13.07.2005
Ignorant and proud
There was a slightly unreal atmosphere around this year's Marxism, the annual school of the Socialist Workers Party. Respect haunted the proceedings, reports Mark Fischer, yet was practically invisible both in terms of the formal agenda and on the stalls
"It's easier to hand out leaflets to ordinary punters on the street," commented one comrade from a left group as we attempted to engage passing SWPers at this year's Marxism. This was accurate enough as far as the majority of SWPers were concerned, but we were able to have a few decent discussions with many of the less foam-flecked members at our stall and we seemed to do better general business this year with the non-aligned attendees - a relatively healthy 50-plus papers were sold on our stall alone, plus a range of other literature over the weekend. It was pretty nasty inside, however. For instance, a CPGB comrade who tried to give out leaflets for the Marxism fringe after one of the events in the Institute of Education was aggressively confronted by a steward. "You're not allowed to do this in here," she was told (despite the fact that about 20 SWPers and an equal number from its clone international sections were busy doing just the same). When our comrade refused to desist, four stewards squared up to her, shouting, blustering and swearing the air blue. So no freedom of information inside Marxism then. The organisers want a regimented Stalinite rally, not a space for unfettered thought and discovery. They even (unsuccessfully) tried to take back her Marxism ticket, thus effectively banning her from the rest of the event. Their resolve quickly crumbled when she refused to hand it over, but in a later session - on the decidedly tricky question for the SWP of 'Immigration, racism and refugees' - the same comrade was bluntly told by Weyman Bennett, who occupied the chair, that there was "no way" she would get to speak. (Confronted over the incident later, comrade Bennett disputed it ever happened, mumbling: "I might have let you speak, but you are not important enough, compared to some of the other speakers." Of course, none of these other speakers mentioned the contradiction between the SWP's claimed support for open borders and its opposition to the same principle at the last Respect conference). In these and other petty examples of sect hostility, SWPers underlined rather more than usual their fragility. Of course, the SWP's general culture typically turns out members who are profoundly ignorant of wider revolutionary politics - and bullishly proud of it. This accounts for the brittle political nature of many of them, their inability to calmly engage with any criticisms from the Marxist left and a tendency in the most extreme cases (though thankfully not this year) to resort to physical attacks. However, SWP sensitivity has increased. Here is an organisation that is definitely not confident that its Respect strategy is a correct one. If it was, it would effortlessly brush off critical remarks from the "little sects outside this building", as Chris Harman put it. Although the question of Respect actually came up quite rarely, it obviously cast a long shadow over the whole event. There was one meeting that addressed the question directly - a rally with George Galloway and John Rees. This was entertaining, but hardly sufficient, one would have thought, for an organisation embarked on a turn that its internal bulletin, Party notes, describes "as the best opportunity we will ever have to build a new left" (May 23). Indeed, it was perhaps telling that the debate at this rally was truncated even by the miserly standards of SWP meetings. Although the chair went through the charade of collecting speaker's slips, all four of those called to the microphone had been pre-selected. They included Caroline Coleman (Respect candidate in the Leytonstone by-election), Preston councillor Michael Lavalette and Yvonne Ridley - hardly a bunch of fearless interrogators of the line, then. Thus, Respect coloured the proceedings despite having a tiny visibility at the event. (I personally was approached five times this year to join the SWP, but not once was I asked to join what the same issue of Party notes dubbed the group's "starting point", the political focus that SWP organisational priorities must revolve around. "The SWP has to fit around Respect, not the other way round," Party notes told members. Not at this year's Marxism it didn't). The dilemma of Respect therefore is creating all manner of tensions in the SWP - whether these are consciously recognised as of yet is another thing, of course. The reason why there is such hostility to any criticism from the left is precisely because of the opportunist compromises it has already made, because of the largely phantom right wing of the Respect party and because of an electoralist hankering after votes. It has scuppered the SWP's self-image as the organisation of "the Marxists" in Britain. At all levels, members are coming under instructions to end the old situation where there are "'Respect specialists' in the SWP". Now, "every member has to join Respect. Every SWP member has to build Respect" as a necessary political stage in the reconstitution of working class politics in this country (ibid). Like the 'official communists' and their anti-monopoly alliances and anti-Thatcherite coalitions, the SWP now has an implicit two-stage programme. Before socialism can be put on the agenda, there is the Respect stage of politics, including, one presumes, a Respect government. The task of building Respect has been simply laid over the existing priorities and organisational routine of the SWP. Members are expected to ride two separate horses. Thus, Marxism is primarily about recruitment to the SWP, and Socialist Worker remains the paper of the SWP - an organisation whose politics are not appropriate for widespread dissemination to millions of working class people, according to the Respect perspectives of the leadership. As we have commented before, something has to give. The palpable sense of tension this year indicates that the pressure is building. This year's event was roughly comparable to last year's in terms of numbers - perhaps a little smaller, but, given the other priorities such as the G8 protests (plus the impact of the London bombings, of course), this is hardly surprising. London SWP activist Keith Flett told me some 5,400 were formally registered to attend: "Although you lot will probably halve that", he suggested with a sad shake of the head. Last year there were around 2,500 people in total, so his suspicion is probably right. But undoubtedly, the event remains important and still has sufficient pull to attract a range of interesting speakers. The old audience has shrunk to a small degree; but a new one has not been won to its latest brand of opportunism. The demographics underlined that there has been no breakthrough for the SWP as the SWP over the last 12 months. There were very few people who were obviously from a muslim background, they were not particularly young and there were plenty of very familiar faces from previous years - even if those faces were more sullen l
Worker