Respect departs from the SWP

by anti-war activist Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:43

Well, tht's torn it for the SWP. Anybody got any idea what knock-on effect this will have on the Stop the War Coalition? It's bound to mean that the SWP will lose allies there also.

Same old story with SWP.

by Mandelcrumb Mon Nov 05, 2007 13:50

Does anyone else find it ironic that just as the ISG/Socialist Resistance grouping led by Alan Thornett exit RESPECT/SWP to enter RESPECT#2 with Galloway, their four Irish followers, Meehan, Conlon etc. have entered the Irish SWP front People B4 Profit Alliance. Maybe they think that the Irish SWP is somehow different from its mothership or that such are their famed abilities that they will play the SWs like puppets!

Perhaps they should have a look at the PBPA website and note the fact that almost all contact numbers are SWP members or that there are no other forces involved in the 'alliance' other than the SWP and a few academics.

BTW why has Carmel McKenna and the Wicklow PBPA disappeared from the website? Did she go back to Labour or just cotton on to the SWs manipulaitve shenanigans?

by me Mon Nov 05, 2007 13:55

No, silly, the election's over. She might re-engage if PBP is still around in the run-up to the next election. Or maybe she's run as an indo.

That's one of the problem with building alliances around elections.

by The Insider Mon Nov 05, 2007 14:03

Infighting and splits among the left.

In other words, business as usual.

by paul o toole Mon Nov 05, 2007 14:48

All left groupings and alliances seem to lack the one thing they pride themselves on as being part of their foundation principles...ie...openness, plurality and democratic transperency.
If they held to these principles there would be cohesion, unity and a general atmosphere of solidarity. Instead there seems to be a culture of agenda setting, limited debate, and an unwillingness to get answers to obvious contradictions which to me have stuck out like sore thumbs.
There seems to me to be no other reason to limit debate, set agendas-prior to any gathering, or limit the scope of actions taken citing 'the group will split' as a reason to adhere to pre agreed agendas, other than there is in place, an overall agenda to control events-which leads to a far more sinister question.

by gan ainm Mon Nov 05, 2007 15:16

The shockwaves from this split may well be felt for days to come.

by John Meehan Mon Nov 05, 2007 23:19

Alan Thornett's analysis is here :

http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?page=print_a...=1335

by Links Tue Nov 06, 2007 02:07

Here is the statement agreed by SWP delegates at the weekend:-
http://www.swp.org.uk/respect_cc.php

And here you can find further links giving the SWP side:-
http://www.swp.org.uk/

by Noddy Tue Nov 06, 2007 05:31

It looks like the SWP are getting a taste of their own medicine. SWP front organizations like the IAWM
have an inbuilt instability. They need to have an independent outer shell to create the impression that it is not just the party and hence the need to involve non-party people. Often theres a sizable amount of people involved. They are usually groomed/ selected for this by the SWP however "blowback" sometimes occurs.

Sooner or later though, lots of the independent component get sick to their back teeth with this political sect manipulating everything, and controlling everything that matters. Sick of them packing in meetings, running the chair, controlling the finances, the administration office, the website, monopolizing the media to create brand recognition for their candidates.. Sick of the secretive and unaccountable leadership imposed by an external organisation with its own and often conflicting agenda.

The result is the destructive division we are looking at in Respect today and the IAWM in 2004.
What did the SWP do then? Learn? Not likely. It simply moves off like a parasitical organism looking for a new host and sets up a brand new front. IAWM today PBPA tomorrow, Same old bullshit. Nothing learned nothing gained, just hundreds of disheartened confused and utterly decent people grown cynical by the experience.

It is simply disastrous for any organization to have a relationship with the Socialist Workers Party. I believe that this needs to be said in order to stop this type of destruction from reoccurring.
As far as I know, very very few organizations in Ireland are prepared to countenance any type of partnership with the SWP and I believe that’s a very good thing.

This has nothing to do with Trotskyism or socialism or any of those things. To me a gangster is a gangster is a gangster no matter what his stated beliefs are. People can agree to disagree on issues and seek alliance on matters of common concern. For this to occur however, a degree of honesty, credibility and trust is required, and this not possible with these people it is as simple as that.

It’s not worth the effort for the rather meager return, and the internal strife which will follow in its wake. It is too sapping to the morale.

In times past people like me would have said the SWP have a place at the table. However that is unwise. There can be no place at the table, because we do not have eyes in the back of our heads or time to keep on looking over our shoulders and mark my words anyone who works with the SWP leadership will need them. The SWP will have to learn to behave before they can sit at that table. And in my opinion that will take an awful lot of time.

Political sectarianism is a form of bigotry and individuals should always be judged on their own merits. Many many members of the SWP do trojan work for different campaigns. However we also have to take into account that far too many members of the SWP seem willing to allow themselves to be herded like goats in order to pack meetings for their leadership. A fear of the "party whip" coming down on their backs is I think the motivation for a lot of this behavior.

Packing meetings is an aggressive act. Its shows utter contempt for the right of people to organize their own workplace. If you participate, remember this will diminish your respect among your non swp comrades and damage the credibility of your organization. That credibility is extremely low.
I anticipate your defensive reaction, which is usually the persecution complex, the victim complex. "Socialists" are being "attacked" the "left" is being attacked. As I said a gangster is a gangster is a gangster regardless. There’s nothing "socialist" about entryism because lots of groups on the right left and center carry it out. It’s a manipulation plain and simple. No excuses.

by Frankie Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:33

Add that to the fact that the SWP here have never done anything other than make speeches about the war. They never asked for a sit down protest, strike, civil disobedience of any form.... lest it make anyone unelectable.
Grandstanding, and deliberately avoiding doing anything that would be effective, while at the same time claiming to be building a 'mass movement' is ridiculous. People are not that stupid. Only in sport while large numbers of people accept the role of mindless supporters. In a political movement they expect leadership, not just speeches, and plans for actually changing the situation rather than just condemning it. Griping while doing in nothing is behaviour better suited for weeping into a pint.

by Michael Noone - ASF Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:52

Fair enough Frankie, What did you have in mind?

In order to attack the SWP on its inneffectiveness you must have a solution to remedy it.
Lets hear it.

by Statin the Obvious Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:10

Direct nonviolent resistance did take place to Irish involvement in the U.S. war, but the SWP dominated IAWM sort to marginalize it at every opportunity..from the peace camp to the plowshares. SWP saw the war as a marketing opportunity for the brand nothing more nothing leass. On Feb 15th 2003 they would rather promote and provide a platform for the electable and purchaseable Greens - than make any reference to the five anti-war prisoners in Limerick Prison www.peaceontrial.com

SWP saw the nonviolent direct actions as a competitor in a shrinking market. SWP remains the first line of policing for any authentic movement to get a foothold. If they didn't exist the state would have to invent them. And they are very good at what they do, that's where they put their energies into manipulation, opportunism and milking the phenomenon. Nothing goes into direct resistance to the state besides pathetic first world cheerleading for arm struggle in lands far far away from the safety of the stands

Eamonn Crudden's film screening Wednesday night takes a long hard look at that.
Check link for details

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84775

by tomeile Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:35

"In order to attack the SWP on its inneffectiveness you must have a solution to remedy it.
Lets hear it."

The SWP needs to re-find its radical roots :it needs to become political . During the last election ,it should have been able to point out that the most important issue facing the Irish electorate was the issue of war . It couldn't do that because it was running its candidates under the People Before Profits banner.
The SWP was in the leadership of the anti-war movement at the time and the the local politics of PB4P meant that its people in the IAWM couldn't come out and place the prospect of nuclear war as the first and overriding issue facing the Irish electorate. Thus the IAWM's slogan "Make the war an election issue"-exactly the same as the SWP's position. Another election issue amongst many.
Once people have woken up to the fact that the extreme right-wing regime controlling America is dragging the world towards annihilation ,and that our government is backing them up ,politics become practical .

by calgacus Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:51

http://www.swp.org.uk/respect_appeal.php

by me Tue Nov 06, 2007 14:06

It's sad to see this split in Respect, but are the SWP living in a parallel universe? In the 'appeal' mentioned in the above comment the SWP plaintively tell us that Respect is not run by the SWP because "only 7 out 16" of the national officer board are members of the SWP. Wow! Only 7 out of 16? You mean almost half of the officer board comes from one single party???

Lookit, this is dominance unless they are faced by equally large groups from other parties or tightly-organised factions. And they are not.

People do not need a formal majority to dominate a campaign or meeting - you just need the largest cohesive group in the room plus a few indos. A disparate 9, of widely varying views and positions, are in no position to challenge the dominance of the tightly-organised 7 who work together as a team. All the t SWPers have to do is keep a few of the 9 sweet.

by Catherine Tue Nov 06, 2007 16:18

"SWP here have never done anything other than make speeches about the war. They never asked for a sit down protest, strike, civil disobedience of any form..."

Members of the swp in the iawm first raised the idea of a 'day X' when the war began. On that day people were to leave their workplaces and schools and join in local protests. Several members of the swp lead their workplaces out onto street protests that day ... as indeed did many others who were not members of the swp. SWP members were also the ones who raised the idea of the 'ring around the Dail' protest and regularly called for civil disobedience. Articles on those arrested for civil disobedience at Shannon were publised regularly in socialist worker. They did not however call for individual acts of conscience at Shannon or for the IAWM to drop everything and concentrate purely on civil disobedience or on raising support for those on trial ... but that does not mean that they did not call for civil disobedience.

by awi'er Tue Nov 06, 2007 16:49

"They did not however call for individual acts of conscience at Shannon or for the IAWM to drop everything and concentrate purely on civil disobedience or on raising support for those on trial ...."

And who exactly did make such a 'call'? I know that nobody in Anti-War Ireland took such a crude approach. Do you think the rest of us - non-SWP types - are just political simpletons?

I DID hear people calling for genuine civil disobedience in conjunction with mass action. I also heard people call for tangible support for those before the courts, such as the Pitstop Ploughshares. However, these were not SWP voices that I heard. In fact, in terms of basic support for people like the Ploughshares (who had a magnificent and important victory in court), Richard Boyd Barrett - anti-war poster boy of the SWP - attended NOT ONE DAY of the three trials. Yeah, that was getting the balance right, for sure.

by tomeile Tue Nov 06, 2007 16:56

"Members of the swp in the iawm first raised the idea of a 'day X' when the war began. "
I don't doubt that Katherine . But ,big deal -why do you need a highly centralized party like the SWP to make such innocuous proposals?
The SWP have never to my knowledge come up with any proposal that could lead the anti-war movement forward . That's not out of any bad will on their behalf ,but because of the consensus politics they pursue - the sort of politics neccessary to keep a popular front movement together.
In such a movement, you have to keep church leaders , trade unioinsts , greens , television personalities etc on board .If you insist on being the leaders of a popular front you have to adapt your policies to what you think will keep the greatest number of people on board. And the lowest- common- denominator policies that prevail are invariably banal ,boring and safe .

by Noddy Tue Nov 06, 2007 17:12

This discussion is a diversion somewhat against the two central premises of the discussion

1 That the SWP leadership engages in a whole serious of covert manipulative, and exploitative behaviour in order to seek to control popular campaigns, and that those organizations always , just like the IAWM and Respect now, end up being mortally injured as a direct result of such nefarious practices.

2 That this is destructive to the wellbeing of the radical movement in general . Hence the need to stay away from SWP fronted or SWP convened organizations and that this is because the SWP are unreformable and there is no realistic chance that they can be trusted anytime in the near future.

This is called Learning from the lessons of the past or .......................

Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me.

by Statin the Obvious Tue Nov 06, 2007 22:18

Catherine - mentioning anti-war prisoners from the stage at Feb 15th would not have require anyone to "drop everything". SWP all talk and no action when it came to opposing the war.

Day X was a joke....asmoke break against the war.

Ring around Dail, another joke....memories of Caiomhe Butterly being denied access to speaking equipment by SWP as she was attempting to point out that the other side of Dil was not beingb blockaded and politicians were tooing and froing from there. Hardly a serious ring!

SWP is a sad joke....nothing revolutionary or radical about them. Moderate politics, moderate praxis with an evangelical Amway marketing approach.

by leftie Wed Nov 07, 2007 01:06

A left alliance without Joe Higgins is like
having a party without the birthday girl.
Why is he not with this alliance?

by Paul Hazers - Ireland Wed Nov 07, 2007 01:18 paulhaze at gmail dot com

Hi, just wondering if anyone has seen the film Rendition out currently in the cinema and what they make of it? Is it just another Hollywood film or does it ask real questions? regards. Paul

by Frankie G Wed Nov 07, 2007 14:58

Michael Noone - ASF wrote:

Fair enough Frankie, What did you have in mind?
In order to attack the SWP on its inneffectiveness you must have a solution to remedy it.
Lets hear it."

Common sense mostly.

Cease the policy of strangling at birth any plan not of their own making, that oversteps their timid boundaries of (moral outrage minus the will to act on it) because they fear any criticims that would reduce their imagined popularity, which only exists because they hold the 'leadership' titles in the well branded Irish Anti War Movement.

A lot of the damage is done and cannot be undone. for example the Ring around the Dail , that wasn't a ring... and the 'protests' at the dail, limited by stewards to holding placards and chanting.
When another bunch of people decided to sit down and block the entrance of the dail car park... stewards herded the rest of the crowd away from that.
even worse, when a majority vote on the IAWM steering committee DID force them to agree to a proper sit down protest at Shannon. The SWP stewards, IGNORED the plan and directions (despite being reminded on the day in clear instructions several times)... and staged the sit down on a less important roundabout, with less impact, less chance of arrest. It was too blatant to be accidental, and went totally against what had been planned and agreed.
That's a policy that should be stopped. If people have agreed to a plan they don't like... they shouldn't sabotage it.

As for the future...
There's plenty of scope for people to be asked to do something to oppose the war, other than listen to speeches. Ask yourself, when you last hear an SWP speaker at a demo say something that the audience would here, and after the demo, that person would be thinking... "I have been asked to do something between now and the next speech... something fairly specific" not just vague 'oppose this war', but a plan , or list of viable options.
Taking the initiative (and Day X was not an initiative) is more than deciding to build up to a demo, co-inciding with big demos in the US and UK.
Taking the initiative would have involved going after the government on rendition at Shannon, for subsidising the military at Shannon. No activities were centred around that, nor were the activists who DID work on it, aided or welcomed by the SWP.

So, if they co-operate with other groups, rather than seek to control everything, and if they take a risk of actually being effective, regardless of ruffling the feathers of more timid people (e.g. the Green party pre-govt) they would be on a better route.

I won't hold my breath, but I would be happy to see an end to the control freakery.

by bobmarleypark Wed Nov 07, 2007 20:36

Its good news; hopefully the swp will disappear over the horizon;
the lone cadre haunting the landscape with mystical paper sales

by John Cornford Fri Nov 09, 2007 14:31

Well the SWP got what they wanted: A Split. But Galloway holds the REPECT Offices while the SWP have the website!

The split could not be more absolute. Just 6 weeks after Respect’s national council unanimously agreed a series of measures to end the divisions and Chris Bambery denied in Socialist Worker that the ‘unity coalition’ was facing any crisis, let alone its “imminent demise”, there are now two rival Respects.

On the night of November 2-3 George Galloway had the locks changed on the national headquarters, thus barring national secretary John Rees and all staff who were members of the Socialist Workers Party. Within hours the SWP had seized full control of the website and immediately began using it as a factional weapon.

While both sides have a copy of the membership database, it is not clear who controls the finance and who is receiving membership dues.

by calgacus Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:23

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13552

by reader Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:40

It's funny, in an annoying way, to read SWP attacks on self-centred, careerist George Galloway. His attitudes and behaviour have never been any different, even when the SWP were promoting him and viciously condemning anybody who wouldn't go with their line. Now, he's the devil incarnate! It's very cynical stuff.

And speaking of cynicism, and using Respect for party-political gain, check out all the references to "Respect’s mayoral candidate Lindsey German". German, a top SWPer, is hoping to do well in London's mayoral elections. Ultimately, the SWP wants to build itself on the back of Respect. When it serves its purpose, it will be allowed to die, like Socialist Alliance, another abandoned vehicle.

Awful opportunism really.

by cropbeye - The Caz (In Cork) Wed Nov 14, 2007 20:14 cropbeye at yahoo dot com Cork (Northside)

Actually things are a bit more complicated at present both for the S.W.P in Britain and in Ireland at the moment.

In fact I will use the term children of Tony Cliffe a a description here because I am including some of the many who

were expelled from that party either temporarly or permanently over the years against those members wishes.

Some of the children of Tony have recently resigned including one or two quite prominent and others are unsure of the path

for Respect. In other words some people who were in S.W.P a year ago in the months ahead are going to stick with Respect

against their old bosses'. The S.W.P have been around a long time a there is a number amongst them that possibly now feel

the need to review the idea of one strategy for all time. Some will have regrets about their former comrades who have been treated

badly. So if some will really get stuck into work in P.B.P at a time others are getting involved they may (not certainly) veer in the way the

Respect loyalists in England and Wales are doing. We must remember the S.W.P in Ireland has a smallish number of members. They

also have a high turnover of members. Not being condesending but they have a good portion of very young members. I have had the

experience of sharing space with the S.W.P at anti Global Corporate gatherings in Italy and elswhere as well as going to social forum

initiative. The original People before profits slogan comes from this. I found that when people stand up to them and employ a degree of

level headedness makes it impossible for children of Tony Cliffe to dominate a space. Granted it takes practice but you only aquire this

nous by doing it . You only get political experience by doing this.Young people and not so young people around P.B.P should be

encourage in this . I believe some of the old style S.W.P people could be left behind by their own members when exposed by other

activists committed and self confident in the anti Global Corporate dominence movement. On the other hand if things do go eventually

to some showdown or threatened split if enough other members are in P.B.P at that time and are in stable and tactical communication

with each other then the group can continue on without the children of Tony.

by yahoo Thu Nov 15, 2007 13:45

If only it was so simple cropbeye. Unfortunately People Before Profit is an SWP front, there are no independent leftists involved. As in my earlier post - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84810 - a tiny number of attention seekers hoping that they can use the SWP drones to do their work doesn’t inspire much hope. That is why I am so surprised with Joan Collins involvement. While it is probably out of desperation after her very poor election result, I think it will backfire on her. Any association with the SWP or their fronts is generally a sign of weakness of the part of the new found friend! I can’t think of any of the left groups who will work with the SWP. SF, IRSP, ISN, SP, WSM, Eirigi, CPI etc will not work with them. They can’t all be wrong.

by John Cornford Mon Nov 26, 2007 14:28

This is a report on SWP RESPECT conferebce held in Westminster University.

Over 300 delegates and observers packed the Old Cinema at the University of Westminster on November 17. This first cinema to show moving pictures to a paying British public (in 1896) may have been witness to the last conference of Respect. Numbers were bumped up by having representatives of Respect student societies as delegates, something that had been a bone of contention with Galloway and his supporters before they slid away to form Respect Renewal.

Although Respect national secretary John Rees rallied the faithful at the opening and the closing of the truncated event, his railing at a supposed witch-hunt of the SWP was truly risible and ridiculous. He and subsequent speakers who lined up ritualistically to damn the “the witch-hunt” failed signally to explain how the SWP majority were being witch-hunted by the minority.

As comrade Rees’s grasp on reality slips, so his and the leadership’s control over the SWP membership weakens. The Respect “experiment” has resulted in a haemorrhaging of members, culminating in expulsions and resignations over the split. Judging by the numbers signing its anti-Galloway petition, it seems that the SWP has lost up to a third of its comrades, bringing its real membership down to around 1,000.

by D_D Mon Nov 26, 2007 16:41

Below is a link to a pamphlet from Socialist Resistance, which contains all the main documents from the side opposed to the SWP leadership (SR, 'Renewal' NC, SWP opposition and IST opposition):

http://www.esnips.com/doc/fad610c1-7232-44f3-b64b-d5d97...pamph

The principal document from the SWP Central Committee, ‘The record: the Socialist Workers Party and Respect’, can be found at the link below:

http://www.swp.org.uk/respect_cc.php