Calls for British left to come together after electoral wins by British Nazi party

The breakthrough for the Nazi British National Party in the European elections held earlier this month has sparked a renewed push to bring Britain's radical Left together. Significant statements have come from three of the main groups – Respect (the party of George Galloway MP), the British Socialist Workers Party, and No2EU:Yes to Democracy (an electoral coalition backed by the Communist Party of Britain, the Socialist Party and the railway workers union). BNP victory shows the need for Broad Left to work together, by Councillor Salma Yaqoob, Respect Party leader. Left must unite to create an alternative: An open letter to the left from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Call for unity to Defeat BNP, press statement by No2EU: Yes to Democracy coalition convener Bob Crow.

UNITYblog EDITORIAL: Debate on broad left strategy continues within IST

The global debate about how Marxists should organise politically in the current epoch is continuing. The debate centres on the question of whether Marxists opt to maintain a narrow Marxist organisation or join together unreservedly with other leftists in broad left political formations. This crucial debate is intersecting with the question of how the left responds to the global economic crisis. Without a viable political force which mobilises masses of people the result of the crisis will be devastating for ordinary people. Socialist Worker-New Zealand supports the broad left strategy, which has been articulated in the articles and statements. See History calls for a broad left party and Organising to build a global broad left movement. Our ideas have been raised within the International Socialist Tendency (IST), to which we are affiliated. In the interests of furthering this important debate we are posting on UNITYblog an exchange of ideas between Alex Callinicos, leading British Socialist Worker Party member, and European activists Panos Garganas and François Sabado. In International Socialist Journal (ISJ) issue 121, (Winter 2008) Garganas and Sabado responded to Callinicos's original article Where is the Radical Left Going? (Issue 120, Autumn 2008). See:

• Panos Garganas, The Radical Left: A Richer Mix.
• François Sabado, Building the New Anticapitalist Party.

In turn, Callinicos replies in ISJ issue 122: Revolutionary paths: a reply to Panos Garganas and François Sabado In his reply Callinicos appears to make concessions to the idea of building broad left parties where Marxists do not organise as a "party within a party" and block vote. Something which the British SWP did with disastrous consequences in Respect. The shift in position is noted by current Respect activist Liam MacUaid in his blog post A shift of position (8 April 2009). Socialist Worker-New Zealand (SW-NZ) is very interested in this unfolding debate, reflecting as it does the crucial question of how Marxists work cooperatively in broad left political formations. As an organisation SW-NZ is continuing to work alongside other leftists in RAM - Residents Action Movement. We want to see a mass-based broad left political alternative built in New Zealand that can win the respect of masses of people. A task which today is only in its infancy. At the same SW-NZ maintains its own organisational structures, organises Marxist Forums for political discussion, and produces independent Marxist publications, UNITYblog and UNITY Journal. We retain our ability to represent Marxist ideas through these forums and publications at the same time as we are committed as individual members to the political outreach work of RAM. Please forward any new contributions (short or long) on the broad left debate or responses to any of the above articles to UNITYblog editor

A shift of position

by Liam MacUaid 8 April 2009 It’s not often that a leading figure on the far left sets out to “express my disagreements in some humility” and admits to having “shifted my own position”. Alex Callinicos may be starting a welcome fashion in the current issue of International Socialism. As part of an ongoing discussion with Panos Garganas and François Sabado about the connection between broad parties and revolutionaries he says that the evolution of the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA) in France altered some of his views. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed and hope that this rethink eventually leads him to appreciate the difference between the united front and the wholly owned party subsidiary (Unite against Fascism, Globalise Resistance…). The near universal malady of the Anglophone left. In a certain sense the details of the discussion are not as important as the fact that it is happening. All the formations which have emerged to the left of Social Democracy in recent years have been very distinct and comparing one with another can be as productive as comparing apples with shoes. The LCR has been able to launch the NPA on the crest of a wave of struggles with an explicitly anti-capitalist programme. On the other hand Die Linke has a large group of members from the PDS tradition who are likely to be less receptive to a message of not sharing power with Social Democracy. One of the things that gives this debate in Britain a real urgency is the response of the unions to the loss of 4500 jobs at the Royal Bank of Scotland. It’s “truly devastating” was how they summed it up. There is no hint that they can do anything about it, no suggestion of the workers taking charge of the bank. The absence of an authoritative combative political leadership is taking a heavy toll on the British working class and while it is right that much of the left is building solidarity with struggles such as the one at Visteon that is insufficient. A political response which transcends selling a couple of papers and maybe recruiting a striker for three months is what is required. Some faltering steps are being taken. The No 2 EU campaign has its deficits. Wilfully excluding the SWP because of the Lindsey dispute; a tenuous commitment to internal democracy and some infelicitous phrasing in its propaganda among them. Nonetheless a major union with a record of fighting is contesting an election in opposition to Labour. That’s a big positive and maybe it will be a catalyst for a realignment after the elections. Add to this the fact that Respect still has an electoral base in some parts of the country and the Socialist Party have a habit of getting people elected and the outlines of a new formation appear. That is the significance of Alex Callinicos’ article. It reminds us that the discussion may have been muted recently but that it is still necessary. Under much more favourable circumstances a new party is emerging in France but it has been demonstrated that it is possible to launch a modestly successful project in Britain too. If one were to take a single aspect of the NPA that can be transplanted across the Channel it is its inflexible approach to internal democracy born from an understanding of the necessity of meaningful political pluralism. That is the one thing that is absolutely universally transferable.

Revolutionary paths: a reply to Panos Garganas and François Sabado

by Alex Callinicos from International Socialist Journal, Issue: 122 31 March 2009 The responses in the previous issue of International Socialism by Panos Garganas and by François Sabado to my article “Where is the Radical Left Going?” are very welcome.1 As their articles bear witness, the condition of the radical left in Europe is quite diverse. Though I have disagreements with some of the things that both have to say, these differences are quite minor. We in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) are enthusiasts for the New Anticapitalist Party (Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste, NPA) that Sabado and his comrades in the now dissolved Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (LCR) have played a key role in launching. I also recognise the significance of the realignment that is bringing together the Greek Socialist Workers Party (SEK) and the other far-left organisations allied in the Anti-Capitalist Front (Enantia) with the New Left Current (NAR), the most important recent breakaway from the Communist Party. I also express my disagreements in some humility: the disastrous recent experiences of the radical left in Britain do not exactly set up any of the participants in these catastrophes to preach to their comrades elsewhere in Europe. As will become clear, the debate, and the concrete development of the NPA have shifted my own position. A new model party? The most important point to emerge from the discussion is that the general term “radical left formations” encapsulates two quite different types of organisation, even though they are both a product of the radicalisation of the past decade. There are those cases where the level of class struggle and the political traditions of the left make it possible for revolutionary Marxists to unite with others who regard themselves as revolutionaries in new, bigger formations. So far the only example where this has come to fruition is the NPA, whose founding principles, as we shall see below, are in a broad sense revolutionary. Then there are other cases in which the most important break is by forces that reject social liberalism but have not broken with overt reformism—Die Linke in Germany, the Partito della Rifondazione Comunista (PRC) in Italy under both its old and its new leadership, Synaspismos in Greece and some elements in the Left Bloc in Portugal. Both Garganas and Sabado argue that radical left projects should follow the first model, basing themselves on a clearly anti-capitalist platform, rather than on an “anti-liberal” platform that targets neoliberalism and not the capitalist system itself. They justify this partly by pointing to the negative experiences of centre-left coalitions such as the plural left government in France in 1997-2001 and the Prodi government in Italy in 2006-8. Garganas also argues that significant sections of workers and young people are not attracted to “the traditional reformism of the past”.2 What seems to me valid in these arguments arises from the different paths taken by the class struggle and by the workers’ movement in various parts of Europe. France and Greece are the European states that have seen the most intense social struggles in recent decades. Indeed, in Greece these have been so sustained and so fierce (think of the huge wave of rioting by young people that swept the country in December 2008) as to create, in relative terms, the largest radical left in Europe. Moreover, these are both societies with strong Communist traditions where social democracy has only succeeded in establishing itself as the dominant force on the left in recent decades and on a fragile and contested basis. In these conditions, seeking to build parties of the radical left on an anti-capitalist programme makes perfect sense. It remains the case, however, that these parties will still have to grapple with the problem of reformism. One of the main lessons of the history of the workers’ movement is that the development of the class struggle, by drawing new layers of workers into class-conscious activity, will tend to expand the base of reformist politics, since seeking to change the existing system seems, initially at least, an attractive halfway house between passive acquiescence in the status quo and outright revolution. Thus if we consider the great revolutionary experiences of the past century, the Russian working class, after the overthrow of Tsarism, gravitated first to the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, not the Bolsheviks. In Germany, thanks to the ingrained experience of reformism and the relative weakness of the far left, it was the Social Democrats and the Independent Socialists who were the first main beneficiaries of the revolution of November 1918. Nor are these experiences confined to the imperialist countries. Consider how the Brazilian Workers Party, which Sabado’s comrades in the Fourth International helped to build in the belief that it was a non-reformist organisation, has become, under the Lula presidency, a pillar of social liberalism. The implication of these historical experiences is not the fatalistic conclusion that the mass of workers will never break with reformism: on the contrary, the Bolsheviks achieved, within the space of a few months, majority support in the Russian working class, and the German Communists were able to win over the bulk of the Independent Socialists and build a mass workers’ party. Nevertheless, these cases show how reformism remains a strategic problem for revolutionary parties far bigger and better socially implanted than the NPA, SEK or the SWP. A major driving force in the development of the new radical left parties is the experience of social liberalism. After Tony Blair, Lionel Jospin, Gerhard Schröder and Romano Prodi large numbers of workers and young people are looking beyond the “old house” of social democracy. But it doesn’t follow that they have broken with reformism as such. Indeed, so tight has been the embrace between recent centre-left governments and neoliberalism that some tendencies on the far left (the Committee for a Workers’ International, for example) argue that the British Labour Party, the German Social Democratic Party, the French Socialist Party and their like can no longer be regarded as reformist parties. I think this view is mistaken—apart from anything else it ignores the fact that large sections of the working class continue to vote for these parties, partly out of habit, partly for fear of the even harder neoliberal policies of the traditional bourgeois parties. But the sharp shift to the right by mainstream social democracy that gives this view whatever plausibility it possesses creates a large space to the left of these parties that is ideologically diverse and open to various political currents.3 It should be added that the revolutionary Marxist tradition, which both the Fourth International and the International Socialist Tendency have tried to continue, is not exactly a mass force at this precise moment in time. Sabado says this is because it “is more than 30 years since the advanced capitalist countries experienced revolutionary or pre-revolutionary situations”.4 That’s true. It is also true that, whatever achievements the LCR or the SWP can claim, we have not led mass workers’ struggles of any kind, let alone (as the Bolsheviks did) a successful socialist revolution. Moreover, we have to struggle with the incubus of Stalinism. None of this is a reason for liquidating the revolutionary Marxist tradition, but it does imply that we cannot hope in the short term to regroup the radical left on a platform that simply reproduces the strategic conceptions developed by revolutionary Marxists. That does not mean that these conceptions are simply irrelevant—a point that I return to below. What does this mean concretely? The situation in France has allowed Sabado and his comrades to launch a party three times the size of the LCR whose programme, while in some respects remaining strategically open, nevertheless explicitly calls for a revolutionary break with capitalism. Conditions differ elsewhere. Thus in Britain and Germany we confront workers’ movements in which social democracy has been deeply entrenched to the extent that it is often assumed that the two are identical. This is why the emergence of Die Linke in Germany is such a historic development. Sabado acknowledges that it is “a step forward for the workers’ movement” in Germany,5 but this recognition is rather grudging and he prefers to accentuate the negative, stressing the “left reformist” character of the project, the weight within Die Linke of the ex-Stalinist PDS and so on. All of this is true enough, but it ignores the fundamental fact that, for the first time in decades, the decay of social democracy has produced a serious breakaway to the left. Of course, Die Linke’s politics is left reformist: what else could it be given the balance of forces in Germany? Elsewhere the process of decomposition is so far advanced that such major splits are unlikely. As I noted in my original article, this is the problem that we are grappling with in Britain. The chronic, historic weakness of the Labour left would not matter so much if their ideas were not still supported by millions of people (as is indicated by the immense popularity Tony Benn enjoys well into his eighties). The continuing influence of reformism constrains us in different ways. Respect was doomed ultimately by its failure to bring about a major split in the Labour Party. But, even so, Labourism continued to make itself felt. If the SWP had, in the negotiations that led to the formation of Respect in 2003-4, insisted on the kind of anti-capitalist platform championed by Garganas and Sabado, the project would have been stillborn (or would have gone ahead without us). As it was, it was hard enough to have the word “socialism” included in the coalition’s title (via the acronym forming the name “Respect”). Were we wrong to have gone ahead on a weaker platform of opposition to neoliberalism, racism and war? Absolutely not: despite the ultimate outcome, it was right to have tried. But human beings make history not in circumstances of their own choosing, and an explicitly anti-capitalist party was not on the agenda in Britain then. Similarly it is not on the agenda in Germany today. Does that mean that our comrades in Marx21 are wrong to throw themselves enthusiastically into building Die Linke? Again, absolutely not. They are right to seek to try to develop Die Linke in the most militant and dynamic way possible. Sabado takes a cheap shot at Marx21, accusing it of “a relativisation of the critique of the policies of the leadership of Die Linke on the question of participation in governments with the SPD”.6 Fortunately, this misrepresents the real situation. Our comrades take a principled position of opposition to participation in centre-left governments. But what they refused to do, before the formation of Die Linke, was to allow the wrong policy of the PDS in participating in social-liberal state governments in Berlin and elsewhere to be used as a pretext, as it was, for example, by the local Committee for a Workers’ International group, for attempting to prevent the creation of the new party. Were they wrong about that? Would it have been better if what Sabado recognises as “a step forward” hadn’t taken place? Once again the question answers itself. Even where circumstances permit the formation of a party on a stronger programmatic basis, this does not mean the problem of reformism goes away. Sabado mentions the case of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a leader of the French Socialist Party (PS) left and a key figure in the campaign against the European Constitutional Treaty in the 2005 referendum, who has now broken away from the PS with the aim of creating a “French Die Linke”. Sabado asks, ‘Should we support him and join with him in his proposals and projects for alliances with the French Communist Party, which maintains the perspective of governing tomorrow—with the PS?”7 Of course not. The balance of forces in France allows the anti-capitalist left to relate to Mélenchon from a position of relative strength. But nevertheless his break with the PS is a significant one, which exposes the disarray of the reformist left in France in the face of Nicolas Sarkozy’s victory in the 2007 presidential elections and the attractive power of the NPA embodied in the person of Olivier Besancenot. The development of the NPA may generate more breaks, not just in the PS but in the Communist Party as well. The NPA will have to know how to relate to such openings in a way that involves more than just offering the choice of joining the party or engaging in “classic” united fronts on specific issues. For all the excitement it has generated, the NPA will be quite a small force (albeit significantly larger than the LCR) on the French political scene and in the workers’ movement. This will limit its capacity to lead in any real upsurge of social struggles. Realising the NPA’s very great potential will require a willingness to intervene in the broader political field and sometimes to make alliances with other political forces, some of which, in the nature of things, will be reformist. Having said that, I think the NPA’s founding congress was probably right to have rejected an electoral pact with Mélenchon in the European parliamentary elections in June 2009. The NPA is the stronger force and it is important that it demonstrates and builds up its independent electoral force as quickly as possible. There is nevertheless a danger implicit in Sabado’s argument and sometimes explicit in what other comrades in the ex-LCR and in Fourth International sections when they say that the NPA should serve as a general model. This is encouraged by Sabado’s dismissive attitude towards what the forces immediately to his right do. Thus he pours cold water on the defeat of the forces allied to Fausto Bertinotti, the former general secretary of the PRC and architect of its disastrous participation in the Prodi government, at the last party congress. I wonder if this is helpful to Sinistra Critica, the left breakaway from the PRC that is led by Fourth International members. It might be if the correct perspective for Sinistra Critica were to build a hard revolutionary propaganda group that needed to inoculate itself against pressure from bigger, more right wing forces. But if Sinistra Critica is to act as a catalyst to the development of a stronger radical left in Italy, it needs to attend carefully and relate to what is going on inside the PRC. It is surprising that Sabado barely mentions the Left Bloc in Portugal, which (despite the prominence of Fourth International members in its leadership) is plainly pursuing a different approach from that of the NPA, as is reflected in its membership of the European Left Party, founded by Bertinotti and now dominated by Die Linke. The variety of circumstances we face in Europe make it a mistake to treat any party as a general model. It was a mistake for the leadership of the Scottish Socialist Party to offer themselves as a model and a mistake to the extent that we offered Respect as an alternative model. The NPA has, I believe, a much more promising future ahead of it, but it would be a mistake to make it a general model either. In stressing the importance of the specific circumstances I am not relapsing into a kind of national pragmatism. No, we operate in the context of a common field of problems that allows us to draw comparisons and learn from each other. Moreover, we share the aim of building large revolutionary parties. But it is still necessary to engage in a concrete analysis of the concrete situation in different countries. Revolutionaries and the radical left This brings us to the famous formula, coined by John Rees, that radical left parties should be seen as “united fronts of a particular kind”. Sabado attacks the formula at length, and it became clear in the debates that the SWP has had about the lessons of the Respect debacle that quite a lot of SWP members do not like it either. The formula is in fact an analogy, which involves comparing things that are different yet involve important similarities. A radical left party is unlike a “classic” united front in that it is based on a broad programme rather than a specific issue. The Stop the War Coalition is directed against the war on terrorism, not wars in general, let alone the capitalist system that generates them. Respect, by contrast, sought to connect that war with a range of other issues and to win electoral support on the basis of a political programme that sought to address them all. But a radical left party is like a united front of the classical kind in that it brings together politically heterogeneous forces. This is partly a consequence of the relatively open character of such parties’ programmes, which generally finesse the alternatives of reform or revolution (though this not true of the NPA). More profoundly, however, it reflects the character of a period in which it is possible to draw people from a reformist background into parties of the radical left where revolutionaries play an important role. The programmatic openness (what Sabado would call the “incomplete strategic delimitation”) of these parties reflects the recognition that it would be a mistake to make membership conditional on breaking with reformism. This stance is correct, but the price is a degree of political heterogeneity. Before considering the implications of this reality, let me say a couple of things about Sabado’s specific objections to the formula. He asks, “Didn’t this conception of ‘a united front of a particular kind around a minimum programme’ contribute to disarming the leadership of the SWP in its relationship with George Galloway, for whom Respect had to sustain ‘alliances with Muslim notables who could deliver votes’?”8 In the first place, “around a minimum programme” is Sabado’s own addition, presumably to highlight the contrast with the NPA. But in fact the degree of strategic delimitation (to put it more simply, of political hardness) in a party’s programme is a relatively open question. Whether or not it is anti-liberal, anti-capitalist, or indeed full-bloodedly revolutionary depends on the basis on which it is possible to unite real forces in an alliance that is both principled and sustainable. Did the fact that the SWP leadership saw Respect as a united front disarm us in dealing with Galloway? Not at all. Sabado’s suggestion doesn’t make much sense, since the united front conception is likely to make one attentive (over-attentive, he says elsewhere) to the tensions within the party. Moreover, as a matter of simple historical fact, growing tensions developed between the SWP and Galloway as early as the summer of 2005. The mistakes we made were arguably to compromise too much and certainly to conceal the seriousness of the conflict from all but a small minority of immediately affected comrades till much too late. But we were quite right not to follow the Scottish Socialist Party model of a unitary broad socialist party and liquidate the SWP. Had we done that it would have been much harder to salvage anything from the train wreck. To some degree, avoiding that catastrophic mistake was a consequence of using the united front formula, since a united front requires the existence of an organised revolutionary pole of attraction. Sabado also elaborates on a suggestion in his earlier piece that to “consider an anti-capitalist party in a united front framework can also lead to sectarian deviations. If the united front is realised, even in a particular form, might we not be tempted to make everything go through the channel of the party, precisely underestimating the real battles for unity of action?”9 Once again this suggestion does not make very obvious sense. Why should we imagine we are engaging in one united front at a given time? In the past decade the SWP has been engaged simultaneously in a range of united fronts—Respect, Stop the War, Unite against Fascism, Defend Council Housing, and Globalise Resistance. In the majority of these we work alongside people from a Labourist background. Having defended the formula of a united front of a particular kind, I must concede that it does not fit the NPA very well. The party’s founding principles declare, “It isn’t possible to put the state and its current institutions in the service of a social and political transformation. These institutions, geared to the defence of the interests of the bourgeoisie, must be overthrown to found new institutions at the service and under the control of the workers and the population.” The principles add: The logic of the system invalidates the pretensions to moralise, regulate or reform it, to humanise it, whether they are sincere or hypocritical. At the same time, the logic of the system helps to create the conditions of its overthrow, of a revolutionary transformation of society, by showing daily the extent to which it is true that wellbeing, democracy, and peace are incompatible with private ownership of the major means of production.10 So Sabado is right when he says that the NPA is a revolutionary party, in the broad sense of seeking the overthrow of capitalism from below, although he acknowledges that “this definition is more general than the strategic, even politico-military, hypotheses that provided the framework for the debates of the 1970s, which were at that time illuminated by the revolutionary crises of the 20th century”.11 In other words, the NPA has “a strategic programme and delimitations but these are not completed”.12 Sabado justifies this in the following terms: “The examples we can use are based on the revolutions of the past. But, once again, we do not know what the revolutions of the 21st century will be like. The new generations will learn much from experience and many questions remain open”.13 Now, of course, there is an important debate to be had about how much of the strategic inheritance of the revolutionary Marxist tradition remains relevant today.14 And it is also true that revolutions always comprise a decisive element of the unexpected and the novel. In that very general sense “we do not know what the revolutions of the 21st century will be like”. But it does not follow from this that we start at what Daniel Bensaïd has called a “strategic degree zero”.15 The “revolutionary crises of the 20th century” contain certain strategic lessons. They confirm that the overthrow of capitalism requires the forcible overthrow of the capitalist state, that this process presupposes the development of organs of workers’ and popular power into a challenge to the state, and that a revolutionary party must seek to win the majority of the workers and oppressed to this objective. Not simply do Sabado and his comrades agree about this, but much of its substance is affirmed in the NPA’s founding principles. There are also other subsidiary lessons that are important, for example, those developed particularly by Lenin in Left-Wing Communism, namely that the conquest of the majority requires revolutionaries to be active in the mass organisations of the working class, even though these are normally under (at best) reformist leadership, and in fights around partial demands, which require, among other things, pursuit of the united front tactic. And there is the complex set of issues related to the struggle against imperialism and national oppression to which the first four congresses of the Communist International devoted much valuable discussion. Then there are the lessons of the experience of Stalinism. These do not simply reaffirm the fundamental truth that socialist revolution can only succeed if it is based on a more advanced form of democracy than that offered by liberal capitalism. They also imply the rejection of what Leon Trotsky called “substitutionism”—in other words, strategies that seek to bypass the task of conquering the majority by, for example, relying on a guerrilla vanguard to seize power (here there may be a disagreement with Sabado and with Olivier Besancenot given the latter’s espousal of a 21st century Guevarism). And then, less a matter of strategy than of its analytical presuppositions, there is Marxist political economy, the whole body of analysis of the development of capitalism, its specific class structures and its interlacing with imperialism that is essential if we are to begin to comprehend what a socialist revolution means in the 21st century. It would be the worst kind of dogmatism to imagine that this body of strategic lessons and analyses begins to define exhaustively the nature of revolution today. Many questions do indeed remain open. Nevertheless, the strategic heritage of revolutionary Marxism remains in my view an indispensable reference point today. Sabado and I are agreed that it should not define the programmatic basis of the NPA and parties like it. But I think that, in reality, we also agree that this heritage should be available to the members of the NPA and should help shape their debates on its future strategy and tactics. The real problem is how practically to achieve this. In my original article I argued that it is necessary for revolutionary Marxists to form an organised current or to retain their own autonomous party organisation within radical left formations. Sabado agrees that this is sometimes the correct option but argues that it would be wrong in the case of the NPA for two reasons. First, “there is the anti-capitalist and revolutionary character of the NPA, in the broad sense, and the general identity of views between the positions of the LCR and those of the NPA”.16 Second, “in the present relation of forces, the separate organisation of the ex-LCR in the NPA would block the process of building the new party. It would install a system of Russian dolls which would only create distrust and dysfunction”.17 These are good arguments in the concrete context of the formation of the NPA. It is at once a qualitative expansion and transformation of the old LCR, and one that retains a substantial continuity at the level of both politics and leadership with the new organisation. Moreover, the relative weight of the ex-LCR within the new party means that if its members were constantly caucusing separately this could create a dangerous “them and us” climate. The problem of being a big fish in a small pond is something that the SWP grappled with inside Respect, and, though it was absolutely correct to maintain our independent organisation, this evidently was not a recipe that guaranteed success. Sabado is also probably right, at least in the short term, that “it is not very probable, with the present political delimitations of the NPA, that bureaucratic reformist currents will join or crystallise”.18 Nevertheless, the problems I set out in my original article remain. The more successful the NPA is, the more liable it will become to reformist pressures from within and without. Negotiating these pressures will often be difficult and will require a demanding combination of political clarity and tactical flexibility. More broadly, the whole experience of revolutionaries in the face of mass struggles since at least 1848 is that these can pull militants in different directions. Old arguments about ultra-leftism, the temptations of centrism, syndicalism and abstentionist purism of the Bordiga sort, the problems arising from the relationship between exploitation and oppression (for us the key issue in the debate about the veil), are bound to arise. This means that those who come from a revolutionary Marxist background have to be putting their own arguments within any anti-capitalist party. As Antonio Gramsci pointed out, spontaneity always involves diverse elements of leadership: the question for the new party is how these diverse elements will determine the party’s response as urgent strategic and tactical decisions have to be made. Of course, revolutionary Marxists have to avoid imposing their ideas in a top-down manner on others or turning every meeting of the NPA into a sectarian row. But they also have to find ways of organising themselves so as to articulate their arguments in a way that can win others in the new party to them. Hence Panos is right that “it is necessary to maintain revolutionary organisation as a source of education and political initiatives that pushes the rest of the left forward”.19 The complication is that the NPA has carried over much of the revolutionary substance of the old LCR. Nevertheless, at the very least, there is a pressing need for political education that makes available, in an open and critical way, to the non-LCR members of the NPA the theoretical and strategic heritage of revolutionary Marxism. The very welcome merger of the excellent Marxist theoretical journal ContreTemps with the LCR’s journal Critique Communiste is a recognition of this necessity, but a good journal cannot substitute for the much broader process of education and debate that is required.20 These reservations are secondary to my recognition of the importance of the venture on which Sabado and his comrades have embarked. We wish them good luck. Their success will be ours as well. Grappling with the same set of problems and discussing and working together, we can learn from each other. I regard these exchanges as a contribution to this process. Notes 1: Sabado, 2009; Garganas, 2009; responding to Callinicos, 2008. 2: Garganas, 2009, p154. 3: Garganas mentions one of these currents, autonomism, when he writes, “Young people may be more influenced by autonomists rather than ‘left Labour’ ideas”-Garganas, 2009, p154. This is plainly true in a number of European countries. But it is important to recognise that, precisely because of the autonomists’ evasion of the problem of political power, their ideas can often fit quite well with versions of reformism. This is shown by, for example, the collusion between autonomists and the right wing of the altermondialiste movement at the London and Athens European Social Forums, and the use of autonomist rhetoric by the PRC leader Fausto Bertinotti to conceal his shift to the right. See, for detailed discussion of this issue, Callinicos, 2004. 4: Sabado, 2009, p149. 5: Sabado, 2009, p144. 6: Sabado, 2009, p146. 7: Sabado, 2009, pp145-146. 8: Sabado, 2009, p146. 9: Sabado, 2009, pp146-147. 10: “Principles Fondateurs du Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste”, February 2009, http://tinyurl.com/NPA2009 11: Sabado, 2009, p148. 12: Sabado, 2009, p148. 13: Sabado, 2009, p149. 14: For two contributions to this debate, see Callinicos, 2006, and Callinicos, 2007. 15: Bensaïd, 2004, p463. 16: Sabado, 2009, p152. 17: Sabado, 2009, p152. 18: Sabado, 2009, p151. 19: Garganas, 2009, p155. 20: One implication is that the review Que faire?, initiated by IST supporters inside the LCR, which emerged as a valuable venue for discussion in the lead-up to the launch of the NPA, can still play a useful role in the new party, provided that it continues to conceive itself as a catalyst for wider debate open to militants of all and no tendency. References Bensaïd, Daniel, 2004, Une Lente Impatience (Stock). Callinicos, Alex, 2004, “The Future of the Anti-Capitalist Movement”, in Hannah Dee (ed), Anti-Capitalism: Where Now? (Bookmarks). Callinicos, Alex, 2006, “What Does Revolutionary Strategy Mean Today?”, IST International Discussion Bulletin 7, January 2006, www.istendency.net/pdf/ISTbulletin7.pdf Callinicos, Alex, 2007, “’Dual Power’ In Our Hands”, Socialist Worker, 6 January 2007, www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10387 Callinicos, Alex, 2008, “Where is the Radical Left Going”, International Socialism 120 (autumn 2008), www.isj.org.uk/?id=484 Garganas, Panos, 2009, “The Radical Left: A Richer Mix”, International Socialism 121 (winter 2009), www.isj.org.uk/?id=513 Sabado, François, 2009, “Building the New Anticapitalist Party”, International Socialism 121 (winter 2009), www.isj.org.uk/?id=512

2008 London elections and a broad left alternative to New Labour and the Tories

Below is an analysis of the recent London election results and prospects for building a broad left party in Britain. Both Nick Wrack and Alan Thornett are members of Respect, a broad left party that contested the elections. Nick and Alan reaffirm in their article the strategy of building broad inclusive parties of the left in response to formerly social democratic parties (like the Labour parties of Britain and NZ) embracing neo-liberalism. It's important that those forces committed internationally to the broad left project continue to share ideas, experiences, strategies and tactics. It's for that reason UNITYblog is posting Nick and Alan's article. There's certainly plenty in it that's relevant to us here in New Zealand as we strive to build RAM into a credible broad left party. Of course it's not a case of one size fits all, each broad left formation has to understand its own political environment and what's unique to each country, but there remains much that can be learnt from each other. Particularly as we're all entering new territory, and there's no road map. Some strategies and tactics will work, others will prove to be mistakes, which will be the basis for new learning. If that process happens with an internationalist perspective then a stronger global broad left movement will emerge. As well as fostering informal ties based on a shared political perspective we must also consider how we can move towards international strategies and organisational forms that can pursue those strategies globally. We need to urgently unite the world's grassroots forces for the massive struggle that's upon us. See SW-NZ's statement Organising to build a global broad left movement (17 November 2007).

Respect and the election results by Nick Wrack and Alan Thornett from Socialist Unity 6 May 2008 The New Labour project is falling apart at the seams. Its local elections results were the worst in 40 years, with only 24% of the vote and coming third behind the Liberal Democrats. This is a disastrous result for Brown. In London, the election of Boris Johnson as Mayor and the presence of a BNP member on the Greater London Assembly will disturb and depress all who value the multi-cultural diversity of the city. The most immediate catalyst for the collapse of the Labour vote was the abolition of the 10% income tax rate (i.e. Labour attacking a large part of its core base), but looming large behind that is the economic crisis ­ the credit crunch, rising fuel and food prices set against continuing low wages for a big section of society. Added to this was Brown's inability to spin the New Labour project in the way Blair could do it. All of this raises the prospect of a further electoral disaster in the European elections in 2009 followed by a drubbing in the general election of 2010 and the possible election of a Tory Government. Against this background what are the prospects and possibilities for building a left-wing alternative to New Labour's neo-liberal policies. What is the terrain and what can be achieved? Continue

Broad parties and narrow visions in Britain

Broad parties and narrow visions: the SWP and Respect By Murray Smith Part 1 ; Part 2 Extract:

In spite of their tradition of political resistance to Stalinism, many Trotskyist groups developed internal regimes based on what can only be called bureaucratic centralism. There are particular reasons in the history of British Marxism for the sectarian and bureaucratic character of many Trotskyist groups. It is not a question of putting the three organisations cited above in the same basket, neither Tony Cliff nor Ted Grant deserves to be compared to Gerry Healy. But they share one thing in common, the inability to accept democratic debate, the confrontation between different platforms, for any length of time. It is not considered normal. This is not however a purely British phenomenon, it is common to, for example, Lutte Ouvriere and the Lambertist PT in France. The Trotskyist movement as a whole, some of its components more than others, has paid a heavy price for decades of persecution and the pervasive influence of Stalinism, even on those who opposed it. It would be more correct to characterise these organisations and the international regroupments around them as factions rather than the parties they usually consider themselves to be.

2008 London elections and a broad left alternative to New Labour and the Tories

Below is an analysis of the recent London election results and prospects for building a broad left party in Britain. Both Nick Wrack and Alan Thornett are members of Respect, a broad left party that contested the elections. Nick and Alan reaffirm in their article the strategy of building broad inclusive parties of the left in response to formerly social democratic parties (like the Labour parties of Britain and NZ) embracing neo-liberalism. It's important that those forces committed internationally to the broad left project continue to share ideas, experiences, strategies and tactics. It's for that reason UNITYblog is posting Nick and Alan's article. There's certainly plenty in it that's relevant to us here in New Zealand as we strive to build RAM into a credible broad left party. Of course it's not a case of one size fits all, each broad left formation has to understand its own political environment and what's unique to each country, but there remains much that can be learnt from each other. Particularly as we're all entering new territory, and there's no road map. Some strategies and tactics will work, others will prove to be mistakes, which will be the basis for new learning. If that process happens with an internationalist perspective then a stronger global broad left movement will emerge. As well as fostering informal ties based on a shared political perspective we must also consider how we can move towards international strategies and organisational forms that can pursue those strategies globally. We need to urgently unite the world's grassroots forces for the massive struggle that's upon us. See SW-NZ's statement Organising to build a global broad left movement (17 November 2007). Respect and the election results by Nick Wrack and Alan Thornett from Socialist Unity 6 May 2008 The New Labour project is falling apart at the seams. Its local elections results were the worst in 40 years, with only 24% of the vote and coming third behind the Liberal Democrats. This is a disastrous result for Brown. In London, the election of Boris Johnson as Mayor and the presence of a BNP member on the Greater London Assembly will disturb and depress all who value the multi-cultural diversity of the city. The most immediate catalyst for the collapse of the Labour vote was the abolition of the 10% income tax rate (i.e. Labour attacking a large part of its core base), but looming large behind that is the economic crisis ­ the credit crunch, rising fuel and food prices set against continuing low wages for a big section of society. Added to this was Brown's inability to spin the New Labour project in the way Blair could do it. All of this raises the prospect of a further electoral disaster in the European elections in 2009 followed by a drubbing in the general election of 2010 and the possible election of a Tory Government. Against this background what are the prospects and possibilities for building a left-wing alternative to New Labour's neo-liberal policies. What is the terrain and what can be achieved? Firstly, nothing in the general political situation has fundamentally changed since the launching of Respect in 2004. Large numbers of traditional Labour voters remain alienated, disillusioned and demoralised by the right-wing policies of New Labour. Some seek solutions in a “change” and vote for the Tories. Many more abstain, casting a plague on both parties. Such is the nature of party politics in Britain today, and the media coverage, that the rivalry between the main parties has become one of presentation and personalities. Ideological differences have been left far behind as all the establishment parties support neo-liberalism to the hilt. Differences are miniscule, reflected by petty point scoring. In these circumstances voters can cast a vote for the opposition in order to register their dissatisfaction without, in fact, registering a vote for any fundamentally different policies. At the same time, there is widespread anger at rising prices and the budget attacks on the poorest. There is opposition to privatisation and a fear about the future of the health service and education. The war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, although receding as an issue, remains of concern for millions. Of course, not everything flows in the same direction. Fears about crime and the issue of immigration are factors used by the press and politicians to drum up support for right-wing views. In general, however, disillusioned working-class voters and the progressively minded sections of the middle class will not swing to the Tories. Some may be tempted by the social liberalism of the Liberal Democrats but most will withhold their votes unless and until they see a serious, viable, alternative. When the threat arises of a Tory win most of these will vote once again for New Labour with heavy heart and holding their noses whilst doing so. This was a significant feature of the Livingstone vote in the London Mayoral election. Such an attitude will be played upon by the right-wing trade union leaders to argue against “rocking the boat”, arguing that New Labour has to be supported to keep out the Tories. In these circumstances, there are possibilities for building a left-wing alternative to New Labour but it will not be easy or swift. We may not like where we are starting from but every journey has to start from where you are. The first point to register about the performance of the left parties in the recent elections is that they confirm that there is the basis of support for such a project. Although the experience was very limited, with only a few handfuls of good results outside of London, the results demonstrate that where consistent and patient work has been invested, support can be obtained for left-wing candidates. Respect’s results confirm this. In Birmingham Sparkbrook, Respect’s Nahim Ullah Khan won 3,032 (42.64%) and became Respect's third councillor in the ward. Elsewhere in Birmingham, Respect polled 25% in Springfield, 17% in Nechells and just under 5% in Moseley and Kings Heath. These are extremely significant results. They indicate the possibilities of obtaining very good votes in elections and demonstrate that it is possible to win. They augur well for Respect’s prospects in the city at the general election. In Manchester's Cheetham Hill ward Kay Phillips polled 14.4% following an energetic campaign that built serious links with the local communities. In Moss Side Respect polled 5.8% and in Wigan 6.7%. In Bradford Manningham ward Respect won 7.5% and in Walsall 7.6%. Of course, these are very few wards contested but are small indications of what can be obtained in the first instance if there were forces to contest more widely. A few of the results for the Left List also demonstrated the same potential for the left. They received a very good 37% and 25% in Preston and Sheffield respectively to 12% and 10% in Manchester. It is worth mentioning that the result in Preston and Sheffield are the products of work over a long period of time with a commitment from the core activists to the building of a broad electoral left alternative; a completely different approach from that of the SWP leadership. In London the most impressive result was the vote for Hanif Abdulmuhit in the City and East constituency. Here, Respect came third, polling 26,760 votes (14.59%), an increase of 7,085(36%) against the background of a polarisation of the vote between Labour and Conservatives. This was a tremendous vote, beating the BNP and consolidating Respect¹s position in its east London stronghold. Across London Respect's vote did not fare so well. Respect did not stand any candidate for Mayor or in any other constituency apart from City and East. Respect polled 59,721 (2.43%) in the London-wide list, a disappointment to the many Respect supporters who had hoped to win at least one seat on the Greater London Assembly by obtaining the minimum 5% required. Notwithstanding the high profile of George Galloway this was always going to be difficult in the circumstances. However there is no doubt that the response to Respect’s campaign, albeit limited by a lack of resources and any real presence in large swathes of the capital, confirmed the potential to build outwards from the success in east London. This was not a bad result in the circumstances. There was a massive polarisation in London around the Mayoral election which no doubt squeezed smaller parties. Perhaps more importantly, the war no longer featured to anything like the same degree as in 2004. Although Respect has a broad array of policies covering the breadth of the issues facing the electorate it is probable that most people still see Respect as the anti-war party. This needs to be addressed. What exactly is Respect and what does it stand for? There is no doubt that the split in Respect damaged the party’s prospects, both in terms of voters seeing Respect as damaged goods and weakening the party's ability to campaign across London. We did not have a Mayoral candidate, which meant that we did not get an entry into the booklet which went to every household in London. Nor did we have an election broadcast. Unfortunately, with the exception of Newham and Tower Hamlets, Southwark, and some pockets in North London and elsewhere, Respect does not exist as an active force with an organisation on the ground. This is a consequence of four years of neglect, compounded by the split last year. The lesson of last years Southall by-election demonstrated again in these elections, is that Respect cannot expect to get significant support unless it carries out regular, consistent work in an area. Respect was not able to overcome these difficulties. It shows that Respect has to be built across the capital, with branches in every borough, if we want to become a real force in London. The vote in City and East, however, demonstrates that we can build in other areas by developing an active base carrying out regular and consistent work within the local community. Of course, our priority areas are Tower Hamlets and Newham in the east where we have to continue to build and consolidate, but no national party can be built on the basis of support limited to two or three areas. The London results Neither the victory for the Conservatives, nor the election of a BNP member to the London Assembly, contradict the argument that there is a need and a realistic possibility of building a left-wing alternative to New Labour. In fact, the election results demonstrate the need for such a party more than ever. The neo-liberal policies of New Labour will lead some to try out the Tories and will even drive some working-class whites into the arms of the racist and fascist BNP. A party espousing policies that benefit working-class people, rather than big business is the only way to cauterise that flow. An election is only a snapshot of political developments and these results should not be seen as a generalised move to the right. Given the absence of any authoritative left-wing party it is not surprising that many voters plump for the other party in the hope that things may improve marginally. But the vast majority of traditional Labour voters still vote Labour or abstain. There is a sizable proportion of working-class voters, especially newer immigrants in low paid jobs, who no longer have any allegiance to Labour. Notwithstanding the election of Johnson and the election of one BNP member to the GLA, the London elections show that the situation is much more complicated -than simply being a reflection of a shift to the right. Livingstone’s 1st preference vote increased by 208,336. His combined 1st and 2nd preference vote increased by 340,358. While there was massive discontent with New Labour's policies and with Livingstone’s own performance, the fear of Johnson winning drove Livingstone's supporters out in massively increased numbers. Unfortunately, this increased turnout for Livingstone could not match the increased Tory turnout, which added over half a million votes to their 2004 result. Following the election of Cameron as leader the Tories have cynically repositioned themselves towards the centre ground of politics to increase their appeal particularly to a new generation which did not know Thatcherism. Alongside this the selection of Johnson as Mayoral candidate has seen a confidence returning to the Tory supporters, especially in the suburbs. Livingstone appeared jaded, grey and on the back foot in the campaign and the Tories scented a huge scalp. They turned out in force to take it. This produced a fairly narrow Tory victory for Mayor. This shows that, notwithstanding the increasingly personal nature of political contest in Britain, there was still a clear left-right contest taking place. Voters for the most part understood this. No matter the serious concerns that many on the left would have with Livingstone, it was clearly understood that Johnson had to be beaten. Whilst the vote for Livingstone went up in the inner city areas it could not compensate for the doubling of the Tory vote in some of the suburban constituencies. The Mayoral election was overwhelmingly a class vote. There was a clear ideological aspect to the vote, fuelled by the massive attacks on Livingstone led by the Tory-supporting Evening Standard. It was understood that the multicultural nature of London and its public services were seriously at risk. Johnson¹s victory will demonstrate very quickly how justified that fear was. It was a huge victory for the Tories and a defeat not only for New Labour but also for all those to its left, - particularly when taking into account that the BNP are now on the Assembly. Part of a wider trend New Labour’s defeat came directly out of the New Labour project itself. It is part of a wider and more fundamental picture involving the direction of social democracy at the European level. Over the last two decades European social democracy, without exception, has abandoned its traditional roots and adopted the full neo-liberal agenda. Now, one after another, these parties are suffering the backlash from this and falling into disarray. Italy is the most recent example where social democracy, after a disastrous period of coalition with a centre right Prodi administration, has collapsed and now we have a Berlusconi government and a fascist mayor of Rome. France is another example of a centre left government opening the door to the right, bringing Sarkozy to power. In Germany at an earlier stage it resulted in the election of Angela Merkel. Right across Europe social democratic parties have moved to the centre ground and the ideological difference between them and the centre-right parties has disappeared. Politics are reduced to sound-bites and spin. In Britain, New Labour comprehensively rejected its traditional electoral base and, initially, successfully reached out to middle England - to win three elections with such support. But such support can disappear as fast as it comes. Unless governments rest on ideologically-based core support they are continually vulnerable to the latest twists and turns of the political situation or stunts pulled by their opponents. Does this mean the end of new Labour? No. It might mean the end of this particular phase of New Labour in the sense that they are heading from office at a rate of knots. But any idea that they might draw the conclusion that the neo-liberal path has been wrong and that they should now turn back towards some kind of old Labour model is unlikely to materialise. This will become clear enough when the new policy review is published in the next week or two. They are more likely to conclude that they have not gone far enough and the way to get their voters back from the Tory Party is to embrace the market even more. The response of the left to all this right across Europe should be clear enough. The need to build broad parties of the left, based on broad socialist policies, designed to embrace all those looking for a political alternative could not be more sharply posed. This is not an easy project. It requires determination, élan, openness, patience and consistency. But it has to be done. The way forwards after the election The basis for a broad pluralist party clearly exists, despite the current divisions on the left and despite a reduced vote in the London elections. If we take the very good results in Birmingham and East London, along with some of the other results outside of London and the 3.6% won by the various left parties on the London list, there is clearly the basis for a much bigger party of the left than has been built up until now. Respect therefore has a two-fold task in the post election situation: to consolidate the important and central bases in Birmingham and East London and start to extend outwards into other areas with the objective of establishing a national spread for the organisation. This requires a rapid turn back from election work to party-building work through patient but energetic and lively local activity together with strengthening our national profile. We need to recruit and consolidate new members and build branches where they don't yet exist. The structures of Respect must be strengthened. The paper should be utilised to win more supporters and sympathisers. We should begin to prepare for a conference in the early autumn which can consolidate the organisation and reach out to others. We must renew our approach to all those people in the communities with whom we have been working during the election but also find new areas to work in. We must reiterate our commitment to reach out to and work with all others on the left who want to build a left alternative - the young people of the environmental movement, those opposing racism and islamaphobia, and local community activists. This also means approaching trade unionists and other sections of the left to argue for a regroupment broader than Respect, which can reflect the full potential available to the left and which can more adequately address the crisis of working-class representation. We should participate in initiatives like the “Convention of the left”. Forging links with serious organisations on the left will not come easily or quickly, but we must show ourselves committed to the project of working with others to build a bigger, united left-wing party. In the meantime, we work to build our support in an open and inclusive way.

Andy Newman: the future of RESPECT

(original here)

The contribution from the SWP’s Central Committee - The record: The Socialist Workers Party and Respect - about the debate in Respect is welcome, as an attempt to develop a substantive political argument; although it is unfortunate that they frame the discussion in terms of a non-existent witch-hunt, which raises the temperature unnecessarily.

Part of the difficulty of the debate is that the two sides do not seem to share the same frame of reference of what it is about. For those critical of the SWP, the organisational relationship between the SWP and Respect is how they perceive the political problem; whereas for the SWP such criticism is taken to be symptomatic of a deeper underlying political differences. Let us see if we can make sense of both points of view.

In reply we need to first consider the political context in which we are seeking to build a broad party.

THE CONTEXT

It is worth looking at the degree to which social democracy has vacated the political landscape, because occupying this space is the task that Respect has set itself. Any analysis of the possibility of creating a viable left alternative should start with looking at the Labour Party. Left candidate for the Deputy Leadership, Jon Cruddas MP, has explained:

“Since Labour won the 1997 election, it has shed 4.5 million voters, the vast bulk of whom fall into four main groups.

• The manual working class, which has seen well-paid jobs exported to low-wage economies

• Public-service workers, who resent private-sector penetration and government “reforms”

• Black and ethnic minorities, who have reacted against the Iraq war and ministerial racist scapegoating

• Urban intellectuals who have switched, largely to the Liberal Democrats, over the war.

A recent YouGov poll revealed that 15 million people self-identified as Labour voters, but one-third of them said that they would not vote Labour under present circumstances. “

In addition, the Party has lost 200000 members since 1997.

The New Labour project has been utterly triumphant, as evidenced by the failure of John McDonnell’s left leadership challenge to get on the ballot paper, or gain the support of a single major union. The neo-liberal right within Labour have irreversibly and structurally embedded their victory into the party’s DNA. The rules and constitution have been changed to eliminate the levers that the left used to exercise influence; the conference is a meaningless rally; the social composition of the membership has shifted hugely towards managerial types; the neo-liberal and imperialist policies mean no activists under 30 would look at the party as anything remotely progressive. Ward meetings are sparse and poorly attended, and the party apparatus is an empty shell in most of the country. Milbank prevents left candidates being selected and what is more the reduced powers of local authorities have removed the base from which the left has in the past built support from the bottom up.

The union link now exists more in form than in content. Whereas in the past union branches used to send delegates to GC meetings in each CLP this practice has almost disappeared, lay activists and even full timers are much, much less likely to be LP members than they ever were before. The only concession won by the affiliated unions was the sop of the Warwick agreement before the election, none of which polices have been implemented. And now they have relinquished their right to pose policy motions to conference.

The aspect of hope in the situation is that the Labour Party may have irrevocably been won for the right, but the political views of its electoral base have not followed and are now to the left of it. And some unions articulate political opposition to PFI, private equity and inequality.

As long as the Labour Party relies upon union funding, and active support from trade union officials during elections, the Labour Party will remain organically connected to the Labour movement. The Unions wish to have influence over government, and will not abandon the Labour Party, as there is no other viable option for them to pursue.

But what is very interesting is the degree to which the unions now find themselves in the position of directly being the ideological opponents of neo-liberalism without the intermediate role of the Labour Party. We see this for example with the GMB’s campaign over Private equity, or the RMT’s campaign for public ownership of the railways. What is lacking is a pluralist and inclusive political movement that can pick up these ideological challenges posed by the unions, and relate them to the wider general public.

So the Labour Party has a broadly progressive electoral constituency, and historical links with the trade union infrastructure, but it is in continued antagonism with both of these elements. Nevertheless, although the Party no longer articulates the aspirations of these support groups, they do provide a constraint upon it, and mediate the transformation of the Labour Party, so that it appears less dramatic than it is. But that constraint is definitely more one of form than substance.

Any attempt to build a pluralist and inclusive opposition to New Labour must recognise that the processes of change within the Labour party, the tension between New labour’s neo-liberalism and the trade unions, and the increasing age profile of Labour’s electoral support, are causing a protracted period of decomposition of the Labour Party. But it is going to be a long process.

The three challenges for the left outside the Labour Party are to somehow connect with the Labour Party’s electoral base, which is broadly to the left of the Labour Party itself; to create a natural pole of attraction for activists; and to create a credible vehicle to provide political representation for the trade unions. What is more, we have to be able to do this while still maintaining a creative dialogue with those activists still in the Labour party.

These objectives flow from the composition and traditions of the British labour movement, and the current state of left politics in England . Unless and until a “tipping point” is reached where an electoral alternative to Labour can credibly win elections, then Labour’s electoral base will stay largely intact, decaying slowly.

In particular we need to recognise that the space vacated by the Labour Party cannot be filled by the revolutionary left groups, whether operating as a United Front (of a special type?) or not. What is missing is a social democratic party, and any such party must involve the creative energies and enthusiasm of thousands of activists who have their own ideas independent of the control of any central committee.

But neither can it mean a recreation of Labourism, because to succeed any new political formation must go beyond these three tasks. We also need to recognise the degree to which society has changed.

THE CHANGE IN SOCIETY.

In December 2006 trade union membership stood at just 28.4% of the workforce, and this includes the membership of staff associations. What is more, the general level of class consciousness and trade union experience has sharply declined so that even when unions do recruit members they struggle to find workplace representatives.

If a new mass party is to be built then the trade unions do have the prestige, personnel and finance to make a huge difference. The role of socialists is to encourage the unions to put the value of their special relationship with the Labour party to the test, and draw the necessary conclusions. But this will be a long process, and the social base of organised labour is probably no longer sufficient to sustain a mass progressive party.

In 2005, the Labour Party received just 9,562,122 votes (35% of those who voted, compared to 49% in 1945) and socialist parties to the left of labour received merely around 120000 votes. Organisations to the left of labour barely reach 10000 members, even if we include the Green Party.

Increasingly the three main parties seem indistinguishable, which plays a large part in increasing cynicism, and decreasing electoral participation. But the converging political consensus in the Westminster bubble of politics is a betrayal of the ideological divergence in society at large.

As Salma Yaqoob has written

“The broad constituency in favour of peace, equality and social justice is growing. On many issues it is even a majority in society. Millions of people are against war, against privatising and running down the welfare state, against racism, and for greater equality. There is an opportunity to be a voice for these millions, and to offer an electoral alternative to the parties of war and injustice.

“The challenge for Respect is to be able to work with, and be a voice for, this growing broad progressive constituency. This constituency includes people who remain tied to Labour or other parties such as the Greens. We have to work patiently to build up our vote at a local level. But we also have to be part (and almost certainly a minority part) of a much wider network of alliances.”

There does need to be a socialist strand within respect, because Respect stands for a break from neo-liberalism and imperialism. But the advantage of Respect is that it does not only orient on the minority of the working class who are in trade unions or who are class conscious. This is an important constituency, but it is not the only progressive constituency.

Thirty years ago Eric Hobsbawm remarked that the “common style of proletarian life” no longer existed, which of course has an impact on the viability of building a mass party based on those who self-identify as working class. There is considerable lifestyle divergence today, and much less conformity. Any broad progressive project needs to be permissive and tolerant of people from very different social, cultural and religious backgrounds, rather than regarding the specific sub-cultures of the political left and trade unionism as normative.

We need to be building bridges to those campaigning against racism, against sexism, against homophobia, in defence of the environment, against ID cards, in defence of asylum seekers. Working within communities, defending their services and campaigning against cut-backs. It means building practical solidarity with progressives in other countries, and learning from their experiences, and recognising that the English left has more to learn than to teach.

The big and exciting opportunity to pull the whole political context to the left involves collaborative working within this rainbow coalition. It means working with people we may find we have strong disagreements with, but if we are prepared to listen to them, then they will be prepared to listen to us. This requires a democratic internal party structure for Respect because rules need to exist to empower people to participate. We cannot build a successful coalition if we privilege one political group with disproportionate influence.

THE UNITED FRONT OF A SPECIAL TYPE


Although the SWP are rarely explicit that they see their role in Respect as privileged, it is inherent in their theory of a united front of a special type.

In the SWP Central Committee’s submission to the party’s Pre-conference Internal Bulletin #1, they write:

“In the SWP’s answer to the SSP some years ago we criticised their “definition of the united front” as limited to “single issue campaigns of limited duration (i.e. the kind of campaigns that have been most common on the British Left in recent years)”. We argued: “this is far too narrow a definition. Indeed, in the work most commonly associated with systematically elaborating the idea of the United Front, Trotsky’s writing on fascism in the 1930s, we find an altogether broader approach.

“the trade unions are, for instance, described as ‘the rudimentary form of the united front in the economic struggle because they unite revolutionaries and reformists in common struggle over wages and conditions. Trade Unions are of course neither single issue nor temporary organisations. Moreover Trotsky describes the soviets themselves as united fronts: ‘The soviet is the highest form of the united front’….

…

“It seems that if, at one extreme, the trade unions and, at the other extreme, the soviets can be described as united fronts we are not making any great theoretical innovation in describing the ‘new broad parties’ as a united front of a special type.”

It is not clear what the SWP really means. Even if we accept the relevance of Trotsky’s writing on this, all they have established is that there is a precedent for this terminology. But for a theory to be accepted as useful, it must have more than precedent, it must also be consistent with other broadly accepted theories, it must explain the known facts, and it must be useful as a guide to action.

INCONSISTENT THEORY


Firstly, whatever incidental remarks Trotsky may have made about the united front being applicable to soviets and trade unions, the main thrust of his writing was concerned with the strategy that communists should adopt in campaigning alongside social democrats over concrete and specific issues, under the assumption that mass social democratic organisations already existed. The political context of the current broad party projects, the SSP, Respect, die Linke, Rifondazione, the Australian Socialist Alliance, et al, is that they are seeking to occupy a social and political space within the workers movement which has been vacated by traditional social democracy. And as such, one of the necessary pre-conditions of Trotsky’s united front is missing.

The specific example given by the SWP, that of trade unions, shows how extending the united front analogy to a broad party remains problematic. Within trade unions, Marxists work alongside other militants, either within broad lefts or rank and file networks, with the aim of taking forward the whole workforce and solving together with the other activists the problems that arise, as they arise. Marxists in the trade union movement do not seek to organise workers outwith the mass organisations. Therefore, should we accept the idea from the SWP that trade unions are united fronts, then the closest analogy to how Marxists work in trade unions would not be the SWP’s relationship with Respect, but would instead be the idea of working as a platform within a broad party. The SWP’s current theory and practice of working in trade unions is inconsistent with their theoretical approach to broad parties.

Thirdly, the examples given by the SWP Central Committee document of successful united fronts they have been involved in, the first Anti-Nazi league, and the Stop the War Coalition, are clearly not relevant to the question of broad parties. It is understood in any narrowly focussed campaign that the participants are only united over the specific issues of the campaign, and may therefore be politically active over other issues in other organisations. That is not true of political parties, where it is clearly expected that the primary focus of a member’s political activity should not involve building another political party!

DOESN’T EXPLAIN THE FACTS

Three years ago I criticised the SWP’s understanding of Respect. Callinicos had described the process thus:

“In many ways Respect had begun to crystallise as a distinct political entity before its actual formation, on the basis of a common approach to key questions that developed in practice among actors from very different backgrounds within the StWC. … four main forces that came together to form Respect. The first was symbolized by a person, George Galloway, representing those longstanding Labour Party members whose disgust with the Blair government was so absolute that they were prepared to break with their old party. The second was constituted by those elements of the far left that were not blinded by sectarianism and therefore recognised the historic opportunity offered by the anti-war movement. Chief among these was the SWP, but it also included other elements of the SA, and individuals like the great film director Ken Loach. The third consisted of a variety of ‘ethnic community’ activists and intellectuals —most prominently from a Muslim background, but also involving many in Turkish and Kurdish organisations. Finally, there were significant numbers of trade unionists—on the extreme left of the awkward squad, Mark Serwotka of the Public and Commercial Services Union and, much more equivocally, Bob Crow of the RMT, along with many local officials and rank and file activists, particularly in the RMT and the FBU.”

This was always overblown. Galloway proved to be the exception not the rule, and he was not followed by others from the Labour Party. Very few socialists outside the SWP joined or have stayed in Respect, and the SWP has actively worked to thwart rival currents within Respect. The appeal to trade unionists was if anything less than the Socialist Alliance enjoyed. But the big success was a genuine and historic breakthrough among some inner city working class communities with a high proportion of Muslims, where the anti-war vote from Muslims tipped the balance towards Respect being electable.

Former Respect national executive member, John Nicholson described Respect at the outset as: “It is a coalition of the Socialist Workers Party (certainly not convincing all its own members) and sections of the “Muslim Community” (some excellent local anti-war campaigners and some significant members of the Muslim Association of Britain), together with one individual, George Galloway MP.”

Since then, the significance of Galloway has increased, as he won his historic election victory, faced down the US senate, and despite the wobble with Big Brother, has generally managed to use his media profile to good effect. What is more the Muslim support for Respect has moved from being a potentiality, to actually delivering an electoral base. The defence of Shadwell ward in a by-election earlier this year was utterly crucial in demonstrating the robustness of the electoral base.

What is more, although Respect’s conferences have proven to be unnecessarily confrontational events, Respect has developed a broad range of policies consistent with being a left social-democratic party – transcending the limitation hoped for by Alex Callinicos that its programme would remain of “relatively minimal, meaning that Respect is a pluralistic organisation in which diverse viewpoints coexist”

So, the actually existing Respect is very uneven. In Birmingham, East London and Preston it has built an electoral base, and in those few areas has modest but significant membership. In the rest of the country, Respect is largely the SWP, plus a few individuals. It has also had a programmatic development consistent with a political party.

To describe this as a “united front” of any sort, is simply mystification.

NOT A GUIDE FOR ACTION

The reason that the SWP prefer the formulation “united front of a special type” is that it is an ex post facto theoretical justification for their preferred practice – which is trying to build two organisations in parallel, the SWP and Respect. But when relating to wider campaigns, and in the unions, they wear their SWP hat. On demonstrations they carry Socialist Worker placards, they sell their own newspaper (Socialist Worker) and have blocked launching a Respect paper. They seek to recruit to the SWP, not Respect. They have also blocked Respect moving towards becoming a political party under the control of its own membership, viewing Respect as a coalition, allowing the SWP to act independently.

Maintenance of the SWP as a separate organisation from Respect, while the SWP also seek to be the main political axis within Respect was always going to be problematic.

Alex Callinicos described the SWP’s approach to Respect in his article REGROUPMENT AND THE SOCIALIST LEFT TODAY”, [IST bulletin #2,] “in such broad coalitions it is essential for revolutionaries to retain independent organisation in order to combine building the coalition with the objective that gives this work its meaning—the construction of a mass revolutionary party.”

This is why Respect had to remain a coalition: “a federal organisation that individuals can join and to which organisations can affiliate while preserving their autonomy. The programme, while principled, is relatively minimal, meaning that Respect is a pluralistic organisation in which diverse viewpoints coexist. This structure is critical if the existing forces within Respect are to have the breathing space they need to work together.”

The need for there to be an organizational separation between revolutionaries and reformists is the constant theme of the SWP. Most clearly stated by John Rees: “Genuine unity in action depends on separation on matters of principle such as reform and revolution. We cannot properly determine those immediate issues on which we can unite unless we also properly, and organisationally, separate over matters of principle.”

John Rees expressed his view of the SWP’s role very clearly: “In this project the socialists in Respect, who have the clearest understanding of the general situation in which we operate and the greatest organisational ability to create the alliances, have a crucial role to play. Where they are capable of engaging and leading the wider forces, Respect will succeed. If they fail, Respect will fail. There is too much at stake to allow this to happen, and too much to be won not to succeed.”

The “United Front of a Special Type” involves a two tier membership, where the SWP build their own organisation, but seek to play the decisive political role in guiding Respect. As John Rees admitted, the SWP believe there is too much at stake for them to fail to be the leading force within Respect, so other members of Respect who see it as their main political project must rotate around the SWP’s agenda. Non-SWP members of Respect believe that building Respect is worth doing in its own terms, and is not only worth doing as a step towards “the construction of a mass revolutionary party”. Fundamentally the SWP has a different agenda to other Respect members.

The Socialist Alliance also foundered on the rocks of the united front of a special type. As Alex Callinicos described the process

“In the absence of a substantial ex-Labour presence, the SA suffered from a structural imbalance, given that the SWP greatly outweighs the rest of the British far left combined. When, as we usually tried, we applied a self-denying ordinance, we were still, like the elephant in the room, a looming presence. When we asserted ourselves, however democratically, we caused resentment. The Socialist Party and a few well-known ‘independents’ cited ‘SWP dominance’ when they walked out of the Alliance. Usually they had their own reasons for leaving, but in truth the SWP did dominate the SA—not by intention, but by default, in the absence of sufficiently strong participation by forces from a reformist background.”

What is revealing here is how static and schematic Callincos’s views are of the living, working relationships on the left. Why should the SWP need to be counterbalanced by “forces from a reformist background”. Was reform or revolution a practical issue in Britain over the last few years and I missed it? Surely the issues facing the Socialist Alliance were all essentially non-revolutionary, and reformists and revolutionaries alike were faced with trying to relate to the class struggle. In fact the Socialist Alliance did have some significant allegiance from people from the Labour Party, but they did not foresee the need to self-organise themselves as a counterbalance to an SWP playing not only by different rules, but a different game.

When Callinicos talks about the SWP asserting itself he is describing exactly the same process as Mike Maquesee has: “a block of SWP members who have arrived with a pre-determined line and set of priorities”.

As I wrote in 2004: “If the SWP doesn’t change its method of operation within Respect I have no doubt that the project will fail. It may do well enough to continue in a bureaucratic form until the next election, and George Galloway may even get elected in East London . Nevertheless no stable structure can be built on the basis being advocated by Alex Callinicos.” Tragically I have been proven correct.

The United Front of a Special Type has not been a successful guide to working, because it has ended in failure – as judged by the SWP’s own terms of reference. Not once but now twice. As Lady Bracknell said: “To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness”

A FAILURE IN THEIR OWN TERMS

The SWP’s position is most starkly put in Alex Callinicos’s letter to the SWP’s sister organisations in the International Socialist Tendency. It concludes:

“There is no doubt that the crisis in Respect is a major reverse for the process of left realignment in Britain. Nevertheless, the SWP remains strongly committed to this process, both in Britain and on an international scale. “

If the “SWP remains strongly committed to this process, both in Britain and on an international scale.”, then where do they go from here?

In those parts of the country where Respect is largely them and a few others, then that in itself represents a failure of the SWP to build Respect. In these areas, the non-SWP members of Respect will be confused, and may stay with the SWP. But at a national level, the SWP has lost all its allies, from the political left, from the trade unions, and from the anti-war Muslims, and they have lost Galloway.

They have also lost considerable political capital, respect and trust, and may not be welcome in future left regroupment projects unless they change. So if they really do have a strategic objective of left regroupment, and building a broad electoral alternative to Labour, they are in a terrible position. If they cling to the united front of a special type formula, then it will be of a very special type – only with themselves!

THERE WAS ANOTHER WAY

Given that the space that Respect fills is that vacated by social democracy, then the majority of its support and membership will come from those who wish to create a left social democratic party. The battle for Marxists within such a party is to prioritise class struggle, and always promote the independent interests of the working class.

Much is made by the SWP of the need for separate revolutionary organisation, but this fails in two ways. Firstly, as we see with the awful role of leading SWP member Jane Loftus in the recent postal dispute, being a revolutionary in formal terms is no guarantee of someone being even a decent militant.

Secondly, it is only through the process of fighting for reforms that the issue of finally removing the obstacle of ruling class resistance comes up. The opportunity for removing forever the power of the capitalist class arises as the culmination of the process of uncompromising reform; and therefore a mass class struggle party dedicated to such uncompromising reform is a more fruitful path than recruiting ones and two (or even tens and twenties) to a stand alone revolutionary group. It will be the mass party that eventually settles accounts with capitalism, and the place for Marxists is within it. Creating a new left social democratic party includes within it the potential to win that party to class struggle.

There is an alternative way of working to the SWP’s model. The best description I have read of the way Marxists should work in broad parties is from Murray Smith:

“I am convinced that the role of revolutionary Marxists today is to build broad socialist parties while defending their own Marxist positions within them, with the aim, not of building a revolutionary faction with an ‘entrist’ perspective, but of taking forward the whole party and solving together with the whole party the problems that arise, as they arise.”

There is a weakness in Murray’s understanding though, because he has taken a particular feature of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), the dissolving of the leadership faction into the structures of the broad party, and taken that to be a necessary feature.

Arguably a new and pluralist political formation will take a time before it develops its own mechanisms for training and educating activist, and the pre-existing socialist groups have a valuable role both in developing individuals, and in facilitating debate through generating alternative policy suggestions. Such platforms could continue to organise and produce publications, provided the public face they present is building the broad party. Indeed some flexibility can be allowed even then, and in Australia the DSP are committed to building through the Socialist Alliance, but still have an independent youth group, due to the different tempo of politics with students and young workers.

Organised platforms can militate against politics rotating around cliques and intrigues. But to be productive the platforms have to strategically subordinate themselves to the building of the broad party.

The tragedy is that the political experience and organisational ability of the SWP are indeed extremely valuable within Respect, but the precondition that comes as the price of their participation is too high to pay. As long as the SWP believe that they are uniquely gifted, in John Rees’s words, with “the clearest understanding of the general situation in which we operate and the greatest organisational ability to create the alliances”, and as long as they believe that the stakes are too high for their views not to prevail, then they will never allow non-SWP members of Respect to participate in full ownership of the project.

THE PULL OF ELECTORALISM.

The SWP say that problems started after the elections:

“The successful candidates were all from a Muslim background, despite the substantial white working class vote for Respect and the mere couple of hundred votes that stopped non-Muslim candidates winning in Tower Hamlets. This led to opponents of Respect to spread the idea that it was a “Muslim party”. The other problem was that electoral success led to something familiar to people who had been active in the past in the Labour Party but completely new to the non-Labour left-opportunist electoral politics began to dominate Respect.

“There were even cases when people said that if they could not be Respect candidates they would stand for other political parties – and one of the Respect councillors in Tower Hamlets did switch over to Labour after being elected.

“For such people their model of politics was that increasingly used by the Labour Party in ethnically and religiously mixed inner city areas – promising favours to people who posed as the “community leaders” of particular ethnic or religious groupings if they would use their influence to deliver votes. This is what is known as Tammany Hall politics in US cities, or “vote bloc” or “communal” politics when practiced by all the pro-capitalist parties in the Indian subcontinent. It is something the left has always tried to resist.”

Now there are a number of things to be said here.

Firstly, the SWP have made a great deal of the fact that of the two councillors elected in Tower Hamlets, one resigned in disillusionment, and one switched to New Labour. But, it was inherent in the way that Respect was launched and built that it was not the product of a long period of prior cooperation, trust building and convergence, the negative side of which was that some fall out was inevitable. But resignations and defections, particularly from opposition groups, is the daily coin of every political party in almost every council in the country.

Secondly, even in the areas where Respect does have an electoral base they are still the opposition group, not the party of power, so real opportunists will chose Labour not Respect.

Thirdly, in choosing a candidate with particular village or tribal connections to help get the vote, this is no different in principle from selecting Jerry Hicks to stand in Lockleaze in Bristol. Part of the reason he was able to get a good vote has been his personal and family roots in the area. In electoral politics the individual candidates matter. In the particular case of the Shadwell by-election it was vital to choose the most electable candidate, as in some ways the viability of the whole Respect project hung on that election. This is only a question of seeking a level playing field with the other parties. There is no question of Respect actually seeking to represent only sectional interests in the council chamber, so the charge is at best mischievous.

In the case of Birmingham, a huge mountain is being made out of a molehill, in terms of all the candidates this year being Pakistani men. The fact that their sitting councillor and most high profile spokesperson is a woman, that last year there were four women candidates, and the fact that women were encouraged to put themselves forward this year, shows this is just a blip.

But the most important evidence that the charge of electoralism is misplaced, is that it has not manifested itself in policy terms at all. The SWP argues that the emphasis on electable candidates represents “a fundamental shift of sections of Respect away from the minimal agreed principles on which it had been founded – a shift towards putting electorability above every other principle, a shift which could only pull Respect to the right.” Yet breakaway councillor Oli Rahman conceded that there are no policy differences on national and international issues, and there have been no significant differences on local issues either.

For the SWP to present this as a left/right issue over whether or not people like them being revolutionaries, is absurd because revolution is not on the political agenda. Over the actual issues that are confronting respect there has been no left/right polarisation, and people join Respect and stand as candidates for Respect knowing it is a radical left wing party.

WHERE NEXT?

The debate about who did what and said what, and the mechanics of the split have been done to death. It is the nature of faction fights that the temperature gets raised, and seemingly trivial events are blown out of all proportion.

But we are now in a position where it is clear that the SWP’s way of working is not acceptable to a significant section of Respect’s membership, including the MP, most councillors and a majority of non-SWP national committee members.

Accusations and counter-accusations surround the 17th November conferences. But at this stage no-one is listening, we are just exchanging abuse. Let us stop it.

It is hard to see how the SWP can persevere with their Respect, without any significant non-SWP allies, and with the loss of political capital. The loss of the SWP members is also a blow for Respect renewal.

And neither of the actually existing Respects has sufficient appeal to the rest of the socialist left and to trade unionists. This is partly because the way Respect was launched and built in its first months excluded many former activists from the Socialist Alliance. There are others who have objections to the SWP, or Galloway, or both.

But any successful left regroupment project must engage with the actually existing activists. They are vital both for their political experience, but also their ability to develop rooted campaigns around practical issues in trade unions, workplaces and communities.

In parallel with, and overlapping with, Respect but not in competition with it, we need to develop socialist unity. This can also embrace practical cooperation with left activists from the Labour party and Green Party. Our objective should be to unite without preconditions, but to promote debate, practical cooperation and convergence. We need to build bridges to other socialist groups and individuals, even if they don’t share our immediate vision.

Respect Renewal will emerge with most of the political capital from the respect project, the very significant assets of Galloway and Yaqoob, and the electoral base.

It needs to set itself three tasks:

i) Moving to a more traditional party model of organisation, with membership, scheduled meetings, and accountability.

ii) Recognising that on the basis of its strongholds and elected positions it can be a major player in building bridges, in a patient long term way, with other progressive forces, including those in the Labour Party (most obviously the supporters of Ken Livingston), the Greens, Plaid Cymru and others.

iii) Opening a renewed dialogue over cooperation with the political left and trade union militants, without any preconditions.

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION

Finally, a lot of damage has been done through the Russian Doll model of working. Hundreds perhaps thousands of activists have been alienated by the way the left groups have regarded individuals as expendable cannon fodder. The current crisis in respect had its prequel in the Socialist Alliance, and few of the SA activists remained in Respect.

Some of the same methods we have seen recently from the SWP in Respect, were used in the Socialist Alliance. Some of the individuals who are now critical of those methods used them in the past. It is not enough simply to let bygones be bygones. We also need a process of forgiveness and honesty about what the far left in this country have done to each other.

If we are prepared to be that brave, we will win back many of the friends and comrades who have become cynical and disillusioned.