Workers' Liberty

The split in Respect though ‘finalised’ in the sense that the SWP and George Galloway are unlikely to work together again has still not run its course. In addition to outstanding issues around the legal standing of both organisations – the status of the SWP-Respect National Committee, nominating officers, financial recourses etc… - ‘official’ versions of recent events and responses to them are now being churned out.

The SWP is to hold its national conference this month, a conference where some very difficult questions could well be posed to the party leadership. Chris Harman – the editor of the ‘International Socialism’ journal and SWP Central Committee member – has produced a long article ‘The Crisis in Respect’ (see http://www.socialistunity.com/?page_id=1260) as the official version of events. Harman’s account of the series of disagreements with Galloway and the clique of business-men (read the article and you’ll see that no business-women feature) and Islamist organisations rings all too true. Less credible is the way Harman uses an interpretation of the United Front tactic to justify the mess the SWP brought upon itself.

Trotsky outlined the basis of and need for a United Front as follows:
“So long as it does not hold this majority, the party must fight to win it. The party can achieve this only by remaining an absolutely independent organization with a clear program and strict internal discipline. That is the reason why the party was bound to break ideologically and organizationally with the reformists and the centrists who do not strive for the proletarian revolution, who possess neither the capacity nor the desire to prepare the masses for revolution, and who by their entire conduct thwart this work … But it is perfectly self-evident that the class life of the proletariat is not suspended during this period preparatory to the revolution. Clashes with industrialists, with the bourgeoisie, with the state power, on the initiative of one side or the other, run their due course. In these clashes—insofar as they involve the vital interests of the entire working class, or its majority, or this or that section—the working masses sense the need of unity in action, of unity in resisting the onslaught of capitalism or unity in taking the offensive against it. Any party which mechanically counterposes itself to this need of the working class for unity in action will unfailingly be condemned in the minds of the workers.”

I doubt that Harman et al would repudiate a single word of the above in public, so how does this differ from the SWP’s concept of and how they practice their ‘United Fronts’?

The history of working class struggle is the history of divergent sections of the class coming together to further their interests. On this historical basis, Trotsky argues that outside of revolutionary situations established organisations of the working class – revolutionary parties, reformist social democrats, centrists and trade union groups – must work together to further or defend the interests of the working class against capitalism. This is what he advocated in the fight against Fascism in Europe in the 1930s.

From start to finish, Respect came nowhere close to being a United Front. As the SWP saw it they were acting to ‘further the interests of the working class’ by attempting to create an electoral alternative to the Labour Party but they did so by latching themselves onto the despicable political character that is George Galloway (recently expelled from the LP) and cultivating relationships with reactionary Islamist organizations. The SWP leadership – far from maintaining political independence – jettisoned its commitments to LGBT and women’s rights, fought against the principle of open borders and cooperated in establishing a thoroughly communalist electoral machine from day one. They aligned themselves with forces 180 degrees in opposition to working class interests and created a machine designed to promote the interests – not just political interests but interests of power and prestige in distinct geographical areas and community groups - of select individuals.

Respect is not an isolated example of the SWP’s misinterpretation of the United Front tactic. For instance Harman name-drops ‘Unite Against Fascism’ (UAF) as an example of where the United Front has been successful. Again, the SWP sees itself as uniting forces in a necessary fight against fascism in the interests of the working class. Again, they do so by allying themselves with and promoting outright reactionaries. At its 2006 conference UAF actively promoted Muslim Council of Britain leader Sir Iqbal Sacranie. He featured in leaflets advertising the conference and was listed as a ‘big-name’ speaker. The SWP may have seen this as an opportunity to attract working class Muslims to the event – nothing wrong with that aspiration – but they chose to do so through an individual who appeared on Radio 4 claiming that LGBT people are immoral, harmful and spread disease. Not even the BNP goes this far in public any longer.

The core confusions for the SWP over the United Front are two-fold:
(1) they confuse the necessity for working class unity in action with creating a ‘big-tent’ of individual – often self-appointed – representatives of various types (religious, political and community);
(2) they readily give up political independence in order to retain as broad a coalition as possible.

A United Front is only achieved by uniting genuine working class forces around slogans and actions that meet working class needs. Respect came nowhere close to this and a re-reading of Trotsky would tell Chris Harman as much.

To see what Yaqoob and Thornett have to say, see:

The SWP Takes a Step Backwards, Salma Yaqoob http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1463#comments

A Reply to Chris Harman, Alan Thornett
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/a-reply-to-chris-harman-on-respect/