belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
so, thats a tacit admission of failure then, as the SWP Respect persuaded no forces to struggle alongside themselves
Galloway leaves Respect
- Thread starter Barking_Mad
- Start date
so, thats a tacit admission of failure then, as the SWP Respect persuaded no forces to struggle alongside themselves
because they felt GG couldn't win them? that's what SW wanted, and honest open and democratic discussion.
just started to read the article by Salma on the Galloway factions website,just like yourself she distorts things and take things out of context, to paint a picture which is untrue. Martin Smith clearly says the motivations are electoralism, leading to a popular front style, which contradicts SW vision of a class-based coalition. he doesn't go out to paint a picture of Islamic organisations are organising inside respect against socialists.you and Salma I am sure genuinely believe what you are saying is the truth,because you've built up this theory and you only look for evidence to sustain your views, which I suppose we all do to a degree. what galls me is your arrogance. Anyone who has a different view to you is a "trobot". you are doing what you are condemning SW of doing.
I expect such rubbish from JHE Cockney, but Cockney do you honestly believe in your heart SW or Lindsay German had given up on gay rights?
PS.do you have a link to the Chris Harman article Sheene mentions?
Some people were making the same criticisms of Respect four years ago. What took you so long to see the light? When exactly did the rightward shift begin to take place?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Mention must be made of the SWP's support for the Religious Hatred Bill in particular .... clear evidence of a shift to the right, if ever there was one.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Sorry RMP3 where did I say that LG or SW had given up on gay rights? As you say that would be a ridiculous thing to say, which is why I didn't.
My point was that how can nwnm come over all high and mighty about Galloway not taking a worker's wage and the fact that he didn't have enough of a commitment to gay rights when at the founding of RESPECT and it's immediate aftermath:
1) The SWP voted down the proposal to make RESPECT candidates take a worker's wage if they get elected.
2) Lindsey German said that gay rights couldn't be made a "shibboleth".
3) The SWP voted down a proposal to say that women should have the right to abortion on demand and said that to defend the current legal rights was enough.
4) LG said that RESPECT couldn't be "explicitly socialist".
5) Many SWP members on here defended Galloway while he boasted of winning the election on the back of his religious views and anti-abortion stance (which was detailed in an article in The Observer).
etc etc
Yet when this all blew up in their face rather than admit that others criticisms were right and that they had a made political mistakes they just sweep it under the carpet.
The farce of what has happened in RESPECT wasn't because LG, John Rees or Galloway are nasty people (although none of them strike me as very nice characters), but because of the flawed politics inherent in the project from day one.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
no forces was an exageration, might not be completely true now, but essentialy the 'reason' for the split IS the failure persuade forces to struggle alongside us.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Thanks, doesn't stop people like jhe.
ill come back to this.
I wouldn't make the fact that someone was a racist a shibboleth which made it impossible for me to link arms with them on a picket line.
JHE
.
Look, Resistance, you know perfectly well what German said on the subject and you know why. It's no good blaming me.
On the subject of the Social Workers' recovery of nerve on the subject of homosexuality, I recently came across the following account from September last year of the al-Respeq split on a Labour-aligned website.
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/9/19/32556/3993
Re. the bit I have put in bold:
* Did the Social Workers try to persuade (I think "force" cannot be the right term here) the TH councillors to go on a float at Gay Pride?
* Is it true more generally that Social Workers tried to tell TH councillors what to do?
* Is it true that the TH councillors - minus the 4 SWP-loyalists, obviously - told Galloway to 'sort out' the Social Workers? Is it true that they gave the sort of ultimatum mentioned?
Some of this does chime with the Social Workers account of the split - an account that I've always thought was bollocks... but who knows? Perhaps there was more of an anti-Social Worker move within al-Respeq than I had realised.
Islamo-Trottery always had enormous comic potential. I'm almost sorry to see the end of it.
On the subject of the Social Workers' recovery of nerve on the subject of homosexuality, I recently came across the following account from September last year of the al-Respeq split on a Labour-aligned website.
...after a number of defections and rumours about internal arguments and rifts. The selection of a local “business wing” candidate for Respect in the recent by-election at Shadwell led to open war between the main Respect “Coalition” allies: Galloway and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).
Nearly all the paid Respect Party officials are SWP members. This went from bad to worse when the SWP officials tried to force the Muslim Bangladeshi Respect Councillors to go on a Respect float at the 2007 Gay Pride parade!
Surprise, surprise the councillors told Galloway that they have had enough of the SWP telling them what to do and if he did not sort the SWP out they would split from Respect and form a traditional community based party (maybe a local branch of the BNP, I kid you not, the “very centre right” – Bangladeshi National Party). Galloway was welcome to join them, but of course he realised that he needed not only community support to win at the next general election, but also experienced political organisers to run his campaign.
If he was to defect to a purely Islamic community party then he would zero support from white middle class extremist lefties, who “sort of” know how to canvass and run elections. So George sends his private and confidential letter (via the web) to the Respect National Council, SWP send their hurt reply, and they hold a SWP members meeting last week to have a bit of a whine and whinge about the horrid George.
Nearly all the paid Respect Party officials are SWP members. This went from bad to worse when the SWP officials tried to force the Muslim Bangladeshi Respect Councillors to go on a Respect float at the 2007 Gay Pride parade!
Surprise, surprise the councillors told Galloway that they have had enough of the SWP telling them what to do and if he did not sort the SWP out they would split from Respect and form a traditional community based party (maybe a local branch of the BNP, I kid you not, the “very centre right” – Bangladeshi National Party). Galloway was welcome to join them, but of course he realised that he needed not only community support to win at the next general election, but also experienced political organisers to run his campaign.
If he was to defect to a purely Islamic community party then he would zero support from white middle class extremist lefties, who “sort of” know how to canvass and run elections. So George sends his private and confidential letter (via the web) to the Respect National Council, SWP send their hurt reply, and they hold a SWP members meeting last week to have a bit of a whine and whinge about the horrid George.
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/9/19/32556/3993
Re. the bit I have put in bold:
* Did the Social Workers try to persuade (I think "force" cannot be the right term here) the TH councillors to go on a float at Gay Pride?
* Is it true more generally that Social Workers tried to tell TH councillors what to do?
* Is it true that the TH councillors - minus the 4 SWP-loyalists, obviously - told Galloway to 'sort out' the Social Workers? Is it true that they gave the sort of ultimatum mentioned?
Some of this does chime with the Social Workers account of the split - an account that I've always thought was bollocks... but who knows? Perhaps there was more of an anti-Social Worker move within al-Respeq than I had realised.
Islamo-Trottery always had enormous comic potential. I'm almost sorry to see the end of it.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Maybe so but the gay rights comment came in the context of i) all the other compromises which ended up back firing and ii) when LG was talking about how RESPECT should be founded. Fair enough that people with reactionary views will be involved in working class struggles (and hopefully won over to more progressive politics), but considering how bad homophobia still is I don't think it's a very good way of putting things to say the least.
Can you imagine she would have said "standing up for the rights of ethnic minorities shouldn't be a shibboleth". I doubt it.
Why can't you imagine this happening?
cockneyrebel
New Member
Because of the uproar that there would have been.
Like I said I've got no issue with the fact that people with rectionary views of this or that subject will be involved in workers struggles, of course that is the case. But the way LG went about phrasing it wasn't good to say the least. It hardly gave the impression that the SWP was gonna stand firm on the issue of gay rights.
Like I said I've got no issue with the fact that people with rectionary views of this or that subject will be involved in workers struggles, of course that is the case. But the way LG went about phrasing it wasn't good to say the least. It hardly gave the impression that the SWP was gonna stand firm on the issue of gay rights.
JHE
.
In Social Worker lore there is a story about old Tony Cliff talking to a potential recruit to the IS. He was very enthusiastic about the person, until it emerged that he had a view that Cliff counted as racist - he was opposed to large-scale immigration. The end of the story has Cliff refusing to let the almost-recruit join the group. In that story at least opposing all immigration control was very much a shibboleth.
Admittedly, the 'racist' was just refused membership of a Trot sect. He was not put to death as in the biblical story.
Admittedly, the 'racist' was just refused membership of a Trot sect. He was not put to death as in the biblical story.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Saying somebody didn't put something very well, is fine and dandy. It is just initially I thought you was promoting the idea the likes of JHE promotes, that SW intentionally ditched SW support for gay rights gay-rights, in order to form a coalition, rather than not imposing our views.
Having said that, I don't agree with your "context" or your earlier comments. I think that if revolutionaries want to set up a united front then the founding of that United front should give wide enough scope for a real debate with non-revolutionaries over issues such as workers wage MPs etc. Workers wage MPs are not just a shibboleth, to coin a phrase, for Socialist revolutionaries, there are good reasons why you should have workers wage MPs which can be used to genuinely win the non-revolutionary members of the coalition to a 'Revolutionary position'.
if Respect had genuinely been What SW wanted, the SW faction outnumbered by at least 10 to one by reformists etc, then we couldn't have initially imposed a worker's wage MP, and it would have been much easier for SW to have gone straight into the coalition arguing for such.
where I disagree with youis here, I don't think what SW has attempted to do is wrong. I don't think the way they have attempted to do it is wrong. I cannot see, or have heard of strategies which I believe would be more productive in building to a genuine "broad church coalition electoral and campaigning alternative" involving revolutionaries. It always had a chance of being a big mistake. But is it not the case that revolutionaries have to take such chances? I think it is.
This was always a risky strategy. It was always a matter of suck and see. But what we can say is after 10 years of trying we have not succeeded. I think there needs to be a serious appraisal of whether we have sucked long enough, and have seen the strategy fail, whether we were too premature and circumstances have changed, or whether indeed a "broad church coalition electoral and campaigning alternative" is feasible.
I think some of the anarchists have suggested such a beast may be passed its sell by date. Perhaps we should concentrate on building a Revolutionary alternative, instead of substituting for reformists.
I know this might be a bit complicated for you and your ultimatism (whilst some of your members of course cuddle up in New Labour), but try reading this as an explanation for how respect developed the way it did -
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=396&issue=117
and then read the extracts from the CC document in post #77
nice to see a gallowayista keeping things political. Shouldn't you be shouting "Fuck off the lot of you..." or something?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
yes I do know what she means,and you don't. this is what she means "I wouldn't make the fact that someone was a racist a shibboleth which made it impossible for me to link arms with them on a picket line. " As a cockney says, the picture you want to paint is "ridiculous".
this may be true for Galloway and some others, But I think there is also a genuine political disagreement about the model for respect from people like hoveman, and possibly Fishers gate (although it is hard to be accurate about Fishers who refuses to be drawn on his political views, preferring to stick to personality issues).On the subject of the Social Workers' recovery of nerve on the subject of homosexuality, I recently came across the following account from September last year of the al-Respeq split on a Labour-aligned website.
...after a number of defections and rumours about internal arguments and rifts. The selection of a local “business wing” candidate for Respect in the recent by-election at Shadwell led to open war between the main Respect “Coalition” allies: Galloway and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).
Nearly all the paid Respect Party officials are SWP members. This went from bad to worse when the SWP officials tried to force the Muslim Bangladeshi Respect Councillors to go on a Respect float at the 2007 Gay Pride parade!
Surprise, surprise the councillors told Galloway that they have had enough of the SWP telling them what to do and if he did not sort the SWP out they would split from Respect and form a traditional community based party (maybe a local branch of the BNP, I kid you not, the “very centre right” – Bangladeshi National Party). Galloway was welcome to join them, but of course he realised that he needed not only community support to win at the next general election, but also experienced political organisers to run his campaign.
If he was to defect to a purely Islamic community party then he would zero support from white middle class extremist lefties, who “sort of” know how to canvass and run elections. So George sends his private and confidential letter (via the web) to the Respect National Council, SWP send their hurt reply, and they hold a SWP members meeting last week to have a bit of a whine and whinge about the horrid George.
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/9/19/32556/3993
Re. the bit I have put in bold:
* Did the Social Workers try to persuade (I think "force" cannot be the right term here) the TH councillors to go on a float at Gay Pride?
* Is it true more generally that Social Workers tried to tell TH councillors what to do?
* Is it true that the TH councillors - minus the 4 SWP-loyalists, obviously - told Galloway to 'sort out' the Social Workers? Is it true that they gave the sort of ultimatum mentioned?
Some of this does chime with the Social Workers account of the split - an account that I've always thought was bollocks... but who knows? Perhaps there was more of an anti-Social Worker move within al-Respeq than I had realised.
Islamo-Trottery always had enormous comic potential. I'm almost sorry to see the end of it.
The most interesting bit on the labourhome.org site that JHE mentions is this snippet -
"other extremist left groups (who hate the SWP 'Life of Brian' style) will naively take their place and become Galloway’s latest cannon fodder.
I think for Respect the 'End is Neigh'. However, Galloway will continue to use and abuse whoever to further his ego."
I don't know about the end being nigh (for the original RESPECT anyway), but come on down.....the ISG They've even given over their (not very) broad based paper 'Resistance' to respect renewal. Presumably they've already decided where Galloway is concerned 'resistance' is futile
"other extremist left groups (who hate the SWP 'Life of Brian' style) will naively take their place and become Galloway’s latest cannon fodder.
I think for Respect the 'End is Neigh'. However, Galloway will continue to use and abuse whoever to further his ego."
I don't know about the end being nigh (for the original RESPECT anyway), but come on down.....the ISG
They've even given over their (not very) broad based paper 'Resistance' to respect renewal. Presumably they've already decided where Galloway is concerned 'resistance' is futile
JHE
.
No, that won't do, Resistance. What LG infamously said was not about racism and it was not about picket lines. It was about whether or not having a civilised view of gay people was an important issue when founding a new political party/electoral alliance.
(It has to be said in all fairness that Galloway is perfectly OK on the question.)
On the particular points I asked about, was the Labourhome article accurate? (It's OK to say say you don't know if you don't know.)
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Well you seemed to have shifted now. You seem to accept SW did not drop support for gay rights and promoting a civilised view of gay people in society. But Lindsey German comments were specifically directed at the left who suggested, and still suggest you could not work with "Islamos", and in particular Moslems who had views about gays Socialists didn't share. Did you read my comments above to Cockney about setting up a united front and not imposing your views but winning them?
which militates against your argument. If George Galloway is perfectly okay on the question why would SW have to drop support for gay rights and promoting a civilised view of gays in society? We didn't have too, and we wouldn't have done it anyway.
Now you may think that the statements in the founding document, didn't go far enough to satisfy you, but why if George Galloway is okay on the question didn't they go far enough? Is it possible Socialist worker and George Galloway made a mistake in believing people were intelligent enough not to come to, with respect, "ridiculous" conclusions?
how would I know? I would have to see some hard evidence, which the Labour web site does not provide. However, even if it is true and I doubt George Galloway's actions would be as mono causle as the Labour Partys simplistic analysis suggests.
In my opinion George Galloway is a political. I think there is little hard evidence to say he is purely motivated by cash and getting elected. If he was simply motivated by cash and getting elected I think it would have been far easier for him to remain in the Labour Party and do a U-turn on his previous positions like the rest of the Labour Party did. (A sore point which probably provokes the "life of Brian" attitude of the Labour Party to their former comrade.)
I think George Galloway's ego is a factor. I think is ego demands a George Galloway's legacy, rather than cash of which he seems to have plenty. Unlike my analysis above of SW's attitude, George Galloway has no problem "knowing what is best for everyone, and imposing that by any means necessary". As George Galloway's internal discussion document, released via the Internet
, illustrates, he believed SW were an obstacle to realising his political objectives/legacy. I think George Galloway believed if he could remove that obstacle (not necessarily at this point by expelling), he could achieve his objectives. When it became clear he probably couldn't muster enough support to democratically remove this obstacle, he attempted to seize the possibility of them "walking". When it became clear this wouldn't happen George Galloway's ego said he could walk, and the members would surely follow the Messiah. However, back room deals and political subterfuge is second nature in the Labour Party, and is clearly what took place to organise forces to achieve this powershift. Anyone who believes George Galloway was not involved in making sure he had forces behind him BEFORE he produced his discussion document, ignores Labour Party and George Galloway's history. Factional organisation took place remove the obstacle without doubt.
cockneyrebel
New Member
RMP3 it’s all very well saying “if reformists had outnumbered the SWP 10 to 1”, but they didn’t. In fact SWP members dominated which was one of the flaws of RESPECT from day one. They had to act as shadow reformists to attract other reformists, a tactic which I think is totally flawed. It meant the SWP ended up voting down basic principles they agree with. That’s not a united front at all.
Also it’s a bit rich for someone like nwnm to start bellowing about Galloway not taking the workers wage in RESPECT Renewal when the SWP was voting down the idea themselves.
And yeah the SWP have got it totally wrong on the economy and period we’re in which has meant their politics are even more detached then they’d normally be. Chris Harman says we’re on the end of a 30 year stagnation…..I mean in the words of McEnroe “you cannot be serious”.
And nwnm I’ve read the apolitical rubbish that the SWP has put out about RESPECT which totally fails to grasp the problems that were inherent from the very beginning. Of course as the SWP will never admit they’re wrong on anything it’s hardly a surprise.
Also it’s a bit rich for someone like nwnm to start bellowing about Galloway not taking the workers wage in RESPECT Renewal when the SWP was voting down the idea themselves.
And yeah the SWP have got it totally wrong on the economy and period we’re in which has meant their politics are even more detached then they’d normally be. Chris Harman says we’re on the end of a 30 year stagnation…..I mean in the words of McEnroe “you cannot be serious”.
And nwnm I’ve read the apolitical rubbish that the SWP has put out about RESPECT which totally fails to grasp the problems that were inherent from the very beginning. Of course as the SWP will never admit they’re wrong on anything it’s hardly a surprise.
and those who are correct go around in ever decreasing circles and amoeba like splits I suppose
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
that's what I said, reformists didn't outnumbered 10 to one SW,that was SW's minimum objective. you are right,they have acted, are acting, as substitute reformists, in order to attract real reformists. Did in the Socialist Alliance, repeated it in respect. And SW did vote down basic principles they believed in. All in all which meant, if SW had bent over any further backwards to accommodate reformists, they could have kissed their own arses goodbye. Which just shows how incredibly stupid fishers comments, and other people's comments, about SW being unbending and dictating to everyone really are.
Was this justified? I think revolutionaries have to take chances. I think if revolutionaries are not making mistakes, they are not making a revolution. This was always a suck and see process, testing theory in practice. At this moment in time I believe SW and the SW leadership made mistakes, and didn't have qualities or the will in some cases to conform to the strictures the reformists wished to place upon them. With the benefit of hindsight I think at the time Galloway wrote his discussion document the SW leadership should have taken the step back from the obvious knife in the back. Taken time to see if this theory has been borne out by practice. And then made quite clear the popular front was not what we had signed up to, and walked. However I think it is only now that is the right time to walk.
not politically astute in my opinion.
a different debate witch whilst obviously connected, I don't really want to start here.
I think you would be better servedactually speaking to SW members. I have managed to get some sense doing that, though I am still in that process.
right from the beginning of this they have tried to avoid a public bunfight over personal issues respect renewal seem fixated on, which is probably why the coverage comes out as apolitical, having said that I wouldn't know because I don't read SW publications as avidly as you do.
PS. chatting for an hour and a half last night to a SW member who is in respect renewal. good conversation, good points made on both sides. still think respect renewal is politically flawed. confirmed what I said when I first saw the Galloway document, that some of the technical criticisms of SW were warranted. and the SW member conceded, the situation was probably mishandled by the Galloway faction. after all SW has done to enable the reformists over the last 10 years, I think SW was due some reciprocal consideration. I think the reformists should have been satisfied what we could bring to the table, instead of demanding we behave beyond our nature without being won to that position democratically. contrary to the Galloway factions propaganda, when a democratic decision has been made we have supported it.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
I've never been convinced the SWP are that revolutionary. They talk a lot of revolutionary rhetoric but are often capable of falling into reformist practice. The infamous IMG letter to the SWP (penned by Ross and O'Neill IFIRC) back in 1979 - "Dear comrades, you represent a syndicalist break from marxism" - was totally inept in terms of a unity attempt, but factually quite accurate.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Are you saying Nick Wrack, Alan Thornett et al are reformists?
As for going along with democratic decisions - what about the decision of the NC to create a post of National Organiser - with Nick Wrack as the sole candidate? SWP voted that one down in the officers' group.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Given that your organisation has just suffered a split out of the RESPECT debacle and given that your membership has shrunk drastically over the last 10 years this yet another hypocritical comment.
I have no problem is saying that the whole of the far left is almost totally irrelevant and different ways are needed to go about things. Indeed united fronts are crucial to this, but to have united fronts doesn’t mean you have to drop your politics or act as shadow reformists. You can’t wish things to exist out of nothing.
For a start the unions need to be re-claimed and rebuilt. And the ironically named “Fighting Unions” conferences need to be far more than what they are.
And this is my point, I believe the above is a totally flawed strategy that results in what has happened with RESPECT. It’s not about not having united fronts but not dropping your politics, because it doesn’t work in the long run. But because the SWP have basically the same catastrophist politics as Workers Power when it comes to the economy they thought that just by raising the banner of RESPECT then forces would come flocking, but they didn’t at all. In fact the non-revolutionary forces got even smaller from their initial pathetically small numbers. You can’t wish other forces into existence by bending over backwards as you put it.
But that doesn’t mean you sit back and do nothing, there are loads of stuff that can be done from rebuilding the unions, to community campaigns around housing and hospitals to STW. Being a revolutionary doesn’t mean you don’t get stuck into day to day campaigns, in fact it’s the opposite.
[quote[right from the beginning of this they have tried to avoid a public bunfight over personal issues respect renewal seem fixated on[/quote]
Both sides have been fairly apolitical but I agree that RESPECT Renewal have been worse.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Fisher fuck off! I thought you were interested in honest discussion, but apparently you prefer to continually repeat a narrow argument which whilst it may have some merit, it is no way an attempt to understand the motivations and happenings in this event. In fact with your one-sided mono causal analysis you corroborate the SW accusation "the Galloway faction just wanted to blame SW for everything that was wrong in respect".
From my observations every time Galloway fucked up SW TRIED to deal with the situation diplomatically, and with the interests of unity foremost. After 10 years of trying to do that (including Socialist Alliance) I think a little reciprocation was due. No attempt was made by the Galloway faction to deal with these problems diplomatically, in fact quite the reverse. (Got to put my hand up and admit, in both the Socialist Alliance and respect Socialist worker was more interested in maintaining unity with the people to the right of SW, than those to the left. Quite rightly in my opinion.)
where did I say.sometimes I despair.
I'm sorry, SW had the temerity to VOTE something down!
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I don't know about your economy argument, but I think probably now I would agree with most of the rest. How ever I do think you have to try things beyond the words of 90 years ago.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Twice in your post you have the words "Galloway faction" and "reformists" used interchangeably.
Who did you mean when you said "Galloway faction" and who did you mean when you said "reformists" on each occasion you used it?
It's a perfectly reasonable question is it not (with no descent into abuse or gutter language)?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
...
I'm sorry, SW had the temerity to VOTE something down!
It was a decision of the NC, elected at conference, which the Officers group, not elected at conference, refused to implement. The place to have voted it down was the NC (the SWP voted for it). The officers group is there to implement the NC's decision, not to refuse to implement a democratic decision. It was an undemocratic act.
Similar threads
- Poll
