03.10.2001

Globalise Resistance

Mickey Mouse politics

Given the imperialist drive to war, the decision by the organisers of the Globalise Resistance counter-conference to include a special session entitled ?Globalisation and imperialism? was a commendable one. It did, however, serve as another example of the Socialist Workers Party?s double standards in its treatment of the Socialist Alliance. Seemingly it is vital for Globalise Resistance to discuss September 11 and its aftermath, but for the SA it is altogether less pressing.

Globalise Resistance?s statement on the war - unsurprisingly, given the SWP?s dominance - failed to condemn the attacks on the World Trade Center. To wriggle out of making a political judgement on the actions of the terrorists GR contents itself with making trite statements: ?The manner of their deaths was appalling.? True, but not a word on those who caused the deaths of so many ?ordinary people?.

The session was addressed by Bruce Kent, Chris Bambery on behalf of the SWP and Rae Street of CND. Bruce Kent?s central theme was the need to ?reform and reshape the structure of the United Nations?. This is supposed to return the UN to its supposedly ?progressive? roots - Kent declared that the founding charter of the UN was his ?touchstone?. Unsurprisingly his speech was a mixture of liberalism and pacifism. We need, according to Kent, to ?fight all forms of violence?. A pacifistic sentiment that one face of the SWP Janus is concordant with: Socialist Worker recently expressed its ?abhorrence? of violence. Needless to say, reliance on the UN - made up of the representatives of capitalist and reactionary governments - is a dead end for the working class, and the anti-war movement too. After all, the UN has already sanctioned US ?self-defence? as ?legitimate?.

This softness on ?humanitarian? imperialism is actually shared by Globalise Resistance itself. In its statement on September 11 it argued that, although it is ?up to ordinary people in every region to determine their futures?, western governments ?can help. They should cancel all third world debt, drop all economic sanctions, end arms exports and military and economic support to undemocratic countries.? The logic of this liberalism is that imperialism should change its spots and adopt more benign policies. The world is apparently divided not according to class, but according to ?democratic? and ?undemocratic? countries. And so on the one hand the west should ?cancel all third world debt?; on the other it should end ?economic support to undemocratic countries? - which just happen to make up a good slice of the ?third world?.

When the meeting was opened up to contributions from the floor a pattern developed. While most of those from other left groups gave their name and affiliation, other speakers, those from the SWP did not. Presumably this is partially to generate an impression of ?right on? democracy, with everybody doing their own thing, and partially to avoid making the numerical dominance of the SWP too obvious - thus ruining GR?s billing as a broad organisation.

A spin-off of this anonymity is the fact that in this way the SWP can attempt not to take responsibility for its politics. Opportunist softness on the Taliban regime in Kabul was prevalent. One unnamed contributor exposed the vile logic of this opportunism, suggesting that, because ?a lot will be said about the Taliban and women?, it would therefore be ?particularly important? to give prominence to the role of women in the anti-war movement. The clear inference being that this would counter the propaganda about the oppression of women by the Taliban. When comrade Duncan Morrison of the Alliance for Workers? Liberty rose to condemn the Taliban and point to the need to criticise reactionary anti-capitalisms, comrade Bambery could not contain his mirth.

Contempt for politics was prominent throughout the session and indeed the conference. Genuine political discussion would of course reveal - perish the thought - differences of opinion, regarded as always by the SWP as distractions in pursuit of the ?higher? goal of ?building the movement?. Thus for Chris Bambery politics and political differences were something ?to be discussed in the caf? or pub afterwards?. Much better to concentrate on ?action?.

Action is favoured as long as it remains, like everything else, strictly within the limits set by the SWP central committee. Lindsey German reasoned that, because ?the overthrow of the government is not on the agenda?, it was ?Mickey Mouse politics?  to consider anything other than the broadest of anti-war campaigns. Obviously then, the movement will end as it started - mired in pacifism and kept absolutely within the safe bounds of bourgeois politics.

It is of course true that a proletarian revolution against Blair is not on the immediate agenda, but challenging him in the most revolutionary way objective circumstances allow most certainly is. That  might at first just mean defending revolutionary principles in speeches and in propaganda. Failing to recognise this, comrade German was unable to inform the meeting how she intended to ?Stop the war?. No doubt she will be secretly hoping for what some elements of the left are openly embracing: the triumph of the Taliban as a substitute for the independent intervention of the working class.

As in other bodies where it is the leading numerical force, the SWP behaves within GR in a way which is diametrically opposed to the duty of revolutionaries: to fight to win the movement not to one?s own organisation, but to consistent working class politics.

Darrell Goodliffe