In this article for the next issue of our magazine Bob Whitehead explains Socialist Resistance’s decision to leave Respect.It was an amicable split; a polite divorce that permitted continuing joint work and one that lays open the possibility of a future convergence. But for the latter to happen, the differences that arose will need to be addressed.
We were aware as anyone else of the weakness of Respect following the damaging split three years previously and the defeat at the General election. We had problems with the lack of intent to build Respect as a national organisation, the lack of interest in having a regular paper of its own and such matters as the irksome non-appearance of its leading members at the National Council. We did not support the decision to campaign for an elected Mayor in Tower Hamlets and then, strangely, not put up a Respect candidate. Yet we were prepared to soldier on and help work towards a Respect renaissance. Up to a week before the annual conference in November, we had no plans to depart. We knew that the conference would be smaller than last year, but hoped that by immersing the organisation in the anti-cuts movement, and combining this work with its excellent record on the war, Palestine and racism, to put new life into the organisation.
Then, a few days before the conference, the bombshell hit us. George Galloway announced that he would be standing as a Respect candidate in Glasgow for the Scottish elections. This was a huge point of departure. Up till then, Respect had correctly left the Scottish scene for Scottish socialists to sort out. But at the conference it was announced that with the ‘divisions and weaknesses’ on the left in Scotland, Respect was going to plant the flag and sort things out, as it were. In our view that would only add to the divisions in Scotland and at the same time cut across the principle of self-determination. When the Scottish left is campaigning for a socialist independent Scotland, the last thing it needs is an English based organisation to parachute in, cavalier style, to tell them what they should be doing.
At the very least, a decision such as this would have required a serious discussion within the whole of Respect throughout its pre-conference period of many weeks; a discussion on what members thought about self-determination, what policies would be appropriate for a Scottish audience and whether it should stand at all. An informed debate could then have been held at conference. We must not have been the only ones to be caught on the hop by this decision. The conflict at conference must have come out of the blue for many members not in the know.
Instead of a proper debate, the proposal for George to stand in Scotland was presented as an amendment to a cuts motion a few days before November 13th! This was not serious. And at conference itself, it was clear that the decision had already been taken and members would be expected to fall into line once the issue was presented to them. Our views were democratically aired, but then dismissed. There was no attempt at engagement. Salma called the decision to stand in Scotland a “no-brainer”.
On top of all this, if the Respect leadership had cared to look at our close links to the Scottish Socialist Party, they would have known that a decision such as this would put us in an impossible position when it came to Scottish elections.
So, we had to accept being bounced into the new line and effectively severing our links with the SSP, or declaring that this whole sorry business was just one bridge too far. We chose the latter. Socialist Resistance has made much of the need for left unity in recent years, so our decision to withdraw was not taken lightly. We stayed with Respect when the SWP tried to take their ball away if they were parted from their stranglehold control. We donated the resources of our own paper to help Respect get a regular publication off the ground. We worked hard for Respect throughout its hard times. But we were not prepared to give left cover to this latest wheeze of its leading players, despite the pioneering and exemplary work done by many of the same in support of Palestine, against the war and so on.
We consider our departure as a defeat and do not rejoice at that. Instead, we must now recognise that there is a vacuum at the electoral level for an anti-capitalist party in this country. On the new drawing board, we can sketch out a few principles for the future; the need to organise as a national party, the need to involve all members in democratic and socialist debate, decision making and education at all times as a matter of course and to recognize that no matter how talented, hard working or inspiring its leaders may be, they are servants of the party and nothing more.
17 comments
Larry Nugent · 29 December 2010
I found "The back close" method decision to support George Galloway standing in Scotland denied me the right to pre conference discussion or debate.
To say the least it was unpalatably dictatorial and at worse it was the cult of personality surrounding a comrade who only turned midway through a day conference to participate on one issue that solely involved him, it smacked of Stalinism.
krupskaya · 29 December 2010
Grow up.
Political principles include matters such as imperialism, war, for or against the bourgeois offensive, etc. They do not include the minor tactical question of whether a leading member of a broad left party stands in an election.
The only matter of principle suggested, but not developed is the question of Scottsh self-determination. But this is not and never has been a principle for revolutionary Marxists (the reveolutionary CP or third international never advocated such a line) precisely because Scotland is not an oppressed nation.
It is only SR's involvement in the SSP that was being compromised by Galloway's decision to stand - but that looks to be increasingly a case of political necrophilia.
Carlos · 29 December 2010
Krupskaya, three quick comments.
- I think you missed something. Our disagreement was over not whether it should be Galloway or someone else who stands in this election. We're not particularly against Galloway standing as an independent, but against Respect standing. Our disagreement is with an English party unilaterally deciding to organise in Scotland, a country which is denied self-determination by the British ruling class. The context should be clear: the Scottish left is already organised and Respect has nothing organised in Scotland. Galloway might import Respect's money and people into Glasgow but, when push comes to shove, it's not at all certain that he will really try to build Respect in any serious way.
- How do you conclude that Scotland should not have the right to self-determination? The Comintern had the excuse of a short life during which it had very incomplete discussions; but it it clear today that Scotland is a nation does not have the right to choose independence; that in itself is a major form of oppression imposed to secure the profitability of those who own its land and sea: mainly those outside Scotland.
- Necrophilia is a horrific and violent abuse. That's not comradely language and it makes it harder for you to convince people and be taken seriously. It's not the kind of language that's welcome on this site.
Larry Nugent · 30 December 2010
Carlos, I am a supporter of a more devolved Scottish government with the tapering out of all reserved matters over a timeline and direction that increases the power of the independence parties over the Westminster cabal that presently rules.
I also believe in a Scottish protectionist anti-capitalist economy that rejects global capitalism in all it's imperialist forms. There is no way another English party such as the Respect Party or George Galloway "the one man party" can deliver. We are sick to the back teeth with Galloway's missionary aspirations regards his latest foray into Scottish politics, in which, if you scratch the surface you would find it is all about a desperate man addiction to the cult of the individual and pal's act politics.
I believe he will be rejected by the voter in the may elections the trends indicate that single issues and lone stars are no longer the flavour needed in the 15 year old Scottish parliament. We need a Scottish Socialist Party that will fight for our aspiration to rid poverty and inequality from Scottish society
Bob Whitehead · 30 December 2010
Anonymous abuse is cheap, 'Krupskaya'. Such language does not help our wish for a possible future convergence.
More importantly, we should remember Lenin's clear support for the right of nations to self determination and his disapproval of Stalin's rude and intolerant attitude.
Frank Martin · 31 December 2010
It was the timing of Galloway's announcement that stunned me a little.
Right in the middle of the prosecution during the Sheridan's trial. TS then took the next two days off sick(stress and heart related problems I believe).
Forgive my relative ignorance on the different factions involved(I try to avoid such knowledge as it tends to depress the living daylights out of me), but who's willing to campaign for him? And I mean HIM, not Respect. The electorate up here have precious little knowledge of an organisation called Respect. Is he back on good terms with the SWP now? Or is he going to have to rely on his personality and media skill/connections?
There will be quite a few people who will have the knives out for him after this blatant opportunism.
Looking ahead - Glasgow and the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary Elections
http://bit.ly/gs1jIT
"SSP spokesperson Ken Fergusson compared George Galloway’s expected return to the Scottish political arena to a character from Alan Bleasdale’s 1980s Boys From The Blackstuff drama. He said: ‘It looks a bit like ‘Gissa Job’. He tied his wagon to a political career in London - then lost it. His policy is George for Glasgow – but that doesn’t tell us too much about what he wants. I suspect we will be looking at just another Labour MSP if he gets elected.’ In 1987, Galloway won the Glasgow Hillhead seat at Westminster. In 1997 and 2001 elections he won Glasgow Kelvin.
Labour would feverishly refute any parallel between themselves and the former Big Brother contestant who was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003. There will be no love lost between the Labour candidates and George at the hustings, if he stands. And while George clearly has some respect for First Minister Alex Salmond, Glasgow SNP MSP Bob Doris who will stand in Maryhill and Springburn and on the list, isn’t too keen on George.
Bob said: ‘I don’t see George Galloway as a threat. He despises Scottish democracy and offers nothing more than personality politics to the people of Glasgow, who deserve better. ‘The Scottish Parliament is still in it’s infancy and the 2011 term will see the development of our working democracy, the last thing we need is George Galloway using it as a platform for his own ends.’"
Twitter Trackbacks for Why we had to leave Respect: Socialist Resistance: Fourth Int' #respect #ssp #election2011 #galloway [socialistresistance.org] on Topsy.com · 31 December 2010
[...] Why we had to leave Respect: Socialist Resistance: Fourth Int' #respect #ssp #election2011 #galloway socialistresistance.org/1159/why-we-had-to-leave-respect – view page – cached [...]
prianikoff · 31 December 2010
"Scotland, a country which is denied self-determination by the British ruling class."
How exactly is Scottish self-determination being denied?
The demand hasn't even being expressed so far.
Were the Scots denied a referendum on the question of full independence. Or, were one to take place, which had a clear majority in favour, but which Westminster ignored, then you might have a point. But so far, the majority of the Scottish population seem to want to a devolved Parliament, not full independence.
Defending the right to self-determination is not the same thing as advocating independence. Why exactly does it make any sense to *advocate* full independence under these circumstances?
Yet that's exactly what the SSP does (albeit using a left variant of the SNP's arguments)
But it's the SNP that would be most likely to implement such independence. The best that the much diminished forces of the SSP can hope for is to enter some form of "progressive" coalition.
They entertain this possibility by arguing that the SNP is a form of 'social democratic' party. (Although it has no union affiliation) Whereas they analyse the Labour Party as a bourgeois "Unionist" Party.
There's a dangerous logic to these positions.
We already know that the SSP are soft on the question of the capitalist state - as long as it's Scottish!
If the votes fall are cast the right way, the rump SSP will therefore be tempted to enter into coalition with the SNP against Labour. A position that will lead lead them in the opposite direction to a fight for a federal Socialist system in England, Scotland and Wales.
Larry Nugent · 1 January 2011
I hope the galloway4glasgow@gmail.com realise there is just over a 120 days to the May elections and we still have not heard about what and how Mr Galloway can represent Glasgow citizens in the Scottish parliament. We have not being allowed to see his political aspirations or aims and objectives that will improve the quality of life in these hard .
Gaza and Canada are important to George's international status but really it is the bread and butter issues of the Scottish economy we would prefer he focus's on rather than his headline globe trotting. How much time will he afford us on Scottish matters.
Larry Nugent · 2 January 2011
The Scottish Labour Party is more vocal against the the ConDem austerity regime than the "no wind in his sails Mr Galloway"
I suppose he will turn up in his own time,just like his short appearance at the Respect Party one day conference. His diddling factionalism cheated us out of democratic debate before conference. The hostility towards the Socialist resistance motion at the conference showed repressive intolerance to anyone opposed to Mr Galloway's cult following and narcissism.
I write as an ex chairperson of the East End against the cuts and many of us know we need time for preparation work for hustings meetings, leafletting etc. He apparently wants to just parachute himself in for a couple and steal 10,000 to 15,000 votes to get him a on the list. Galloway thinks he is the the Hobson's Choice and the only alternative for us is no choice. Your wrong Mr Galloway and I hope The Scottish Socialist Party crush your over inflated ego.
Larry Nugent · 4 January 2011
In his Monday Daily Record meanderings, Mr Galloway makes play for the traditional labour vote. He believes that the floating non member labour vote is up for grabs if only he can prove he is dedicated to full commitment to the Scottish parliament. Fat chance.Of that.
His criticism of Neil Kinnock is old wine in a new bottle. We have heard it all before. What we want is leadership/solutions. The issues that is making us poorer, such as the cuts in public spending/services and the hike in vat charges, He does not mention any of our economic ills in his tweets or Facebook. His Daily Record titillation for kylle's underwear is his level of profound thought and his attack on the ugliness of women is Daily Recorded. His editor will keep him on for his attack on the NOTW. What a crawler Mr Galloway is.
Carlos · 5 January 2011
Prianikoff, yes the right to self-determination is separate from advocating independence. But that's an odd point for you to make, since you oppose both. What you don't answer is my question: why does Scotland not deserve self-determination? In my opinion, Scotland won and defended its independence by military force prior to the Act of Union. That Act was clearly not the will of the Scottish people, which is why it had to be signed in secret while the people rioted. Since then, Scotland has been exploited by England. In the 1970s, a majority of the Scots in a referendum voted for devolution. Scandalously the Scotland Act was recinded by the London parliament.
The SNP promised a referendum on independence would be held last year. The major London-headquartered parties all say that independence should not be an option and that, even if the referendum goes for independence, only Westminster can decide -- not the Scottish people.
As a result, it is clear that the Scottish people do not have the right to self-determination. You, Galloway and the Westminster parliament think that's a good state of affairs. I think that's mistaken.
prianikoff · 8 January 2011
"...you oppose both"
See my second para. above.
I clearly support the right to a democratic referendum and the right self-determination.
Other than that, I can't see any specific defence of the interests of the working class in Scotland in your argument.
It's half of an argument really and one that makes dangerous concessions to nationalism and populism.
Dubious populist history + nationalism in practice =
Hybrid [fit in relevant term]- socialism.
Admin. · 8 January 2011
Carlos has confused prianikoff's view with that of krupskaya, who does oppose self-determination. Please try to be more attentive, folk ;-)
chris luker · 17 January 2011
What about portugal while you are some of you are fiddling the whole world stirs?
Admin. · 19 January 2011
Hi Chris, we're not playing the fiddle now we've left Respect. We're following events in Portugal closely - /1168/ - but we are in Britain where were are building the movements against the cuts and in solidarity with struggles abroad.
SWP unity appeal leaves the big questions unanswered · 18 December 2014
[…] years. We participated in the Socialist Alliance. We were the last organised left current to give up on Respect. We tried to engage with the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC). On top of that practical […]