26.09.2007
Not in front of the children
In private, behind the backs of the voting public and the working class, the SWP is said to have been circulating an 'information pack', which supposedly exposes the truth about George Galloway. Jim Moody demands politics
At last Socialist Worker has let its readers know that something is amiss in Respect - in a tiny article telling them all is well!
In a reassuring article headed 'Respect national council passes unanimous motion', editor Chris Bambery writes: "Fingers were poised last Saturday evening, ready to email out Respect's political obituary. This followed much spin in the media and from New Labour about Respect's imminent demise. Instead the Respect national council, which met in the afternoon, unanimously passed a resolution spelling out campaign priorities and making moves to strengthen the party in light of a possible general election" (September 29).
What a way to treat militant workers - 'Not in front of the children' is the Socialist Workers Party's attitude. Assume for a moment that readers of this piece had been completely ignorant of the full-blown row between George Galloway/Salma Yaqoob and the SWP - a row that had threatened to blow Respect apart sooner rather than later - what are they to make of comrade Bambery's report? Respect's leadership has passed a unanimous motion about "campaign priorities" and "moves to strengthen the party" - wow!
Why were some people "ready to email out Respect's political obituary"? Just what was this "spin" all about? It is nothing short of scandalous that the paper of the largest group within Respect has steadfastly refused to mention that anything untoward has been going on.
The same applies to Respect itself. Apart from a mysterious reference to a document circulated by "George" contained in the minutes of the previous NC meeting, its website has said not a word about the crisis engulfing the organisation. There has been not a hint of the barrage of accusations and counter-accusations that have been hurled back and forth. On September 22, shortly after the acrimonious NC meeting Respect did publish its anodyne "unanimous motion". True. But those not in the know will be none the wiser. The factional battle that raged behind the scenes will have completely passed them by.
Such people are few and far between nowadays, though. The SWP's Stalinism, its haughty stupidity, its contempt toward the working class is eloquently expressed by its silence on Respect's problems. But, thanks to the Weekly Worker and a whole string of leftwing bloggers, the whole affair has been conducted in the public sphere. Internal documents are more and more externalised. Just don't bother looking in Socialist Worker or the Respect bulletin.
While Salma Yaqoob's recent online intervention on the side of George Galloway is hardly that of a working class partisan, her attitude towards openness is qualitatively better than the SWP's.
In her document, the national vice-chair of Respect says: "Many members have expressed dismay that, while their organisation is in the midst of this debate, no reference to it is made on our website and they have to scour the net to glean a greater understanding as to what the debate is actually about. There should there be space on our national website for internal discussion and the posting of internal documents" (www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/689/salma.htm).
The CPGB and the Weekly Worker have conducted themselves in an absolutely principled way throughout the whole Respect crisis. However, the same cannot be said of the SWP. While in public it has maintained complete silence behind the scenes, in Respect it has been a completely different story. The SWP seems to have resorted to unprincipled methods of struggle.
According to Liam Mac Uaid's blog, "Reports that the SWP had been circulating an 'information pack' outlining Galloway's weaknesses, errors, faults and foibles were confirmed" at the NC (http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com).
What is this 'dirty dossier' for? Presumably, it exists to put pressure on Galloway. Now, it may be able to do so because it holds painful political truths about Respect's MP and his attitudes. Or it may be because it is made up of lurid allegations about the man and his private and business life. What role then, if any, did this "information pack" play in the compromise agreement arrived at by last Saturday's NC? Was it used as a threat?
If the 'information pack' contains personal dirt, then the SWP should immediately destroy all originals, recall any print copies, and instruct its members to delete electronic ones. There is no place in working class politics for personal muckraking and innuendo. If this is the essence of the 'information pack', whoever authorised its circulation should be disciplined.
If, however, the dossier is full to the brim with political condemnation of Galloway, then the SWP must publish it forthwith, unexpurgated. To continue to keep such criticisms under wraps is to adopt a deeply patronising manner. The working class has the right to know what the SWP really thinks about George Galloway. The SWP must come clean.