate as a party. A perfectly tenable position, but not one I share.

    The point is neither the ISG or SR have desolved themselves and tend to act in the same way I have described above.

    Where Respect had been successful, the SWP (as anticipated) was in a minority and needed to argue politiclly for it’s position. One of the major factors behind the split was that Galloway and others resented us arguing our position inside Respect but as the ISG/SR is much smaller, they will tolerate it (at least in the short term).

    Like

  45. Just to clarify something on the student front as I am a current clubs and societies officer at Birkbeck:

    The SWP had a number of “Student Respect” groups on the campuses which anyone can join just as any other club or society on campus. It is very possible that a number of these students were in fact members of Student Respect and therefore could rightly consider themselves members of the organisation, albeit as members of the student group. All that is needed in most case is to sign a sheet at Fresher’s Fayre. Only some clubs and societies charge fees to their members. I am not certain whether or not there were double membership tiers but I would suspect that it was not a big conspiracy as some here have alluded to.

    Sure it’s likely that students were phoned up and encouraged to attend but it’s unlikely that all of them were part of some SWP plot at disruption and had good reason for considering themselves members, at least of the student groups, and therefore at least in some delegate type capacity to the larger organisation.

    Like

  46. Fair point Twp, but Respect had only one category of membership in the constitution as the basis for conference delegation. The SWP chose to ignore it for their own ends, rather than seek to change it through a resolution to conference.

    Like

  47. Both sides used thoroughly reprehensible methods to try to rig the conference – the SWP with Student Respect and the Galloway/Muslim businessman faction bringing all and sundry along to selection meetings.

    Like

  48. Cameron – all and sundry would be paid up members of Respect who were therefore entitled to vote on who there delegates should be.

    Like

  49. Come off it Kevin. Legalistically, you are perfectly correct. But politically you are dead wrong. It is beyond contempt for apparently democratic procedures to be taken the piss out of by people who mobilse others who simply there to vote according to how their relative,friend or boss asks them to.

    It is thoroughly undemocratic and corrupt.

    Like

  50. Legalistically meaning: lots of brown skinned people paid money to join an organisation and then, shockingly, expected to be able to turn up and vote on who they wanted as representatives. As for the connections between these people – like so many others you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Instead, you just fall back on very insalubrious cliches “relative, friend or boss”.

    I’ll tell you one thing that’s undemocratic – taking these people’s money, counting them as members for the purposes of the delegation to a national conference and then selecting the delegates to that conference without their participation and behind their backs.

    Like

  51. As far back as July 2006, Simon Wells of Tower Hamlets Respect was documenting what was happening.

    http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/632/respect.htm

    Funnily enough Kevin, at the same time SWP comrades at Marxism said the article was garbage, using much the same language you used in your last reply.

    At least your consistent, I suppose.

    Like

  52. Digger says: “The ISG and SR discuss issues then tend to vote the same way in Respect.” That’s not the case: neither SR nor the ISG organise caucuses for their members in Respect, and members are not given instructions on how to vote. That’s quite different from the SWP’s policy.

    Like

  53. Ovenden claims that it’s not fair to challenge vote rigging by (his characterisation), “brown skinned people”, in Tower Hamlets while Searle chastises the SWP for allowing students of all backgrounds to join Respect and give them the right to partake in the democratic process. If, as Kevin claims, it’s ok to take money from individuals in TH who are signing up blocks of members then what is wrong with Respect members signing up groups of students? Especially considering this was agreed by the leadership of Respect. Please be consistant otherwise it will appear hypocritical.

    Anyone who has been a student knows full well that students join a lot of different groups at uni. The fact that many students have a social concience and are willing to join Student Respect means that they have the right to be represented at conference. It appears that membership lists in Respect were quite selective depending on which faction controlled them so I have no faith in Searle’s version of events.

    PhilW why would the SWP hand over its paper to people who have contributed absolutely nothing to its development and circulation so that months down the line a faction could try to either sink it or take it over? Call the SWP what you like but it’s not stupid.

    Like

  54. Searle chastises the SWP for allowing students of all backgrounds to join Respect

    No, he didn’t.

    If, as Kevin claims, it’s ok to take money from individuals in TH who are signing up blocks of members then what is wrong with Respect members signing up groups of students?

    What’s wrong is that they didn’t – sign them up, that is. You’re either a member or you aren’t.

    he fact that many students have a social concience and are willing to join Student Respect means that they have the right to be represented at conference.

    As observers, or by delegates representing fee-paid members. There’s no provision in the constitution for delegates representing a special category of non-paying student members.

    Like

  55. Chris Brookes wrote “neither SR nor the ISG organise caucuses for their members in Respect”. In the run up to the split ISG comrades circulated a letter to SWP members saying the SWP was an essentrial part of any left re-alignment and critical of the autocratic practices of Salma Yaqoob and Ger Francis.

    Within weeks they had reversed their position. When I asked one ISG member about the 100% about turn, he said that there had been a national decision that the ISG would side with George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob against the SWP. Was this position arrived at by osmosis, or discussion?

    Like

  56. Can’t believe your rehashing the student delegate debate. Student delegates were elected to the2007 Respect conference on the same basis as the 2006 Conference. Neither Galloway nor Linda Smith had a problem in 2006, but thought this would benefit the SWP in 2007.

    Never quite sure why they were so pessimistic about winning their position with student members.

    Thornett on the other hand objected in 2006, so at least you can say he was consistent.

    Like

  57. Should have made it clear the letter came from ISG members in Birmingham, to Birmingham SWP members.

    Like

  58. Digger, after all this time, if you can’t see that there’s a difference between delegate entitlement when there’s no controversy and delegate entitlement when one side is issuing a clarion call to “let the members decide”, there’s no hope for you.

    This is basic political analysis, and you fail yet again to grasp it.

    In any organisation where voting happens, no one minds too much if there’s overcounting of delegates when nothing controversial is happening, but both sides mind when it gets tetchy.

    Just as the SWP started rigorously checking membership details of anyone who disgreed with its line, both sides will check membership records when the vote is gonna really mean something.

    That you can’t grasp this says a lot about the blindness of the SWP’s defenders to the reality around them.

    Like

  59. TonyC, why was there an assumption that student delegates would vote with the SWP?

    If you have not grasped yet that the debate over student delegates was a pretence aimed at stopping the Respect conference going ahead, there is even less hope for you!

    RR never wanted a debate involving the members thats why they avoided discussing the issue in Birmingham until after the split had taken place. (Not that the RR was at any risk of losing the argument locally)

    Like

  60. Phil, if students pay to join Respect then they’re members whether you accept them or not.

    Reading this thread it appears to me that when the RR faction couldn’t assert their demands at the Respect conference they split claiming that the conference was rigged. However, in Tower Hamlets, RR faction supporters were caught buying block membership on behalf of their supporters.

    It appears that when the RR faction were unable to impose their demands on Respect because they were out numbered they claim this is undemocratic but when they do so by buying votes in TH they claim this is democratic. A case of selective logic.

    Like

  61. Phil, if students pay to join Respect then they’re members whether you accept them or not.

    That’s precisely what I do accept! The problem was that student delegates were being allocated on the basis of names on a Fresher’s Fair signup list, not actual student members.

    Like

  62. Ray says “However, in Tower Hamlets, RR faction supporters were caught buying block membership on behalf of their supporters.”

    Ray, as far as I know, that is not true. However, even you would not claim that this happened anywhere else. That’s quite a contrast to the situation with student delegates, which were systematically manipulated in colleges where the SWP had Student Respect groups in their back pocket.

    Of course the example of SOAS is well documented; the same thing happened at my former university up north. The suggestion was made to ‘open the books’ and let someone [anyone independent would do] to look at the records and see how many of these folk actually were Respect members. We would quickly see that a minority of them had paid any dues to Respect, and a large part will be unaware they were considered members of the party.

    Like

  63. Can i just point out here that had I known that students who were NOT members of Respect were being allowed ‘delegate’ status rather than observer status at the 2006 conference I would have kicked up a fuss. I’m more than happy to have students attend – indeed I brought four to the 2006 conference in my car – they just had to attend within the rules of Respect.

    So please Ray less of the patent nonsense involved in statements like “Searle chastises the SWP for allowing students of all backgrounds to join Respect and give them the right to partake in the democratic process”

    Not true – indeed I encouraged students to join, asked them to join, wanted them involved in the local Respect branch. What I do not accept is that there was another organisation – Student Respect – which seemed to be run outwith the constitution of Respect but which expected representation at our conference.

    Now if you didn’t like the constitution you could put forward an amendment to change that constitution but, in the absence of doing that, please don’t ignore it and then tell lies about those who felt it was important to uphold it.

    Like

  64. Clive with due respect you ignore that Student Respect had to abide and operate by the norms and guidelines of student union student societies. Student Respect recruited members in the same manner as any other campus society.

    “Ray says “However, in Tower Hamlets, RR faction supporters were caught buying block membership on behalf of their supporters.”

    Ray, as far as I know, that is not true.”

    Well Liam Mac Uaid, reporting a previous AGM himself on this blog (he has conveniently forgot this past post) claims that people who are now leading members of Tower Hamlets Respect Renewal were engaged in vote rigging and buying votes and even praised the SWP for taking a principled stance of standing up to this kind of thing. This was over a year before the later split.

    Like

  65. “Clive with due respect you ignore that Student Respect had to abide and operate by the norms and guidelines of student union student societies. Student Respect recruited members in the same manner as any other campus society.”

    I agree that that may be true but that does not give that organisation the right to have delegates at the Respect conference. That right is reserved for actual, paid-up members of Respect. I’m sure Labour students “recruited members in the same manner as any other campus society” but that didn’t give them rights to send delegates to Respect’s conference.

    You see you seem to miss the fact that it is Respect’s rules that matter. Our constitution – not that of Manchester University Students Union is what should have governed our affairs.

    It’s simple. It’s so simple. Only paid up members have the right to have delegates to represent them at the conference. It’s in the rules. If you didn’t like the rules, try to change them. If they didn’t fit with “norms and guidelines of student union student societies” so what? – there was nothing to stop students paying ten pounds and joining the real actually-existing Respect.

    The rules of the student union are irrelevant. The longer those of you, like Ray and Adamski continue to show such blatant disregard for the constitution of Respect the less I think you were ever serious about building a real, plural organisation.

    Rules matter, get used to it!

    Like

  66. Yes rules do matter Clive yet you won’t accept that paid up members who were students have the right to attend the conference. Instead you claim that they weren’t members. Please show us the evidence for this otherwise it’s speculation and another attempt at attacking the SWP.

    I note that it’s all gone quiet about the issue of buying blocks of memberships in TH. Best swept under the carpet because that doesn’t fit into the anti-SWP brigades vision of themselves as paragons of virtue. Well at least Liam condemned that practice.

    Like

  67. Ray – for the first and last time – please stop making things up. You demand evidence but I’m not going to publish private emails or membership lists. But it is not speculation.

    I had the membership lists. I knew who was a paid-up member. I knew that Greater Manchester had enough paid up members to get 9 delegates. This was agreed with the national treasurer. This was agreed with each branch. each branch elected their delegates and no more.

    Then mysteriously at the conference several extra delegates appeared from student groups representing people who were NOT members of Respect. Please note the emphasis here Ray – they were NOT members fo Respect.

    That is a fact. The SWP controlled national office cheated, broke the rules, acted outwith the constitution. If you think that is ‘attacking the SWP’ you are correct. What they did was a democratic disgrace.

    So if you agree that rules matter Ray you should be complaining to the SWP leadership not moaning at someone who wished to uphold the rules. But you seem so blinded by your loyalty to the SWP leaderships dishonesty that facts dont seem to sway you one iota.

    Like

  68. Clive we only have your side of the story and due to your hostile attitude to the SWP I don’t believe you. I’ve heard and read a lot of so-called “facts” from SWP bashers that, when investigated, don’t amount to anything. That’s why evidence is relevant in these issues.

    Let’s suppose you are right then why was this not challenged in 2006? There seem to be no objections then that students who signed up to Student Respect were represented at conference. A year later a minority faction in Respect who had no problem with it in 2006 use this issue to claim that they were outnumbered and couldn’t push their anti-SWP politics through conference. How convenient.

    It would be nice to accept opinions on face value but the constant attacks on the SWP at SUN have diluted what little truth may have been behind such smears. It’s like the boy who cries wolf – the truth gets lost beneath all the lies. That’s not the SWP’s making but the people whose agenda is to discredit the SWP by any means necessary.

    Like

  69. Seriously Ray, are you for real?

    Like

  70. I’m appalled that you can even ask such a question, Bill. Before we continue this discussion I demand that you produce the evidence that Ray may not be for real. Only don’t bother, because I don’t believe anything you say. So there.

    Like

  71. Sadly Bill and Evan Ray and his ‘let’s not let the facts get in the way of our righteous indignation’ friends are only too real. It would be comic if it wasn’t so tragic.

    Like

  72. The stuff about students is just untrue (at least at SOAS). Some of the difficulties related to the different ways in which membership is defined after freshers and some of it related to a particular comrade who forgot to do the bureacratic nicities after signing people up (an honest mistake I should say). My understanding is that he later joined RR but nobody holds it against him. The attempt to argue that this involved deliberate fixing or lying is just wrong. There could in any case be some dispute about the definition of student membership but my point is that the allegations, or indeed the belief that there was some deliberate attempt to rig conference on this basis is just wrong. Its also worth remembering the role that students in SOAS had played in relationship to both Respect and the anti-war movement. Its quite incredible that they should be demonised in this way after all the work they’d done. But hell, thats just my opinion.

    Like

  73. What could have been an interesting debate about the role of a revolutionary socialist publication and a broad socialist publication, descends into a rehash of the student argument … a pity.

    Like

  74. Sorry Joe, My fault I tried to base an argument on the facts. Silly me.

    As for the hapless johng – get real. No one demonised anyone. They just wanted the rules to be followed. You know the rules – like the one that say a ball has to cross the line for a goal to be scored.

    Now I know those of your persuasion have a poor grasp of this cocept of rules – but think of the Respect constitution like the ‘offside rule’ – you may not understand it, you may not even like it but it still applies nonetheless.

    Now i’m blowing the whistle on this. Anyone for oranges?

    Like

  75. I’m with Joseph on this. Attention to detail and perserverance are useful qualities in some spheres of life but I lost interest in the student business a while ago. I’ll delete any further references to it since my intention with this post was to open up a completely different sort of discussion.

    Like

  76. oh i’m all for following the rules. Just don’t like the suggestion that (DELETED – WHAT DID I SAY ABOUT STUDENTS? LIAM). its not true.

    Like

  77. Oh and Clive, Sandy asked me to say hello. He wasn’t involved in any stitch-ups either incidently.

    Like

  78. Tell Sandy hello too. I can’t comment about (DELETED – WHAT DID I SAY ABOUT STUDENTS? LIAM) but I can assure you the rules were broken in Manchester. If you ‘are all for following the rules’ John, are you against what happened in Manchester where delegates were sent to a conference representing people who were NOT members – simple yes or no will suffice.

    Oh No, you’ve drawn me into this again using the old friend and comrade says hello strategy. Fiendishly cunning.

    Like

  79. No, no he asked me to. Well you know how it is. You know on the ground that allegations have been twisted around in a local situation familiar to you. Makes you wonder about whether similar things might not have happened elsewhere.

    Like

  80. Ray, just on your comment about the Birmingham ISG letter. There’s a difference between establishing the majority view on the sharpest political test in a three year period, which is that that letter reflects, and running a caucus. What the SWP did in Respect, and what I have seen in do in other organisations, is oblige members to follow a stated tactical line on issues where the broad body had not yet take a discussion. That sucked the life out of branches.

    Like

Leave a reply to Clive Searle Cancel reply

Trending