19.10.2005
'Is Respect communistic?'
Anne Mc Shane reports from Respect Hackney's pre-conference meeting, which again highlighted the Socialist Workers' Party's impossible mission to ride two horses at the same time
The October 12 pre-conference meeting of Hackney branch provided an interesting glimpse into the present state of play inside Respect - particularly the attitudes and tensions within its main affiliate organisation. Firstly, the Socialist Workers Party obviously has problems mobilising its own members. We had previously been told by Mike Simons, membership secretary and SWP member, that a large number of people had not renewed their national Respect membership. This was such a problem that people were being signed up on the door - with an ensuing delay in starting the meeting. And even with this last-minute push, it was small - only about 30 comrades were present. While the organisers excused the low numbers by the fact that only six days notice had been given, it was clear that all was not well. Although refusing to respond to a request to provide membership figures to the meeting itself, Simons informed me afterwards that there were now about 96 members in Hackney with another 100 on the mailing list who have not renewed their national membership. At last year's meeting he had told us that that membership stood at 151 - itself down on a previous figure of "over 230" a few months earlier (Weekly Worker October 14 2004). He also confirmed the obvious point that not all SWP members are Respect members - despite the three-line whip from John Rees. Given the fact that branch activity has been put on hold in order to boost participation in Respect, this is an indication of serious problems at the heart of the SWP. The atmosphere of the meeting was a marked contrast to last year's pre-conference debate. In 2004 SWP members present were full of gritty-minded determination to ensure that our motions got nowhere. Looking forward to the general election, they were confident and determined to marginalise left critics in Respect. Anything that got in the way - like the awkward question of abortion rights - had to be mercilessly pushed aside. No compromise, no apologies, just unpleasant belligerence. In comparison, this year, while still determined to vote down the left, the SWP adopted a tactical approach that gave the appearance of being more regretful than strident. One by one, leading SWP members expressed their feelings of guilt in having to oppose what they professed to agree with. In the words of general election candidate Dean Ryan, "I feel bad at having to speak against this motion [on immigration controls] when I am an active socialist involved in campaigns against deportations". Obviously that did not stop him and his comrades from leading votes against all those principles they apparently hold so dear. As usual they blamed the fact that Respect is "a coalition" that does not have the SWP's revolutionary politics. In other words, a coalition for which the SWP has effectively abaondoned its formal adherence to revolutionary politics. But, unlike last year, when the comrades seemed almost relieved to shed leftist pretensions as the big time beckoned, this time they were far less arrogantly dismissive. Ardour has certainly cooled - at least in Hackney. Rather than the puffed up boasting of 2004, many expressed frustration at the low level of activity since the general election campaign. From some of the interventions you would have thought that nothing has been happening - no Respect stalls (only SWP ones), no canvassing, no independent Respect activity. Given that Hackney has a relatively large SWP membership, the conclusions are obvious. Perhaps some have realised how far they have travelled to the right under the stewardship of John Rees. Maybe the prospect of George Galloway operating in parliament untrammelled by accountability to the organisation that got him elected is not an attractive one. Certainly enthusiasm has waned and some SWP members are voting with their feet. As usual, time allowed for discussion was pinched - even more so because of the delayed start. We were told by the chair that proposers of motions would get two minutes, as would a speaker against - with a maximum of six minutes allowed for discussion on each motion! Apart from the CPGB there was no dissent over this ridiculous ruling. And to begin with it seemed like there would be no controversy at all - a motion against privatisation in the NHS (almost identical to current policy) went through on the nod. This was followed by the International Socialist Group's inane motion on building Respect. Refusing to take on the obvious difficult political questions, the ISG makes noises about the need to build and be "as open and inclusive as possible". The comrades were concerned above all else to avoid controversy - and thus make themselves utterly irrelevant to the issues in Respect. Their motion also went through on the nod - although later it was withdrawn by them on the basis that it would be submitted by another Respect branch anyway and therefore it should not constitute one of the two motions each branch is allowed to submit. Pointless or what? As expected, the meeting came alive around the set of motions proposed by the CPGB. Tina Becker proposed the motion of opposition to the religious hatred laws to nods of agreement from a couple of independents in the meeting, most notably a muslim woman who expressed her concern about the attack on civil liberties. Leading SWP member Gareth Jenkins spoke against and argued that, while "I agree we need to discuss this, there are enormous splits and divisions in the muslim community" on the question and, given these splits, "this is not the right time to actually oppose it". Somebody (not a CPGB member) heckled: "When is the right time, Gareth?" The muslim woman argued that "we don't want a crackdown on our civil liberties. We should be against this law". Comrade Jenkins, feeling under pressure, then proposed an amendment to delete all parts of the motion that committed Respect to opposition to the proposed legislation. Instead he proposed to insert a general liberal commitment to free speech. This amendment, which was accepted, effectively robbed the motion of any concrete content - to the extent that those who supported his proposal later argued against the amended motion going forward to conference, as it was meaningless! Our motion for the abolition of immigration controls got a similar response. Ian Taylor - also SWP - proclaimed that it is "with a heavy heart that I oppose this motion". Ian himself is against all immigration controls, of course, but it is not a suitable policy for Respect. Instead the emphasis has to be on asylum-seekers, which is "the cutting edge of the question - they are the Jews of the 21st century". But, as Eddie Barns, a solicitor who represents asylum-seekers and migrants, responded, "There is no right to asylum now - it's gone. We have to be clear and say what we believe in. There are 18-year-old kids being snatched and deported overnight with no right of appeal or legal representation. If we do not fight for what we believe in we won't get it." Perhaps because of SWP embarrassment at Eddie's support for the motion, more time was allowed for a further dose of mealy-mouthedness from the floor. SWP comrades argued for individual campaigns that would not alienate people. We were denounced as "too pure" for calling for defence of all migrants, not just asylum-seekers. The motion was voted down, with three for and three abstentions. Needless to say, the ISG comrades again shamefully followed the lead of the SWP in opposing this basic principle. The meeting then went on to discuss transport and climate change. The SWP line is that the potential for the development of safe nuclear power technology even under socialism is out of the question. One of their own comrades had put forward a motion on transport that also raised environmental issues. He was pressurised to withdraw it and the main motion on climate change was passed. It was left to Tom Rubens to cause the only real splits among the SWP that evening. He proposed a motion similar to one that had been passed by SWP members in Hackney last year, only to then be rejected by the John Rees-led SWP bloc at conference. He quite rightly wanted to have this argument again. Tom's motion called for the dismantling of monopoly capitalism. Colin Wilson of the SWP spoke against. He agreed that we need revolutionary change, but now is not the time to raise such demands in Respect. It would be "off-putting for the Labour Party members we are trying to recruit". The muslim woman who spoke before asked for clarification about the programme of Respect. "I am a bit confused about this capitalism thing, because it sounds quite communistic. Is Respect at heart a communist organisation?" Quite a poignant question that actually summed up the SWP's problem in trying to ride two horses at once. Not surprisingly, no response was forthcoming from the comrades. But interestingly Dean Ryan supported Tom's motion, as he felt it "impossible not to support a motion against capitalism and in favour of the welfare state". He led something of a rebellion with 10 votes for, 13 against and five abstentions. To the relief of the steadfast SWP loyalists, it narrowly lost. No decision was taken on delegates. It will be up to "the next meeting, which will be much bigger than this one", according to the chair. Obviously comrade Simons is hoping to turn around the membership problem in the meantime. Let's wait and see. Anne Mc Shane Form a Respect left opposition Conference fringe meeting Saturday November 19 6pm, Lucas Arms, 245a Grays Inn Road, London WC1 all welcome, lots of time for debate
Worker