Respect in Tower Hamlets.

[dennisr]

And that's fair enough.

Also I don't think the method of the CNWP/RESPECT is a united front, because otherwise revolutionaries wouldn't vote down positions they agreed with.

I think you may be being a little disingenous in trying to compare the two approaches. Why is th SP not involved in Respect? Do you honestly believe it is simply some sort of sectarian manouvere on the SPs part and that in all other respect's (sic) they agree on the approach to Respect?

I think the SP feel that working to build a united front (I would agree there is not one at the moment...) like this requires putting forward a minimum programme on which they can agree, with trade unionists and suchlike that are breaking with new labour but are not ready to man the barricades as yet (sadly...). The SP has a vey different accessment of where the mood of these genuine folk stands at the moment. Of course we would like these folk all to be drawing the conclusion that the only way to defeat the attacks we face is a revolutionary party and programme - but it is simply not the case. In the meantime we can agree on a list of things we do have in common, hopefully prove ourselves to be the best, most consistant, reformers - while being able to raise the increasingly obvious point that all such reforms are only partial.

If you look at the main historical example of demand for an (admittedly somewhat different...) united front in Germany against the growth of Fascism - Trotters (whom I know you hold dear...) did not say 'build a united front by heckling the social democratic workers for their illusions and inability to draw revolutionary conclusions at this moment in time'

 

[dennisr]

But how about the rest of you, especially the SP?

The SP would see such a result as a step forward - the reason we have supported voting for such candidates in the past.

The standing of independent TU sponsored/initiated candidates would be an even greater step forward - and even more significent

 

[dennisr]

That's not out of a wish to use Bolshevik language or saying "revolution now", but because I think that it's a politically flawed method for revolutionaries to vote down their own positions and sow illusions in left reformism.

Well that makes your hero Lenin a sell-out or whatever the term is on various occasions for his 'reformist illusions' !!

 

[cockneyrebel]

The standing of independent TU sponsored/initiated candidates would be an even greater step forward - and even more significent

Agreed (but don't agree that RESPECT winning is a step forward).

I don't think the SP doesn't support RESPECT because it's being sectarian (although I think there is an element of that between the SP and SWP, and I think nigel's attitude is an example), but because the SP doesn't think that the SWP/RESPECT are orientating towards the right forces. But my point is that this isn't the only question and doesn't make any difference to what I see as the flaws in the methodology of RESPECT and the CNWP.

The thing is with the minimum programme of the CNWP is that it has already meant the SP voting for a left reformist programme, even if is a very minimal one. In effect it is having to act as a shadow reformist force (like the SWP does in RESPECT) because real reformist forces just aren't there. This is the fundamental problem. Although I have my doubts that the SP would openly vote for revolutionary politics even if real forces did come on board, the same goes for the SWP and RESPECT.

As I said to an SWPer the other day at what point do you turn round and say we now want people to vote for positions that we were previously voting down?

And it's not a case of saying that the only way to operate is by saying "we need a a revolutionary party and programme". That's the whole point of united fronts whether Save the NHS, Stop the War, Defend Council Housing, strikes against privatisations/job cuts etc etc

Also there is no comparison with what happened in the 1930s. A united front against fascism did not involve voting down positions that you agree with.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Well that makes your hero Lenin a sell-out or whatever the term is on various occasions for his 'reformist illusions'

Firsty Lenin isn't my hero (don't think that kinda thing helps debate), but also I can't see what you're saying here......

I'm not saying you shouldn't fight for reforms, I'm saying that in a political party you shouldn't vote down your own positions.

 

[dennisr]

Also there is no comparison with what happened in the 1930s. A united front against fascism did not involve voting down positions that you agree with.

I'd fully agree, one of the reasons the SP is - yes, in effect forced to take this initiative - we have an unpresidented situation with the collapse of the soviet union and the resulting collapse of the reformist parties

BUT there is still a useful lesson in my comment on the united front the simple point that it is a tactic based on agreement over a set of things we do have in common and we can unite on - between reformists, centrist and revolutionaries. How we apply that tactic - build that initial agreement is the reason for the programme the SP supports within the CNWP.

PR do not see revolutionaries being able to play such a role - we differ on that, we think it is worth testing, that it is possible - but it has nothing at all to do with wether or not the SP is or is not 'revolutionary' in the sense PR wishes itself to be seen. The constant attempt to pose this false assumption on what is a tactic is one of the reasons FG has every right to take the piss in the illusions it shows up

 

[dennisr]

I'm not saying you shouldn't fight for reforms, I'm saying that in a political party you shouldn't vote down your own positions.

The CNWP - if it is going to become anything - is not the SP, neither will it become anything if it remains the sum of the various 'revolutionary' lefts sitting in a room together. The most important forces within the CNWP are not those lefts.

ps I bet he is your hero ( )

 

[dennisr]

And it's not a case of saying that the only way to operate is by saying "we need a a revolutionary party and programme". That's the whole point of united fronts whether Save the NHS, Stop the War, Defend Council Housing, strikes against privatisations/job cuts etc etc

So - why not the CNWP? - why have the SP got to 'prove its revolutionary credentials' (or otherwise..) to PR in the case of this campaign?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

there is no reason not to get behind Respect for the List section as the best hope of left wing representation,.

Respect Left wing don't make me laugh. Some of the Islamist fraggles who Respect are appealing to make Oswald Mosely look like a fucking middle class social worker.

Lets have a proper left wing party not this communitarian simulacrum of a left party.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I'd fully agree, one of the reasons the SP is - yes, in effect forced to take this initiative - we have an unpresidented situation with the collapse of the soviet union and the resulting collapse of the reformist parties

BUT there is still a useful lesson in my comment on the united front the simple point that it is a tactic based on agreement over a set of things we do have in common and we can unite on - between reformists, centrist and revolutionaries. How we apply that tactic - build that initial agreement is the reason for the programme the SP supports within the CNWP.

PR do not see revolutionaries being able to play such a role - we differ on that - but it has nothing at all to do with wether or not the SP is or is not 'revolutionary' in the sense PR wishes itself to be seen. The constant attempt to pose this false assumption on what is a tactic is one of the reasons FG has every right to take the piss in the illusions it shows up

As said the problem I have is when you start having to vote down things you agree with, as the SWP does in RESPECT and as the SP would do if the CNWP got anywhere.

It's nothing to do with calling the SP sell outs of not revolutionary enough (I don't think either of those terms help), but just a disagreement over tactics. I don't think there are any short cuts in times of low class struggle (i.e. now). Indeed the fact that there is low class struggle makes the tactic even more flawed as it is struggle which will enable revolutionaries to win over reformists. As said when do you turn around and tell people that you are voting down things that you agree with and now its time to start voting for them?

I don't see the CNWP and RESPECT as how revolutionaries should be in a united front, I don't even see them as united fronts but as revolutionaries acting as shadow reformists. But that doesn't mean the flip side is to say revolutionary party or nothing, there are plenty of united fronts out there to get stuck into.

On an aside the real heroes in my life are the people who are special to me on a personal level, cheesy as that sounds. Family, friends, ex partners etc But I do admire many political activists in history and the massive sacrifices they made. To be honest Trotsky gave up a lot more than Lenin in that respect.

 

[dennisr]

I don't think the SP doesn't support RESPECT because it's being sectarian (although I think there is an element of that between the SP and SWP, and I think nigel's attitude is an example), but because the SP doesn't think that the SWP/RESPECT are orientating towards the right forces. But my point is that this isn't the only question and doesn't make any difference to what I see as the flaws in the methodology of RESPECT and the CNWP.

Coming back to this point - Okey dokey on your reasoning but don't you think that the orientation of any new formation is of any significence?

If Bob Crow and co go ahead (say - joined by the likes of Matt Wrack and the FBU and the PCS). We would both agree that this would be an important step forward for the working clas in the UK (I hope...) despite the fact that the programme of this new formation will be reformist. It will nor be revolutionary programme. Would you support the building of this organisation or condemn it for not having a revolutionary programme?

 

[cockneyrebel]

So - why not the CNWP? - why have the SP got to 'prove its revolutionary credentials' (or otherwise..) to PR in the case of this campaign?

I don't know why you think that I'm saying that the SP has to "prove their revolutionary credentials". Even fanciful's more colourful language isn't suggesting this. I have no time for the more revolutionary than thou posing, this is just about disagreements over a tactic. I think it's a flawed tactic for revolutionaries to set up an organisation by acting as shadow reformists. If something real came out of the worker's movement and revolutionaries could intervene as revolutionaries and be open about their politics that would be different.

Respect Left wing don't make me laugh. Some of the Islamist fraggles who Respect are appealing to make Oswald Mosely look like a fucking middle class social worker.

Don't be so fucking ridiculous.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Don't be so fucking ridiculous.

Its not being ridiculous, a lot of the aims of some of the people that Respect are climbing into bed with (anti Jew, anti gay, anti freedom of speech etc) wouldn't be out of place in BUF literature.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Coming back to this point - Okey dokey on your reasoning but don't you think that the orientation of any new formation is of any significence?

If Bob Crow and co go ahead (say - joined by the likes of Matt Wrack and the FBU and the PCS). We would both agree that this would be an important step forward for the working clas in the UK (I hope...) despite the fact that the programme of this new formation will be reformist. It will nor be revolutionary programme. Would you support the building of this organisation or condemn it for not having a revolutionary programme?

If there was a new formation of genuine forces then of course I think that would be significant and hopefully revolutionaries could intervene and openly vote for what they believe in. If real forces were involved then such a revolutionary programme would get voted down, but at least revolutionaries were being open in their politics and then there wouldn't be the problem of sowing illusions in left reformism. How long to stay in such an organisation would take into account a number of things. The viability of winning it over to a revolutionary position, the chances of splitting forces to a revolutionary position etc However the problem with such an organisation would be the very low level of class struggle.

There is a difference in intervening in something coming out of the workers movement and being open about revolutionary politics than having to be a shadow reformist force (that isn't a dig by the way, just the way I see it).

 

[cockneyrebel]

Its not being ridiculous, a lot of the aims of some of the people that Respect are climbing into bed with (anti Jew, anti gay, anti freedom of speech etc) wouldn't be out of place in BUF literature.

Have you any proof of clerical fascists in RESPECT?

Are you seriously comparing RESPECT to mosley in any real sense?

 

[dennisr]

As said the problem I have is when you start having to vote down things you agree with, as the SWP does in RESPECT and as the SP would do if the CNWP got anywhere.

It's nothing to do with calling the SP sell outs ... but just a disagreement over tactics. I don't think there are any short cuts in times of low class struggle (i.e. now). Indeed the fact that there is low class struggle makes the tactic even more flawed as it is struggle which will enable revolutionaries to win over reformists. As said when do you turn around and tell people that you are voting down things that you agree with and now its time to start voting for them?

The SP would argue for a programme that unites the widest layer of working class people - without dropping its socialist conclusions. We would argue that the reason for any compromise is that we have to draw the widest possible layers behind that larger formation. Like you say a disagreement over tactics - not a sell out or a short cut. Far from it - when we have the low level of struggle we both agree on, I weould argue that we have to go, alongside the class, through the process of breaking illusions in reformism etc by actually going through them. That is not a short cut - it is a recognition of how folk go through the process of learning from their own experience

To play (jokingly...) a little bit further with the slight 'moral' tone I detect CR - yes, its dirty and impure, yes - not standing on the sidelines saying - 'we told you its not enough' - but you should know as a trade union rep that you are not going to gain the respect/ear/recognition you feel you deserve unless you go through the process with those you wish to convince of your ideas.

I don't see the CNWP and RESPECT as how revolutionaries should be in a united front, I don't even see them as united fronts but as revolutionaries acting as shadow reformists. But that doesn't mean the flip side is to say revolutionary party or nothing, there are plenty of united fronts out there to get stuck into.

Agreed that it is pushing the boat out a wee bit to far to talk of a 'united front' in the classic sense. But in the sense of using a united front tactic - even in a limited way between the different strands of working class opinion my point still stands I think.

On an aside the real heroes in my life are the people who are special to me on a personal level, cheesy as that sounds. Family, friends, ex partners etc But I do admire many political activists in history and the massive sacrifices they made. To be honest Trotsky gave up a lot more than Lenin in that respect.

That cool, and nothing cheesy about it at all - I am only taking the micky gently. I think we can learn valuable lessons from past events - but we cannot simply use previous events as some pre-scheduled perfect template. i think you would agree with this in theory at least - but i touched in an example of how I think there has been an unpresidented change that we have to be able to respond to with new tactics, apply methods in a new manner at least, test those new tactics

 

[cockneyrebel]

I guess I would argue that the stuff being dropped does end up dropping the socialist conclusions and ends up sowing illusions in left reformism.

If it is a formation involving real forces there will be no need for the kinda compromises that mean you can't be open about a revolutionary programme. If such a formation doesn't exist there are loads of united fronts to get stuck into.

But honestly, there isn't a moral tone, and if it comes across like that I apologise, it's not my intention. I see people in the SWP, SP etc as genuine socialists, whatever the disagreement.

But as said I don't think my approach involves standing on the sidelines, because there are a 101 united fronts out there to get stuck into (and to be fair, PR does). Personally I'm involved in a DCH and Save Education campaign at the moment.....(although I do condemn everyone at every meeting).....

 

[dennisr]

There is a difference in intervening in something coming out of the workers movement and being open about revolutionary politics than having to be a shadow reformist force (that isn't a dig by the way, just the way I see it).

I'll pose this as a series of related questions. how long are we going to wait for these movements to occur? - are they simply an inevitability? what role are revolutionaries able to play in pushing that delayed movement along? what role do say revolutionaries who are already in trade union positions (say those of the SP on various trade union bodies) do in the meantime?, sit tight until the movement occurs? - can they not play a role in that?

Could we not link demands for an independent workers party to breaking with the labour party + defending ourselves against cuts, privatisation, attacks etc from the new labour government - in, initially, a propaganda manner - but pushing that movement forward to see how it will be taken up in practice?

The conclusions to such questions by the SP is the reasoning behind the CNWP intiative

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Have you any proof of clerical fascists in RESPECT?

Are you seriously comparing RESPECT to mosley in any real sense?

Bearing in mind that Respect is a swappie front organisation I'd look to what happened when Galloway got elected over Oona King there were some disgusting bollocks aimed at her. A funder of Respect in the midlands who was avowedly anti gay. The 'we are all Hizbollah' banner incident. etc etc etc.

The Islamists (note I said Islamists not muslims) who Respect court would quite happily shut down free speech as effectively as Mosley would have done.

I've given up expecting coherent answers to criticisms of Respect from Respect supporters as it must be difficult typing and speaking when their tounges are so firmly lodged in Galloway's backside.

 

[cockneyrebel]

PS I need more support on the "grumpy bloke on the bus" thread

 

[cockneyrebel]

Bearing in mind that Respect is a swappie front organisation I'd look to what happened when Galloway got elected over Oona King there were some disgusting bollocks aimed at her. A funder of Respect in the midlands who was avowedly anti gay. The 'we are all Hizbollah' banner incident. etc etc etc.

The Islamists (note I said Islamists not muslims) who Respect court would quite happily shut down free speech as effectively as Mosley would have done.

I've given up expecting coherent answers to criticisms of Respect from Respect supporters as it must be difficult typing and speaking when their tounges are so firmly lodged in Galloway's backside.

I don't support RESPECT and think Galloway is turning into a careerist but comparing RESPECT to fascists is ridiculous in my view. To be honest I can't even be bothered to debate it.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I'll pose this as a series of related questions. how long are we going to wait for these movements to occur? - are they simply an inevitability? what role are revolutionaries able to play in pushing that delayed movement along? what role do say revolutionaries who are already in trade union positions (say those of the SP on various trade union bodies) do in the meantime?, sit tight until the movement occurs? - can they not play a role in that?

Could we not link demands for an independent workers party to breaking with the labour party + defending ourselves against cuts, privatisation, attacks etc from the new labour government - in, initially, a propaganda manner - but pushing that movement forward to see how it will be taken up in practice?

The conclusions to such questions by the SP is the reasoning behind the CNWP intiative

We will have to wait as long as it takes and in the mean time get stuck into united fronts and try and win people to a revolutionary organisation in the meantime.

Developments of any sorts are not an inevitablity (well I have suspicions that we don't have any free will, but I'll leave that aside as I don't act on that basis!) but as said I think the tactic of having to act as shadow reformists in order to get a workers party off the ground is flawed. And I don't think revolutionaries pushing for such a thing is the way forward, but obviously if a initiative comes about through the workers movement then the revolutionary left has to interact with it. How it does this is a matter to decide there and then.

The difference is that you think that setting up a left reformist organisaiton is a positive step forward. I don't think it is in and of itself. That doesn't mean I'm a great revolutionary and you're not, it's just a difference in tactics.

But as said at what point will you turn round to people and say that you were voting down things you actually thought were right? And all the while you're voting down stuff you actually think is right, it has the danger of sowing illusions in reformism.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I don't support RESPECT and think Galloway is turning into a careerist but comparing RESPECT to fascists is ridiculous in my view. To be honest I can't even be bothered to debate it.

Thank you for clarifying your personal position on Respect. However, I stand by my position that the communitarian activities of Respect are divisive and feed the bnp but it can't be denied that some of the Islamists that Respect are associating with are dodgy. If a leftist group had political contacts and support from known fash from the white right then I'd equally criticise and say that there was a comparison between Respect and Mosley.

 

[dennisr]

I guess I would argue that the stuff being dropped does end up dropping the socialist conclusions and ends up sowing illusions in left reformism.

That is something we disagree on

If it is a formation involving real forces there will be no need for the kinda compromises that mean you can't be open about a revolutionary programme. If such a formation doesn't exist there are loads of united fronts to get stuck into.

yes, you will be forced to make compromises - most definately - as you do as a trade unionist. I use the term in a practical sense (not as compromise with basic principle) - these real forces will not all be fully fledged revolutionary fighters - i can promise that

But honestly, there isn't a moral tone, and if it comes across like that I apologise, it's not my intention. I see people in the SWP, SP etc as genuine socialists, whatever the disagreement.

No need for apologies. I don't think that is your intention. There is a mistaken if genuine tendency on the part of some folk to see a certain 'purity' in thier thought (as opposed to the 'cheap. shabby, compromisers the rest of the world turn out to be - its always something. A difference in tactical approach does not mean any compromise with basic principles. Its the sort of attitude you would take the micky out of some anarchos for

...Personally I'm involved in a DCH and Save Education campaign at the moment.....(although I do condemn everyone at every meeting).....

- I could only imagine. Part of the problem at the moment is that many of these campaigns - single issue campaigns around basic reforms - are themselves not mass campaigns - they are the shadows of potential campaigns so often end up dominated by one left group or another. Those lefts are involved because they hope to see these campaigns fill out - become the genuine movements we have seen in the past. We all make 'compromises to keep these mini potential united fronts going (and still remaining able to work with each other in the meantime) You would not see that as a fault of those leftists involved (any more than I would) - i would argue the same for the CNWP

 

[dennisr]

PS I need more support on the "grumpy bloke on the bus" thread

Sound more fun than this one - see you there )

 

[cockneyrebel]

OK off to the bus thread......

 

[Fisher_Gate]

You're not actually engaging with what fanciful is saying, you're just coming out with this nonsense. I would also say it wouldn't be a good thing because I don't see RESPECT as a positive development. The most I could say is that it's positive that people are voting for something that is to the left, but as an actual political development I think it's a negative thing.

That's not out of a wish to use Bolshevik language or saying "revolution now", but because I think that it's a politically flawed method for revolutionaries to vote down their own positions and sow illusions in left reformism.

So if you don't want Respect to win positions, who would you rather have on the GLA (tick one box below from the likely contenders):

Conservative?
Labour?
Liberal Democrat?
Green?
BNP?
UKIP?
London First (ex-UKIP, ex-Veritas sitting GLA councillors)?
English Democrats?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

So if you don't want Respect to win positions, who would you rather have on the GLA (tick one box below from the likely contenders):

Conservative?
Labour?
Liberal Democrat?
Green?
BNP?
UKIP?
London First (ex-UKIP, ex-Veritas sitting GLA councillors)?
English Democrats?

Rather than Respect I'd pick the turd that smelled the least ie Greens.

 

[mutley]

Rather than Respect I'd pick the turd that smelled the least ie Greens.

Were you like this as a kid? Did you hang around the edges of conversations, occasionally voicing your opinion that whatever was being discussed was 'bollocks', in spite of the fact that the people having the conversation were carrying on and making a point of ignoring you?

You have made it perfectly clear that you would rather have your eyes poked out than support Respect. Very interesting I'm sure. Now run along.

 

[JHE]

While Trots debate united Y-fronts and and the niceties of transitional wotsits, local politics in Tower Hamladesh continues as normal.

Letter from the East London Advertiser (24 May 2007):

THERE is a serious clash of cultures in the East End... on one side Jamestown Studios, a complex of 22 music studios, and on the other the powerful Esha Atul mosque.

It centres around an industrial building in Whitechapel, for generations a clothing factory, operated for the last 12 years as music studios (Advertiser, May 17).

The building was purchased by Esha Atul with full knowledge the studios were a sitting tenant, then converted part of the building into prayer rooms.

It now wants to expand and kick out the studios and has applied for 'change of use' planning consent from music studios to Islamic madrassa.

Tower Hamlets council has specific planning policies protecting employment space, especially arts. Planning officers strongly recommended refusal.

You would think the mosque wouldn't stand a chance. Think again!

The majority of the planning committee are Muslims. They voted on May 2 to boot out the studios, overriding the council's own laws.

But it must be put out to public consultation before the policy can be overturned. So the council has now deferred the decision until July...

The eyes of the community are now on the councillors.

Will they rip up the council's own policies and vote with their faith?

Or will they stick within planning laws and let justice and tolerance prevail?

Kent Brainerd
Jamestown Studios
Damien Street
Whitechapel​

See: http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....3:48:38:727&tBrand=ELAOnline&tCategory=search

Another, angrier and more recent (12 July 2007) letter: http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....1:57:48:283&tBrand=ELAOnline&tCategory=search


Want to guess which parties on the planning committee supported the ousting of the studios and their replacement with a madrassa extension? Go on, guess.


A little bird tells me: it was al-Labour and al-Respeq.