Defending our people. We won’t pay for their crisis!

 

RespectConference2008 Respect is holding its national conference in London on 25th October 2008, at the Bishopsgate Centre, 230 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 4QH. Registration starts at 10am.

Our conference could not come at a more important time. The credit crunch and the banking crisis threaten misery to millions. Right-wing capitalist governments, including those of George W. Bush and Gordon Brown’s New Labour, have for years sworn by the market and denounced the very idea of nationalisation as heresy. But now the market has ‘bust’ the economy and, fearing economic collapse, they have turned to nationalising banks to save their skins (and pay their banker friends’ bad debts).

George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, recently denounced the “sharks, gorillas and spivs” who have bankrupted the financial system and threaten millions with hardship.

“The glittering spires of Canary Wharf and the Square Mile have produced little ‘trickle down’ to the vast majority of people…”, he said. “Now those same institutions are going to plunge millions in this country into severe financial problems as a result of the credit crunch….Unemployment alone is predicted to rise to two million by the end of the year.”

Among all these threats to our well-being, working-class people have no mass party to champion us against the employers. Respect is seeking to put that right. In the 2005 general election, we elected George Galloway in Bethnal Green and Bow. We now have a dozen councillors in East London and Birmingham, and a real chance of electing three MP’s when the General Election comes.

Come to the Respect Conference, on 25th October. Conference registration costs £10. To vote you must be a Respect (Renewal) member, which costs £5 for the remainder of 2008. Be part of building a real alternative to the parties of capitalism, racism and war. You can join Respect, make a donation and register for the conference by going to our website at: www.respectrenewal.orgor fill in the form on this letter and send your registration fee and membership subscription (if appropriate) to Respect, PO Box 1109, London N4 2UU. Cheques etc should be made payable to ‘Respect Renewal Conference’.

Conference will debate resolutions and elect a new National Council. Resolutions passed are featured on the website, and may be submitted to conference by a branch or else signed by 6 Respect members. Resolutions must be submitted by 11th October, amendments to resolutions by 22nd October. Nominations for the new National Council must be received by 10 October 2008. People can nominate themselves. Anyone nominated for the NC must be a paid-up member.

Any individual member seeking support for a resolution should send it to conference@respectrenewal.org; it will be put on the website so that other members can decide whether to put their names to it as above.

Please visit the website for more details and a full list of resolutions and nominations: www.respectrenewal.org

Special announcement:

Last year’s split and dispute finally settled. Last year Respect went through a split which left uncertainty about the party name. We are very pleased to be able to inform you that, following recent talks with representatives of Left Alternative (formerly Left List), former Respect Treasurer Elaine Graham-Leigh has signed the official forms required for a member of Respect (Renewal) to be registered as the party treasurer. This step places use of the name Respect and all other aspects of the party’s legal status completely in the hands of Respect (Renewal). We will no longer need to use the ‘Renewal’ part. We can now put the split and its consequences behind us and work to build Respect.

109 responses to “Come to the Respect conference 2008”

  1. Last year’s split and dispute finally settled.

    Hurrah! Well done that woman.

    Like

  2. yep
    I hear Left Alternative rightly got the money.
    I am also hearing attendance figures for the conference are becoming a bit of a worry, hence been turned into a rally event. Of course last year RR claimed 300 attended (We all know this was bull). So with the SWP out of the way and of course they were the problem it will have to be much bigger to show any jusitification for Galloways behaviour. Tiem will tell.

    Like

  3. Yes it was bull, it was 350 .

    Like

  4. Arbuckle – you’ve been misinformed about the other details as well.

    There was not much money left after the bills were paid and the resolutions are appearing on the website. What’s more no one has the foggiest idea which way any of the votes will go. That’s a bit of a novelty.

    Like

  5. I see the CPGB have a motion to the Renewal conference and another motion for Renewal to become an English Nationalist Party.

    ’tis a bit lame Renewal claiming to be Respect.

    Everyone accepts that Paul McCartney was central to the Beatles – but the Wings obviously weren’t the Beatles!

    Like

  6. yes liam
    Motions like the one from swindon!! we don’t want to get the tories elected…………umm real problem to see how that one goes!!! I mean lets face it with motions like that it’ll be worth taking your sleeping bag.
    Anyway Liam where is your motions regarding the direction of respect.
    Perhaps one on RR positions on by elections in scotland would be worth submitting. Like could the MP stop backing New Labour and supporitng british nationalism against scottish nationalsim. Or then again on the issue of Sexism. Perhaps Liam one motion which would let the members decide who the candidates for elections are.
    Liam was arguing there was going to be a big debate on the way forward with his bunch leading the way. No motions. Frankly the Respect paper is a farce, it really is just the same stuff every month or when it appears. Usually with Wrack writing a piece on why we need respect yawn yawn other contributers usually write about 3 or 4 pieces for what is lets be kind boring articles.

    Like

  7. Yes it’s true that the departure of the excellent activists in the SWP and the wrangling over the name did make it a hard year for Respect, but we’ve got through it, we’re still here, still optimistic about the future, as there’s a still a desire to create the kind of organisation that Respect was originally supposed to be.

    All the sour grapes in the world won’t change that, and the conference is going to be great!

    Like

  8. Arbuckle,I honestly couldn’t give a toss anymore and I wonder why your wasting your energy.
    I’m quite pleased the divorce has come through.
    “Respect” will now have to make it’s own way in the world without being able to blame the SWP if anything goes wrong.
    I agree that those resolutions are going to lead to a fractious conference but I wish the comrades well and hope they benefit from the experience.

    Like

  9. Rob
    seriously is a motion which appears to say we wouldn’t like to see the Tories elected a real discussion point amongst Respect members. If so then its a bit worrying. If not as we kn0ow it isn’t then why bother having this motion. Unless its designed by Andy to back up Galloways behaviour over the Glasgow By Election. I do not see any motions regarding his call to support New Labour and ditch the left. But thats just my opinion. Thornett as yet has not submtted any motion, I am sure there will be a number submitted as they are of course the revolutionary wing of RESPECT. I look forwrd to the debate on placing Livingstone no1, backing new labour in Glasgow and how to keep the MP to account on issues such as a womens right to choose etc etc It will be interesting and if the above contributions anythign to go by about 400-500 strong. Excellent. Remmebr this is now open to everybody including any non members, strange conference, sounds like a rally.

    Like

  10. Arbuckle,it does seem from that statement that anyone can go but only “respect” members can vote which is fair enough but can anyone clarify?
    Such an arrangement would of course lead to a bigger meeting than if it were a more conventional delegate conference.
    Of course it will mean that the place will be filled with AWLers and CPGBers and others who are hardly interested in “Respect”.
    The Swindon motion isn’t a surprise from a current moving to the right that wants to come to some sort of accomodation soft left reformist types like Compass and elements in Plaid Cymru and the like.
    It’ll be interesting to see the outcome of all this anyway.

    Like

  11. I’ll vote for the Swindon motion though I’m damned glad that I don’t live in Jacqui Smith’s constituency. It seems entirely reasonable to take a position on what to do in the event of a general election.

    As for Respect choosing only to organise in England that’s an excellent idea. The history of the British labour movement is at the same time the history of its capitulation to British imperialism and let’s not get started on the organisations which insist that the world revolution has to be run from London.

    Allowing a few peripheral attention seekers a chance to speak so that they can fill half of next week’s paper is a small price to pay for political pluralism.

    Like

  12. “Allowing a few peripheral attention seekers a chance to speak so that they can fill half of next week’s paper is a small price to pay for political pluralism.”

    It is not about filling the paper, it is about putting forward principled internationalism in the movement, i expect to read about self proclaimed socialists voting down internationalism and solidarity with the people of Iran.

    Like

  13. you’re obviously desperate if you are expecting AWL to fill your conference;)

    I can confirm that we have little interest in attending, the sight of former trots bowing and scraping to the array of stalinists, piss-poor right wing journalists, lib dems and assorted nutters which make up the Respect leadership is not all that inviting.

    Still the ISG could surprise everyone and move some resolutions.

    Like

  14. Chris – apart from demonstrating how to play student union “exposure politics” what earthly purpose is served by the HOPI resolution. Are you worried that Respect might come out in favour of bombing Iran.? Only a lunatic pro-imperialist would argue that.

    I think the attention seeking charge is supported by the way you present your reasoning. There is no hint of any attempt at a serious engagement with Respect and this sort of stunt is adolescent posturing.

    Like

  15. Attacked simultanelously by both the AWL and the CPGB! Must be doing something right.

    Like

  16. Chris S: what a hostile act.

    I would suggest the following amendments to the resolution on Iran:

    delete bullet points 2, 4 and 5.

    On the grounds that Respect does not want to give the impression that its opposition to sanctions, bombing or the invasion of Iran is in any way dependent and on the fact that it goes without saying that Respect supports Iranian workers and oppressed minorities.

    I don’t think anyone will be sorry you won’t be there Martin Ohr. This is a conference for socialists not Zionists. Perhaps you can do animal impressions outside.

    What very good news about Respect finally seeing off the attempt to wreck it.

    In the meantime here is a quote from Marx which I hope will be the spirit of the conference:

    `Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes. If, therefore, it was not possible — and the conditions of the item did not permit it — to go beyond the Eisenach programme, one should simply have concluded an agreement for action against the common enemy. ‘

    On the Swindon resolution. If you are indifferent to the fate of the working class it will be indifferent to yours. I would imagine this resolution will go through on the nod.

    Like

  17. I agree entirely with Liam but I would go further. The resolution by members of the CPGB is more than just pointless posturing, it’s a wrecking tactic.

    I’m all ears as to why you should want to turn up at any ones else event and play these daft games and engage in petty sectarian point scoring. No one is going to give you a medal for this. You’re just going to really, really piss people off.

    The CPGB has spent the last year slagging of both sides in the Respect split.
    I think we were the rightwing moving, businessman wing if I remember, so why an earth would your lot want to put in an appearance at such event.
    Surely the atmosphere would be too toxic for you holier than thou revolutionaries.

    As far as I’m aware, (and of course I’ll stand corrected), but I’m not aware of any member of the CPGB playing any active and constructive part in Respect over the last year. I can remember plenty of bile in the Weakly Worker though, coupled with pronouncements of our imminent demise. And of course Chris I would have noticed if any member of the CPGB attended a Respect branch meeting in Manchester.

    This is not ‘putting forward principled internationalism in the movement’. That’s deluded bollocks.

    Your organisation is not serious in building any kind of unity. I note the comments made by the Weakly Worker about the Convention of the Left., that was just a talking shop. I also note that your organisation has still not paid its bills with the Convention of the Left either,

    Like

  18. I agree with you Richard, I can’t understand why the WW would want to attend the Respect conference – a group they do not agree with and do not support. Frankly its odd.
    Similarly at the COTL they did not speak once during the entire event, or make any serious attempt to speak. Why not?

    Like

  19. The motion from Swindon should not be contentious, it is being proposed because Respect actually don’t have a policy towards the general election, and we should have.

    this is a very important position to take in terms of a relationship with the trade unions, Morning Star, etc.

    I think Rob Griffiths put it very well at the 2005 election, when he said that if one or two of the leading ministers in the Blair govt lost their seats, he wouldn’t be too upset, if one or twwo of the leading war criminals who launched the war on Iraq lost their seats he wouldn’t be too upset; but in terms of what is the best context for moving forward the socialist, peace and trade union movements, then it is by far better overall for labour to win the election than the Tories.

    the motion is deliberaty short, to allow people a lot of lee way in how they interpret it.

    Like

  20. Bill – let’s not encourage speculation about the motives of WW. Off the top of my head I can think of 23 million more useful and interesting thing to absorb me.

    Like

  21. David Ellis: “I don’t think anyone will be sorry you won’t be there Martin Ohr. This is a conference for socialists not Zionists. Perhaps you can do animal impressions outside.” !?

    Like

  22. David – Martin is right about this. The remark is offensive and goes against the comments policy. I don’t want that sort of personal abuse on this site.

    Like

  23. I think the Swindon motion is interesting though, logically that means the respect candidates should step-down if it were likely that they might be decisive in the Tories beating labour?

    Like

  24. Actually, David’s remark about animal impressions is a reference to a real event, where an AWLer picketed a CPGB event brandishing a Kellogs cornflakes packet and making chicken noises. It is not personal abuse at all, but reference to the strange behaviour of a rather strange sect.

    The HOPI motion should be voted down, because it equates the Iranian regime with imperialism and refuses to support the existing regime’s right to defend itself against imperialist attack. HOPI also slandered George Galloway as a homophobe for denouncing Islamophobes in the gay movement for providing a cover for imperialist warmongering. I speak as a former sponsor of HOPI: I withdrew my support as a result of this pro-imperialist vilification that was identical to that of the AWL. HOPI-CPGB’s politics are AWL-lite.

    And I don’t think we should have a policy one way or another on voting Labour or not in the general election. On some questions (e.g. ID cards) New Labour are worse than the Tories. Why should we support war criminals and enemies of civil liberties? We should only support people in the LP who have some record of opposing these things.

    Like

  25. “brandishing a Kellogs cornflakes packet and making chicken noises.”

    arguably less futile than actually going in and debating with the CPGB though.

    Like

  26. Thanks ID. That is indeed what I was refering to.

    We should remember that New Labour is the social-chauvinist clique that dominates the LP. I think it is definitely right for Respect to announce that it is not indifferent as to whether the Tories or Labour get in but Respect is in a position to do things that the Labour party can’t do for itself and that is stand against known NL scumbags where possible as well, of course, as defending its own seat and moving into areas where nobody has any illusions in Labour anymore due to the war and such like. Respect needs to connect with the working class.

    Agree on the HOPI thing.

    Like

  27. `I think the Swindon motion is interesting though, logically that means the respect candidates should step-down if it were likely that they might be decisive in the Tories beating labour?’

    More hostility. It means nothing of the sort. By passing the Swindon motion wokers can rest assured that Respect MPs would have no intention of bringing down a Labour government if it meant the Tories getting in. They will, however, not join a labour government of course due to its pro-war, pro-big business approach but will vote with it when it proposes pro-working class policies and against it when it is attacking the working class. They will demand that a Labour Government enacts socialist policies and ends the war I’d of thought.

    Like

  28. “New Labour is the social-chauvinist clique”

    I disagree that New Labour can be called ‘social chauvinist’. That designation should be reserved for old style Labour reformism. Some level of political alliance with ‘social chauvinists’ is possible because of the ‘social’ element involved – i.e. there is a common commitment to some socially progressive goals, despite the nationalism/chauvinism of Old Labour.

    But there is no ‘social’ component of New Labour. It is bourgeois through and through. You may as well call the Tories social-chauvinist as New Labour. They have the same commitment to the ‘social’ goals of the labour movement. I.e. zero.

    Like

  29. “it means nothing of the sort. By passing the Swindon motion wokers can rest assured that Respect MPs would have no intention of bringing down a Labour government if it meant the Tories getting in.”

    This is of course the same as saying in the current circumstacnes we would back new labour what ever why? because the Tories would be likely to win an election at present. So if RESPECT had MP’s that could vote against the govt and in so doing bring it down it would not do so. Its the same old story of the labour left.. propping up the labour right just in different clothing. “From a scratch to Gangerene” I think someone once said.

    Like

  30. By the Way leading Respect member Andy from said Swindon branch (sic) is arguing that socialists should back up Gordon Brown’s plan!!! yes thats right give billions to the banks without any demand to put the whole lot of fuckers under nationalisation. He syas demanding a response to the crisis which benefits workers is utopian!!”!! You can’t believe how Andy is pulling respect to the right. He’ also seems to eb on a bit of a love in with Joseph Stalin at the moment lol

    Like

  31. Arbuckle, I am totally confused by the point you are making above (because I am assuming you are SWP, or close to them, and trying to square this with your apparent views on here).
    Respect DOES have an MP and he CAN vote against the government. Are you advocating that Galloway join forces with the Tories on a confidence vote to bring down the government?
    Is that what a Left List or SWP MP would do?
    Would a Tory government, right here, right now, be a step forward for the left or a reversal?

    Like

  32. RobM
    I would not want a socialist MP to back this bailout of the bankers. To do so would in my opinion be a smaller version august 14th 1914. You can dress it up anyway you like but this plan organsied between New Labour and big buisness is about propping up their financial system and making workers pay. Now I am for making demands some of whcih I think Galloway has argued for. It cannot however mean voting for a govt respinse which if you notice has the backing of the Tories, Lib Dems and the super rich. If you think Galloway should vote for that then why have an independent left MP at all.
    The point I was referring to was not a vote of confidence but you Repect position of never in principle bringing down a labour govt if it meant that it was likely a tory party would win an election. What about a vote for war for example, what if that brought a labour govt down, your logic is to keep mouths shut. Well I don’t share that view. For Respect to be telling the left to back browns handouts is a fucking disgrace.

    Like

  33. ID wrote: “The HOPI motion should be voted down, because it equates the Iranian regime with imperialism and refuses to support the existing regime’s right to defend itself against imperialist attack. HOPI also slandered George Galloway as a homophobe for denouncing Islamophobes in the gay movement for providing a cover for imperialist warmongering. ”

    It would be interesting to see the HOPI motion. In general HOPI does not equate the Iranian regime with imperialism. Socialists in Iran can and should oppose the Iranian dictatorship whilst also opposing imperialism which is of course a greater enemy- but the only way to defeat imperialism is to organise in the working class in solidarity with the workers’ movement fighting the vicious dictatorship.

    Simarly opposing Iran’s policy towards gay people is not Islamophobic or pro-imperialist- indeed it was the impeiralists trying to deport someone to Iran.

    On th ebailout of the banks- of course we should oppose Brown’s measures. What is needed is nationalisation with no compensation, protection of workers’ savings and houses, nationalisation of all banks and services under workers’ control.

    Like

  34. “It would be interesting to see the HOPI motion. In general HOPI does not equate the Iranian regime with imperialism. Socialists in Iran can and should oppose the Iranian dictatorship whilst also opposing imperialism which is of course a greater enemy- but the only way to defeat imperialism is to organise in the working class in solidarity with the workers’ movement fighting the vicious dictatorship.”

    It may be true that the only way to defeat imperialism ultimately is through world socialist revolution. However, in the event of an imperialist attack on Iran, to say that only the defeat of the regime by the working class can defeat imperialism is a cop-out. You have to defend Iran’s right to self-determination unconditionally, which means siding with forces loyal to the existing regime against the invaders notwithstanding your opposition to the regime. HOPI does not actually condemn that position formally, but in practice much of its propaganda is in reality a polemic against that principled anti-imperialist position.

    “Simarly opposing Iran’s policy towards gay people is not Islamophobic or pro-imperialist- indeed it was the impeiralists trying to deport someone to Iran.”

    True, but there are still elements politically active over this who have an Islamophobic agenda. Tatchell is one for a start. There are many more. For pointing this out, GG was falsely condemned by HOPI as a homophobe. Which shows what HOPI’s real agenda is. AWL-lite.

    Like

  35. Good points, ID. Where did HOPI denounce GG as a homophobe? The link would be useful.

    Like

  36. They didn’t. So a link would be very useful.

    Like

  37. Here is the link:

    http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/713/gallowayalibis.html

    and here (read down the page) is my letter withdrawing support from HOPI over this:

    http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/715/letters.html

    Like

  38. Yes on reflection I agreed with them on this. GG was homophobic over this incident and also in his description of Tatchell at the STWC demo.
    Which isn’t surprising because this is after all his sincerenly held religious belief.

    Like

  39. Arbuckle, you bring in the (not-so)red herring of a vote for war bringing down a Labour government as if it is likely that opposition to such a policy would come from the right- the anti-imperialist Tories! In reality, the only scenario of a war vote bringing down a Labour gov would be a back-bench rebellion of Labour MPs, under mass, popular pressure, breaking with their own whips to vote against. In that situation, of course Respect would side with this revolt and possibly bring down the goverment- even at the expense of the Tories or Lib Dems assuming power. They would do this as party of a mass movewment to the left of New Labour- something that does not exist now.

    Like

  40. Great to see the left pulling together. Why on earth would anybody who dosen`t belong to any political organisation what to come on board. Get a fuckin grip. DON`T GIVE THE SNIPERS THE PUBLICITY THEY CRAVE. Solidarity is Strength.

    Like

  41. GG was not and is not remotely homophobic and that has nothing to do with his religious beliefs. Those beliefs never stopped him supporting gay rights over a long period including when it was not as popular as it is today to do so. Niether do they have anything to do with the issue HOPI was seeking to exploit. Plenty of people without any religious beliefs can spot Tatchell’s Islamophobia and the frequent adulation he recieves on the pro-war ‘decent left’ for this. That Bill J defends Tatchell on this speaks volumes about his own softness on this political disease.

    Like

  42. Galloway on the Wright Stuff said that, ““All the papers seem to imply that you get executed in Iran for being gay. That’s not true.”

    Wright said,“His boyfriend was hung though, wasn’t he?” Galloway replied: “Yes, but not for being gay. For committing sex crimes against young men … I mean, I’m against execution for any reason in any place, but it is important to avoid that propaganda.”

    I’m not convinced it is useful or right to call Galloway homophobic- certainly this instance would not be enough. But it is evidence of a very flawed method.

    Iran like many other countries has an oppressive government. Of course imperialism when it chooses hypociritically seeks to use such oppression in its ratcheting up threats. But denying the oppression is not at all a sound method- neither honest nor effectivise in opposing it.

    Indeed in Iran the pronouncements of imperialism play directly into Ahmadenijad’s hands. They do nothing to help LGBT activists, women or trade unionists- the exact opposite. The antiwar movement defending oppression actually also plays into the hands of imperialists and the tabloid press war mongerers.

    I don’t know enough about Tatchell to know if there is any substance to him being Islamophobic- it’s a serious allegation and perhaps should be substantiated. But suffice to say criticising a barbaric regime that uses Islam as a cloak for its murderous policies is not at all necessarily the same as joining int he racist demonisation of Islam of the rightwng press, the state and racists.

    Socialists should oppose all racism. Islamophobia and the hounding and targetting of black people as Muslims is a particualrly nasty hegemonic form of state and to some extent popular racism. We should stand squarely against it. That strong stance is not helped but actually hindered by refusing to recognise that some governments that profess Islam are deeply reactionary and barbaric as are some governments who profess Christianity or atheism.

    Like

  43. I addressed this question in my letter to HOPI. It appears there was some confusion between different cases of a similar type. However, that is not the result of any hostility to gays (still less motivated by religious beliefs as according to Bill J’s smear – explain then why GG’s lifelong religious beliefs allowed him to support Edwina Currie’s unsuccessful bill to equalise the age of consent in this country as early as 1994!), but rather a laudable desire to counter the exploitation of this issue to propagandise for war – in a situation where war with Iran was very much on the agenda.

    HOPI on this was attacking George from the right. And so is Bill J.

    Tatchell is quite crazily Islamophobic, actually, and has even organised contingents to ‘intervene’ on anti-war demos attacking the demand for immediate withdrawal from Iraq – the same line as the AWL. I.e. the troops should stay till they defeat the Islamists, etc. He also is a vocal advocate of armed imperialist intervention in Sudan.

    Brett Lock, with whom he closely collaborates including on issues like this, goes much further into overt support of Israeli armed attacks on Palestinians because of Hamas’, going so far as to be (to be excessively charitable) indifferent to civilian casualties in Gaza etc. Has Tatchell even condemned Lock for any of this? No, but he saw fit to campaign extensively against Ken Livingstone simply for engaging in political dialogue with Muslim clerics like Qaradawi.

    His campaign against Livingstone over Qaradawi put him right in the reactionary camp with the worst elements of New Labour and Tories like Cameron and Gove, and attacked Livingstone for one of his few strengths – his refusal to capitulate to the demonisation of Muslims including by the leaders of his own party.

    If you can’t spot the Islamophobia of someone like Tatchell, then you have an enormous political blind spot. It means you are not as far away from the ‘decent left’ (including Matgamna and co) as you think you are.

    Like

  44. So a few things then,

    Liam, is it about exposure politics? No I don’t think it is, and I have no doubt that Respect would come out against an attack on Iran, that is good. What Respect will not do is support the Iranian working class and the social movements in Iran fro all the ridiculous crap we have heard from those opposed to HOPI over the last year. Lets be quite clear, any 6 members of Respect can submit a motion so those in the CPGB that still have membership of Respect are perfectly within their right to put a motion forward.

    Richard, I know it may be hard to see members of Respect putting a motion forward that may cause a sharp debate but clearly lets have the discussion on it and see how many socialists vote down internationalism. Will you be voting for solidarity with Iranian workers, students, women and LGBT people or not? It is not a “wrecking tactic”, it is about putting forward politics that should be ABC to socialists yet seem to be alien to some.

    You say the CPGB is not interested in unity but where are any serious unity attempts taking place? Very few want to build the party we need even though the majority of the Left desires a revolutionary party. The unity on offer from Respect has demonstrably failed in the UK, Brazil, Italy etc etc. Unity which waters down the socialist programme and essentially has self styled revolutionaries dressing themselves up as labourites has done a brilliant job of uniting the Left and moving our class forward hasn’t it comrade? There will be a time when the ISG and what is left of Respect will not be able to blame the SWP for Respects failure.

    ID, George Galloway must be a smashing bloke to equate homosexuality with paedophilia. That is the kind of leaders the workers movement need!

    It is sad to see people who have tied their cart to Galloway tying themselves in knots trying to justify his attacks on the LGBT community and his softness on the Iranian regime.

    Like

  45. “It is sad to see people who have tied their cart to Galloway tying themselves in knots trying to justify his attacks on the LGBT community and his softness on the Iranian regime.”

    Nonsense. Your outfit is touting for the same pro-war forces in echoing Tatchell now as it did when it ran Dave Osler’s scab article agreeing with the Daily Telegraph over the Iraq witchhunt against Galloway in 2003. You were attacking GG from the right then, you’re still doing it.

    Tatchell wants imperialism to invade yet another Muslim country – Sudan – with armed peacekeepers, no fly zones, all the trappings that led to the invasion of Iraq. That’s who you’re defending on this. Presumably, to criticise Tatchell for this, or Brett Lock for approving of Israeli attacks on Gaza, is ‘homophobic’. What a sick joke!

    And your vaunted ‘openness’ ain’t all it’s cracked up to be either. When I raised these kind of criticisms internally in the CPGB four years ago now, John and Mark introduced a remarkable innovation – an *moderated* internal discussion list to ensure that contributions from members discussing with *each other* could be vetted before they were allowed to be read by other members.

    You people are charlatans. AWL-lite.

    Like

  46. Chris

    I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

    As one of the membership team in Manchester Respect I’ve been obviously unaware of your membership of Respect over the last year. Of course if you can brandish a membership card, then I’ll stand corrected. If those who have submitted that resolution can produce theirs that would be helpful.
    ( and illuminating)

    You’ve not addressed the question, instead you set up this false arguement. ie If you vote against this resolution, you’re in cahoots with imperialism.
    You must think were stupid sunshine

    The question is, ( please read slowly) Why when your organisation has spent the last year slagging off Respect ( both Renewal and the SWP parts) you now think you can pop up in our conference, and give you us the wisdom of your knowledge.

    You and your organisation have cannot demonstrate that you have attempted to build Respect over the last year.

    Your organisation has no intention of building Respect in the future, or investing any effort into the project.

    I can guaranteed, and correct me if I’m wrong out there folks, but I don’t think I’m wrong in this assessment, we are likely to see a whole bunch of carping from the sidelines from the Weakly Worker in the future.

    It must be great never having to say sorry !

    You then go on to say ” unity on offer from Respect has demonstrably failed in the UK,”
    If its so bad why is the CPGB sticking its oar in ?

    If its so shit, why on earth would you want to even waste your time on us no-hopers.

    So excuse me if I don’t come across as overly generous towards your intervention in our conference.

    and lastly, don’t even think about attempting to explain this all away some kind of political principle.

    Not heard about the new film.
    “How to lose friends and alienate people”,

    anything we can learn here ?

    Like

  47. ID, you are actually delusional saying something is right wing over and over again does not make it so. I would like you to point out which pro-war forces we have been touting? Would that be the LGBT community here and in Iran? Links would be good comrade.

    Where has Tatchell called for an imperialist attack, links would be very welcome again Mr Donovan.

    Well being on the internal list of the CPGB i can tell you that it is not a moderated internal list, if it were not i would not be a member. If there ever was a period in which the list was moderated, then that is something i would absolutely and unreservedly condemn, But going on your two assertions above i am guessing your imagination has run away with itself.

    Like

  48. Richard,

    You never answered my question, will you be voting for solidarity regardless of who puts it forward, will you be ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Iranian workers, students, women and LGBT people or not? And where did I claim if you did not you would be in “cahoots with imperialism”. I don’t think you’re stupid, not at all, comrade. I think we will see a bunch of socialists looking ridiculous by refusing to build solidarity with the Iranian social movements.

    I personally am not a member of Respect, others in the CPGB have remained members. I am sure they have their membership sorted, if not how was motion allowed to be taken at conference?

    It is true that we have attacked Respect and its soft left politics with a leader who is allowed to be against scientific progress and abortion, and also allowed to equate homosexuality with paedophilia. What kind of socialist would not condemn that? Do you condemn Galloway’s stance on abortion? Will Galloway be under discipline when it is discussed in Parliament again? Or will your only MP go against Respect policy?

    Why are we going to the conference whilst saying Respect is a dead end? Well we would like to change that and put forward the case for principled unity. No one has said you are “no hopers“. The British left is a mess and I am sure that many in Respect are good socialists looking for a way out of the wilderness that we find ourselves in.

    Yeah I have heard of that film; I tell you what I will go to see what I can learn from that movie if you can come along to a HOPI meeting on the 22nd of this month and maybe you will learn a few things from some Iranian Marxist students? Would be a good intro whilst you decide whether to vote for or against internationalism at Respect conference. You have heard all the crap about HOPI why don’t you come and learn a few things, comrade?

    Like

  49. “Well, even assuming that every penny of the $700 bn was lost (and I don’t think they will be), how big a sacrifice would this be for tax payers? The UK govt has bailed out the banks by $350 bn so far this year and we haven’t noticed the difference”!

    This is the latest wisdom of Andy a national exec member of Respect

    Yes thats right over there in his world we should bakc Gordon Brown and his massive bailout, there is going to be no effect on the working class with this bailout so no need to offer any independent working class solutions in the mean time. What an arguement. Is this the best Respect has to offer!!

    Like

  50. test1

    “Where has Tatchell called for an imperialist attack, links would be very welcome again Mr Donovan.”

    No problem, try this:

    http://www.petertatchell.net/international/darfurprotest.htm

    While you’re at it, take a look at Brett Lock’s very ‘humanitarian’ view on Israel shooting unarmed Muslim women protesters in Gaza:

    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2006/11/03/a-protester-screams-in-gaza/

    Brett Lock is, as many people know, Peter Tatchell’s closest political collaborator.

    Then on the subject of my ‘imagination running wild’, take a look at this letter from Peter Manson, replying to me, on the subject of the CPGB’s pre-vetted internal list of 2004:

    http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/548/letters.htm

    Read it carefully, and ponder the meaning of this passage:

    “It is legitimate to argue that similar behaviour on the e-list is best dealt with as and when it arises. But it is not legitimate to claim that the very act of appointing a moderator (or chair) signals the beginning of a regime of censorship. Especially when it is patently clear – not only to CPGB members, but to the entire Weekly Worker readership – that we are champions of open, democratic debate.”

    By saying that ‘it is legitimate to argue’ that ‘similar behaviour’ (i.e. expressions of opinion he regards as inappropriate) ‘is best dealt with as and when it arises’, Peter lets the cat out of the bag. He admits that it was not ‘dealt with as and when it arises’, but was pre-vetted. This actually substantiates what I said in my last post about the CPGB’s internal discussion being pre-vetted or pre-moderated at that time.

    At this time, serious opposition to the kind of left-Islamophobia/AWL-lite politics existed in the CPGB, and this is how they dealt with that. Of course, once that opposition was no longer a problem internally, there was no need for these measures, so it’s hardly surprising that the vetting no longer operates. I resigned from the CPGB in protest at this measure, and Peter cannot refute that in his letter.

    Kindly refrain from attacking people as ‘delusional’ and ‘letting their imagination run away with them’ when they make legitimate criticisms of your organisation which they can substantiate. It is the sort of nasty behaviour you are currently attacking the AWL for in the Weekly Worker. Very shabby.

    Like

  51. “Where has Tatchell called for an imperialist attack, links would be very welcome again Mr Donovan.”

    No problem, try this:

    http://www.petertatchell.net/international/darfurprotest.htm

    While you’re at it, take a look at Brett Lock’s very ‘humanitarian’ view on Israel shooting unarmed Muslim women protesters in Gaza:

    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2006/11/03/a-protester-screams-in-gaza/

    Brett Lock is, as many people know, Peter Tatchell’s closest political collaborator.

    Like

  52. (post continued…. it appears that only two links are allowed in any one post, so this is split)

    Then on the subject of my ‘imagination running wild’, take a look at this letter from Peter Manson, replying to me, on the subject of the CPGB’s pre-vetted internal list of 2004:

    http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/548/letters.htm

    Read it carefully, and ponder the meaning of this passage:

    “It is legitimate to argue that similar behaviour on the e-list is best dealt with as and when it arises. But it is not legitimate to claim that the very act of appointing a moderator (or chair) signals the beginning of a regime of censorship. Especially when it is patently clear – not only to CPGB members, but to the entire Weekly Worker readership – that we are champions of open, democratic debate.”

    By saying that ‘it is legitimate to argue’ that ‘similar behaviour’ (i.e. expressions of opinion he regards as inappropriate) ‘is best dealt with as and when it arises’, Peter lets the cat out of the bag. He admits that it was not ‘dealt with as and when it arises’, but was pre-vetted. This actually substantiates what I said in my last post about the CPGB’s internal discussion being pre-vetted or pre-moderated at that time.

    At this time, serious opposition to the kind of left-Islamophobia/AWL-lite politics existed in the CPGB, and this is how they dealt with that. Of course, once that opposition was no longer a problem internally, there was no need for these measures, so it’s hardly surprising that the vetting no longer operates. I resigned from the CPGB in protest at this measure, and Peter cannot refute that in his letter.

    Kindly refrain from attacking people as ‘delusional’ and ‘letting their imagination run away with them’ when they make legitimate criticisms of your organisation which they can substantiate. It is the sort of nasty behaviour you are currently attacking the AWL for in the Weekly Worker. Very shabby.

    Like

  53. Upnorth is right on this. Do we live in the universe where a bit of stirring propaganda from WW is of interest to anyone?

    I will delete any further anti-CPGB comments because life is too short and there are better things anyone with a TV, a book, a functioning right hand, nearby pub, social life, distant relatives… can be doing.

    Like

  54. point taken,
    yes, life is too short,

    back to building the conference.

    Like

  55. Is Andy giving a lead off on the economy lol
    He appears to be arguing there is nothing to worry about and this massive bailout is going to have no impact on the working class!!! Seems a strange position for Respect to take.

    Like

  56. What is interesting about Arbuckle (jj / ll) is that his interventions are deliberately calibrated to stop people thinking; by quoting out of context, and delibertely misrepresenting, and then labelling people to mark that their ideas should not be taken seriously.

    there is a serious recession, that the left needs to respond to.

    A significant strand of the left is critically supportive of government action to stabilise the banking sector, while simultaneoulsy arguing that much more action is needed, and that the rich should pay.

    The SWP are arguing that attempted stabilisation of the banking sector is itself an attack on the working class. Now this is an opinion that they seem unable to actually defend – although full credit to some of their comrades from the USA and Canada who have at least tried.

    unable to defend the argument that stabilising the banks by government borrowing is an attack on workers, they seek to demonise me for disagreeing with them.

    Like

  57. As I member of HOPI, I was intrigued to see in what way the motion on HOPI was a wrecking tactic, so I went to the Respect website to have a look, concerned that the HOPI members in the CPGB had put together some outrageous sectarian demands that no one could possibly support. Nothing of the sort. I fail to see what the comrades here have a problem with, leaving aside ID’s ramblings about equating Iran with imperialism, which any honest person can clearly see is not the case.

    The motion quite simply condemns the warmongering US imperialism and for a end to sanctions, which I would have thought all members of Respect would be in agreement with. But of course, its the call to raise solidarity with workers and students in Iran that upsets you. I find it incomprehensible that socialists should have a problem with this. For me it is the ABC of internationalism. HOPI is trying to build solidarity with progressive ANTI-IMPERIALIST forces in Iran. I.e. the real allies of the anti-war movement as opposed to the fly-by-night pseudo anti-imperialist of the regime.

    Its really quite a simple political argument, one which ordinary people who I talk to on stalls find quite simple to understand (as shown also by the union affiliations to HOPI).

    As for not wanting to vote for it because the CPGB called GG a homophobe, what a ridiculous unprincipled reason for not voting for a resolution (oh but of course that came from ID).

    For the record the CPGB were right on this one – references to the “pink brigades” or some some phrase spring to mind.

    Like

  58. Tina

    I’ll tell you what is simple: Hands Off Iran. By lumbering the Iranian working class with an international anti-war movement that has doubts YOU are strengthening the regime against it. Millions marched against the war on Iraq despite Saddam Hussein and all the propaganda and were proved correct. The victims of the invasion was not just the regime but the working class. They were not liberated but mightily f##”ed over. If you are not implacable opponents of the invasion of Iran under a half-hearted anti-imperialist regime how can we expect you to oppose an invasion under a genuinely anti-imperialist regime?

    Like

  59. Andy Newman is arguing that the bailout to the tune of 400 billion will not adversley effect workers because , wait for it, it isn’t their money. Now I know for the marxist amongst us this is an incrediable statement but this is honestly what leading respect member is putting forward.
    I have checked out his website and look for yourselves, he is litterally putting forward the idea that handing over 400 billion to finance capital is a good thing to do. I think we should argue to nationalise all the banks..profits as well as losses. Andy argues this is utopian.
    I am with the Utopians!!!
    Andy thinks that New Labour will not step up attacks due to whats happend..a bit utopian.
    Seriously though, is Andy really indicitive of Respect in this matter? Should he be a leading member when really he is arguing to go along with new labour and the Tories in some national interest type arguement.

    Like

  60. On a lighter note!!
    the weekly workers headline the week capitalism went into free fall etc is
    “Stonehenge: a neolithic revolution”
    fuckking hell, these people have smoked too much wacky backy at stonehenge. Really, you could imagine the weekly worker the week of say the wall street crash
    “Is their life on mars”
    they are the national enquirer of the left.

    Like

  61. Mainly Andy is speaking for Andy and he represents one strand of thinking inside Respect and a fair chunk of mainstream labour movement thinking.

    I can say, with a high degree of certainty, that there will be resolutions putting a rather different point of view. And, as I keep saying, no one has the faintest idea what way the debates or the votes will go. How dreadful.

    Like

  62. Got to be honest, much as I disagree with CPGB’s ultra left politics I do think people are rather over-egging the pudding about having to remain pure in directing our opposition at the possible war.

    Of course campaigning on a “NO to war, NO to the theocratic regime” would be a no go strategy – as it equates the regime in Iran as an equal bad for its people as a war upon it would be and thus lets our enemies say – well our evil is only to counter an equal evil.

    However I don’t see the problem with campaigning with a clear “No to war” slogan, whilst also acknowledging within our publicity and speech the truth that Iran’s leaders are a bunch of f@£%ers.

    As long as this is not confused as a main slogan; it can be put in context of the fact that there are a lot of rulers in the world that are a bunch of fuckers and that war would strengthen their hand (not to mentioning unleashing a even more dangerous bunch of fuckers).

    So, to sum, I don’t think Respect should affiliate to HOPI because it seems they equate stopping the war and bringing down the regime as to equal priorities.

    However, I can support the rest of the motion because it allows us to focus on stopping the war but in a contextualised way explain that we are also against Iran’s ruling class.

    (Liam I hope calling Iran’s leaders a naughty word doesn’t violate your comments policy)

    YES IT DOES. THAT’S WHY I’VE AMENDED IT. THIN END OF THE WEDGE… – LIAM

    Like

  63. On the Andy’s – “Support the bailout” position verses the “we won’t pay for their crisis” position.

    After you read past the different headline slogans both sides seem to advocating pretty much exactly the same things i.e. that the govenments should take over banks more fully and that they should push bank policy in socially positive direction rather then profit driven.

    I think Andy’s way of framing the discussion is less helpful in terms of political mobilisation but I remain to be convinced that major differences really exist.

    Like

  64. “If you are not implacable opponents of the invasion of Iran under a half-hearted anti-imperialist regime how can we expect you to oppose an invasion under a genuinely anti-imperialist regime”

    Well, if it was a consistently or genuine anti-imperialist regime, then of course I would oppose a an imperialist invasion…..

    As in fact I do now, despite my hostility to the regime. I would also of course defend Iran in the face of an imperialist attack. What you ignore is how Iranian workers and students are actively opposing the regime AND imperialism. They seem to be able to do this under a situation of extreme repression, whereas the anti-war movement in the UK seems incapable of doing the same.

    What you are doing in fact is parroting what the regime, i.e. that those Iranian trade union and student activists that are opposing the regime are pro-imperialist. What do you suggest they do? Prove their anti-imperialist credentials by ceasing class struggle and cosying up to the theocracy?

    Iranian activists want our support for their struggle against both the theocracy and the regime, they want to show Iranian workers who their real allies are, but it seems the British left is determined to ignore their call.

    Joseph, HOPI makes it clear on its website that the main enemy is imperialism. I think its about time that the self-appointed leaders of the anti-war movement in Britain recognised that HOPI is an ally in the struggle against imperialism. It is not a CPGB front, and it has done excellent work in building solidarity between workers and students of Iran and the UK.

    Like

  65. “The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have performed admirably and impressively over the last couple of days…” George Galloway M.P. Parliament, 8th October 2008

    this really is the pitts. I am afriad if revolutionaries in Respect do not stand up to this drivel then frankly what is the point.
    Please Liam tell me you thik this is a dreadful statement by your MP!!!!

    Like

  66. Fair enough Tina but why do you help the regime by only saying hands of the people of Iran and not hands of Iran. This helps the regime because it looks like the Iranian working class supports an invasion which of course they don’t. The parroting of western propaganda is all yours. It is not that the regime uses anti-imperialism to boost its own support at home but that support for the regime is boosted by external calls for its ouster. You also seem to be labouring under the strange notion that a true anti-imperialist regime would be less likely to be invaded rather than more.

    Tina, believe me, Respect supports Iranian workers which is why it says Hands Off Iran. Everything else is disingenuous liberalism. The best way to support the struggle of workes in Iran is to be unequivocale in our opposition to sanctions, bombing or war against it. I’m afraid you are not and have moved to the right of the three million or so who marched against the war on Iraq.

    Like

  67. “I think George has performed admirably and impressively over the last couple of days…”

    Like

  68. Artful – accept an ultimatum from someone I don’t know? Thanks but some other time.

    http://www.respectrenewal.org/content/view/383/

    Like

  69. “I’m afraid you are not and have moved to the right of the three million or so who marched against the war on Iraq.”

    Yeah right.

    Like

  70. Thanks Bill. Wan’t expecting your support there but it is welcome.

    Like

  71. No Hopi doesn’t parrot western propaganda. Western propaganda doesn’t actually spend a lot of time covering workers struggles. In fact the labour movement in Iran hardly gets a look in.

    And nowhere have I suggested that a genuine anti-imperialist regime is less likely to be invaded. To invade or not to invade would depend on a whole variety of factors of which the nature of the regime would be but one. I don’t really understand the point you are making.

    HOPI is unequivocal in its opposition to sanctions, bombing and war. Its just that we also don’t want the Iranian labour movement to crushed by the regime. How can having Iranian activists speaking in the UK, denouncing imperialism’s warmongering and denouncing the effect of sanctions be disingenuous liberalism? How does the raising workers’ international solidarity in this context become liberalism? How can raising WORKERS’ international solidarity (as opposed to for, example, peace banners) be to the right of the three million who marched in February 2003.

    In the event of an invasion, will STW have a defencist position, i.e. will it clearly through its slogans, defend Iran against imperialism? I doubt it. I will though.

    Like

  72. I must admit i agree with Andy to a certain extent and the slogan of this march on the Bank of England: `don’t bail out the bankers’, is daft. It should have a positive slogan otherwise it looks like siimple, unthinking indifferentism.

    Like

  73. John McDonnell poses the question spot on
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/08/taxandspending

    The government needs to act urgently to protect the British people against the economic turmoil that was not of their making, but is now resulting in them losing their jobs and struggling to pay their rent or mortgage and fuel bills. There should be no blank cheques to bail out the banks that contributed to this crisis.
    We are calling upon the government to implement a people’s programme to protect our people from the crisis, not just the bankers,

    In this letter to the Guardian, he does not oppose the measures to stabilise the banking sector, but he argues for a People’s Programme, to bail out all the people of Britain from the financial crisis.
    This way of posing the question is much more fruitful, because it centres around discussing what government could do to solve the economic crisis from the point of view of ordinary people.
    If properly conducted this argument could gain support in the unions.
    Saying, “no bank bailout” will immediately be opposed by most unions who see that banking collapse will threaten their members jobs.

    Like

  74. The dogma of 25 years has broken up (well, the neoliberal/free market mantra has, some others’s unfortunately remain intact.). That’s the critical point.

    There is now the chance to seriously advance arguments about bucking the market, standing up to CEOs and bankers, cutting against the logic of capitalist accumulation and, centrally, establishing alternatives.

    The political parameters have shifted. There’s no need for the left to lurch leftwards just to keep the same distance from the centre of gravity of the working class that we have had to suffer for so long. Better to engage and tread this path of unknown radicalisation with large numbers of others.

    Like

  75. Yes but Kevin
    Do you think we should argue that the 400 billion £ brown has pumped in will not effect workers, this is what Andy is saying. I think the left should argue for government intervention- nationalise all the banks, profits and all. Why does Andy and Respect oppose this. Andy says the money pumped in is not that of the workers so they will not be effected by it, do you honestly believe this. Should public sector workers feel there is going to be no repurcussions from the huge sums put in to shore up the system. Andy can call it anarachist etc etc but frankly to peddle a line which is everything is ok and have his thread with the headline “Why the left should back the bailout” this is not an independent position. It effectively says they did a good job. Which by the sounds of it is what Geoerge Galloway said today as well.

    Like

  76. Joseph:

    “So, to sum, I don’t think Respect should affiliate to HOPI because it seems they equate stopping the war and bringing down the regime as to equal priorities.

    However, I can support the rest of the motion because it allows us to focus on stopping the war but in a contextualised way explain that we are also against Iran’s ruling class.”

    Fair enough. Maybe an amendment might be in order to remove the references to HOPI and simply incorporate what is positive in the resolution into Respect’s policy portfoilio

    As for Tina’s allegation that its is ‘unprincipled’ to refuse to affiliate to HOPI because it slandered George Galloway as a homophobe, I would say it is unprincipled for a supposedly ‘broad’ campaign to be peddling pro-imperialist smears against anyone.

    Especially smears on behalf of Peter Tatchell, who as I demonstrated in my post above and niether Tina nor any other HOPI supporter has been even attempted to refute, wants imperialism to enforce Iraq-style sanctions and military measures against Sudan – a defacto invasion. (How can they deny it, its on Tatchell’s own website for god’s sake!).

    It is unprincipled to slander genuine anti-war activists on behalf of such pro-war elements.

    Oh and incidentally, when confronted with Brett Lock’s amazing rant about the legitimacy of Israel shooting unarmed Palestinian women protesters in Gaza, Tony Greenstein, who I believe sometimes writes in the Weekly Worker, described Brett Lock as ‘scum’.

    I have my differences with Tony, but on that he had a valid point.

    Like

  77. On HOPI it is clear that imperialism is attacking the peoples of Iran and that opposition to imperialism doesn’t mean any sort of support for the regime.

    On the banking crisis I agree with David that positive slogans are needed- nationalisation without compensation for the fat rich cats who got us into this crisis, but instead protect workers’ homes, savings and services, not the profits of the rich.

    Unlike Kevin I see no reason why this would be disconnected from popular sentiments or worrries about losing houses, rising mortgages or even the possibility of losing savings and indeed the rising cost of living. Anyway got to go as must rush for work!

    Like

  78. Well if this crisis doesn’t make the left move left heaven help us.
    The reason for opposing the £400 bn isn’t because it will or will not effect the workers, but because it will not solve the problem – capitalism. It should be linked to a programme of public works, the expropriation of the banks and the construction companies under trade union and community control. etc.
    There is a difference between the UK scheme and the US one. Basically the UK scheme may work. It does in fact recapitalise the banks, whereas the US scheme simply parks dodgy assets in a separate fund. That’s why the US are going to nationalise their banks along UK lines. Probably with an announcement today.

    Like

  79. So ID, Peter Tatchell is a reformist who supports “soft” imperialist intervention, therefore it is OK to make homophobic interventions against him. That’s the gist of your argument as far as I can see.

    Like

  80. “The political parameters have shifted. There’s no need for the left to lurch leftwards just to keep the same distance from the centre of gravity of the working class that we have had to suffer for so long. Better to engage and tread this path of unknown radicalisation with large numbers of others.”

    I agree with Kevin on this …. up to a point. We obviously have to formulate our demands in such a way as to differentiate ourselves from those who are saying ‘don’t bail out the bankers’ from the point of view of a free-market fundamentalism. We had better be aware that, for all the anti-capitalist sentiment that is floating around at the moment, this argument also exists and has popular resonance to some extent. ‘Let the market rip and led these bastards go to hell’ is a sentiment I have heard alongside near-revolutionary sentiments.

    The problem is that, of course, if the market was allowed to let rip, it would be the workers, not the bankers, who would bear the brunt in terms of job losses, massive hardship and even in some cases the threat of starvation. That is what a new great depression would mean, and don’t think it would automatically lead to revolution. It could lead to an evolution to the far right from sheer desperation.

    We should give some measure of extremely critical support to attempts to stave off a total economic collapse, while at the same time being careful to avoid falling into the symetrically opposite trap of taking responsibility for the capitalist economy itself. We need to advance some sort of programme that points from the current situation towards a socialist solution.

    This is an important debate that can begin to be addressed at the coming Respect conference.

    Like

  81. “it is OK to make homophobic interventions against him.”

    What homophobic intervention? ~How is it ahomophobic to call him and others like him the ‘pink wing of the pro-war brigade’? There is nothing homophobic about that characterisation – it is simply accurate.

    If I called the late Pim Fortuyn, or Nicky Crane, ‘the pink wing of the far right’, that would not be homophobic, just accurate.

    And Tatchell’s mate Brett Lock is hardly ‘soft’ in his pro-Israel, pro-war views. It is ‘homophobic’ to criticise him for that too?

    Like

  82. “We should give some measure of extremely critical support to attempts to stave off a total economic collapse”

    really, I think we can as a left do two things
    1. Oppose the Brown and Darling bailout
    2. Make demands on the state to intervene but in the interests of the mass of the population.

    Demanding the state intervenes does not equate with an ounnce of political support to Brown and Darling.

    Lets say for example we were in the USA? Would we be giving some critical support for Bush? sound unthinkable doesn’t.. but thats the logic of support anything that tries to stop the collapse. Whats missing is the element of class. Who side are they protecting, in whose interests are they doing what they are doing etc etc.
    No class perspective then you end up in the postion of Andy who is arguing that workers will not be eaffected by the bailoiut

    Like

  83. There’s no need to agitate against the bailout. That is a stupid way to proceed that will cause confusion of ourselves with the ‘let the bastards go to hell’ brigade. We should pitch things to demand that they go further, and nationalise the banks completely, with compensation only on the basis of proven need. Or something like that.

    We demand that the current government do what we would do if we had power, to solve the crisis. It doesn’t matter whether its Brown, or Bush, doing it, the point is the same. The differences between the two can be overstated in any case. But that’s the way to pitch it, I reckon.

    Like

  84. Andy N writes:
    “but in terms of what is the best context for moving forward the socialist, peace and trade union movements, then it is by far better overall for labour to win the election than the Tories.”

    The trouble is that Andy and Rob Griffiths are such a reformists that he can only see things in terms of the top of society and elections. There arguments are also dangerous because they disorientate the movement away from struggle into becoming pimps for a Labour regime rightly loathed by all decent people.

    In 97, if the Tories had won the election it could well of had the effect of demoralising and demobilising struggle from below.

    Compare with 1970 when the Tories returned to power on the back of disullusionment with a Labour government. They were to be brought down by a massive wave of class struggle. Revolutionaries in that movement argued for building a rank and file movement of trade unionists alongside popular struggles against sexism and racism.

    The tragedy is that the equivalent of Rob Griffiths and Andy N’s in the movement in the 70s argued solely for backing for left union leaders. And when Labour was re-elected in 1974, these leaders did a deal with Labour and laid the ground for Thatcher to be able to destroy one of the most militant working class movements on the planet.

    When millions of workers are pissed off with Labour and want to fight back, I’m not gonna be going to them and saying, “we need to rally behind Labour ‘cos the Tories might get back in” – this will either cut me off from the most radical section of the class who can’t stomach voting new Labour or else have the effect of leading workers away from fighting back at the grassroots because they feel that the main battle of the day is to keep the Tories out at all costs.

    Like

  85. “Labour regime rightly loathed by all decent people”

    Problem with defining it like this and using this a s a starting point is that either “all the decent people” have become Tory supporters or the decent people have been reduced to the vanishingly small number prepared to vote Respect or even Lindsay’s 0.67%. In effect, you are saying that the tens of millions still clinging to the wreckage of Labour- including an overwhelming majority of union activists, stewards, militants etc. – are not ‘decent’ people, not activists we should try to relate to (and work with in the dark days ahead under Cameron) but have somehow become scum.
    That is ultra-left, third-period nonsense.

    Like

  86. Adamski – you realise that in the 1970 general election there was a debate among the left about whether to support the return of Labour?

    Your position roughly equates with an article Robin Blackburn, then not in any group, wrote in Red Mole, titled “Let it Bleed!” (which was also the title of a Rolling Stones Album).

    At the time there were waves of revolutionary activity and struggle across the world. Denouncing Labour from the ultra left seemed a popular pastime, but it was nonsense then and it is even more nonsense in today’s context. Even Robin Blackburn later changed his mind. You should read up on the debate.

    Like

  87. “That is ultra-left, third-period nonsense.”

    Yes, it would be if I was the strawman you have set up. Of course, we relate to people who want to try and fight within the Labour Party or will vote for the party with a heavy heart to stop the Tories getting in, and we will work in joint campaigns.

    Though actually huge numbers of working class people will either abstain from voting or switch to the LibDems, some may even vote Tory just ‘cos they want to see Labour take a kicking.

    But the key question is not getting sucked into this diversion of frightening people back into the arms of New Labour with the spectre of the Tories, but building grassroots resistance. Whoever wins the election is froth on the surface. “Dark days of Cameron?” – Let me tell you New Labour hasn’t been a bed of roses for most people on my block!

    In 1972, the key question wasn’t which party was in power, but the combativity of the working class. Indeed, it was Labourism and Electoralism that essentially demobilised the best chance we had of socialism in the last 50 years.

    We can’t ignore what goes on at the top of society, but to see things solely in terms of who wins an election is a recipe for demobilising working class combativity.

    Like

  88. Prinkipo Exile in 1970 Labour was a party of occasional tepid reform. in 2008 Labour is a party that has had a decade to repeal anti-trade union laws, carry out some modest re-nationalisation and tax the rich more. Instead we have had neoliberalism at home and neoconservatism abroad. Labour in the 70s had the aliegance of huge numbers of working class voters, now Labour is getting hammered in its heartlands.

    In 1997, the victory of New Labour unleashed massive working class expectation of change. What will a victory for New Labour in the next election unleash?

    Once again the key debate is not whether we are eaten by a wolf or a fox, but arming our class to resist being lunch for anybody.

    This let’s all rally around New Labour position is a recipe for disaster.

    Let’s all rally around fighting back on the streets, in the unions, in our communities

    Like

  89. “Though actually huge numbers of working class people will either abstain from voting or switch to the LibDems, some may even vote Tory just ‘cos they want to see Labour take a kicking. ”

    I suggest more than ‘some’ will vote Tory to give Labour a kicking. And they will outnumber the abstains (rather than ‘can’t be arseds’) and Lib Dem defectors. Furthermore, their votes will be decisive. It is understandable, given the context, but voting Tory is a retreat from, rather than a shift towards class consciousness- it represents resignation and desperation rather than combativity.

    ““Dark days of Cameron?” – Let me tell you New Labour hasn’t been a bed of roses for most people on my block! ”

    I take it that you are really too young to remember Thatcher, or probably even Major. I certainly hope that most people on your block do.

    Like

  90. Well put RobM. It might be a good idea here to reminder our younger viewers that one of the reasons that our trade unions are so immasculated and the confidence of the working class is so weak is that Thatcher set out to systematically defeat sections of the working class – and largely succeeded – from the steel, to coal, print and docks.

    If you think that life will be no different with a Cameron government – which will inherit a bankrupt exchequer and economy in recession – then think again.

    Like

  91. Good point, Clive, though the English teacher in me feels compelled to point out that it is ’emasculated’ not ‘immasculated’ – indeed perhaps the adjective should be gender neutral.

    However, such quibling apart I agree that far more important than elections or parliamentary struggles (thougfh these are not irrelevant) is the rebuilding of working class organisations from top to bottom, including the strengthening of rank and file networks of militants to organise mass defiance of the anti-union laws.

    I presume that is what you mean anyway. Have a good weekend fellow Bolton NUT member.

    http://permanentrevolution.net/entry/2364

    Like

  92. Andy by the way is still backing the bailout and peddling the lie from new labour that no workers are going to be effected by the bailout. Also shame to see on SUN Respect members attakcing the demo att he bank of england, thats right siding with the bakers again. When is someone going to tell Andy he is a clown to argue that workers won’t face attacks!!! or is this the Respect position, hence Galloways glowing tribute to Brown and Darling. Is there a by election coming up?

    Like

  93. Arbuckle – you can either up your game and start arguing politically or join the happy band that includes jj, ll and the other gutless marvels that used to troll here on the banned list.

    I’d prefer if no one dignified Arbuckle’s ungrammatical tripe with a reply.

    Like

  94. OK Liam………Sincere apologies. I will try and spell idiot properly next time lol

    ONLY JOKING!!!

    Like

  95. “I’d prefer if no one dignified Arbuckle’s ungrammatical tripe with a reply.”

    Are the rest of your contributors perfect grammarians? I suspect it is the baker not the bread you take exception to.

    Galloway last night was saying what a wonderful thing state capitalism in China is, and how China taking over (I sometimes think he is a bit like Kent Brockman swearing fealty to our new insect overlords) the banks here would be the final triumph of marxism. After the 1987 crash, a really perceptive economist explained the role of the stockmarket in a meeting for my SWP branch. Rob Hoveman. I can’t believe he’s got caught up with such an illiterate. I remember a few months he was complaining that the SWP had never built up a cadre of economists. He’s certainly not going to find any where he’s gone.

    Like

  96. What worries me is that the Left is gonna be faced with the fight of its life as we enter into this protracted economic crisis, and all that Respect Renewal has to offer is we must rally around New Labour.

    Like

  97. “What worries me is that the Left is gonna be faced with the fight of its life as we enter into this protracted economic crisis, and all that Respect Renewal has to offer is we must rally around New Labour.”

    Don’r worry Adam – you know that this is not what we are saying, so don’t stress yourself. Nor indeed pretend to have some concern about our direction. If you were in Mile End to day you would have seem Respect campaigning against New Labour but don’t let the facts get in the way of your faux concern.

    And Skidmarx – I love the fact that you feel the need to listen to GGs show so you can post your shock and horror at his political positions the next day.

    Like

  98. I love facts too.

    “you know that this is not what we are saying”

    I noticed a while ago than when RR supporters talk about New Labour, they are only referring to the leadership of the party, whereas the SWP-friendly think it refers to the whole. Thus I think that it is what is implied by what you are saying.

    “join the happy band that includes jj, ll”

    Do you just dislike repeated letters for names? Is gg banned as well?

    Like

  99. I’ve nothing against repeated letters but I’ve got a real contempt for cowards who refuse to say who or where they are but feel at liberty to abuse individuals who are easily identifiable in the real world.

    If these people had the ability to argue politically they can call themselves anything they want. They are time wasting would be bullies who are free to express themselves somewhere else. I don’t want that sort of pseudo Stalinist cretinism here.

    Like

  100. What a strange post from Skidmarx – do the ‘SWP-friendly’ not distinguish between the leadership of New Labour and other Labour party members any more? Are you now lumping them all in together?

    I know that Lindsey G isn’t flavour of the month in the SWP at the moment but she seemed quite fraternal in her discussions with John McDonnell at the Convention of the Left. Perhaps she should be told that such softness is a sign of rallying round New Labour.

    Or am I, to use your own formulation, just implying this from what you are saying?

    You may think that being able to see the real motives behind the actual words that people say makes you a fantastic Marxist. In reality it just allows you to avoid engagement in a real argument and instead knock down a few straw men. You may feel better but it’s hardly Marxism.

    Like

  101. “in 1970 Labour was a party of occasional tepid reform”

    It was also the party that sent the troops into the north of Ireland, proposed curbs on the Unions through “In Place of Strife”, were complicit in US aggression in Vietnam … and so on.

    Yet at the 1969 Labour Party conference so weak were the activists that less than half the constituency parties sent delegates, who then voted to put Barbara Castle, the architect responsible for the anti-union legislation, at the top of the list for the National Executive Committee,

    Yes, very different to today …

    Like

  102. “Do the ‘SWP-friendly’ not distinguish between the leadership of New Labour and other Labour party members any more?”

    Identifying the whole thing as NL supports the analysis that it is useless as an organisation to advance socialism, not to claim that all the members are useless. The “It’s just the leadership” analysis suggests that with one big push the party could be returned to being Real Labour. This raises the question of why anyone with such an analysis would be outside the Labour Party, it’s as unedifying as the Militant between the expulsions and the setting up of the Socialist Party.

    “You may think that being able to see the real motives behind the actual words that people say makes you a fantastic Marxist.”
    I only saw the last seven words to start of with and was going to ask who’d been calling me fantastic. I wasn’t trying to make a particularly controversial point there, just to say that when we argue about the direction of NL it would be good to understand the different meanings it has. Before you complained about my quoting of George Goingaway’s actual words; it reminded me of Sarah Palin’s complaint about Gotcha journalism, like her he’ll probably palin to insignificance after the next election.
    “I’ve got a real contempt for cowards who refuse to say who or where they are but feel at liberty to abuse individuals who are easily identifiable in the real world. ”
    That’s sounds fair enough, though my experience elsewhere is of SWP members far more sinned against than sinning, especially in terms of people using their real world names when they haven’t posted under them, which may be why they wish to use pseudonyms so much.

    Like

  103. the trouble skiddy is that it was Adam who have used the phrase – ‘rally round New Labour’ about Respect which is simply nonsense. Now you introduce some more nonsense about ‘one big push’

    Really you need to have a better argument than simply making up a load of straw men to knock down. This really is fantasy politics not anything even vaguely resembling marxism.

    Like

  104. “Really you need to have a better argument than simply making up a load of straw men to knock down”

    Not surprisingly I don’t agree. The central point is that supporters of Relate claim it is substantially a break from the politics of New Labour, but this continually clashes with George Galloway’s constant support for its representatives (mayoral election, Sctotish by-election). Why would anyone who believes with such politics not be in the Labour Party if they don’t actually have an expulsion order? Not a lot. What is the point of having a separate organisation if you don’t believe anything substantially different? Not a lot. When Respect grew out of a fight to stop the Iraq war, it had a basis on which to pose a challenge to New Labour. Now that it is at the whim of an old Labourite its raison d’etre seems gone with the wind.

    ” it was Adam”

    I assume you mean Adamski. In my case I really don’t care how you adapt my screen name, but if you’re so lazy you can’t type three extra letters, well…

    Like

  105. Once again Skidmarx (happy?) youy miss the point. Your foolish ultra-leftism gets you no where. Try engaging in the reality of the situation rather than your fanciful imaginary world. Get down to Mile End to see if Labour are worried by respect – we don’t claim it to be a substantial break from the politics of New Labour. It was four years ago, it still is now and what’s more New labour are well aware of the threat.

    As for the politics of Respect you may recall that the SWP and your hapless Left List stood for election in the London on a platform not dissimilar to Respect (minus of course the anti-Islamophobia). Are you saying that your politics are substantially the same as New Labour? Don’t be daft.

    You don’t seem to be able to grasp that the task of socialists is not simply to condemn everyone they disagree with but to seek to win people to your ideas. One of the ways you might wish to do this is perhaps – in a London election – stand alongside the left-wing (call him reformist if you prefer) Mayor against the odious right-wing challenger.

    You might think this would put you in the right camp with people who feared the vile Tory more than the Labour man.

    Now of course you could say a plague on all your houses and direct most of your fitre at the incumbent Mayor. But then if you did that you may end up with a derisory and humiliating vote and a bit bill to boot (plus some quiet back-knifing six months later)

    You might call the former a good tactical choice. You no doubt prefered the latter strategy – after all who need Marxism when you’ve got a big green balloon (and an infallible ability to re-invent the past of your own organisation and fantasise about the direction of others).

    Like

  106. Part of that first paragraph should read…..

    Get down to Mile End to see if Labour are worried by respect – we don’t just claim it to be a substantial break from the politics of New Labour ,we are one. Respect was that four years ago, it still is now and what’s more New Labour are well aware of the threat.

    Like

  107. You might have to be a little more precise by what you mean by “worried”. They’re probably losing a lot less sleep than in the immediate aftermath of the victory over Oona King, as the conditions are not better for you now.

    Like

  108. Be ‘a little more precise’? Coming from one of the SWP’s masters at waffle that’s pretty rich. How about Jim Fitzpatrick running up and down council block steps delivering leaflets for a by-election where they haven’t even got a candidate yet. Or is that not precise enough for you?. Perhaps you may need a taped telephone conversation where one New Labour supporter says to another, “You know, I’m worried about these Respect chaps and the Mile End by-election.”

    Anyway, I’m sure since Respect and New Labour are essentially the same in your eyes you won’t care who wins in Mile End.

    Anyway, that’s my last post on the matter. You are now free to have the last word.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending