28.04.2004

Critical support for Respect confirmed by members

However, a minority think support should also be conditional and exclude MAB candidates

The April 24 members’ aggregate of the CPGB voted to stand by its previous decision to “work to ensure the biggest possible vote for Respect on June 10” despite a move to overturn it by a significant minority.

The previous aggregate (on March 21) had passed the following resolution: “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.” Many comrades thought the decision had been taken too hastily without enough debate, while others believed that the Party should have adopted such a position weeks earlier. The debate among comrades about Respect - what it is, whether to support it and if so in what way - has continued in the Weekly Worker, in Party meetings across the country, and via email. The Provisional Central Committee therefore arranged another aggregate on April 24 to give members an opportunity to continue the discussion collectively and to put forward and vote on alternatives.

Comrade Cameron Richards proposed the following: “This aggregate overturns the decision of the previous meeting to give blanket support to Respect in the June elections. Instead, the CPGB will advocate voting for Respect where individual candidates in single-member constituencies (GLA, mayor, council) announce their support and campaign for the following: open borders, republicanism and a worker’s wage. Given the closed list nature of the multi-member constituencies for the European elections and the ‘top-up’ section for the GLA, it will be impermissible to vote for Respect in these elections except where the candidate at the top of a slate campaigns for open borders, republicanism, and a worker’s wage.”

Steve Cooke proposed the following alternative as an amendment at the start of the meeting: “The CPGB supports a policy of critical engagement with Respect, the unity coalition. The CPGB will advocate voting for Respect where candidates announce their support and campaign for the following: open borders, republicanism, and a worker’s wage.”

Comrade Marcus Ström opened the debate, saying that, although the Weekly Worker is not an open notice board and the editor must retain control of what is published, nevertheless the CPGB welcomes articles from members with different views on the question, and we can feel proud that we have open debate in our paper.

Openness has always been a strength of the CPGB - another is our understanding of the current historical period. The delabourisation of the Labour Party, the defeat of the left and the dominance of the bourgeois pole within the Labour Party, makes it likely that fragments will split away. Previous attempts to build an alternative, the Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Alliance, emerged at times of defeat for the left. Respect is different in that it came out of success - the 2003 anti-war movement.

All sides in the debate agree on this, and also agree that our objective is to build a Communist Party. Therefore differences in tactics must derive from different analyses of the political nature of Respect, comrade Ström acknowledged. Respect is a left populist coalition - it is not socialist: in that it does not posit rebuilding society on a new basis. When they gain political power such coalitions can metamorphose into popular front governments. But in his view it is a mistake to dismiss such left populist coalitions as inevitable future popular fronts and refuse to support them. Respect may become a popular front, or it may be the embryo of a left party in Britain. We are entering Respect very critically: despite what some of our more stupid critics claim, we are hardly sucking up to the Socialist Workers Party.

Although we want a political revolution in Respect, it would be counterproductive to make our support conditional on such a revolution, concluded comrade Ström. It would enable the SWP to portray us as a group working within Respect but not wishing for it to perform well.

Comrade Richards spoke next, introducing his motion. He described the resolution passed on March 21 as a profound mistake. Implying both blanket and unconditional support for Respect, it commits us to voting for reactionaries who may stand on the Respect ticket, he said. The source of the mistake is the PCC, which has been zig-zagging on Respect and its predecessor, Peace and Justice, since last summer. Comrade Richards said he agreed with the analysis given in Jack Conrad’s ‘Party notes’ column, headed ‘The necessity of class’ (Weekly Worker July 3 2003), which “gives a correct analysis” of the previous Peace and Justice initiative.

Comrade Richards rejected suggestions that Respect is fundamentally different from Peace and Justice. Its principles on the rights of women and minorities are vague enough to attract the mosque, and avoid confronting the question of the right to abortion. He said he does not analyse Respect on the basis of what George Galloway professes to believe, but on the basis of the behaviour of the SWP. The PCC now thinks Respect is a watered down version of the Socialist Alliance, but this is a mistake. Respect is “the negation of the Socialist Alliance”. When the SWP joined the Socialist Alliance, they were forced to relate to the rest of the left, he said. In Respect, they ignore all on the left who are not toadies.

Supporters of the March 21 motion argue that there is no logical difference between calling for a vote for Respect and the for numerous candidates we have supported in the past. But, argued comrade Richards, these candidates have usually been left-moving breaks from Labour or have had an implied partyist logic. Respect is not about uniting socialist forces or moving towards a working class party: it is a completely degenerate organisation; as comrade Ström himself said, it would take the overthrow of the Respect leadership for it to acquire any socialist principles. “Do we want to follow the SWP down every blind alley?” asked comrade Richards rhetorically. Are we saying, as the SWP does, that we have to be seen to give support to things we don’t agree with in order to get a hearing?

Our best tactic would be to call on SWP members to rebel against their leadership, as we did last summer. Our current position isolates us from principled people remaining in the Socialist Alliance. We have no new allies in Respect, and we have lost our old allies, comrade Richards concluded.

During the long debate that followed, comrade Mike Macnair proposed an amendment to comrade Richards’ motion, so that it would read: “This aggregate overturns the decision of the previous meeting to give blanket support to Respect in the June elections. The CPGB will make recommendations for voting in the week of the elections in the light of the character of the election campaign.” He said it is impossible at this stage to predict what recommendation will best express our class and partyist political position. It will almost certainly be different in different regions. We were premature to decide to call for a vote for Respect so far in advance of the elections.

Comrade Tina Becker disagreed, saying the amendment suffers from failure to give a lead. especially as it is most unlikely there will be drastic changes between now and the beginning of June. Comrade Lee Rock also rejected the amendment, as we cannot intervene effectively in Respect if we refrain from deciding until June whether we will recommend voting for it. He said that if Respect consisted only of the SWP it would not be worth bothering with, but we are able to meet new people at Respect meetings. He would not rule out calling for a vote for others, not least the Socialist Party. As he did at the March aggregate, however, comrade Rock advised against “putting all our eggs in one basket” - that is, making Respect our only area of work. We were right to leave but we should have a positive engagement with the SA Democracy Platform, he said, and revive our longstanding policy of left rapprochement.

Comrade Peter Manson described Respect as a potential left break from Labour, which we want to encourage. There was no contradiction between, on the one hand, continuing to press Respect candidates, and the SWP in particular, on the principles of open borders, a worker’s wage and republicanism and, on the other, voting for those candidates even if they declined to campaign for such principles. He pointed out that the left - apart from ourselves and a few other notable exceptions - has never campaigned for republicanism. To insist now that they must do so in order to earn our vote would be to mark us out as sectarians - the equivalent of saying we can only vote for ourselves.

Agreeing with comrade Richards that the unity coalition is a negation of the Socialist Alliance, comrade Manny Neira said the SWP created Respect to reflect the lowest-common-denominator politics of the anti-war movement, not to push that movement in a socialist direction. Comrade Ström agreed that Respect is a retreat from the Socialist Alliance, but it is also an attempt to politicise the anti-war movement (on an inadequate basis, admittedly) - something we called for throughout last year. Comrade Macnair thought it impossible to have coherent political representation of such a broad and diverse movement. He said that Respect was made up of George Galloway, who wants a route back into the Labour Party; the Muslim Association of Britain, which wants to cohere an organisation of political islam and whose approach is purely tactical; the SWP, which is moving to the right; and, by contrast, small but significant sections of the trade union movement and some Asian forces, which are moving to the left.

The clearest disagreement between supporters of the March 21 resolution and supporters of the Richards motion was seen on the question of whether or not Respect is a continuation of Peace and Justice. Comrade Richards described Peace and Justice as the embryo of Respect. Comrade Ian Donovan said it was hard to analyse Peace and Justice, because it never actually happened - it was only a rumour. But if the SWP had dropped the “shibboleths” of gay and women’s rights, and made a bloc with the mosque on the mosque’s terms, it would not have been supportable. But this is not an accurate description of Respect. The Muslim Association of Britain refuses to join Respect precisely because of Respect’s commitment to gay and women’s rights. Muslims in Respect are being pulled away from reactionary views. Comrade Manson said it was clear at the January 25 launch conference that Respect is not the same as Peace and Justice.

Comrade Stan Keable made the point that our exposure of the opportunism of the SWP’s plans for Peace and Justice helped to ensure that the MAB was not able to be part of Respect on its terms, an example of the good we can do by being involved. Comrade Phil Kent said that, as part of our fight to forge a Communist Party, our aim should be to split the SWP. In his view, the struggle for such a party must be waged inside Respect, just as in the 1980s it was fought in the old, Eurocommunist ‘official’ CPGB. He said this is not the first time we have been “jesuitical” in our support for candidates with rotten politics.

Comrade Neira recalled defending the CPGB against comrades in the AWL and SA Democracy Platform who accused us of selling out to the SWP, which had betrayed the Socialist Alliance. He explained to them that we went into Respect because that is where we can engage with sincere and hard-working socialists in the SWP. By criticising the basis of the project and its direction, we forced the SWP speakers at the January 25 founding convention to expose their lack of principle. John Rees made a “clear statement of opportunism”. Comrade Neira said that, for weeks after, the Weekly Worker turned up the heat on the SWP and provided information on Respect to the left. He thought this effective line would be continued until the election. But the CPGB has “changed its position”, he claimed. To call for the largest vote for Respect does not serve the end of winning the whole organisation for socialism or of breaking the best elements from it

In response to claims that recent issues of the paper have been soft on Respect, comrade John Bridge said we are carrying on the same attacks on the SWP’s opportunism. When people like Michael Lavalette and Ken Loach agree with us on a workers’ wage and open borders against the SWP line, it exposes the contradictions within Respect. Michael Lavalette must have known when he agreed to be interviewed in the Weekly Worker that the SWP leadership would not condone this.

Comrade Anne Mc Shane was concerned that observers may think we are supporting Respect as it is now. We should do our best to make it clear that we are supporting it in an attempt to make it what we want it to be - exactly as we had done in the SLP and SA.

There was disagreement about the likely consequences of a high vote for Respect in the elections. For the working class, SWP members standing as Respect would obviously be better representatives than New Labour or the Liberal Democrats, said comrade Rock. Also if Respect candidates are elected, it will overcome the general feeling in society that there is no point in voting and specifically no point in voting for the left. Comrade Becker pointed out that the partyist logic of the project would be boosted, with the need for hard policies and for branches to become real.

Comrade Neira, in contrast, thought that if the SWP succeeds in getting people elected they will see it as a confirmation of their line that socialism does not work and must be jettisoned. It will lower the consciousness of those involved. Comrade Bridge said things have to be seen in the round: success would have its negative side, but this would be outweighed by the positive aspects (was the election of six Scottish Socialist Party MSPs to be regarded simply as confirmation that embracing nationalism pays?). But he thought that there was little possibility of Respect doing well, and nothing we can do could tip the balance. Comrade Becker said the worst outcome would be a failure of Respect: the SWP would retreat to sectism and there would be no left unity project anywhere.

After a long and comprehensive debate, the aggregate voted to reject comrade Macnair’s amendment by a margin of just less than two to one, comrade Cooke’s amendment by four to one, and comrade Richards’ motion by a similar margin.

Comrade Richards then proposed an emergency motion: “Under no circumstances do we vote for a member of the MAB.” The comrade said the MAB is an organisation of islamic reactionaries which is trying to infiltrate the left, as well as mainstream political parties. People are being hoodwinked. When the left plays games with the mosque, it is the left which ends up paying the price. In recent decades, the left has made several literally fatal errors in failing to recognise the true nature of political islam behind its anti-imperialist face.

Speaking against this, comrade Bridge insisted that you cannot prejudge what an individual thinks on the basis of what organisation they come from. You have to look at what they are actually saying. Comrades Mc Shane, Ström, Donovan and others supported comrade Bridge - MAB candidates would be standing on Respect’s platform, which we had decided was worthy of critical support.

This emergency motion was also defeated, but much more narrowly. Therefore the resolution passed on March 21 remains CPGB policy. Comrade Ström explained, however, that in calling for the largest vote for Respect he does not rule out supporting other candidates in some circumstances - he mentioned Lucy Anderson, the Labour candidate for Barnet and Camden, who had endorsed the RMT’s four points. Comrade Manson said if an individual Respect candidate started to campaign on a reactionary platform, then of course we would urge no support. Comrade Becker stressed that campaigning for Respect does not mean being uncritical.

As comrade Ström said, we must work within Respect understanding both its weaknesses and its potentialities.