Galloway’s credo
I’m Not the Only One
By George Galloway
Published by Allen Lane, 2004, £10
JIM HORTON reviews I’m Not the Only One, the book by the
expelled anti-war Labour MP, George Galloway, which offers an interesting
insight into one of the founder members of Respect and the politics that have
shaped it.
GEORGE GALLOWAY’S BOOK presents a seething indictment of the
war and continuing occupation of Iraq, and he is scathing towards all those New
Labour MPs who sheepishly voted for the conflict. But his criticisms are not
restricted to Iraq. Galloway rightly condemns New Labour’s attacks on trade
unionists, especially the despicable assault on the fire-fighters, and the
government’s policies on pensions, tuition fees and the privatisation of public
services. He scorns New Labour’s big business links and the cultural politics of
spin, and mocks Blair’s prostration at the feet of Bush.
Galloway reminds us of the ambitious target Respect set
itself at its founding convention: "The bringing down of the Blair clique and
the severing of the special relationship with George Bush". (p161) Respect’s
first electoral outing was in the European parliamentary and London mayoral and
assembly elections. The call went out to raise a million pounds for a million
votes. In an interview with The Observer he quantified Respect’s expectations:
"We could win four seats, or even five. But I suppose the most likely outcome is
that I win and a few of the others come close". (April 25)
In the event, no Respect candidate, including Galloway, came
close to winning a European seat. And while in some areas the vote for Respect
was creditable, it reflected a general rejection of the major establishment
parties and in particular a deep hatred towards Blair, especially over Iraq,
rather than an endorsement of Respect’s vague political programme.
What role Respect can play in the process towards a viable
mass working class left alternative will depend on a number of factors,
including how its programme develops, whether it can break out of the
undemocratic straitjacket imposed on it by the largest group in Respect, the
Socialist Workers Party (SWP), and what political initiatives come from within
the trade union movement. Respect’s lack of a class approach and its departure
from even the minimal socialist policies of the now defunct Socialist Alliance,
evidenced both in Galloway’s book and Respect’s recent election material,
suggest it is a poor substitute for a new mass workers party being formed from
the trade unions, anti-war activists, radical young people and community
campaigners.
Galloway says Respect was born out of the anti-war movement.
He explains that the Stop the War Coalition (STWC), in which the Socialist Party
participated, "followed a strategy of uniting the widest possible cross-section
of the British public" against the war. (p151) While this was correct, the
Socialist Party argued that the key task of socialists in the STWC was to put
forward a strategy based on the crucial role of the working class: both in terms
of building for strike action against war and creating a political alternative
in the form of new mass workers’ party.
The leaders of the STWC did not pursue this strategy,
instead placing more emphasis on broadening the appeal of the STWC to the
Liberal Democrats and malcontent Labour MPs than seriously developing workers’
action or posing a political alternative to Blair. Outlining the limitations of
the ‘politics of protest’, Galloway says in his book that "marchers walked
straight into the brick wall of the powerlessness, the disenfranchisement, of
the mass of the British people locked out of the mainstream political system".
(p153) But Galloway’s aim is transfer the broad base of the anti-war movement to
the new politically amorphous Respect, which has meant jettisoning even the
minimal socialist programme of the Socialist Alliance. To date, though, the
Greens and Liberal Democrats have been the main beneficiaries from opposition to
Blair’s warmongering.
In the London assembly elections Respect polled well in
Muslim areas, but not on the basis of a class appeal to working-class Muslims.
Rather, Galloway and the SWP made an opportunist appeal to their religion,
describing Respect in one leaflet as ‘the party for Muslims’. But this makes no
distinction between poor, working-class Muslims and the 5,400 Muslim
millionaires in Britain who are hostile to the interests of working-class
Muslims and the ideas of socialism.
Socialists support the right of everyone to practice any
religion or none free from discrimination and persecution and oppose the
scapegoating of Muslims in the so-called war against terror. We will defend the
Muslim community and all minority groups against attacks. However, we
seek to unite all workers, regardless of religion, on a class basis in a new
mass party of the working class. While not intentional, Galloway’s approach is
potentially dangerous and can sow division amongst workers and reinforce racist
ideas at a time when Blair is pushing faith schools and when the BNP and UKIP
are using the issue of asylum to pursue their own racist agendas.
Galloway also attempts to counter the media battering he has
received over his controversial meetings with Iraq’s now deposed leader Saddam
Hussein. He makes the point that the Anglo-American axis now holding Saddam
captive once regarded Saddam as a highly profitable client and useful ally at a
time when Galloway and others were demonstrating against Saddam’s crimes.
Galloway’s pro-war opponents latched onto his seeming praise
of Saddam in 1996 when he declared: ‘Sir, I salute your courage, your strength,
your indefatigability’. This comment also caused consternation amongst anti-war
activists, who may not be satisfied with his protestation that ‘your’ referred
not to the singular (Saddam), but the plural (Iraqi people) or his claim that
his emotions ran away from him after recently arriving in sanction-devastated
Iraq from the horrors of the Palestinian occupied territories. Although, to be
fair to Galloway, he accepts that the phrase he used was a bad mistake which
inadvertently gave ammunition to his enemies (pp 106-108).
Galloway’s mistakes, however, reflect a deeper political
weakness on his part, both in terms of programme and also how to build a mass
movement for change.
Not moving beyond capitalism
GALLOWAY HAS AT various times described himself as a
socialist, but in his book there is hardly a scintilla of a socialist programme.
While expressing sympathy for the oppressed masses and solidarity for workers in
struggle, his lack of class approach results in his looking to dubious allies to
not only liberate the Iraqi people but the whole of humanity from Bush and
Blair’s new world order. While correctly demanding the withdrawal of imperialist
troops from Iraq, for example, he proposes Iraqis look to the Arab League for
help rather than calling for the building of workers’ organisations to cut
across ethnic divisions and appeal to the international working class to aid
them in their struggle. The Arab League represent the corrupt Arab elite who are
responsible for the desperate poverty that blights the whole Middle East and are
despised by the masses for their toadyism towards imperialism.
The idea that one section of the ruling class can be more
progressive than another section is deeply rooted in Galloway’s political
outlook. During the 1980s Iran-Iraq war Galloway "supported Iran, as did Syria,
the Arab country to which I was then closest". (p41) His support for Iran went
beyond the war issue: "In the absence of a powerful socialist or secular
opposition in Iran, my perspective led me to support the Islamic revolution of
Khomeini as a people’s movement that promised the end to an oppressive
dictatorship". (p40)
Galloway is wrong to describe the heroic mass movement of
1978-79 that toppled the US-backed Shah as an Islamic revolution. It was a
workers’ revolution that drew the oppressed masses behind it. Workers went
beyond democratic demands and began seizing and running the workplaces of those
capitalists who had fled Iran with the Shah, forcing the clerical leader,
Ayatollah Khomeini, who had come to the head of the movement, to nationalise
large sectors of industry and the banks. But in the absence of a genuine
revolutionary party Khomeini was able to use Islam to carry out a vicious
counter-revolution against the workers’ movement. This was possible because the
main workers’ party, the Tudeh Party, failed to build a politically independent
movement of the workers against capitalism. Instead, it had the same false
perspective as Galloway, namely looking to ‘progressive’ bourgeois elements to
oppose the Shah, and offered Khomeini a ‘popular united front’ against the
monarchy. Khomeini made use of the Tudeh before finally crushing them, along
with thousands of workers.
The example of Iran is instructive and while undoubtedly
Galloway does not support the oppressive regime of the Mullahs – although this
is not clear from his book – he has not shaken off the cross-class approach that
can have similarly disastrous results today, especially in Iraq. In the Observer
interview Galloway says: "I want Mossadeqs and Nassers to rule the Arab world.
Simple as that". Mohammed Mossadeq, the Iranian president overthrown in a
CIA-backed coup in 1953, and Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Egyptian president who
nationalised the Suez canal in 1956, were bourgeois nationalists who, in
contrast to the reactionary Khomeini, attempted to play a progressive role. But
their failure to break with capitalism contributed to the growth in right-wing
political Islam in the Middle East.
Because Galloway fails to pose a socialist alternative he
also ends up sowing illusions in the idea that capitalist institutions can be
reformed. He calls for a "democratised United Nations" (p21), with the UN
Security Council being compelled to enforce all resolutions, not just those that
favour the most powerful nations. This is to be achieved by the ‘other
super-power’ of public opinion. Galloway argues that the European Union "must
escape its dependency upon the US" if "it is to command the respect and
affection of the peoples of Europe", with a different model to the US being
based on a "Peoples Europe" of "democracy, fairness and justice" (p23).
But in a world based on the market economy which
impoverishes millions of people, it is not possible to reform capitalist
governments and institutions, such as the UN and EU, whose polices inevitably
defend the profit-hungry interests of the multi-national corporations. If the
‘other super-power of public opinion’ is to bring about real changes it needs to
be mobilised and organised around a fighting programme for a socialist
alternative.
Instead, Galloway advocates a "British Democratic
Revolution" (pp 26-27), claiming this is the only way Britain will be "able to
fully hold its head up in the world". It is true that New Labour has been
conducting a continuing assault on our civil liberties, but it is absurd to seek
to limit our movement to a ‘Democratic Revolution’ in the way Galloway suggests.
Of course, socialists fight for every democratic right and against the erosion
of our civil liberties, but the term ‘Democratic Revolution’ has a distinct
meaning for Marxists that Galloway must be aware of. It refers to the bourgeois
revolutions that swept away the old feudal system and ushered in capitalism.
At its best capitalist democracy has always been truncated
for the masses with the capitalists prepared to turn to totalitarian rule
whenever their system is threatened. But it does not follow that the struggle
today should be limited to democratising capitalism. The very fact that our
civil liberties are now under attack shows such rights can not be sustained
under this system.
It is true that across the globe not all countries enjoy
even the limited democratic rights that have been achieved in the advanced
capitalist countries through the struggles of working people, but under
degenerate capitalism today genuine democracy in all countries can only be
achieved by taking the world’s resources out of the hands of the un-elected
owners of big business and implementing democratic socialist planning to meet
people’s needs.
What does the ‘British Democratic Revolution’ mean in
practice? Incredibly, Galloway says: "We need half as many MPs as we have, being
paid twice as much" (p24). At a time of deep cynicism towards career politicians
seen to be on the make, Galloway not merely rejects elected representatives only
accepting the average wage of a skilled worker, he wants MPs to become even more
remote from the lives of the workers they purport to represent. This is in
contrast to Dave Nellist, Terry Fields and Pat Wall – three Marxist Labour MPs
in the 1980s who supported the Militant Tendency (predecessor to the Socialist
Party) – and Joe Higgins, currently a Socialist Party MP in Ireland, who all
took the average wage of a skilled worker.
Galloway adds that "Respect will fight for traditional
British values of tolerance, freedom, democracy, equality; for respect for other
people’s colour, religion, language, way of life, rights and responsibilities"
(p175), vaguely adding that this "can only be done by proceeding on the basis of
respect". (p176) But all these ‘traditional values’ have been fought for by the
workers’ movement against the ‘traditional values’ of bigotry, repression and
racism of the British ruling class. The ‘respect’ Galloway strives for can only
be achieved by mobilising a mass movement against capitalism and for socialism.
But nowhere in his book is this spelt out by Galloway.
‘Not as left as you think’
THE BOOK RAISES many issues which deserve genuine debate
within the workers’ movement, but unfortunately Galloway makes unnecessary snide
criticisms of those socialists who have led mass movements against capitalism.
In doing so he at once reveals his true political character and limitations.
Galloway cites the Liverpool city councillors who, from
1983-87, mobilised thousands in a major battle with the Thatcher government for
more resources for the city, and accuses them of being "ultra-left", pursuing
"gesture politics", and "not averse to kamikaze acts, such as refusing to set a
municipal rate, or otherwise breaking the law". Galloway then refers to the
"Militant group of Trotskyist entrists working parasitically within the Labour
Party", and mocks "the starry-eyed, far-out, far-left fantasies of the fanatics"
(pp135-137).
It was the Militant (forerunner of Socialist Party) which
led the magnificent Liverpool city council battle against Thatcher, which
resulted in real gains for Liverpool’s workers. We also led the mass movement
against the poll tax, which saw the defeat of that hated tax and contributed to
the downfall of Thatcher. The Socialist Party has a proud history of fighting
for every reform that can benefit working people under capitalism, but we also
explain that fundamental change can be achieved only by a mass movement fighting
for socialism.
Militant supporters posed a real threat, not just to the
interests of the ruling class, but also the Labour right and were therefore
barred from organising inside the Labour Party and eventually expelled from it –
unlike the reformist left Labour Coordinating Committee, to which Galloway
belonged for a while in the early 1980s.
Galloway can nostalgically reminisce about his early days in
the Labour Party when at 21 he was "a full-time political activist, foregoing
salary and prospects for the world-wide socialist victory"; boasting that he had
"several times been elected to the Scottish committee of the Labour Party youth
wing (its only non-Trotskyite member)"; and when he joined the Vietnam
Solidarity Campaign, joining in the chants for his hero ‘Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh!’
(p29).
But in the mass battles of the 1980s, both against Thatcher
and the right within the Labour Party, Galloway revealed the limitations of his
radicalism. In relation to the local authority battle against Thatcher he argued
"for a posture of militant opposition but stopping short of political suicide in
order to live to fight another day". (p136) Liverpool was eventually defeated
precisely because other left leaders refused to go beyond ‘militant posturing’,
leaving Liverpool and Lambeth councillors isolated against the combined
onslaught of Thatcher and the right-wing labour and trade union leaders. As a
result local services were cut back and thousands of local authority jobs lost
across Britain.
Galloway joined Tony Benn’s campaign for deputy leader of
the Labour Party in 1981 seeking to "tack Benn’s campaign to the right" against
the "ultra-Bennite extremists" (p134). In 1994 he asked Robin Cook to stand for
the party leadership. After the death of John Smith Galloway joined the campaign
team of John Prescott, with the excuse that "he was the best on offer" (p139).
Galloway stayed in the Labour Party when it became openly a
pro-big business party of capitalism. It has been the war issue in particular
that has given Galloway his recent radical credentials. In the end, he tells us,
he could not remain in a party that was committing crimes against Iraq. The
Socialist Party argued before the invasion of Iraq that the two million strong
London demonstration against the war on February 15 last year provided an
opportunity for Galloway, along with the left trade union leaders, to take the
initiative to set up a new mass party of the working class. We raised this with
Galloway in personal discussions. Yet he hesitated, eventually allowing
expulsion to decide his fate. A year later, when the anti-war movement has
passed its peak, Galloway admits he "should have resigned when the majority of
my parliamentary colleagues voted for the invasion of Iraq" (p102).
In spite of his anti-imperialist radicalism, Galloway holds
onto moderately left politics that do not seriously challenge capitalism.
Recently, he has declared that he is not as left-wing as people think he is.
This is evident from the programme of Respect outlined in a chapter of his book.
Most demands are uncontroversial, but limited to reforms within capitalism. In
essence Galloway wants to return to the old Labour position of a ‘mixed
economy’.
Galloway opposes privatisation of public services and calls
for renationalisation of the railways and tube, but nowhere does he call for
public ownership of the commanding heights of the economy in order to implement
a democratic socialist plan. Instead, he merely states that an "essential tenet
of social democracy is that there are some things too important to the country,
the nation, the society, to be left to the free market". In an understatement he
adds: "The public good and the interests of private wealthy people are not
always synonymous, indeed they often clash and lie in opposite directions.
Social Democracy’s historic mission is to fight the corner of those left
trailing in the queue for the good things in life". (p167)
Galloway announces that New Labour has abandoned this
mission and cannot be reclaimed. The programme he advocates points to Respect
taking on this mantel, although Galloway has also on occasion made some comments
that suggest Respect could be used to shift the Labour Party back to social
democracy.
George Galloway is a fervent anti-war, anti-big business
activist. His first-hand experiences of the disastrous consequences of rapacious
capitalism in the Middle-East fuel the passion eloquently expressed in his book.
Unfortunately, Galloway and others in Respect, in their desperation for
electoral gains and lacking confidence that workers can be won over to
socialism, fail to advance a programme that can seriously challenge capitalism
and all its attendant horrors of war, poverty and environmental destruction.
Galloway describes Respect as "the first ‘post-modern’ name
for an electoral political movement". But it is less an acronym for Resistance,
Equality, Socialism, Peace, the Environment, Community, and Trade unionism, and
more a vague term that attempts to mask a politically weak programme.
|