29.01.2004

Socialism: the final shibboleth

Manny Neira attended Sunday's Respect launch. He reflects on soul music, and soul selling

"R-e-s-p-e-c-t, find out what it means to me." Aretha's voice echoed from the hall speakers, as I took my seat for the launch of Respect on Sunday. She was asking the right question: what did it mean? The wonderful soul music played echoed my thoughts that morning. I mourned the on-off attitude of the Socialist Workers Party to the old Socialist Alliance listening to Your love is like a see-saw. Everybody needs somebody, but was it really George Galloway? I was working on the hidden politics of Soulfinger (was it being held up to democracy?) when SA chair Nick Wrack called the meeting to order.

About 1,500 had assembled, mainly SWP. "I'm told I can't welcome you all with a high five," began comrade Wrack, with all the youth cred of a high court judge. I winced the first of a thousand winces that day, as comrades clearly old enough to know better cried "Wow!" and "Yeah!" The tone was set. This was not a conference, it was a revivalist rally: not youthful, merely retro.

Comrade Wrack introduced the dream of a Stop the War Coalition-made 'party': "This convention has been called because of a crisis of representation of ordinary working people. Who speaks for the millions who marched against the war last year? We have a message for those MPs who backed the war - we're coming after you!" Linda Smith spoke on behalf of the convention arrangements committee, explaining where to find the agenda, resolutions and amendments before joining in the fun. "We need an electoral challenge that can unite us. I'm energised and excited. As we say in the FBU, "unity is strength!"

We were asked to vote, but for what? I mean, she looked pretty energised and excited, but did we have to confirm this? A forest of SWP arms climbed into the air. Something had been carried "unanimously": we learned only later what this meant.

Mark Serwotka

Serwotka: democracy callFirst up was Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union. His involvement is vital to Respect, helping to cover a yawning gap in the coalition: trade union support. Despite the anger which exists in the unions towards Blair and the overtly pro-bourgeois New Labour, his party retains the affiliation of the mass of organised workers.

While no credible alternative exists, this contradiction cannot be resolved, and Respect is not that alternative, nor likely to be. In this regard, it starts from a far weaker position than that older left-unity project, the Socialist Labour Party. Arthur Scargill's leadership, and the support of Mick Rix, Joe Marino and Bob Crow, gave the young SLP a far stronger union base. Furthermore, the SLP lost its support through 'control-freakery' and a lack of internal democracy, which Respect promises to exceed.

Comrade Serwotka asked two questions: "First, do we need an electoral alternative to the left of New Labour to represent working class people? Second, is it possible?" There followed a long and powerful attack on Blair's record, summed up with: "As long as society is based on profit and not need, there will always be poverty."

He felt such an alternative was possible. "If some doubt it, I ask this. Do we want only to offer a choice of Blair, Kennedy or Howard? And to those who speak of reclaiming Labour, I ask, do we wish to restrict the choice to Blair, or Blair without the smile: Gordon Brown? Tommy Sheridan and the Scottish Socialist Party have shown us the way. They have built a party with 3,000 members, hundreds of thousands of voters, and six MSPs."

Though the speech was carefully constructed to speak of possibilities, it was extremely positive in tone: easily enough to please an audience ready to hear only what it wanted. He did touch briefly, though, on a point of disagreement: "My union does not agree with the Respect declaration against the euro. But there will be differences. It is nonsense to say that because there are differences, we should stay out. There is more that unites us than divides us. In any democratic organisation - and this will have to be democratic - dissent must be nurtured, but dissent must be responsible."

Again, this was carefully judged. Comrade Serwotka supported the coalition, but argued that it would have to be democratic, not that it was or even would be. It would not have escaped him that the whole Respect project was defined by a self-selected elite making deals well before the 'launch', and that this stage-managed event would change nothing. He is known to be uncomfortable with the role being played by George Galloway, and may feel considerably less happy with Respect than the tone of his speech suggested - though some clues were there.

Tommy Sheridan

Tommy Sheridan brought "solidarity and greetings" from the SSP. "We are organising the working class of Scotland around a fight for a society based on need and not profit. We thought: to unite them, we must start by uniting ourselves. Yes, there will be differences. But surely, we can organise ourselves around the 80% that unites us, rather than the 20% that divides."

 This was ironic, as the 80-20 formulation was a founding notion of the SA, but is reversed in Respect. The coalition seeks to build unity around 20% agreement, simple opposition to the war, and to jettison the 80% common to the old SA. Comrade Sheridan probably understands this, but, having won an agreement keeping Respect south of the border, is prepared to be generous. He even made a joking reference to this in his speech: "The Herald carried a report which worried me: 'Gorgeous George to conquer Glasgow'. I thought we had a deal - we'd work in Scotland; you'd work in England and Wales. But they were talking about George Clooney!"

Vox pops

The agenda now allowed 50 minutes of "general discussion". Most did little more than communicate their excitement and energy. The need for "broadness" was emphasised, one speaker arguing that we needed to reach out to and work with the anti-war element in, for instance, the Countryside Alliance. That really is broad. A speaker describing himself as a "preacher" was passionate: "We are brothers all - on principles of brotherhood and good humour this project stands." He was not daunted by the shibboleth-like, divisive heckle: ""¦and sisters!"

Socialist Party

The SP's Hannah SellHannah Sell spoke, from the floor, for Peter Taaffe's Socialist Party. Comrade Taaffe has been critical of Respect, partly for its politics, but chiefly for refusing to talk to him.

"We believe the Labour Party has broken the link with its past. We feel sympathy with socialists still in it, but believe they cannot succeed. We want to build a new party, and have been sympathetic to each attempt: the SLP, the SA and Respect. Unfortunately, they failed on the question of democracy, and because they claimed to be the alternative to New Labour. We want to build a party not of thousands, but hundreds of thousands; but to do that, it must have an open, collaborative approach - even to those who don't want to join now. We've been worried that we've only been involved in discussion in the last few days."

This was a reference to a meeting including comrade Sell herself and George Galloway, which finally took place in Coventry the Friday before the launch. The details have not yet been released, though the Weekly Worker understands that talks faltered over the question of the SP's wish to run its own candidates, using its own campaign materials, in certain constituencies in the GLA elections.

It also seems that this meeting was arranged at George Galloway's insistence, over SWP objections. He worked hard to win the Communist Party of Britain (and the Morning Star) to Respect and, considering the CPB's auto-Labourite politics, came surprisingly close to succeeding when their congress rejected affiliation by 60% to 40%. He may have seen the SP as an another possible counter-balance to the SWP, making the idea of a coalition more credible. Without either, George is left figure-heading what in all probability will seen as merely another SWP front. The "collaboration" comrade Sell hints at is more likely now to be an electoral non-aggression pact than affiliation.

Declaration

We moved on to discuss the Respect 'founding declaration'. The hard won agreement for the SA's meaningful 20-page socialist manifesto People before profit was being abandoned, for a simple bullet list.

The self-appointed 'steering' committee provided one version, and had invited alternatives. Three had been submitted. To debate the four declarations and determine the politics of the new coalition we had half an hour. We would hear four speakers, with no interventions from the floor.

Lindsey German moved the original declaration. "To those who ask, why is it not more socialist, I say: because it is built on the anti-war movement, and because there are large muslim communities, and we want to reach out to them as well as the traditional left. If they'd wanted to join the Socialist Alliance, they'd have joined it by now." Comrade German, leading SWP member and editor of Socialist Review, was telling us that the working class had not supported the SA because it was too socialist. Somewhere, Tony Cliff was turning in his grave.

Steve Freeman of the Revolutionary Democratic Group moved Britain at the crossroads: "It is dangerous to think that a broad movement with the right figurehead is enough to gain support. We must have policies." It was no use citing the democratic deficit without explaining how it would be closed. "Many now think voting is a waste of time. The anti-war movement was significant because it challenged the concentration of power: it was implicitly about democracy. We need a mass republican democratic movement. Why republican? Because a republic is about the rule of the people. We are not liberal democrats. We are republican democrats."

In an excellent intervention, Mark Hoskisson moved Workers Power's Anti-capitalist challenge for New Labour: "Lindsey German is wrong. She argues that people have had ample time to join the Socialist Alliance, and they haven't, so socialism can't be the answer"¦" At this point, he was briefly drowned out by jeering, but pressed on. "We have a declaration here which doesn't mention socialism! She thinks we will win by limiting our horizons, but we must win by widening them. We have to be ready to answer the questions on the doors. Why is there war? We can't just answer 'because of Blair': we have to say it's because of capitalism. We are a socialist alternative. Waging war on poverty means waging war on capitalism. What's the problem? We all agree with that!" He wasn't against compromise. "Yes, we'll all have to leave something at the door: but until we've tried to build a workers' party, why must we leave our principles behind?" It was announced that the original declaration would be voted on first and, if it was passed, the others would fall. We protested: people should be allowed to express their support for specific politics, and not merely opposition to the platform.

Nick Wrack allowed no discussion. As the 'arrangements committee' report in the morning had been 'passed', he argued that this procedure had been agreed. "Happy?" he enquired. The cry came back "Let us vote on whether we're happy." He didn't smile, calling: "All those in favour?" A forest of arms rose. "Anyone against?" he said, clearly finding the idea faintly ridiculous. "Overwhelmingly carried".

And that was it. The new fighting force for democracy was born, after 30 minutes of debate split across four declarations and one vote. I've seen synchronised swimming more sloppily choreographed.

Ken Loach

Film director Ken Loach argued that we should discuss principles, but that wasn't why the convention was called: "The purpose of today is to found Respect. We must end the day with Respect in existence." Now this is what I call setting yourself an achievable target.

"The committee will get us through the election, but it must be replaced by one based on election by branches. Those with a history on the left know - democracy is central."

Gennaro Migliore

The Italian Rifondazione Comunista sent international secretary Gennaro Migliore to speak: "Being here gives me great satisfaction. You are building a new left - part of a new movement in every part of the world, saying that a new world is possible." His speech was a moving and imaginative call to action, though his emphasis on civil disobedience rather than organised class action was perhaps questionable. I forgave much, though, for his reminder of the beautiful words of Pablo Neruda on our enemies: "They can cut the flowers, but they cannot stop the spring."

Unreal amendments

The morning closed with the sublime, but the afternoon found us back in the ridiculous. Linda Smith explained further decisions of the 'arrangements committee', this time concerning 22 amendments proposed to the declaration. Five were not "real amendments", and would not be discussed. Nick Wrack immediately called for a vote. There was a disbelieving cry of "Aren't we even going to be allowed to speak?" He apologised for failing to allow objections. It was probably an honest mistake, but somehow caught the stage-managed rhythm of the day. Dissent was lauded in the abstract, but out of order in reality.

One comrade argued that this conference represented the only chance we would have to challenge the "declaration" before we were expected to argue it on the doorsteps. Another wanted to know how the candidates would be chosen: a good question. AWL

The last objection was from Sean Matgamna of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. As soon as he announced his name the whistling started: the AWL is notorious for its anti-Gallowayism and its motion calling on Respect to "break its links" with its figurehead was one of those declared out of order. "George Galloway is a known publicist for the old Iraqi regime. He has accepted money from Saudi Arabia "¦" The SWP howled; a slow hand-clap started. It was no longer possible to hear his words: even the few cries of "let him speak", which I joined, were drowned out by the noise. To heckle an opponent is one thing. To shout until he cannot be heard is another. As someone once said, democracy is about more than two wolves and a lamb voting on who's for dinner. It involves defending the right of minorities and free debate. Our attitude to dissent is shown most truly in the attitude we adopt to those we disagree with violently.

Earlier, I had spoken to Martin Thomas (also AWL). He criticised the CPGB for supporting a movement with George Galloway's politics. I explained that we were there because Respect contains the SWP, brought together others on the left and could not simply be ignored if we were serious about building a party: but that we would engage critically, on the basis of our politics. Weren't the AWL there to do the same? Comrade Thomas explained that if their call to break with George Galloway was rejected, the AWL would leave.

The fate of the AWL marks a huge drop in democratic standards between the SA and Respect. At the last SA conference, the SWP tried to exclude the AWL from the executive. Marcus Ström of the CPGB mobilised enough support to prevent this undemocratic manoeuvre. The AWL was both heard and represented. Today, the SWP steamroller ran unchecked. The arrangements were passed by another "overwhelming majority, comrades".

MAB

The convention then heard a representative of the Muslim Association of Britain, who brought congratulations to Respect "on this great day":

"The leaders of the STWC have been our partners for a year or more, and we have grown closer and closer over that time. The defence of education, health and the environment are of concern to all of us, especially while resources are being squandered on an illegal war in Iraq. We hope to cooperate with Respect, and that it will maintain a position which will prolong that cooperation. We know that on some issues we take different stands: that is why it is important to keep the door open."

The SWP has, of course, sought accommodation with the 'muslim community' by seeking to play down the importance of women's and gay rights, these being the "different stands" mentioned here. Lindsey German called them "shibboleths", but the forthright exposure of this opportunism in the Weekly Worker made this route impossible to pursue. The "right to self-determination of every individual in relation to their "¦ sexual choices" is now embodied in the Respect declaration and, as a result, the SWP did not succeed in bringing the MAB on board.

Republicanism: no

Amendments were now discussed. One from the SA on the minimum wage, and several from the SWP calling for redistributive taxation, support for the people of Palestine, and the defence of civil liberties, were passed in short order.

Marcus Ström then moved a CPGB amendment, arguing that the 'R' in 'Respect' should stand for 'republicanism'. He said that the anti-war movement had highlighted the democratic deficit mentioned in the Respect declaration, and the creaking, corrupt system of monarchy, patronage, the House of Lords and the judiciary. "We must look at the democratic deficit, and the nature of the state which lies behind it. In poll after poll, 30% to 40% oppose the monarchy: that is a source of support we should tap into. This amendment costs us nothing. We all agree with this - well, if there are any monarchists here, I apologise, comrades."

The amendment was opposed: "I'm no monarchist," proclaimed Jo Cardwell of the SWP, "but I don't think that not having a monarchy takes you forward. Look at the republics: the US in Iraq, and France banning the hijab. The majority here are republicans, but to make it part of our declaration would distort the coalition which founded Respect. We must leave our baggage behind." The argument was plain. Respect had to capture the entire anti-war movement. There may have been monarchists on the marches, and we must not alarm them. So we are republicans, but we vote against republicanism. Or perhaps it was a case of knee-jerk opposition to anything proposed by the CPGB.

The amendment gained only 50 or so votes, and was lost.

Worker's wage: no

Lesley Mahmood: fairLeslie Mahmood moved an amendment calling for workers' representatives to take a worker's wage. This time, it was not the sensibilities of the monarchists the SWP were protecting, but those of George Galloway. Though they had supported this principle in the SA, it now had to be dropped: Galloway's own estimate was that he needed £150,000 a year to "function" politically. Well, don't we all. Comrade Mahmood's argument was simple: "We are not asking representatives to live in poverty, but on a fairly calculated workers' wage, passing the rest of their income back to the movement."

Her SWP opponent Paul Holborrow began by supporting the politics: "I don't believe that there is anyone here who would not aspire to the principle of a worker's pay for MPs, but Respect is not a socialist organisation. This would be exclusive of the people we might otherwise attract. What are we to say to George Galloway? Are we to say that it is a condition that he takes a worker's wage?" (There was only one answer to that, and a number of us took up the shout: "Yes!") "That is to misconstrue our purpose. In time to come, we shall debate this again, but for now the main challenge is to defeat Blair and the warmongers!"

At all costs, it seems, we must not be diverted from the struggle against Blair by the little matter of principle. Vote against it, no matter how much you 'support' it. The amendment was lost.

Open borders: no

Heffernan: bordersMartin Ralph moved the shortest amendment of all: "The unity coalition fights for freedom of movement, open borders and an end to immigration laws." His argument was simple: "We aren't half-hearted about speaking against the war, or calling for 'troops out', so what is different about this principle?"

The SWP opponent, Elaine Heffernan, was troubled: "It makes me sad to vote against something I agree with." So why do it? "In principle, I'm in favour. But even the most dedicated activists don't agree on every point, and we have to win votes. We have a real, concrete position which, in practice, means open borders anyway. But if we pass this, we'll have to face down arguments from people who don't understand."

The SWP view was clear. The SA balloon never got in the air because of all the ideological ballast it was carrying: they had tried to jettison the rights of women and gays, but minorities within the SA, not least the Weekly Worker, had made this impossible. Respect was going to do it properly, but each principle was paid a warm tribute before being thrown over the side.

Foundation

The vote on the amended declaration was moved by Salma Yaqoob, who called for us to work in "respect, democracy, and accountability". "It is not what we do on this stage that matters; it is what we do in the real world."

The vote was called. This posed a problem. The declaration contained little which we opposed, and so we could not vote against. On the other hand, the debates had made it clear that it was designed to exclude much of fundamental importance: political demands for republicanism, the right of people to move freely over open borders, and the principle that workers' representatives should take a worker's wage. We could not support an opportunist attempt to water down socialism, and abstained.

Of course, the vote was carried overwhelmingly. Nick Wrack mustered every ounce of gravitas and announced: "Respect, the Unity Coalition, is founded." This statement got a standing ovation.

Executive

It remained only to elect an executive. The organisers had circulated a slate of 16 names, headed by George Galloway, but dominated by members and close sympathisers of the SWP. It also included Dr Mohammed Naseem, head of the Birmingham Central Mosque. As communists, we defend the right of the individual to practise their faith, providing it does not infringe the rights of others, but this was a taste of the non-socialist alliances that Respect hopes to build, and which lay behind the political compromises it had been making all day.

The CPGB proposed an alternative slate which added the names of Marcus Ström, our representative on the SA executive, and Declan O'Neil, like comrade Ström a supporter of the SA Democracy Platform and a co-founder of the SA.

The original slate was proposed by Nick Wrack: "I'm calling for support of a slate of those people who had a part in building Respect. We recognise there are deficiencies, but initiative has to come from somewhere, and not everyone can be involved in the same way. It is a temporary executive, elected until a conference in the autumn. We know there aren't enough women, pensioners, students and so forth, so we are proposing the power to coopt. They will say that we are trying to stifle debate, but we already have people from the Socialist Alliance: two more would be too many."

Lee Rock of the CPGB defended the alternative slate. "In 20 years this is the strangest convention I have attended. All day, I've listened to comrades speaking in favour of things, and asking us to vote against them. Workers' representatives on a worker's wage? Yes, but vote against. Republicanism? Yes, but vote against. Open borders? Yes, but vote against. Dissent? Yes, but vote against the alternative slate. You can't applaud speeches calling for the rights of dissent and then vote against the means."

When called, the vote "overwhelmingly" endorsed the original slate - an executive designed to keep out critical voices.

John Rees

John Rees of the SWP was stung by demands for democracy and socialism. "This has been a remarkable convention. We have done something never done before. We have brought together the socialist left, muslims, the STWC activists, trade unionists. Whatever went before was not as strong as this. We fought for the declaration and voted against the things we believed in, because, while the people here are important, they are not as important as the millions out there. We are reaching to the people locked out of politics. We voted for what they want."

This was the most honest statement I had yet heard from the SWP. Comrade Rees had found the confidence to fully develop the political thesis which lay behind the setting up of Respect. Gone was the pretence, so indignantly propounded in the SA, that the new coalition was socialist. Socialism puts people off: it chases away potentially powerful allies. The appetite for a coalition unfettered by principle was clear.

Without socialist politics, the only unifying force remaining is the hunger for electoral success, and an unreflective opposition to New Labour. It was on this point that he finished: "They are fearful. They are right to be fearful. Respect is coming." The SWP faithful rewarded him with another standing ovation.

George Galloway

Lindsey German then introduced George Galloway as our final speaker, but, like a society hostess keen to apologise to her valued guest for her children's rudeness, began: "I want to disassociate from the attacks that have been made. George speaks at meetings all over the country, and seldom asks for expenses. If those criticising him did a 100th of the work he did, it would be good."

He still seemed rather put out. "There are hundreds in this room who've organised meetings I've spoken at. I've paid fares. I've paid for hotels, where necessary." In the last nine days, he had spoken at nine meetings and over the last two years more than 500, without once asking for expenses.

The solution is simple. George: stop being heroic. Rather than forking out from your own pocket, let us pay. Take your worker's wage, and return us anything left over. From the sound of things, you would be better off - and it's much easier to budget with a regular, fixed income, eh?

"If only half the protestors who marched on February 15 take a shorter walk on June 10 to vote for us, they will be talking of nothing else on TV or radio the next day but the new force which has been born. I was the first to predict a million marchers on the anti-war demonstration, and some comrades raised their eyebrows: but we doubled this. Getting a million votes is not beyond us, and will knock them off their chairs." His bravado reminded me irresistibly of a similar speech I heard a long time ago. Surely he was not going to say "¦ "I'm not going to say, 'Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government'. But if we win seats everywhere, we will change Britain's political life everywhere, and for the better."

George Monbiot

One speaker I cannot report on is George Monbiot, as he was not there. He was one of Respect's founders, and his absence was remarked upon by many but never mentioned from the platform. The Weekly Worker contacted him, and his assistant, Sandy Kennedy, informed us that "George didn't attend the conference because he's in India." Our questions about his continuing involvement in Respect remain unanswered. However, we understand that he may have withdrawn over the failure of Respect to win the support of the Green Party, and await his comments.

Respect prospects

After decades of rainy paper sales, and tired local meetings with the same old faces, the SWP leadership had its head turned by the STWC, a wonderfully successful campaigning organisation. At last the SWP found itself at the centre of a truly mass protest. Unlike other fronts, the STWC captured and coordinated a huge national movement. STWC leaders were appearing on television, and its events were headlined in the bourgeois press.

Lack of a coherent programme meant that these events thoroughly disorientated SWP leaders. They have no compass. Now nothing must be done or said that might scare anyone off. Like a junkie hooked by their first taste of a drug, they became addicted to the feeling that they finally mattered. The thought of slowly and painstakingly building out of the limelight is unbearable.

Nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of the big time. Thousands of muslims had marched to Hyde Park: they must not be alienated by "shibboleths" such as the rights for women and gays. While SA speakers were not allowed on SWTC platforms, Charles Kennedy was welcome. SWP speakers defined themselves purely as STWC officers, and stuck to broad pacifism. So tight was this self-discipline that various green and left reformist speakers adopted positions far to the left of SWP revolutionaries.

The Socialist Alliance, which ought to have been well placed to capitalise on the upsurge, but was instead put into cold storage by the SWP, failed to get results. SA percentage votes were often lower than the proportion of the entire population which had marched on February 15. How could this be? It must be the politics of the SA, not the fact that the alliance had effectively been closed down. As Lindsey German said, "If people had wanted to join the SA, they would have done it by now." A new political inheritor of the STWC must be built: broad, non-socialist, non-toxic to monarchists, supporters of the Countryside Alliance and representatives unwilling to live on a workers' wage - its name is Respect.

Sunday saw a lack of democracy that makes the SA seem positively utopian, and above all a bonfire of principle. So, 'We support this, this and this: but we will vote against it all.' The membership of the SWP is being persuaded to go along with this. It is temporary; it will be reviewed. Respect will win votes to power, goes the argument, and then we'll win Respect to socialism.

The SWP is selling its soul and getting little in return. The unions have ignored Respect, the Morning Star's CPB has rejected it, the SP will not come to terms and the MAB retains its own (clearer) agenda. Whatever George Galloway's strengths and weaknesses, he is a political liability in the arena the SWP seeks to enter: if the media get a hint that this 'far left' coalition may be successful, they will tear him to shreds, and clips of his speech to Saddam Hussein will rival snooker for television time.

More likely, though, Respect will fail to improve on SA results, because socialism was never the problem. The SA needed to go forward, not back. Instead of moving on from a socialist alliance to a socialist party, as the SSP did, the SWP has moved back from a socialist alliance to a non-socialist alliance.

Non-socialist? Well, perhaps a bit socialist. Aretha had it again: "Just a little bit, uhuh, just a little bit "¦"