Respect as it was originally constructed - as an alliance primarily between the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and George Galloway - is long dead. Respect stood on the gains of the anti-globalisation and antiwar movements, and on the fact that the anti-war movement had begun to build among sections of Muslim communities who had not previously engaged with British politics.
After the Socialist Workers Party decided to split with Respect late in 2007, it has painted a dishonest picture of what lay behind the division within Respect. It claimed that it was the left in the split and everyone else was on the right (or was naively misguided, which is just as insulting). They repeat their disgraceful attacks on the Scottish Socialist Party, and by implication make comparison between those who continued to support Respect with those in Rifondazione, Italy's Party of Communist Refoundation, who backed then-Prime Minister Prodi in sending troops to Afghanistan. Such comparisons are ridiculous. Disregarding the grandiose comparisons with the splits between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks for the delusions they are, this 148-page book shows the political positions of those the SWP would paint as "the right". Not all the contributions we print here are from Socialist Resistance supporters. They include Chris Harman, then the central leader of the SWP, and leading figures in the British and international left. But we think and hope that by publishing this collection we can develop an important debate, and thus help to build a socialist alternative to the ravages of war and neo-liberalism.
The book is available for £3.50 plus postage from Amazon.co.uk.
9 comments
Ikram · 16 November 2010
What a timing to remind us of the split, just when SR has resigned from RESPECT, because a) Galloway decided to stand in the Scottish elections and b) he did this without conducting a proper debate in Respect, just announcing it.
Well it is clear that he has moved closer to Labour, some of his former allies and SWP-bashers in Respect, like Andy Newman, even have joined Labour.
The real issue at the time of the split was that Respect was becoming a vehicle for building politics around the personality of Galloway, instead of orienting itself towards the labour movement. The recent developments - Galloway's announcement and Respect's invisibility in the anti-cuts movement, and the departure of SR along many other socialists - have only confirmed this. It seems to painful for SR to admit, hence its harking back to the past with these documents, which everyone should absolutely re-read, in the light of recent developements.
Twitter Trackbacks for Still available — “Respect: Documents of the crisis” : Socialist Resistance: Fourth International in Britain [socialistresistance.org] on Topsy.com · 16 November 2010
[...] Still available — “Respect: Documents of the crisis” : Socialist Resistance: Fourth Internatio... socialistresistance.org/1120/still-available-respect-documents-of-the-crisis – view page – cached Respect as it was originally constructed - as an alliance primarily between the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and George Galloway - is long dead. Tweets about this link [...]
arjay · 20 November 2010
The SWP decided to leave Respect ? It could be said that Galloway's supporters were the ones to split by changing the locks on Respect's office and holding a rival conference . I suppose it depends on what side of split you're on .
I agree with Ikram that the issue of the split was between moving to build in the labour movement or to continue to rely on the popularity of Galloway . The SWP leadership at the time were guilty of supporting a shift to the labour movement and working class far too late and had spent far too long pandering to Galloway .
Socialist Resistance to me seem to behave in a totally opportunist manner . Critical of Galloway and supporting a move to the left all the way up to the split , SR switches sides soon as they see a chance of replacing the SWP as Galloway's tame trots . Unfortunately Ovenden and Hoveman got there before them leaving SR with no real role or influence in a rapidly declining organisation .
This business over Galloway standing in Scotland gives SR the opportunity to get out of Respect and still appear "principled".
GT · 20 November 2010
Arjay - you suggest that before the split RESPECT, SR and the SWP were not part of the labour movement and suddenly the SWP 'shifted' to the labour movement.
SR has always acted in a critical way in RESPECT - so we were actually criticised vociferously in RESPECT by Galloway and the SWP when we were opposing their joint leadership line. We did not act opportunistically to back RESPECT after the SWP left - we have explained our line in RESPECT - documents of the crisis. It is farcical to say that we stayed with RESPECT just to ingratiate ourselves with GG. Also we would still be in RESPECT today if Conference hadnt voted to support GG in his bid to stand in Scotland.
arjay · 21 November 2010
No , saying Respect was not engaging with the labour movement does not mean saying that SR or the SWP were outside of the labour movement.
Mind explaining why you went with Galloway? I don't think your documents make it very clear.
By the way as an ex-member of the USFI in Britain through a couple of its incarnations I know perfectly well how you operate . Opportunist to the core .
GT · 22 November 2010
Arjay - you have clearly a prejudiced view of SR amd it would be interesting to know how long ago you spent time in the USFI. Opportunism is not a complaint usually levelled at us.
With regard to Galloway - do you think the SWP should back him in Glasgow - as it appears they may be soon standing together again on the same slate. Its interesting he got an invite to a UAF meeting just last month in Glasgow speaking alongside SWP leader, Martin Smith. Is the SWP becoming opportunist/relying on galloway's 'popularity' etc?
arjay · 23 November 2010
Well I remember all that running around after the Bennites , London Labour Briefing , Campaign group etc. looking for some elusive "Class struggle left wing " . I think that was the expression . Seemed pretty opportunist to me .
And speaking on the same slate as Galloway is not the same as collaborating with him against fellow socialists .
Anyway , I've said enough . I wish you well with your next "get rich quick" scheme .
GT · 23 November 2010
Arjay - you base your opinions on your relationship with the ISG at least 20 years ago - clearly SR is not the same as the ISG was then e.g we are outside the Labour party.
If the SWP support galoway in scotland, wont they be collaborating with him against fellow socialists in the SSP?
arjay · 24 November 2010
Socialist League (previously the IMG) actually , ISG was a merger between a remnant of the SL and Alan Thornett's group in the early 90's.
As for collaborating , the SSP have been collaborating with the Murdoch press so I don't really care for them . Not my idea of fellow socialists.
Anyway , this is getting silly . In a hundred years time who's going to care about Galloway , Sheridan , Respect etc ?
In fact now SR is out in the real world you can take part in the wider movement . There's a lot going on :-)