21.07.2004
Following the line
David Broder shares his impressions of his first ever attendance at Marxism, the SWP's summer 'festival'
Since, as a school student, I have only recently ventured into the world of far-left politics, this year was the first time that I had attended the Socialist Workers Party’s annual Marxism event.What I found did not really correspond to its “socialist festival” billing, as most of the meetings and ‘debates’ were entirely one-sided, with little time allowed for interventions from the floor. The event seemed to be rather more of an effort to make sure that SWP members were fully aware of what the leadership wanted them to think. It was also a recruitment drive, with a very strong focus on getting new members and winning subscriptions to their publications.
While Chris Bambery, John Molyneux and other SWP leaders were always allowed to speak from the floor, among the rest of us usually only a handful got the nod from the chair, and even then they were given only two to three minutes to explain their views. Unfortunately, determination to finish dead on time meant that some of the most relevant arguments were cut short. For example, in a debate on ‘Women’s liberation today’, a telling description of the problems faced by Irish women was stopped so that Lindsey German could reply to the discussion - a whole 45 minutes before the next session.
However, worse was the constant harrying to sign up. Upon leaving and entering each session, I would be asked any number of times if I had “considered joining the SWP” or if I had “heard about their work”. I found this last question a bit bizarre, since it implied that I would attend their meetings without knowing who they were. When I replied that I had no intention of joining, due to my very critical attitude towards Respect, I was assured that the SWP “only comprised 40% of Respect’s membership”. As if the SWP are not in charge of running and paying for Respect, let alone shaping its politics. But what I really resented was being told that I was “islamophobic” whenever I mentioned the importance of standing up for gay and women’s rights, even if it might put off some muslim voters.
This seemed to me to be the main feature of this year’s Marxism: that no-one would dare say anything to criticise any muslim group. In his ‘Nationalism and national liberation’ talk, Pat Stack said: “You have to support the right of the Iraqi resistance, whatever their ideas” - a sentiment echoed during Lindsey German’s appearance on Newsnight, when she asserted, in response to Peter Tatchell’s claims that the Palestine Liberation Organisation oppresses homosexuals, “It is not helpful to protest against non-whites who may be subject to racism”. This refusal to criticise means that the SWP risks associating with one oppressor over another - it does not qualify its support for resistance groups in any way.
I also found Pat Stack’s claim that “It’s the Arab working class we have to work with … there’s a difference between the Israeli and Palestinian working classes” decidedly erroneous. Just because they live in the oppressor state does not mean that we should not ally with Israeli workers whenever possible: following comrade Stack’s perverse logic, we could not organise British or American workers either. One speaker from the floor in the ‘Nationalism and national liberation’ session specifically rejected the idea that the key to Palestinian liberation lay with the Israeli working class. Yet surely genuine freedom for Arab or any other people can only be achieved through international class unity.
Nevertheless, this was very much the line, and a similar point was made in other debates touching upon Palestine, such as in the discussion, ‘A united front’, where Amy Leather claimed that “You can’t use terms such as ‘No to terrorism’ when muslims are under attack”. As a newcomer to SWP meetings, I was surprised by the concept that we should not condemn random acts of violence against civilians, whatever the ethnicity of the person who initiated it.
Therefore, I found that the best-argued and most interesting sessions were those which had least connection to islam or the Middle East, such as those on ‘Does human nature lead to war and greed?’ and ‘The mass strike’. The latter grabbed my attention and it served a very important educational role for me. Since I have read little of Rosa Luxemburg’s work, I found that this particular meeting gave a real insight into the politics of the mass strike, and the consequent relationship between trade union-type struggles and political vanguards. I was encouraged to undertake further reading on the subject - surely the role of a summer school.
Equally, the talk on ‘Voices from the unions’, with Mark Dolan and Unjum Mirza from the RMT, was a significant one, since trade union support is very much key for Respect and much else besides. One Unison member’s description of the political short-sightedness of his union in relation to the Labour Party - “desperate for a link with New Labour, and to be kicked down” - was a paradox which I thought should have been explored more deeply.
It was apparent that, despite the relatively low attendance figures, apparently down some 50% on last year, Marxism 2004 was an important event, not least because it was an excellent opportunity for different left groups from across Europe to get together. Groups such as the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire, Rifondazione Comunista and the Swiss Mouvement pour le Socialisme all had contingents and freely distributed their papers and leaflets.
While this sort of cross-pollination was admirable in itself, it was sadly limited by the refusal of all too many SWP members to read anything other than Socialist Worker and other such International Socialist Tendency publications. One might think that their members had been instructed not to even touch other left papers, such was the sadly all too common refusal by some to even look at the Weekly Worker. This sort of sectarianism was particularly ironic, given the continual attacks on other organisations as “sectarians”.
I also disliked the fact that the event had more the air of a Respect rally than a school for revolutionary socialists. Many seem to have an excessively optimistic view of the unity coalition - one rank-and-file member commented that “Respect is making humanity more dynamic”, while Amy Leather’s “We have to begin to break away from reformism - that’s what Respect is all about” did little to convince me that the SWP was connected to reality. I had hoped that some SWP platform speakers would at least admit some of the flaws in Respect’s current programme; instead their fanatical praise made me intensely sceptical, demonstrating that their underlying ideas were essentially unsound.
The closing rally was probably what left the greatest impression. Rapturous, triumphant, naive and unthinking. Once the Leicester South and Hodge Hill votes were mentioned, several minutes of wild cheering and clapping from the 800-strong crowd ensued. Most presumably believed Dave Hayes’s promise earlier in the week that good results would transform existing class consciousness. That or heaven’s gates were just about to open.
While the results were reasonably good, George Galloway’s claim that there had been a “transformation of the political landscape”, and John Rees’s assertion that Respect was “now part of a four-party system” were examples of wild optimism - greeted once again by standing ovations from the faithful disciples. I felt rather left out by this - I could not bring myself to believe that overnight Respect had not only overtaken UKIP, BNP and the Greens, but should also now be seen as the main rival to the three establishment parties.
Since I came to the Marxism event with little prejudice about what I was going to hear, I think it is true to say that the SWP does not give a particularly favourable impression of itself to potential supporters and allies. The political approach was dogmatic, with the membership apparently prepared to accept whatever was the latest leadership turn.