These two videos show Rob Hoveman speaking at last Wednesday’s Socialist Resistance forum. Rob, who was one of the people expelled from the SWP last year, looks at the role of Marxist organisations in building broad parties and considers what lessons are to be learned from recent experiences.
These two videos show Rob Hoveman speaking at last Wednesday’s Socialist Resistance forum. Rob, who was one of the people expelled from the SWP last year, looks at the role of Marxist organisations in building broad parties and considers what lessons are to be learned from recent experiences.
Er, I’m getting a message that the video is unavailable – what’s that all about?
LikeLike
Interesting, I would have liked to have heard from some of those who raised questions and made points from the floor.
LikeLike
OK got it now, and I’m pleased you put the video up Liam, as I couldn’t make the meeting. I would have loved to hear the discussion also – if anyone is bothered about being on camera, would it be possible in future for you to just to play the sound when it comes to the discussion?
On the subject matter, I think Rob is right to say that the ‘problem’ of Respect being successful in recruiting was not thought out in advance by socialists both in and outside of the SWP and we did indeed come a cropper.
I had some brief (and frustrating) exchanges on the STWC demo yesterday with some comrades who live out of London, which basically involved them telling me horror stories about Respect in Tower Hamlets, how badly women were treated etc. I have no doubt that some sexist and old-fashioned attitudes exist and were expressed, but was the best way to deal with this to polarise the branch into two wings and try and drive out those who didn’t seem amenable to coming under the SWP’s tutelage?
This polarisation seemed to work inside the SWP, at least when I was a member, in that creating a sharp fight pushed people to go to the logical conclusion of their argument, so that what seemed like a little disagreement in the beginning led to a full thrashing out of the issues, and clarity about where arguing a certain line led to in the real world. That’s how it seemed to work for me in the argument over separate women’s organisation for example, and despite the fact that I hated certain people for years over it, I think it was educational, and right to have that sharp debate, and to some extent division and splits over the issue.
But that’s within an organisation that sees itself as revolutionary. Within Respect, I think we have to conclude (with hindsight) that this way of doing things was wrong and damaging. As Respect grew, a bunker mentality developed, where as Rob said, socialists felt that ‘others’ were coming to take over the organisation. Those ‘others’ who were not completely passive at meetings were demonised, and every attempt was made to keep them out of positions in the branch. If it looked like this was failing, then they were allowed onto the committee but attempts were made to ‘carve them out’ by manoeuvring.
This led to the branch often being either a place of bitter fighting or sometimes a boring and sterile SWP lecture. Maybe SWP members are so used to operating in a set way that they can’t see this, or maybe they did always plan to ‘cut and run’ with whatever membership they could grab, I don’t know. While they won’t discuss the issues openly, we can only speculate, but I think we do need to discuss and learn from the experience in order to make Respect a better place to be in the future, and to test ways that socialists can relate to people in a broader left party without being controlling and alienating.
LikeLike
Steph – the reason I don’t put up video of the discussion is because the little recorder that I use only films one hour. I should perhaps have done an audio recording of that but you can never be quite sure how much people want.
You are dead right about the branch.
LikeLike
Hoveman claims that the SWP leadership started to lie to the class and to all of us SWP comrades during the 90’s. If this is true (which it is not) then he willingly went along with this for nearly two decades. He doesn’t state whether Cliff colluded in this but he does repeat Cliff’s touch phrase, “Never lie to the class.” How fitting Rob. Perhaps you should follow Cliffs advice.
Hoveman leads us to believe that leading members of the SWP such as Paul Foot willingly went along with this falsification. Not only is that an insult to the integrity of Foot and other comrades who have served the labour movement for decades it condems past and current members of the SWP to being mere ignorant fodder for this subtefuge. And presumably, if the party membership were aware of what was going on then we all colluded in it, even comrades who have now left. In other words everyone is guilty of keeping the biggest secret on the left for decades until finally Hoveman lifts the scales from our eyes at a Socialist Resistance meeting.
Hoveman claims that he is now a reformed revolutionary socialist who is non-sectarian yet he goes on to vilify all SWP comrades in Tower Hamlets. What Rob? Not one SWP comrade in the whole of TH was non-sectarian! Isn’t that a rather sectarian exaggeration? If it’s so endemic then why wasn’t all this sectarianism evident when the SWP founded Respect along with others on the left? How did Respect grow in TH and elect its first MP if the SWP’s sectarianism was wrecking Respect? All that support built up in TH by the SWP and others on the left despite being stuck in the 80’s and unable to relate to the class. And the biggest hole in Hovemans arguement raise the question, why hasn’t the SWP’s so-called, “sectarianism”, torn asunder all its other collaborations with the left?
What Hoveman mistakes for sectarianism is the SWP’s willingness to take the initiative to form a broad left alliance and then continue to work within it regardless of whether or not the SWP wins the arguement over particular issues in Respect. The SWP argues its politics in these alliances and because Hoveman doesn’t agree with the SWP on this occassion, instead of engaging in political debate, he invents an account of the SWP that is easily disproved in practice.
According to Hoveman the SWP turned in on itself during the 90’s and saw itself as the leaders of the left. He claims we had nothing to learn from others. Yet, uncharacteristicly for such an elite vanguard, we consistantly tried to revive the left by forming alliances and then threw caution to the wind and formed Respect with others on the left. Hoveman even recalls being sent by our leadership to try to cobble together an election alliance with the Socialist Party. How does this image of an elite vanguard that Rob projects fit into the reality of an organisation that even goes as far as, in its quest for unity, solidly campaigning for Respect election candidates we didn’t even wish to select?
I’m amazed that Respect was ever created in the first place with all the lying and condecension that Hoveman claims was going on in the SWP. Either he is completely gullible or totally dishonest. If he went along with all that SWP deceit why should he be trusted now? I don’t see how Hoveman can be trusted because either he went along for the ride at the time or he’s either mistaken or lying now.
Rather than a mass exodus from the SWP during and after the split confirming Hovemans perspective. Only three fulltimers (two of whom were in the pay of Galloway) have left the SWP. While one resigned, the other two had to be expelled because they still wanted to remain in the SWP and would still be members if they had not been expelled . Hardly the picture of a demoralised, placid membership rising up in protest that Hoveman depicts. More likely they are the self-justifications of a comrade who has the wrong analysis and who wants to convince us of his own self-importance.
All those in RR ask yourselves this, if you are baseing your perspective on three not very prominent members of the SWP (two of whom wanted to remain in the SWP despite the split) instead of the rest of the members of the SWP who voted against them at conference then who’s perspective has more credibility?
Hoveman’s speech is a rehash of the anti-SWP propaganda used by RR to justify the split. How this informs a debate about revolutionary democracy in broad parties I cannot imagine.
LikeLike
Yeah the SWP’s going from strength to strength.
LikeLike
We’re doing no worse and probably better than the rest of the left in terms of recruitment. Not something to cheer about though is it billj? Not unless disunity and defeat for the left is something you consider its ok to be smug about.
LikeLike
Ray – thanks for your frequent and welcome contributions to this site. This might be a good time to let us know who you are.
It’s not that hard to work out who I am. Bill J has a very interesting article on the US economy in the new issue of Permanent Revolution and I’m on pretty good terms with a number of his crew, I know who all the RR people leaving comments are, Tami and I have met once or twice and I have a rough idea who the majority of the regulars are.
Are you batting for the SWP in a personal capacity? Are you a fulltimer? The point of the question is to establish if this is a discussion with an individual or an organisation.
LikeLike
Liam – I hardly think Ray is the official spokesperson for the SWP – he has certainly never claimed to be. The official positions of the SWP are in official publications – just like in SR. You should set aside the insinuations – they don’t advance your argument, which should be about the substance, not about personalities.
For me – I think Hoveman is making the same mistaken, internally focused argument that leads to sectarianism we have seen from RR. Rather than seeing the challenges that Respect faced as being products of big external pressures – electoralism and, probably more importantly, the failure of the class struggle to make a breakthrough or a significant chunk of Labour to breakaway (as opposed to the slow, torturous disintegration of the base), instead the problems are laid at the feet of an identifiable scapegoat. The struggle then becomes not one of raising the confidence of workers, the oppressed, etc. – it becomes a struggle against another organization as THE MEANS to raise the confidence of workers/the oppressed. There’s no other way to explain the obsession with the SWP – nor the disparagement of the StWC demo and the way that has been used as a stick to attack the SWP, as though there aren’t others in the leadership, including Galloway.
After all, the SWP hasn’t changed its method since RESPECT was founded in early 2004. Did it take four years for everyone – including smart fellows inside the SWP like Rob Hoveman to notice that the SWP were destroying the coalition they were so central to founding? And if it was the terrible SWP – why didn’t they do the same thing elsewhere, for instance in StWC (ah, but how convenient that now some are saying that they are doing just that)? Surely, if you’re going to advance an argument about an organization’s methods, you need more than the example of one crisis in which they were involved.
Or maybe what changed was that the big anti-war tide from 2003 subsided and no big workers’ struggles filled the space. Maybe, as Rees noted after the election of Galloway, if RESPECT didn’t use that beach-head to seize sufficient ground, they would be driven backwards. Only, being driven backwards meant Respect would turn inwards.
You know from experience, I’m sure, it’s easy to ignore or set aside differences for the sake of unity when everything is up, up, and away. But when you become stuck or even advance at a slower pace, previously small differences can suddenly become huge chasms. Groups suddenly look inwards for the sources of their problems because they cannot change the balance of class forces but they can take on “wrong ideas” or “bad” groups.
A comparison of Respect to Die Linke is a good example, i think. In some ways the conflicts inside Die Linke have been much larger and more starkly posed – particularly in Berlin around PDS participation in the SPD led administration. There was a split there but it didn’t do serious damage to the party – even in Berlin itself – because Die Linke had serious social weight behind it – sections of the union and SPD leadership in the west, the PDS machine in the east – and strong momentum, as well as the opening up of union struggles, anti-war struggles, etc. I doubt anyone could argue that the PDS has better politics or is less bureaucratic than the SWP – and yet, it hasn’t caused a split. There must be something else going on – that something is the class struggle.
I hope you all in Britain can take the necessary breathing space to take a look at the socio-historical factors behind the crisis. But more than that, I hope the class struggle rises to the level needed to establish a real, mass recomposition inside the political consciousness and organization of the British working class. Otherwise all your snazzy analysis (and everyone else’s, including the SWP’s) won’t be worth a hill of beans.
LikeLike
apologies for length…
LikeLike
Rather than a mass exodus from the SWP during and after the split confirming Hovemans perspective. Only three fulltimers (two of whom were in the pay of Galloway) have left the SWP. While one resigned, the other two had to be expelled because they still wanted to remain in the SWP and would still be members if they had not been expelled.
Just as well they were expelled, really, or they would surely have fallen victim to the witch-hunt against the SWP organised within RESPECT by Galloway and his… er…
LikeLike
I thought it was a measured and interesting talk, but I find it hard to square it with the letter Rob signed to the East London Advertiser.
Its also a very Londoncentric analysis (which to be fair is inevitable given thats where Rob works). My experience is that the internal culture varies a lot from SWP branch to SWP branch.
LikeLike
[…] checking out the following video’s of Rob Hoveman speaking in London from Liam’s […]
LikeLike
>>Only three fulltimers (two of whom were in the pay of Galloway) have left the SWP.
Ray, this kind of comment really connects to the hierarchy of the SWP. The only people who need to be counted are the CC members and full-timers.
LikeLike
I think the question of honesty and ‘never telling lies to the class’ is important. And anyone who doesn’t think the SWP is capable of exaggeration has clearly never read a copy of Party Notes for the halcyon days under Chris Bambery’s authorship.
There is a tendency to big up the successes and downplay the weaknesses. During the late 1990s in Manchester the regular city centre Market Street sale went from strength to strength. This was obviously something that was good – more people bought a socialist newspaper. This was flagged up in Party Notes. What wasn’t said was that often when people signed a petition and made a donation they were given a paper and so this became a ‘sale’ – not entirely dis-honest but not entirely true either.
More significantly, while the city centre sale was going strong, one by one the local sales in various areas – Gorton, Longsight, Salford Precinct, etc – were quietly folding due to lack of active members. The city centre sale was used to hide the reality of an overall drop in papers sold and members engaged in activity across the city.
But if you only read about the great city centre sale you began to question why youl local sale was not so good. Why bother doing it? Rather than encourage activity it could actually demoralise.
Now as for falsification of demo numbers this is simply built in with some SWP members I’m afraid. Last year we had a demonstartion in support of Karen Reissmann. It was small but since it came before the strike action had begun it was a good start. I counted the march – twice.
The total as the march left was 342 and when it returned to the starting point threre was 345. Several people had stayed with stall so I added their numbers to reach about 360. I reported this to two leading SWP members. The following week’s SW had an article claiming “Delegations of Unison union members from across Britain helped to form a confident and determined 500-strong march through Manchester city centre last Sunday.” It was written by one of the members I had told the exactb number to.
It wasn’t true. Who were we kidding? That exaggeration can leads you into self-delusion and mistakes.
So for example – three years ago the SWP argued for Respect to stand in the Rusholme ward in Manchester. One of the arguments used was that 15 coaches had gone from Rusholme to the Feb 15th demo. Therefore it was a great existing base for a campaign as we ‘knew loads of people there’. Now what was not said was the reason 15 coaches went from Rusholme was that the Greatrer Manchester MAB office was in the ward – and people came for across Greater Manchester to get on those coaches. If fact we ‘didn’t know loads of people’ in Rusholme and so the campaign started from a weaker point than we were led to believe.
So honesty is important. If you exaggerate people stop believing you and that’s a rewal problem for socialists who want to earn respect and trust. But just as importantly if you begin to believe the exaggeration yourself you are left with no way to measure your actual success – rather than what you would have liked to have achieved. In the end they become the same and you are left rudderless.
LikeLike
Ray: “Hoveman …goes on to vilify all SWP comrades in Tower Hamlets. What Rob? Not one SWP comrade in the whole of TH was non-sectarian! Isn’t that a rather sectarian exaggeration?”
Ray – once again a rather hysterical and personalised reaction to a political argument, so I want to use an example for illustration. During the miners’ strike Socialist Worker featured a cartoon showing a miners supporter throwing a tin of beans at the police line (I think it was), implying that the food-collecting role of the support groups was a bit ‘soft’. Tony Cliff said that this cartoon crystallising the situation made him realise that the SWP was being sectarian in relation to the support groups. I daresay some comrades at the time reacted with “What, not one comrade in the whole of the SWP non-sectarian to the miners support groups? How did the SWP work so well with the miners support groups if they were so sectarian, blah blah…” but overall the party managed to switch its focus and relate better, rather than sticking with the we-know-best attitude.
This is the sort of situation we are talking about now. It is quite possible for comrades to work enthusiastically and energetically for a cause, yet still adopt a sectarian attitude, without realising they are doing so. Unless you think Cliff was wrong to adopt such an ‘internal’ perspective.
“If it’s so endemic then why wasn’t all this sectarianism evident when the SWP founded Respect along with others on the left? How did Respect grow in TH and elect its first MP if the SWP’s sectarianism was wrecking Respect?”
The point is Ray that Respect was formed as an electoral organisation, and large numbers of people were, and hopefully still are, willing to vote for a party associated with a George Galloway-style attack on imperialism and the hypocrisy surrounding it. That was fine as long as those supporters stayed at home and just voted on demand, but when some of them turned up to meetings and wanted a say in the running of Respect in TH, there the problems arose. They were seen as a threat.
“And the biggest hole in Hovemans argument raise the question, why hasn’t the SWP’s so-called, “sectarianism”, torn asunder all its other collaborations with the left?”
The answer there is that many people believe it has torn them asunder in the past, and is in the act of doing so right now with the STWC.
LikeLike
Hi Liam, thanks for your comments. I appreciate that you let me put my views across (well, most of the time!) even though you may strongly disagree with them at times or perhaps most of the time.
I’ve been an ordinary member of the SWP since 1988 with varying levels of activity according to whatever else is going on in my life. Never been a fulltimer and don’t wish to be. I’ve not been sent here by the CC – I represent my opinions based on my experience and political beliefs.
Seen and done a lot in my time and worked very fraternally with comrades from other organisations in a variety of campaigns in workplace, uni and community. And don’t recognise the image of sectarianism that Hoveman paints.
I believe that the left can build unity as this has been my experience working in wrokplaces, uni and campaigns. The split in Respect is a woeful occurance and if we’re ever going to unite we need to discuss politics. As there seems to be a stand off on the ground it appears that blogs are the only arena to have these debates at the moment.
No disrespect but I have no idea who you are Liam nor do I know any of the posters on SUN such as Newman and tonyc. Although perhaps if we met we might recognise one another from past campaigns. I’ve met a lot of nice people and a few duff ones in 20 years as an activist. I’m here to discuss politics not verify credentials. Whether a poster on this blog is a member of the Renewal CC or an ordinary member is of no consequence to me. The debate about building a left alliance should be open to all and kept as fraternal as possible.
I hope that answers your question.
LikeLike
Chris, I wasn’t the one argueing that leading SWP members leaving the SWP means meltdown is imminent. That was Renewals arguement so I’ve responded to that claim. It’s a shame when any comrade leaves the SWP but that’s part of political life in any organisation. The SWP is one of the easiest political organisations to join so that new members can try it out without too much initial investment. The claim that the split has caused serious problems in the SWP is not borne out by evidence.
Clive, the example you give claiming you counted 360 on a demo which is then reported to have 500 is hardly lying to the class is it? Demo’s are notoriously over and under reported by all sorts of organisations. You claim the demo was over estimated by 140 people but I bet there were comrades on it who will dispute your count. So once again we end up nit picking over numbers rather than having a political debate. Your arguement might hold more water with Renewal if you challenged the leading members in that organisation who are currently talking the anti-war demo down by nearly 40,000 people.
Steph you claim that the decision to fold the womens group in the SWP was undemocratic and this is typical of the SWP. Every year at Marxism and at numerous branch meetings over the years this issue has been discussed. Those argueing for seperate groups were out voted by the majority of the SWP and that’s the best form of democracy available. Just because you don’t get what you want doesn’t make the decision undemocratic.
Re: Cliff, Steph you are argueing the line that Murray Smith used in the ISJ when he accused the SWP of being sectarian and moving from one campaign to the next. It wasn’t correct then and it isn’t correct now. Please offer concrete examples of where the SWP have prevented members of Respect organising? Rather than holding people back, the SWP has tried to engage and involve as many people as possible to build Respect.
Redbedhead explains very succinctly that because the initial growth of the anti-war movement and Respect haven’t taken off in the way certain individuals and socialists of other organisations would like they are rounding on the SWP and blaming it for this lack of development. Rather than have a political analysis of the state of class activity it’s easier for Steph, Clive etc. to blame the SWP because then they don’t have to come up with an analysis that might help the left grow.
Rather than complain constantly about the SWP why not offer an alternative analysis about how to build a left alliance so that we may compare them and assertain the veracity of each perspective. That’s how socialists usually work out strategy.
LikeLike
“Steph you claim that the decision to fold the womens group in the SWP was undemocratic and this is typical of the SWP.”
Thanks for replying Ray, but I didn’t claim anything of the sort. I was drawing attention to a way of operating politically which involves taking people’s arguments to their logical conclusion and polarising debate by treating the other side as if they were arguing for the extreme version. This creates two camps and quickly pushes the weaker camp away completely – those with more separatist tendencies in the Women’s Voice debate. I was saying that in fact I thought that way of polarising things was a *useful* thing in the SWP at the time, but that it had proved disastrous in Respect. We need to find another way of working with people who are in the same organisation with the same aims but are possibly not (yet) socialists.
“Re: Cliff, Steph you are argueing the line that Murray Smith used in the ISJ when he accused the SWP of being sectarian and moving from one campaign to the next. It wasn’t correct then and it isn’t correct now. Please offer concrete examples of where the SWP have prevented members of Respect organising? Rather than holding people back, the SWP has tried to engage and involve as many people as possible to build Respect.”
I haven’t read the article you mention so I can’t defend it, but I was staying something different. Despite their high level of involvement and activity in miners support work, Cliff argued that SWP members had adopted a sectarian position, that we knew best how to organise and that others who had other priorities (in this case concentrating on the ‘apolitical’ collecting of food etc) were to be sneered at. No doubt we were trying to “engage and involve as many people as possible” then – but in setting up support groups which agreed with the SWP line as against the rest. Do you see what I mean? This “engaging and involving” has a patronising tone about it, it deals with a passive mass. When people are already active, but in a way we don’t fully agree with, what then?
“Rather than complain constantly about the SWP why not offer an alternative analysis about how to build a left alliance so that we may compare them and assertain the veracity of each perspective. That’s how socialists usually work out strategy.”
An alternative analysis can’t just spring fully-formed out of someone’s head, it has to be worked out by examining critically past practice and learning lessons from it. Looking honestly at how things were polarised in Respect, which was a deliberate tactic I believe, and the damage this caused, is *part* of developing a new perspective, and I’m afraid it can’t be avoided no matter how much certain SWP members dislike such discussion occurring openly.
LikeLike
“So once again we end up nit picking over numbers rather than having a political debate.”
No Ray – you are nit-picking. There was no disagreement with the people at the demo. They agreed at the time that the figure was about right. But when it came to SW it went up by 140. You simply ignore the main point. Knowingly exaggerating does no one any service. It distorts your successes and hide your weaknesses. It is dishonest. If you know it’s not true and you say it anyway then that in my book is a lie.
“Your arguement might hold more water with Renewal if you challenged the leading members in that organisation who are currently talking the anti-war demo down by nearly 40,000 people.”
And your argument might be helped if it were in anyway based on reality. No leading members of RR are doing any such thing and you know it.
But just in case I’m wrong. Give me the name of any “leading member” in RR who is “currently talking the anti-war demo down by nearly 40,000 people” and I’ll be happy to challenge them. Oh and you’ll need to tell me how big you think the demo was too, so I do the Ray estimate minus 40,000 calculation.
LikeLike
Clive, you claim that everyone agreed with you but when the demo was reported obviously this was not the case. Heaven forbid that you could be wrong or looking for something to attack the SWP over.
Go to the SUN blog and read Louises’ estimate of 8000 people which has been left uncorrected by Andy Newman one of your leaders. The reported figure is closer to 50,000. Although as I stated before, reported figures vary as Louise demonstrates.
What is dishonest is to blame the SWP for the failure of the left to grow. Some of your comrades on SUN are already blaming the SWP for the size of the demo. I assume they were anticipating 2 million. The current smear that the SWP has damaged StWC doing the rounds on SUN will soon become official Renewal orthodoxy before long if there is any consistancy in their arguement.
LikeLike
Clive, you claim that everyone agreed with you but when the demo was reported obviously this was not the case.
Eh? Clive said: “There was no disagreement with the people at the demo. They agreed at the time that the figure was about right. But when it came to SW it went up by 140.”
Emphasis added. Incidentally, 140 is 38% of 360; that’s some margin of error.
LikeLike
Steph, I’ve no problem with discussing alledged sectarianism within Respect or in the SWP. But you have to come up with concrete examples in the present for us to discuss. A vague arguement that the SWP in Respect is sectarian is not enlightening and takes us no further in discussing this alledged behaviour. Even though you claim Cliff criticised comrades for being sectarian during the miners strike it doesn’t follow that this is the correct analysis regarding the SWP and Respect now.
Over the past 20 years, while I’ve been in the SWP, we have continually discussed how we relate to different organisations and individuals we work with. Having worked with hundreds of comrades from other organisations in joint campaigns the only time I’ve heard the SWP called sectarian is when our political strategy conflicts with the strategy of other organisations.
The debate about, “The broad party, the revolutionary party and the united front”, in the ISJ between John Rees and Murry Smith (Scottish Socialist Party) regarding the development of the SWP is quite interesting and relates to your arguement because you repeat Smith’s accusations.
The gist of Smiths arguement is that when the SWP identified the downturn in the late 70’s/early 80’s and reorientated itself accordingly this was sectarian and damaged the left.
Jumping to the present day you and Renewal are argueing that Respect and the anti-war movement have not grown as anticipated and this has been caused by the sectarianism of the SWP.
Note the common association made by these two arguements between the level of class activity and the so-called sectarianism of the SWP. There is no analysis of any other factors that may have affected the balance of class forces. If only the SWP had the strength to influence class struggle as Smith and Renewal believe!
As a revolutionary organisation we are accused of damaging the left yet none of our detractors have had any success themselves. Is this because they are too small to influence anything? I wouldn’t describe the Labour left in the 90’s as small yet they dwindled into passivity or accomodated to neo-liberalism.
Did any of the socialist organisations like Militant/The Socialist Party have better luck? Not at all, class activity continued to fall despite their particular strategy.
In conclusion the spurious arguement that the SWP have caused disunity on the left is a self-serving one that excuses the passivity of the TU leadership and of the Labour left in New Labour. It is a political manouver to justify a move towards reformism and a rejection of socialist politics. It’s significant that despite the impact of neo-liberalism on the balance of class forces (which has been well documented by the left) this is clearly missing in Renewal’s revisionist perspective.
The strategy of Renewal is being shaped by Galloway. He hopes that by witchhunting the SWP he will be able to cosy up to Brown via Livingstone. Those on the left who miss their old home in Labour are supporting him. If there is any chance of building a left alliance then socialists need to have a wider perspective than Trot bashing.
LikeLike
Phil, having been on many a demo over the last 20 years I’ve yet to make an accurate estimate of the numbers at these events. I find it highly unlikely that Clive went around asking everyone for their estimate. I also believe that it’s quite probable that Clive’s unofficial count may have missed out a few people. That he claims to have painstakingly counted every demonstrator in the hope, I assume, that he could catch out the SWP appears rather suspect.
Once again I repeat that there has never been agreement about official numbers on demo’s which leads to conflicting counts. While you’ve got out your calculator Phil perhaps you could work out the percentage of Louise’s miscalculation. Just to be even handed like.
LikeLike
Ray. I’m going to have to ask you to stop suggesting ridiculous motives for my actions.
I counted the demo twice. Once as it entered St Annes Square where it went round a bend and so people were spread out. I did it again when it came back into St Peter’s Square peace gardens where it has to thin to get past the children’s nursery play area.
I’m not sure you know Manchester but I can assure you it is quite easy to count that number of people in those tow locations. I’ve been counting demos in Manchester for twenty odd years. Call me obsessive if you like but I do genuinely think it is important to know how well you’ve done in mobilising.
The demo took place before the Respect split so why you think I’d do this fiendish counting scam to catch out the SWP I don’t know. I did it because I wanted to know how many were on the demo.
I passed on the information on because I knew someone would be writing a report for SW – just as my brother took photos and sent them to SW.
But the number was exaggerated – not by a few but by a factor of 38%. There is no rule that says all demos have to came to a round number – 500, 1000, 5000, 100,000.
Now as for the point about Louise, her estimates and the SU blog. I’m sorry to inform you that she is, on her own admission, a member of the Labour Party. She has authorship rights to the SU blog. She wrote the post. It is her opinion. It is not the opinion of ‘leading’ members of RR. So unless you can give me another example and another name I think you should admit that your claim is false. Just as it is false in this week’s SWP Party Notes.
LikeLike
Clive, you claim that your motives are entirely honourable yet you attack the SWP at every opportunity while making excuses for the fabrications that Renewal invent. You claim that Renewal is unaccountable for Lousie’s report yet it’s on a blog on which she moderates, that is frequented by a number of leading members of Renewal and is controlled by a leading member of Renewal.
I’m going to have to ask you to get your own house in order because if we’re going to build a broad party then regurgitating a Trot bashing diversion isn’t a viable strategy. I know you don’t want the SWP involved so perhaps you could explain how you see a viable broad left party developing. A strategy that ensures that it doesn’t assimilate into New Labour or dissipate into irrelevance.
LikeLike
This would be an odd choice of venue for “Trot bashing”.
Louise’s guess is on the low side but I claim no scientific accuracy for my higher one. The original point was a simple one that has long been a standing joke on the left. The SWP like a bit of boosterism and are willing to play fast and loose with numbers and categories.
Rob’s video is a good opportunity to reflect on the experiences of someone who spent 20 years trying to build the SWP and the last 8 trying to build a broader formation. Like many of us he concluded that there is something in the SWP’s methodology that is an obstacle to that. A quick survey of the landscape should confirm that to all but the wilfully blind. So let’s get away from the numbers on the last demo sideline and back to the main theme.
LikeLike
Good talk by Rob, brings some of the key issues sharply into focus. His analysis of the SWP’s approach to campaign work is spot on in my experience, ditto his perspective on building a broad party. Thanks for uploading it Liam.
LikeLike
Ray – since you have no intention of engaging with the actual points I raised but only want to impune my intentions I can only assume you have absolutely no interest in seeing a ‘viable broad left party developing’. Your questions are simply fake as you don’t give two hoots what I think.
My final point before I ignore you for the rest of you life.
“You claim that Renewal is unaccountable for Lousie’s report yet it’s on a blog on which she moderates, that is frequented by a number of leading members of Renewal and is controlled by a leading member of Renewal.”
Louise is a member of the Labour Party. She can post what she wishes. She is able to argue her point. it’s called democracy. Get used to it. You might as well argue that Liam’s blog is pro-SWP because it is frequented by you, DCM, johng and the vile jj. Your arguments are ridiculous.
LikeLike
Ray: “Even though you claim Cliff criticised comrades for being sectarian during the miners strike it doesn’t follow that this is the correct analysis regarding the SWP and Respect now.”
I entirely agree. The point was to try and illustrate that *in spite of comrades being very active* and believing they were building the movement, they still were going down a sectarian path. This was in response to the ‘but it was us who built Respect in the first place so how can we be sectarian’ type of argument.
“But you have to come up with concrete examples in the present for us to discuss. A vague arguement that the SWP in Respect is sectarian is not enlightening and takes us no further in discussing this alledged behaviour.”
Concrete examples have been given of how the SWP in Tower Hamlets Respect tried every trick in the book to retain control (or perhaps you would prefer ‘hegemony’). This is my point, Ray, not that comrades didn’t campaign and work bloody hard, even for candidates they didn’t vote for at selection, but that they saw the leadership as theirs as of right, and viewed anyone who wanted to partake in leadership with outright hostility – *if* they couldn’t be brought under the SWP’s wing. Oli Rahman was brought on board, but that Abjol Miah, well he was a bit non-compliant wasn’t he, and was pushed away in the polarisation I referred to earlier.
People joining Respect who might be supporters of Miah were viewed as a bloc, with alarm and suspicion, their membership seen as a threat rather than an opportunity. The only conclusion you could draw (belatedly in my case) was that the SWP would rather have a smaller Respect that they could control, than a bigger one that they couldn’t control. That’s sectarian in my book.
As to the national situation – why did the SWP *have* to control the National Office and supply replacement SWP staff whenever someone left? We know the answer – or one answer, at least – John Rees said the project was too important to be allowed to fail – and obviously only the SWP could steer it the right way.
When it was said, rather reasonably (as GG did), that perhaps other people could be allowed some input, the same attitude of fear and hostility appears. Once again it seemed that SWP would rather smash the thing up completely than lose control. This to me is a concrete example of a sectarian way of operating – which is up for discussion, of course.
LikeLike
Steph, you claim that an organisation willing to stick with Respect after a faction split from it, an organisation that was willing to campaign for candidates they didn’t agree with while Renewal refuses to back German is sectarian?
What is interesting is watching the ex-SWP comrades thrash out just when the SWP turned sectarian. Let’s start from when Galloway was singing our praises less than a year ago. By that token I estimate the SWP turned rogue about 8 months ago.
Then we have the Murray Smith analysis doing the rounds which identifies sectarianism starting during Cliffs “downturn” analysis. He identifies the organisational strategy of the SWP as the cause of sectarianism.
This doesn’t sit very well with those expelled comrades who joined during this period so depending on when they were expelled we get different versions of exactly when the SWP became sectarian. It’s rather comical reading ex-comrades on the SUN blog twist and turn trying to come up with an analysis that excludes their term of membership.
There is another possibility. The faction that split from Respect were fed up when each little grouplet was not having its own way all the time. The SWP were useful when Respect needed to be built but when the election results didn’t satisfy and Respect wasn’t on the news every night this faction started to look for a scapegoat. At the same time Galloways media career was taking off. The pressure from Galloway was to focus on electioneering and a higher media profile which was at odds with having revolutionary socialists standing in elections. If there was going to be any talk of revolution it would be of the velvet kind.
Consequently, rather than extending pluralism this faction wanted to usurp it and install their own hegemony. The majority of Respect officially rejected this so the faction formed their own organisation called Renewal. Only those who agreed with Renewal would be allowed to be in a broad left party. And only those who agreed with Galloway could be in Renewal. Galloway began making overtures to Livingstone. He saw in Livingstone a template for his own rehabilitation within the Labour Party.
Meanwhile socialists who had followed Galloway into Renewal began to question the lose formation that always followed Galloways political thinking. They began asking where was the strategy, the one Respect had been founded upon, to build a broad left party? But instead of offering a constructive way forward they continued to bicker among themselves about the scapegoat they had set up to justify the split.
This takes us up to the present day.
So, Clive until you can actually engage in a debate about building a broad left party on this blog rather than Trot bashing then I’m happy for you to ignore me.
LikeLike
Or there’s another possibility, the SWP were sectarian throughout the period you refer to and in fact the origin of their mistakes is far more fundamental, rooted in their abandonment of Trotskyism in the 1940s.
How about that?
LikeLike
billj – ah, the doctrine of original sin.
It is my firm belief that 8 and NOT 9 angels can dance on the head of a pin. And CERTAINLY NOT 10 as some apostates might suggest.
LikeLike
Aaah you still think its a pin….
LikeLike
A little more seriously. It seems to me all the groups on the left share a common method – their first priority is to build their specific organisation/party (broad, wide, fat or slim).
The current fetish is in order to win elections, but that could easily change without altering the essence of the situation.
These organisations all have a bureaucracy (the full timers) and a wannabe bureaucracy (the aspirant full timers). As this bureaucracy controls the finances and political strings at the centre of the organisation, its impossible for an opposition to seriously challenge their control.
Each of these organisations has their own niche, they are the “broad party” or the “new workers party”, or the “zionist” party, or the “communist” party, or the “dreary lower ranks of the trade union officialdom party” or whatever, and these niches distinguishes each from its competitors (who they ferociously denounce as “sectarians”,) but this is only a detail – as the ultimate objective is the same – to build the broad, fat, wide or slim organisation/party.
I remember as a young anarchistically inclinded student reading Lenin’s what is to be done? and expecting a tirade against spontaneity and an organisational plan.
I was disappointed in both respects. I couldn’t believe how it was misrepresented.
Essentially all it said was two things – socialists need to fight in the working class to make struggles consciously socialist and they need an organisation to do it.
There was no organisational plan. At the time I was frustrated. But later I realised. The reason there was no plan was simple. There is no timeless plan. Socialists need to develop the organisational forms appropriate to the struggle for socialism. And that changes according to the tasks of the moment.
Paradoxically the broad, wide, fat or slim organisations/parties and all given up on the struggle for socialism – while being united behind a weird hierarchical, bureauratic and quite nasty organisational structure.
The antithesis of Leninism in both cases.
LikeLike
Ray: you can’t just sourt out your fantasies and expect us to accept them. Do you have any evidence at all for your claim that Galloway is seeking rehabilitation in the Labour Party? Try dealing with actual events rather than your own projections.
LikeLike
Of course, as usual the apostate Redbedhead (nee Canadien) fails completely to address the key issue of whether angels (no matter how many or how few) can dance on the head of a pin WHILST SIMULTANEOUSLY SELLING PAPERS.
LikeLike
The same could be said for the current ongoing fantasies about the exact moment in which the SWP supposedly became a sect. It’s like watching a scholastic debate between fairly deranged monks trying to locate the exact date when God created the earth.
However, I agree that we don’t need to conjecture on the underlying intentions of anyone – Galloway included – to see that the overall crisis is the result of much bigger forces than the SWP or Galloway’s supporters per se. It is rooted in the balance of class forces in Britain, which seemed to be heading towards a more sizable crisis for Labour than in fact took place. That there has been – and continues to be – a crisis of legitimacy for the New Labour leadership is clear. Tony Blair WAS forced to leave before he intended. But not a single big section broke away – a la the WASG in Germany or the ILP in Britain in the 30s.
But all the RR people put it down to the evil, controlling culture of the SWP – as though this is a political analysis and not simply a symptomatic accusation. Nobody that I have read addresses why at this particular moment the SWP became impossible to work with, other than to say that they became thus because they are thus. It’s all rather circular. If they are thus why were they able to lead in the formation of the StWC? Why were they able to lead in the formation of Respect? Why also have they been able to work in other campaigns with people of different politics?
You may disagree with the SWP’s analysis of why the crisis erupted at this moment but it is at least a political analysis, rooted in changes in the relation of forces outside of Respect and also in relation to Respect and how that connects with the politics of certain tendencies within Respect. It is not reductive, discovering in certain politics of form of original sin, from which it can then be extrapolated that certain actors – eg. Galloway or Yaqoob – will always act in certain (treacherous) ways at all times. It sees in the crisis the confluence of a series of contingent factors, which require each other to create the specific conditions that caused the split.
The closest I’ve seen from the RR side is Steph, who tries to situate the problems in a certain method of approach to disagreements that works in politically homogenous organizations, like the SWP, but isn’t suited to heterogenous groupings like Respect. Personally I don’t agree with this and think it fails to explain other moments in which disagreements have not led to splits or other politics which also have led to splits. It’s a bit of a syllogism, which ultimately neglects the broader context in favour of a simple formula.
LikeLike
Jay – really my apostasy was rooted in my incorrect understanding that it is not the heads of pins upon which angels dance but, rather, upon pinheads (of whom I have known many). And, as any true believer knows, angels don’t sell papers – they give them away, which is why they are such poor party builders. Thus, you stand exposed as being soft on revisionist angelism.
LikeLike
Wrong again Canadien. The reasons that angels give out papers is that they don’t have money in heaven as they’ve abolished the wages system and all live on ambrosia and nectar.
LikeLike
TLC – you bloody Red. You’re confusing heaven and hell. In heaven there are mansions and servants and caviar and pizza.
LikeLike
It is, I think, the tone of Ray’s response here that gives one that uneasy feeling. The fact is that the SWP has become an organisation that simply brooks no criticism, and can only react to it petulanly and hysterically.
His comment that ‘only a few fulltimers’ have left the SWP is, apart from being inaccurate, shockingly complacent. In my nearly thirty years of political activity (about 25 spent as an SWP member, about ten of those as an extremely active one), I have seen countless numbers of people, often extremely good activists with much to contribute, briefly come into the orbit of the SWP and quickly drop out again, in no small part due to the fact that they simply felt uncomfortable with its internal culture.
His bickering about numbers on demos is laughable. I’ve been on demos, seen with my own yes the size of them, and then read the report in Socialist Worker and nearly fallen off my chair. The point is that this distortion of the truth, which is part of an officially enforced ‘optimism’ within the organisation, eventually pisses people off so much that they just drop out.
I watched Rob Hoveman’s talk and agreed with much of it. The expulsions around the Respect split were like a light going on. Three prominent activists are kicked out for refusing to resign from leading positions in an organisation the SWP was still supposedly trying to build at the time (in reality, of course, for all but the willfully blind to see, for disagreeing with the leadership), during a period before the conference when these issues were supposedly being thrashed out. Maybe Ray feels fine about this. I only hope he never disagrees with anything the ever-correct and all-knowing leadership of the party declare – Probably not much chance of that, though – after all, they haven’t been wrong about a single issue for about twenty years!
LikeLike
I think there is definitely a problem with the culture of the left- not confined to the SWP but certainly exemplified by them.
As other commentators have identified this is to do with exaggeration, arrogance, lack of flexibility all massively exacerbated and perhaps rooted in the lack of a healthy internal democracy, vital to learn from mistakes, engage in wider debates and draw new activists into the movement.
We should seek to learn from this and try to begin to create a new distinct left culture based on humility, democracy and dialogue. Certainly.
But for this to happen it seems to me not that useful to blame it all on the SWP. Yes they made mistakes and their member should be encouraged to learn and hold their leaders accountable.
But debates like this are only a small part of the process.
The best way to develop this new culture I think is to concentrate on the basics of building the movement- repairing or creating networks of activists and militants in workplaces and communities, creating real movements with leverage to bring out relatively large numbers of people in actions- strikes, direct action demos, protests and so on.
Within that we should certainly relate to the SWP and other left groups- encourage them to take part-though our main audience will be others not in left groups. We should do this to build the movement not as a party or group building exercise.
This way we encourage and cultivate working class self-activity and in however an embryonic form begin the process of working class self-governance that socialism- in my view – should be about. I don’t think we should pre-judge this as being reformist but let the working class activists drawn into the movement make their own decisions (and within that process be confident to argue our own politics but humble enough to listen and engage not preach).
Others may say workers are bound at the moment to be reformists and they may be right but that can change and let’s put it to the test.
But most of all let’s take practical steps towards creating campaigns with real purchase that can actually make a difference. That way we can perhaps begin to get out of the rut.
Debates such as this are illuminating but make much more sense in the context of constructing united action. That way we will engage the SWP and hopefully far more forces along the way.
LikeLike
Thanks redbedhead for at least addressing the issues (as I see them) and for putting part of my argument better than I was able to put it myself. I do take your point when you refer to accusations of “the evil, controlling culture of the SWP – as though this is a political analysis and not simply a symptomatic accusation”.
I’m not a theoretician but I have been puzzling over why the SWP (who I had supported for 30 years) has behaved in such a destructive way, and would really like to understand it in a wider context. But I can only think that, despite your derision on the subject, this is the result of the long ebb of class struggle leaving the SWP in recruiting-the-ones-and-twos mode, and despite taking initiatives to set up wider groups they were unable to adjust to the changed circumstances of working in a potentially mass organisation.
As has been said elsewhere, let’s hope that the election results, whatever they are, will lead both ‘sides’ in the Respect split to reflect and learn lessons.
LikeLike
And RBH leaves something else out. It is quite possible that the SWP were always “impossible to work with” i.e. an essentially sectarian group – but the demise of Respect is the transformation of years of sectarianism into something qualitatively worse – a crisis which they weren’t able to control or conceal.
In other words unlike the earlier examples of their sectarianism (which lets be honest there are literally countless examples of), this occasion was different because of its scale and public nature and because the internet means the days of the tightly controlled sect are over.
RHB – for all of his dismissal of the criticisms of the SWP – has no explanation himself for why the crisis happened now. But it did happen and it needs explaining.
It seems to me it is the conjunction of a few different strands.
– The clique organisational methods of the SWP – (no public criticism, very hierarchical, dominance of a bureaucracy, clamp down on democracy etc)
– the emphasis on organisation over politics – raised to a political method. (The need to control fronts in order to ensure the “revolutionaries” were in charge.)
-the weakness of their own political analysis – the failure of state capitalism to explain globalisation – the disorientation of their own perspectives etc. the terrible political concessions of programme (the shibboleths etc)
– the failure of their own schemes (for all their boasting none of their turns have actually worked, even in their own terms, i.e. they have got smaller, less influential and more marginalised)
And of course why they’re interesting is because its always amusing to see pomposity and braggadachio brought back to earth – but also as the political mistakes of the SWP are shared in one form or another by the Left in general.
LikeLike
I think it’s important for any political analysis of how to build a broad left party to look at what has gone before and its influence on the left.
Most significantly, the refusal of the Labour left to believe that there was the possibility of organising a successful opposition to neo-liberalism outside the Labour Party has influenced the activity of much of the left over the last 20 years.
I think the hope of a section of the left that Labour can still be reformed has been the predominant influence in causing a split in Respect. The goal of much of the left over the past 20 years has been an attempt to reform what already exists and the legacy of this ideology still lingers. This legacy causes the left in Britain to vacillate between rejecting and accepting Labourism as the path to socialism.
There has never been a sizeable organised left opposition to Labour outside of the LP. This is in contrast to the experience of the left in France and to a lesser extent in Germany and explains why the left outside the social democratic parties in those countries is considered much more of a viable alternative by workers especially during times of crisis.
All of us in Britain have little experience of trying to build a broad left party and the pole of attraction still remains the Labour Party for many activists.
We have also seen the rise of the US driven cult of personality in British society and in politics specifically. It is an aspect of neo-liberalism and has become much more pervasive over the last 20 years. I believe this ideology has become increasingly influentual on the Labour left as it disintegrated and looked for alternative forms of opposition.
That is why I identify the split as the draw of reformism and the politics of personality taking hold of a faction around Galloway. What are the signs of this?
1. The opposition to socialists standing as candidates in elections.
2. The attack on Trotskyists as Russian dolls.
3. The attempt to remove Rees as National Secretary and when this failed to invent a new post that would compromise Rees’s position.
4. Galloway’s increasing interest in self-promotion and reliance on the media as a platform to announce the political direction of Respect/Renewal.
5. Galloway’s disregard for the democratic structures of Respect that made him unaccountable on a number of critical occassions.
6. The uncritical support for Livingstone.
7. The recent disillusion with StWC and the playing down of its ability to develop an anti-war movement.
The reason I refuse to accept that the SWP is institutionally sectarian is because there is no evidence for this accusation and it is a diversion away from analysing the political contradictions that have thwarted the left inside and outside of Labour for decades. Unless the left can break from Labourism we are doomed to repeat (but not in the same way) the mistakes that have been made by the left in the past. The current debacle of Renewal vs Respect is an unfortunate example of this.
LikeLike
Dennis, you can characterise my “tone” in anyway you like but it still doesn’t make the SWP sectarian.
Where I do agree with you is that it’s a waste of time nit picking over numbers on demo’s. It’s laughable that Clive uses this example to accuse the SWP of exaggerating the level of activity of the class when we were the only organisation to put forward an analysis of the downturn while others failed to acknowledge it.
Is the SWP’s political analysis ever wrong? Of course it is at times! And is adapted in relation to what is happening on the ground rather than theorised in ivory towers.
Regarding the expulsions, only three prominant members left. Rather than this being a sign of the disintegration of the SWP as some in Renewal characterise it, I am making the pint that this is an incorrect analysis of the cohesion of the SWP.
Kevin Ovenden was allowed to put his perspective across in the pre-conference bullitin. The majority of the delegates at the conference disagreed with him democratically. He made the choice to ignore the CC and went against their decision and was expelled. As would be the case if a member defied the leadership of any political organisation.
Perhaps we will never agree on the events leading up to the split but if we are going to build a broad left party then the correct analysis of why the split occured and how to organise from now on is crucial.
LikeLike
Ray – thanks for the 7 points. You’ve raised some important questions, although obviously I don’t agree with all the wording. Points 4 and 5 relate to longstanding issues, which I hope will be addressed even more effectively within the renewed RESPECT than they have been in past years. Points 2 and 3 only show that relations have broken down between Galloway and one specific group of Trotskyists, for reasons which may be tactical, historical or even personal. To stand this up as a drift to reformism you’d need to show that Galloway’s been equally hostile to all other groups of revolutionary socialists. I don’t know what point 1 refers to. Point 6 is just incorrect (even Galloway’s support for Livingstone isn’t *uncritical*) and point 7 seems to suggest that disillusionment is counter-revolutionary, which I’m not sure I’d go along with.
The reason I refuse to accept that the SWP is institutionally sectarian is because there is no evidence for this accusation and it is a diversion away from analysing the political contradictions that have thwarted the left inside and outside of Labour for decades.
If there were evidence, would you still refuse to accept it on the grounds of it being a diversion, etc? Because if so there’s probably not much point anyone trying to put the evidence before you.
LikeLike
Hi Phil,
Whenever I’ve been confronted with an example of so-called sectarianism in the SWP it’s root has been a difference of political analysis resulting in a disagreement over tactics. I believe this is what caused the split and why I view the split is a dispute over the political direction of Respect.
Point 1 refers to the failed attempt by the SWP (and other individuals and organisations) in Respect to have more socialist candidates nominated as candidates on election slates.
Points 2 and 3 are interesting because on the surface it appears to be a spat between Galloway and the SWP but underlying this is a dispute over political strategy that will resurface in Renewal if/when other so-called “Russian dolls” attempt to raise the same issues.
I’ll have to disagree with you about point 6 because Galloway has spent a lot of time talking up Livingstone (and that takes some doing with Livingstones record)because he is opposed to any opposition to him.
Point 7 addresses the poor analysis of those who view the StWC as a failed experiment or, at the very least, a casualty of the SWP’s so-called sectarian behaviour.
Rather than spend a lot of time looking at the split it might be useful to look at the strenghts and weaknesses of Respect pre-split. Respect had some very encouraging achievements. It’s very important not to overlook this because we then don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Off the top of my head here are some of the positive contributions made by Respect.
1. Respect was the first time that the left made a serious attempt to build a left opposition outside of Labour.
2. Galloway’s anti-war politics contributed significantly to Respects initial success even though his growing unaccountability and media profile had a tendency to turn round and bite us on the arse.
3. Respect drew towards it many individuals who had been radicalised by the war and perhaps had not been involved in a left organisation before.
4. Despite occassional differences over strategy the different organisations and individuals in Respect had worked together effectively during most of the time before the split.
5. Respect gave renewed hope to many activists who had been demoralised by the cowardice of the TU leadership and the neo-liberalism of New Labour.
6. Respect has/had the potential to grow into a much larger party over the long term despite being susceptable to the up’s and downs of the class struggle.
7. With Respect we started to see the potential of rebuilding a left opposition in the labour movement.
8. Respect’s constant criticism of Islamophobia made it much more unrespectable and it was more difficult for imperialisms apologists to be taken seriously as a consequence.
I’m sure there are many more achievements of Respect that I’ve left out. When I review what we built it makes me all the more determined to help find some way forward for the left.
LikeLike
‘I think the hope of a section of the left that Labour can still be reformed has been the predominant influence in causing a split in Respect.’
Eh? Is there a possibility of a left social democratic current reviving inside the Labour party at some stage? Of course. Is there any sign of this happening? No. Were differing perspectives and orientations on this issue ‘the predominant influence’ in the split? Absolutely not. The only instance of a serious discussion with echoes of this theme was once on the NC over not standing against Livingstone. And I held pretty much held a solitary position. Nobody took seriously the argument that Johnson would pose a real challenge and that we should situate ourselves within a broad left anti-Tory block.
Is the SWP ‘institutionally sectarian’? Not yet, but getting there. The SWP leadership gives every impression that they could not care less whether Livingstone wins or loses, and their commitment to get a vote out for him is purely tokenistic. In addition, it is clear that as they have lost the battle to dominate Respect, they are intent on trying to destroy it, concerned only that it does not act as a competitor and a left wing pole of attraction for those disillusioned with Labour. In their eyes, that is their pitch, and nobody else should be allowed to occupy it. Their actions are entirely self-serving and have nothing to do with the furtherance of working class political representation. So much for communists having ‘no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat’.
LikeLike
George nails it. Back Livingstone against Johnson, but make sure the left has a voice on the assembly.
From today’s Guardian:
‘Simon Hoggart may not be able to slot a bus ticket between Ken Livingstone’s and Boris Johnson’s policies, but I could drive a fleet of bendy buses through the gap – sideways.
On housing, Ken is for 50% of new homes to be affordable. That doesn’t go far enough, but my constituents in overcrowded Tower Hamlets know that scrapping that target, Johnson’s policy, will make it less likely that their children will ever get a home in the capital.
Whatever differences you have with Ken – and I have many – it is incredible to say he’s of a piece with Johnson, especially this week, the fifth anniversary of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Ken opposed that war; Johnson supported it and adheres to the neoconservative lunacy that underpins it.
Over the past eight years the anti-war and anti-racist movements have had a friend in City Hall. I want a mayor who welcomes Muslim leaders who are arguing for engagement in the political process, rather than one who bans them from entering the country, as Johnson and David Cameron demanded and Gordon Brown went along with recently.
Ken’s under attack not for the things he’s done wrong, but for the policies that have angered the Tory right. That’s why every progressive Londoner should support him against Johnson.
It’s said that Ken doesn’t take notice of the London assembly. That’s because most of those on it are eminently unnoteworthy. Most people in London can’t name a single assembly member.
I’m standing for the assembly for Respect to change that. If I and my colleagues are on the assembly, Ken won’t be able to ignore us. We’ll support him when he’s in the right, and hold him to account when he’s not.’
George Galloway MP, Respect, Bethnal Green & Bow’
LikeLike
steph – “I’m not a theoretician but I have been puzzling over why the SWP (who I had supported for 30 years) has behaved in such a destructive way, and would really like to understand it in a wider context. But I can only think that, despite your derision on the subject, this is the result of the long ebb of class struggle leaving the SWP in recruiting-the-ones-and-twos mode, and despite taking initiatives to set up wider groups they were unable to adjust to the changed circumstances of working in a potentially mass organisation.”
It’s funny you pose the question this way, about recruiting in the ones-and-twos mode, because I recently had a conversation with a comrade about this viz. the SWP and re: us here in Canada. To be honest we haven’t grown numerically much in recent years. We focused our attention on building the movements and put much less emphasis on “party building”. It was a perspective that held through most of the Tendency, I believe. This was not a bad thing, it was a necessary bending of the stick, to train ourselves into more effectively getting “stuck in”. But also – and this was the point of the conversation – we noted that we were faced with a choice, which was to recruit dozens or move thousands. For the SWP it was to recruit hundreds or move hundreds of thousands in the anti-war movement and in terms of Respect voters. Now, at a certain point you have to bend the stick back a bit, put some more emphasis on party building in order to bring new blood into the organization, new leadership, etc. In other words you have to restore a balance but on a new basis. But I don’t think anyone is primarily thinking about recruiting ones and twos as a solution to the historic demands of the present period. And I don’t believe that’s what the SWP was doing in Respect. I think that’s to conceive of the problem too narrowly.
The problem is one of strategy. You see it above with Ger’s fairly rabid attack on the SWP: “The SWP leadership gives every impression that they could not care less whether Livingstone wins or loses, and their commitment to get a vote out for him is purely tokenistic.”
Of course, all one needs to do is look at every single piece of election material that has come out, read any article in the Socialist Worker, to see that this is a misrepresentation. Lindsay’s campaign has said over and over and over again to vote Lindsay first and Ken second. Ger and the central leadership of RR think this is sectarian. Respect (and the SWP) believe that this is how one builds a left that is independent of New Labour.
These are completely legitimate debates but it is clear that they are part of the puzzle as to why Respect split. The ISG holds a different position to Ger, Galloway, Yaqoob, etc. but they don’t carry anywhere near the same weight as the SWP, which could block the acceptance of this strategy. So, the ISG will be allowed to say its piece because it won’t make a difference to the direction of RR.
Looking at the short history of Respect, you can’t say that the SWP didn’t make concessions in the interest of unity. They certainly did and were attacked for it by the ultra lefts, by the Socialist Party, etc. They didn’t force the question of MPs on a workers wage, because Galloway would have none of it. They didn’t demand a policy of “open borders” because, while that is their policy, it is a demand that wouldn’t be acceptable in a broad left formation. They didn’t demand a policy of workers’ power, a rank and file perspective in the unions, wholesale nationalization of the economy, etc. etc.
But, just because you are willing to make compromises for unity doesn’t mean that there aren’t lines beyond which you will not cross. Ger and others disagree with those lines. Fine, that’s a reasonable argument to have. But the problem was that they hated that the SWP could carry its side when it wanted – which didn’t bother anyone when they did it to back up Galloway or Yaqoob et al. So, when the SWP fought to prevent Respect turning inwards after Galloway’s appearance on Big Brother – Galloway didn’t shoot off a letter saying that the SWP were engaging in control freakery. Ditto on other policies that coincided with the people now in RR.
What irks me about this debate is that the RR people try to drain it of politics and to cover-up differences in strategy. And instead throw out symptomatic accusations, like “control freakery”. It would be more honest to say that there were a series of growing differences over policy and strategy – as is now evidenced over the Livingstone issue. More, I’m sure, will emerge in time.
LikeLike
Dear Mr. bill
Allow me to quickly deal with each point you raise:
You wrote: “RHB – for all of his dismissal of the criticisms of the SWP – has no explanation himself for why the crisis happened now. But it did happen and it needs explaining.”
Um, you could read what I wrote both immediately above and in my original post. It’s always more useful when you engage with a person’s argument rather than pretending they don’t exist.
You wrote: “It seems to me it is the conjunction of a few different strands.
– The clique organisational methods of the SWP – (no public criticism, very hierarchical, dominance of a bureaucracy, clamp down on democracy etc)”
These are ad hominem arguments without, in my view, a basis. And, since I read the internal bulletins with oppositional articles in them – all over the internet – I’m even less convinced.
You wrote: “- the emphasis on organisation over politics – raised to a political method. (The need to control fronts in order to ensure the “revolutionaries” were in charge.)
“-the weakness of their own political analysis – the failure of state capitalism to explain globalisation – the disorientation of their own perspectives etc. the terrible political concessions of programme (the shibboleths etc)”
It’s interesting how the SWP controls fronts (Are Andrew Murray, George Galloway, and Tony Benn now SWP members? I believe they play a pretty important role in the StWC.) and yet its program doesn’t dominate. Maybe what you refer to is the fact that they don’t vote for the policies put forward by ultra lefts like yourself who want coalitions to have the maximum program all the time. Sorry, mate, I wouldn’t vote for you either. And are their perspectives disoriented? Perhaps you could illuminate for me the great successes of your perspectives. What mass movements have you built? Where is your mass party?
You wrote: “- the failure of their own schemes (for all their boasting none of their turns have actually worked, even in their own terms, i.e. they have got smaller, less influential and more marginalised)”
Really? That’s interesting. Um, two million people marched in 2003. That seems pretty influential to me. “But, oh,” says revolutionary bill. “Those people weren’t marching for the SWP or for a revolutionary program.” Well, of course not. When there’s two million marching for revolution we’ll be having a different conversation. But if you can’t see the significance of getting two million people out to oppose a war by their own country. If you can’t see the significance of the StWC still getting 40,000 (or 8,000 if you’re on SUN) to march 5 years after that war ended and became an occupation, well we have no basis to really have a conversation. People don’t just go to bed one night as mostly apolitical and unmobilized creatures and wake up the next day as full-blooded revolutionaries. They go through a process of development. The point, and the art, of politics is finding mechanisms and slogans that can take people the NEXT step forward. That also means bringing people together in coalitions that otherwise might not exist or might exist on a more narrow basis were it not for the mass mobilizing perspective of revolutionaries. Influence is measured in the ability to mobilize people around the key issues of the day.
LikeLike
The Socialist Party ultra-left?
Isn’t that a rather revealing illustration of just right wing the SWP have become?
LikeLike
Dude, read the sentence: “by the ultra-lefts, the Socialist Party, etc.”
Note the comma, indicating that the terms are seperate.
LikeLike
Come on Ger you know that the whole purpose of directly elected Mayors was to invest them with substantial powers and make them unaccountable to GLA members or Councillors.
By all means a left voice on the GLA would be useful but to pretend George would make Ken “accountable” suggests the only thing nailed is yours and George’s brain.
All the mainstream publicity will be around the Mayoral candidats, that is why the left must challenge there as well as the assembly seats. Fortunately Lindsey’s candidancy and having a first and second preference vote will give a voice for the left critics of New Labour, whilst allowing a second preference for Ken against Boris.
LikeLike
‘We’ll support him when he’s in the right, and hold him to account when he’s not.’
But that’s exactly NOT what Galloway is doing and for a socialist like you Ger to go along with his political strategy is frankly quite embarrassing.
Let’s pretend for arguements sake that the SWP is sectarian. This still doesn’t explain why Galloway and the leadership of Renewal are voting for the social democrat, Livingstone, when a socialist candidate is standing. A candidate that was selected by all of the leading members of Renewal before they split.
There is no danger to Livingstone’s vote if German stands because he can receive a second vote from her voters.
I could characterise Galloways decision to back Livingstone as sectarian and an attempt to scupper Respect’s vote but that’s not the whole picture. Fundementally he and Yahoob are supporting Livingstone because they see his political strategy as something they wish to emulate. Perhaps not in every detail but the power he wields is very attractive to them. It’s tempting for Galloway to believe that cultivating Livingstones support in London may open doors for him. He might even believe that this could rehabilitate the Labour left. This is the traditional strategy of the Labour left that Respect fought so hard to break away from.
Respect, on the other hand, doesn’t wish to compromise it’s political position on neo-liberalism and New Labour for the sake of Livingstones ear and in the unlikely event that we’ll get a few extra votes out of it. I wasn’t surprised to discover that Galloway has been given a mandate by Renewals unelected leadership to select his own GLA list. How this squares with any democratic process I’m aware of I’m not sure but it’s a worrying example of the autocratic direction Renewal appears to be travelling.
The difference between Renewal and Respect is one of political strategy and democratic organisation. That’s the real cause of the split and unless socialists in Renewal challenge Galloway’s autocratic leadership and his capitulation to reformism and New Labour then this will become an obstacle to building a broad left party.
LikeLike
Ray: I’m sorry, but that is exactly what Galloway is doing. Your imaginings about other people’s motives are no substitute for facts on the ground. Galloway has strongly supported Livingstone against the Islamophobic and pro-war right, not just paying lip service, but positively identifying with Livingstone in print, on TV and on radio. He’s also publicly opposing Livingstone, again not in leaflets and papers no one reads, but in the London media and in parliament over the redevelopment of the western part of Tower Hamlets and South Hackney.
You’re just inventing motives when it comes to the Labour left. But since you mention it, your attitude to the Labour left is pure sectarianism. And it’s the inability of you and those arguing like you in the SWP to differentiate between the Labour leftists and Tories that is part of the problem.
LikeLike
Digger: so I take it that’s why there’s hardly any mention of getting German on the Assembly then. It would be a waste of time. But firing off shots at Livingstone in a propaganda campaign in the mayoral contest is the acme of revolutionary strategy. So much is becoming clear about the contempory SWP as this goes on.
LikeLike
Comrade Bedstead said: “They didn’t force the question of MPs on a workers wage, because Galloway would have none of it. They didn’t demand a policy of “open borders” because, while that is their policy, it is a demand that wouldn’t be acceptable in a broad left formation. They didn’t demand a policy of workers’ power, a rank and file perspective in the unions, wholesale nationalization of the economy, etc. etc.”
So, I take it these are now prominent planks of the left List’s campaign?
LikeLike
Nob? Dat me? OK.
In concepts of one syllable. You said the SWP had to make nasty concessions to be part of Respect. Now they are no longer Respect but the Left List – which consists of basically just the SWP and a very thin layer of allies – will they be standing on a far left programme incorporating all the elements you drew to our attention in your post?
LikeLike
I didn’t say “nasty”. I don’t see anything wrong with concessions, it’s part of working with others and building a coalition that mobilizes the largest possible constituency in a way that moves forward consciousness, organization and confidence. I’m afraid you’re projecting.
As for your characterization of Respect, well, while that is the fantasy of yourself and RR, from the point of view of continuing to try and build a left of labour electoral formation, the same method continues to hold of finding common ground around mutually agreeable demands.
But thanks for setting up such an easy straw man for me. It’s nice to have an easy target once in a while. It makes me look smart!
LikeLike
Anyone read the article about the London Assembly in The London Paper? It makes interesting reading. I hope Renewal succeeds in its bid to get the GLA list elected as this will be a minor propaganda coup for the left which is better than nothing. But it’s interesting to note how little power the London Assembly have over Livingstone. I think this sits nicely with Galloways Labour left leanings. While socialists stand for the Mayoral election he knows there is little hope of influencing Livingstone by becoming part of a toothless lobbying group. Judgeing by the way Livingstone operates Galloway knows that patronage is the direct path to Livingstones side.
From The London Paper about the Assembly members:
“One of their few successes came two years ago when they persuaded Ken Livingstone to ensure all suburban railway stations had staff on duty when they were open and to increase the number of transport police officers devoted to them.”
So much for Galloway influencing Livingstone over the redevelopment of TH. At least Nas I can differentiate between a socialist and a sell-out.
Been reading a lot of papers lately. Anyone catch the article in The Pink Paper concerning Galloway accusing a murdered gay man of being involved in a sex crime? He’s completely unrepentant and categorises gay activists and anti-deportation campaigners who criticise Irans human rights record as stool pigeons for the imperialists. This is not going down too well with LGBT’s. So much for all that rhetoric from some quarters in Renewal about the importance of pluralism and listening to the “community” when it get’s in the way of a Galloway polemic. A critique in the Renewal paper about this gaff by Galloway may help undo some of the damage.
LikeLike
Ray: you clearly know nothing about the way politics works. Your ignorance extends to the redevelopment of the East End. Political futures will stand or fall on those issues over the next few years. Taking your analysis from the London Paper is no substitute for listening to those who know what they’re talking about.
LikeLike
Nas, why don’t you deal with what people argue rather than invent views. I did not say being on the assembly is a waste of time, in fact I said “a left voice on the GLA would be useful”.
George’s remarks that he would make Livingstone accountable, is just pompous rhetoric, given that directly elected Mayors were introduced to undermine the role of elected Councils and the GLA.
Of course the Mayor is directly accountable at election time, and Respect Renewal feel that voting for Ken rather than Lindsey 1 Ken 2 will somehow make him more accountable?
LikeLike
Notice how Nas,Ovenden,TonyC do not even address Galloways smearing of a dead man.
LikeLike
Given that Respect Renewal was sold on the basis of being ‘pluralistic’ and ‘democratic’ it is hillarious to hear how your GLA candidates were selected.
You would assume being so ‘pluralistic’ and ‘democratic’ that there was a big meeting of London RR members to vote for the GLA list and debate and discuss strategy and hold the (unelected) RR NC to account.
Actually, RRs GLA candidates have apparently been handpicked by George Galloway.
RRs rhetoric about democracy is not matched by practice. It is increasingly being exposed as a top-heavy organisation where all the decisions are stitched up behind closed doors by an unelected and unaccountable National Council.
If you read between the lines, Alan Thornett’s recent article is a tacit admission that politically RR is too the right of the original Respect project.
LikeLike
You know even bourgeois parties like Labour hold selection meetings! But not Respect Renewal!
So why waste our time being lectured about ‘broad parties’ and ‘democracy’?
LikeLike
A simple vote Ken message will maximise his vote especially among immigrants – remember the number of spoiled ballot papers last time.
A poor vote for German will accelerate the collapse of her and Rees’s vanity list and leave the way open for a serious left of Labour challenge.
German’s mayoral idiocy will do nothing for the left.
LikeLike
“The Left List is the only party in these elections that will stand up to the financial speculators and big business. We’re calling for a tough new regulator for the City’s gamblers, replacing the toothless Financial Services Authority.”
Lindsey German
LikeLike
I meant to add so much for the left-wing credentials of the Left List. I’ve heard Vince Cable articulate more left-wing demands.
LikeLike
“I meant to add so much for the left-wing credentials of the Left List. I’ve heard Vince Cable articulate more left-wing demands.”
At least the Left List are making demands instead of cow towing to Livingstone.
Adamski is right, I think there is concern among socialists in RR about the direction of this so-called “pluralistic” and “democratic” organisation. Anyone can talk the talk but when it comes down to it can Renewal walk the walk?
Nas, if political futures stand or fall over the redevelopment of the East End then unhitch your horse from Livinstone’s City backed gravy train and start campaigning for socialists who support East Enders and not Livingstones City redevolopers.
Try telling people in Spitlefields who are about to have a 50 storey building obliterate their community that Ken cares. How about reminding Ken that Tracey Emin among others are campaigning to save Shoreditch from redevelopment by the City. Livingstone has given all this his blessing and you’re campaigning for him. So much for your concern about all of us in the East End.
LikeLike
Nas wrote: “A simple vote Ken message will maximise his vote especially among immigrants – remember the number of spoiled ballot papers last time.”
Coz the immigrants are stupid, eh. They can’t understand the complicated London STV system. Nice one.
Nas wrote: “A poor vote for German will accelerate the collapse of her and Rees’s vanity list and leave the way open for a serious left of Labour challenge.”
Wow – you don’t get a much more explicit sectarian argument than that. Destroy the left in order to save it!
LikeLike
No more of this wilfully misnaming people please. The joke isn’t always apparent. The comments have been largely vitriol free for a while now and all the better for it.
I had a salutary experience electioneering outside a mosque today which is one of the places where you go around here to find large numbers of working class voters. No one mentioned the split in Respect.
In answer to one of Ray’s points “about the direction of this so-called “pluralistic” and “democratic” organisation”. There is a major difference this time around which is that the discussion is acknowledged. This was never the case before when abstract “unity” was seen as a cardinal virtue.
Secondly, and this is a liberating experience, no one has any idea how any individual discussion is going to be resolved or how any vote is going to go. That is much more democratic and more conducive to developing a healthy internal culture.
Nas – while I agree that there is a charmingly quixotic character to the Left List’s campaign I’ll probably give them a preference. In terms of the electoral programme it will be in the same general framework as Respect’s and their vote will be understood as a left of Labour vote. Livingstone is politically unsupportable. Have a look at the articles on this site for a critique of him. Nevertheless it is possible to give him your second preference to keep Johnson out and we have to get out of the habit of accepting that we always have to vote Labour in case the Tories get in. But that’s a long discussion of lesser evilism in which our North American readers are well versed.
LikeLike
Personally I find it very liberating to be in Respect after the exit of the celebrities. No longer will we have one hand tied behind our backs in the class war!
No longer will our political programme be driven by what will keep Galloway, the Soft Lefts et al onboard. Instead we are developing a programme that is anti-capitalist, more confrontational, more socialist and class-based, and be based on appealing to the politicised layers of our class rather than what will keep the well-known, well-paid left celebrities onside. To be honest, I think the SWP leadership fucked up over Respect, and in a sense their own concessions to populism have blown up in their own face – this doesn’t mean that we should now allign with the populism of Respect Renewal.
The SWP gave too much ground to left liberals, by essentially orientating not to what would appeal to the most radical sections of the class who wanted to fightback but to trying to hold together a coalition with people of dubious politics and dubious income.
To be frank, having campaigned for Respect, I have to be honest and say that most of it’s elected representatives didn’t make the weight.
You had radical socialists enthusing people with grassroots politics getting mediocrities elected who would probably have easily fitted into a mainstream party.
If Respect Renewal represents a shift to the right from the original Respect, Respect post-Galloway represents a shift to the left. I couldn’t stomach being part of a split led by a guy who earns more than my boss. And to be honest, I have some respect for Salma Yaqoob, but she comes across as a left-liberal – I would be happy to work alongside her, but her politics are somewhat fluffy. The ideological collapse of RR is seen in their slobbering over Ken Livingstone and blandness of politics as displayed in the glossy mag that they were handing out on the demo last week – it didn’t mention ‘socialism’ anywhere! It’s sad to see that the ISG/SR have become the left cover for a move to the right.
Under what constitutional process is Linda Smith and Respect Renewal deselecting legitimately selected Respect candidates? This is the issue, by refusing to allow Respect branches to use the name ‘Respect’, Linda Smith has essentially EXPELLED the majority of Respect branches from Respect!
Interestingly, unlike Respect, Respect Renewal don’t publish minutes or reports of their meetings to members, nor will they even state who is on their unelected NC! The breakaway NC members added another 20 odd people to their number – but they refuse to actually tell anyone – including members of Renewal – the names of these additional NC members.
Respect Renewal’s NC have agreed a position that they will not allow any candidates from the majority of Respect branches to use the name Respect. Perhaps, as a sign of their elitism, they see Respect as being the George Galloway/Salma Yaqoob Party. The trouble is that while Galloway is a brilliant anti-imperialist orator, these figures have less support from the independents in Respect than Renewal thought. Renewal thought that they would take the majority of Respect members with them when they left Respect – the reality is that at the base of the organisation their was no split, and most people stuck with the grassroots activists who they have worked with since 2004 rather than jump onboard the well-paid celebrity ship of George Galloway et al.
In the labour movement, things should be decided democratically by the rank and file. I would have loved to have seen George Galloway clash in debate at a Respect Conference with John Rees. Such a clash could have been quite useful in genuinely renewing Respect to see these differences thrashed out in public. But the truth is Renewal are only interested in backroom deals and chats behind the backs of the members, the truth is that in Renewal, George Galloway is no more accountable to the members than in Respect – ENOUGH!
The overwhelming majority of Respect branches have remained with Respect. Respect has branches across England and Wales. RR has only about 5 branches. They are a minority. They can’t even form a national organisation and exist only in a handful of pockets. The “Left List” is a temporary solution until this is resolved.
To be honest, I lost any respect for Renewal when they split Respect. Many people within Respect had serious differences with what was the terrain of the party and were open to a debate. But Renewal was predicated on the idea that you can only be a member if you smash up Respect branches.
I’m not a member of the SWP, I have criticisms of the SWP in Respect, but within our local organisation, we work constructively together and why should I smash up a local organisation that I have spent 4 years building because George Galloway, Ken Loach, Alan Thornett, Yvonne Ridley, Nick Wrack et al say so?
There has been a split, and your side are a minority, and are political cowards who won’t debate openly at a conference of all Respect members. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that not-withstanding some decent socialists and leftists who have joined Renewal that it’s politics are exactly the kind of fluffy, reformist, woolly left-liberal crap that I was getting sick off in the original Respect where the SWP (wrongly) bent-over backwards to keep the Galloways, Yaqoobs and middle class left-liberals onboard. The SWP need to be held to account, they made serious mistakes in Respect, but one thing they have grasped correctly is that Respect didn’t make the weight, and what is needed is a broad, explicitly socialist, explicitly anti-capitalist party that won’t have one hand tied behind it’s back in the class war because it has a highly paid MP onboard or an ex-LibDem Respect Councillor onboard or the Chair of it’s biggest branch owns several restaurants.
The times we live in demand hard class-politics. I believe that having broken with the populism of the original Respect, Respect post-Galloway is moving towards a harder, anti-capitalist, direct action, mass struggle, workers party – Join us!
LikeLike
The SWP need to be held to account, they made serious mistakes in Respect, but one thing they have grasped correctly is that Respect didn’t make the weight, and what is needed is a broad, explicitly socialist, explicitly anti-capitalist party
You mean they’re junking the entire RESPECT project in favour of rebuilding the Socialist Alliance? Interesting if true.
LikeLike
Thanks, Liam. There’s much to discuss there. I guess one issue is, do we want Livingstone to win? I do. Secondarily, what do you do about it?
The person, whoever it was, going on about tower blocks on the edge of the City clearly has no idea about the actual course of events in the area and the role of the local MP.
I think, Liam, that you shouldn’t reward this stuff with your vote. Sheila Torrence was on the ‘left’, as was Mick Hume in 1987. It didn’t mean you were obliged to vote for them.
LikeLike
Adam: you’ll be doing well in Cardiff, then. Respect growing, is it?
LikeLike
Liam: “while I agree that there is a charmingly quixotic character to the Left List’s campaign”
Well, that is a charmingly smug quote. I wonder what you’ll say if RR’s vote goes into the dumper – or if Respect/Left List gets more total votes than RR? Personally I don’t think either of you will get over the 5% hurdle but I think there is a decent chance that LL will outvote RR, which will be a bit embarassing for everyone who’s been making large claims about RR – and to be honest I haven’t seen anyone from the LL making any grandiose claims about what their vote will be. You might want to be a bit circumspect, I’m told crow is an unpleasant bird to have to eat.
LikeLike
“The person, whoever it was, going on about tower blocks on the edge of the City clearly has no idea about the actual course of events in the area and the role of the local MP.”
That was me, Nas, as you well know. It’s all very well making vague references to redevelopment and the local MP but unless you have any solid facts that contradict that Livingstone has sold out to City developers lock, stock and two smoking barrels then it’s just another reason to vote socialist as preference number one and sell-out as preference two.
The situation in Dalston, Hackney is no better. Michael Rosen is involved in a campaign to prevent a partnership between Livingstone, Barretts and Hackney Council knocking down local buildings to make way for redevelopment that probably won’t include any social housing even though Livingstone is mandated to ensure that all housing redevelopment in London includes 50% social housing.
When it comes to pleasing his City chums, Livingstone will sell his promises and the people who voted for him down the river.
LikeLike
With regard to the expulsions from the SWP, Ray writes that “Ovendon was allowed to put his perspective across. ..the majority of delegates at the Conference disagreed with him democratically. He made the choice to ignore the CC and went against the decision and was expelled…”
Hang on, unless I’ve got the chronology seriously wrong, wasn’t Ovendon, Hoveman and Wrack expelled BEFORE the conference decided anything democratically? That’s sort of the point. It was a pre-emptive strike against he dissidents within the organisation, as well as a clear signal to Galloway that the SWP was no longer prepared to work with him. The conference took place in an atmosphere in which all sorts of silly nonsense about ‘witchunts’ had been conjured up, and seemed to be turned into an issue of loyalty to ‘the party.’
Ray goes on to comment that such expulsions “would be the case if a member defied the leadership of any political organisation”
Is that really the case? I can’t help thinking back to when the U.S. International socialist group was kicked out of the IST for the heinous crime of disagreeing with Alex Callinicos. They had reached a democratic decision at their conference. a small minority, who could not win their case amongst the membership, demanded the right to continue to agitate for their position after the decision. they were expelled. The SWP leadership in Britain were furious. Do as we say, not as we do…
Alternatively, check out the real history of the Bolsheviks. That could teach the SWP a thing or two about DEMOCRACY in democratic centralism, and the tolerance of opposing views.
One last point. You mention that the attempt to get rid of John Rees was an example of a pressure to shift to the right. Well, perhaps. Or perhaps John Rees’s arrogance and style of operating had alienated a large number of activists. Perhaps (unthinkable, I know…) he should have stepped down. In any case, now we seem to be left with Respect Renewal, without the valuable participation of what is still Britain’s largest far left grouping, and the ‘Left List’ – little more, sadly, than he SWP by another name. Those alienated and frustrated by the divisive antics of the left have once again had every prejudice confirmed. What a waste.
LikeLike
“Is that really the case? I can’t help thinking back to when the U.S. International socialist group was kicked out of the IST for the heinous crime of disagreeing with Alex Callinicos…”
You clearly know nothing about that unfortunate period. Nobody was kicked out for not agreeing with Callinicos, that’s just stupid and petty. There was an extended debate between the ISO and the SWP over the nature of the importance of Seattle in 1999. The ISO expulsions had nothing to do with the decision to exclude them from the IST. It had to do with the ISO’s intervention into a split inside the Greek organization, encouraging that split and speaking at the founding conference of the group that split prior to even having a debate at the Greek convention. A meeting of representatives of groups from the entire tendency voted to sever ties with the ISO as a result of their role in splitting another group.
Your use of incorrect history, ad hominem argument (ie. schoolyard style name-calling) and red herrings renders your arguments completely without merit. It’s just the usual sectarian SWP-baiting nonsense.
LikeLike
Ovenden stated his political perspective in the pre-conference bullitin. It was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the delegates at conference. Expulsions are not decided at conference but by the democratically elected CC. We elect the CC democratically and Ovenden decided not to follow their request for him and Rob Hoveman to stand down as Galloways assistants. This request came about because Galloway had tried to remove Rees from his position as Nat Sec in Respect. Ovenden was colluding with Galloway to have a member of his own CC removed as Nat Sec of Respect. It would be a strange political party indeed that did not expel a member for such divisive behaviour.
It’s one thing to hold different views in the SWP but it’s quite another to attempt to remove a member of the CC from a position of leadership in a political alliance. I doubt even Lenin at his most magnanimous would’ve looked kindly on such treachery. It ‘s very probable that during the civil war Trotsky would’ve ordered someone found guilty of such behaviour to be shot. So please don’t use them to lecture me on the importance of democratic centralism. Ovendens expulsion was democratic centralism in action.
At Marxism every year comrades get up and debate differences of political perspective. The pre-conference bulletins present different perspectives which the conference delegates vote on. There is plenty of formal and informal debate about political strategy within the SWP.
The US group were expelled from the IST because they no longer followed its political strategy. The IST position had been lost in the US group who decided to adopt their own strategy. It’s entirely consistant with democratic centerism to expel a group that has adopted a different political strategy to the one held by a tendency.
LikeLike
I stand corrected, the US ISO expulsion was not based on differences of strategy but they way they conducted themselves due to those differences of strategy which is essentially why Ovenden was expelled.
LikeLike
Ray: the solid facts are the actual role of the MP for Bethnal Green & Bow over the expansion of the City.
Your inability to engage is breathtaking. You think this comes down to liking Livingstone or getting a promise from him or not recognising that hid policy over redevelopment sucks? It’s about dealing with this politically and winning. If you are typical of the political level of the SWP then it’s a miserable outfit.
LikeLike
Nas – as someone who argued that immigrants need a “simple vote Ken message” and that the bigger the defeat for the Left List the better, you’re not really in a position to criticize anyone’s political level.
LikeLike
A simple vote Ken message is important for those whose first language is not English. The voting system is unfamiliar for people in London. There were half a million spoilt ballots last time. Poor and immigrant workers lost out most.
LikeLike
Ray, your ignorance of the internal structures of the SWP is quite alarming. Conference elects a Disputes Commitee of 10 members, whilst the CC nominates two further members. (from the 2004 version of the SWP constitution). it remains accountable to Conference.
Of course, the CC has ’emergency powers’ to expel members but this is not meant to be the norm. In such cases expellees can appeal to the Disputes Committee, which, in any case, must have its decisions ratified by Conference.
Well, that’s the theory anyway
Ask for a rulebook.
LikeLike
Nas when you actually engage in a political debate and provide concrete examples instead of insults then you’re not actually contributing anything to this debate.
I’m surprised that you believe immigrant workers aren’t capable of understanding why they should vote for a socialist. After all, they’ve made a serious commitment, in some cases against great odds, to travel to this country. They’ve overcome no end of difficulties that you (I assume) or I have never had to face and have often left political repression. It strikes me that you don’t want them to understand the debate because they may choose to vote for a socialist rather than a sell-out who is selling off the East End to City developers.
Following your arguement to it’s logical conclusion we must tell immigrant and poor workers to vote Livingstone because it’s easier for them to understand. That’s got to be the most desperate and bizzare justification for a Livingstone vote that I’ve yet heard.
LikeLike
So cameron, you agree with me that the CC doesn’t have to wait until conference to expel someone? As you well know Ovenden didn’t appeal.
What point exactly are you attempting to make? Because if you’re trying to claim that the SWP is undemocratic you need to provide evidence. No amount of obsfucation on your part will change that.
LikeLike
Of course, the SWP is highly undemocratic Ray. To expel members on the eve of the pre-conference period was attempt clamp to clamp down on the democrativc rights of members. The CC could have waited a few months for conference. Especially as these members were actually carrying out perspectives agreed by previous conference regarding Respect.
I don’t agree with them politically, but that’s not the point. Minorities have a right to organise and put their case. But not in the SWP.
LikeLike
Cameron I assume from your uncritical support for Ovenden that you reject internal democracy and agree with the undemocratic manner in which Ovenden and Hoveman conducted themselves? So much for democratic centralism when it get’s in the way of forcing through the strategy of your faction, eh? And you wonder why socialists are critical of an unelected leadership in Renewal handing over nominations to Galloway.
LikeLike
Ray, than allowing democratic debate to flouish, the CC clamps down on anty dissension in the ranks sraightaway. As a result, Rees and co have not had to properly account for their mistakes over the last few years.
I don’t uncritically support Ovenden at all. That ought to be obvious. Yet I do recognise his and others democratic rights to fight for his own political perspective within the SWP.
Tell me, why were Ovenden et al summarily expelled by the CC?
LikeLike
Cameron, I’ve already outlined above why Ovenden was expelled. And no it’s not obvious that you’re critical of Ovenden. I don’t recognise your characterisation of debate in the SWP. Perhaps you’ll provide specific examples of what you accuse the CC of doing rather than make generalised accusations.
LikeLike
Actually, Ray, the SWP initially agreed to establish the new post of National Organiser of Respect, then reneged on it. True?
There is no culture of democratic discussion in the SWP. This is why members who raise criticisms are quicky isolated. Why was Steel initially de
nied access to the SWP internal bulletin. Why was Molyneux mocked and pilloried by the CC for making mild criticisms of the SWP. Why no debates between SWP members in its open publications?
Labour Party dissidents are allowed much freer scope to criticise New Labour.
LikeLike
Ray, regarding the simplicity of the ballot papers, I personally heard Lindsey German make the same point, so drop the racist inferences. They are pathetic. Imagine if you had vote in elections as complicated as those taking place in London and the ballot paper was in Urdu, Arabic or Somalian. Unless proficient in a second language it would be easy to get confused. And for significant numbers of people, many Respect supporters, this indeed is what happened last time.
Our experience in Birmingham is that it is not uncommon to come across people who have no English, or people who can speak English but can’t read it, or people who illiterate and depend on a recongnisable logo to ensure they vote correctly. It is for this later reason that we have received criticisms that our logo should be a distinctive symbol rather than a word.
LikeLike
As for the SWP and democracy, forget what the Weekly Worker say, just listen to John Molyneaux:
“…the nature of the problem can most clearly be seen if we look at the outcome of all these meetings, councils, conferences, elections, etc. The fact is that in the last 15 years (perhaps longer) there has not been a single substantial issue on which the CC has been defeated at a conference or party council or NC. Indeed I don’t think that in this period there has ever been even a serious challenge or a close vote. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of conference or council sessions have ended with the virtually unanimous endorsement of whatever is proposed by the leadership. Similarly, in this period there has never been a contested election for the CC: i.e., not one comrade has ever been proposed or proposed themselves for the CC other than those nominated by the CC themselves. It is worth emphasising that such a state of affairs is a long way from the norm in the history of the socialist movement. It was not the norm in the Bolshevik Party or the Communist International before its Stalinisation. It was not the norm at any point in the Trotskyist tradition under Trotsky.”
LikeLike
Cameron, the SWP didn’t renege on anything. When we realised how much control this unelected post would provide one individual we opposed it. Most notably this post would compromise the position of the democratically elected Nat Sec and that’s why it was proposed by the Renewal faction and rejected by Respect. Rather than exposing the SWP you’re providing more ammunition against the undemocratic practices of the Renewal faction.
Ger are you seriously claiming that we should support Livingstone, as Nas claims, because it will be easier for “poor” and “immigrant” workers to understand?
I note that you print Molyneaux’s comment but don’t balance it by reproducing the comments of those who disagreed with him. But this doesn’t surprise me coming from an unelected leading member of Renewal, an organisation that doesn’t even have any formal and democratic arena for debate that its members can access. Molyneaux is still in the SWP and obviously believes this is much better than emulating the conduct of Ovenden and Hoveman.
LikeLike
Ger – Funny how Molyneux wasn’t expelled after writing such highly critical stuff and is now an SWP rep on the Respect NC. Maybe you should ask him what he says, since he also didn’t leave the SWP when he didn’t get his way in a democratic vote.
Cameron – “The SWP initially agreed to establish the new post of National Organiser of Respect, then reneged on it. True?”
Um, I believe that there is a National Organiser, is there not? So, no, it’s not true.
What the SWP disagreed with was the attempt to create a division inside the SWP by appointing a high profile SWPer known to be in disagreement with the perspectives of the organization. It was a high-handed, obvious maneuver and contrary to the spirit of the compromise that the SWP had made, since it was done without any consultation with the SWP. They were totally right to resist it.
Since you are pretty fast and loose with publicly available facts, it makes the rest of your claims more than suspect.
LikeLike
Red. My point was about the culture of debate inside the organisation, which was poor, top down and encouraged self censorship and deference. And I did not leave, I was expelled.
LikeLike
Ray: they don’t tell you much, do they? The SWP on the Respect National Council all voted for a national organiser sitting alongside Rees. At no point did the SWP oligarchs say after that that they could not accept that organiser. Those arguments were before 29 September and were abandoned at the national council meet that day. You’re either totally ignorant of these matters or you’re dishonest
It’s amazing how many SWP members and their sympathizers believe any old tosh they’re fed.
LikeLike
Well, Nas, speaking of any old tosh, since there IS a National Organiser – Elaine Graham-Leigh, I believe – what are you on about?
LikeLike
Let’s avoid describing each other’s views as “any old tosh” and that type of thing.
Especially on Saturday nights it’s the type of phrase that can raise the polemical temperature and I’ll only delete them on Sunday morning anyway.
Redbedhead the fact that Elaine is now the national organiser is an indication of the fact that virtually every single thing our side of the argument could have been conceded. There were no big issues of principle involved. It had more to do with establishing serious, accountable structures which would allow the party to fight an election. Remember when the debate started it was taken for granted that there would be an election within a few months and it was clear to anyone willing to face reality that the old method of running Respect was as inefficient as it was opaque and cliquish.
As for the expulsions – a nurse of my acquaintance remarked that if he’d been accused of murdering a patient it would have taken much longer for his hospital to sack him.
LikeLike
Nas, redbedhead explains it better than I. But you chose to ignore that so does that make you totally ignorant of these matters or dishonest?
I’ve noticed we’ve deviated away from the topic and are back to argueing over the split again. Is it the strategy of certain members of Renewal to return to the split again and again in an effort to avoid discussing how the left can work together in the future?
LikeLike
Back to the topic of the broad party. I think the left has to reach an agreement over how to work together after the election or accept that building a left alliance is not on the cards at the moment.
As I see it Respect has the input of the SWP and other activists who have links in the unions, community and uni’s and has members on the ground who can organise very effectively. Renewal has a high profile MP and a mix of activists who have achieved some good results in building meetings despite having a lot less people on the ground.
So far so good, where I see the difficulties occuring are over strategy. I realise that there are socialists in Renewal who do not support the vote for Livingstone as 1st pref but the overwhelming impression I have is of that being Renewals position.
As Liam coomments in one of his contributions, while leafleting a Mosque, it was apparent that many people were unaware of the split in Respect. This ihas been my experience also. It’s my impression that there is a large periphery of potenial supporters who have no idea about the split and could probably care less. They’re looking for an opposition to New Labour.
On this basis, at the elections, people will be voting for Respect as an alternative to New Labour and not because they want to take sides over a political disagreement over strategy. Those of us who are still preoccupied with the split are in danger of overlooking what the mood of the class is concerning New Labour and neo-liberalism. Perhaps I’m over egging the pudding here but it seems to me that unless we change our focus away from internicine disputes we will miss the opportunities that present themselves at the moment.
LikeLike
To start off by talking of Respect having had “one hand tied behind our backs in the class war” is one thing, but to post *such* ultra-left stuff about where the SWP’s Respect is going is amazing.
Adam, in a nutshell you’ve encapsulated everything that’s wrong with the SWP’s turn.
I would love you to tell me in what ways your “Left List” is more socialist, more anti-capitalist etc. than Respect.
Anyway, for those who skimmed over it, go back and read it – it contains real, real gems, and a real indication of the thinking of those travelling to the ultra-left with the SWP. It contains the sort of politics that explain the Lindsey campaign entirely focussing on Livingstone and not Johnson.
Well worth a read as a warning about the future of the SWP’s Respect (insofar as it has a future after the elections).
LikeLike
Ray: the Left List won’t exist after 1 May. Respect, however, will – even if it doesn’t win a seat on the assembly. The oligarchs at the top of the SWP will have no electoral intervention. Good. Respect will be in a position to fight that corner. The SWP CC can go off and trumpet Marxism 2008. I received a brochurefor it through the post. Rees not advertised as a speaker. Maybe some people in thebunker recognise the game’s up.
LikeLike
All this hostility! The Left List must be rattling your cages. Shame that you see the sell-out Livingstone as an ally and fellow socialists as your enemy. It says a lot about your politics.
LikeLike
Yes, Ray, that’s exactly it. As usual, you haven’t got it completely, 100% wrong and smeared your opponents, not at all.
The SWP must be proud to have you and Adam supporting it.
LikeLike
“I would love you to tell me in what ways your “Left List” is more socialist, more anti-capitalist etc. than Respect.”
You mean “Renewal” tonyc. We’re still Respect. The most important indicator that the Left List is socialist is because we are standing socialist candidates who don’t tell voters to vote New Labour like your candidates do. We actually have a critical appraisal of Livingstone where your candidates merely follow Galloway and Livingstones agenda.
Since you no longer support socialists but New Labour perhaps the principle of standing socialist candidates who do not support neo-liberal Livingstone uncritically or as first preference is lost on you. No socialist would be proud of you championing Livingstone
LikeLike
Nas I doubt very much that your sectarian vision will come to pass. In this case you might want to envisage how to will respond because a left alliance will still need to be built and the SWP is not going to disappear.
LikeLike
Liam redux 
Leave a comment