|
|
The crisis in Respect
Respect – the Unity Coalition was
founded in 2004 by the anti-war MP, George Galloway, and the Socialist
Workers’ Party (SWP). Now, Respect has split acrimoniously down the
middle: the SWP on the one side, George Galloway and most other forces
in Respect, on the other. HANNAH SELL reports.
INEVITABLY THE CRISIS that has erupted
in Respect will be used by some to argue that it is impossible to build
a mass force to the left of Labour. This is particularly the case
because it is the latest in a number of attempts to build new left
formations that have ended in failure, including Arthur Scargill’s
Socialist Labour Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, and the Socialist
Alliance. However, this argument is entirely false.
Respect’s current crisis was built into
its foundations from the beginning. It was the Respect leadership’s
mistaken approach and methods that led the Socialist Party to conclude
that it was not possible for us to become part of Respect. In this
period, the central criteria by which any formation must be judged is
whether or not it will play a positive role in encouraging sections of
radicalised workers to move towards independent political
representation. We judged that Respect as it was founded would not play
this role and, in fact, could become an objective obstacle towards the
development of such a party. Unfortunately, events have proved this to
be correct.
Despite Respect’s relatively small
size, it has taken an extremely arrogant approach towards groups of
workers moving towards independent political representation. For example
earlier this year Respect demanded that the Rail, Maritime and Transport
Workers union (RMT) did not contest the London Assembly elections
because Respect was standing and was "the only alternative". The
starting point for socialists should be to welcome the RMT, or any
significant group of workers, deciding to discuss putting up a trade
union-based, anti-cuts, anti-privatisation slate in the elections. The
approach of the Respect leadership, by contrast, could slow down or
prevent potentially important steps towards a new workers’ party.
Breakdown in relations
THE SWP HAS proclaimed that it is being
witch-hunted out of Respect by Galloway and his allies because it has
opposed "a fundamental shift of sections of Respect away from the
minimal agreed principles on which it had been founded – a shift towards
putting electorability above every other principle, a shift which could
only pull Respect to the right".
Those opposing the SWP, Respect
Renewal, have an entirely different explanation of why the split has
taken place: "This breakdown in relations has occurred because the SWP
leadership arrogantly refuses to countenance any situation in which they
are not dominant and do not exercise control. They are determined to put
the interests of the SWP above that of Respect".
Many of the opponents of the SWP argue
that these problems exist because the SWP is a ‘Leninist’ party. We
refute the idea that the methods used by the SWP are in any sense based
on the genuine methods of ‘Leninism’. We would agree, however, on the
basis of long experience, about Respect Renewal’s evaluation of the
SWP’s methods of work. Equally, we would agree with the SWP about the
dangers of Respect putting short-term electoral gain above developing
Respect on a healthy basis. However, both of these problems have been
present since Respect was founded.
Respect came out of the anti-war
movement. However, it was not, as we proposed at the time, launched by
George Galloway MP from the platform of the two million strong 15
February 2003 demonstration at the height of the anti-war movement. A
new formation initiated at this time could have very quickly drawn in
tens of thousands of the most politicised of the millions who were
taking to the streets against the war. However, Respect did not come
into being until 2004. By this stage the numbers active in the anti-war
movement had ebbed, even though opposition to the occupation was
increasing. While Respect could still have had potential if launched on
a correct basis, it was unfortunately seen by its leadership from the
beginning primarily as a vehicle for getting anti-war votes rather than
as a means to encourage workers and the new generation drawn into
activity by the war to find their own independent political voice.
Opportunistic turn
THE POLITICAL SHORTCUTS taken in some
Respect election campaigns reflected this electoral orientation from the
very beginning. In some areas with large Muslim populations Respect won
significant votes. To win Muslims, who are one of the most oppressed
sections of the population and are profoundly disillusioned with New
Labour, to a socialist anti-war party would have been positive of
course. However, any putative new mass workers’ party, even were it to
be initially based primarily upon one section of the population, would
have to reach out to the wider working-class in order to be successful.
The concern regarding Respect has been that, in order to win Muslim
votes, it has made unprincipled concessions which would make it much
more difficult to reach out to the wider working class.
To give one of several examples, in the
2004 elections, for the London assembly and the European parliament, a
specific leaflet aimed at Muslims was produced which described Respect
as "the party for Muslims". Under the headline, George Galloway –
Fighter for Muslims, it said: "Married to a Palestinian doctor,
teetotal, he has strong religious principles about fighting injustice.
He was expelled by Blair because he refused to apologise for his
anti-war stance. Our Muslim MPs stayed silent or supported the war. Who
do you want to be our voice?"
When the Socialist Party and others on
the left, including Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT, criticised
this opportunist approach, the SWP vociferously denied that any problem
existed and accused those who raised questions of attempting to
deliberately undermine Respect. Even in its current document on the
crisis, in which it accepts that "opportunist electoral politics began
to dominate Respect", the SWP still describes those who publicly
recognised this before the last two months as "opponents of Respect" who
"spread the idea it was a ‘Muslim Party’."
It is only in the last few months that
the SWP has begun to publicly criticise Galloway. However, it now does
so in very sharp language. For example, the SWP now says on the question
of a workers’ MP on a worker’s wage: "he achieved the dubious record of
being the fifth highest earning MP (after Hague, Blunkett, Widdecombe
and Boris Johnson) with Ł300,000 a year. Some tribune of the people!"
This ignores the fact that this issue
has been raised repeatedly since Respect’s inception and the SWP have
consistently attacked those who have done so. For example, when it was
raised at the first Respect conference, Preston councillor Michael
Lavallette opposed it on behalf of the SWP: "This demand would make it
difficult to attract council candidates. This motion is one of three or
four which are dishonest – look at the one on open borders, and abortion
– which are trying to target particular people in this organisation. In
this case, George Galloway is being targeted. This is what it’s really
about. It’s not an appropriate demand".
Principled unity
WE ARE NOT suggesting it is necessary
to have agreement on every issue in order to work together with other
individuals and organisations. Galloway’s opposition to a worker’s wage
does not preclude taking part in building a political formation with
him. However, this could and should have been done on a principled
basis. If we were in a broad coalition alongside individuals who opposed
standing on a worker’s wage we would not necessarily immediately turn it
into a ‘make or break’ issue, particularly if the coalition had the
potential to take the class struggle forward. Nonetheless, we would
behave in a completely different fashion to the SWP.
We would always make it clear that all
Socialist Party members elected as MPs would, as our past record
demonstrates, take a worker’s wage. We would also add, particularly
given the widespread cynicism in society towards the sleaze of the
capitalist politicians, that this is a policy which would be very
attractive to the most radicalised and combative workers and youth. They
are the very people who would need to be convinced not only to vote for
the formation in question but also to join it and stand in elections on
its behalf! Lavallette’s aside about the issue making it difficult to
attract council candidates shows very clearly that the opportunist
pressures that the SWP has now belatedly recognised were in existence
three years earlier, and the SWP was giving ground under them.
It has also been the SWP that has led
the way in arguing that Respect should lower its socialist banner. At
the founding convention of Respect Lindsey German of the SWP argued that
the Socialist Alliance had failed because it was too explicitly
socialist and that Respect would succeed by being ‘broader’ (ie less
explicitly socialist). This argument was mistaken, as the Socialist
Party has been able to show repeatedly. For example, in the 2004
European parliament elections in Ireland, Joe Higgins received 5.5% of
the first preference votes across the whole of Dublin, standing on a
clear socialist programme. This was a higher vote than that won by
Lindsey German at the same time standing for the London Assembly, having
lowered her socialist banner. However, the SWP has not learnt the
lessons from this. In Scotland it argued vociferously against the full
name of the new party, Solidarity, being Solidarity – Scotland’s
Socialist Movement, because it argued that socialism was too ‘narrow’.
Profound misunderstanding
IN ANY NEW workers’ formation it is
necessary for socialists to argue the case for a socialist programme,
linking it to the day to day struggles of the working class. Nonetheless
we would welcome a new mass workers’ party, or a significant step
towards one, even if its membership did not initially adopt a
fully-rounded out socialist programme. Provided a new mass party was
rooted in struggle, had a democratic and federal approach, and stood
clearly against cuts, privatisation and war, it would represent a step
forward. As socialists we would argue within such a party for it to
stand for socialism, as the only means to permanently and completely end
cuts, privatisation and war. The vast majority of Respect’s members,
however, are longstanding socialists, who have argued for Respect not to
be ‘too socialist’ because they wrongly imagined it would ‘broaden’
Respect’s electoral appeal.
The SWP’s approach on this issue is
completely empirical. Underlying this is its profound misunderstanding
of the effects of the collapse of Stalinism – which it saw as the
collapse of state capitalism, described as a ‘sideways step’. We argued
that, while the Stalinist dictatorships bore no resemblance to genuine
socialism, they were nonetheless based on a form of planned economy.
Their collapse disorientated the workers’ movement internationally and
allowed the capitalist class to launch a huge wave of propaganda against
socialism and planning. Inevitably, the consciousness and understanding
of the working class was pushed back under the weight of this onslaught.
Even now the movement has not fully recovered, although the experience
of capitalism is leading a new generation to draw anti-capitalist and,
increasingly, socialist conclusions.
In essence, it is for this reason that
Marxists today are faced with revisiting some of the tasks that our
predecessors faced over a century ago – particularly the creation of
independent political organisations.
The SWP, however, has formally denied
reality, comparing the current period to the "1930s in slow motion". It
believes that it stands alone, having managed to "resist the wave of
pessimism that swept the left internationally after 1989". However, in
order to resist the wave of pessimism it was necessary to have an
accurate analysis of the genuinely negative effects of the collapse of
Stalinism. In reality, the SWP has bent opportunistically to the
pressures of the period without recognising that it has done so. Why
else is it arguing that a mass formation cannot be built if its
programme is ‘too socialist’?
The contradiction between this and the
parallel they draw between today and the 1930s, when mass parties
existed with the support of millions and, by today’s standards, very
radical socialist programmes at least on paper, is never commented upon.
Equally, within the trade unions, the SWP is increasingly acting as a
left cover for the right-wing bureaucracy.
Inevitably, some members of the SWP are
starting to question their leadership’s approach. For example, Mark
Steel writes: "In these circumstances the triumphant tone of the SWP
during the last 15 years may have been misjudged. It’s also possible
that the collapse of the Soviet Union 15 years ago had a greater impact
than we anticipated. It may be that we over-estimated the revival of the
organised labour movement, and the left in general has shrivelled. The
difficulties in maintaining our organisation may be down to these
reasons, or maybe something else, but our response has been to deny the
problems altogether".
Control freakery
THE SWP’s top-down bureaucratic method
of organisation, which bears no resemblance to genuine Leninism, means
that voices of opposition within the SWP have up to now been muffled.
The top-down methods the SWP use within
its own party have also been used within Respect. On the issue of
socialism, as on all others, successive Respect conferences adopted the
position argued for by the SWP. The reason for this is that, despite its
name, Respect has never had the structure of a genuine coalition.
Instead, it has the structure of a relatively centralised party within
which, given the small size of Respect, the SWP has been able to use its
weight of numbers to force through whatever position it chose. George
Galloway was able to accept this position while the SWP was arguing in
support of him. Now there is a sharp disagreement, however, he has
discovered that "the SWP leaders did not want Respect to be a genuine
mass organisation because they wanted to control every aspect of it".
The ‘control freakery’ of the SWP
leadership is not news. As SWP member Mark Steel has pointed out:
"Whether in the Socialist Alliance, Stop the War, or Respect, we seem
destined to land ourselves in acrimonious disputes. And the growing list
of people who’ve selflessly committed themselves to a project alongside
us, only to later lament that they feel betrayed and humiliated is one
that, shall we say, needs addressing".
We do not agree with those who argue
that the SWP’s endless ‘acrimonious disputes’ stem from its refusal to
dissolve the party into Respect, but rather from the refusal to adopt a
genuinely federal approach to building Respect. Such an approach would
mean that all trends and groupings, rather than just the SWP, would have
had full rights to take part in Respect, while maintaining their own
identity and freedom to argue for their own programme. It would be
necessary to operate using a degree of consensus, where if one or more
groupings were strongly opposed to a particular policy it would not
adopted. However all groupings would be free to argue for their
particular policies within the broad parameters of the party being
anti-cuts and anti-privatisation.
The SWP argue that this degree of
federalism is ‘ineffective’. Yet, for the first 18 years of its
existence the Labour Party, with tens and then hundreds of thousands
supporting it, had an extremely federal approach, to the extent that it
was not even possible to join as an individual member until 1918.
The Socialist Alliance experience
THIS WAS ALSO the kind of structure we
argued for within the Socialist Alliance. The Socialist Alliance was
founded by the Socialist Party and others in the mid-1990s with the aim
of bringing together different socialist organisations and individuals
on the basis of the maximum possible principled unity, whilst preserving
the rights of all those who participated. The Socialist Alliance only
ever involved relatively modest forces. However, the federal approach it
adopted, we believe, will also apply to the building of future steps
towards a mass workers’ party, particularly in its initial stages.
It is most likely that a new party will
not come from one source but from several different ones – from the
struggles of groups of trade unionists, environmentalists,
anti-capitalists, tenants’ activists, etc. To be effective, any new
formation would have to find a way of involving such disparate groups,
without demanding that they give up their own organisation. Especially
given the sensitivity on democracy of the new generation entering
activity, it is particularly important that any new formation has an
open, inclusive approach.
The SWP joined the Socialist Alliance
in 2000 only to use its weight of numbers to force through a
highly-centralised constitution in December 2001, which meant all
decisions were taken by the SWP. Effectively, the Socialist Alliance
ceased to be an alliance. The Socialist Party felt we had no choice but
to leave the Socialist Alliance at this point. Three years later, the
SWP wound up the Socialist Alliance and founded Respect. Alex Callinicos,
a leading SWP Central Committee member, justifies his party’s role in
the Socialist Alliance: "In the absence of a substantial ex-Labour
presence, the Socialist Alliance suffered from a structural imbalance,
given that the SWP greatly outweighs the rest of the British far left
combined. When, as we usually tried, we applied a self-denying
ordinance, we were still, like the elephant in the room, a looming
presence. When we asserted ourselves, however democratically, we caused
resentment. The Socialist Party and a few well-known ‘independents’
cited ‘SWP dominance’ when they walked out of the Alliance. Usually they
had their own reasons for leaving, but in truth the SWP did dominate the
Socialist Alliance – not by intention, but by default, in the absence of
sufficiently strong participation by forces from a reformist
background".
His description unfortunately bears no
resemblance to reality, either in terms of the SWP´s relative strength
(for example we had three times as many elected representatives on trade
union national executives as the SWP at this time) or to how the SWP
behaved when they destroyed the Socialist Alliance.
The Socialist Party put forward a
fully-federal constitution as the best means to take the Socialist
Alliance forward. However, we were prepared to accept any of the three
reasonable compromises on the table in order to keep the Socialist
Alliance on the road. Far from operating a ‘self-denying ordinance’,
however, the SWP refused to even support the very modest proposal to
limit the number of national executive positions held by any one
organisation to 40% because it was ‘institutionalising divisions’. The
highly draconian constitution allowed the executive to "disaffiliate
local Socialist Alliances and remove individual membership or refuse to
ratify candidate selection". Effectively, this was designed to prevent
anyone, particularly the Socialist Party, which had received three of
the five highest Socialist Alliance votes in the 2001 general election,
from having any autonomy in election campaigns.
In words, the SWP has taken a slightly
less crude approach within Respect, describing it as a coalition. The
reality of the constitution, however, has been extremely highly
centralised. Such an approach, as both Arthur Scargill’s top down
Socialist Labour Party and the SWP-led Socialist Alliance have shown,
will never be able to attract significant numbers of new layers of
workers and youth entering struggle who, particularly in this period,
are rightly very sensitive on questions of democracy.
Trotsky’s united front…
THE SWP HAS justified its approach to
Respect by calling it a ‘united front of a special type’. This is
inaccurate from every point of view. In the first place a united front,
in its classical sense, is a bloc between mass forces. For example, Leon
Trotsky argued for the German Communist Party to call for a united front
with German Social Democracy against the fascists. Both were forces with
the support of millions of workers. Trotsky described the tasks of the
united front to be for the Communist Party to demonstrate in practise to
the masses "its readiness in action to wage battle in common with them
for aims, no matter how modest". In the course of doing so the Communist
Party, had it taken Trotsky’s advice, would have been able to
demonstrate to the Social Democratic workers that, "the common struggle
is undermined not by the disruptive acts of the Communist Party but by
the conscious sabotage of the leaders of the Social Democracy".
It is clear that this does not fully
apply to Britain today, where there are no mass, or even sizeable,
parties of the working class at the present. Although millions of
workers still vote Labour, in general they do so, not out of support for
New Labour, but as a bulwark against the Tories. In this period we have
a dual task. Firstly, to encourage workers down the road of creating
their own party. Secondly, to argue the case for such a party to adopt a
Marxist programme. Of course, big sections of the working class will
only draw the conclusion that a Marxist programme is necessary on the
basis of their own experience, having tested out, and found wanting,
other programmes. While we recognise this, our duty is to argue a case
for the programme that is objectively necessary, a Marxist programme,
and to win as many as possible to that programme.
While a united front in its classical
sense does not apply to current conditions, it is correct to apply the
method of the united front in a number of fields, including for
electoral challenges. Unfortunately, the SWP does not genuinely apply
this method. The SWP describes its method of work in Respect by saying:
"People have known we have always been open about our politics at the
same time as going out to build unity with those that do not agree with
us. They have known that we do not attempt to smuggle in our own views
by the back door or impose them on others".
Unfortunately, this really is a case of
hoping that if you say black is white enough people will start to
believe it!
Trotsky famously summed up a united
front with the phrase, "march separately, strike together". By this he
meant that organisations retain their own programme, organisation and
independence of action whilst coming together to fight for a particular
demand. In this sense, the Socialist Alliance, prior to the SWP
takeover, applied an element of the united front, although on a very
small scale. Different organisations retained the right to their own
organisation and programme yet came together for specific campaigns,
particularly to form joint lists for elections, within which parties
produced their own election material.
…the SWP’s version
BUT IN NO sense could Respect, or the
SWP led-Socialist Alliance, be described as a united front. The right to
‘march separately’ has been completed obliterated. The Respect National
Committee (NC) was, until the split, elected by a slate system at the
national conference. Given the SWP’s numerical dominance of Respect this
means that it decided the entire membership of the NC. It is true that
only a minority were SWP members, but the non-SWP members of the NC, as
they have now found out to their cost, were there purely by the grace
and favour of the SWP. The NC has a high degree of power, appropriate to
a centralised party not a coalition. For example, as regards elections,
it had "the final decision on where and when to stand candidates in
elections at local and national level. Candidates will be selected by
the local branch or constituency organisation with the agreement of the
National Committee".
This method of organisation made it
impossible for the Socialist Party to join Respect. More importantly, it
also made it impossible for groups of trade unionists and community
campaigners, such as the London RMT or the Huddersfield NHS campaigners,
to take part as it would have meant them entirely giving up their own
identity and organisation in order to be told what to do by a party of
2,500 members!
The SWP simultaneously misunderstand
the united front from the opposite point of view. For example, within
the anti-war movement it insisted that the entire anti-war coalition
limited itself to the single demand, ‘stop the war’. We believed that
the broad programme of the anti-war movement should include several
other demands, such as ‘no to terror’. What is more, the SWP utterly
failed to argue for a socialist programme within the anti-war movement.
Its speakers on anti-war coalition platforms, such as John Rees and
Lindsey German, usually failed to mention capitalism, never mind
socialism, even when they were speaking on behalf of the SWP.
Political concessions
SIMILARLY WITHIN RESPECT the SWP has
frequently not put its programme forward for fear of alienating George
Galloway and his allies. Instead, it has used its weight of numbers to
prevent genuine discussion on a whole range of issues including
socialism, representatives on a worker’s wage and, in 2004, the question
of abortion rights. The SWP’s approach is not accidental.
In an article by Callinicos, The
Anti-Capitalist Movement and the Revolutionary Left, he explains the
SWP’s understanding of the united front. He criticises a former section
of the SWP’s international, saying that they: "make concessions to the
misconception that the way revolutionaries differentiate themselves
within united fronts is by ‘putting the arguments’ which set us apart
from other forces within the united front. In our experience it is more
often through being the most dynamic and militant force in building the
movement in question".
The SWP is correct, of course, in
saying that it is important for an organisation to prove itself as being
"the most dynamic and militant force" in a broader movement. However, we
see no contradiction between this and campaigning for our own programme
within the movement. In the 1990s, in the wake of the collapse of
Stalinism, there was an enormous pressure on Marxists to abandon the
need for a genuine socialist programme and organisation in favour of
‘unity’. This pressure still exists to a large degree today. Many on the
left have capitulated to this. The SWP is currently holding firm to the
need for its own organisation. At the same time, however, it has made
considerable opportunist political concessions. As a result, the SWP has
ended up with a complete inversion of a genuine united front method, in
which it insists on organisational control, but does not raise its
political programme!
The failure of Respect has come at a
time when the objective need for a mass party of the working class is
stronger than ever. New Labour is a government in crisis. The mood to
break the link with Labour is growing at rank-and-file level in the
trade unions, particularly in the Communication Workers’ Union after New
Labour backed Crozier and co to the hilt in the recent strike. The
likelihood of an RMT-initiated list in next year’s London elections
represents a small but important step forward. While events in Respect
may have a temporarily confusing effect for some, historically, they
will not mark a substantial obstacle on the road to mass independent
political representation for workers in England and Wales.
|