Alf Filer offers his reflections on the recent SWP Conference.

If the Socialist Worker conference report in this week’s Socialist Worker is anything to go by, as the official documents of its decisions and minutes have not yet been published, then again an opportunity for wider unity of the Left has been missed.

For those who were expecting more, then they will be disappointed. The new, (old) leadership offers more of the same party building with a few sops to some usual initiatives. The Left Platform faction was heavily defeated and internal debate now goes back into the cupboard until next year. It appears that some will be reduced to quiet criticism of the decisions, others may slip away and others may toe the line as “good loyal opposition”.

John Rees suggested “that the party had “responded well to individual industrial disputes but has missed some of the political aspects” such as the MPs’ expenses row”. And that “the SWP’s failure to initiate a united front organisation against the recession last year had left the party, and the left in general, in a weaker position than it should be.”

Unfortunately the response was rather banal as put by one comrade ““There’s nothing wrong with imagining a left response to the recession but you can’t suck it out of your thumb.”

Marxists don’t imagine, we analyse the objective needs of the working class and attempt to construct a response that can meet those needs in a non sectarian manner. Or so we should! The C.C. of the SWP has failed to recognize the potential for Left re-allignment and wider unity, that can both attract and mobilize potentially many thousands of militants and reach out to wider layers in building an alternative. Unfortunately the Left Platform never spelt out exactly how they were to do this if they had regained the leadership. Now they are dissolved we will never know.

In the meantime we can assume that the anti-capitalist struggle will now only take place under the leadership of the SWP and the rest of us are expected to wave our little fingers! The incoming CC has urged its members to “ stoke the resistance” but no mention is made of how this will involve participation by the rest of the non SWP world. The need for a wider Left unity does not get a mention.

The positives are welcomed. In many places, the SWP will call for a vote for candidates to the left of Labour, including Solidarity in Scotland, Respect and individuals such as Dai Davies in Blaenau Gwent and the left Green Caroline Lucas. They are also exploring how to promote other candidates. This move to electoralism is in the right direction but just think how much more influential the Left could be if there was a more co-ordinated response to the challenges opening up.

However we must now all come under the banner of the SWP initiated campaigns, dare not suggest democratic structures to increase participation and not to recognize the pluralism of the Left. We must rely on their branches to show the rest of us the way forward!

The remaining report recognizes that Scotland should be independent but no reference is made to the work of the SSP and how to help build it. There is simply the obvious point made that, “ The Scottish National Party is not a force for liberation and follows neoliberal economic policies”. Great but what about the SSP and Scottish working class ? Hopefully this means they will continue to play a key role in building up the SSP? Or is there a new twist in this!

In regard to the STW, we are no clearer as to how the SWP perspective on its role will be. The Party first, the campaign second I suppose is the watch word for the next period. Yet if we ever needed a stronger STW it is now.

Reference to the importance of SWP students and certain initiatives last year implies that student activity should continue to be a source of recruitment. However if they step over the line and use their own initiatives they could possibly be expelled. Better luck next time but check with management before you use creative thought to benefit the class struggle.

On Climate Change, instead of working with existing movements and building the campaigns, we are told, “Delegates voted for a commission pledging that the party would hold district-wide SWP meetings to discuss the movement and initiate united front meetings on climate.” We do not need another SWP led campaign, which is a recipe for further sectarianism, but working with others such as the Green Left etc.

The position of “ No Platform” was maintained in regard to the anti-fascist struggle. However, to ensure the fight against fascism, racism, homophobia and Islamophobia is successful, it requires a review of the internal structures of the UAF to ensure full participation at national and regional level of all possible anti-fascist forces. The need to build a united Left leadership and broaden out the movement applies to this campaign as well as others.

The common theme running through the Conference is a repeat of old recipes, allowing for slight variation. Some progress regarding electoral work yet basically more of the same. It makes the need for others to debate Left unity even more important. Yes we must welcome anti- capitalist initiatives and united front campaigns but continue to argue for a more broader and democratic approach which this conference failed to deliver.

Having fallen back on a more traditional approach, the SWP fail to address the International challenges presented to us by the international crises of Capitalism. Here there is even more of an urgent need to learn from the experiences and practices of the comrades in France, Portugal, Germany, Australia and elsewhere.

The building of new initiatives that can provide opportunities for greater unity appear not to get a mention. Let us hope that due to the objective needs of the present and future the comrades of the SWP may realize that in spite of the conference decisions, they may have to seriously review their practice. For the present announcement falls short of meeting the needs of the movement.

123 responses to “A missed opportunity?”

  1. Have I stumbled upon The Weekly Worker?

    Like

  2. `Reference to the importance of SWP students and certain initiatives last year implies that student activity should continue to be a source of recruitment. However if they step over the line and use their own initiatives they could possibly be expelled. Better luck next time but check with management before you use creative thought to benefit the class struggle. ‘

    The SWP has become ensnared in irreconcilable contradictions. To recruit to its perspective is now considered `factional’ activity punishable by expulsion. I think I can hear the bells tolling.

    Like

  3. Good summary Liam. I’ve posted something on my own blog with a similar view of the perspectives on left unity/electoral alliances that emerged at conference. Interesting that despite acknowledging the significant steps forward in Portugal, Germany etc there is not much analysis in the conference reports and not much desire (it would seem) to emulate them. A retrenchment? Definitely, IMHO.

    Like

  4. […] of new online responses to the conference. Liam Mac Uaid has written a brief but clear summary here. The Weekly Worker are running a couple of articles in the online version of their paper, one on the […]

    Like

  5. Prunius- the piece is by Alf Filer, not Liam….

    By the way, why are all the comments ‘off’ on the SWP Notes blog?

    Like

  6. […] are a couple of new online responses to the conference. Alf Filer has written a brief critique here. Weekly Worker are running a couple of articles in the online version of their paper, one on the […]

    Like

  7. RobM: comments were turned off after some particularly noxious stuff (personal allegations) was posted. They’ve been turned back on again now and a comments policy is being put in place.

    Like

  8. andy – actually, the Weekly Worker article was, ahem, more informed than this one.

    “On Climate Change, instead of working with existing movements and building the campaigns, we are told, “Delegates voted for a commission pledging that the party would hold district-wide SWP meetings to discuss the movement and initiate united front meetings on climate.” We do not need another SWP led campaign, which is a recipe for further sectarianism, but working with others such as the Green Left etc.”

    The SWP are part of the Campaign Against Climate Change, you might have noticed – as has been featured in their paper and on their website, which has it prominently featured. And united front meetings obviously refers to, you know, working with more broad groupings in the climate change movement and having debates across the party as to how best to build that movement.
    This is the most bizarre analysis I’ve seen to date.

    Like

  9. Redbedhead why cant the SWP make it clear in their own paper then. I welcome any clarification and if wrong on any points am willing to accept that. If the move is to work within existing campaigns then great. Yet it is not at all clear to the general public.

    Like

  10. Whats not at all clear to me is why anyone would think any different.

    Like

  11. “Why can’t the SWP make it clear in their own paper then”
    No offense but the most basic research would have revealed this – like reading their paper’s coverage of climate change events where they have promoted CACC or going to their webpage. And it just seems bizarre to attack them for wanting to hold events within the party to educate and orient them membership on this important issue. It’s part of taking it seriously.

    But this was really just one example of the falsities in your analysis which seems to be based solely upon a quick reading of the coverage of the conference in the paper and a series of unquestioned assumptions. For instance, you make a point about the one paragraph article about Scotland that they fail to mention the SSP. However, it is simply a statement of the SWPs position on any potential referendum on sovereignty, not a broad analysis of the various forces and factors. And then you go on to say: “Hopefully this means they will continue to play a key role in building up the SSP? Or is there a new twist in this!”
    But the SWP are no longer part of the SSP and haven’t been for quite some time. Now, perhaps this is a slip and you meant Solidarity but even if this is the case then your tone is incomprehensible except as a sectarian dig. Where is a “new twist” suggested. You yourself note that the SWP will call for a vote for Solidarity et al in the upcoming general elections.

    And this point: “However we must now all come under the banner of the SWP initiated campaigns, dare not suggest democratic structures to increase participation and not to recognize the pluralism of the Left. We must rely on their branches to show the rest of us the way forward!”

    Is just bizarre. Nowhere does it appear in any of the IBs, online discussions, etc. You’re simply making things up to suit your perspective without any evidence. That’s either lazy or just plain dishonest and you should retract it unless you can back up that fairly significant accusation.

    And this: “The C.C. of the SWP has failed to recognize the potential for Left re-allignment and wider unity, that can both attract and mobilize potentially many thousands of militants and reach out to wider layers in building an alternative.”

    This is a large claim, not backed up by any examples. What else would you have the SWP do at this moment – especially since, let’s be honest, it’s not simply up to the SWP to wish left unity into existence. Respect voted against supporting the coalition of socialist groups and trade unionists that is emerging from NO2EU. The SWP put out its open letter and then organized at least one meeting – only to discover that there wasn’t the momentum for something more broad. And they are now – apparently – working with the Bob Crow formation TUSC (terrible name – but better than NO2EU). Now, you can argue that the present situation is, in part, the result of past mistakes by the SWP but you can’t say that they didn’t try to push for broader unity in the lead up to the general election – at least not without being specific about what else could have been done, what initiatives they have missed, etc.

    Like

  12. No it is not for ” SWP to wish left unity into existence”, but it is for the SWP and others to contribute in a more open and positive manner to building Left unity. So one letter and then it is dropped. There is a momentum if one is willing to open ones eyes to it and take a more determined and imaginative approach, instead of falling at the first minor hurdle.

    Are you prepared to ensure that the SWP moves to wider unity now rather than discussing what they should have done then. If yes then lets start the process and call an open meeting to plan and initiate this. The past then becomes the past rather than a reason not to build a new future.

    As for the SSP, I will leave it to others to comment on but will merely say that Solidarity is a rather sectarian move in my view and a mistake. The Scottish cdes should reconsider the approach towards the SSP. Even if you are no longer part of the SSP does that mean that you will not call for a support for them in the elections?

    No one objects to the cdes holding their own meetings, educational workshops etc. That is a red herring. The report in your own paper however implies new initiatives rather than existing ones. Perhaps a clearer report should be provided so the movement knows exactly.

    We do not have access to such internal documents so would not know . Hence the advantage of having an open discussion on perspectives as part of pre conference debate with on going tendancy and faction rights. This, accompanied with open debate with others would benefit the wider movement, as Lenin encouraged.

    Like

  13. Some OK stuff here I suppose. But the point about Scotland is a bit weird. It seems to imagine that the rump SSP represents the Scottish working class and that the left should unite with it.

    That was not entirely true even when the SSP was at its peak- but only an aspiration for the future. Now it is competely untenable, as part of the SSP’s political identity is its conduct in the split which many on both sides of the border, including me, consider crossed class lines. The idea that this organisation can unite the Scottish left – even on a programme of socialist Scottish independence (and along with George Galloway I am not convinced that this is a good demand in any case) – is pretty far fetched.

    Uniting the Scottish left requires a new initative. Hopefully that will be a cross border one. But the SSP ain’t gonna unite the Scottish left. Not a snowball’s chance in hell!

    Like

  14. “So one letter and then it is dropped. There is a momentum if one is willing to open ones eyes to it and take a more determined and imaginative approach, instead of falling at the first minor hurdle.”

    What are you talking about? I specifically listed several attempts and the apparent agreement now to participate in a wider coalition viz son of NO2EU. But if Respect – the most successful left of Labour electoral party in the UK – votes against participating in any wider initiative. And if the only way the SWP can be involved in the son of NO2EU is after the fact – what momentum are you even talking about? Where is this reflected at all? What else should the SWP have done?

    “As for the SSP, I will leave it to others to comment on but will merely say that Solidarity is a rather sectarian move in my view and a mistake. The Scottish cdes should reconsider the approach towards the SSP. Even if you are no longer part of the SSP does that mean that you will not call for a support for them in the elections?”

    Well, Solidarity has called for cooperation with the SSP in the past and the SSP has refused to even talk to them. And Solidarity – and not the SSP – was willing to participate in NO2EU and (I believe) TUSC. So it is the SSP which is refusing to play ball.

    “We do not have access to such internal documents so would not know .”
    Ha ha ha ha.

    In any case, there were faction rights in the three months leading up to conference, as there is every year. But the party’s conference is for the party to make decisions about its orientation etc etc. Its relationship with others is a bit of a different kettle of fish and requires a different process – otherwise, if the party cant have its own decision making process, it would hardly be a democratic organization.

    But, as for open debate with others in the movement, calling public meetings, etc – that’s exactly what the sentence means which says “Delegates voted [to] initiate united front meetings on climate change.” A united front meeting is a meeting involving broader movement organizations and individuals.

    Like

  15. The SWP could open its eyes and see the range of initiatives from all over the country where Green Left, independants, Respect and others, inspite of differences are working together.

    The SWP can issue a public statement calling for the Left, independants and many others to work together whilst respecting differences.

    The building of unity in France was a slow and patient process which did not fall at the first hurdle. Nor was it achieved by behind the scene deals. An open approach based on recognising minority rights and representation , resulted in the gains they are now establishing. A similar approach is being adopted elsewhere and these give us examples of how to go forward.

    Yes it is for Party members to make internal decisions but the Bolsheviks allowed open debate and factions in order to educate their own members and win over the vanguard elements outside of the Party, talking to the working class militants who were not party members at the same time. Debate for them was not a luxury or time constrained. A rereading of New Course may help on this.

    To involve broader movement organisations in united fronts, the decision making process has to be open up at the top, as well as at the base ,to representatives of the whole movement.

    Like

  16. I admit my own error due to a lack of knowledge . Following further reading and discussion I need to make a correction.

    My comment on the SWP and SSP meant to refer to those who did not follow the SWP line and left the SWP, following their alligning with Sheriden and walking out of the SSP.

    The lessons of the NPA are the reverse of the actions carried out by the SWP re the SSP. Let us hope for some consistency in this matter.

    Like

  17. “The SWP could open its eyes and see the range of initiatives from all over the country where Green Left, independants, Respect and others, inspite of differences are working together.
    “The SWP can issue a public statement calling for the Left, independants and many others to work together whilst respecting differences.”

    Except that the SWP has done both of these things. As for behind the scenes deals – viz. NO2EU/TUSC – the SWP didn’t control the agenda. It wasn’t their choice.

    “Yes it is for Party members to make internal decisions but the Bolsheviks allowed open debate and factions in order to educate their own members and win over the vanguard elements outside of the Party, talking to the working class militants who were not party members at the same time. Debate for them was not a luxury or time constrained. A rereading of New Course may help on this.”

    Firstly, this is not Russia, 1917 and no pretending that the SWP or any other socialist grouping is the Bolsheviks changes this fact. The method of operation and organization must fit the context. So, I’m not particularly interested in what the Bolsheviks did in the midst of a revolution in order to use that as an organizational model but rather in their general method in relationship to organizational questions which, again, was context driven.
    But, secondly, the SWP just had three months of open debates – with publication of differing views in the bulletins, open to all party members; with district aggregate meetings at which the LP were permitted to speak; at conference where the LP were given extra time to speak, though they represented a tiny proportion of support within the party and of delegates. What more do you suggest?

    “To involve broader movement organisations in united fronts, the decision making process has to be open up at the top, as well as at the base ,to representatives of the whole movement.”

    You mean like the StWC, which has regular congresses that brings together delegates from StW groups? Or UAF in which the SWP couldn’t even win its way in Birmingham over mobilizing against the EDL and which has a conference coming up? Or DCH, which also has its conference coming up this spring and involves numerous groups and individuals? etc.
    I don’t understand what it is that you want?

    Like

  18. “The lessons of the NPA are the reverse of the actions carried out by the SWP re the SSP. Let us hope for some consistency in this matter.”

    The lessons of the NPA don’t really have anything to do with the SSP. And, frankly, I find it bizarre to focus on the SWP in the case of the SSP, since they were a secondary player to the main event, which was a fight between Sheridan and the CWI against their former erstwhile comrades who split from the CWI some years ago.

    Like

  19. I have literally never read a less informed or considered analysis than this one. Literally. Congrats.

    Why is the fact that we are holding some public meetings and want to stoke the resistance evidence that we are ignoring the rest of the left again?

    Still, shallow analysis and mud slinging the way forward for left unity, eh?

    Like

  20. Alf: “The building of unity in France was a slow and patient process which did not fall at the first hurdle.”

    yes it did, due to the sectarian approach by many LCR comrades that have excluded any possibility of collaboration with the still very substantial PCF.

    Like

  21. “Firstly, this is not Russia, 1917 “. No it isn’t. Nor did I suggest that. Yet that are essential lessons to learn from the debates on the Party . Even less reasons to restrict debate. We have much to learn from the lessons of that period and cdes should not discard the debates and the manner that they took place in. Forget the past and fail to build the future. That is an error that Lenin and Trotsky did not fall into.

    We can learn from the rich experiences from before and after 1917 up until the present day.This is something the British Left are bad at doing. Learning lessons with a critical eye. I suggest that you reread Trotsky on The New Course. Much to learn from that.

    I hope that the UAF will have an openly elected leadership with representatives from the wider anti-fascist movement to strengthen its work. I am not criticising the structure of STW nor did I. I simply asked about others and the intentions .

    I have not criticised the structure of STW but was referring in general for the nature of unitefd front work to be based on a general principle of openess and participation at all levels of groups and individuals participating in them, in order to broaden them out and create the conditions for broader support and involvement.

    This is not a criticism of excellent work being carried out but a contribution to suggestions. There is no need to be so defensive on this point.

    Sheridan and co split yes but in light of this perhaps the SWP need to reconsider their approach to the SSP and be more positive towards it. The

    Dan this is not about mud slinging. I am proud to work with SWP cdes on UAF etc. They do excellent work in many areas. I am contributing to an ongoing discussion about the way forward for Left Unity, which for others does not stop because the 3 months have gone for debate.

    I never criticised the holding of meetings, debates, internal discussions. I questioned the direction of them and whether this was to lead to new initiatives, counter existing ones or compliment the current campaigns. It was the article in the Socialist Worker which gave a different interpretation.

    Now if following debate we have the clarification, then everyone is clear and I accept that this is to support existing work being done by your organisation and others in a positive manner. Don’t see every comment as hostile. But if there is lack of open debate then there is confusion. Again another reason for open debates with others on the Left.

    Like

  22. Dan re ” Why is the fact that we are holding some public meetings and want to stoke the resistance evidence that we are ignoring the rest of the left again?

    “Still, shallow analysis and mud slinging the way forward for left unity, eh?”

    This is not mud slinging. Stoking the Resistance is a
    commendable thing. The point you miss is that the possibilities of an effective “stoking” is far more realisable and effective if talks leading to a more united Left allignment takes place, with greater co-ordination and discussions with others.

    Perhaps stoking is unfortunate choice of words as a united front approach would help to construct a more effective and stronger resistance.

    Like

  23. It may not be 1917,yet we are human.And like all humans we are primative and by nature ,collective in our socialogical make up, just ask the french revolusionaries as the heads rolled and the hysteria of the heat of the blood.Lenin and Trotsky got into that, the latter more so, only to-day to be expelled from the Russian Revolusionary Council,all you Trots should have a drink on that .16/ 1/1925.

    It is understood that the S.W.P.have a history,yet they keep repeating it ,not for the better.

    Like

  24. Shrug, whilst I do not agree with your intepretation of events leading to Trotsky’s expulsion and eventual assassination by Stalin’s henchmen, nor will I drink to it, at least you refer to history, if badly. But I recognise your right to your interpretation and wont personally attack you for it but just fundamentally disagree with it.

    What is more relevent is the debate on Party democracy, the fight against bureaucracy, the recognition of the need for an international Socialist strategy and the struggle against routinism / conservatism.

    The point I am attempting to make is that the movement can not just be built by issuing of a clarion call and expecting all to join under one banner but instead to construct an approach towards united front work which openly involves all participants at both local, regional and national level.

    Recognising the pluralism of the Left and wider forces is the first step in constructing a new allignment. Not to do so because some, albeit larger forces, say no and then to retreat back into oneself is not what is required.

    There are many other potential and actual forces that can be attracted to initiatives but this involves a more open approach.

    I feel that if this is the response one gets from commenting on an article then how did others cope when faced with the threats of purges and villification from Joe’s mates in the late 20’s and 30’s?

    Like

  25. Redbedhead states “The method of operation and organization must fit the context. So, I’m not particularly interested in what the Bolsheviks did in the midst of a revolution in order to use that as an organizational model but rather in their general method in relationship to organizational questions which, again, was context driven”
    What the Bolsheviks did reflected the fact that certain factions were armed against the revolution and alligning with counter revolutionary forces. That was the context at the time. That was the context.
    However in arguing the case for a New Course, Trotsky reasserted the needs to challenge the bureacratic elements through a total reapraissal of the operations of the Party as a point of principle. The debates prior to 1917 were taking place in a far more open approach with published articles by minorities right up to the eve of the revolution.

    Today we are in a different context. The recession, unemployment, the downturn, what ever you want to call it requires different tasks today. We have an urgent need to build points of unity faced with the present prospects.

    We also need to confront those prospects with the establishing of new leadership based on constructing of unity and united fronts. This requires greater participation which starts with an open approach to debate, organising and mobilising.

    As to not being ” particularly interested in what the Bolsheviks did in the midst of a revolution”, perhaps it is worth remebering the frequency by which the Bolshevik leadership and Trotsky referred to the various stages of the French Revolution to learn from those experiences.

    Today we have an even greater wealth of experience and lessons to learn from and consider. When mistakes occurr we have a responsability to review. In this respect we do not just fall back on events and say oh dear but… Today we must be prepared to review and reconsider approaches as the context requires. The context today does require this review.

    Like

  26. p.s. perhaps we need to look further abroad and consider the Australian developments. See Dave Riley’s contribution. Or is that too far away from England!!

    Like

  27. Alf, like it or not the S.W.P. do by their philisophical belief expell those who do not( adhere ) to the party line,a dialectical lesson that they constantly ignore and repeat history.

    My understanding of history is well undersdtood ,and in my learning have found those quick to deride are those less to learn.In the effort of unity do not be so thin skined.

    Like

  28. You’ve got to take RBH’s contributions with a pinch of salt. They’re after all, not based on personal knowledge, but rather a willingness to defend anything the SWP do on the basis that it must be right because they said so.
    Sure we’re not in Russia in 1917. The question is then, why is the SWP regime less democratic than that which built the Bolsheviks under the Tsarist dictatorship?
    There is much to criticise the Bolsheviks for, and particularly in the way that they closed down internal democracy after the revolution in response to Brest Litovsk, the Left SRs uprising, the civil war etc. But the moot question is, there was at least an objective set of circumstances which explained their emergency measures. What excuse does the SWP have?
    And of course its not only the SWP, all of the UK left pretty well, follow exactly the same top down hierarchical regime, with an unaccountable, unelected apparatus. No one is going to shed any tears for Rees/German, they were very right wing and shared all of the faults, in an exaggerated way, of the current regime that they have episodically criticised during the faction fight. But the question remains for the SWP leadership, what is their project? If its simply turning inwards and “building the party” that isn’t going to get them anywhere in the medium term. If it is to turn outwards, in the post election flux, then they’ll need to change things quite radically from recent practice and experience.
    BTW I don’t share the authors enthusiasm for the UAF, which while maintaining nominal support for no platform, has been busy co-operating with the authorities during the recent upsurge of fascist activity around the EDL and is not an example of how to fight the BNP.

    Like

  29. You’ve got to take bill j’s comments about the Bolsheviks with a pinch of salt. They’re after all, not based on personal knowledge, but rather a willingness to attack anything the SWP do on the basis that it must be wrong because he said so.

    That there “unaccountable, unelected apparatus”. That would have been topped by Rees and German until recently?

    From the post:
    In many places, the SWP will call for a vote for candidates to the left of Labour, including Solidarity in Scotland, Respect and individuals such as Dai Davies in Blaenau Gwent and the left Green Caroline Lucas. They are also exploring how to promote other candidates. This move to electoralism is in the right direction but just think how much more influential the Left could be if there was a more co-ordinated response to the challenges opening up.
    I think its unfortunate that this move to electoralism is in such a right direction, hopefully the support for less class oriented candidates is a temporary move not to piss anyone off while they see how the election pans out, as the separate agendas of the Greens and Respect are liable to render the Left less influential and co-ordinated if they dominate its thinking.

    Like

  30. What ? This isnt Russia 1917 ? Socialist Democracy, democracy , democracy……………………………………..

    Like

  31. Good to see the SWP’s Marxism and Ecology booklet, which is excellent but of course the kind of stuff put forward by both SR and GL for some time.

    Also good to see support for strong left candidates, any chance of pushing Dave Nellist as well?

    Also elections need people on the ground, I have been delivering election material today with former Labour MEP and Solidarity member Hugh Kerr and both our sons for Caroline Lucas….Green Party members in Birmingham will be helping Salma on Jan 30th

    Be great if the SWP did some work for the left candidates they have identified and if people dismiss both Salma and Caroline (who I obviously don’t) will the SWP or even skidmarx go and put work in for Dave Nellist?

    and ofcourse the SWP could do with a look at becoming a more pluralist, democratic and generally less strung out organisation (well as you know thats my view) which I think is the bigger issue/set of issues.

    Like

  32. and may be the SWP might want to look at Australia, Latin America or even the ISO in the USA (who despite not being as good as they could be on Cuba are pretty cool people)?

    Like

  33. I don’t understand where people get the idea that the SWP are dismissing Salma and Caroline. I find these discussions very strange. Its almost as if people desperately want this to be the case. As Redbedhead says its precisely in this direction conference has shifted, although there is still some discussion to be had as comrades want to be clearer on the precise attitude towards Labour. Its called having a democratic discussion.

    Like

  34. johng surely that was the purpose of 3 months debate and a conference. It is quite clear that Socialists must support Labour candidates who oppose the war and take a pro working class approach .

    Also there is both a need for widening out at both elections and post elections a wider Left alliance with forces moving to the Left and taking a principled stand on a range of issues which objectively have an anti-capitalist potential.

    Hence yes we must call for a vote for those taking the movement forward and for where there is potential for gains both during and post election to gain a wider hearing for the issues we need to raise.

    At times that also means it requires us to call for a vote for Labour against the Tories and Lib Dems, highly critically though.

    We would be in a stronger position if we were building a Left reallignment which gives us a greater option of co-ordinating a response.

    Clearly in places like Dagenham we call for a vote for Labour as part of the campaign against the BNP. This may also need to be repeated elsewhere.

    We are also partly in this predicament because of the failure to build Socialist Alliance at the time and not participating now in wider alliances and initiatives. The past years has been a history of failed opportunities of our own creating. A lost opportunity which can not be repeated. These are the lessons to be learnt.

    As for the comment on the UAF. Yes I am proposing a different structure of leadership and yes there are issues that need to be discussed regarding its direction. However the anti fascist movement must remain united and its initiatives supported.

    Like

  35. As it happens I agree with you on the position on Labour. However its also true that the last decade has seen for a sizeable number of activists, both old and new, a decisive break from the idea of voting Labour. So there needs to be a proper debate. Precisely in order to learn lessons. You can’t short circuit democracy.

    Like

  36. Derek Wall – I’d be happy to see Dave Nellist do well.

    johng – I do find it somewhat disappointing that the SWP are actively backing Respect and Green candidates, though I’d be prepared to listen to an argument as to why this should be generalised from the particular case of building an anti-BNP vote at the Euro elections [ not to be confused with supporting Labour in Dagenham]. What is the theoretical basis of this shift [if it is a shift and not just a continuation of the Respect No.1 formula], or is the party making it up as it goes along?

    Like

  37. ” So there needs to be a proper debate. Precisely in order to learn lessons. You can’t short circuit democracy”

    That is why you need internal democracy allowing for ongoing debate after 3 months and the right of representation of all views, including tendancies.

    That is why you also need open and democratic structures in all united front campaigns to recognise the pluralistic nature of the movement.

    That is also why debates should be more open as the wider movement can also benefit. What is there to be afraid of?

    Like

  38. http://swpblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/swp-conference-critical-views-2/

    So much for debate. The blog has been turned off. Any reasons or is it a technical hassle. Too many computer tendancies!!

    Discussions do not go away because the conference has ended. The struggle for ideas is ongoing .

    Like

  39. Alf your clearly not at all interested in debate. Again, thats whats so curious about these threads. A real hostility to genuine argument combined with repeated calls for the same. SkidMarx why would we not call for a vote for left of labour candidates? Because we had some disagreements with one lot of them three years ago? That would be sectarianism. In terms of left Greens (not any Greens but left ones), again, what would be the rationale for not calling for a vote for them? The broader picture is of a substantial shift of left activists away from voting Labour (a process which is very uneven) combined with the rise of the far right. It would surely be deeply irresponsible to continue with peculiar sectarian grudge matches based on the past. We’ve been arguing this perfectly openly now since the open letter (and before). Its only on blogs that would find anything different.

    Like

  40. johng “your clearly not at all interested in debate” is putting things on there head. I argue for open debate, the recognition of pluralism of the Left, the rights of minority views, on going discussion and you say that. A clear misrepresentation of my position.

    3 months only debate, no rights for tendancies / factions, end of debate after conference, is not the position I support at all. I am arguing for the opposite so how can you say that?

    Lets arrange an open debate on the way forward and invite all groups. Lets open up papers of the Left to common discussions. Let us be imaginative in considering debating all the issues facing the movement. Let us ensure all united front campaigns have an open approach to discussing policies and have elected national bodies .

    Are you prepared to support a debate in front of the movement as a whole.

    Like

  41. aha johng pulls the out “you’re not interested in debate” card from his back pocket. Last time this happened; http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/gameboy-debate-me-please/#comments Johng responded by proxy to say that his criticism that awl members were not interested in debate was in no way a suggestion that he actually wanted a debate himself.

    Anyhow. I’m with Alf on this, johng let’s have a proper debate; we’re game are you?(pun intended).

    Like

  42. No, no Martin. I WAS debating. Jim responded by refusing to debate back instead suggesting that there needed to be a public meeting. Thats avoiding a debate by any standards. In any case Martin I’m very surprised that you continue to defend that unpleasent individual. Alf your the one who is clearly refusing to recognise pluralism. I’m quite happy to have a discussion with you. You however want to refuse discussion with any organisation which does not fit your pre-designed template. As it happens I don’t want to be in an organisation with permenant factions. Nor do most SWP members. There is nothing undemocratic about this and nothing which precludes debate.

    Like

  43. splinteredsunrise Avatar
    splinteredsunrise

    That’s where we are. I personally think the ban on permanent factions sucks – not that I’m positively in favour of permanent factions, just that I think the ban is an overhead not worth having – but it’s a fact of life that not many people in the SWP agree with that position.

    As for Father Jack, there’s no real point trying to have a discussion with him. I banned him ages ago for persistent aggressive trolling, and whenever I’ve encountered him in other fora he just starts shouting incoherently and capitalising words that start with W. Doesn’t really persuade me to let him back.

    Like

  44. “but it’s a fact of life that not many people in the SWP agree with that position”

    Then again hardly the best season to have the discussion. People do tend to judge these things on the basis of experiance.

    Like

  45. Well those in the happy situation of having experiances anyway. Of course this is mere empiricism but then mere empiricism has its moments. I thought redbedhead’;s remarks about the need to recognise ones actual situation (ie small to medium sized group of socialists as opposed to mass party) had something going for it. I myself got quite carried away reading Broue over christmas drawing all kinds of fascinating parrallels with the debates in the KPD in the 1920s. It is neccessary to remind yourself occassionally that the KPD had tens of thousands of members and the different wings of the party had real bases comprising whole bloody cities for goodness sake!

    Like

  46. Either we revert into the sectarianism of non debate or we break out of this impasse and have open discussions to educate the whole movement. No one group or individuals have all the answers.

    The right to tendancies and factions means that cdes can discuss and develop views and positions whilst contributing to the movement. Differencies exist and attempting to deny that via bureaucratic measures is self defeating. Views and differences do not just disappear after 3 months in a restricted debate.

    We also need to talk to each other and to build greater unity, whilst not ignoring differences but respecting them. We can not afford to fail in our duty to the wider movement if we are to build a united leadership.

    Like

  47. splinteredsunrise wrote : –
    “…the ban on permanent factions sucks – not that I’m positively in favour of permanent factions, just that I think the ban is an overhead not worth having – but it’s a fact of life that not many people in the SWP agree with that position.”

    There are really two issues contained in this perennial problem;

    (1) The question of fusing together seperate organisations.

    This will never be achieved unless factional rights are guaranteed from the outset. It also assumes that the areas of agreement between the fusing organisations are greater than their differences.
    It’s then possible that, through a process of joint work in a common organisation, the factions may decide to dissolve.

    e.g. the Metzrayontsi-Bolshevik fusion, or the fusion of the remains of the RSL and WIL to form the RCP.

    If it becomes apparent that the process is leading to an accentuation of the differences, “defusion” is imminent.
    e.g. the Workers Fight entry into the I.S.

    The Socialist Alliance was a kind of half way house, based on an non-agression pact.
    So are the Broad Parties coming in to existence at the moment.

    (2) How to resolve differences over tactics within a single organisation.

    Resolving tactical differerences can be made easier by having temporary platforms.
    It shouldn’t require the existence of permanent factions, which can actually create the basis for a split.

    To an extent, this is what happened in the former IMG.
    Branches and personal relations became intertwined with factions.
    This led to a corrosive internal political culture which helped destroy the organisation.
    The crisis in perspectives in the 1980’s and lack of an authoritative national and international leadership ensured organisational meltdown.

    The split between the Grant-Woods and Taaffe sections of the CWI was also a classic case of a tactical question becoming elevated to principle.
    Factional work inside former Stalinist parties has also been fraught with problems.

    The Marcyites in the USA and Socialist Action in Britain surrendered almost all their distinctive positions in order to carry out entry.

    John Lawrence did much the same when he joined the CPGB in Britain and ended up a semi-anarchist!
    It’s now a lot easier since the collapse of Stalinism, but has a bearing on the SP’s work around the SonofNo2EU –>TUSC initiative.

    Like

  48. I think prianikoff is right here (whilst I’m agnostic on the precise form which broader organisations will take). In many ways the Bolsheviks WERE the kind of broad party we are discussing. To fetishise their internal structure in organisations whose origins are in propaganda groups and whose memberships are measured in thousands rather then tens and thousands is simply a kind of play-acting (whether this is in terms of ‘factions’ representing a few individuals or on the other hand organisations which have more commitees then members) and a kind of play-acting which has had pretty dire consequences in British left wing groups. And Alf appears to be working on the basis of an entirely false diochotomy where-bye in the absence of factions there can be no expression for political differences inside an organisation and no discussion. This is just false. If the Bolsheviks had factions to reflect real political differences inside a mass organisation, in the history of British Trotskyism permenant factions largely played the role of providing homes for competing claiments for the throne of smallish propaganda groups. Social context is all.

    Like

  49. johng – why would we not call for a vote for left of labour candidates?
    If they are left of Labour great. But if they are cross-class alliances the SWP’s support for them only helps to perpetuate the fragmentation of the Left. This isn’t a matter of maintaining grudges but of not relying on empiricism to define a line.
    And I don’t see that the pick ‘n’ mix approach of saying you’ll support some Green candidates because they say nice things, or as southpawpunch has done elsewhere of backing Galloway because he’s a socialist but not Yacoob because she isn’t is based on any consistency. This isn’t to say that a sectarian approach should be adopted in campaigns, just that voting for people without roots in the working class might require a lot more justification.

    Like

  50. Is a phone box to small for the vanguard.

    Like

  51. If it’s good enough for Superman…

    My belief that Respect(new style) was a non-working class force thatfeels the need for left cover without wanting to admit it crystallised at the time of the conference before last, when the slogan “Defending Our People” http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/defending-our-people-we-wont-pay-for-their-crisis-respects-national-conference/
    was changed to “Defending Working People” without any acknowledgement that any change had taken place. The SWP might be better putting its weight behind TUSCO rather than thinking that every little helps.
    [and see 4.45 into:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt3-oWhahVA&feature=related%5D

    Like

  52. Skidward: I would imagine a lot of people would be happy if the sectarian SWP were to call for a vote for Labour candidates against the clearly anti-imperialist (i.e. non-opportunist) Respect candidates and a vote for the hopeless TUSCO candidates elsewhere. These parachutists are going to need all the help they can get to reach triple figures.

    Like

  53. Well the SWP is not a sectarian organisation despite the devout hopes of those who wish it was. Skidmarx I don’t really see that such large decisions can be taken on the basis of such small progromatic differences. I think your perspective is shaped by the mudslinging which as a leftist you were forced to witness month in month out for the last two years in the blogsphere. Rather then blaming you for this, I think most of us involved probably owe you an apology for subjecting you to it.

    Like

  54. It is both sectarian and opportunist i.e. centrist. Nice to see you showing your true colours though johng. Skidmarx has been at the vanguard of Operation Wreckspect on the blogosphere since god was a boy.

    Like

  55. johng – I’ll admit that my reaction to Respect is cosiderably shaped my the m.o. of many of them, but the lack of politics expressed on their side of the Respect split tended to convince me that where they were at goes beyond small programatic differences. Where do you draw the line on how left a candidates pronouncements have to be before you back them?

    Like

  56. What politics will you be selling at the election Skidward, for whom incidentally my heart genuinely bleeds for the pain you’ve clearly been put through? What is the SWP’s programme or manifesto for the forthcoming elections? 10p on tax? World revolution now? What? Or should I say whose programme will you be pushing?

    Like

  57. Actually, the 1998 conference of Respect was in many ways convened under the influence the so-called ‘ultra-left’ dissident element who are now persona non-grata in Respect. ‘Defending our people’ and ‘defending working people’ was aimed at putting the credit crunch and its effect on the working class at the centre of Respect’s activity. If you examine the motions that were passed at that conference, they pointed to Respect playing a leading role in bringing into being a broader left initiative in response to the recession which at that point was only just beginning.

    A perspective that was subsequently junked by others in Respect who had a rather different view, culminating in this years much less left-wing conference where Galloway and Salma denounced this persepective as dogmatic, or an electoral liability. Skidmarx is wrong in seeing the 2008 conference as a left-cover, it was an early expression of a division in Respect that even then was beginning to become quite bitter; that was a conference that the most prominent personalities in Respect did not want to take place, certainly not in the form proposed, and in fact tried to postpone or truncate to the point of being a non-conference. The fact that this conference took place and was actually modestly impressive was a victory for Respect’s left-wing, albeit one that was rolled back over several months.

    Like

  58. 1998 conference indeed! Should read 2008. Proofreading mental block!!

    Like

  59. centrist eh? between what and what? Skidmarx I’m in favour of voting for left of labour candidates. I mean its not as if we can make big choices anyway. It is unfortunately rather a small tent.

    Like

  60. Itzy whitsy spider Avatar
    Itzy whitsy spider

    As should be well known by now the SWP finally joined the SCOTTISH SOCIALIST PARTY after most of the Scottish Left had joined bar the communist party of Scotand.

    It was complicit in supporting the Tommy Sheridan and duly left with him to help form the divisive “solidarity” organisation leaving the SSP shattered.

    The SSP, which had, upto that point been the most successful Socialist party electorally in Scottish and British political history……blatant sabotage or just complete and utter stupidity on the part of the Sheridan, the SWP and others or what ?
    it´s done a briliant job of sabotaging and deriously damaging every attempt at creating a Left unity project in Britain…..from the Socialist Alliance to SSP to Respect and now itself…………………………………………………..what comes around goes around !

    (COMMENT HEAVILY EDITED AND MORE ABUSE LIKE THAT EARNS A PLACE ON THE LIST OF MODERATED BEFORE PUBLICATION VISITORS)

    Like

  61. The need to defuse sectarianism is urgent. Whilst not confusing genuine debate around policies which take the anti-capitalist struggles forward, with snipes for their own sake, we must engage in an honest assessment of the situation.

    Yes I will restate that in my view the SWP play an important role in the movement but at the same time are missing opportunities to mobilise wider forces. Decisions can be reviewed through honest and open assessments and discussions with others in the movement, if willing to.

    Debate can not just be initiated from the top but allow militants to bring their various experiences to the table. This will enrich the whole movement. Hence the need for a more democratic approach which is open to others. No one group has all the answers. A recognition of the pluralistic nature of the far Left and militants moving in a leftward manner means a need for a more open and inclusive approach.

    Whilst the SWP conference is over, decisions made and policies determined, for the rest of us that is not the case. Either the cdes state that they have finalised their position and it is now a closed book, which is a wrong turn, or due to the needs of the day they will have to review their approach, policies and tactics in light of experiences. A group that does not do this is in danger of making errors and ignoring the objective situation.

    Hopefully under pressure of the changing needs of our times, the SWP cdes will realise that to prepare themselves for the coming challenges, the questions raised are not a closed book. Similarly others will see a need to also join in and engage in practical and theoretical debates without holding back in the work that needs to be done.

    My concern is that some of the contributors are in denial and have a “business as usual” strategy. Others are acknowledging that perhaps we do not have all the answers and need to revisit issues.

    The needs of the present situation, the run up to the election, the threats from the far right, the struggles for liberation, ecology, anti-war and democratic rights at an international level can not be addressed by one group on their own.

    Hence my assessment of the situation is that we can not allow for anymore lost opportunities nor be rigid and conservative in our thinking. Our approach needs to reflect our ability to live up to these challenges and not put up barriers for going forward.

    Like

  62. ID: why do you think that everybody at the Respect conference should vote for your policies? Is it really serious to make a United Front agreement for specific ends with people with whom you are not in complete or even remote agreement and then expect them to adopt your perspectives and program on the basis of a few resolutions at conference. Maybe after a few years of exemplary work if you are lucky. But even then, do you accept anything other than your own program? It would hardly be principled politics to ditch a scientifically worked out and therefore objectively necessary program solely in order to make an alliance. Respect is still a United Front despite the rather inflated opinion of the last conference that it is a party. The agreement is to get a slate of candidates on a principled anti-imperialist platform elected, anything more than that program-wise is up to the individual candidates and the factions that back them. The worse thing for me is not that Respect hasn’t adopted the Transitional Program lock stock and barrel but that the Marxist socialist factions have miserably failed to get one or two representatives of it or their own on to the Respect list of candidates putting forward a truly transitional program. Why was not a constituency selected for serious work amongst local trades unionists and community groups with a good possibility of a large perhaps winning vote? The trouble with the `Marxist’ left is that they seem to think they can parachute in over night and win but that is the politics of the sect. Just look at the Hurculean effort Respect’s three candidates have put in just to have a remote chance of winning. Galloway has literally been risking his life on the Egyptian/Palestine border.

    What happened to the Wigan Peoples Alliance by the way? They seemed to have the right approach and weren’t they going to get Galloway’s backing? Liam, any chance of an up date on their activities?

    Like

  63. `centrist eh? between what and what?’

    I think I said johng. Between opportunism and sectarianism, between reform and revolution between the two poles of which you arbitrarily zig-zag congenitally incapable of finding the reasonable transitional ground. Take the invented state capitalist `theory’ as an example. It manages to both pander to western middle class sensibilities (opportunism) and take an ultra-left (almost Third Period) stand towards the Soviet Union and its Stalinist leaders (sectarianism).

    But the SWP is worse than just centrist. Like the Stalinists, but on a very small scale, it is bureaucratic centrist (it even counts the Stalinist Gramsci amongst its biggest influences – THE intellecual of two-stage theory and unprincipled maneouvering). During the Cold War it was virtually part of the british political system. Its destabilisation is part of the overall destabilisation of that system.

    Like

  64. Alf: you need to get past these abstract calls for unity. The only time the sects will unify is when they perceive the danger from a genuine initiative. They will unify temporarily to try to wreck it if they can before crawling back to their comfort zones. Sects destroyed the First International and necessitated its abandonment for a Second. Marx and Engels’ struggle against the sects of the anarchists and others is very instructive. The sooner the SWP disappears up its own fundament the better. It does not play an important role in the movement. It plays the role of back-stop and operates a divide and rule policy from below. Centrism is a huge obstacle between the working class and genuine marxism. it would be nice if a third faction basing itself on Marxism and transitional methods were to emerge in the SWP and we must encourage such a thing but realistically that is not going to happen. The machinery would rather eat itself than let that happen at the expense of a few more hundreds of young recruits exiting politics for ever. Implacable struggle against the centrist especially the professional ones not pandering to their nonsense or stroking their delicate egos.

    Like

  65. johng – actually I think I’m asking the wrong question, as the pronoucements of the candidates aren’t necessarily the way to judge whether to support them, as they never used to be when the SWP supported a vote for Labour. Though how do you decide what is “left of Labour”? What you’ve said about minor programmatic differences concerns me that you wish to downplay what separates the SWP from the Greens and Respect. I don’t really understand what you’re saying about a small tent, if these “left of Labour” forces are irrelevant to most workers, why back them?It would also seem difficult to prevent an endorsement of certain Green candidates from carrying over to an endorsement of all Green candidates.
    As I suggested above, I would say part of the reason for this approach is the scarring effect of the Respect split and the Say No To Reesism campaign that followed in the party, leaving you unwilling to make too sharp an analysis of what has happened and what is left. Maybe it’s for the best, but maybe an opportunity is being missed to concentrate on actual left re-alignment.

    David Ellis – angioplasty might help with your bleeding heart.

    ID – I don’t think we’re going to agree on that, and you were there and I wasn’t, though perhaps that distance gives me some advantage in telling the wood from the trees. My point was that the slogan changed from OUR to WORKING, but that no explanation was ever offered for why this change occured, leaving me to conclude that the first represented how the leadership of Respect saw its following (as a non-class based community mass that looked to it for salvation), and the second represented a sop to those who wanted to believe there was something of the broad class struggle organisation in New Respect.
    When the split happened, Galloway was supported by a minority. In order to justify the coup that landed his and your faction the name, it was necessary on the one hand to say that this group better represented the natural voting base of Respect in the Muslim community, and would reflect its interests, on the other hand to maintain any credibility on the Left the split had to be represented as down to John Rees’ failings and not a battle between left and right. This tension meant that the leaders of Respect were willing to allow the left to have its head at the first conference, as long as it didn’t constrain them in practice, while the logic of their orientation and that of the organisation was always going to lead them to roll back any positions the the left thought it had established, and will continue to do that as Respect’s appeal outside certain Muslim communities fades, and it becomes more and more no more than a community organisation.

    alf – I think you need to be clearer, your last paragraph is pure jargon. I don’t think sectarianism is noticeably a problem for the SWP, you seem to find what you’ve gone looking for and might be better off engaging with the SWP that is, not what your prejudices tell you it is.

    Like

  66. `David Ellis – angioplasty might help with your bleeding heart.’

    Only the relief of your misery will help.

    Like

  67. Oh I have a very sharp analyses of what happened don’t worry about that. Its just probably slightly difference to your sharp analyses! Although it has to be said not nearly as sharp as that of David Ellis who I am from now on going to call a warog. warogism is perhaps the largest danger facing the re-constitution of the left and must be fought at all times. whenever warogism raises its ugly head it must be smashed. warogism constantly vacilates between reading and ascot and quite often the tube. In London it has been known on buses as well as taxis. We must fight warog sectarianism, warog centrism and above all, warog ultraleftism (and rightism). I hope that is now clear to all. For gods sake its about time the left learnt some lessons.

    Like

  68. johng, are you alright?

    Like

  69. Having dealt with warogism on to more serious matters. Skidmarx I think the disintergration of New Labour has produced a new kind of shifting locus of reformism. Neil Davidson has written interestingly on this in relationship to the SNP. In terms of the Greens its really not true that “workers don’t care”. Its a feature of the current situation that quite a lot of militants in the working class movement are talking about voting Green. In terms of Respect, well, in Birmingham it looks quite likely that Respect could take a parliamentry seat. When it comes to the Greens I’m in favour of backing candidates who stand on the left-ie against neo-liberalism, war, and do so fairly consistantly. Lucas springs to mind. Respect just are on the left even if I have political disagreements with them. You don’t even have to revise hostile opinions towards that project to accept this (although I think your own position is over-stated).

    There are two processes going on. One is a shifting locus of reformism where workers are starting to vote for other formations as they become new vehicles for reformist aspirations. This is true of the Greens, Plaid Cymru, SNP etc. In these cases its a matter of context and concrete situation which position socialists ought to take. Its also important to stress that the shift is very uneven and that therefore its difficult to adopt a one size fits all model. We’re at an early stage.

    The other processes involve the re-constitution of the left of the left. On occassion this process is blurred with the former, at least rhetorically (although one suspects, and this is meant fraternally, that sometimes this involves a fair bit of wishful thinking amongst those on the right of Respect like Andy Newman and Mark P on these threads) but they are nonetheless distinct processes. Both George Galloway and Salma Yakoob may have their faults (undoubtably rather different ones!) but the idea that it would be a good thing for the left if they were defeated is surely lunacy. They are certainly part of the left in my view.

    Like

  70. johng – I think you’re bang on about the election (about warogism, I cannot say). I would also add that the fracturing of UK reformism that is occurring, in a haphazard and entirely too slow way is a feature of the low level of class struggle in the UK. In Germany, where there was an outburst of struggle around the SPD’s attack on the welfare state the pressure of that (plus the existence of the PDS) led to a significant break in the form of the WASG. In France, where there has been a relatively higher and sustained level of struggle there have been several openings and breaks – both potential and realized, most recently with the formation of the NPA and the breakaway of Melanchon’s Partie Gauche.
    With the Labour Party’s deep institutional roots in the unions, in working class communities, and with the power to deliver privilege and potential political success, it will be difficult – in the absence of a big upsurge to deliver any significant wholesale break. Respect was the largest single break of a traditionally Labour supporting group since, perhaps, the ILP (on a much bigger level, obviously). That marked one phase of a longer process. At present, there is a return to the ‘momentum of slow fracture’, if you will. And the SWPs electoral tactics ought to reflect that by targeting support in the way that they have. This might not yield immediate results in either electoral gains (though one would hope that Salma Yaqoob, GG, and Caroline Lucas would win seats, which would accelerate the process) or in left unity but it is laying the groundwork for the future, if and when a breakthrough in class struggle emerges (not in some linear way but as part of a process).

    Like

  71. johng – that’s interesting, and a much fuller explanation of the SWP’s position on the elction than I’ve seen up to now. There are a couple of points that spring to mind immediately.
    Just because a number of militants are talking about voting Green doesn’t necessarily make it a positive development.
    Lucas seems to have quite a mixed record, and that’s before her party achieves any real power. Shappi Khorsandi claimed on Newsnight that if the Lib Dems had been in power they’d have taken us into the Iraq war. You’d probably agree. But why should we treat the posture of Respect and the Greens with more deference?
    Are the shifting locus of reformism and the reconstitution of the left of the left really so distinct, when there seems to be confusion about who is in the latter and who is in the former?[I note you include the Greens but not Respect as new vehicles for reformist aspirations].
    I don’t think it is such lunacy to think that a defeat for Galloway/Yaqoob would have its upside, it would diminish the credibility of their attempt to sidetrack the left into being footsoldiers for their personal vehicle. I do have a hostile opinion towards that project which does nothing to heal the fragmentation of the left.

    Did you mean wargism?while Wargism might have been the lupine orientation that dare not speak it’s name in times gone by it is now in danger of being the one that does not shut up.
    http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:V1yqi0pO_EMJ:forum.barrowdowns.com/archive/index.php%3Ft-12464.html+wargism&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    Like

  72. redbedhead – electoral gains for those questionably on the left and left unity are not the same.I think.

    Like

  73. `I do have a hostile opinion towards that project which does nothing to heal the fragmentation of the left.’

    That’s a joke. You represent and are the very fragmentation of the left.

    As far as the Greens are concerned I wouldn’t recommend a vote for Caroline Lucas as there is no reason why she couldn’t join a Tory coalition on the basis of getting something for the environment. Such a thing also would not necessarily effect her voting base which could well think she’d done the right thing. The Greens are essentially middle class sectarians and the thing they are sectarian about is the environment but it is that very sectarianism that means they have such catholic tastes in potential coalition bed fellows. Anybody who throws them a bone or two on that issue will win them over. We can see how that works again and again throughout Europe. Those who have recommended her would surely have to take the blame for their own woeful misleadership of at least a section of the class should that happen though of course they may get lucky. That said it would be interesting to see her elected. Respect, on the other hand, have a clear anti-imperialist stance and could not enter a New Labour or any Labour government let along a Tory one that didn’t immediately pledge to end the war and break from imperialism without destroying its own electoral base of support.

    Like

  74. Skidmarx its not really a question of whether its a positive development or not. I wrote something earlier which I’ll reproduce below. But on Respect, look, yes there is some pretty bad blood between Respect and the SWP. In terms of the specific point about wanting to reduce the left to footsoldiers for their electoral project: well, from their point of view they need footsoldiers. Its hardly a surprise. Politically I think it reflects an all-eggs in one basket approach (ie electoralism) which I (or the SWP) don’t share. But all that reflects is that they have a different political orientation. As long as we are clear and open about this whats the problem? The idea that a highhanded attitude towards the SWP by a small organisation which has a real base in two areas of the country would be an excuse for hoping for a defeat for the left…thats just a mistake. In terms of the line between left of the left and shifting locus of reformism, well of course its blurred. Large parts of the left of the left ARE reformists. But there is nevertheless a distinction between small combinations of revolutionaries and left reformists, and larger organisations which become or may become the focus for mass reformist consiounsess. Revolutionaries need to relate to both processes. I am however much more seriously disturbed by your deviation about warogism and the CRASS EMPIRICISM and OPPORTUNISM manifest in your use of wikipedia.

    Anyway here is what I wrote earlier:

    I have in mind the way in which as New Labour disintergrates reformists aspirations of many groups of workers are shifting to different projects. Neil Davidson has written interestingly about the SNP in this respect, whilst quite a lot of militants speak of voting for the Greens. Its a very uneven process but I think there needs to be some thought …about the way in which this cuts across familiar talk about ‘vacuum on the left’ etc. The left understands the way the far right can move in to fill this vacuum. But a certain kind of left reformist consciousness is much more resiliant inside the class and provides the other side of the medal. This process is related but distinct from recomposition of the left (when it comes to the Greens I would draw a distinction between figures on the left like Lucas and those to her right for example). Some of these thoughts were prompted by remembering, whilst not being able to get hold of, the very interesting talk/article Duncan Hallas did many years ago on the relationship between reformist and class consiousness.

    In different countries it takes different forms. Hallas, as I remembered it, charecterised it as a combination of nation and class (he was obviously discussing what he called ‘Labourish’ consiousnes). But the point was you could have all sorts of combinations. One of the striking parrallels he raised was with Portugal. Where the complete … disintergration of the regime co-incided with the non-existence of any social democratic organisation. It was a great mistake though to imagine that this implied the absence of social democratic consiousness. Sections of the left saw the extraordinary resuccitation of social democracy subsequently as a function of west german and cia funding. The latter was probably true. But it didn’t explain the success of these efforts in a situation of dual power. In Quebec this consiousness took the form of Quebecqua left nationalism. Here traditionally it took the form of ‘Labourish’ consiousness. This still certainly exists (and it is extremely foolish not to realise this). But such consiosness can find new focuses. Which of course raises questions about the stance revolutionaries ought to take in relationship to these processes.

    Like

  75. In other words skidmarx, as well as, as redbedhead puts it, laying the basis longterm for recomposition on the left, we still, as always, need to relate to mass reformist consiousness. But mass reformist consiousness is today in a much messier and more fragmented state then it used to be. But its a great mistake to think it has simply gone away. So, more concretely, the big debates that take place at the moment about whether there are circumstances in which a vote for Labour should be called for. Here we need to factor in a) the continuing existence of mass reformist consiousness but b) the very large critical mass of the best activists, including some in the SWP it should be said, who have broken in very hard ways with the idea of voting Labour. We have to relate to both groups at the same time. This is important because the latter group comprise not just small groups of organised revolutionaries but wider groups who have ‘shifted’ in the above sense to the Greens or other organisations. The reason for the politics we used to have about relating to Labour (the need to relate to mass reformist consiousness) have not changed. But the vehicles for this consiousness are. This needs to be registered. Its why older arguments which would have ruled out such things look a little dated. Not because they were wrong then. But because now, the class, in particular the best sections of it from our point of view as socialists, are often somewhere else. Its these factors, which exist in the real world, which explain why we in the SWP are having to have another debate about this to resolve these issues. Its because of the pull of the real world on our organisation. This is a good thing not a bad thing.

    Like

  76. The idea that a highhanded attitude towards the SWP by a small organisation which has a real base in two areas of the country would be an excuse for hoping for a defeat for the left…thats just a mistake.
    That pre-supposes that a defeat for Respect would be a defeat for the Left; arguable, but not to be assumed a priori.
    What you are saying seems to be that New Labour has fundamentally shifted to the right and so the reformist aspirations of workers have shifted to other groups, implying that the SWP should back the best of these to relate to militants. A good argument in theory, but it seems to have led to a not inconsiderable amount of redwashing.
    Here’s something Chris Harman wrote a couple of years ago about neo-liberalism:
    But the term can also be used to reinforce the illusion that minor changes in the running of parts of the system are all that is necessary to improve the situation of the mass of people. By the same token, those who see their fight as an “anti-neoliberal” one can move on to see it as “anti-capitalist”, but they can also slip back into conciliation with the system. Rhetoric and slogans have a role in politics, but they are not a substitute for clarity about the enemy and how to fight it.
    http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=399
    There seems to be a danger of over-praising the Greens and Respect for doing the former and skating over when they do the latter. And of seeing Labour as the enemy while ignoring the Tories which an unconditional desire to see Labour fractured implies.

    The Galloway victory in 2005 did represent the biggest break of Labour supporting workers to the Left since the war, but perhaps it had the unfortunate effect on the SWP of thinking the project was too im[portant to fail. And while Galloway, who had never even been Left enough to join the Campaign Group had been shifted Left by the Iraq War and his expulsion, the logic of his reliance of community-based support and the split with the SWP has in many ways enabled or forced him to the right again, a trajectory I can only see continuing as time goes on. Your view of the left and right in Respect (and that of ID) seem to be false ones, as the leadership can always do without the left if necessary,but the reverse is not true, so the left are allowed symbolic victories from time to time to keep them on board, but the real power in Respect lies with the leadership’s cross class electoral appeal to the Muslim community, theorised by such as Perryman.
    One could draw a parallel with the way the SWM used to relate to Sinn Fein, calling for a vote for it because anti-imperialism was such a central issue. I assume that’s changed now that SF is in government, the peace process is ongoing, and the Irish SWP now has the confidence to stand class based candidates.[SF has a left of course as well].

    And it was google not wikipedia, your SECTARIAN blindness woefully misleading you again.

    Like

  77. Harman’s comments on neo-liberalism are true, but then we are talking about speices of reformism here. Its not as if we don’t want to work with people who have illusions. One root of reformism is that workers only experiance of winning improvements have been within the system. Its therefore quite logical to seek alternative means of doing so. However I don’t believe in ignoring the Tories and concentrating all fire on New Labour. The point was that what I called the ‘shifting locus’ is a very uneven process. I talked about the need to relate to both processes. On Respect in particular I think it remains left of Labour whatever criticisms I might have. I actually think the SWPs problem at the time proceeding the split was a mixture of lack of open discussion about differences when they came up but then over-reaction when they were forced into the open. My own feeling is that the scale of the opposition to war went to some peoples heads allowing them to imagine first of all that political differences didn’t really matter, and then when those differences came up taking fright.

    Like

  78. skidmarx

    “My point was that the slogan changed from OUR to WORKING, but that no explanation was ever offered for why this change occured, leaving me to conclude that the first represented how the leadership of Respect saw its following (as a non-class based community mass that looked to it for salvation), and the second represented a sop to those who wanted to believe there was something of the broad class struggle organisation in New Respect.”

    No, the second version was just to make it clearer what the first version actually meant to say. It followed chronologically as I remember. Not much to explain, really. That is the simple truth. The perspective that both slogans expressed in slightly different ways is objectionable to George and his co-thinkers today. GG thinks the British working class has been ‘unmade’ and that organisations that try to base themselves on the working class are an electoral liability.

    Like

  79. It seems to me that you elide a break with the reformist party – the Labour Party – with a break with reformism. Its not the same thing at all. Reformism is simply the struggle for the improvement of the system within, classically encapsulated in the liberal programme of “reforms”, which limits the struggle to the framework of bourgeois society, rather than the struggle to replace it with socialism.
    Let’s face it that is the overwhelming majority of society. are reformist. That is inevitable. There is no mass party or organisation fighting for socialism. And socialism cannot arise spontaneously, without an organisation struggling for it.
    That reformism used to be social democratic, it was articulated through workers organisations, trade unions and a workers party, the Labour Party, it is now something less than social democratic.
    In other words purely liberal. It has essentially the same programme as reformism always had – the liberal reform of capitalism – but without the ties to working class organisations. In that sense it is almost unconditionally a step back.
    You see this articulated particularly clear with Respect and those supporting the Greens. Respect has a liberal programme, but is not oriented to the working class. It is in essence a purely liberal electoralist organisation and likewise the Greens, (although they never had the pretension of being anything else).
    The debate around whether to support these organisations, is a good way of taking the attention off what organisations of the left, like say the SWP, could actually do to actually build a socialist alternative. Aside from one-to-one recruitment that is.
    In other words the left organisations should be talking about the concrete steps that they are going to undertake to actually build a left alternative, socialist and working class party.

    Like

  80. Skidward: `Your view [johng’s] of the left and right in Respect (and that of ID) seem to be false ones, as the leadership can always do without the left if necessary,but the reverse is not true, so the left are allowed symbolic victories from time to time to keep them on board …’

    At least try to have your conspiracy theories make sense. Why allow victories, symbolic or otherwise, to people you can do without if necessary?

    Like

  81. `In other words the left organisations should be talking about the concrete steps that they are going to undertake to actually build a left alternative, socialist and working class party.’

    We know what concrete steps the sects will take. None. The only steps they will take is to attack any such initiative. The SWP launched Operation Wreckspect when it finally realised that the `united front of a special kind’ was actually a united front the other half of which were not going to be pushed around by a bunch of amateurs and you never miss an opportunity to denounce a project led by an expelled Labour MP who travels the world confronting British and American imperialism and Zionist colonialism and who gives his support to just about every struggle launched by workers in this country that takes place.

    Like

  82. Bill J,

    Its neccessary to do both. Its unlikely that any largish break with the Labour Party would take the form of people instantly converting to revolutionary politics. And ID, the notion that the British working class has been unmade is interestingly common currency not only amongst some engaging in electoral projects but also in certain ultraleft moods dismissing the unions as corrupted, right wing, irrelevent etc. So the new movementism has both a right and a left. But given that I don’t believe that the working class has been unmade, I believe that firstly its the duty of socialists to argue with both currents but also to try and constructively win people away from these views. Andy Newman in his latest post is I think entirely correct to point to the hardening of the Labour vote that we are bound to see in coming months. Its also true though that this co-exists with a hardening of a minority who will probably never vote Labour. Its no good just dismissing one set of people and embracing another. Its neccessary to recognise that both tendencies are real. And that people from both tendencies are likely in the future to be working alongside each other outside the Labour Party. This is incidently one of the lessons I learnt from my reading of Broue’s German Revolution. This was a real revolutionary situation but the ultraleft were still ultraleft and it remained the case that relating to workers who were SPD members was crucial. Much of the internal fight in the KPD was a desperate attempt to get the balence right. It was no simple matter but made worse by the on-going degeneration of the comintern. Thankfully we don’t have that particular constraint anyway.

    Like

  83. I seem to remember from my reading of The Lost Revolution that in October 1923 the KPD bottled it because of th lack of confidence generated by its ultra-left stance of a couple of years previous.

    Newman ends said post by abusing the Lib Dems, then concedes in the comments that there are circumstances in which he thinks people should vote for them. Then someone points out that Lib Dem success might lead to PR which he,Respect and the Greens are all desperate for. Can you explain how the Lib Dems differ in their liberalism from the latter two?

    ID – So you think there’s no substantial difference. I think that “Defend Our People” is fairly clear code for represent the Muslim community (a community that faces oppression, so I’m certainly not comparing it to the BNP). The second did follow chronologically (hard to see how it could have followed any other way); when you say the second version was just to make it clearer what the first version actually meant to say, I wonder by who, and from what you say about GG and co-thinkers it would seem they’d be happier with the original, and I think the suggestion holds up that they are prepared to compromise on the symbolism sometimes to maintain a left tail, and with it the illusion of a real engagement with the Left and a national agenda, but the nature of the post-split Respect is that they get to decide when those symbols are no longer useful to them and can be discarded.

    Like

  84. skidmarx

    “I think that “Defend Our People” is fairly clear code for represent the Muslim community (a community that faces oppression, so I’m certainly not comparing it to the BNP).”

    No, the slogan ‘defending our people’ was not concieved in that way at all. The ‘defence’ was always against the recession, which certainly does not only affect Muslims, and ‘our people’ always referred to all sections of the working class. I know this, because I was involved in these discussions – both slogans were formulated by the same people – the comrades who are now excoriated as Respect’s ‘ultra left’ – with the aim of positioning Respect as taking up the greivances of the whole class against the developing recession.

    In no sense did ‘our people’ ever refer to Muslims. It referred to working class people. That is simply a fact – I was in organising this conference and know exactly what was intended.

    Like

  85. ID – then the second version was a clearer indication of your intent. But to say that ‘our people’ always referred to all sections of the working class is to miss the difference between intent and appearance. It is like when someone calls themselves a progressive rather than a socialist, there is a choice made to avoid the language of class. I won’t dispute that “Defend” is best read in economic terms rather than physical force or anything else, but can just as easily be seen as defending the petty-bourgeoisie from the depredations of finance capital.
    You may have wanted Respect Mk2 to be a broad class struggle organisation, but it is not. It is a small organisation whose support is almost entirely an electoral appeal to the Muslim community, largely on the basis of what affects them as Muslims rather than workers [Iraq,Gaza, getting representatives of their community into office]. It has been useful at times for the leadership to allow the impression that it has a more general left agenda, to use its electoral support to leverage its way into aposition of kingmaker on the left and to give it additional power in vote-trading with the Greens, but that seems to be closing off as an option. I’m saying that whatever your subjective opinion about the language, it seems to fit into a pattern of schizophrenia about where the organisation is based.
    By the way, to return to something johng said up the thread, I did get an apology for the abuse from Respect supporters from Neil Williams, who I understand is one of your co-thinkers, at a time when the abuse was being turned on him, so full credit to him for that. It is noticeable that the arguments used against Respect’s “ultra-left” ignored the substance of your argument, they were mostly to say that because Southwark Respect hadn’t built an electoral machine like those in Tower Hamlets or Birmingham, it could be dismissed an an irrelevance, another reason why I think it’s more productive to see Respect as a community-based vehicle for its leaders, rather than another left of Labour organisation.

    Like

  86. Well they differ from the Lib dems in being consistantly anti-imperialist, and consistantly opposed to neo-liberalism. Just to take two examples. Yes its true that the KPD bottled it because of the fear of previous ultraleftism. The point is that there WAS previous ultraleftism. And to extend the metaphore whilst you might not be bottling it, your continuing with the prior bout of ultraleftism. There just is no reason to continue as if the main enemy is Respect. Its a little ridiculous. Even if it were true that all Respect was was an organisation representing a few oppressed communities.

    Like

  87. Skidmarx, I think you are reading too much into slogans that really aren’t that different. As I said, I was there, on the CAC for that conference, and the same people formulated both slogans – people who are now considered persona non-grata in Respect.

    Actually, at the time this was formulated, what Respect would become was not determined. The real, later battle in Respect was over support or non-support for the No2EU initiative, not over these slogans which did not even anticipate this division. It simply was a non-issue at the time, and not as you say. Not every adjustment in slogans is a life-or-death programmatic question. This was a minor nuance, nothing more.

    Like

  88. johng – when did I say that Respect was the main enemy? I didn’t think I’d gone further than declining to see them as a progressive alternative to Labour. What is Respect beyond an organisation representing a few oppressed communities.?
    Greens in power elsewhere have shown a lack of consistent anti-imperialism. The situation with Respect is more complex because of the nature of their base,but because it isn’t based on class the question of whether their increased influence at the expense of Labour (which despite its New Labourism still has a left and much support among workers who still see it as the only alternative to the Tories) is still debatable, and whether revolutionary socialists should be backing them more questionable still.

    billj – Aside from one-to-one recruitment that is.
    You say that like it’s a bad thing. If one were to agree with you that the SWP is an authoritarian sclerotic organisation it would be, but anyone who has spent time in the party and not been repelled by the experience would not only disagree, but find your view of the party hard to square with the reality.[I’m not directly quoting you, so you may wish to argue that I miss some nuance of your opinion of the SWP]

    ID – I still think you’re only telling us about your intentions, rather than what they tell us about Respect. The fact that noone was willing at the time to explain the change (if even just to say that it was a minor one of no significance) showed a deliberate lack of clarity about Respect’s positioning and an unwillingness to answer hard questions about it.

    Like

  89. I don’t think Respect is THE alternative to new labour. Such a thing unfortunately does not exist. But in certain areas like in Birmingham and in TH its certainly AN alternative to it. Just as in other areas where left Green candidates are standing the same is the true. The SWP is not suggesting incidently that socialists should vote for any Green candidate and your points about the record of Green’s in power internationally is a reason for this. The point is, should a mass alternative to New Labour emerge, is it at all likely that this would not include some of these current fragments of the left? I doubt this very much, at least if such an alternative was to be credible. Should socialists restrict themselves to these fragments? Of course not. But when it comes to an actual election campaign we are stuck with what there is on the left. And if there is a small leftish party which primarily represents oppressed communities why on earth wouldn’t we back it against new labour? The alternative is to suggest that people shouldn’t vote. And abstention has never been our position when it comes to elections in Britain. We do need to recognise that Labourism is far from dead (but incidently this is also a problem with more orthodox socialists on the left: So the Socialist Party has a tendency to simply equate Labour and the Tories, a position which is equally mistaken). Social Democracy is not dead. But its decomposing. And we do need to relate to the various challenges to it even if we have different politics to some of the challengers.

    Like

  90. Supporting some Green candidates is likely to somewhat give the message that they should all be, especially if the reasons for picking some and not others is unclear.

    Like

  91. “Newman ends said post by abusing the Lib Dems, then concedes in the comments that there are circumstances in which he thinks people should vote for them.”

    No I don’t. i say a case could be made fr voting for them in some lib-dem/tory marginals.

    personally i would never vote for them, unless the Lib Dem was the only credible candidate to stop the BNP.

    Like

  92. Well the message is pretty clear for most people involved in the socialist movement. Opposing war and neo-liberalism. And in any case, like it or not, very large numbers of people on the left will be voting Green. And many on the left are IN the Greens. To refuse support even for left wing Green candidates would be to cut yourself off completely from a large part of the left we need to be talking to. At least in my view. How exactly would you go about arguing with someone voting Green out of disgust with New Labour, and telling them that they must’nt do this but at the same time saying we would vote some New Labour candidates?

    Like

  93. The situation today is that we need to adopt a flexible approach which enables us to work with those forces moving to the Left, as well as those on the Left at the same time.

    That means an open approach with the Green Left as well as those involved in a range of campaigns but not part of any organised Left as such. Similarly yes Respect, TUSC and a range of local based Socialist networks.

    To those who counter one to the other, this is sectarian. We are coming from a situation of a divided, weakened and defragmented Left. The pluralism of the movement is obvious. Many independants and activists will not welcome being dictated to and bypassed as a result of back door decisions.

    No amount of top down arrangements will overcome this as it involves open and democratic processes. We have to ensure that the various initiatives do not run against each other but work alongside each other.

    It is interesting how my article, even with its error on Scotland referred to missed opportunities. The debate that is taking place now re the General Election, united fronts, Left reallignment and the context within which this is all occurring are debates that should have started some time ago.

    However to those who consider Left unity can be imposed from the top without an inclusive and open approach to all, there is an inherent danger of repeating previous mistakes at a time when we should know better.

    Those in the TUSC need to adopt a genuine united front approach to working with others and open up the structures to wider and democratic participation by others. Any new initiative must think beyond the General Election as well as planning for it if we are to lay down new prospects for the Left.

    Like

  94. According to the latest S.W. editorial,” We need more resistance to the cuts and job losses, to the wars and the obscene level of military spending. And it must not be held back by fears that such struggles will undermine Labour.”

    Fine but how? No mention of what we should actually do. No reference to initiatives, no reference to united fronts.

    Now if an internal debate is taking place on Labour, as suggested, will that be resolved before or after the election? How can you educate members if the editorials and headlines do not even raise the key issues? Or will members simply be informed of the new turn by text?

    If TUSC is to offer new prospects and maintain a non sectarian and open approach to the rest of the Left and independents then let us hear about it. Open up the debate and do not just admire what is happening in France and do the opposite.

    Now is the time if we are all talking unity then we must act accordingly or is it to become a mere recruiting ground and paper sales opportunity? I hope that that is not the case. I hope I am wrong in my analysis, for all our sakes.

    Like

  95. Alf, this is getting silly. Directly underneath the editorial you refer to is a piece on what we can do in the immediate term, what we hope from the right to work conference etc. Opening the paper I find a discussion about fighting cuts in education, reports from Fujitsu strikes with a call for solidarity, and a call for support for the Stop the War demonstration next Thursday.
    I think someone actually reading the paper would be hard pushed to claim that we weren’t identifying some practical priorities.

    Like

  96. johng – by using the same arguments socialists have always made against voting for non-working class organisations. I think you maybe be placing too much significance on the election if you think you’d be cutting yourself off from Green inclined militants by not supporting Green candidates.
    The first piece of Respect Renewal literature I say was handed out on in Trafalgar Square, and said on the front something like “opposed to neo-liberalism and war”. Then they turned around and backed the Labour mayoral candidate in preference to the official Respect one. That’s one thing that convinced me that “opportunist” was a good way to characterise them, and I’ve had no reason yet to change my mind.
    When the SWP used to call for a vote for Labour, it felt able to ignore small groups to the left of Labour as irrelevances, I can see the collapse of Labour reformism has changed that to some extent, but still think that supporting non-working class parties with questionable socialist credentials helps to bring the left together rather than further fragment it.

    Like

  97. Dan I am referring to the issue of TUSC and wider Left unity re the election. Am not denying or criticising the positive initiatives. Am also commenting on the need for a more open and pluralistic approach re wider unity.
    You misunderstood my meaning.

    Like

  98. Well skidmarx I think I’ve laid out my own take on the questions you raise and why I think your own perspective whilst understandable and once legitimate no longer holds. I’ve also emphasised that there remains continuity: especially in terms of support for Labour in certain conditions, and not equating them with the Tories etc. In terms of ‘opportunism’ and the like: well of course those we were in alliance with were to the right of us. But we knew this in the first place. My own attitude to George, Salma etc is no different to what it was previously. Support them when they do good things, criticise when we disagree. Unfortunately we were not consistant in this at the time.

    Alf, its pretty well known that we don’t control the initiatives that we are currently part of on the electoral front. The left is fragmented and divided and we can’t speak therefore on their behalf. We can only take part in initiatives where it is possible to do so, Ringing speeches about what ought to be done in the absence of any engagement with the forces neccessary to do so would not be of much use to anyone.

    Like

  99. Well johng we can at least argue for a position. Yes we join in initiatives and welcome possible developments, albeit critically. No we do not control initiatives but we can attempt to positively influence them.

    Like

  100. I think it was rather easy to misunderstand your meaning, but fair enough. There will be extensive discussion about both our attitude to the Labour party (one I am having on an almost daily basis with activists in my branch). We have already made it clear we will support some left of labour candidates, and be part of the new coalition. But beyond that there is still a great deal of discussion to be had.

    Like

  101. Dan thanks for that. It is useful but I still feel there should be an open debate as it affects the whole of the Left. Also if it is set up, as it is, then TUSC should be more open and inclusive.

    Like

  102. But Alf we are having an open discussion. Its just true that individuals in the SWP can’t represent a position which is currently under discussion. What we can do is say what the general concensus is as we go into those discussions. Which we’re doing our level best to do on this thread. We’ve opened up the pages of socialist worker to the movement to discuss this question. We’ve repeatedly stated that we’re open to all suggestions and intiatives. We held one meeting and it was finally clarified that Respect couldn’t send people because it went against their constitution. Absolutely fair enough. But just how ‘open’ can people be? I don’t see how we could be more so.

    Like

  103. Liam,

    Aparently, the SWP are going to join in with this newly (finally) named and recently launched Trade union and Socialist coalition.

    Perhaps we could have a post up about these new developments and further discuss the present ways forward for the Left

    Like

  104. The openess requires that all possible elements are publically invited to participate at an early stage and that talks occurr in such a way that they allow for the pluralistic nature of the Left. Has that been done? Not so far. Will it? Well let us see. Will there be a PR system on national, regional and local cttees? Is that envisaged?

    What about areas where local alliances of left wing activists and others are planning to stand? Will it stand candidates against such initiatives? Hope not. Will it stand against Respect candidates? Should not. These and many other issues need to be considered. This is just a few issues to discuss.

    Like

  105. Alfie, have you invited the rest of the left to take part in a pluralistic discussion? Complete with all the bells and whistles you mention? If not why not?

    At present we in the SWP do not control all the forces of the left and therefore cannot lay down rules for everyone else. Just as I suspect you can’t.

    All this is a bit paradoxical really. How would it be ‘pluralistic’ for us to lay down conditions on pluralism for everyone else on the left?

    Like

  106. “What about areas where local alliances of left wing activists and others are planning to stand? Will it stand candidates against such initiatives? Hope not. Will it stand against Respect candidates? Should not”

    The answer is no and no. As even the most cursory reading of anything we have said in socialist worker would indicate. What a surreal discussion.

    Like

  107. No I can not nor can any of us, lay down rules and nor should we. Yet where we have influence we should be arguing for open and inclusive structures. Where we are in a position to then we should implement such a policy.

    No it is not a surreal discussion. It is seeking clarification. I welcome your clarification and agree with you that we should not stand against other initiatives.

    There is therefore more that unites us as a result and we should be moving towards such unity.Unfortunately others have not given this clarification or committment.
    The more that do then the easier it becomes and we can all move forward together.

    Like

  108. As for invites, well yes consider yourself invited and let us attempt to arrange such a discussion. I welcome it.
    A positive discussion around joint initiatives, joint work and closer co-operation. Who knows where this could lead to? Warts and all.

    Like

  109. ID – you said: Actually, at the time this was formulated, what Respect would become was not determined. The real, later battle in Respect was over support or non-support for the No2EU initiative, not over these slogans which did not even anticipate this division.
    This may have been when The Final Conflict occured, but my contention is that the nature of the organisation and the leadership had been established at the time of the great schism if not before, and that with the need to maintain as much support as possible after the split (as theirs dropped precipitously) they were biding their time about taking on your “ultra-left”. It seems unmaterialistic to lactae the change later,what events had made the leadership change its position at that time?

    johng – I think you may be right to imply that we’ve gone as far as is useful with this part of the discussion, and I don’t mean to reduce it to asking a series of Gotcha! questions, though it might be nice to have an answer to the one about where else Respect’s support lies (and any mention of Jerry Hicks might prompt further speculation on the divisive use of Respect’s assets).And you never seem to really explain the metric by which organsations or individuals should be judged to merit electoral backing, but hey, life’s a mystery.
    I do think I started off with less respect for Galloway in the first place, like Mark Steel I did find the whole indefatigability thing hard to get round and was only prepared to put it aside because of the respect I had for the SWP. The senate hearings which seemed to have convinced everyone involved that he was the planet’s greatest orator, I saw more dispassionately as bluster that was over by the next news cycle. So its not that the abuse from Respect supporters created my opinion of him, more that it confirmed it.
    When you talk about supporting the good and criticising the bad (consistently mispelling consistent along the way), I’m not sure that only praising VP! and failing to criticise the praise for the Moroccan monarchy and the Tunisian regime that accompanied the first convoy quite meets the mark (I’ll admit I’ve tended to bend the stick the other way, though when I say I welcome the aid getting through and am immediately told by one of the idiots like eb or tlc that I’m denouncing the convoy the phrase “might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb” springs to mind, plus the suspicion that Respect is an organisation of morons increases). The praise I’ve seen of Caroline Lucas, I think from you, also seems to have been less balanced than you are proposing.

    At present we in the SWP do not control all the forces of the left and therefore cannot lay down rules for everyone else.
    But in the Glorious Future…

    Like

  110. Skidmarx “At present we in the SWP do not control all the forces of the left and therefore cannot lay down rules for everyone else.
    But in the Glorious Future…”

    That is the problem. You still fail to recognise the pluralism of the Left and refer to control and laying down rules.

    Hegemony as a term was used by Lenin and Trotsky to refer to the role of the working class, not about denying open and democratic debate. Nor was it to suggest control. Any unity must be based on recognising that fact in practice.

    You praise the NPA initiatives in France but ignore the methods by which it operates. Learn the lessons fully and not partially.

    Like

  111. when I say I welcome the aid getting through and am immediately told by one of the idiots like eb or tlc that I’m denouncing the convoy

    That’s not exactly what happened, is it? You wrote:

    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)

    It was then that you were challenged by tlc, and you responded to tlc by saying that you welcomed the aid getting through.

    Like

  112. Phil – perhaps you might explain the difference in perceived meaning between a pity for those who mightn have received the aid, and welcomed the aid getting through. in terms of my desire to see the aid arrive [mightn is a misspelling of might], because they seem pretty synonymous to me, other than the greater certainty in the latter that aid had passed through. While you’re at it, perhaps you might tell us if you do have any criticisms of Galloway’s buddying up to the king of Morocco and the torturers of Tunis., which as a non-member of Respect you should be perfectly free to make.

    alf – I disagree with all of your last comment.

    1. It was a joke. And I’m fairly sure that johng was expressing an absolute desire for absolute control in the future, just accidently allowing the implication to be jocularly drawn when what he clearly said several times was that in the here and now the SWP can’t make the rules.

    2. I thought hegemony didn’t become popular as a term until Gramsci, and it doesn’t refer to the influence of the proletariat as a class-in-itself, but as a class-for-itself, necessarily mediated through the parties that best express its interest. Though having said that I now realise I’m not sure how you got onto hegemony and don’t know what your “fact in practice” actually is.

    3.The SWP hasn’t ignored the methods of the NPA. It doesn’t think that some of them are applicable to Britain. Not presenting a caricature of the SWP (see ‘united front’ above) when they don’t use exactly the words you would like might be a lesson you need to learn fully and not partially.

    Like

  113. Correction:
    And I’m fairly sure that johng was expressing an absolute desire
    should read:
    And I’m fairly sure that johng was NOT expressing an absolute desire

    and Phil,apart from any quibbling over the exact applicabilty of the term “immediately”, that’s exactly what happened,isn’t it?

    Like

  114. Liam and all

    The Skidmarx avatar is now spreading disinformation worthy of the Egyptian foreign office.

    He says he’s bending the stick
    (oh how that’s been abused) and claims the governments of Morocco and Tunisia were a part of or players in the first Viva Palestina convoy.

    In fact, it was the opposition in Morocco, fresh from organising a protest of over one million people over Gaza, who supported the convoy. The state authorities siezed propaganda from convoy members in Tangier.

    In Tunisia, the government banned the convoy from entering Sfax, probably the most radical city in north Africa, and tried (but failed) to physically force the convoy along a set route away from the public. There were various confrontations with the police, paramilitaries and torturers of the mukhabarat.

    But what’s the point of raising this? After all, the wretched skidthing suggested the particpants in the convoy were a bunch of unemployed layabouts.

    Even an amusing parody must come to an end. Skidmarx’ latest fabulating ought to mark that.

    Good luck to johng if he continues this fruitless engagement. I’d suggest, john, that your time would be better spent with those who are not pathologically damaged by solipsistic sect think.

    Like

  115. I accept your “joke”. As for hegemony well yes you are right about Gramsci but also it was Trotsky’s comments on it I was referrinng to and Lenin’s concept of the role of the working class. But yes perhaps my formulation came over badly. OK.

    That the SWP feel the formulations do not fully apply to Britain I feel is wrong. In what way is that and why? I think that is the core of the differences in approach and method. The words are not the isue it is the approach.

    The need to have a more open structure of organisation of all united fronts and not for a top down approach, is not a word but a method of organising that enables far more activists to be mobilised into activities.

    The issue of hegemony arose because of the reference to controlling / setting the rules. Hegemony has in the past been abused as a term by sectarians who have referred to the need to control organisations and campaigns. What is meant by it is the battle of ideas and the struggle for a workers democracy . Hence the need to develop a Left reallignment which allows for debate, tendancies, factions and minority rights.

    Like

  116. I suggest that you re read Results and Prospects (Trotsky 1906 ) – when he wrote about Permanent Revolution. As to whether Gramsci was taking his ideas from that has been a continuous debate .

    If we are to play a role at all it is to be based on the self organisation of the working class. Democratic united fronts are key to that.

    Like

  117. alf – would I be right in thinking you think the SWP should dissolve its organisation into a wider left one in the manner of the NPA? I can see how that would benefit those who wish it didn’t occupy such an influential position on the left, but in the absence of good reason to do so other than “it seems to have worked quite well in France so far” the immediate results would be a loss of independence and identity, complicated by its association with an international tendency; the game may not be worth the candle.

    I don’t see that the SWP’s practice is not to have united fronts, even if it doesn’t use the term in every case.

    When you talk about a left re-alignment, you mix up what’s going on internally in the SWP, which if you think is vital then you should join, and what’s going on in the wider left, where it seems that other organisations far more carve out their own spheres of influence before engaging in any debate much more than the SWP ever does.

    Maybe I’ll take your advice and re-read Results and Prospects. It has been a while.

    Nas – This follows excellent support for the convoy in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia from the authorities there, who provided fuel, food and accommodation for the convoy. In Tunisia George Galloway met the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister for talks on the situation in the Middle East.
    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3674
    The Moroccan Government have extended their hospitality and provided accommodation for all those on the convoy along with a police escort all the way to the Algerian border.

    Geoff Hoon's pitiful putsch


    Sadly George Galloway MP who has been so brilliant on the issue of Palestine is so wedded to ‘Arab unity’ that he has made public statements both in Parliment and in Morrocco siding with the oppressor in this conflict & shame on him for doing that.
    For example, in 2000 attacking Jeremy Corbyn MP who has done fantastic work raising the issue in Parliament:
    ‘Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Kelvin): There are few occasions on which I would disagree with my hon. and good Friend, but I am genuinely puzzled about this part of his speech. I shall have something to say about the broader issue, if I may be allowed, but Morocco has one of the best human rights records in the Arab world and beyond. That is recognised by Amnesty International. Also, it happens to have–though one would detect no hint of it in my hon. Friend’s discourse–the only socialist Government in the middle east, as well as a new king, who is trying to use a new broom to solve some of the problems from the past. It is rather strange for a progressive Member of Parliament to mount such an attack on Morocco at this, of all times.’
    http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo000404/halltext/00404h03.htm

    Or in the Morrocco Time in 2006:
    British MP supports Morocco’s territorial integrity

    In an interview with the Moroccan weekly La Gazette du Maroc, Galloway underlined that he advocates a “peaceful settlement” to the Sahara issue in order to “open the way for a real large Arab Maghreb.”
    “I am for Morocco’s position (on the Sahara issue), and I always have been,” he said, stressing he is against “the balkanisation of the Arab region.”
    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3629#comment-118336

    You’re absolutely fabulatious.You’ll be glad to know I caught a little of Galloway’s Talksport show on the weekend, when he used the word condign on Friday night I was thinking he was starting to sound like Lenin (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/sentimentality-as-superstructure-of.html)
    and when he talked of the programme as a bold and revolutionary one it was even better, but when he said he’d always been a fan of Billy Bragg when a few months ago he was refusing requests for his music because they’d had such a falling out, it reminded me quite how much a casual acquaintance with the truth is so much a part of his operation, which obviously filters down in a less sophisticated form to you.

    Like

  118. Phil – I realise that some of Galloway’s comments aren’t actually contemporaneous with the first convoy, so you may wish to pick that apart. You would find a rather larger target in Nas’ suggestion that I’d called the convoy unemployed layabouts when I’d questioned whether it was the most amazing example of working class self-activity, a distortion similar to the one about Lindsey German and the “extreme Muslims”, which I don’t recall you questioning. Do you only have eyes for my faults? Perhaps you might want to dissect his assertion that I am now spreading disinformation worthy of the Egyptian foreign office.[It is of course Ger Francis who was continuing to attack an Egyptian blogger recently from his cosy office when the latter faces harassment and the threat of imprisonment for his activities]

    Liam – Nas calls me the wretched skidthing and pathologically damaged,which don’t seem to be in line with your stated comments policy. I’m happy to see such comments stay undeleted as they back up my suggestion that many of Galloway’s most ardent supporters are incapable of anything but repetitive moronic abuse when they face criticism, but I would hope that you would be even-handed when it comes to what you consider allowable [and obviously you are a lot more even-handed than the first commenter on this thread is with his blog].

    Like

  119. skidmarx, ” would I be right in thinking you think the SWP should dissolve its organisation into a wider left one in the manner of the NPA? “- brief answer-YES.

    We can be a victim of history or create history. How about it.

    Like

  120. So – claims that the first convoy was attended by praise for the Moroccan and Tunisian governments turn into dragging up a quote about the Morocco and the Western Sahara issue from another time.

    As for the Skidobsessive’s attempt to obscure his quip about the particpants on the convoy all being unemployed with nothing better to do: consult the record.

    Meanwhile, johng and others who were actually part of the split in Respect are admirably not allowing that to cloud their judgement of initiatives on the left. That’s welcome and a sign of seriousness. The Skidobsessive’s untruths are not.

    As for the idiotic Egyptian blogger he champions: he was busy in the New Year reheating his own claims about Galloway’s supposed collaboration with the Egyptian regime just a couple of days before the Egyptian authorities launched a bloody attack on the convoy and deported the chief collaborator. The IST group in Egypt is entitled to support against whatever state repression it faces – that awful collaborator Galloway has several times given such support, the swine. But that does not entitle its blogging member to write rubbish.

    Like

  121. “skidmarx, ” would I be right in thinking you think the SWP should dissolve its organisation into a wider left one in the manner of the NPA? “- brief answer-YES.
    We can be a victim of history or create history. How about it.”

    Uh, there’s something about not making history in conditions of our own choosing. The NPA came about after a period of more than a decade of high levels of union and anti-neo-liberal struggles, in a country with a strong tradition of parties to the left of social democracy. These conditions don’t prevail in the UK. If the SWP were to declare the formation of the NPA in the UK, it would simply be a magnet for the ridiculously small ultra-left grouplets and sectarians that wouldn’t increase the SWPs size by ten percent. After all even the Convention of the Left couldn’t muster 200 people last September. In France the NPA is triple the size of the old LCR, with about 9,000 members.
    But it’s also worth noting that it’s questionable whether the LCR actually took greatest advantage of the potential for a serious left of the left regroupment. They refused to join with Melanchon’s left wing breakaway from the PS, the Partie Gauche. In fact, they refused to stand on the joint list of the Left Front in last year’s EU elections, with the result that the NPA won no seats, whereas the LF won 5. Their combined vote would have gotten them probably 10 seats in total.
    So, it’s absurd to simply compare the two countries of France and the UK in some sort of absolute numerical way. Because they are different in almost every other way.

    Like

  122. redbedhead please read carefully. I said yes in response to a question from Skidmarx.
    The excuse of our own chosing has been a recipe for sectarianism over decades when lost opportunities have multiplied. How many more must be lost?
    You are the one playing the numbers game as an excuse for keeping disunited.
    Who is to say how exactly the Left will turn out but we will be qualitatively and eventualy quantitavely far more effective if we make this turn to reallignment. Or should we retreat into an even weaker position than we are in by not doing so?

    Like

  123. alf – I know what you were responding to and I was responding to you response.

    “The excuse of your own choosing”? – what does this mean?

    “You are the one playing the numbers game as an excuse for keeping disunited.”
    You mean by saying that regroupment with tiny organizations whose total membership is, maybe, a couple of hundred, is irrelevant to the state of the left? Well, I don’t know that this is a game or an accurate picture of reality. Why engage in activity that is useless and, worse, a distraction from the more important tasks of building real struggles around real issues?
    Who are you talking about regrouping with whom?

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending