Workers' Liberty

I posted this comment on the ISG blog liammacuaid.wordpress.com based on the fact that I didn't get a response to an earlier contribution on the website of the 'new' revolutionary group.

"martin ohr, on July 9th, 2008 at 1:03 pm Said:
Liam,

How is the revolutionary re-groupment progressing. Eagerly I logged onto the new blog the moment it was announced, I posted a comment expecting if not a swift response, that the enthusiastic masses engergised by your call would be commenting too, joining in the process of discussion of the document.

But so far nothing, none of the founders have responded, there are no updates on the blog, announcement of meetings or web chats or anything else. In fact the project looks to be dead in the water already.

My worry is that there are not enough letters in the alphabet to come up with a new acronym if you have to un-liquidise the ISG/SR, perhaps you should consider just cancelling the whole thing, after all it doesn’t seem like anyone has noticed anyway.

Comradely, Martin"

It probably isn't inspiring but regroupment should be encouraged. I though did post something on their blog though the comment was when I last checked awaiting moderation.

If all it is is revolutionary socialsits inside respect getting together then fine but it doesn't begin to address wider issues. The way it's posed certainly suggests some more grandiose version of a process leading up to revolutionary regroupment.

However, I'm always in favour of being mildly positive and trying to draw in the forces into rebuilding the working class movmeent and socialism as a component of that. Just saying cancel the whole thing is not particualrly useful either and risks coming across as sectarian swiping.

What would be good is to engage both existing revolutionary socalist groups, unaligned socialists and working cass militants into processes such as the convention of the left in September.

Jason, I totally agree, I was trying to get some sort of reaction.

Isn't the point/problem that this is purely a regroupment of the ISG and the pro-Galloway ex-SWPers, on the *political basis* of the Respect Renewal project?

Sacha

What's quite amazing is that:
1. The AWL still calls the Respect project "non-socialist, non-working class and in some respects quite reactionary". It's totally out of line with the lived reality of Respect. In fact the AWL has almost nothing good to say about any other comrades on the left.
2. The AWL is critical of the regroupment of those who agree. The basic promise here is that the forces involved in the regroupment agree, but it's highly problematic because the AWL doesn't agree with its platform. It's totally sectarian and self-oriented, as if they are the messianic saviour and other ideas can't contribute anything. I guess they are also against me making breakfast if they don't get fed?
3. The AWL contrasts this to the movement for a new anti-capitalist party (NPA) in France and say that this would be a much better alternative, as would the convention of the left. Of course there are movements for new anti-capitalist parties here, such as Respect and the CNWP. And the AWL opposes them here: that's the reality.

The precondition to support Respect is a problem. However, the best way to approach it in my opinion is to say we're interested in the talks and what you have to say and more importantly do and request some kind of involvement despite some disagreements over Respect.

I suspect that my disagreements with Respect are not as great as the AWL who seem to dismiss it as inherently popular frontist. I think the problem is more that Respect presents itself as THE alternative (in an exclusivist way- where the message is not how can we use Respect to rganise class struggle but to say to the class struggle join Respect- I may be wrong- that;s just the impression given), does so on the basis of watering down class politics and perhaps the socialists in some cases make these compromises to keep on board some of the business people involved in Respect.

However, if Respect did assume an importance even only locally in helping organise class struggle then I would be for critical support and perhaps joining it even if it didn't adopt explicitly socialist policies, though I'd also be arguing for socialsit politics, putting it to the vote and accepting the result. I'm not convinced yet it is that significant so have not joined- but for me it's tactical not principled.

The cocnvention of the left is a genuine opportunity I think.

Duncan has a point on the AWL- that criticism can be applied to a lot of the left. We need to rebuild a different type of left, not one based on preaching but one based on engagement in class struggle, to build class struggle for its own sake and to create a party that can be used a resource in the class struggle and the struggle for power fo the working class. To a large extent I think that is what Permanent Revolution is about but they certainly don't claim to have all the answers nor is their message or mine join us- you can if you like and you;d be very welcome but far more important is working alongside us, rebuilding class struggle, having discusions, debates and clarifications within class struggle and reviving socialism as an ideology and as a guide to practical action.

Jason, I don't know why you're pulling your punches with these people.

> The AWL still calls the Respect project "non-socialist, non-working class and in some respects quite reactionary". It's totally out of line with the lived reality of Respect.

Duncan, perhaps you can explain what you mean by this?

I will explain to you exactly what I/we mean. Respect's programme, from the very start, was a populist mish-mash with no particular focus on or orientation to the working-class or socialism in the working-class sense (btw, is the founding/refounding statement on the RR website?) It was designed, as George Galloway put it, to unite "conservatives, liberals and socialists". Among its leaders and candidates were unabashed petty bourgeois reactionaries such as Yvonne Ridley. It has never had, beyond the SWP, significant forces in the workplaces and trade unions. With the departure of the SWP, its class orientation has become even weaker.

Look at the reports on the RR website about the local government strike - there are two! Small groups like Permanent Revolution and the AWL managed many times more than this, because we are activists orientations with, relative to our size, implantation in the working class.

> In fact the AWL has almost nothing good to say about any other comrades on the left.

Not true at all. I have many good things to say about others on the left, for instance about the comrades in Permanent Revolution. I have very little good to say, it's true about a project which is essentially a populist vehicle for George Galloway. You, comrades of the ISG, should be ashamed of yourself for giving such a project viability!

> The AWL is critical of the regroupment of those who agree. The basic promise here is that the forces involved in the regroupment agree

Not at all. As the article states, we think you ever right to regroup those who agree. But, just as if Socialist Action and the CPB merged on the basis of right-wing popular frontist Stalinism, we don't celebrate it - because we think the political basis is terrible!

> but it's highly problematic because the AWL doesn't agree with its platform. It's totally sectarian and self-oriented, as if they are the messianic saviour and other ideas can't contribute anything.

Others can contribute lots of things; we do not think we have all the answers. But I don't think unity between the supporters of George Galloway and co can teach us much about how to rebuild the left on a principled basis.

> I guess they are also against me making breakfast if they don't get fed?

Not at all. If you like eating shit, that's your right, but I reserve my right to express my distaste!

> The AWL contrasts this to the movement for a new anti-capitalist party (NPA) in France and say that this would be a much better alternative, as would the convention of the left. Of course there are movements for new anti-capitalist parties here, such as Respect and the CNWP. And the AWL opposes them here: that's the reality.

But the movements in question are completely different. Just as we do not reject all movements for new anti-capitalist parties, a la Socialist Appeal, we do not support every movement that says its "for a new anti-capitalist party" either. The character of the project is what counts.

Hi Sacha,

I can't find a reference to Galloway uniting "conservatives, liberals and socialists". Where is that?

Looking at Respect's manifesto, how can you say it doesn't orient to the working class? Its demands act in the material interest of working people and their allies, constrain the power of the ruling class and extend public ownership and control. It vote comes overwhelmingly from working class people. Almost certainly, it's the parliamentary party with the most proletarian percentage in its voters.

As for your tendency's "very good things to say" about the rest of the left; I'll leave that for others to comment on. However, I suggest you google this website with words like "shit" and then surf through. Then read Trotsky's article on the importance of civility between comrades.

Politically, initiatives like Respect, the NPA, the CNWP and so on all relate to the same organised political current - the European Anti-Capitalist Left. The issue for the AWL is that in practice it is against building - or even calling for - a new workers' party from the grass roots up. Instead it sees the union leaders as the primary agents and, in that sence, mirrors the viewpoint of the CPB: the AWL wants to move after the RMT and other left unions start the ball rolling. But the reality is that modest projects that build the space to the left of Labour encourage the union leaders to see the political space exists in the Britain for such a project.

Yvonne Ridley is an outspoken activist in my union, the NUJ, a feminist, and a respected journalist and author. She recently won an unfair dismissal case, and deserves a bit of respect for that. Why on earth do you say she's a bourgeois? Once you start calling other radicals members of the opposing class, you're on a slippery slope.

Duncan,

Even if your preceeding paragraphs were valid, you would have destroyed all credibiity with your comments about Yvonne Ridley. Have you ever read any articles she's written or listened to her speak? To describe her as a respected journalist begs the question by who ?(as a typical example of her 'journalism' see this article israels-60th-independence-day which contains not only numerous factual errors which any journalist would surely have corrected by checking, but is riddled with cliches and ambiguous statements) As for being a feminist, it would take a convulated and strange definition completely alien to socialists to describe her thus; for example see her recent observer interview:

'I was in Iran last year. I know the hijab is a pain for them, but they will get no sympathy from me. It is clear that the hijab is an obligation, not a choice. Outside Iran, you can choose whether to wear it or not. Inside Iran ... the Islamic Republic of Iran: there's a bit of a clue in the title. I don't have any sympathy at all with women who don't want to wear the hijab'

'All I know is that with adultery - and like any woman who's been cheated on, by the way, it isn't nice to have a so-called sister messing round with your husband; not nice at all - under sharia you need four witnesses to the act of penetration, so it is virtually impossible to prove. There are a set of moral guidelines on how to conduct yourself, and transgressing those, you can expect to be punished.'

Whatever you think of the AWL position on Israel/Palestine, you've got to admit that Ridley comes of as completely unhinged when she gets onto the subject, a couple of weeks ago she wrote an article stating that zionists were not allowed to be members of respect, here's her more measured response to the world jewish conspiracy:

'Egypt's judicial system
Written by Yvonne Ridley
Friday, 20 July 2007
Mubarak is a desperate man, clinging on to the last vestiges of power in a white knuckle drama we have seen played out so many across the globe by American-controlled dictators who have oppressed their own people without mercy.While Israel holds the Palestinian people under military occupation and Americans under political occupation it seems they also have also seized occupation of the legal system in neighbouring Egypt.

There can be no other reasonable explanation for the latest insane actions of Egypt's leader Hosni Mubarak whose long distance relationship with democracy is only matched by his record on human rights and justice.'

Not forgetting Ridley's socialist answer to education (Harpers and Queen, March 2004) when asked about the £17K school fees Ridley pays for her daughter: "As we wander back to Ridley's villa, with its airy rooms and marble floor, I comment that private education doesn't come cheap. She gives me a semi-smile. "In my bleakest, blackest moments I look at Daisy and I think: 'Porsche Boxster!' "

Duncan, you can find the text of the 2003 speech in which he calls for a movement uniting conservatives, liberals and socialists here (I picked this link at random; it's all over the internet, but yes it did need a bit of tracking down):
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GAL311A.html

Thanks for your comments, which I don't have time to reply to now, but will later.

It's worth stating that, on careful reading, Galloway says that such a movement is the only the "first level" and that once this level is achieved he will be committed to "radical socialist" politics. In other words, the classic Stalinist stages/popular front theory. Does the ISG agree with this idea?

It's also worth noting what Galloway's idea of socialism is: he says in the article that one of his two basic, underlying principles is that "the exploitation of labour will always exist and needs community action to correct it" - some socialist!

Jason,
Your line towards Respect Renewal seems to be much softer/more favourable than your line towards the pre-split Respect. I find this very strange, and difficult to explain except as a result of SWP-phobia. I think PR's, and before that WP's, criticisms of the whole Respect project were basically right (though sometimes expressed in a sectarian way - eg the walk out from the Socialist Alliance before the fight against the Respect turn was finally lost), and I don't understand why you're now toning them down when faced with a much more unprincipled version of the same thing. Moreover, I think the stuff about Respect assuming major significance in the class struggle is fantasy; without the support of the ISG, the whole thing would collapse.
Sacha

Why is / was 'Respect 'reactionary'? For one reason, because it appealed to Muslims on the basis of their religious identity which is divisive. At its most grotesque - Ridley campaigning in Leicester with the slogan 'Don't panic, I'm Islamic'. But also in the East End where a number of opportunist 'community leaders' and small businessmen got onto what seemed to be a bandwagon with a chance of winning council seats. Most or all of these people have since defected from Respect - in one case to the Tories, in others to Lib Dems or Labour. Perhaps Duncan will blame the SWP for this but those now in Renewal (Galloway, Hoveman and co) also bear responsibility. Some honest accounting of what happened should be the least we should expect after this debacle.

As for the 'lived experience' of Respect, Duncan is here trying to deflect attention away from what Respect has written, said and done on the ground in favour of something that cannot be demonstrated other than by Duncan's subjective feelings. Let's look at the real record.

And finally perhaps Duncan can say why, if his aim is to build a new broad anti-capitalist party, the ISG/SR call for regroupment makes building Respect a pre-condition of unity?

"Not at all. If you like eating shit, that's your right, but I reserve my right to express my distaste!"

That's certainly a vivid metaphor but perhaps not the most wise to convince people of your civility!

Anyway to the main point- pulling punches. Perhaps, because as I wrote on the ther thread I'm not interested in knocking out supporters of Respect but in having a discussion, a dialogue, of maximising the chances of being listened to either by Respect members or those around them.

There are socialists and other principled activists in Respect- including reformists with whom I'd disagree but who can be quite principled in thier intentions and actions- who genuinely believe that the best way forward is to unite around a series of demands that they think will attract people.

It is understandable. Understandable but wrong. Why? Because people are attracted to action, to actually doing something and diluting our politics does not particularly help attract new people and even if it did it would be fundamentally dishonest and disorientating.

If we want to win- whether in a strike, in an anti-deportation campaign, a campaign to save a school or hospital we need to moblise working class people around demands to run our own services, run our own communities, run our own struggles. Of course we also have a united front with quite specific demands- don't close Withins school, pay the claeners £7.20 an hour etc. and we will unite with anyone - except fascists- around these points as long as we are free to put forward our ideas in a democratic framework. But in a political formation like Respect we should argue for socialist ideas.

In fact, in my opinion (and some in PR would be tougher than me on this) it is not unprincipled to be involved in Respect as long as you argue your corner- what can risk being unprincipled is refusing to criticise others such as Galloway and Ridley, by refusing to argue for socialism or at times even basic demcratic rights. At the moment, Respect does not seem to me to be a useful vehicle for organising class struggle politics but in some ways can even be a block on that. However, it is certainly worth raising joint action and dialogue with its members and supporters.

Bruce and others are right that support for Respect should not be a pre-condtion and insofar as it is then this exposes to some extent the sort of regroupment the ISG seem to want. But we in PR are for keeping open the dialogue and even for joint initiatives e.g. on combatting fascism as we would be with the AWL of course despite our sometimes sharp disagreements.

I was always for a friendlier orientation to other groups- even in Workers Power! There though the over centralist version of democratic centralism- fully democratic internally but against differences of opinion in public- meant this wasn't expressed. Nor was I that prominent a member.

I'm not arguing that Respect is or could be a major player in class struggle. Not at all. The left is small, marginalised, weak and almost (almost but not quite) irrelevant and Respect (after the SWP splitting off) is not that central to the left or what remains of it. But - on the left- they still retain some significance so are worth engaging with I think.

If or when we manage to begin rebuilding socialism and winning socialists to vital but bread and butter taks of rebuilding class struggle- pickets, cross unon meetings, socialist forums- then supporters of Respect are part of that audience. As indeed are members of the AWL.

in fraternity
Jason

though going through a bruising faction fight probably helped change me- for the better I hope- as well!

And occasionally I might over do the sugarring of the pill- I'm prepared to admit that but in correcting a previous mistake there's always a risk of over-correcting!

Hi Jason - thanks for a once again thoughtful contribution.

I don't really understand in what sense Respect could ever have been / can ever be a vehicle for advancing working-class politics, given the combination of its programme, its social basis, its size, its leaders, it structure etc. Furthermore, I think when you say there are socialists, some of whom are reformist, in Respect, you miss the point. Yes, there are socialists in Respect (used to be a lot more before the split!); some of them are reformist. But the point is that the leadership is dominated by and the programme determined by non-working class forces, ie Galloway and his supporters. This is not a question of revolutionaries entering a mass or semi-mass reformist workers' organisation to organise among the rank-and-file. This is a question of a small group of "revolutionaries" (sorry comrades, but if you want to avoid the quotation marks, change your behaviour) propping up a populist sect led by petty bourgeois and unprincipled demagogues. It's more in the old CP model than anything else!

Duncan, some quick replies to your other points (btw, why isn't there a where we stand statement on the Respect website? And where can I find the manifesto?)

> Looking at Respect's manifesto, how can you say it doesn't orient to the working class? Its demands act in the material interest of working people and their allies, constrain the power of the ruling class and extend public ownership and control.

From what I remember, it's populist. Anyone can talk about "working people" and even "the working class"; many different sorts of groups claim they are acting "in the interest" of workers and their allies. But Respect's programme is not a programme for working-class socialism, ie working-class self-liberation; nor, in fact, does it have any particular orientation to class struggle or the self-activity of the workers. For you, it seems, "socialism" has ceased to mean workers' self-emancipation and the creation of a workers' state democratically regulated a socially-owned and cooperatively planned economy; it has become a catch-all for "socialistic" reforms and vague opposition to the system. Meanwhile, the organisation's implantation in the labour movement is very, very weak - unsurprisingly given its political complexion.

> It vote comes overwhelmingly from working class people. Almost certainly, it's the parliamentary party with the most proletarian percentage in its voters.

Ah, well that settles it! Come on, Duncan, you can do better than that... particularly since Respect's one seat was won on the basis of a communalist appeal to Muslims, not an appeal to (mainly Muslim) workers in Bethnal Green to vote for their class interests. What do you think, comrade, of the calls made by Respect (pre-split) for Muslims to vote "as Muslims" for "the party for Muslims"?

> As for your tendency's "very good things to say" about the rest of the left; I'll leave that for others to comment on.

Devastating.

> However, I suggest you google this website with words like "shit" and then surf through. Then read Trotsky's article on the importance of civility between comrades.

Actually, I just did exactly that and got hardly anything; the only three things actually from this site were a) a reference to "scraping the Stalinist shit off socialism" in an article about George Orwell and Stalinism; b) repeated references to different "tribes" of kids "beating the shit out of each other" in the 60s, but these in comments on an article made by Arthur Bough, who is very much not a member of the AWL!; and c) a quote from Marx in an article on the Grundrisse.

Similarly, put "shit" into our website search engine and you will get hardly anything attacking others on the left - the first item being an article entitled "Shit happens" by a comrade who lost her eye in an incident with a fire work.

So in summary - what on earth are you talking about? (Some would say: don't talk...)

If you can post a link to Trotsky's article, I'll certainly read it, and then judge it in context. Meanwhile, I think it's fair to say that Trotsky understood the importance of polemic and drawing sharp ideological lines.

> Politically, initiatives like Respect, the NPA, the CNWP and so on all relate to the same organised political current - the European Anti-Capitalist Left.

So? In the early 1980s, both the Labour Party and Fatah were affiliated to the Second International - does that mean they were comparable organisations?

> The issue for the AWL is that in practice it is against building - or even calling for - a new workers' party from the grass roots up. Instead it sees the union leaders as the primary agents and, in that sence, mirrors the viewpoint of the CPB: the AWL wants to move after the RMT and other left unions start the ball rolling. But the reality is that modest projects that build the space to the left of Labour encourage the union leaders to see the political space exists in the Britain for such a project.

This is just nonsense. We are absolutely in favour of "initiatives from below". That's why, eg, we were in the Socialist Alliance; that's why, eg, we took the lead in initiating the push for an RMT-led slate in the GLA elections. This came not from the bureaucracy, but from rank-and-file activists winning it in branches and then getting it through the London Transport region - at which point it was *vetoed* by the RMT leadership.

Our objection is to the political basis of your project, ie the fact that it's not a project for a workers' party at all.

> Yvonne Ridley is an outspoken activist in my union, the NUJ, a feminist, and a respected journalist and author. She recently won an unfair dismissal case, and deserves a bit of respect for that. Why on earth do you say she's a bourgeois? Once you start calling other radicals members of the opposing class, you're on a slippery slope.

I think Martin has dealt with that one quite comprehensively!

Just a few points to chip in on...

Sacha, what do you mean when you say that the Respect manifesto is populist? That's not a term with a clear Marxist definition. No-one, as far I know, would call themselves a populist. It seems to me that you don't disagree that the party raises demands that are in the objective interest of working people. Your issues are that it does not have deep enough roots in the trade unions, and that it doesn't have a revolutionary demand - for working class self-emancipation. Both the Socialist Alliance and Respect have spoken in very similar terms about the vision of a society based on public ownership, public control, taxation of the rich, support for the anti-globalisation movement and more. They both stand for the organisation of society in the most open, democratic, participative, and accountable way practicable based on common ownership and democratic control.

Martin, it's clear that you disagree with Yvonne, but what makes her a bourgeois? You are drawing a class line between you and her.

Read the 2001 SA manifesto, "People Before Profit". It was a very inadequate document, one which the AWL criticised sharply at the time - and yet two extracts:

"A socialist alliance, which believes that it is necessary to replace the current system of exploitation, oppression and inequality with a new economic and social system based on common ownership. Capitalism is neither invincible nor permanent. We see the fight for socialism in this country as part of a global movement to build a socialist world, in which the working people whose labour creates the wealth in society collectively own and control that wealth, and plan our economy to meet the needs of the many rather than sustain the privileges of a few."

"Our candidates offer a working class alternative. If elected they will be workers’ MPs on a worker’s wage. For them, representing working people is a privilege, not a route to a personal fortune!
"We propose an emergency plan to meet the demands and needs of workers and the jobless, and to defend and extend democracy."

Neither of these formulations are ideal, but they represent something qualitatively better than the - yes - populist mush of Respect.

As for "lived experience" of the SA, it was clearly an organisation of the socialist left, based on the left and with certain limited roots in the labour movement. The same cannot be said of Respect.

Comrades who support Respect - the left is less united, weaker and programmatically more backward than it was in 2001 with the SA! In what way do you feel progress has been made?

Sacha

In what sense is Ridley bourgeois?

- Sends/sent her kid to a £17k private school;
- Lives in a large villa with marble floors (does she have more than one house?);
- Is clearly very rich.

Sacha

ChrisBrooks, I never said that Ridely was bourgeois, I'm not sure it means a lot to describe someone as bourgeois or not except by reference to either their control of the means of production or their politics. What I do know is that Ridley is neither a respected journalist nor a feminist as orginally claimed by Duncan 'Church' -at least not in any meaningful sense of the word. Moreover she is not a socialist of any sort -even the worst sort like galloway or gordon brown.

Worse still for a leading activist in your party she is clearly hugely anti-womens equality, a homophobe and she presents a pretty good case for being an anti-semite by her obsession with Israeli control of the world and constant distortions about the reality of the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Actually the point of the quote about Ridley's daughters school was not really to criticise her, if individuals are rich enough and stupid enough to waste their money on private education then more fool them, but to illustrate her materialist outlook on life compared to the experience not only of working class people but of the bulk of working class activists:- she looks at her daughter and forlornly thinks that had it not been for an accident she would be driving a porsche. Even so, contrast with your party leader Galloway who actually does drive a limosine and until recently had a chauffeur, and then with Dianne Abbot who similarly sends her children to private schools, but on any scale of reckoning is a million miles to the left of Ridley and whose record on abortion rights is sharply opposite to your party leader.

All this is rather beside the point, I only intervened here so that Duncan's rubbish about Ridley was challenged, the fact remains that she is on the Respect Renewal NC and is billed as a leading member of Respect, yet ISG (or whatever you call yourselves now) does nothing about it and in fact goes so far as to pretend the opposite of the truth about her politics.

I don't see the problem with describimg Ridley as bourgeois. Is she a capitalist? No, though it sounds likely that she owns numerous stocks and shares. But is she extremely rich and, by the sound of it, living a bourgeois life-style? And are her politics straightforwardly bourgeois, with a bit of a populist/Islamic infusion? Yes and yes.

Sacha