imageThis is a version of an article which will be appearing in a slightly tweaked version in the January issue of Socialist Resistance . It’s true that the last several years have not been good for the class struggle left but in this piece I argue that some of the political practice has made a bad situation worse.

The workers’ movement in Britain has faced a crisis of working class representation since the rise of New Labour in the mid-1990s and it has been becoming more acute ever since. This backdrop put left unity at the centre of the political agenda. The rise of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and the Socialist Alliance (SA) were the first organisational expressions of this necessary process. A critical look at the last decade is essential if we are not to make the same mistakes – those who do not learn from history are pretty likely to make the same ones all over again.

Ten years the depressing reality is that the left, other than the Green Party, is weaker and left unity further away than at any time during that period. And there is little sign that this is about to change.

A comparison between the left’s electoral challenges in 2001 and 2010 is as enlightening as it is depressing. In the 2001 General Election voters in 98 constituencies in England had the opportunity to vote for an alternative to New Labour. On average the Socialist Alliance (SA) won only 1.6% of the vote but there were exceptions. Dave Nellist won 7.5% of the vote in Coventry North East, in St Helens South Neil Thompson won 6.9%, Cecilia Prosper won 4.6%  in Hackney South and in the 2002 mayoral election in Hackney Paul Foot won 12.7% of the vote beating both the Greens and Lib Dems.

The Socialist Alliance incorporated much of the far left including the Socialist Party (SP), the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and Socialist Resistance’s predecessor organisation the International Socialist Group as well as a small but significant number of former Labour Party members and independently minded socialists. They shared a common understanding that the rightward move of Labour was politically weakening the working class and that a political response was necessary to this. Contesting elections was one aspect of building this response. The smattering of reasonably good results was impressive for an organisation on its first electoral outing. They demonstrated that well rooted candidates with the local left united behind their campaigns could attract working class support. What was not shared by many of the participants was an understanding that creating a broad organisation with bases in working class communities had to be a long term project.

Watersheds

A watershed moment in the life of the Socialist Alliance was the decision of the Socialist Party to leave it at its December 2001 conference. Their reason for this was a conference decision to adopt a constitution based on one member one vote arguing that it would take away “all rights from individual members and minority organisations because the SWP are currently able to mobilise enough people to outvote all other forces in the SA.”[i] This pessimistic view was predicated on an assumption that the Alliance would not grow beyond its strength at that point and a judgement that the Socialist Party was destined to be in a permanent minority. More significantly – and this is a recurring phenomenon – it was taken for granted that on entering a broader formation any Marxist current had to guarantee that its members always voted the same way, even over the most trivial tactical details. The Socialist Party was not willing to put itself into what it saw as a subordinate position to the SWP inside the Alliance and so went on to establish the Campaign for A New Workers Party (CNWP). To use their phrase describing the SA after their departure this is “little more than an electoral front for their organisation.”[ii] It provides a focus for propaganda activity but is in no way distinguishable from a wholly owned Socialist Party campaign despite occasional engagements with it by some on the far left.

The second major watershed in the life of the Socialist Alliance was the mobilisation against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2001. Rather than use the enormous demonstrations and vast amount of grassroots activity to strengthen the SA the SWP took them as opportunities to recruit to itself, even to the extent of calling the inaugural meeting of the Stop the War Coalition in its own name rather than use the Alliance as a potential unifier. As a consequence the larger, broader organisation had the smaller profile at anti-war events and a real opportunity was missed to connect the anti-war movement with the developing Socialist Alliance.

But the wars brought new people into politics. Whereas the SA had been comprised predominantly of experienced activists the establishment of Respect brought them into contact with groups and individuals who disliked New Labour and violently opposed its wars. In east London, Birmingham and parts of the north-west the left had its first real chance to connect with the local Muslim communities. The high water mark of this approach was the election of George Galloway and a group of councillors in Tower Hamlets following election campaigns which combined both a vocal opposition to the imperialist wars and, just as importantly, resistance to the transfer of council housing stock.

For the first time in decades a left of Labour alternative had succeeded in overcoming the barriers imposed by the anti-democratic voting system and managed to win a modest number of elected representatives. What followed was an explicit refusal to learn either from the experience of similar parties in Europe or the Labour Party. Decision making was the prerogative of a small group which simultaneously trying to provide leadership to the Stop the War Coalition, Respect and the SWP. In the absence of its own political traditions and a cadre of independent leaders Respect as one priority among many was left to limp along subject to the political needs of a small group of its leaders. It was this assessment of the organisation’s weakness which prompted George Galloway to criticise the way in which it was being run. As he pointed out at the time of the European elections it had little money in the bank and was failing to recruit. The debate around this issue resulted in the SWP leaving to establish the short lived Left Alternative and Left List, projects which failed to gain much traction as projects for creating a political home for activists and voters.

The 2009 European elections saw the emergence of No2EU which had active support from the Socialist Party, and a section of the RMT union politically aligned to its leader Bob Crow. It described itself as “a coalition of trade unionists, political parties and campaigning groups which have come together to defend democracy here and across the European Union.” Despite that unpromising label its election programme took a firm position in support of workers
rights, opposition to the wars and neo-liberalism. On that basis it was supported by Socialist Resistance. Its vote was predictably small given that it was an unknown coalition contesting an election for the first time but it was significant because it had the backing of a section of the most militant union in the country.

Movements

At the time of writing it is not clear if a successor to No2EU will contest the General Election. Some of its component parts, or the “core group” have been discussing whether another left coalition can be put together to stand candidates. There is nothing to indicate that this will be done any differently from the way in which decisions about policy, organisation and tactics were done in No2EU when they were negotiated by a closed circle of invitees. Nevertheless as Socialist Resistance’s position is to support electoral challenges by credible socialist and ecosocialist candidates to New Labour we have sought to get involved in this project.

Socialist Resistance has tried to engage in a meaningful way with all the attempts to create an alternative to New Labour. Our strategic assessment is that the principal task for Marxists at the moment is to build a credible class struggle party which can gain the support of millions of workers, youth and the oppressed. It is simply impossible for any existing left organisation to do this by itself.

There are a number of reasons for this, some of which are more important than others. The level of working class militancy in Britain is at an historically low ebb. Predictions that the economic crisis would see a wave of strikes and occupations have been confounded by the fear and uncertainty which are the most common responses to job losses and pay cuts. All three major parties are contesting the election with slightly different austerity programmes and not even Labour’s union base is complaining. Yet it is abstentionist to say that broader political alternatives are impossible without a rise in the level of the class struggle. George Galloway’s success; the election of Michael Lavallette; Gerry Hicks’ support in Unite all show that there is an audience receptive to radical socialist ideas and the existence of a broad party which expresses them is itself a modest factor in changing the political situation.

Long term commitment to building an alternative is indispensable. In 1999 the Left Bloc won 2.4% in the legislative elections, even with the advantage of proportional representation. In 2009 it won sixteen MPs and the votes of 550 000 people. You can’t do this without patient construction work, building roots in unions and communities and winning a national profile as the voice of opposition to capitalism.

The internal life of the broad party is critical. The Left Bloc, the Red Green Alliance in Denmark, the French Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste and the Freedom and Solidarity Party (ÖDP) in Turkey have strongly pluralistic internal cultures. Freedom to dissent is an elementary right of any member or group of members. Without space to explore contrasting ideas a new organisation cannot develop its own political culture and is in the thrall of the dominant organised current. Neither the SP nor the SWP have drawn this lesson from these other European experiences. Respect suffered greatly from this problem. Using a practice borrowed from the internal life of the SWP dissident voices were not simply argued against but had to be “hammered”, an ugly and unnecessary procedure since all the SWP members in the hall would be certain to vote the same way. Its most recent conference illustrated that this is a habit that some in Respect still find attractive despite all the evidence that it is simply the most effective way to assert bureaucratic control and actively alienates the critically minded militants the party should be trying to recruit.

Two major challenges face the British working class in the near future. The first is the austerity packages which the major parties are promising over the next five years. Wages, pensions, jobs and social services will all be targeted for deep cuts. Propaganda groups of a few hundred or a thousand activists are incapable of providing fighting leadership of the necessary breadth and depth at a national level. This requires attempting to crystallise the broad political vanguard at the highest level of political development possible.

Economic crises are inherently transitory. Climate change is going to seriously and adversely affect the way billions of the planet’s workers and poor live if the solutions proposed by its rulers at Copenhagen are allowed to stand. Yet developing a programme of demands and action to meet the meet the needs of the majority are at best an afterthought for most socialist organisations in Britain today. If we are looking for where the next major anti-capitalist radicalisation might come from one source is likely to be the tens of thousands of people who took to London’s streets in December 2009 demanding action. As well as action they will need leadership and a political framework to harness their militancy. Creating the leadership and the organisation that will provide these is not without its risks but there are a number of positive and negative experiences we can draw on.


[i] http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/CampaignsSocialistAlliances.htm#setback

[ii] http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/CampaignsSocialistAlliances.htm

216 responses to “Left Unity – surveying the wreckage”

  1. Economic crises are inherently transitory.
    Well they come and go a bit, but the cycle is with us always.

    Like

  2. The problem with this piece is it glosses over the disaster of Respect. At the point at which the STWC movement began if the SA as an organisation had intervened into it with a clear socialist voice, it could have built on the work of the preceding years, consolidated the considerable forces within it and established a party over the next years.
    Respect stopped all that.
    Respect abandoned, indeed was predicated upon the rejection of, a working class and socialist alternative to war and instead surrendered key “shibboleths” or principles to the rest of us, lesbian and gay rights, womens rights, secularism, working class representation, immigration controls, anti-monarchy, socialism itself etc.
    This split the difference attitude to key pillars of the socialist and working class programme has had a lingering and still ongoing impact on the ability of the left to re-form itself.
    Both sides of the SWP split to be, ignore the significance of the abandonment of principles, instead focussing on personalities and such flim-flam.
    We do need a “broader” organisation, but one built on working class and socialist principles first of all.

    Like

  3. Bill, I think you trivialise the question of tactics. Respect has always called itself a socialist organisation but, for example in its manifestos, it has focussed on raising demands that lead people in the direction of socialism from the basis of their current consciousness and immediate struggles. From that point of view, the priority is to raise demands that cut against the reformists. because the level of class consiousness in Britain means that we can’t really campaign for socialism except in the most abstract propagandist way, I feel that it would be an error for a party like Respect to gear its electoral work around the demand for socialism. Take a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/RESPECT_uk_manifesto.pdf for example. I am not sure that you’d disagree with many of the demands.

    On the other hand, if you feel the key thing is to raise the demand for socialism at elections, I’d be very happy to see comrades in Permanent Revolution focus on that rather than the demand for a Labour vote.

    Like

  4. It calls itself a socialist organisation, only in order to abandon socialism. its the fig leaf in the Italian nude.
    What is class consciousness?
    It is the idea that the working class have separate interests from the boss class and need their own separate class answers.
    Respect is a cross class organisation. The idea that it “raises” class consciousness, is then a contradiction in terms. It is the opposite to what Respect stands for and wants to be.
    And indeed, its public representatives, Salma Yaqoob, is the best example, are explicitly not socialist. Indeed anti-socialist, in the sense that they oppose distinctively working class solutions and methods of struggle.
    As for elections. Personally I couldn’t care less.

    Like

  5. Duncan Chapel – Respect has always called itself a socialist organisation
    I thought that was only since the split. And I think Marx says somewhere not to take at face value a man’s opinion of himself.
    it has focussed on raising demands that lead people in the direction of socialism from the basis of their current consciousness and immediate struggles.
    When it has no industrial strategy and little working class presence, it seems that its focus is to raise demands that will raise its electoral profile.
    the priority is to raise demands that cut against the reformists. because the level of class consiousness in Britain means that we can’t really campaign for socialism except in the most abstract propagandist way, I feel that it would be an error for a party like Respect to gear its electoral work around the demand for socialism.
    Parties with working class socialist politics don’t feel this as a contradiction, raising demands that cut across reformism help to stimulate struggle and open the possibility of opening up the possibility of a better world. It is because Respect is not a socialist organisation,except in the most abstract propagandist way, that it cuts across any attempt to re-group the Left with its attempts to satisfy its declasse Muslim base.

    bill j – Both sides of the SWP split to be
    Can I borrow your crystal ball sometime?
    Actually I agree with much of what you say, though I don’t know enough about the SA to know if you were right about its prospects, tend to think Respect was worth giving a go even with the flaws you point out, and think that your critcicism of the SWP is only valid if we accept the contention that Respect was wrong from the beginning.

    Like

  6. “…and think that your critcicism of the SWP is only valid if we accept the contention that Respect was wrong from the beginning.”

    Well indeed.
    The SWP split to be is contingent on whether the leadership want to expel the minority. I never thought Rees had much fight about him. Personally it looks like they will do. Tho’ the possibility of some face saving deal can’t be ruled out. Retirement of the Left Opposition to Norwich maybe?

    Like

  7. Now that the SWP appears to be up to it´s neck in it´s own s—t , of it´s own making and has repeatledly proven that it cannot be trusted to be part of any kind of Left regroupment or any kind of Left unity project as Liam m ost elocuently outlines above.

    Surely, this does provide the rest of the willing and determined Left as exist in and outside of the remaining 57 varieties and within the Labour and trade union movement with a timely opportunity to make a geuine push for LEFT UNITY, less unencumbered and unhindered by the continually obstructive and destructive tactics of the weakened and wholly misguided SWP and uninhibited by thoughts and illusions that the SWP should necessarily be part of such a project.

    The forthcoming defeat and possible decimation of New Labour at the polls in the forthcoming General election holds out the real possiblity for widescale political realignment on the Left ,as much as anywhere and the prospect beckons of a large scale radical break by many working clas voters and remaining party members from the rotting New Labour caracas.

    Coupled with this is the likely possiblity of an upsurge in politcal struggle and strikes by coordinated and organised by workers and trade unions against the looming tory neo liberal cuts onslaught in a way that itsnt presently possible against the present New Labour neo liberal onslaught.

    Time to BREAK WITH THE LABOUR PARTY and FORGE FIGHTING LEFT UNITY

    Like

  8. The trade union struggle to completely disaffiliate and break from the Labour party will become all the more urgent this year following New Labour´s inevitable defeat in the General election and New Labour´s inevitable further shift to the right under the “leadership” of the newly elected leader Mandelson…!

    If the Left cant make the most of building a new Left party under such possible circumstances then we really dont deserve to be in the business of politics.

    Like

  9. Surveying the wreckage and seeing the light

    Like

  10. Hi Bill, I think you’re mistaken when you say that “its public representatives, Salma Yaqoob, is the best example, are explicitly not socialist”. Are there any references of Salma saying that she is not a socialist?

    skidmarx, I think you know that the S in Respect stands for socialism. Most people in Respect would say that it’s a socialist party. It might not be your or Bill’s kind of socialism, but I’m not making that claim. Respect’s “industrial strategy” is certainly a weak-point but, frankly, that’s also the case for most small socialist organisations in Britain where industrial manufacturing is one-eight of the economy and where around one-tenth of the population is in a union. That means that, for most people, their immediate demands are not narrowly industrial: and that’s why Respect raises such a wide range of progressive demands.

    Finally, I think that ‘déclassé’ is a deeply mistaken way to describe Respect’s members or voters, not to mention and offensive and pejorative one. Look it up and think about it. Respect’s support is overwhelmingly proletarian.

    Like

  11. Bill are we both talking about the same Salma Yaqoob? The one in Respect has frequently appeared on platforms defending the Venezuelan revolution, supported striking workers and is well to the left of New Labour. She came to these conclusions by a different route than many of us but it’s just wrong to say she’s “anti-socialist” and if she is she has chosen a funny crowd to associate with over the last few years.

    As I think I make clear in the article I broadly agree with your judgement on what could have happened if the SA had been used as the political vehicle for the anti-war movement.

    Where I disagree with you is in your assessment of what is possible inside Respect. For example it was a supporter of SR who was fulminated against by Lindsey G at Respect conference for speaking in favour of LGBT rights. Nevertheless we won the argument.

    Part of participating in these formations is understanding both that they are also a location of a political struggle and recognising that they are likely to be a component part of something else.

    Like

  12. I think I will stick with Caroline and Salma, tempted as I am by the success of permanent revolution, etc (not).

    Like

  13. Respect is doomed to fail like all the recent efforts. It will see short term electoral success in Birmingham and then its internal contradictions will surface. The 57 varieties of Brit left sect will never get beyond the realm of propaganda on the campuses etc The SWP will continue albeit weaker than previously.

    My conclusion is that England will continue to be a political desert for real socialism although middle class progressives will have the Green Party electorally and there will be renewed illusions in the Labour/Lumpen Party when the Tories are in power.

    Like

  14. LIam + Duncan can you get your stories straight. Duncan says that respect’s limited calls for socialism are a finely judged strategy, while liam seems to be saying that SR argued for it to have better policies.

    I think that Liam is closer to the truth, just as he was when he denounced teh whole respect project and the rotten, homophobic, anti-semite crook leading light right from the start.

    Could we have the old liam -and for that matter the old Duncan Chapel- back? They were both much better before the affiar with galloway.

    Like

  15. I think it would be safe to assume that this coming election is going to usher in a period of austerity by a incoming Tory government.As for Labour they will be soul searching and promising a return to their traditional values.Respect and the Greens may garner a seat or two as will the liberals and possibly the scary B.N.P.

    The initial assualt will come in the form of restructuring and we all know what that intails cutting social service health education welfare etc.Also they are going to come after the unions,and they will be looking to make a example of one of them.To combat these steps it is paramount for the left to form a coalition to have a co-ordinated staratedgy.

    And like it or not the public do not care for a party with a barricade mentality, and those that presume that its time for that type of prolatariat revolution are in noddy land.This possible left coalition will (and i do not like to say this)will have to be conservative in its philosophy if it is to be attractive to the general public.I await the stones.

    Like

  16. Yes I’m pretty sure she has explicitly said she’s not a socialist a few times. Various of the posts Ger Francis puts up expound why a non-class electoralist non-socialist alternative is just what the doctor ordered.
    As for all the good stuff. Remember the EDL? Not so hot eh?

    Like

  17. Shugs pretty much right. Anyone on the left pursuing electoral respectability and any kind of breakthrough[ pyrrhic as it will be] will need to put forward a programme thats fairly social democratic as the spade work hasnt been done in the working class for ages, therefore Respect fits the bill , and it chimes with anti war sentiment and is very Muslim friendly.

    Like

  18. You might want to tweak paragraph three a little more. The citation Gordon Rowntree in Middlesbrough got 21% of the poll, Sue Wild in Barnsley 17.7%, Urfan Akhtar in Telford 14% seems to have been taken from the Weekly Worker of May 8, 2003, discussing that year’s local council elections, not the 2001 general election. The WW article went on to quote a fourth result and Andy Newman 13% in Swindon, which I’m sure was just missed out for lack of space.

    Like

  19. decent interval Avatar
    decent interval

    Yes, such results would be quite astonishing for left of Labour candidates in a general election – my memory is that the SA did pretty dreadfully everywhere and I am not sure how many candidates, if any, even saved their deposits. And incidentally, didn’t the ODP in Turkey collapse amid acrimony several years ago?

    Like

  20. Well according to Bill, Chavez is on the right.

    I am not sure he is advancing an alternative.

    Like

  21. Who’s not advancing an alternative? Chavez? I’d basically agree. He is a leftist bonapartist type figure quite common in Latin America. Certainly not a socialist and not advancing a working class policy. Although of course, should be defended against the right/Yankee imperialists.

    Like

  22. In reply to decent interval, the SA did reasonably well for a party fighting its first election. 98 candidates was a deliberate attempt to make the campaign an England- and Wales-wide one, and it was always understood that most would get a meagre vote.

    Two candidates saved their deposits. One was firefighter Neil Thompson, standing in a seat in St Helens where the Labour party had imposed Tory defector Shaun Woodward as the candidate, triggering a massive row in the local Labour Party. He got 6.9%, and an SLP candidate got a further 4.4% – the best aggregate left of Labour vote in England since the 1940s.

    The other was Dave Nellist, who got 7.1% in Coventry North East, building on his years of work as a councillor. Two or three other candidates came within a couple of hundred votes of saving their deposits.

    But it wasn’t a massive breakthrough, and it didn’t attract the people leaving the Labour Party who were necessary to get the SA to break out of the confines of the far left. If the SA had actually got the votes that Liam claims, things might have been quite different.

    Like

  23. This is an interesting article, but I want to raise a couple of issues that I think are implicit in it and perhaps should be drawn out in more detail.

    Firstly, I think the narrative should be made a bit clearer (with more dates?), not least to remind us of the events that took place (and when), especially in the paragraph that first mentions Respect. After all, it was over two years between the sidelining of the SA and the establishment of Respect, a time during which SA should have been at the forefront of the antiwar movement. A slightly clearer narrative line would raise the question – could the Socialist Alliance have played the role that Respect did when first established (and possibly on a clearer political platform)? Part of this must boil down to how much the political vanguard values unity, and not necessarily just unity in action – and whether a more explicitly socialist political platform could have attracted widespread support out of the antiwar movement.

    A proper study of the events around the starting of the StWC may lead to an assessment that the decision to sideline the SA was an enormous (tactical) error, but such an assessment would need to be backed up by convincing political argument and historical evidence. I’m not sure how easy this is to do – perhaps someone can try.

    Secondly, I thing a thing that needs to be examined in relation to the left bloc in Portugal is how much their continued growth depends on success in getting through partial reforms, backed up by mass campaigns – e.g. on drugs, abortion, gay rights and domestic violence and other issues. Perhaps this contrasts with the PRC in Italy, which seems to have been more concerned with securing office for its notables. How many reform successes did the (initially much larger PRC) secure through its campaigning activity?

    Like

  24. We’re lucky that farmers have more patience and perseverance than many socialists.

    For an organisation on its first national election campaign the SA’s results were not a massive breakthrough but did indicate that a base existed which could be built on.

    Take two examples. The BNP is now in a position to give some expression to the demoralisation of some sections of the working class because it has spent years building an organisation and its message is now finding a resonance. We may not be happy about this but it’s true.

    The SNP existed for nearly 30 years before making significant electoral breakthroughs.

    A political approach based on scattering some seeds and hoping for a bumper harvest next spring just does not work. The General Election will prove that.

    I’ve corrected the section on election results but even those first cited were indicative of credible candidates and credible campaigns.

    Thanks for the comments and I’ll try to incorporate Philip’s ideas.

    Like

  25. I think CHJH basically confirms Liam’s argument. The SA did very well for an organisation just starting out. In Manchester for example, it brought together the entire far left and although things weren’t perfect they were pretty well perfect when compared with the situation today. The SA could have provided the framework for bringing new people into a joint socialist organisation at the start of the STWC.
    But it didn’t because the SWP decided to ditch it in favour of Respect.
    It was a sectarian decision based on a desire to promote their narrow “party” priorities over that of the socialist movement. They have been justly punished for it ever since. Not only did Respect fail and prove a disaster for them. Their reputation has been destroyed. Who has a good word to say about them today?
    That is why I am sanguine about their current crisis. Until their modus operandi is destroyed then I do not think the left can take real steps forward. That will only happen when their internal crisis has taken them down quite a few pegs further than the situation at present. There are reasons to be optimistic though. On recent history that won’t be too long.

    Like

  26. Duncan – skidmarx, I think you know that the S in Respect stands for socialism. Most people in Respect would say that it’s a socialist party.
    My understanding was that the S stood for something else before the split and has been recast since, in what I would contend is an attempt to create the appearance when the reality is gone.
    industrial manufacturing is one-eight of the economy
    True that, but isn’t the lack of a class orientation carried over to non-industrial sectors of the economy.
    one-tenth of the population is in a union
    Then one would have thought that a socialist organisation would be trying to build them.
    for most people, their immediate demands are not narrowly industrial
    So socialists in general shouldn’t see the workplace as the central arena of class struggle?

    Respect raises such a wide range of progressive demands.
    Compare this to part of Philip Ward’s comment:
    I thing a thing that needs to be examined in relation to the left bloc in Portugal is how much their continued growth depends on success in getting through partial reforms, backed up by mass campaigns – e.g. on drugs, abortion, gay rights
    Would I be right in thinking that on the first two of these the two leading figures in Respect stand noticeably to the right?

    I think that ‘déclassé’ is a deeply mistaken way to describe Respect’s members or voters, not to mention and offensive and pejorative one. Look it up and think about it. Respect’s support is overwhelmingly proletarian.
    Sorry if I’ve caused you offence. I was looking for a word that would describe a group of people politcially far more bonded by their community than by their class. If you can find a word more suitable to so describe I’d be happy to use it (and having checked the OED I see that declasse is generally used in a pejoritive way that I didn’t wholly intend), but if you’re saying that it is out of order to look at the class composition and orientation of Respect I’d respectfully disagree. If it is so proletarian, why isn’t it organising in the class?

    Like

  27. Mark Victorystooge Avatar
    Mark Victorystooge

    The ODP fell out with its leader, Ufuk Uras, a couple of years ago. He dropped hints that this was because he wanted the Ergenekon “deep state” scandal in Turkey investigated and his opponents in the party were against this. There may have been a personality clash. I had the impression Uras had become distanced from his party’s grassroots while in parliament.
    His election was hailed as a breakthrough, as Uras was the first Turkish parliament deputy since the 1960s to claim to be a Marxist. But he caused controversy by attending a US Embassy reception while Bush was President.

    Like

  28. The Socialist Alliance could only have made it to the forefront of the anti-war movement if the SA had been clearly, unambiguously, unanimously anti-war – and it wasn’t. I have very clear memories of it taking two successive SA committee meetings in Hackney simply to agree a leaflet on the war.

    The SA failed to attract the people who were becoming radicalised by the war, not because the SWP failed to commit resources to the SA, but because the SA was (precisely because of its pluralistic culture) to the right of the anti-war movement.

    Like

  29. Mark Victorystooge Avatar
    Mark Victorystooge

    Uras resigned from the ODP last June. Not unlike the SSP, the ODP contained platforms, some of which walked with him. His critics accused him of being too liberal and not concerned enough with anti-imperialism.
    Uras joined the BDP (Peace and Democracy Party) parliamentary group last month. The BDP was set up to replace the DTP, which had been banned by the Constitutional Court in Turkey.

    Like

  30. The overwhelming majority of the SA were anti-war. In Manchester nearly all of the STWC were previous members of the SA. Hardly any of them joined Respect.
    That’s not surprising, Respect was built on a very right wing platform, designed to include monarchists amongst others. I remember the SWP lectured us at the founding conference why opposition to the monarchy was a bad idea – from memory it was Paul Holborrow.
    The SA failed because the SWP sacrificed it to their own narrow ambition.

    Like

  31. skidmarx, the point I’m making is that, while Respect’s weak ability to organise inside the workplaces reflects both objective and subjective challenges, it is still able to make a positive contribution. The Redskins have this great sample on their album of Tony Cliff saying ‘The power of the workers in in the workplace’. But that’s rather a simplification. Working people also organise in their communities and in social movements and campaigns. The working class has potential power in the workplace, but that reflects consciousness. Political consciousness is not developed only though workplace struggles, and militancy in the workplace is low. So it’s quite possible that (right now, unfortunately, because of defeats, much against our wishes, etc) the central arena of activity in the class struggle might not be the workplace.

    And that point rather cuts across your citation of Phil Ward’s comments about the Left Bloc. The Bloc built itself on social struggles outside the workplace: the victory on abortion, the campaigns against road and bridge building, the eternal interest in lifting the bans on drugs, and the struggle of lesbians and gays. of course, Respect has progressive policies on those struggles. However, the leading issues for the social struggles are a little different in Britain from Portugual. Britain has much more progressive laws than Portugal on most of those issues. The key issues here are unemployment, racism, public services, war and the sort of issues we real social movements building up on: the demands raised by StWC, Viva Palestina, BDS, the Peoples’ Charter. That’s where Respect should be focussing while it building up its base in the unions and works out how to intervene there.

    Like

  32. There is simply a qualitative gulf between the NPA in France, or the MPT in Chile for example and Respect.
    Respect is a non-socialist, non-working class, cross class electoral bloc. It is a barrier to building a real socialist alliance/party/bloc. Whereas the NPA and MPT are explicitly working class and anti capitalist.
    There is simply the world of difference between the two.
    Unfortunately, part of the terrible legacy of Respect is the “split the difference” politics, which makes abandoning principles simply a question of price.
    How much will you give me for surrendering Free Abortion on Demand? What’s the quid pro quo for abandoning secularism? And so on.
    This political method has now been absorbed into the mainstream of left discourse. That is perhaps the worst thing of all about the whole Respect experience.

    Like

  33. […] own little grouplet than to serve the class struggle in a broad socialist political formation. As Liam pointed out this is the motivation for the SP leaving the SA. Yes if they had stuck around a […]

    Like

  34. Hi Bill,

    I’m starting to worry that you just assert things about Respect without taking any time to find out if they are true. I suggest you find a reference for your earlier claim that Salma is anti-socialist and start there. Respect has a clear manifesto policy for a woman’s right to choose, so your point about abortion is mistaken. Respect also stands for the establishment of a secular, democratic republic.

    If you want to convince people, you just can’t make this stuff up. It’s politically mistaken, and it undermines the real tasks of socialists.

    Duncan.

    Like

  35. Hi Bill,

    I’m starting to worry that you just assert things about Respect without taking any time to find out if they are true. I suggest you find a reference for your earlier claim that Salma is anti-socialist and start there. Respect has a clear manifesto policy for a woman’s right to choose, so your point about abortion is mistaken. Respect also stands for the establishment of a secular, democratic republic.

    If you want to convince people, you just can’t make this stuff up. It’s politically mistaken, and it undermines the real tasks of socialists.

    Duncan.

    PS the “Where we stand” in each issue of The Respect paper calls for:
    “* Opposition to all forms of dis-crimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, beliefs (religious or secular), sexual orientation, dis-abilities or national origin.
    “* The right to self-determinationof every individual in relation to their religious (or secular) beliefs,and sexual choices.”

    Like

  36. chjh wrote:-

    “The Socialist Alliance could only have made it to the forefront of the anti-war movement if the SA had been clearly, unambiguously, unanimously anti-war – and it wasn’t. ….The SA failed to attract the people who were becoming radicalised by the war, not because the SWP failed to commit resources to the SA, but because the SA was (precisely because of its pluralistic culture) to the right of the anti-war movement.”

    What disingenous rubbish and what Stalinist methodology!

    How can you demand “unanimity” as a precondition for maintaining a Socialist organisation?

    Who cares what happened in Hackney?
    The SA was a National Organisation and it would have been perfectly possible to have got a majority decision on opposing the Iraq invasion and supporting StWC.

    The SWP’s real reasons for dropping the SA were much more opportunistic than that.

    They wanted to ingratiate themselves with MAB, who provided half the stewards and many of the demonstrators for the big StWC demonstration.

    Anything with “Socialist” in the title was inconvenient to the is developing alliance, so the SA was dropped.

    Having deliberately provoked the SP walk-out from the Socialist Alliance, John Rees cynically dropped the Alliance itself. The SWP didn’t really care about the collateral damage as long as they survived it.

    But when this approach was “rendered more profound” with the Respect debacle, it became clear that they were shooting themselves in the foot with it.

    Moral; When travelling from A to B it’s best to stay on the same train and definitely don’t try changing in mid journey

    Like

  37. There was an objective problem with the SA, thrown up by the anti-war movement. It was the question of Galloway, not the MAB, that was the focal issue in the shift from the SA to Respect. Given the fact that one of the SA’s supporting organisations, the AWL, supported the Labour Party/Daily Telegraph witchunt against Galloway, an alliance of the SA with Galloway was well-nigh impossible. Yet in objective terms, the need for an alliance of the genuine left with Galloway was unavoidable and mandatory.

    There was a half-arsed attempt by the SWP to remove the AWL representatives from the SA NC. If that had suceeded, then in my judgement an alliance of the SA with GG might have been possible. But the SWP was forced to back off from the proposal to remove the AWL by an alliance of the other smaller components of the SA – CPGB, WP, etc. This misplaced ‘solidarity’ in the name of ‘democracy’ and ‘inclusiveness’ ignored the class questions involved in the Daily Telegraph witchhunt and the Galloway expulsion.

    By successfully blackmailing the SWP into keeping Martin Thomas on the SA official executive slate, the CPGB et al won a phyrrhic victory and sealed the doom of the SA as a putative political expression of the anti-war movement. Ironically, the SWP’s slate system prevented individuals who wanted to boot Thomas off the executive from voting against him without voting against the whole slate.

    It is nonsense to blame the SWP alone for the demise of the SA, they certainly ran it in a flawed, bureacratic manner as evidenced by the earlier Liz Davies affair, but a good part of the political responsibility for the demise of the SA during the Iraq war lies with the smaller, more ‘critical’ elements of the SA who couldn’t see that the need for defence of George Galloway, and a bloc with him, was obligatory and a question of principle, in that context, and that booting those who supported this witchhunt out of the SA was not only a question of principle, but essential to the political survival and development of the SA.

    Like

  38. Skidmarx

    (On the ‘S’ for Socialism in Respect)

    “My understanding was that the S stood for something else before the split and has been recast since, in what I would contend is an attempt to create the appearance when the reality is gone.”

    This is simply a factual error. The S in Respect always stood for ‘Socialism’, right from the time the name was formulated for the founding ‘Convention of the Left’ in January 2004. You don’t have to take my word for this, just ask John Rees or anyone else in the SWP who was involved!

    Like

  39. Duncan: “I suggest you find a reference for your earlier claim that Salma is anti-socialist and start there.”

    I think the interview in the morning star makes it pretty clear.

    Like

  40. Presumably you didn’t read it then, Martin.
    When i read it I found Salma saying this sort of thing:

    “My political stance is for social justice, whatever form that takes, whether it’s about local, national or international issues.
    “It’s not good enough to just express what you’re against but say what a progressive alternative would be like, champion that and try to bring that about.
    “That involves getting to the roots of questions. Why have we got inequality? Why have we got lack of peace? Just saying that we don’t want war is not enough.”
    “We have a consensus, for example, that we have to have cuts in public spending. It’s not the public sector that caused the crisis. It was the neoliberal capitalist model out of control.
    “And it was not just the bankers. It was the politicians who did not regulate in the interests of the country and who allowed them this free rein.
    “Given that we are in this crisis, there are different options open to us, but you just do not hear them in a way that would tackle the economic issues as well as help to address the social inequalities that we have. All these things are linked.
    “We need to build up manufacturing and, given the vast amounts of public money that have gone into the banks, they should have been fully nationalised so that the money went to the small businesses that needed it.
    “I believe that we should be developing technology that addresses climate-change challenges while giving people the opportunity to find jobs in areas outside the City,”

    No, nothing at all like a socialist…

    Like

  41. And actually I slightly misread Martin and Duncan’s exchange. On the basis of the Morning Star interview, Martin says that Salma is not only not a socialist but is explicitly anti-socialist!

    Like

  42. ID makes most of the points I would have made in reply to prianikoff (and he’s right in his reply to skidmarx as well). But there’s a couple of other points prianikoff misses.

    The SA did take a majority decision to oppose the war and support the StWC. The simple fact that this had to be discussed, and that elements in the SA were opposed to this, meant that the SA was necessarily not going to win the leadership of the anti-war movement.

    Oh, and Hackney mattered because it was the biggest branch of the SA, with some 5% of the total national membership. If the SA couldn’t make the running in winning anti-war activists in Hackney, it wasn’t going to do so nationally.

    In saying all this, I’m not trying to argue that the SWP made no mistakes. Rather, I’m arguing that the structure and politics of the SA made it unable to meet the challenges of the anti-war movement, and that nothing the SWP had done differently, or not done at all, would have changed that.

    Like

  43. As usual Ian resorts to his fantasy politics to explain matters. What a surprise that he finds the AWL and CPGB to ‘blame’. In fact is there anything in the world that cannot be blamed on the AWL?

    Ian was taken up on this at the time across the pages of Solidarity and Weekly Worker (he was at the time a member of the CPGB and a regular writer for WW) for his stupid lies that AWL supported the Telegraph. Ian embarassed himself and the CPGB then with a series of vindictive lying articles and e-list exchanges. Famously he accussed AWL of wishing to start Nazi style concentration camps for peadophiles.

    You can read the whole sorry exchanges on the AWL website.

    It is true that AWL opposed collaboration with Galloway- for good reason (as the SWP have since found out, just as we predicted they would) . That would hardly have caused the SWP to pause for breath- we were regularly defeated both on the executive and in conference. (In fact the SA executive voted in November 2003 to open discussions with respect and Jan 04 to liquidate into respect, only AWL and 1 other person voted against, the CPGB delegate abstained.)

    What caused the SWP to ditch the SA was a desire to ditch the whole of the left and hook up with Galloway in an electoral alliance. SWP no longer needed and definitely didn’t want the revolutionay left for their new project.

    Like

  44. RobM -so which part of that interview does Salma identify herself in anyway as a socialist?

    (This is not meant to suggest that Salma is right wing) There doesn’t seem to be much in the interview which the BNP currently publicly disagrees with either though. I think we all agree that they are not socialists.

    Like

  45. Hi Duncan – you say it [Respect]is still able to make a positive contribution.
    Is it and does it? My point (to the extent I’m making one at all coherently) is that Respect’s appeal,membership and support are now overwhelmingly restricted to one community, and as time goes on is far more likely to continue to adapt to its milieu than to pull people in a socialist direction.

    Like

  46. `It is true that AWL opposed collaboration with Galloway- for good reason (as the SWP have since found out, just as we predicted they would) .’

    All sects together. What was the good reason and what is it the SWP have found out comrade zionist/loyalist/telegraphist?

    Like

  47. Duncan – you say the eternal interest in lifting the bans on drugs, and the struggle of lesbians and gays. of course, Respect has progressive policies on those struggles.
    On dugs, Galloway states repeatedly that his is not in favour of any liberalisation of the law, even on cannabis. Yaqoob,interviewed here:http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4344
    puts all her emphasis on dealing with the cosequences of drug use and never once suggests liberalisation.[I hope that I’m not being offensive or provocative by noting that the host of that site has edited my contributions to the thread that follows into non-existence] So even if Respect has the most mind-bending policies, there is no reason not to expect a re-run of the Commons debate on abortion, where Galloway failed to turn up.
    That’s where Respect should be focussing while it building up its base in the unions and works out how to intervene there.
    But it isn’t, and won’t if I’m correct in positing that it has little appeal outside its community base. A few months ago our host was still wishing to describe Respect as a broad class struggle organisation. Now that seems to be an aspiration, largely confined to SR, but there seems to be no willingness to analyse what it is in reality, except for an acceptance of its superficial self-description, and no explanation of how any transformation should be achieved, merely a hope that if it does well at the general election, it will be a pole of attraction towards socialism, which certainly seems to be a misplaced fantasy.

    Like

  48. And thanks to ID for the correction on the name.

    Like

  49. Martin, you said that Salma’s interview with the Morning Star makes pretty clear the basis for Bill’s charge that she’s explicitly anti-socialist. It’s online here: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5064 Has the but where she opposes socialism been cut out? I can’t find it!

    Like

  50. skidmarx, you don’t know it’s right that “as time goes on is far more likely to continue to adapt to its milieu than to pull people in a socialist direction.” We will have to see. However, if you look at the newspaper and leaflets that Respect produces, then you look at the way it supports mobilisations like the climate change demo, then that’s positive even if it is limited.

    On drugs and abortion, I’m glad you accept that Respect has progressive policies.

    On Respect’s base in the unions, again we’ll have to see what happens. My own observation is that scale is really important here, as well as ethnicity. It’s really hard for an organisation with a few hundred members to develop co-ordinated work in the unions. I’m sure the SWP and SP also find this: then they were larger, it was easier. However, according to the DTI 95% of trade union members in the “UK” are white http://bit.ly/8G6ENF Respect does have a lot of non-white members, and because of racism they are less integrated into industry and into the unions. That’s one reason why Black and Asian radicals often come into social movements and community organisations, and the left has to relate to that.

    Like

  51. Edwin Macwhite: “What was the good reason and what is it the SWP have found out” That galloway is a (PERSONAL ABUSE DELETED – SEE COMMENTS POLICY). We predicted that he would -after making sure he was re-elceted to parliament- f##k them over, drain all their money and resources and lead to a split.

    Why do you call me a zionist/loyalist/telegraphist? I’m none of those things as a 2 second google search of my name would demonstrate. Why not write under your own name if you want to insult me.

    Like

  52. My friend I am writing under my own name.

    Now you say that you predicted that Galloway would steal all their money and cause a split in the SWP. That really is quite amazing that one man could do all that to the biggest revolutionary group in Britain with decades of experience under its belt but if you are so concerned about the SWP why aren’t you in it?

    Now a genuine crook is celebrating his 50th year in `the movement’ this year I believe.

    Like

  53. Not only was the majority of the SA vociferously anti-war, the bones of the STWC was built on the existing SA branches. It was the SA that took the lead in building the SWTC.

    Yet the SA was kept off the platform of the big February march even though a wide range of politicians was included.

    Who can forget Party Notes instructing the SWP not to do any work in the build-up to the demo, while in yet another attempt to spike his own side Rees tried unsuccessfully to ban the national press officer who he replaced with cronies who merely trod water. After all, he was in private contemptuous of what he called “the Left ghetto”.

    I don’t agree with everything Martin writes but he is absolutely correct here:
    What caused the SWP to ditch the SA was a desire to ditch the whole of the left and hook up with Galloway in an electoral alliance. SWP no longer needed and definitely didn’t want the revolutionay left for their new project.

    Last word to Prianikoff:
    They wanted to ingratiate themselves with MAB, who provided half the stewards and many of the demonstrators for the big StWC demonstration.
    Anything with “Socialist” in the title was inconvenient to the is developing alliance, so the SA was dropped.
    Having deliberately provoked the SP walk-out from the Socialist Alliance, John Rees cynically dropped the Alliance itself. The SWP didn’t really care about the collateral damage as long as they survived it.

    Like

  54. Anna’s points have some elements of reality here, but I think it is a subsidiary point. This is a complex issue, with several strands, and just because the SWP was broadly right about one of the strategic elements of the situation – the need for an alliance with Galloway, does not necessarily mean that its implementation of that strategic choice was the correct or only way of doing that. It is conceivable that, while making an alliance with GG, a more forward, overtly socialist thrust could have been adopted. It is not ‘either-or’, there are many variables in such situations. When different forces ally with each other, there can be more than one possible way of going about it.

    Did the SWP ‘deliberately’ provoke the walk-out of the SP from the SA? I don’t think so, to be honest. There was pressure on the SWP from others in the Alliance to allow SA members a formally equal say – one member one vote – and in principle that is the only democratic way to organise a political party. The problem was the relative size of the SWP to the SP, and the history of sectarian enmities between them that that reinforced. But many in the SA wanted one person one vote for reasons that had nothing to do with that history, and may have questioned the SA’s viablity if that demand had not been won. That is a contradiction that had no easy solution.

    Like

  55. Hi Duncan – again I disagree with several of the things you say:
    if you look at the newspaper and leaflets that Respect produces
    I’ve looked at the newspaper, and not really been impressed.
    then you look at the way it supports mobilisations like the climate change demo
    It seems to have been far more significant for SR and the other leftists in Respect, which they could have done without Respect.
    then that’s positive even if it is limited.
    Possibly more the latter.

    On drugs and abortion, I’m glad you accept that Respect has progressive policies.
    I don’t actually know what its policies are, especially on the former, but I am certain that if they are progressive there isn’t a cat in hell’s chance of them actually being campaigned on by the leadership of Respect. [This seems to be a major blind spot for socialists in Respect,believing that getting progressive policies passed at conference will determine the way the organisation behaves and is perceived]

    It’s really hard for an organisation with a few hundred members to develop co-ordinated work in the unions. I’m sure the SWP and SP also find this: then[typo for “when”?] they were larger, it was easier
    They may have been more effective, I would have thought that ceteris paribus it was easier to co-ordinate smaller groups. This seems like an excuse for inactivity.
    Respect does have a lot of non-white members, and because of racism they are less integrated into industry and into the unions. That’s one reason why Black and Asian radicals often come into social movements and community organisations,
    At last, a partial admission that Respect’s base is not in the working class, but only as an opportunity to present racism as an excuse. And I haven’t seen a lot of evidence of Black non-muslim radicals involved in Respect [I do have an ex-SWP friend, who in addition to suggesting that in Respect the SWP managed to create a conservative Muslim party, which is a lot further than I’d want to go, points to the the high vote for the Christian People’s Party among blacks in South London as partly down to the SWP’s abandonment of the SA for Respect]. You seem to be having it both ways: Respect is full of socialist proletarians, but racism is keeping it from behaving like a socialist organisation, and this is a difficult period so that’s alright. I’m just not very impressed and would return to the question why should the working class be drawn towards Respect at all if there is a socialist alternative on offer, when any socialism it offers is watered down to maintain its community orientation.

    Mme. Miaow – Who can forget Party Notes instructing the SWP not to do any work in the build-up to the demo
    Shall I count them all?

    Like

  56. Anna’s memory doesn’t chime with mine, I’m afraid. Of course the vast majority of the SA was vociferously anti-war – the problem was that we were saddled with a constitution which gave a disproportionate voice to those who weren’t.

    And it’s not the case at all that StWC committees were built on the bones of SA branches. That certainly wasn’t my experience in Hackney, and it wasn’t at all the case in Birmingham, where Stop the War had to face the open hostility of certain SA officers. Some StWC committees may have been built that way, but not the majority.

    On ID’s point about the SP walking from the SA – it’s important to remember that the SP had been operating against the SA for most of the year, so there wasn’t much sympathy for them. But the people who really wanted to get rid of the SP were particular independents, who were quite happy to use the SWP’s voting strength to do that.

    And as ID says – what else could we have done? You could either have one member one vote, or the SP exerting a minority veto, which would almost certainly have led large numbers of other members to leave.

    Like

  57. “That certainly wasn’t my experience in Hackney …”

    What, Hackney wot had that Paul Foot as the head of its vibrant SA and LSA campaigns?

    “and it wasn’t at all the case in Birmingham, where Stop the War had to face the open hostility of certain SA officers. ”

    Birmingham with Sue Blackwell, and one of the strongest SAs and then STWC branches?

    Hahahaha!

    Like

  58. Sadly Skiders at this time there is very little on offer for the workers to vote for in the way of a socialist reformist party.Respect and the Greens are for all intent and purpose democratic socialist and in that similair to new Labour,yet still an alternative to the ever present dominant parties the Tories and Labour, and in that dominance lays the rub for the minority parties, to gain a influential foothold in the electrol system.And until the question of electrol reform is addressed it will remain so.

    Im relitively new to this computer game, but having follwed the Socialist blogs a very clear picture is evolving that being a divided left,and at the center of it all is the S.W.Pand if tallied the majority of blog respondents are anti the S.W.P.On another blog site Socialsit Unity there had been an impresive blog correspondence of some 400 hits about the present state of the S.W.P.The issues raised in the main where a public laundering of their long past and present alledged disruptive party policies and interferance and in general ended up in a slaging match of i did you did not.

    All this is all very fine to clear the air ,yet i would suggest for the majority of the working class holds no importance to them and only serves the interests of those who are political party actavist.And this is where im trying to go with this on most of the socialist blogs it is issues such as this or other countries politics that take preferance and in the main the home base of important issues appear to be neglected.The Socialist left are at a crossroads and it is imperative for the socilist left to unite,and it will take debate and more imoprtantly good will, to achive that.And leave the Marx Lenin Trotsky speak to those initiated for as stated it is of no interest to the majority of the working class, it only seves to confuse and allienate them.

    Like

  59. Paul Foot’s Mayoral campaign in Hackney in 2002 was certainly centred around opposition to the war, but the local Stop the War group was by then long established, and the SA was merely one of a number organisations affiliated. There was almost no overlap between the SA committee and the Stop the War committee.

    Like

  60. And yet there I was doing the national press for both campaigns with the same people. Who’d a thunk it?

    Like

  61. skidmarx, perhaps it’s matter of opinion that it’s easier to organise in the unions with fewer people, but – for the record – my experience leads me to disagree. I really think there’s a critical mass, especially as the percentage of socialists organised in the unions declines.

    I think you misunderstand my comment about the unions being 95% white. The notion that Black and Asian workers are marginalised in the unions and unionised workplaces isn’t an excuse – it’s a fact, and a damning fact of capitalism. Blacks and Asians are overwhelmingly proletarian – most are part of the class that relies on selling its labour power. So I’m saying that Blacks and Asians workers in the UK are concentrated in smaller workplaces, less well organised workplaces and are generally outside the core of the ‘flexible workforce’. As it happens, most white workers are as well. I think that’s a serious reason why workplace struggles may not be at all times the centre of the struggle. ‘Socialist Worker’ doesn’t lead its front page with a strike most weeks, or even one week in three, and that reflects both the reality of industrial struggles and the other struggles.

    Like

  62. The notion that the SWP had its hand forced in the Socialist Alliance by the small number of independents it courted at that time on the issue of the alliance’s constitution is laughable. Particularly when you remember that those same independents found their services dispensed with not very long later!

    The vast majority of Socialist Alliance independents voted for the McLaren proposals at the conference, which were proposals for a federal alliance. Those proposals came third in the voting, with nearly 100 votes despite not having the backing of either of the two big organisations. The Socialist Party did however give the McLaren option its second preferences and made it very clear that they would stay in the alliance if they were adopted.

    In fact the Socialist Party made it clear that they would stay in the alliance with any constitution that provided protections for minorities and limits on the SWP’s “right” to run the alliance entirely as its own possession. In practice this meant that pretty much the only thing it would not accept were an unamended version of the SWP’s proposals. Of course the SWP were to vote through their own proposals and then systematically vote down every amendment which would limit their control in any way.

    The ISG at that time was acting as an unpaid little auxilliary of the SWP and did much of the actual dirty work at conference, being pushed forward along with the usual handful of independents who were then being courted by the SWP. But the voting was done by the SWP not by their tiny allies.

    The Socialist Alliance had potential. It didn’t represent very much in 2000 or 2001 in reality but it had the potential to be a starting point. The problem, as far as the Socialist Party, Red Action and the independent councillors in Preston (who all left at around the same time) were concerned was that it had no potential as the wholly owned property of the SWP. And lets be clear, introducing a “one member one vote” party structure in the concrete circumstances of the alliance in that period meant giving complete and total control to the SWP, whose block vote could outvote all other members.

    This was for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there is the age old organ grinder and monkey problem. When the organ grinder is calling all the shots, why on earth would anyone want to deal with the monkey?

    Secondly, there was the specific issue of the SWP’s then line. It’s difficult to remember this now but back before the split conference, the SWP were gung ho about the Socialist Alliance and indeed had a wildly optimistic view of its significance. This was spelled out clearly by Rob Hoveman and Chris Nineham (or it may have been Guy Taylor) at the Socialist Party’s Socialism event before the conference. The Alliance had, in their estimation, already established itself as the conduit through which left wing opposition to Blair would flow at elections. This view led them to push the alliance towards a sectarian posture even before they took complete control – standing against the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation for instance.

    So yes, an Alliance under the complete control of the SWP would have ceased to be an alliance in any meaningful sense and it would also, the Socialist Party argued, get nowhere. Time has proven them correct on that latter point at least.

    This of course didn’t bother most of the smaller sects. Their chief interest in the alliance was to poach the odd member from larger groups and as long as the SWP were willing to keep open an alliance that gave them access to a large portion of the SWP’s membership they were happy. That doesn’t really apply to the ISG, whose strategy instead seems to have been to position themselves as a sort of kindly but slightly embarrassing uncle, advising the impetuous SWP. I actually have more respect for the likes of Workers Power’s unashamed self-interest than I do for the then ISG’s self-delusions. At least stealing a couple of members from the SWP was a potentially viable outcome, even if one that’s of complete irrelevance to the world at large.

    Like

  63. I find the tone of some contributors rather sad and depressing, given the crises facing us and the challenges we need to prepare for. Are we to learn nothing.
    The movement may be weak and divided but also it is rich in experience with some successes as well. The need for an anti-capitalist bloc and unity of action with the pulling down of sectarian walls is even more urgent.
    Respect may have a “Centrist” or Left of Social Democracy leadership but that should not prevent us working with it and where viable helping to bring it to a healthier position by strengthening it where possible.
    Similarly there are other opportunities for similar forces tocome together in a principled way, which is happening in many guises.
    We need to unify in action these forces for opposing the direction that Capitalism is attempting to direct society to. The lessons show that we can not just create out of the blue what should be but to build what is needed based on principles, united front activity and closer co-ordination of our forces.
    Perhaps in failing to learn the lessons, as pointed out correctly by Duncan, Liam and others some will continue top moan by the wayside. We need less of that haunting us and more of supporting positive initiatives.
    The far right and the reactionary forces are not just sitting idly by. Workers and the oppressed in our society need answers and they will be more likely to listen to us if we can be more concerted in our approach.

    Like

  64. “Progressive polices” Duncan? I said that Respect does not campaign for Free abortion on demand. Show me where it does? We all know that GG explicitly explained that he would not support such a demand and indeed abstained in parliament on the question.
    Salma Yaqoob is not a socialist, that’s quite clear from her interview on SU where she talks about the need to stimulate “small business”. Its not an insult, she is a radical liberal, who is particularly good on anti-war and Palestine, but not a socialist. After all if she were a socialist then there would be no need for Respect to adopt such an equivocal right wing platform would there?
    On the SA, everyone knows that the SWP cynically destroyed it because they thought they could recruit directly from the STWC movement. It coincided with the opportunity to get close to GG, who for his own reasons, i.e. he happened to be expelled at the time and needed foot soldiers, had a short term interest which meant he was happy to take their support.
    Unfortunately, the SWP cannot admit what they did. Its the reason no one takes their word for anything any more.

    Like

  65. Mark P. said: “The vast majority of Socialist Alliance independents voted for the McLaren proposals at the conference, which were proposals for a federal alliance”

    Which is utter bollocks- most independents supported the OMOV proposals.

    I don’t actually remember Mark P being involved with the SA much in any case. Certainly not on the independents discussion list…

    Like

  66. Hi Shug – you say :
    Respect and the Greens are for all intent and purpose democratic socialist and in that similar to new Labour,yet still an alternative to the ever present dominant parties the Tories and Labour,
    I think you contradict yourself here, while pointing towards the truth: Respect and the Greens are similar to New Labour, and are alternate ways to express an electoral dislike of some of the excesses of capitalism, without being an adequate route to changing it. They have a space to establish their credibility because of their lack of power, and undoubtedly many within both organisations do other good political work, but without a class basis to their opposition to the present state they are bound to accomodate to capitalism, as can be seen where Greens have got into office.This is not to deride their motives , but to disagree with their methodology.
    I can see why electoral reform is a priority for those parties, but I don’t see why it should be for socialists in general. Elections under capitalism have all sorts of mechanisms to ensure that unacceptable outcomes don’t occur: the dominantion of the media by big business,etc., and changing to a proportional system while capitalism continues as the real power in society is just a recipe for smaller bourgeois parties to determine what adminstration takes office, because they are the swing votes in the centre. Just look at the situation in Italy for the decades after WWII where the Communist Party was permanently excluded from national office despite its 30-40% of the vote, it certainly doesn’t seem more democratic to have parties with a few MPs determining the government in post-election backroom deals than that which gets 38% having an overall majority.

    On the blogs, I’d note that the host of Socialist Unity has an anti_SWP agenda, and his blog is permanently inhabited by several whose house trolls who could only justify the seizure of the Respect organisation by Galloway and co. by claiming that the SWP were wrong at every turn, while any effort to look at the politics of Respect at the time would have pointed to an effort by the minority Galloway faction to shift Respect’s orientation to an an appeal for it to represent them on a non-class basis, which because it was trying to still compete with the SWP for left credibilty, had to be covered with a cloak of dishonesty.

    On your last point, yes unity is a good thing, but debate cannot just be about points of agreement. Marx, Lenin and Trotsky faced similar though not identical issues, and it seems wrong to ignore 150 years of socialist history in the hope that we live in a new dawn where everything is different. In The Gulag Archipelago, his great work detailing the crimes of Stalin, Alexander Solzhenitsyn mentions that he was told repeatedly while writing it:”Don’t you know the old Russian proverb,Don’t dwell on the past or you’ll lose an eye?”He goes on :”but the proverb continues forget the past and you’ll lose both eyes.”

    Hi Duncan – what you seem to say is: this is the demographic Respect chooses to centre itself on, it isn’t particularly amenable to class struggle, therefore Respect has other things to do politically. That seems rather to say that Respect is not an organisation of socialism or class struggle, and that revolutionaries need to look elsewhere for a way to organise. My apologies if I’m over-twisting your words.

    Like

  67. Anna – I’m sure it’s true that the national office staffs of the SA and the StWC largely overlapped, but office staff are not the organisation – they’re the people whose (very important) work facilitates the work on the ground. On the ground, there wasn’t much overlap.

    RobM – the Mark P you’re replying to is Irish Mark P of the Socialist Party, rather than the Eurocommunist (who I don’t think was ever in the Socialist Alliance).

    Like

  68. skidmarx, yes – as you suggested – you are twisting my words. The class struggle happens in many arenas and on many levels: it can happen inside the workplace and outside, it can be more class-conscious or not. The social movements and community organisations are often engaged in class struggle: the fights against war, racism, patriarchy, cuts in public services are also taking up the way that the ruling class uses not only the workplace, but also the rest of society as an arena to consolidate the power of the ruling class and ensure that working people and their allies pay for capitalism’s endurance. If you reduce the class struggle to what happens in unionised workplaces, then you develop a difficult notion that reduces the working class down to a tiny minority in society, even in a country like Britain. Actually, the working class is the huge majority on the planet, and working class people often come into action on issues outside the workplace.The task of socialists is to suppose all those progressive struggles and to develop a political organisation to articulate them. Of course, what I have outlined is the basic argument against economism in Lenin’s ‘What is to be done’.

    That said, I do think there’s something about the experience of developing a national political organisation, as opposed to factory circles, and especially one that participates in elections. That does encourage organisations to generalise the workplace struggles by posing social and political solutions. Personally, I do think that is something that the Third and Fourth Internationalist traditions got right in the 20th century. If you read, for example, the way that the SWP and SP react to strikes, they both place a heavy emphasis on solidarity, but the SP certainly has the edge in raising political and social demands.

    Bill, actually the point you were making was not that respect does not put enough effort into campaigning on abortion rights. No-one does enough. You claimed, mistakenly, that Respect had surrendered on “principles” like abortion, secularism, republicanism, lesbian and gay rights and so on. That certainly gave me the impression that, in your opinion, Respect did not take a stand on these things. Clearly Respect is mainly an organisation that works on electoral and community campaigns, and not a propaganda organisation. So that means that we use elections to educate people and organise with our manifesto and newspaper (where these demands are raised and debated), but our agitational campaigns are focussed on the key issues that people are bringing up on the streets. In that respect, we are the same as the SWP, SP and even Permanent Revolution. In the ‘UK’ as a whole, the main centre for abortion struggles is Northern Ireland. But here in England, where Respect organises, there was a decisive victory in the campaign against reducing time limits two years ago. Until new legislative initiatives are taken, I don’t think we will see your organisation, or anyone elses, developing agitational campaigns on abortion. That, to a degree, reflects both a tactical judgement and the economism of the British left. If you start some serious campaigning and get a good response, let me know and I’ll bring some friends alone to help out. In the meanwhile, I think socialists have to use their own judgement to identify the issues of the day to agitate around.

    Like

  69. Mark P seems to be almost right- I always got the impression that SP wanted out rather more than they wanted in once the SWP had already gained significant control. In the AWL we tried to persuade and argue with people- SA activists both in the SWP and the so-called ‘independents’ we knew locally so somehow fudge the vote so we could keep the SP on board and thrash out a compromise. Some SWP members who privately agreed with us before the vote that they would abstain in order to ‘Save the SA’ went on to vote the line knowing that it would lead to an SP walkout.

    I think Alf is somewhat pompous in denouncing the tone as depressing, it’s difficult to move forward without acknowledging where you are and how you got there, some analysis and self criticism from the ISG is surely vital here. Even if it is only to say that you were completely right and you would do exactly the same things again wrt to smashing the SA, founding Respect and then helping oust the SWP from that.

    Like

  70. Given the level of job and public spending cutting we are about to experience one way for Respect to get involved in work place and trade union issues would be to launch a serious and now timely campaign for workplace democracy. No more imposition of hostile state or share-owner managements on working people but the democratic right to elect, employ and discipline their managers through recall.

    It should juxtapose this during the general election to the likely fact that both parties will tout some form of privatisation for the NHS either through trusts or workers’ style but management led co-operatives. It is not through privatisation of the Health Service that savings and other benefits will be found, such as a sense of genuine concern by staff for the service and its users, but by the democratic rule of the workforce.

    Like

  71. ( In the comment above, read ‘suppose’ as ‘support’ and ‘alone’ as ‘along’. Lunch breaks are a little rushed!).

    Bill, your article about Salma is a little circular: “After all if she were a socialist then there would be no need for Respect to adopt such an equivocal right wing platform would there?” Respect’s platform isn’t right-wing. What you say about it it untrue. You show no interest in reading the manifesto or referring to it. Because of that, you just can’t get any traction in this discussion. It’s really most unfortunate, because there are real differences and issues to debate about Respect, but you need to do some work to really move forward.

    Again, I would start with your statement that Salma is explicitly anti-socialist. You refer to her pro-small business comments. The actual sentence in her Morning Star interview is “We need to build up manufacturing and, given the vast amounts of public money that have gone into the banks, they should have been fully nationalised so that the money went to the small businesses that needed it.” I have no idea what sort of economic policy you would suggest a workers’ party advances in Britain, but I guess you don’t propose the nationalisation of small businesses, any more than the Bolsheviks did. There’s a huge tradition in the communist movement about how to neutralise and lead the petty-bourgeoisie and peasantry. You massively underlabour this, and you really let yourself down – since you know all this and ignore it because of polemical excess.

    But Salma is not a communist, of course, and that is not the policy she is advancing. She points out the hypocrisy that quantitative easing was justified as a way to get lending to small businesses rolling again. That has not happened, and in fact we are at a high point for the declining of loans to small businesses. So when she says that the banks should be nationalised so that money can flow out to defend jobs rather than defend bankers’ profit, that seems like a progressive demand.

    From what you’re written, anyone would imagine that you think a workers’ government should nationalise every sweet shop. That is, I am sure, not what you think. I am sure you think that a workers’ party should counterpose the interests of the capitalist class to that of the workers, artisans, working farmers, self-employed as a way of winning workers’ leadership of the non-bourgeois layers.

    Like

  72. Charlie, thanks for that- I had mixed up my Mark Ps

    Like

  73. Duncan – I think you are presenting a false polarisation, and a false representation of what Respect is and what it stands for. I never said that only struggle for bread-and-butter demands within unionised workplaces had any place in the socialist armoury, but when Respect is entirely absent from this sphere it seems reasonable to conclude that it is and will continue to be pulled by its chosen milieu more and more into being a non-class electoral representative of a section of the Muslim community. Again, why when it has had little or no traction for non-Muslim workers since the split,and its appeal has become limited to three constituencies out of over six hundred,is there any prospect that it will break out to become a viable socialist force? When the SWP were a significant part of Respect there was such a pull, though it might be said that they were mistaken not to have any clear analysis of their differences with their allies, that now seems to be repeated in spades by SR & co.

    But here in England, where Respect organises, there was a decisive victory in the campaign against reducing time limits two years ago.
    Galloway didn’t vote. What did Respect do to try and encourage its one MP to do so?

    the fights against … patriarchy
    From what I understand, the way Respect organises in Birmingham does nothing to challenge patriarchy, but positively thrives on it.

    alf – Respect may have a “Centrist” or Left of Social Democracy leadership but that should not prevent us working with it and where viable helping to bring it to a healthier position by strengthening it where possible.
    Shouldn’t prevent working with it ,but strengthening it at the expense of actual socialist organisation, no. That’s a way of being less concerted in our approach and being top moan by the wayside of actual class struggle. It seems more lib dem centrist than Trotsky’s idea that centrism is a half-way house between reform and revolution and seems more right social democracy than left.

    Like

  74. Duncan you want to have your cake and eat it too.
    On the one hand you say that Respect is not socialist, indeed you point out that you are not trying to win it to socialist policies.
    Fair enough I don’t agree but I understand your point.
    When people then point out that Respect is not socialist and on certain key questions like free abortion on demand, it does not fight for even a democratic demand, you say that it is nonetheless progressive and demand that I “prove” that Salma Yaqoob is not a socialist.
    When Salma Yaqoob has repeatedly said she is not a socialist and the whole point of Respect is to win or at least work alongside non-socialists like Salma Yaqoob.
    Salma Yaqoob is anti-socialist in as much as she is against socialism. She is a liberal who supports small business and wants a cross class, non-working class, non socialist electoral front.
    The EDL demo in Birmingham was a good example for the very damaging results of this policy. Salma Yaqoob opposed militant youth, Asian youth in particular, confronting the EDL on the streets, and instead supported a police ban.
    When the counter demo was banned instead, she opposed youth going on and opposing the EDL.
    That is unfortunately, the very bad results of the Respect policy, which in its October paper was completely supportive of the position Salma Yaqoob took and offered no criticism of her whatsoever.

    Like

  75. skidmarx, it’s good to talk 😉 we can only clarify our views that way.

    In my opinion, there’s something troubling in the way that you equate the industrial struggle with the working class, as if only industrial workers are working class and that, if Respect has members who are wage labourers not mobilising through the workplace then they are non-class. It just reminds me of Lutte Ovuvriere. What you say about future dynamics can only be tested over time; do you see any signs of a move to the right in Respect?

    I have no insight into conversations with Galloway or Birmingham. If you have some examples about how Respect strengthens patriarchy, let me know. For myself, the relationship with Galloway (or, for example, Heloisa in PSOL in Brazil) is pretty best the best you can do outside a Leninist party: don’t vote against the party policy on an issue of personal religious significance. I can’t see a better workable policy in a non-centralist party. Point me to any examples, real examples, of where it works better than in Respect of PSOL.

    Bill, you wrote that “On the one hand you say that Respect is not socialist, indeed you point out that you are not trying to win it to socialist policies.” Again, stop making things up. It just makes you look silly. I didn’t say that. Find some references to support your claims, especially for the ‘explicitly anti-socialist’ claim, and then come back. Seriously, you were not always so careless and lazy. Bring your best to this website; you can do it.

    Like

  76. Mark P (the Irish one) Avatar
    Mark P (the Irish one)

    RobM:

    It is not “complete bullshit”. The McLaren proposals got 100 votes with the first preferences of none of the groups except for the AWL, which had no more than fifteen or twenty people present. The SWP (and their crawling ISG servants) accounted for almost all of the vote for their own option, with no more than a couple of dozen independents backing them.

    The ISG thoroughly disgraced themselves in that little episode, being the only grouplet stupid enough to do the SWP’s dirty work in taking over the alliance. The silly little fantasists thought that they had the SWP’s “ear” and that the SWP could be convinced to follow the ISG’s favoured approach once it was in charge. Much the same can be said for the few independents the SWP were then courting.

    Both groups were to find their services dispensed with in short order, although by the they’d already served their purpose.

    Like

  77. RobM:

    It is not “complete bullshit”. The McLaren proposals got 100 votes with the first preferences of none of the groups except for the AWL, which had no more than fifteen or twenty people present. The SWP (and their crawling ISG servants) accounted for almost all of the vote for their own option, with no more than a couple of dozen independents backing them.

    The ISG thoroughly disgraced themselves in that little episode, being the only grouplet stupid enough to do the SWP’s dirty work in taking over the alliance. The silly little fantasists thought that they had the SWP’s “ear” and that the SWP could be convinced to follow the ISG’s favoured approach once it was in charge. Much the same can be said for the few independents the SWP were then courting.

    Both groups were to find their services dispensed with in short order, although by the they’d already served their purpose.

    Like

  78. Duncan the whole point of the “Respect” project is that it is not socialist. Let’s take Salma Yaqoobs attitude to the EDL in Birmingham. A socialist policy would be to stop the EDL from meeting, to defy a state ban and to physically drive them off the streets.
    That is actually what happened. Good stuf! In fact it was pretty much the SR position I gather.
    What was Salma Yaqoob’s policy, the policy of Respect as printed in the October edition of the Respect paper?
    It argues against physically confronting the EDL. It opposes Asian youth in particular, taking to the streets. It calls for a state ban. it says ignore the Nazis, if a broad non-class, non-party coalition cannot be built.
    There’s nothing socialist whatsoever about it. But this policy was fought for by Salma Yaqoob in opposition to the socialist policy. Ergo Salma Yaqoob had an anti-socialist policy.
    Was this some anomaly?
    Of course it wasn’t. Salma Yaqoob is not a socialist. She is against socialism. She is for class peace. A cross class, broad coalition involving all progressives.
    Including those progressives who oppose free abortion on demand.

    Like

  79. Duncan wrote
    ‘Bill, you wrote that “On the one hand you say that Respect is not socialist, indeed you point out that you are not trying to win it to socialist policies.” Again, stop making things up. It just makes you look silly. I didn’t say that. Find some references to support your claims, especially for the ‘explicitly anti-socialist’ claim, and then come back.’

    Well, I’m not Bill but in the previous post, Duncan wrote:
    “Salma is not a communist, of course, and that is not the policy she is advancing”

    However, to the substance of the debate:

    Socialists, that is revolutionaries, are in a very small minority of the population- I don’t have up to date figures but I’d be surprised if the numbers of socialists in organised groups exceeds 3000 (some 0.05% of the population) – of course there will be many more unaligned socialists, but probably no more than 10 times that number and a somewhat larger number who agree with socialism but are not revolutionaries. The point is we are a very small minority. How do we get out of this and begin to win working class people to mass campaigns that can begin to make a real difference to working class lives?

    One solution- argued by PR amongst others- is to build united front campaigns around immediate and particular questions, propose concrete solutions to particular issue- e.g. strike action under rank and file control, organising service users, demanding working class control of services- whilst advocating socialist solutions – i.e. extending the idea of working class democracy to the whole of society. Through this we show that socialists are hard working, organised, can begin to lever real change. If from such campaigns it is useful to have an electoral challenge to locate, organise and mobilise opposition all the better. This will emerge in the struggle through open honest debate.

    Another solution advocated by Duncan is make political alliances with petit bourgeois politicians – we reject that whilst supporting leftwing socialist candidates.

    Like

  80. 3 000 is 0.005% of the UK’s population, not 0.05%.

    Like

  81. When the SP walked out of the SA it was totally mystifying to many people involved. Afterwards they tried to counterpose the CNWP to initiatives like Respect. However they were half hearted about the CNWP and didnt even raise it in PCS where they dominate the leadership. As for some independents in SA, I recollect that they tried to keep the SA going after the departure of SWP etc and this proved a dead end. It was right for the ISG to go with the SWP into RESPECT and the fact that even after the departure of the SWP, RESPECT still survives is a testament to the fact that it was the correct thing for the ISG to support at that time. In RESPECT the ISG was not craven to the SWP, infact it helped develop the RESPECT party platform and was seen as oppositional at times by the leadership. Also it didnt go with the SWP in the RESPECT split – far from it. The ISG before it merged with SR followed its own line through these events. Before the end of the SA, the ISG had six members on its leadership and played a significant role in developing that organisation. It wasnt an opportunist adventure to go with the SWP into RESPECT, it was an effort to build a much bigger left formation than the SA. Some people like the AWL didnt go in as they didnt like Galloway, but actually lots of independents were attracted to the new formation – how it developed later is another debate.

    Like

  82. Drivel, GT.

    It was only “mystifying” why the Socialist Party walked out of the Socialist Alliance if you were a fool, if you were willfully deaf or if you were a fantasist. The ISG qualifies under at least two of those headings and arguably all three.

    The ISG really thought, in that period, that by hanging around the SWP doing their bidding that somehow, by a process of osmosis, the SWP would “come to their senses” and do what their dotty, ineffectual uncle was advising. In fact they were used, just as the handful of tame independents were used, as an “acceptable” face for an SWP takeover. When they were no longer useful, they quickly found themselves discarded.

    The Socialist Party made it very, very clear that it would not stay in an “alliance” that had moved from being an alliance to being a formation under the complete control of the SWP. There was no confusion or dissembling involved, and the only people who could have been mystified were those determined to be so.

    In the concrete circumstances of the Socialist Alliance in 2000 or 2001, moving away from a federal structure to a one member one vote structure meant nothing more or less than giving complete ownership of the alliance to the SWP’s block vote. The Socialist Party said that such an “alliance” would have no future, would not develop and would wither as a front. And events proved them to be entirely correct on that score.

    Like

  83. Which approach has proved more effective in the long run:

    1) the SP with the CNWP and now the Son-of-No2EU with the CP that the RMT has walked from …
    2) the SWP having walked from Respect with … whatever they’ve got?
    3) the ISG/SR in building first the SA, then Respect and seeking to use them to build a plural left wing formation that enjoys electoral opportunities to mount an effective challenge to New Labour in places?

    Like

  84. Equally in the concrete circumstances of 2001 it would have been possible for an organisation with the SP’s weight to have argued for a different organisational model.

    The starting assumption was that the Alliance must remain a non aggression pact between competing blocs. That immediately disenfranchised anyone who happened not to agree with the two major components. A persuasive case could have been made for a multi tendency organisation in which members of each tendency would have the freedom to vote as they wanted, though always with the get out clause of permitting the party whip on issues of principle. That however would have flown in the face of the British Marxist tradition established in about 1928.

    Like

  85. Bill says:

    What was Salma Yaqoob’s policy, the policy of Respect as printed in the October edition of the Respect paper?
    It argues against physically confronting the EDL. It opposes Asian youth in particular, taking to the streets. It calls for a state ban. it says ignore the Nazis, if a broad non-class, non-party coalition cannot be built.
    There’s nothing socialist whatsoever about it. But this policy was fought for by Salma Yaqoob in opposition to the socialist policy. Ergo Salma Yaqoob had an anti-socialist policy.
    Was this some anomaly?
    Of course it wasn’t. Salma Yaqoob is not a socialist. She is against socialism.

    Well i think that Salma was right, and I am explicitly a socialist.

    I look forward to Bill finding examples of me disocciating myself from socialism.

    This was a tactical issue, based upon a specific analysis of what the EDL are, and the best way of approaching them. Tactical differnces are not necessarily matters of principle.

    Like

  86. Skiders,an old socialist told me when i was a young lad in my teens, that the answers to changing the political system lay in the past,and through my long association with socialist orginisation it has held me in good stead.So i have learned it is folly to ignore lessons from the past.

    The point in regard to proporsional representation is relevant, as one day it will be a reality in Britain.It however does serve up some compromising and at times uncompromising bed fellows,yet allows small party partisipation on government policy direction.

    As for democracy it would be interesting to know what percentage of the voting public actualy vote come election day is it at 40 50 60 per cent or higher,for i doubt it would be any higher.There has been made reference to orginisastion of the workers,to me that entails not only those employed but also the unemployed.It is easier to orginise from the shop floor for those that are unionised, and very difficult for those that are unemployed and more effort should be directed to those by way of a association or union of the unemployed.

    As for unity i see the social democrats as a vital part of the struggle toward a better more socialsit orientation of government with the caveat of Engels.

    “these democratic socialists are either prolatarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie,a class which, prior to the achievment of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise,has many interests in common with the prolatariat

    it follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists,and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them-provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.”

    I dare say that is not part of the S.W.P. Leninist philosophy,as Lenin did basterdise the Marx Engels theory of socialism to his will.Still there is a good lesson to be learned.

    Like

  87. I agree with Liam. The SA could have posed a viable alternative, but not in the conditions of the UK left which subordinate their entire membership to the wishes of their central committee.
    I don’t think in that respect there is any substantive difference between the SP and the SWP. Just that the SP were rather smaller and the SWP rather larger at the time.
    The recent Working Class Representation Conference run by the SP was a model of top down, unrepresentative, and undemocratic control.
    There are some differences between them of course, but they are both basically as undemocratic as the other.

    Like

  88. Equally in the concrete circumstances of 2001 it would have been possible for an organisation with the SP’s weight to have argued for a different organisational model.

    We could have argued for anything we wanted. It would have made zero difference in an organisation where an absolute majority was commanded by the SWP’s block vote. The only difference abandoning our own discipline would have made is to increase the SWP’s built in majority in each and every vote.

    The ISG, silly little fantasists that they were, chose to ignore that unfortunate reality and to instead followed a strategy which had absolutely no hope of success in the actual situation facing the alliance.

    As for it being assumed that a “non-aggression pact” was all that was possible, that’s not an accurate presentation of our position which was that a federal alliance was all that was possible at that particular moment in time. The left could work together, but to do so cooperatively and effectively, we would all have to accept that different organisations existed and neither agreed with each other on every issue nor had much in the way of trust built up. You have a constitution to govern an organisation as it actually is, not a constitution to govern the organisation you would like to be at some stage in the indefinite future.

    At the time the sectarians howled a great deal about how we should have “stayed in and fought”, which was idiotic. The Socialist Alliance didn’t matter in and of itself at that time. It mattered because it had potential. Once the SWP took it over it no longer had that potential. So there was nothing worth fighting for. All a longer sojourn in the alliance would have provided was the opportunity to be on the losing side in a prolonged and mutually dispiriting mobilising contest.

    Like

  89. Aargh, I screwed up the the formating:

    Liam said Equally in the concrete circumstances of 2001 it would have been possible for an organisation with the SP’s weight to have argued for a different organisational model.

    We could have argued for anything we wanted. It would have made zero difference in an organisation where an absolute majority was commanded by the SWP’s block vote. The only difference abandoning our own discipline would have made is to increase the SWP’s built in majority in each and every vote.

    The ISG, silly little fantasists that they were, chose to ignore that unfortunate reality and to instead followed a strategy which had absolutely no hope of success in the actual situation facing the alliance.

    As for it being assumed that a “non-aggression pact” was all that was possible, that’s not an accurate presentation of our position which was that a federal alliance was all that was possible at that particular moment in time. The left could work together, but to do so cooperatively and effectively, we would all have to accept that different organisations existed and neither agreed with each other on every issue nor had much in the way of trust built up. You have a constitution to govern an organisation as it actually is, not a constitution to govern the organisation you would like to be at some stage in the indefinite future.

    At the time the sectarians howled a great deal about how we should have “stayed in and fought”, which was idiotic. The Socialist Alliance didn’t matter in and of itself at that time. It mattered because it had potential. Once the SWP took it over it no longer had that potential. So there was nothing worth fighting for. All a longer sojourn in the alliance would have provided was the opportunity to be on the losing side in a prolonged and mutually dispiriting mobilising contest.

    Like

  90. Prinkipo Exile: Which approach has proved more effective in the long run:

    Well in electoral terms I don’t think that any of them have been particularly succesful. In terms of building a socialist alternative, both the Socialist Party and the SWP have a great deal more to be proud of than the ISG.

    When was the last time the ISG (or whatever they call themselves now) recruited someone under 30?

    I’m not sure that I’d trade long drawn out extinction and the opportunity to be domestiques for an not very grateful reformist politician for the Socialist Party’s last few years. Or, despite their recent difficulties, for the SWP’s.

    Like

  91. Jason, I honestly think you can spot the difference. I said that Salma was not a communist; Bill turned that into the ‘fact’ that I say that Respect isn’t socialist. Those just are not the same statements, and there’s no logical ‘therefore’ either way. I realise that scrolling up the page is tricky, but I explicitly make the point that Respect, amongst other things, calls itself socialist.

    Bill says that Salma is explicitly anti-socialist (and to me, that means that she has gone on the record as explicitly against socialism), but what me means is that she was wrong in Birmingham on the EDL. Now I realise this will shock you, because PR is immune to it, but all socialists can make tactical errors: even quite large ones. So if you you say that the definition of being a socialist is that you agree with Bill, then there are no socialists (since, one day, even Bill may change his mind).

    You wrote “Another solution advocated by Duncan is make political alliances with petit bourgeois politicians”. Where do you get that from? You totally invent and misrepresent what I am arguing. I wrote that a “workers’ party should counterpose the interests of the capitalist class to that of the workers, artisans, working farmers, self-employed as a way of winning workers’ leadership of the non-bourgeois layers.” If you oppose that, then what do you say about the Cominterm’s policy of winning the leadership of peasant struggles? Are you in favour of driving self-employed artisans and small shopkeepers out of the anti-war campaigns? We communists are for the political independence of the working class, but we still march together with other who agree with our demands, and we aim to win their leadership.

    Like

  92. Irish Mark P, the idea that you can measure the effectiveness of these groups by their ability to recruit people under 30 is facile and dangerous. As it happens, it;s also rather silly because, as it happens, Socialist Resistance has grown since the merger with the ISG (of course, it’s still tiny – no qualitative transformation) and we’ve even recruited some students/school students.

    Our primary task is assisting the development of class consciousness and leadership and, in Britain, a key part of that is the re-composition of the left. If we just wanted to recruit youth, we would follow the tactical line of other left organisations which can recruit youth and develop then into activists: we’d swing to propaganda and climb inside the climate change campaign. But that would make us a sect that put our own recruitment ahead of the interests of the whole movement. And people who want to do that join other organisations, not ours.

    Like

  93. And people who want to do that join other organisations, not ours.

    People interested in socialist politics in any way have a distressing tendency to join other organisations, not yours.

    Your current activism amounts to acting as unpaid, unwelcome, unhappy bag carriers for a reformist politician. The unkind might describe that strategy as “Socialist Action for slow learners”, but at least Socialist Action got paid.

    Like

  94. Hi Duncan

    It seems to be something of a persistent tendency of yours to claim that any disagreement is a misrepresentation of what you have said. Discussion of course involves interpretations and I think you have misinterpreted what I said- I don’t however claim to have been ‘misrepresented’ or that you have made stuff up or that you can’t read what I’ve said- let’s leave such puerile tactics to the mainstream parties, eh?

    The anti-war movement is a united front. We should clearly welcome small shopkeepers and artisans in such a movement – it is open to all, though the bulk of support will come from the working class it is absolutely right and correct that people whose politics are not socialist are welcomed into the movement- it has explicit aims and demands- stop the war, troops out now etc.

    A political alliance is quite different. Socialists are for maximum unity in action and for maximum honesty in politics. We should share platforms with non-socialists in united front campaigns without disguising our political disagreements.

    Respect is a political formation- you say it is explicitly socialist yet it is very hard to find any reference to that on its website or manifesto- it contains a list of demands and principles that are progressive but nowhere explicitly socialist and socialism is not mentioned once. Some points may be considered implicitly socialist sure but implying things is not enough- to actually have working class power we will need class war, to take on the capitalists and the British state, to actively and explicitly support power going to democratic councils elected by working class people and controlled by working class people.

    Respect does not represent this but is a left of centre reformism with some policies that also reveal its intention to appeal to petit bourgeois opinions. Salma is probably the second most prominent Respect politician, a parliamentary candidate and the website claims that materials are published and promoted by S Yaqoob. It was once a coalition but now claims to be a party so a distinction between its leading politician/parliamentary candidate and the organisation is a little spurious.

    Now of course under certain circumstances it may be useful for socialists to advocate a critical vote for non socialist candidates or formations but even here it is on the basis of criticism, friendly but criticism nonetheless and explicitly socialist.

    What is important is winning workers to action and to break them from reformism- that is why we should united front campaigns. It can be why we sometimes should have critical support for non-socialist candidates or socialist candidates whose program has not broken from reformism

    Like

  95. Of course socialists can make tactical mistakes. But Salma Yaqoob is not a socialist and the EDL “mistake” was not a “mistake” in her terms. And evidently not a “mistake” for Respect as a whole as it is the line plugged, completely uncritically in its paper.
    Salma Yaqoob is not a socialist because she does not have a working class strategy. She does not believe in the class struggle. But instead wants to unite “progressives” that is people across classes and parties. She is absolutely explicit about this. I’m not really sure how you can make out there’s any ambiguity. Indeed in their various posts, Ger Francis, DRB etc. reinforce this point over and over.
    Anyway I’m going to stop now as we’re not getting anywhere.

    Like

  96. “Salma Yaqoob is not a socialist because she does not have a working class strategy. She does not believe in the class struggle. ”

    Since the only people who have a working class strategy and who believe in the class struggle are the revolutionary left, this is simply a nonsense. The only socialists according to this logic are on the revolutionary left. But the scientific term for this is communist, not socialist.

    This is the bankruptcy of sectarianism. Instead of engaging with the ideas that people actually hold, you pontificate on who is a ‘socialist’ or not. Go and read the Communist Manifesto for a list of the varied kind of ‘socialism’ Marx had to engage with in his day. I think you will find some of them are much further away from revolutionary socialism than Salma Yaqoob. “Feudal socialism”, “bourgeois socialism”, etc. But Marx still felt the need to engage with them as forms of socialism.

    Bill J’s is a stupid polemic. Terminological rigor mortis.

    Like

  97. Duncan – In my opinion, there’s something troubling in the way that you equate the industrial struggle with the working class, as if only industrial workers are working class and that, if Respect has members who are wage labourers not mobilising through the workplace then they are non-class.
    Good thing that’s not quite what I said then. I don’t see how Respect mobilises workers as workers at all ,whether in workplaces or not, whether in industrial workplaces or otherwise. It organises them as individuals around its own campaigns,generally liberal and progressive {i saw a bit of the first part of Andrew Marr’s History of Britain last night, with Lloyd George defying a murderous mob to oppose the Boer War in Birmingham, and thought there’s a lot of parallels here], but a very long way from the tradition of the Third and Fourth Internationals.
    There was a Somali guy who stood for the council in Bristol on a Respect ticket whose major policy plank was to have more police on the streets, and whose prognosis for the election was that he would win because a lot of Somalis voted for him. THe reason I think this is a signifier for the future of Respect is that noone in Respect had any criticism to make of him. It’s future seems to be to represent Muslim communities that have been somewhat excluded from the mainstream political sphere on the basis of community demands. I’m not saying that Muslims shouldn’t be represented, that Muslims can’t become socialists or revolutionaries [Though if you look back on previous threads here you may note that I’m less believing than many SWP members that anyone with strong religious views can easily adopt Marxism as a totality], but that Respect is an organisation of the community and not one of socialists.
    Yopu seem to be unable to acknowledge this, hence your talk of “Blacks and Asians”, and your unwillingness to answer the question of whether if it is not a “broad class struggle organisation”, what it is.

    If you have some examples about how Respect strengthens patriarchy,
    Segregated meetings, for a start. I also heard that Salma’s support in Birmingham is centred on heads of households, but I can’t provide supporting evidence for that.
    No I wouldn’t want to force Galloway to vote against his strong religious convictions, but to claim Respect has great policies on abortion when their MP can’t vote to support them is a bit weak. And I don’t see the religious thing frocing his or Salma’s hand on drugs, where they both have noxious views.

    Prinkipo Exile – I think approach 3 is a fantasy land, that leads to building electoral alliances with non-left forces and excludes the left, so I’d take door 1 or 2. If Monty Hall opens one of the doors I haven’t picked I still prbably wouldn’t change my decision.

    Shug – small party participation on government policy direction.Why is that necessarily a good thing?
    as Lenin did bastardise the Marx Engels theory of socialism to his will.
    I don’t agree. And Engels was speaking before the Second International almost universally turned to support its own bourgeoisies.

    Like

  98. I’ve never heard of a segregated Respect meeting, and I’ve been active in Respect in both Birmingham and London. I’m sure you have a reference of when and how this happened, but I am sure you also know that this is not normal or common functioning in Respect.

    Like

  99. Ah Skidmarks, you’re referring to this: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2990 In this one case, a meeting was held at the Birmingham central mosque. A photograph shows that at the back of the room, there’s a group of Muslim women sitting together. The topic is discussed well on that thread. If you call that segregation, then we have a different definitions of segregation.

    Like

  100. On segregation, there were Respect socials in Preston where there was ‘semi’ segregation eg meals where muslim women were seated seperately from men, and one where there was segregation in the serving of food (women were served first). The SWP, who largely led/organised these events, argued that because the muslim community had provided the food they had the right to determine the format in line with their customs. At one of the events in a Catholic Social Club although there was a well-stocked pay bar no alcoholic drink was permitted to be served. This caused some pissed offness among white lefties attending ho said that they would have preferred not to attend had they known in advance it was going to be done this way (I don’t think they minded the women being served first but the lack of a bar in a Catholic club broke another religious expectation).

    Like most things in Respect under SWP leadership, these things were never discussed beforehand or in meetings. To be fair though Respect also had a Burns night where copious amounts of alcohol were consumed and no muslims attended of course, which was a shame as the political discussion was quite interesting (even though the SWP put their case against ‘Scottish nationalism’.)

    Most big ‘Stop the War’ rallies in Preston however had segregated seating and there was once a women only meeting with Yvonne Ridley, which I actually think was a good thing as the muslim women (and white women) could discuss the issues of the war without men dominating.

    Like

  101. ID funnily enough words change their meaning over a 150 years. In this discussion it is clear that the word ‘socialist’ is being used as a synonym for ‘revolutionary’ or ‘communist.’

    Actually the word ‘socialist’ was used until fairly recently to imply some kind of social democratic reformistprobably up to the 80s in quite common parlance but much less so now. However, it is clear that we do indeed need to engage with reformist workers whether Labour voters or some of the much smaller but still significant section fo the working class who sick of Labour have turned to voting Respect, Green, Liberal Democrat or abstaining.

    We should do this by building mass united front campaigns. Standing in elections has a place in that but is only one small part of it.

    Like

  102. On segregation in Birmingham – much as Prinkipo Exile discribes in Preston, but happening at one still notorious mass meeting in the early days of Respect.

    Many Muslim women who attended chose to sit in a separate section of the audience. The strongest reaction I ever heard against that was regret. But other women of Asian appearance, including secular socialists, were strongly directed into the same seating by stewards who were then SWP members.

    At least one such woman claimed to have been manhandled by then SWP fulltimer, now Salma bagman Ger Francis when she tried to sit with male comrades. A well known Iranian socialist in the city was ejected from the meeting by stewards when he tried to intervene.

    All in all, going well beyond Duncan’s example of a group of women choosing to sit on their own. That’s a wish socialists might respect, but not without raising our views of the reactionary community norms which lead some women to make such a choice.

    Duncan must have confined his conversations with people on the left in Birmingham to a narrow circle if he has never heard these allegations before.

    Like

  103. Is Salma a socialist?

    As far as I know she has never publicly described herself as an anti-socialist. I don’t know whether she ever described herself as a socialist either. In any case, you can’t always go by self-descriptions.

    But when Ian wants to claim her as a socialist by pointing to what Marx had to say about feudal and reactionary socialists in the Communist Manifesto that is pure bluster and obfuscation, unless perhaps there is a paragraph that unaccountably got left out of the printed version of the manifesto.

    Marx’s engagement with these varieties of socialism took the form of the sharpest criticism. There was no suggestion of any wish to be in the same party even as those who Marx and Engels acknowledged had played an important role in the early years of the workers movement – the utopian socialists.

    Salma is genuinely a progressive, if that term can ever lose the taint of being used as a weasel word by the stalinists and their fellow-travellers. She is a liberal, and an able politician.

    Twenty or thirty years ago she could have been right at home in the mainstream of the Labour or Liberal Parties. It’s a measure of how far politics has moved to the right that that is not on the cards now.

    She is a progressive, a radical. She is someone socialists should have not hesitation in joining in united fronts with when we share common demands. But those who claim she is a socialist are only fooling themselves. Equally unconvincing are claims that Respect is or ever has been a socialist party – one letter in an acronym which is only ever publicised sotto voce is a feeble case.

    Several comments higher in the thread seem to think they are playing a trump card when they dismiss an earlier contributor as coming from a smaller group than their own. Perhaps this is easier to see coming from one of the tiniest of the small groups we are divided into, but we are ALL in small groups, and anyone who thinks their group’s influence is anything other than negligible is fooling themselves (and probably not many other people).

    There is no magic tactic to get us out of that situation at one bound. We face a need for a long-term rebuilding of a labour movement out of the rubble of the old one. We need to learn to see what is, and then to say what is.

    Over the last dozen years or so there were a succession of schemes to unify the left. All failed, however much we can debate how much potential they might have had, and who precisely was responsible for that potential being thrown away.

    The main legacy they left in the end was to further burn out those who still remained politically active left of Labour of the generations who came to political activity between the mid 60s and the defeat of the Great Miners strike, and to reinforce the mutual suspicions between groups, and of all groups to a greater or lesser extent by indies.

    That legacy won’t be overcome overnight. It means we need to make every opportunity to work together for any common goal which can be agreed, however modest. Not because we should restrict our aims in any way. We have got a mountain to climb, and it’s better to make a few steps forward than to daydream we can leap up to the first plateau.

    Like

  104. Jason

    “…funnily enough words change their meaning over a 150 years. In this discussion it is clear that the word ’socialist’ is being used as a synonym for ‘revolutionary’ or ‘communist.’”

    Is it that words have changed their meaning in a real social sense, or is it just that one particular left group has decided to change the usage? Obviously the latter. ‘Socialist’ has always been a pretty broad term, encompassing many different strands of broadly socialist thought, and the fact that New Labour has repudiated all of them does not change that (nor does it stop some eccentric lefts who attempt to narrow the definition of ‘socialism’ from advocating support for overtly anti-socialist Labour in elections). Just an observation.

    Like

  105. Skiders, it is apparent that we are not going to agree in certain areas and thats cool.I think it is better to work from within the door rather than outside, and a patry outside of parliament has less influence than one inside, however small that influence is.

    Now i may be incorrect here but by some coments it would appear that the S/W/P.has an ax to grind with the Respect Party,and it is taking the form of is the Repect deputy leader a socialist and another line that they are segratory.It is glaringly obvious that Respect are romancing the muslem vote and in that by nature of the muslim culture there are going to be what westerners consider segregation within gender yet both cultures do practice segergation when it comes to gender to varying degrees.From a socialist perspective we are uncomfortable with that yet to be realistic and pragmatic we do have to accomodate that for not all socialist are hard line Marx/Engles and that is the reality.

    As stated the socialist movement has many forms and doctarines and if and it is a big if,is there going to be a united platform on the common ground that we believe socialism, then we are going to have to compromise for the purpose of united co-operation.

    So is it the S.W.P. stance that they will not work with parties like Respect on the grounds of they are segratory and non socialist.

    Like

  106. Dave A can be as ‘critical’ of Salma as he likes, but I don’t see how excommunicating her from the right to be called any kind of socialist advances that criticism one iota. I have written critical material about Salma that takes up her actual views concretely, in the context of a real debate that is organic to Respect. See:

    “Left unity and Class Politics” by Ian Donovan

    Precisely how does denying that Salma has any socialist aspirations advance that debate? It doesn’t. It just makes those making this point look shrill, sterile and stupid.

    Like

  107. Duncan there were a number of segregated Respect meetings in Leeds in the early days when respect existed in this city.

    There was a segregated meeting jointly called by respect in bradford last year which Galloway spoke at. I can probably dig out the publicity for that one -it clearly stated in advance “sisters will be seated seperately”.

    Like

  108. on that last part actually I was wrong- the meeting was advertised as “strict segregation for sisters” Feb2009 Galloway and Yvonne Ridley spoke from the platform, at a meeting jointly called by UWT and Respect.

    Like

  109. ‘At least one such woman claimed to have been manhandled by then SWP fulltimer, now Salma bagman Ger Francis when she tried to sit with male comrades.’

    That’s a complete lie. ‘Dave A’ is obviously pretty desperate when he is reduced to try telling lies about meetings held in Birmingham eight years ago.

    As for the Orange Zionist from the AWL banging on about forced segregation at Respect meetings, more lies. We have separate seating for those that want it, because many Muslim women will simply not attend meetings without it. Perhaps if you have the slightest engagement with those communities you would understand this pretty much the norm. Rather than hinder Muslim women’s involvement in politics, Respect has been path breaking in facilitating it. Both neither Permanent Revolution nor the AWL would know anything about this kind of work because they are devoid of any connection in these communities.

    Not that it will stop them pontificating, mind.

    Like

  110. Martin, here is the leaflet for the meeting you described: http://www.vivapalestina.org/images/events/bradford_020209.jpg If this is the meeting you refer to, it is not a Respect meeting; it’s organised by and for Ummah Welfare Trust. To get a flavour of what Respect really does in Bradford, visit http://www.bradfordrespect.org/

    Jason, I’m just wondering about view towards workers’ parties. It sounds as if you say: there’s the united front; there’s revolutionary organisations; there’s entrism – but socialists can’t participate in workers parties that are not revolutionary. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about Trotsky’s discussions with the American SWP about the campaign for a labor party. That would not have been a socialist party.

    Like

  111. Respect are sure to go from strength to strength now i hear that George Galloway is going on the average wage of a skilled industrial worker and donating so much of his fortune to the party of class struggle. The ISG and the ex SWP members of Respect are to be fully commended for the positive influence that they have had on George. Well done comrades.

    Like

  112. Ant it a mind fuck,that all those who are by blood are different by culture, yet the same in capital.

    Like

  113. Newsflash: George vigorously denies this scurrilous rumour and calls on those making it to desist or he will become litigacious as he has run low on Monte Cristals.

    Like

  114. @ Ger “a complete lie” Certainly wrong in one respect. The meeting was actually a Stop the War rally

    So an apology for that. But only a small one. Birmingham Stop the War was the dress rehearsal for Respect.

    What actually happened? I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Then as now I avoid Birmingham as much as possible.

    “would[n’t] know anything … because they are devoid of connections with these communities … [won’t] stop them pontificating”. pretty much word for word the response some of us got decades ago from Labour politicians when we criticised the sorts of electoral practices which Brimingham Respect has done a good job of exposing.

    Like

  115. @ ID

    I don’t have the power to excommunicate anyone, nor do I want such a power for Christmas.

    The changing meaning of “socialist” isn’t some phantasy of PR. The class enemy think socialism is dead. So while people with all sorts of disparate views claim to be socialists, there are a lot less of them than there were thirty or forty years ago.

    Some of Salma’s views are similar to the views of people who are socialists. Salma would like to see an electoral alliance between Respect and the Greens. So, regrettably, would many socialists such as Derek Wall. That doesn’t make Salma a socialist.

    Derek Wall makes clear he does have socialist aspirations Not necessarily ones which would command unanimous support from other socialists of course. Salma doesn’t.

    Of course that’s not the only issue. I’m one of those eccentric lefts who will probably advocate a vote for a non-socialist Labour Party come the election. I’ve been advocating a vote for a non-socialist, anti working class, pro-imperialist Labour Party for four decades now, through gritted teeth. I’m still waiting to hear any good reasons to change that approach.

    Like

  116. ‘Rather than hinder Muslim women’s involvement in politics, Respect has been path breaking in facilitating it. Both neither Permanent Revolution nor the AWL would know anything about this kind of work because they are devoid of any connection in these communities.’

    Ger obviously likes to make stereotyped assumptions- there is probably little point in a detailed refutation so just to mention briefly- antifascist work, anti-deportation campaigns, union work, campaigns against school closures, campaigns against domestic violence, strikes- as some of the work PR members have been involved in in the last few years where there has been connection with Muslim communities.

    We do not oppose women only meetings- far from it they can be necessary at times. We also do not oppose the right of people to sit where they want to in an audience. As Dave A says if women want to sit together that’ fine but we would not actually enforce or communicate that expectation by having signs for women only seats or directing women to particular areas. To have to make an issue of this to make this explicit for socialists is somewhat surprising.

    I have been to quite a few meetings where that happens and the most important thing is to ensure that all people get to have their say in the meeting but where women or men decide not to sit in gender only groups then we should support their right to do so!

    ‘Jason, I’m just wondering about view towards workers’ parties. It sounds as if you say: there’s the united front; there’s revolutionary organisations; there’s entrism – but socialists can’t participate in workers parties that are not revolutionary. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about Trotsky’s discussions with the American SWP about the campaign for a labor party. That would not have been a socialist party.’

    Duncan, thanks for the question. I am not saying that revolutionaries should not participate in parties that are not explicitly socialist or explicitly revolutionary. I’m arguing that we should be in all sorts of campaigns that are not explicitly either of these things but that we should be explicit abut our politics.

    Participation in a political party or project which has a sway or hold on a significant section of the working class can be useful where such participation helps organise action and gets us an audience with militants. It is quite right to participate in reformist organisations if we make very clear that we support their aims but differ in our politics- in fact we are revolutionaries precisely because we do want the reforms to work and not just temporarily but on a long term basis- decent services, better conditions for workers’ lives, an end to war and oppression.

    My argument is though that we need to be clear about our politics an clear about the limitations of the reformist leaders.

    I’m not convinced that supporting Respect is a way to forward workers breaking form reformism but I don’t ignore the possibility that if there is a militant community based campaign between now and the election in which Respect plays a prominent role there may just be an outside possibility of supporting some Respect candidates as candidates of struggle.

    I have to say it seems very unlikely however.

    Even if it did happen revolutionaries should be absolutely clear and explicit in our message and make demands of the campaign- e.g. mass meetings to decide policy, services under the democratic control of working class communities, troops out now, organised self-defence against the fascists and no reliance on the racist police etc.

    Like

  117. What you said about me was a lie. By your own admission you know nothing about politics in Birmingham so yes, stop pontificating about things you have no insight into.

    Like

  118. “What you said about me was a lie. By your own admission you know nothing about politics in Birmingham so yes, stop pontificating about things you have no insight into”
    Ger- if this is aimed at me I am perplexed. I haven’t said anyting about you except that you seem to have made a stereotyped assumption. If aimed at Dave A then it is ridiculous- he has been active in politics in the Birminghma area for years.

    Like

  119. Duncan, sorry comrade you are wrong. It was jointly called by respect to raise money for UWT. Publicised on the bradford respect website, and with leaflets with the respect logo on.

    In any case, the meeting chair, organisers and all the speakers were leading members of Respect at the time.

    There were also segregated meetings in Leeds in the early days of respect. There used to be photos of them on the old respect website- this wasn’t a case of women choosing where to sit- they were told- (by the SWP people). We were there we know.

    Ger, simply confirms is status as Respect’s village idiot (and there are plenty of candidates) by describing me as an ‘Orange Zionist’ and ‘…devoid of any connection with these communities’. Typical baseless stupidity.

    Like

  120. Clearly there is a “debate” taking place which is going beyond comradely discussion. No I am not being “pompous” as one cde described but attempting to turn this rudder back to the point.

    Do we acknowledge that there are a variety of movements which are taking potentially or in practice some type of anti-capitalist direction and if so to what extent should we both support, albeit critically , or even help build and develop?

    Clearly Respect is one of those movements, irrespective of the positions taken by Salma and George. It provides opportunities for our movement. It is not the only opportunity and it has its limitations. However we dont sink a ship because we dont agree with the particular captain.

    Neither am I in Respect as it is defunct in my area and alternative prospects may be more viable. Yet that does not mean I avoid it.

    This is our predicament. The need to rconstruct a united leadership and recognise a range of initiatives which can help us march together in a principled manner down the anti-capitalist road. Hopefully over time we can build enough confidence to perhaps take the next step towards a united Marxist Left whilst building a united anti-capitalst allignment.

    Errors have been made by all but are we going to continue to use this to hold ourselfs back from what is historically required?

    Cdes need to ask themselves what they really want to achieve? Continual disunity and digging up of personal bitterness or meeting our responsabilities to the working class and its allies?

    To others, the debates are getting removed from reality and out of proportion politically. Perhaps the time has come to agree to a method of achieving unity and not seeking excuses to postpone it.

    Like

  121. Dave A

    “The changing meaning of “socialist” isn’t some phantasy of PR. The class enemy think socialism is dead. So while people with all sorts of disparate views claim to be socialists, there are a lot less of them than there were thirty or forty years ago.”

    The lower absolute number of these varied types of ‘socialists’ does not however affect the variety of types of ‘socialism’ they profess, though does it? How is that remotely logical?

    “Some of Salma’s views are similar to the views of people who are socialists.”

    Yes, when she talks about the need to inject socialist solutions into the political mainstream, I guess her views are pretty similar to those of socialists. She advocates ‘socialist solutions’. This is what socialists tend to do. What kind of ‘socalism’ this is is another debate, but it certainly is some kind of socialism.

    “Salma would like to see an electoral alliance between Respect and the Greens. So, regrettably, would many socialists such as Derek Wall. That doesn’t make Salma a socialist.”

    Well, Derek Wall, whatever his individual views, was until fairly recently the principal male speaker of a party that does not have socialist aims as part of its basic politics. Whereas Salma is the formal leader (for electoral commission purposes) of a party that is socialist by name and by constitutional aims – having the aim of common ownership written into its constitution.

    All these contortions to deny that Salma has any sort of socialist aspirations are just a denial of reality. Unfortunately, that is a common trait of sectarian left politics – where reality contradicts what the sect thinks should happen, reality has to be ‘adjusted’.

    Like

  122. Come off it ID. Salma Yaqoob wants a cross class alliance involving the whole “community”. She doesn’t pretend to want anything else and is absolutely explicit about it. She does not want class, i.e. working class solutions, and is explicitly opposed to them.

    “There are other businesspeople who both live and work in our communities, and who retain a close connection with the community they come from, and who have the same interest as their brothers and sisters in confronting racism, opposing war, and seeing good representation for the disadvantaged areas they live in.

    Respect’s base is among the poorest sections of our communities. And the experience of anti-Muslim racism, and disgust at imperialist war, motivates some small business people in those communities to join us. The roots of our cross community support do not lie in right-wing, anti-working class politics. They can be found in a commitment to oppose racism and war, and the significance of a political party being seen to speak out in defence of that community’s interest.

    Running through the SWP’s analysis is a crude reductionist attempt to read off all political actions from some supposed economic interest. If this is too simplistic in trying to explain Respect’s support from some people who own small businesses, it is even more so in relation to people seen as community leaders. The single biggest reason such individuals acquire weight and influence is not wealth, it is reputation.”

    http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1406

    At least she’s honest about it. But really this should not be a surprise to Respect supporters. The whole point of the project is predicated upon the fact that it unites “socialists” and “non-socialists”. If Salma Yaqoob was in fact a socialist, what would be the point of Respect?

    Like

  123. I didn’t mean to set things off like this. I’d tend to agree with Jason on segregation, that it may be necessary sometimes, but my original point is that it doesn’t exactly fit well with Duncan’s claim that Respect is in the forefront of challenging patriarchy.

    And it’s nice to see billj referring indirectly to the SWP’s analysis in a positive way.

    It says in the post Socialist Resistance has tried to engage in a meaningful way with all the attempts to create an alternative to New Labour.
    Respect may have been one before the split, but certainly doesn’t seem to be one now. The way the split is described:In the absence of its own political traditions and a cadre of independent leaders Respect as one priority among many was left to limp along subject to the political needs of a small group of its leaders. It was this assessment of the organisation’s weakness which prompted George Galloway to criticise the way in which it was being run, seems to be no more than a justification of Galloway’s actions, without any attempt to look at what Respect is and where it is going.Substituting for that seems to be an idea expressed on this thread by Shug:
    a party outside of parliament has less influence than one inside, however small that influence is.
    It is the tradition of the Third and Fourth Internationals that real power doesn’t lie in parliament, that it is only the independent power of the working class that brings real advancement in society. I don’t have time now to explain the justification for this proposition in detail, perhaps some members of Socialist Resistance could remember their principles and do it instead.
    And Shug, neither I nor the SWP has said it’s wrong to work with Respect, just that their orientation is not a socialist one and they don’t represent a future for the Left.[My view]

    Like

  124. Sorry BillJ, those views are quite consistent with left social democracy, or perhaps the old CP’s British Road to Socialism. These simply involve, in a new form, debates about the nature of socialism and the petit-bourgeoisie that have been going on since the dawn of the socialist movement that in various forms, will undoubtedly carry on right until we get to the point of a worldwide revolution. Indeed, such debates are actually likely to continue after revolution in some form. They certainly did in Russia!

    The debate with Salma and others who hold such views is a debate within the framework of broadly socialist politics, not outside it, between Marxism and reformism of various shades.

    But then again, we come to the circular argument, Bill J is arguing from the point of view that ‘socialist’ can only be used as a synonymn for ‘communist’ in this day and age. I don’t agree, and refuse to accept that restriction on its usage. PR have not come up with a convincing motivation as to why we should change the usage – until they do, or conversely abandon their change of usage, we are talking about different things.

    Like

  125. Eh!ie,Skiders ain!t it weird that we can spell english on a paddy line,must be something socialist there.

    Like

  126. Who does Bill J think that the voters of Sedgefield in 2005 should have voted for:

    1) ACL Blair, longtime Labour Party member who said in his maiden speech in parliament:
    “I am a socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for cooperation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality.”

    2) RT Keys, who said he was proud for his son to fight on behalf of Britain and described himself as not “overtly” political?

    Like

  127. Meanwhile, down under…
    http://bccwords.blogspot.com/2010/01/left-unity-seize-time.html

    Small steps forward, but steps forward nevertheless

    Like

  128. I would have voted for Reg Keys. Not that I lived in Sedgefield.
    Salma Yaqoob, unlike the old Labour Party or CP, does not consider herself a socialist or a communist. Personally I’m happy to take her word for it.
    What’s more her political strategy is not socialist or communist. And of course we are frequently reminded that the socialists in Respect are “not trying” to win it to a socialist policy. In which case I wonder what sort of debate it is they are having?

    Like

  129. “In which case I wonder what sort of debate it is they are having?” debating who should hold Galloway’s c.ck while he p.sses !

    Like

  130. Bill J, so you would vote for the not “overtly political” independent candidate standing on a single issue (backed by a host of non-political celebrities like Martin Bell and Brian Eno), against the explicitly self defined “socialist” Labour Party candidate in Sedgefield; but in Hall Green, you would advocate voting for Labour’s Godsiff against Respect’s Yaqoob, because sh is standing on a multi-issue radical platform for an explicitly Socialist organisation but in your view is not socialist enough?

    It’s a funny old line …

    Like

  131. isin!t it daft that we do know in our way yet sadly, let know.

    Like

  132. “Salma Yaqoob, unlike the old Labour Party or CP, does not consider herself a socialist or a communist.”

    So why, in a major published article does she call on the left…

    “to renew itself and reassert some basic socialist critiques and solutions into mainstream political debate.”

    …. how is this to be explained?

    Sorry Bill J, but this is again a flat denial of reality. No-one who does not consider themself some kind of socialist could make such a call.

    What does require explanation is not Salma’s ‘socialism’, but why PR persist in denying she has any sort of socialist aspiration?

    Like

  133. No its not.
    Reg Keys was standing as an anti-war candidate in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. He got a lot of support from what I remember.
    Salma Yaqoob on the other hand, is a leading figure in the non-socialist, non-working class Respect coalition. This coalition is not simply standing on the issue of the war. It presents itself as providing an alternative to neo-liberalism and New Labour.
    In my opinion it does not, as it is not socialist, not based on the working class and in a key recent test of struggle, the fight against the EDL fascists, it disgraced itself.
    Not really that odd is it?
    I don’t have to deny Salma Yaqoob has socialist aspirations. She does not have socialist aspirations. She says so. If she did have, then I’m guessing you would have found them by now.
    But what’s really bizarre is that Respect is avowedly not socialist and its socialist supporters make a point of explaining that they are not trying to win it to socialism.
    That is the whole point of it.

    Like

  134. ‘I don’t have to deny Salma Yaqoob has socialist aspirations. She does not have socialist aspirations. She says so.’

    Where?

    Like

  135. I’ve already provided the quote. You see her everyday, if she does prove it. That should be very straightforward now shouldn’t it?

    Like

  136. Personally Ilm hugely relived that Respect has little or nothing in common with the socialism of groups who in all serriousness call themselves ‘Permanent Revolution’.

    Salma is more than capable of speaking for herself, but the idea that her political credibility might depend on a group like this defining her politics is absolutely laughable. Well actually its worse than that, grossly offensive.

    Mark P

    Like

  137. Easily offended are you?

    Like

  138. More to the point, now I’m totally confused.
    From what I gathered the whole point of Respect was that it was a broad, non-socialist coalition, that united socialists and non-socialists.
    It now transpires that although the socialists within it were not trying to win it to socialism, it has inadvertently become socialist against their better judgement.
    So when did it happen?
    And why did they allow it?

    Like

  139. Bill: ‘I’ve already provided the quote’

    No you have not. Your are lying, like your pal Dave.

    I defy to show where Salma said she ‘does not have socialist aspirations.’

    Like

  140. Of course I am. Unfortunately, people like you and Mark P can only deal in insults and and hyperbole. Its a sign of your humanity and commitment to democracy and openness, to progress indeed.
    It was an assertion not a quote. Salma Yaqoob does not have socialist aspirations because she is not a socialist.
    How complicated is it?
    If she did have socialist aspirations it would be a simple matter to show it. You can’t.
    What I don’t get is why you are so afraid of your argument. You are always lecturing us why we need an alternative to socialist, working class politics. An alternative based on progressive, non-socialist figures like Salma Yaqoob. Based on a coalition fighting for a “progressive” alternative.
    I don’t agree with you. Tough.

    Like

  141. Skidmarx, you wrote that “Duncan’s claim that Respect is in the forefront of challenging patriarchy”. That’s not my claim. I said that social movements challenge patriarchy. You then write that “the way Respect organises in Birmingham does nothing to challenge patriarchy, but positively thrives on it.” And then I asked you to give an example. Sadly, I don’t think any left group in Britain can claim to be in the forefront of challenging patriarchy: quite a few even deny it exists.

    Like

  142. Martin – while I’m pleased that you feel sufficiently comfortable in this discussion to allow your erotic imagination to express itself in public I’d much prefer if you saved that sort of imagery for some of the sites where it’s more appropriate.

    Like

  143. Bill J. No I’m not easily offended, certainly not by someone who is presumably an adult yet has signed up to a group that calls itself ‘Permanent Revolution’.

    Respect, thankfully, has nothing in common with a group that has adopted this particular moniker. Yet you seem to have assumed this weighty responsibility to define Salma Yaqoob’s politics . Why? As far as I know you don’t live in her constituency, and even if you did you wouldn’t be voting for her. I wouldn’t presume to speak for Salma, but I tend to think she’ll get by without your support thankyou very much.

    So why don’t you instead spend your time detailing the socialism of the candidate in your constituency you will be voting for.

    Mark P

    Like

  144. So if you’re not offended how come you’re so touchy? Bad tummy day? Or have your pipes burst?

    Like

  145. bill j- the lack of Respect is obviously having an affect on you obviously!!

    Like

  146. As always once a serious question is asked of one of these joke outfits representatives no answer forthcoming.

    I won’t hold my breath, but detailing the socialism of the candidate in your constituency you will be voting for too difficult for you to work?

    Mark P

    Like

  147. Liam, sorry.

    Like

  148. Tell me about it – this is what he’s like when he’s not easily offended – heaven forbid when he’s mad. God I wouldn’t like to mess with him then!! Imagine what he’d do if he spilt his tea or burnt his toast?!!!

    BTW Gerald Kaufman isn’t a socialist – wasn’t too taxing now was it? I hope you weren’t holding your breath. Cough, splutter, choke…

    Like

  149. Gerald Kaufman, yep I’d vote for him too.

    Thanks for the update.

    So what was the problem with Salma’s politics again?

    Mark P

    Like

  150. ‘It was an assertion not a quote.’

    Exactly. You are talking through your arse, as usual.

    Anyway, to more important matters, just talked to Kevin in Gaza city (with bombs going off in the distance). People are going to be so inspired when they hear the full story of the convoy. Can’t wait to roll out the Viva Palestina show when they get back…

    Like

  151. Bill, I don’t know if she’d accept the idea of an interview with Permanent Revolution, but it really would be great for you or some other comrade to have a conversation with her about her politics. You have projected Andy and Mark’s Eurocommunism onto her, and you don’t seem to be able see or admit any of her qualities. To précis Tony Cliff’s whistling on a picket line joke, if you see disagreement on one thing as obstacles to solidarity on something you agree on, then it leads you to a sectarian outcome.

    Like

  152. I think we do need a serious and open discussion and it’s something we in PR have been saying for some time.

    I think it would be quite healthy to have a debate with Salma or an interview in PR. It would be good to have wider discussion about how to respond to emerging issues in the class struggle- service cuts, catastrophic climate change, the war in Afghanistan, the blockade of Gaza, job losses, privatisation etc. and develop an action plan.

    Out of these debates and actions if standing candidates aids such developments I’m all for it and for the enthusiastic participation of revolutionary socialists in such campaigns whilst continuing to argue our politics- for working class independence, for real democracy and involvement of working class people in making decisions about our lives.

    Like

  153. “Exactly. You are talking through your arse, as usual.”

    Not quite.

    Is it reasonable to assume that a vegetarian doesn’t eat meat?
    Is it reasonable to assume that a liberal’s not a socialist?
    Is it reasonable to assume that Salma Yaqoob does not have socialist aspirations when she’s never said she has?

    It is.

    God has never said he doesn’t exist either.

    Like

  154. @ Duncan

    I haven’t projected anything onto her. I take her as she is.
    The confusion in all this is that Respect is reputedly an alliance of socialists and non socialists.
    Then when it is pointed out that Respect is in fact an alliance of socialists and non-socialists. Including non-socialists like Salma Yaqoob – she has never said she’s a socialist now has she? This unremarkable point calls forth abuse from Mark P, Ger Francis et al.
    How much more confirmation do you want?

    Like

  155. Bill J (to Ger Francis, on Salma Yaqoob’s supposed lack of any socialist aspirations.”

    “I’ve already provided the quote. You see her everyday, if she does prove it. That should be very straightforward now shouldn’t it?”

    Well I provided a quote where she called for ‘socialist solutions’ to be pushed into the political mainstream. I might add that I quoted this passage in an article which is a critique of …. Salma and her variant of socialist strategy, which involves the contruction of blocs with middle class forces in preference to ‘dogmatic’ working class-centred forces. My point was that this strategy undermines the socialist aspirations she expresses. Bill J feebly tries to use this to deny that she has any socialist aspirations at all.

    Bill J chooses to ignore the passage I quoted, which actually proves something, and instead quotes a passage which proves nothing at all on the question in dispute.

    This is typical of blockheaded sectarians who, incapable of dealing with reality as it is, falsify it instead to make it fit their preconceptions.

    Like

  156. “From what I gathered the whole point of Respect was that it was a broad, non-socialist coalition, that united socialists and non-socialists.”

    Was it really? So that explains why its aims included “socialism” right from the very beginning, and adopted the socialist aim of a society based on common ownership and democratic control at its first delegated conference in 2005.

    Respect at its beginning was an attempt to draw a layer of anti-war activitists – including many Muslims alienated by the war on terror – into a new left-wing formation through organic political development and the tactful intervention of revolutionaries. There were undoubtedly flaws in the way this was done, but the basic idea was sound – and it produced real victories and blows against New Labour – notably Galloway’s defeat of Oona King.

    And quite frankly, if Bill J can’t see the positive aspects of that, then he can keep his ‘socialist’ pretentions. He and Martin Ohr seem to be arguing along parallel lines in this discussion. Not entirely by accident given the common history and strange symbiotic love-hate relationship between these two currents. Notwithstanding that the latter have gone a lot further using this method, there are elements of a common method and look where it leads!

    Doctrinaire ‘socialism’, that counterposes its ‘purity’ to real engagement, can so easily turn into its opposite – rampant chauvinism. One example of this is the SPGB, another is Matgamna’s outfit. I can’t help thinking there is an element of this in Bill J’s deliberate and repeated ignoring of my citing Salma’s appeal for ‘socialist solutions’ – after all, she can’t be any kind of socialist because she wears a hijab, can she? Martin Ohr couldn’t have put it better.

    Like

  157. “at its first delegated conference in 2005.”

    Actually, that should read 2004. That conference was in November 2004.

    Like

  158. “I can’t help thinking there is an element of this in Bill J’s deliberate and repeated ignoring of my citing Salma’s appeal for ’socialist solutions’ – after all, she can’t be any kind of socialist because she wears a hijab, can she? Martin Ohr couldn’t have put it better.”

    So now you’re calling me a racist because I disagree with you. Is there no lows that your side will not sink to?

    Like

  159. If billj wants to make ‘assertions’ that is his right. I object when he tries to dress up his assertions about Salma Yaqoob as facts. He was asked to substantiate his claims, and is unable to, except with more of his own ‘assertions’. If you are going to lie about people, you have no right to moan if you get some abuse in return. At least your pal Dave had the decency to apologise for the fibs he was telling.

    Like

  160. Dave didn’t tell any fibs. Your reputation proceeds you.
    Who would be a supporter of Respect? Criticise Salma Yaqoob and you get called a “liar”, “grossly insulting” and a “racist”.
    And all I did was point out that Salma Yaqoob is not a socialist when she’s not.
    Of course Ger Francis is paid to say this stuff. Its his job. Who would expect anything different from him? As for the rest, they haven’t even got that excuse.

    Like

  161. “So now you’re calling me a racist because I disagree with you. Is there no lows that your side will not sink to?”

    Actually, I did not call you a racist. My characterisation was very guarded and I surmised that there is some element of commonality of method between your approach and that of the AWL and its chauvinism. However, some level of prejudice of some kind is indicated by Bill’s refusal to even ADDRESS Salma’s calls for “socialist critiques and solutions” to be pushed into the mainstream (actual quote cited several times above). I don’t ask Bill J to agree; I do ask him to address these remarks and explain them otherwise I am entitled to draw the conclusion that he is refusing to do so for reasons of either prejudice, or dishonesty, or both!

    As to myself and Ger Francis being on the same ‘side’, this really is paranoia. Is Bill J not aware of the bust up at the recent Respect conference? I don’t think Ger and Salma are too keen on the article where I quoted Salma’s pro-socialist remarks, which was actually an extended critique of Salma’s ideas.

    Like

  162. billj: ‘And all I did was point out that Salma Yaqoob is not a socialist when she’s not.’

    No, what you said was that you ‘provided a quote’ in which Salma allegedly says she is ‘not a socialist’.

    That was a lie. There is no such quote.

    And your pal Dave claimed that I forced women to sit where they did not want to at a meeting in Birmingham 8 years ago.

    This was another lie. (Although, in fairness, he did give an apology, of sorts)

    I don’t care about what your political views are, or your critique of Respect. Frankly, you are joke. And because your organization is a complete political irrelevance it is easy to laugh at you. I just don’t think it is necessary to lie to make your points. But, at the end of the day, it is only your own reputation and that of your little outfit that you trash.

    Like

  163. Its not a lie. You cannot provide a quote where she says she is. If she were a socialist you could prove it. You can’t.
    Like I said you’re paid to say this stuff. It shows.
    Its all very revealing about the type of “progressive” alternative you want to construct. Fortunately for me, its not one that I want anything to do with.
    As for ID. Well, you’re beneath comment.

    Like

  164. Duncan – you did say social movements rather than Respect, but given that’s what the argument was about and you mentioned no specifics, it seemed reasonable to make the assumption. What social movements were you thinking of that have challenged patriarchy (I’m not sure its a good general description of society, but does have some relevance to certain communities, notably Muslim ones but by no means exclusively)? Or perhaps you’d like to explain what Respect has done to challenge patriarchy other than having Salma as a leader, which is not necessarily any more progressive than having Benazir Bhutto in charge). It does seem that good things are ascribed to Respect, but bad things a put down to being a coalition with diverse views; not a good way to build up support for politics rather than the ability of individuals to represent a community.

    Having some of the working class partially atomised and excluded is nothing new:
    A large number of those employed by the undersellers are foreigners and youths, who are obliged to accept almost any wages they can obtain.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch20.htm
    But as the class struggle is likely to come back stronger (Will Hutton was talking on Newsnight about how after the election millionaires will be telling workers they have to have a pay freeze), it seems to worst time to be stuck in a cross-class community organisation and risk missing the boat when the ship comes in.It certainly doesn’t seem to fit the bill proposed in the post

    This requires attempting to crystallise the broad political vanguard at the highest level of political development possible.

    Like

  165. Bill, is there a point to this- besides making yourself look like a pedantic fool?
    Salma holds explicitly socialist positions on a great many issues but is, apparently, reluctant to stomp around chest-beating and saying ‘I am a socialist, I am a socialist’!
    Well, its not surprising really, given the company…

    However, Tony Blair holds no discernable socialist positions whatsoever but is quite prepared to join with PR in the ritual banging of dustbin lids proclaiming himself a socialist.

    If you aren’t careful, you lot will end up voting New Labour. Now, wouldn’t that be a shock…

    Like

  166. Incidentally my assessment of Respect as cross-class can be backed up by reading the same international viewpoint interview that bill j quotes from above, http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/left-unity-surveying-the-wreckage/#comment-18478
    and that Ger Francis seemed incapable of noticing before launching into more rants about liars.

    The progressive non-socialist space outside the Muslim community is already occupied by the Green Party. If it’s true that left unity [is] further away than at any time during that period, it certainly doesn’t seem that Respect and Socialist Resistance’s involvement in it is going to do anything to rectify the situation.

    Oh and Ger Francis- I see at Newman’s Place you are complaining about an Egyptian blogger as the latest convoy to Gaza goes south ( a pity for those who mightn have received the aid, but another sign that the optimism of Galloway’s will is not enough to break the siege og Gaza, and the setting up of a separate Gallocentric solidarity operation was always likely to butt up against reality), are you always planning to blame the SWP and those close to it when things go wrong for you?

    Like

  167. RobM – the interview billj quotes seems to provide a clear account of Salma’s beliefs, she says that racism affects all Muslims equally, so she represents them all without regard to class. The have been many people who have sometimes claimed to be socialists while not basing their politics on class, they always instruct the working class to wait for them to introduce reforms when they achieve some measure of power, or turn against the working class entirely when the class struggle hots up. I don’t see any reason to think Salma is going to be any different. Putting up New Labour as a bogeyman really isn’t going to cut it when Galloway regularly backs Labour candidates when it suits him (only then as if by magic they aren’t New Labour). Tony Blair cut his teeth on getting rid of Clause 4, so don’t even bother to go there.

    Like

  168. Skids, you are a bit off beam. For Bill its not what you actually stand for thats important but simply that you call it socialism.
    Blair and Clause 4- good example- he still calls himself a socialist so, for the PR dogmatists, is more supportable than Salma.

    Like

  169. No abuse needed. Someone who in all seriousness (I am presuming Bill J is an adult) thinks being a member of a group that laughably calls itself ‘Permanent Revolution’ s a valuable use of his time is clearly a self-abuser of the highest order.

    Mark P

    Like

  170. “As for ID. Well, you’re beneath comment.”

    I assume you mean “beneath contempt”. Well, that’s because you simply cannot answer my points. Still can’t explain how Salma’s call for ‘socialist critiques and solutions’ to be pushed into the mainstream means she is a non-socialist?

    Unfortunately, that’s a typical sectarian response to criticism you can’t answer. Seen it all before.

    Like

  171. If the tone of this “discussion” continues to degenerate I’ll close it to further comments. I think we’ve all had more than enough dick swinging, chest beating, tub thumping hyperbole and abuse.

    If I had time I’d go through it and delete every comment which casts aspersions on other contributors’ characters, motives or honesty but life’s to short. I’ll delete any further personal remarks in this battle of ideas.

    Like

  172. DELETED

    SEE ABOVE BILL.

    “LET IT LIE”
    Vic Reeves

    Like

  173. skidmarx, I was making the point that because the social movements are often the front-line of progressive struggles, including struggles against various aspects of capitalist partiarchy, one cannot reduce the class struggle to the industrial struggle. I wasn’t making the claim that any left party is leading the struggle against patriarchy: I don’t think that’s true, so there’s no point asking me to dance with your strall doll.

    Of course, I don’t see Respect as a cross-class organisation, either programmatically or sociologically. I can’t see any points where its programme is subordinated to the class interests of the ruling class. Its members are overwhelmingly from the working class.

    Like

  174. “as the latest convoy to Gaza goes south”

    Only Skidmarx could take a grain of comfort from the problems the latest VP convoy members face leaving Gaza. 518 from across the world taking aid to Gaza and all you can do is sneer from behind your cosy library shelves.

    Like

  175. Obviously the situation in Gaza is desperate and full support should be shown to the Palestinian people and for the convoy.

    We can all unite on that.

    ID
    “Respect at its beginning was an attempt to draw a layer of anti-war activitists – including many Muslims alienated by the war on terror – into a new left-wing formation through organic political development and the tactful intervention of revolutionaries. There were undoubtedly flaws in the way this was done, but the basic idea was sound – and it produced real victories and blows against New Labour – notably Galloway’s defeat of Oona King.”

    I can’t see anyone disagreeing with that here (except Martin Ohr but much though we all respect him we can surely agree to disagree on this?)

    But we’re in a different situation now and need to move on.

    Above I suggested holding open meetings open to all the left, trade unionists, campaigners to see where we can undertake common action and from this process decide on candidates.

    I think that’s a good way forward.

    What do others think?

    Like

  176. Also I think the idea floated above of Salma doing an interview for PR is worth pursuing.

    I know PR is a small publication with no more than a few thousand readers but it is well known and respected on much of the left and I think it is good to have a corss fertilisation of ideas.

    I think we should also puriuse debates with other candidates in trade union branhces and local socialist forums.

    Anyway better take breakfast up to my son and partner before exploring the winter wonderland once known as Manchester.

    Like

  177. According to the Irish SWP, in writing about the BNP in the North, The cdes state;

    “Socialists need to make sure they articulate the anger over the recession and the expenses and corruption scandals before the fascists. This highlights the need for a broad People Before Profit Alliance across Northern Ireland with a bigger SWP at its core.” Posted: Jan 09, 2010

    Is this to be the same approach to be adopted by SWP in the UK? Is it an attempt to work in an open united front with others in Ireland? Or is it a new development? Perhaps cdes in the SWP can explain if they intend to adopt a similar approach in the UK and re-enter into discussions on an anti-capitalist alliance? Or is it just a temporary recruitment strategy whilst failing to deal with the national question?

    Just a few points seeking clarification on.

    Jason I agree. The wider the debate the better.

    Like

  178. Fair enough. I’ll try to avoid getting sucked into the other worldly weirdness of the webnet in future.

    Like

  179. external bulletin Avatar
    external bulletin

    “Obviously the situation in Gaza is desperate and full support should be shown to the Palestinian people and for the convoy.

    We can all unite on that.”

    All except skidmarx, who has shown himself to be incapable of showing either support or unity.

    Like

  180. tlc – I’m glad the aid got through. Your comment is yet another sign that criticism of Respect and its leaders is considered verboten by many of its supporters, another reason to think that Respect is an obstacle to left unity and simply part of the wreckage of the last few years.

    alf – you’ll probably be able to read the official SWP position after conference. The open letter could be said to be an attempt to foster discussion on an anti-capitalist alliance, though perhaps more focused on the traditonal left and on the election.

    Jason – I think you’re generally right , though I think you’d find that bill j would not agree that “the basic idea was sound”, while those still committed to the Respect project would differ on “we’re in a different situation now and need to move on.”

    Duncan – if you see Respect as a working class socialist organisation, I think you’re wrong. If I really was obsessed with Respect or Galloway, as the more monomaniacal of its adherents have claimed, I would have a ready-prepared list of all the ways it fails to live up to such a tag. I don’t so I haven’t.
    So I’ll leave it at this. When I mentioned that one reason for thinking Respect didn’t have a principled socialist core to its politics was when a candidate stood for it in Bristol with his main theme being law-and-order, his persepective being that he would get in because other Somalis would vote for him, and there was no critcism from this that I could see within Respect either locally or nationally. I was reminded of this when watching a little of Miss Congeniality last night: when Sandra Bullock is asked what she most desires the answer is “Harsher penalties for parole violaters………….and world peace”. You seem unable to recognise that Respect has retreated into representing one community and that in practice it acts in a cross class way, however good its programme in theory, and however proletarian its foot-soldiers are claimed to be.

    RobM – you’re guilty of assuming your own premisses. Because you assume that bill j thinks that what someone calls themselves is more impotant than what they are, then it follows that he should have more time for Tony Blair. Your logic is fallacious.
    The question of what do say about a Labour vote at the next election is an interesting one and one I’m not wholly certain of. On the one side there is a strong continuing argument that New Labour is indistinguishable from the Tories, and the left shouldn’t be dragged down with their defeat (though again I find the position of Respect quite cynical in ignoring the Tories one minute and declaring New Labour the enemy, to supporting Labour candidates when it tactically suits and pretending they have no connection with the NL leadership), and the argument that many workers still see voting Labour as a class vote, and that diverting support to non-working parties like Respect and the Greens will help to divide the Left yet further.

    Like

  181. skidmarx says “you’ll probably be able to read the official SWP position after conference. The open letter could be said to be an attempt to foster discussion on an anti-capitalist alliance, though perhaps more focused on the traditonal left and on the election”

    That is all very well and good, but we have been trying to foster an open debate for some time. In the mean time, without any discussion with others, the SWP are to launch a new initiative, so we can allude from this. Then we will all be expected to support, on their terms. If we question the conditions and basis of it we then may be accused of being sectarian because we dare to make suggestions about open and inclusive structures with democratic rights for others.

    So if such a new initiative is to come from the SWP then I look forward to seeing the terms and conditions. Will SWP be prepared to be in a minority within this and argue for their politics or are we to see a repeat of the collapse of the S.A. if others insist on full democratic rights, minority rights etc? Have we gone full circle and you have accepted that an anti-capitalist alliance can only be constructed based on certain principles of workers democracy?
    I look forward to being enlightened.

    Like

  182. ps Skidmarx you say it will be based on the ” traditonal left “. Are you suggesting there won’t be room for autonomous groups, environmentalists and those who do not have a worked out socialist ideology but are moving in an anti-capitalist direction?

    This is an important issue for many. Or are you suggesting some bureaucratic arrangement of conveniance between certain groups exclusively?

    Is this to be a short term marriage of conveniance or a serious attempt to reconstruct a movement that can bring together wider campaigns and attract larger forces as part of a long term strategy?

    At what point are others to be invited to comment, discuss, participate and what relationship is being implied?

    Like

  183. eb – please refer to my answer to tlc above. It really doesn’t provide much support for an argument that Respect can benefit a regroupment of the left when you…[UNHELPFULLY PROVOCATIVE ENDING TO THIS SENTENCE FOREGONE].

    alf – two interesting comments. I’m not sure what you mean by we can allude from this, did you mean to use a different word like “conclude”(and then perhaps develop the sentence further). It is a while since I looked at the open letter, but I don’t remember it being phrased as “our way or the highway”.
    There seems to be a contradiction between what you say about the SWP being prepared to be in a minority and whether it is prepared to allow rights for minorities. I think the discussion about the SA has been well covered further up this thread. I tend to agree with the SWP position that OMOV probably provides full the widest paticipation, but if it the only sticking point for the Socialist Party then I tend to think their participation is important enough that they should be allowed to insist on a federal structure, at least for the time being.

    Have we gone full circle and you have accepted that an anti-capitalist alliance can only be constructed based on certain principles of workers democracy?
    Possibly, I’m not sure I understand the question, so I may not be enlightening you much on this one.

    Are you suggesting there won’t be room for autonomous groups, environmentalists and those who do not have a worked out socialist ideology but are moving in an anti-capitalist direction?
    Good question.No. I was writing quite quickly when I used the phrase “traditional left” and couldn’t think of a better one to replace it with. I think that those who want to challenge capitalism should be made more than welcome in any new formation (though many are from a generation that has been quite rejectionist about electoral participation), what I think there should be less room for are groups like Respect and the Greens, which are reformist without the base in the working -class (while having a bigger or smaller left which has tied itself to the fortunes of each party and so separated from the anti-capitalist or revolutionary left.

    Are you suggesting some bureaucratic arrangement of conveniance between certain groups exclusively?
    No.

    Is this to be a short term marriage of convenience or a serious attempt to reconstruct a movement that can bring together wider campaigns and attract larger forces as part of a long term strategy?
    It would be nice if it turned into the latter. The discussion so far has largely been about creating an electoral front, but it would be good if co-operation went further. Of course if co-operation is replaced by constant slanging matches, then separate organisation might be more productive.
    At what point are others to be invited to comment, discuss, participate and what relationship is being implied?
    Whenever you like, and I don’t know what is being implied.

    Like

  184. Thanks for the clarification Skidmarx.. The Open Letter has for several weeks ,or more, been dropped from Socialist Worker and no further debate has appeared.
    I can only conclude that you are generally in support for a new allignment. Great. But you seem to have not considered the wider issues.
    Is the SWP prepared to accept a minority position on the leadership of the new initiative, working alongside others and giving representation on such a new grouping to minority groups, autonomous groups, caucuses for women, gays and black groups. How will it relate to Green Left activists, Respect and others. Is it envisiged to allow representation within an allignment. Will there be a newspaper with open debate? These are not academic issues but relevent to attracting wider pro working class and anti-capitalist forces. It is also about building up trust and encourage participation.
    you say “The discussion so far has largely been about creating an electoral front”. Yet who has this discussion been with ? I hope it is not a discussion without involving others and not just presenting a fait accompli!
    I welcome an initiative that allows for openess and is genuine. If it isnt then it will just be another failed experiment. Let us really look at how the initiatives in France etc are being built to consider where we have not yet succeeded.

    Like

  185. […] • Statements The Socialist Resistance national committee adopted this document by Liam Mac Uaid on January 8th to outline its balance sheet of the last decade’s attempts at the resolving […]

    Like

  186. Skidmarks: ‘Oh and Ger Francis- I see at Newman’s Place you are complaining about an Egyptian blogger…are you always planning to blame the SWP and those close to it when things go wrong for you?’

    No. I think it is unfair to blame the SWP for the rantings of every sad sectarian who claim to support it.

    Like

  187. there seems to be some unity on the ground for Dave Nellist, Salma, Caroline, etc and in Manchester left unity seems to be breaking out.

    Ironically I am now doing work with two individuals from different sides who left the SWP and I have been promoting Martin Empson’s very good Marxism and Ecology booklet (He and people like Jonathan Neale are SWP members and do great eco socialist work as far I am concerned)

    If people are doing good stuff, support them is the message.

    I am down to Brighton to canvass for Caroline on saturday (apologies for missing the SR/GL event) with ex labour MEP Hugh Kerr and Birmingham Greens and Green left are leafletting for Salma on 30th.

    So why not join us on some election outings…..oh and we all need to be pushing Jerry Hicks good work!

    Like

  188. Ger Francis – so that Egyptian blogger is a sad sectarian?

    Like

  189. Left Unity will never be built without an never tiering struggle against centrism i.e. those who vacilate between reform and revolution. The SWP are an obstacle to the building of a marxist leadership. It will be necessary for the SWP either to disappear completely or for it to undergo a total transformation in attitude and politics by throwing off the bureaucratised CC leadership. Hopefully the latter will occur via a third faction in the forthcoming split independent of the two wrong-headed wings of the self-serving CC basing itself on a transitional approach to programme and party building i.e. policies that pose the question of power and a flexible united front practise. The first option (disappearance) is likely to see a lot of young people made cynical about Marxist socialist politics and would be a waste therefore we must if we are serious encourage the latter.

    Like

  190. Ger Francis – or were you referring to me. I’ve never claimed to be a member of the SWP when I wasn’t, rather it is your colleagues who have regularly assumed me to be one, despite my occasonal corrections. And doesn’t Dave Osler have copyright on the phrase?

    Alf – I did think of pointing this out to you, in case you got the false impreesion I was giving you the party line. I would give more details, but the abuse of personal information predominantly by members of Respect on the internet gives me pause. I do sometimes feel that being in a party means I lack the feedback that strengthens those that are, though I do feel I benefit from the lack of vagueness that trying to be a socialist in a formation like Respect(2.0) tends to lead to.Viz:
    Creating the leadership and the organisation that will provide these is not without its risks but there are a number of positive and negative experiences we can draw on.
    If SR have adopted this statement as their conclusion for what’s gone on in the last ten years they don’t seem to have reached much in the way of an answer.

    Like

  191. We may not be in the apex of the world revolution but the process of rethinking the left regroupment agenda here in Australia has led to this: DSP merges into Socialist Alliance Speech to the opening rally of the 7th national conference of the Socialist Alliance on January 2, 2010, by Peter Boyle, former national secretary of the Democratic Socialist Perspective.

    Green Left Weekly will run reports on the conference and process engaged with between the Alliance partners.

    The DSP and SA conferences were held back to back and the one day DSP event was mainly taken up with discussing a (very small) minority position that the DSP continue to exist in some public form as well as continuing with the SA merger.

    This very broad endorsement of the broad party perspective  follows after  nine years of SA activity and occurs following  intense debate in the DSP about its SA orientation — especially since 2003 —  which included an almost three year long factional dispute (2005-2008) in the party.
    These comments — Vox pops from Socialist Alliance’s 7th National Conference — will give you a sense of the verve and feeling of expectancy that was generated.

    Like

  192. David Ellis’ version of left unity seems to involve very little unity, and very few of the left.

    Like

  193. it has to be said that that last one by david ellis did make me wonder whether he’s actually a witty prankster.

    Like

  194. Barnacle Pumpkin Avatar
    Barnacle Pumpkin

    Although I wonder if anyone is interested, it must be pointed out that Dave Riley is talking through his arse if he thinks the situation is better in Australia than in the UK. Formations like Respect at least won a base of support outside the left. Socialist Alliance never did and has not (although it did win one town council position on a platform of calling for a local shop to open…).
    It now consists of the now dissolved rump of its now only affiliate – the DSP – and carefully manipulated circle of independent activists. If anything it resembles the SWP’s short-lived ‘Left Alternative’ fiasco.
    Nobody outside the DSP takes it seriously as a form of left unity.
    As in the UK it will now be some time before the objective and subjective factors will exist to bring the left together to form a viable alternative the social democracy.

    Like

  195. Well johng, I do enjoy the ironies of history. For instance how the next inter-imperialist global war if it is not prevented by the working class will probably start as a falling out between democratic germany and a fascist Russia and Britain or how, only one year ago operation wreckspect was in full flow and we were being assured by Skiddward that it was doomed but now it seems much more secure and we are discussing how the SWP CC have been to weak to deal with the Rees faction except via a bit of tokenism and how the future of the SWP hangs in the balance. History is the witty prankster my friend and you are its victim.

    Like

  196. For those whose first reaction to that was the same as mine, this may be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

    Like

  197. You’re not far off their chjh. You should see my facebook mugshot.

    Like

  198. “Barnacle Pumpkin” should allow people to make up their own minds about events in Australia. I did in fact refer to the outcomes there as “the process of rethinking the left regroupment agenda”.

    Our’s is one way of proceeding which we’re exploring.

    RSP comrades will standardly  attack the SA for being a sham unity exercise and a total political failure — but then when it registers  successes will turn around and denigrate it for being a reformist swill and it is only by being so politically liquidated is it able to succeed.

    Just on the Respect comparison: The Socialist Alliance  began as an Antipodean  copy of  the English Socialist Alliance  with the difference that we survived the factionalism of the competing affiliates, who, just as they did in  England,  in the main abandoned the project. Since the English SA was so short lived it is hard to envisage its potential trajectory. Nonetheless since we did survive  how do we differ from Respect?

    While “Barnacle Pumpkin” suggests that if he had his druthers  he much prefers the Respect template to the way the Australian Alliance does its work. I think there are some key differences between the two projects that are worth teasing out:

    (1) We are unashamedly a socialist party– an alliance of socialists —  and that formats what we say and what we do. The SA isn’t any one form of socialism in the way the far left orgs may  patent their shibboleths, but we nonetheless are an ideological current in regard to that broad church perspective of aspiring for 21st century socialism
    (2) We are not primarily an electoral party. We stand in elections of course but we function more like an organising activist party which is dedicated to campaigning outside election periods. We nonetheless have begun to record some electoral successes– with an elected local councilor in Perth, Western Australia and some good returns — up to 18% — at the last Melbourne round of local government elections in 2008.Nonetheless, more so than in the UK, any  advance that we may obtain is still blocked by the strong electoral presence of the Greens who soak up most of  the alternative vote left of the Labor Party.
    (3) For good or ill we are no one’s party. We don’t have a George Galloway or a  Salma Yaqoob speaking for or leading us. In fact “leadership” in the Alliance is very loose and decisions arrived at by either national gatherings or national leaderships are not binding on locality branches.This means that  the SA aspires to a working consensus in regard to what it decides to do.
    (4) We are committed to an ongoing perspective of left regroupment which we see as an open process of consolidating partnerships where we can forge them. Just as in the UK the far left franchises here have now passed on the SA (or any regroupment) option but the door is always going to be open to them if they may decide to re-engage with the SA project. However, we have worked up a partnership with a section of the left Greens and we work productively together especially in the climate change movement and Greens members attend our conferences, address,and give workshops at them and the like. So what is blocked   in regard to the Marxist groups is still quite fluid in regard to green politics. I’d also hope that the support that the Communist Party and the (CWI aligned) Socialist Party gave us  in the Perth campaign recently can  built upon over the coming months.
    (5) Unlike the present Respect we have had our own in  house engine room — the DSP. As events suggest the DSP has been so committed to the Alliance project that it has now merged with the SA and is in the process of transiting its assets across to the Alliance.  This resource  injection should boost the SA somewhat in the time ahead as there will be no countervailing loyalty for a significant sector of the SA membership.Among those resources that have facilitated the project is Green Left Weekly , a national network of “Resistance Centres” and bookshops,and  the organisational skills and professionalism that has marked the DSP since its inception.
    (6) Furthermore unlike Respect, , the SA has decided that it will take socialist education seriously and will put in  place an ongoing pluralist program of classes, socialist ideas conferences, debates and discussions which seek to deepen our collective understanding and agreement while also availing ourselves of the already existing educational resources of the DSP.
    (7) Unlike Respect, the SA has at its disposal a major reach out asset in the form of Green Left Weekly which is a national newspaper strongly associated with the Alliance.

    Like

  199. Dave, while the Socialist Alliance in Australia has much to be proud of, we should note that every other tendency has ended up outside the SA. Others don’t see its pluralism – including the DSP’s former minority.

    Like

  200. “For those whose first reaction to that was the same as mine, this may be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

    Yes but there is also evolution- a process that produces human creative intelligences, including Shakespeares, who can make conscious decisions, seize our destiny, learn form our mistakes change and evolve.

    Like

  201. Duncan:But “every other tendency” in the UK has ended up outside regroupment projects there except your own. Perhaps there is a message embedded in that fact. Your own tendency, SR, rails against the rest of the left (eg: the above blog post)on this very point and marks down these outfits for the very same reasons they , in the main , exited here. In part that’s why I am so interested in the English far left because the same tactics and approaches to unity are engineered in downtown London and replicated here.

    Chapter and verse…

    These same tendencies also tried to destroy the SSP … Our advantage is, to put it bluntly, that we survived all this as the SSP has done.

    The problem you are not dealing with – nor the broader left regroupment trajectory — there is the fact that for now much of the far left in the English speaking countries of Australia, England, Ireland (perhaps?)and the USA are not interested in instigating unity projects. So what does that mean? That left unity is passe and no longer possible? That it was a fool’s errand in the first place?

    The ex SA tendencies here cannot accept, and could never accept, that regroupment exists and is a viable project outside the narrowly proscribed world of the groupuscules. I don’t advocate it — of course — but I point out that it is a sustainable political option.

    The complication being that if you are not pluralist and seen to be pluralist — you won’t get to first base with a “non aligned” membership. And despite the rigors of the last 4 years, the SA membership outside the DSP has remained loyal to the exercise.

    This recent SA conference was in effect a rebooting and relaunching of the SA after the years of factionalism in the SA and the DSP.

    The DSP’s “former minority” wanted to re-engineer the SA and make it just an electoral front for a very Marxist DSP regardless of the wishes of the SA membership. How pluralist is that? End result= destroy the SA.

    Of course the present complication is that the DSP has been “put down” as of January 2nd and there are formally no tendencies in the SA at present — and no DSP. Is that for real or some smart scam?

    in effect we are pursuing the course followed by Scottish Militant in regard to the Scottish Socialist Alliance and the LCR in regard to the NPA. (and one I assume SR is willing to follow). So Duncan do you want to argue that that approach is kosher in Scotland and France but problematical in Australia and that while you can trust the LCR and Militant exers you cannot rely on the ex DSP membership to be respectful of democratic form?

    I outlined the comparison with Respect in order to stress that the SA’s engineering is different from Respect and akin to the SSP and the NPA. In effect we have to deal with the same challenges of transition and the same complex arrangements of democratic process and accountability.

    Should we have killed off the SA after 2006 and waited for the far left orgs to change their minds and sign up again to a new project ( and a new project, other than and including the SA, is not being ruled out)– whenever? Should we have swallowed the argument that you get one chance and that’s it ? But that’s not what Liam is arguing is it? Nor has it been the approach of the SA partners.

    We have always said that the SA was an initial first step, a political asset, towards a broader regroupment agenda. I’m sure you consider Respect in the same light.

    The problem with regroupment politics, in my experience, is that they don’t run to rule — or schema — especially schema..However, I think we nonetheless get presented choices and options en route as we negotiate the journey.

    The fact is that we– the SA — kept the far left orgs in the SA much longer than your experience in England. In effect they finally left primarily because it failed to prosper electorally and what they wanted was an ‘electoral front of a very special kind’.

    Those moves to advance the SA towards becoming a multi tendency socialist party were enthusiastically endorsed by a succession of conferences — by approx 70-75% of the vote — with the smaller affiliates in determined opposition. Should the SA membership have reconsidered and said since you are holding us to ransom, we won’t advance the project and instead do your bidding? Is that supposedly how “pluralism” works?

    If these affiliates had indeed prevailed I think the SA would now be no more than a few inner city urban left branches in three –maybe two — capital cities.Between polling days they’d more or less shut up shop which the Greens tend to do..

    Similarly there is no space here for a Respect option as the Greens have occupied so much electoral — ‘non socialist’ –space. and there is no move whatsoever among the left orgs to come together outside the SA and foster a separate electoral coalition among themselves. That’s why they mostly now orientate towards the Greens at polls and vigorously ignore the SA. (Although the Healyite rump and the Communist Party are now registered electorally federally)

    The Socialist Party replicates the rhetoric of the CWI for a new party of labour but really it has neither the networks, size nor the spread to give that advocacy any substance and the SP stayed away from the SA all together. The associated problem is that the SA occupies what space there is for such a party. The trade union dynamic is nonetheless still quite potent and it is not clear what may happen as more unions reconsider their ALP affiliation. While some now s give campaign donations to the SA , they give more to the Greens. But the SA has a much larger embed in the trade unions than any other tendency on the left — and runs key campaigns in a few unions while sharing leadership roles in a couple.

    Like

  202. Dear moderator;

    Dave Riley, (on January 13th, 2010 at 2:58 pm) has raised an allegation about me that is not supported by any facts. I request that you delete that entry.

    Like

  203. Dave Riley asks:

    “Should we have killed off the SA after 2006”?

    Maybe not kill off, but certainly end the charade. As long as the current SA exists – one ex-revolutionary party pretending to be a ‘broad party’ it is an obstacle to genuine regroupment.

    For me a better alternative for the DSP would have been to publish an honest mia culpa document and call for some kind of new formation that can allow for cooperation across different areas. This is still an option of course….

    Like

  204. By the way of a footnote — the New Zealand Socialist Worker grouping — an IST affiliate — does not agree with the characterisation of the SA advanced by either the IST affiliate here — Solidarity — or the RSP . In fact the SA has a warm comradely relationship with the New Zealanders and they attended and addressed the SA conference. In fact they have attended the last four national SA conferences at least.

    Similarly I’m supposed to start work on a website for the Zimbabwe-an ISO — another IST affiliate.

    So there is no Chinese Wall necessarily unbreachable between groupings that may necessitate pistols at ten paces despite the presumed political differences..The New Zealanders are absolutely committed to a unity perspective and have similarly embraced Chavez’s call for a 5trh International and requested that the IST unconditionally sign on too.

    [That’s another difference for the SA vis a vis Respect– it endorsed the call for the 5th International and was represented at the left gathering in Caracas that instigated the initiative.]

    Like

  205. ” the fact [is] that for now much of the far left in the English speaking countries of Australia, England, Ireland (perhaps?)and the USA are not interested in instigating unity projects. So what does that mean? That left unity is passe and no longer possible? That it was a fool’s errand in the first place?”

    That’s a valid point, I think, certainly for England and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if so for the other countries mentioned.

    I’m not sure if Dave answers his questions. But my answer would be that we should welcome all moves towards unity in action, working together practically in campaigns on the ground and also where possible have open discussion meetings open to different left groups and non-aligned socialists, radicals, activists etc.

    The tasks I think are to rebuild and reapir networks of activists and campaigns. Out of this work the left could indeed grow and there may well be an organic pressure for unity projects around specific action points and perhaps wider socialist or left forums.

    Like

  206. Jason the point you make is very relevent to this whole discussion and I agree with you. After all this time, the debate has come around full circle. We need to rebuild the links and develop a range of points of unity to lay the basis for a much wider unity, if a vibrant reallignment is to occurr.

    If we as a movement are to be able to offer real alternatives then we need to get ourselves heard and strengthen the wider movement.

    The sectarians can hark as much as they want to but in the mean time we need to offer concrete alternatives. The programme for going forward can not just be worked out in abstract but as part of the dynamic developed in this process.

    In the meantime, the BNP are organising a weekend of action / campaigning,(16/17th Jan), on the streets in Dagenham with their messages of hate and division and it appears that they will go unchallenged then.

    There is an urgency and some think we have all the time in the world. We need to shake people out of routinism, conservativism and bureaucracy in their approach to political activity as it will only serve to drag us backwards as a movement.

    In all regions where possible, such talks should be held to encourage the process you suggested, as well as encouraging “delicate discussions” amongst others.

    Like

  207. Ben, I have removed the reference to you.

    As in all these cases if people have a long running disagreement I’d prefer if they conducted it elsewhere and confine discussion to the topic in hand.

    Like

  208. Where Dave Riley points to the differences between Respect and the SA, I think Left re-alignment in Britain would be better based on the Australian model.

    What the wikipedia article doesn’t mention is whether some of an infinite number of monkeys will eventually sing “Hey,Hey, we’re the Monkees”.

    Like

  209. alf! well saed its my jock cumin ought,

    Like

  210. Jason writes that I didn’t answer my own question — and he is right. But seeking the answer is why I’m habituated to the British left blogosphere.

    The answer nonetheless has so much to do I think with the entrenched sectarianism of the British far left which is also propagated internationally through a few toy internationals head quartered in Old Blighty.

    Seen from afar this particular penchant seems like a ideological imperialism where “internationalism” is equated with a certain rigid Cominternism that presumes that like God and Dad, the English know best.

    I’m not arguing that the British left has a monopoly on sectarianism as all far left groups anywhere in the world are going to be guilty of it by some degree — but in Britain, it is almost viewed among the main groups as not being a problem as though politics should be run according to official Monty Python “Life of Brian” rules.

    While that may be the case, how does any group transcend this handicap? The Healyite WRP never did for instance and Arthur Scargill’s little grouping is a prime example of something that is new and still so handicapped.

    And no matter how much SR or other commentators may rail against the phenomenon , is change in the offing?

    I’ve wondered about this in regard to GB and I think part of the problem is that the British far left in some large measure defers to no one else. There is simply not much humility. Revolutionists may be pushing the socialist envelope in various locales world wide and the British left shows a frank unwillingnes to learn from these other rich experience. That makes the whole show rather closed in and insular.

    It’s one thing to insist that you know the way forward but it is another thing to recognise that others offshore (and outside your own official international)may be able to teach you a tactical and strategic thing or two.

    I’m not suggesting that I’m offering didactics or a DIY, but you at least have to engage with and consider these other ways and means because there *might be* something useful there.

    In the case of the SWP and SP they can’t even raise their eyes to events across the channel and consider what may be useful that can be drawn from the unity experiences on the European left. I find that myopic.Indeed left regroupment is almost given pariah status as soon as it cross the Dover shore.

    Part of this failing can be traced back to the British left’s coolness towards the Latin American revolution. If you step back and think about it, the unfolding processes date back to the 1959 Cuban Revolution and since then there have been many examples of insurgent mass work that simply leaves our own shallow political experiences in the shade. I’m not talking about whether Cuba is a workers state or not, I’m talking about generating a certain respect for what has been achieved in various countries on that continent by a truly mass and truly grassroot movement.

    The irony is that in terms of a frequent online presence it is Derek Wall of the Green Party who is unconditionally dedicated to embracing the Latin American experience and trying to learn from it.

    This preference for insularity I think feeds on itself and narrows the horizons and limits the exchanges had.

    Add to this mix the “river of blood” exclusivity of classical Trotskyism which fetishised the “holy program ” and you get a few other ingredients that feed this preference for one’s own party and no one else’s.

    Having said all that, I think we need to note that the US ISO has stepped some way out of that circle spirit despite the handicap of speaking English. How far the ISO will go, remains to be seen — but their open ended success is another example of what may be worth learning from. On a broader note, the US left is a useful crucible of other party experiences that in many instances, replicate the British one.So you have to consider what the US may have to offer in way of both good and bad example.

    Nonetheless, for sheer variety the range of strategic options being explored in Europe warrant careful study and monitoring. I mean this is what should be debated just as the Scottish Socialist Party offered an example of an alternative way to proceed (but what you got from the SWP and SP was a cynical obscurantism in regard to SSP’s significance.)

    However, underlying all this I think on the part of the English left is a certain conservatism, an unwillingness to take political risks over which you may lose control. That lack of gregariousness plays out as a certain relentlessness in the way you operate and campaign. That leads to the preference for the coward’s homily that “our day will come” and all we have to do it wait for it.

    Transcending sectarianism is perhaps the most difficult task any group could tackle as it is so hard to overcome it by conscious effort. Just when you start to think you are no longer ‘sectarian’ you discover that maybe you are still being ruled by its dead hand. But you are never going to be free of it because politics as Rosa Luxembourg reminded us politics is about waxing and waning between sectarianism and reformism.

    But to see it as a problem I guess is the first step to recovery. And in a very real materialist sense even before that epithany you have to recognise one very salient fact:recruiting in ones and twos — “the primitive accumulation of cadre” — is totally insufficient to the task we have set ourselves. This self evident fact is totally ignored by so much of the English speaking left who still more or less believe that their slow party building strategy will deliver the right mix “when our day will come”.

    The problem I fear that has set in and in many ways displaced discussing such key points is a brash aspiration for “relevance” and the facts and figures of electoral results. I even note this as a driving force for the SP and SWP *rather than* a dedication to a regroupment agenda. Its’ as though the unity option has been hijacked and cheapened so that it can be drowned in a gung ho electoralism as a substite to keep the troops happy.

    I’m not discounting running for elected office — but it has to be part of a broader strategy and the way it gets posted on the left is a sort of either/or option that presumes all that we aspire to in way of revolutionary social change is passe and should for now be put on hold while we prove just how relevant we can be.

    Like

  211. Exploring an alternative way forward which is open  and  accountable: This vox pop video explores a rich vein of optimism and confidence which also celebrates some small but significant advances out of the left ghetto in Australia. The issue as always is to do something by trying to change the world by best of the any means available to us rather than be hole up in a patented banker or be held hostage to myopia.

    Like

  212. Dave exactly the message we need. Thanks for this positive contribution.

    Like

  213. The tragedy — if I can call it that — Alf, is that Britain has a richer and deeper socialist tradition and proportionally larger left than either Australia, Canada or the US. Possibly as Phil Hearse pointed out to me once there is identifiable sectarian trend going back to the days of the Communist Party which was not a mass party (I understand) in GB. What we share nonetheless is the presence of an over bearing Labourism that has warped all radical outbreaks and subsumed them in its corporate embrace.

    The abandonment of the Socialist Alliance and the sabotage of the SSP suggests how keen the main players are to preserve a certain status quo on their own turf. I can relate to that as I could share a few nasty anecdotes about how determined local clones were to sabotage the Alliance here.

    But all that — he says with gritted teeth — is not important.

    I’m not trying to promote the Australian experience as a panacea or formula. On the contrary, it has been a very difficult and rocky road thus far which as been marked — most importantly — by a determination to persevere not just because the idea seemed a good one (or even because it was one of Lenin’s), but because along this path we have registered enough in way of feedback and modest success that we think it is worth forging on.

    However, I grant you: piloting blind is a handicap for those who prefer their politics formatted by certainties or want to rule their political lives by schemata. It is similarly of no appeal to this who insist that the only role we can allow ourselves is to play is one of propagandist.

    I also need to point out that the regroupment agenda here on the left goes back 15 years and almost as long in New Zealand. So some lessons, I hope, have been learnt en route. It wasn’t just an idea that someone sucked out of their thumb a few years ago. It has been s consciously worked on at available opportunities..

    I also need to point out that this regroupment orientation is not absolutely quantatively proven except in those areas — such as Scotland in the 90s and in France more recently — where there has been some degree of militant fightback which has been electorally harvested..

    One argument deployed (by the CWI) to explain Scotland away, is to insist that there has to be an upheaval ( such as the Poll Tax fight) to push the left together. I think that’s a mistaken view because we all know that the context is much broader than any one indigenous struggle.( ie: capitalist crisis, collapse of Stalinism, rightward surge of social democracy, etc– and in Scotland, a rise in nationalism).

    I also believe that when people will look back at this moment they will rule that it was marked by the ebb tide of the groupuscules — the new left and Trotskyist sects who were driven by a programatic intellectualism and a dedicated preference for exclusivity and isolation.

    Nonetheless, the pressure to accommodate to reformism is always going to dog these projects ( eg: The Brazilian Workers Party, Die Linke, the Dutch Socialist Party, etc) but as Luxembourg reminds us, you cannot deal with these challenges in advance. I’m sure there are going to be many mistakes one way or another.

    But what we have now is a far left that refuses to make mistakes through cowardice and arrogance (i and besides they never made any mistakes anytime anyway anyhow).

    That is our collective handicap. Instead a certain sectarian moralism rules relations between elements on the left and while that prevails we aren’t going to make very good Marxists prefering ideas to action.

    Like

  214. The new coalition has now been registered by the Electoral Commission (from 27th Jan). Title is
    “Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition”

    and the registered ballot names are limited to two currently
    “Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition”
    and
    “Trade Unionist and Socialist Candidate”.

    It is registered in England, Wales and Scotland and says it has no local branches (!).

    Leader and Nominating Officer is Dave Nellist while Treasurer is Clive Heemskirk. Address is the same one Clive Heemskirk gave when he was agent for Socialist Party candidates in last London elections.

    Call me naive, but if the intention is to have a broad coalition, it perhaps wasn’t the wisest of tactical moves to have the same officers on the official electoral registration as are on the Socialist Party’s electoral registration? I mean people might get the wrong idea that they are one and the same … Hopefully the organisation will widen out someday soon?

    Like

  215. Unfortunately we can not rely on hope and good aspirations. We need to ensure through our actions that we transform the situation.

    We need to make positive moves to break the sectarian deadlock and transform our relations with each other if we are to be able to offer solutions which transform society.

    The TUSC must open up quickly its structures and devolve power to the wider pluralistic left if it is to reach out and offer something new.

    The programme that it campaigns on must also be reviewed and appeal to all those involved in anti-capitalist struggles.

    Let us hope that you are correct on this. In the mean time we see others on the Left who should know better, going for a quick fix with the Progressive London project, giving platforms to Milliband, Harman and the Liberals .

    This centrist project and a failure by others to break from sectarian traditions does not help to offer alternatives.

    Like

  216. Here’s a fully gloomy assessment of son of No2Eu from a Socialist Party blogger.

    http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2010/01/trade-union-socialist-coalition.html

    Like

Leave a reply to bill j Cancel reply

Trending