17 November Conference Reports Part 1 - Respect Renewal. Bishopsgate
- Thread starter Fisher_Gate
- Start date
Respect Renewal - 6 hours of SWP bashing
9 SWP members intervened at the Respect Renewal Rally. The event could well have been subtitled "bash the SWP". Despite George Galloway and others pledging that the day would not be dominated by the SWP the next six hours were pretty much packed with our various crimes. The basic line was this. The SWP from pretty early on had decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build the organisation, not through incompetence but through deliberate action.The party was accused at various times of Islamophobia <sic> of meeting in secret and having its own "line" and of using bureaucratic methods and intimidation to control the organisation. A little example of the mood amongst some was that one speaker attacked Lindsey German as the candidate for mayor (nobody mentioned that 300 Respect members had elected her as candidate until we did) and got a great round of applause for arguing Boris Johnson would be preferable. At no time (other than in the two three minute contributions we were allowed) did anybody acknowledge that there might be any real argument about the course Respect had been taking or that heaven forbid George or anyone other than the SWP may have made some mistakes that have affected Respect's development. The SWP had apparently played no positive role in Respect except perhaps at it's earliest point. Some in the audience were unhappy with all this. Many people argued in one to one conversations that a split should be avoided and a united conference held. But this was effectively the birth of a new political party as far as the top table was concerned. Activists were given a strategy to "deal" with the SWP and those who might sympathise with us. They were told "Where possible new branches of "Respect Renewal" should be set up. Where the SWP and "sympathisers" dominated a branch there should be an attempt to win the "middle ground" in order to split later. "And where the SWP was in a minority the idea was to push to marginalise them, pull the "best" people and over time push those loyal to their own party out. The speed of this process would depend on the relative strengths involved. Sadly some of the most vicious attacks on us came from five or six ex SWP members. One thing that's worth noting is the absence of any serious trade unionists and the complete absence of students. Anybody who was unsure about whether the SWP faced a witch hunt should have sat in that hall for six hours. But it's worth remembering that even in such an atmosphere there were many people who were against a break, unsure of what was happening or who didn't want to face what was being outlined...a Respect without the SWP. The top table had to work very hard to whip up the mood against us.Many people were open to a political argument about the future even if the top table had set their face against us. Just to repeat: Galloway is arguing for his supporters to set up a completely new organisation "Respect Renewal" in some areas. One important thing came out of the Respect Renewal meeting - In others they are being urged to carry out a more "flexible" strategy. Where they think they are strong - Birmingham South - they intend to drive us out. In other areas where they are weaker - Bristol, Manchester North and Southwark they intend to break up Respect groups.
9 SWP members intervened at the Respect Renewal Rally. The event could well have been subtitled "bash the SWP". Despite George Galloway and others pledging that the day would not be dominated by the SWP the next six hours were pretty much packed with our various crimes. The basic line was this. The SWP from pretty early on had decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build the organisation, not through incompetence but through deliberate action.The party was accused at various times of Islamophobia <sic> of meeting in secret and having its own "line" and of using bureaucratic methods and intimidation to control the organisation. A little example of the mood amongst some was that one speaker attacked Lindsey German as the candidate for mayor (nobody mentioned that 300 Respect members had elected her as candidate until we did) and got a great round of applause for arguing Boris Johnson would be preferable. At no time (other than in the two three minute contributions we were allowed) did anybody acknowledge that there might be any real argument about the course Respect had been taking or that heaven forbid George or anyone other than the SWP may have made some mistakes that have affected Respect's development. The SWP had apparently played no positive role in Respect except perhaps at it's earliest point. Some in the audience were unhappy with all this. Many people argued in one to one conversations that a split should be avoided and a united conference held. But this was effectively the birth of a new political party as far as the top table was concerned. Activists were given a strategy to "deal" with the SWP and those who might sympathise with us. They were told "Where possible new branches of "Respect Renewal" should be set up. Where the SWP and "sympathisers" dominated a branch there should be an attempt to win the "middle ground" in order to split later. "And where the SWP was in a minority the idea was to push to marginalise them, pull the "best" people and over time push those loyal to their own party out. The speed of this process would depend on the relative strengths involved. Sadly some of the most vicious attacks on us came from five or six ex SWP members. One thing that's worth noting is the absence of any serious trade unionists and the complete absence of students. Anybody who was unsure about whether the SWP faced a witch hunt should have sat in that hall for six hours. But it's worth remembering that even in such an atmosphere there were many people who were against a break, unsure of what was happening or who didn't want to face what was being outlined...a Respect without the SWP. The top table had to work very hard to whip up the mood against us.Many people were open to a political argument about the future even if the top table had set their face against us. Just to repeat: Galloway is arguing for his supporters to set up a completely new organisation "Respect Renewal" in some areas. One important thing came out of the Respect Renewal meeting - In others they are being urged to carry out a more "flexible" strategy. Where they think they are strong - Birmingham South - they intend to drive us out. In other areas where they are weaker - Bristol, Manchester North and Southwark they intend to break up Respect groups.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
aren't there some rules about c'n'p?
I know we call these types as 'bots
but this is rediculous!
I know we call these types as 'bots
but this is rediculous!
The thing is, many of the members of R/R are former SWP, some die hards of many years standing, they know better than anyone the 'modus operandi' of the party. So, any account of the gerrymandering and hidden agendas by the SWP given at the conference by RR will imo, ring true...
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
sunshine1 said:
Principles
One thing life has taught me is not to be a total fucking user. I do this by standing up for socialism.
It seems that one of the hazards of being a socialist is to have the "it has been tried and tested but it failed, argument shoved in your face as soon as you announce your standpoint.
If we want a change to take place, we have to take action, not by backbiting, but to take the necessary steps to encourage others to join us but more importantly, ensure that any action that is taken stays on the rails, that was the tremendous success of the 'Renewal rally almost two weeks ago.
There is no respect given by those who sit across the road nowadays and throw stones at others.
Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unions.
The above are my principles. If you don't like them i have no others.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
nwnm said:
One thing life has taught me is not to be a total fucking user. I do this by standing up for socialism.
It seems that one of the hazards of being a socialist is to have the "it has been tried and tested but it failed, argument shoved in your face as soon as you announce your standpoint.
If we want a change to take place, we have to take action, not by backbiting, but to take the necessary steps to encourage others to join us but more importantly, ensure that any action that is taken stays on the rails, that was the tremendous success of the 'Renewal rally almost two weeks ago.
There is no respect given by those who sit across the road nowadays and throw stones at others.
Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unions.
The above are my principles. If you don't like them i have no others.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
nwnm said:
No idea which post you are referring to.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
nwnm said:
I see the footsoldiers of the Australian SWP affiliate, the International Socialist Organisation, called for a vote for the Greens.
(Do you think anyone has told Rania Khan?)
"Why You Should Vote Green" - Socialist Worker Australia
http://www.socialistworker.org.au/575/why-you-should-vote-green/
"Should we support Socialist candidates?" - Socialist Worker, Australia
to which the answer is ... A LOUD NO!
"The space for an explicitly socialist electoral expression has been closed off for the time being ... the only serious way in this election to both send a message to Rudd that his me-tooism isn't welcome, and to work alongside and influence left activists in the process, is to support the Greens."
http://www.socialistworker.org.au/highlights/should-we-support-socialist-candidates/
Makes Galloway look a bit of a left winger doesn't it?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
fanciful said:
He's done all this has he?
Was 1997 a new red dawn as well?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
fanciful said:
Australia has a transferable voting system.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
In case anyone is unsure about where the Australian Greens stand on the left-right scale here is a quote from one of their leaders:
"...neither left nor right but forward."
"...neither left nor right but forward."
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
fanciful said:
why on earth do you think that?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
From the Australian Socialist Alliance:
"VOTE SOCIALIST ALLIANCE 1, GREENS 2, AND ALWAYS PUT LABOR BEFORE THE LIBERALS AND NATIONALS"
From Socialist Worker Australia:
"Voting 1 Greens and 2 Labor on the Lower House ballot paper means we can help end 11 years of conservative rule and vote for something more than Labor's me-tooism.
On the Senate ballot paper, you only need to mark 1 Greens above the line because all Greens Senate preferences will flow to Labor"
"VOTE SOCIALIST ALLIANCE 1, GREENS 2, AND ALWAYS PUT LABOR BEFORE THE LIBERALS AND NATIONALS"
From Socialist Worker Australia:
"Voting 1 Greens and 2 Labor on the Lower House ballot paper means we can help end 11 years of conservative rule and vote for something more than Labor's me-tooism.
On the Senate ballot paper, you only need to mark 1 Greens above the line because all Greens Senate preferences will flow to Labor"
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
To make what point? Mine was that new labour promised many thing like the above in 1997, they didn't deliver on them. Yet the day after a similiar election is aus you're say that they've put their manifesto claims into effect. Grow up. You should know better.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
JHE said:
The SWP affiliate left the Socialist Alliance in a huff. And then they said the socialists were "too small" so they were not going to vote for them, but call for a first preference for the Green. The vote for some of the Socialist Alliance candidates was nearly as high as Respect got in Ealing Southall, but we all know that was different don't we?
the ISO ... "at its national conference in 2007 voted to withdraw its involvement criticising the failure of the project to achieve its intended goals and the role of the Democratic Socialist Perspective in that failure"
"The ISO has identified university campuses as a key area in which to rebuild the organisation. It has decided to focus on building at Melbourne University, Sydney Uni and Griffith University in Brisbane."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Socialist_Organisation_(Australia)
We're forced to depend on Wikipedia because there is nothing about it on the IST website (which has not been updated for about 20 months). A contribution from ISO to the SA in 2006 said the following:
"Some on the Left look to the Greens. This is not an option for the ISO. While we have welcomed the rise of the Greens electorally as an expression of anti-capitalist sentiment, the Greens remain limited to electoral politics and lethargic towards the working class. While we want to relate to the Greens, joining them would have been impossible unless we liquidated our paper and organisation.
Neither was a Respect-style coalition appropriate given the absence of a mass anti-war movement in Australia, a left Labor breakaway like Galloway or significant connections to the Muslim community.
Hence we have a difficult situation where there is a need and space for a broad Left pole of attraction, but unfortunately the Left is incapable of delivering it at present.
Exiting the SA after the 2005 national conference might have been clean and clear, but it would only have nourished the idea that the Left could not work together. It would have closed the door to future possible developments and possibilities for electoral work or other joint Left activity with the DSP. Rather than agonising, the ISO had to look at how we could constructively build the Left.
Hence we reduced our involvement in SA, and avoided being drawn into the aggressive arguments being pursued by the DSP. Our approach was to reduce the damage caused by the decline of the SA and work to open up better possibilities by working with Greens, left Labor, Muslims and others in joint activity.
Given the centrality of Iraq and the war on terror, a group our size has decided to focus on building the anti-war movement.
Meanwhile, the situation is fluid and by all accounts the situation for the SA is deteriorating. The ISO will have to consider whether our affiliation has any meaning."
www.socialist-alliance.org/resources/idb/Vol6No1.doc
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
There's some stuff about the self-destruction of the Australian ISO here:
http://socialistunity.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-is-ist-going.html
EDITED TO ADD: and I found their resignation letter here - pretty amazing stuff when you read what they say about Galloway in Britain:
http://www.marxsite.com/iso.html
http://socialistunity.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-is-ist-going.html
EDITED TO ADD: and I found their resignation letter here - pretty amazing stuff when you read what they say about Galloway in Britain:
http://www.marxsite.com/iso.html
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
fanciful said:
Okay. Clearly we must support the booting out of Howard, but the fight starts now to get Labor to implement the radical parts of their programme.
Similar threads
