This text was voted on and passed at a meeting in London on Sunday 29th June. A Steering Committee was also elected.

 

      The purpose of this document is to launch a regroupment process, which will culminate in a conference after a period of discussion. It registers the most important areas of agreement we have achieved at the beginning of this discussion. There are other areas, not included, which will have to be the subject of further discussion.

 

1. This is a proposal made by members of the International Socialist Group (ISG), Socialist Resistance (SR), a group of former members of the SWP and some independent Marxists not presently in any organisation. It is an invitation to everyone who would be interested in establishing a new revolutionary organisation based on an understanding of the need for Marxists to build a revolutionary organisation and to work for the widest unity of the working class on economic, social and political issues.

 

2. We propose a regroupment, based on our common traditions as active revolutionary socialists. This proposal emerges from practical collaboration over the recent period in building Respect. We also appeal to independent revolutionaries and new militants to join us.

 

3. We hope that a process of discussion throughout this year will culminate in a founding conference to be held towards the end of this year.

 

4. We have a shared analysis of the nature of class society and how it can be changed. Capitalism is an outmoded system which cannot satisfy even the most basic needs of billions of the world’s population. The further advance of humanity and the protection of the environment from catastrophe can only be achieved by the creation of a socialist society.

 

5. The capitalist state cannot be reformed but has to be overthrown and replaced by a workers’ state. This revolutionary act can only be carried out by the working class, the only agency that can transform society.

 

6. The emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself, acting as a class in its own interests. Socialism cannot be achieved from above by reformist politicians or trade union leaders. The struggle for socialism is international; the struggle of workers and the oppressed everywhere is one struggle.

 

7. We recognize that capitalism uses the oppression of certain social groups to divide the working class. The organisations of the working class must constantly strive to overcome any divisions by advancing the causes of these oppressed groups. We oppose all forms of oppression and defend the right of the oppressed to self-organization. We support, and will participate in, the struggles against national oppression, women’s oppression, racism and Islamophobia and against homophobia.

 

8. What existed in the “communist bloc” was not socialism. It was a Stalinist perversion of socialism; a dictatorship that brutally oppressed all political opposition, suppressed workers’ rights and trampled on workers’ democracy. Socialism cannot exist except with the extension of democracy so that the working class collectively takes the decisions about the future of its new society.

 

9. The dominant ideas of the present society are those of the capitalist class. For the revolution to succeed the most militant workers and their allies have to be organised into a revolutionary organisation which challenges and confronts that ideology with one in the interests of the new socialist society.

 

10. The revolutionary organisation must be part of the working class and take part in the life and struggles of the working class and the oppressed. It seeks to absorb the lessons of working-class struggles from the past and from today. It must give guidance and perspective to its members in their activity in the workplace, communities and campaigns. Theoretical study and discussion serve as a guide to the practical work of the organisation. In this way we can test our ideas in practice and learn from our experience.

 

11. Any revolutionary o
rganization must be democratic, including the right to organize around minority viewpoints, but must aim to act in a unified manner. Socialist democracy is the only way to develop a genuine political leadership of the working class and its allies.

 

12. We believe that the decline of the Labour Party and the disintegration of its mass base present the best opportunity for many decades to build a viable alternative to the left of Labour. The signatories of this appeal have been working together as revolutionaries and with others to build such a party. We believe that the building of a united party of the working class is one of the overarching strategic tasks for revolutionary socialists in this period. The role of revolutionary Marxists in helping to build Respect over the next period will be an important one.

 

13. We state clearly our commitment to building a revolutionary socialist organisation, which will locate itself in working-class struggle – in the workplace, in the community, amongst the oppressed and in the broad party.

 

14. We are internationalists, against imperialism and war; we stand for mass action from below in the interests of the working class; we do not set ourselves apart from the working class and its organisations but seek the broadest agreement with others, using the methods of the united-front. Our aim is both to advance the interests of the class and the ideas of revolutionary socialism. To these ends we will explore the possibility of links with other revolutionaries internationally.

 

15. This document is intended only as a preliminary text. We invite all those who are interested in the ideas outlined above to join us in a process of discussion.

 

For more information or to become involved e-mail

 

revolutionaryregroupment@googlemail.com

 

or visit

 

http://revolutionaryregroupment.wordpress.com

 

 

207 responses to “An invitation to participate in the creation of a new Revolutionary Socialist Organisation”

  1. Who are the signatories of this proposal? There is nothing here or on the website.

    Like

  2. Geoff Collier Avatar
    Geoff Collier

    I realise it’s only a preliminary text but I see no mention of ecosocialism, which is how I thought the ISG now think of themselves. Why is that then?

    Like

  3. Because the text was not written just by the ISG. It states clearly “The further advance of humanity and the protection of the environment from catastrophe can only be achieved by the creation of a socialist society”. I would call this an ecosocialist perspective; others may wish to use different terms.

    Like

  4. Surely point 4 encapsulates the ecosocialist argument sufficiently for a basic text of this brevity!

    Like

  5. Broadly I am in favour of regroupment and can’t find anything to disagree with in the 15 points.

    The orginal copy of this document that I saw spoke of us to organise as a revolutionary “party”. My response was as follows:

    For the most part the I agree with the 15 points of the invitation document, however, while I remain committed to the idea that Revo’ Socialists should have some form of separate Marxist organisation, I am not sure that we should model our selves as a separate ‘party’.

    Perhaps this is semantics’s but my experience of what it means to be a ‘party’ within a ‘party’ is that there is (perhaps nesiserly) a dynamic of competition between the two – the question is: which one is the driving force for change, the broad or the revolutionary? How do we square the circle – they can’t both have primacy, they can’t both be the primary site for organising.

    It seems that party has been replaced with organisation. Does this solve my problem? Not sure. What we could do with is a bit more explanation of exactly what kind of Revolutionary organisation we need now.

    Any way I think the statment is good as a starting point but my contribution to pinning down exactly what kind of org we need would be as follows:

    Personally I would like to see Respect (or whatever formation might take its place) as a broad socialist movement, structured as a thoughly democratic party not
    just to the extent that its members vote for its leaders but that grassroots members are generating the strategies and tactics of the party, that they have a real practical say in the running of their organisation.

    And I would like to see a revolutionary group within it as a current within it. A current that does not see itself as the finished party which will carry through the revolution but rather which tries to increase not it’s influence but the influence of revolutionary ideas and strategy within the
    broad party. Key to this is that the revolutionary grouping must accept the primacy of the broad socialist grouping as the vehicle for trying to change the world, thus it must work primarily through it rather than independently through itself.

    Like

  6. Is there something strange happening with blogs comments today?
    When i looked at this earlier, there was only Geoffs comment, to which I replied. Then subsequently there appeared Rolands comment replying to Geoff which was posted well before mine and says the same as mine (but better) but which didn’t pop up until later.

    And Denise’s comment , posted at 8.46am certainly wasn’t there when I posted around 10am!
    Is this what happens when you leave the cats in charge??

    Like

  7. Well an interesting idea, but one that excludes anyone who doesn’t agree with the Respect project and as such not really an invitation at all.

    Like

  8. RobM – don’t cuss the cats!

    The reason for the delay is that a person’s FIRST comment has to be moderated. I was getting a lot of gutless wonders posting anonymous, abusive comments free of politics and I find this is an easy way to make sure that they stay away.

    It makes running the thing less hassle but it means that I’m not always able to administer it in real time.

    Like

  9. Is point 12 deliberately designed to make the new organisation as small as possible? By limitiing only to supporters of Galloway?

    Also there is no mention of what will be done with the ‘united party of the working class’ or how respect can/should be transformed into such a party.

    In point 6 what do you intend to do about removing reformist politicians from positions of absolute power in your ‘broad party’ ?

    Like

  10. Well, it’s a closre run thing between martin ohr and bill j, so I guess the prize for knee-jerk, predictable, wholly negative and sanctimonious comment is going to come down to a penalty shoot out.

    This is clearly an initiative based on working in Respect and needs to be judged on that basis. Permanent Revolution and the AWL don’t work in Respect – indeed oppose it. Of course it’s not directed at them.

    Like

  11. On a separate point it says that such a party “must aim to act in a unified manner” fair enough but this begs a lot of questions about the means by which the party aims to act in a unified manner.
    The tradition of the Bolsheviks and Lenin up to 1917 was that people fought for political leadership of the party’s members who could publically criticise and indeed reject the instructions of higher bodies if they disagreed with them. The ability of anyone to gain adherence to their views dependent on their congency and how far people were won to them – there was almost a complete absence of bureaucratic methods, i.e. “instructions”, “do this or you face disciplinary measures”, “its been decided if you don’t like it then tough – win the majority” etc.
    All the crap the characterises the internal regime of every left group in Britain today. Even when Lenin expelled the boycottists they were expelled from the Bolshevik fraction but not the party – Lenin is explicit on this. And in addition there was the right to criticise openly etc.
    Certainly I think there needs to be a socialist movement in Britain and a revolutionary socialist movement at that and a revolutionary socialist party – but given the history fo the last 10 years this is going to require a significant period of preparation – joint work – trust rebuilding etc.
    No one (outside SR/Respect etc.) is going to join a group where say they are not allowed to publically criticise George Galloway in the party press.

    Like

  12. Well fair enough then Nas. Good luck to your selected invitees.

    Like

  13. Point 14 is interesting, how does that relate to the ISG’s membership of the Fourth International?

    Like

  14. Nas, fair enough, I hadn’t realised it was deliberately only intended for current respect-renewal supporters.

    It seems pointless to me to start a project which explicitly rules out working with the majority of existing revolutionairies, but if you think you can change the world with your dozen or so comrades then good luck to you.

    Like

  15. martin ohr and bill j: I think a little less churlishness is in order. A group of people, reflecting their shared orientation politically, are discussing regroupment. Whatever the merits of that, your two organisations can’t seriously claim to be in a position to object. Given the sneering from both of you, do your honestly expect people who are working in Respect to want to approach you about launching a common organisation. No one in Respect would who I’m aware of would expect the AWL to approach them about launching a new organisation. And talk about “selected invitees” or “your dozen or so comrades” is never very elevating, particularly if it comes from people whose organisations have existed for decades but which count there numbers in the same dozens, or scores at best.

    Like

  16. Nas, sorry, no churlishness intended, and I certainly don’t object to you organising as open revolutionairies.

    Given that the post is entitled ‘an invitation to participate’ it seems strange then to want to discourage everyone who might conceivably do so. I would imagine that everyone who describes themselves as a revolutionary socialist who supports GallowayRespect was in the room for the launch anyway. If you don’t want anyone else to join then why make a song and dance about it.

    Like

  17. …moreover if you are intending to make Respect a united party of the working class than militant trades union activists and revolutionaries like BillJ and me are exactly the sort of people you are going to have to convince.

    Like

  18. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    One of the problems, I think, with the document as it stands is that it allows misunderstandings such as Bill’s and Martins because it does not explicitly nail down the relationship between the broad socialist grouping and the revolutionary grouping and the two differnt regroupment projects that might relate to them.

    The reason the document is aimed only at those within Respect is not because people don’t want to work togeather with others outside of Respect.

    The people who have written the document are Respect members. As Respect members they are willing to talk about WIDER left-regroupment, which may eventually see Respect replaced. This remains a positive but hard to achive goal.

    But this document is NOT about that regroupment, it is about members of Respect who see themselves as Revolutionaries forming a group WITHIN Respect. Not a completly seperate organisation but a part of Respect. As I would see it as a revolutionary current. (a boshi rasin).

    The wider-left regroupment progect will ultimatly be the more important but the regroupment of Revolutionaries within (and as part of) the wider broad left party is also important.

    Like

  19. “Nas, sorry, no churlishness intended”

    ” I would imagine that everyone who describes themselves as a revolutionary socialist who supports GallowayRespect was in the room for the launch anyway.”

    So were you saving up the churlishness for later then?

    There is a process of discussion going on between people who believe in the revolutionary transformation of society and who share a common view about the current priorities for building broad socialist parties, which includes Respect.

    A statement that could get the backing of both Bill and Martin would make me seriously question the validity of such a project in the first place. The fact that both of you have decided to snipe suggests that it may have real legs.

    Like

  20. freecatsleague Avatar
    freecatsleague

    There has never been a greater appetite on the left for regroupment, and in the light of this I’m concerned this project could end up becoming a barrier to this rather than facilitating it. Why, with initiatives such as the convention of the left imminent, preordain the nature of the party we need by including point 12? It smacks of the kind of bureaucratic manoeuvring you are arguing against, as does the response to those here who’ve criticised that point. The argument as to whether we should be building a mass workers party is one which has yet to be resolved (and of course Respect is not the only initiative in this regard); in any case the nature of such a party – revolutionary or reformist – should in itself not be preordained, but be the subject of debate in its formative period, as Trotsky argued.
    We must shed the illusion that left reformist parties offer solutions to the crises facing workers. Nor should we prejudge how much support a revolutionary party could win when the only groups in the UK of any size have been so flawed.
    Delete point 12 and we have a starting point for the discussion you call for, and the potential to unite the majority of the revolutionary left under one banner.

    Like

  21. A rather long way of saying that some of the ex-SWP people who left or were expelled over the Respect split are joining the ISG.

    Like

  22. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    Irish Mark P

    Yes – i think that is exactly what it means.

    No less, and certainly no more.

    Like

  23. Those points in the introduction are bit bland and nothing controversial that anyone calling themselves a Marxist could disagree with ( apart from the Respect stuff of course ).
    So what marks out this new organation apart from all the other competitors for title of “the revolutionary party”.
    Also it’s a concern that ,as Nas’s comments seem to imply,membership is only open to members of Respect Renewal.
    A prospective member would need a bit more info to be honest.

    Like

  24. I think it’s a good idea and have been arguing for such a similar formation for some time.

    Obviously I’d have some disagreement with 12 but I presume this is no handicap as it is a preliminary document and being in a united revolutionary socialist party doesn’t commit you to building Respect even if some do.

    So all in all fairly positive I think- presuming this is all open to further discussion and a process to draw in various revolutionary groups, non-aligned revolutionaries and new activists and militants.

    How do we get to be part of this wider process? I’ve ep-mailed and will post on the other blog.

    Like

  25. Not so fast Nas.

    The first thing that the participants in this process have in common is a shared assessment of European social democracy in general and the British Labour Party in particular. It has moved sharply right, is neo-liberal and has delivered a series of counter reforms in its eleven years in government. We conclude from this that there is a need for a mass class struggle party. The votes won by Respect and other left candidates show that there is a space for this. None of us assume for one moment that Respect is the finished product. That will be clear when some more of the videos from Saturday are posted. Nonetheless it is the most successful initiative of its type so far in England and it will inevitably be an important component of whatever class struggle formation does emerge and we are all unequivocally committed to building it for that reason.

    The second thing the supporters of the statement have in common is an understanding of the need for socialist revolution. The ecological situation that capitalism is creating is a further proof of that. From that comes the need for revolutionaries to organise in some form. That form can be flexible but it does, in my view include the need for a publication and political discussions.

    The third thing we all agreed on is that whatever type of organisation emerges at the end of this process that began at the weekend is that it will not seek to either dominate the broad party by force of organising capacity or weight of numbers. Its own internal life will also allow plenty of scope for dissent. Like Bill I’m by turns amused and annoyed by the Stalinised interpretation of bureaucratic centralism that the British left love so much.

    I think that it’s important that it is a shared political experience and an agreement on medium term perspectives that has made this process possible rather than an abstract will for unity.

    Like

  26. Who is this precisely?

    1) The ISG.
    2) Socialist Resistance, which is essentially the ISG.
    3) A half dozen ex-SWPers. Or are there ten of them?
    4) One or two other individuals in Respect Renewal.

    So the ISG is uniting with the ISG, a couple of people who are already their hangers on and a handful of people who they’ve already been working closely with. I mean really, are there even a dozen people joining this “new revolutionary organisation” who aren’t already in the old “revolutionary organisation?”

    Fair play to the ISG in recruiting a few punters. That’s more than they’ve managed in quite some time. Although the new lot won’t do much to alter the age-profile of the group. I just can’t see anything particularly exciting about it.

    The reactions of Jason and a few others did give me a few seconds of laughter though. If you think that the ISG has any intention of getting into some endless conversation about regroupment with Permanent Revolution or any similar group you will be sadly disappointed. Martin Ohr and Billj show a much sharper grasp on the realities of the situation. PR aren’t invited. The AWL aren’t invited. Other groups aren’t invited. This is the ISG recruiting a few old SWP hands. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Like

  27. To Irish Mark P:

    Well I’m glad to make you laugh. Apparently it helps release tension and reduce the risk of heart disease so a good laugh a day is always good I think. I quite like dancing as well.

    I think though you may be being way too dismissive. There is of course a serious chance that some or may be most of the ISG currently don’t want anyone not supporting Respect involved but I happen to know that at least a few of the Respect supporters would be more than happy to enter in the longer term into a larger formation and see Respect as in no way a finished project or product.

    I disagree with Respect. I see no reason not to be openly socialist and revolutionary. This statement is a move in the right direction therefore and may well be part of something better to come.

    To Liam:
    I agree entirely with your third and fourth paragraphs (counting not so fast Nas as first para).

    I disagree with some of 2 but I assume that’s OK. A united group of socialist revolutionaries will obviously have some disagreements.

    Like

  28. Well I didn’t think I was being churlish. But hey if that’s what various of you think then no sweat.
    The statement seems to straddle two things – first, I should point out it doesn’t say its limited to those who see themselves as revolutionaries in Respect – albeit this is implied and may be an oversight according to various of the responses (the churlish ones ;-p) on here.
    Second though – I think its too vague and too specific. Let’s take the paragraph 8 on the nature of the Soviet Union. What’s the point of it today? The soviet union doesn’t exist. As a summary of the USSR its inadequate – so its too vague – but it may put people off who don’t agree with it – so its too specific.
    Trotsky said about the bloc of four – and of course we don’t have to take his word for it – that agreement needed to be predicated on what we do plus relevent history.
    I think that’s a good way of going forward.
    We need a programme which agrees what we need to do – i.e. what are key action points faced by the working class today and on relevent history – i.e. history which still has purchase in the here an now. The most obvious example is Iraq and Palestine.
    The nature of the soviet union is no longer a defining question for the left because the soviet union does not exist, it is not then, what Trotsky would have called relevent history.
    So we need a programme of action which says what we are going to do together.
    Notwithstanding all of this however, and whether or not this specific initative gets anywhere – I think there is still room for promoting the building of a socialist movement.
    Last year PR approached various (I think pretty much all) the left groups to see whether we could hold a joint event next year – a sort of “alternative Marxism”. Why not do this next year, perhaps in conjunction with the Convention of the Left?
    (Was that polite enough?)

    Like

  29. I dont quite understand how point 12, which is an agreement on a common perspective of how to go forward, can be termed ‘bureaucratic’. It’s our perspective, others have different perspectives. We’re not disputing anyone’s right to put forward their perspective, but this is ours.

    An open-ended discussion of abstract ‘revolutionary’ politics without agreement on a practical perspective is pointless and would not create anything new. A practical perspective is essential. That way new forces can be won as well as existing activists regrouped around doing something constructive (and organising it in a democratic manner). But I’m not interested in ‘discussions’ for their own sake with people who are diehards in opposition to these perspectives.

    Such ‘discussions’ have gone on for decades and lead to very little. That way lies decay. That doesn’t mean that discussions on perspectives are out, but it does mean that we have a view on what perspectives are viable and unless someone comes up with something better, we intend to carry out those perspectives.

    Like

  30. Actually to some extent this initiative was preceded by and no doubt at least partly influenced by something we proposed:
    “The conclusion we draw from that is that all of those – including us but including many others as well – who regard themselves as revolutionary socialists should launch a push for the re-assembling of a revolutionary organisation. In other words our alternative to the “broad left party” is to push for a united revolutionary socialist organisation – clearly distinguished by its commitment to revolution, the revolutionary party and democratic centralism, but willing to engage with wider forces in every campaign and united front.”

    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1967

    Like

  31. Irish Mark P – if you add those groups together you come to substantially more than the ISG/SR alone, so I think the sniffy tone s out of place.

    I also think the process of combing with revolutionaries of different traditions should be a healthy and positive one if done in a genuine way – and whilst the left does have a history of hostile fusions I don’t think this looks like one of them.

    Personally the fact that Respect is part of this initial statement makes perfect sense. There’s no point launching a united socialist grouping who aren’t united on basic tactical questions – if some are in respect and some not its basically not a united socialist organisation.

    That does not mean that those who do not join are by definition not revolutionaries – or group members would be forbidden to work with them – it’s simply a demonstration that there is a shared perspective that makes launching a unified grouping sensible – or at least that’s the way it seems to me.

    Whilst I wont be joining this group as I’ve no intention of joining Respect it looks like an interesting and productive development that I hope leads to good things.

    Like

  32. I think the united refers to being in a common organisation and united in action.

    It’s perfectly possible t have divergent views on tactics e.g. whether or not to be in Respect.

    So joining Respect should in no sense be a precondition to joining a potential united socialist groups- or more precisely a process to debat, discuss and plan what such a group could be.

    Like

  33. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    Jason, I have no idea of the casual effect of your earlier proposal but it is clearly not logically linked to this proposal.

    A key line from yours shows as much, yours said “our alternative to the “broad left party” is to push for a united revolutionary socialist organisation”

    Your proposal is about regroupment of the revolutionary left AS AN ALTERNATIVE to trying to create a broad socialist party.

    This proposal is about regroupment of the revolutionary left WITHIN a broad socialist party.

    Like

  34. Oh for crying out loud, PR retain the core of Workers Power’s old Spartoid politics. They express themselves more politely, haven’t gone in for the “pre-revolutionary” dementia and are careful to present themselves as being interested in “unity”. But really we know and they know and the ISG certainly know that they think that every other group is “centrist” and therefore an obstacle to the building of a true revolutionary current. By which of course they mean PR.

    Their current round of “unity offensives” is their way of applying what they fondly imagine to be the method of the united front to other small left wing groups. The point is to make a series of proposals for joint actions or discussions, at which PR can posture as being more REVOLUTIONARY than its rivals/allies, thus “exposing” them in the eyes of revolutionary minded workers and recruiting from them.

    Now the ISG have never been the brightest group on the British left, as their long unthanked years as John Rees’ bag carriers prior to the recent divorce should remind you, but they aren’t stupid enough to waste their time on this sort of crap. Currently they have a small milieu of ex-SWP flotsam and jetsam around them. So they are launching an initiative aimed at recruiting them. After many, many years of decline this is a welcome shot in the arm for them and they aren’t going to turn it into some opportunity for the three dozen members of PR to out-r-r-revolutionary their own few dozen members.

    Like

  35. Jim Jay said: “if you add those groups together you come to substantially more than the ISG/SR alone, so I think the sniffy tone s out of place.”

    That depends very much on what you mean by substantially. Socialist Resistance is for all intents and purposes the ISG, so the ISG announcing that it is merging with it is a bit cheeky. The non-ISG people involved in this new initiative, between their existing hangers on in SR, the ex-SWP people and perhaps one or two other Renewalists cannot in all seriousness amount to very many people. I’d be very surprised if it was much more than a dozen.

    From the point of view of the ISG however a dozen people may well be considered substantial.

    Like

  36. Blimey! Our cover’s blown! He’s a sharp one that Mark P.
    My only slight quibble is – can’t you be a little more original in your insults – the Militant as a source of inspiration? Come ON! Try harder!!!

    Like

  37. “But really we know and they know and the ISG certainly know that they think that every other group is “centrist” and therefore an obstacle to the building of a true revolutionary current. By which of course they mean PR.”

    I think that would be 1) really stupid 2) arrogant and is (fortunatley) 3) the complete antithesis of both our method and what we propose for how the left should operate.

    By contrast we should see socialists as a resource for the class, to engage in class struggle, to pose questions and solutions by unifying struggles, by posing the neded for working class participation in struggles and to take power in society.

    Only by uniting in action and participating in action will socialists ever get anywhere. That’s why the three dozen or so members of PR are actively engaged in campaigns including campaigns that win and why we are not saying the way forward is join us- seeing the class struggle as an arean for recruitment- but instead see the way forward as building the movement, re-elaboarating and rethinking socialist ideas. Regroupment is part of that- but not just with the tiny groups of the far left (though you have to start somewhere) but in making socialism something vital and atracitve that can offer real solutions for acute problems of everyday life.

    I think Mark you may need to seriously rethink what socialism can and should be.

    Like

  38. Sure – the term substantially could be taken to mean different things. To clarifiy what I meant was that *in terms of the ISG* this is a significant increase.

    ie (and I’m sure the numbers are wrong, but perhaps someone in the group can help me out)

    Going from 25 members with 100 people directly around them to 50 members with 200 people directly around them.

    Still a small grouping – but a step worth taking and an interesting development in my view.

    Like

  39. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    The new grouping will do doubt be very small, 100 odd people tops I guess.

    However, I think that it is important none-the-less to have a home for revolutionary thought with-in Respect at this time.

    Currently Respect is also not so gigantic. Hopefully we will get closer to building a mass socialist party in the future. By that time I would hope that the revolutionary current would also grow.

    Like

  40. Well yes but socialist regroupment doesn’t have to be limted to Respect members and is only a step along the way.

    Like

  41. Irish Mark – I avoid sites about Bono because they make me cross. That is pretty much the effect this site has on you if every single one of your comments is an indicator.

    Since you leave the rest of us in no doubt that, in your utterly correct opinion, every member of every political current outside the CWI is a fool, a timewaster or a hopeless sectarian why squander your precious time on us?

    We’re not good enough for you to dally with and it’s cruel the way you keep reminding us of our all round inferiority.

    Like

  42. Excellent initiative and will be giving it serious consideration myself. It shows the superiority in the long run of political persuasion and exemplary practice over bureacratic manoeuvres.

    I certainly think that positive support for the Respect project as far as it will go should be a precondition although of course Respect isn’t everywhere so I don’t think the regroupment will exclude rev socs in the Labour party or those in other geographical and political locations.

    But Jason, you and Bill J have not acted as the honest brokers you think you are in this whole Respect split failing on every occasion to take the SWP to task for their wrecking tactics and didn’t you just split from WP. Perhaps if you really want regroupment you should rejoin them first. Also, the AWL are to the right of Respect and most Labour reformists on some key questions so any reorganisation that included them would instantly exclude far more.

    Anyway Andy, I think this is a great deal more than what you are portraying it to be at leat potentially.

    Like

  43. David Ellis – “I don’t think the regroupment will exclude rev socs in the Labour party or those in other geographical and political locations.”

    Actually it really has to if it is to have any coherence. It should work with people outside of the ranks of Respect consistently and closely – but in order to be a functioning organisation it should be for members of Respect only (until such a time that it chooses to leave).

    If it has labour party members, respectites, PR types et al it will get bogged down in either bickering or timidity. In my view.

    Like

  44. jim jay: “Going from 25 members with 100 people directly around them to 50 members with 200 people directly around them.” !!!

    have you been to the swp school of counting or something, I can probably name every single member of the ‘new’ group and I only know about 25 people in the whole world.

    Like

  45. Well I think it has potential despite some disagreements with some of the participants on some aspects of their politics. But a left that can’t cope with some differences on some issues won’t be any good to anyone!

    Like

  46. David Ellis: “Also, the AWL are to the right of Respect and most Labour reformists on some key questions so any reorganisation that included them would instantly exclude far more”

    for example what, the centrality of the working class? consistent opposition ruling whereever they are in the world, solidarity with all oppressed groups, consistent pro-choice position?

    Like

  47. martin – i did say my numbers were probably wrong and wanted to be corrected (by a member of the group) so that rules me out of the swp maths A level I’m afraid.

    Like

  48. Yes, yes Jason. You are in favour of apple pie and motherhood and kittens and general happiness. I get it.

    But in these circumstances what you are mainly in favour of is an opportunity to counterpose your vision of an independent “openly revolutionary” organisation (ie PR) to the ISG’s Respect-focused reformism.

    You know (or perhaps you don’t, but Billj certainly does) that there is zero prospect of this particular milieu deciding en masse to give up Respect for a PR style Spartoid approach or of PR itself being persuadable to take the ISG’s approach. Nobody remotely serious within PR thinks that unity between themselves and whatever the ISG plus hangers on group calls itself is possible. What you are proposing is an endless exchange of fixed positions, while PR get on with the real work of trying to fish in the ISG’s pond for recruits.

    The ISG have no interest in that from you or from Workers Power, the Weekly Worker crew or similar outfits. They have a small milieu around them. They haven’t had such a thing in a long time and they’re not going to let the opportunity pass. You aren’t invited.

    Like

  49. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    Jason – “Well yes but socialist regroupment doesn’t have to be limted to Respect members and is only a step along the way.”

    But (forgive me for trying to press this point again) this current proposal isn’t about socialist regroupment its about grouping together revolutionary socialists.

    There will (no doubt) be a process of wider (i.e. socialist with out the revolutionary requirement) in the future. This is not it, nor does it aim to be it, nor should it be it.

    You may be right that, rather then a broad socialist party with different currents (including revo’ soc’) within it, we just need a big Revo’ party. I think you are wrong. I’m not sure who we could be in the same organisation with such different long-term tactical differences.

    Like

  50. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    That’s an accidental smiley.

    Like

  51. Most of the splits in left groups have been around the issue of alliances and our attitudes to other political forces, either within our own countries or internationally. I think that a new revolutionary socialist group that started out with two blocs, having pre-exisitng positions on Respect – for and against – would not be stable. This is distinct from people who may have a more nuanced view, say like “I’m not about the trajectory of Respect, but I’m prepared to work to build it and let’s see how it goes”. It doesn’t mean only supporters of the Respect project could join the new organisation, but it probably does mean that if you don’t you might find life in the group quite difficult, as anyone who has deep disagreements about a revolutionary organisation’s day-to-day priorities would, however internally democratic that organisation might be.

    Joseph (5th comment) raised the point about which has primacy, to which my answer would be the broad party (where it is organised) from the point of view of day-to-day campaigning activity, selling the press, etc. That is what we want to build (and should be easier to build), because we think what could be several thousand people, organised on a basic class struggle programme, are more effective for the immediate tasks of the present, than a small revolutionary group. So I broadly agree with the way Joseph puts the question.

    On the question of the FI: clearly this is not decided and the new organisation would have to work out how it relates to the FI. There are several possibilities. This document is the basis for discussions, not the final agreement.

    Like

  52. Liam:

    Far from making me cross, this site generally provides me with some amusement. Occasionally it even provides useful and interesting information. However, I find it difficult to take some aspects of the far left, and in particular the self-regard of some of the smaller grouplets, particularly seriously. Laughing at the absurd is, as Jason points out, enjoyable and even therapeutic.

    So when the ISG presents its recruitment of less than a dozen ex-SWPers in fifteen paragraphs of boilerplate about founding a new revolutionary organisation, I think it’s pretty funny. That’s more than one paragraph per new member! I think it’s a lot funnier when some even smaller group comes scurrying along as if it really wants to be involved when all of us know that their interest is in denouncing, exposing and recruiting.

    Is it now required that we take people as seriously as they take themselves in order to comment here?

    Like

  53. “grouping together revolutionary socialists.” is fine by me.

    Why should we do it?

    Because 1) we need to part of rebuilding a movement which can win on vital issues such as for example the changes needed to combat catastrophic climate change, privatisation, racism, deportations, job cuts, wage cuts, wars etc.

    2) by engaging in united front struggles fraternal discussions between socialists take on a real meaning. For example is Mark P right that socialists should pose program as anu ultimatum, am I right that we need to get beyond such formualtions, are those who argue for standing in elections right or those who pose the need for rebuilding networks of rank and file militants right (these are not necessarily of course counterposed). We can discuss this all day long in meetings without much clarification but if we can revuild a movement that tests different apporaches in struggle and wins workers at first in thier hundreds, then thousands, then tens of, then hundreds of etc. etc. we can begin to get real answers.

    I honestly don’t think this can be reduced to just having a bug Revo party, Joseph (“You may be right that, rather then a broad socialist party with different currents (including revo’ soc’ within it, we just need a big Revo’ party. “)

    I think it’s something very different. It’s about opening up discussions amidst unity in action about socialists should do and what socialism should be.

    No single person or group has all the answers. Far from it.

    Like

  54. That too was an accidental smiley perhaps pasted from yours! But hey let’s spread the love- an intentional smiley 🙂

    Like

  55. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    😛

    Like

  56. Well I’m glad the site doesn’t make you cross and provides you with amusement. I take it you’re a little like the grand old man sat on top of the mountain, smiling at the indiscretionsof the foolish children squabbling below.
    But can you just try to be a little less pompous and full of yourself?

    Like

  57. Even worse! You’re in the CWI! Hell no wonder!

    Like

  58. That’s the spirit Billj!

    You weren’t really cut out for Jason’s “good cop” role anyway.

    Like

  59. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    A) Regrouping revolutionary socialists who share the perspective of working primarily through the broad socialist party. The broad party would bring together activists to help coordinate and discus the working class fight back – it would be the viachle through which the activists involved offered a political perspective to “the class”. The revolutionary current would organise to spread revolutionary ideas and perspectives within the broad group.

    B) Alternative proposal “push for a united revolutionary socialist organisation”. The revolutionary party would bring together activists to help coordinate and discus the working class fight back – it would be the viachle through which the activists involved offered a political perspective to “the class”.

    A is one perspective, which I would suggest this document mostly reflects. B is a different perspective (which Bill and Jason seem to hold)

    A’ers and B’ers can do doubt be jointly involved in “rebuilding a movement which can win on vital issues such as for example the changes needed to combat catastrophic climate change, privatisation, racism, deportations, job cuts, wage cuts, wars etc.” through “engaging in united front struggles”. As to can C’ers who are socialists of different perspectives.

    What though would be the point of A’ers and B’ers being in the same “Revolutionary socialist” organisation???????

    Like

  60. Unfortunately I couldnt make the meeting, but I’m very pleased an initial statement has been released and a steering committee has been formed for the regroupment process.

    I’m sorry for Martin that he only knows about 25 people in the whole world. However the ISG has substantially more than 25 members and there are as many SR supporters not in the ISG. Also there are a large number of ex-SWPers and independents that support this process. Hopefully as regroupment discussions develop more comrades will relate to this initiative. It is possible that any new group coming out of this may have more Independents or ex-SWPers than either existing ISG or SR supporters.

    It is excellent that so many comrades working together in RESPECT have recognised that they have substantial agreement on political questions (despite differing political pasts) to take this step forward.

    Like

  61. As someone who is committed to the Respect project, am I the only person who is extremely wary of another ‘party within a party’?

    And I really would like to know who the signatories to this proposal are, and who was elected onto the Steering Committee. Surely this information should be available on the website?

    Like

  62. I can see A and B are different. I can also see and heartedly agree that people who support A,B,C …. etc can and should be involved in united front campaigns.

    However, I see no reason now to before any further discussions have taken place say that there’s no possibility of A’ers and B’ers (if we must use that construction!) that there is no possibility of revolutionary socialists being in the same larger organisation with the right to disagree on some issues including for example whether Respect is a good idea.

    As in the past in the Socialist Alliance there was disagreement on whether or not to move towards a party, whether or not to advocatge a vote for Labour (where the SA weren’t standing) as there was disagreement initially among the Bolsehviks on attitudes to soviets, etc. etc.

    Let’s try and do things differently perhaps and not always be about excluding people?

    Like

  63. Tell me about it. He’s been saying that all weekend.

    Like

  64. Certainly seems to have got the comments flwoing in Liam. For clarification my post above (perhaps with several others now sandwiched between?) was a reply to Jospeh.

    Anyway it’s a lovely day and I’m going out for a cylce ride, weekly shopping, perhaps a drink and avoid watching Murray lose at Wimbledon.

    Like

  65. But you’re an excllent singer, Bill- well in enthusiasm and party spirit at least which counts for a lot!

    Anyway really am out now. See you all aother time! Perhaps some even in real life!

    Like

  66. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    Denise, if this turns out to be a “party within a party” then I would share your worries. Thankfully I think there is little apatite for that.

    Like

  67. Denise – it’s not a “party within a party”. It, should things work out, will be a smallish activist and propaganda organisation. That’s my judgement and others may disagree.

    As you will see when I start putting up the videos from the European speakers at the weekend the one thing that all the new left formations have is that they are unstable. The international experience makes it self evident to us that those of us who share broadly similiar ideas should retain some level of organisation. By way of contrasting example none of us would be interested in having 50% of the seats on Respect’s leadership.

    As for the names – we are still dotting some is and crossing some ts – these will probably be available pretty soon.

    Like

  68. I really hope those names will be ‘available soon’ or else there is a real danger opf a lack of transparency becoming pretty swiftly a ‘party within a party’ as Denise entirely correctly in my view puts it.

    But my concern goes further. Respect is a tiny organisation, with virtually no internal culture, and not much of the fabric of a national party. It has two vitally important georgraphical constituencies, East London and South Birmingham which have a huge, and of course not accidental, demographic commonalities, predominantly Muslim working class.

    In this situation for a group of Respect’s leading members to think their priority is to dabble with ‘revolutionary socialist regroupment’ seems staggeringly ill-conceived and for me at least calls into question their political judgement I’m afraid. Yes the SWP have gone from Respect but right now we’re not left with a lot. What possible use is a ‘revolutionary socialist regroupment’ going to be to holding on to our council seats, our MP’s seat, let alone winning more? Right now that’s all that should matter, something like this is a wilful distraction which the rest of us in Respect could well do without thankyou very much.

    Mark P

    Like

  69. Good grief where did the ISG go so wrong that it only has 25 members left?

    Like

  70. Apologies if that remark comes across as trollike but such a decline would be quite shocking even given the numerical decline of the left as a whole.

    Like

  71. Oh dear.

    I should have remembered that the left is obsessed with numbers… sorry…. that 25 was just a guess and was always intended to be corrected by someone who knows better (and has honest intentions) – I’m sure they have a cast of thousands!

    Like

  72. George S – The ISG has substantially more than 25 members as stated above.

    Mark P – why are you speaking about the rest of us in RESPECT? You’re sounding like a self appointed spokesperson. You may find this regroupment a wilful distraction that you could do without, but how can you assume everybody else in RESPECT feels the same?

    Mark- RESPECT has got to win elections but it has to do much more. It needs to attract the white working class and develop in areas outside Tower Hamlets, Newham and areas of Birmingham.

    Like

  73. Mark – for some of us it’s because we frequently meet up with like minded people to discuss British and international politics that we are able to sustain an engagement with Respect. There is no conflict at all between doing the two things. During the recent election campaign supporters of SR were very actively involved.

    Like

  74. Well if the ‘rest’ of Respect is waiting excitedly to see what a revolutionary socialist regroupment can offer it in terms of political inspiration I’d be both sorely surprised and resigned to the organisation embarking on headlong decline into being yet another tiny far left grouplet, which would be a real shame.

    Mark P

    Like

  75. There’s no danger of that Mark. Have a sit down.

    Like

  76. That does also rather assume that far left politics always lead to small or even tiny left grouplets.

    I’m a socialist (though not in Respect)- in the campaigns and struggles I’m involved in I argue for the politics, tactics and organisation necessary to win and draw in most people. That can often mean- almost always – drawing in lots of people who are not revolutionary socialists- some of whom perhaps sometimes become through the struggle socialists.

    Our aim is to win primarily- not to recruit members. In the longer term I think there may well come a time when those objectives are not counter-posed and indeed in mass struggles when decisive class battles are on the agenda it may well be winning people to socialism is decisive in winning power. We are alas some way off such a prospect.

    We should be relatively open about whom we work with. There was a very interesting discussion at the PR event between John McDonnell, Hilary Wainwright, PR supporters and others on how to build that mass movement and learning to rethink socialism, party and struggle. Hopefully soon it will be available online as it was videoed.

    Like

  77. My reading of what’s being proposed is that it’s about various revolutionary socialists inside Respect forming a distinctive political current as part of the broader organisation. Not a party within a party, not the embryo of a ‘new’ revolutionary group drawing in people from outside Respect, and not an SWP-style caucus of control freaks. Simply a prospective political tendency forming one of the many different strands that go to make up Respect. Nothing for people to get worked up about, but a welcome development from the point of view of some Marxists inside Respect who, like myself, believe that revolutionary ideas have a positive role to play in the type of broad party we’re trying to lay the foundations for.

    Like

  78. If it is just a proposal fro those in Respect I think it is a good idea but it does seem at least potentially to be quite a bit wider than this.

    It is after all entitled “An invitation to participate in a new revolutionary socialist organisation”.

    That’s hardly the same as a cuacus in Respect for revolutionary socialists though that may be a good idea too and there is obviously some overlap on this issue in the way the points are posed.

    But only one of the 12 points presupposes supporting Respect and it is billed as provisional.

    Like

  79. I’m inclined to agree with Mark P.

    Respect has survived and has already regrouped, it’s now a stronger and more positive party with a clear agenda. I don’t have a problem with reformists and revolutionaries working together it’s just that I have a dread of a similar situation, of another party within Respect dictating terms for their own ends, happening again a year or two down the line.

    The scars are just beginning to heal (though some friendships never will) and I don’t want to go through all that again.

    Like

  80. Whilst I can sympathise with Mark P and Denise’s concerns I think they are unwarranted at this stage. The ISG and the others involved in this ‘regroupment’ have played a very positive role within Respect over the last year and more and I see no reason why this should not continue.

    For me the most important part of this process may well be the discussion and debate rather than the outcome. For what may become clearer though this discussion is not just what self-confessed ‘revolutionary socialists’ think about their own mathods of organisation but also exactly what type of party they are trying to build in Respect. This will involve a thorough going examination of the changing political landscape both nationally and internationally.

    That in it self should be no bad thing.

    I should declare an interest here in that, at present,(despite mostly agreeing with the content of the statement) I feel no desire or inclination to join any group other than Respect

    Nonetheless, one of the weaknesses of Respect Mark 1 was that it’s major component – the SWP – had failed to clearly theorise and articulate what exactly it was hoping to achieve with Respect. (The ‘United Front of Special Kind’ was so ‘special’ that nobody seemed to know what it meant.) That resulted in some members being fully involved, some just joining but doing little and others never joining at all. That lack of clarity was always going to leave that organisation somewhat ‘confused’ (putting it politely) when a real crisis emerged last autumn.

    So if this process of ‘regroupment’ leads to greater clarity for some then alls to the better.

    The joy of being in a ‘broad’ organisation like Respect is that we are able to bring together a range of people on the left. If some want to discuss -openly, honestly and constructively with each other, the positive contribution their politics can make then I’m all in favour of the process, even if I may not necessarily agree with the conclusion.

    Like

  81. Don’t worry Denise. The ISG have been there all along and most of the people in this proposed grouping have a point to prove when it comes to building Respect having just tenaciously fought the wrecking antiics of the SWP.

    Like

  82. Very sensible, Clive. And indeed the project- of looking at whether there can be “a new revolutionary organisation based on an understanding of the need for Marxists to build a revolutionary organisation and to work for the widest unity of the working class on economic, social and political issues”
    – seems to be perfectly capabable of being wider than Respect as now constituted.

    Indeed to think otherwise would be to have come to the conclusions before the process of debate and discussion.

    Like

  83. It’s a very liberal internal arrangement in Respect – if people want to get together or regroup there’s nothing to stop them. No one would try to stop them.

    Whether it is a wise use of time or a rather grandiloquent term for a relatively small group of people joining another group of people and calling themselves something new is moot.

    Denise and Mark P’s points are highly pertinent here. People might dismiss Mark P as a Eurocom (aren’t labels terribly easy) or, less pejoritively, an experienced political activist and relegate his comment accordingly. He is, however, very committed to building Respect.

    So is Denise, someone who can’t be brushed aside as some variety of hack or another. The reaction of Respect stalwarts like her ought to give serious pause for thought among everyone in Respect.

    Like

  84. Mark P

    Why don’t you write a piece for the Respect paper to mark the forthcoming anniversary of the Cuban Revolution: “Lessons to be learnt, 50 years on: how Fidel and Che would have made a much better job of it if they hadn’t been revolutionaries and they hadn’t organised”.

    Perhaps there’s a Respect branch that would be interested in organising a meeting on the subject.

    Piers

    Like

  85. Good sense from Denise and Mark p (the English one – though I have enjoyed the Irish Mark P’s acidity)

    Of course the comrades are at liberty to do what they wish to do, and the constitution and ethos of Respect permist them to do so. But getting moore people to engage in a futile and unnecessary exercise is worse than having fewer people wasting their time.

    We should also be clear that despite the fact that the ISG may well be nice people, and committed to respect, the cadre style parties of the trot left have been a terrible dead end – combining wishful thinking and delusional fantasy with organisational conservatism and routinism.

    The key task for Respect in the current period is to become the most left wing part of the politically relevent mainstream, in order to seek to pull the whole mainstream to the left.. We have enormous assets to acheive this, in George Galloway, and Salma yaqoob, but also the other activists in the London East End and Birmingham, who have achieved a remarkable feat in building an electoral base. We also have a lot of talented people, and should be trying to engage with the more mainstream debates in the movement about how to redress the defeats of the recent years, and create an ideological alternative to neo-liberlaism.

    I hear what Clive is saying about the need for clarity and debate, but personally i am much much more interested in what Abjol Miah, or Hanif Abdulmuhit or Salma Iqbal think about the future of Respect, than what Alan Thornett and Phil Hearse think. No disrespect to the comrades personally, but we have eard it all before, we have tried it all before,and the british far left has got precisely no-where with those ideas.

    I am more interested in respect having a constructive working relationship with MPs like Jon Cruddas and Adam Price on issues where we have common ground than in what the fractious dispora of trot groups think.

    Like

  86. Piers.

    I am second to none in my admiration of what has been acheived in Cuba.

    But is it a serious starting point that the political context of Gordon Brown’s Britain has any similarity with Cuba fifty years ago?

    We live in a stable parliamentary democracy, with a deep cultural and popular attachment to constitionality and good governence, with a legacy of over a hundred years of labourism, where the basic ideas of class consciousness are increasingly marginal, where the working class constitues a decreasing percentage of our society, and where there is such cultural diversity that there is little sense of a common identity among working people.

    Despite the understanding tolerance that many activists show towards people who think of themselves as revolutionaries, which may be mistaken for support sometimes, the ideas of revolutionary socialism are utterly marginal and have almost zero traction in our society.

    So instead of basing our politics on Russia in 1917, or Cuba in 1958, perhaps we should have an honest and not self-deluding look at the type of society we actually live in – England 2008 – where there is space for a dynamic left social democratic party.

    Like

  87. good work but keeping talking to the ecosocialist outside respect.

    Marxist politics which is not based on sectarianism is always welcome by me.

    Like

  88. I have disagreements with your position on the British Labor Party, which should not be a surprise, since I joined IMT.

    Still good luck.

    Like

  89. It sounds like a good idea to develop the socialist current in Renewal. If this is intended to develop into a revolutionary socialist organisation then I assume that one of the difficulties in terms of bringing socialists from different political currents together will be developing a unified analysis of capitalism.

    One of the key issues that has divided the left has been the nature of Stalinism, it’s relationship to capitalism and how as socialists we should orientate ourselves to it.

    This may not impact on the day to day struggles that we are involved in nationally but internationally it is still relevant. Working together is quite possible but forming an organisation of socialists with quite different perspectives on this issue is probably more difficult.

    To give one example, the split in Workers Power developed out of a disagreement in perspective among comrades who came from the same tradition and generally agreed with one another. I wonder whether it’s possible for comrades with quite different perspectives to unify around a common program.

    I’m not trying to pour cold water on it. I just think the issues I’ve raised will need to be worked out.

    Like

  90. Andy makes the point that we are a long way from socialism. The world is crap- poverty kills thousands every day, war, oppression- environmental destruction threatens our very existence as a species.

    He argeus that the idea that human beings can control our own lives and wrest power from the greedy elites destroying all hope, meaning and control has no traction. I disagree.

    We may be a long way from the final goal. But every day workers are motivated by struggles over exerting control in thier lives. Is it really so mad to say working class people should be able to run our own lives? Is it so impossible to say we ought to be able to stop catastrophic climate change and the destruction of humanity?

    Of course politics like life itself is difficult. People disagree and sometimes go their seperate ways. Big deal.

    I was once in Workers Power and in the faction that was expelled. this was because we were fundamentally reassessing our politics and the Marxist tradition- arguing that it needs to be revitalised, renewed. We had differences over perspective but that doesn’t mean we can’t work together in a common fight or project. Ditto with socialists in respect, SWP, SP or elsewhere.

    We need to start being more fluid and open in our politics. Socialism is about saying working class people and hunmanity can win back meaning, power and control. It will mean a fight to overthrow a mode of production killing the planet. it will mean a fight to transform ourselves. But against Andy’s counsel of despair, the daily dignity of billions resisting oppression, poverty and war, of transfoirming themselves in the porcess, gives us hope that it is possible

    Like

  91. Andy

    As I’m sure Mark P will tell you when you next speak to him, my posting was a little leg-pulling Haringey Respect in-joke. Only a delusional time-waster would suggest that one way of rebuilding the left in Britain today is by celebrating the Cuban revolution.

    Piers

    Like

  92. I’ve got nothing new to add, because Briz Blogger has said it all for me:

    Simply a prospective political tendency forming one of the many different strands that go to make up Respect. Nothing for people to get worked up about, but a welcome development from the point of view of some Marxists inside Respect who, like myself, believe that revolutionary ideas have a positive role to play in the type of broad party we’re trying to lay the foundations for.

    The really churlish responses here are Andy’s (I wasn’t expecting anything different from either Mark P). Personally I think this is a thoroughly encouraging development. I mean, I’m a Marxist, I think we need a mass left party, I think Marxism is going to be valuable in getting us there, and here we have a regroupment of Marxists who also think those things – what’s not to like? (Plus I’ve always liked the ISG.)

    Like

  93. Phil. Apologies for appearing both predictable, and churlish.

    Yes, yes, yes, in a broad socialist party of many thousands of members, significant political and cultural interventions underway, many hundreds of elected representatives needing to be called to account, a detailed policy programme to debate over an organised Marxist tendency wouldn’t only be welcome, but a necessity.

    Meanwhile in less than two years an organisation with a couple of hundred members, and next to nothing in the bank account will be fighting tooth and nail to hold on to its one MP, add a second or third and in London – quite possibly on the same day – seeking to retain its hard fought council seats and
    perhaps add a few more.

    And that campaign will be concentrated in the two areas where Respect has a modest electoral base, London’s East End and South Birmingham which share in common being overwhelmingly Asian and Muslim. Not an accident of course yet in terms of Respect’s own ‘regroupment’ a central, defining, element, and of infinitely more significance than ‘revolutionary socialism’ right now.

    Personally I find these daunting enough propositions to grapple with and the potential gains plenty to keep me excited about too. But each to their own I guess.

    Mark P

    Like

  94. Mark – I think Liam’s already replied to that comment:

    for some of us it’s because we frequently meet up with like minded people to discuss British and international politics that we are able to sustain an engagement with Respect. There is no conflict at all between doing the two things. During the recent election campaign supporters of SR were very actively involved.

    Like

  95. Andy Newman said:

    “We should also be clear that despite the fact that the ISG may well be nice people, and committed to respect, the cadre style parties of the trot left have been a terrible dead end – combining wishful thinking and delusional fantasy with organisational conservatism and routinism.”

    There is an element of truth in this characterisation. However it leaves out several things: firstly, the need for revolutionary politics, which Andy clearly doesn’t agree with, but which has been well articulated above by Jason. Secondly, the Trotskyist left, more than any other tendency, has kept alive Marxist theory and practice through a series of very difficult struggles and setbacks in the twentieth century. I don’t think that heritage should be belittled.

    At the same time we have been able to learn from our past and current experiences, even while perhaps being a bit dogmatic and organisationally conservative. I will give some examples where we are not politically or organisationally routinist and conservative:

    1) The embracing of ecosocialism, which represents the start of a reappraisal of hitherto accepted Marxist dogmas (there is a side debate about the extent to which these dogmas are attributable to Marx) concerning growth, affluence and the extent to which the working class can merely appropriate the productive forces of Capital.

    2) The experience in Portugal, where the Left Bloc, led, but not bureaucratically controlled by revolutionaries and whose most well-known member is a Trotskyist, has 8 MPs and 5,000 members in a country of 10 million. The Bloc has evolved an exemplary way of functioning – rotation of MPs, small full-time apparatus, with diversion of its considerable resources (resulting from having its MPs) to public street campaigning and propaganda. This has led to the Bloc having an important role in the victory in the abortion referendum (in a Catholic country), major initiatives on legalisation of drugs etc. The Bloc leads the workers’ commission in the largest industrial plant in the country. The main revolutionary groups in the left Bloc, the UDP and PSR, have not dissolved, but the essentially put all their resources into building the bloc and they operate more as associations of like-minded people.

    3) In France, where the LCR, faced with objective needs for a broader party, that doesn’t limit its potential growth by being committed to a full revolutionary programme, but with no external organised forces to ally with to build such a party, was faced with a big problem. It could have set up a front, basically under its control, but with a different name and a lot of posturing about its broadness. Perhaps this sounds familiar?

    How to persuade socialist militants, outside the LCR, many of whom would be suspicious of the group’s motives in an initiative of this type, that it will be serious in its attempt to provide space for all members of the new party? Amongst other things that will be done, is that the LCR will dissolve. In the past, many (including me) would have thrown their hands up in horror at such a prospect. This must be total liquidationism, for one of the largest revolutionary groups in the world (and one of the most successful, in terms of its political base, culture and contribution to the development of Marxism) to voluntarily throw away all its heritage and gains!

    But, of course, the militants in the LCR, will still be organised, but as members of the new party, alongside the rest of the members – for activities in the day-to-day class struggle and discussions of the way forward, plus (presumably) in forums for theoretical discussion. There is no reason why Trotskyist ideas should not flourish, develop and deepen in this new context. Their decision is a reflection of the relative strength on those ideas already in the new formation.

    As far as Respect is concerned, perhaps this is something the SWP could have done (dream on, PhilW!), reflecting its much greater (numerical) strength than the rest of the left, and it was one that I (and others) argued from the time of the SA, in the sense that we said it should hand over its paper to the whole of the SA. That would have posed some interesting issues for the other left groups in the SA (including the ISG).

    Now, dissolving is not really on the agenda, but that does not mean that we don’t need new organisational forms or new ways of behaving as revolutionaries in a broad class struggle party. We can still use some of the international lessons.

    Like

  96. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    Except Phil, that isn’t the whole story.

    As you know there was a meeting of former SWP members, some of whom were keen on creating some sort of revolutionary group, other were more interested in building Respect.

    The differences in perspective became most obvious when a group of London based X-SWP members organised a series of marxist eductaional meetings for every weekend during April this year – as a greater priority than campaigning for the elections.

    The timetable was:

    Sunday 16 March
    Working class composition and consciousness in contemporary Britain

    Sunday 30 March
    Capitalist Globalization and the world economy

    Sunday 13 April
    The demise of Social Democracy and the nature of reformism today

    Sunday 27 April
    Marxists and the Broad Party

    Now maybe they didn’t go ahead with them I don’t know, but the fact that comrades could even consider this a priority over working to get galloway elected onto the GLA (which at the time we considered a real possibility) shows that there is a problem.

    Like

  97. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    “The need for revolutionary politics” has not “been well articulated above by Jason”

    All jason has said is that capitalism is crap, and wouldn’t it be better to have something nicer, combined with some rhetoric about the “working class people and humanity can win back meaning, power and control.” …. “the daily dignity of billions resisting oppression, poverty and war, of transfoirming themselves in the porcess, gives us hope that it is possible”

    Why not throw in talking animals, centaurs, dryads, and a big God-like lion?

    Politics starts with the world as it is, ,and not how you would lke it to be.

    i am sorry of this seems churlish, but the key thing to understand is that the gap that has opened by the right-ward shift of the Labour Party is a missing social democratic party, and only a social democratic party can fill that space.

    There is a very real danger that Respect will blow the opportunity, if we overly engage with the mindset that judges progress by number of papers sold, and the treadmill of activity of the far left groups.

    You really need to look at what has happened in the world and particularly britain over the last forty years.

    yes, yes, the Trotskist groups have maintained a cadre who have knowledge of marxism, but to a certain degree this is a resilience akin to the survival of millenarian religious groups like the Muggletonians – by cutting ourselves off from the real world.

    The forwads looking task is to engage with the debate in mainstream politics, not take our points of reference from the revolutionary left.

    Like

  98. It is ridiculous to talk of a ‘socialist current’ in Renewal – Respect is a socialist party. And as socialists we aim to become the viable left alternative in the political mainstream, Andy’s quite right. I think we can achieve that by being as broad and inclusive a party as possible, hopefully without any factionalism. In my view, nothing should be allowed to undermine those aims.

    Like

  99. Hello everyone. I don’t usually engage in these blogs things but I wanted to comment on this whole how people are spending their time issue that seems to be coming up. I totally support and am engaged in this regroupement process. I’m also currently working on completing issue 5 of the Respect newspaper which I hope you all read and like. During the recent election campaign the people referred to by Andy did hold some of these discussions. They were also out on the streets and the campaign bus daily. They were also over to help fight Dilwara’s campaign in Tower Hamlets. I also designed and sorted out the banners for the bus as well as other campaign materials.

    Now, the only reason I mention this is because others are being critical of how time should be spent. I do find it very annoying that those same people seemed to be quite absent from the election campaign and in general are more concerned with commenting on events rather than participating in them.

    This regroupement will strengthen Respect not weaken it. All those concerned have been working hard to build Respect and that’s not going to change. So before you are critical of how others are shaping up to the challenge of building Respect, please look at your own involvement and, if you aren’t already, get stuck in!

    Like

  100. I should also add that the meetings listed by Andy were to be held late on a Sunday afternoon for a duration of 1 1/2 hours approx. I don’t think it would have been that productive to be campaigning at that time and we delayed most of them as people had been busy with the election.

    Like

  101. Denise, I don’t think there’s any question of factionalism. The ISG have behaved impeccably in Respect, and will no doubt continue to do so. The ex SWP members are ‘ex’ precisely because they were disgusted by the SWP leadership’s factionalism and sect-building. They turned their backs on years (in some cases a lifetime) of engagement with the SWP on that principled basis. And the independents attracted to this current are attracted to it because it represents a clean break from the factionalism and conservative thinking of the past.

    So I think that there’s a danger of over-reacting. Revolutionary socialists inside Respect have a right to meet and discuss ideas, and develop their own distinctive approach – provided that they are transparent, open and honest, and provided that they DO NOT block together in meetings the way the SWP did. I see absolutely NO danger of that happening – because all of the people that I know of who are involved in this initiative have definitively broken with that approach to building the broad party, many of them at a considerable personal cost.

    Like

  102. Ignoring the usual anti-SWP cliches about control. It is interesting that there is opposition in Renewal to this proposal. I think it’s inevitable that there will be differences in political outlook between the revolutionary and reformist left in any alliance. That’s what precipitated the split and will continue to affect any alliance, including Renewal.
    The moment this proposal was aired it has drawn quite firece opposition, not from other revolutionaries, but those opposed to this road to socialism.
    Politics are not a game of gentlemanly manners. There is a gulf between the reformist and the revolutionary strategy and this is the reason for this proposal. There’s no doubt that the reformists in Renewal will find trhis threatening as they are evidently demonstrating in this thread.
    Their argument that Renewal should remain unified does not stop Andy promoting Compass and other center groups. In the same way socialists in Renewal should be able to promote their own perspective.

    Like

  103. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    Denise, I don’t think anyone is talking about a “socilaist current” expect prehaps by slip of the tounge (or misunderstanding of what socilaism (in the broad snese) means.

    People are talking about a Marxist/Revolutionary Socilaist current.

    I don’t think it is just a matter of “behaving impecably”, I think that there is a real problem that arises from the conflict between “need for revolutionary party” verses “need for a broad party”.

    Respects Marxist current will only not fall into the trap of becoming the sort of organisation you fear by sorting out how to square this circle.

    In my view, we can do this by following Murray Smith’s advice (though not nessisarly his practice)
    ‘I am convinced that the role of revolutionary Marxists today is to build broad socialist parties while defending their own Marxist positions within them, with the aim, not of building a revolutionary faction with an ‘entrist’ perspective, but of taking forward the whole party and solving together with the whole party the problems that arise, as they arise.’(ISJ, Issue 100, Autumn 2003)

    Like

  104. While it’s nice of Ray to lend his support I’m not sure it’s terribly helpful. One of the problems faced by revolutionary socialists inside Respect is the legacy of cynicism and distrust bequeathed to us by the SWP. I’m not surprised that Denise et al might have worries about this latest development. Those worries are best addressed in practice – by a clear commitment to the joint project of growing Respect, by a refusal to engage in sect-building, and by a transparent and open approach to political work. Its not in the interests of any section of Respect to make a fetish of our differences.

    Like

  105. Briz blogger has me puzzled. The new organisation’s aim is presumably to function as a coherent revolutionary current in Respect Renewal but not actually acting in unison (or “blocking” as briz blogger puts it as after all that’s what the evil swappies do) .
    So then presumbly the members of the new organisation are going to publically disagree with each other to show their loyalty to RR ?
    And what happens if RR fails to take off?
    It’s a very small pond to build a revolutionary party in.
    And what if , say , the new group while working in the anti-war movement takes a different line from RR? How would that affect relations with Galloway and the others in RR?
    I agree with everything Ray said about the reformist wing of RR’s reaction to this and I also think there might be a danger that this revolutionary group might be the scapegoat for the blame if RR doesn’t take off.
    Still, I wish anyone who makes an attempt at building a revolutionary organisation luck . It needs doing and there’s always lessons to be learned from the experience.

    Like

  106. Briz Blogger: quite right. You need to be saved from friends like Ray!

    Like

  107. rob: what if, but what if? Relax. Let those people committed to building Respect get on with it. “Reformist wing”? You’re having a laugh.

    Like

  108. Other Rob, it isn’t rocket science. There are already revolutionary socialists in Respect. We just think it a good idea if we all got together, pooled our resources and our efforts to work more coherently and effectively.

    As for “what if , say , the new group while working in the anti-war movement takes a different line from RR? How would that affect relations with Galloway and the others in RR?”

    I don’t really see the new group working in the anti-war or other movements other than as part of Respect and carrying the Respect line.

    Now, if there comes a situation that the Respect majority line is something we absolutely cannot, in all conscience, implement then we would have a very serious situation and our relationship to the broader party might have to be re-assessed and we might have to do a Sinistra. But, I don’t have a crystal ball to make longe-range forecasts. Such situations do not come out of thin air and having fought for our politics through the structures of the organisation we would have a pretty good idea which way the wind was blowing… And we would devise our tactics accordingly but with the over-arching strategic objective of maintaining and building an effective broad party uppermost.

    Proper Rob

    Like

  109. Nas,try asking Andy Newman if he is a revolutionary or
    “‘r-r-r-revolutionary” as he has been known to put it and see what he says.
    And the “what ifs” aren’t going to go away.

    Like

  110. So Rob M , you’re going to build this group soley through RR?
    No independent work in the workplace or unions or the peace movement or in anything else ?
    I’ve always seen building a left of Labour electoral alternative as just one part of the struggle.Not the be all and end all.But of course you see RR as some sort of potential mass party.Fair enough and good luck with it.

    Like

  111. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    I don’t care whether people get together as a revolutionary marxist group within Respect or not, after all some other people collect stamps or support Bristol Rovers.

    My concern is twofold:

    i) that the actually existing model of political activity bequeathed by the tradition of Britsh trotskyism has been largely counter-productive, and should not be seen as normative within Respect.

    ii) that the “revolutionary marxists” should not consider themselves gifted with any greater access to truth than the rest of us.

    On the second consideration, the record of the ISG has been very good. they have put forwards their own point of view, listened and debated, and we have all benefited from their input.

    On the first consideration, I have more concern.

    If Respect has the model of incremental growth recruiting ones and twos to branches, then we will fail.

    If Respect doesn’t build upon our electoral bases to develop a leadership more consistent with the outlook and concerns of our voters then we will fail.

    If respect wastes its time caring what marginal groups of trots think then we will fail.

    Like

  112. There seems to be much confusion not least between RobM, Nas, Liam and Joseph as to who this invitation is extended to and what is meant by it. The consensus so far -exceptfor Liam- seems to be that this is a loose grouping of revolutionaries inside RespectGalloway agreeing to work together. If that is the case then it begs a few questions of point 1 of the ‘invitation’:

    “It is an invitation to everyone who would be interested in establishing a new revolutionary organisation based on an understanding of the need for Marxists to build a revolutionary organisation and to work for the widest unity of the working class on economic, social and political issues.”

    like What is meant by ‘everyone’?
    what is meant by a ‘revolutionary organisation’? (as opposed to say an organisation of revolutionaries)
    what is the common “understanding of the need for Marxists to build a revolutionary organisation”?
    what is ISG/SR position in all this, are you liquidated into the new organisation, or are you a faction within a faction within a coalition or what?

    Like

  113. Rob: I think Andy has just answered your point fully. Why do people think that there is some reformist demon hovering in Respect? The what if questions are just timeless speculation. On the central issues which define the political space which Respect inhabits there is no meaningful disagreement. Of course you can construct in your imagination all sorts of scenarios in which all sorts of imagined organisations might divide. Better, I think, to deal with what is. The comparison with Italy is very revealing – but not in the way that most of the British far left thinks. Afghanistan became a schismatic issue because imperialism is a critical dividing line in world politics. Respect in toto is on the correct side of that dividing line.

    Like

  114. Perhaps I’m just an old softie but i can’t really see the point in getting all worked up about this. I recognise the fears of those who’ve just been through some tough times at the hands of the self-professed revolutionaries in the SWP. If I felt that this ‘regroupment’ was in any way attempting to replicate that method of organisation and operation then I would be tearing down the houses to prevent it.

    I’m relaxed because I just don’t see it going that way.

    I also recognise that some feel the need to be part of an explicitly Marxist current/grouping/call it what you like within Respect. I don’t feel the need to do that but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand why others do.

    However, when the likes of Ray, Jason and Martin – all of which are implacably opposed to what we are trying to do in Respect – start chipping in (for or against) then I fear the discussion may well generate much more heat than light.

    For me the greater question is what type of organisation are we building in Respect? What do we want it to look like? What methods of democratic accountability can we build into it’s structures? How do we maximise our strengths? How do we grow and sink deeper roots?

    Now perhaps I would have hoped we could have sorted out some of these questions before moving onto the more narrow question of marxist organisation. But I’m quite prepared to accept that people are very clever and can multi-task in politics.

    The best way to ensure that there is no confusion, or unneccessary fear, though is for this process to be carried out openly and for everyone involved in Respect to be listened to whether in favour or against.

    Like

  115. Andy

    I was about to put finger to keyboard in criticism of your earlier missives when I read your latest and found myself in little disagreement.

    Your primary concern on point 1)

    “that the actually existing model of political activity bequeathed by the tradition of Britsh trotskyism has been largely counter-productive, and should not be seen as normative within Respect”

    Is one that I would broadly agree with and, with the proviso of not throwing the baby out with the bath water, would be likely to unite those of us taking an interest in this regroupment project.

    It is what Socialist Resistance’s seminar on building broad parties in large part addressed.

    In shipping over people from five different countries in Europe (France, Portugal, Holland, Germany and Italy) to share their varied experiences in building broad parties we hoped to generate interest in and knowledge about different ways of doing things. Ways of working politically that have largely been outside the experience and method of most of the British left.

    In some cases with considerable success, in others a work in progress, in others where there are many lessons to be learned.

    To address a couple of your earlier points: you are quite right about listening to and learning to the voices of Abjol, Salma and others. This is one reason why SR argued for so long for the need for a Respect newspaper – to share their experiences and give them a voice.

    I remember writing a text for a Respect Party Platform leaflet to the AGM before last year’s crisis arguing for a paper precisely on these grounds – but you may not have seen it as you were in your period outside the organisation.

    Hopefully you will agree that one of the benefits of the new Respect paper is that this can now be acheived. Regular coverage by and about the exciting new work being done by councillors and others in places like Birmingham and East London.

    All parties need critical voices, independent fora for discussion, means of channelling debate and communication. One of the tragic sources of the SWP’s weaknesses, is precisely that it’s structure positively discourages this and so produces a lower quality of thinking and practice at leadership level.

    Against a presumption that there must be a counterposition bettween independent thinking and building a party, we need to learn that we should combine collaborating in building Respect as our common priority whilst being able to think and discussing critically.

    The latter inevitably requires some form of organisation and the basis for such organisation is bound to be around a common political perspective.

    My own inclination is towards a looser form of collective around a publication, rather than a “cadre party”. But l have yet to hear other viewpoints and no doubt this will be a work in progress.

    Like

  116. This is the first time that I have commented on a blog. It is not something I have ever felt the need to do. I wonder about the amount of time that some people waste blogging, in what are often little more than slanging matches with people with whom they know there is never going to be any level of agreement reached. I tend to think that it generates more bile than sense and is a distraction from real activity.

    However on this occasion I feel that I have now been forced to set the record straight as some of the critics of the regroupment are indulging in something akin to smear and innuendo.

    Andy in Swindon refers to a series of discussion meetings organized by some comrades in South London.

    In fact two happened on Sunday evenings for about an hour and a half. How this was a greater distraction than say going to the pub on a Sunday evening, I do not know. I think it probably took up a lot less time than some people (including Andy?) spent blogging during the election.

    Andy claims that comrades involved saw this “as a greater priority than campaigning for the elections.” He continues “the fact that comrades could even consider this a priority over working to get galloway elected onto the GLA (which at the time we considered a real possibility) shows that there is a problem.”

    A quite extraordinary accusation when you consider that this massive waste of time (a total of three hours in a five week campaign) involved the National Secretary of Respect, an election agent, the person who produced most of the print materials used in the election, and some others, most of whom were extremely active in the campaign.

    The meetings were held because a number of comrades in Southwark branch wanted a forum to discuss politics from a Marxist perspective (it seems now that the only acceptable place to do this is in cyberspace).

    The record of the South London comrades in the election was, I think, exemplary. Southwark branch organised some form of activity six days a week for a period of five weeks. In addition to organising a campaign in South London, and having a not inconsiderable input into the London-wide campaign, the comrades from South London went over on numerous occasions to East London to help out.

    We set aside one evening a week for the duration of the campaign to go leafleting and knocking on doors in the council by-election in Weavers ward. We also went over on some Sunday mornings to help leaflet the ward. We also leafleted a large part of Millwall ward.

    The candidate in Weavers specifically thanked the South London comrades for the work that they put into the campaign in Tower Hamlets. I think if you asked Respect activists in Tower Hamlets about the role of South London comrades in the campaign they would acknowledge our input. I’m not so sure that I think they would do the same of the input of some of our naysayers who claim that we do not take these things seriously.

    The comrades criticized for the proposed regroupment have all put a huge amount of work into building Respect. The ISG and SR were played an important role in the re-establishment of Respect in the split.

    Some of the comrades who are taking part in this regroupment left the SWP over its role in the split, a party which some of us had been members of for much of our adult lives, and in the process were forced to sacrifice relationships that went back years.

    If anyone in Respect is concerned about the process then they can get in touch and discuss it with us. The process involves a number of individuals who are extremely well known, and eminently approachable. There is also a contact e-mail address.

    Maybe we may have had more time to defend ourselves from these accusations on the blogs, but in addition to the attending a meeting on Sunday some of us have spent mush of our free time recently (i.e. time not working or sleeping) preparing the next edition of the Respect Paper.

    To accuse the comrades of some of the things that are now being raised, especially when there is such great evidence to the contrary, is little better than dishonesty.

    Like

  117. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    Rob – “So Rob M , you’re going to build this group soley through RR?
    No independent work in the workplace or unions or the peace movement or in anything else ?
    I’ve always seen building a left of Labour electoral alternative as just one part of the struggle.Not the be all and end all.But of course you see RR as some sort of potential mass party.Fair enough and good luck with it.”

    Thats the whole point, if you try to have something that can partake in seperate independent work in its own name, in the workpace/unions of whatever, then altimatly you undermine the broad party.

    You cannot have you pie and eat it. If you want a broad socilasit party you have to commit to it being your primary “hat” (though of course you will also have to ware other ‘united front’ hats as well – preferably on top of your Respect hat rather then switching them).

    In practice that means that the Revolutionary current won’t put out seperate placards on a demo, it wouldn’t distribute its litreture on a mass scale (though it would of corse distribute it amoungst those interested in revolutionary ideas), it wouldn’t try to recruit straignt to itself rather then through the broad party etc. etc.

    Like

  118. “that the actually existing model of political activity bequeathed by the tradition of Britsh trotskyism has been largely counter-productive, and should not be seen as normative within Respect”

    On the issue of differences in how to organise a political party. There is much made of the lack of democracy in the SWP (or so called “trot” organisations) by certain Renewalists but the structure of Renewal is not organised on the basis of any political organisation on the left that I am familiar with. Even in the Labour Party there is a membership and a structure that allows representation even if this is manipulated to exclude the left. The basic criteria for a democratic organisation such as a leadership that is accountable to it’s members doesn’t yet exist in Renewal.

    The whole arguement in Renewal that so-called “trots” are problematic should be a cause for concern for revolutionaries. Especially when these critics of Trotskyism are promoting a centre left/Euro Comm agenda. After the split, now that most of the “trots” have been exclude, revolutionaries are now further marginalised. Whether this is considered a unfortunate fallout from the split or, as I believe, a planned outcome by those around Galloway it is far from ideal in an organisation that is supposed to be an alliance between reformists and revolutionaries.

    What is interesting is the belief in Renewal that it poses a new form of political organisation. I think this flies in the face of the last 100 plus years of the international labour movement . This is because the division in Respect was not structural but political and will continue to exist because the uneasy alliance between reformists and revolutionaries is an area for potential (and inevitable) conflict especially when the alliance is not developing favourably.

    That doesn’t mean reformists and revolutionaries can’t work together or that an alliance can’t develop. But I wonder whether workers will gravitate to Renewal when a section of it is aligned to the politics of Compass and is hostile to it’s own revolutionaries organising factionally. Why join Renewal when the same experience can be had in Labour?

    This is not the Respect alliance I joined and worked to develop.

    Like

  119. Ray: there is no such thing as Renewal. There is Respect and there is something called the Left Alternative, which was announced yesterday – with the full participation of the SWP membership, and the office bearers of Left List – two of them being Oliur Rahman.

    You also clearly know nothing about how Respect does business or organises.

    Please also substantiate your belief that the exclusion of “trots” was a planned outcome of those around Galloway. It will be interesting to see the argument rehearsed that the ISG have orchestrated an anti-trot witchhunt.

    Please also tell us what the political division in Respect was. Left/Right? Sticking with defending council housing and opposing war/praising Gordon Brown and joining the Tories?

    Like

  120. In reply to Ray:

    1) Clearly, Respect needs to formalise its structures. This is something it looks more difficult to do, now that it doesn’t apparently have the apparatus of the SWP behind it. It will take time, but it will come up with a structure and mode of operation that is more open and democratic than prior to the split.

    2) I don’t think more “trots” are excluded. There’s no point in going (yet again) over the cause of the split. Let’s just say, if the SWP decided it had made a mistake and that it wanted to get involved again, would that be rejected out of hand?

    3) Respect IS a new type of political formation (and not just an “electoral alternative” as one other poster has suggested), at least for England. That is the meaning of a space to the left of labour (and not a social-democratic one at that). This is a new (last 15 years) phenomenon, even if it is Europe-wide.

    4) Suggesting Respect and Labour are the same thing is not useful at all. They have different policies, social base, types of activity etc. One is tied into the bourgeois state apparatus of an imperialist country. The other is actively anti-imperialist … and so on.

    5) Surely Respect was an “uneasy alliance between reformists and revolutionaries” prior to the split? Then, that was considered to be a positive thing – a breakthrough, no less. Is such an alliance only worthwhile when the reformists are (at least in terms of organisational clout) a minority?

    Like

  121. Respect is in the process of renewing itself (that’s what the renewal bit means) but what’s in a name? What is important is the process by which at the end of our conference in October we will have a new constitution, membership structure, elected bodies, etc. But we are not completely lacking in any form of democracy – as our branches have elected officials, etc. We discuss issues to clarify our ideas. We are having another discussion on the proposed congestion charge in Manchester at this week’s branch meeting – as we have recruited many new members since we last discussed it and there are points of disagreement. So we air them and debate them. That strikes me as a pretty good basis for the further development of Respect and its structures.

    In Manchester will be scheduling several discussions over the coming months at branch meetings about the new Respect structures in the run up to conference. We will also be engaged in political debates about current issues, fund-raising and building the Convention of the Left. At the same time a number of members also take part in a Marxist discussion group. None of this activity takes them away from ‘building the movement’, supporting strikes, organising against the BNP, campaigning over post office closures or local youth facilities, defending allotments, etc.

    This is exactly the idea of a Respect that I joined several years ago. There’s not a shadow of a doubt that Respect in Manchester is an alliance between ‘reformists and revolutionaries’ but it is far from ‘uneasy’. In fact it’s a real joy to be able to listen and learn from people from wide and diverse backgrounds – whether Libyan, Somali or Congolese activists, former LP councillors, ISG and (ex) SWP members, former CP members, Muslims, atheists, etc. You get the picture. It’s not a sterile debate about winning a line or dominating but about working out a successful direction we can follow in the coming months and years.

    We are in a process. It makes you think – as individuals and collectively. We recognise we are too small, with not enough roots; a shaky skeleton which we need to flesh out but we are doing it together. We can have disagreements, sometimes sharp ones – such as over this question of regroupment – in the confidence that we are committed to this project for the foreseeable future, whilst not excluding any future more general left unity initiatives.

    And to be honest, for me, the question of reform or revolution is not really too sharply posed at the present time. The more pressing question is one of how to defend the reforms we have gained in the past – and win a few more (or win the lost ones back).

    Now there are many SWP members whom I respect (small r) who would be a real asset to Respect (capital R). They will remain an asset to the SWP. But while that avenue of political experience is closed off to us we will go on anyway, working alongside each other where we can.

    Now I can’t actually remember what my original point was going to be but I’ve probably said enough.

    Like

  122. In reply to Phil:

    1) I don’t think it’s very difficult to come up with a constitution and develop a membership structure. Especially when important decisions are being made about political strategy concerning the elections.

    2) I doubt very much that the SWP will want to form an alliance with Renewal unless Renewal changes it’s political strategy.

    3) Respect has always been social democratic in nature rather than marxist. There is nothing new here.

    4) The Labour Party is a reformist organisation and so is Renewal. They both contain a spectrum of political currents. Since the split, the balance that existed in Respect between reformists and revolutionaries has been severely compromised in favour of the reformists. Despite the different policies on the war between New Labour and Renewal there is much more accomodation to New Labour in other areas by Renewal as demonstrated during the elections. This would not have happened if Respect had remained intact.
    The social base of Labour is not really that much different to Renewal if you are referring to the Muslim support nationally.

    5) I believe there was a balance between reformists and revolutionaries in Respect but after Renewal broke away it lost a substantial number of marxists. The problem was that Respect did not attract significant support from the labour movement that may have provided a level of stability. That would have led to a growth of reformists in Renewal with links in the labour movement moving the focus away from the community. If the left is going to grow significantly it will develop out of rank and file organisation. So I’m not against alliances with a majority of reformist as long as it develops into building in the workplace where the left has the best possibility to grow.
    I’m not counterposing the labour movement to electoralism and community organisation but I think there was an imbalance in Respect which is now even more pronounced in Renewal.

    Like

  123. I wasn’t at the meeting in London but I welcome this initiative. It seems entirely healthy and positive that a number of Respect members who have come to a similar perspective should seek to formalise that and join together, and I will be among them.

    The criticisms from Andy and Mark P are entirely misplaced. Indeed they have a shade of (dare I say it!) the SWP’s methodology about them – the only thing that matters is the next big task! Don’t waste your time discussing things when there’s an election coming!

    Nobody wants a repeat of the SWP’s role in Respect – that’s why people like me left the SWP. Let us celebrate a new openness in the political culture of Respect, and debate the way forward with the aim of moving forward together (copyright Murray Smith.)

    I believe marxist politics still have a role to play in the struggle to change this world and I reserve the right to try to persuade others in a fraternal manner! Equally Andy has the right to try to persuade me that Compass has any answers.

    Like

  124. In reply to Ray’s reply to my reply:

    1) I was trying to say that Respect was a shambles prior to the split, less to do with formal structures than its “mode of operation”, which I took care to include in my remarks on Respect’s democracy. This will take a longer time to mend than setting up the “right” structures etc. But progress is being made. Contrast Clive’s description of the internal life of RR in Manchester, with what the remarks made by a prominent supporter of the SWP’s position in the split, from about 6 months before said event: he said to me there was no point in going to the meetings, as whatever anyone else said, what the SWP wanted always got through (through force of numbers and endless repetition by numerous members of the same speech). I had already decided this at least a year previously. Curiously, the meetings were never advertised to members – except the annual meetings and last October’s “emergency” pre-conference meeting.

    2) Please explain to me how RR needs to change its political strategy to become acceptable to the SWP.

    3) Please explain to me how RR is based on the labour aristocracy and uses the fruits of imperialism to buy off said aristocracy.

    4) Please explain to me how RR is integrated with the institutions of the bourgeois state.

    5) OK, so RR has the “wrong type” of reformists in it. Presumably the “right type” are now in R-the unity coalition/LL/LA? Well, we’ll just have to work with what we’ve got.

    Like

  125. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    No Nick,

    I am not arguing that people shold only be concentrating on the immediate activity.

    Firstly, the conrades are going to do what they want to do anyway, whatever I thiink.

    But I think the strategic direction of trying to form a “revolutionary socialist organisation” within Respect is misplaced.

    I stand corrected by Alistair that in practice the meetings were not a distraction from campaigning, but he knows that I was not the only one who expressed concern about the priorites behind organising these meetings when they were first mooted.

    The truth is that the distinction between “reformists” and “revolutionaries” for most practical purposes irrelevent in the day to day politics of building a left alternative to labour.

    Like

  126. “The need for revolutionary politics” has not “been well articulated above by Jason”
    All jason has said is that capitalism is crap, and wouldn’t it be better to have something nicer, combined with some rhetoric about the “working class people and humanity can win back meaning, power and control.” …. “the daily dignity of billions resisting oppression, poverty and war, of transforming themselves in the process, gives us hope that it is possible”
    Why not throw in talking animals, centaurs, dryads, and a big God-like lion?
    Politics starts with the world as it is, ,and not how you would lke it to be.
    i am sorry of this seems churlish, but the key thing to understand is that the gap that has opened by the right-ward shift of the Labour Party is a missing social democratic party, and only a social democratic party can fill that space.
    There is a very real danger that Respect will blow the opportunity, if we overly engage with the mindset that judges progress by number of papers sold, and the treadmill of activity of the far left groups.
    Thanks to PhilW for the compliment, even if Andy disagrees!
    Andy and anyone else has a perfect right to be sceptical about the possibility of socialism or workers’ power- it has never been achieved in any but the most sporadic cases if at all.
    However, the daily struggles of billions of people are not some rhetoric but daily lived experience. Centaurs, dryads and Aslan don’t exist but there is at least one talking animal- humanity- an animal capable of understanding and transforming the world, capable of actually describing the world as it is and how we would like it to be, but also at very grave risk of actually destroying itself and a large part of the world.
    What also is not at doubt is that thousands of people die every day (30 000 according to UNICEF) and this figure will rise to even more catastrophic proportions as the global elite hurtle us ever faster towards disaster. Is there any way out?
    Renewed social democracy the idea of tinkering at the edges won’t save us.
    What just might save us is small scale experiments with workers’ control, of struggles where ordinary working class people go along way towards dissolving ethnic hatred, of overcoming sectional divisions, of taking power in our own lives. One of the many examples I’ve witnessed firsthand is when Ethiopian students went on strike and won the right to a health clinic, a student union, better facilities, their own office and publications. The students helped clean up the college, install clean water and restore dignity to their lives. There are many thousands of such living laboratories of struggle- every strike and protest throws up the possibility of another vision where socialists and militants fight for immediate practical reforms in the here and now and fight for a practical possibility of working class power.
    At the weekend Hilary Wainwright and John McDonnell spoke of having a new approach to politics not one based on transmission of doctrine but on collective discovery of knowledge through struggle, discussion, action and interaction.

    It may be Andy is right and we are all doomed. I dare to think not. What s also absolutely sure s that socialists who prioritise building the class struggle who have a belief that ordinary people have enough nous, creativity and intelligence to run our own lives will be the best and most non-sectarian fighters for immediate, transitional and revolutionary demands.

    The proposal from ISG is of course about far more than just Respect but even there there is nothing to fear form revolutionaries organising themselves in a frateranl, open and hinest fashion. And of course engaging with wider forces- not just building the party.

    Like

  127. In reply to Phils reply to my reply:

    1) My experience of Respect pre-split is not the same as yours. Not withstanding, the SWP’s experience in TH and Birmingham where it was out-voted on a number of occasions does not support your assertion that Respect was controlled by the SWP. In other areas of the country Respect members of various political traditions worked together effectively. In some areas the SWP did have a greater number of members in Respect than other groups but this was more a reflection of the lack of recruitment and organisation in that area (which was everyone’s responsibility) rather than a desire to be in control. While every member may not have been contacted about every meeting. This was not the SWP’s sole responsibility. It’s interesting that throughout the duration of Respect this issue was never raised until Galloway’s failed attempt to change organisational structure and policy decisions prior to the split.

    2) You did ask! a) Don’t promote New Labour at the expense of socialists in elections. b) Compromise with those in your organisation who you disagree with rather than splitting or trying to witchhunt them.

    3) I never made this claim, you did. My point was why join Renewal when New Labour offers a place where anti-war reformists can co-exist with revolutionaries who remain completely marginalised?

    4) Again, I never stated this.

    5) There aren’t right or wrong types of reformists. There are those who are willing to compromise and share the goal of developing the rank and file rather than putting all our eggs into electoralism and community politics. And reformists who are resistant to or oppose this strategy.

    Like

  128. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Ray: “Don’t promote New Labour at the expense of socialists in elections.”

    Can you give us some concrete examples of this?

    Like

  129. “Compromise with those in your organisation who you disagree with rather than splitting or trying to witchhunt them.”

    What a stunningly creative piece of double-speak there from Ray!

    This could make a valuable contribution at the Strategy and Tactics meeting at Marxism 2008 – learn about the mastery of compromise that saw the SWP walk out of a meeting in Tower Hamlets en masse because they lost the vote! (Leading to Galloway’s memorable remark, “Yes, go on, go on – fuck off, the lot of you” .) Thrill at the compromise that led to John Rees calling a press conference to announce the splitting off of the ill-fated Left List councillors from the Respect group! Marvel at the ‘we’re going to go nuclear over this’ compromise!

    I must say, that one really was a blinder Ray, although the credibility rating is null points.

    Like

  130. Ok so I have only managed to get onto this blog very late because I have been spending every waking – and some sleeping – minutes producing the Respect paper so lots of what I wanted to say reading through has already been said later on but
    One point that I dont think has been adequately answered is a point that I think Nas makes about the statement being obsessed about reformism waiting in the wings in Respect.
    For me, as a supporter of the statement, this misses the point. One thing – amongst many important points – that was reinforced for me at the meeting organised by Socialist Resistance on Broad Parties on Saturday was how unstable these formations can be. Its not about pointing fingers now and saying to people you are reformist (as if it were a swear word). No one in Rifondazione at the begining on the antiwar demo in Genoa believed that Bertinotti would betray over the war – but thats precisely what happened. Thats why I hope to persuade Clive for example that he is wrong – .
    must dash…

    Like

  131. At the meeting on Sunday where this statement was discussed before being finalised,
    I raised the following concerns:

    (a) The model of the SWP use of (their version ) democratic centralism since 1975, had stifled open discussion within the organisation, quite deliberatly, in order to prevent the factionalism that had existed previously.
    This was an example of ‘Cliffite stick-bending’, of moving from one pole to another, open organisation to one strictly controlled from the centre.
    The very limited contact allowed between branches led to a dependence on information and direction from the cc, and a sort of almost blind faith in their judgement.
    Thiis reflected today in how the membership (at least publically) swing behind the leadership no matter what.
    So it does pse the question of how in any future formation of Revolutionaries you avoid repeated and debilitating factionalism without sacrificing internal debate?
    (b) The question of united front work, with in particular SWP Comrades in mind, as a means of overcoming sectarinism and attempting to heal the fractured nature of the ‘left’ that has come about as a result of the split.

    These IMO will remain ongoing concerns which can only be resolved in practice.
    The need for unity in action (UIA) is pressing:-
    the fascists are on the rise, New Labour is laying the ground for them and the Tories; and the crisis of cap is possibly deeper than at any time since W W II.
    The attacks on worker’s interests will not go away, we need to regroup and join the struggle.

    Like

  132. Halsall:

    “Repeated factionalism” is not “debilitating”.

    Consider, for a small scale example, the USFI in the 60s-70s: most dynamic when it was most factionalised.

    Consider, on a larger scale, the Russian SDLP, which most of the time functioned as a united party (outside Petrograd, the Duma, Moscow and the emigration) down to 1917 (in Siberia, down to October 1917), in spite of vicious faction-fighting: yet throughout this factional struggle grew in influence.

    Consider, more generally, the parties of the Second International – parties which grew to mass scale in spite of major and long-running factional differences.

    What is debilitating is not factionalism. It is the *belief* that factionalism is debilitating, which leads to unprincipled splits and the construction of sects.

    Like

  133. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    Terry:

    “No one in Rifondazione at the begining on the antiwar demo in Genoa believed that Bertinotti would betray over the war ”

    And few would have thought that Sinistra would betray the voters and members of the PRC by wallking out of and then refusing to form a joint electoral block with the PRC for the purposes of the election either.

    Like

  134. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    To clarify – Bertinotti was wrong over Afghanistan, but that was not reason to split the party, prematurely and trivally.

    Like

  135. Just a question on Point 8 about Cuba.

    Do the signatories of the ex-SWP still believe that Cuba is a state-capitalist country run by a bureacratic dictatorship that has to be overthrown through workers revolution?

    Or do they agree with the ISG and George Galloway that the Castro brothers run a socialist democracy with a few bureaucratic deformations, one that needs a only bit of reformist tinkering to reach perfection under the steady hand of the Cuban CP?

    stuart

    Like

  136. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    Can’t speak for any other ex-SWPer’s but I would take a broadly ‘State-cap’ approach and a socialist democracy it certainly isn’t.

    Is your point that this will cause a big rift in a possible Marxist current? I think it is probably over-ridden by similarities in more important current strategic outlooks.

    Like

  137. I agree with Joe on this.

    And, in the real world, should there ever develop a popular, democratic and socialist opposition within Cuba I suspect it would be supported by State-Caps and Degenerates alike!

    Like

  138. Ray: “Don’t promote New Labour at the expense of socialists in elections.”

    Can you give us some concrete examples of this?

    The election for Mayor in London. Respect spent years building a left opposition to New Labour (the party of war etc. etc.) and Renewal squander the chance of supporting a socialist or standing their own candidate against the neo-liberal policies of Livingstone.

    To take up Terry’s point, it’s not a case of being obsessed with the influence of reformism in an alliance but to have no illusions that reformists will agree with us and take a socialist position.
    An alliance needs a strong cadre of revolutionaries if it is to agitate successfully for socialist principles. That’s why I’m very much in favour of revolutionaries in Renewal organising together. I think it’s a step in the right direction. At the same time I question whether they have enough weight to win any of the political disagreements that have already and will inevitably spring up between reformists and revolutionaries in an alliance.

    Like

  139. Yes Ray- unlike the SWP who didn’t squander their chance, just the members cash…

    But, wait a minute this was about promoting New Labour- ‘the party of war etc.’ but all you can come up with is Livingstone- that well-known imperialist warmonger.

    Do try harder.

    Like

  140. Yes,RobM.The members’ cash that Galloway et al were happy to spend at the time.And those members got kicked in the teeth as thanks.
    I don’t actually mean the above but some would see it that way.Just showing how the bitterness in the split is going to take a long time to overcome as some of the sniping round here seems to indicate.Although it’s all been fairly amicable compared to the lunacy at Socialist “Unity”.

    Like

  141. Understatemnt of the thread: Andy: “Bertinotti was wrong over Afghanistan”

    Bertinotti was wrong the moment he entered a neo-liberal government headed by a former Christian Democrat.

    First obvious betrayal: taking the plum job of President of the lower house (a cabinet posiiton) despite saying previously that he wouldn’t.

    Supporting the neo-libearl policies of the governemnt and propping it up (it was the defection of corrupt neo-christian Democrats, the UDC, that fianlly brought it down.

    Overstament:
    “And few would have thought that Sinistra would betray the voters and members of the PRC by wallking out of and then refusing to form a joint electoral block with the PRC for the purposes of the election either.”

    They left after a senator was expelled for voting agaisnt Afghanistan policy.

    Why should have have formed a joint slate? they were running on completely different platforms . One of support for Veltroni’ and his new neo-liberal Democratic Party (a merger of the old Left Democrats and the former Christain Demcorats of the MArgherita) vs one of opposition to neo-liberalism.

    Anyway I think the chances of the Rainbow Alliance (PRC-Greens-PDCI) taking on board Sinsitra Crtitica were nil.

    And anyway the vote for SC was small (160,00 odd). It would have made no difference to the result of the Rainbow.

    they lost all their seats (making this the first parlaiment, with the exception of the fascist dicatorship period since 1921) becasue they had completely demoralsied there own supporters.

    They didn’t just lose percentage in terms, in absolute numbers they lost three quarters of their vote.

    I think the SC made mistakes, in particualr in tailling Bertinotti for so long in the PRC and not taking a distinct posiiton fromm Bertinotti earlier. The sterile propagandists of Progetta Comunsita did and got a better vote the SC.

    AS for the betrayal. it was Bertinotti and the leadership of the PRC’s, on a staggering scale. they have led the great movemnts of 2000-2003 to complete disaster.

    Like

  142. If you can’t see a qualitative difference between Respect’s relatively modest and targetted election expenditure and the vast sums wasted on Lindsey and John Vanity Show then we will have to agree to differ.
    But really, do you honestly think that any Respect members felt ‘kicked in the teeth’ because we stood in the London elections?
    The members cash in question was cash raised for the purposes of contesting these elections.
    It is the SWP-Leftovers who are smelting the family silver…

    Like

  143. Stuart asks former SWP comrades if “they agree with the ISG and George Galloway that the Castro brothers run a socialist democracy with a few bureaucratic deformations, one that needs a only bit of reformist tinkering to reach perfection under the steady hand of the Cuban CP?”

    It says volumes that, in King’s opinion, disagreements over anti-bureaucratic tactics in Cuba should prevent unity in Britain.

    Of course, King also falsifies the position of the ISG, which does not have a policy on Cuba, and makes an amalgam of its positions and those of Galloway. But, as Rob says, if a revolutionary movement in Cuba was to bring the working class in Cuba back into political power then such a movement would be supported by everyone in Respect.

    Like

  144. Angelo cardone Avatar
    Angelo cardone

    I didn’t follow the discussion in the forum, but I wanted just to give some information to andyinswindon about Rifondazione and Sinistra Critica. I belong to Sinistra Critica.
    You said we split the party, but this is not exact.
    Our Mp, Franco Turigliatto, was expelled by Rifondazione after he refuse to vote for italian participation in afghanistan war. After he was espelled, Sinistra Critica campaigned in the party to ask the party restore him, but Rifondazione didn’t do it. Instead Rifondazione begin to stop considering Sinistra Critica activists as his activists. For instance we weren’t no more invited to meetings, we weren’t no more allowed to go in party’s offices, ect. So it wasn’t our decision to walking out of Rifondazione.
    You said we refused to form a joint electoral block for the elections. Rifondazione never proposed us an agreement for the elections, and this is logical, they expelled us. Rifondazione instead make a joint electoral block with the Green and another smaller communist party, called the Rainbow coalition. These three party got altoghether 10% vote in 2006. In the last election their coalition got 3% vote. But nobody can say Sinistra Critica has any responsibilities for that. If they got such a bad result the reason is they are totally discredited because they voted for war, for social cuts, for racist policies, etc when they participated in the Prodi governement.
    Sinistra Critica got 0,5% vote, most of them are people disappointed by Rifondazione, who would never had voted for Rifondazione’s coalition. So, Rifondazione can’t blame us if they didn’t get enough vote to enter in the parliament.
    I hope my english it’s not too bad and I hope I gave you useful information.

    Like

  145. If and when the development of a mass movement for socialist democracy in Cuba develops, it is quite possible that there will be diametrically opposed views on the issue in RR.

    But I think this is really useless speculation, as it hasn’t happened yet. RR hasn’t discussed Cuba, and I presume Respect before the split didn’t discuss it, so at the moment it has no position on the issue, as far as I know.

    Maybe this blog should discuss more issues we might disagree on in the future within RR and that RR currently has no position on? Let’s see how many we can list.

    Like

  146. Cuba may not have been contentious in Renewal at the moment but the position on China’s occupation of Tibet has been. Both require an analysis of Stalinism so I think Stuart makes an important point. It also refers back to the issue I raised earlier about whether or not revolutionaries with different analyses of Stalinism can unify in one organisation.
    Considering that Stalinism has had a fundamental impact on how the left organises and its political strategy I think an organisation with socialism in it’s title (reSpect) needs to consider this. Although I could be picky and point out that Renewal doesn’t have an “S” in it.

    Like

  147. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    Chris Brooks: “if a revolutionary movement in Cuba was to bring the working class in Cuba back into political power then such a movement would be supported by everyone in Respect.”

    Except this is a fantasy, as Cuba already has a socialist government, and any actually foreseeable overthro would be for the restortaion of gangster capitalism.

    Like

  148. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    Ray

    As you are an apoligist for an actually existing ” organisation, that is far less dmeocratic than the old CPGB ever was, then I fail to see your point.

    Like

  149. Time and my sparkling social life permitting – Angelo’s talk on Italy will be on the site by the weekend. A version of it will certainly be in the next issue of SR because it very cogently makes the case for holding together Marxists who are enthusiastic builders of broad class struggle parties.

    Like

  150. On Tibet – my Respect branch (Bristol) had an excellent discussion on this a few weeks ago. I was arguing what turned out to be a minority position. We had the sort of open debate, without name-calling or recriminations, that you would expect in an organisation which is learning as it grows. Nobody came up to me after the meeting to get the proverbial bacon slicer out and show me why I was wrong. Open debate, respect for each others’ views, and a plurality of opinions is what workers have a right to expect when they involve themselves in a political party, and that’s what we’re in the process of building in Respect. And within Respect’s revolutionary Marxist current, that kind of openness should also be the norm. This may be difficult for some SWPers and the more ‘conservative’ sort of Troskyist to take on board, but I think it represents a huge step forward.

    Like

  151. “Open debate, respect for each others’ views, and a plurality of opinions is what workers have a right to expect when they involve themselves in a political party.”

    I think this is quite important and obviously goes way beyond Respect into the sort of movement and party we should be attempting to create.

    This is part of the reason I think the left is so marginalised is because for far too long it has been associated with a control culture that is secretive and not open and it can sometimes seem that leftists are more interested in building their own group than the class struggle. This needs to change.

    Like

  152. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    Angelo

    Thank you for your response. Can you clarify therefore whether Liam’s earlier account of Sinistra effectively walking out of PRC was incorrect:

    http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2007/06/16/italy-split-looms-for-rifondazione-comunista/

    Italy – Split looms for Rifondazione Comunista
    Posted on June 16, 2007 by Liam
    It seems a cast iron certainty that the left is going to walk out of Rifondazione Comunista this autumn. Here’s something I knocked out for the next SR.
    “The left that is in goverment has completely broken its relationship with the social movements”. That is the verdict of Partito della Rifondazione Comunista (PRC) parliamentarian Salvatore Cannavò. Cannavò is a member of Sinistra Critica and a PRC deputy in the Italian parliament’s lower house, the Chamber of Deputies.
    Speaking about the events of “No Bush Day” on June 9th, when George W. was in Rome to meet Prime Minister Romano Prodi and the Pope, he pointed out that the march of 80 000 showed that there is now an opposition on the left of Italian politics. Cannavò argues that Rifondazione has failed as an organisation because its leaders are inadequate and their project of being in Prodi’s government is wrong. While Cannavò headed the demonstration opposing Bush Rifondazione leaders were almost alone at a party-organised demonstration in Piazza Del Popolo.

    Prodi now heads a coalition that reaches from Rifondazione Comunista to the right wing Partito Democratico, a pro-capitalist party explicitly based on the US Democrats. The government’s programme includes the retention of Italian troops in Afghanistan and a package of neo-liberal reforms. Rifondazione is playing an impossible game by trying to be both part of the government and the electoral voice of opposition to the government’s agenda.
    Sinistra Critica had fought to prevent Rifondazione from being part of this alliance.
    Cannavò has already made up his mind, saying that he has stopped paying his dues and that as far as he’s concerned his relationship with the PRC is over – but that the issue needs to be discussed more fully in Sinistra Critica. The tightly organised left current has agreed to have a special conference in September. It is almost certain that they will decide to leave the party en masse and establish an organisation that will continue the fight against the war and Prodi’s neo-liberalism.

    Like

  153. I want to endorse what Jason says (3 entries above) about the left and control culture. I would add that “control freakery” doesn’t provide a very good advertisement for a future socialist society, either (also relevant to the contributions on Cuba and the PRC/Sinistra Critica issues, if you ask me).

    Like

  154. Herr Kautsky (can we call you Karl?) – if Bertinotti hadn’t blocked with Prodi, Berlusconi would have won in 2006. I don’t think PRC voters would have been best pleased. What really destroyed the Arcobaleno wasn’t the decadence of PRC (or even Prodi’s neo-liberalism) but Veltroni’s increasingly overt anti-Communism. The centre-Left in Italy has never had the votes to form a government on its own; Veltroni’s refusal to bloc with the Arcobaleno was his own political death warrant as well as Bertinotti’s, but Veltroni thought that was a price worth paying.

    I’ve read some of Sinistra Critica’s literature & remain unsure quite what they’re offering the Left. Quote (with apologies for my translation):

    Before the storm, we proposed calling a Constituent Assembly for the Class-Based and Anti-Capitalist Left. We believe that this appraoch can and should be restated, in the knowledge that it depends on two definite orientations: the centrality of roots in society and experience of struggle and movement-building; and clarity on the question of entering government, on the basis of absolute independence from PD and refusal to become involved in governing the current society.

    Emphasis added. Admittedly, a Labour-Green-RESPECT coalition is a very remote possibility, so perhaps the Italian comrades have a keener understanding of the issues involved. But it does seem to me that what SC is proposing is more like a large revolutionary party than a class-based electoral party.

    Like

  155. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    Kautsky?

    Like

  156. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    Phil – ” Admittedly, a Labour-Green-RESPECT coalition is a very remote possibility,”

    If Respect wins say 20 seats on TH council in 2010, it is a possibilitu that would have to be considered in local government.

    Like

  157. Angelo cardone Avatar
    Angelo cardone

    Liam account was completely exact, but what he reports happened in june. Our Mp was expelled in february. Since then Sinistra critica has been trying to build an anticapitalist left in Italy after Bertinotti and his friends leaded the italian left to the disaster.
    The disaster wasn’t Veltroni fault. In 2001 Rifondazione stood alone in opposition to the centre-left coalition, (when Rifondazione was a left party), and got more then 5% of vote. Berlusconi didn’t win in 2006 but won in 2008 with the bigger majority he had never had. If the left make right policies is always the right which win.
    For the renegade kautsky: sorry, I didn’t noticed your comment before, I almost completely agree with you, I have to go now, but I will make another comment to tell you about our position in the last period within Rifondazione

    Like

  158. Angelo

    Liam clearly says that Sinistra left the PRC. Whereas before you said you were expelled. Both accounts cannot be accurate.

    I accept that Salvatore Cannavò was expelled, but were the rest of you?

    I am astounded that you describe the PRC as no longer being a left party.

    It is clear that for the mainstream left participating in coalition is not particularly controversial. This is a difficult political terrain to navigate.

    Salvatore Cannavò voted for war credits himself once, but on the second occassion he decided this was such a matter of principle that Rifondazione was no longer left wing?

    Was PRC any less left wing at the time of the second vote, than it was on the first?

    It seems that your conception of Sinistra is to abandon the difficult task of buildig a left coalition that includes non-revolutinaries. Like LCR in France you talk about a broad left party, but all you mean is making an alliance with those who already agree with you.

    Like

  159. Hopefully Liam will put Angelo’s talk up soon and we can discuss this important question in that thread…

    It seems to me that Sinistra was in the process of being driven out of the party and obstructed from working within it. They could have clung on, maybe even stayed in for quite some time, but could have suffered erosion of their own young activists who were voting with their feet and leaving or not renewing PRC membership.
    Clearly, in their judgement, Rifondazione was so thoroughly bureaucratised that a fight to shift it to the left was doomed.

    Like

  160. And it’s here too.

    Like

  161. In 2001 Rifondazione stood alone in opposition to the centre-left coalition, (when Rifondazione was a left party), and got more then 5% of vote.

    Yes, and Berlusconi won. After a few years of Berlusconi II I think Bertinotti took the view that it was worth putting up with Prodi’s politics in order to stop it happening again, and I think most of his voters felt the same way. In addition, the 2006 and 2008 votes were run under Calderoli’s porcellum, which reduces politics to a contest between two blocs. Prodi understood that, formed a broad centre-left bloc and won (just). I believe Veltroni understood it and chose to lose, so as to bury the Unione. The Arcobaleno’s voters understood it too – they knew that there was no prospect of their party being in government whatever happened, but it was highly likely that Berlusconi would win. So some went to the PD, some went to IdV, some stayed at home in disgust and a few – a very few – went to SC or the PCL.

    I do think parties of the Left need to stick to their principles, and Bertinotti’s break with the PD was probably a necessity. But a regrettable necessity, not something to be celebrated. When the Right’s represented by Berlusconi and Bossi, Left oppositionism is playing with fire.

    Like

  162. Angelo cardone Avatar
    Angelo cardone

    Just about vote on credit war: In july 2006, 2 months after Prodi’s victory, Sinistra critica had 2 mp in the senate (Franco Turigliatto and Gigi Malabarba) and 1 Mp in the low chamber (Salvatore Cannavo’). The Prodi had a large majority in the low chamber and a very narrow majority in the senate (157 mp for the centre-left coalition and 155 for the right, plus 7 mp out of coalitions – former presidents of republic etc.). Before the vote on credit war on Afghanistan Sinistra Critica Mps leaded a campaign among mps in order to vote against it. This campaign was supported by a public meeting in Rome against war in which partecipated the left wing of the anti-war movement. Sinistra Critica Mps succeded to obtain signatures of several Mps for a document against war on Afghanistan. In that document mps announced their vote against afghanistan war (most of them were Prc, green and pdci mps, I don’t remember exactly how many, 10-15)

    Like

  163. Angelo cardone Avatar
    Angelo cardone

    Before the vote, Rifondazione leading group ask Prodi to put together the vote on afghanista war and the vote for the governement (voto di fiducia). In case of vote just on war credit centre left coalition and right would have vote together for afghanistan war and these Mps against. But Prodi put vote for credit war and vote for the governement together. So the right couldn’t vote for the credit war and these Mps were blackmailed: “if you vote against afghanistan mission Prodi governement will fall for your fault”, 2months after the elections.
    So sinistra critica vote for credit war, (but just in the senate) and we announced that in the follow vote of credit war we wouldn have vote against it, and we continue the struggle within and outside the party on this issue.
    In february 2007 Sinistra Citica had 1 Mp in the low chamber and 1 Mp in the senate (Gigi Malabarba resigned because he did a battle against the bureaucratisation in the Prc. Most of Prc mps was electded for several times, some for more than 25 years. He was elected once in 2001 and when he was reelected in 2006 he decided to resign in favour of Heidi Giuliani, the mother of Carlo Giuliani, killed by the police in Genova during demonstrations against G8).
    So Franco Turigliatto announced he wouldn’t voted for afghanistan war and at the same time that he would have resigned from senate, because, even though Sinistra Critica believed that nobody has to apologize to be against war, he wanted to respect Pcr’s majority decision.
    Rifondazione expelled him anyway, so he retired his resignation and he continued to be a Mp as a Sinistra critica Mp.

    Like

  164. Hi Andy,

    Cuba does have a communist party government but, despite that, the working class is excluded from the direct exercise of political power. It’s a revolutionary dictatorship, but there is a strong possibility that the revolution would be made stronger – and not weaker – if the masses came closer to the direct exercise of power.

    There’s a great article here:
    http://ronridenour.com/articles/2006/0619-rr.htm by Ron Ridenour in the Morning Star. Ron is a Communist with a big C, and a developed supporter of the Castroist current. There’s a serious debate to be had about Cuba, and suggesting that workers’ power is a Trojan horse for counter-revolution is quite misleading.

    Like

  165. Can I suggest that further discussion about Italy takes place under the sinistra critica video?

    Like

  166. Chris Brooks tells us that the ISG, British section of the Fourth International, does not have a policy on Cuba – strange – his FI does.

    He then tells us it is a “revolutionary dictatorship”. Presumably not the Robspierre type but the Bolshevik type. Strange again as there are no organs of workers democracy in Cuba only fake, one party organs of “peoples power”. A single (stalinist) type party controls the state which bans all other workers parties and has state run trade unions. “Revolutionary”, I think not.

    Maybe the ex-SWPers will swallow all this uncritical bollocks in their new revolutionary wing of RR, but what do you say when the Cuban state bans the Gay Pride march as it did recently – say three cheers or just remain silent?

    Is there a raging debate on China and Tibet in RR? Can someone direct us to the discussion. No sign of it on the website as far as I can see.

    Like

  167. Liam,

    How is the revolutionary re-groupment progressing. eagerly I logged onto the new blog the moment it was announced, I posted a comment expecting if not a swift response, that the enthusiastic masses engergied by your call would be commenting too, joining in the process of discussion of the document.

    But so far nothing, none of the founders have responded, there are no updates on the blog, announcement of meetings or web chats or anything else. In fact the project looks to be dead in the water already.

    My worry is that there are not enough letters in the alphabet to come up with a new acronym if you have to un-liquidise the ISG/SR, perhaps you should consider just cancelling the whole thing, after all it doesn’t seem like anyone has noticed anyway.

    Comradely, Martin

    Like

  168. Liam – I don’t know what is and ts need dotting or crossing, but I think we should be told who is proposing this revolutionary regroupment. You say a steering committee has already been elected, so presumably that much is known and could be published. When is ‘pretty soon’?

    Like

  169. Yes what is happening? I e-mailed and posted a blog comment- there has been a trickle of responses

    An invitation to participate in the creation of a new Revolutionary Socialist Organisation

    but no response on e-mail or any suggestion when stuff might start moving.

    I think some kind of socialist forum something like th eold socialist alliance but not necessarily limited to an elecvtoral project (though that can be explored as well) would be a significant step forward. We can do this. it’s in our hands. it will make a tangible difference. So let’s start doing something about it.

    Like

  170. Jason – the new formation will, in the first instance bring together former members of the SWP who left or were expelled due to the events around Respect, other individuals who identify themselves as revolutionary socialists and supporters of SR.

    There have been a number of proposals for documents. I’ll be writing one on ecosocialism, an area around which there are some differences. In addition there will be texts on the world and British situations, perspectives and organisational structure. The usual sort of stuff. My hunch is – speaking only for me – that they will be freely available.

    Very little is going to happen for the next month on account of the summer. After that there will be meetings in a number of cities. However the one thing everyone does seem to agree on is that the new current – or whatever emerges – is committed to actively building a broad class struggle party and Respect is a central to that process.

    There’s no big mystery about lack of replies or anything else. At the moment things are a bit haphazard but the trajectory and the timings are clear enough. We want to start broadening out the process from early September and have a conclusion in the first 2-3 months of next year.

    There may be a space for other discussion fora but the series of events that will happen in the next six months or so has a very specific focus and that there is no need to engage with currents which are actively opposed to this conception.

    Like

  171. Thanks for the reply. Hopefully as you say the documents will be freely available and I see no reason not to involve others in discussions around joint work or some kind of wider regroupment.

    I still think we should be in the same organisation even if only a loose alliance where we can agree to disagree on some issues. Like the other weekend when we had the PR event and you had your event next door I was all for just saying let’s meet together. Next time, eh?

    Like

  172. Of course I fully recognise and respect (no pun) your right to organise as socialists inside Resepct and don’t claim to want to necessaqrily participate in those tyoe of internal discussions in so far as it is about nuts and bolts of what to do at that meeting etc.

    But there is a wider discussion to be had on how to build a wider movement. How for example can we link different campaigns agianst privatisation? Against deportations? To lend solidarity to migrant workers struggles? Other workers’ struggles?

    These are not add-on optional extras but vital matters that all socialists should be involved in. As far as comrades such as yourself, the Searles, Kay, Jospeh Alan Thornett, havbe lot useful to say on this (i.e. much useful to say) I see no reason to not want to be involved in some discussions over this.

    Nor would I categorise my attitude towards Respect as “actively opposed to this conception”

    I think a left alternative (also no pun!) is vitally needed- not just in elections but actually in elections as well. I would argue in such an alliance for more explicitly socialist politics – for example I see no reason why working class people can’t run our own services or why this is aleinating to winning support- but if I lose the argument in a democratic debate- fair enough.

    If there was a vibrant electoral campaing in the locality I live which actually helped organise and co-ordinate local struggles such as I outlined above I would certianly support it even if I had differences with some of its politics

    Like

  173. I just had to say how much I laughed at this bit:

    martin ohr, on June 30th, 2008 at 1:36 pm Said: moreover if you are intending to make Respect a united party of the working class than militant trades union activists and revolutionaries like BillJ and me are exactly the sort of people you are going to have to convince.

    I really think that Martin will be among the very last people to be convinced by any actually-existing project to build a new working-class party. The union and the far left do not organise most working class people. As a result, a new party has to be built through campaigning in working class communities often overlooked by the labour bureaucracy. That’s exactly the kind of work that folk like Martin would see as being non-socialist and populist. The reality is that they are most comfortable in the narrow circles of the left, and will be amongst the very last people to centre their political life around united grass-roots campaigning on daily issues that is the basis of the most successful branches of Respect, the Green Party, the Left Alternative… and the Bolsheviks.

    Like

  174. Duncan ‘Church’ said: ” really think that Martin will be among the very last people to be convinced by any actually-existing project to build a new working-class party”

    That may well be true- but to decide in advance not to try to convince already existing revolutionaries seems to be a strange decision.

    “As a result, a new party has to be built through campaigning in working class communities often overlooked by the labour bureaucracy.” I agree entirely with this, which is why the next sentence seeking to attribute to me the opposite position seems like political dishonesty:

    ” That’s exactly the kind of work that folk like Martin would see as being non-socialist and populist.”

    I see Respect as being non socialist precisely because so far it has done the opposite of campaigning in working class communities, from the start it has pften attempted to shortcut this necessary work by pandering to religous elders and local businessmen. Furthermore I don’t believe that any socialist project will suceed while it has a sexist, homophobe charlatan like galloway at the helm.

    Like

  175. Also whilst there’s a place for internal discussions- if we don’t join Respect we can’t expect to be involved in internal meetings- any healthy formation should be having discussions/ joint campaigns with those outside it.

    With us at least as militant trade unionists if not as revolutionaries (I’m a tad upset Martin you left me off the list 😦

    Like

  176. Given that it’s been a common experience in Respect that has been the catalyst it is not immediately obvious why we would want to involve anyone with views like those expressed by Martin in the process.

    Like

  177. Liam, are you saying that only those who were 1) in respect and 2) on the galloway side will be able to build a workers party with containing a revolutionary current in the coming period? That seems to be self-limiting your project to only about 20-30 people at present.

    Let’s get real for a second, if you want to make a revolution and change the world then me, you, billj, jason and john rees and a whole load of other people are all going have to be in the same organisation at some point; unless of course what you are actually saying is that those outside your very small current are not only not real revolutionaries but don’t even have the potential to be.

    Like

  178. “Given that it’s been a common experience in Respect that has been the catalyst it is not immediately obvious why we would want to involve anyone with views like those expressed by Martin in the process.”

    May be not immediately obvious but as Martin says you want to build a workers’ party, a mass movement and even a revolution.

    To do this or even take steps towards strengthening networks of working class resistance you will need to engage with campaigns, trade unions, activists including those with whom you disagree.

    I agree with much of what Respect stands for but would argue for it to be more explicitly socialist. If I can’t convince mass meetings of this fine I’d proceed on what we can agree on. I, like you I think, want to get to a situation where we can regularly participate in mass meetings of struggle and mobilisation.

    Let’s see how we can get there. Let’s talk.

    Like

  179. Jason, I just have to say how much I admire your patience and tenacity in these discussions.

    One issue is that the large-scale regroupment of revolutionaries may not be possible and that, if it does happen, we may only be able to convince each other on the basis of common work rather than on the basis of polemic.

    For example Martin may be, in theory, in favour of Respect reaching out into unorganised sectors of the working class. However all he can see when we do it is “religious elders” and “businessmen”. Of course that’s not the reality of Respect at all – in my branch we leaflet on working class estates, try to raise issues about energy costs, hold public meetings and so on. But if we, for example, get agreement to leaflet a mosque then Martin thinks we become the Taliban.

    The program of the party is its reality, and vice versa. We just don’t find ourselves frequently able to have satisfying working relations with comrades from the AWL. And how could we, when they consider us to be popular frontist, Stalinist, anti-semitic and reformist.

    So here is our hypothesis: the road to a new mass workers party does not run first through Martin Ohr. If his support is the precondition, we would all fail.

    Clearly socialists in Respect do need to engage with folk outside Respect. But there’s a difference – we want to identify where we can work together with people and build unity in practice: in the unions, in the social movements and in the campaigns. We are not focussing on areas of difference, and imagining that those differences can be resolved through debate rather than through lived experience.

    At the moment, there is a clear basis for regroupment of the revolutionaries in Respect. There is not a clear basis for regroupment with Permanent Revolution, but there is a basis for the real and positive dialogue we are having with folk in PR with whom we have effective working relationships. It’s important to SR that we continue to have PR comrades speaking from time to time on the platform of SR public meetings, and that we follow the debates you folk are having. Our co-operation in the Convention of the Left is another positive experience on which we should build. But we have to remember that consciousness comes from experience, and not the other way around.

    Like

  180. “It’s important to SR that we continue to have PR comrades speaking from time to time on the platform of SR public meetings, and that we follow the debates you folk are having. “

    blimey, that to me sums up one of the biggest problems with SR.

    Like

  181. Thanks Chris for that.

    Andy “blimey, that to me sums up one of the biggest problems with SR.” That is your problem I think.

    At least your comment is ambiguous: if you mean you are not interested in political discussions between Permanent Revolution and Socialist Resistance on socialism then fair enough. Each to their own. It’s still hard to see how that is one of the biggest problems of SR.

    However, it also risks coming across as a bit of reflex McCarthyite anti-leftism. What of the situation where a trade union struggle or anti-deporation campaign or anti-privatisation campaign is being represented by a comrade form PR? Should Respect ban them form being able to talk? Do you advocate operating a list whereby only people of the correct political persuasion as defined by you can talk? It certainly seems to imly that f you come up with these sort of formulations.

    I think there are all sorts of areas socialists should co-operate. They are I’d suggest coming up with actions and movements to draw in new activists, to defend jobs, services, to fight to exend democratic control over them, to link these fights with struggles for justice aborad both in terms of opposing imperialist war and international solidarity. Socialists should begin to have talks on these matters in order to seed campaigns that actually organise our class and take it forward.

    I don’t see how this is opposed to the interests of Respect as an organisation- it may even help it. I think there’s also a chance that be engaging in grassroots struggles and opening these up to co-operation with people who don’t sign up to your narrow definitions of what t means to be socialist then we can have more interesting deabtes.

    Like

  182. Andy, if one of our biggest problems is that we have Bill speak about globalisation that that’s good news. It’s a pretty minor peccadillo. The reality is that both he and you have some very powerful insights, and we should be open to them in order to try to integrate individuals’ partial insights into a common understanding.

    Jason’s reply confuses me. I think what Andy is trying to say is that SR has its priorities wrong if dialogue with PR is at the top of its ‘To Do’ list (Honestly it’s not a top priority for us, but it is important to retain comradely relations with folk where we can and to be open to others.

    I don’t see how anyone could think that you favour the exclusion of PR from the movement, or their banning. That’s really says more about the idea of you that Jason has.

    We are all in favour of broader common work, but we have to recall that common work where we agree is much more powerful in producing unity than factional debates.

    Like

  183. Ok sorry if I confused you and if that definitely isn’t what Andy meant then fair enough. Perhaps I misinterpreted it. Sorry if that’s the case.

    The point though is that dialogue with SR isn’t the top of our to do list either- with all due respect. It is though quite useful and something we will continue to do. But top of our list or certainly of mine would be developing networks and co-ordinations of activity with SR comrades, other Respect members, other leftists, othe rpeople in unions or campaigns and out of this having debates and discussions about ways forward.

    I think there is a good reason for socialists to start co-operating and even caucusing on how to begin to implement this. Why don’t SR and PR comrades in a particular city begin to ahve regular meetings on how we can best intervene in the class struggle and have open meetings perhaps called something like socialist network or socialsit forum every month or couple of months for activists to get together, to plan united activity, discuss ideas and so on. It shouldn’t just be limited to socialsits either.

    I think this would be a real step forward to the extent that it helps organise our intervention in the class struglge and clarify our ideas along the way.

    Like

  184. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    Yes my point is well summed up by saying that if mainataining dialogue with Permanent Revolution is seen as an importnat priority for SR, then you are looking in the wrong direction.

    :o)

    Like

  185. OK so Andy’s a cynic. I don’t think that’s really news to anyone. But the point isn’t really about the relationship of any of the small left groups (they’re all small btw whatever their pretensions) but about re-looking at how the entire left has related to each other, which has been basically as competitive rivals where we seek to predate one another.
    Even if we don’t agree on many points there is no reason why we can’t co-operate say in the unions, fighting against the planned sell out of the public sector pay claim – as one example. If we could develop an atmosphere where we at least take each others ideas seriously (or if not seriously then we’re at least polite in a businesslike sense), combined with actually undertaking practical actions together, then we will have made progress.

    Like

  186. I look forward to you denouncing me in a polite and businesslike way in the future, Bill.

    Like

  187. I didn’t think I’d ever done anything else!

    Like

  188. Perhaps we’ll not so much ‘denounce’ you as offer friendly constructive suggestions, Clive.

    More serious though is to begin some of this practical collaborative work.

    Like

  189. Andy – there are lots of problems with SR but one of our strengths is that we are willing to engage in a comradely discussion with anyone who disagrees with us. The shared MO of most of the British far left is to perusade the members that everyone outside the current is “sectarian”, “irrelevant” etc and that only that group’s ideas are right. This serves different purposes. We have seen recently how that technique has been used to circle the wagons around a leadership that has had a catastrophic twelve months. It prevents active questioning. It consolidates the group against the hostile outside world. Thanks but no thanks.

    My experience is that the comrades in PR have a view close to our own on this method but we differ on the significance of Respect. So it is completely right that we have a dialogue on areas where some joing work is possible but as others have pointed out it’s no one’s number one priority at the moment.

    Like

  190. I largely agree with this statement “The shared MO of most of the British far left is to perusade the members that everyone outside the current is “sectarian”, “irrelevant” etc and that only that group’s ideas are right. ”

    Though of course we have to be careful we don’t descend into the ‘we’re great the other groups are crap’ syndrome this very statement is criticising. To a greater or lesser extent this kind of partyism or sectarianism- putting the group ahead of the class- has disfigured most of the left at some point. However, there are plenty of honest militants who can see beyond it.

    I think if we can develop local forums (or fora as pedants would have it) of socialists and other activists planning action together and discussing ideas then we’d be on a winner.

    To some extent the socialist unity initiative in Manchester is beginning to do this, now largely subsumed in the convention of the left but hopefully leaving various groups afterwards- e.g. an antifascist group met and has planned its first big public meeting and had a couple of planning meetings.

    Also there’s the socialist forum in Cardiff which sounds very good and is helping organise the campaign against the military academy at St Athans, http://cardiffpr.wordpress.com/

    The left is in a bad state generally but there are signs that working class resistance is picking up and disillusion with mainstream parties and their attacks is particularly high. We should capitalise on this. Of course some would say join Respect and fair enough but we have to get beyond the ‘join us’ syndrome as the only solution to build networks and campaigns of working class resistance.

    Like

  191. “Of course some would say join Respect and fair enough but we have to get beyond the ‘join us’ syndrome as the only solution to build networks and campaigns of working class resistance.”

    I agree Jason but we also need to be aware that ultimately we are much better prepared if we are in organisations. On a simple level, they have an advantage over individuals as organisations can pool resources.

    The leaflet that supports a local campaign will be more likely to appear if there is an organisation that can pay for it. I agree that there should be more to politics than simply ‘join us’ but let’s not throw the baby out with bathwater.

    Like

  192. Mmm… fair point. But many of us ar ein organisations already of varying degrees and sizes.

    I’m not against the idea that we should all be in the same organisation on some level but given the differences of opinion on some matters it might have to start as some kind of alliance or network.

    We can discuss this- but such discussions only really begin to make sense I think in the context of campaigns.

    Like

  193. Liam writes that

    “The shared MO of most of the British far left is to perusade the members that everyone outside the current is “sectarian”, “irrelevant” etc and that only that group’s ideas are right.”

    SR thinks like that, too. Or when did you last see serious public engagement from SR/ ISG with the ideas of any of the other small groups (or even those of the SP(EW)?

    Mike

    Like

  194. If that’s an invitation to slug it out in the pages of the Weekly Worker I think we’d rather not.

    Like

  195. Liam,

    If it was just a matter of ignoring the Weekly Worker it could be interpreted as a specific tactical political judgment by SR comrades – though you are, of course, welcome to ‘slug it out’ in the WW: who knows, you might persuade some readers.

    But in fact, it’s much wider, as I pointed out in my previous comment: SR is also silent on SPEW, etc. What this shows is that SR is engaged (on a smaller scale) in the same sort of political project as the SWP and SPEW – pretend that what’s outside the political current and its immediate collaborators doesn’t really exist, so that it isn’t necessary to engage with their existence and their arguments.

    Mike

    Like

  196. But isn’t the fact that you use the poinless acronym of “Spew” rather revealing about your own intentions?

    Like

  197. I prsume they mean the socialist party- but it is bizarre.

    Like

  198. SPEW or SP(EW): Socialist Party (England & Wales), as opposed to SPGB (either variety) or SSP.

    On the more basic point. I have not claimed that we (CPGB) don’t think that other groups are wrong on political issues 1, 2, 3 … n, and say so at what is perhaps tedious length.

    In fact, of course, if you *don’t* think you have something different to say from the other left existing organisations, then having a separate organisation and/ or press is a complete waste of space

    My point is simply that Liam’s claim that SR is different from the rest of the organised left on this front is untrue. On the contrary, SR *shares* the method of the majority of the left, which is to pretend for the purposes of public speech that the political and organisational issues which divide the left into micro-groups don’t really exist.

    Mike

    Like

  199. Whether or not it is distinctive- part of the somewhat tedious discourse of some elft groups is that everyone else is sectarian but we’re really nice- what we should argue for is-

    – an end to building parties at the expense of the struggle
    – clear statement of differences in a fraternal, political, polite and non- name calling way
    – joint work in united fronts and working class campaigns
    – such joint work to not at all compromise contributing a distinctive point of view, own literature, leaflets etc. where necessary

    It’s not that hard. But much of the left (including ourselves) have to have a hard rethink about how we go about things.

    PS- I have never seen the SP referred to as SPEW by anyone else- it is most unfortunate and you should immediately come up with another way of referencing them such as- Socialist Party or SP!

    Words including acronyms are quite important. SPEW comes across as puerile.

    Like

  200. andyinswindon Avatar
    andyinswindon

    The Grren party is also officially the Grren party of enganf and wales.

    Does Weekly Worker refer to them as GPEW?

    Like

  201. Permanent Revolution seeks to build a party of the entire world so I submit we should be known as Permanent Revolution (Entire World) or PREW

    Like

  202. My favourite is Trade Unionists Need Struggle (Marx Engels Lenin Trotsky) TUNA MELT

    Like

  203. Of course that should have been;

    Trade Unionists Need Action (Marx Engels Lenin Trotsky)

    how could I!

    Like

  204. mm.. think I’ve heard that one before and it’s ACTION not Struggle

    Like

  205. This is just getting silly- I apologise if any of the acronyms caused acrimony.

    People will started coming out with awful puns next.

    Right I’m off out now.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending