home

contact

action

weekly worker

respect the unity coalition

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 552 Thursday November 11 2004

Worries, tensions and
opening the floodgates

This year’s first Pre-conference Bulletin of the Socialist Workers Party makes interesting reading - it shows that there are some real differences over Respect

Most SWP members regularly try to convince those outside their ranks that their internal party life is highly democratic. Often, they quote the right to form temporary platforms in the run-up to annual conference and the Pre-conference Bulletin, which is open to all members and normally comes out in three very thin issues per conference. In theory, it is supposed to encourage discussion amongst the membership for this very limited period.

However, anybody looking for real debate would be thoroughly disappointed. The normal bulletin starts with an introduction by the central committee, followed by deadly dull reports on Socialist Worker sales, the performance of the SWP’s bookshop, Bookmarks, and tips on how to put on a Saturday stall. Yawn.

Things are slightly different this year. Pre-conference Bulletin No1, 2004 starts with a surprisingly frank admission by the central committee that all is not well with the SWP. Instead of the usual boring reports, there are three further submissions which are more or less critical of Respect and the SWP’s role within it. Most importantly, prominent SWP veteran John Molyneux has penned an article. Reading between the lines, the comrade is unhappy with the SWP’s rightism in Respect and yearns for its rapid growth as a left reformist coalition so that the SWP can re-emerge in its ‘true’ revolutionary colours.

Central committee
The central committee’s contribution starts pretty much in the normal mould: “In Britain, the process of radicalisation in the consciousness of millions that has attended the anti-war demonstrations is the central fact of political life … The SWP has thrown itself into every one of these mass movements as they emerged. It was right to do so. The last few years are strewn with the wreckage of far-left organisations that were unable to relate to the Socialist Alliance, the Stop the War Coalition, Unite and Respect.”

In truth, of course, the SWP had set up and/or firmly controlled most of these organisations, rather than “thrown itself into” them. The article goes on to describe the “propaganda perspective of the 1980s” as “an aberration forced on us by the retreat of the working class movement. The model of the almost self-sufficient party recruiting ones and twos from a close periphery … is not the normal or desirable relationship between a revolutionary minority and the wider movement. The most advantageous relationship [between those two] … is the united front”, which can take the form of anything from “united fronts against fascism” to “workers’ councils”. Involvement “with these huge mass movements has been overwhelmingly positive for the SWP. Its influence and standing in the wider movement has never been stronger.”

So, everything is hunky-dory. Everything the SWP did was absolutely correct. Ditto in Respect, which is supposed to pull the different activities together - and become an alternative to the Labour Party: “Respect can help rebuild a broad socialist culture, provide a framework for the cooperation of the revolutionary left and other socialists, radicals and trade unionists, and provide a political alternative for a mass movement that must overcome Labourism if it is not to be broken by Labourism. The strategic aim of the SWP must be to develop Respect in this direction and protect it from those for whom the old left’s least attractive features have become a habit of mind.”

We get an idea what this “broad socialist culture” looks like when the CC gives examples of the Birmingham district’s activities at the end of the article: “Thursday October 5: Respect pre-conference meeting. Fifty attend. SWP caucusing means all hostile motions on abortion and black sections are defeated and their movers fail to get elected to Respect conference.”

However, after the boasts about the SWP being totally on course, there are hints of serious problems: “But after four years of such involvements, the forces of the SWP are now dispersed across the battlefield of the class struggle. SWP members are active, often leading, in the unions, the rank and file groups, Unite, Defend Council Housing, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Respect and the Stop the War Coalition. This has left the party with some problems of recruitment and internal coordination that need to be addressed.

“In doing so, we have to develop structures that relate to and allow us to develop the mass movement. Structures that do not do this will be broken by the force of gravity exercised on them by the movement. Or they will lead the party into a sectarian ghetto isolated from the movement”.

The structures suggested later on are weekly district committee meetings (“they set the priorities of the district, drive forward the sale of Socialist Worker”, etc); weekly branch meetings (“open to non-members”, “should include a political discussion, but leave plenty of time to discuss strategy and tactics in the wider movements”); and monthly Socialist Worker forums. Right. And this will allow the SWP to “relate to and … develop the mass movement”?

Naturally, the leadership does not come clean on how many members it has lost over the last 12 months or so. But, judging by the attendance at its annual Marxism school, the SWP presence at the European Social Forum and who turns up at Respect and STWC meetings, a guess would be that its membership has decreased by at least 40%. And further losses are likely.

Clearly, the leadership is attempting to pull the threads together again and is trying to bolster the ‘revolutionary core’ of those “united fronts” - by strengthening the SWP. However, their solution seems overly technical and does not at all address the political problem at the heart of the organisation’s crisis: That this revolutionary organisation demands that its members build a range of united fronts, in which SWP members have to vote and speak as reformists. By subordinating their revolutionary politics to a largely phantom right wing, others are supposed to be attracted - so that that the revolutionaries can finally behave left again.

Well, explain that to a bright-eyed young school student who wants to change the world. Or tell the female comrade who has been involved in revolutionary politics for most of her life that she now has to vote against a woman’s right to choose. Or that the basic demand for ‘open borders’ is now to be rejected as “divisive”.

Nick Bird
Nick Bird from Lowestoft SWP has penned the most critical article I have seen from an SWP member in years. The inclusion of his article in the bulletin could indicate the high level of criticism that exists in the SWP over Respect - or it could indicate that his expulsion is not too far off.

In any case, comrade Bird makes some valid observations and political points. He thinks that the process of switching off the Socialist Alliance in favour of Respect “could have been handled better. The abrupt and unnecessary clampdown on any SA activity at the March conference left many members unhappy … I think we need to take more care before fracturing such long-term political relationships.”

In Respect, “it would be wrong to impose the entirety of our politics onto it, but equally we should not bend the stick too far in the opposite direction by opposing our own positions which are widely accepted on the left. We participate in elections not only to win votes but to win arguments and change minds. We cannot only be Marxists outside Respect.”

He is “still at a loss to understand why SWP members voted against a policy of abolishing the monarchy at Respect’s founding conference”. Ditto with abortion, where “the people need to know where we stand. The public statements of prominent Respect candidates opposing abortion have not helped matters.” He then carries on his reform plan by calling for “lively internal democracy” with “internal platforms that have freedom to operate within the party”.

The comrade quite rightly thinks that the SWP itself has to mend its ways, too: “The culture of the SWP has changed over the past five years ... There is a lack of debate in the party that an occasional national meeting in London cannot rectify.” He calls for “a regular internal bulletin” that would be accessible to the whole membership and “enable an ongoing discussion more useful than the limited pre-conference period allows. The leadership could perhaps use it to share a little more information with its members [eg, how many members do we have? How many papers do we sell?] and consult us on major decisions like selling the printshop.”

John Molyneux
Much more important though is John Molyneux’s contribution. Quite clearly, this SWP veteran also seems to have trouble getting his head around Respect and the SWP’s role within it. His one-page submission, harmlessly entitled ‘Some thoughts on Respect’, is hardly a razor-sharp critique. And we should not expect an open polemic from a longstanding member of a group that has such well documented contempt for open debate. Differences of opinion (ie, differences with the leadership’s take on various matters) are by quiet chats in the corner - and if that does not work there are the usual bureaucratic measures.

John Molyneux: discontented

One has to read between the lines somewhat to understand that comrade Molyneux is calling for a radical reorientation. At the beginning, his article reads like a more emotive and human version of the CC’s call to build Respect. He admits that not all SWP members are quite on message when it comes to their support for the ‘unity coalition’:

“But, some comrades ask, if Respect is a party, what kind of party is it? If it is not a revolutionary party, is it a reformist party?” He thinks Respect could be described as “a centrist organisation”, but with “the arrow over it pointing definitely to the left”. For him, Respect is “an alliance of some left reformists breaking with Labourism with a body of revolutionaries and many others for whom the issue of reform or revolution has not yet been resolved”.

Comrade Molyneux even admits that many SWP members did not like the SA’s dissolution (if he was taking up the fury of people outside the SWP, undoubtedly his choice of words would be far harder). Furthermore, he says he has “heard it argued that Respect stands objectively to the right of the Socialist Alliance because of its lack of a full socialist programme”. But, he pleads, this view is “seriously mistaken”. The “whole history” of social democracy and Stalinism “tells us that a formal commitment to socialism means next to nothing.”

As for the future of Respect, he sees two possibilities: it could “evolve in a revolutionary direction”, which would be “conditional on a new wave of radicalisation or intensification of the existing radicalisation which would then be reflected in Respect.” He seems to imply though that this is not very likely - neither of course it this the outcome desired by the SWP leadership.

Comrade Molyneux spends far more time on exploring the second possibility - the one the SWP leadership is hoping to achieve. He thinks that, “especially if Respect’s electoral success is consolidated, the left reformist element in the organisation will be strengthened through the accession of people from the Labour Party, councillors, trade union officials and the like. The emergence of a serious left reformist alternative to Labour in which we could work, recruit and have influence would be a huge step forward.”

Interestingly though, he adds that “this is not a development to be feared”, betraying perhaps a certain ‘fear’ on his own part that for this “development” to be successful the SWP itself would have to change its approach. He goes on: “We as revolutionary socialists would have to differentiate ourselves more clearly from the left reformists than has been the case while we have been in the process of getting the organisation off the ground. This will be particularly important if there is a rise in class struggle so that the question ‘What is to be done next in the battle?’ is posed by life and leaves little room for compromise. Also we would need to be aware that any sustained electoral intervention, especially one crowned by success, would generate opportunist pressure which would need to be resisted.”

This is surprisingly frank. Quite clearly, not only is the comrade making some helpful observations as to the future of the organisation - he is not happy with Respect in its current form. Nor is he happy with the SWP’s role within it. He is basically saying that the SWP has to change the character of its involvement in any case: in his first scenario, the whole organisation would become openly revolutionary, the reformists and the SWP included. In his second scenario, too, the SWP has to become more openly leftwing.

Comrade Molyneux is grappling with the same problem as the central committee - the tendency of the SWP to ‘go native’ within its many united fronts. But unlike the leadership, comrade Molyneux clearly does not think that technical solutions such as a different type of weekly meetings will be sufficient to rescue the organisation. He wants his party to become more socialist.

Undoubtedly, many SWP members will closely associate with comrade Molyneux’s outlook. We hear that he is not the only leading comrade to have raised serious, albeit cryptic, criticisms. A group of prominent members has demanded to see membership figures and paper sales. So far, the political culture of the SWP has prevented them raising their head too much above the parapet and they have not made their criticisms public. Comrade Molyneux’s contribution could open the floodgates.
Tina Becker


Print this page