Perhaps GG has simply come to the conclusion that with the support of 'community based activists' - read petty bourgeois shopkeepers and biznessmen - he doesn't need the SWP? In case of which he could reverse his pledge not to stand for Westminster again for the good of his party.

It will be interesting to see where Salma Yaqoob, the only other national figure in Respect, stands on any feud between GG and the SWP. One day she may well make a good MP the real question is for which party?

As for the SWP they have to move fast on this or they will lose out rapidly to the 'community activist' elements. Which for the continued existence of the SWP as a socialist group would be, by far, the best thing as it might provoke internal revolt against the Rees-German claque of bankrupts.

The politics of gossip and rumour is entertaining but the antithesis of democratic debate. The fact that the two major organisations of the Far Left seem content to conduct themselves along these lines unfortunately says it all.

At this stage it is impossible to draw any conclusions from George Galloways' apparent critique of how the SWP operate within Respect, nor the SWP's response. Why? Because both parties are choosing to keep their positions as secret as they can. This is scarcely credible. If we want parties of the Left to be run by unaccountable cliques and personalities this is precisely the right way to go about it.

The internet however is the one way to explode this. The issue wouldn't even be in the extremely limited public domain of a few bloggers if Socialist Unity had't got hold of a leaked internal SWP document. If every national committee member of Respect has Galloways' document surely just one of them will have the political good sense to make this debate public. If George Galloway has distributed his critique on the basis of total secrecy then its not a political debate he is seeking but a bureaucratic manouevre.

Its a simple enough choice : Democratic Debate vs Secret Deals.

It seems to me that (outside of london at least) SWP have been cold for respect for quite some time. In leeds for exmaple respect recruited a thin layer of anti-war activists who then formally joined the swp but lacking a trot background seemed to drop out, at the same time the older swp cadre -seemingly disinterested in stop the war and respect- took a back seat and stepped down their activity.

It's not clear whether it was central instructions or a local decision for leeds but respect was only ever pushed in leeds within the student and anti war movements, within trades union branches, anti-fascist and local campaigns it was more or less business as usual SWP activism.

It seemed to me obvious from the outset that galloway was riding the swp, his politics and style dominated respect from the outset while swp provided the labour, money and printing presses. Presumably Galloways gamble is that respect will now be self sustaining -albeit with a minor split of middle swp cadre -without the bulk of the swp where he will be better placed to run formally a democratic party within which his politics continue to largely dominate

Poplar, with the introduction of Canning Town has 33% Muslim voters and abot 30% projected Tory vote.
Galloway will probably try to run as a cross betweeen a Muslim Ratepayers Party and an anyone but Labour protest celebrity.
What does he need the SWP for?
He knows the Mosques and business men dont like them.

On the other hand maybe Talksport told Galloway to get rid.
After all the proxomity of their studio is why Galloway was limited to a London seat.

You can read the document here.
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/

There is a deep-seated culture of amateurism and irresponsibility on the question of money.

You couldnt make it up.

Its easy to carp. And of course there will be those who post here who have no time for either George Galloway or the SWP. But the critique in Galloway's document is spot on (well done to Liam for publishing it) and he deserves credit for that at the very least.

Those withy experience of how Far Left parties organise and have campaigned for a party culture of democracy, accountability, transparency and organisational effectivesness will surely agree with most if not all that Galloway argues. Sadly those most sympathetic to what he argues have probably left or dropped out of Respect , or never joined it in the first place, because of just what he now warns will spell the rapid decline of Respect.

The next week will be interesting. If Galloway can force some kind of regroupment inside Respect towards its reinvention as a properly constituted and democratic political party things could start moving quickly and hopeful

>

Is this the same Salma Yaqoob who helped break up the highly successful Birmingham STWC, and who set out to smash up Steve Godward in service to certain SWP leaders who had decided to do over what they called the "Left ghetto"? That Salma Yaqoob?

GG has what he wants: his celebrity spotlight in the media. He has his Kelvin McKenzie radio show, his TV gig - and who could forget the newly made-over dandy in his beautifully tailored suits drooling over Champagne, or whatever her name is, when he hosted Big Brother's Big Mouth?

BTW, the "comrades" sold their HQ, including their printing press, for £2 million just before the result of the Olympic bid came in (suckas!) and without any internal debate. Presumably, some of that loot was sunk into the Respect adventure. And what are they now left with?

I guess GG is thinking 'thanks for all the cash' as he waves bye-bye.

Comrades, you have now been evicted. Please leave the Big Brother house.

Further, what ought to have been the unalloyed success of the Pride intervention was seriously marred. Instead of a simple encouragement for members to attend – with a logical emphasis on LGBT members and young people – several members in elected office were subjected to a high-handed “instruction” from the national office to take part. It appeared to them to be some kind of misplaced test of their commitment to the equality programme of the organisation.

So basically the muslim small business men councillors got pissed off at SWP instructions to attend Pride.

And why does Galloway think the emphasis should be on "young people" attending Pride.
Not Bengali elders is maybe what he's trying to say here.

Given that Respect financial position is so parlous I'm surprised that their head office have not replied to my generous offer posted a month ago.
Sadly Rob Hoveman does not seem to think Ron and George can provide the paperwork.

Rob
Ron McKay was paid by Zureikat, and he claims was a business deal rather than Oil cash.
If it appears in his 2000/01 Tax return I'll give a grand to Respects Poplar & Limehouse campaign.
If Galloways Coop bank account received no transfers from his wifes Jordanian Citibank Account (the repository for the Oil cash) in the period 2000-2003, I'll pay another grand to Respects campaign.
Let me know
Tim

I think Madam Miaow's comments are nearer the mark.

still Galloway is in a strong political position and might just (for the moment) want the SWP to knuckle under and get his way, if not he jumps ship and does well with his media career?

will Snowball dare to comment ? for fear of expulsion?

certainly Galloway can be doing one of at least three things:

1) preparing the ground for his departure
2) using the situation to enforce his will on the SWP
3) lead a "takeover" of Respect to a fully Islamist type of party

I think 2 and 1 are more likely, but who knows?

I doubt that any SWPer will dare comment, too scared of the consequences?

What Mark P said at 17:27, especially "[s]adly those most sympathetic to what he argues have probably left or dropped out of Respect, or never joined it in the first place"

Btw, is there any way you can ban Tim "tim" Robinson? He's a troll who pops up and tries to cause trouble seemingly any time Galloway is discussed online.

I think it would be foolish to prejudge where this will all fall.

Firstly, the criticism of Salma Yacoob's role in Birmigham from Madam MIaow is correct, but looking at the bigger picture, Salma has moved on from there. Given the amount of bad behaviour that all the left groups and many individuals have got up to in the past, I think we have to be prepared to let some of the past stay in the past.

Salma is and can remain an asset to progressive politics.

The SWP could be - in my opinion - in deep shit here if they try to deal with this bombshell by bureaucratic rather than political means. The only sensible way forward is to have a debate about the political criticisms that GG raises - criticisms that will totally ring a bell for the long suffering middle cadre of the SWP about how that SWP itself organises.

BTW - I owuld be surprised if madam Miaow is correct about the SWP's financial position. I reckon they are still relativley wealthy, and there was a huge insurance pay out to them by a US life policy a few years back, that i have been told by two different sources was an underlying tension behind their split with the ISO. Nor - I suspect - have te SWP ploughed that much of their own money into Respect. What is more typical is that they would provide support to resepct in terms of SWP employee's time.

I think that Liam, and Socialist Unity should be congratulated for bringing up this issue and ensuring that the political shenanigans around Respect, the SWP and Galloway are subject to full scrutiny

I'm sure that the SWP leadership would probably like to close down the discussion, and certainly are swearing at the Internet by now

it must be distinctly uncomfortable for SWPers, to have an open debate about this, and a culture shock, not least because openly debating political issues in a candid fashion goes against so much of the Respect/SWP culture

PS: McGazz, Dave is very open on his blog and does not censor peoples views, unlike so many Respect or SWP blogs, your desire to ban people from discussing these issues is part of the problem, need I remind you that dictatorships all round the world are trying to close down Internet discussions, simply because it doesn't suit them?

Also McGazz its quite easy to make me go away in embarassment and out of pocket.
Just ask George and Ron to prove the Oil cash wasnt laundered to them

Most of the cash transferred to Respect from the SWP was for John Rees' wages.
Great investment.
By the way, reading Galloways letter its difficult to see how his statement about paying constituency workers from the Big Brother cash is true.

George Galloway turning on the SWP...surely a case of the shit hitting the fans?

I expected Galloway would try to ditch the SWP sooner or later. I heard that when a leading ex-CPer, I think it was Gordon McLennon, told George that he had joined Respect, George replied "Good, because we're going to need everyone we can get", that once he had got in he would be looking to dispense with the SWP or at least reduce their importance in Respect. You only have to consider the way he has used "Trot" as a term of abuse to see the contempt he has for his little helpers -and the lack of self-respect with which they have earned it.
As regards secret manouvres in the dark, this was the whole way Respect was set up. We had leading SWP members in behind closed doors negotiations with various potential allies, and each time it was reflected in the SWP's emphasis and line, as it reached us in the Socialist Alliance. I remember the SWPer who had been our SA candidate suddenly stressing the importance of defending the pound against a Euro currency, and when I shrugged that I could-not-care-less he appeared shocked. Of course that vital importance co-incided with their wooing the CPB.
Later we were told the new party should have a policy on the Environment "to bring in the Greens" - that was all. (and by the way that was someone from Socialist Resistance sent along to our SA branch to sell Respect, although of course the SWP members present had already been primed).

All this conspiratorial cooking up of alliances and a line tailored to suit "tactics", behind closed doors, is the opposite of the kind of discussion the working class movement has needed about what to do about Labour and whether we need a new party. (the kind of discussion promoted in different ways by Bob Crow and the RMT, John McDonnell and his campaign, and the Liverpool-based USP) But I don't think the SWP leadership ever felt comfortable exposing their own members to such discussion, hence they ditched the Socialist Alliance to dive into the less critical pool of Respect. Only thing is, the level of political cobsciousness there may be less, but they are up against old hands at intrigue and manouvre.
I can foresee a dilemna for those comrades who have tried to revive the Socialist Alliance mind (I hear it is up and running in some places).
Will they be prepared to welcome back SWP refugees from Respect?

" I think we have to be prepared to let some of the past stay in the past"

But that's a big part of the problem with the left, Andy. The prevailing culture is so blase over this sort of behaviour, so cavalier when it comes to the treatment of fellow activists, so callous when it comes to these events that happen again and again with no substantial challenge and no change, that vast numbers of us are repelled. And that has a concrete effect where the aim is supposedly to build the "mass party".

Looking at the bigger picture, as you so rightly exhort us to do, it's said that character is revealed by moral and ethical choices made under pressure. If I see ambition and malevolence towards leftists is in someone's make-up, no matter how sophisticated they grow in disguising it, unless there is some clear sign of an internal shift and understanding, I will never trust them again. And that goes across the board, not just one particularly ugly example - this has become the norm in the culture of the left.

To blandly allow such matters to "stay in the past" is to ignore their continuing effect in the here and now and to invite more of the same.

I am not going to comment on the document itself, aside from saying much of it seems like the sort of fraternal discussion Respect should be having continuously if it is going to have any chance of successfully filling the political vacuum to the Left of New Labour in time for the looming elections - and headlines like the Socialist Unity's 'Respect to Explode?' seem to me at least to be wildly out. Personally, while the loss of money in Pride and Fighting Unions sounds wasteful, I would argue that Respect's focus on Organising for Fighting Unions especially was and is absolutely right particularly given the current growing mood of militancy inside the British working class movement...

I did however, just want to come back on martin's point about Respect outside London - in particular Leeds. While Leeds Respect still has a long way to go, this May we did get 520 votes and finish third with over 13% of the vote where we stood in inner city Leeds in the council elections - only 30 votes behind the Lib Dems and beating the Tories, BNP, Green Party, Alliance for Green Socialism...surely this shows the potential for the future?

I suppose people on the Left have to ask themselves seriously whether they would like to see 3 Respect MPs and a GLA member replace careerist Labourites or not - and if so, then it is surely time to stop sniping from the sidelines (or worse, from inside Brown's neo-liberal 'Labour' Party) at Respect but work within it to turn it into the successful democratic socialist organisation that is so badly needed in Britain today...

Charlie, you have just there cited what could be the nucleus for a new left party, however, there can be no place for the SWP, their working practices are too tarnished to be a suitable component in a democratic open and progresive new left foundation.

as a founder member of the SA i saw how they operate and later with the London ESF, never again!

'All this conspiratorial cooking up of alliances and a line tailored to suit "tactics", behind closed doors, is the opposite of the kind of discussion the working class movement has needed about what to do about Labour and whether we need a new party. (the kind of discussion promoted in different ways by Bob Crow and the RMT, John McDonnell and his campaign, and the Liverpool-based USP)

Points of interest.
1.The elected councillors felt uncomfortable with Pride, and Respect can only get Muslims elected in the East Eand.
Witness the double humiliation of John Rees.
2.Galloway supported the Muslim wing over the SWP as they are more important in all ways (cash and numbers in Poplar)
3.Who are the two people Galloway claims to fund in the Office he criticises?
Or was that just George and cash blurring.

Poor Snowball having to defend the indefensible. Certainly Respect is not about to explode - it lacks the energy for one thing - but the SWP wing of Respect is about to be firmly told that it is the junior partner in this unnatural alliance. Rees and German might well have believed that they were running the show and have invested much time and effort into Respect. But GG is and always has been the proprietor of this corrupting populist abortion of a project.

Now Snowball ask yourself why the Respect intervention at Pride was a financial loss and total washout in any terms. Could it be because any self respecting attendee of that event would never dream of joining or supporting a 'party' that includes elements whom they have good cause to believe would stone them to death in different circumstances?

As for the Fighting Unions conference - a one day event that was both opportunist and sectarian - GGs problem with that is not that it lost money in the least. No my friend, GG dislikes any intiative that might build an opposition to the right in the unions because he knows that personally he has no support whatsoever amongst rank and file militants. His opposition to losing money, better seen by genuine socialists as a worth while investment I would suggest, is based on his certain knowledge that it is the SWP which built that pointless conference.

Despite all of the above, which the leading members of the SWP know to be truthful, Snowball feels constrained to boast of Leeds Respects electoral 'success' as proof that the 'party' is going places. Well it aint and thats all there is to be said on the matter. Respect will never break out of its soft communalist suppport amongst British Muslims. It is and always was a non-runner.

The fact of the matter, as the SWP is now discovering, is that the Respect project is counterposed to building a Revolutionary socialist propaganda group or a wider Workers Party. Indeed the existence of Respect and the involvement of the SWP in it damage the prospects for the construction of a revolutionary alternative based in the working class of all races and religions.

Snowball, the problem is that many of us unaligned socialists did try to make Respect 'a successful democratic socialist organisation' from its inception, only to be ignored or met with hostility by the SWP fulltimers who ran the organisation from day one. Reese and the rest of the SWP's central committee never, at any time, had any interest in the views those Respect members who were not loyal members of their sect. The SWP leadership was detirmined from the start that Respect should be a wholly owned subsidiary and ensured that by a mix of organisational manipulation, political opportunism and, where the situation called for it, lies and insults, that is only to familiar to the rest of us on the left.

In my case, I left last year, along with all the non SWP active members of my branch, which promptly collapsed in all but name. As far as I can see, apart from a few hundred members of the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities in East London, Birmingham and Preston, the only activists within Respect now are SWP members.

Has it never occured to you to wonder why the SWP is so universally distrusted within the labour movement, or why so many dedicated socialists cordially loathe it?

You have a good point Madam Miaow, expressed well here: "If I see ambition and malevolence towards leftists is in someone's make-up, no matter how sophisticated they grow in disguising it, unless there is some clear sign of an internal shift and understanding,"

What the left needs is some sortt of truth and reconcilliation process whereby we can judge whether there are internal shifts and understanding.

That needs democratic processes, and open debate. You and I have both played a role in the Socialist Alliance at a national level, and know that it will need a sea change in culture from the SWP to permit that.

I just wouldn't rule out the possibility of Salma Yacoob developing in that direction, and she is a talented figure with a national stature.

The danger is that the trot and post-trot left will be crushed under the weight of their own history, in the same way that the old, real CPGB were unable to escape their history.

Snowball really is batting a difficult wicket, because exhorting those of us who tried to work in respect, but were fucked over by the SWP in exactly the way GG describes, to join, and that we the victims of their sectarianism and control freakery are somehow to blame is a bit rich.

Well who knows where this will all end up, but its got every prospect of being very bad for the SWP. GG knows that his days as an MP are numbered. In contrast his media career is going from strength to strength. He's always hated Trots and only used Respect to tide him over til better prospects emerged.
It doesn't take a genius to work out where its all going, whether or not this transpires to be the moment. Personally I think it probably is.
GG can't raise any political criticisms of Respect, after all it always did everything he demanded, instead he raises various "organisational" questions. Undoubtedly, knowing how the SWP handle themselves they have a substantial foundation in truth, but given that GG is a Stalnist and no stranger to even worse shenanigans it poses the question why raise them now?
I'm guessing its cos he wants a way out and he'll use this as a whip to lash the Trots with, blaming them for the collapse of Respect.
Did anyone else notice he can't bring himself to say Rees' name?

George is a Dylan Fan

Andy argues that 'What the left needs is some sort of truth and reconcilliation process whereby we can judge whether there are internal shifts and understanding.'

Andy - this is the British Left we are talking about right? For all the complaining of independent socialists about suffering from the alleged 'sectarianism and control freakery' of the SWP, the fundamental problems British socialists face are not those caused by the existence of Leninist organisations - they are those caused by the dominance of the British labour movement by Labourism, in particular the fact that the trade union bureaucracy remains tied to a Party promoting neo-liberalism and attacks on trade unions at home, and waging imperialist wars abroad. If a 'truth and reconcilliation' process was going to be set up, surely it would have to start with every single Labour MP who voted for the Iraq war and then move on to the craven members of the trade union bureaucracy who have refused to lead a fight against New Labour? Only after that lot had proven their 'internal shifts' and 'understanding' could such a commission begin to get around to the apparently 'universally distrusted' SWP (who merely did more than any other political party to try and stop the Iraq war)...

Lets try and at least get some perspective on all of this somewhere people please...

Tim: a bit careless of you using your real email address for that, but never mind. John Rees' response is also good.

Nout wrong with using a real adress.
Ron is already in communication (rather thuggishly)And I left my contact details with Respect in case they wanted my donation once the Oil business was cleaned up.

Where is Rees' response?

Snowball: " the fundamental problems British socialists face are not those caused by the existence of Leninist organisations - they are those caused by the dominance of the British labour movement by Labourism, "

But back in the days when the maxist dialectic was understood in the SWP one might have argued that the triumph of labourism to endure beyond its sell by date was related to the failure of the hard left to create a viable alternative. This in turn was partly due to the failures of the "leninist" paradigm.

hello comrades,

whatever the outcome of this dispute in respect the overall prognosis remains the same i think. the alliance of galloway, the swp and muslim 'community leaders' and small business people will not last long.

the weak politics, massive distrust of the swp and galloway in the wider labour movement (and on the left in general, in the anti-war, anti-capitalist movementa etc.) and the organisational dominance and stalinist methods of the swp, will prevent any serious layers of workers joining respect. it is totally unattractive. even if a few did join it, they would soon leave it again.

its unfortunate for those new to politics, maybe those drawn from the anti-war movement, who are going through or have been through a bad experience in respect. hopefully the best of these activists will stay in politics and be attracted to any new left wing party or formation should one develop.

i think the best hope for a new broad socialist party at the moment, one with a working class orientation, is from a future rmt led initiative. a left union with 80,000 members, and a figure like bob crow as well, would have some authority and may be able to unite other elements in a new party or formation.

any new developments will no doubt be problematic in some ways, that's just life though! nonetheless, an rmt-led initiative that drew in maybe the pcs, cnwp, sp, the sa, ags, and other independent left activists, might have a chance of establishing a broad socialist party that crucially could attract people from the left of the unions, ex-labour members, former far-left members, and others towards it.

this would be a major start, but then the battle for a democratic and inclusive party on a socialist programme would begin....

anyway, i hear that the rmt, cnwp, sp and maybe others are discussing the gla elections. this could be a very interesting development.

socialist greetings,

karl s

Reading through the thread many people make excellent contributions

Charlie Pottins make an commendable point, All this conspiratorial cooking up of alliances and a line tailored to suit "tactics", behind closed doors, is the opposite of the kind of discussion the working class movement has needed

along with Madam Miaow's To blandly allow such matters to "stay in the past" is to ignore their continuing effect in the here and now and to invite more of the same.

Snowball makes the comment of: surely this shows the potential for the future

to which most would reply, yes but not with the shifty, devious political hacks that you are associated with, the SWP's methods and the leaders intellectual bankruptcy had been shown time and time again.

There will always be the potential for a left of Labour party, the question is, will the SWP be part of it? Unlikely, given their history

Sean's intimate knowledge of Respect adds to it The SWP leadership was detirmined from the start that Respect should be a wholly owned subsidiary and ensured that by a mix of organisational manipulation, political opportunism and, where the situation called for it, lies and insults, that is only to familiar to the rest of us on the left.

Has it never occured to you to wonder why the SWP is so universally distrusted within the labour movement, or why so many dedicated socialists cordially loathe it?

I doubt it, as independent thinking amongst SWP members is derided!

Andy Newman wrote: What the left needs is some sortt of truth and reconcilliation process whereby we can judge whether there are internal shifts and understanding.

Who judges the judges? what the Left needs is the infusion the working class leadership and less student politics.

KMS wrote:

its unfortunate for those new to politics, maybe those drawn from the anti-war movement, who are going through or have been through a bad experience in respect

good point, but a bit too late, the SWP and their allies have ruined the StWC, and could not capitalise on the wider antiwar sentiment (millions and millions) to build the first major radical mass movement in 60 years. It is the political culture that is the problem, they are in many ways way similar to Blair: control freaks, with no regard for the wider movement.

These chances don't come very often, they need to be grabbed with both hands and the likes of the SWP leadership were not up to it, because to do so would have required that they relinquish some power, and that they won't do.

middle-class control freakery has no place on the Left, and where it becomes dominant such groupings become marginalised

Andy when you talk of 'the failures of the "leninist" paradigm', you are confusing Leninism with Stalinism. The project of building a viable left alternative to Labourism never got off the ground because for most of the hard left (ie the Communist Party in its heyday) and then for much of the New Left in the 1960s, their aim was to try and 'reclaim' the Labour Party - not destroy Labourism.

Since the demise of the ILP, nothing on the scale of Respect has ever been attempted by the hard Left in Britain.

As for the alleged demise of the anti-war movement, the Stop the War Coalition in Britain has arguably held together the movement far better than in almost every other country - last year when Israel invaded Lebanon for example 100,000 people were on the streets of London in mid-summer at only a weeks notice.

In America, for example, where Leninist organisation is far far weaker than in say Britain or France - how well is the anti-war movement doing comparatively - free from such 'control freakery'? To ask the question is to answer it.

What strikes me about the document is how political it is; that it strikes a number of home truths (which deep down inside many people in the SWP will I think agree with) - and that it's outflanked the leadership of the SWP - from the left! Who would have thought?

Whatever else, this document has raised issues that should have been addressed a long time ago - a successful organisation cannot be built if the culture of that organisation is one-dimensional, encourages dishonety, encourages sychophants and denies the membership some basic facts and figures (eg paper sales; membership figures).

(It's really worth reading the second half of EP Thompson's book on William Morris - when I read this it struck me it was really a critique of the CP in the 1950s, although I read it as a critique of the SWP at the end of the 1990s).

There are hundreds, probably thousands of people who have been in and out of the SWP; many still retain the core politics, many are still committed socialists and I'm sure there are many like myself who don't want to join the swamp or flounder around in isolation. Being in an organisation provides more political possibilities to engage with the class. Er,also if we're organised we might just have a chance of breaking the power of capitalism.

For f*cks sake, you only have to watch the TV for 10 minutes or walk around the smashed up cities of Northern England or talk to teenagers or examine wage rates in many industries or statistics for child poverty, health care and military expenditure to have enough combustible material to start at least one revolution.

So what happens? Is it really the case that someone has a commitment to socialism and then joins an organisation, and while in the organisation loses that commitment? What sort of organisation would that be?

Or is the case that people join and find themselves in almost cult-ish atmosphere being shouted at and bossed around by 'full time organisers' - often; poor sods, thrown in at the deep end, encouraged to make up ridiculous stories about paper sales and contacts?

What Galloway has done so well is expose the gap between the rhetoric of the SWP and the reality. Something many, many people have been saying for years but if they had tried it while within the party would have found them subject to the most unpleasant witch-hunting.

For far too long a very small number of people in the leadership of the SWP have believed that they could behave how they liked; safe in the knowledge that anyone who challenged this could be thrown out (apparently from the whole of the workers movement...forever..).

Well, that's all now changed. The way they operate has been exposed from quite an unlikely quarter. If they have any sense at all they will put their hands up; confess; ask forgiveness and mend their ways. Humble pie, eat.

Whatever their response is - and I await with bated breath - their grip on their own party will never be the same again, let alone within Respect.

Snowball

you might try to answer Danny B's point

can I make a slight suggestion?

you would do well to accept criticism and acknowledge it, rather than do the, rather typical SWP, tactic of attack attack attack

there is a problem with that attitude, it is not very convincing, it might give you some succour and satisfy your own desire to have some form of response, but it is not really satisfactory in a wider world, and deep down you know that

What strikes me about the document is how political it is

Damn right - I disagree strongly with the idea that it's merely an organisational critique. The questions of internal structure & internal democracy go to the heart of any kind of socialist project; even democratic-centralist pyramid structures (which I don't favour) have to work. The message I get from Galloway's document is that RESPECT's structures of accountability are broken or non-existent. The big question is how far this is also true of the SWP.

DannyB is spot in about everything.

Snowball: Andy when you talk of 'the failures of the "leninist" paradigm', you are confusing Leninism with Stalinism. The project of building a viable left alternative to Labourism never got off the ground because for most of the hard left (ie the Communist Party in its heyday) and then for much of the New Left in the 1960s, their aim was to try and 'reclaim' the Labour Party - not destroy Labourism.

What you need to do is stop using labels, Snowball, and try to engage with the ideas.

When i talk about the "Leninist" paradigm., I am specifically thinking about the organisations built by Ted Grant, Gerry Heally and Tony Cliff. In that context I agree with you that "Leninism" and "Stalinism" are just different flavours of the same Ice cream.

Your account of the left's historical relationship with labourism is also woefully inaccurate. When you write: Since the demise of the ILP, nothing on the scale of Respect has ever been attempted by the hard Left in Britain.

Have you any idea how deep the influence of the CP was in the 1960s and 1970s?

"PS: McGazz, Dave is very open on his blog and does not censor peoples views, unlike so many Respect or SWP blogs, your desire to ban people from discussing these issues is part of the problem, need I remind you that dictatorships all round the world are trying to close down Internet discussions, simply because it doesn't suit them?"

I respect Dave's policy, but it's interesting that you should take this view, modernityblog, as you've repeatedly advocated the banning of trolls from other sites you post on, going as far as to supply instructions to other posters on how to use Firefox extensions to hide comments they don't like.

You, like Tim, appear to be a sectarian with some kind of personal grudge against Galloway. I would say it's rather hypocritical to start demanding free speech when it's a chance to attack George who, regardless of his personal style, is one of the very few socialists in Parliament. Will you, from now on, for the sake of consistency, be complaining about the censorship policy on, for example, the hawkish Blairite/neocon blog Harry's Place?

If the events mentioned above lead to SWP leadership reform, or the creation of a popular leftist party outside the SWP, then it will be a good thing for socialism in the UK. Pointless, off-topic sniping from the likes of Tim, about Galloway's alleged corruption, add nothing to this debate. I've never seen Tim post about anything other than this, which leads me to suspect he's purely a troll (and possibly some kind of Labour Right saboteur).

McGazz wrote:

Galloway's alleged corruption, add nothing to this debate.

simply because you can't deal with any of the points arising from Galloway's conduct, you wish such criticism silenced, no surprise there

unlike you, I start from the premise that leaders should be open to scrutiny and criticism, there are many questions concerning Galloway's activities and they are pertinent

my own view is that Galloway is a political liability with some really dodgy connections, although I freely acknowledge a he's a skillful operator

if you wish to defend Galloway to the hilt, please do, I enjoy a good laugh.

McGazz.
If Galloway had not been corrupt then he would've had some support in the Labour Party and would not have been expelled.
Most decent left anti war people in the party wouldnt touch him with a barge pole, and one in particular used to cite his fake expense claims at War on Want as a reason for not going too close.

Once you've explained why three Oil for Food payments were made to Galloways Appeal,His wife and his press spokesman on the same day then maybe I'll take you seriously.
Galloways uncontrollable thirst for cash has been his prime motivator for 30 years.Thats one reason why the SWP were fools to get into bed with him

modernityblog wrote:

"KMS wrote:"

no, someone called "ks" wrote. Not me.

@tim: "John Rees' response" (I suspect it isn't actually from him) is shown as a "response" to your Dylan cartoon, there is a link on the same page.

thanks for that.
I suspect it isnt the real John Rees as it refers to Georges taxi receipts.
Although the real John Rees was of course aware of Georges War on Want taxi stuff when he went into Respect.

having now read the full GG letter I have some sympathy with Snowball's assertion that it is little more than 'business as usual' correspondence between the leading elements.

I certainly can't agree with those people who find it a devastating demolition of the swp method, in fact if anything it is rather mild. GG is a past master at screwing people over, carving them out and denouncing them personally rather than arguing out the politics.

What does strike me as more important is that the SWP have chosen to leak it now. It looks more and more like they are trying to find a way out of respect that salvages some sort of face and can be gradually tippexed out of history as the years go by with the minimum disruption the organisation. If the SWP can ditch dead wood like Rees and Lavallette then for them it seems so much the better. Lindsey German's current book (although it is not very good) seems like a bid for freedom and is much more in keeping with her SWP politics than Respect's.

I also want to answer snowballs note about the council result in leeds. Actually the result was very poor for respect but it's hardly surprising since they only ran a paper candidate with not a single election address or public meeting; labour's vote actually increased over recent years and respect took a large proportion of their vote from the green's and lib dems who are in total disarray in leeds due to there liberal-tory-green coalition which is ruining the city. In fact this was one of the few areas of GG's letter which rang true- the lack of organisation on the ground in key cities. Talking about leeds again, respect is now totally inactive except for standing paper candidates.

I find the more you read GG's letter, the more blundering and ineffective it appears to be, the gripes about Pride really smack of mixture of bitterness and contempt for LGBT politics -that pride should be seen as an opportunity to make money and self promotion. The SWP can easily get out of the mess of respect more or less intact simply by letting this de-generate into a huge apolitical row and simply walking away.

This discussion needs to move on from yah booing about the relative merits of the SWP and GG. It does illuminate a series of lessons about how the alternative to Labourism has to be built and how it has to function.
First of all it shows that such an alternative has to be democratic and pluralistic. It shows that it has to be willing to discuss political ideas openly. In the coming election lowest common denominator politics will not be a sufficient response to Brown's temporary ascendancy.
The space is still there for a class struggle alternative to Labour and the Respect experience was part of preparing that. I hope that lots of Respect and SWP members draw the same conclusion and learn from this shambles.

Of course any doubts about George Galloway's motives could have been immediately dispelled if he'd accepted the basic socialist principle that a workers representative should only accept the salary of the average worker. This was something which he explicitly argued against and which the SWP backed him in.

Not that I think that his motive is personal enrichment as is insinuated by "Tim" and "Modernity", who are attacking Galloway and "Respect" from the right.

Given Galloway's prominent stance against the war in Iraq, working with him was completely justified.
But blurring over the political differences which exist in "Respect" is no way to develop an alternative to the New Labour leadership.

Of course there's a much greater financial scandal looming on the horizon at the moment, which will have far greater political consequences.

The directors of Barclays have blown well over £1.5 billion speculating on the US housing market. They appear to have a credit line to as much cash as they require to bail them out.
But the consequences for the whole banking system will play out into September.

It's highly likely that the social consensus that's been fuelled by 15 years of booming house prices is about to explode.
Given the rumblings of discontent in the public sector unions already, I would anticipate that there will be a movement back towards socialist ideas politically too.

Perhaps posters here should regain a sense of proportion and start addressing this issue?

Quelle surprise. Reminds me of the way Scargill turned on first Brian Heron and Pat Sikorski's Fisc grouping and then turned on others (such as Harpal Brar) in ever decreasing circles of madness.

We are still living through the decay of the old left it would seem.

Quelle surprise. Reminds me of the way Scargill turned on first Brian Heron and Pat Sikorski's Fisc grouping in the Socialist Workers Party and then turned on others (such as Harpal Brar) in ever decreasing circles of madness.

We are still living through the decay of the old left it would seem.

The big, broader question that needs to be looked at of course is why each of the many attempts to build a left alternative to New Labour has failed. It's been 13 years since the Blair takeover, during which a huge gap has opened up on the left. Why hasn't anyone managed to fill it?

Marcus Strom wrote:
"Reminds me of the way Scargill turned on first Brian Heron and Pat Sikorski's Fisc grouping in the Socialist Workers Party..."

I think you meant Socialist Labour Party, Marcus.

Alex Nichols wrote:

Not that I think that his motive is personal enrichment

Galloway's motives are varied, he's not a one-dimensional figure, like many in politics he likes power, also he'd prefer to be the big fish in a small pond than the other way around.

Galloway likes adulation, a comfortable lifestyle (how many homes did he have until recently? 3? one in Portugal, one in Streatham and another near Brick Lane), on top of that he likes all of money

so a career in politics and media are natural to him.

certainly in the current climate he likes to play the rebel and find his own niche (sucking up to Islamists and oil money)

and as much as I think he is a spiv, none of that detracts from the fact he is a smooth political operator (although obviously not infallible)

my bet is that he'll have the SWP for lunch!

so Alex Nichols, Time will tell which of us is correct

Hah, the slip about the name is the least of it. Marcus Strom as the champion of 'democracy'? What a joke, given his role in witchhunting those with a more sympathetic attitude to Respect out of the CPGB! What is even more amusing about this is that I did intimate, when trying to get the CPGB to involve themselves fully in building Respect, that they might at some point be surprised at who might turn out to be allies if they were serious about overcoming some of the more unfortunate and bureaucratic aspects of left practice while involving themselves constructively.

If they had been serious about their fine words about democracy and socialism, they could have done this. But no, they chose to engage in a campaign against Respect, engaging in shallow entrism in an organisation that was (and in many ways still is) wide open for serious political people to make a mark), on an Islamophobic kick designed to engineer a fusion (now evidently failed) with the Stalinophobic, Islamophobic non-party academic Hillel Tickin and the silly little clique of dilletantes around him.

Instead of addressing these questions, they had to have a heresy hunt instead, introducing censorship in their own internal discussion list, and then refusing to print in their 'open' letters page critical letters from ex-members about their undemocratic functioning. Their famous 'open' letters page, 'open' as a point of pride even to fascists on occasion, refused to print a number of contributions from politically active ex-members for fear of a 'slanging match' ensuing. I.e. an argument that they could not be confident of winning.

In that they show that they have all the vices that they point to in others, but none of the virtues of say, the SWP, in terms of at least having a taste for addressing masses of working-class people.

I think George Galloway's letter is very positive; it also comes from someone whose authority in the left and the working class movement is considerably greater than anyone here.

Some of the people who post here are simply sleazebags - the outright enemy 'Tim', the sleazy witchhunting creep Pearn (who tried and failed to smear Salma Yaqoob as a supporter of 'terrorism'). Some are all over the place politically (the CPGB and possibly Dave Osler himself, who at least was once a sincere partisan of building a new left party, even if he went right off the rails in the last few years).

Others like Liam McQuaid are politically better, but are simply too eager to jump to conclusions about people on the basis of their own one-sided, shallow and moralistic view of politics. For them relatively minor matters like 'Big Brother' are more important than Galloway's strong anti-imperialist politics regarding the strategic Middle East question.

But really, I dont think anyone here is a player in what is going on now. How could they be? Who will listen to people who just whinge from the sidelines, and in some cases don't know a bourgeois state witchhunt when they see one(except when they choose to join in with zeal)?

Mad Ian: "and in some cases don't know a bourgeois state witchhunt when they see one"

Hahahaha.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6tZjLYQLB08&mode=related&search=

and possibly Dave Osler himself, who at least was once a sincere partisan of building a new left party, even if he went right off the rails in the last few years.

Ian, that's the nicest thing you've ever said about me! You are a sweetie, really ...

hello comrades,

this thread is degenerating with just the 'usual suspects' going over old ground again.

anyway, in reply to the one serious point, that made by tom from east london:

"The big, broader question that needs to be looked at of course is why each of the many attempts to build a left alternative to New Labour has failed. It's been 13 years since the Blair takeover, during which a huge gap has opened up on the left. Why hasn't anyone managed to fill it?"

i think that each attempt has failed because none of them could manage to become a serious pole of attraction.

given the objective circumstances, a broad democratic socialist party, with prominent left trade unionists (and even whole unions maybe), some ex-lp lefts, activists from various movements, and the far left, could have possibly developed. unfortunately all the starts towards such a party failed.

the slp was maybe the closest attempt as itg attracted 5000, some well known unionists and left individuals. it got sone decent votes as well.

anyway, unfortunately the internal regime was not sufficiently democratic nor inclusive. the slp degenerated into a cult around scargill.

as for the alliance, well this is well documented elsewhere.

anyway, i think the main lesson is that any new initiative needs to be very democratic and inclusive. this is the only way that various forces and individuals from different backgrounds can work together.

some elements of federalism may even be required, or some rules protecting from majority takeover where a single group could exercise such a majority. trust would need to be build up v carefully by all involved.

in light of the respect experience, i'd also argue that any new initiative must be clearly class based and socialist. populist and cross-class politics lead down a dead end.

i think that an rmt led initiative, with the pcs, cnwp, sp, sa, ags etc. could be very signifficant. it might still be problematic, maybe the rmt would try and limit it for example, but still an initiative with some serious class appeal, and one that socialists could intervene in and help to develop.

such an initiative (and i'm speculating that one could arise), may not be spectacular to start with, maybe it wouldn't get great votes, but it would at least unite some serious working class fighters and some sections of the left, and could potentially be a step towards a new party.

history is full of objective situations that aren't taken advantage of. the road towards creating a new party could see many more failures and complications yet. once created it might just collapse or degenerate. the conscious intervention of socialists and marxists is required to prevent this, esp. those who have learnt the lessons from recent experiences.

i hope this at least in part answers your point. i'm sure others have more to contribute.

comradely greetings,

karl s

Danny B[oy] makes some interesting points - but surely any serious revolutionary socialist would not abandon a party like the SWP for 'the swamp' but would fight within it to change it if they had a serious disagreement with part of its current practise? It is not the case that you are witchhunted out of the SWP if you do this (as say EP Thompson was from the CP) - for example, see the case of John Molyneux - has he been expelled for raising issues relating to internal democracy in the SWP? No, because he understood how democratic centralism works - he saved his arguments for an internal debate at a national conference, after a full, fair and frank debate they were put to the vote, and he lost the vote. Did Molyneux then storm off in a huff out of the Party? No - because he had an understanding of how Leninism works - you argue things out democratically at conferences and then once conference has made its ruling, you abide by the decisions of the conference. This is how democratic centralism works - or should work. Lenin did not abandon the Bolshevik Party when he lost a vote over something - he fought and fought again to try and win the party to his position - this is what any serious revolutionary should surely do if they felt their party was seriously wrong about something.

This is important - because of Andy's confusion about the difference between democratic centralism (Leninism) and Stalinism (bureaucratic centralism). This is not a quibble over labels - To say Tony Cliff and Josef Stalin are just 'different flavours of the same Ice cream' is frankly disgusting coming from an ex member of the SWP. Stalin didn't just 'disagree' with those he disagreed with - he had them murdered. Tony Cliff did not ever kill anyone he disagreed with. I think there is more than a slight difference here - as Trotsky said there is a river of blood between Bolshevism and Stalinism.

Andy also thinks my 'account of the left's historical relationship with labourism is also woefully inaccurate' as apparently I ignore the 'influence of the CP was in the 1960s and 1970s'. In fact I did not do this - I noted that the CP after about the mid-1920s did not have a project of breaking the working class from labourism - and it didn't. Hence today the CPB still does not join Respect but calls for a vote for Labour in General Elections and I see Eric Hobsbawm praised Gordon Brown in yesterdays Guardian. The CP strategy was about influencing the Labour and leading trade union Lefts - even if the CP were never allowed to join the Labour Party formerly themselves.

Respect therefore remains something new in terms of a national challenge to Labourism from the Left - and its success in elections far eclipses anything else out there. This is not to say that it is perfect and it doesn't need renewal (to use the language of New Labour) like any other Party. At the moment - and for the foreseeable future it remains the only game in town for the Left outside Labour - and the more socialists who get involved with it the better for everyone in Britain who is sick of Brown's Tory policies.

Snowball,

your defence of the SWP was ferocious, but I can't help wondering if that will make your consumption of humble pie all the more difficult, when the split with Galloway comes

Squealer,

You have perfected the art of writing lots and saying nothing.

No-one stormed off in a huff. Or even a minute and a huff. A frog in a slowly heating pot of water eventually reaches a point where it either dies or leaps out.

Poor John Molyneux - cooking up a treat.

"Respect therefore remains something new in terms of a national challenge to Labourism from the Left"

In what way does selected small successes in very specific local areas constitute a "national challenge"?

Given that Respect can't get none muslims elected to TH council, and the SWP members that stand are humiliated (Rees is the perfect example) what do those on the left have to gain?

snowball,

how is respect challenging labourism exactly???

is the respect programme really a step forward from labourism?

are the respect voters in east london and birmingham consciously breaking with labourism and voting for a class struggle, anti-capitalist, socialist party?

how is presenting yourselves as new 'old labour' challenging labourism?

the labour party of old had more class content and mentioned socialism more explicitly than respect. i dare say it was more democratic as well, and more to the point it had thousands of working class members and affiliated unions.

you could argue that respect is a step back from the better traditions of labourism towards populism, cross-class alliances and communalism in fact!

respect is certainly a step away from an explicitly socialist working class orientated party.

challenging 'labourism' is surely about challenging the politics of reformism. i don't think respect does this in any way.

you seem to think that challenging the labour party in elections and organisationally is the same as challenging the politics of labourism. well it's not.

best wishes,

karl s

'the labour party of old had more class content and mentioned socialism more explicitly than respect'

This is precisely the kind of whitewashing of the history of the Labour Party that has gone on too long on the British Left. Read Ralph Miliband's 'Parliamentary Socialism' perhaps.

The historical record of 'Old Labour' in Government when it comes to support for working class struggle is an appalling one - using troops to break workers strikes for example - while giving support - material and moral - to all manners of imperialist adventures (Vietnam etc)

Respect has opposed all imperialist wars and supported every working class struggle since it was formed. It therefore has an incomparably better record than the Labour Party - regardless of the rhetoric of Labour politicians when out of power and regardless of the formal programme of the Labour Party.

Snowball, instead of lecturing the rest of us with your pseudo revolutionary credentials simple YES/NO answer will yopu post George Galloways' document on your blog.

So far, and you've had plenty of time to do it, you haven't. But you've found time to argue the issues on others' blogs.

Either you don't consider the issues important, so why are you posting on other's sites? Or, in the time-honoured abomination of democracy that democratic centralism again and again justifies in some vain-glorious cause you would prefer to suppress, keep secret, control the debate.

Have you ever wondered why organisations like the SWP so spectacularly manage to deter so many more than you attract, and within a few years burn out the vast majority that you do recruit. Could it be something to do with the contempt with which basic democratic norms are treated? The fact that George Galloway has recognised the consequences of this is to be welcomed by many, and I would have thought just a teeny weeny bit important for you to post a response to on your blog.. Or has a higher committee warned you off?

No one with any knowledge of the brand of Scottish labourism that nurtured Galloway, which is essentially an amalgam of Straight Left and The Sopranos, would have been under any illusion that the swp were anything more to him then useful idiots and that sooner or later they were going to get right royally screwed. One would have though that the swps scottish wing might have counselled a degree of caution but given that leading members of that grouping seem to have got themselves fatally involved in the looming disaster that is Sheridan and Solidarity, maybe that was too much to ask for.

The bit in the Galloway document that amused me was GGs reference to the train wreck that is the scottish left. Given that Galloway actively campaigned for Solidarity at the scottish elections I would imagine that Solidarity members will not be too chuffed to read that comment. More useful idiots to advance Galloways career.

The SWP and Galloway deserve each other. Its like watching rats fighting in a sack.

"Given that Respect can't get none [sic} muslims elected to TH council"

Whoa! I think you need to be careful there. The first Respect councillor elected, Oli Rahman, was elected on the back of his background as a bolshie PCS union rep in the local jobcentre. Someone like him, in fact, is coming at it from a more rooted class background than some of his SWP comrades.

This is one of the things that's been a bit rubbish about discussions about Respect - both its cheerleaders and critics seem to have strayed rather worryingly close to seeing "The Muslims" as a homogenous group, with only one set of political views and instincts. This is potentially really dodgy stuff, on the part of both the Swoppie/Galloway axis and their more vehement critics.

Karl S's post up there is fairly bang on the money though.

My dear Snowball it is true that a comparison of the SWP's version of 'Democratic Centralism' with Stalinist versions is unfair. But the fact remains that the SWP is NOT a democratic body in the sense that the national sections of the early Comintern were. In plain language the SWP does not conform to the standards set out by the Comintern and is not a 'Leninist' organisation.

For example if the SWP is a 'Leninist' organisation, kindly answer the following questions which address some aspects of 'Leninism'.

1 Does the SWP enable minorities to be represented on its leading committees?

2 Does the SWP enable minorities to organise within the organisation?

3 Does the SWP have a regular internal bulletin in which the membership can discuss the political line of the group?

4 Is the disciplinery committee fully independent of the CC?

5 Are branches and/or fractions able to put resolutions to the conferences of the SWP?

I look forward to reading your answers to the above questions, Snowball. But in the meantime I suggest that you reread the essays in the Party and Class booklet and contrast the views on party organisation in those essays to the practice of the SWP.

The point is Tom that within the same wards,none muslims always performed worse than Muslims.
(John Rees' humiliation as an example)
Not a sign of a socialist party.

'Snowball, instead of lecturing the rest of us with your pseudo revolutionary credentials simple YES/NO answer will yopu post George Galloways' document on your blog?'

No - Galloway's letter was addressed to members of the Respect's national committee - of which I am not a member. It was not I believe addressed to the international blogosphere.

'Does the SWP enable minorities to be represented on its leading committees?'

Not sure what you mean by 'minorities', but any individual member of the SWP can stand for election to its leading committees - it is up to conference whether they get voted on.

'Does the SWP enable minorities to organise within the organisation?'

Yes - any group of SWP members can form a faction in the run up to conference where its positions will be debated.

'Does the SWP have a regular internal bulletin in which the membership can discuss the political line of the group?'

Yes - in the run up to conference.

'Is the disciplinery committee fully independent of the CC?'

Yes - Its members are elected by conference - not the CC.

'Are branches and/or fractions able to put resolutions to the conferences of the SWP?'

Yes - see above for the formation of factions in the run up to conference. All of this is laid down in the SWP Constitution - those interested in the exact details can apply for a copy from the SWP national office. I am not going to go through them all now.

Snowball

It used to be twenty comrades required to form a platform, i beleive this was increaded a few years ago. Why was it increased given that it is 30 years or more since a platform was actually formed?

Can you address how it is possible to form a platform within the current constitution given that any attempt to gather the support of comrades for forming a platform before the very short pre-conference period would involve expulsion for factionalising.

Can you account for the fact that critical contributions to the conference Internal Bulletin are censored by the CC. (This happened to a contribution by Jim Jepps prior to his expulsion)

Can you also account for the fact that during the last three or for years of my SWP membership we were not sent Internal Bulletins in Swindon, however many times i rang the centre - to be told we could get them at conference so they wouldn't post them. martin Smith put the phone down on me once when i was arguing for them. (And I was not "out of favour" at this time - I was proposed by the SWP to the SA national executive)

Have you ever spoken at conference arguing against the current line of the CC? I have - and I can assure you it is very hard, with the CC and full timers shaking their heads and muteering all through it. And cold shouldering and snide comments afterwards.

I rememebr in one debate a many years ago when Cliff spoke against our position in Bristol disrict of campainging in support of travellers during a populist withchunt of them, we were not permitted to reply to him.

Why do you think it has changed so that whereas in the 1980s being a delegate to conference was hotly contested in moct branches, in recent years it is actually hard to get anyone to go?

Sorry - that was incorrect.

Jim Jepps was of course not expelled - he resigned.

But at the time his IB contribution was altered he was a national committe memeber. Some open debate!

I had some fun yesterday at the annual Burston Rally with a few remarks to Swoppies about the Galloway continuing saga.

They seemed remarkably coy about the whole business.

Though they still had a Respect Stall - no doubt from their mighty East Anglian power-base. Er....

BTW: Jim Jepps was there. I have heard (forget to check it with him) that he'd joined the Greens.

Snowball, you say individuals can stand for the CC, but last I heard, like Respect's constitution, the CC is elected as a "take it or leave it slate" - and in practice it's always the slate nominated by the outgoing CC...

Showball in answer to a series ofquestions put to him told some porkies as follows.

Q 'Does the SWP enable minorities to be represented on its leading committees?'

A Not sure what you mean by 'minorities', but any individual member of the SWP can stand for election to its leading committees - it is up to conference whether they get voted on.

Reply. In fact the current SWP Constitution does not allow minorities, by which I mean properly constituted factions based ona statement of political differences with the majority, to be represented in proportion to their suupport. Given the slate system used for internal SWP elections the representation of minorities is, in practice, impossible. This is contrary to the concept of Democratic Centralism I note as developed by the Comintern.

Q 'Does the SWP enable minorities to organise within the organisation?'

A Yes - any group of SWP members can form a faction in the run up to conference where its positions will be debated.

Reply. But such factions are only allowed to exist for the 3 month pre-conference period and must dissolve thereafter. Which means in practice that the CC can function as the only permanent faction. Again this practice is contrary to that of the Comintern and the ideas contained in the booklet Party and class still sold by the SWP.

Q 'Does the SWP have a regular internal bulletin in which the membership can discuss the political line of the group?'

A Yes - in the run up to conference.

Reply. In other words it does not have a regular Internal Bulletin. This means that there is no open means by which SWP members can communicate and discuss the line of the group except in the short pre-conference period. For the record the last year such bulletin appeared was, almost certainly, 1981.

Q 'Is the disciplinery committee fully independent of the CC?'

A Yes - Its members are elected by conference - not the CC.

Reply.

In fact the CC has the right to nominate part of the CCC.

Q 'Are branches and/or fractions able to put resolutions to the conferences of the SWP?'

A Yes - see above for the formation of factions in the run up to conference. All of this is laid down in the SWP Constitution - those interested in the exact details can apply for a copy from the SWP national office. I am not going to go through them all now.

Reply. Although none have been put for some considerable number of years to the best of my knowledge and are actively deterred from doing so by the CC. unless Showy can prove otherwise.

It's true that the document was addressed to members of Respect's NC. If the first response of the Respect office had been to arrange an emergency NC to discuss it rather than an aggregate of SWP members then you could make a thin case for not putting it in the public domain.
However given that the lessons of Respect's successes and failures are important for those of us who want to create a class struggle anti-imperialist alternative to Labour then it deserves the widest possible discussion.
I would add that one of those lessons is that clamping down on political discussion and leadership bullying of dissident voices is an obstacle to building such an alternative and you would have to be deaf and blind not to concede that such things were practised in Respect having been introduced by leading SWP members.

If you want to builf a class struggle left wing party yer first move must be to QUIT RESPECT!

'Dernity Bloggs

"my bet is that (Galloway) will have the SWP for lunch!

....so Alex Nichols, Time will tell which of us is correct"

Probably quite soon too.

With an election likely by October precipitating a split would be an utterly stupid move on his part. Who would supply the foot soldiers for canvassing?

Whether there is one or not, I don't rate Respect's chances very highly. The latest polls seem to be showing Cameron's Tories increasing their popularity. That's always a situation where standing left candidates independent of Labour becomes most problematic.

Given that even the upper echelons of the Army and Gordon Brown obviously want a tactical retreat from Iraq, it's unlikely that popular revulsion against the war will lead to a big protest vote.

So I think Respect will be lucky to hang on to its vote, let alone make any gains at the expense of Labour or the Lib Dems.

Whoever wins, there will be a major squeeze on living standards as a result of the ongoing credit squeeze as the 'sub-prime' bubble bursts.

The unions are the main line of defence in such a situation and that's where the action will be, whoever's in power.

Looking at the bitterness of some of the people who've picked up on the Galloway document, I can't help but feel that it says more about the disappointment that some of them have experienced as former members of the swp than it does about the merits of Respect. Personally, I left the swp in 2003 and was perfectly happy with that decision. About the one thing that would push me back in is the soft racism of people like Karl S / Mike, who seem to be incapable of seeing a truly inspiring figure like Salma Yacoob without muttering 'terroist', 'communalist', 'small business man' or whatever.

Coming from a Jewish background, I have a bit more historical sense that any time the left has appealed to migrant communities, it has pulled in people who in one generation - at one time - were open to the left, even if their future class trajectory was capable of pulling in different directions. If anyone thinks there's something different about the left now compared to 60 years ago, they should look back into the history of the last socialist MP in the East End, who was certainly a Communist, despite having his own butler and membership of an organisation called the 'Progressive Businessmen's Forum.'

Interview people from the 43 group, the Jewish Communists, of the time, and you'll find that of those who are still alive, most consider themselves socialists. Most also read the Telegraph. What they did, at the heights of their activism matters more than what they think: and what they did trumps on anything on offer from the majority of the people posting here.

Ah, but that's ok, we didn't want those kind of Jews involved in left politics, then, and we don't want those kinds of Muslims involved in left politics, now.

Snowball's right to say that if there's going to be some honest accounting on the left (as there should be) then it should include some honesty among the people who cheered on the Iraqi troops, and the people who ditched their opposition to the war at the first sign that it might mean working with 'islamic fundamentalists' (aka the ordinary poor Muslims who just happen to live in a poorer area of town than most of the people who post here).

Anyone with even half an eye open will see that a fair percentage of Galloway's criticisms hit the mark: eg the sudden dropping of Salma or the stupid tendency of Respect full-timers to let themselves be seen to take sides in the occasional faction fights you get in that organisation (oh yeah, and it doesn't happen in the Labour Party?). BUT the party best placed to annoy Labour next spring remains Respect, and let's hope this row at least serves to concentrate people's minds on how soon and how important those elections are.

"the soft racism of people like Karl S / Mike, who seem to be incapable of seeing a truly inspiring figure like Salma Yacoob without muttering 'terroist', 'communalist', 'small business man' or whatever."

1. i've never even mentioned salma yacoob on here or in any other forum.

2. i'm not the same person as mike!

3. i want a class struggle mass socialist party that unites all sections of the working class, from all religious backgrounds and none. it's appeal should be firmly class based and socialist.

4. your slander against me is not only laughable given my consistent record in fighting racism (which is known by all local activists to me), but i note that it's probably mild compared to the abuse i would get from swp hacks if i did join respect and fight for it to adopt a socialist programme, democratic and opens structures, produce material that appeals on a class basis and is openly socialist, etc. etc.

comradely greetings

karl s

"the soft racism of people like Karl S / Mike, who seem to be incapable of seeing a truly inspiring figure like Salma Yacoob without muttering 'terroist', 'communalist', 'small business man' or whatever."

1. i've never even mentioned salma yacoob on here or in any other forum.

2. i'm not the same person as mike!

3. i want a class struggle mass socialist party that unites all sections of the working class, from all religious backgrounds and none. it's appeal should be firmly class based and socialist.

4. your slander against me is not only laughable given my consistent record in fighting racism (which is known by all local activists to me), but i note that it's probably mild compared to the abuse i would get from swp hacks if i did join respect and fight for it to adopt a socialist programme, democratic and open structures, produce material that appeals on a class basis and is openly socialist, etc. etc.

comradely greetings,

karl s

May I suggest that 'workshy' make some attempt to back up his accusations of racism against me or else shut the fuck up. For the record I have been actively involved in anti-racist and anti-fascist politics since 1974.

My criticisms of Salma Yaqoob and the various petty bourgeois elements in Respect stand. However 'inspiring' Ms Yaqoob may be her politics and those of the various capitalists backing Galloway have nothing in common with an autonomous working class socialist politics.

Oh dear, Mike is getting a bit upset. Of course, every member of the AWL, and at least some of the posters from Harry's Place can point to their past opposition to racism, and support for motherhood and apple pie in other arenas as well. Doesn't change the racist nature of what they are doing today. 'Workshy' may have got some people's identities mixed up, but with Pearn he is spot on.

"Shut the fuck up", eh? Who is going to take any notice of that? Tut tut. The 'tolerance' that some extend to Harry's Place regulars (who want to jail leftists) does not extend to those who make this kind of criticism, does it?

The sentence I saw in Karl S's posting which bugged me was as follows: "the alliance of galloway, the swp and muslim 'community leaders' and small business people will not last long."

As for Mike's it was him writing of Respect's
"soft communalist suppport amongst British Muslims".

I do happily apologise and take back the word 'racism' but I hold by the substance of what I wrote: if people only ever respond to Muslim political activism simply by complaining of 'terrorists', 'communalism', 'small business men', etc. - then I take those as code words to express a personal objection to working with Muslims.

Question for you, "Workshy". Are there any circumstances in which it would be appropriate - and non-racist - to criticise a socialist organisation for taking a 'communalist' approach or for working with 'small business people'? Assuming for the moment the answer to this is Yes, why do you assume that people who raise criticisms of this kind in the case of RESPECT are motivated by racism, rather than simply having different opinions and perceptions from yours?

Oh, OK, you retracted 'racism'. So...

why do you assume that people who raise criticisms of this kind in the case of RESPECT are motivated by a personal objection to working with Muslims, rather than simply having different opinions and perceptions from yours?

"Coming from a Jewish background, I have a bit more historical sense that any time the left has appealed to migrant communities, it has pulled in people who in one generation - at one time - were open to the left, even if their future class trajectory was capable of pulling in different directions. If anyone thinks there's something different about the left now compared to 60 years ago, they should look back into the history... "

Actually,workshy, if you look back to that period when a lot of Jews were recruited to the left (CP, Labour league of Youth, ILP etc) the left looked first and foremost to secular, working class Jews, Jews organising in the workplace. They certainly didn't look to the rabbis and synagogues and "communal leaders". I think Respect has acted differently being much keener on recruiting mosque leaders and communal religious leaders with political attachments in Bangladesh and political perspectives here that are complete anathema to the left.

As for Galloway v the SWP - his points have resonance for people that have seen the way the SWP machine behaves, but they also strike me as full of chutzpah because he is complaining about the very practices that he seems to have condoned over the years...

The implosion of Respect won't be a disaster for the Left, and may serve as a reminder that there's no quick opportunistic fix for patiently building a democratic revolutionary socialist alternative.

I have no objection to left-wing campaigns and parties trying to appeal to Muslims. I have leafletted a mosque before with an SWP member as it happened, for a public meeting, and indeed years ago I heard that someone who liked something I'd written in Workers Press had copied it and distributed it at Regents Park mosque. If I'd known I could have autographed copies!
But seriously the issue is not about approaching people who happen to be Muslims, respecting the sensitivities of religious minorities or finding common grounds for concern. During the Bosnian war I went on a demonstration called by Bradford Trades Council and yes, I expect some of the people who supported us may have done so as Muslims (though the more reactionary ones I know were never happy about the faithful mixing with the ungodly left). On that occasion two SWP students hovered around the start of the demonstration with a leaflet saying "One Solution, Revolution!" but were a little nonplussed by the young Bosnian refugees I introduced to them, though the latter were very patient. Funny how things change.
The problem is that true to bureaucratic instinct, the SWP leadership has resorted to backstage diplomacy rather than learning to tackle difficult issues, and the kind of Muslims it tried to work with are not just any old Muslims, but the heirs of the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat Islami,reactionary parties with plenty of experience who want to control Muslim communities and use them to boost their political ambitions in Asia and the Middle East. It is not unreminiscent of the way the Zionists work.
To get in with these forces the SWP fiercely opposed anything which might upset them in Stop the War, e.g. resolutions supporting secular and progressive forces in Iraq. Iranian left-wing refugees who marched to London were shunned when they asked to speak at the rally. Others have been cold shouldered, including I suspect some SWP members from Muslim Asian background who get sidelined. But then the MAB who were built up as allies backed off from supporting Respect. Well, they are professionals at the game. As of course is George G.

DavidR: of course some of the way that the CP organised was in a pure working-class fashion: eg the party's involvement in the Workers Circle, or in the sorts of propaganda that is well described in Out of the Ghetto and Our Flag Stays Red.

But Respect has that side too: anyone who has been lectured by young Respect members (as I have) on the merits of reading Chomsky and Pilger or on why anti-Semitism is a cancer on the Muslim body politic, will recognise a philosophy of life which while looser than Marxism is no less socialist than the views of your average Labour Party member.

One stupid, and - yes - racist, criticism, of Respect is to see that white socialists should never dirty their hands by working with Muslim radicals.

A more serious - but false - criticism is to say that the left in the 1930s and 1940s mobilised among Jews in a pure working-class fashion unmatched by what Respect is doing today.

As for whether the left in the 1930s and 1940s worked with religious leaders and people who saw politics in terms of the equivalent at that time of bits of the Bangladeshi state: of course it did.

The backbone of Phil Piratin's election victory in 1945 was the enormous, cross-class Jewish support for the Russian war effort over the previus 4 years. If you look at the subscription lists of the Jewish fund for soviet Russia, the speakers it had at meetings: you'll find every class fraction of British Jewish life represented right to the very top, and religious leaders in abundance.

Did Phil Piratin live as an MP on a worker's wage? Of course not.

Did the CP approve of its members and allies sitting on the Board of Deputies? Yes, despite the fact that the trajectory of the Deputies was hostile to that of working-class Jews.

Many Jewish communists after 1945 were members of the 43 Group. One of the acts of a part of the 43 Group was to send people, money and arms to the Irgun in Israel. A meeting of the 43 Group even voted to affiliate to the Irgun. This was at a time when the Irgun was trying to create a racist state in Israel. Should the CP have therefore cut all ties to the 43 Group? Of course not, because what the 43 Group was doing in Britain was necessary and right.

Any serious engagement with any migrant community requires alliances broader than white trade unionist + migrant trade unionist. That's not enough to do the job.

Yes, Phil, 'communalism' isn't an empty insult when it's based on a real experience of seeing a campaign at first hand, when it's patiently argued, when it's based on some real thought - but if people throw it around that it has been used in the comments I quoted above it shows only a hostility to Muslims.

In my first email, I praised Salma Yacoob, whose vote at Birmingham was to my mind the highlight of the latest general election. If you look at this blog, you'll find that the top comment was Mike writing of her, 'One day she may well make a good MP the real question is for which party?'. If you go over to the Socialist Unity blog, you'll find that he writes:

'As for Ms Yaqoob my point was and remains that her earliest known political activity, contrary to her oft voiced claims, was in support of young men convicted of terrorist offences in Yemen. I further note her brother, a lawyer specialising in islamic tax avoidance schemes, represented the young men in question despite having no knowledge of Arabic or of criminal law.'

When people are incapable of putting the word 'Muslim' in a sentence without suggesting 'communalism' or that the Muslim person concerned is soft on terrorism, I don't think it's unfair to say the problem is not with Respect - but in them.

The allegation of 'communalism' is in any case a complete lie. Communalism involves inciting hostility between one 'community', or broadly ethnic grouping, and others. The very opposite of what Respect stands for, which is for uniting the most progressive sections of the Muslim population in this country with the wider workers movement for struggle against imperialism and war.

If anything, it is the very allegation of 'communalism' against Respect, in the absence of one single shred of evidence that Respect is trying to incite hostility between Muslim and non-Muslim, that is communalist (albeit probably unconsiously - or I hope so!). It is communalist because it bangs upon a deeply rooted cultural stereotype of Muslims as an inherently barbaric, alien minority that threatens 'our' 'civlised' society.

It is based on the prejudice that any political mobilisation by Muslims to act with allies to counter anti-Muslim bigotry in this society is threatening to non-Muslims. When 'left' Islamophobes say that Respect is 'communalist', they are merely echoing the kind of sentiments typified by the notorious Islamophobe 'Will Cummings' in the Daily Telegraph, who described Respect's voters as 'British Janjaweed', again with the implication that they are a threat to non-Muslim British society. (Even though the battle in Darfur he is trying to evoke is between two sides in an ethnic war that are *both* Muslim). The real ideological influence on 'left' Islamophobia comes from people like these.

Seems like some of the political depth may be misapplied here.
George is now on £3,000 a week from talksport.
And is claiming a shared custody over his new born son.
And the SWP think its about dialectics?

The allegation of 'communalism' is in any case a complete lie.

Or possibly an argument using a different definition? Naively, I would have thought that mobilising through existing non-political structures and using non-political reference points could reasonably be described as 'communalist'. If not, we need another adjective - what would you suggest?

I define soft communalism in political terms to mean a political strategy that seeks to build support within a given community in this case the mythical British Muslim community. This strategy need not be one which seeks to build such support at the expense of other communities but rather aims to develop political loyalties on the basis that the given community is disadvantaged in relative terms. A harder form of communalism would indeed seek to mobilise the given community against other communities.

Part of any communalist strategy must be an appeal to the interests of all members of the community. In other words it must be a cross class, neccesariily populist, strategy. This has in fact been the method of Respect on the ground in its few succesful electoral contests in the East End of London and in Ms Yaqoob's constituency in Birmingham.

My position on the above is derived from the views of the renowned Indian Marxist, a man well acquainted with communalism, Achin Vanaik.

Turning to the campaign of the CPGB in 1945, that saw the return of two Stalinist MPs. I note that their campaign was not a genuinely socialist campaign. Indeed even Workshy agrees that their campaign was one that could be fairly described as cross class. In fact it was worse than that it was a Popular Frontist campaign in that the CPGB called for the continuation of the wartime coalition under Churchill. To their credit the working class in vast numbers rejected this nonsense and voted for the Labour Party who for once stood to the left of the miserable curs of the misnamed CPGB.

Many of the commens here truly represent what is so wrong with much of the left. Respect, for all its faults, has made a serious attempt to break out of the sectarian ghetto and pose an alternative to New Labour. despite the Islamaphobic nonsense about muslims being somehow automatically social conservatives over questions like gay rights, Respect candidates in local and national elections have stressed opposition to racism and war, oppositions to cuts and privatisation, support for strikes and trade unionism. There have been a number of important breakthroughs. I don't care if Galloway is a 'stalinist', seeing him trounce Oona King was fantastic and a real blow to New Labour.
Let all those (like tim, with his inspiring call for a 'revolutionary socialist propaganda group') counterpose their REAL achievements and successes, rather than the naval gazing wanking off they are so adept at.
I'm not at all uncritical of Galloway or the SWP or any other faction within Respect. But if the alternative is really represented by some of the posters here, I hope still hope tis projet can go forward.

"This strategy need not be one which seeks to build such support at the expense of other communities but rather aims to develop political loyalties on the basis that the given community is disadvantaged in relative terms."

So broad a redefinition of 'communalism' that this could embrace virtually any campaign against racism or any other kind of extra-class oppression, incluing the oppression of gays and the like, anywhere in the world. The allegation that Respect is 'cross-class' is likewise completely wide of the mark. I haven't seen capitalist employers signing up for Respect, nor do its policies promote the interests of capital, big or small.

On the other hand, the most victimised and discriminated immigrant-derived minorities do often have a petit-bourgeois layer that is open to social/political struggle alongside the working class, for the simple reason that they are disproporationately denied the access to the labour market that the working class of the majority ethnic group have, and have to find some way to make a living. When such people become radicalised and seek involvement in political struggle with the left, Marxists seek to draw them in deeper and aid them in doing so, not give them the bums rush.

Sneering at this as 'cross-class' and 'communalism' amounts in my view to a complete blindness to oppression, and a refusal to struggle against it concretely.

Dennis

"Let all those (like tim, with his inspiring call for a 'revolutionary socialist propaganda group') counterpose their REAL achievements and successes, rather than the naval gazing wanking off they are so adept at."

The only thing wrong about Dennis' contribution is that he has confused the identities of the people he is criticising. Easily done.

Tim is not in favour of a 'revolutionary socialist propaganda group'; he would like to see nasty 'revolutionary socialist' types in jail, if not dead. I think Dennis may be referring to Mike Pearn.

"In fact it was worse than that it was a Popular Frontist campaign in that the CPGB called for the continuation of the wartime coalition under Churchill. To their credit the working class in vast numbers rejected this nonsense and voted for the Labour Party who for once stood to the left of the miserable curs of the misnamed CPGB."

This really is a puff-piece for Labourism, though isn't it? The Stalinist policy of popular frontism was indeed wrong and class collaborationist; however the Labour Party's opposition to popular frontism was *not* from the left, whatever Labour-cretinists like Pearn may think.

What workers may have thought of their rhetoric about this is a factor that has to be taken into account in terms of tactics, but it should not lead us to portray Labour anti-Stalinist rhetoric as meanuing that the LP was really attacking the Stalinsts "from the left".

Their real nature of their 'opposition' to Stalinist class collaboration was shown by their sending troops into Malaya and Korea to fight 'communism', and their expulsion of left MP's for advocating alliances with the CP. This was prefigured in the period of the Spanish civil war when the LP leadership's opposition to 'popular frontism' involved enforcing an arms embargo against Republican Spain, in the name of 'non-intervention', and again witchhunting those on the left who wanted a policy of open support for the Republican side and an alliance with the CP.

In this case, the Labour leadership's 'opposition' to 'popular frontism' and 'class collaboration' was merely a different, arguably worse, form of class collaboration - enforcing a hypocritical international bourgeois embargo which everyone knew Hitler and Mussolini would ignore - and objectively helped Franco just as much as the fateful Stalinst enforcement of the 'Popular Front' itself did.

I dont read the comments of Dennis and 'workshy' as giving support to the CP's overall strategy of popular frontism. What they are doing, however, is pointing out that there were positive features of the CP's sinking roots into an oppressed Jewish population that actually led to a section of this more heavily petty-bourgois Jewish population, with all its contradictions, being radicalised in a healthy direction that genuine Marxists could also intersect. Such as the 43 group, which gave the Moseleyites a good beating after the war and helped stymie their attempt at post-war revival.

Mike Pearn's prettifying anti-communist Labourism in those days is of a piece with his even worse parrotism of New Labour's propaganda attack on Galloway and Respect today.

Workshy re Phil Piratin:-

You're elevating Piratin's campaign into a paradigm, whereas in fact, while there are useful lessons to be learned from it, there were also contradictions inherent in that strategy even in the pre-war period.

For example, Harry Wicks, in his memoirs, demonstrates that the "cross-class Jewish support for the Russian war effort" also entailed "cross class support" for Stalin's purges, suspension of democratic rights in wartime and an uncritical bloc with Churchill and the Tories.

Whereas many working class struggles, such as the Betteshanger Miners and Tyneside Apprentices strikes went on at this time, despite wartime emergency regulations and despite the official policy of the CPGB.

Nor is the fact that Piratin didn't stand on the workers' wage principle something to be held up as a principle. It would have been far better if he had done and Galloway would do.

Similarly, the CP's position on sitting on the Board of Deputies isn't defensible on democratic grounds, given that membership was (and is still) mainly determined by unelected nomination of synagogue members.
I suspect that there's a similar kind of process in the mosque organisations that the SWP and Respect work with.

And wasn't the Board's trajectory already clear in the pre-war years, when it was responsible for a policy of making sure that the poorest Jewish refugees from Central Europe were trans-shipped to Canada and failed to take a stand over Cable Street?

Of course the parallels are not exact, because the creation of the State of Israel with support from the main Imperialist Powers, acted as a huge damper on Jewish radicalism after 1948, much as Churchill had envisaged at the time of the Balfour declaration.
Whereas the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of direct imperialist intervention in what is regarded as the "Muslim World" and are having an overall radicalising effect on British Muslims.

Who exactly has ever argued that it's wrong to work with Muslims, or even with shop-keepers, small businessmen or professionals?

The question is on what political basis. The very fact that your talking about "engagement with any migrant community" shows the agenda that's at work here.

Respect's strategy is not going to lead to a serious national challenge to the New Labour leadership , however efficient the fund-raising. The fact that the main debate is around this issue shows that there's no real awareness of Respect's serious political weaknesses amongst its leadership.

i totally agree with working alongside muslims, which is why i have done in various campaigns in the past. i'll work with people of all religions and none. however, i'd argue that this should be done on a principled basis and socialists shouldn't drop their own political programme!

the main problem i have with respect is that it does not appeal to people consistantly on a class or socialist basis. i've seen plenty of election leaflets that are totally devoid of class or socialist politics. i've seen others that deliberately present respect as a party for muslims. others are essentially just promoting prominent local individuals and devoid of all politics.

the muslim community is also devided into different classes, different strata and with that many many varying political outlooks. i agree with forming an alliance with working class muslims, socialist muslims (as i would with those from any religious background), but i don't agree with forming an alliance with religious or community 'leaders', or those petit-bourgeois elements who just want to further their own political careers and have no affinity to the workers movement or socialist movement whatsoever.

those who are prejudiced against muslims the most are those who think we have to hide socialist ideas from them! thinking you have to embrace community or religious 'leaders' to get a big vote is very condecending towards muslims and treats them as one bloc.

for me being a socialist is about appealing to all people on a class and socialist basis, being honest about your politics, and believing in your ideas enough to actually win people over to them. i'm not interested in hiding my ideas.

maybe workshy or others could email me all the election leaflets from the recent bye-elections? not just the 'official' ones but all those leaflets that were actually used. if they consistantly appeal on a class and socialist basis i'll join respect!

best wishes,

ks

Wow!
You wait ages for an Ian Donovan post and then three (3!) come along at once. Now that's what I call added value.
Its good to see that Donovan is still fighting the good fight, keeping the British side up and all that.
Perhaps he can tell us what happened to his blog. It started promisingly enough with incendiary polemics heaping imprecations on all those who deviated from the path of righteousness. But then one day, very mysteriously, it went quiet. For a while there was feverish speculation among Donovanologists. Some said he'd retired to a Sufi meditation colony on the South Coast after a failed investment in a Moldovan tap-dancing troupe. Others claimed that he had locked himself up in a garret where he was working on his memoirs. There were unconfirmed sightings of him in Beverly Hills, Moscow, Ulan Bator and Skegness. But the trail had gone cold. Donovan had, it seemed, withdrawn from the world.
Now, without any warning he has burst back on the scene in a series of dazzling posts which show that whatever else has happened, Donovan is still at the top of his game, as capable as ever of wrong footing his critics and delighting his many fans.
The world watches and waits for more.

Sorry, I dont have time to run a blog these days, so that's 'what happened to his blog'.

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.

a bit off topic, but there are so many experts here, I thought I'd ask:

who exactly are/were the International Bolshevik Tendency??

were they very old Russian Bolsheviks? or re-animated clones of them?

or were they a few middle-class ex-students playing at the Tooting Popular Front?

it strikes me that a lot of these miniscule grouplets have names which are inversely proportional to their socio-economic makeup, eg. so a make-believe International Proletarian Party would, of course, be full of Tarquins, Sebastians, etc who were probably kicked out of the aristocracy, wouldn't know a worker if one fell on them from above, and hold their meetings on a solitary park bench

its a bit like hotels, those with the most grandiose names often turn out to be dumps

what a pile of jokers

And Ian again fails "head on" to tackle the questions

An alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood precludes you from using th term "left wing" Ian.
And a spiv chat show host on the take from Bagdhad is not a revolutionary.
And thats why the split is happening.

Ian,

If this was my blog I would delete the likes of Tim but I know that Dave's hardcore libertarian stance will preclude him from adopting such a position so the only option left is some sort of co-existence.

I find ignoring to be the best option in these circumstances.

Lets face it, if the idiot tim is really a prime example of ”a professional anti-communist witchhunter” then communists have very little to worry about!

communists have very little to worry about.

Haven't read that line in a while.

Dave wrote:

"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."

To which Ian Donovan replies:

"So presumably, every left-wing blog that doesn't allow racist and pro-war trolls is akin to Stalin's gulag? "

It is so charming to see in action the spartacist style of logic. I'm sure we could all come up with that destructive daisy-chain of reasoning which leads from defending loose control of a blog (a fucking blog, Donovan, you fool) to the same thing as accusing dissenters from that as being no better than advocates of concentration camps.

Calm down, as a keen supporter of Respect I'm sure you will come across views far more problematic than those 'allowed' on this blog.

Ian, just out of interest: have you got a blog we can have a look at? Ta.

Sorry Ian, saw your comment about not having time to keep your blog up & running. Fair enough, my mistake.

"It is so charming to see in action the spartacist style of logic. I'm sure we could all come up with that destructive daisy-chain of reasoning which leads from defending loose control of a blog (a fucking blog, Donovan, you fool) to the same thing as accusing dissenters from that as being no better than advocates of concentration camps."

This would be very amusing, except of course that it was not me who made this equation. It was Dave Osler, with the following remark:

"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."

So I think your rant against me for bringing up the question of Stalinism, dictatorship, concentration camps, and the like would be better directed at him. I only mentioned HIS point in order to refute it.

You are a hypocritical arse, aren't you?

Hah. 'Pinkie' even quotes Dave Osler's remarks implying that my objections to reactionary trolls mean I want a police state, before attacking ME for mentioning police states, gulags and the like.

Which poses these questions. Does Pinkie actually understand elementary logic? Does Pinkie have a brain? Sorry to be so rude, but when I get slagged off for something someone else said then it is justified.

Simon Hughes:

"Lets face it, if the idiot tim is really a prime example of ”a professional anti-communist witchhunter” then communists have very little to worry about!"

Well, it's Dave Osler's blog and he can do what he likes. but having said that, what is astonishing about this discussion is the amount of abuse that is directed at me for objecting to the presence of racist/pro-war trolls (not from Simon, I might add). It actually makes my point for me. There is actually more political sympathy for them here than there is for my views.

Tim may be a pathetic specimen, more rat-like than human actually. But he does actually represent Little Green Soccerballs (a.k.a Harry's Place), a website that is an organising centre for a particular species of racist witchhunters and is a transmission belt from left to right. When Osler accuses me of being some sort of wannabe dictator for merely objecting to racist witchhunters on a left-wing site, it means he agrees with Little Green Soccerballs that the left are totalitarian monsters.

These people are agitators for state repression against the left and the anti-war movement, and want to fight Bush and Blair's wars to the last drop of blood of the conquered peoples. It would actually be accurate in this regard to call them genocidaires. Yet if I object to their anti-democratic shite on a left website, I am potrayed as a wannabe dictator. You couldn't make it up.

LOL - Only someone with Spart political training could equate a bunch of liberal geeks from the "pro-war left" with "genocidaires". Of course their views shouldn't be barred from this site; Dave's right. I've never heard anything so stupid other than from people who basically believe that media should be outlets for propagandist rantings, and not fora for debate. Which obviously brings me back round to the Sparty thing.

On topic, I think the Galloway document is just another sign that the SWP have lost control of the monster that they created. They can no longer summon sufficient numbers to direct Respect in its core areas, hence Harun "what's a trade union" Miah in London and Yasar "I'll sort it for you" Idris in Birmingham's defeats of SWP backed candidates. The SWP are now beginning to reap what they sowed, and if the whole thing slips from their grasp, ceasing to be even the pathetic facade of a "left" project that it is now, then they will richly deserve it.

Ian,
you seem to use "racist" as a kneejerk reaction with no substance, yet do not apply it to your allies in the far right MB.
Why?

Ian Donovan 2003

Indeed, SWPers involved in this often manage to unconsciously parody the anarcho-types themselves. Such silliness as middle-aged SWP cadres (and to some extent Workers Power too), bobbing up and down brandishing placards declaring ‘F**k capitalism’ must really only provoke ridicule. Such daring radicalism - they do not even dare to spell out the word ‘fuck’. The more knowledgeable anarcho-youth snigger, privately or more crudely in public, at these antics. But this kind of accommodation to a new épater le bourgeois, shock-your-parents ethos really does not advance the socialist cause one iota.

Of course it is absurd to equate the 'pro-war left' with 'genocidiares'. After all, genocidaires are black Africans, these nice pasty-faced liberals who happen to want to nuke Iran are 'civilised' people, like 'us', aren't they? (See the Oliver Kamm propaganda posting on this on HP a few weeks ago). The metaphor about Muslims in Respect being akin to a 'monster' is revealing in the same way.

And since when did trolls have anything to do with debate? As an AWL supporter and Jim Denham crony, he has a nerve complaining about me not wanting 'debate'. Its not just 'trolls' who get their contributions removed from the AWL's comments section, is it? Even out-of-favour AWL supporters are now forbidden to post.

Love the quote Ian.

Ian,

Does the phrase "I fear that many of us wouldn't fare too well in any dictatorship of the proletariat you have a hand in" imply that you would support methods akin to Stalin's gulag?

Perhaps that was Dave's intention but, put simply, I think you are over-reacting.

(Is this comment also a 'rant'?)

"We haven't suddenly started talking about the cricket..."

More's the pity, frankly.

Again, I have to concur with everything written by comrade Donovan.

And lest we forget that a few years back “Dave” Osler (member of the genocidal labour party) wrote a wretched screed against comrade Galloway and this was published by the semi Matgamnaite cpgb centrist cretins. That’s the same cpgb who refuse to back the objectively anti-imperialist shia sectarian death squads in Iraq! Such outrages will NEVER be forgotten.

In addition “Dave”, alongside fellow liberal ex-leftist fakers Tatchell and Mcdonnell, advocates a UN peacekeeping force to prevent genocide in Darfur! Real Leninists are for a military victory for the janjaweed militias!

Take notes reformist scum!

Seconded!

Am I correct in remembering that Roger Dark was one of the pseudonyms used by ian Donovan when he was a member of the CPGB writing for Weekly Worker?

Are these posts satire?, no wonder the Left is failing and failing, today in the guardian, yet another report, in fact a amazing Inequalities Atlas' has come out about the massive inequalities here in the UK, surely that should be the mega-thread on this blog?.

'Where you live can be crucial to your future

· Pioneering atlas reveals increasing social divisions
· Researchers identify areas of riches and disadvantage

Lucy Ward, social affairs correspondent
Saturday September 8, 2007
The Guardian

Britain is becoming increasingly segregated across all age groups by wealth, health, education and other factors, according to a pioneering atlas based on people rather than geography. The cradle-to-grave "atlas of identity", to be published on Monday, provides a visual representation of the stark social contrasts now dividing different areas of Britain, and even adjoining neighbourhoods.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=221184&page=2

Oi, Ian are you still there?

No problem with your insults, but can you explain how "I fear that many of us wouldn't fare too well in any dictatorship of the proletariat you have a hand in" in fact implies nothing more than "my objections to reactionary trolls mean I want a police state".

Well you can't, can you? (How about 'I am concerned by the dangerous implications of your views' equals 'you want to put me in a concentration camp where I may well die of starvation or over work' - doesn't work, does it?)

"Does Pinkie actually understand elementary logic? Does Pinkie have a brain?" - sorry but I do on both counts.

Can you not understand that the point I am making is that you recast the arguments of others in the worst possible light and then argue against the caricature you have created?

You can take the man out of the Sparts, but not the Sparts out of the man, it seems.

"No problem with your insults, but can you explain how "I fear that many of us wouldn't fare too well in any dictatorship of the proletariat you have a hand in" in fact implies nothing more than "my objections to reactionary trolls mean I want a police state".

Nah, couldn't be arsed. If you dont understand that point, youre just a twit. Seems there are quite a few twits here now, people who have lost the actual political argument but are twittering around posting bizarre apolitical rubbish as a smokescreen. This is what you get when you say 'trolls are welcome here' - you encourage everyone who loses an argument to behave like trolls.

"[Y]ou encourage everyone who loses an argument to behave like trolls."

Then why do it, Ian.

BTW Pinky and the brain was a good cartoon.

"[Y]ou encourage everyone who loses an argument to behave like trolls."

Then why do it, Ian?

BTW Pinky and the brain was a good cartoon.

"[Y]ou encourage everyone who loses an argument to behave like trolls."

Then why do it, Ian?

BTW Pinky and the brain was a good cartoon.

Whoops! Sorry for multiple postings - purely by mistake.

Ian, what bollocks. If you can point me towards an act of genocide committed by a poster from Harry's Place then I'll happily retract. But until then I say you're talking bollocks, and anyone reading this can see it. What I said had nothing to do with race, although your Sparty instincts evidently took over again. No great surprise there, mind.

As for "an AWL supporter and Jim Denham crony", I fail to see what this has to do with anything at all. If you've ever seen me censor a political view from Shiraz Socialist, then please feel free to mention it now. Except you won't, because I haven't. Jim incidentally is if anything even more libertarian in terms of commenters than I am. Ergo, you're talking bollocks twice over.

Ian Donovan wrote:

"When Osler accuses me of being some sort of wannabe dictator for merely objecting to racist witchhunters on a left-wing site, it means he agrees with Little Green Soccerballs that the left are totalitarian monsters."

OK, Mr Logic, can't you see there are problems with your method of argument here? Can't you see why some people might find that method potentially dangerous? (Potentially dangerous, but fortunately in your hands as dangerous as a rabbit with an AK47.)

Criticism of you, fair or otherwise, is not criticism of 'the left'.

"If you can point me towards an act of genocide committed by a poster from Harry's Place then I'll happily retract."

The Iraq war is itself genocidal. These chickenhawks would run a mile from all the armed conflicts they cheer from a safe distance. But all the same, they are for fighting the 'war on terror' to the last drop of other people's blood. They are also for nuking Iran. Obviously, you see little wrong with that, otherwise you wouldnt be defending them.

"Except you won't, because I haven't. Jim incidentally is if anything even more libertarian in terms of commenters than I am. Ergo, you're talking bollocks twice over."

I notice you dont deny the censorship of the AWL's own supporters on AWL's own official blog facility.

"Criticism of you, fair or otherwise, is not criticism of 'the left'."

What wierd logic this is? Pinky obviously thinks Dave is even more paranoid than I do. I only think he fears 'dictatorial' tendencies on the left. Pinky thinks that he fears 'dictatorship' grows from *individuals* whose views he dislikes.

Of course, Pinky doesnt think that. He is just pissing about with words to divert attention from the real issue - the tolerance and welcome for pro-war, racist witchhunters on 'left' blogs.

Funny also to see Mike Pearn accuse me of 'trolling'. A bit rich considering he has posted silly stuff under at least three different names in this thread alone, beating Tim at his own game.

What a shame, I've helped divert this thread from simply being an anti-Respect bitch fest, as some would have liked, not by trolling, but by simply arguing a dissenting view.

Actually Ian,your SWP quote did that job just fine.

Ian, one last try:

"Criticism of you, fair or otherwise, is not criticism of 'the left'."

What this means is that to criticise you is not to criticise the entire left. This is not 'weird logic'.

"When Osler accuses me of being some sort of wannabe dictator for merely objecting to racist witchhunters on a left-wing site, it means he agrees with Little Green Soccerballs that the left are totalitarian monsters."

Criticising you for being some 'wannabe dictator' (your words not Dave's) does not mean he is agreeing with Little Green Soccerballs (who?)in any way, nor does it mean agreeing with the statement that 'the left are totalitarian monsters'.

You are confusing yourself with the entire left, why can't you see that?

Ian;

This is becoming tedious but I'll try once more to reach whatever remaining shreds of rationality may be left within you in spite of the ravages of years spent in the Spart/IBT underworld of politics.

Firstly, supporting a war is not the same as calling it, directing it or fighting it. Ergo, people who write on Harry's place are not committing genocide by writing on a blog.

Secondly no, the fact that I do not consider them perpetrators of an act of genocide, does not mean that I support their views on the war.

Thirdly, if you want to discuss the AWL's blog moderation policy (a particularly sad topic of conversation) then email the fucking AWL. You can see perfectly well what my own stance is from the way in which my own blog is moderated as lightly as humanly possible. You, on the other hand, are moaning on someone else's blog about people being allowed to put political views that differ from your own.

Fucking hypocrite.

Incidentally, you've actually turned the thread from a discussion about respect into an everyone-giving-ian-donovan-a-kicking thread. Equally enjoyable, albeit of less political worth.

Maybe Ian intended to do that.
The SWP underlings have been told not to engage on the Galloway stuff.
Being fucked by Galloway and Jamaat isn't on the freshers form.

Ian,
I haven't posted here in anything but my own name.

Pinkie

"You are confusing yourself with the entire left, why can't you see that?"

Perhaps because I haven't been smoking what you have. Have you anything *political* to argue?

voltaires priest

"supporting a war is not the same as calling it, directing it or fighting it. Ergo, people who write on Harry's place are not committing genocide by writing on a blog."

Invent a position, then refute it. Doesnt help much in the real world, though does it? The fact that these people are cowards who dont dare to fight themselves does not mean they are not genocidal racists by inclination, and by the policies they advocate. Advocating nuking Iran, as Oliver Kamm did on their site, for instance, is a genocidal policy.

"Secondly no, the fact that I do not consider them perpetrators of an act of genocide, does not mean that I support their views on the war."

No, you just defend them against accusations of being genocidaires in terms of the policies they advocate, which is the accusation actually made (as opposed to the one you invented).

"Incidentally, you've actually turned the thread from a discussion about respect into an everyone-giving-ian-donovan-a-kicking thread. Equally enjoyable, albeit of less political worth."

Good to see you admitting to your pathological inclinations. But you flatter yourself. No-one has given me 'a kicking', least of all you. To give me a 'kicking', you have to refute what I say, not your own inventions.

"You, on the other hand, are moaning on someone else's blog about people being allowed to put political views that differ from your own."

I'm objecting to witchhunters, warmongers and racists with genocical inclinations being treated essentially as 'comrades' by people like you. You still dont get this elementary point. You still defend them against the accusation that they have genocidal inclinations, that they are laptop genocidaires.

Mike Pearn

"I haven't posted here in anything but my own name."

Love the pork-pie hat, Mike

Silly boy.

To my comment:

"You are confusing yourself with the entire left, why can't you see that?"

Ian 'la gauche, c'est moi' Donovan replied:

"Perhaps because I haven't been smoking what you have. Have you anything *political* to argue?"

Well, I would have thought that pointing out the false 'logic' of your political arguments was political, but I suspect that for you 'political' means no more than what you care to define as such.

Get well soon.

So no politics then.

Actually, if "voltaires priest" wanted to argue against me on this, he could demur that Kamm's piece (a syndicated piece that also appeared on the Guardian's CIF blog) did not *openly* advocate the nuking of Iran. It rather justified the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and purported to be 'historical'. However, as many pointed out, Kamm is a propagandist for war against Iran and a 'neoconservative foreign policy' (his words) and in context, his essay is quite clearly part of a propaganda preparation for war with Iran, and for the likelihood that this may involve the use of nuclear weapons.

He could, I suppose, make the point that some of the inmates of Harry's Place were too squeamish to be seen to baldly endorse this kind of mass murder. They also printed some material from Atila Hoare disagreeing with Kamm. Though many more of the regulars were with Kamm than were critical of him. What this says about the actual political centre of gravity of Harry's Place is rather obvious.

One 'Harry's Place' regular who is well known, and once had a reputation for being on the left, is Brett Lock, of Outrage. Here is his take on the well-known hypothesis that the real reason for the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was as a 'warning' to the USSR not to get too big for its boots at the end of WWII:

"... why was putting a restraint on Soviet ambitions not a legitimate consideration? We're talking about Stalin, a man who was prepared to murder 40 million of his own people. If he was restrained in the slightest as a byproduct of America's demonstration [i.e. the destruction of two Japanese cities - ID], we should be rejoicing!"

"Rejoice" about the nuking of Japanese cities, says Brett Lock, responding to a piece that was really about using 'historical' argument to justify threatening nuclear war against Iran.

This is the same Brett Lock who baldly advocated that the Israeli army should massacre unarmed Palestinian women. In an incident prior to the recent mini-civil war in Gaza, when the Israelis threatened to attack a house that contained some militants Israel was seeking to capture or kill, a whole crowd of women protestors surrounded the house in order to stop the Israelis from attacking it. Brett Lock wrote on Harry's Place that it would be perfectly legitimate for the Israel army to shoot the women, as they were 'unarmed combatants'.

Still want to argue that Harry's Place people don't have murderous, racist, genocidal aspirations?

Christ Ian,

You actually are ill aren't you?

Really, really ill...

:(

Ian, you are an embarrassment, a mirror image of the worst of 'Harry's Place'.

Shut the fuck up and do something useful - stuffing envelopes or something.

Ian;

If you seriously think that by the above delusional rant you've "won" the argument, then you are living in a world of cabbages and kings. Furthermore it suggests you're so far beyond rational that it probably isn't worth having this debate.

I echo the two comments above.

Interested in this piece, *The Genisis of Pabolism*.

Assume 'comrade' Donovan is familar, in great detail, with Michel Rapitis's works, published in Greek, but mostly in French. Oh, and not translated into English.

Has our universal guru of Leninism discovered a hidden linguistic talent?

And so our great fighters for socialist democracy show that the only response they can come up with to political points they can't refute is 'shut the fuck up' and similar examples of high-minded political repartee.

Carry on with the effing and blinding and all the apolitical crap. It's all water off a duck's back to me, and the more you indulge in it, the more the uncommitted reader will conclude that that is the only response you are capable of.

Love and kisses

Andrew 'The Genesis of Pabloism' is the Spartacists attempt at an historical analysis of the degeneration of the FI in the post war period. As such it is worthy of a read although it has little to say about Pablo as such. It also evades the point that the Sparts retroactively endorse Pablos own perspectives for the FI up to the split between the IC and IS. A split with no real political meaning which cannot but deny by omission the Sparts own very real 'Pabloism'.

Mike, I hope you're coming back to the UKLN - sin bin time must be nearing its end.

We sorely need you.