25.03.2004

Assessing Respect

CPGB aggregate

How should communists relate to Respect? This was the main question for the March aggregate of the CPGB. Members discussed how the coalition should be characterised, what its prospects are, and to what extent our Party should support it.

Comrade John Bridge opened the debate by describing how the CPGB, as the only organised opposition to the Socialist Workers Party in the Respect coalition, is able to challenge its leadership by asking simple, straightforward questions. Our comrades are also being excluded from committees and candidate lists, but at great cost to the SWP. In this sense Respect is negatively shaping itself in relation to us. The SWP mistakenly imagines that as a ‘hard’ sect it is immune from opportunist degeneration, but it is in the process of being transformed into its opposite. Comrade Bridge reminded comrades that before its current turn the SWP claimed that any left group which stood in elections would inevitably sell out its principles. This is not so, but the SWP is fulfilling its own gloomy prophecy. The SWP’s John Rees hopes that on June 11 he will be an MEP, but if he is not elected he is ready to blame the CPGB for its policy of ‘critical engagement’.

The politics of Respect, continued comrade Bridge, are a mixture of supportable demands and platitudes aimed at attracting votes for their own sake. There is no socialism in its platform and no challenge to the current constitutional set-up of the British state. However, in contrast to its on-off coverage of the on-off Socialist Alliance, Socialist Worker, the paper of the SWP, is full of Respect. Meanwhile SWP cadre are being forced to argue against democratic and socialist ideas and any pretence of inclusion. If Respect performs badly on June 10, the current SWP leadership, not to mention the organisation itself, may be in deep trouble. We do not want to see another leftwing group implode, which would mean the dispersion of a generation of activists into disillusionment and passivity - that would be a terrible waste. We must therefore continue to warn the SWP of the possible dire consequences of its opportunism - for instance, if Respect achieves an unlikely success on June 10, it will no doubt persuade some leading figures that moving even further to the right is the only way to ‘make a difference’.

Our perspective of joining Respect and arguing within it for basic socialist and democratic principles is correct, comrade Bridge argued. We should be in there seeking its transformation into a partyist project. At present the SWP has no serious organisational rivals on the left - it has stayed the same size, while all the others have either shattered or slowly withered into insignificance. It is correct for us to be inside Respect because that is where the crisis of the largest section of the left will find its most acute expression.

We should have no problems working to build Respect. At present the SWP feels able to treat us with utter contempt - it dismisses our principled calls with dishonest and often absurd arguments, knowing it can rely on a solid bloc of its own well trained comrades to win any vote. But this is short-sighted. When the SWP behaves in this way, it is not just doing so in a given meeting - its actions will be faithfully reported in the Weekly Worker and made known to its sizeable readership. Comrade Bridge concluded by saying that, of course, after June 10, we, along with everyone else on the left, will reassess the situation.

Comrade Phil Kent said the project of left unity has suffered a setback, and in the June 10 elections Respect candidates will be standing on non-socialist policies. But this has caused groups like the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty to retreat into their own sect world. Comrade Anne Mc Shane described Respect as the SWP’s attempts to win votes by dumping leftwing baggage. She disagreed with those who claim that Respect is similar to the early days of the Network of Socialist Alliances; at least then communists were allowed to stand on their own politics. Respect is undemocratic, the SWP censors the views of others and also censors itself. Comrade Bob Paul agreed. It was anti-democratic in the SA too, but at least the alliance had half-decent politics which we could work to cohere others around.

Comrade Cameron Richards argued that Respect is a popular front, which he defined as an organisation whose programme “does not go beyond the existing capitalist order”. George Galloway proves it is a popular front by his calls for liberals and conservatives to be drawn into it, he said. Comrade Peter Manson, editor of the Weekly Worker, rejected this, pointing out that a popular front involves working class forces collaborating with a section of the bourgeoisie in order to form a capitalist government. According to comrade Richards’s definition, many trade unions must be popular fronts. In his reply to the debate, comrade Bridge stated that if Respect really did represent an alliance with bourgeois forces, we would certainly not be part of it. Respect consists of leftwingers standing on a minimalist, populist platform.

Comrade Mike Macnair analysed the SWP’s behaviour as repeating the pattern of the ‘official’ CPGB in its heyday, except that the SWP does not have real roots in the working class. It poses as a hard sect on the campuses, and at the same time runs a number of front organisations trying to draw in wider forces and recruit to the SWP. The emphasis shifts between the two poles - ‘party’ and front - as circumstances dictate, and Respect is simply an extreme example of such a front: political demands are toned down so as not to upset the vicars - or, in the SWP’s case, the imams.

Most speakers shared comrade Bridge’s view that the prospects for Respect are poor. Comrade Mc Shane analysed some of the problems it faces. First, Ken Livingstone will lead the Labour slate in London. He was against the war on Iraq and is perceived as left-wing. Secondly, the Green Party is posing left, has been working with Livingstone and already has a presence on the Greater London Assembly. Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats are also perceived as anti-war and, according to opinion polls, have the support of a large number of muslims. Fourthly, George Galloway is not trusted by many voters.

Comrade Marcus Ström thought comrades were being too pessimistic. Unlike in Spain, Australia and even the USA, there is no opposition bourgeois party capable of forming the next government that is against the war, and there is a large electoral space opening up to the left of Labour. He argued that no one should be reluctant to call for a vote for Respect, as it could attract a section of anti-war radicals and might even develop into a site for our struggle for a Communist Party. However, comrade Tina Becker and Mike Macnair both pointed out that, if it looked as if the Tories were likely to do well, then the space to the left of Labour would close quickly. In those circumstances, the SWP could easily revert to auto-Labourism.

Many comrades expected the SWP to treat Respect the same way as it did the SA - turning it off immediately after June 10. Even if Respect does well and John Rees and Paul Foot become MEPs, the SWP would use their newly found prominence for their own narrow purposes. However, comrade Macnair agreed with comrade Bridge that the disintegration of the SWP was a possibility. He thought that this means we should be prepared for other possibilities in the fight for left unity.

There was a range of opinions about how much support we should give to Respect. Of those present the most sceptical was comrade Richards, who said the Party should not give the SWP an alibi and a blank cheque. We did not support it last summer when it was looking to form something called ‘Peace and Justice’; neither should we support the SWP’s current attempt to cohere “reactionaries and fundamentalists”. Comrade Kent said our aim should be to try to split it. Comrade Mc Shane said we do not want Respect to succeed in its own terms: only if we can transform it into what the working class needs.

Comrade Lee Rock said we have to be inside Respect because that is where we can try to influence healthy elements in and around the SWP, but we should be as forceful in our opposition to SWP abandonment of principle as the SWP leadership is hostile to us. Our message should be, ‘Respect will fail because of your misleadership.’ He accepted that if we are seen as not building or supporting Respect, it will be easy for SWPers to dismiss us. However, Respect should not be our main area of work.

Comrade Ström asked what other possibilities there were in the short time before June 10. Of course Respect must be our main focus of our work right now. We should be in it, fighting for the best outcome, and ready to respond to whatever happens on June 10. If it is successful, it will develop a partyist logic, such as functioning branches and a publication, which we would welcome. But if it fails, we should be ready to work with whatever comes out of it.

Comrade Manson advocated full support for Respect in the coming weeks, while at the same time fighting to channel anti-war, pro-working class sentiment into a campaign for a party. To this end we should call for an unconditional vote for the coalition. Comrades Mc Shane, Becker and others advocated challenging Respect candidates to support a minimum platform as a condition of our support, as we do with other candidates who pose left. Comrade Manson said this is the correct tactic in relation to Labour candidates who claim to stand for the working class, but not for Respect.

Comrade Manson proposed the following motion: “Recognising the need for the anti-war, pro-working class opposition to Blair to take on partyist form, the CPGB will work to ensure the biggest possible vote for Respect on June 10.” The motion was passed with only comrade Richards voting against, although there were several abstentions.

After lunch comrade Ström introduced a short discussion on the Socialist Alliance. He outlined the events of the February 21 SA Democracy Platform meeting and the March 13 special conference of the alliance. CPGB comrades walked out of the first and did not join in the Democratic Platform walkout at the second. Both these actions were endorsed by the aggregate, although some comrades thought we should have a broader discussion on our attitude to those SA branches which refuse to subsume themselves in Respect, as ordered by the SWP. It was agreed that comrades who lived in areas where this happens should continue to support their SA branch, but that this would clearly not be the main focus of Weekly Worker coverage.

At the end of the aggregate comrade Mark Fischer gave a report on the Party’s financial position. As always, we are fully stretched, which of course is how it should be. Nevertheless, it was essential that changes were made urgently, particularly in relation to the printshop. In order to meet the Party’s increasing need for finance he proposed that regions be set collective fundraising targets. Comrades on the periphery of the Party are encouraged to take out standing orders and pay dues in the same way as full members.

Some comrades suggested making online readers of the Weekly Worker pay a subscription, but this idea was rejected - our most important task in this period is political: to get our ideas across to as many people as possible.