Respect 2005 National Conference Thread

[belboid]

To argue against myself to an extent here, the highly suspicious circumstances whereby independent Leftists like Liz Davies were compelled to resign from the Socialist Alliance (the forged cheque signature affair) could on one reading be seen as necessary preparation (by sabotage) of the SWP for the RUC turn.

no, that's just silly. The Liz Davies affair came up because the SWP (notably Ree's) were/are arrogant fuckers who didn't give a fig about LD because she wasn't being the useful little patsy they hoped she would be.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I wonder if the Respect conference will be Gender segregated?

 

[mk12]

Why would it be?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Why would it be?

Didn't they have a gender segregated meeting in East London so that they could apease the conservative minded muslim community leaders. Disgusting action if correct.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

no, that's just silly. The Liz Davies affair came up because the SWP (notably Ree's) were/are arrogant fuckers who didn't give a fig about LD because she wasn't being the useful little patsy they hoped she would be.

I agree that Larry's theory is silly but it has to be said that if Davies was standing up the SWP or causing them any hassle in the Socialist Alliance she was doing so very quietly indeed. The fact that Davies and Marqusee eventually fell out with the SWP shouldn't in my view be read backwards onto their prior relationship.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

On the subject of the Liz Davies/Mike Marqusee affair, from what I've read (admitted only from their side), I believe the SWP was in the wrong on that issue.

On the subject of whether the CPGB is semi-stalinist.

I base my claim on 2 arguments -

1) The origin of the "Leninist" (the original name of their paper) group in the original British Communist Party, their membership of the ultra-Stalinist New Communist Party in the past and their heavy influence by the Stalinist Turkish Communist Party

2) In an article in 2001 the Weekly Worker droolingly reproduced an article from the 80s by a Turkish stalinist celebrating the 1978 Coup in Afghanistan. This article was adoringly prefaced by leading CPGB hack Mark Fischer in an attack on the SWP for not believing that socialism can be built at the point of a Russian bayonet.

While different trotskyists have varied on the 1979 Communist seizure of power in Afghanistan and writers such as Tariq Ali and Johnathan Neale(SWP) have recognised that they did have some progressive policies that briefly won the support of the masses, the manner of the CPGBs defence of what was essentially a revolution from the top suggest that they do not share a conception that socialism has to be democratic and built from below - hence the epithet "semi-stalinist"

Fraternally,

Udo Erasmus

 

[Larry O'Hara]

What about things like Globalise Resistance, STWC, ANL, ID card stuff, CND & ESF etc? Surely getting the SWP to jump on every single bandwagon allows it to either infiltrate and even steer the direction that things are going. I would have thought that trying to turn everything into the same predictable placard-waving march followed by endless boring speeches is the preferred way of sucking the energy out of widespread protests and minimising any spontaneous, grassroots, uncontrollable, unpredictable or more direct-action stuff.

That the SWP & other Trotskyants do this need not be traced back to the secret state--read Lenin's 'What is to Be Done' & Trotsky's 'Transitional Programme' for example.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

no, that's just silly. The Liz Davies affair came up because the SWP (notably Ree's) were/are arrogant fuckers who didn't give a fig about LD because she wasn't being the useful little patsy they hoped she would be.

Wonderful argument that, using the word 'silly' to substitute for something I only put forward as a hypothesis. Reality is often more complex than such glib dismissals will allow--if (and note the word if) the secret state did have a hand in out-maneouvring Davies, then they would hardly advertise it, would they? Forging signatures on cheques is in any case a serious matter--and as a barrister Davies could not ignore that fact.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The thing is though Larry that there are perfectly good, in character and in no way surprising, explanations for the SWP behaving in an arrogant and foolish manner which don't involve having to look for a secret state conspiracy. Occam's razor and all that.

Remember that the Socialist Alliance was dying on its feet by this stage. Why would the state bother its arse trying to put one more nail in its coffin?

 

[TeeJay]

That the SWP & other Trotskyants do this need not be traced back to the secret state--read Lenin's 'What is to Be Done' & Trotsky's 'Transitional Programme' for example.

This is true, but I bet the authorities are very pleased with the buy-one-get-ten-free situation and are happy to reel out as much line as the SWP/RUC/etc need.

 

[rebel warrior]

Engel's contribution and his devotion to the cause were absolutely astonishing. These can be summed up in Engels’ own words. This was his speech at Marx’s grave:

For Marx was above all else a revolutionary. His real mission in life was to contribute in one way or another to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being. Fighting was his element.

Now these words are exactly the words that fit Frederick Engels. Engels was a fighter. He was not an abstract scientist. His science was simply a weapon in the fight for socialism. The idea of unity of theory and practice is not, as it is sometimes presented, that someone writes a book – that is theory; and you read the book – that is practice. No. The unity of theory and practice is the unity of theory with the class struggle.

I can never understand the idea that is put forward that the party teaches the class. What the hell is the party? Who teaches the teacher? The dialectic means there is a two-way street. Theory by itself is absolutely useless. Practice by itself is blind. Of course in reality practice precedes theory. Before Newton found the law of gravitation apples used to fall. Afterwards he found the theory to explain how apples fell. Practice always precedes the theory, but theory always fructifies the practice.

Therefore we are not simply practical people. We are not simply theoretical people. We are theoretical-practical. But we believe that the most important thing is the practice. Judge our activity in terms of its practical results, both immediately and in the long term. Practice is the judgement of us. Don’t support us because you like us. Put us to the test. Put yourself to the test, because the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class. In practice you have to provide effective practice in the Unison strike in Sheffield libraries, or in other struggles in Britain and elsewhere. Theories are no use at all except in relation to the class struggle.

I will end with a very good story from Heinrich Heine. Heine was a poet and he wrote a little piece called The Dream of Professor Marx. By the way, you should know that it is not Karl Marx that he is referring to, because when Heine wrote it he did not know that there was someone called Karl Marx, and anyway, the latter was still in his shorts. The story is that Professor Marx dreamed about a garden, and in the garden he sees beds. And in these beds it is not flowers that are growing but quotations. And you take the quotations from one bed and put them into another. This was the dream of Professor Marx.

Now that was not the dream of Frederick Engels or Karl Marx. Their dream was not that theory led to theory, theory led to theory, theory encouraged praxis (by the way, that is a very good word because you can impress somebody with it). No, that is a lot of rubbish. The issue is how theory can be related to the struggle in the unions at present; how it relates to the struggle against fascism at present; how it relates to the struggle against unemployment at present; how it relates to war in Chechnya at present. In other words, Marxism is always a guide to action, and above all Engels was a practical man.

Tony Cliff - Engels

I thought it was a great little article.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Interesting article, that. Of course, ALan Thornett's initial claim that "Rarely has there been a better opportunity to build a left alternative in England" is complete nonsense (not the CP then? )

But seeing as the ISG are generally pliant lapdogs of the SWP CC, it is refreshing to observe some honesty for a change:

Well, yes, Alan. Which is why you pipe-dream of Respect becoming a "mass-membership" party remains exactly that.

Some points:

1. We have had the largest sequence of mass demonstrations in British history - specifically the anti-war demonstration in 2003, but also the mobilisations around the G8 summit this year. Outside of periods of generalised or widespread strike action such as 1926 or the early 1970s, I can't think of any other occasions that so many people have been mobilised for radical causes. So the notion that 'rarely' has there been a better opportunity to build the left, seems pretty unncontroversial to me. Which brings me on to...

2. Respect has been able to capitalise on this opportunity to a limited extent, winning a parliamentary seat in the general election and getting the best vote of a left party since the high watermark of the CP in 1945. The SSP won six seats in the Scottish Parliament in 2003, and though there have been setbacks since then, it remains a significant force in a radicalised scottish situation. Both organisations represent a significant break from a labour movement dominated by right-wing politics for over a century.

3. The ISG is accused of being 'pliant lapdogs' of the SWP, yet they publish critical articles on their website and in the press, and at the Respect conference a number of ISG-supported resolutions will in all likelihood be opposed by the SWP. How can they be 'pliant lapdogs' if they are prepared to argue against the SWP in public?

 

[tollbar]

Some points:

1. We have had the largest sequence of mass demonstrations in British history - specifically the anti-war demonstration in 2003, but also the mobilisations around the G8 summit this year. Outside of periods of generalised or widespread strike action such as 1926 or the early 1970s, I can't think of any other occasions that so many people have been mobilised for radical causes.

Really ?. The period 1978-1983 comes immediately to mind mass mobilizations against the NF, Lewisham, Southall, ANL carnivals 1 and 2, The uprisings in Brixton, Toxteth and in cities across England in the summer of 81, big anti-aparthied demos and not to mention up to a quarter of a million on several CND demos, Still, I suppose the first period of the ANL is a bit too militant for the SWP to remember and the SWP only played marginal roles in CND and almost none in the anti aparthied struggle.

And what about the mass non payment campaign over the poll tax in late eighties, Oh, I forgot, the SWP opposed that one.

 

[Paul Marsh]

Some points:

1. We have had the largest sequence of mass demonstrations in British history - specifically the anti-war demonstration in 2003, but also the mobilisations around the G8 summit this year. Outside of periods of generalised or widespread strike action such as 1926 or the early 1970s, I can't think of any other occasions that so many people have been mobilised for radical causes. So the notion that 'rarely' has there been a better opportunity to build the left, seems pretty unncontroversial to me. Which brings me on to...

2. Respect has been able to capitalise on this opportunity to a limited extent, winning a parliamentary seat in the general election and getting the best vote of a left party since the high watermark of the CP in 1945. The SSP won six seats in the Scottish Parliament in 2003, and though there have been setbacks since then, it remains a significant force in a radicalised scottish situation. Both organisations represent a significant break from a labour movement dominated by right-wing politics for over a century.

Oh come on. the "left" (and I dispute the RUC is radically left, but lets join you in pretending for a moment they are) has never been weaker in my lifetime.

This can be seen in electoral results (the Socialist Alliance's were poor, Respects have been pitiful outside of a handful of areas with a large Muslim vote) It can also be seen in the membership of left organisations, paper sales, and the size/frequency of left demonstrations. The Feb 15 2003 anti-war march, as Fishergate well knows, was the exception, not the rule.

I live in Hackney, a borough that has always had a big SWP presence (the biggest group on the left) and a significant Militant/SP presence, as well as strong Communist party and RCP/RCG groups in the recent past.

I would struggle to find any of the above selling papers/flyposting/meeting/stickering to anything like the extent they were ten, or even five years ago.

Indeed, if the left has never been so full of potential, why did the SWP schedule a much smaller Marxism event this year, compared to previous years?

 

[cockneyrebel]

To be honest PM this is a Q the left has to face up to.

On one hand there have been historically large social movements (including the largest demo in history in England - Feb 15, and the largest demo in Scottish history - the G8 demo). There has also been an historic split from the Labour Party from the RMT and FBU and a radicalisation in some layers of the TU movement.

On the other hand strike figures for 2005 are the lowest in history (in the first six months), trade union rank and file, in general, remains very weak (and the organised left's influence remains pitifully small) and the organised left as a whole continues to shrink (the SWP has shrunk in the last few years and the rest of the left has either trod water or grown a small amount) and is probably, overall, the smallest it has ever been in the last 100 years.

 

[belboid]

The thing is though Larry that there are perfectly good, in character and in no way surprising, explanations for the SWP behaving in an arrogant and foolish manner which don't involve having to look for a secret state conspiracy. Occam's razor and all that.

Remember that the Socialist Alliance was dying on its feet by this stage. Why would the state bother its arse trying to put one more nail in its coffin?

actually, the Socialist Alliance was just past it's peak of success at that point. it was, in retrospect, a fairly central issue in marking the demise. it's certainly true that Liz never made a point - prior to the cheque scandal - of opposing the SWP, she simply tried to get on and do what she wanted, thinking that they would be 'surpassed' once the SA was a success. Naive indeed, but still not the simple frontwoman that the SWP wanted her to be (in the way that, say, Andrew Murray is in the StWC) or as big a name as Galloway. She was smply a useful fool for the SWP.

Larry - fair enough, it was a glib dismissal of your hypothesis, but I just don't think it has any legs to stand on. And I'm not totally averse to thoughts of such machinations, but the whole affair, and the whole of the SA, was just far to haphazard to consider that at all feasible.

 

[roger rosewall]

It is the desire to 'get close' to the Muslim Community, via Respect, that could provide an important possible motive, even before the recent bombings.QUOTE]

With all due respect Doc there is no single Muslim Commuity in Britain. There are many different Muslim communities united by nothing very much.

And if the SWP is infiltrated due to it's attractive power to said communities then the state is wasting its money which would be better invested in infiltrating the Liberal Democrats.

 

[roger rosewall]

To guide it - via RUC - towards hoovering up disaffected Muslim youth and make contacts with radical Islamists? To use it to hijack and/or sabotage almost any other radical campaign or organisation in the UK? Very good (theoretical - of course ) reasons for having assets running it (not merely reporting back) surely?

In which case the state asset concerned ought to be sacked as the SWP is having very little success in attracting disaffected Muslim youth.

 

[roger rosewall]

On the subject of whether the CPGB is semi-stalinist.

I base my claim on 2 arguments -

1) The origin of the "Leninist" (the original name of their paper) group in the original British Communist Party, their membership of the ultra-Stalinist New Communist Party in the past and their heavy influence by the Stalinist Turkish Communist Party

2) In an article in 2001 the Weekly Worker droolingly reproduced an article from the 80s by a Turkish stalinist celebrating the 1978 Coup in Afghanistan. This article was adoringly prefaced by leading CPGB hack Mark Fischer in an attack on the SWP for not believing that socialism can be built at the point of a Russian bayonet.

While different trotskyists have varied on the 1979 Communist seizure of power in Afghanistan and writers such as Tariq Ali and Johnathan Neale(SWP) have recognised that they did have some progressive policies that briefly won the support of the masses, the manner of the CPGBs defence of what was essentially a revolution from the top suggest that they do not share a conception that socialism has to be democratic and built from below - hence the epithet "semi-stalinist"

Fraternally,

Udo Erasmus

Oh dear Udo you do get yourself in a muddle don't you?

The origins of the cpgb in the CPGB and their later travels through the NCP mean very little today. Other than Jack Conrad and Mark Fischer is there anybody in the cpgb who was in the original grouping when it formed in the NCP? Look I like them no more than you but they have evolved.

As for their view of Afghanistan again it has to be said that their views may well have changed. I doubt that comrades such as M or C, the latter known to you personally i suspect, hold the position you attribute to them as a whole. And that true of all their politics they are a centrist tendency containing sometimes wildly divergent political views subject to change from one moment to another.

in any case one need not hold Stalinist views to hold that the seizure of power in Afghanistan by the PDPA was progressive. As you note considered in isolation that was the view of Jonathan Neale who is something of an expert given his personal knowledge of that country. One could even argue that the PDPA seizure might have led to a greater development of the forces and means of production were it not for the invasion of the Russian Army. Which is a Menshevik position is it not?

Actually I quite like the idea of the cpgb as Mensheviks cos they sure as heck ain't Bolsheviks with those politics!!

 

[articul8]

The ISG is accused of being 'pliant lapdogs' of the SWP, yet they publish critical articles on their website and in the press, and at the Respect conference a number of ISG-supported resolutions will in all likelihood be opposed by the SWP. How can they be 'pliant lapdogs' if they are prepared to argue against the SWP in public?

On your blase optimism see CR's post above (edit - BTW you leave out of consideration the fact that for the majority of the past 100 years, many activists have looked to the Labour party itself to be the initial vehicle of a "left wing alternative", eg; ILP, Bennites, Militant etc., and with greater reason)

As for the ISG, their criticisms seem to amount to "do what you are doing, but do more of it" which isn't exactly the most damning indictment. Maybe Thornett sees himself as backing a pro-Respect wing of the SWP CC against hardliner skeptics?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

1. We have had the largest sequence of mass demonstrations in British history - specifically the anti-war demonstration in 2003, but also the mobilisations around the G8 summit this year. Outside of periods of generalised or widespread strike action such as 1926 or the early 1970s, I can't think of any other occasions that so many people have been mobilised for radical causes. So the notion that 'rarely' has there been a better opportunity to build the left, seems pretty unncontroversial to me.

We are only just recovering from an all-time low in working class militancy. The organisations of the working class have been severely damaged. Class consciousness has been set back. What you are peddling here is the moronic relentless optimism of the SWP and its allies, not a serious analysis of the situation we are in. There are certainly opportunities to build the left, but we won't do so succesfully on the basis of blind optimism.

3. The ISG is accused of being 'pliant lapdogs' of the SWP, yet they publish critical articles on their website and in the press, and at the Respect conference a number of ISG-supported resolutions will in all likelihood be opposed by the SWP. How can they be 'pliant lapdogs' if they are prepared to argue against the SWP in public?

The ISG always position themselves as slightly critical of the SWP, but in the end are utterly cravenly loyal. If they didn't have an occasional whine then they would soon disappear, as is the fate of small groups in the orbit of bigger ones when they can't justify a seperate existence. Can you imagine anything the SWP could do that the ISG wouldn't in the end, however much reluctant moaning they do in obscure articles in their little read press, go along with?

Articu8's point about the ISG imagining themselves dealing with a divided SWP is an important one too. They act as a senile, mostly ignored, old uncle offering advice to a headstrong nephew.

 

[Pickman's model]

3. The ISG is accused of being 'pliant lapdogs' of the SWP, yet they publish critical articles on their website and in the press, and at the Respect conference a number of ISG-supported resolutions will in all likelihood be opposed by the SWP. How can they be 'pliant lapdogs' if they are prepared to argue against the SWP in public?

hmm...

for many, many years, the swp were intensely critical of the labour party - between elections. but when it came to the crunch, the swappies called for a labour vote - egs, 1987, 1992, 1997...

now some swappies have even called for a tory vote under certain conditions!

 

[rednblack]

now some swappies have even called for a tory vote under certain conditions!

and UKIP!

 

[Pickman's model]

& joint swappie/bnp memberships, though uncommon, do not appear to preclude one gaining easy access to membership lists and other data held by the swp, who are so comfortable with the notion of fascists in their midst they never bother telling their membership about this rather perverse policy, leaving it instead to the bnp's nicholas griffin to publicise.

 

[levien]

Except that to my knowledge the BNP have never gained access to any SWP membership lists.

On the Conference proceedure. The branches situation is simply sensible in the current state of Respect branches. Although I think the size of the branch may also matter. On the 20 members submitting a motion it seems to open to abuse. If your limiting branches then you can't fairly allow an essentially limitless number through this rule. I would guess the change will have to be ratified by conference and if it falls we're in for a hell of a mess.

 

[cockneyrebel]

But the point is levien is that how can the leaders of RESPECT just overide the current constitution and ban procedures which the previous conference agreed to!

 

[levien]

Its not though is it? Its running a conference in a certain way subject to the approval of the conference. It is not playing about with delegate numbers or the method of electing them. If there is a challenge to it, it would logically be heard first and then accept the disqualified motions if needed.

 

[levien]

Using exclamation marks doesn't make anything more true!
Or obvious!
It's just a gramatical form of arrogance!

 

[gurrier]

Its not though is it? Its running a conference in a certain way subject to the approval of the conference. It is not playing about with delegate numbers or the method of electing them. If there is a challenge to it, it would logically be heard first and then accept the disqualified motions if needed.

A certain way that just happens to be against the constitution, a certain unconsitutional way that happens to have been agreed by a leadership despite the fact that they are not supposed to have the right to ignore the constitution.

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[rednblack]

Except that to my knowledge the BNP have never gained access to any SWP membership lists.

did anyone say they had?

what about UAF and STWC membership lists, and lists of marxism attendees?