Meeting, 1 November 2007, discussion write-up by CM (chair)

We welcomed JC.

We had a go-round on where we were starting on our knowledge of this crisis.

CM: always wary of SWP who have dominated demos over the years and seem an obstacle to revolution

DP: this topic matters to Ex Soc group because we were once a local Socialist Alliance group, including SWP members, and were amongst those who objected when SWP declared the Soc All closed after Respect was formed

GB: the break-up of SWP is essential to socialism

Jim x: as ex-SSP (Scottish Socialist Party) never been sympathetic towards George Galloway

TR: the SWP gave a bad name to socialism

JT: this is a parlour game about who’s most reprehensible. Respect got rid of every political demand except anti-war, saying that Respect is a coalition so we don’t bind people to a programme – so why have a programme?

SE: everyone thought that Respect was going to end in a split, and it’s deeply sad that the Left should behave like that – but predictable

DP introduced the ‘story’ of what has happened:

Respect made a breakthrough in Tower Hamlets (TH), with 12 Councillors and George Galloway (GG) as their MP, and were also successful in Birmingham and some other places, Preston…

In TH local businessmen got on the Council through Respect, so it was far from socialism (the S in the RESPECT acronym, so perhaps only a seventh anyway)

A letter from GG in August said he was not happy with things and wanted to gear it up a notch. He was not getting on with John Rees (JR), National Secretary of Respect, so he proposed the appointment of a National Organiser, not an elected position and in GG’s pocket. SWP went ballistic about this. There was a loss of confidence in John Rees.

GG proposed Nick Wrack (NW), he accepted and his explanation was reported in the SWP internal bulletin ‘Party Notes’. SWP demanded NW resign. Rob Hoveman, Kevin Ovenden and Nick Wrack were expelled from the SWP. It has been trench warfare ever since. Both sides have complete disregard for democracy, relying on outmanoeuvring each other.

At a TH meeting there were 2 competing slates of delegates. The Arrangements Committee was accused of packing the meeting to get more delegates

4 members of TH Council Group of Respect held a press conference, held by JR, with many from Respect national office and declared they were splitting from Respect, so now there are 2 Respect groups, and this is the death knell of Respect

TR: Why did they split?

DP: On political control, JR was the biggest from SWP, he just needed to step aside. GG side wanted less control from SWP. The SWP as a revolutionary party just wanted a hat to wear for elections. TH wanted Respect to have a national paper like SWP’s

GB: there is a point in a failed marriage where they are going to split, and SWP/Respect just got to that point, and nothing could reconcile them. Respect is now left with a bit of money, a name – which is important – and, for now anyway, an MP

CM: what has all this done to the SWP?

GB: this is the most important question. SWP is really what’s left of the Left. The Workers Revolutionary Party has disappeared, Militant was broken up, leaving bits still in the Labour Partyy, other fragments elsewhere, the SWP has had little breakups but subsequently ongoing, less strong since its guru, Tony cliff, died.

JT: New Zealand International Socialists politics are the most right-wing – cheering Chavez.

GB:  they opposed the SWP breaking from Galloway.

CM: I have a little theory about Left sectarianism you’ll probably say is wrong. Having gone to the Anarchist Bookfair I was struck by how the 57 varieties of anarchists seem to bump along together happily – I went to workshops there where there wasn’t the aggressive argument you get with socialist sects. So is the reason for socialists fragmenting the fact that they seek power through the ballot box, so they each have to have a Party Case distinct from each other’s? But anarchist groups, some of which do stand for Council, do so an independents, so they only need a campaign programme around local issues. Is that right?

DP: No, that’s not right because there are lots of socialist groups within the Labour Party, and they vote with the LP. No, it’s really about lack of democracy, they disagree so they split

JT: there can’t be a single issue Party, you need a full programme; discipline is needed for a political party

GB: the Cabinet is the only body in the major parties that acts in a manner like democratic centralism.  With democratic centralism you get a very narrow Party because of policies being found objectionable

JT: Respect has a schizophrenic Central Office. Things are not being done openly – they can’t issue statements

GB: the phrase ‘revolutionary party’ is a load of baloney. They do like Lenin did, holding the Party together like religious sects. Marx said every revolution had followed a crisis of taxation. The Government brought in PFI to avoid such a crisis. What’s needed is to widen the boundary; if it gets narrow people leave. They need to live with disagreements, not split over them

Jim x: Keep the troops in line. With SSP this happened. They went native and became broader, took in 200-odd people in 2001, did their own thing. Have to maintain the organisation.

CM: What now for us? We said we were going to have a meeting and invite others who’ve been involved in the past. Are we going to do that?

DP: On which people, there’s Andy Newman who was involved in the Socialist Alliance less SWP, a split which was not about Respect but about how the SA was closed down. There are people who were involved locally, regionally and nationally – all left of Labour? Engage locally first

GB: have an open title, eg ‘Which way for the Left?’. Invite Richard Bradbury to give a talk? Get someone nice from our group to speak – not me because I’ve upset people

Not helpful to say ‘I told you so!’

In the SWP they have lots of friends, and a social life, and they see through that lens.

SWP strategy is to have a front person to do all the talking, meanwhile they run the Office and bring in the members

DP: SWP not gained from Respect? Membership has been fluctuating

JT: If they’ve got 6000 people that will be reflected here

GB: a group of a certain size forms a network, and a social life around that, lot of friends that have been members and that hold it together. The big demo in 2002 was too diverse

JT: the big demo was organised and SWP were big players. Most on big demo wouldn’t come out again. Tactic looks as if it brings people in but it drives others away

SE: That’s not the case locally, there were brilliant people who worked really hard, there were 22 coaches to the demo, people from Exeter should be proud

DP: it was different in Exeter. There was the Exeter Left group of independent socialists, historic tension with SWP, then the Socialist Alliance was formed and that led to local Stop the War, so SWP were in the minority in StW, which were seen as more trustworthy so more people got involved. In other places it was more about the Anti Nazi League, which meets when SWP calls it, so StW was equivalent with SWP

GB: Single issue interesting at street level but gets boring, with committees and arrangements. That march was about so much feeling, regardless of SWP

Following the discussion above, we talked about arrangement for the future meeting, to be on Thurs 6 December, and everyone will invite those they know personally who were involved in the past and ask them to come along. A title and intro will be worked on meanwhile, probably a leaflet, CM to be provided with those details to put up on the web site, and the meeting will also be announced on the discussion forum

top