Weekly Worker 595 Thursday October 6 2005

SWP forced to retreat

Ian Mahoney reports on the climbdown by Respect national office over the forthcoming conference

On October 3 the Respect national office sent out an email relating the standing orders for the November 19-20 annual conference. This offers members “apologies for the error” in the standing orders previously sent out, which “should have included the … constitutional provision that 20 members have the right to move a resolution to conference”. This “will apply to this conference: 20 members are entitled to move a maximum of two resolutions - the same as local branches”.

Of course, the original omission was no oversight. This clause in the Respect constitution is, frankly, a pain in the arse for the Socialist Workers Party, the majority faction. Last year, it allowed some embarrassing motions, which the SWP did not want discussed, to reach conference floor. This had the effect of skipping round the bureaucratic instruction to the SWP membership to freeze out any critically minded delegates or principled resolutions in the 2004 pre-congress branch meetings.

As a result, the SWP’s revolutionary pretensions were exposed as empty posturing at the conference itself. On issue after issue - open borders, secularism, the accountability of elected representatives, the nature of socialism - it was forced, in deference to the (largely phantom) forces to its right, to vote down basic principles of the working class and the Marxist politics these resolutions defended.

Leading SWPer Chris Bambery was clearly frustrated: “There is something undemocratic about people who can’t get elected as delegates, who can’t get their motions through locally, putting them through at conference,” he hypocritically barked from the conference rostrum (see Weekly Worker November 4 2004).

So it was no mistake that the original standing orders this year deleted this democratic right of Respect members. The climbdown from the national office came over one month after this paper first exposed the manoeuvre and underlines the political vulnerability that leading SWPers, despite their huge numerical preponderance in Respect, feel about the direction in which they are being drawn via the project.

And that is hardly surprising either. Most recently, we have seen John Rees come out in favour of Blair’s proposed legislation on incitement to religious hatred - effectively, therefore, the leader of the largest ostensibly Marxist organisation in Britain today is lining up with New Labour’s latest raft of attacks on freedom of speech and democratic rights in general (see Weekly Worker September 29).

Naturally, this process of disintegration of the SWP’s formal Marxism is fraught with contradiction and tensions. When challenged, even simply in the form of a few sharp articles, SWPers show extreme sensitivity and even, as this retreat on the threat to the rights of conference illustrates, a willingness to concede ground.

The tetchiness displayed by many SWP comrades is clearly a product of their lack of confidence in the politics they are now required to espouse. When caught off guard, some will blurt out absurdities that emphasise their disorientation. For instance, at a student Respect meeting in Sheffield university on September 23, CPGB comrades formed a majority. There were three of us, apparently, so the meeting was obviously not a runaway success.

The local SWP full-timer sat in sullen silence as the minutes ticked away. Then, when it became clear that no one else was coming, he tried to close proceedings as, by definition, it could not be a “proper Respect meeting”, because “only people who are revolutionary socialists are here”. You would be hard pushed to find a more explicit - and politically moronic - illustration of the SWP’s lack of belief in the legitimacy of the politics it professes to stand by:  that is, revolutionary Marxism.

When our comrades (the majority of the meeting, remember) refused to allow him to shut up shop, this full-time apparatchik stormed out of the room. Talented politician, that guy …

Communist Party comrades and others will be using the opportunity afforded by the cramped discussion period in the lead-up to the Respect conferences to attempt to pull our comrades in the SWP back from the edge. In particular, we will be arguing for the short resolution below and we would urge that others in Respect speak up.

This is proving to be a problem, of course. Many independent comrades were so thoroughly alienated by the bureaucratic farce the SWP’s control-freakery made of last year’s annual conference that they either resigned immediately after the event or subsequently left their membership lapse. As comrades will have read from last week’s report, the International Socialist Group - which boast two members on the Respect leadership - appears to be paralysed with panic (or embarrassment). In the immortal works of leading member comrade Greg Tucker, actively opposing this crass opportunism come the conference would be “a rather pointless exercise”.

We hope the comrades reconsider and join us in a fight to stop John Rees and those who think like him in the SWP leadership. Even comrade Tucker reckons they have made “big concessions which they will come to regret” (Weekly Worker September 29).

At the end of the Hackney Respect meeting on October 4, we were asked by an ISG comrade to email our motion  to the group’s central office, as the comrades are apparently beginning to discuss the issue seriously. Good. The initial stance was that this was a minor incident that should not be blown out of proportion - or, as comrade Alan Thornett put it, at that stage the ISG “haven’t discussed it, but I doubt that we will do anything on this” (September 29).

Clearly, this was untenable and would effectively act as a cover for the dramatic rightward drift of the SWP. We sincerely hope the comrades decide to fight.

Draft motion on religious hatred

“Respect will oppose and actively campaign against islamophobia, racism and chauvinism in all their manifestations. Therefore, we oppose the government’s proposed ‘incitement to religious hatred’ legislation. This will undermine the right of free speech on religious matters and will do nothing to protect religious minorities.”

If you are a paid up Respect member and wish to sponsor this resolution, write to the Weekly Worker address or email office@cpgb.org.uk

Print this page