home 
|
| contact
|
| action
|
| weekly worker
|
| european social forum
|
| theory
|
| resources
|
| what we
fight for
|
| programme
|
| join |
| search
|
| communist university
|
| links
|
| our history
|
Enjoy
the
Weekly Worker?
How about
showing us your appreciation? Producing the Weekly Worker costs a substantial
amount of money. Our only source for that financial backing comes from
people like you: readers and supporters of our newspaper. You may not
agree with the CPGB on every dot and comma, but we know that 1000s of
comrades appreciate our open, critical and democratic press
Send cheques, payable to CPGB, BCM Box 928,
London WC1N 3XX or donate online:
Weekly Worker 545 Thursday September 23 2004
Left populism and its discontents
Tensions are growing in the Socialist Workers Party - of course, it
is all carefully hidden away from the organisation’s rank and file.
SW Kenning reports
Under John Rees the Socialist Workers Party is relentlessly being refashioned
into a vehicle to promote left populism. But many SWP members are unhappy
and a few seem to be actively contemplating rebellion.
Externally, the Rees regime means crass electoralism - “a popular,
radical alternative to neoliberalism and war”, in his words (Socialist
Worker September 19). Fearing anything that might bring temporary unpopularity,
the SWP has retreated from taking a definite principled stand on issues
as diverse as a workers’ representative receiving a worker’s
wage, opposition to all immigration controls, republicanism and supporting
abortion rights. Lowest common denominator unity and making it as councillors
and MPs is all that counts.
Internally, the Rees regime means easing aside SWP veterans, such as Chris
Harman, and producing a paper that is less and less overtly political
and more and more like a leftwing version of the Daily Mirror.
With Chris Bambery as editor there has been a distinct change of style.
Pop music, human interest stories and sport are increasingly dominant.
The idea is that Socialist Worker should serve as the weekly paper of
Respect. The editorial staff are being encouraged to embrace yet further
‘modernisations’. As a result, Charlie Kimber, a longstanding
Socialist Worker hand, is rumoured to be on his way out, though apparently
Bambery is not overjoyed at the prospect of losing such a valued asset.
Judy Cox is another said to be considering her position.
Some leading SWPers fear that comrade Rees in particular has ‘gone
native’ in Respect - we have even been told that Rob Hoveman is amongst
them. Reportedly he wants to quit as Respect organiser (permission was
denied). Certainly the way John Rees and Lindsey German excitedly contrast
the ‘new’ coalition to the ‘boring’ old left is being
used as prima facia evidence of an opportunist metamorphosis.
It is easy to see why. For example, in the September 18 issue of Socialist
Worker, comrade Rees says: “Respect has always done best … when
it organises in ways that the traditional left has not.” He goes
on to cite some examples: In Hartlepool, Respect football supporters are
apparently “organising to hold up ‘Vote John Bloom’ placards
at the match”. In Islington, “Respect is sponsoring a showing
of Ken Loach’s Navigators” and in Birmingham, the local Respect
organised a “Picnic for Peace in a local park”, with stalls,
a barbecue and “inflatable castle”. In the same vein, the comrade
lauds the experience of “the Italian left”, with its “long
tradition of street festivals and cultural activities” which “Respect
should replicate in this country”.
Now, the idea that the “traditional left” in this country -
of which the SWP is actually a component part, of course - never got it
into its collective head to organise the odd film show, barbecue or stage
a festival with a bouncy castle for the kids to break a leg on is risible.
The ‘official’ Communist Party staged many big cultural events
throughout the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Pageants, sporting Olympiads, showings
of banned Eisenstein films, concerts, theatre performances. Indeed, along
with people like Joan Littlewood, the ‘official’ CPGB helped
launch the Workers’ Theatre Movement, Unity Theatre and the whole
folk revival of the 1960s, which included well known figures such as Lonnie
Donegan, Ewan McColl and Peggy Seeger. Even in decline, in 1977, the ‘official’
CPGB put on the People’s Jubilee at Alexander Palace. Nor should
we forget the huge events organised by the TUC, Anti-Nazi League, Rock
Against Racism, etc, etc.
It is certainly true that the left here has not established the same sort
of cultural hegemony in working class communities that we have seen in
Europe. But then the revolutionary left in Britain has never had the same
mass character as, for example, the Italian or French. A few Respect picnics
here and there are no short cut to rebuilding a genuine base amongst the
working class. The key is politics. And here is the rub.
Organisational forms loyally follow politics. Populism therefore goes
hand in hand with its own style of organisation: thus festivals and picnics
are promoted as a substitute for “sitting in horrible little rooms,
talking only to each other”, as comrade German memorably put it (Socialist
Worker June 24).
Again, this is nonsense. Cultural activities and political meetings should
not be counterposed. They can and ought to complement each other. But
serious political meetings should come first. Without them Respect’s
membership cannot learn from each other, cannot think critically and cannot
even begin to challenge the leadership. Clearly what the Rees-German partnership
intend. Politics is to be for them and their chosen circle alone. They
will flatter, bargain with, and manage the celebrities: George Galloway,
Yvonne Ridley, Ken Loach, Mark Serwotka, etc. Meanwhile the rank and file
is expected to get on with the donkey work of dishing out leaflets, raising
the money and canvassing. Their reward for all the hard work is effectively
to be a version of bread and circuses ... picnics and peace festivals.
Public, though cloaked, criticism of the populist turn has come from international
co-thinkers - they probably consider themselves relatively immune from
any immediate retaliation from a vengeful Rees-German partnership. The
most notable example is Eamonn McCann - veteran author, commentator and
public face of the SWP’s sister organisation in Ireland. He has written
an obituary of Paul Foot in the current issue of the NUJ’s house
paper The Journalist. Here he recounts an anecdote that has apparently
infuriated Rees and German.
The last meeting Foot addressed was at this year’s Marxism. Before
proceedings began, he gave clear instructions for the chair who introduced
his session: “He’s told me that the only thing he wants said
is that he’s been an organised revolutionary for 42 years,”
she dutifully told the audience. This, comrade McCann suggests, shows
he was not “a softie on the margins of a hard party”. In fact,
comrade Foot expressly “intended the remark for fellow Socialist
Workers Party members who he feared might be vulnerable to seductive new
fame” (The Journalist September).
In the world of the SWP this amounts to a full-scale assault on the Rees-German
partnership.
We have reliably been told that McCann’s contribution to this October’s
special issue of Socialist Review - which contains various tributes to
and articles by Foot - has been suitably snipped and cut, some have used
the word ‘censored’. The Rees-German partnership is determined
to maintain a facade of monolithic unity - which admirably serves their
opportunist appetites.
There are other stresses and strains too. It seems a group of leading
SWP members - we do not have all the names - has signed a collective letter
to the central committee asking for the “real” figures for the
SWP’s membership and Socialist Worker’s circulation. Given all
the preening, posturing and pretence - dynamite.
The SWP once boasted of 10,000 members and Socialist Worker sales of 30,000.
Very unlikely, even in the mid-1970s. Our estimate for dues-paying membership
today would be around 2,000. But in terms of active members it surely
cannot be more than a 1,000. A figure given credence by Respect’s
own claim that it has notched up 3,500 paper members.
As to Socialist Worker, that is a mystery. We know its web ranking - usually
well below the Weekly Worker. We also know that it is carried by WH Smith
- and that they require a level of minimum sales. Whether or not SWP cadre
are sent in to buy up their own paper we cannot say. However, that was
certainly what the now defunct Revolutionary Communist Party - founded
by Frank Furedi, Mick Hume and Mike Freeman - used to do in the 1980s.
Their members bought Living Marxism from newsagents simply in order to
keep the damned thing displayed.
Not surprisingly the demand for real figures has caused something of a
panic.
Martin Smith wants to tell. By coming clean he can - perhaps - show that
with himself as national secretary membership is rising. He is also keen
to put more emphasis on the SWP itself - building Socialist Worker meetings
and forums, which have been neglected due to the demands of Respect.
On the other hand, his predecessor, comrade Bambery, is not keen. Real
membership figures would reflect badly on him. And yet, when it comes
to Socialist Worker, it is another story. He fervently believes his revamped
paper will outsell Harman’s version.
Either way, the Rees-German partnership want to keep up the pretence that
everything is moving forward from one new high to another. Given the present
balance of forces in the SWP, they will in all likelihood get their way.
What is sure, though, is that fewer and fewer people will believe them.
