Lenin’s Tomb
Wow, that sucks. Good luck lenin. For the core principles of Respect to fall prey to the same usual disputes amongst supposed comrades would be a tragedy.
[Note: the sectarian windbags attempting to enter their unique take on this are wasting their time. They have ample opportunities to post elsewhere, and this ain't the place for it.]
fucking lovely editorial. i was thinking about respect earlier actually - it's always had a problem in that it was too closely identified with galloway, as inspiring a figure he can be (on occasion). what we need to do is not collapse into pessimism or bickering, but to build it into something larger than galloway's considerable media presence.
obviously, this contribution offers NO solutions, and in wales respect is practically a non-entity. pretty words must now lead to concerted practical action.
Thanks steff - to be fair, even Galloway has always noted that the coalition was too closely associated with his name. Sadly, he is now using his name and clout to change the nature of the coalition. I still think a compromise and settlement is possible, one which will retain the socialist heart of Respect and place then emphasis decisively on grassroots politics.
[side comment: having posted this statement of my position, I expected a windfall of comments from those who never normally comment here, and who generally spend most of their time musing on infinitessimal spats between different left groups. I was right to expect this, of course, and those comments are withheld. I also expect many people have different arguments and positions they would like to state, which aren't to do with sectarianism. I respect all of this, but I would urge people to take these arguments to Respect branch meetings and argue them democratically with the membership. This isn't the place for that.]
Yikes. Here in the US I was always jealous of Respect. Hope you get through this strengthened.
I don't want to be a sectarian windbag so I'll keep it short. I thought Respect was always about electoralism; I remember Linsey German saying she wouldn't be in it if it was a socialist party. I've read some of the gossip, but like most at least arguably sane people I'm not that interested; I assume there must be some deeper disagreements than I've read about,though, since it doesn't seem much of a crisis. I agree with you that Respect is worth saving: it may not be the revolution, but it at least gets a higher profile for some socialist ideas that the media try to pretend are obsolete. A merger with the Green party might be an even better idea.
I thought Respect was always about electoralism
I disagree: it's an electoral coalition, but it's methods aren't subordinated to simple psephology: it is a principled alliance, or such it has been to date. That is why it is different - we don't compromise principles in order to win elections.
I remember Linsey German saying she wouldn't be in it if it was a socialist party
I'm sure that's not quite what Lindsey said. It isn't a 'party' of course, and it isn't composed entirely of socialists, but it makes an explicit commitment to socialism. This is an important part of the deal.
A merger with the Green party might be an even better idea.
Hmmm... That idea was part of the original plan, but the Green leadership dismissed it out of hand, with a lot of red-baiting froth and fury from Dr Fitzgibbons. I doubt it has much going for it, and to be honest I think the Greens are playing themselves into an ever-decreasing niche rather than reaching out. I wish it were otherwise, but I think the sources of a future augmentation of Respect have to be sought elsewhere: the organised working class is a good idea. I understand the London CWU has voted to create an independent political fund. We have a lot to offer the posties.
"chortle chortle" Meaders
All haiku-based commentary will also be severely redacted. pbr is lucky I didn't reduce his comment to "".
You failed to add number 4 to your list -
4) up and until the CC tell/allow me to comment -
which is it tell or allow?
and
"We have laid blow after blow on New Labour heartlands"
I genuinely might have missed this but have you even stood a candidate, let alone a successful one, north of the Trent?
Well, I knew I'd hear that. Look, my position is this: I accept the discipline involved in any political organisation I belong to. I don't bring internal discussions out unless necessary. Now, if I disagreed with an agreed position and wanted to attack the party in public, I would resign my membership. (I don't, so I won't.)
On the other hand, I am not told what to say on my blog by anyone or authorised, or otherwise instructed. I could easily have commented on this before, but didn't, and only did so here because of the urgency of this matter.
I genuinely might have missed this but have you even stood a candidate, let alone a successful one, north of the Trent?
Not relevant to my point, SP. We have indeed inflicted blow after blow on New Labour heartlands. This is a fact, and a hugely significant one. I would like to transform the beachhead in London into an all-out advance on the north, but I suspect that would take some time even in the best of conditions.
Eh?
That's what I thought.
Sorry I live in a real Labour heartland and an er.. Respect free zone - PS was that last comment you or was it a parody?
also, what's interesting is the idiot gloating decents, particularly. respect is an absolutely pre-pubescent party, and has to go through this difficult changes, weird smells and unexpected hairs to become a man (or, indeed, a woman). we have to have these arguments, however painful they may seem, they will, if the members have requisite will and determination, leave us stronger and more capable, and more clearly identified.
hilariously, over on Jews Sans Frontieres, the mighty david t pondered whether it was now "over for the SWP". excuse me whilst i laugh blood...
by the way, my tone here is a bit odd, but necessary i feel. respect is worth saving as a left of labour force, even if it won't be, for any while, going home and preparing for government.
Sorry I live in a real Labour heartland and an er.. Respect free zone
Yes, and East London is a "real Labour heartland" too, as is most of Birmingham, and practically everywhere that Respect has made gains of any kind. What do you want, a medal for being a proper Northerner? I come from the shittiest north of Ireland, sonny, I've got prolier-than-thou shining out of my arse.
Meaders, just bouncing back to you your haiku-like comment on HP the day after you perceived victory in Galloway's performance before that Senate Committee. You posted "chortle chortle". I'm sure it's in their archive.
C'mon, you can't expect the likes of me not to have a laugh about this can you?
pbr - you can laugh if you like, as can any other biped with opposible thumbs, but we won a MASSIVE victory when Galloway tore the Senate Committee apart. That's a fact, and it isn't in any sense diminished by the current difficulties. No one disputes Galloway's immense gifts especially in the business of extemporising, but this is not what the issue is.
Now don't be getting all stupid and demagogic - mine is a simple questioning of your ludicrous "blow-on-blow" overstatement about the success of RESPECT.
My point, plainly put and repeated now, is - justify your hyperbole north of the Trent.
what's interesting is the idiot gloating decents
Well... 'interesting' is used pretty loosely here. But yes, the fact that they who have pitched their entire political credibility on the near-genocide in Iraq think that we, Respect, are in trouble, is a form of low burlesque comedy. David T, or Mr T as I like to call him because of is BAD attitude, is not exactly known for his sharp political nous - so, really, who gives a shit?
Best of luck to you and the Respect coalition. Here in the states we need an American Respect.
My point, plainly put and repeated now, is - justify your hyperbole north of the Trent.
Hold on, SP. I didn't realise you were being completely serious. Your rationale appears to be that I have 'overstated' Respect's successes by stating that "We have laid blow after blow on New Labour heartlands". Presumably this is because you interpret this is meaning we have inflicted blow after blow on all New Labour heartlands, whereas I never made that claim. I am happy, I promise you, to be as realistic as possible about this. I don't claim that we have yet taken every or most or even many New Labour heartlands. But it is in the heartlands that we have made our best successes, not in marginals where freak candidates or small swings can alter matters quickly.
Here in the states we need an American Respect.
I was thinking about that. I can't help thinking that New Orleans would be the ideal locus for originating such a compact. It is symbolic of everything that is vile about the present neoliberal hegemony.
Random fact of the day..
Galloway was expelled from the Labour party four years ago today.
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/
new...on_this_day.php
A straightforward count of the actual number of "blows" will do for me
SP - count the number of councillors and MPs and near misses, why not? I count "blows" in the double figures. Is this proprietorial resentment or something?
Maybe Galloway is working himself too hard at the moment hence his irritability (not to be patronising - he does seem to be doing an awful lot at the moment). He should take a breather to reflect on things.
I hope Respect can resolve these issues and get back on track. It would be a crying shame to let all this hard work go to waste.
"I genuinely might have missed this but have you even stood a candidate, let alone a successful one, north of the Trent?"
I suspect some comrades here aren't too sure where the Trent is. It's well to the south of Preston.
Eh? - don't understand the last bit.
On the big point however are we in single, double ot three figures?
Maybe Galloway is working himself too hard at the moment hence his irritability
Nah, it's a political disagreement, nothing to do with irritability. Galloway breathes fire, but behind it is icy reasoning. That's always been his strength, of course. The important thing is to engage with the ice rather than the fire, as it were.
It's all very well to take the piss out of sectarian sniping and gossip, but for those of us on the outside it's hard to know what's going on. Many of us far away from Birmingham and East London still have high hopes for RESPECT and don't know quite what to make of the current situation. From my distant vantage point, it does often look like RESPECT is closing in on itself at a time when it really needs to implement a broader and more open approach.
The confusion is certainly frustrating (I've tried to synthesise something coherent from what I have picked up on my blog); in any case I hope RESPECT comes out of this stronger than before - preferably with both Galloway and the SWP still firmly on board.
"Galloway breathes fire, but behind it is icy reasoning. That's always been his strength, of course. The important thing is to engage with the ice rather than the fire, as it were"
Is this Dungeons and Dragons talk?
What the fuck does this mean? Are you not allowed to make your views clear, on warrant to the CC?
Dave - well, yeah, I appreciate the problem especially since the discussion ends up being monopolised by the gossip-mongers. I myself have had countless problems keeping up with what is happening. But there's little that can be done about it: internal arguments shouldn't be conducted through the media, and there are serious consequences of allowing it to be done this way.
The approach to the 2009 elections can be radical and grassroots and open to promoting new faces. Or it can be done on the basis of machine politics, tapping into community leaders and so on. I think Galloway sees the latter approach as being safer, and distrusts the former strategy: hence the attempt to change the nature of the Respect coalition.
What the fuck does this mean? Are you not allowed to make your views clear, on warrant to the CC?
I have been advised by the CC not to answer this comment, as it may be a trick question.
What the fuck do you think it means, you geographical ignoramus?
Your answer to Dave is much more open and makes your attitude to GG etc very clear. You should have made this comment the main post.
"...he now has a different idea in mind: one that is more oriented to reformism and whose strategy is one of electoralism..."
"I disagree: it's an electoral coalition, but it's methods aren't subordinated to simple psephology: it is a principled alliance, or such it has been to date. That is why it is different - we don't compromise principles in order to win elections."
I'm mightily confused by this. Any organisation pursuing more than a token representation in parliament is bound by the logic of parliamentary elections - the same way a nation state is bound by the logic of the international system, or a capitalist by the logic of the capitalist system.
If you want to advance in parliament you have to strategise and act to do so; you can't rebuke respect for "electoralism" - it's a organism that lives or dies on being voted for, so of course its members must act in ways to maximise its votes. 'tis the nature of the beast.
Surely the point was to fill the left wing position abdicated by Labour and thus drag British politics back leftward, ie. counter the neoliberal revolution and neoconservatism?
I'm particularly struck by this phrase: "it is a principled alliance" - what is this supposed to mean?
IIRC You yourself were discussing socialism as the Realpolitik of the oppressed the other day - the idea of a "principled alliance" as against electoralism seems somewhat strange.
Surely as big a left inflected presence in parliament as is feasible is desirable for said realpolitik: it should shift the entire political discourse, re-politicise what has been depoliticised, and be a useful transmission vector for counter-hegemony, at least in the short to medium term.
Respect was never going to be revolutionary, or implement socialism, or even be socialist: it could evolve in to something that could be, but that kind of maturation would require advances sufficient to demonstrate it to be a serious and permanent force, a threat to the established order. This means gathering strength from every available source - including even the most vaguely humanitarian of community groups, the most annoying of environmentalists and so on.
If you're interested in strategically advancing the cause of socialism, then surely you play to win with the assets you have and build on your success. This takes time, and you can't expect RESPECT to be something it's not - just commit to its success fully, advance it position by position: when it's strong, then you can talk about pushing it in a more socialist direction.
From all my encounters with members of Respect, my overriding impression has been that it's number one problem is that many cadres are simply not that committed to it. It's seen as at best temporary, transient. In theory this principle isn't necessarily wrong: if participating in an organisation is totally useless (which is rare) then there's no point in participating.
But if it can be useful and relevant, which it can, then fully commit: don't treat it like a shell, or front organisation, or temporary position to be disgarded if it starts acting in a way that seems to conflict with abstract "principle". Practice Realpolitik: maximise your strategic asset by committing to it.
In short, throw yourself into it or out: it's the equivocation that's killing it.
(this reads a bit more ranty than initially intended, but I shall post regardless - sometimes when I say 'you' it isn't addressed at you personally..)
SP is plainly getting a bit upset with me, so I'm appealing to Gershwin to save our relationship:
Embrace me,
My sweet embraceable you.
Embrace me,
You irreplaceable you.
Just one look at you -- my heart grew tipsy in me;
You and you alone bring out the gipsy in me.
I love all
The many charms about you;
Above all
I want my arms about you.
Don't be a naughty baby,
Come to papa -- come to papa -- do!
My sweet embraceable you.
What a shit situation we're in. I'm not taking any side here; if either Galloway or the SWP left Respect it would be fatally weakened and I don't want that to happen.
I'm glad that the general response (on here, anyway) has been 'save Respect!' It's been too much work and been too successful to just throw it away.
Good night then Len.
Can I buy you a drink sometime?
Thanks for your response to my comment, sort of reinforces my hope that this debate is just a necessary part of RESPECT's maturing from a sometimes transient umbrella organisation to a "proper" party.
i think one of the problems for Pespect is that it is based on a structure usually adopted for single issue campaigns eg anl stop the war etc but trying to use that structure for something much more complex ie de facto a polhtical party. The elements in this coalition party are organised each very differently and this creates massive tensions not least because people within the coalition nott only behave according to their ideas but also according to the organisatiomal principles of their respective organisations. This+can only be overcome through a tough agreed consthtutinn and procedure re branches and conference. Any ambiguities or loopholes become the comduits for schisms. From the sidelines it sometimeslooks to me as if some of the basics re procedural consistency were too open to differing interpretations. There's nothing wrong with factinns and differences sn long as people abide by the agreed strutctures. If the structures look weak people willalways use them as the apparent cause of disagreement At which point the organisation starts to look opaque and useless and very fragile.
The whole thing is too depressing for words. Galloway is behaving like an arse. And some members of the SWP don't seem to be helping. However hard I look I can't see a serious political disagreement, just a power struggle for control of a party - the bane of the left for a hundred years.
I sweated blood for those posts you bastard. Seriously, fancy that drink sometime? I know some good cocktail joints.
This is bad. From the US Respect has looked like an exciting project.
But after reading some of the sectarian gossip, my only news source on the details of this unfortunately, while I support the SWP against Galloway's attacks, I do wonder about the SWP's expulsions. Lenin - you wrote at Socialist Unity that "Kev, Rob & Nick are all excellent activists." So what happened? That they refused to quit their Galloway / National Organizer (respectively) jobs doesn't seem like much of an explanation - if they were fully trusted SWP members, there doesn't seem to have been a good reason to ask them to quit.
A real, comradely point: I think R has hit the nerve here. If you are going to be an electoral coalition, then it will be judged by electoral success. If you are trying to build a real broad-left party (like Die Linke), then it will be judged by deeper, more fundamental political standards. It seems absurd to say "Respect is an electoral coalition, and only that" (as the SWP CC have been doing in their internal bulletins) and then say that Galloway's attempts to bolster its electoral success are wrong-in-principle.
I must admit to being far away from the action here, but it really seems that the SWP CC are as fully in "witchhunting" mode as Galloway. Let's put it this way - it doesn't look good that the SWP CC are conducting their anti-Galloway campaign FIRSTLY as an internal "sorting out" campaign, which seems to be driving out or expelling everyone who doesn't agree with them in the party. There wouldn't be these questions of "discretion about internal party matters" if things were being fought out in the arena of Respect, rather than the private arena where John and Lindsay seem more convinced they can destroy the opposition.
If both sides of the debate carry on this way, it doesn't matter what happens at the Respect conference - the trust will be broken forever, like it was in Scotland. You must realise that by demonising Galloway and his supporters as "the right wing" of Respect, you are making it impossible for a relationship based on trust between the SWP and everyone else to continue. I certainly wouldn't want to work with people who'd been saying things like that about me.
I would say that the absolute bottom line for a restoration of trust would have to be the restoration to SWP membership of the three members who were expelled for no crime worse than refusing to buy the idea that they had to take sides in Galloway vs. CC.
The Socialist Worker editorial says that there were two "extremely unpleasant" meetings at Tower Hamlets, at one of which the claim is that a list (presumably submitted by SWP sympathisers within Respect) was blocked (whether procedurally or not is unclear), and at the second of which, Galloway attacked the SWP, apparently unprovoked.
Other web-based sources appear to have had different perspectives. There was, for instance, a claim that an SWP clique had attempted to prolong the first Tower Hamlets meeting after the Chair closed it, effectively holding their own meeting and reversing the decision of the full meeting. I don't have convenient links and anyway my HTML is up the pole, but it is at least plausible that the issue is a power-struggle; either by the SWP, an alternative faction led by Galloway, or possibly both. (That is, perhaps both are trying to override the other through procedural means.)
I'm afraid it is very hard to follow the claims in the Socialist Worker editorial, and repeated by Lenin here, that this is an ideological issue. Nobody has yet pointed to ways in which Galloway has opposed the fundamental principles of the party. Also, it seems contradictory for Lenin on one hand to say that Galloway is obsessed with narrow electoral issues, and on the other hand to boast about Respect's electoral successes.
If Galloway is trying to marginalise the SWP because he feels that its leftism is a problem for Respect, I suppose that Lenin's response is understandable (though still not completely accurate). On the other hand, if he is peeved with the SWP because it is trying to use its superior discipline and procedural strength to marginalise Galloway's allies (which seems to be what Galloway's supporters are implying) then the SWP would seem to be out of line, although I appreciate that a disciplined Party member wouldn't be able to say that.
It does seem to me that something of this kind could have been anticipated. What disciplinary structures exist within Respect, and how democratically are they arranged? Are there sympathetic external forces who could be called in to mediate? For it seems to me that the division in the party could easily destroy it, even if outsiders don't stir matters up further.
There was, for instance, a claim that an SWP clique had attempted to prolong the first Tower Hamlets meeting after the Chair closed it, effectively holding their own meeting and reversing the decision of the full meeting.
This is flatly false. The chair did not close the meeting, and more importantly no decision had been reached until the list was passed by the meeting, so there could be no reversal. If some people decide to up and leave a meeting, it is not right to allow it to collapse: that is capitulating. That is allowing one group to wreck the meeting.
Also, it seems contradictory for Lenin on one hand to say that Galloway is obsessed with narrow electoral issues, and on the other hand to boast about Respect's electoral successes.
I think you're misunderstanding a very important point here. I made it very clear that the successes I celebrate were not achieved by subordinating principle to electoralism. There is a difference between electoralism and standing in elections, MFB. It feels like I'm insulting your intelligence to point this out, but what else can I say?
if he is peeved with the SWP because it is trying to use its superior discipline and procedural strength to marginalise Galloway's allies (which seems to be what Galloway's supporters are implying) then the SWP would seem to be out of line
Let's be clear about this: everyone knows that the SWP did not initiate this conflict. George Galloway did, with his initial letter and in a series of subsequent meetings. That's the reality. All parties to this dispute are formally committed to a compromise. Galloway should now cease stirring against us and work toward that compromise.
I think its just wrong to argue that socialists should not push socialism until Respect is in a stronger situation (and its revealing that obviously committed socialists can find themselves arguing this).
If we are serious about building a national level alternative which can attract those breaking from Labourism we need to do two things at once. Yes we need to be very serious about local politics and all the technical issues associated with this. But we also need to think in a more long term way about things likes trade union affiliation etc, the kind of work associated with this not perhaps yielding immediate returns locally at the electoral level.
Understandable impatience about electoral breakthroughs should not make socialists adapt a stages view which will only lead to Respect ossifying into a few local bases increasingly not priotising national level politics (one suspects as well that current unity around attacking the SWP would rapidly vanish if the SWP was no longer there, something I think would be an utter disaster both for Respect and for the SWP).
Importantly I'm not suggesting that many of those involved in these debates are consciously repudiating left politics or on the other hand consiously wanting what I've called localism.
Its just that in politics the consequences of our actions do not always jell with our intentions.
Those pulled by Georges intervention are probably motivated by a not dishonourable impatience. But the result will not be the realization of these honourable dreams but the increasing localization of Respect, and probably its fragmentation. This has to be opposed by Socialists in the alliance in the here and now.
Socialist ideas are relevent at every stage in the movement and not simply in some far off future. This, itself, is a very basic idea which needs to be stressed both amongst socialists and in the movement as a whole. You will never win people to socialism by suggesting that its a nice idea to be espoused at some point in the future.
I will be gutted if this isn't sorted out. I have sat up all night to watch the election results as they come in and went to work the next day singing the praises of Respect; and I live in Belfast!
It would be pretty major setback if there isn't a compromise and perhaps a clearer organisational structure implemented as a confidence building measure as Michael has suggested.
It is true that Respect is in its political infancy but it has been a beacon for many and for a few probably the only light in a very dark world.
Its also worth emphasising that those who go on about the lack of SWP commitment to Respect are taking a very narrow view. The huge witch hunts launched against the SWP and left inside UNISON are connected to fears that our principled and popular opposition to social liberalism is tied up with a political challenge to New Labour. These are vital and irreplacable parts of basic spadework for Respect.
The disapearence of this wider perspective on the crisis is part of the problem which needs addressing. On the sectarian blogs you can sometimes forget whats going on in the real world. Its all about key figures and their hurt feelings.
You know you've given two reasons and then listed three? I don't think any of us expected the Spanish Inquisition.
On the wider point, I think the way this always happens is a very large reason why lots of people don't want much to do with leftwing politics.
I don't think any of us expected the Spanish Inquisition.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
I think the way this always happens is a very large reason why lots of people don't want much to do with leftwing politics.
I know. Rats in a sack, and so forth, but what can be done?
Just to add a fourth, I tend to think that one way of looking at this is that our differences got the better of us before we were big enough to ride them out.
For all the talk of the SWP trying to impose its vision on Respect, or prematurely espousing socialism, there is now an attempt to impose one vision on Respect and its not coming from the SWP. Some believe this will take the Respect project foward.
Actually its breaking things up before they've even begun.
what can be done?
Possibly the model of small disciplined revolutionary parties is more trouble and stress than it is worth?
On breakthroughs North of the Trent. Leaving aside the fact that it's irrelevant to Lenin's point, and that I don't really see the political significance of a river in the midlands, here are a few:
2 councillors in Preston, one re-elected with over 50% of the vote. 1 councillor elected in Bolsover. Good results in Manchester and Sheffield. Creditable result in Liverpool and Leeds. Candidates stood in Hartlepool by-election, and candidates in Newcastle and Sunderland.
Possibly the model of small disciplined revolutionary parties is more trouble and stress than it is worth?
That isn't the source of the problem, however.
That isn't the source of the problem, however.
I think it is the source of some of them. I don't think the problems can always be located outside the party (or located inside and then put outside). I don't think that as a model of political organisation if gives people the leeway that you need in order to properly discuss and possess differences. In some circumstances it may well be a good or even a necessary way of doing things, but I cannot see that those are the circumstances now.
No it isn't. The cause of the problem is that in what is officially designated a coalition rather then a party, there is a concerted attempt to drive out one very important component of that coalition. Many think Respect should be more then a coalition. OK. But if thats what your genuinely after you don't drive out a major component of the coalition to ensure that your opponents are not included in the discussion.
Its also just true that I think there is a great danger, as stressed, of diminishing the role that the SWP has played in allowing for the very broad coalitions which have transformed left politics over the last seven years. I believe that this role would have been impossible without the model of a disciplined revolutionary organisation.
That, in essence, is why those who don't share our politics, nevertheless work with us. If you think of the history of left culture since the 1970's its clear to me that the broadest and most important initiatives would probably have been impossible without the SWP. Hence I think the love/hate relationship which is entirely natural.
This is why I think the worst thing that could happen to a lot of people who dream of smashing the SWP would be if they succeded. The loss of a disciplined body of militants operating in industry, in colleges, and in campaigns would be keenly felt on all fronts.
Imagine the last seven years without the existence of the SWP. You don't have to actually. You can compare it to places where the SWP doesn't exist.
there is a concerted attempt to drive out one very important component of that coalition.
That's one view, but there are others, and people outside the SWP are not going to carry on accepting that it's all the fault of the other people every time there's a feud.
I agree with Lenin that this isn't the right place for a full-on discussion of what has been happening. What I would say is that it is wrong, incredible and counterproductive to assert that one side is solely to blame. If this thing is to be resolved in the interest of working class politics then both sides will have to be bigger than that. Galloway, as the initiator of the row, should admit that his attack on John Rees's leadership was clumsy and OTT. The SWP should admit that its response was too aggressive and 'circle the wagons'. The most depressing thing is that both elements are living up to the stereotypes peddled by their enemies. Galloway - by shouting 'fuck off' and 'move to the vote' - is displaying a streak of thuggery and the SWP - by expelling good and decent comrades like Rob and Kev who who are trying to calm things down rather than jump into battle formation - are applying draconian war time discipline from another era.
All in all, it's no way to build a party.
people outside the SWP are not going to carry on accepting that it's all the fault of the other people every time there's a feud.
Well, that's why there has to be an argument in Respect, focused on the issues. If people hold the SWP responsible, we will lose the argument.
the SWP - by expelling good and decent comrades like Rob and Kev who who are trying to calm things down rather than jump into battle formation - are applying draconian war time discipline from another era.
That's a separate argument, and it's not one I want to have here.
...by expelling good and decent comrades like Rob and Kev who who are trying to calm things down rather than jump into battle formation...
Erm, what? Since when? I saw no efforts by Kevin Ovenden to "calm things down" in the TH members' meeting on Tuesday, when he leapt in to attack the secretary of Respect; I saw no efforts by Kevin Ovenden to "calm things down" in the TH exec meeting on Thursday, when he made no effort at all to restrain Galloway from attacking the political organisation - and the entire political tradition - he was once part of.
That last, by the way, was a particularly distressing scene to witness: Galloway's attacks are one thing, but to sit by his side and through inactivity repudiate 20 years of political engagement is quite another.
Eh, Granta & Meaders, I'm drawing a line under the issue of expulsions here. There's a lot of people who want a say on this, obviously, but this isn't the place...
Thanks for this lenin - more thanks for blocking the nasty sectarians - the end results is a good debate - and I mean a good debate. You have overall done us justice by facts and your incorruptable sense of humour to those who sweat under the collar when given a response they do not like.
Grant says: 'However hard I look, I can't see political disagreement, just a power struggle for control of the party.' I beg to differ Grant. This is what RESPECT stands for:
Respect
Equality
Socialism
Peace
Environment
Community
Trade Unionism
Like many SWP members I have campaigned for RESPECT both in Tower Hamlets and other parts of the UK. During that period, George was in agreement with us in terms of what we stand for. Why has the situation changed today. It was not changed by the SWP i can assure you of this.We still stand for what we initially agreed upon and doing a great job of it as well - you just have to look at the meetings we hold, the interventions we take part in, the struggles of workers we share solidarity with, new people we have attracted to our politics, the pride non-members have in Socialist Worker when it writes in support of their struggles. Now tell me, what is it that George faults in SWP given our track record?
But it is clear that from George's point of view, things have changed for him. But unfortunately they are not taking the course of our initial strategy we set out to achieve when RESPECT was formed. As a revolutionary, i do not ever intend to stand for any political position, but i certainly support and campaign for those i trust to represent the working class people, be it in their community, trade union etc. After all, by democracy we are talking about that governance which offers us choice of how we are governed. Not that which promotes one man to a position of power! We are not just fighting for parliamentary representation here, we are fighting a class-struggle. The working class fighting against the oppression they experience at work and the privatasation of public sectors. We see a big picture and i hope George sees it too!
I think any sensible and committed activist would be greatly distressed by whats unfolded in the last couple of weeks. WTF? WHY? BANG THERE HEADS TOGEATHER! are completely understandable initial responses.
But as events have unfolded the simple model of a misunderstanding focusing on personality clashes or organisational styles simply doesn't work.
There is a clear attempt to demonise and drive out an important part of the coalition. The SWP has been quite slow to respond and each example presented as an SWP escalation has in fact, on closer examination, turned out to be an ambush by the other side (the TH meeting for example).
In the end the SWP has simply had no choice but to respond. Its also true that at the local level serious efforts were made to mend bridges. In the TH case George seems to have gone all out to disrupt this and make compromise impossible. In other cases it seems to me that the levels of mistrust and paranoia sparked by this have made things very hard for people.
This is not a situation we have chosen but we have to defend ourselves. We also need to continue to fight politically for common ground. Its obviously not easy trying to do both at once. But we can only do our best. And I believe we're desperately trying to.
"The huge witch hunts launched against the SWP and left inside UNISON are connected to fears that our principled and popular opposition to social liberalism is tied up with a political challenge to New Labour."
I disagree. I think it is primarily due to a concern that the SWP will seek to provoke wild cat strikes for political reasons, which could lead to penalties for the union and possible criminal charges. There is also a concern repeatedly expressed by those outside the SWP that the SWP is overly focused on imposing its form of politics on others at the expense of unity. I don't think the SWP means to do this, but its level of organisational effectiveness often alienates people. Perhaps stating this will mean this comment will not be published, but it is nevertheless a common complaint and a problem that could explain the tensions within Respect and even within the anti-war movement.
My goodness wildcat strikes would be terrible, especially if the SWP provoked them (perhaps the SWP employs public sector workers, I don't know, maybe they're the ones whittling away at public services, jobs and pensions).
Yes, what the SWP needs to do is stop fighting for its politics and stop being so goshdarned organised. Onward, comrades, to a new, revolutionary disorganisation!
..but Aganmemnon, this is fairly unproblematically a right left divide in the trade union movement.
Oh, give it a rest, Roobin.
Both sides in the dispute say that they are blameless and that the other side is entirely (or almost entirely)to blame. This is not possible. One side or the other must be at fault -- most probably both to some extent, most likely one to a greater than the other. Unfortunately, neither side is admitting this, or seemingly is prepared to admit this.
Also unfortunately, very different accounts of events such as the Tower Hamlets meetings have come from different sources. It appears that somebody is lying about what has been going on. It is impossible for an outsider to tell who.
However, what can be summed up is that the position of the SWP in Respect is going to be very difficult to salvage. If it is really the victim of a massive smear campaign and witch-hunt, as Lenin and some of the SWP members here claim, then it's hard to see how it can remain in the party; it would be foolish to try to stitch things back together.
Meanwhile, if it isn't the victim of a massive campaign against it, but is misbehaving, trying to take over meetings and purgeing people suspected of Gallowayism, as its opponents claim -- then it isn't behaving like a serious or trustworthy political party, and I don't see how things can hold together.
This is a terrible situation. It's a bit like a miniature version of the Tripartite Alliance fighting going on in South Africa at the moment. However, point is that if the SWP leaves Respect, then that will surely weaken the left's position within Respect. This, in turn, would benefit the right. If, as Lenin claims, the right is Galloway and his minions, then even if the SWP is the injured party in every particular, its policies will end up benefiting the right in the party.
This is extremely depressing. Not because of what Respect is now, but because of what it might become in the future, if only it survives as a left-oriented party.
Sad post!
The problem with an umbrella with a lot of handles is that inevitably (especially when the rules for where the umbrella is headed are not very clear) some strong willed ass wipe will go off in a different direction and leave a big hole in the top.
What to do?
Stick to the principles of staying dry.
If everyone has a rain hat and a good rain coat, fewer umbrellas are needed.
A good socialist will make rain coats and rain hats for all, and avoid the time wasting, skin drenching, negativity of protracted squabbles over a broken umbrella.
Stay focused on the rain. Weather reports are most important now. Where are the rich reigning today?
Justin, we already know why left parties split -- an outline of some of the reasons can be found here:
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk...xt27/
Intro.html
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk...xt27/
Cults.html
And in the associated book.
I have also attempted an ideological explanation here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ros...age%
2009_02.htm
And this will continue until these are addressed.
Aside from emailing the local branch to see what meetings there may be planned, is there anything else that an independent socialist member of Respect could be doing, right now?
each example presented as an SWP escalation has in fact, on closer examination, turned out to be an ambush by the other side
In whose opinion, John? You may see it that way but how many people outside the ranks of the SWP think so? For all the grudgeholding and points-scoring and score-settling that undoubtedly goes on, can they really all be out of step but you?
Justin - who is this "all"? Have you interviewed everyone outside the SWP who has a stake in this? There will be a lengthy debate and vote, and then it will be clear whether we have persuaded people or not. What you appear to want to do is skip the debate, skip the vote, and proceed directly to arraigning the SWP on the grounds of what you suspect the opinion of others might. A strange didactic procedure to say the least.
Justin - who is this "all"?
If you read the passage again it's not a "who" at all....
What you appear to want to do is skip the debate, skip the vote, and proceed directly to arraigning the SWP
Of course I don't. What I want to do is observe that I don't see John's position on this shared by anybody outside the organisation (and I've seen a lot of opinions - far too many if I'm honest). So to whose "closer examination" does John refer?
Hello to kris, long time etc.
The opinions you're seeing are those elaborated on a number of websites hostile to the SWP. The internal alignments are a little bit more complicated than this and the discussions on those sites are far from honest. I don't go into much detail in my post, but at least there are no outright lies, such as I've seen on the sectarian blogs.
So to whose "closer examination" does John refer?
His own, I suspect.
MBF - I hold South Africa dear to my roots - and its sad to hear about this Tripartite Alliance that you talking about. I do not know much about it, so will not comment.
In this dispute in RESPECT we have referees rather than a referee. Some mean well - others are as iotbp puts it, up to utilise 'some strong willed ass' whose aim is to divert RESPECT into different directions. Its called confusion my friend. We see it everyday. I like confusions, more like challenges to me and i have had many. There are two likely outcomes of this challenge:
1.RESPECT will be polarised by opportunists, reformists, liberals and the likes (the word socialism would be removed from RESPECT).
2. It could be a dead-end - nothing new - evaporation into thin air. Will not be the first time.
If either of these two scenarios happen, strong willed ass will be equally destroyed because it proves his/her shallow politics.
My 3rd solution - echoed by iotbp is that those who want RESPECT to grow in unity stay 'focused at all costs.' Life is a bitch and it favours the focussed as it cannot stand to compete with arseholes!
Thats me done on this subject - forward with RESPECT and away with assholes.
Justin,
Well in the opinion of people I know and trust who were there. Also on the basis of my own judgement which is of course not infallible.
My statement on the reactions to all this which would be perfectly reasonable for an ordinary activist are fairly reflective of my own reactions at first if you must know (obviously thats why they're by definition reasonable!).
Its pretty staggering how swiftly things moved on. And I've tended to find that as soon as detail emerged (even that compiled by those hostile to our position) the notion that it was we who were escalating fell apart.
The TH thing is a particular example of this. Presenting a new slate one hour into a meeting being one indication. The one (Bengali) counciler who was close to us being excluded from that slate, being told to shut up, etc, etc. little things like that.
Refusing to address Respect members who were SWP members in Newham is another. One of the phrases I hate the most is 'grown up' politics. But there is a sense in which anyone who'd been round the block a few times would see what was going on.
I suspect this is also mediated by the undoubted love/hate relationship that exists between the SWP and the wider movement that I attempted to describe above, as well as a sense of disapointment/impatience. There is no doubt that, just at the moment, its a kind of perfect storm.
Bit more complicated than that Lenin. I have just seen a letter attacking the SWP reproduced on the Socialist Unity website signed by among others, Victoria Brittain, Ken Loach and Linda Smith - not horrible sectarians by any means I would have thought. And they allege that passwords to the membership database has been changed without informing anyone. I'm starting to get seriously worried about what's going on here.
roco - I've seen it too, and it contains not a few half-truths and falsehoods - I can't go into detail here, and they shouldn't be leaking these attacks to the blogs anyway. Probably, there will be a retort soon, and someone will leak that too. I haven't alleged that only sectarians are taking Galloway's position, but I admit I am surprised to see a couple of those names.
agree with the spirit of florences comments...except...i don't think calling people assholes is the way fowards. i don't think we should be as focused on purging people out of respect as the other side *seem* to be. we should just insist, rightly, that the we have a right to remain in respect, and that changes in both the letter and the spirit of the organisation should be things that occur in the standard way, through the usual mechanisms of any labour movement organisation.
Whilst I'm sure Justin wouldn't argue that debate should be pre-empted, there just IS an attempt to do this now. I strongly suspect that if there was a larger trade union component to Respect this would not be happening in the same way. There is truth to the old adages about the connections between organised labour and political ballast, having truth to them.
I would like mavericks of all kinds to remain (as well as people who cannot be described as mavericks). But I'd also like a bit of ballast. At the moment the fight in respect is almost as mad and unrooted as the sort of thing you see on the blogsphere. In that sense Galloway was ironically not wrong when he referred to 'blogomadness'. He didn't seem to realise it aptly describes his own behaviour as well.
Lenny says, "...but I admit I am surprised to see a couple of those names."
Is it possible, just possible, that intelligent, thoughtful comrades of the stature and integrity of Ken, Linda and Victoria might have a point? The SWP leadership must have done something wrong to alienate them.
Time to mend fences, not circle the wagons, as someone said earlier.
Intelligent, thoughtful comrades often put their names to documents that they will have to think better of. The document is filled with falsehoods. It would have been better for not having been written.
johng - get me right - when i call someone an asshole its an open statement. Everyone wants RESPECT to stay united - it is those people who want to destroy RESPECT who are am sure you will agree are not good people and are not our friends. Having read a letter referred to by roco in the RESPECT blog - it seems we all want the same things. We just have to stop witch-hunting others. We must stop running other people down as if their politics is not up to scratch. We must be open and honest and we must not be opportunists. Looking at those signatories, i doubt very much that they are saying they agree with George Galloway's attack on SWP, what they are saying is that they, like us want RESPECT to continue as an open and democratic unity. Personally, I do not take kindly to someone who insults another person. There is no need for that - only arseholes do that. A debate has to be seen as a debate and as I said, we need this debate more than ever. The outcome of this debate will strengthen RESPECT - there is no two ways about it. It is apathy, where people are frightened by these challenges that leads to dictatorship.
I read the UK SW editorial and it seemed to downplay the political nature of the SWP-Galloway dispute, at least when compared to this post by Lenin which argues that it's a classic battle between electoral reformism vs revolutionary struggle-from-below perspectives.
I don't support red-baiting, which is, objectively, what Galloway is doing by trying to drive out the SWP, whatever its flaws may be.
However, this conflict seems inevitable given the nature RESPECT which Lenin described in an earlier debate with me as an open-ended coalition of revolutionaries and reformists. The question I'm wondering is: why has the crisis/debate broken out now? Figuring this out I think would go a long way to figuring out what needs to be done besides fighting the SWP's expulsion.
I'm sure that Justin would have many political objections to my position but all this has probably been put in the shade by this awful sentance:
"There is truth to the old adages about the connections between organised labour and political ballast, having truth to them"
My sincere apologies.
Sure Florence I don't want to misrepresent you. Sorry if I did. I'm obviously pissed off with George as well. But I also just think that in the end, I'm more sorry he's gone off on one. The real arseholes are those who are hostile to the very idea of a Respect. We have to fight our battles. But we should always bear in mind the wider war.
I accept that I don't know all the facts, Lenny. Nor do most Respect activists. But you must see that it's very hard to believe that Ken Loach, Linda Smith and Victoria Brittan would put their names to something "filled with falsehoods." There are a very limited number of explanations:
1) They are scheming sods who are knowingly lying about the leadership of the SWP.
2) They are deluded fools who have been tricked by Galloway.
3) They are telling the truth.
Isn't it possible, even at the eleventh hour, to pull back from the brink, decommission the armies and try to find a way forward in peace, unity and socialism.
Or am I being naive?
For what it's worth I think something like this has been brewing for a long time. Especially since Galloway has been distancing himself from the SWP virtually from the day after the general election (look at his trajectory: the talk show, his non-appearance at the SWP fundraiser he was booked for, Big Brother, the Cuba lovin' book, Big Brother AGAIN...), trying to build an alternative base for himself. It’s getting to the stage where I think the nuclear option is possible.
The kind of shenanigans and maneuvering going is intolerable, and that’s before you get to the argument about electoralism vs activism and whether trade unionism and gay rights are appropriate causes to invest time and money in (of course they are). How can you have a left-wing party without these?
If we win out (and we have to for Respect to go on) if he didn’t leave of his own accord we’d have to tame him or dump him. I’d much rather have Respect than Galloway any day.
But, it’s not my responsibility so…
I don't know if i will get past Richard's moderation policy , but here goes.
Where do we go from here?
Firstly I think it is unhelpful for you to describe people as sectarians just becasue we criticise, or have deep political differences with the SWP.
But, secondly, we all need to recognise that there are sincere people acting in good faith on both sides of the argument.
There is a danger that the debate about respect can develop its own dynamic towards red-baiting McCarthyism, that would be a step back for all of us.
But the SWP needs also to consider its own end game in this dispute, and whether it wants to build bridges or not.
Andy: criticism is one thing, but I have been filtering out a fuckload of sneering commentary from people whose sole intention is to have a go at the SWP, which is what the bulk of their political engagement is about. Your site repeats criticism that I think are not only fundamentally unfair, but often flatly false. The way in which this has been done from the start, with perpetual leaking of e-mails and documents and letters has aggravated the problems already existing.
There is a compromise available in this, but I'm afraid the red-baiting has already begun. And those who are engaged in it need to rethink.
The amazing thing about Galloway is the way that he represents every trend in the British Working Class. A mix of radiacalism and conservatism, viz his views on abortion, and his opposition to the war. His background in the CP and aherence to Cuba, but also his preparedness to work with the SWP. Even his taste for the good life and smart clothes is a long-standing part of working class life in Britain. In the way in which he has swung left and now swings back when the movement is somewhat less dynamic in the face of the continuation of the war are all typical of the movement at large. The SWP was absolutely right to work with Galloway and it is now absolutely right to resist his descent to relying on a narrow communalist base to secure electoral gain.
kpk, the one thing I disagree with here is the use of the phrase "communalist". That's a complete red herring. It isn't about "communalism", and the invocation opens the way for the Islamophobes to cast it as such. It's about reformism and electoralism. I appreciate you probably mean much the same thing, but the term is toxically loaded, and I'd as soon we drop it.
Reading between the lines of the letter on the Socialist unity website, I gather (from afar):
1. It is clear that the letter was drafted by a couple people, and then signed by the rest. I don't believe for a minute, for example, that all, or a majority of, the signatories have personally checked the claims about the membership database. So whether the claims in the letter are true or not can certainly not be concluded by looking at the list of signatories.
2. At the TH meeting, the anti-SWP faction couldn't get their way and therefore decided to move the debate to a committee meeting where they were assured of a majority; I assume they accused the SWP of packing the membership meeting? The other members - SWP and allies - didn't go along. The committee went ahead anyway and appointed delegates over the head of the membership. Who's being undemocratic here?
Well I don't moderate comments on tye SU blog, unless they are well over the line.
But Richard, the debate here for example has also promoted views that are clearly counter-factual and therefore highly factional.
For example Christian H above claiming that "At the TH meeting, the anti-SWP faction couldn't get their way and therefore decided to move the debate to a committee meeting where they were assured of a majority; I assume they accused the SWP of packing the membership meeting? The other members - SWP and allies - didn't go along. The committee went ahead anyway and appointed delegates over the head of the membership. "
70% of that memebrs at the TH Tuesday meeting backed the alternate slate, so no one is accusing the SWP of packing that meeting. And on The Thursday committee meeting the vote was really close - not assured of a majority at all.
We are only going to maintain working relations if we accept that there are legitimate political differences, and it isn't just a mccarthyite stitch up.
Otherwise the danger is the poison will spread over into STWC as well.
70% of that memebrs at the TH Tuesday meeting backed the alternate slate
I am reluctant to pursue this, but I have to answer this point: the 'alternative slate' was a photocopied list of handwritten names presented well into the meeting, many of whom were not members of Tower Hamlets Respect. This is unacceptable and unconstitutional. Therefore, the existing slate should have been voted on. And, incidentally, not by people whose membership is purchased in bulk by one member on the night.
There are indeed political differences, and those can be resolved with a compromise, but that is not what is driving this dispute and these tactics.
The point is christian, if you're going to work with people and they're unhappy, you need to address their concerns even if you don't think they're entirely in order. There appear to be a fair number of unhappy people and they're not all engaged in sectarian manoeuvres or mudslinging (though some are) and nor are they all dupes of people who are.
The original argument regarding communalism was misunderstood. George Galloway has a narrow electoralist strategy, which doesn't see an opening for a more activist based organisation which the SWP adhere to.
In doing so, he and his supporters do fall prey to "communalist tactics". It's often a tactic used by the big three electoralist parties.
The debate passed by long ago and talk of "communalism" was dropped, however, in a particular slander, it has been resurrected again (in the Linda Smith letter) that the SWP labels all it's opponents as communalists (and therefore the islamophobe argument is raised again.) This is plainly false and we need to reiterate this fact.
Yes, but I want to emphasise this: we are happy to compromise. We have already done so, and intend to do so again. We won't be bullied, but we will make concessions on the issues that formally motivate this dispute. I fear, however, that there was always an underlying agenda which had only a tenuous relation to the eminently negotiable issues raised by, for example, Galloway in his letter. You are right that the people now supporting Galloway's position are not simply dupes, but I do think they have made a mistake.
Well compromise has to be considered very carefully considering that there is now an organised attack on the SWP.
Even if you disagree with the actions of a number of swp members, or branches, the entire SWP is now being held to account. Already it seems we are not being invited to meetings deciding delegations, Galloway won't address respect members if SWP members are present and the letter by Linda Smith was entirely one-way, blaming the SWP for this whole dispute.
There is an orchestrated attempt to belitte our influence inside the organisation.
Lenin says: "..but we will make concessions on the issues that formally motivate this dispute."
The issue that formally motivated the dispute was Galloway's disatisfaction with the way that John Rees was running Respect.
All sides have made mistakes but the key error was the SWP leadership's decision to block Nick Wrack from becoming a de facto co-organiser with Rees. Had that been accepted, in a spirit of pluralism, the dispute could have been resolved with far less rancour than is now in the air.
I think John Rees took it very personally and used his SWP leadership role to dragoon the SWP into defending his Respect leadership role. Someone who had been less personally involved might have seen the wisdom of accepting Wrack. It doesn't help that one of the other key decision makers in the SWP is Rees's wife.
Let's cool it. Only a small minority of wankers wants the SWP kicked out of Respect. A much larger group of well-intentioned comrades wants the SWP to accept that it does not and cannot control Respect.
The issue that formally motivated the dispute was Galloway's disatisfaction with the way that John Rees was running Respect.
Look at it the other way around for a second. Whatever Galloway's actual or alleged misgivings he made colossal mistakes himself, and suppose we had issued a letter with the aim of driving him from the leadership. Would that look like an attack or not? Would there not have been rumours of an SWP attempted putsch or something of that kind? In fact, wouldn't that have been the open declaration of all who opposed such a move?
At any rate, there was a huge concession on this point, with the unanimous backing of the National Organiser position. That itself shows that we are prepared to compromise - in the spirit of 'pluralism' or whatever the buzz-word of the hour is. (Ironic that those who wish to conserve the pluralistic set up are the ones being met with this phrase).
I think John Rees took it very personally and used his SWP leadership role to dragoon the SWP into defending his Respect leadership role.
Through hypnosis? Black magic? Subliminable messages? I think it's far more realistic to believe that the SWP responded with a political analysis of the nature of the dispute, which was not merely technocratic, but actually about the future direction of Respect. Rather than reducing it to Rees - who is only an individual, albeit one who discovered the advantages of beardiness before Galloway did - the SWP formulated a political analysis and on that basis campaigned for a particular vision of Respect. That's the political way to handle it, and it cuts through all the gossip-mongering, personality obsessions and Kremlinology that is typical of these debates.
I should point out that I'm not even close to any of this. As I pointed out, I drew my conclusion about the TH meeting simply from the letter posted on SU, not from any direct experience - I should have made clear that what I tried to show is that such accusations as are made in that letter are not useful for debate, precisely because the underlying events could have unfolded in any number of ways (the TH meeting was just a random example - I could easily cook up any number of events fitting any of the other accusations factual claims while making the SWP look good.)
As Len said repeatedly, this is a problem when internal debates are made public by selective leaks - there's no context for those not directly involved to interpret the claims made.
70% of that memebrs at the TH Tuesday meeting backed the alternate slate, so no one is accusing the SWP of packing that meeting.
82.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The "alternative slate" was a hastily photocopied handwritten list of names that appeared around one hour after the meeting started. Some of the people on there were not members of TH Respect. Some of the names were first names only. Whatever the case, it was impossible to simply take this to the vote: we have a constitution that is designed to allow disagreements to take place without wrecking the organisation. What was proposed by some in the meeting ran the risk of upsetting the democratic functioning of Respect.
After some members left, with no vote to end the meeting, the remaining members voted to note that the names originally presented by the secretary were constitutionally authorised to attend as the TH Respect delegation. This was in line with agenda for the meeting, and allowed the meeting to conclude.
Now there was space, on the delegation list, for more names - 12 in all, as I remember. What's more, many members indicated that they were happy to drop out to make space. The meeting could've discussed this and got those extra delegates selected. (I personally am very much in favour of more non-SWP members being on the Tower Hamlets delegation; this is the only reasonable and sensible way to proceed.)
Fortunately, the branch exec last night chose unanimously to explore this option, delegating four members to draw up a new, combined, unity slate to present to the meeting called for tomorrow evening. I hope the minutes from that meeting will be widely circulated and that this spirit of unity, compromise and common purprose will prevail as it has in the past. It is a terrible shame that George Galloway acted last Thursday to break that unity up and vilify one section of Respect.
"It doesn't help that one of the other key decision makers in the SWP is Rees's wife."
One. They are not married. Two. It's a disgusting argument to make that reduces Lindsey down to a puppet.
"..but Aganmemnon, this is fairly unproblematically a right left divide in the trade union movement."
I don't even think it is that. It is about what a trade union is allowed to do under current laws. If a trade union willfully broke the law, then it would be in trouble - punitive fines, etc. Union bosses work in the interests of the union and perhaps judge that it is not in the organisation's best interests to break the law. Moreover, most people do not share the SWP's revolutionary politics and, even if they support strike action, don't view it as part of a process for a communist revolution - and by its very nature, revolution entails breaking the law. Everyone knows the SWP's agenda is exactly that.
There's no problem with SWP members in trade unions until they start exacting undue influence against the interests of the union and the views of its members - usually by getting their members elected as delegates due to general apathy in the union's organisation. This pisses people off, although they should take a more active interest in their union if they want to ensure it is representative.
As for the SWP in Respect, there is evidently a clash of cultures between those who see it as a platform for an alternative left-wing politics and those who are more engaged in local electoralism. The two approaches had common cause, but it seems that there is now tension between them. It is unclear why. There seems to be a lot of clash of personalities and bitterness. The SWP is probably guilty of being too assertive and lacking sensitivity (this is an oft-repeated criticism that this party has dismissed as sectarianism). But the reports I've read suggest that there is a campaign to alienate SWP members, as if they can be discarded and their hard work dismissed. It's clear the SWP is angling for reconciliation, but the apparent ferocity of the attacks in unconfirmed reports - particularly the intemperate and downright rude comments attributed to Galloway - suggests that the other side will have to also work hard to show unity. Otherwise, the SWP will look like it is grovelling and this is not good for the SWP, Respect or even George Galloway.
I agree with Rosen. Procedures need to be tightened up and rules clarified in order to ensure that all disputes have a clear channel of resolution. Ad hoc briefings, gossip, diktats from on high are no way to run a party, particularly a small, new party like Respect. UKIP has come through a similar transition.
I appreciate how RESPECT members outside TH can be confused and dismayed about the fallout between GG and the SWP but when you see the manouvers first hand it is far easier to make sense of it all.
I moved into TH in April from an area where RESPECT is relatively week, I was astonished by the corruption that was taking place in front of my eyes. The first TH RESPECT (AGM) meeting I attended, branch positions were being constested, all very well accept that 1 week or so before the AGM the eventual secessor of TH chair paid for 150 people to become RESPECT members, of course they all to voted for him and his crew.
This same man accuses the SWP of being undemocratic, the cheek of it, GG has sided with this man against the SWP in recent days and therefore in my view sponsering corruption.
If this is the road we want RESPECT to go down then I don't want anything to do with, GG must be challenge.
Salma's take on the whole thing can be read here:
http://www.our-party.org.uk/Nucl....php?
itemid=326
That's a useful contribution, Nathan, that helps explain a lot to me.
"and whose strategy is one of electoralism"
Good Lord, you mean the man is a democrat? What an extraordinary idea...
Ageamon, debates about the law, the role of the bureacracy etc, have been central issues in working class left wing trade union politics probably since the 1920's. Its in that sense that, historically, in the British Labour movement, its usually seen as a left/right issue, and seen like that way beyond the ranks of 'revolutionaries'.
Your other comments I thought judicious and balenced.
I've always very much respected Salma (as I think have the overwhelming majority of people not just in Respect but in the anti-war movement), but as Lenin said earlier about signatories, its possible even for people you respect and who deserve respect to be mistaken.
Good Lord, you mean the man is a democrat? What an extraordinary idea...
Dimwit. Learn the terms before coming on here and making a fool of yourself.
its possible even for people you respect and who deserve respect to be mistaken.
Well, I think it's possible to have the greatest the greatest respect for these people as political activists and operators, but still know a fight when you see one. This is not a combat of good and evil, it is a struggle over different priorities and visions. Inevitably, everyone tries to build the broadest coalition by tapping assorted concerns that aren't directly related to the issue at hand. That's how it works.
Absolutely.
"albeit one who discovered the advantages of beardiness before Galloway did"
u got to love this guy, keeping one's restraint as well as one's humor, that's quite something
GG is appearing on Question Time tonight according to his website, on which has also been published the letter discussed above.
If the Greek royalty is representative of the current beef of misty, non-aligned people with the SWP then it's quite a clear expression of the agenda on the right of Respect.
What "people" don't like about the SWP is that it is organised and clear about what it wants. Rather than do anything to counter the relative support the SWP might have from issue to issue, from union to union, why not just sideline it? It's much easier.
Very much agree with the general position taken by Lenin in this thread.
When I read the line in Linda Smith's (and others) letter that claims the SWP in Birmingham attempted to block the election of delegates and I was present and know this to be untrue, it illustrates how distorted some discussions become.
I was shocked that Thornett and Lister signed a letter that included this statement as members of their organisation were there and could have advised them accurately of what happened.
Can't help but comment on expulsions from unions. I was expelled from Birmingham UNISON despite the fact I was the Convenor of the best organised section of the Branch and had been a union activist for over 30 years. The impact of the attack on the left in our Branch was that we went from over 22,000 members to less than 15,000 today and our employer is about to dismiss 40,000 employees. Years later I eventually overturned the decision but witchunts invariably damage all sides.
I like and admire Salma Yaqoob too. I took a weeks leave to support her parliamentary campaign and a similar amount when she stood as Councillor. I have issues over which we would diasagree, but very much regret the direction the debate in Respect is taking.
thedigger - thanks very for this - we need more of you to tell the truth. To expose the lies and the liars - to enable us to build the movement based on truth, trust, honesty and respect. I am fed up to my eyebrows with witch-hunts and I despise anyone who knowingly witch hunts an innocent person. That is what New Labour and all capitalist parties do. It is pure diabolic, evil and destructive. How can someone go to sleep after a lie like this? We do not need that in RESPECT.
I too looked highly on Salma. As a black woman, it gives me pride to see women from the ethnic minority embracing the truth in politics, unlike those in New Labour who dance on their people's poverty and oppression once they use their people to elect them to power. They become whats called 'Blair's babes.' I might say, after this, I am gobsmacked by these revelations, but not surprised.
My mantra always proves me right and it goes like 'the truth shall set you free.'As lenin put it, 'this is the struggle over different priorities and visions'. It is obvious that those who are witch-hunting us have a different vision from RESPECT.
I've been trying my best to make sense of the crisis and debate that's erupted within RESPECT and the best single link with some of the original contributions by Galloway, the SWP, and others is here:
http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.co...h/label/
Respect
Unless Galloway and co. and the SWP can reconcile their differences, I fear RESPECT will lose the opportunity to seize some of the important opportunities (like unions discussing their own party separate from Labour) that exist today.
One of the things that distorts collections of articles and blogging is that the swp has been desperately trying to prevent this from escalating, and thus haven't said much, whilst i'm coming to the belief that others have a real interest in escalation, whether because of some demented sectarian fixation, or more genuinely because they want to build support for changing the nature of Respect (with good or bad motivations).
Of course as soon as we DO try and defend ourselves (I mean you have to given the nature of some of these attacks, soon to be reproduced in the national news) we're accused of 'escalating' etc, etc.
I have a feeling that most activists just want this to bloody stop now. All the reports that I'm hearing about what people are doing locally suggests that many are looking at this whole thing with bemusement and horror.
I personally think that those making these kinds of rabid attacks 'total degeneration' 'russian dolls' etc, etc are not only damaging the movement as a whole, but also spitting on thousands and thousands of activists who have worked their hearts out, up and down the country, year in year out, and who many of these people actually owe their position in the movement to.
They should ponder to themselves whether this is likely to have a positive impact on the movement as a whole however aggrieved they feel with particular individuals.
The movement is about more then leaders, and the SWP represents thousands of people working, arguing, and fighting alongside thousands of others who are also not best served by this crap.
Sorry, starting to lose it.
Luther, for the record, died of natural causes. The Inquisition never got him and if it had done it wouldn't have been the Spanish one.
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com...5/here-i-stand/
Yes John, that's the link two posts above your own...
You are not losing it johng, but stating facts. Just to give you an insight of how the SWP is viewed by people because of this whole kafafu. In Lewisham,every SWP/RESPECT meeting that i went to btn 2004-2005 (i attended all of them) was riddled with vernom from sectarian members whose intention was purely to distrupt these meetings.
I attended one yesterday on the 90th anniversary of the Russian revolution. Never have i seen so many non SWP members attend a meeting hosted by us. All ages, one born a few years after the revolution, and some i believe university/college students. I just stayed for Martin Smith's talk, so cannot comment on the debate that followed. Everybody laughed when Martin said something like 'For the record - yes we are leninists.' I chuckled more than all looking at all those non members present and wondering whether they viewed us "dolls".
Sadly, at the entrance were some sectarians selling their paper called 'Solidarity' and handing out leaflets entitled something like 'Ditch Galloway and his communalities.' Something we in the SWP have fought vehemently against. They soon disappeared thank God when no one paid attention to them.
The struggle continues for those who want a better world for all.
I really must work on my clairvoyent powers sorry justin.
As someone who knows little-ish about the politics of Respect (or indeed British party politics), this has been an immensely useful thread.
However, as someone whose parents (I was an adolescent then) were member of a lefty group in the immediate post-revolutionary Iran which splintered and splintered and splintered and splintered until each splinter had about 3 people left in it, all arguing at the same time about the righteousness of their political analysis, this debate, I am afraid seems unbelievably (and depressingly) familiar.
Laleh, this has been happening on the left now for at lewast 200 years, and shows no sign of going away.
And it will continue until comrades address certain issues which, to date, they refuse even to acknowledge.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ros...age%
2009_02.htm
Oh well the good side of the mini-crisis is that some arguments can be clarified. Maybe mr blogger (I refuse to call you 'lenin' sorry!) can help me on this one. My impression is that in recent elections the swp position was vote Respect if there is a candidate in your town. If not, come and help us campaign in another town. Okish but did the swp call to vote Labour where there was no respect candidate, or not to vote Labour because they are now the same as the tories or what?
This is an important question because it says something about the SWPs view of the role and position of Respect in the Left in general.
I think the splintering of the left in Iran was more to do with it's defeat at the hands of Khomeini, Laleh. You can't seperate politics from the outside world, lefties don't have an inbuilt urge to split from each other :)
I posted this last night, but it seems to have been lost in the aether:
Laleh, you are right, but this has been a constant feature of the left for centuries.
And it will continue into another century just so long as comrades fail to address certain key issues -- ones they still prefer to ignore.
Check out the link I posted above for my take on this.
I just don't see how sectarians rejoicing at a crisis in the biggest opportunity for the left for ages can be taken seriously. Of course Respect was always a risky project. Of course it was always going to be difficult. Throwing hats into the air when risks materialise is not very sensible.
The only risk worse than the taking of risks is not taking them. There is clearly only one side to be on here. The SWP dared. All strength to them.
Laleh - how sweet! I can imagine 3 people calling themselves RESPECT 1, 2, 3. Take heart - RESPECT will not go down that line. RESPECT is not SWP, and SWP is not RESPECT. RESPECT is a coalition of forces opposed to war, socialist or not. SWP adds glamour to it, because not only do we oppose wars of any sort, but we engage in day to day struggles of the British working class, we are involved one way or the other in these struggles within unions and outside unions. I am an example of the success of SWP's activities, witch hunted for my fight against oppression and fight against greedy oppressors and would have ended up like other unknown revolutionaries who get killed or imprisoned for my lone activitities had SWP not intervened. We do not want a repeat of the miners's strike, where unions were made impotent by the wicked wizard of Ozz and her conservatives with support from those on the left in parliamentary represantation. For it takes a good man doing nothing for evil to triumph.
On the same note, we value parliamentarians like Jeremy Corben who spoke today at the stop the war conference and brought tears to my eyes by begging us to join him in parliament as it gets lonely for him. We want RESPECT to grow irrespective of our involment, but we need the working class of the UK to make it grow. That is where the glamour of our politics comes in. It is kind of like seeing the world whilst sitting on the shoulders of a giant. And hey, you only got to look at what RESPECT stands for to understand that we stand for all oppressed working people. We do not aspire for parliamentary positions, but we aspire for positions that will enable us to influence changes of how tax payer's money is spent. Of how a 9-5 job can be fulfilling and rewarding. How can we fail - the world is our oyster! If you live in the UK - i urge to join us pretty quick!
Laleh, It is absolutely clear that your position is related to your fundemental rejection/acceptance/indifference towards (tick appropriate box), Dialectiacal Materialism/Reductionism/Maoism/anarchism (tick appropriate box), and if you would only read this little pamphlet (..supply title..) everything would be alright.
Oh dear. I've obviously been on the blogs a bit too much today.
Comrades will no doubt like to reflect on the fact that, on the one hand we are told that everything in reality is interconnected, while on the other that the only two things in the entire universe that are not inter-linked are the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxisn and its core theory: dialectics!
Pull the other one...
johng
If Rosa takes the bait then YOU are to blame if this thread turns into yet another dialectical-materialism or not debate.
You have been warned.
Yeah, go get some fresh air. Or go to Paris with lenin.
No I won't.
Anti-C: I see you mystics are running scared.
And we all know that Mr G does not want another sand-bagging...
You are a STAR johng - rather that follow lenin, just watch my steps when i dance. Next time you see a tall black woman with gold and diamonds on her dreadlock hair, just take my hand and i will direct you to the dance floor! Life is full of laughter only if you dance with it!
Anti-C: I see you mystics are running scared. - Rosa Lichtenstein
Not scared, just bored with it.
Anyhow, what makes you think I'm with the DM crowd?
As a Yankee of no position I couldn't sign (also not THAT fond of the Yankee equivalent of the SWP) but if Galloway is choosing to be the aggressor that should be answered.
I was part of the GLC when Ken Livingstone was mayor, so I would hate t o see what happened to the GLC happen to RESPECT Britain-wide.
Anti-C:
"Not scared, just bored with it."
You bore easily. I bet, like Harold Wilson, you never got past page one of Kapital...
"Anyhow, what makes you think I'm with the DM crowd?"
I sincerely hope you are not -- you sound way too intelligent! :)
You bore easily. I bet, like Harold Wilson, you never got past page one of Kapital... - Rosa
That's because I am anti-Kapital...ista.
unlike Harold Wilson.
Anti-C:
"That's because I am anti-Kapital...ista.
unlike Harold Wilson."
Eh?
anticapitalista...pots, kettles, etc.
On another subject I've been thinking about Fight Club recently.
"We are the people who get your vote out. We are the people who put the chairs out. We are the people who carry every argument to every corner. We do the boring stuff...Do NOT fuck with us".
Commenting by HaloScan
