Today’s Respect conference was another step on the long road to building a class struggle option to New Labour. This time it didn’t feel like we were walking down a cul de sac. Some may pine for whipped votes, cobbled together electoral slates and uplifting demagogy but the Bishopsgate Centre was bereft of them.

Conference was told that 210 (if memory serves) people registered and that there were 20 or so visitors and observers. There was a good geographical spread with strong contingents from Manchester, Bristol and Birmingham. Big up to Bromsgrove Respect which mobilised 100% of its membership.

George Galloway gave the opening speech. My hunch is that some readers will find the next couple of paragraphs tendentious and upsetting. If you are one of them why not just skip on a bit?

Respect he said was going on despite the split and it remains the most electorally and politically significant force on the British left. He thanked the leadership for its work in negotiating our retention of the name and said that we are in a potentially very fertile period for the organisation. Our aim is to have three MPs come the next general election.

Looking at the economic situation he remarked that the capitalist system as we know it has failed and that some of the businesses which are now receiving big dollops of public money should be taken into state control

Are most working class people interested in arguments about the differences between dead Russians? “No” was George’s answer. It’s a source of deep regret to me but he is probably right. In our public activity and press we have to use language that makes sense in working class communities. It’s a radical idea but it might be worth giving it a spin.

Rob Griffiths of the proper Communist Party was next up. I thought he gave a very good and constructive speech. He began by remarking that talk of the crisis of capitalism is now becoming commonplace among trade union militants. It’s no longer the preserve of the hyped up far left who’ve been devaluing the phrase by endlessly using it when capitalism obviously was doing pretty well by its own lights.

If this listener understood correctly Rob has given up with Labour. There is no longer a mass working class party giving positive reforms for working people. “Speaking as a friend to friends” he observed that the problem of the lack of working class representation is not going to be solved either by the Communist Party or Respect. I’m not sure what he was talking about when he added that neither would it be solved by what he called “the front organisation of a small left wing sect”. Your guess is as good as mine there.

He made some pretty definite proposals about things that could be done in the near future. They made a lot of sense. First up was a charter to garner signatures around demands connected to the dire economic situation. Later in the day Nick Wrack reported back to conference on a meeting he attended with Bob Crow and others at which this was discussed in more depth. Before that though Rob became all bizarre and made ludicrous suggestions about elections. Apparently there are some left wing Labour MPs we could all happily vote for. We could have non aggression pacts between left organisations. We could have a common approach in seats where the fascists have a chance of winning. All this would be preceded by a process of seeking discussions and finding areas for common action. When was the last time you heard such utopian nonsense? That’s not how the British left has achieved its hegemonic position in society!

Mark Steele followed that. I gave up taking notes after a couple of nanoseconds and if you’ve heard Mark speak you’ll know why.

The job for Respect at this conference was to allow a clear discussion and come up with a response to what is happening in the economy and the changing political situation. A number of resolutions addressed this.

The motion “Defending working people” was adopted with no opposition. It called for Respect to begin agitating and organising around these demands

 A freeze on council rents for the coming financial year.

 A freeze on leaseholder service charges for the coming financial year.

 A freeze on council tax, parking fees and other charges for the coming financial year.

 Pay increases to at least match inflation for all local government employees.

 Maintenance of current levels of local government service and employment.

 Demand that central government meets any funding gap.

 Money currently spent on the wars and socially harmful programmes can be diverted for this purpose.

 Investment in a programme of council house building.

The thinking here is that the party’s limited weight in local government can be used to build an opposition to neo-liberal solutions which links people who rely on the local state and those who work for it. The section on the economic situation resulted in the passage of a resolution calling for the organisation

 To campaign for the public ownership of the financial institutions.

 To support campaigns launched in defense of wages, pensions and jobs.

 To support the campaign against fuel poverty.

 To call for a halt reposessions on mortgage defaults and for the requisition of empty housing.

 To call for a halt to all further privatisations.

 To call for an immediate programme of house building, free home insulation, and investment in renewable energy to preserve jobs.

 We call for new and extensive investment in public transport. To organise a series of public rallies around the country to present this alternative.

Most votes were passed with very large majorities. Only the resolutions on climate change registered a modest protest vote. The closest thing to a row was the discussion on the CPGB’s resolution to affiliate to HOPI. Some  duplicitous cynics have outrageously hinted that the CPGB is not fully committed to building Respect. Codswallop like that does not deserve to be dignified with a reply.The two members who attended were a valued asset to conference.  Honour was saved on all sides when an amendment calling for Respect ” to support initiatives of campaigns such as Hands Off the People of Iran and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention.”

My only quibble that the conference could have been longer. It finished at 4pm so that members could go to canvass in the Mile End by election. This was worth doing but by elections come and go while opportunities to have national conferences are very rare. But these things are sometimes a tactical judgement and a good result will be very welcome.

The Respect that emerged from today’s conference is a stronger organisation. There were contested elections for the leadership. This was done on the basis of voting for individual candidates and even though it is a d
ull job counting the votes there is no room for jiggery pokery when it comes to seeing who got elected and why. This was a small organisation, deeply aware of its own limitations setting its face to the future and equipping itself with the politics to offer leadership for working people in the coming recession and looking to be part of the process of creating a new class struggle party.

57 responses to “Respect conference – a report”

  1. Really a party which is not communist at all cannot really be considered “the proper Communist Party” can it.?

    Like

  2. good report, cheers – is there video coming?

    Like

  3. […] George Galloway speaking at a Respect conference in London Looking at the economic situation he remarked that the capitalist system as we know it has failed and that some of the businesses which are now receiving big dollops of public money should be taken into state control […]

    Like

  4. What was the dissent over the climate change motions – from whom, and why?

    Indeed, what’s “properly communist” about the British Road to Socialism CPB?

    Like

  5. Interesting report

    CASMII doesn’t really exist any more, it was one of three groups that merged to form Campaign Iran

    Like

  6. what is the “proper communist party”?

    Like

  7. charlotte badger Avatar
    charlotte badger

    Comrades I am saddened to report that since the RESPECT National Conference Bromsgrove Respect has split into 3 factions….. One calling for immediate insurrection…One calling for long term united front work around a charter with the local CPB …. and another faction… that has gone to live in shed on their allottment.

    Like

  8. As long as the old badger keeps doing its work. They’re bigger than moles.

    Like

  9. As it goes I agree mostly with Liam’s report of the conference except I thought that Rob Griffiths’s speech was very poor and would make more of Mark Steels speech as the BEST of the conference.

    The big problem was that there was an undercurrent running through the conference of two competing outlooks, it would have been better if this could have come to the surface and have been properly debated.

    The clearest manifestation of this debate can be found in the new Socialist Resistance Journal in an article by Andy Newman and Reply by Alan Thornett.

    Anyone who has read any of my posts can guess what side I am on and I think that this is going to be a VERY important debate within Respect.

    Not sure if the articles can be read on the web, the Socialist Resistance website is currently coming up with “YoUr SiTe HaCkeD BY : DeViL iRaQ” ???

    In other news, I saw Liam in the flesh and he was a lot thinner then I had imagined he would be.

    Like

  10. Very very disapointing indeed. I hoped for more from the RR conference than this…

    “the front organisation of a small left wing sect”. Your guess is as good as mine there.”
    Well my guess is perhaps the closest fit to this description is the Socialist Party’s Campaign for a New Workers Party. Which is most often critised for being a front. Certainly the Socialist Party are “small and left wing” – I think they are in the realm of 1000 members. I wouldn’t call them a “sect” because I think there are enough of them and they act with enough democracy to be deemed a “party”. A “sect” is an intentionally pejorative term as well which does little to build bridges in a time when that is so vital.

    But let’s not beat around the bush. Rob Griffiths was refering to the SWP – who GG unforteanetly seems to still blame for everything under the sun and Griffiths thought he’d have a pop at too.

    Let’s be absolutely clear to those in Respect Renewal and the CPB. The Left Alternative is not a front organisation – it is barely an organisation. It is the framework of a building block of which to build a new organisation. No one in the LA or SWP is claiming it will solve the problems of the left itself – if you believe we are saying this please read some of our released office notes and become enlightened as to quite how modest an effort it has had to become.

    Also the SWP’s membership and power massively dwarves that of the rest of the far-left parties. That doesn’t mean we are the only significant part of the left. But we are the biggest party. We are the most highly functioning party in campaigns and on demonstrations. You can’t ignore or hide from that reality.

    I think my gripe here is not so much that being called “a small sect” by the Communist Party and Respect Renewal (both incredibly small organisations) is like Danny Davito and Gary Coleman calling Tom Cruise too short. It’s the fact that you are deluding your members into thinking that the largest force on the left is infact smaller than you. It simply isn’t. You can contest potentially you will grow larger. But brutal reality is important in building an organisation and that is a very upside view of the left in Britain.

    The electoral horizon (which is RR’s main concern) may hold brighter futures for RR than the LA. But you have a long way to go to have the numbers and strength of the SWP, that we have spent a very long time building. Good luck to you in doing that – I mean this geninely, despite Galloway’s ramblings. But don’t you have to wonder – wouldn’t we be increasing our significance faster and better if we worked and existed in unity? Every other country in Europe, where the left makes hedgeways – it happens for one reason: Unity.

    I fear that the leaders of rival left organisations have more against each other than the rank and file do. Mergers and changes threaten the current power hierachies that left party leaders have. It is because of this we must always debate with but also around the leadership on reshaping the left in Britain.

    Respect Renewal members would do well to express disdain with sectariania in all its forms as would we in the SWP.

    Like

  11. Interesting report and the motions were honorable, but in truth it does not really sound like a conference, more a rally, which is something we get far to many of on the left and without being nasty it would not have dragged me away from the fire on a wet sat afternoon.

    Two of the main speakers mentioned were not members of Respect, one was their to get the bodies in, OK, nothing wrong with fraternal delegates, but not at a party conference that lasts a day. What purpose did they serve?

    I realize it is easy to be negative but and I wish respect well, until a new left party is formed, but why bother with the bullshit.

    Like

  12. George says most working class people aren’t interested in “arguments about the differences between dead Russians”. Well I’ve got news for George, most working class people aren’t interested in the differences between live leftists like George Galloway and Rob Griffiths, either.

    But the most militant and political workers are interested in what different socialists have to say about the current financial crisis and recession, and why they put forward different ideas and tactics and have different parties that argue them. And, surprise surprise, they are even interested in why the Russian revolution went wrong and what the arguments were at the time to prevent it.

    Trust an ex-Labour MP to put forward such a philistine argument. No doubt it was greeted with roars of approval by fellow philistines in the audience.

    Like

  13. Liam’s sarky comment about CPGB’s lack of commitment to building Respect is fair enough. Like a good many other leftists both organised and ‘independent’, we (CPGB) have been skeptical about whether this particular ‘unity project’ has any political legs, given the large number of competing ‘unity projects’ in existence.

    We have in addition been violently skeptical about the politics of the relation between leftists and ‘community leaders’ which continues in Respect.

    So we haven’t thrown all our microscopic forces into building Respect (Renewal) (while also criticising it), as we did in the past with the SLP and Socialist Alliance and attempted – without success – to do in the early Respect down to the Euro-elections.

    That said, the conference was in some ways encouraging. There was less bureaucratic stitch-up going on than in the SWP-led Respect: if anything the major problem was ‘tyranny of structurelessness’. The ‘S for socialism’ was emphasised where the SWP downplayed it, and the resolutions were largely OK. Respect clearly regroups a real layer of activists in some localities, and allows more local initiative than the SWP-led Respect did.

    On ‘talking about dead Russians’ Stuart K is right. A dead German, Karl Marx, has reared his head as the markets crash. It is inevitable that the capitalist media will proceed to try to inoculate politics against Marxism by talking at great length about at least one dead Russian – Joseph Stalin. They have already begun to do so. They will also go on and on about the live Chinese and North Korean ‘communist’ regimes (which help to fund the Morning Star, if only by library subscriptions).

    In these circumstances, the left will unavoidably be *forced* to ‘talk about dead Russians’. Unity on terms that we don’t ‘talk about dead Russians’ will be unity on the Morning Star’s terms: attempts to prettify the Stalinist regimes or a queasy avoidance of the questions. It is unlikely that this will build a mass movement.

    The HOPI resolution and the amendment carried provides a small example of the issue. Fred Leplat’s speech for the amendment carried recycled the old ‘official communist’ argument that a ‘solidarity movement’ must not ‘place conditions on solidarity’ by criticising regimes targeted by imperialism. Fred no doubt remembers this, as I do, from the old CP’s arguments against the IMG in Chile solidarity in the 1970s …

    Like

  14. If you say the word philistine enough are you magically transported to Trotsky’s study in 1938, in the manner of Dorothy clicking her heels three times and repeating, “There’s no place like home”?

    Stuart King’s post rather reveals the problem Galloway was talking about.

    Like

  15. A very successful conference that shows Respect is alive and well and willing and wanting to work with all on the Left to build a pogressive socialist alternative to ‘New Labour’.

    With over 200 delegates from all parts of the country their is much to build on and a willingness to work with others in an open, democratic and inclusive way.

    Like

  16. Neil,

    All the reports I read are very positive, but then again I suppose they would be. Were there really 210 delegates? Surely no-one was delegated to attend, since every member was entitled. Wouldn’t it be more accruate to describe the attendees as attendees?

    Out of interest, how many members does respect now claim, and how many votes did the ‘delegates’ have in the NC elections? There seem to be in excess of 5000 votes cast which is very impressive for an organisation which would appear to have less than 500 members.

    Like

  17. “George says most working class people aren’t interested in “arguments about the differences between dead Russians”. ”

    James P.Cannon, leader of the American Communist Party and one of the very few leaders to recognize the damage that Stalinism was doing to the socialist movement in the thirties was asked once why do you get your ideas from Russia. He said that there was a famous American bank robber, Willie Sutton, who when asked why he robbed banks, responded “That’s where the money is.” Cannon said he looked to Russia, because that’s where the ideas were. He could have tried cobbling together an ideology from local American traditions, but what would be the point?

    I know that when I became a revolutinoar socialist my biggest concern with parties of the far left was that any revolution led by them might lead to stalinism.

    Wasn’t there a party in the US once called the “Know Nothing” party?

    Like

  18. Re voting figures, the election was on a first-past-the-post system, with each delegate casting up to 50 votes for the 50 places. Most people cast fewer than 50 votes, which means that there were many more than 100 ballot papers returned, though perhaps not as many as 200. I don’t think we counted the actual papers.

    Like

  19. Neil says “With over 200 delegates from all parts of the country”

    It doesn’t look from the reports like ‘delegates’ were from all parts of the country, there seems a curious lack of participation from yorkshire, humberside and tyne/wear/tees; not to mention the black country and the east midlands. These are substantial areas of longstanding left politics and industrial militancy (ok maybe not so much north yorkshire)

    Like

  20. With reference to Skidmarx’s comments
    A long time ago …

    … in 1932 2.5% of the american electorate, nearly 1 million people, voted in the presidential election that year for the opposing candidates of the Socialist Party and a split off group, the Communist Party of the USA. The split in the SP was a direct result of a battle over the Russian Revolution.

    James P Cannon had already been expelled from the Communist Party over his support for another Russian after a visit there in 1928. He formed the (US) SWP in 1937 becoming its first National Secretary so it’s little surprise he had a lot to say about Russia.

    Last time I checked there were no opposing parties winning 1 million votes in British elections, whose fundamental divide was over what dead Russians thought. In this respect (no pun), Galloway is quite right. Of course, there is much we can learn about the Russian Revolution, but for even the most politically advanced british people today their perspectives on Russia are shaped by questionning whose yacht leading politicians have been invited to.

    Like

  21. Prinkipo, but hold on here. This started off with Galloway making a comment about dead russians, not because there’s a whole debate going on the left which is somehow diverting resources away from more important tasks.

    Galloway went out of his way to criticise groups who ever dare to discuss what lenin or trotsky said or might say today. Stuart King rightly replied that this is philistinism. Then Nas -who I understand is a former member of the SWP- argues that Stuart is precisely the problem galloway was alluding to. It’s perverse.

    Those ex-swp people who now run Respect with Galloway delight in dancing on the grave of marxism and ignoring the lessons of our political history. The ISG/SR formally (silently, timidly) oppose them to little effect. Getting galloway re-elected isn’t socialism comrades, it’s just massaging the ego of careerist.

    Like

  22. Martin – presumably you will be campaigning for former marxist IS member turned New Labour creep, Jim Fitzpatrick, against Galloway in the next general election, as part of pursuing your own principled Marxist line? It’s a strange concept of “socialism”, thay you are quite welcome to hold. But personally I believe Galloway defeating Fitzpatrick would be a blow against the ruling class and take forward the struggle for socialism. That’s what I would call a real marxist position.

    Like

  23. erm no, galloway and fitzpatrick, two worn out cheeks of the same pants -as my comrades in Haiti are fond of saying.

    Like

  24. so principled marxist abstention is it then?

    Like

  25. The claim that Respect is more significant than any other left organisation formed in the past decade boils down to its electoral prospects.
    Respect is similar in size to the SLP when it was founded.
    It’s smaller than the Socialist Alliance was.
    The numbers attending Respect’s conference last Saturday were far smaller than the Socialist Alliance’s programmatic conference in Coventry.

    Even after subtracting a few tiny sects, Respect’s politics aren’t really distinguishable from either of its predecessors.
    It has inherited its claim to the mantle of “Old Labour” from the Socialist Alliance.
    From the SLP the same agnostic attitude to Stalinism and its methods.
    In practice covering up the historical crimes of Stalinism merely encourages neo-Stalinism.
    Scargill lets in the “Stalin Society”, George Galloway denounces “Toytown Trotskyists” in the capitalist press.
    Sirkorski, Francis, Ovenden, Hoveman, Thornett et al. keep quiet!

    RESPECT’s politics boil down to a hybrid form of Labour Leftism tailored to practising Muslims.
    This approach determines the political horizons it’s set itself for the next General Election.
    But given the world economic crisis, these horizons are now far too narrow.
    Galloway’s politics are best seen in his Scottish ‘Daily Record’ articles every week.
    Here, he operates as an independent Labour left, pressurising Gordon Brown from the left.

    Galloway may not be a sectarian, but to use a vinyl analogy; sectarianism and opportunism are the A and B sides of the same record
    Isolation on the basis of “purity of programme” leads to the formation of sects.
    Usually because the programme is so unreal that it can’t be fought for in mass organisations.
    The flip side, opportunism involves political compromises with the ruling class.
    Watering down the socialist programme in favour of get rich quick schemes.
    This always occurs via acommodation with the Labour bureaucracy.

    Galloway is on one side of the coin, the SWP the other.
    Sometimes it’s spinning so fast that you see both sides at the same time!
    On one is the “People Before Profit Charter”.
    A rather tame list of demands, which left trade union bureaucrats can sign without any committment to action.
    On the other, miniscule angry protests against the whole capitalist system, which don’t even attempt to promote the Charter.

    Neither approach tackles the real problem.
    New Labour came to power through the Labour bureaucracy.
    The bureaucracy of the Labour Party and the Trade Unions are part of the same organism.
    It can’t be defeated by running minority electoral campaigns or blurring political programmes.
    The key to politically replacing new Labour is in the unions.

    Like

  26. I’d just like to know who Dorothy was and why she kept clicking her heels?

    Perhaps Nas can enlighten me.

    Like

  27. Prianikoff:

    Bull shit man. Even moderate anti-imperialism is radical. Galloway’s opposition to the war is more practically radical than any sect’s position.

    Like

  28. Stuart King shows he’s so out of touch he hasn’t yet caught up with the 1930s and new-fangled things like the talkies…!!!!
    “If he only had a brain”

    Like

  29. Maybe its because I don’t watch as many children’s films as RobM and Nas.

    Like

  30. DEllis:- “….Even moderate anti-imperialism is radical. Galloway’s opposition to the war is more practically radical than any sect’s position.”

    Coming from Mr “Down with centrism” this is political waffle. “Radical” is a very vague term. What’s it mean?
    Welcome to Thunderclap Newman’s Popular Front!

    Are you’re saying that Respect is a “practically radical” party and George Galloway defines its politics?
    In which case, as I said above, the split in Respect was down to the prospect of mass electoral work.

    The SWP were seen as an obstacle to this, they didn’t want Respect to grow into an alternative to their organisation. Galloway has the ear of the media and feels he can bypass the “Toytown Trots” and work with the more accomodating ones on his payroll, or political entourage.

    Given that the SWP instigated and built the Stop the War Coalition, it’s a question of who has the better programme. At the moment a choice between opportunist populism and ultra leftism. Of course things can change. They’ll have to due to the World Recession that Stuart King’s sect totally failed to predict. But all the contending groups have lagged behind events on that and are well behing the game.

    Like

  31. … the contending groups I mentioned, that is.

    Like

  32. Prianikoff,

    Sorry, was a bit worse for ware last night. Actually I agree with a lot of what you say a lot of the time.

    As for Galloway’s quip about `dead Russians’ my interpretation of what he said is that workers are interested in programme and policy and perspective rather than the esoteric arguements of the sects. Really, it is a plea for unity in struggle. Of course, we all know that without theoretical guidance we will lose our way.

    Respect, because of its genuine electoral support can impose some discipline on sectarian moods. The sects operate a divide and rule strategy from below which mirrors the imperialists’ divide and rule strategy from above. Respect is a united front for electoral purposes and within it proper discussion is taking place.

    As for being behind the game re: the economic crisis I agree.

    Like

  33. We should definitely have unity in action- I guess George’s remark is perhaps meant partly along those lines and indeed working class people’s primary concerns are going to be around issues such as unemployment, racism, price rises, war, poverty, sexism – all the burning needs of everyday life.

    This initiaitive http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2386 may be worth supporting.

    ‘Sects’ is I think a rather unhelpful needlessly perjorative term- isn’t it time we got beyond this level of bandying about terms of abuse?

    However, whilst some socialists do indeed pursue matters in too esoteric a manner, disconnected from real issues in workers’ lives, it is quite patronising to say that workers have no interest in issue of how working class people can run society. Many working class I’ve known- my Grandad and his mates who were caretakers and other manual labourers in London- had a keen interest in all sorts fo things from Judo to yes the fate of the Russian revolution and socialism.

    Younger working class people also have a wide range of interests and to dismiss all this as talk about dead Russians is too simplistic, reductive and frankly patronising.

    Is it possible to overthrow capitalism? Is it possible to have genuine workers’ democracy? What do the experiences in Russia and other countries tell us?

    More pertinently but not counterposed to this what should we be arguing about nationalising the banks, opposing privatisation, opposing Woolas’ racist attacks against working class communities?

    Like

  34. “Given that the SWP instigated and built the Stop the War Coalition, it’s a question of who has the better programme. At the moment a choice between opportunist populism and ultra leftism. Of course things can change. They’ll have to due to the World Recession that Stuart King’s sect totally failed to predict. But all the contending groups have lagged behind events on that and are well behing the game.”

    Hey nobody’s perfect. Except Prianikoff presumably.

    Like

  35. Surely the main point is that there was not really any discussion of dead russians in the old respect, discussions that there were having nothing to do with dead russians. its simply a set of stereotypes about the left long used by the right. in any case the obsession with the split is past its sell-by date.

    Like

  36. Bill J: – “Hey nobody’s perfect. Except Prianikoff presumably.”

    Only approximately and if there’s supporting documentary evidence.

    Like

  37. Perhaps, my droogs, MIster Galloway has obtained a copy of Anthony Burgess’ “A Clockwork Orange” but thought it was an authentic account of the behaviour of young people today.

    Like

  38. Following the link posted by Prianikoff to an article on the “World Socialist Website” titled “Britain: the SWP and Galloway’s Respect Renewal on the economic crisis” actually reminded me that in reality there is not much more then a paper’s separation between the concrete demands being made by Respect and the SWP.

    The ultra-left article author decrys both organisations for not thinking that the economic crash means that we can call for revolution at this moment and nicely demonstrates how both organisations have a realistic assessment of the crisis and of the amount of time and hard work it will still take to build an alternative to the system.

    While of course there are differences of emphasis this article reminds all of us who aren’t on the ultra-left that in fact we do share a largely common assessment of what’s going on and where we need to go from here.

    From this common assessment the need for a broad radical left organisation is evident but what no one has really theorised properly is how such an organisation should be structured.

    While answering this question is what holds us back, it can’t be answered by mere abstract musing but rather needs to be forged in the actual practice of trying to build a fight back to the shit they are dumping on us.

    Like

  39. No disagreements there Joseph. I’m trying to cut back on the abstract musings myself.

    Like

  40. It is an interesting article. Unfortunately whilst their criticisms are formally correct they make no difference because of the sect quality of the organisation making them.

    Look, if Gordon Brown, George Galloway and the SWP are prepared to put their hands up when `keynesian’ intervention in the crisis results in the collapse of the currency and hyper inflation then that is up to them. Of course, in the real world imperialism is, rather unsuccessfully at the moment, attempting to manage us into deep austerity. It is not for socialists to propose solutions to capitalism’s problems. The revolutionary socialist elements in Respect have to be developing a socialist programme forward (not just shouting revolution from the sidelines) and seeking to gets its people elected to platforms from which it can make it heard. That is the point of this coming together. It is not an end in itself, that way lies bureaucratism. The end is the end not the means.

    Like

  41. Hi,
    I’m not a member or a supporter of the Respect Party, but I’d like to know whether the conference took any kind of collective policy decision as to whether the bailout of the banks was right as George Galloway has said, or wrong, as the Respect Party national secretary Nick Wrack seems to feel.

    Like

  42. The main question here is whether Kenysian style reforms can stablilise capitalism.

    Alan Freeman, who is influential in the Socialist Economic Bulletin, Robin Blackburn and Galloway argue that they can.
    Harman takes a halfway position. This determines the SWP’s political practice – a combination of the timid PbP Charter and small Seattle-style demos.

    Unless you think it’s a question of “Shut-up and give out the leafets and pick up the placards”, the political perspectives matter.

    The Labour Left Keynsian – Turner – Respect stuff about cutting interest rates is already being implemented. US interest rates are now at 1% and could go down to 0.5% very shortly. This is close giving money away.

    It’s all designed to re-stimulate consumer demand without challenging the ownership of capital –
    The actual stocks and share certificates that are bought and sold, loaned out and hedged every day.

    The byzantine chain of transactions that was created in the boom is still unwinding. It’s clear that there is still a huge mountain of debt out there, about 3 times GDP in the US.
    So the dangers of what will happen if these policies don’t work are obvious, and it’s quite likely they won’t.

    As Martin Wolf, lead economist at the FT notes:-

    “The danger is… of a slump, as a mountain of private debt – in the US, equal to three times GDP – topples over into mass bankruptcy. The downward spiral would begin with further decay of financial systems and proceed via pervasive mistrust, the vanishing of credit, closure of vast numbers of businesses, soaring unemployment, tumbling commodity prices, cascading declines in asset prices and soaring repossessions. Globalisation would spread the catastrophe everywhere…. this would be a recipe… for xenophobia, nationalism and revolution..
    At stake could be the legitimacy of the open market economy itself… the danger remains huge and time is short.”

    This makes the economic analyses of the assembled halves of Respect look very tame and apologetic, for what profess to be Socialist organisations!

    Like

  43. Prianikoff

    `This makes the economic analyses of the assembled halves of Respect look very tame and apologetic, for what profess to be Socialist organisations!’

    Agree to a point. However, you can have this arguement in Respect in front of an audience who will give you a hearing because you are part of the process of building something they are interested in building. Sniping from the sidelines like the sects (and I am not saying you are doing this at all I’m saying they are doing this) just cuts you off from any possibility of reaching a working class or mass audience.

    I have attempted to forumlate a radical, socialist perspective forward in my `All Debts Are Off” leaflet which pushes forward the working class as the tribune of the people. I would be interested in a critique of it from you. It’s on the `Capitalism – a beast that can only be put down’ thread.

    Like

  44. I have yet to see support for the bail-out in any SWP publication. Perhaps I missed it. Calls for nationalisation of the banks is of course entirely different.

    Like

  45. Now now David – taking advantage of Liam’s absence is a risky strategy. johng may be insufferably smug but there’s no need to be rude.

    Like

  46. Quite right. Apologies for that.

    Like

  47. […] over Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross. * Last weekend’s Respect conference did the business for Mac Uaid. * Oh, those Russians! Galloway’s throwaway remark takes on a life of its own. * The Nouveau […]

    Like

  48. Going back to the question of the lowering of interest rates, there’s a contribution on casinocrash.org from Howard Wachtel, explaining why this isn’t even orthodox Keynianism. (Contrary to the assertions of Livingstone’s ‘Socialist Economic Bulletin’ and elements within Respect.

    ‘Keynes taught us that when banks and other holders of vast sums of capital have what he called a “preference for liquidity” – a desire to hold cash and not invest it – lowering interest rates will not unlock this liquidity for investment. Instead any infusions of new money by the central bank into the system will simply be stashed away for two reasons: first, the mood of the financial market’s psychology is glum and not conducive to investment because rates of return are perceived to be too low. Second, new money injected will be held as cash in anticipation of a better day, so the new money will be seen as an arsenal to be held until markets improve.

    Added to this is the character of this most recent bubble – inflated home prices and their accompanying high-risk financial instruments to insure these bad loans. Lowering interest rates simply poured fuel on the fire by keeping loan rates low, encouraging more imprudent lending and borrowing, and furthering the speculative bubble’s chain of bad debts.

    This reasoning is counter-intuitive, but it fits the current paradox of lower interest rates and unprecedented chunks of cash interventions without their anticipated impact. The preference to hoard money by banks reinforced a psychological condition that was confirmed by the failure of the lower interest rates to have their intended effect. Credit markets in today’s language have frozen.

    Keynes called this the liquidity trap – the most difficult position for an economy, one that characterized the Japanese economy in the 1990s, and threatens to engulf not only the U.S. but the global economy today’.

    All of which reinforces the argument that handing money to investment bankers, but not taking control of the banks won’t work.

    Like

  49. I think that 210 attending which really means 190 members is a bit of a worry. Its a massive decline compared to last year which according to RESPECT was a conference in the realms of 400. All in all not a great development.

    Like

  50. sorry for pointing out facts. not popular with sectarians I know.

    Like

  51. Thanks Steve for your concern about the size of conference. Last year’s was actually about 350 in number, including people from both sides of the brand-new split and others who came to observe or report on developments. While it was an exciting and important event as a kind of founding conference for Respect Renewal (as was), it was certainly a very different kind of conference to the one we just had, where leaders were elected and campaign priorities were voted on.

    The overall sense last weekend was not one of worry that the conference was small (although indeed it was), but of relief that we had survived the split and had formed a solid foundation from which to rebuild. I think you’ll find that Respect members are acutely aware of how small the organisation is, but we’re largely positive about the possibilities for growth now that we can put our past internal problems behind us.

    Like

  52. Well, it’s too late now johng. All that people will remember of the SWP’s intervention is that you shouted `no bail out’ on the streets a bit and then mumbled something about a `keynesian’ spending spree.

    It doesn’t get much more sectarian than your little friend steve’s comment above but like the hypocrite you are you’ll pass quietly by that one.

    Like

  53. I’ve not had a chance to read most of the comments and I will try to respond to some points tomorrow.

    One essential thing which is missing from the report is Nick Wrack’s uncontroversial assertion that Respect sees itself as only one component part of a much larger organisation which we want to emerge on the left in Britain.

    Like

  54. Is that an argument that Respect is like a Russian doll ? Better not be a dead one.

    Like

  55. Mile End East by-election result:

    Labour 1208
    Conservatives 630
    Respect 604
    Liberal Democrats 110

    Like

Leave a reply to Roland Rance Cancel reply

Trending