(I’m away for a few days and moderating may be a bit haphazard but the usual rules still apply.)

image It’s not often that a leading figure on the far left sets out to “express my disagreements in some humility” and admits to having “shifted my own position”. Alex Callinicos may be starting a welcome fashion in the current issue of International Socialism. As part of an ongoing discussion with Panos Garganas and François Sabado about the connection between broad parties and revolutionaries he says that the evolution of the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA) in France altered some of his views. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed and hope that this rethink eventually leads him to appreciate the difference between the united front and the wholly owned party subsidiary (Unite against Fascism, Globalise Resistance…). The near universal malady of the Anglophone left.

In a certain sense the details of the discussion are not as important as the fact that it is happening. All the formations which have emerged to the left of Social Democracy in recent years have been very distinct and comparing one with another can be as productive as comparing apples with shoes. The LCR has been able to launch the NPA on the crest of a wave of struggles with an explicitly anti-capitalist programme. On the other hand Die Linke has a large group of members from the PDS tradition who are likely to be less receptive to a message of not sharing power with Social Democracy.

One of the things that gives this debate in Britain a real urgency is the response of the unions to the loss of 4500 jobs at the Royal Bank of Scotland. It’s “truly devastating” was how they summed it up. There is no hint that they can do anything about it, no suggestion of the workers taking charge of the bank. The absence of an authoritative combative political leadership is taking a heavy toll on the British working class and while it is right that much of the left is building solidarity with struggles such as the one at Visteon that is insufficient. A political response which transcends selling a couple of papers and maybe recruiting a striker for three months is what is required.

Some faltering steps are being taken. The No 2 EU campaign has its deficits. Wilfully excluding the SWP because of the Lindsey dispute; a tenuous commitment to internal democracy and some infelicitous phrasing in its propaganda among them. Nonetheless a major union with a record of fighting is contesting an election in opposition to Labour. That’s a big positive and maybe it will be a catalyst for a realignment after the elections. Add to this the fact that Respect still has an electoral base in some parts of the country and the Socialist Party have a habit of getting people elected and the outlines of a new formation appear.

That is the significance of Alex Callinicos’ article. It reminds us that the discussion may have been muted recently but that it is still necessary.

Under much more favourable circumstances a new party is emerging in France but it has been demonstrated that it is possible to launch a modestly successful project in Britain too. If one were to take a single aspect of the NPA that can be transplanted across the Channel it is its inflexible approach to internal democracy born from an understanding of the necessity of meaningful political pluralism. That is the one thing that is absolutely universally transferable.

37 responses to “A shift of position”

  1. Forward to the Smorgasbord Workers Party!

    I can’t help noting the contrast between Lexx’s description of Respect as “a small pond” and yours in Revolutionaries and Broad Parties as “a broad class struggle organisation”. Did you mean “diverse”, ‘cos if a couple of hundred means broad, I may have to go back to the dictionary, also to look up “class struggle”.

    Like

  2. Swoppie and proud.. Avatar
    Swoppie and proud..

    I agree that this discussion matters, and I’d broadly agree with your comments about no 2 eu. However i think that to characterise work around Visteon as just about selling a couple of papers and recruiting a striker for 3 months (or whatever) are way, way too pessimistic. A lot of TU activists have heard about Visteon already, and if the left systematically goes out to spread the message more will. If the Visteon workers get something (even just more redundancy cash) then there is every possibility that the tactic will spread. Indeed, the sequence: waterford -prisme- visteon- glasgow primaries suggests that that dynamic is already in process. And that – the fertile soil of struggles at the bottom – is what is needed if any new Left formation (and the left in general in whole or in part) is to grow and thrive.

    Visteon might end today. If it does then what every individual on the left needs to ask themselves is what concretely did you manage to do in the last week and a bit to spread the news, spread the message and raise solidarity? If the answer is nothing then reexamine your practice comrades!

    If it carries on, then take a collection in your workplace , your street or wherever. Do it now.

    Like

  3. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    “Respect was doomed ultimately by its failure to bring about a major split in the Labour Party. ” Callinicos

    Much of the article is positive but that point is barmy. Did Callinicos really believe that when Respect was launched an imminent major split in the Labour Party was both possible and likely? I would be interesting in finding out where in the period 2004-07, he or the SWP said that this was the most likely outcome and what would be needed to sustain a ‘left of Labour’ project.

    Like

  4. Swoppie and proud.. Avatar
    Swoppie and proud..

    Perhaps it needs the words ‘in retrospect’ in front of that sentence. Unless callinicos thought that all along which would surprise me.

    Actually i think Respect was a bit unlucky really – just a bit more support in 2004 would have seen Lindsey German in the GLA and GG as an MEP. Would have been far more wind in the sails far earlier. Would that have prevented the crack up or just changed the timing and character? Would that have pulled more labour councillors or something? Dunno mate..

    Like

  5. i suspect that many on the labour left would not have wished to join up with galloway anyway, even if they did have the thought of splitting from new labour in the hey day of the anti-war movement.

    a split from labour would be good, but like so much in life a double edged sword. same as a union bureaucracy creating a new party would be a double edged sword.

    forces from labour and the union movement would give a new party organisational resources and legitimacy in the eyes of more workers, but they likely would prevent any new party adopting anti-capitalist or socialist policies, and would use bureaucratic measures in a new party to control it. so we might end up with a wasg or die linke style party, but without the massed ranks of the pds of course, which would be a major difference.

    anyway, whatever might happen would be an opportunity for socialists.

    does anyone seriously think that callinicos has changed his view and that this will impact on swp tactics??? i just can’t see it to be honest.

    as an aside, apparently there are still some branches of the swp who are supportive of ress / german.

    ks

    Like

  6. Well, actually, the details are important because your post is completely evasive in outlining, let alone explaining, the views of Callinicos that shifted.

    The post is entitled “a shift of position” – but you don’t say what you think this shift is. Your post isn’t even food for thought. The plate’s empty.

    Like

  7. Sometimes you think things are too obvious to need pointing out, especially when you have provided a link to the full original text.

    AC is much more welcoming of the NPA than any of his co-thinkers in Britain have been about similar local initiatives. their emphais has been entirely on re-establishing the familiar routine of individual recruitment and “party building”. ACs piece shows an awareness that there is more than this to politics and that maybe the period of building broader formations has not ended just yet. That was something he was suggesting not so long ago.

    Like

  8. “Sometimes you think things are too obvious to need pointing out, especially when you have provided a link to the full original text.”

    I think I see your problem.

    Like

  9. “Sometimes you think things are too obvious to need pointing out, especially when you have provided a link to the full original text.”

    It’s obvious if you read my post that I’m asking for *your* interpretation of Callinicos’s article, what *you* think shifted.

    Like

  10. LIAM:”ACs piece shows an awareness that there is more than this to politics and that maybe the period of building broader formations has not ended just yet. That was something he was suggesting not so long ago.”

    That may be so but while you can lead a horse to water….or the horse can be shown that there is indeed water there….you may not be able to make it drink.

    The point about the NPA is that the period of the potential for building broader formations persists despite what the determined naysayers in the SWP have been telling its membership and its IST franchisees worldwide.

    The complication is this, I think: There is a layer on the far left of orgs, who while they may denounce this fresh “mixing of revolutionaries and reformists” in these new broad formations, are quite happy for others to breast the stream and put in the hard yards and wear the consequences while they wait on the bank.

    If and when there is some measure of success then they too will certainly sign on provisionally and say their theory covered for that option in the first place(as Callincos does here).

    A few points on Callincos’s contribution:

    “The situation in France has allowed Sabado and his comrades to launch a party three times the size of the LCR whose programme, while in some respects remaining strategically open, nevertheless explicitly calls for a revolutionary break with capitalism…..”

    And the situation in Scotland did not? What’s the difference between the two experiences in terms of a initiating a consciously engineered process?

    “Were we wrong to have gone ahead on a weaker platform of opposition to neoliberalism, racism and war? “

    Yes. We had to have this fight out here in Australia with the local IST affiliate. And inasmuch as that legacy may persist, I wonder (but I don’t know) how much of a handicap it is today for Respect as a vehicle that could aggregate the socialist left.

    “Absolutely not : despite the ultimate outcome, it was right to have tried. But human beings make history not in circumstances of their own choosing, and an explicitly anti-capitalist party was not on the agenda in Britain then….”

    But it was (or wasn’t?) in Scotland? As it wasn’t in Australia but is in France!? Any new formation created is going to be victim to mercurial allegiances as the political struggle waxes and wanes. So “then” supposedly means a moment when things are just right — a “then” moment when “an explicitly anti-capitalist party” can be created as distinct from one when you can only raise with a “weaker program”?

    The SWP in fact had two bites of the cherry — first with the “explicitly anti-capitalist” formation, the Socialist Alliance, which they soon enough abandoned — and then with the RESPECT vehicle.

    I think Callincos lets the cat out of the bag when he writes:”Respect was doomed ultimately by its failure to bring about a major split in the Labour Party.”

    If the SWP believed that in the space of a few years RESPECT was going to split the British Labour Party then you have to question the political protocols they rule their choices by.

    “The variety of circumstances we face in Europe make it a mistake to treat any party as a general model.It was a mistake for the leadership of the Scottish Socialist Party to offer themselves as a model and a mistake to the extent that we offered Respect as an alternative model.”

    So much is said in so little! I assume he is here referring to the Murray Smith vs SWP debates of three years back. Inasmuch as models matter or exist, in terms of this past debate I, nonetheless, see the NPA process as a very strong affirmation of the SSP example.

    In terms of a way forward, that’s the point surely. The NPA is a sort of affirmation of a political option that was first explored in Scotland.

    At issue is how the process which is opened up is handled in order to move it along. To that end there are no templates.

    Like

  11. But the NPA’s quite different to the SSP – that’s precisely the point. The NPA is explicitly revolutionary; it’s not nationalist; and it comes out of a process which involved thousands of people outside the ranks of the organised far left.

    And I’m not sure why Liam thinks that SWP members have been lukewarm about similar projects – what projects like the NPA have there been?

    Like

  12. “But the NPA’s quite different to the SSP – that’s precisely the point. The NPA is explicitly revolutionary; it’s not nationalist; and it comes out of a process which involved thousands of people outside the ranks of the organised far left.”

    Which is why its a shift in position.
    Remember it was this same Callinicos who justified ditching a workers wage for MPs, no immigration controls, the abolition of the monarchy, lesbian and gay rights etc. never mind revolution in the founding of the Respect debacle.
    So a shift away from that towards revolution, away from nationalism, towards anti-capitalism, away from reformism, is to be welcomed.
    Albeit not to be believed, because who can believe a word he says?

    Like

  13. bill j – you are misreading Callinicos’ and chjh’s argument, which is that determinations of particular form or political program in any left party project are conjunctural and not fixed in eternity. His shift in position is that he has come to more wholeheartedly embrace the correctness of the NPA model in the context of France, in relation to the LCR’s dissolution, in relation their refusal of a joint EU list with Melanchon’s break from the SP, in the high level of the NPA’s political program, etc. But he still disagrees with Sabado’s estimation of, for instance, die Linke, which he argues is appropriate for the particular balance of forces and level of consciousness in Germany.

    Like

  14. Either that or he’s an opportunist.

    Like

  15. Leaving the abuse aside, the NPA is also utterly different from the Socialist Alliance. The SA was explicitly not a revolutionary organisation, and in most places amounted to little more than bolting together the existing far left. Was a revolutionary organisation of the size of the NPA actually possible? And if so, why did none of the small groups do anything to bring something like that into being?

    Like

  16. Abuse?
    But who opposed the Socialist Alliance being a “revolutionary organisation”?
    The SWP.
    Would the bolting together of the left have been a step forward?
    In as much as it happened yes.
    But the Socialist Alliance was “too socialist” – for the SWP – and so sacrified on the alter of Respect.
    Don’t be surprised when people question the sincerity of the latest turn.

    Like

  17. billj – You haven’t addressed the argument, which is that different contexts demand different responses. The Socialist Alliance was an attempt to relate to the British context. The NPA is being constructed in the French context. Presumably you are aware of the different levels of class struggle and consciousness, as well as different traditions between the two countries. Cookie cutters are only good for cookies – not revolutionary tactics.

    Like

  18. All these formations will reflect the local balance of forces. In France they are more favourable than in Britain which allows the NPA to have a more advanced programme. What Bill and his comrades consistently get wrong is expecting these emerging organisations to have a programme with which they mostly agree. Their attitude to No 2 EU is in this pattern

    But for me what is worth taking from the NPA is the ex LCR’s approach to not functioning as a bloc determined to get its way on every third rate tactical question and its commitment to allowing the NPA to develop its own political culture.

    Like

  19. Sure tactics have to take account of the situation. For the SWP this is determined by which side of the bed Alex Callinicos rolled out of.
    Every day is a “different context” who knows what tomorrow will bring?
    One day its revolutionary.
    The next day its reformist.
    The day after that its not even that.
    Then its back to revolutionary again.
    Go figure.
    Liam’s point is more interesting. I don’t personally expect these organisations to have a “perfect” programme. Actually it would be a step forward compared with where we are to launch an organisation with only the broadest set of ideas – e.g. the Convention of the Left, i.e. which doesn’t have a programme at all. But the left are just not interested in that – I’m afraid they are too busy sect building. Or in the case of the SWP getting back to sect building.
    What I do object to is the basis of Respect namely that we must adopt an unprincipled programme – dropping workers wages, immigration controls, abolition of the monarchy, lesbian and gay rights, women’s rights, workers rights etc. Certainly a broad coalition will contain people with a range of ideas – though paradoxically on all of those questions I doubt if there would be much disagreement. It was the “left” that imposed Respects reactionary platform on it.
    Which “left”? The SWP.
    Our attitude to NO2EU is in that pattern. Its a joke. Launched a couple of months before the elections with no democracy, no organisation, no money and no support it will fail disastrously. What will be achieved by that? If anything another nail in the coffin of “workers representation”. And that’s before you consider its awful UKIP programme.
    A British NPA would be great. We can start taking the SWP more seriously when they dissolve themselves into a British one.

    Like

  20. biil j – When I look at what you say before “Go figure” all I can really figure is that you get out of the wrong side of bed a lot.
    I assume you probably mean opposition to “immigration controls”. I think it’s understandable that the SWP didn’t want to impose all of its programme on Respect in order to maintain its broad appeal. And I don’t see where you get off calling it a sect when it is welcoming if cautious of NO2EU when you are simply dismissive. Maybe you’re right that it is too nationalis and may come to nothing. But you’re hardly going to win friends by such a sectarian methodology.
    And this time you should have an apostrophe in “It’s a joke” to indicate the contraction of “It is”.

    Surely if the SWP did dissolve itself into a British NPA you would find variations on your arguments about its activities in Respect and since to still refuse to engage with it seriously.

    Like

  21. “But for me what is worth taking from the NPA is the ex LCR’s approach to not functioning as a bloc determined to get its way on every third rate tactical question and its commitment to allowing the NPA to develop its own political culture.”

    This is an interesting point but if you’re to be fair to Callinicos’ you ought to address his direct response to this point in his article, which deals with the specific context of Respect vs that of the NPA in France.

    Like

  22. I’m largely coming to the conclusion that the Respect project was flawed from day one & has been absolutely disastrous for the cause of building a radical left alternative in Britain & set things back through its fluffy wishy-washy programme.

    The SA failed for several reasons. But was a far more positive development than Respect. The behviour of the SWP was one, another was the behaviour of the SP. And the clash of egos between these two organisations and fight for hegemonic control. (or that’s my take)The two different trotskyist traditions that blended in the SA actually helped give it a good programme.

    But the bolting together of the far left into one alliance was more positive than CHJH suggests & provided the basis for reaching out to a wider audience.

    Having principled positions like a workers wage & opposition to immigration controls was a good thing. The fact that Committee to Defend Asylum Seekers bearly exists now is a testament to how the SWP slipped and slided during the Respect period. The SWP and other socialist organisations had been the backbone of grassroots refugee solidarity, now anarchist networks such as No Borders now largely occupy that space & the movement is extremely fragmented and much weaker than in 2001.

    The SWP attacked the SLP over immigration controls, fought the SP to have opposition to immigration controls on the programme of the SA, suddenly in Respect they ditched this position. Some compromises in an alliance are understandable, but the ditching of the position in Respect, meant that the SWP more and more put solidarity with migrants on the backburner.

    The SWP also made sure in the SA that students were largely kept out of it (as university’s were SWSS domain), the SA never had regular public meetings etc.

    The SP locally (I don’t know if this is how it went generally) were decent people on a personal level (and I was dissapointed when they left the SA, pretty much resulting in the alliance disintergrating as independents drifted out also) but acted in an odd sectarian manner in things such as insisting on standing candidates as Socialist Alternative (their electoral name) rather than Socialist Alliance and when an SP member stood as an SA candidate they ran it as an SP campaign, distributing their own literature, having SP public meetings and not recruiting anyone to the SA (virtually all the independents in my local branch were recruited by the SWP)

    Like

  23. Skidmarx, I certainly don’t agree with you on the use of apostrophes. Modern thinking is that given they don’t effect/affect the meaning when used before an “s”, but simply cause confusion then its best to dispose of them altogether.
    I wasn’t simply referring to immigration controls. Although as Adamski points out this was a particularly glaring and shameful adaptation to racism.
    I was referring to all the other principled concessions the SWP forced on Respect. (I’ve already listed them more than once.)
    What are principles?
    For a socialist they are a summary of what is necessary to achieve working class emancipation – women’s rights, LGBT rights, workers rights, the rights of nations to self determination, socialism etc. As the emancipation of the working class is not be sold – its a non-negotiable – then it is always wrong to ditch principles.
    Of course in founding Respect that’s exactly what the SWP did. Which is why the SWP are now known as an unprincipled organisation. Nothing means anything to them – everything is for sale, their word means nothing, they are untrustworthy and not deserving of respect.
    Don’t believe me? Ask anyone outside of your organisation how the SWP are regarded.
    Tactics on the other hand are the means through which socialists fight for principles – how they are applied depends on the circumstance.
    It did make me laugh, as an aside, that during the split with Respect, the SWP cited Peter Hain as an supporter and witness to their democratic credentials.

    Like

  24. adamski’s right that the SA failed for several reasons. One was that successive national conferences became nastier, more sectarian, and thus smaller. Whatever the strengths of local groups, nationally it was dying anyway.

    But the overwhelming reason that it failed was the war. The eruption of the movement against the invasion of Iraq sidelined the SA – not least because one of the ‘constituent groups’ was actually in favour of the invasion. Locally, I remember it took two weeks for our SA committee to agree on a leaflet – very democratic, very inclusive, and utterly inexplicable to anyone outside the far left. That was the opportunity to reach out to a wider audience, and the SA wasn’t capable of it.

    Respect was an attempt to put together a political vehicle that expressed the best of the anti-war movement. Yes, it was flawed (as was the SA), but those flaws came out of a real mass movement. I don’t agree with billj that we made any concessions on principles, but we certainly had to think through how those principles were expressed – because Respect involved a far wider alliance than the SA. We could have stood aside, and let Respect go ahead without us – I’m unconvinced that we would be in a stronger position today. it’s often better to fight and lose, than not to fight at all.

    Like

  25. bill j – I think rather that principled concessions, you might mean unpricipled concessions, or concessions on matters of principle.

    In a united front you don’t insist on your whole programme. When a large part of Respect’s raison d’etre was to recruit Muslims radicalised by the war on terror rather than on a class basis, it is understandable that the SWP didn’t want to use its numerical weight to insist on specific socialist policies.

    I started questioning the rights and wrongs at the time of the Respect split, and generally reached to conclusion that the SWP might not always be right, but their enemies amongst Galloway’s cronies were the ones who wer unprincipled and dishonest, a view that seems to have been confirmed by subsequent events. Maybe there were weaknesses in the SWP’s approach that made those enemies think it would be easy to fuck them up.

    I only have a minute now, so apostrophes, they either replace words or indicate possession. Adamski, that’s interesting, but maybe Respect was worth a try.

    Like

  26. That is what apostrophes do – but that doesn’t mean they are needed, especially with regard to the letter “s”.
    A united front is a united action for a common goal.
    It doesn’t require anyone drop anything, if there is no agreement around the action or the common goal, then there is no united front by definition.
    So it is impermissible to drop principles, to say for example, that the struggle for woman’s rights, or lesbian and gay rights, or against immigration controls can be sacrificed in order to appeal to the prejudices of temporary “allies”.
    But of course that is exactly what the SWP did in founding Respect and that’s why they are unprincipled.
    Cjhj repeats the SWPs post factum rationalisation for its abandonment of the Socialist Alliance. No one believed it then, I doubt if anyone will now.
    If you can’t see that dropping woman’s rights “not a shibboleth” is unprincipled, when German even knew it as she said it, then there really is no hope.
    I’ve pondered this often, how to convince socialists of this and that, and I’ve finally come to the conclusion that if human beings have been able to convince themselves there is a god without any evidence whatsoever for over 100,000 years, then there is no reason why socialists can’t also convince themselves that what is isn’t. George Orwell had it right. Double think;

    “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”

    Like

  27. Respect’s founding declaration committed it to:

    * Opposition to all forms of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs (or lack of them), sexual orientation, disabilities, national origin or citizenship.

    * The right to self-determination of every individual in relation to their religious (or non-religious) beliefs, as well as sexual choices.

    How exactly is that dropping women’s rights?

    Like

  28. You see? You’re only making things worse by your politicking. Why the cover up? This is all on the public record. Its dishonest and doesn’t do you any favours.
    Why would German insist on abandoning “shibboleths” i.e. priniciples if they were not then abandoned?

    Free abortion on demand is missing.
    LGBT rights was left out of the 2005 election manifesto
    No immigration controls is missing

    etc.

    Like

  29. Change the record , please .
    I do happen to think the SWP made too many concessions to the right in the founding of Respect and made a lot of mistakes but at least a serious attempt was made to build a serious left alternative to Labour with some serious forces. Unlike the Socialist Alliance made up of tiny wee squabbling left groups.
    All this banging on about “shibboleths” gets tedious when you don’t propose a positive way forward.
    We’ve seen the solidarity around Visteon and Prisme occupations,the Gaza and Tamil protests and the events round the G20 as capitalism slides into its biggest crisis for a long time.There needs to be a real shake up on left , a beginning of a real serious movement.
    Yes,we should learn from the mistakes of the SA and Respect but move on as well.

    Like

  30. Of course,I mean bill j change the record , not Liam .

    Like

  31. OK then.
    The SWP should dissolve itself into a British NPA and ask anyone else who wants to participate to join in.
    How about that?

    Like

  32. That’s a bit flippant, Bill. Where is the “British NPA” going to come from? The French working class are a lot more self-confident than here and the left are in a stronger position. I can’t see a British NPA anytime soon.
    How about trying to be constructive?

    Like

  33. One is a function of the other. Part of the reason that the French working class is stronger is because the French left is stronger.
    Rebuilding the working class won’t be done overnight, so the question is how can we best combine the forces of the left to make it happen?
    My suggestion is – form a British NPA.
    What’s your suggestion?

    Like

  34. Yeah,great idea,form a British NPA.
    Out of what?Thin air?
    The NPA came out of a lot of hard work and struggle by the LCR and others.We’re no way near that here.
    I’m honestly not sure what the answer is but we’re not going to see a British NPA anytime soon.

    Like

  35. So you haven’t got a suggestion.
    What about join the SWP?

    Like

  36. Nah, I’ve joined already mate . Wouldn’t let you join though,far too grumpy :-p

    Like

Leave a reply to Lobby Ludd Cancel reply

Trending