Socialist Factions Battle for heart of new Germany party

by hs Sat May 27, 2006 20:43

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/626/wasg.htm

by Hs Sat May 27, 2006 20:42

27 May 2006Germany
The following is a translated and slightly edited version of an article which was first published in German at www.sozialismus.info

WASG Left opposition meeting condemns national leadership attacks
First successful national meeting of the WASG Left

Angelika Teweleit, Berlin (translated by Tanja Niemeier)
Given the short period of three weeks between the WASG’s (Election Alternative Work and Social Justice) national party conference, where the idea of a left opposition meeting was born, a turn-out of 280 members from across the country at the first WASG Left meeting, held on 20 May, was a success.

Those attending expressed their discontent and indignation at the National Committee’s undemocratic methods and decisions to suspend the WASG’s Regional Committees in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In a declaration passed at the end of the conference, the participants demanded a party which was not built “top down” and a party which 100% defends the interests of the “non-capital owning” majority of the population against the neo liberal attacks on all social foundations of our society. The meeting also called for a party which considers itself plural and inclusive. A big part of the speakers referred positively to the decisions of the WASG in Berlin and Mecklenburg Vorpommern to stand independently (and therefore also against the Left Party.PDS (Left Party.Party for Democratic Socialism), which is part of the government in those regional states and, therefore, carrying out cuts). The speakers referred to the independent candidacies as a means to debate the content and programme upon which a new Left in the country should be built.

Across the board, the WASG’s national party conference, held late in April, was regarded as a break with party principles. Inge Höger, Vice Chair of the joint WASG and LeftParty.PDS parliamentary group, called “The Left”, reminded the opposition meeting that the WASG’s was meant to be a party which aimed to “not be like other parties”. She explained that the national WASG leaders broke with that objective. She also criticized the suspensions of elected Regional Committees and the imposition of two parliament Deputies (MPs) to run the WASG in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

It was not clear from the outset that the opposition meeting would be so widely supportive of the independent candidacies. Both Thies Gleiss, a member of the National Committee and member of the international socialist left (ISL) Mandelite organization, spoke out against standing independently in the two federal states, while, at the same time, opposing the administrative measures against the Regional Committees. Gleiss recommended withdrawing the nominations to stand to not endanger the “process of building the New Left”. The LeftParty.PDS was needed in this process “as it stands”, explained Gleiss, and was hackled from the floor.

In her introduction, Lucy Relder, the number one candidate on the WASG Berlin slate, and member of Socialist Alternative (SAV – Socialist Alternative/CWI), explained that the independent candidacies would act as an important contribution towards building a New Left, which conducts genuine left policies and, therefore, offers a political alternative. Given the attacks by the national grand coalition government, the increase in VAT, attacks on the health service, and a debate over further cuts in unemployment benefits etc, there is a need for a left force that is part of the resistance against those attacks. Supporting the LeftParty.PDS in the Berlin and Mecklenburg Vorpommnern regional elections, as put forward by the WASG National Committee, would equal the support of further cuts and privatisations. Cuts in wages for public sector workers, as well as redundancies in the public sector and privatisations, have been part of the LeftParty.PDS’s policies, as part of the regional governments. It is a policy which they want to continue and regard as successful.

Most of the speakers in the debate supported this view and the idea that the WASG should be build upon the support of those affected by social cuts. They also shared the view that the WASG needs to organize joint activities and resistance with those affected by neo-liberal policies. The broad support for this position from many ordinary WASG members from outside Berlin clearly encouraged the members from Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Taking part in governments
Further political questions were only touched on at the conference, which was mainly due to lack of time. However, questions were touched upon as key for further discussions. SAV members pointed out that putting forward anti-neo liberal demands would not be enough to combat the plans of the government. The struggle against attacks needs to be combined with a struggle for genuine reforms, such as a proper minimum wage and an end to privatization. However, every demand for genuine reforms today shows the limits of what is possible within capitalism. This is especially true given the state of capitalism today, which compared to the post war boom period is characterised by increased competition, slower growth rates and smaller profit margins. This leaves very little space for the ruling class to allow genuine reforms for the working class. It is, therefore, necessary to go beyond anti-neo-liberal and anti-capitalist demands and to start a discussion about the socialist alternative to the capitalist system. This means learning from the experience of the Stalinist states and to draw the necessary conclusions from those experiences.

The opposition meeting also touched on the more general question of taking part in governments. Inevitably, taking part in any capitalist government means taking part in driving down living standards and in attacking all the achievements the working class has struggled for in the past.

Taking away those reforms is the aim of the ruling classes internationally: The giant multinational companies can only increase their profit margins by increased exploitation of the working class internationally. It is the task of national, regional and local governments across the globe to prepare the ground and the conditions for the increased exploitation of the working class.

Subsequently, political parties that side with the working class must not take part in capitalist governments. Instead, those parties have to help and ignite struggles against those attacks. Elected representatives have the task to use parliament or local government councils as a platform to organise resistance.

As part of the meeting discussion, the independent candidacies were also put in the context of the WASG’s founding principles. “The regions’ decision to not stand on a joint slate with the LeftParty.PDS in the respective regional states, is in line with the WASG’s programme, which states that the WASG will not tolerate or form a government which carries out social cuts and privatization”, states the meeting Declaration.

Due to the pressing issues of Berlin and Mecklenburg Vorpommern, and the respective actions of the National Committee, the discussion on the prospects and further developments of the WASG were pushed to the background. The next meeting will have to pay more attention to those issues.

Network
Another positive aspect of the meeting was that most participants agreed to build stronger links. This is an important step in the whole process of forming the new left.

It as agreed to hold a working conference that will have the task to prepare for the next WASG national conference in the autumn. A conference, hopefully including the “anti-capitalist Left”, made up of lefts in the WASG, and in the LeftParty.PDS, grouped around a document, ‘For an anti-capitalist Left’, which is due to be held late in the autumn, will also continue the discussion on programme and content.

The proposal to hold a conference in Berlin, as part of the support for the Berlin election campaign, got a good response but needs to be tied down.

The meeting’s lively debates, both in the plenary discussions, as well as in the commissions on Berlin, and on taking part in governments, and on party democracy, is reflected in the Declaration - which the conference passed without any votes against. The Declaration states that despite “The authoritarian measures of the National Committee and the tight majorities [for the NC’s position] at the national party conference are no reason for resignation or withdrawal but just another reason to jointly defend and strengthen the WASG’s founding principles, through a public and open network of resistance in both the WASG and the LeftParty.PDS.”

by wasg Sun May 21, 2006 21:23

The swp's comrades in Germany aren't doing them any favours, has anyone told them that the swp are trying to unite with the cwi here. Being stabbed in the back in germany isn't going to do much to convince the irish cwi.

"The WASG conference on April 29-30 mandated its leadership to take “all necessary steps” to avoid rival candidates - a motion that was strongly supported by the Socialist Workers Party’s German section, Linksruck. Presumably, Linksruck member Christine Buchholz used her position on the executive to vote for the removal, which the bourgeois daily Süddeutsche Zeitung described as “a severe encroachment of inner-party democracy” (May 15)."

"(in berlin)An overwhelming majority - 87 out of 88 - voted to go ahead with separate candidates, although this margin of victory clearly reflects the split in the Berlin organisation. The minority has been busy setting up counter-structures with the blessing of the national executive (and the organisational help of Linskruck)."

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/wasg%20berlin.htm

by sozialist Wed May 17, 2006 19:08

WASG leadership suspends party’s Berlin Regional Committee…
But anti-cuts Berlin WASG re-affirm standing independently

Sascha Stanicic, SAV (CWI), Berlin, Wednesday 17 May 2006
"Lesser evil"?
One reason the WASG was formed, two years ago, was because the L.PDS adopted the policy of "the lesser evil", by joining regional coalition governments with the neo-liberal SPD (Social Democratic Party) in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In both states, the local governments made social cuts, attacked public sector workers, and carried out privatisations. For example, in Berlin, 100,000 former council flats were privatised by this so called "Red-red" government and public sector wages were cut by eight to twelve per cent. Nationally, the L.PDS argues against many of these policies, but then carry them out when they join local or regional governments. As a consequence, many workers and youth think the L.PDS party is dishonest. The consequence in both federal states is a dramatic decline in support for this party. In Berlin, the L.PDS currently scores 13% in opinion polls, compared with the 22.6% in 2001.

article continued at www.socialistworld.net

by Junge Pioniere Mon May 15, 2006 17:20

Just an update on the WASG faction fight:

Yesterday the WASG federal executive decided to suspend the Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state executives. These executives are to be replaced by emmisaries from the federal excutive.

In Berlin MP Hüseyin Aydin has been named to do that. He is expected to withdraw the WASG election participation.

The Berlin executive has declared, it will not accept the decission of the federal executive.

See (German lingo):

by pat c Mon May 15, 2006 16:26

a good debate indeed. and just to show that there was always a crisis of leadership, heres a little gem:

Today's dates in history 15 May

"Quote of the Day
"Let me pass! I have to follow them; I am their leader."
[Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, one of the instigators of the short-lived Communist Revolution, tries to force his way through the Paris mob on 15 May 1848.]"

"1848 A communist rising began in Paris, after news of suppression of Polish revolt; workers overturned the government and set up a provisional administration which immediately collapsed. "

by Davy Carlin Mon May 15, 2006 16:21

No probs Tony - hope to engage again D

by Emily Mon May 15, 2006 16:17

""I didnt wrie this. Check who you are citing. I actually would disagree partially with the piece above, more died in Francos Spain, but less in Chile."

Oh but you did. You CHOSE to quote it as though it supports your arguments. Now, caught out, you want to deny you wrote it."

It does support my thesis but as is clear from the qoutation marks I did not write it. I accepted that it was wrong regarding Francos Spain but the Mullahs have been much more bloodthirsty than Pinochet. You check that out. I deny nothing, I admit one claim in the qoutation is incorrect.

"I don't mind honest debate, but let's keep it honest. "

You are making a groundless accusation of dishonesty. This does help the chances of a rational debate occurring between us.

"That said, you failed to reply to the substantive points I made."

Which points? If you mean the ones about the SWP mocking Tatchell and calling Iranian Socialists Homophobes? I have dealt with those but the answers do not satisfy you. Theres little point in repeating the whole thing again. Readers can scroll back up through the comments and make their own minds up.

by Tony Mon May 15, 2006 15:57

Davy
I didn't make myself clear about a couple of things
On the IRA etc, as you point out, I said "they did not begin from a revolutionary marxist standpoint".
My fault of course for lazy phrasing. I didn't mean that that the IRA didn't begin as marxist. What I actually meant was that they do not/and did not begin their analysis of society from a revolutionary marxist standpoint.
Quote - The IRA did not begin from a revolutionary Marxist standpoint'

Secondly, you point out that
"Well I don’t think my time as an SWP was ‘Comfortable- I had faced many political ‘attacks, from many different ‘traditions’ - as well as other attacks, intimidation, threats etc that had seen me moving home, another home attacked, ‘watching my security’, physically attacked, changing phones etc etc as had also happened to other SWP {Belfast comrades] at the time."
Again, I didn't express myself very clearly. What I meant was that the SWP as a whole, and particularly its leadership, seems to have been very comfortable about having you as a member. I don't doubt that what you say about
"many political ‘attacks, from many different ‘traditions’ - as well as other attacks, intimidation, threats etc that had seen me moving home, another home attacked, ‘watching my security’, physically attacked, changing phones etc etc as had also happened to other SWP {Belfast comrades] at the time." - that's not at all what I was getting at.
Finally, as I think I have mentioned before, I don't live in Ireland, and have little detailed knowledge of the various groups.
My description of you having had a prominent position in the SWP was based entirely on what I'd seen on Indymedia, where so far as I could tell you were regarded as a well-known activist.
I apologise for expressing myself bdly, and for my mistake about your role in the SWP. This has been the only sensible discussion I've seen on Indymedia, and despite our differences (and those of most of the other contributors to this thread) I think it has been valuable, and worth continuing in the same spirit when other topics arise. My god, I even debated on comradely terms with Pat C., something I imagine neither of us expected. Thanks Pat.)

by Davy Carlin Mon May 15, 2006 12:21

Briefly -

Quote - The IRA did not begin from a revolutionary Marxist standpoint'

Who said they did'? ????

Again, I say simply’ -read what I have written'.

Many got ‘involved’ initially for defence, while many who became politicised ‘genuinely’ believed {whether one agrees or not} - that they where fighting for ‘Revolution’ for a ‘32 county Socialist Republic’ {not surprising though given what was happening around the world in that previous decade or so of the 50s’ and 60’s.
Indeed this was given ‘further succour by the statements and words of the Provisional leadership calling for similar and convincing activists of such at ‘family meetings’ conferences etc.
So whatever the - ‘reformers from the bombs and bullets’ - the reality on the ‘streets’ was a ‘War of - and about - Revolution and Socialism, {this to many}.
{Indeed there are still many within and supportive of SF, who still feel that way today}."

Again on the position of the Provisional Movement - again that’ Revolutionary Marxist’ {RM} Text book’ stuff - that every one gets to read when joining such an organisation {RM}– I have found it is so simplified – and in some cases simply ‘Mantra’. Such ‘Scientific analysis’ I have found does not enable the ‘whole picture’ to be seen, this though, I have found’ is not unusual - as I have found similar on many issues {both past and present} – this, as my understanding of ‘such past and present ‘living Movements’ grow.

Although your points are correct – they are only correct in that ‘simplified way – {Again as I said dogmatism and such - I have moved away from} – and when I have time I am to go into this further {within an article I. am updating on Dissident Republicanism – and ‘Republicanism in general}

On Anarchism – well again, that is but your own understanding, and we will beg again to differ on that – Although no doubt other debates on such will happen in the time ahead.

Your ‘moralism – Quote - ‘You have obviously been, and continue to be a respected left activist, ‘despite your politics,

I am used to from such. –

As for ‘Comfortable ‘and a prominent position at that’ {within the SWP} –

Well I don’t think my time as an SWP was ‘Comfortable- I had faced many political ‘attacks, from many different ‘traditions’ - as well as other attacks, intimidation, threats etc that had seen me moving home, another home attacked, ‘watching my security’, physically attacked, changing phones etc etc as had also happened to other SWP {Belfast comrades] at the time..

And as for prominent position – well for several years before leaving the SWP – I was on no prominent bodies of the SWP whatsoever

Well -,

I see such points and ‘others in the light of those comments – and so that is that – my points have been made – but will return in a future article, in reference to stated above.

HS SP – I was also talking about a specific campaign and about the ‘politic of Control’ which because of it, can, has, and will be detrimental to a specific campaign.

That’s me def – signed of, away for good ATB – SO - D

by Tony Mon May 15, 2006 09:03

Davy, I think you're wrong about the Provos, and by extension about organisations like the ANC, or, come to that, the Labour Party.
You say
"Many got ‘involved’ initially for defence, while many who became politicised ‘genuinely’ believed {whether one agrees or not} - that they where fighting for ‘Revolution’ for a ‘32 county Socialist Republic’ {not surprising though given what was happening around the world in that previous decade or so of the 50s’ and 60’s. Indeed this was given further succour by the statements and words of the Provisional leadership calling for similar and convincing activists of such at ‘family meetings’ conferences etc.
So whatever the - ‘reformers from the bombs and bullets’ - the reality on the ‘streets’ was a ‘War of - and about - Revolution and Socialism, this to many.
{Indeed there are still many within and supportive of SF, who still feel that way today}."

That's true - but it has nothing to do with whether the IRA (Officials or Provos) was a revolutionary organisation. It contained (in both senses) members who were subjectively revolutionary. But those members did not control the organisation's direction. You would claim that this also applies to the SWP to other Leninist organisations. It's arguable, but that's not the point. The IRA did not begin from a revolutionary marxist standpoint, had minimal analysis of capitalism, and had a strategy which was both nationalist and completely incapable of overthrowing capitalism, either in the short or long term.
You say that you are now an anarchist, and seem also to be saying that you have been one for a considerable time. I would argue that anarchism too is incapable of ever bringing about a successful revolution.
If you have said anything to make me wary of the SWP's politics, and those of the various other Irish leninists, it isn't so much your arguments as the fact that you apparently had a comfortable (comfortable for the SWP leadership, I mean) home in the SWP for so long, and a prominent position at that, and equally that the other socialist groups in Ireland don't seem to be want to confront your anarchism either.
That situation worries me far more than the various attacks on the SWP, SP, etc.

Naturally I don't mean that as an anarchist you are cast into the outer darkness. You have obviously been, and continue to be a respected left activist, despite your politics, and that's the reason that the left needs to debate with you in a comradely way, at the same time as working alongside you

by Tony Mon May 15, 2006 09:02

Davy, I think you're wrong about the Provos, and by extension about organisations like the ANC, or, come to that, the Labour Party.
You say
"Many got ‘involved’ initially for defence, while many who became politicised ‘genuinely’ believed {whether one agrees or not} - that they where fighting for ‘Revolution’ for a ‘32 county Socialist Republic’ {not surprising though given what was happening around the world in that previous decade or so of the 50s’ and 60’s. Indeed this was given further succour by the statements and words of the Provisional leadership calling for similar and convincing activists of such at ‘family meetings’ conferences etc.
So whatever the - ‘reformers from the bombs and bullets’ - the reality on the ‘streets’ was a ‘War of - and about - Revolution and Socialism, this to many.
{Indeed there are still many within and supportive of SF, who still feel that way today}."

That's true - but it has nothing to do with whether the IRA (Officials or Provos) was a revolutionary organisation. It contained (in both senses) members who were subjectively revolutionary. But those members did not control the organisation's direction. You would claim that this also applies to the SWP to other Leninist organisations. It's arguable, but that's not the point. The IRA did not begin from a revolutionary marxist standpoint, had minimal analysis of capitalism, and had a strategy which was both nationalist and completely incapable of overthrowing capitalism, either in the short or long term.
You say that you are now an anarchist, and seem also to be saying that you have been one for a considerable time. I would argue that anarchism too is incapable of ever bringing about a successful revolution.
If you have said anything to make me wary of the SWP's politics, and those of the various other Irish leninists, it isn't so much your arguments as the fact that you apparently had a comfortable (comfortable for the SWP leadership, I mean) home in the SWP for so long, and a prominent position at that, and equally that the other socialist groups in Ireland don't seem to be want to confront your anarchism either.
That situation worries me far more than the various attacks on the SWP, SP, etc.

Naturally I don't mean that as an anarchist you are cast into the outer darkness. You have obviously been, and continue to be a respected left activist, despite your politics, and that's the reason that the left needs to debate with you in a comradely way, at the same time as working alongside you

by Tony Mon May 15, 2006 09:00

Davy, I think you're wrong about the Provos, and by extension about organisations like the ANC, or, come to that, the Labour Party.
You say
"Many got ‘involved’ initially for defence, while many who became politicised ‘genuinely’ believed {whether one agrees or not} - that they where fighting for ‘Revolution’ for a ‘32 county Socialist Republic’ {not surprising though given what was happening around the world in that previous decade or so of the 50s’ and 60’s. Indeed this was given further succour by the statements and words of the Provisional leadership calling for similar and convincing activists of such at ‘family meetings’ conferences etc.
So whatever the - ‘reformers from the bombs and bullets’ - the reality on the ‘streets’ was a ‘War of - and about - Revolution and Socialism, this to many.
{Indeed there are still many within and supportive of SF, who still feel that way today}."

That's true - but it has nothing to do with whether the IRA (Officials or Provos) was a revolutionary organisation. It contained (in both senses) members who were subjectively revolutionary. But those members did not control the organisation's direction. You would claim that this also applies to the SWP to other Leninist organisations. It's arguable, but that's not the point. The IRA did not begin from a revolutionary marxist standpoint, had minimal analysis of capitalism, and had a strategy which was both nationalist and completely incapable of overthrowing capitalism, either in the short or long term.
You say that you are now an anarchist, and seem also to be saying that you have been one for a considerable time. I would argue that anarchism too is incapable of ever bringing about a successful revolution.
If you have said anything to make me wary of the SWP's politics, and those of the various other Irish leninists, it isn't so much your arguments as the fact that you apparently had a comfortable (comfortable for the SWP leadership, I mean) home in the SWP for so long, and a prominent position at that, and equally that the other socialist groups in Ireland don't seem to be want to confront your anarchism either.
That situation worries me far more than the various attacks on the SWP, SP, etc.

Naturally I don't mean that as an anarchist you are cast into the outer darkness. You have obviously been, and continue to be a respected left activist, despite your politics, and that's the reason that the left needs to debate with you in a comradely way, at the same time as working alongside you

by hs - sp (personal capacity) Mon May 15, 2006 01:04

Padraic, the stuff about Baukinin and elections came from the same book, simply called anarchism. (I got it at the wsm stall at the anarchist bookfair so they might have more). It was taken from arguments betweeen the anarchists and the marxists as far as I remember.

Gogol,
you are correct in saying that their has been a rise in opposition to neo liberalism (not necessarily capitalism), and obviously it is not revolutionary. But you can't wipe all differences under the carpet completely. For example we have the rifondazione communista in Italy, a party that the swp has been pretty uncritical of and a party that has been held up as the model. But now they are going into power with the right, and Bertinotti has even taken up one of the most important offices in the state. The last time rifondazione went into power with Prodi they brought in the anti immigrant laws which created the prisons all over Italy specifically for undocumented immigrants, it wasn't berlusconi who built these prisons it was Prodi with the support of Bertonotti. We can't brush all these differences under the carpet. Thats not to say we shouldn't engage or even stay outside these parties, but we should actually try to push through decent policies and oppose bad ones. As in Germany at the moment. Nobody is arguing we shouldn't work with others, but do we have to hide our own ideas in doing so? we should put forward socialist policies within these parties. And in the example of germany oppose the new party taking part in right wing governments. What would be the point in us creating a new party in ireland if it was just used to prop up Fg or FF. Why can't the swp put forward left wing policies and MAB put forward more islamic policies and openly and publically debate them? And then let party members decide, you might even be suprised which way people vote.

"Of course the SWP believes workers’ revolution is necessary in Iran as everywhere else. But in the next weeks and months the more likely scenario by far is US bombs (nuclear?) raining down on Tehran and other cities. And if that happens, do you suppose rights for gays and women will be advanced? Will Islamism be weakened if the US crusade boldly announces in rubble and gore what the clerics have said all along"

I fail to see how people pushing and fighting for gay rights in Iran somehow means they support the bombing of the country. You can oppose imperialism while supporting gay rights.

"We think a New Left is possible that unites all sorts of people most of whom are not now revolutionaries. We would like to do everything in our power to help bring that about. This is the biggest opportunity in my view for decades. So I hope we don’t blow it.
Perhaps you agree, perhaps you disagree with some or all of this over long comment. But lets, all of us, whatever our differences, try to pull together a bit more, resist the temptation for the cheap shot, stop calling each other names and try to fan the flames of resistance together."

Thats a fair enough point if thats what you believe, but for some of us, we have minimum demands of democracy and accountability before we get involved in any new party. In all the discussions about this and PB4P I have asked again and again how the structures will work and how any ordinary member can effect policy. There has yet to be a reply, apart from generalities.
I'm already in a party with limited electoral success,( which also has formal srtuctures and holds elected reps acountable) why would I drop this one for a party of which I have no say in.

Davy, You make some good points about word and deed. But we have to point out differences here. In a party,group or any organisation with formal procedures, formal democracy and formal accountability, it is possible to change policy. That is not to say it would be easy, and thats not to say the leadership wouldn't do its best to oppose you. as is their right. You would still have to win a majority at pretty difficult odds. But nobody said life is easy, and if you believe something should be changed you have to fight for it. . Normally in hard left parties (in ireland and the uk) people leave rather than make the huge effort. But it still is possible and there is room for minority views. from what we know of WASG, the SSPmand Respect we can see huge differences. At least in WASG and the SSP the differences are openly argued.

In an organisation which has no formal rules or just general ones , it will be impossible and in fact the leadership can do what they wish. (including appointing themselves)
Theres is no pretending a in this either as people aren't stupid, take the IAWM for an example of that.

In the next few years a new party or organisation will be built so I thinks its very important for all activists who will be involved to think about how it will be structured. So far we seem to have a sort of sturtureless proposal by the swp. Others call for a sort of electoral alliance while others a federation. An alliance or federation which is just makes policy by the agreement of the different leaderships would also be completely disempoering for members or supporters. If anyone wants us to join a new party it will have to have stong democratic structures down to branch level if it hopes to attract people. An electoral alliance I could probably deal with without such but only if the SP could also stand under its own name.

If the SWP really want unity they will have to start listening to what people want in a united party, rather than telling us and lecturing us for not agreeing.

by Davy Carlin Thu May 11, 2006 19:13

Well it seems that by and large that that is it?

Interesting and good debate and discussion, which petered out though in the last few posts.

I finish on one further quote by Gogol’

Quote - 'For the sectarians this is a golden opportunity to expose the sell-out SWP'.The sectarians would not care if a pyrrhic victory of gaining ever more radical words on a programme resulted in a collapsed coalition. But we do care

Gogol, this - they are all ‘Sectarians’ - no longer washes. It of course is used within your organisation to attempt to convince your members and indeed those close to you that all such concerns are ‘just the sectarians - but it no longer washes within the Movement.

Indeed {the 'sectarians will of course raise such – for their own interests} - but when many many genuine activists start to rise similar {for genuine concerns} - such calls of - 'It’s just the Sectarians' - indeed has little impact, outside of ‘your own circles.

To be frank, it shows that your are still stuck in the past, within the same mindset - with little change of moving forward, I fear

When you get to the stage though where you are confident enough within yourself to actually take on the argument {without reverting to type - they are all 'Sectarians' etc} then you may actually be listened to by many more.

But until then, and as I had finished a previous post, again, I state’

Quote – ‘One needs to deal with the reality and not try to create a reality – when you do {try to create a reality} – you are then doomed the failure

your actions {the facts} - speak for themselves – this in real terms’

- For oneself I have simply given an analysis of how I see Respect progressing.
-
- I have also pointed out the Irony of years of listening to leading SWP cadre in Ireland almost making careers out of lambasting the Shinners for moving Rightward, and for dropping of ‘principled positions etc etc – {in their {SF’s} attempt -to bring others onboard - primarily those ‘Nationalists of a different class} – while Respect {with those same leading Irish SWP voicing full support} - now doing the same , as so – to - bring others onboard {primarily on the concern of Religion, and of course other classes}

This though for the same reasoning - for more and more votes and more and more seats {whatever other reasoning or stated end goal}.

Jeeeesusss! ¬the irony {with a shake of head as I type this in}.

As stated, I have given solely, my understanding, mainly of the Why -and others have pointed out the Whats.

And so I sign of this thread – and once again say - good debate – this is what Indymedia Ireland is all about. – ATB – SO - D

by historian Thu May 11, 2006 13:29

Indeed. An interesting study and valid for the reason of getting a differnet historical perspective on the French Revolution. Doubt it is Respect, with all due respect !

by pat c Thu May 11, 2006 12:40

guerins writings were mentioned. imho the book is worth reading for: 1, getting a clear picture of what the french revolution was about; 2, examining the nature of cross class alliances.

by historian Thu May 11, 2006 12:27

How in the name of God does Paris in the 1790s have anything to do with London in 2006? Seriously, I would love to know.

by pat c Thu May 11, 2006 12:16

good contributions fom davy, gogol, hs and sp member. good to see a real debate starting up. sorry i cant make a proper contribution now but since guerin has been mentioned i'd like to reccomend another book of his.

Class struggle in the First French Revolution: Bourgeois and Bras Nus 1793-95 (Pluto, London 1977). Its an abridged translation of a 3 volume work in French covering the period 1789 - 1797. Socialism wasnt on the cards then but it covers the emerging working class esp in Paris and explains the politics of the various factions and even Baboeuf appears on stage briefly. Some lessons on being careful of who you combine with.

by Davy Carlin Thu May 11, 2006 12:03

Now that is what I call debate and discussion – What Indymedia is all about.

Briefly -

HS - SP you make some interesting points - including on the issue of Anarchism, {as did Padraic, more especially in his end paragraph.}

HS – SP, you also raise ‘other issues and concerns in relation to Respect that I have heard from many others, which cannot be simply brushed under the carpet.

-You also Quote – {its}’about empowering people, communities and workplaces. And fundamentally about workers winning power for themselves whether in the workplace, community or society as a whole’.

Spot on

-On your finishing points, well I think such issues of accountability, democracy, minority views etc, are all well and good – in word. The reality though even now as I work within campaigns with such ‘authoritarian parties" is that it does, in real terms, see in deed, a very very different attitude and ‘way of working.

This, way of working, sees the ‘politic of control’ reeking from them – therefore, in real terms, such words does not follow with deed.

Of course such will need to be broke down and the ways of working as you state, won, for the benefit of all.

But I had found it is a battle and half to win this, this more especially from those who just cannot let go from that ‘Politic of Control.

Saying that, the ‘New ways of Working in such open and democratic ways’ has and is greatly ascending in Ireland, and those who seek to work otherwise have – will - I believe - find less and less people prepared to work with that ‘mindset.

HS -SP - You do make quite a few other interesting points in your article, which I would not disagree with.

Hi Gogol,

To be frank, I hear much of what you said from other SWP members – indeed the same thing really.

On one part, presently

You Quote –

‘No the SWP has not “taken the reformist road”; “got into bed with the mullahs”; “become obsessed with electoralism”; “shifted to the Right”.

Gogol do you know how absolutely untrue that statement you make above - sounds and reads -to activists who have even a very limited understanding of the SWP role within Respect?.

{But sure as long as you have convinced yourself,}

That is not a ‘cheap shot, {as you say} but simply the reality.

Indeed in saying that statement it convinces me even more of how you can attempt to blinker away the facts that are staring you in the face.

Indeed it is complexly obvious to many who look on – Again it is not your words that convince many {in regard to above statement} but the reality {and the facts} of your deeds – to date.

I have made many points in relation to this as above in previous posts - but as you move further and further to the right, in real terms – you can of course shout out NO! we have not shifted to the Right,

While you have become more and more obsessed with electoralism - both through word and deed – You can shout out NO! we have not become obsessed with electoralism etc etc.

Of course you can shout it as loud as you like to further convince yourself and your members – but the reality is, and the facts speak for themselves , that the opposite of your statement is true, this in real terms.

Indeed in my opening post I had talked of my initial support for Respect {as a member – supporter of the SWP} – But based on what I though it initially was about – before its move to the right for the search for more and more votes and more and more seats, as like I stated SF {whom the SWP had hammered for such over all those years I was in the SWP

The irony of it all -.

Sigh!

I Quote –‘

Indeed I had even thought, initially, that it may have been a good idea {that was when I was a member of the SWP}

I had thought it a good idea, in the sense, as I had also thought similar of the SEA. For it to be primarily an activist based campaigning organisation, to give a representative voice to the Movement – {as even then I had problems with such ‘focus’ on elections}.

With that, such an organisation would of course have to find a common platform, where one may, 'INTIALLY', give ground.

This on 'some issues', to bring others together. And so, as time went on and in the course of campaigning etc, ‘Revolutionary Socialists would attempt to 'move' the organisation, as a whole, further to the Left, and so to convince others through ones words and actions as that is the way forward, for real change.

Yet Respect is moving further and further to the Right – -and not pulling the movement to the left ’.

-And on that point I asked a further question {again}

Quote –

‘Forgive me though, if this seems stupid, but is it not harder to pull the Movement to the Left when one is moving and has Moved further and further to the Right in their ideas, and class makeup, or indeed is it not easier to do so when one at least attempts to not cross that original line and then attempt to drag the best of those from the Movement over the line with us, through ones words and deeds?

As I have always said – One needs to deal with the reality and not try to create a reality – when you do – you are then doomed the failure

Your actions {the facts} - speak for themselves – this in real terms

Richey and SP member – some interest points to contemplate.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Thu May 11, 2006 10:08

Respect stood over 150 candidates and got 16 elected: 12 in Tower Hamlets, three in Newham and one in Birmingham.

Judy Beishon
The victories of candidates standing against the Iraq war, privatisation and the other neo-liberal attacks of New Labour and big business are welcome. However there are also strong danger signs regarding Respect's development.

All of their winning candidates are from a Muslim background and won predominately on the basis of Muslim votes in areas with high Muslim populations. Winning support from working-class Muslim and other Asian, black and immigrant communities is an essential task of left and socialist parties. These communities face some of the worst housing conditions, jobs and unemployment in Britain and also suffer the consequences of increased racism.

However, the extreme difference between Respect's election performance in those areas compared with areas with relatively few Muslims is striking. Virtually all of Respect's results in towns and cities such as Plymouth, Portsmouth, Cambridge, Liverpool, Newcastle and Oxford were very much lower (around 2-300 votes) than their votes in areas with high Muslim populations.

On its website, Respect declares that their twelve council seats in Tower Hamlets are "one more than the BNP in Barking and Dagenham". This would be a cause for great celebration by the left as a whole, if it had been achieved on a clear class-based programme. But instead, unfortunately, Respect could unconsciously further the beginnings of a polarisation based on racial division, by not countering the growing perception that it is a 'party for Muslims'.

The white working-class BNP voters of Barking and Dagenham will only be won away from the BNP by a left party that puts forward a class-based alternative. It is not so much a question of what Respect's election material says, but of what it doesn't say. While it puts across opposition to NHS cuts, council house privatisation, the war in Iraq and other welcome positions, it does not consistently include a class-based appeal to all sections of the working class.

As the Socialist Party has repeatedly warned, it is necessary for socialists to stand clearly and firmly on a fighting, class-based programme that can unite working people from all sections of society. In Kirklees, standing for 'Save Huddersfield NHS', Socialist Party member Jackie Grunsell won a council seat with 2,176 votes and a majority of 807, by appealing to both white voters and a significant Asian minority electorate. Victorious Socialist Party candidates in Coventry and Lewisham have also appealed to all sections of workers in those areas.

Another major challenge Respect now faces will be in living up to expectations to improve the lives of people in Tower Hamlets. Some of its new councillors there have a record of fighting privatisation and cuts, but as the second largest political group on the council they will soon be tested at a new level.

The housing, welfare and other urgent needs in that poverty stricken borough cannot be solved with the money presently given by the government and raised in local council tax. So Respect's councillors will be faced with the choice of supporting cuts in some services, increasing council tax, or of mobilising all sections of the community into a major campaign to demand the necessary resources from the government, as Liverpool's socialist councillors did in the 1980s.

Respect has already shown - particularly through the behaviour of its MP George Galloway - that its public representatives are far from accountable to the party. This, combined with the fact that many of its new councillors do not come from a socialist background, is cause for concern in Tower Hamlets.

What is needed, is a united, campaigning team of councillors, opposing all cuts and leading and basing themselves on the struggles of workers from all religious and ethnic backgrounds. Only in this way can a successful campaign be launched against the New Labour government and council attacks on living standards and for the resources necessary to transform people's lives.

by Richey Thu May 11, 2006 03:04

Gogol, the problem remains that other people on the left don't trust the SWP because of their record of undemocratic, manipulative behaviour in campaigns (a good summary of the general view can be found at this link: http://www.mikemarqusee.com/index.php?p=41). The fear is not so much that the SWP have changed, but that they haven't.

There is nothing childish or sectarian about this - it is simple common sense. Until the rest of the left hears a good, honest apology from the SWP for its antics in the recent past, trust will be almost non-existent.

On top of this, people now see the SWP ditching basic principles for the sake of short-term gain. This is not a question of petty, sectarian point-scoring (although no doubt some of the people attacking the SWP have sectarian motivations).

Take, for example, the question of elected reps for the party. If the left took anything from the experience of the last century, it should have learnt that it was essential to hold elected reps accountable to the rest of the movement - otherwise, even with the best will in the world, they will drift away under the pressures of the establishment and begin to water down their politics. This is not a principle that should be held dear by revolutionaries and revolutionaries alone. The reformist left-wingers in the British Labour Party fought a long and ultimately doomed battle to make Labour MPs accountable to the grassroots of the party.

So how do you think people are going to react when they see Galloway acting like he's a law unto himself, refusing to accept any kind of collective discipline? The Big Brother escapade was a bizarre illustration of where this can lead - the Respect party was deeply embarrassed and Galloway's reputation was dragged thru the mud. It's very hard to imagine any party that kept its elected reps on a tight leash making the same mistake. And that was a pretty harmless fuck-up in the greater scheme of things - unless MPs are accountable to the party, they're likely to make far worse errors.

People who raise concerns like this are not sectarian - they have genuine fears that avoidable mistakes will be made, setting back the task of creating a real alternative to the establishment parties.

by Gogol - swp Thu May 11, 2006 02:22

It would help if this discussion was contextualised in something more substantial than false allegations and (sub)urban myths.
It seems to me clear that millions of people reject some or all of the neo-liberal agenda; Bush, Blair and Empire; war, racism, and the demonisation of Muslims, etc. The parties that many might have looked to in the past to express their values (Labour type parties typically) have embraced social liberalism.
The rise of the anti-capitalist, another-world-is-possible movement; anti-war movement, the movements in Latin America and the interest and sympathy for those movements across the world are some of the expressions of this phenomenon
It seems to me also obvious that the mass of people in, to take two examples, both Britain and Ireland do not currently espouse revolutionary consciousness. This is hardly surprising as people spend most of their lives under the political and ideological hegemony of capitalist institutions. This means that revolutionary formations, groups, parties are relatively small. Having imagination, not talking to people in mad ways and being energetic can help. But for revolutionary socialism to become a mass movement requires developments in the objective world and the capacity of revolutionaries to seize opportunities that present themselves.
This presents socialists with a contradiction. While masses of people reject capitalism and imperialism in various ways only relatively modest numbers move into revolutionary socialist organisations.
Broadly two types of response are possible.
Those who imagine themselves to be far left can proclaim their purity, denounce others for this or that crime in the hope of stealing a member or two from a larger organisation. This is, of course, not a recipe for changing the world but affords its exponents the opportunity to indulge in the illusion that they are involved in politics. In Ireland in particular, where the revolutionary left has suffered years of marginalisation, this sort of sectarianism is widespread. In the years when it appeared little or nothing could be done it provided relatively harmless amusement, searching one’s opponents documents for inconsistencies, changes from previous positions, deviations from the correct line, concessions to this, that and the other. Its legacy today is poison.
I take it as obvious that to change the world we must join in common efforts with those who don’t agree with us. With those who don’t describe themselves as revolutionaries or even necessarily “on the Left”, who aren’t convinced that all immigration controls are racist, who have religious and other sentiments that modify and structure their political consciousness, etc, etc.
I believe along with my party that we need to abolish immigration controls, that public representatives should receive no more than those they represent; should be accountable and removable, etc , that abortion on demand should be freely available to all. I along with my party believe that it will take the revolutionary self-activity of the working class to smash capitalism. SWP publications promote these ideas.
But the thousands who have come around for example, Respect in Britain have not fixed on some or all of these positions. If they had they would likely have joined a revolutionary organisation. But they haven’t. An alliance like Respect is a sort of United Front, a political home for those rejecting aspects of capitalism. It is a process. Neo-liberalism and the opposition of anti-capitalism sentiment has projected large numbers of people on a political and ideological journey.
At least some of the sectarians, I’m sure, understand that such an alliance would not be possible if political octane is raised above a certain point. Demanding all representatives receive the average wages in the constitution of Respect would drive out Galloway and a lot more. Forcing the demand for Free Abortion on Demand into the programme of Respect would drive out many others. Similarly the demand for an end to immigration controls. The SWP is denounced for voting against making these demands planks of Respect. In fact the SWP is supporting the minimalist basis of the alliance—the common ground which allows the coalition to come together and continue to work together. For the sectarians this is a golden opportunity to expose the sell-out SWP. The sectarians would not care if a pyrrhic victory of gaining ever more radical words on a programme resulted in a collapsed coalition. But we do care.
What good is a few council seats you say? In and of themselves not much. But how do you think the oppressed, rejected, demonised Muslims feel after they proved you can stand up to the cynical machine men and women of the New Labour in East London and elsewhere? How do you think hundreds of activists—black, brown and white--who sank their differences to fight for a progressive programme feel now they scored a breakthrough in what was a Labour citadel for decades? Do they stand more or less ready to fight council house sell-offs, privatisation of jobs, war, racism and all the rest of it? Have men and women who have united around a limited but vital manifesto of reform and made it relevant to thousands, more or less inclination to discuss politics, to debate questions of strategy, to inquire into theory, to read a revolutionary newspaper that “patiently explains” the case for Abortion on Demand, recallable workers’ democracy, etc?
The same reasoning underpins our understanding of political Islamism. It appears to me to be either wilful blindness or bad faith that makes our critics on the left deny the pungent reality of Islamophobia, not just as a racist prejudice, but as the one of the central ideological props with which Empire and its hangers on seek to reconcile populations in the West to the so-called “War on Terror” or more accurately the renewed conquest of the Middle East and beyond.
A small question: Does the young Islamic woman who faces down her school teachers and governers to wear the hijab as a defiant expression of her pride in her Islamic identity in a racist society, stand higher or lower? Is her defiance not likely to spill over into resistance against other aspects of the filthy capitalist set-up? Is such a person not setting out on a journey that could see her refusing to take shit from school, employer and even parents and cleric? Isn’t it the height of condescension to insist that white secularists make her choice for her?
Of course the SWP believes workers’ revolution is necessary in Iran as everywhere else. But in the next weeks and months the more likely scenario by far is US bombs (nuclear?) raining down on Tehran and other cities. And if that happens, do you suppose rights for gays and women will be advanced? Will Islamism be weakened if the US crusade boldly announces in rubble and gore what the clerics have said all along?
Re Tatchell: A few stupid remarks from a Respect member (for which he apologised) notwithstanding. No we don’t issue a statement of condemnation every time someone makes a fool of themselves. (I cringed when Galloway made like a cat. But didn’t you, like me, cheer much more when he told the US Senate in front of the world a few home truths they hadn’t heard from anybody else?)
Arrogantly, I suppose, I don’t want to piss away my life in school playground scraps and pissing competitions. I believe the same for you. No the SWP has not “taken the reformist road”; “got into bed with the mullahs”; “become obsessed with electoralism”; “shifted to the Right”. Yes we have changed. And so have you. And so have they.
We think a New Left is possible that unites all sorts of people most of whom are not now revolutionaries. We would like to do everything in our power to help bring that about. This is the biggest opportunity in my view for decades. So I hope we don’t blow it.
Perhaps you agree, perhaps you disagree with some or all of this over long comment. But lets, all of us, whatever our differences, try to pull together a bit more, resist the temptation for the cheap shot, stop calling each other names and try to fan the flames of resistance together.

by Padraic Thu May 11, 2006 01:00

hs said : " According to Daniel Guerin on his book on anarchism. Some anarchists such as Bakunin argued that anarchists were not against taking part in elections per se, but rather they opposed anarchists taking part in cross-class or popular font governments. Which pretty much mirrors the traditonal trot view.
Another anarchist, Proudon even took part in elections and won a seat. More recently Noam Chomsky called on a vote for the Democrats against the Bush presidency on a sort of global "lesser evilism".

Contemporary Irish Anarchism for it's part seems to put forward tactic as principle. "


Guerin was a bit of a strange fish. In the second volume of No Gods No Masters he actually talks about the :"respect due to the memory of a great revolutionary such as Leon Trotsky". (http://www.libcom.org/hosted/af/org/issue51/review.html see second review).His self identification as anarchist was ambigious. Here's a sympathetic bio which mentions some of his political lineage: http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/1904-1988-daniel-guerin/index.php

The Bakunin view of elections you mention strikes me as very odd, can you provide a reference for it? (not accusing you of making it up).

Proudhon was more a proto-anarchist I reckon than someone whose politics a lot of today's class struggle anarchists would necessarily agree with. His famous quote on government is great though: http://chatna.com/author/proudhon.htm (second quote)

Voting for the democrats might have been a lesser evil but I wouldn't have agreed with Chomsky and I think most anarchists wouldn't. Thats not saying tactical voting automatically disqualifies you from being an anarchist. In pre war Spain a lot of anarchists voted for the left - both to secure a prisoner amnesty and to get the right out of power. When it comes to running candidates for burgeois parliments though the anarchist position is principle rather than tactic - this is one ares where we do differ from trots.

(We're not evil bloodthirsty dictators in waiting either of course! Evil I say!)

by hs - sp (personal capacity) Wed May 10, 2006 23:06

REFORMISM

Firstly I think we need define reformism and especially how reformism has fundamentally changed. Post war reformism was about mass parties, communist, socialist, labour or any workerist formation dropping maximalist demands in exchange for a place in government and/or holding back mass movements in exchange substancial reforms. We would argue that more could have been won and some parties missed historical opportunities which often led to the victory of reaction. But at least generally these mass parties won actual concrete and substancial reforms which made a difference to the lives of the working class people, especially in the post war period. Reforms such as basic democratic rights, basic workers rights, reforms of the state and often increases in wages and decreases in the working week. The nationalisation of industries (with better working conditions and the profits returning to the state rather than private hands) and the nationalisation of services such as health, education and housing. This was not revolutionary change and had little effect on power within peoples lives, but there were huge improvements.

This is very very different to the idea of socialists moving rightwards for the sake of a dozen or so council seats, with no power to change anything. Also during a period of general economic decline (in much of europe) when the bourgeois are less likely to hand over reforms. And also without the backing of a mass movement, (it should be remembered all of the aforesaid parties and reforms were made during periods of struggle, when the bourgeois would reform to try and prevent the movements growing, not just because communists won seats).

As bad as all the old reformist parties may ever have been I don't think any would have sold themselves so cheap.

In the modern era, reformism is more about counter-reforms and as far as the working class is concerned we are defending already won gains (ie local sevices) rather than winning new ones. In this scenario it is arguable a well run small revolutionary organisation is probably better suited than a broader but much less clear reformist party.

ELECTORALISM

In the case of Germany we have a reformist, electoral organisation the WASG. The CWI faction if nothing else are raising the political debate and posing the question, What is the party for? What is the point in winning seats or councils or taking part in elections at all? Whats the point of having a new party if it jumps into bed with the neo-liberalism after only a few months. Especially as they would be implementing cuts and attacks on the working class rather than making reforms in their favour. Here whatever the outcome the SAV are playing a good role.

So what is the point of winning seats or even govening power itself? it can be only to use the positions to try and raise conciousness and defend workers in struggle and as a platform for socialist ideas. For even a socialist party winning power itself is nothing without the mass movement of workers in struggle to (A) defend it and (B) replace it with a more democratic form of organisation. A leftist party as a junior party in a right wing coalition can only be a left cover for attacks on the working class. Any party is better off in honest opposition.

This is as true in a broader working class party as in a small revolutionary one.

ANARCHISM

While anarchists are obviously correct in that it is better to get people involved in political movements rather than simply vote (and who could disagree), the comrades shouldn't forget for many people often that act of voting in itself can be a first step in political action. And isn't necessarily someone affirming leadership on such or such a person or party. It can even be empowering as a first step. Those of us in "authoritarian parties" don't necessarily have plots of dictatorship either!

In fact recently I have been reading some differences within the anarchist point of view. According to Daniel Guerin on his book on anarchism. Some anarchists such as Bakunin argued that anarchists were not against taking part in elections per se, but rather they opposed anarchists taking part in cross-class or popular font governments. Which pretty much mirrors the traditonal trot view.
Another anarchist, Proudon even took part in elections and won a seat. More recently Noam Chomsky called on a vote for the Democrats against the Bush presidency on a sort of global "lesser evilism".

Contemporary Irish Anarchism for it's part seems to put forward tactic as principle. For as much as I admire the ideas of self management within anarchism. It often comes accross as an all or nothing point of view, without taking into account the development of society as a whole. And while it's added alot of colour and ideas into the irish working class movement it will have to be careful not to ghettoise itself. Syndicalism or any form of it rings hollow without workers in struggle, and anarchists while being correct to try and create such struggle should also recognise whats actually happening. Sometimes a party or group can assist in creating the conditions for such struggle but it can't replace it.

TODAY

But in saying all this, there's no point in having a perfectly pure revolutionary party if it has no support or has absolutely no effect on society. We should all try to push our own organisations and parties as much as possible. But even if the WASG or Respect brought out a revolutionary or even anarchist program tomorrow but it would mean nothing without a mass struggle to push it forward.
Therefore a broader formation can be necessary to broaden out struggles and try to encourage more people to take part in political decisions within their own lives. And again raise political conciousness and bring debate to more people. Its the role of revolutionaries to try and raise issues and positons within these sort of parties. Openly and honestly.

But again it's pointless if its "just about winning seats" as Davy has said. We cannot loose sight of excatly why we want to win seats and what we will do with them when we do. Any new formation in Ireland will have to make this clear from day one. And we will also have to make clear it's not just about winning seats, but about empowering people, communities and workplaces. And fundamentally about workers winning power for themselves whether in the workplace, community or society as a whole.

Respect has had some good points in that it has involved a whole new section of people in political struggle, and a very oppressed section of the British population at that. On it's downside, it's lack of formal democracy, papering over differences and the complete lack of accountability over it's eleceted representatives means it is unlikely to survive any serious problems. Also it's not quite clear what its goals are. The WASG for its good points seems to be a very working class organisation and does so far have a formal democracy where oppositon factions can organise. But it's early days yet! And it has attracted thousands of people who are actively involved in it and made a huge impact in elections.

For myself any new formation in Ireland would have to be a clearly anti-coalition one (or else whats the point?), and would have to have very strict formal democracy and accountability. There would have to be room for minority views and the possibility of minority becoming majority. Even within a democratic centralist formation. A steering committee wouldn't even come close to cutting it. It will have to be federal (and thats not federal as in the leaderships of the existing left organisations either!) But a federation from the branches up, So far respect certainly isn't the best model, as for the German Left party its too early to tell.

by joeboy Wed May 10, 2006 20:52

Duncan passed away a couple of years ago.

by Davy Carlin Wed May 10, 2006 18:11

Michael Y - Yep - questions are very valid, and I believe that they should be addressed.

Only if some one cares to come on to address them.

Pat C - as always, some interesting and good points raised.

I have put an extensive post above - so for now -

- SO -ATB - D

by pat c Wed May 10, 2006 18:04

i remember duncan hallas fondly, he was good speaker and might well have converted me to the swp as well! is he still active or even in the land of the living?

i think you are being a bit too hard on emily. i have probably also quoted things to back up my opinions but it would not mean that i agree with every sentence in them. in this issue i think the writer went over the top. but in general the points made were ok.

you were certaily right to raise Indonesia. this is too often the forgotten genocide. between 500,000 and 1 million were killed by the indonesian military. practically the entire CP but also many chines and hindus. certain elements used it as a cover for ethnic cleansing. the truth of this massacre isnt that well known. for a longtime i believed that it had resulted from a failed coup attempt by the CP, this belief was probably reinforced by the film "the year of living dangerously". while it showed the massacres in graphic detail, it continued (probably unintentionally) to spread the belief that it was set off by a CP coup attempt. the reality was that the entire thing was set up Indonesian intelligence and the CIA. ok that veered off topic but i thought i should add to tonys contribution.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Wed May 10, 2006 18:03

Dear curious friend,

For clarification purposes: For what is worth, MichaelY is not and has never been a member of the People Against Profit - in fact, he has never been to a meeting of theirs. I have been following the debate however, as I am sure you have, both about that organisation and also about some more theoretical matters re:political organisation in this thread. So the context of my message.
I must say I was intrigued that Frank Connolly was mentioned as a speaker...probably his first 'public' appearance since the McD shananigans...if I can be excused the pun I was curious myself. It's catching you see.
Now - your questions may or may not be valid...but they should be addressed to the right recipient.
OK?

by Davy Carlin Wed May 10, 2006 17:59

Hi Tony

Good to see such open Debate on Indymedia that is what it is all about.

Very Briefy,

You Quote –

‘ but as you are aware the Bolsheviks contested elections’

AND?

You Quote – ‘Davy C - sorry, your posts are too mystical for me. If I'm guessing correctly what you're saying, it is that {running in elections automatically leads to reformism}’

In that regard, Nope –

But neither will such bring 'Fundamental Change-

BUT -

I was ‘specifically dealing with ’Respect and in Part SF. –

And so,

Quote – {in my first main post}

‘Yet Respect is moving further and further to the Right – and not to the Left.

This of course was to be expected as I said at the time, if one seeks ‘primarily the electoral path – however and whatever ones talks about mobilisation, campaigning etc.

. That is, where bums on council seats and votes ascend far above those once understandings due to that new ascended goal',

Quote {in my second main post}’

Again specific –

‘Indeed that is why, once taken all onboard, that as with SF, and now with Respect, I believe, they have – and are, following that historical repetitive path, may it be - ‘All Class Nationalism or increasingly so, that -‘All Class Unity, {etc] in their continual search for votes,

Indeed there ‘is no other way to go, {in this regard - RESPECT – AND SF} that is, once you go down the path of electoralism, - and that ascends above all else’

-Tony I believe that there is a difference of tactically standing in elections, as so to provide a ‘platform –

And that of electoralism – that is, as a means of seeking change solely through the ballot box –

And again, I state, that I believe, that ‘electoralism is an essential wing of Capitalism, in its pursuit to survive.

And if that is where, I BELIEVE, Respect is headed, as has seen, as I stated SF- then this Electoralism for Respect also, - will lead too further Reformism.

And, on that, as I finished, that post,

I again finish,

Quote ‘

The only Success to come out of ‘ELECTORALISM will be electoral success - but the only power to ‘fundamentally change this system will be the active Power of the Working Class - through their own combined and Collective actions – AND NOT - through the Primacy of the Passivity of the People - via electoralism.

And indeed once the latter ascends above the former, in real terms - - then it is then a case of ‘Reform not Revolution, {SPECIFICALLY} as is the Case with SF, and indeed now, with Respect.

Finally

You Quote –‘if I were more confident in your own understanding of the job of revolutionaries –

Well, I don’t really see it as a Job, more of a belief and an understanding. – D

On your next post –

You Quotes-

‘It’s the fact that they have {Provisional Movement I presume you mean} always stood ONLY for reforms - yes, reforms with bombs and bullets’

{The amount of times Tony I have read this in various left pamphlets}.

Tony, on many issues as I have stated here and elsewhere, I seek to find my own answers on things. Through reading, watching and listening, but more especially from living. So in that regard and on that above statement I say this.

Having grown up in ‘Republican West Belfast, and with several hundred family living there all through the period of the conflict many of course became politicised. I remember the debates discussions etc, not only from them, but from all those around me.

Many got ‘involved’ initially for defence, while many who became politicised ‘genuinely’ believed {whether one agrees or not} - that they where fighting for ‘Revolution’ for a ‘32 county Socialist Republic’ {not surprising though given what was happening around the world in that previous decade or so of the 50s’ and 60’s

Indeed this was given further succour by the statements and words of the Provisional leadership calling for similar and convincing activists of such at ‘family meetings’ conferences etc.

So whatever the - ‘reformers from the bombs and bullets’ - the reality on the ‘streets’ was a ‘War of - and about - Revolution and Socialism, this to many.

{Indeed there are still many within and supportive of SF, who still feel that way today}.

Then as the War wound down, the words of the Political leaders seen no mention of a 32 county Socialist Republic, and more of Nationalism and ‘electoralism for change {Reformism} - and with that - more and more of the middle classes have come on board, {while still keeping most of their working class base] - for a now - ‘United Ireland’

Indeed as I stated above –

Quote –

Yet In doing so, not only will the ‘Leadership {of the said ‘Revolutionary organisation] be either pulled, and eventually skipped and danced along the electoral path, {if some success is seen to come out of it} but more importantly that ascending and primary role {through effort, words and commitment} will indeed ‘Move;’ many more of that Revolutionary Cadre, into a ‘Reformist mode.

‘And with that, therefore seeing many more come to the understanding of ‘Reform and not Revolution {whatever debate and discussion had} – as in real terms and more especially with that ever more move to the right and the ever embracing of not only such policies, but indeed of new members and supporters ‘of All classes finding that 'New Home’

-It is of course a fine balancing act -as with SF the use words {locally within their working class base} and providing policies to keep their working class voters on board - while at the same time embracing and ‘balancing the middle classes, and so it is with Respect - also now continuing to embrace all classes while ‘balancing the Religious aspect of it

Indeed both remind me of Doctor Doolittle’s ‘PUSH ME PULL YOU’ – {a four legged animal with a head at either side of its body – the same body but different words to attempt to ‘balance the 'mass}.

Quote –‘Respect was always intended to be a reformist organisation’

Maybe so, but to what end {more especially for Revolutionary Socialists within} – is it for them too go further and further to the right in the search for more votes and more seats – or to pull the Movement to the left?

As I quoted above –

‘Forgive me though, if this seems stupid, but is it not harder to pull the Movement to the Left when one is moving and has Moved further and further to the Right in their ideas, and class makeup, or indeed is it not easier to do so when one at least attempts to not cross that original line and then attempt to drag the best of those from the Movement over the line with us, through ones words and deeds?

You Quote –

‘When I lived in Britain I recall there being a debate within the IS as it was then in the early 1970's’

Tony I am only a young -un - - - in political activism less than ten years.

I will try to get back on some of your other points and others points tomorrow.

Good to see such interesting discussion and debate - a cornerstone of Indymedia Ireland.

All the best Tony D

Very Briefy -

PS - A few ponts Tony as it might help you understand where I am coming from on some other points you raise

Firstly -

– I am An Anarchist Tony –

- and my Problems with Electoralism is long well documented, both inside and outside of the SWP –

- also well documented, is that I do not believe in the ‘purism and dogmatism of politics, {another reason for leaving the SWP} -

-although one does need to learn from the lessons of the past..

by Curious Wed May 10, 2006 17:23

Not only is this a meeting of the PBPA it is also the launch meeting of that organisation. A couple of questions arising from this:
Will a statement of what the PBPA stands for be voted for at this meeting?
Will membership guidelines of what constitutes a member of the PBPA be voted for at this meeting?
Will this meeting elect officers of the PBPA? Or have they been decided already?
How come before even the launch date the alliance agreed to run two candidates in the next general elections?
And finally has Joe Higgins replied to his invite yet?

by Tony Wed May 10, 2006 15:45

I missed mentioning the obvious example of reformists who aren't (or actually weren't) electoralists. It is of course Sinn Fein. Davy C speaks as though SF has only recently become reformist. Actually they always have been. It's not the electoralism that makes them reformist, it's the fact that they have always stood ONLY for reforms - yes, reforms with bombs and bullets, but that's a common enough (meaning far too common) position. Consider the ANC for example.
Davy, as I understand it, Respect was always intended to be a reformist organisation. That doesn't automatically mean that building it is a reformist activity. It MAY do, and I reserve judgement on whether or not it is, but as soon as I see someone using timeless guidelines to what is and isn't reformism I begin to wonder whether can't be bothered to analyse a particular situation, and instead just rely on a few simple ideas anyone could master in a couple of hours
Davy C., I understand you are a former member of the SWP in Ireland.
When I lived in Britain I recall there being a debate within the IS as it was then in the early 1970's on whether revolutionaries can make reformist demands. Duncan Hallas, who was a leading IS'er at the time argued strongly that revolutionaries do indeed often make reformist demands. In fact his sensible approach almost persuaded me to join them, but having been in the Labour Party I was more attracted by the glamour of groups like IMG, who I never joined either - they couldn't be bothered to get in touch with me, as they had no members where I lived
So what's changed in the SWP? You presumably accepted that reformist demands were legitimate when you were a member. What's so special about contesting elections that bothers you?
I'm not suggesting the the French Popular Front wasn't reformist, but I would argue that their electoral success in (I think) 1936 made possible the massive boost to working class combativity which led to the mass strikes of that year. The same, only much more so, would be the case if a revolutionary organisation won elections on a large scale.
There isn't, as you appear to believe, a complete separation between elections and struggle from the working class. They are, indeed, on one level opposites, but if you remember your Marx you will know that M spoke about the "interpenetration of opposites" - meaning, in this case that electoral success can (not must) lead to working class struggle, and als that struggle can (not must) lead to electoral success.

by Davy Carlin Wed May 10, 2006 15:20

Michael Y,

I believe it is less of ‘listen and learn' by asking questions {my aul schooling days, of old, are over – in that sense} - and more of discussion and debate - should be the flow of things.

Well, I am ‘up for such discussion and - or debate, for a while more, from any within, or supportive of Respect {SWP included of course} – or from anyone else.

This, as so to have an ‘informed debate about its, {Respect} and indeed the 'direction of any other such ‘alliances’ - if one wishes.

Including PP4P - is one so desire Michael.

I am though away for an hour or two, as it is a beautiful summers days here – in the 70’s I believe - and so my Partner and I are to cycle to a very nearby lake and greenery, with a cool box and a radio and to pleasure at Nature – and chill.

But shall be back -

by Tony Wed May 10, 2006 15:20

I quoted Emily's post from 9.14 9/4/06
“Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile were tea parties by comparison to Iran's Islamist bloodfest. Since the ayatollah's seized power in 1979, nearly 100,000 Iranians have been murdered - including socialists,trade unionists, communists, feminists, journalists, students, lawyers, writers, doctors, human rights activists and religious and ethnic leaders.”
Emily replies

"I didnt wrie this. Check who you are citing. I actually would disagree partially with the piece above, more died in Francos Spain, but less in Chile."

Oh but you did. You CHOSE to quote it as though it supports your arguments. Now, caught out, you want to deny you wrote it.

I don't mind honest debate, but let's keep it honest. That said, you failed to reply to the substantive points I made.

Davy C - sorry, your posts are too mystical for me. If I'm guessing correctly what you're saying, it is that running in elections automatically leads to reformism.
I have to disagree. It may well indicate reformist tendencies sometimes, but as you are aware the Bolsheviks contested elections. While it's true that reformists are (almost)aways electoralists, the opposite does not follow. I say almost always because there are a few exceptions. For example the British reformist union leader Jack Jones fought (militarily) against the annexation of Austria, and of course the CNT anarchists in Spain were nonetheless reformist
You may respond that in the case of the SWP it really is part of a shift to reformism, and I accept that you have a greater knowledge of that party. I would be more convinced by what you say, however, if I were more confident in your own understanding of the job of revolutionaries

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Wed May 10, 2006 14:30

Following the above debate with extreme interest.

Incidentally, just to let you know that that there is a meeting organised by People Before Profit entitled 'Who Owns Ireland'. Meeting to take place in Cassidy's Hotel, Parnell Square, on Friday 12th 7.30. Speakers include Ollie Rehman from RESPECT and Frank Connolly of (ex)CPI who comes from a completely different political history and present. All those who believe that Respect is close to BNP is close to SWP and all that jazz should be there I suppose to listen for themselves and ask their questions. Open invitation to all activists.

by Davy Carlin Wed May 10, 2006 13:46

Spot on

Quote- '

'I'm glad things have calmed down here. Obviously it is an error to compare RESPECT to the BNP'

I think if one is to debate, proper, - then it is indeed good things have calmed down

A lot of points for debate have been raised - from Democratic Centralism through to what I have raise RE - above, on the ' 'Revolutionary and Reformist Mode' which I believe is important - as is the specifdics of the WHAT - but as Stated - such comes I believe from the WHY.

by pat c Wed May 10, 2006 12:42

I'm glad things have calmed down here. Obviously it is an error to compare RESPECT to the BNP. There may be some RESPECT members who could at a stretch be called Islamofascist but what it is really is a reformist party with some bad policies and some good ones. Rather than moving RESPECT to the left the SWP have allowed themselves to be moved to the right. The amount of deliberation in this is debatable, sometimes when you are on a slope its hard to gety off. But it is asthjonishing that the SWP have moved to the right on immigration as well as on womens rights and gay rights.

The same seems to be true in Germany. The SWP group there seems to be prepared to live with the PDS being in government in the Lander with the FLDP. So the new Left party would also be part of these coalitions. In the eastern Lander going into coalition with the SDP would be a matter for debate for the new party (despite all the dangers it poses) but going into coalition with a Neo Liberal party is going outside of the pale.

by Davy Carlin Wed May 10, 2006 12:08

' -Quote -

The SWP operates under rigid Democratic Centralism. Do you really think that the entire SWP contingent at the Respect conference voted against Party orders and also against having a policy opposing Immigration Controls'

That point goes with what I had raised above - in relation to members and Leadership - and that of 'Revolutionary and Reformist Mode

by Emily Wed May 10, 2006 12:00

"As I said before, it’s also obvious to anyone that “a good slap in the face” is not an incitement to violence, but rather the kind of silly facetiousness that many young people use as a daft kind of humour."

You ignore the fact that Tatchell had already received death threats. DesiXpress is a paper with a young muslim readership.

"First and simple point – no political party is a solid block of granite, and members of any party often say daft things which don’t reflect the views of the organisation as a whole. Having said that, you don’t seem to understand that they could even be correct."

The SWP operates under rigid Democratic Centralism. Do you really think that the entire SWP contingent at the REspect conference voted against Party orders and also against having a policy opposing Immigration Controls?

"Emily says
“Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile were tea parties by comparison to Iran's Islamist bloodfest. Since the ayatollah's seized power in 1979, nearly 100,000 Iranians have been murdered - including socialists,trade unionists, communists, feminists, journalists, students, lawyers, writers, doctors, human rights activists and religious and ethnic leaders.”

Her grasp of the history of military coups is pitiful. "

I didnt wrie this. Check who you are citing. I actually would disagree partially with the piece above, more died in Francos Spain, but less in Chile.

"There is nothing intrinsically wrong with calling Iranian and Iraqui socialists islamophobic – it depends whether they actually are or not. "

But surely you dont do it because they defend womens rights.

I am not a supporter of the Algerian or USSR CPs they were Stalinist. I dont know enough about the Israeli CP to comment,

by Davy Carlin - Organise! {PC} Wed May 10, 2006 11:49

On the engagements so far, I must say, that my concentration though is not on ‘WHAT the SWP has done {in regard to working within Respect} but moreover – ‘WHY it has done it.

Indeed once one begins to understanding the ‘WHY then the ‘WHAT simply follows on from that.

As I have already pointed out, - the very searching for more and more votes and more and more seats, {as Respect’s 'primary concern}, has – of course - moved them further and further to the right.

Tony, I am aware of the historical tactics of many other socialist, left and indeed other radical parties, and indeed of those ‘dangers’ argued and debated at the time.

Indeed that is why, once taken all onboard, that as with SF, and now with Respect, I believe, they have – and are, following that historical repetitive path, may it be - ‘All Class Nationalism or increasingly so, that -‘All Class Unity, {etc] in their continual search for votes,

Indeed there ‘is no other way to go, {in this regard} that is, once you go down the path of electorialism, and that ascends above all else.

And so, with that, then your’ Success’ will be judged, {you believe – as will do therefore your supporters} on the success of such electoral outcome –and all praise will be lauded even on those most minor of success.

Yet In doing so, not only will the ‘Leadership {of the said ‘Revolutionary organisation] be either pulled, and eventually skipped and danced along the electoral path, {if some success is seen to come out of it} but more importantly that ascending and primary role {through effort, words and commitment} will indeed ‘Move;’ many more of that Revolutionary Cadre, into a ‘Reformist mode.

And with that, therefore seeing many more come to the understanding of ‘Reform and not Revolution {whatever debate and discussion had} – as in real terms and more especially with that ever more move to the right and the ever embracing of not only such policies, but indeed of new members and supporters ‘of All classes finding that 'New Home’ --

- A new home - with an ever continual rightward shifting ' Reformist organisation.

Indeed as I stated at the end of my first post -

‘That I believe, that ‘electoralism is an essential wing of Capitalism, in its pursuit to survive.

Tony it is not a matter of right or wrong, but the obvious reality, in real terms of the {nature} of the shift, - which is there for all to see.

Indeed it is nor a case of the 'Left dragging and 'winning the Movement with and to them, but of the Left dragged, or dancing and skipping continually to the right - in terms of policy and - 'All classes , in terms of continual Class make- up

Tony,

The only Success to come out of electoralism will be electoral success - but the only power to ‘fundamentally change this system will be the active Power of the Working Class - through their own combined and Collective actions – AND NOT - through the Primacy of the Passivity of the People - via electoralism.

And indeed once the latter ascends above the former, in real terms - - then it is then a case of ‘Reform not Revolution, as is the Case with SF, and indeed now, with Respect.

Fight the Power! – Fight the System ! D

by Tony Wed May 10, 2006 04:55

Emily says
“Here you are an article written by a leading member of Respect.

"Needs a good slap in the face to help him figure out what he stands for and whom he represents. Maybe he should attempt arresting Mugabe again, that would be worth seeing. Time he realised his craving for attention will not in any way help the gay community and so him and his queer campaign army should pack their bent bags and head back to Australia."
Adam Yosef, Jan 6th - Jan 12th 2006 DesiXpress

Islamophobia Watch responded
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/20....html

…his suggestion that Tatchell should go back to Australia. Regarding the latter comment, Outrage protests: "Telling Peter to get back to Australia echoes the racist, xenophobic language of the BNP. They are always telling Asian people to 'go back where you came from'." The idea that a white Australian is the victim of racism is of course laughable. And when the suggestion was recently made in a Pink News article that Iqbal Sacranie should leave Britain if he didn't like "our" liberal values – which did indeed carry echoes of the BNP's racist propaganda – we don't recall hearing any similar protests from Outrage's "Muslim Affairs spokesperson".
"DESIXPRESS OFFICIAL STATEMENT

As I said before, it’s also obvious to anyone that “a good slap in the face” is not an incitement to violence, but rather the kind of silly facetiousness that many young people use as a daft kind of humour.

Emily says

“I have given direct links above to the SWPs support for Immigration Control. You wont find it on the SWP or Respect sites because as the links show the SWP are too clever for that. The SWP voted against motions at the Respect conference which would have committed Respect to opposing Immigration Controls. Therefore in effect the SWP voted to allow Respect members to support Immigration Controls. The link in the comments shows just that.”

“You wont find it on the SWP or Respect sites” In other words, she has NO evidence that the SWP opposes immigration control. The link she gave is to the CPGB, which is a minuscule sect hostile to everyone else on the left, and devoted to gossip, innuendo, and lies

Emily says
“I have shown above through links that SWP members both on Indymedia and on their blogs have called Iranian and Iraqi socialists Islamophobes.”

First and simple point – no political party is a solid block of granite, and members of any party often say daft things which don’t reflect the views of the organisation as a whole. Having said that, you don’t seem to understand that they could even be correct.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with calling Iranian and Iraqui socialists islamophobic – it depends whether they actually are or not. Consider, for example, the Algerian Commmunist Party during the French occupation – it not only supported the occupation, but helped organise anti-muslim pogroms. Of course not all its members agreed with this position, but the party as a whole did so.
Would you also claim that the Israeli Communist Party was not Islamophobic? Would you claim that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was not ant-Semitic?

In addition, as I explained earlier, when you are trying to build a united front of some kind, it is ridiculous to demand that the people you work with agree with all your positions, and if you have a majority it is still ridiculous to do so. For example, I worked closely with Noongars (aborigines from the south-west of Australia) in campaigns for land rights. Some of those people also believed in tribal punishments for all sorts of transgressions – spearing for marrying a person from the “wrong” family group, for example. It would have been ridiculous to have demanded that they give up those practises before I would work with them on land rights

Emily says
“Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile were tea parties by comparison to Iran's Islamist bloodfest. Since the ayatollah's seized power in 1979, nearly 100,000 Iranians have been murdered - including socialists,trade unionists, communists, feminists, journalists, students, lawyers, writers, doctors, human rights activists and religious and ethnic leaders.”

Her grasp of the history of military coups is pitiful. However let’s just consider a couple of examples –

Algeria, again. In the war of independence, the French killed about one million Algerians (at the time the population was about 15-17 million.

Indonesia – Suharto’s military coup killed anyting up to 3,000,000 people. And yes, Suharto was muslim, but not even slightly "devout", and his coup was not in any sense at all “Islamic”. It was a “standard” anti-communist coup, supported by the US. And in fact in the Indonesian island of Bali, which is over 90% Hindu, the massacres were WORSE than in Java (and were mainly carried out by the local peasantry).
The Chinese cemeteries on Bali show horrific numbers of deaths in the same year – the Indonesian Communist Party had significant numbers of Chinese memebers

Davy C – I am not au fait with the details of SWP politics, only from what appears on their web pages. They may indeed be moving to the right, and if so, that may or may not be a mistake. There are times when socialist parties should move to the left, and times when they should move to the right – witness the Bolsheviks under Lenin’s leadership. To someone like me, who is no longer able to be an activist, there seems to be some logic in what you say is the SWP’s position. It’s part of a similar shift around the world, in all sorts of socialist parties. It’s also, of course, full of dangers. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wrong (or that it’s necessarily right).

by Davy carlin Tue May 09, 2006 18:21

I shall also come back tomorrow on some of the ' other issues Gogol and Emily are discussing. SO - D

by Emily Tue May 09, 2006 18:15

Here you are an article written by a leading member of Respect.

"Needs a good slap in the face to help him figure out what he stands for and whom he represents. Maybe he should attempt arresting Mugabe again, that would be worth seeing. Time he realised his craving for attention will not in any way help the gay community and so him and his queer campaign army should pack their bent bags and head back to Australia."
Adam Yosef, Jan 6th - Jan 12th 2006 DesiXpress

"DESIXPRESS OFFICIAL STATEMENT

RE: Adam Yosef's Column 'Civil Partnerships' (December 9th - December 15th Issue 42)

RE: Adam Yosef's Column 'Hate-filled Bigots' (January 6th - January 12th Issue 45)

With regards to the above articles which appeared in DesiXpress, we would like to apologise to Peter Tatchell and the gay community for the offence and distress caused by comments written by Adam Yosef. As a publication we do not have any prejudicial views against the gay community and the comments which appeared were personal opinions of Adam Yosef and do not represent the views of the publication. Saying this, DesiXpress holds editorial control and unfortunately, due to an oversight, these comments passed through our tight editorial guidelines and were subsequently published. For this we sincerely apologise. DesiXpress will now hope to actively work with gay organisations for future features and interviews. "

The paper DesiXpress apologised but the SWP have not dissociated themselves from the article nor have they demanded any disciplinary action against the Respect member who made the comments.

I have given direct links above to the SWPs support for Immigration Control. You wont find it on the SWP or Respect sites because as the links show the SWP are too clever for that. The SWP voted against motions at the Respect conference which would have committed Respect to opposing Immigration Controls. Therefore in effect the SWP voted to allow Respect members to support Immigration Controls. The link in the comments shows just that.

I have shown above through links that SWP members both on Indymedia and on their blogs have called Iranian and Iraqi socialists Islamophobes.

Gogol you might not like my answers but I have answered you.

by Davy Carlin Tue May 09, 2006 18:10

- A few points, presently, as I am finding this thread informative indeed.

'As was said above -

- Quote - The SWP, so far as I can tell from reading their stuff, has positions very different from Respect, but in order to be able to work in alliance with others, they do not insists that Respect accepts those positions'

That may have been the case, in some regard {despite the SWP having a very major say in Respect}

Indeed I had even thought, initially, that it may have been a good idea { that was when I was a member of the SWP}

I had thought it a good idea, in the sense, as I had also thought similar of the SEA. For it to be primarily an activist based campaigning organisation, to give a representative voice to the Movement – {As even then I had problems with such ‘focus’ on elections}.

With that, such an organisation would of course have to find a common platform, where one may, 'INTIALLY', give ground.

This on 'some issues', to bring others together. And so, as time went on and in the course of campaigning etc, ‘Revolutionary Socialists would attempt to 'move' the organisation, as a whole, further to the Left, and so to convince others through ones words and actions as that is the way forward, for real change.

Yet Respect is moving further and further to the Right – and not to the Left.

This of course was to be expected as I said at the time, if one seeks ‘primarily the electoral path – however and whatever ones talks about mobilisation, campaigning etc.

. That is, where bums on council seats and votes ascend far above those once understandings due to that new ascended goal,

-Indeed such is historically repetitive.

And as stated elsewhere on this site I say again -

- that either the SWP are being ‘moved’ in that ever rightward direction. Or indeed they are moving in that right ward direction?

When establishing the ‘original’ line drawn - that should have been the line that the SWP {in Respect} was to drag the Movement over - into the left – but indeed, we see that the SWP have either been dragged, or have danced and skipped over it themselves - and moved further to the right, as seen in real terms.

I remember in my earliest of days listening to both key speakers of the Irish and British SWP and how they hounded SF and told us how they {SF} would move further and further to the centre and right in the search for votes.

They would do this despite their ‘rhetoric’ of talking about the need for, and being involved in grassroots campaigning etc – and how they would de – radicalise the movement where activity would be concentrated on council benches and in the search and fight for the ‘scraps {in the form of funding}. Indeed, that the reality was, and would be, to search for more and more seats and votes, and in doing so, would move them more and more to the centre and to the right - in that continued search - for even more and more seats and votes.

Much of which I had agreed with.-

But when I had raised these points when the SWP where going to get involved, they said, that it would be different, as they where ‘True Revolutionaries, and it was only to ‘pull the Movement, with them, to the Left and provide such ‘Representation..

Forgive me though, if this seems stupid, but is it not harder to pull the Movement to the Left when one is moving and has Moved further and further to the Right in their ideas, and class makeup, or indeed is it not easier to do so when one at least attempts to not cross that original line and then attempt to drag the best of those from the Movement over the line with us, through ones words and deeds?

The reality is, as with SF here in the North, and now as with Respect, whether one is a ‘true Revolutionary or not, once that original line and Mark is crossed there is no going back.

And so, as with SF -,

Respect, has now followed suit –

Indeed I believe that ‘electoralism is an essential wing of Capitalism, in its pursuit to survive. D

by Gogol Tue May 09, 2006 17:32

Emily was asked to provide evidence in SWP's published material of her claim SWP ridiculed the death threat received by Tatchell's and SWP tarred those supporting rights for gays and women in Iran as "Islamophobes". She went on to suggest some sort of equivalence between the SWP and BNP. These are pretty serious charges and anyone making them who pretends to be on the left, or concerned for rights of gays or women, would at the very least be expected to provide the evidence from SWP publications.
Despite the explicit challenge the evidence is not forthcoming. Instead Emily retreats to: "AFAIAC the SWP are in bed with the Islamists and support Immigration control in Britain."
"AFAIAC" is not evidence---it is simply an expression of light mindedness and petulance. It is also a tacit admission that her accusations rest on no firmer foundation than her prejudices.
But she obviously hopes that even without evidence enough dirt will stick to blacken the name of the SWP, Respect, etc. What her motives are in aping the methods of Fox news and Nik Cohen are for others to judge.
If I were to use the same methods of slur and innuendo as Emily I might say "AFAIAC Emily is just a troll trying to poison debate".

by ReSect Watch Tue May 09, 2006 17:04

Tony comes on here and questions the sense of Emily and then proceeds to make the following statement:

"You also confuse the postion of the SWP with that of Respect. The SWP, so far as I can tell from reaing their stuff, has positions very different from Respect, but in order to be able to work in alliance with others, they do not insists that Respect acepts those positions. "

If this is sense, do us a favour Tony as Talking Heads once sang 'Stop Making Sense'. (If that's what it really is)
The SWP wound up the SA to have this alliance, this is completely on their terms.

by Emily Tue May 09, 2006 17:02

I've read the same piece by you several times before on different stories. You have been given links its up to you what you do with them. AFAIAC the SWP are in bed with the Islamists and support Immigration control in Britain. How do you feel about that? Trots supporting immigration control.

I oppose any Imperialist interference in Iran, be it military or economic. All socialists should oppose Imerialism but they should also support the democratic forces which are opposed to the Iranian Regime. I have yet to see any sign of SWP support for the Iranian Resistance.

by Tony Tue May 09, 2006 16:46

At one time I though Emily had some sense - she has proved me wrong again
A previous poster challenged her to prove her claims by providing links to a single official SWP publication which backed up her claims. That seemed a reasonable request. She failed.
She refers to an obviously frivolous statement from some member of respect about Tatchell needing a slap on the face, and imples 1)That this is a death threat 2) that the person is a member of the SWP - h/she may be, but Emily can't or won't say 3)That this is an official SWP position
She says that Islamophobia Watch is an SWP front. I went to check. It is run by a man called Bob Pitt, a former member of the Workers' Revolutionary Party, who were extremely hostile to the SWP (and to everyone else on the left
Next, why should anyone on the left need to prove to you tah they are not anti-woman or anti-gay? Who are you to make such a demand? I might as well demand you prove you are not anti-Muslim
You also confuse the postion of the SWP with that of Respect. The SWP, so far as I can tell from reaing their stuff, has positions very different from Respect, but in order to be able to work in alliance with others, they do not insists that Respect acepts those positions. When I was a workplace delegate (shop steward) I didn't demand that union members accept the need for revolution, or indeed oppose immigration controls before I would work with them, and in fact I would have opposed any move to make that a condition of being a union member
I'm sure that the SWP does foolish things, and makes wrong decisions. So do we all, except of course for the pure, the unsullied, the exclusive bretheren, who stand aside and preach.
Usual disclaimer - I am not and have never been, etc.
As I've said before, I've only been a member of the Labour Party (Britain) - well, I was very young, and it was a long time ago, and a family tradition - and of the Communist Party of Australia (for about 2 weeks), and never of any other party.
And for the record, yes, of course Iranians in Iran should fight against womens opression and for gay rights. That's not the same as saying that in a pre-war situation socialists IN THE WEST should simply join in the chorus that Iran deserves to be attacked, for whatever reason.
I don't want to see Iranian women, gays, socialists etc killed by US bombs - and make no mistake about it, many more of them would be in a US attack than the regime can manage. Nor do I want to see the hold of the Iranian conservatives over the minds of the population strengthened, as it would certainly be by an attack, and also by the collusion of the Western left in demonising Islam

by Emily Tue May 09, 2006 13:09

People can go to the links I provided and make their own minds up. Why havent any SWP members condemned the attacks here on Indymedia on Iranian and Iraqi socialists?

Are you happy that the SWP in Britain supports Immigration Controls?

But do tell: what are the SWP doing about the Respect member who called for attacks on Peter Tatchell? He published that call in a public paper, I quoted it.

Why dont the SWP simply say that:

1. They support the Iranian Resistance and that the Iranian Regime should be overthrown.

2. They support human rights for women and gays in Islamic societies.

3. Socialists in Iran and Iraq who defend womens rights should not be called Islamophobes.

by Gogol Tue May 09, 2006 13:03

The story so far. Emily charged the SWP with accusing anyone defending gay and women's rights in Iran of Islamophobia. Emily charged that the SWP ridiculed Tatchell's claims to have received death threats. On this basis she accused the SWP of being like the BNP.
I challenged her to produce ONE LINK reproducing an offical SWP statement or article for each claim.
She replies with links to various non-SWP publications. The single link to a Socialist Worker article does not substantiate the claim she makes (follow it and see for yourself).
In other word she cannot provide substantiation for her wild claims. But that does not prevent her from repeating them.
If she wanted to make her criticism in a serious manner she would of course quote SWP articles, provide links and make her arguments. Then everyone who is interested could judge for themselves. She does not do this but simply repeats over and over again what have been exposed as lies.
I will not speculate about what her real motivations are, whether she is really on the left or the character of her real agenda. No doubt people can make their own judgements.
By all means criticise the SWP (or anybody else) but do it on the basis of what they say, not what other people say they say.
Is that too dificult for you Emily?

by deutschland watcher Tue May 09, 2006 12:49

The SWP in Germany are playing a horrific role in backing the rightward drifting leadership. This is due to their crap politics and their cushy jobs in the Parliament they have as Secretaries and Staff for the WASG MPs. I'd love to see a member of the SWP try to justify their actions in Germany. I challange any SWP member to justify the backing of cut-back politicians over Socialists and Activists in Berlin. SWP members should read about Germany and consider leaving their Party if they are really serious about Socialist poltiics.

by Emily Tue May 09, 2006 12:14

"Emily and Pushkin have learnt well---"If your repeat lie often enough it will be taken for the truth"."

Only lies here are coming from you. Why dont the SWP say here, right now, that socialists in Iran and Iraq are right to campaign for Womens & Gay Rights?

"Give ONE link to an offical SWP publication ridiculing Tatchell's claims. "

On Indymedia and on SWP members blogs (which are specifically noted as being SWP members) Tatychell has been mocked by SWP members. Is there a deniability factor at work here? Maybe the SWP are too clever to put it on their own sites.

But why has no action been taken against the Respect member who called for Tatchell to beaten up?

Heres Peter Tatchell answers the SWP:

"Bizarre, upside-down politics
Peter Tatchell responds to the implied SWP charge of racism and islamophobia against him and Outrage

This allegation is nonsense. Only a very small minority of Outrage’s campaigns involve tackling homophobia in the black and muslim community. All these campaigns are in direct solidarity with black and muslim gay people against their straight oppressors - religion and ethnicity are not factors.

Then there is the false charge that we challenge black and muslim homophobia “despite [gay groups] based in these communities strongly opposing such an approach”.

Our campaign against reggae singers who advocate the murder of gays and lesbians was in conjunction with the Jamaican gay rights group, J-Flag, and the Black Gay Men’s Advisory Group in London. When we tackle homophobes within the muslim community, it is at the behest of our own muslim members and with the support of lesbians and gays in the wider muslim community."

Full article at:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/602/respect%20tatchell.htm

Give ONE link to an offical SWP publication calling anyone who support s rights for gays and women in Iran an Islamophobe."

Iranian Communists "too islamophobic"
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/display/ShowJournal?m...=7529
This is an SWP Front. According to Islamophpobia watch the workercommunist party of Iran is too islamophobic. Yeah right, of course the WPI would not know more about Islam than these armchair intellectuals would they?

Heres another article which deals with the SWPs love affar with the Iranian Islamofascists:

"Far left collusion with Islamo-fascism

Welcome to the new medievalism that is modern Iran, where the
barbarism of Sharia law holds sway, and where superstitious, bigoted clerics have the power to decide whether people live or die for the most trivial offences. Women are threatened with lashing for
"misplaced smiles" that arouse "satanic desires" in men. Last year, 14 year old Kaveh Habibi-Nejad was flogged to death in the town of
Sanandaj for "eating in public" during Ramadan.

Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile were tea parties by comparison to Iran's Islamist bloodfest. Since the ayatollah's seized power in 1979, nearly 100,000 Iranians have been murdered - including socialists,trade unionists, communists, feminists, journalists, students, lawyers, writers, doctors, human rights activists and religious and ethnic leaders.

In the four months following the June election of hardline President,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over 80 people are known to have been executed or sentenced to death. Under Iranian law, girls as young as nine and boys as young as 15 can be hanged. So far this year, seven children have been executed. "

Full article at:
http://www.kargaran.org/international%20labor%20solidar...3.htm

The SWP even find themselves infiltrated by the BNP (or was it a push for unity?):

"Last year, our university branch of SWSS was infiltrated by Joe Finnon, a leading youth organiser for the BNP. Fortunately for the SWPers he didn't find anything to his advantage, but after revealing himself, has basically been ostracized."
http://newerlabour.blogspot.com/2006/02/no-platform-for....html

"that still doesnt explain why, in a students' union general meeting last week, our campaigns officer Rob Owen, a leading SWSS member, voted against a motion to operate a no-platform policy for holocaust deniers. following the line of argument in the SW article, [below] this would mean that cartoons of mohammed and expressing hate of muslims/islam should be outlawed, but doing the same thing to jews should not be.

And i thought marxists believed in dialectics...

Apparently, all this is on the basis of "different motivations" that can exist for holocaust denial. is the motivation really important? as far as I'm concerned where there exists intent and the action itself, there exists the offence."
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id...=8243

by Observer Tue May 09, 2006 09:52

Comparing these two parties is ridiculous. The BNP is relatively successful electorally. The SWP is not. The BNP has substantial working class membership and support. The SWP does not.

by wasg Tue May 09, 2006 09:28

Ireland currently doesn't have a huge islamic community, and so far what is their isn't organised politically. Therefore in Ireland we would be more likely to see a German scenario with a new party as opposed to a Respect Scenario. Therefore the SP and SWPs actions in Germany are probably more relevant to ourselves in Ireland. Here the SWP seem to be uncritically supporting the leadership in a way much worse than even the old communists in popular front governments. The SP faction on the other hand is playing the old trotskyist role of causing trouble over principle, although it's too early to tell where their tactics will lead, destroy the new formation? Push it to the left? or be expelled en masse? Probably B and C are most likely so far.

by Gogol Mon May 08, 2006 22:43

Emily and Pushkin have learnt well---"If your repeat lie often enough it will be taken for the truth".
Give ONE link to an offical SWP publication ridiculing Tatchell's claims.
Give ONE link to an offical SWP publication calling anyone who support s rights for gays and women in Iran an Islamophobe.
You won't cos you can't.
Instead "everybody knows" and "common knowledge" replace substantiating an allegation.
Now the "SWP are like the BNP". This passes as the thought of people who have you believe they are serious.
In case anyone is interested in a sober discussion of how the Bolsheviks dealt with Islam in the post revolutionary Russian empire here is a link to the SWP (Britain) International Socialism Journal article. You may not agree with it but at least it is based on more than innuendo, gossip, half truth and outright lie which Emily and Pushkin specialise in..
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=181&issue=110

by Emily Mon May 08, 2006 19:52

You think I haven't backed up my claims, we'll let the readers decide. I am surprised that you aren't opposing the Zionist stuff. Writing about Zionist domination in the West is a respectable code anti semites use when they mean Jewish control. I oppose the Zionist occupation of Palestine but I'm not going to support anti-Semitism.

I think its odd to say the least that a Trotskyist/Muslim coalition is in favour of Immigration Control. They claim to be different than the other parties so its a lot worse. Such racism has to be opposed not pandered to. It will be interesting to see if the SWP (or PBPA) in Ireland now start to get fuzzy on immigration. Maybe we already had a taste of it with the SWP call for jobs for local people in Dun Laoire.

by Richey Mon May 08, 2006 19:29

Abusive? Whereas calling people "fascists" on the most threadbare pretexts is just fine, the cut and thrust of political debate ....

Glad to see you've found your affinity with the AWL. You might like to know that they refuse to call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and condemn all resistance fighters as "Islamofascists". Nick Cohen praises their "honesty" (ha fuckin' ha!) and quotes their polemics in his columns.

Emily has tried to justify the parallel between Respect and the BNP, and failed miserably. Her list is very similar to the list trotted out by Cohen in his column yesterday. Talking about ZIonist influence in the west is the same as denying the Holocaust? Sure, sure (smile and nod people, humour them). Respect SHOULD call for an open borders policy - but their failure to do so places them in the same category as the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories (and possibly the Greens, not sure what their line is). I suppose they're all fascists are they?

Pushkin again has made no attempt to back up his silly claim, and resorts to insinuating that I am secretly a member of the SWP, who cunningly criticises them to disorientate people. I suppose this sort of paranoid bullshit is preferable to acknowledging the gaping holes in your argument. If I objected to you calling the SWP paedophiles or terrorists, I suppose that would expose me as an SWP member?

by pat c Mon May 08, 2006 19:23

i dont believe that Respect is any sort of fasist party. certainly i think the SWP have been opportunist but Pushkin and Emily are going too far when they directly compare Respect to the BNP. i agree with the rest of what Emily and Pushkin have written. Respect has a dodgy line on womens and gay rights, Respect does not clearly oppose immigration controls and the SWP smear you as an islamophobe if you raise the issue of womens rights re iran & iraq.

by Pushkin - VLL PISFI (ICR) Mon May 08, 2006 19:05

I have little in common with the AWL. I had to google them to find out anything. Thanks for making me aware of yet another wonderful group who at least see Respect for the menace that it is And one that supports the Iranian resistance whilst also opposing US intervention. For one who is not an SWP member you seem to get upset at this criticism of them. But you obviously know them, so you mudt realise that they will stoop t o whatever depths they can to advance a project.

by Emily Mon May 08, 2006 18:58

You could try being a little less abusive. Here are some links on the SWP/RESPECT support for Immigration Controls.

"The end of the meeting was taken up by the resolutions. Motions were overwhelmingly supported on climate change, deportation of Iraqi Kurds and trade union solidarity action. Motions moved by CPGB supporters on opposition to immigration controls and the religious hatred bill were overwhelmingly defeated. The SWP members who spoke opposed open borders as “not being in the real world”, while “only the likes of the BNP” could possibly be against the government’s ‘incitement to religious hatred’ legislation."

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/597/respect-sheffield.htm

"The SWP voted down the CPGB’s principled call for the scrapping of all immigration controls at the October conference of Respect. Now we can see the result, writes Tina Becker. George Galloway is free to ape the populist calls of the Tories and Labour government for ‘controlled immigration’

Instead of fighting for the right of every person to settle and work where they wish, Galloway thinks that “we should publish an economic-social-demographic plan for population growth based on a points system and our own needs” (February 12). Our own needs? Whose needs exactly does comrade Galloway mean? The needs of a classless Britain, presumably, united in its fear that the country could be ‘swamped’ by those who have no job, no skills and no visas - ie, those millions of people pushed to the bottom of the heap by imperialist superexploitation."

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/565/galloway.htm

by Richey Mon May 08, 2006 18:39

I'm obviously dealing with two grade-A fruit loops here. I'm sure the Alliance for Workers' Liberty will be glad to find two new members if ye haven't joined already. I'd advise any sane person to follow these links where you will find some sober, sensible criticisms of Respect by two principled socialists (Gilbert Achcar and Tariq Ali) who know far more about Islamic fundamentalism than Pushkin or Emily ever will - neither of them feel the need to resort to such cheap, mindless polemical tricks when making their criticisms.

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_a...chcar

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_a...q+ali

One more time - "Islamofascists" me bollix. You've achieved the remarkable feat of making me sympathise with the SWP.

by Emily Mon May 08, 2006 18:28

"Why do you think establishment hacks have jumped on the alleged parallel between Respect and the BNP?"

Establishment hacks also accept that the Earth is round and that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Perhaps they raise the parallel between Respect and the BNP because there is a case for it.

Respect will not challenge Islamic views on women and refuse to support gay rights. Members of Respect even incite attacks on gay activists. Respect see Zionist plots everywhere. Respect supports Immigration Control.

The BNP dont support womens rights, they think the place for women is in the home. The BNP are also fiercely homophobic. The BNP see Zionist plots everywhere. The BNP supports Immigration Control.

They have a lot in common.

by Richey Mon May 08, 2006 18:20

"The SWP must think that Indymedia readers have the attention span of goldfish the way they keep denying what has already been shown to be fact"

And again with this rubbish ... I hate to disappoint you, but we're not all secret members of the SWP. As any fool can see from the posts above, I am critical of the SWP, and its behaviour in Respect, but I won't go along with this hysterical nonsense about "Islamofascists" that will do nothing but bring comfort to the enemies of the Left. Why do you think establishment hacks have jumped on the alleged parallel between Respect and the BNP?

by Richey Mon May 08, 2006 18:17

You're trying to deflect attention from your own foolish comments. To claim, as you did, that Respect is exactly the same as the BNP, just with "Islamofascists" instead of white fascists, is an outrageous smear, worthy of deceitful hacks like Nick Cohen. Bringing up daft or unprincipled things that the SWP have said on the subject of Islam is just a distraction here - there is no parallel between Respect and the BNP, end of story. One is a broadly progressive organisation that unfortunately contains conservative Muslim elements with whom the Left should have no dealings (although they are certainly not "fascists"). The other is a racist, fascist, anti-democratic party that brings racial violence in its wake wherever it goes. Tariq Ali, to whom you refer, has been very critical of Respect, but he would never dream of calling it "fascist" or comparing it to the BNP. The same goes for all principled socialists who have criticised Respect. Only Nick Cohen, the AWL and other cranks have come out with this sort of rubbish.

At this point, you may regret saying that Respect and the BNP are just two sides of the same coin, since you haven't made any attempt to defend your absurd claim. But it is there in black and white. I've no interest in debating with you about any other question, as long as you are unwilling to admit that you were wrong to say that.

by Emily Mon May 08, 2006 18:13

The SWP must think that Indymedia readers have the attention span of goldfish the way they keep denying what has already been shown to be fact. Here we go yet again. SWP members have mocked Peter Tatchell (right here on Indymedia.ie) because he got death-threats from Islamists. A leading member of Respect, Adam Yosef, made homophobic comments about Tatchell and attempted to incite violence against him.

"Needs a good slap in the face to help him figure out what he stands for and whom he represents. Maybe he should attempt arresting Mugabe again, that would be worth seeing. Time he realised his craving for attention will not in any way help the gay community and so him and his queer campaign army should pack their bent bags and head back to Australia."
Adam Yosef, Jan 6th - Jan 12th 2006 DesiXpress

The SWP have not dissociated themselves from this nor have they demanded any disciplinary action against the Respect member who made the comments.

If the SWP are opposed to the Iranian Regime then all they have to do is say that it should be overthrown. They could call for support for the Kurds and Socialists who are fighting to overthrow the Mullahs. They could also say that women and gays in Iran are entitled to human rights. Yes! If the SWP support womens rights then just say it. Say that no one should be called an Islamophobe for supporting womens rights.

by Pushkin Mon May 08, 2006 18:03

"unless you accept the neo-con / cruise missile "left" lie that every political Muslim, from Tariq Ramadan to Shamir Basayev, is a fascist. "

No, I certainly do not believe such rot. Tariq Ali is a great secular socialist. But anyone who believes that the Sharia law should be introduced is imho an Islamofascist. Anyone who believes that women who have sex outside marriage should be stoned to death is quite simply a fascist.

You should ask yourself why do the SWP refuse to support womens rights in Islamic societies?

by Richey Mon May 08, 2006 17:38

"Respect and the BNP are 2 sides of the one coin: Islamofascists and British Nationalist fascists."

Anyone who comes out with rubbish like that is singing from the same hymn sheet as Cohen and his ilk. There's plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of Respect, but that sort of hysterical nonsense is contemptible. Some of the elements involved in Respect are conservative Muslims with no belief in progressive politics, and the SWP should never have agreed to work with them, but none of them are fascists - unless you accept the neo-con / cruise missile "left" lie that every political Muslim, from Tariq Ramadan to Shamir Basayev, is a fascist.

I've heard of some of the other incidents you mention, but I'm not inclined to take your word for the others when you clearly have such a distorted view of things.

by Pushkin - VLL PISFI (ICR) Mon May 08, 2006 17:18

Idont think Cohen opposes the occupation or proposed Invasion of Iran like I do. The fact remains that the SWP have attacked Iraqi and Iranian socialist feminists here on Indymedia and called them Islamophobes. Are you denying the Peter Tatchell incident? Why shouldnt women in Iran and Iraq have the same rights as women in the West?

by Richey Mon May 08, 2006 17:00

Hmm, has Nick Cohen got a new pseudonym? "Pushkin"'s comments are an exact carbon copy of that tiresome ranter's column in the Observer yesterday. "Islamofascists" me bollix, grow up...

by Pushkin - VLL PISFI (ICR) Mon May 08, 2006 16:46

Sean the Mullahs are the Islamists in the MAB who the SWP have cosied up to. Surely you have heard of this and how the SWP condemn anyone who raises womens rights or gay rights. Even Iraqi and Iranian socialist feminists have been called Islamophobes because they raise the issue of womens rights. THe SWP mocked Peter Tatchell when he got death threats from Islamists and a leading member of Respect tried to incite attacks on Peter Tatchell.

All of this has been widely discussed on Indymedia so I'm suprised that you are unaware of it.

by Seán de Barra Mon May 08, 2006 16:35

Who are the "mullahs"?

by Pushkin - VLL PISFI (ICR) Sun May 07, 2006 17:12

Given the way the SWP have jettisoned their socialist politics in Ireland and Britain so that they can cosy up to Mullahs its hardly surprising that In Germany the SWP section is cosying up to roightwing parties. In Britain the SWP gained nothing in Tower Hamlets, all of the Respect councillors elected are Islamists not SWP. These Islamists want to have Council leisure facilities segregated on gender lines!

Respect and the BNP are 2 sides of the one coin: Islamofascists and British Nationalist fascists.

by - Sun May 07, 2006 16:56

the position of Linksruck is laughable beyond belief, "we must have critical but unconditional support for unity"!!! that's a contradiction interms comrades (or should I say scabs!!) you can't critically unconditionally support someone or something, it's a basic premise of the word unconditional!!

by swp Sun May 07, 2006 00:46

In recent weeks, the German media has continually referred to Lucy Redler, the leading candidate for the organisation Election Alternative—Work and Social Justice (WASG) in Berlin’s state legislative elections, as a “self-proclaimed Trotskyist.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/wasg-m06.shtml