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 557 Thursday December 16 2004

Opposing the US-UK occupation and drawing class lines

CPGB members from England, Scotland and Wales gathered in London last weekend for the final party aggregate of 2004. As is the norm in these meetings, a full and frank exchange of views was aired, particularly on the question of the CPGB’s intervention in Respect.

In his opening, John Bridge took the opportunity to broadly map out what he thought the party’s orientation in the coming general election ought to be. He argued that with the election most likely to take place in May 2005, the US-UK war in and occupation of Iraq would almost certainly still be the most pressing immediate issue in British politics and this must be our starting point. No candidate who in any way supports or excuses the British imperialist presence in Iraq deserves to be supported. Quite the opposite.

Yet, comrade Bridge insisted, though the war and occupation of Iraq constitutes one major test in the general election, there should be another. At this particular moment in time it is vital to assert the principle of class. Only the working class can viably end the system of capital that produces war and bring about communism and universal human freedom.

Discussing Respect, comrade Bridge maintained that there was a certain truth in the claim that it was born of the anti-war movement, but one should not exaggerate this. Respect is a tiny slither of what was mobilised in 2003 and because of lack of democracy and control-freakery was unlikely to become anything of historic significance. Respect was formed through backroom negotiations and is run in a totally cynical, manipulative fashion by the SWP. Its politics are superficial and locked within the framework of left populism.

Not surprisingly, Respect has not seen a mass influx of those radicalised by opposition to the war. Nor does it look set to make the electoral breakthrough its leadership once confidently promised. Something indicated by its modest intention of standing in only around 20 to 30 constituencies - what it would regard as the humiliation of achieving the same kind of results obtained by the Socialist Alliance must be avoided.

Comrade Bridge noted that the political dynamic of Respect was similar to the popular fronts of the 1930s. Respect’s centre of gravity - although the whole thing is organisationally dominated by the SWP - is determined not by the majority’s claimed traditions and formally stated positions. On the contrary its largely phantom right - in this instance a combination of George Galloway, a few woolly liberals and the petty bourgeois forces of islam - set the limits. The SWP wants to keep them on board at all costs and to that end clumsily dances to what it believes is their tune. This is what prompted Chris Bambery and other SWPers to denounce secularism at the Respect’s October conference.

This is precisely what makes the SWP so fragile politically at present. On the one hand it is drawn towards reformism and populism by its phantom right in Respect and this causes all manner of internal stresses and strains. The SWP certainly faces a severe financial crisis and the first, tentative signs of rebellion have appeared in its ranks, as evidenced by John Molyneux’s criticisms. On the other hand, it is forced to declare that communists and other Marxists are the problem in Respect, and have to be barred, banned and if possible surgically removed.

In conclusion, comrade Bridge argued for continued engagement in Respect. However, as well as continuing to emphasise democratic questions, we have with the forthcoming May 2005 elections the opportunity to draw a clear class line. There should be no support for non-working class parties or candidates. With Respect that obviously means arguing against candidates who are members of the Muslim Association of Britain.

His two-pronged approach - supporting in May 2005 only those candidates who opposed the US-UK occupation and who could be considered part of the working class movement - was concretised in the form of a brief, algebraic motion: “The CPGB will in the forthcoming general election of 2005 urge support for all anti-occupation, working class candidates.”

The ensuing discussion mainly took the form of a debate around the pros and cons of this formulation. A number of comrades expressed some reservations about the wording. For example, comrade Tina Becker described it as “wishy-washy” and comrade Anne Mc Shane expressed the view that we ought to consider raising a minimum platform of demands to be put to all leftwing candidates. Also, she felt the term “working class candidates” was too vague and open to various interpretations.

The most vociferous criticism, however, came from comrade Lee Rock, who led a minority which argued that the motion was sheer folly. On one level, he asserted, nobody could take exception to the motion and he would vote for it. Yet, on another level, it failed to spell out our real position in relation to Respect.

He went on to argue that we should not differentiate between Respect candidates. Did we not support Anas Altikriti of MAB at the European elections? Did we not then argue that MAB was moving to the left? Has Respect’s policy moved to the right since June? If so, then on what issues has this happened?
Those supporting the motion replied that, firstly, in the Euros we were voting for a slate of candidates who were all standing on the same, broadly supportable, left populist platform. By contrast, in the general election we would be voting for individuals who, as the SWP made abundantly clear at Respect’s October conference, would be free to put whatever interpretation they liked on its deliberately vague formulations and platitudes. Abortion, for example, is regarded as a matter of individual conscience. A thoroughly anti-democratic and typically bourgeois practice.

Secondly, according to some comrades, Respect’s forward momentum had all but ground to a halt (this was symbolised by the small number of candidates it intended to stand) and it now seemed very unlikely that any significant trade union support - which would have helped root it as a working class formation - would be forthcoming.

Comrade Rock insisted that if we adopted the motion, it would cut us off from influencing Respect members. Moreover, it would give the SWP leadership an excuse to expel us if they so wished, on the grounds that we were refusing to back all candidates.

Supporting Lee Rock, comrade Bob Davies argued that what should determine our attitude to Respect was its programme. Since it has not moved qualitatively to the right since June, we should continue to support it. He added that we should judge candidates not on whether they are members of MAB or not, but on their preparedness to stand on the political platform of Respect.

Comrade Rock moved what he described as a supplementary motion: “The CPGB will critically support Respect in the general election”. He argued that the two motions were not in contradiction. Nevertheless it fell. Comrade Bridge’s motion was then passed virtually unanimously, with only one vote against.

During the course of this debate a number of related matters arose, although none were voted on. One was the matter of the Socialist Green Unity Coalition, which is sponsored by the Socialist Party, Alliance for Green Socialism, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform. In general, there was not much enthusiasm for this project, it appearing to be largely a non-aggression pact on minimalist ‘red-green’ lines. A cross-class formulation, if ever there was one. Some members thought that its programme was no better, and perhaps worse, than Respect’s and that we should be against joining it, especially given its looseness and complete lack of seriousness.

Neither was there much enthusiasm for the suggestion, made by Mike Macnair and backed by a few others, that the CPGB ought to consider standing a candidate in the general election in order to “plant a flag” - either as part of the Socialist Green Unity Coalition or simply under our own colours. Comrade Macnair had argued that the virtue of standing a candidate during a period when much of the left is in political retreat - exemplified by Respect and a collection of localist initiatives - would be that we would be demonstrating the kind of working class programme the left should be standing on.

Party members also reflected upon the previous day’s joint school with the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP), which also featured comrade Hillel Ticktin as a speaker. Comrade Bridge argued that there was a chance of bringing together forces in Britain on the basis of communism. Were this to happen, it would send a powerful message to the rest of the left. We need not seek refuge in warmed over Labourism or populism. Instead we can and should openly come out in our own colours. Certainly our central aim remains unity in a single Marxist party.

Although a number of comrades expressed scepticism about the likelihood of any such rapprochement, generally there was much enthusiasm for exploring the possibility of unity.
The final item on the agenda was the Scottish Socialist Party and the recent controversies surrounding the forced resignation of Tommy Sheridan as convenor. This item was introduced by Peter Manson, editor of the Weekly Worker. Comrade Manson began his opening by arguing that it is important not to have illusions in the SSP. It is, after all, a formation that is now totally mired in nationalism. As such it cannot be described as socialist in any genuine sense.

Comrade Manson described George Galloway’s apparently blundering intervention into the controversy, when he called for a Galloway-Sheridan-Respect “dream ticket” in the 2007 Scottish parliament elections. It was generally agreed that lurking behind Galloway’s outburst was the hand of the SWP, whose members in Scotland had entered into a marriage of convenience with the SSP.
What is needed, however, is neither a Scotland-only separatist party that is socialist in name nor a London-based left populist formation. Instead we need an all-Britain Communist Party capable of leading a united struggle against the UK state.
Cameron Richards

Print this page