Galloway document: first thoughts
Posted on Friday 31 August, 2007
Filed Under Respect
The post below details what little is so far known of an eight-page critique of the SWP’s role in Respect, penned by none other than the solitary Respect MP, George Galloway. Here’s a couple of initial observations on the development.
First question: why did Galloway write it? Given that he has connived actively with the SWP’s undemocratic administration inside their common front organisation throughout the four years of its existence so far, the assumption must be that he has been happy enough with the set up until now.
Most observers felt that he had little interest in building it into a real political party, as his intention was to serve one further term in parliament and before permanent departure for the netherworld of b-list celebritydom.
If he now wishes it function in a manner that incorporate independently-minded activists and perhaps even other leftist groups, does that imply a shift towards a more long-term perspective?
Second question: why has the SWP made all this public at such an early stage, instead of trying to keep word of the document under wraps? Does this indicate that this is more than a minor spat?
UPDATE: The full document is now available on Liam Macuaid’s blog. It would be superfluous to repost the whole thing, especially as the bulk of it is rather tedious. Instead, I’ll just offer up a taster and encourage those interested to check out Liam’s site:
Relations between leading figures in Respect are at an all-time low and this must be addressed. I have proposals to make which are not aimed at a change of political line, still less an attack on any organisation or section within Respect.
They are aimed at placing us on an election war-footing, closing the chasm which has been caused to develop between leading members, together with an emergency fundraising and membership drive to facilitate our forthcoming electoral challenges. Business as usual will not do and everyone in their heart knows this.
The crossroads at which we now stand can take us either down the Shadwell route or the road to Southall. Instead of three MPs and a presence on the GLA we could have no MPs and no one on the GLA by this time next year. A few honest moments thoughts should suffice to calibrate where that would leave us. Oblivion.
I cannot imagine that any member of the National Council wants to see us arrive at the destination where now lies the wreck of left-wing politics in Scotland and so I hope that these proposals will be considered with the best interests of the Respect project uppermost in our minds.
<<Go back
Comments
200 Responses to “Galloway document: first thoughts”
But Ian – that’s four replies *today* between 9.54am and 13.11pm. What do you mean, you don’t have time to run a blog?
Yeah, but pretty short ones. A distraction from work. Can get away with this now and then, but not very often, more’s the pity;-)
As a matter of historical record – my understanding was that all the CP’s MPs, Newbold, Saklatvala, Piratin and Gallagher did take a workers wage, and pay the rest to the CP.
If anyone has firm information to the contrary I would be interested.
It is also perhaps worth objecting to comrades using “popular frontism” as an insult, as if the policy is self-evidently wrong.
You can assume trotskist ideas are hegemonic, but in reality they are not. outside the small ponds of the revolutinary left.
Andy
So when are you joining the CPB?
i hear that in birmingham there are in effect two respects – salma yacoob and the community based respect, and the swp run respect? they are practically seperate?
does anyone have any info on this?
Ian Donovan is absolutely correct. If socialists working within any given campaign do not seek to give that campaign a bropad working class orientation then it will become communalist in the soft sense I discussed above. That is in fact exactly what has happened with Respect. Where Ian and I differ is in my rejection of the tailism involved on the part of avowed socialists in such corss class movements.
As for the Popular Frontism I take Andys note very seriously, albeit I also find it amusing, and agree that only if one is a revolutionary communist can it be assumed that the concept of a Popular Front is a negative tactic.
More concretely Ians retroactive support for Stalinism in 1945 is entertaining as he assumes that British workers in 1945 were able to see into the future. Thus he notes that the Labour Party carried out a number of reactionary policies, although he does not note Labours strike breaking in that period leading me to think him soft on labourism despite his protestations, and assumes that workers in 1945 would know of these actions!
How ahistorical can one be? The fact is that in 1945 Labour campaigned on the basis that only they could deliver substantial reforms to the working classes and so, as a matter of fact, they did. the CPGB on the other hand campaigned for a renewed coalition with such reactionary anti-working class scum as Churchill.
“Ian Donovan is absolutely correct. If socialists working within any given campaign do not seek to give that campaign a bropad working class orientation then it will become communalist in the soft sense I discussed above…”
“More concretely Ians retroactive support for Stalinism in 1945 is entertaining as he assumes that British workers in 1945 were able to see into the future. Thus he notes that the Labour Party carried out a number of reactionary policies, although he does not note Labours strike breaking in that period leading me to think him soft on labourism despite his protestations, and assumes that workers in 1945 would know of these actions!”
Ah, Mike, having failed to actually answer the point raised, is now seeking to confuse things by the sheer illogicality of his responses. I’ll leave others to judge whether the things I am alleged to be ‘absolutely right’ about are even rendered accurately, let alone in context.
I suspect most people familiar with the questions in dispute will be scratching their heads and simply unable to follow his logic here. For one very good reason. He actually doesnt have any.
The same is true of his arguments about how I retrospectively ‘support’ Stalinism. He can’t actually quote a single good word I wrote about Stalinism, so he just asserts it. Once again, an argument that simply doesn’t make any sense.
It’s the kind of pathetic debating trick that some puffed-up schoolmaster might pull if a pupil asks a question he can’t answer. Think of an incomprehensible reply, and hope the pupils are so overawed with the opacity of his language that they dont twig he’s talking gibberish.
I note that Ian has been a member of not one but three pro-Stalinist groups. if we exclude his own one man group ‘Revolution and truth’ (sic).
Sleep well dear heart.
It that supposed to be an argument? Does Mike have any arguments left? It appears not.
Ian as I am most concerned for your education I note that my earlier reply discussed the choce before the workers of this country in 1945. Quite sensibly they cast their votes on the basis of the respective programs of the CPGB and Labour which placed the latter party firmly to the left of the Stalinists. Unlike you or I with the benefit of hindsight they could not cast their ballots on the basis of the Labour Partys action after that date.
Nowhere did I even imply that it was incorrect for workers to vote for Labour in 1945 against Churchill and the Tories. Would Mike like to quote me?
I merely demurred from Mike’s glowing description of how the Labour leaders were ‘to the left’ of the CP, and pointed to the anti-communist militarism and incipient McCarthyism behind that posture. This point drove Pearn into paroxysms of silly personalism, given his affinity with the latter-day analogue of that witchhunting in terms of the bourgeoisie’s hate campaign against Galloway.
bourgeoisie’s hate campaign against Galloway.
Nobody forced him to take the cash Ian.
I see Mike’s friend from Little Green Soccerballs has arrived.
Have you lost your little green marbles Ian?
I don’t know who ‘Phil’ above is, but it’s not me. Just in case anyone was wondering.
Almost certainly Tim, with a little subterfuge to confuse people. He knows he wont get any resistance from those who are soft on the witchhunt. Jolly Green Fun from Little Green Footballs.
Sorry, Little Green Soccerballs. UK branch.
I agree with everything written by comrade Donovan.
I note that the neo-con Zionist cheesemongers of “Harry’s Place” have quoted large sections of the so called “Weekly Worker” (organ of the vacillating, centrist “cpgb”) attacking comrade Galloway in cowerdly capitulation before the bourgeois state/CIA witch hunt.
This only goes to prove comrade Donovan’s critique of the so called “cpgb”‘s deviationist Stalinophobic and Islamophobic anti Leninist chauvinist nonsense.
Centists in a rotten bloc with the warmongering reactionaries. Let that be a lesson to all the kids out there.
Down with this sort of thing!
Yeah yeah, very amusing Tim (or is it Mike).
Almost certainly Mike. Tim wouldn’t bother. Grow up and argue some politics.
Mike presently has his tongue lodged up Gorden Brown’s anus being the auto-labourbot reactionary he is.
His future under proletarian rule will be very grim indeed.
i dont think the CIA planted cash in Galloways appeal, His Wife personal account and his press spokesmans personal account.
all on the same day and all from the same Oil Deal.
Anyway.
On the politics
anyone with a brain knows there won’t be an October election so why is Galloway using the threat of one?
To get the SWP in line, or a s a preamble to a bail out?
tim is my protégé.
Another take
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/9097
It’s good to see the real Tim anyway. A reminder of what the left is up against. For those who have any left-wing principles anyway. Those who don’t, of course, can make merry, piss about, and join with Tim in his jolly little endeavours.
Left wing principles and Galloway/SWP?
Give me a break.
Any left wing party worth its name would be supporting, for example, those who want the secularisation of public institutions.
Not pandering to those who want more religion.
And not claiming as Galloway did that he owed his victory to Jamaat e Islaami
And of course, debating Tim on left-wing principles is as superfluous as debating the BNP on the same. He should put his money where his mouth is, join the colours, and fight the genocidal wars his ilk cheer for. Except like Bush and Blair, he is a cowardly chickenhawk who expects others to fight his filthy wars for him.
Or maybe sign up as a ‘security contractor’ so he can get his head sawn off.
Blimey.
Ian.
There are decent anti war politicians you know.
Non corrupt,and who dont act as useful idiots for Jihadists.
Is this Donovan bloke a nutter?
Ian, I imagine most people here just think tim is a bit of a obsessive loser and ignore him.
I’m presuming Dave lets him post on here because of his libertarian stance on free speech. tim is a troll who’s sole intention is to piss people off. You’re playing straight into his hands.
Polite request: stay vaguely on topic please, guys …
To quote Alexei Sayle, “Thank fuck we didn’t win”.
“I imagine most people here just think tim is a bit of a obsessive loser and ignore him.
I’m presuming Dave lets him post on here because of his libertarian stance on free speech. tim is a troll who’s sole intention is to piss people off. You’re playing straight into his hands.”
Liberal nonsense. You are obviously unaware of who he is and his history as a persistent pro-war troll who is banned from ‘Lenin’s Tomb’, among others. He has been around for years, and is a professional anti-communist witchhunter and troll.
He is not just an ‘obsessive loser’. He is a key player on ‘Harry’s Place’ and has their support and even admiration. Dave may have ‘libertarian’ (in reality liberal) positions on people like him, but I don’t. People like him are enemies and criminals, and should be treated as such. Funny how he can post hate filled filth against Galloway and no-one bats an eyelid, but I give him a taste of the same and the liberal element is suddenly upset.
Oh, and by the way, this is not off-topic. It’s very much on topic. We haven’t suddenly started talking about the cricket, or the prospects for a manned landing on Mars. We are talking about the prospects for the political formation in this country that grew out of the movement against the Iraq war. If Dave should have warned someone for straying off topic, perhaps he might have picked on myself and Mike Pearn when we talked about the 1945 General Election in a couple of posts.
This is very much on topic. ‘Tim’ is part of a pro-imperialist political project that seeks to destroy the political project I support, which also happens to be the topic of this thread. The feeling is mutual – he is a fascistic neocon and should be treated as such. I’m sorry if that upsets the liberal left, but there you go. You can’t please everyone and its foolish to even try.
Dave,
congrats
this has been one of the funniest threads for ages, Ian Donovan’s contributions are amazing
see http://members.aol.com/RevolutionTruth/index.htm
I found the web page for “Revolution & Truth”, (I assume they are a spoof?), it is worthy of praise, the fascinating insights that it gives into such groupings as the “International Bolshevik Tendency”, who ever they might be?
I was interested by the “Genesis of Pabloism”, which is presumably some form of religious text? not sure
who are these “International Secretariat” people?
have you heard of them? were they a mass movement in Europe that skipped under the radar? who ever they are they sound very very important
great stuff
Are you available for stand up Ian?
I think that a movement led by Galloway and the SWP contains the roots of its own destruction, and will implode without any help from me.Although I’m flattered.
And I note Ian that you don’t even attempt to explain the payments to the Galloways and Mr McKay.
Yeah, modernity. Another chickenhawk piece of shit. Quite amusing that these cowardly scum think it within their power to give approval to which anti-war figures are ‘decent’, and which are not. The bottom line is, we dont need, and dont seek, approval from racist, mass-murdering fucks like these.
This section of the ‘left’ tolerates these people because it half-believes they are right. There is no other explanation for the fact that they are allowed to post unmolested on ‘left’ blogs, but a caterwaul of protest goes up the moment anyone says ‘boo’ to them and gives them a small fraction of the opprobium they deserve.
I’m not, by the way, remotely interested in engaging or debating with them. I’m rather interested in exposing and rooting out the kind of fake ‘leftism’ that tolerates them and bascially treats these racist warmongering bastards as some kind of errant comrades.
no explanation for the cash then.
By the way frothing Ian I think you’ll find that it will be Galloway and the SWP that will put an end to this.
And if you ask yourself why the non muslim SWP candidates polled significantly lower in the same wards (witness John Ress’ humiliation) then you might be looking in the right place.
Simon Hughes wrote:
“I’m presuming Dave lets him post on here because of his libertarian stance on free speech. tim is a troll who’s sole intention is to piss people off. You’re playing straight into his hands.”
Actually, this sentence bears a little further analysis because of its illogicality.
I am allegedly ‘playing into the hands’ of a reactionary troll by attacking him head on. Yet the authors acknowledges that he is a troll. What is the point of allowing a troll to post if implicitly, people are not supposed to go for him because it will ‘play into his hands’? Do trolls have a priveleged status here?
Surely, elementary logic dictates that it is the ‘liberatarian’ policy of allowing reactionary trolls to post, that ‘plays into [their] hands’. If you allow trolls to post, knowing they are trolls, you are asking for it.
You may as well put up a sign saying ‘right-wing trolls are welcome here’!
Ah but your not tackling me head on.
1.Explain the cash
2.Expalin the Non Muslim candidates votes being so much lower.
Ian
This is a blog, buddy. If you can’t hack freedom of speech on a blog, I fear that many of us wouldn’t fare too well in any dictatorship of the proletariat you have a hand in.
And yes, rightwing trolls welcome here. As the lady said: ‘Freedom is – always and exclusively – freedom for the one who thinks differently’.
So presumably, every left-wing blog that doesn’t allow racist and pro-war trolls is akin to Stalin’s gulag? Is this remotely rational? Really Dave you are so paranoid about the left it is almost unreal. You ought to be more worried about some of the people you are indulging. Just on an empirical level.
Are you going to put up a sign? Or rely on word of mouth to get the message out that ‘right-wing trolls are welcome here’?
And I wonder if Rosa Luxemburg would have been *quite* so emphatic about this had she been aware of how brutally she would later be killed. I somehow doubt it.
Ian.
You’re ina an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and you want to brand people right wing?
Now answer the questions “head on” please.
Ian Donovan said: “You can’t please everyone and its foolish to even try.”
So what’s he doing in Respect then?
What is the point of allowing a troll to post if implicitly, people are not supposed to go for him because it will ‘play into his hands’?
Going for trolls is playing into their hands. It’s exactly what they want you to do.
Ignore them and they will, eventually, get bored and go away. Keep responding and they’ll keep posting.
“Ignore them and they will, eventually, get bored and go away. Keep responding and they’ll keep posting.”
That misses the point.
It should not be necessary to ignore, i.e. peacefully coexist, with racist, witchhunting trolls on a left-wing blog. You could put out a statement that says ‘dont respond to a particular troll; his comments will be deleted when time allows.” But it is grossly hypocritical to criticise someone for ‘responding’ to trolls if you choose to defend their right to troll on the grounds of ‘free speech’. Such a policy makes the owner of the blog complicit in everything that the troll(s) post.
Which is precisely my point. The reason these people are allowed to do this is because this section of the left thinks they are OK really, a bit too strong perhaps, but good chaps/chapesses nevertheless.
Can we turn this into a game? Maybe we can call it Donovan’s Hoops.