30.10.2008
Life after the SWP
Solidarity: a small step forward at the Respect Conference. Peter Manson reports
Respect’s annual conference, held in the Bishopsgate Institute, London, on October 25, showed that the organisation has consolidated its position as a minor player on the reformist left since the split with the Socialist Workers Party a year ago.
Just over 200 members attended, together with a handful of visitors. In contrast to the first two annual conferences, when one delegate represented up to 10 people, any member could attend, speak and vote in 2008. What is more, membership subscriptions were set at a mere £5 as part of the attempt to portray Respect as a vibrant, growing organisation.
In fact the attempt succeeded to a limited extent - I certainly got the impression that it has picked up some new members over the past year. And the mood is still reasonably positive - in the words of national secretary Nick Wrack, Respect hopes to be “part of the process of rebuilding the left”, although he aimed for nothing more ambitious than creating a new “unity and solidarity”.
Now the SWP control-freaks have departed, Respect is a far more attractive alliance partner for the likes of left union bureaucrats, ‘official communists’ and Greens. Not that it has any weight at all outside two or three areas, of course - as comrade Wrack admitted, the organisation has no more than “a couple of dozen” branches. Of these I would estimate that at most half function in any real sense.
For example, only six submitted motions to conference - three each from Islington, Southwark and Manchester, two from Birmingham Moseley and Kings Heath, and one each from Swindon and South Lancs. A further eight motions were proposed by six individual members (the minimum number of required signatories was reduced from the original 20 in the pre-split Respect).
Today’s membership is totally different from how it was under John Rees and Lindsey German. Whereas previously most conference delegates would be SWP members or their allies - reasonably experienced activists, in other words - the impression I got from Saturday was that the majority of Respect members are well-meaning but naive leftwingers of one kind or another.
There is also the businessmen’s wing, of course - concentrated in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Birmingham. But by and large these members do not bother with conference - their time can be much better spent running their business.
Another contrast with pre-split Respect conferences was the almost total absence of stage-management on display. Whereas the SWP would ensure that the line to be followed in relation to each motion was put by one of its comrades, which usually produced the briefest of ‘for’ and ‘against’ cameos, this conference was marked by a marked absence of structure.
In each of the two sessions a number of unrelated motions were put one after the other and then members were encouraged to talk about whatever they liked. A maximum of three minutes was allowed. As a result, with one exception (see below) there was no debate whatsoever. I am sure that the Respect leadership believes that the whole thing is now far more democratic than it was under the SWP - “This is how democracy works,” read the slogan at the registration desks - but this is not the case.
Democracy requires far more than formal speaking and voting rights. It demands not only a structured debate, but time and space for a genuine exchange of views. But this conference allocated nowhere near enough time for motions - and then failed to focus the subsequent discussion. As is the usual practice on the left, conference began late in the first place. But then the first hour was given over to platform speeches.The afternoon session also started in the same way, but thankfully the speeches were much shorter.
Worse was the fact that conference was truncated because of the decision to send members out to Tower Hamlets to canvass for next month’s council by-election in Mile End. Why bring all those people to London only to keep them cooped up in a hall? Get them doing something useful. Well, that was the idea, but, according to Rob Hoveman of the national office, only 26 opted to help out in Mile End.
Despite the lack of debate it should not be thought that the motions passed (all of them virtually unanimously) were without worth. Most emanated from those who would define themselves as revolutionary socialists and many were inspired by the International Socialist Group (Respect’s only remaining leftwing faction) and its allies around the Socialist Resistance paper.
In particular the motions on the financial crisis, defending working people and the environment contained many good points and most of the others were supportable by communists. The exceptions were an uncritical pro-Chávez resolution on Venezuela and a motion singing the praises of the Convention of the Left talking shop.
In a peculiar kind of way this Respect conference seemed more leftwing than previously - despite the fact that most of the remaining members are to the right of the SWP. This is because all the talk about “voting against what we believe” in order to appeal to the millions and “make a difference” disappeared along with Rees and co. It was the SWP that was the most overt advocate of Respect as a non-socialist popular front.
But appearances can be deceptive. Respect still has a substantial right wing, even if it was not much in evidence on Saturday. The coexistence of opposed class outlooks - those of the soft left and the businessmen - mean that further crises and splits are inevitable.
The exception to the total lack of debate I mentioned earlier came when the CPGB motion calling for Respect to affiliate to Hands Off the People of Iran was moved by Mike Macnair. This was followed by an amendment proposed by the ISG’s Fred Leplat, which was actually anti-Hopi - although strangely it left most of the pro-Hopi politics - against imperialist war, against the theocratic regime - intact.
Comrade Leplat was against affiliation because in his opinion the task of solidarity organisations is to “campaign against war regardless of the nature of the regime” being threatened (neither should such organisations include specifically socialist demands, as Hopi does). “Imagine if the Palestine Solidarity Campaign”, at the same time as opposing the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, “condemned Fatah”. People “have got the right to be governed by who they wish”.
The motion as amended committed Respect to “support initiatives of campaigns such as Hands Off the People of Iran and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention” (Casmii). So, on the one hand, it supports progressive struggles “against the theocratic regime”. On the other hand, it also backs the hopelessly unprincipled and thoroughly pro-regime Casmii.
Nevertheless, this was a small step forward. Perhaps the overwhelming vote for the motion would not have occurred if George Galloway had remained in the hall after his opening speech or if someone like Yvonne Ridley (she did not show at all) had opposed it. Both are out and out pro-Tehran apologists.
Galloway, sporting a poppy, declared: “People know the capitalist system has failed and an alternative will have to be found.” However, “socialism is not yet ready to take over in Britain”. While billions are spent bailing out the banks, he said, “Money can’t be found for small businesses to stop them closing.”
Galloway’s socialism is of the British nationalist, petty bourgeois variety, totally opposed to that of proletarian internationalists - “Dead Russians, I’m afraid, must be discussed in private,” he said.
Rob Griffiths, speaking as a fraternal representative of the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain, agreed with him about dead Russians. Ordinary people will not understand talk about Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. In fact Griffiths and Galloway, Respect and the CPB, are natural allies. Both were represented at a meeting, also on October 25, called by Bob Crow of the RMT union and attended by Matt Wrack (FBU), John McDonnell and a range of others, and aimed at drawing up yet another charter of reformist demands.
