How far do they go?
A few weeks ago one of my comrades reacted with amused disbelief when she heard that the SWP's Marxism had set aside a prayer room for devout Muslim attendees.
I read today that this was not true.
There were in fact 2 prayer rooms, one for men and one for women.
A few years ago when gender segregation was enforced at a Birmingham Stop the War meeting, there was somewhat of an outcry. At the time the SWP responded that they had no right to dictate policy on gender integration to Muslim organisations that wanted to oppose the war. A crap argument I know but allowing the SWP to sidestep the argument that they were practicising the segregation of women.
But the prayer rooms at Marxism were organised by whom?
It is clearly too much to expect of the SWP that they challenge the socially crippling demand of repeated prayer throughout the day.
Is it also too much that they challenge the practice that women be allowed to pray in the same room as men. It appears the answer to that is also 'yes'.
Got me wondering for SWPers, how far is it right to conciliate with a right wing religious agenda?
Gender segregation, OK as long as it is religious?
How about persecuting gays? Is that also OK if it is religious?
- Pete's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
OK, here's a couple of answers
Alan;
On your first point, I think it stems from a determination by the SWP to see what they want to see in a group. Demoralised by the collapse of their "turn to anti-capitalism" shown by the appearance of "Globalise Resistance" etc, they were thrashing around looking for something else to stem their decline in size and influence. They wanted a ready-made progressive arena in which to work, and thus they oversold to themselves and their membership the progressive nature of political-religious "Islamist" groups in the aftermath of 9/11. This also betrays a deeper misunderstanding on their part of the culture complexities in the Arab, South Asian and Turkish diasporas, amongst others, but that's a discussion for another day.
On your second point, Galloway is a maverick social democrat who was heavily influenced by the support of much of the left in the Soviet era for Arab nationalism, and that still shows through in his political activities today - the visits to Damascus, praise for Arab nationialist politicians etc. Salma Yaqoob seems to me to be a left-liberal who happens to be in Respect rather than the Lib-Dems; that's neither praise nor criticism. And Yvonne Ridley (as you'll be able to gather from a cursory search of the blog URL below) has taken some bizarrely eccentric stances and actions, on a whole raft of issues.
Ergo, they're different.
Hard Evidence Needed
Having been on the left for over 25 years, I am loath these days to accept things said about groups/people without hard evidence. And so:
What evidence do we have about the SWP having prayer rooms at Marxism? I saw it mentioned in the Weekly Worker, but I'd like real proof.
Are there any links that clearly prove that Yvonne Ridley issued anti-Semitic statements?
I wouldn't be surprised if either of these was true, but can we have definite proof?
Re: OK, here is a couple of answers
Alan
thanks a million for the reply.
I have seen your blog and the article on Ridley.
FOR GOODNESS SAKE, the woman is a crafty attention grabber and media manipulator who just wants to make a name and an image for and an image for herself (and get lucrative publishing deals).
No wonder she wants to see taxes kept low!
And then, her virulent (and well calculated)hatred for everything Jewish, which ironically the SWP is all too keen to condone!!!
Shame that the "chamaleon" SWP does not see how little credibility it retains and how much mockery it attracts when using the
anti-Semitism issue as a stick to beat the BNP.
Well, then it is time for the SWP to get a reality check: BNP fuhrer Nick Griffin has already condemned the Holocaust and disowned anything anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic(whether he was sincere or not is another issue), and some Jews are currently serving as BNP councillors.
Therefore, "congratulations" to Yvonne Ridley for outdoing even the BNP on anti-Jewish hatred.
Alan Mulcany
Dublin
RE: Hard Evidence Needed
Paul
Here is the link about Yvonne Ridley:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvonne_Ridley
and here is an extract from the above linked story, under the section "Criticism":
[At a debate at Imperial College London on 16 February 2006 she outlined a viewpoint that is "pretty much in line with that of Hamas." She described Israel as "that disgusting little watchdog of America that is festering in the Middle East" and further that her party the Respect Party "is a Zionist-free party... if there was any Zionism in the Respect Party they would be hunted down and kicked out. We have no time for Zionists" while both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are "riddled with Zionists".]
As to the story about the 2 separate prayer rooms, I don't know, since I live in Ireland, but like you I would not be surprised if it turned true.
Alan Mulcany
Dublin
RE: Hard Evidence Needed
Paul
Here is another link on Ridley
http://www.union.ic.ac.uk/media/felix/2002-03/article.php?aid=2923
and here an extract
[Ridley then plugged Respect's attempt to take control of Tower Hamlets and Newham councils. "When Respect takes control of those councils in the May elections, they will be hoisting up the Palestinian flag". She claimed that Respect's candidates in East London were "a reflection of what I see before me in the room today a rich multicultural mix of people", (clearly assuming that nobody at the event was a Zionist as they're not too welcome in Respect). She boasted "if anybody is being discriminated against in Tower Hamlets... it's probably the single white man".]
Please, take note, especially of the last sentence: "if anybody is being discriminated against in Tower Hamlets... it's probably the single white man".
CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?
Alan Mulcany
Dublin
The SWP advertise their prayer rooms
It is on the SWP's Marxism 2006 pages. Have a look at http://www.swp.org.uk/marxism/practical.htm
Paradox?
So were the muslims in question also marxists?
Not sure what you mean
If yours is a rhetorical question, implying that muslims could not be reasonably expected to oppose a (marxist) opposition to gender segregation, then "that doesn't matter" would be my answer. It is a basic elementary democratic expectation on any body, political, business, religious etc.
In fact that's my point, religions have ranges of belief, of varying degrees of irrationality and intolerance towards women and gays. Socialists should argue with people with a religious viewpoint but we shouldn't be compromising with reactionary practices.
But I'm not sure you did mean that, maybe your question is more factual. If it is, I can't answer whether there were any muslims at the SWP summer school who also consider themselves marxists. Personally I doubt there were many, if any at all. The SWP might have such a dismissive view of ideology that supposes that serious activists can commit themselves to such contradictory ideologies, i.e. devout religion and marxism. But I doubt that many muslim (or any other religion) scholars or clerics would tolerate such a viewpoint.
Thanks
No rhetoric just wanted to know
There are people...
... who have been influenced by both Islam and Marxism, such as the People's Mojahedin of Iran. But such groups tend to be very odd politically, and the PMOI specifically are not likely to see eye to eye with the SWP on issues like the Iranian regime (ie for all their political faults, the PMOI oppose it unequivocally).
SWP not a mosque
I believe in the secular and socialist nature of a Trotskyist revolutionary party. SWP(UK) fails.
http://advant.blogspot.com
Well...
They're not a religious party, so much as a secular one that doesn't understand how theocratic political movements work, and therefore have an overly soft line on them as a consequence.
Pure, barefaced opportunism
Dear Alan and all comrades
SWP/Respect understand very well how theocratic political movements work.
That is why they have all but jettisoned their left-wing luggage in favour of a Muslim supremacist one.
That is why they have been so successful in courting Muslim vote, especially the most fundamentalist one.
Pure, barefaced opportunism; that is what the current SWP leadership is all about.
Unfortunately their gain (in terms of votes and seats) is our pain (in terms of more divided society along racial, religious and ethnic lines).
Sad to say, but right now in Britain the person who is doing the best job in bringing down racial, religious and ethnic barriers is Saira Khan (the Apprentice), surely not a person filled with socialist ideas, but much better that Galloway, Yvonne Ridley, Salma Yaqoob and their ilk.
Alan Mulcany
Dublin
K
So they don't care as long as it doesn't interfer with them
Who don't care ...about what?
Sorry Martina, I don't know what you mean. And I'm not too sure what Alan means either. (Could people use the reply button it makes it easier to follow whose comment is a reply to whose).
Alan makes reference to the People's Mojahedin of Iran. I think he means it as an example of people who are both marxists and muslims. Although he says that they are 'influenced' by Islam and Marxism which is slightly different. My point is, 'OK, there have been socialists in history who claim to be both marxists as well as claiming to be religious.' But 1) rarely would any of them claim to be devout in their religion: to be devoted to your religion means you can't be devoted to a marxism which is explicitly atheistic and 2) if they did claim to be devout or devoted, they would soon find themselves torn between their 2 conflicting devotions. And the history of the not-particularly-devout People's Mojahedin of Iran confirms that as when they failed to fight with the rest of the left against Khomeini before he eventually came for them. See the articles in the last Solidarity, this, this and this.
Who don't care, and about what?
Peter, there are lots of people who can successfully reconcile Socialism and religion, all they have to do is to take the most brutal aspect of their religion out of the picture.
The problem with Respect is that they have concluded a Faustian pact with the Muslim fundamentalist Devil, and for them there is no way out.
Alan Mulcany
Dublin
Clarifacation
If a socialist society moved in on these moderate muslim sects or threatened "thier" way of doing things, would they become less than moderate?
Yes Pete
The PMOI's attitude on a whole raft of politics does indeed suck, however you're missing my point. The last thing I was doing, was politically bigging them up. Actually I'm not at all convinced that they're any less "devout" than supporters of the regime, because to believe that, you have to believe that "devoutness" and "non devoutness" exist on the same sliding scale as "fundamentalist" and "moderate". Which is, of course, to take exactly the same attitude to the question as religious fundamentalists do.
No, my point was to show that the SWP don't understand religious politics at all, precisely because even a religious-influenced movement like the PMOI can see through a religious regime in a way that the SWP apparently cannot. Although it's probably worth pointing out that the AWL's predecessor group was not exactly banging the drum against Khomeini when he first came to power either (mind you, there is an admirable self-criticism about that in the last issue of Solidarity ;)).
To my namesake Alan, I simply think you're wrong, and I think the examples you give, actually back my view of the SWP rather than yours. I think they're in over their heads, as a consequence of having badly misread what groups like the Muslim Brotherhood actually represent. But I don't think that "courting Muslim votes" (if by that you mean seeking the support of people from Muslim backgrounds) is a bad thing. It's a question of the basis on which you do it, but it's not wrong per se.
Also, on a minor point, I really don't think that Galloway, Salma Yaqoob and Yvonne Ridley are of the same "ilk" at all. In fact, the sheer divergence of their politics is one of the things that makes Respect a patchwork of conflicting interests, rather than a coherent political movement.
Re: Yes, Pete
Alan
I will have to break my reply in more postings
Yes, you are right that courting the Muslim vote per se is not wrong, and that the base on which it is done is what really matters.
In fact this is exactly what the SP has argued all along.
IMHO potential Muslim voters should be approached on a class basis (that argues for unity among Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian, etc workers and focuses on their common aspirations for better living standards and on their common struggle against exploitative bosses), rather than on an opportunistic basis along religious lines that might win few dirty votes in the short term but cause deeper social divisions in the long term.
Do you agree?
Alan Mulcany
Dublin
-----------> continue on next posting ------>
Re: Yes Pete
Oh, yes Alan, you are right that Respect is indeed a patchwork of conflicting interests and political views.
As to the SWP, it has become a joke, a pathetic excuse of a left-wing party.
In fact I have heard various unconfirmed but quite insistent reports that the SWP membership has gone down quite drastically over the last year, while the SP membership has enjoyed a remarkable increase.
Poor Tony Cliff, I can see him weeping in his grave!!!
Alan Mulcany
Dublin
Re: Yes, Pete
Alan
Now 2 more questions:
1- are you not being way too charitable to the SWP? how could they misread what the Muslim Brotherhood stands for?
Everyone knows that the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the most reactionary organizations on Earth (unless one is either totally ignorant about politics or has been in coma for the past 50 years or so).
And then there was that Respect candidate for Humberside (Oh, damn, I don't remember his name right now, but I do remember that he had links to the Muslim Brotherhood and other like-minded organizations) who openly called for Sharia Law in Britain, with death penalty for renouncing Islam and adultery.
OK, maybe it is neither just sheer opportunism by SWP/Respect, nor just the Faustian pact, but also the fact that the "enemy of my (US) enemy is my friend" logic has been taken to the most grotesque and bizarre extremes.
2- Sorry, where do you see Galloway, Yaqoob and Ridley having sheer political divergences?
Can you please elaborate a bit more?
From what I can gather from the media, including the SWP, they are united in promoting their "Islam uber alles" or "concern for Islamic sensibilities trumps everything else" views.
Alan Mulcany
Dublin