George Galloway criticises Socialist Workers Party

by Dorothy Gale Sun Sep 02, 2007 16:36

Here is an extract from this week’s Party Notes, the internal mailing for the Socialist Workers Party. The SWP may wish to supply a link to the full text.

Two week’s ago Respect won a spectacular by-election in Shadwell in Tower Hamlets. For Respect activists and the Labour Party it demonstrated that Respect had not gone away and had a real chance of winning a seat in the GLA elections and George Galloway of winning the seat of Poplar and Limehouse. “Sadly, last week George sent out an eight page document to all members of the Respect National Committee outlining major concerns about the direction Respect is going in. George’s document also makes a number of criticisms about the way the Respect Office operates.

The SWP disagree with George’s claims and we have sent a letter to the 14 SWP members on the Respect National Committee refuting the technical issues George has raised.

Obviously the situation is very serious for Respect. The SWP is 100% committed to the Respect project and is currently doing everything it can to keep the show on the road. Next week a meeting will take place between George and the SWP to attempt to resolve the issues he raises. We will be holding a members meeting for all SWP London members to discuss the outcome of the above meeting. We will also be holding meetings for members outside London soon.

by P.I. - n/a Sun Sep 02, 2007 17:37

Watch the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SmtLrmPDao

by Dorothy Gale Sun Sep 02, 2007 17:46

Well now Galloway is singing another song. There are some serious specific allegations put forward by Galloway but the SWP just respond with generalisations. They dont deal with the issues of jobbery or isolating comrades.

by Boots Sun Sep 02, 2007 17:47

Can anyone clear up for me what the terms "anathematisation" means? It's used near the end of the original in the top post.

by Dorothy Sun Sep 02, 2007 18:03

Noun 1. anathematisation - the formal act of pronouncing (someone or something) accursed
anathematization
banishment, proscription - rejection by means of an act of banishing or proscribing someone

Basically it means (in this case) sending someone to Coventry and making it impossible to them to take part in RESPECT activities.

by out and proud Sun Sep 02, 2007 18:48

Reading Galloway's attack on SWP quite a lot of it is devoted to complaining about the amount of energy put into supporting and mobilising for London Pride. He argues that this effort would have been better put into, for example, the Barking Mela - a Bangladeshi festival in the area where he plans to stand for MP at the next election. Given the extent to which Respect is associated with Muslim Britain and the attacks on the SWP and Respect there have been on indymedia because of the Islamic approach to homosexuality [which in my view is just the same as the Jewish or Christian approach to homosexuality!], it seems to me that the SWP should be proud of this attack from Galloway. It also suggests that they are not quite as in thrall to him as we might have thought.

by Dorothy Sun Sep 02, 2007 18:58

Actually I think you will see that criticisms of the SWP had more to do with their uncritical support for the Iranian Government. The Iranian Government is capitalist, anti-worker as it bans trade unions and imprisoms strikers, imperialist in so far it oppresses the Kurds and other minorities, Misogynist in its treatment of women, uncaring for the environment in its development of nuclear power, oh, and yes, its also anti gay. Gays and lesbians are executed in Iran.

Now enough of the red herrings, lets get back to the substance of Galloways article.

by Curious Sun Sep 02, 2007 19:08

'the Islamic approach to homosexuality [which in my view is just the same as the Jewish or Christian approach to homosexuality!],'

In which Christian or Jewish countries are gaymen and lesbians stoned to death, hanged or thrown off a cliff for being sexually active? Perhaps you would enlighten us as to which countries where this barbarism takes place.

by Out and proud Sun Sep 02, 2007 21:01

But I read the full article which this thread is about and Gallowy did not mention Iran at all.

As to which Jewish or Christian countries stone gays to death etc, most Muslim countries don't anymore, just as most Christian countries don't anymore - although the verses from the Quran used to justify this approach to lesbians and gay men are the same verses that are in the christian Bible and the Jewish Talmud [in fact, Hitler used some of those same verses to justify his persecution of homosexuals]. So, the theology is exactly the same in all those religions. The question of what states do is separate. I'm old enough to remember when the attitude of Jesuit firebrand preachers in the Catholic Churches in this country sounded exactly the same as the fundamentalist Immams in some of the mosques we hear about these days.

by Curious Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:57

"But I read the full article which this thread is about and Gallowy did not mention Iran at all."

But you were the one who dragged LGBTs & Islam into the thread.

"As to which Jewish or Christian countries stone gays to death etc, most Muslim countries don't anymore, just as most Christian countries don't anymore - although the verses from the Quran used to justify this approach to lesbians and gay men are the same verses that are in the christian Bible and the Jewish Talmud [in fact, Hitler used some of those same verses to justify his persecution of homosexuals]. "

No Christian/Budhist/Shinto/Jewish etc countries stone gays to death. I'm not aware of Hitler using biblical justification for the extermination of gays. Sources? But Hitlers Holocaust was done in the name of National Socialism, not in the name of Christianity, and not in thename of Paganism either. Only a tiny minority of the SS took that stuff seriously.

"So, the theology is exactly the same in all those religions. The question of what states do is separate. I'm old enough to remember when the attitude of Jesuit firebrand preachers in the Catholic Churches in this country sounded exactly the same as the fundamentalist Immams in some of the mosques we hear about these days."

Did anyof the Jesuits call for the introduction of the death penalty for homosexual acts? Did they say that adulterous women should be stoned to death.

But I'm more interested in what the SWP have to say about Galloways criticisms.

by wageslave Mon Sep 03, 2007 23:10

holding middle american so called "Christians" back from stoning gays to death is that george bush hasn't made it legal to do so (yet!!). They are quite a scary lot and every bit as much fundamentalists as the islamic ones. Only their country has 10000 nuclear weapons and as a group they wield a very strong political influence.

this is a rather interesting article on them. More balanced than my post too! :)

http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant05252004.html

by Socialist Tue Sep 04, 2007 14:53

But no US State sanctions the death penalty for gays. It has not been discussed in any State Legislature. Only the raving loony fringe of the Christian Far Right believes in the death penalty for gay people.

But unfortunately in Islamic Theology it is not considered unusal to believe in the stricy implementation of the Sharia. It may be a minority view, but it is not regarded as far out.

by chekov Tue Sep 04, 2007 15:13

Coming from Galloway - I don't remember him being too concerned with democratic decision making or internal relations when he made a mockery of himself on celeb BB.

Problem for Galloway is that without the SWP, respect doesn't exist. Problem for the SWP is that without Galloway, there's no point in Respect existing.

by John Cornford Thu Sep 06, 2007 17:25

Peter Manson of the Weekly Worker analyses the battles which are raging within RESPECT.

RESPECT is in crisis. A full-scale, semi-public row has broken out between Galloway and the Socialist Workers Party, and this brings the future of the whole organisation into doubt.

Despite pockets of success - most notably Tower Hamlets, Preston and Birmingham - it was always on the cards that Respect would end in recriminations. A political party built on systematically
abandoning one principle after another, that began with deals with the Muslim Association of Britain and local imams, that now gets more businessmen than trade unionists elected as councillors, which is dominated by a single, tightly policed bureaucratic centralist sect, was bound to hit the buffers sooner or later.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/687/687.pdf

by tomeile Thu Sep 06, 2007 20:19

There was no mention of the SWP in the Galloway article Dorothy linked to. Maybe there's an allusion to them somewhere in it ,but people in Ireland can't be expected to read between the lines and know the political affiliations of the individual members of Respect which is a British organization . If there is something of interest to Irish readers in the internal disputes of that organization, it should be spelled out .

by Gerry Healy Mon Sep 10, 2007 14:37

Socialist Resistance
London Public Meeting

The Crisis in Respect and the Way Forward

Speaker: Alan Thornett (Respect National Council)

Wednesday 12 September

7.30pm, Indian YMCA
41 Fitzroy Square, W1T 6AQ
Tube: Warren St / Rail: Euston

by Anto Cliff - WPS Gram Parsons Cell Mon Sep 10, 2007 14:50

In the parliamentary by-election Ealing Southall, Respect secured a very poor result, winning no more than any left candidate would get who went into a campaign without adequate preparation and no local base. The lesson from Southall is that Respect cannot win in a new constituency unless it has built a base well in advance ­- and that means establishing a viable and active local branch before the election and afterwards.

If Respect is to mount a serious challenge in the general election the following is crucial:

It needs a much more serious approach to recruitment. As some of us argued at the last conference 2,000 members is a major under-achievement for an organisation with the potential of Respect.

It must have clear socialist politics. This does not mean that we have to mention socialism at every opportunity, but Respect has to operate within a consistent socialist framework. The current leaflet for the GLA campaign, for example, is politically bland ­ and does not mention socialism at all!

More at -
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/a-wake-up-c...pect/

by John Cornford Sat Sep 15, 2007 19:07

The debate continues. Far from resolving matters, the meeting between Galloway and the SWP has seen the dispute become even more heated.

Last week’s emergency meeting between the Socialist Workers Party’s top leaders and George Galloway did nothing to stop the brewing civil war inside Respect nor resolve the crisis afflicting the SWP itself.

John Rees, Alex Callinicos, Chris Bambery, Chris Harman, Lindsey German and Linda Smith met with Galloway on Tuesday September 4. But instead of relations being patched up things have gone from bad to worse. Far from reaching some amicable agreement, the meeting ended sourly with Galloway insisting that John Rees must be junked. He wants him replaced as Respect national secretary forthwith. Indeed Galloway spent most of his time railing against Rees: his arrogance, his blunders, his despicable treatment of fellow Respect members, etc. So, yes, this is personal - very personal. Galloway loathes the SWP chief with a rare passion.

But now the SWP political committee is hitting back against Galloway and his loose factional grouping. Members are being readied for what looks like a final showdown at Respect’s annual conference in two months time. Expect revelations. Expect bureaucratic manoeuvring. Expect fireworks. Expect walkouts.

The drama continues at this link. http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/688/respect.htm

by John Cornford Tue Sep 25, 2007 15:24

The Endgame is near, the Respect party is almost over. What now for the SWP, will they survive the coming carnage?

Respect’s demise is absolutely certain. The SWP is desperately looking for a way out. Meanwhile, Galloway is attempting to mobilise every ally he can. The November 17-18 annual conference will almost certainly be akin to high noon. However, the opening salvoes will be exchanged at this weekend’s national council meeting.

Up to now the SWP’s domination of the NC has looked unassailable. But in actual fact it does not have a majority on the 50-strong body. It has always been able to win any vote because of its own solid voting bloc and the absence of any coherent opposing force. The SWP has 17 of its own members on the NC. It has, been able to rely on the support of half a dozen others. In view of the poor attendance of more than a few NC members (the total absence in some cases), it has always been easy enough to ensure an SWP victory in the event of a dispute.

But Galloway’s letter has acted as a catalyst. It has pulled together an anti-SWP bloc on the NC. In fact Galloway has constructed an alliance stretching from Salma Yaqoob to Ken Loach. Galloway is also snapping up other talents. Expelled Birmingham SWPer Ger Francis and Glyn Robbins, chair of Tower Hamlets, appeared as part of his delegation at the unsuccessful September 4 meeting with the SWP tops. John Rees was visibly mortified.

by John Cornford Tue Sep 25, 2007 15:37

This is a response to Galloway from John Rees and Elaine Graham.

The future for Respect
by John Rees, national secretary, and Elaine Graham Leigh, national treasurer

Respect has organised the most successful electoral intervention by the left in British politics in two generations. It has galvanised hundreds of thousands of voters, tens of thousands of activists and drawn thousands towards radical ideas.

But, as any organisation grows, it confronts new problems and must refresh its structures and modify its strategy in order to deal with them. We regret that George Galloway’s criticisms of Respect have, inevitably, now been reproduced on many websites, including the Labour Party website, circulated on the internet and become the subject of articles in The New Statesman, the East London Advertiser, The Independent and the sectarian left press. But if the debate they have initiated leads to a renewal of Respect democratic structures and a renewed strategic orientation they will have served a useful purpose.

Below we set out our views on the future of Respect.

by John Cornford Wed Oct 10, 2007 15:39

The saga continues to unfold in RESPECT. Galloway is in, hes out. Hes a candidate, hes not a candidate, he is a candidate! The SWP are frantically looking for an exit strategy.

According to the latest SWP Party notes, “Despite saying that he had quit the Respect NC, George Galloway did attend and said that he was considering standing at the next general election.” Two days later, “reflecting on the unanimous vote” of the September 29 NC, which urged him “to reconsider my decision of seven days previously to withdraw from the selection process for the Poplar and Limehouse seat”, Galloway announced he had decided to “let my name go forward”. Not only was the NC vote “very encouraging”, but “many members and supporters from Tower Hamlets and nationally had prevailed upon me also to reconsider” (letter, October 2).

However, the SWP is at present going all out to prepare its activists for life after Respect. Following a series of membership aggregates across the country, a party council meeting, consisting of just over 200 delegates, was held on September 30 in London. As Nick Bird reports, although a minority of members are unhappy at the sudden change of line in turning against Galloway and the (mainly muslim) businessmen and ‘community leaders’ that the SWP previously went out of its way to woo, the overwhelming majority seem intent, as usual, on remaining loyal to the leadership and following the latest twist.

by John Cornford Wed Oct 10, 2007 15:45

Whatever is going on? Is this how the SWP have (for the time being) whipped Galloway back into RESPECT?

According to Liam Mac Uaid’s blog, “Reports that the SWP had been circulating an ‘information pack’ outlining Galloway’s weaknesses, errors, faults and foibles were confirmed” at the NC (http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com).

What is this ‘dirty dossier’ for? Presumably, it exists to put pressure on Galloway. Now, it may be able to do so because it holds painful political truths about Respect’s MP and his attitudes. Or it may be because it is made up of lurid allegations about the man and his private and business life. What role then, if any, did this “information pack” play in the compromise agreement arrived at by last Saturday’s NC? Was it used as a threat?

If the ‘information pack’ contains personal dirt, then the SWP should immediately destroy all originals, recall any print copies, and instruct its members to delete electronic ones. There is no place in working class politics for personal muckraking and innuendo. If this is the essence of the ‘information pack’, whoever authorised its circulation should be disciplined.

by Galloway Fan Wed Oct 10, 2007 20:21

I like Georgie a porgie, he's a pudding & pie. from a low earner

by Sascha Funke - International Socialist Gigolos (Personal Capacity) Sun Oct 14, 2007 22:33

Extraordinary breaking news from the Socialist Unity Network blog:

"News has just broken that long term SWP members Kevin Ovenden and Rob Hoverman, have been expelled from the party, along with Nick Wrack. Nick joined the SWP three years ago and was a former editor of the Militant newspaper, so he is also an experienced, long term socialist.

"The expulsions followed an ultimatum to Nick that he should turn down the position of Respect national organiser or resign from the SWP. A similar ultimatum was given to Rob and Kev that they should stop working in George Galloway’s office, or leave the SWP.

"...But there is another important issue. The SWP has now expelled three prominent internal critics in a purge in order to try to maintain the prestige of the Central Committee, and to prevent a real debate within the SWP about whether the CC’s line is correct. For those SWP members inclined to beleive the CC’s position, ask yourself that if Rob, Kev, Ger and Nick can be expelled for tactical differences, then how confident are you that in the future you won’t have tactical differences with the CC? Do you want to be part of an organisation where any questioning of the line is met by expulsions and purges?"

Full story at - http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=824

by B.R. Onstein Mon Oct 15, 2007 03:51

Thank sanity these power trippers are playacting their ideology fantasies and they'll never get a chance to suppress each other for real in an actual national power context.

by D Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:33

Whether or not one agrees with parties, and that of Respect, a wider question is at work here. And it is that of Democratic Centralism and how it really plays out. Also that of how the 'left should seek to work together, party activist or not. The Socialist Unity link above is seeing a decent debate of this matter being played out.

by John Cornford Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:48

The SWP attempt to explain away the expulsion of Rob Hoveman, Kevin Ovenden and Nick Wrack. Full article at the url below.

Kevin and Rob are SWP members working for George Galloway. However, recently this situation has become increasingly difficult. The party leadership has come to believe that it was impossible to have two comrades working for someone who has openly attacked the SWP in recent months. This was a position several leading members of the SWP articulated at the recent Party Council. Also over the last year there have been a number of meetings between the CC and Rob and Kevin.

The recent Respect NC voted to create a new position of National Officer. The SWP believed that the post was created to undermine Respect National Secretary John Rees. However, after some changes to the way the post was defined, the SWP agreed to settingup of the post. George Galloway then suggested that Nick did the job. Nick said he would seek various people’s opinions. The SWP made it clear that we didn’t think Nick should accept the job because he had publicly disagreed with the line being put by the party about Respect.

by John Cornford Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:40

Peter Manson gives some more analysis of the split on RESPECTs National Council and the expulsion of 3 SWP members by the SWP hierarchy.

With the Respect national council now split virtually along the lines of the SWP versus everyone else, it is hardly surprising that comrades already tempted to ‘go native’ should have decided to go over to George Galloway, whose supporters now make up the NC majority. Comrade Wrack is a member of the NC, while Ovenden and Hoveman are long-time party apparatchiks who were directed by the SWP to work in the Respect office.

The SWP is still hoping to get Lindsey German elected to the Greater London Assembly in May, and will try to “keep the show on the road” until then. But in truth that possibility now seems more and more remote - an organisation engaged in a full-scale and increasingly public civil war is hardly likely to win the confidence of many voters.

The November 17-18 annual conference will be the scene of a big showdown between the SWP and Galloway, with both sides jockeying for position over the next four weeks. Comrade Wrack, now firmly in the Galloway camp, is demanding yet another recall national council to ensure that conference arrangements are not left in the hands of Rees and co.

Respect’s national secretary had hoped to put in place an SWP-leaning conference arrangements committee, but Wrack is now calling on the NC to take control of the CAC. Meanwhile he has accused his former leader of giving a “highly tendentious, inaccurate and incomplete description” of a meeting of the Respect officers’ group - ie, of lying about it to the national council (letter to all NC members, October 17). He also claims the SWP has been withholding or delaying the circulation of emails it disapproves of and is now preventing a national organiser from being appointed. It is “intent on kicking the proposal into the long grass”.

Full text:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/693/swp.htm

by John Cornford Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:01

This article was written by Nick Wrack. Nick was recently expelled from the SWP. He is a former national Chairperson of Respect.

There are real problems at the heart of Respect. Personal and political relations have broken down between the leadership of the party and other prominent members, Salma Yaqoob and George Galloway. We need to rectify this. We cannot take the view that it does not matter if Galloway walks away or if Salma goes. They are both vital assets for Respect. They reach an audience and have a constituency way beyond what we could reach on our own. The great strength of Respect is that it draws together people from different traditions.

Further, we must not give the impression that we always want to be in control. The left and other new forces who we want to involve in Respect or whatever develops out of it will not get involved if they see the organisation dominated by the SWP. We must ensure that the structures and methods adopted are always rigorously scrutinised to see if they create an impediment to others getting involved.

The full article is here:

by John Cornford Tue Oct 30, 2007 14:16

Another wonderfully named article! Peter Manson looks at the growing discontent among rank and file SWP members.

Finally Socialist Worker has admitted that Respect is in the grips of a profound crisis. In an editorial entitled ‘Defend socialism and democracy in Respect’ - presumably written by editor Chris Bambery - the paper explains why it has reluctantly decided to come clean:

“Socialist Worker has never been one of those papers obsessed with the manoeuvres of left groups. But the present division in Respect is so important it demands comment. We also have to speak out because Socialist Worker has been approached by two major news programmes who say they are going to broadcast allegations against the SWP over this affair” (October 27).

It is less than a month since comrade Bambery was telling us that all was well in Respect. He was sneering at the media “spin” which claimed the organisation was in crisis, heading his pathetic little article with a reassuring ‘Respect national council passes unanimous motion’ (September 29).

Of course, Bambery does not acknowledge, let alone apologise for, his previous blatant attempt to mislead his readers in such a futile manner. Instead he goes on to blame the crisis - which he had previously dismissed as a figment of media imagination - entirely on George Galloway.

by John Cornford Tue Oct 30, 2007 14:30

Here are some extracts from the latest SWP Party Notes. They deal with George Galloways attempts to stop the SWP from dominating delegations to the RESPECT conference.

Tower Hamlets - Galloway goes on the rampage
Two extremely unpleasant meetings have laid bare the attack on the left at the heart of the present disputes. At the first (a Respect members' meeting) there was an attempt to derail the only constitutionally supplied list of delegates for the Respect conference. During the meeting a handwritten list with partial names was suddenly produced, and an attempt made to get it endorsed. A group of people who support George Galloway walked out. The meeting continued and the original list was passed (see enclosed report).

At the second meeting (a committee meeting) after an initially calm beginning, George Galloway launched a vicious assault on the SWP and on "Leninists". This is a disgraceful attack on the party which defended him during the Big Brother episode, played a crucial role in getting him elected and is the backbone of Respect in most parts of the country.The meeting ended with Galloway telling members of the SWP to "off you go" - "---- off, ---- off the lot of you".

Newham - when only some Respect members will do!
At short notice George Galloway announced that he wanted to address members of Newham Respect. A meeting was set for last Friday at the Newham Respect Office. At the time the meeting was due to start, a spokesperson for George entered the room and said that George was not prepared to speak to a meeting with SWP members present and would hold the meeting - for non-SWP members - at a Respect member's house. This was further evidence of a declaration of war against us.

by me Tue Oct 30, 2007 14:58

I love this whinge from the SWP about Gorgeous George: "This is a disgraceful attack on the party which defended him during the Big Brother episode". Well done the SWP! That was a key issue to defend GG on.

The thing is the SWP repeatedly sneered at the reservations expressed by others on the left re. Galloway and his self-focused elitist style. Now, coz THEY have fallen out with him, they're making exactly the same points.

The SWP is grossly opportunistic and without principle. What's good for the party is good...and that's that. Typical vanguardist Leninists.

by GG Tue Oct 30, 2007 15:39

"2 Cheeks from the 1 arse, that's GG's favourite saying

by John Cornford Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:51

THe end is nigh. It now looks as if we are viewing the end days of RESPECT. It may not even get a decent burial. Peter Manson reviews the latest terminal developments.

Open and ever intensifying warfare has engulfed Respect from top to bottom. Beyond a shadow of doubt the death of the ‘unity coalition’ is not far off. And only a few weeks ago Chris Bambery was assuring readers of Socialist Worker that there was no crisis in Respect (September 29). No wonder his paper has the same reputation as Pravda for telling the truth.

The final battle in the Respect popular front is being fought out by two very different armies. The Socialist Workers Party now stands virtually alone. Though still a formidable force, under the brilliant John Rees the SWP has managed to lose virtually all of its allies. Pitted against him and the SWP is more or less everything else left in Respect. The muslim businessmen’s wing, the International Socialist Group, the independent soft lefts, etc. Headed by George Galloway, Linda Smith, the national chair, and Salma Yaqoob, vice chair, they want the SWP to go its own way and leave Respect to them.

by John Cornford Mon Nov 26, 2007 14:22

The band plays on... The Galloway RESPECT had their conference in Bishopgate. report below

Around 300 supporters of George Galloway gathered at the Bishopsgate Institute on November 17 to publicly constitute the anti-Socialist Workers Party split known as Respect Renewal.

It was Galloway who set the theme with his opening speech - delivered with unmistakable anger. The SWP stood accused not only of control-freakery, but of lying attacks on their former Respect comrades. Recalling the “great times” he had spent campaigning alongside John Rees and Lindsey German, Galloway said it would be “undignified” to make “personal attacks on former friends” (although that did not stop him referring to certain unnamed “juvenile dwarfs”).

For Galloway, the SWP sums up what is “one of the biggest vices of the British left” - the notion that your “biggest enemy is closest to you but not under your control”. Its concept of unity is “Do as we tell you or you’re out”. He claimed, not without a grain of truth, that its central committee is “prepared to destroy the SWP in order to defend their own positions”.

But now he had come to realise that “the SWP never wanted Respect to be a big organisation because it wanted to control everything”. Once the SWP accepted it could no longer do so, it decided to sabotage the whole Respect project. When it “ordered my entire parliamentary staff to resign their posts”, it did not even have the decency to inform him first. This was a “declaration of nuclear war”.

Full article at link.