Radical Independence Conference – hopeful, energetic, impressive
Christine Bird •Three thousand people took part on Saturday in the Radical Independence Conference in Glasgow. Christine Bird reports from an inspiring event, part of the renewal of the left in Scotland.
Can anyone think of a time when masses of people rushed to join political parties as a result of a social movement? (Comments below, please!) I struggled to think of a comparable situation, as I watched 12,000 people stream out of the SNP supporters rally in Glasgow Hydro. 2,000 people joined their organisation during the event; approximately 1 in 50 people in Scotland is a member. The Greens have also trebled their numbers since the referendum.
I was not among those showered with golden tissue paper, and was in possession of neither a big foam hand nor a saltire. Instead, I was next door at the SECC, among the 3,000 participants in the Radical Independence Campaign (RIC) conference (timetable and speakers).
The continued existence of RIC, let alone its size – an increase in attendance from 1,000 last year – draws attention to the remarkable durability of the Yes movement. This feels more like victory than defeat. The RIC conference was hopeful, energetic and impressive. “Professional,” even, to quote Jonathan Shafi, as he opened proceedings, outlining his hopes for the day. Principled socialists with impeccable personal credentials enumerated RIC’s achievements to date in the most glowing and sincere terms. Tariq Ali paid, “warm tribute to Jonathan Shafi, who has organisational skills and political maturity which should be envied by any left-wing politician in Europe today.” Ali also congratulated Cat Boyd, noting the historic importance of the conference to the Scottish left, filling a vacuum in discussion. RIC has related to young people, been active and campaigned on a scale Ali has never seen. Bernadette McAliskey (known to many as Bernardette Devlin) also heaped praise on RIC – for bringing the conversation about national self-determination back onto the left’s agenda; for insisting on a pro-immigrant standpoint in the face of UKIP and the popular right and for challenging the very notion of British democracy as a contradiction in terms. By taking such an active role in the independence campaign from the start, RIC has been able to influence the wider campaign, pulling it to the left. I was impressed by the inclusive ethos evident throughout the conference – a free, well-run creche and thought given to having speakers of different ethnic backgrounds, ages and gender, as well as disabled speakers and an accessible venue.
The workshops were illuminating and inspiring. In a session on fracking, I learned that non-conventional shale-gas exploration provides jobs for a few years only, since each well becomes unprofitable within around 5 years. This is the sort of argument which has the potential to push the SNP into opposing fracking – not to mention the cost to the public purse of clean-ups and associated health problems. Coming from a background of debating mostly broad political questions and tactics, I greatly appreciated some of the nitty-gritty details, born of patient work at local level, raised particularly by Green participants and speakers. For example, Scotland may not have overall control over companies’ right to frack, but it has planning regulations which it could use to make any deals struck practically unworkable.
In a workshop on democratic revival across the British Isles, Alan Ramsay argued that just as Lloyd George came to rue the defeat of the Home Rule bills, we too must make Westminster regret their victory. Since SNP membership outnumbers UKIP’s and the Lib-Dems’ combined, there is every possibility that the next Westminster government will be reliant on radical Scottish MPs. Angharad Tomos made an eloquent case for equal status for all the languages of the British Isles. I was fascinated to find out that there is an organisation in Wales, with a socialist soul, much like RIC, called the Welsh Language Society, with the strapline, “for the language to survive, everything must change.” The revival of Gaelic is less evident in the Scottish debate. In the workshop on UKIP, David Miller made a clear case that the best guarantee against popular nationalism is a strong left, and that within the left there must be a strong anti racist/anti-Islamophobic current. Given the overall size of the event, it was perhaps inevitable that even the breakout sessions felt like mass rallies, and there was some discontent with a lack of opportunity for true participation from the floor. It is to be hoped that promised local RIC events can begin to address these concerns.
Back to the larger meetings and rallies which began and ended conference… Big cheers were for redistribution of wealth, against war, racism, poverty, fracking and nuclear weapons, for feminist issues, for a determination to continue the campaign for social justice in Scotland. Debates which dominated in the immediate post-referendum days have moved on: the 45% must now “reach out to the rest of the 99%” – we need unity in the struggles ahead; we’re not nationalist, we’re for national self-determination, which is a democratic issue… The Labour party was sharply criticised by a series of speakers – for supporting an illegal war in Iraq; for pandering to Ukip and for coalescing with the Tories in Better Together. It was widely felt they would feel the effects of this at the ballot box come May. Neil Davidson argued that the SNP now has a greater capacity for social reform than the Labour Party. In the same meeting, the chair did a straw poll of party membership – a friend reports that around 80% of the room were SNP members. Organised trade union representation was largely notable by its absence, and more systematic work on this is needed.
Which leads to the nub of the debate – where next for the Scottish left? Some believe that independence must precede social reform. (“You have to build a house before you can decorate it”) Others argue that this lets the SNP and Scottish Labour off too lightly – they already have significant powers should they choose to exercise them. It is evident that some sort of victory for working class people would make the terrain more favourable – be it a victory in strikes for public pay and pensions, or getting Trident out of Scotland.
Lively discussions took place both within meetings and outside them about whether the left should launch a new electoral organisation. Some feel we’re in danger of missing the boat on this issue, and we urgently need a counter-weight to the SNP, which is at heart neo-liberal and tightly controlled from the top down like the rest of the mainstream parties. Others (myself included) feel that we don’t have enough clarity in aims and purpose to embark upon such a path in the immediate future. We could risk falling apart due to lack of cohesion, and in any case aren’t large enough to affect real change at the ballot box. How would we relate to the SNP? To the Greens? To the Labour left? To other socialists even? – Tommy Sheridan and the SWP were both seen as too divisive to speak at this conference. RIC is to continue as a platform for left-wing debate for people who are members of political parties as well as those who aren’t. Further debate can be found on their website.
The most-widely reported aspect of the conference was The People’s Vow. I have to confess, it wasn’t clear to me at the time of its unveiling which people had made or written the vow. For what it’s worth, I hope that as many people as possible are actively involved in contributing to and campaigning for this. There is an important distinction to be made between a vow TO and a vow BY the people – does socialism come from above or below?
Bernadette Mc Aliskey shared her valuable wisdom on where things went wrong for socialists in Northern Ireland, and where it could go wrong for us in Scotland. While she was in favour of the Peace, Mc Aliskey was not in favour of the Process, where Sinn Fein allowed socialists to be left out, its leaders seduced by their sudden rise to prominence as players on the world stage. We should never go in to coalition to form a government, Mc Aliskey warned, for then we must take responsibility for what we can’t control. We must be wary of anyone who wants to be a politician, better someone who is unwilling, but will stomach it for a short time. We ought to be careful about who we send to negotiate on our behalf to Westminster. Better the uncompromising person without airs and graces whose head would have ended up in a pike in years past than the silver-tongued negotiator who will come back with a clever explanation of why we must water down our demands.
The radical left in Scotland is currently plotting a course through uncharted waters. RIC has proved itself to be an impressive force in the two years since it was founded. We may not have all the answers, but at least we have a space which feels friendly and open enough to ask the right questions. It is a much needed platform for debate. Most exciting of all, ever since the referendum, people believe that their voices matter – together, we can change things for the better.
Tariq Ali’s speech at RIC 2014:
55 comments
Interesting report. Disagree that the left should simply wait and not challenge in the next election…this in effect means let the SNP go unchallenged with their neo liberal economic agenda. Don’t agree that all the SNP mp’s going to Westminster are radical as this article claims. So Sheridan not allowed to speak… That is a disgrace and born of deep sectarianism..he seemed to speak to a massive amount of people in the campaign and as with the SWP were centrally involved. Fantastic turnout and a real opportunity for the left to unite but am worried some do not want to and are tailing the SNP.
Thanks for the reportage Christine. I missed Neils meeting, however Its interesting to hear the majoriy of that meeting were SNP members. Quite telling. I agree the SNP do indeed offer a chance (Scottish Labour has had`its day) to affect social change. I believe the scottish electorate have thought so since 2007 – hence their success. Yes they are wedded to capitalism -they have not said any different albeit on a social democratic platform ‘marrying social justice with the common market’ (Salmond, 2014). They are, I believe – at the moment – more social democratic in principle than the Nordic regions. i would argue its the electorate (especially post indy) that have pulled the SNP more to the left. Question is, will it stay there? For the moment we as socialists should run with that. Support it. It should be a stepping stone to socialism. I cannot see how we can just jump over it. I am a littlle confused about ‘the vow’ also. What are we supposed to be signing up to exactly? Anti fracking goes without saying – communities undoubtedly will oppose this – community acivists of all kinds will do this and will include local politicians (possibly cross-party), just by virtue we will require their support/vote in local government against it and will pressure them to do so – no choice. TTIP? More work needs to be done in educating people about the implications of this RIC could be one good vehicle for doing this.- i would argue this is crucial for all of us as socialists to get this acoss to as many people as possible, as any welfarist gains will be cancelled out on its inception. The implications on the labour market will be immense – this on top of an already deregulated LM will see mass long term unemployment across Europe as well as even less Employment Protections as well as unemployment insurances. Trade union input on this at the moment is essential. RIC could be central to this? A peoples economy? what is a peoples economy exactly? In a sea of neo liberalism? An overarching ‘Left Project’ does not appear to be as inclusive as it should be, ommitting Sheridan/Solidarity – sectarian and devisive but including labour for indy – I am confused as to its practicalities and appears contradictory to getting rid of Labour. I havent seen how this will work in say the 2016 election; standing candidates against SNP I wonder and have concerns with certain possible careerists/opportunists who sided with an establishment press not so long ago and in its self sectarian. Its a question of trust and yes begs the question should there be a left alternative? May be premature and wiser to see how far the SNP will go in affecting this new socially democratic politic in Scotland – they have not conceded on anything as yet and I believe they are as realistic as we are that the UK machine will not pass over all powers – at least the`ones we want/need to bridge the gap between rich and poor in Scotland, and that its going to take some fight to get them. We should be fighting together at this point in time. However it should be our job to ensure they don’t falter and swing back to the right. Left Platform seems to be rhetoric at the moment to me as doe this ‘vow’. Education is key, which should translate into grass roots local organisations centred around debate and learning around serious issues such as TTIP aswell as empowering communities to do things for themselves, if need be. i worry about the top down nature of all this and as was the case yesterday going to meetings to listen to folk telling us the issues. Which is all wonderful and we all agree, however what are we actually doing about it? A left alternative for structure, discipline (i.e prevent power abuses) and educative purposes might be beneficial at the moment and must be inclusive. But to undermine the SNP and their voters would be a mistake for the left in getting that message across about socialism – particularly if it involves unwarranted critiscisms, as it will marginalise an already deeply fragmented left here in scotland and the very idea of socialism. In other words critiscise when its needed act when its needed – when its right to do so. RIC conference offered good education yesterday, although little opportunity for networking, discussion and sharing of ideas about how to fight. Moreover we must not forget that 1.6 plus million people voted Yes and many of those did not come across the RIC campaign and made an informed decision to do so; there are many groups of ‘Yessrs’ who have organised themselves and their communities and may not be affiliated to any (left) goup. Moreover the information is out there and freely available online etc; people can educate themselves these days. ‘Vows’ and ‘left projects’ look well and good but appear top down and exclusive simply because there has been little open discussion about what these should be. 1.6m folk voted yes for a reason, mostly in opposition to neo liberal, monetarism and how it has caused permanent and perpetual inequality and they are sick of it. These people are not stupid. and don’t need to be told whats what, they already know. We dont want to marginalise the majority of them and come across haughty nor patronising. The need for a left alternative should be centred around the need for socialism. But a deeper, broader, inclusive, discussion needs to take place as to how we do this and should include many left individuals and members of other parties. Meantime discussion shoud be centred on how to be an affective pressure group, ensuring SNP fulfills what should be our current objectives as well as supporting community and upcoming campaigns with education and resources. Scottish politics has changed and we have to go with it, not against it with the usual mundane orthodoxy.
If the left sees itself as a “pressure group” on the SNP then this is a grave error in my view. This was the CP strategy for decades around the Labour Party. Without building an independent left which yes will work with SNP over different issues but is clear that they are not the answer and will not challenge the system and will implement austerity as it has already done so. It’s a sign of the poverty of social democracy that the SNP can seem attractive to members of RS21 and essentially those arguements about Leninism is reflected in that it cannot bring itself to call for the building of an independent left at the next elections. These situations do not last for ever, there is a question of timing and to pass this by would be a big mistake in my view. It is interesting that Labour Party people were on the platform and not Sheridan and the SWP..perhaps it was acceptable to have some and not others..but let’s be honest this is top down carving up and needs to be opposed.
James seems over concerned about arch opportunists SWP and destructive egomaniac Sheridan ( who has called for a vote for SNP ). It is not surprising to anybody familiar with the history and practices of both SWP or Sheridan that very few want to have anything to do with either , and they are both left desperately clinging to each other for opportunist support.
James – the SNP isn’t ‘attractive’ to members of RS21: the actual burden of my contribution to the RIC conference was precisely an argument about how far the SNP was from being a social democratic party as that term was understood after 1917, although Labour Party is also ceasing to be this type of organisation. I am for supporting the SNP where it has progressive policies (and as a ‘social’ neoliberal organisation this is possible), and obviously for working with socialists in the SNP, as we currentky do in RIC, but our main task must be to break the illusions which thousands of people on the left have in that party. (There were, incidentally, no Labour Party speakers on the platform at the RIC conference.) As I argued on Saturday, the formation of a new left party is urgent, but this cannot be achieved simply by bringing together the existing groups, particularly when – as I assume in the case of the SWP – they will refuse to dissolve their existing organisation.
Christine, thanks for a really useful and very quick report!
James, the question as I understand it (from south of the border) is not whether the SNP is or is not attractive to rs21 members or other revolutionary socialists in scotland but whether (given the space they have filled) there is sufficent scope for the Scottish Left Project to gain a critical momentum (based in large part on the success of RIC). This is a tactical question which is hard to judge from afar. The question of whether the SNP will displace labour as a social democratic force is also an interesting question but only one part of what is to be considered.
However from down here it would seem a mistake for the most radical forces in RIC to not try and cohere a new left to challenge for an anti-capitalist agenda.
Some comments from a Facebook conversation in response to this report. All the participants are Yes voters, all except J are women.
J – Wow, I didn’t know that the SWP and Tommy Sheridan were deemed too divisive, while SNP candidate and Murdoch employee Aamer Anwar isn’t. Add that to the fact that all No-voting socialist are excluded and it’s pretty clear that this isn’t a movement for the left in Scotland, its a movement for the pro-indy anti-SWP anti-Sheridan left. Sadly, this means that the Scottish left are probably further divided than ever. We need a movement that unites the forces of the left, not one who’s very starting point is decisions on who is excluded – very sad.
C – Surely there is enough evidence that Sheridan is poison to the Scottish left… I feel that including him would be pretty much excluding feminist participation? Half the population.. If we want to challenge mainstream politics what is the point in sticking to the same model – ie.. dominant white male leader rules movement via the whims of his ego..
E – You didn’t know the SWP are divisive? Seriously? You don’t think covering up rape and threatening violence to whoever challenges it is divisive?
J – I didn’t say that Esther, I didn’t know RIC had banned the SWP and Sheridan for being divisive. Everyone on the left is divisive. Caroline, excluding Sheridan wouldn’t exclude feminists, only the feminists who are anti-Sheridan. RIC are clearly a group with very limited appeal if they exclude the NO voters (55% of the population) the SWP (the biggest far left group in the country) and Sheridan (the most popular speaker in the referendum campaign). I am not going to get into arguments about who is more divisive than others but it’s clear that RIC have started as a sectarian group with extreme limitations on how they can grow if their first act is a list of who is excluded. As I said, an SNP candidate who works for Rupert Murdoch isn’t considered divisive. Who makes these decisions? Is there any kind of internal democracy in RIC to arrive at these decisions? It’s news to me about the exclusion of SWP and TS, it seems to fly in the face of any claims to be a movement of Scotland’s left. If added to the fact that all Labour left and all pro-NO left are already excluded, then RIC will be nothing more than an occasional feel-good exercise or a cover for the SNP. How can it build any further with such limitations on membership?
E – I didn’t attend RIC or the Hydro, I’m too ill currently to do any activism. It’s a shame if true that RIC chose to exclude no voters, that absolutely is not the way forward. Excluding the SWP on the other hand is a step forward and many people will welcome that.
J – Of course they exclude No voters, they are an independence group. A “Radical Scotland” rather than “Radical Independence” group is what is needed when the working class are facing the biggest attack in our lifetimes from the most right-wing government in a century. As a yes-voting Labour member, I am excluded by choice, as the sight of SNP members with anti-labour rhetoric being cheered as some sort of advance wouldn’t be acceptable to me. The SNP have armed our police, devastated Further Education and forced 3% cuts on every council, every year, through the council tax freeze, yet the self-appointed representatives of the Scottish left are cheering them to victory. These are very sad days for the left. The polls show that post-referendum, the far left are getting less than 1% of the vote between them, lower than at any point in memory. I don’t agree on excluding the SWP, excluding the man accused of rape might have been acceptable but he isn’t an SWP member.
C – I think you make a lot of points worth engaging with Jim and I’m always interested in scrutinising the actions of SNP and worried about the neo-liberal agendas they are part of as much as Labour have proved to be – still it’s hard to engage with the points because of your unquestioning support for Sheridan (who was almost certainly not the most popular speaker in the referendum campaign). I suppose we need to recognise that far left tactics, even if following your argument, are less popular now, it is because they have failed in some way and did so even at their height – so we need to reimagine the left – personally I would consider Greens as a far left party but maybe you don’t? Re – exclusion – you are right to worry but the problem – as the fall out from the Better Together campaign highlighted for Labour (should they have included right wing conservative voices or themselves in the campaign?) – is you will always exclude some by the choices you make – some exclusion is tacit (SWP rape cover up..who does that exclude without saying anything?) other exclusion is more transparent. I not sure you can escape or would want to escape all exclusion if you want to define yourself politically – its a problem feminists have struggled with a long time ( so I made a mistake above by implying all women were feminist or all feminist women..). Anyway I’m certain there is no love loss between Sheridan and feminists…
J – eh? I don’t have “unquestioning support for Sheridan” and nothing I have said in this thread suggests that. Feminists are not one group with one opinion re Sheridan or the SWP, many feminists will not share your view on one or the other or both.
CC – Just to come late to this conversation sorry: obviously you are right that feminists are not a homogenous group, however I think there are compelling feminist arguments for not working with SWP or TS. I cannot support the SWP after watching the horrendous behaviour over the last couple of years. Jim, you mentioned that excluding the man accused of rape is ok but not the whole party. I disagree. There has been more than one accusation & more than 1 accused for a start but also it’s about how, as a party they dealt with it all. Their treatment of the women who spoke up was horrendous and of party members who questioned it all. There are some fantastic members obviously, I just don’t believe it’s a banner that’s useful for those members to stand behind anymore. I believe the party itself has lost its way and lost the trust and respect of a lot of the left as a result. Many women do not view activist spaces including the SWP as safe and I can understand why. Re Sheridan, it’s a similar issue. Where movements fail to respond appropriately to these issues when they arise, they become unsafe and highlight people’s willingness to basically throw women under the bus in the pursuit of other political priorities. It’s been interesting to see whose memories are short when it comes to Tommy Sheridan. I want independence but not at ‘any cost’. It matters who you choose as allies! I agree with the decision not to include either SWP or TS on the programme for this event.
Me – I felt sad to see the SWP excluded, really. I have / had a lot of respect for individual glasgow SWP members, and they have important things to say. However, when Jonathan Shafi et al left the SWP, they weren’t treated particularly well by them – I know people were annoyed with them for not being open in their disagreements, but they were shunned for a long time. So why would they make a big effort to include the SWP now, when there are feminists who would literally walk out if they stayed in the room? Who would you choose, in that position? And – they did totally mishandle a rape allegation – I can’t defend that, it’s very difficult for anyone to defend (and why should we?) Only they can make that right, if they so choose.
J – I’m not going to get into an argument of the details of either case, but I do believe there is a lot of selective tolerance. Its pretty clear to anyone who followed the case that the SNP covered up the Bill Walker allegations for years and only acted when the papers got a hold of it. For reasons of political expediency RIC choose to ignore that case. I am all for having standards but they should be consistent and not convenient
Me – I didn’t follow that case, will look it up. all the mainstream parties have their abusers – look at the awful stories in The Mirror about paedophile MP’s murdering children. Total scumbags. I suppose the difference is that the SWP is part of our scene on the far left, it argues for liberation and falls short of those standards in practise. I do hold it to higher standards. Not the people in it, but the organisation as a whole – its credentials on feminism should be impeccable. I’d probably expect the same of the Greens, anarchists, SSP – whoever. And people are right, it should be a safe space for women.
CC – You are right Jim. They didn’t behave well over Walker and not enough has been said about it. I don’t know though that their internal protocols for managing allegations were necessarily at fault in the same way as the SWP’s have been shown to be, and obviously the situation was different in that (as far as I’m aware) they weren’t asked to do something by the women concerned (not that it should take this for parties to decide that it’s not ok to continue to work with a users) so not comparable in some aspects. It was however shameful. I wasn’t aware that they actively covered it up too. I shall research further, thanks.
JW – So as a relative new comer to all this. I was incredibly impressed with RIC, I learned a lot, I was inspired and reinvigorated. All of which I guess is what the organisers hoped for. I totally agree with name, both radical and independence, name needs to be inclusive (I like common weal meself.) I worry about the position of the SNP and only hope that organisations such as RIC and Commonweal can exert pressure on them.
I attended a workshop on austerity, in which Prof Geoffrey Whittam quoted Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, ‘The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.’ He went on to say what a fraud he felt quoting such things at a radical event, keeping in tune with much of what was said throughout the day, that radical ideas were no longer that radical they were about decency and fairness. The workshop on TTIP was utterly jaw-dropping, terrifying to say the least. A trade agreement that allows corporations (foreign investors) to sue governments for reducing their ability to increase profits, makes privatisation a one way street blah blah. You guys know all this, fab day I look forward to more of the same.
E – I agree that having standards, as well as creating and maintaining safer spaces which is incredibly important for everyone, should be across the board and I’m aware that the SWP are not alone in their guilt. This is one of the main reasons why myself and many others, women and non binary people in particular, do not feel safe or inspired to be involved in left organisations today. I also agree with the preference of ‘radical Scotland’ over indy. Though I am an ardent believer in indy I didn’t feel comfortable with ‘the 45’ rhetoric for that reason.
C – I think it’s a good point that radical indy made sense in the referendum campaign but maybe not so much now (I worry that while we dream of independence austerity politics progress so far that it will be difficult to turn them back even as a separate state – what damage will one more Tory government be able to do? ).. and that no voters should be included – so I guess the name makes it difficult although it looks like from Christine’s description that the conference did think about austerity and being inclusive of no voters? As an aside I’m wondering if you consider yourself to be a feminist J? – hopefully you are (or that you will consider becoming one) otherwise saying ‘many feminists will not share’ seems a little bit difficult – I should have said of course I speak as a feminist not for feminists who are all capable of speaking for themselves.. Anyway the debate is interesting and extremely relevant.
L – Enjoyed the article Christine and the event but I’m glad to be here in Fife where people are much less defined by which party they are in. I for one missed the presence of Tommy Sheridan and was unaware that the SWP was not welcome. I find this very depressing. I’ll just stick to my local YES group in future.
Also this is Adam Ramsay’s interesting take on the event: https://www.opendemocracy.net/…/on-ric2014-and-strategy…
Refreshing to have a report that wasn’t already written beforehand to fit predefined conclusions!
My overwhelming impression of the day was that a new left formation which concentrates on the existing left forces, and is bogged down by questions of who will play nicely with who, will be doomed. RIC was full of people who have immersed themselves not just in the independence campaign but in loads of other issues and it’s their dynamism and ideas that can build a new left. You got a flavour of that over issues like fracking etc, which is going to be a big issue and will put the contradictions within the SNP centre stage – will they come down on the side of multinational investment, or safeguarding our environment? I know where I’d place my money right now which is why a left political pole of attraction is essential.
Although the SNP had many new members there, my feeling was that they were quite ‘soft’ in their support for nationalism and their real motivation was the ideas brought to the fore during the campaign by RIC. Joining the SNP for them is a stage on their political journey not their final destination and is why a Scottish Left Project is needed.
Quite whether that is an electoral force, centred round specific campaigns or a wider social movement, and who it involves, will very according to local circumstance and who can be brought into it. It *has* to be built from the bottom up and we should all get stuck into that right now.
Wow am miffed how Sheridan can be lumped with the SWP handling of an alledged rape allegation. I don’t remember TS being accused of any serious sexual assault against women. There was me thinking as a feminist that what happened to him was an attack on the left as a whole. Which may I say worked and is still working….. and of which has seen the establishment forced to act. A certain Coulson is due in Scottish courts very soon for perjury – does that mean others will follow? I don’t believe new people have joined the SNP with any illusions. They see it as a force for change meantime. it does not come up with the goods – well that will be a different ball game altogether. If the left was organised and less divisive, then many would have joined us already.. proof in the pudding is always in the tasting!
I simply do not understand this argument that the SNP are going out of their way to implement Westminsters austerity agenda when the block grant was cut severly. We get £1 of every £12 spent on public health (NHS) per head down south. Yet the Scottish NHS has remained public. This is public expenditure, not private through contracts tendered out to the free market even though these are paid out from the public purse. If they privatise any further we get even less. Difficult decisions have had to be made thats true. We pay more into the pot and get less back pot is based in Westminster incidentally. Equally how much more of a challenge could the SNP be besides arguing for and delivering a referendum for independence and now arguing for maximum powers? If Westminster hadn’t taken Devo Max off the ballot box we would be sitting with more powers right now. That argument sounds like the same drivel the Better Together camp used to scare voters into thinking the Scottish NHS was safer in their hands and was facing privatisation under the SNP. Better Together even argued free tuitioin would go in Scotland this from the same party who implemented tuition fees in Emgland and supported the disbanding of EMA under the Coalition. EMA has remained in Scotland despiite cuts to the grant. If Labour were in the Scottish parliament since the crash we would have kissed goodbye to the lot. That in my view despite the SNP’s faults is the difference…like I says before in my last post -critiscise when its needed!
Neil Davidson may think that the only way the SWP should allowed to participate in a reformed left challenge should be to disband its organisation! Has the whole of the last century passed you by? The idea that we need just broad organisation and revolutionaries simply wind up trying to build a party is gob smacking…oh I see that one of the comments above says the SWP threatens violence with those it disagrees with! A simple bit of evidence for such nonsense wouldn’t go amiss..but then anything goes. Given Bambery,s organisation was accused of covering up rape a few years ago it seems that’s ok as no one likes to mention it…indeed it was him who no doubt chose who was in and who was out!
Wendy, the SNP could challenge the neo liberal agenda but they do not..they see Scottish business as allies, they believe the fundamental divide in society is nation not class. If the left think the SNP is somehow an organisation that the left should give free reign to then it will pay a heavy price. Of course socialists should work with SNP over all sorts of issues etc but let’s not paint them red to quote an old man many years ago!
Salmond has just recently opposed the ISDS aspect of TTIP. thats a good start. Pressure from the bottom has to be broad and inclusive, whether its a pressure group, movement or party it has to happen and quick!
In response to James’ various posts:
First, neither the SWP nor Solidarity have been ‘banned’ from RIC. There is a difference between ‘banning’ and not being invited to speak. (Incidentally James, do you know how many RIC speakers were invited to speak at the SWP’s Marxism in Scotland event? None. Pots and kettles, anyone?) Both groups were present at the Conference and at least one Solidarity member (David Miller) was a panel speaker. The SWP had four speakers at both of the two previous conferences. The difference is that, since 2013 RIC Conference, the internal debate over the sexual harassment case ended with the SWP Conference decision to continue the cover-up and the consequent departure of the remaining opposition. The wider left was prepared to give the SWP the benefit of the doubt until that point, but not afterwards. This was not a ‘top-down carving-up’ – if either Sheridan or an SWP speaker had appeared on the platform there would have been a riot – ‘from below’. Maybe you should ask yourself just why that is? SWP members were asked to leave the meeting on ‘Gender Equality Now’, for fairly obvious reasons, but other than that no attempts were made to stop them speaking, handing out leaflets, collecting signatures on petitions, etc. It may be possible to get away with this ‘the SWP were central to the campaign’ stuff in England, but up here these claims are simply regarded as a joke. The SWP has less than 100 active members in Scotland, the overwhelming majority concentrated in Glasgow, where it played its biggest role in the campaign, although – to be fair – it is also true that 5 or 6 SWP comrades are regular participants in Edinburgh RIC’s meetings and events. But outside of the two biggest cities? The SWP can barely muster a dozen active members in Aberdeen and Dundee combined, and beyond these two cities? Nothing. How could they possibly be ‘central’ to the campaign when most of the 300 Yes groups in the country are working quite happily without being aware of the SWP’s existence?
Second, claims about the the supposed sectarianism and divisiveness of RIC are simply oblivious to reality. We’ve just had a conference of over 3,000 people, drawn almost entirely from Scotland: a comparable event in London, potentially drawing on the entire UK population, would be of the order of 30,000 people. It does seem to me that this should be regarded as a success, reflecting the level of activity on the ground and the way in which most sections of the radical left have been able to work together in unity. Far from seeking to exclude No voters, speaker after speaker – including Cat Boyd in the final rally – emphasised the need to reach out to them and persuade them of the case for radical independence: if there was a percentage involved, it was the need to turn the 45% into the 99%. There is no serious demand for a refusal to work with people who argued for No – although the levels of hatred directed towards the Labour Party as an organisation for its collusion with the Tories should not be underestimated. Of course there are debates within RIC about how to relate to the SNP – given the presence of a large contingent of the SNP left in the organisation it would be incredible to expect anything else – but that’s the point: it is a debate, reflecting the emergence of new forces with all sorts of ideas with which revolutionaries have to engage. That is what a living, growing organisation should be like.
Finally, on the question of a new left party in Scotland. ISS/RS21 isn’t a monolith, and – as can be seen from the comments above – comrades are in the process of working out what our position is. I think everyone agrees with the need for revolutionary organisation, but we simply don’t believe that the SWP is that organisation, or that it any longer has the capacity to to become it. Trying to immediately adopt a ‘Leninist’ structure in a group of 300 comrades (10% of whom are in Scotland) would be ridiculous: the Socialist Review Group/International Socialists did not attempt this in the fifties and for most of the sixties and were perfectly correct not to do so. In the meantime my personal view is that an actual party capable of standing in elections (although certainly not confined to them) is required, not some cobbled-together electoral lash-up along the lines of TUSC. The key will be the Scottish elections in 2016. As for next year, in my view RIC should support left-wing independence candidates, but certainly not give blanket support for the SNP. I think the Scottish Left Project should initiate the process of moving towards that party, but this is precisely what the forthcoming local meetings are designed to discuss (among other things). Of course I don’t expect the SWP to dissolve its organisation as a precondition of participating in united fronts or electoral alliances – that’s just plain silly – but that’s not what I was talking about in my previous post. Again, this is a personal view, but any new party could not be built on the basis of ‘platforms’, parties-within-parties or – perish the thought – permanent factions. Surely that is one lesson we can draw from the experience of the SSP? Such a party would need a revolutionary wing, with its own journal, but not a constellation of competing sects and groups. Its main aim would be to involve the new activists who have been and continue to be the basis of the movement.
I hate to bang on about the Green Party, but one of the criticisms I’ve heard is that they don’t have firm roots within the ‘trade union movement’ – well, yes, mostly because of the Labour Party’s unhealthy monopoly on the trade union movement, which you can’t really hold against the Greens or any other emergent ‘social democratic’ or ‘reformist’ force.
However, things are even more complex in Scotland – for example, the SNP’s trade union group has more members in it alone than the entire membership of the Scottish Labour Party. The SNP is now easily, without a shadow of a doubt, despite not being the party of the trade union leadership or, to be frank about it, bureaucracy, the main party of the working classes in Scotland – this is what the party set out to do after the proponent of social democracy Willie Wolf gained leadership in the 1970s and, to a even further extent, when members of the socialist ’79 group, such as Alex Salmond, became prominent within the party in late 1980s – over the course of the years, they began to attract much more socialists, such as people like Jim Sillars and Jimmy Reid and working class voters, culminating in their landslide in 2011 and the consequent decimation of the Labour Party’s base, which will almost certainly lead to Labour being heavily defeated in Scotland in the upcoming Westminster elections. Given that the vast majority of workers in the UK are not unionised, the idea that the kind of monopoly Labour has over trade unions on the level of bureaucracy equates to it being a party of the ‘working classes’ can only be treated with contempt – the mass realisation of this is occurring in Scotland. What part a force like RIC plays in this remains to be seen.
A side point, but this aspect should probably be considered more: ‘Organised trade union representation was largely notable by its absence, and more systematic work on this is needed.’
One of the beefs of the Naw Left was that independence would ‘divide the working class’ and that big strikes in the public sector etc would be more difficult. All this is predicated on the idea of a mass reformist consciousness and an ‘organised workers’ movement’ of the 20th century when the reality is this part of the class is rearguard, ageing, increasingly sectional and often conservatively hewn to the Labour Party/Capital. Its not really a surprise that a reconstituted reformism/social democracy today is only tenuously linked to the ‘organised working class’ and the workplace, why would it be when besides certain key choke points of industry (although look at Grangemouth…) its importance is much diminished?
In response to Neil,
Ric was and is a big success and a real breakthrough ..no doubt about it. I think the wait and let the SNP simply go unchallenged at the ballot box is a mistake.
ISG run by Bambery has been accused by a women in their organisation of covering up rape. Can you explain why they were not stopped from being platform speakers..
Sheridan spoke to thousands of working class people and had over 10,000 in St George’s square after the vote..so the move that he should not be allowed to speak is deeply sectarian. This is not because I think Sheridan is right on the SNP etc but because he is part of the left and the idea of not wanting to get the left together is a missed chance.
“…if either Sheridan or an SWP speaker had appeared on the platform there would have been a riot – ‘from below’.”
There is nothing rank and file about your sustained campaign to discredit the SWP. Many of you were leading members of the SWP and some, like Seymour, worked in academia (like yourself), ran websites and forums and already had a mainstream media presence. If that profile is what you consider “from below” then no wonder you were out of touch with the majority of SWP members who rejected your version of events. Just because some on the left in Scotland have bought into your narrative either because they don’t know the whole story or because they’re cynically pursuing their own political agenda doesn’t legitimise it. Pity your principles at the time didn’t prevent the faction availing itself of the support of the notoriously sectarian CPGB, the right wing media and other destructive groups and individuals. If that’s the strategy for building solidarity then it has nothing to do with involving those “from below” and everything to do with an old faction scoring sectarian points against the SWP.
You really have no idea whatsoever Ray – I’m guessing you’re several hundred miles away? It’s both instructive and depressing to see just how badly you and James are missing the point and potential of what’s going on here. Your entire frame of reference is the existing left organisations. Compare and contrast with how the RIC activists are changing the left landscape in Scotland through activity and political debate. Your contributions are a particularly dull shade of grey, my friends, but forever green is the tree of life.
On real political questions, I would be slightly cautious about the “trade union group” figures for the SNP. I’m open to correction but I suspect that’s actually the figure for members of the SNP who are also members of their union, which would put the figure at about 14%. As a proportion of the overall population, the number of trade unionists in Scotland is about 13%. So although it’s maybe not as headline grabbing as it first appears it is nevertheless a significant force, and clearly a higher proportion of working class people than any other party. How much organistional and political weight they carry within it remains to be seen, and good luck to them, but the best way we can assist is to build a pole of attraction within the unions to anchor them on the left.
So for me the main issue is how we rebuild trade union organisation to challenge the existing hierarchies. I think there were a lot of lessons from RIC about that, specifically the fact that politics and self-activity are now things that exist in people’s lives in a way that they never did before – from the voter registration drives, the meetings in community halls, the daily chat down the pub etc. Unions need to tap into that and be proactive in organising around the political issues that affect and inspire people rather than having a narrow workplace focus. And union activists need to look away, though not withdraw, from the suffocating district and branch committees and focus much more on building political currents with the reps and members wher they work. If we’re going to drag the unions away from the bureaucracy, we need to learn some of the lessons about how RIC has dragged politics away from the politicians.
So excluding people on the left is the way to drag politics away from the mainstream? Vague arguments about doing things differently ring pretty hollow when it involves sectarianism which is a point that can be made from anywhere in the world and appears to be what you’re missing. This tradition has always been followed by elitists rather than those from below.
Didn’t Cliff tell some joke about dogs and fleas…?
What’s the difference between ‘sectarianism’ and ‘principled disagreement’? Principled disagreement is when I do it. Sectarianism is when you do it.
Cliff did indeed..he was also pretty clear on the need for the building of a revolutionary organisation …so we can all take our pick.
Neil Davidson wrote : “….this is a personal view, but any new party could not be built on the basis of ‘platforms’, parties-within-parties or – perish the thought – permanent factions. Surely that is one lesson we can draw from the experience of the SSP? ”
I agree. Given that (pre-split)SWP were one of those platforms in SSP that supported Sheridan in choosing to go to court and in setting up Solidarity, and in doing so caused so much personal and political damage to SSP – how will exSWP members win trust and support of other socialists now ?
Yes whilst some in the SSP went to Murdoch! Now if we can get over the past and be prepared to unite on the need for a socialist vision and alternative it would have a real impact..or we can carry on for ever about the crimes of the past…letting the SNP become the only serious political expression of the mass movement. What do you prefer?
ONE individual SSP member who had been a close friend of Sheridan and was so disgusted with his behaviour , taped him telling the truth and sold it to the press.
The SWP as an organisation supported Sheridan in choosing to go to court and setting up Solidarity.
So Sheridan and the rump of what remains of the SWP can stick together now while the rest of the Left in RIC are having a real impact and have the potential to develop and grow further.
Davy’s comments confirm that there are all sorts of sectarian axes being ground behind the scenes. A very unfortunate and predictable theme among the left that needs to change otherwise the SNP will assert its dominance and squander any fightback when it inevitably implements austerity.
Ray B wrote :”Davy’s comments confirm that there are all sorts of sectarian axes being ground behind the scenes.”
NO you’re just plain wrong.
Sectarianism is when a member of a sect puts the interests of their sect first before everything else…… I do not belong to any sect or organisation , just a non-aligned socialist fed up with the posturing of the sects of the British left squabbling among themselves about who is going to be the purest self-appointed revolutionary leadership.
RB : “A very unfortunate and predictable theme among the left”
Presuming you’re a member of the SWP, you should be very familiar with those themes.
RIC and Scottish Left Project are showing some potential to move beyond those destructive , counter-productive pratices of the past.
By the way does anybody know what response SWP’s recent call for unity got ?
You clearly are Davy a follower of the ins and outs of the far left…well Ssheridan went to court.. The SWP were against lining up with Coulson and Murdoch..in my view absolutely rightly so. If this is a crime so be it. You in the other hand seem to be on their side ..
dunno if people have seen this: the Telegraph calls for a Labour vote in Scotland
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11262179/Voting-Labour-may-be-only-way-to-dent-Nat-triumphalism.html
I was wondering what this might mean for the traditional far left analysis of Labour as a “capitalist workers party” that differs from other pro-capitalist parties because it commands mass working class support, has organic links to trade unions, is more sympathetic to the workers’ movement etc etc.
Does this analysis still hold in a situation where Labour is blocking with the right to oppose a left-leaning populist nationalist party with a membership of over 75,000? And does Labour still deserve critical support at general elections, or should the SNP now take on that mantle, or the Greens, or what?
This is a difficult one. The treachery and often reactionary politics of social democracy is hardly new and if there had been a ‘proper’ time for attacking Labour ( or Social Democracy) for its betrayals then the experience of over a century would leave us spoiled for choice. 1914? 1918-23 in Germany? The National government/Ramsay McDonald? The Wilson/Callaghan period? New Labour and Iraq? For ever re ‘the Irish question’? The list is endless and yet in our neoliberal times in which the ascendancy of the markets has been allowed to penetrate every aspect of public service provision, Labour still poses itself as a ‘fair’ and more ‘considerate’ and ‘listening’ alternative to the Tories. In this sense a vote for Labour in May 2015 will be a vote of the majority of those who hate the Tories and want to break with the political trajectory of the past slavish acceptance of inequality and the willful destruction of the welfare state.
Also given the direction of our characterisation of the present period, the depth to which neoliberalism has constituted a successful hegemonic project makes any ‘austerity-lite’ option look like a radical alternative. In this regard we have to deal with the reality of very depressed working class expectations- if not desperation on the part of many who will think that even a passing consideration of a radical (let alone revolutionary) alternative is a waste of time- a luxury that given a rapidly worsening situation that they can ill afford. (I recall here Tony Cliffs analogy of us offering the chance of the socialist promised land to workers amid conditions of despair as being like showing a drowning man a picture of a lifeboat).
But now for the first time in possibly a generation there is no visible left challenge within Labour- other than the occasional bleat of disappointment from a ‘left’ trade union bureaucrat. Rather as Bat has suggested, the ‘radical’ challenges now come from beyond Labours ranks in the form of the Greens and the SNP- both of which are riven by deep contradictions. Although given Labours long and ignoble process of decline and bankruptcy of principle it would be unwise to recall Lenin’s warnings of ‘infantile leftism’ (without qualification), it is nevertheless important that we avoid a 21st century drift into ‘Third Period’ gratuitous sectarianism. (This could also provide the other side of a dud coin that also regards UKip as evidence of a drift towards fascism).
As current circumstances are far from being of our own choosing and as the options for us making history between now and next May look exceeding thin, we have to accept that the influence of revolutionaries will remain at best marginal.
Perhaps in post-referendum Scotland and with the rise of RIC, the options may be a little clearer. But for the rest of us facing the prospect of a possible England/Wales UKip influenced Tory majority the options although far from clear will require us to take on the issues of immigration and race as integral to the fight against austerity and the growing assault on civil liberties. Emphasis will have to differ according to local conditions but for us to avoid appearing to be inconsistent and opportunist we will require a set of core ideas (and demands?) that can inform any militant minority determined to fight from a principled socialist standpoint.
Like I said- a difficult one. We need an urgent discussion now but whatever our decisions- no pictures of lifeboats.
I think the left of Labour needs to unite and stand candidates that offer a left alternative to the SNP which is why exclusions and bickering between individuals and groups on the left at this point is very counter-productive. Membership of a group or an organisation is not a prerequisite for behaving in a sectarian manner, Davy.
A couple of other relevant reports / opinions about RIC conference. Also, a point of clarification from a current SWP member: “The SWP was not ‘excluded’. Loads of our members went and some spoke from the floor. Yes, only one SWP member was invited to speak – and she ultimately chose not to speak. The ‘divisive’ thing is obviously nonsense – if Tommy is “divisive”, then so are McCombes, Fox and the rest of the Friends of News International. The conference looked good generally. I think it’s politically very soft, but we’ll see.”
http://mairnorarochwind.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/ric-conference-2014-a-class-act/
http://www.labourhame.com/the-radical-independence-campaign-conference-2014-a-labour-view/
Ah I can see a revival of the old CPGB’s ‘British Road to Lost Deposits’ emerging.
Left candidates as an alternative to blue Labour or SNP austerity. If the conference really does represent a shift to the left in Scotland then why not test that at the ballot box? Of course that does require some kind of unity among those left of Labour. Either that or the SNP has a clear field to implement austerity.
James & Christine are still claiming that if anybody is not prepared to lie to cover up Sheridan’s obnoxious behaviour then they must be a supporter of Murdoch and News International. Long past being offensive and insulting – just stupid and ignorant to cover up complicity with abusive men. It can’t be put to rest while these attitudes persist and Sheridan has appeal coming up.
PS. I asked this a couple of days ago –
“By the way does anybody know what response SWP’s recent call for unity got ?”
Any response ?
So Davy you think helping Murdoch is ok? Whatever the history, is this really the main issue for workers and the left in Scotland? Funny how arguing for unity is then seen as out of order. The problem with letting the SNP have free reign at the ballot box is it treats the situation has somehow static ..but the danger of the SNP is that it would be stronger to hegemonise the movement. Rosen can quip about the left outside labour standing in the elections but if we refuse to contest this area then the SNP and its acceptance of neo liberalism will dominate.
Isn’t it the responsibility of all on the left to call for unity at this time? The SWP can’t achieve this on its own – nor can any other group or organisation, even those at RIC. That’s the whole point of building unity!
Good to know that RIC involved all varieties of the left. The links Christine Bird posted make interesting reading. How the left relates to an anti-austerity movement that has manifested in the form of Scottish independence will decide whether it tails the SNP or makes its own mark. That will happen when the debate is shifted away from nationalism and towards class issues. Not the self serving Labour call for cross boarder national unity. Maybe the left could stand as Radical Independence in Scotland?
Ray’s last point seems worthy of further debate, as it’s one that various people are raising – eg, should the Radical Independence Campaign become the Radical Scotland Campaign or something similar, now that the referendum is over? Or is independence the glue that binds us, the whole point of the organisation?
One point that is missing here is the Scottish Labour leadership elections. If Neil Findlay gets elected next week, it will change the political landscape here and south of the border, since he is the most left-wing leadership candidate in a generation. This will (or ought to) have an impact on the way revolutionary socialists think about elections and our role within them.
Somebody raised an interesting question about unconventional gas exploration, in conversation. Since UNITE the union opposes fracking, would it be worthwhile for RIC and / or others to approach them and propose joint work on this issue?
Finally, a minor aside – Davy says, “James & Christine are still claiming that if anybody is not prepared to lie to cover up Sheridan’s obnoxious behaviour then they must be a supporter of Murdoch and News International.” I am presuming that this isn’t directed at me, because it’s not what I think. But just in case – Sheridan’s pursual of this court case seemed to me, unfortunately, to be more about his own needs than those of working class people in general. I think socialists should always be very cautious about making idols out of anyone, since we’re all just human at the end of the day, and all make mistakes. As great as certain individuals may be, it is better to be in the habit of doing / thinking things for ourselves rather than trusting others to do / think them for us.
Is the SWP call for unity this time different from the call for unity with the Socialist Alliance and the call for unity with Respect? If so, how? If not, why not?
A campaign of unity needs to function democratically whether or not that means it’s dominated by reformist ideas. If the left agrees a program of unity based on a set of demands then I don’t think conditions should be imposed on membership such as individual membership only.
Michael, you seem to think it’s best for the SWP not to argue for unity. In terms of Sheridan I agree with much of what Christine says, I guess the issue was once he had gone down that road how do we respond…we don’t make history in circumstances of our own choosing as someone once said.
Whether or not it was wise for Sheridan to pursue the court case, it was very unwise for other socialists to collude with the Tory press. But regardless of the position taken on that issue, that still isn’t a reason for not working together now. Small socialist groups probably won’t be all that instrumental in forging unity or take the lead in a Podemos style movement but how they behave towards the rest of the left and unaligned activists now can create barriers.
Christine wrote : “….. if Tommy is “divisive”, then so are McCombes, Fox and the rest of the Friends of News International”
Ray B wrote : “Whether or not it was wise for Sheridan to pursue the court case it was very unwise for other socialists to collude with the Tory press. But regardless of the position taken on that issue, that still isn’t a reason for not working together now”
It is a reason for not working together now while those views still persist.
ONE friend of Sheridan sold a tape to press.
Others were summoned to court by Sheridan’s actions and told the truth.
Who’s interested in SWP’s desperate unilateral declarations of unity ?
I’m finished wasting my time here.
So what happend over a decade ago should forever mean we can’t work together…well what a depressing load of sectarian nonsense. Let’s hope we can all leave our pistols at the door and agree some common aims. Situations like that in Scotland don’t just last forever.
James, people can ‘argue’ for what they like and they do. Nearly everyone on the radical left say that they believe in ‘unity’ just as they say that they believe in ‘struggle’. The issues are: why doesn’t unity happen? What has happened in the past? What is the best way to ‘call for unity’.
So 1) the main reason why unity doesn’t happen because the underlying premise of leninist parties is ‘we’re right, you’re wrong’. The leninist party is right. If it’s ever wrong, it’s only in the past. It is never wrong in the present. This means that all the other leninist parties are, by definition, wrong. And anyone who isn’t in ‘the party’ is wrong. This makes it nigh on impossible for leninist parties to unite, and not very appealing for those of us not in the leninist parties because we don’t like being told over and over again the minute reasons (or big reasons) why we are wrong/not quite right/would be more right if were in ‘the party.
2) I don’t know what went wrong with Socialist Unity and Respect. It might help anyone thinking of calling for ‘unity’ to give us a couple of paras about why they went wrong. It would possibly make us feel a bit more safe or secure in spending a lot of time on it for the third time in ten years.
3) I suggest that the best way to ‘call for unity’ is not to do it unilaterally, and not to do it by using one organisation’s email address, especially if that organisation is deeply distrusted by many people in the radical left. It’s kind of elementary really, that an outfit could demonstrate ‘unity’ even as it called for it, by compromising something of its usual absolutism in the very call itself. Otherwise it rather looks as if it’s a rather lofty directive, asking people to unite to that organisation rather than a ‘unity call’ from a group of organisations…It rather looked to me that it was too hasty and the groundwork hadn’t been done…perhaps in order to turn round and say, ‘Look we tried, we’re the non-sectarians round here.’ Again, thereby proving that the party is right and everyone else is a bit wrong, a lot wrong, not really right, quite a lot not right etc etc.
Davy – that is not my opinion, that is me reporting what somebody else said.
Michael Rosen – I would love to see a serious answer to your questions – though I haven’t seen one yet, despite you asking in different ways in different places. We have to be accountable to one another, or it makes it very hard to trust. At a more basic level, I don’t understand why some people seem so very defensive. It should be second nature to ask “What went right / wrong? Why? How can we do it better next time?” We all make mistakes, there’s no shame in it – but it’s a shame when we fail to learn from them.
Apologies Christine , I misread your comment quoting current SWP member.
Though the point still remains that those views still persist in SWP.
There have been various accounts of what went wrong and what went right with past left formations, many of which are contested opinions or theories depending on the political outlook. The Respect project has been chewed over interminably. There are literally thousands of unofficial and many official accounts, opinions and theories explaining its demise. All formations are contingent and provisional so when they break apart there is never one “official” version because it depends on the political standpoint. These formations are all unique and the reasons for their ending depends on the circumstances. The fact that all these formations eventually end doesn’t automatically mean they’ve failed. Even though Respect didn’t herald a new dawn for the left it made a very important contribution to the fight against Islamophobia at a time when it was growing uncontested. A key factor in the demise of united fronts between reformists and revolutionaries is the obvious difference in ultimate objectives. That doesn’t mean that while they hold together they aren’t constructive.
Or there is the “BadSWP” theory that’s akin to BadUSB – in theory USB’s are good but they have a fatal flaw allowing the darkweb to exploit them so in practice they become bad. It’s an inherent problem with their underlying software so we can never trust that this isn’t contaminated in some way. Therefore we must assume they will always become bad and reject them. So, after inserting BadSWP into Respect (and by extension any left project), this led to its contamination and demise. Leninism leads to Stalinism…
RayB – you have a tendency to rephrase and enlarge other people’s comments so that you can make them into easy targets. Old dodge and a crap one. You also have a tendency to deflect any criticism of the SWP’s failure to analyse mistakes into ‘o yes we did’.
You miss the point. It’s the SWP who are coming to the world to say ‘unite with us’. So I’m asking, please before you say that, can you point out in words of one syllable – as part of your appeal to unite – where and how things went wrong with Socialist Alliance and Respect? Otherwise, why should we believe you? Why would we or should we spend hours and hours of our time – again?! Or put another way, tell us why will it NOT turn out the same way again? What’s so different and special about this time?
Your USB, Leninism, Stalinism is interesting as a bit of free association…stream of consciousness thing, but as it wasn’t what anyone was saying, let’s leave it as ‘interesting’ eh? And perhaps something yoiu needed to do
It’s very difficult to answer when I have no idea what concerns you want addressed this time? What I take from your question is a need to hold the SWP to account which has not only been done exhaustively by others on the internet, for example on Socialist Unity, in which, if I recall correctly, you participated but by the SWP itself. This extensive amount of information is freely available on the internet.
I see little point in going over this highly contentious debate again because my conception of unity is that it’s contingent and provisional. It makes no difference whether we go through the reasons why I believe SA and Respect failed because if anyone disagrees with them then we’re back to square one. I could very easily demand that others on the left who were part of SA and Respect must be held to account before agreeing to unity but this is very counter-productive because they will reject my demands and this will further entrench division. If Galloway wanted to work together do we put him in the dock first and then decide whether to work with him or try to form unity around a set of common issues in a democratic structure? I’d go for the latter.
The point I’m making is that all of the left involved in building unity are accountable including when it breaks down and I’m happy to discuss this in that context but a one sided badSWP debate obscures the much more complex and political reasons involved in forging unity. The badSWP meme deflects the debate away from the wider political difficulties of forging unity between a diverse collection of reformists, revolutionaries, autonomists and the self-proclaimed “unaligned”.
Comedy gold from Ray B.