related articles

AGGREGATE

Assessing Respect

An aggregate of CPGB members held on June 19 discussed the Respect coalition and our orientation towards it. After a long debate over two thirds of members present voted to accept the following motion proposed by comrade John Bridge:

• "Respect did not make an electoral breakthrough on June 10. Although Respect generally got better results than previously scored by the Socialist Alliance, this was on the basis of weaker politics. It should be stressed, though, that in practice the SA campaigned in 2001 not on the centrist programme People before profit but only on its priority pledges - priority pledges which essentially formed the content of Respect's manifesto.
• "Respect's results must be seen in the context of the massive anti-war upsurge in 2003 and the February 15 2003 two-million-strong demonstration in London. Indeed Respect's foundation and minimalist politics were premised on making an electoral breakthrough by harnessing the anti-war movement. Seen in that light, Respect's result must be viewed as a failure. The main responsibility for this lies with the Socialist Workers Party.
  
• "Nevertheless Respect did get relatively good results in some areas - most notably in Preston, Birmingham and east London. The 250,000 votes Respect gained in the European elections represents a real and growing constituency and one that must be organised. Whatever the populist limitations of Respect's manifesto and the opportunism displayed by many of its leading candidates, this was a leftwing vote.
  
• "The SWP must not be allowed to let this moment pass, as it did with the SA in 2001. Branches, districts, etc must be organised and encouraged to meet regularly. There must be political inclusion - minority voices should be guaranteed representation. At the autumn conference communists will fight with others to strengthen Respect by putting it onto solid programmatic foundations: for example, we shall support motions on abortion and women's rights, a worker's wage, migration, socialism and so on. Respect in our view also needs its own full-time staff and press. Without that nothing serious or permanent can be achieved.
  
• "The CPGB was right to call for a critical vote for Respect. It was the only credible national challenge to New Labour from the socialist left. The more such votes for Respect, the better its long-term prospects. It was also correct to call for votes for other leftwing candidates locally, despite their economism and opportunism.
  
• "It was right to try to strengthen Respect's political platform by putting forward motions on a worker's wage, the free movement of people and republicanism at Respect's founding convention."
  

Even taking into account Respect's severe political weaknesses and the exclusion of communists, victory for its candidates would have been a blow against the New Labour warmongers and would have strengthened the working class, the anti-war movement and the left. The same is true in Scotland, despite the Scottish Socialist Party's national and reformist socialism.

Comrade Marcus Ström opened the debate by first looking generally at the June 10 election. There was an anti-government vote in Britain, as in other European countries, but no coherent anti-war vote. The results for Respect were reasonable, but the SWP's junking of socialist politics in the expectation of an electoral breakthrough did not pay off. There is a danger that SWP will treat Respect the same way as it treated the Socialist Alliance - switching it on and off, depending on the proximity of elections. We should try to stop this from happening. We must ensure that the Respect conference planned for the autumn goes ahead, and fight for consistent socialist politics. Our intervention in Respect so far has been mostly literary: it needs to become more rounded.
Comrade Ian Donovan proposed an alternative motion: "Noting the positive results for Respect in the recent elections, notably in working class districts in several cities and important towns across England, and the opportunity this represents to advance independent working class politics, the CPGB should deepen its engagement and involvement with Respect, and seek to constructively channel the evident potential this project now represents in the direction of founding a new political party of the working class." After discussion this motion was defeated by a margin of over two to one.

Introducing it, comrade Donovan stressed the positive nature of the Respect vote. In some areas it did well enough to suggest it would win council elections when they are held. The Scottish Socialist Party went through the same transition from partial failure to electoral breakthrough. The CPGB should become fully involved with Respect. We have not so far, partly because the SWP excludes us, but also partly because we "dithered for two months" after the January founding conference before committing ourselves to the project.

Comrade Mike Macnair said it was unrealistic to have imagined that Respect could ever have won any seats, although he agreed that, had John Rees, Lindsey German or George Galloway (but not Anas Altikriti, he said) been elected, it would have been a good thing for the working class. The level of support won by Respect was the worst possible outcome. Had it been larger, that would have produced a partyist dynamic. Had it been lower, we would have been better able to argue that the SWP project is not the way forward. Comrade Macnair stated that Respect lacks the partyist dynamic which for us was the key feature of the Socialist Alliance, and the election results have shown that, unlike the SSP, it lacks the ability to marginalise the rest of the left. It can only be an SWP electoral front. Comrade Peter Manson disagreed - with the involvement of the CPGB and other forces, Respect could be transformed into a site for the struggle to achieve a working class party.

We have to engage with the forces which exist, comrade Mark Fischer argued. The SWP is the largest organisation of revolutionaries in Britain. We called on the leadership of the anti-war movement to give it a political form. This is what we have got in Respect, for all its negative features. Comrade Anne Mc Shane agreed it is a good thing people voted for Respect despite how much it had given away to non-socialist forces. We should try to intersect with it, but not portray it as anything more than a vehicle for us to reach other socialists and the working class. Comrade Lee Rock said we should be in Respect to argue that the SWP was to blame for its failure, and comrade Stan Keable agreed that the best time to intervene is when the SWP is in crisis. Comrade Cameron Richards said that, while John Bridge wants to help the SWP by putting Respect on a partyist footing, he, by contrast, would like to "put the boot into Respect". It might become a party of some type, but not a working class party. It could be very dangerous. The British left needs to wake up to the prospect of the BNP winning support among the white working class, as Respect has done amongst muslims.

Several speakers, including comrade Ström, described comrade Donovan's motion as one-sided, and disagreed with his claim that Respect is a "Socialist Alliance mark two". Comrade Mc Shane said comrade Donovan was wrong to portray the result of the election as simply positive.
Comrade Bob Davies described his experience when he tried to work with Respect. He was greeted with suspicion, and SWPers did not want him there and refused to discuss politics. In the Socialist Alliance we were respected and given a position on the leadership. In Respect we are totally peripheral.

Comrade Phil Kent replied that this is not an argument not to engage with Respect. In the 1980s the 'official' CPGB was even less welcoming, but we fought inside it, because it was the arena where the fight for party was being conducted.

Comrade Manson agreed, reminding comrades of the hostility we encountered in the Socialist Labour Party, but that did not stop us intervening - very effectively. He said our approach to Respect should be the same as to the SSP: despite their considerable weaknesses they are both supportable as sites for struggle. We continue to expose the SSP's nationalism, said comrade Bridge, but when six SSP comrades were elected as MSPs we viewed this as a step forward for working class combativity.

Such a parallel between Respect and the SSP was rejected by comrade Anne Mc Shane. The SSP has space for the left and the working class. The SWP does not appeal to the working class: instead it lines up with alien class forces. As the SWP continues to give ground to forces like the Muslim Association of Britain, we must intensify our fight for women's rights, agreed comrade Sarah MacDonald.

A non-CPGB visitor to the aggregate, comrade Nick Rogers, warned comrades to watch the direction in which Respect is moving. The autumn conference will be important. There should be votes at the conference on women's and gay rights. The outcome of these votes will be crucial. If Respect cannot vote for these basic democratic rights, we should take a long, hard look at our involvement in it, he concluded.

When the vote was taken, comrade Donovan's motion was lost by a margin of two to one, while comrade Bridge's motion was passed by more than three to one.

Rejoining SADP

The aggregate also voted on the following motion, proposed by comrade Richards: "This aggregate resolves that the CPGB rejoin the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform."
Comrade Richards said the CPGB was wrong to leave. We should not allow the Alliance for Workers' Liberty to "screw up" the fight within the SADP. Comrade Rogers, a member of the SADP, fully supported the motion. He said it is important for the CPGB to keep its lines of communication open with all left forces, including the Labour Party left, trade unions and independents, as well as the SADP. He said the SADP is not a partyist organisation, but a forum for bringing together the non-SWP left. Comrade Peter Grant gave other examples of left forces we should work with, including Liverpool dockers campaigning for a workers' party and a planned conference in Manchester. He said we should rejoin the SADP and admit that we were mistaken to leave it.
Comrade Macnair also supported the motion. He described the left as consisting as a number of sect-like groups in London, and outside London a layer of trade unionists, left Labourites and campaigners with an organic relationship with broader unions and Labour Party branches. The SWP has failed to break the mould of left politics in two senses: it has failed to make Respect hegemonic, and has failed to attract the left layer outside London. The SADP could become a route into this layer.

A number of comrades emphasised that participation in the SADP and in Respect are not mutually exclusive. Comrade Lee Rock reminded comrades that for several aggregates he has been arguing that we should not put all our eggs in the one basket of Respect. He did not agree that we were wrong to leave the SADP when we did. But he thought now was the time to rejoin it. Comrade Davies described the SADP as an inclusive and democratic body which recognises the need for a workers' party. How would it weaken us in practical or political terms if we rejoined it? He also thought we should be in both the SADP and Respect. Comrade Kent said it would be preferable to win the SADP comrades to work alongside us in Respect, in order to strengthen our fight to build something better, but comrade Richards doubted whether going into the SADP just to get it to join Respect would be successful. He said the Socialist Alliance was important, and we still want an SA party. The forces to build it will be found in the SADP.

A decision to rejoin the SADP would be to send out the wrong message from this aggregate, Comrade Ström argued. But he was in favour of friendly contact with the SADP. Other comrades spoke against rejoining. Comrade Manson said, as the SADP has a policy of not working with Respect, there would be no purpose to our involvement with them. He also thought we should persuade members of the SADP to join Respect. Comrade Fischer said that, while he was in favour of keeping our options open - for example, by working with the Labour Representation Committee - he did not support rejoining the SADP, which he described as a rotten bloc and a symptom of the disorientation of the left. Comrade Alan Stevens said forces within the SADP - most notably the AWL - had obstructed our attempts to move the Socialist Alliance onto a partyist path: over the question of a paper, for instance. Comrade Mc Shane described the SADP as a residual platform for hostility towards the SWP, and urged that if we do rejoin it we should not put too much work into it. She said the main focus of our work should be Respect.

The motion was passed with a majority of just two, which means that the CPGB is now committed to rejoining the SADP.

Red Platform

The fourth and final motion discussed at the aggregate was the following, proposed by John Bridge: "The Provisional Central Committee was correct to provide a regular column in the Weekly Worker for the Red Platform minority in our organisation. These comrades declared themselves partisans and disciplined CPGB members.

"However, the political approach of the Red Platform was crudely leftist and profoundly mistaken. Turning the CPGB's motions to Respect's founding convention into conditions which were used in order to single out Respect candidates, in order to oppose voting Respect, was sectarian. It was especially sectarian because the additional conditions imposed on Respect - ie, to actively campaign for republicanism etc - were not applied to other leftwing candidates. The Red Platform's conditions had nothing to do with mass work, orientating the left or strengthening the working class.

"The CPGB will overcome the leftism and sectarianism that exists in its ranks through patient education and open debate."

Speaking to his motion, comrade Bridge was especially critical of the Red Platform column in the June 3 issue of the Weekly Worker. It was irresponsible and childish to protest about being forced to operate according to the basic principles of democratic centralism, and just pointless to reproduce Lenin without commentary. The arguments of the Red Platform comrades were incoherent, he said, but the Weekly Worker had published criticisms of our agreed policy on Respect in the hope of eventually bringing clarification.

Replying for the Red Platform, comrade Richards said he welcomed comrade Bridge's comments, which constitute his first public response to its foundation. He added that the Red Platform may take on board some of comrade Bridge's criticisms, but would have welcomed an earlier response to its comments on what comrade Bridge himself had written a year ago on "MAB reactionaries" and popular fronts. He rejected any notion that the Red Platform is 'the problem' in the CPGB. There are, he claimed, "at least six" positions on Respect in the PCC, while the Red Platform continues the line the CPGB leadership had a year ago. Until the party comes to grips with the politics of the current situation, rather than blaming the Red Platform, it will not get anywhere. Comrade Jeremy Butler said he had joined the Red Platform because he wanted a more nuanced approach to Respect candidates. Some were good, but some were not as good as other candidates standing against them.

In the debate, comrade Mc Shane said Red Platform comrades were not sectarian. They did work in Respect, and attempted to implement the party line. While valid criticisms could be made in relation to the platform, the PCC itself was passive and failed to show leadership, she said, in relation to our intervention in Respect.

Comrade Donovan said the roots of the Red Platform do not lie only in left sectarianism. Backward elements in the party are influenced by reactionary developments in the world. The politics of People before profit - written before the rise in islamophobia in response to 9/11 - was hardly an adequate programme. He said he had sympathy with the SWP's turn to the muslim community, although he disagreed with the way it had gone about it.

Comrade Donovan also criticised the content of the Weekly Worker in recent months. There have been a number of "schizophrenic" issues of the paper, veering from one line to another on the SWP. "Nonsense" about Respect, such as that it would have a worse internal regime than the SLP, was allowed to appear. We have been too slow and too inconsistent in our support for Respect. In reply, comrade Bridge said it was vital that the Weekly Worker publishes a range of views, reflecting the diversity of opinion both on the left and in the party.

The motion was agreed by a margin of three to one

Mary Godwin