[Marxism] Respect in split

[Lenin's Tomb]

On 11/2/07, Joaquin Bustelo <jbustelo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is it about this particular candidacy that makes it so politically
> significant? You have raised it a couple of times now, it is referred to
> in
> various documents, so why is this one candidacy of such extraordinary
> significance?


Ask George Galloway.  It was one of his main complaints when he was trying
to shake-down Rees for the National Secretary posish.


>Why do you call Galloway's proposal to elect a National Organiser a "coup"

> against Rees? Galloway's letter was concrete and richly detailed about
> Respect's organizational failings: his proposal was a logical response.


Oh, please, don't act as if you are unaware that there was an attempt to
depose Rees as the National Secretary.  It had nothing to do with the
National Organiser (which the SWP voted for!).

Can you give some *concrete* examples of this?


I can refer you to Glyn Robbins' open letter about the internal arguments,
which describes precisely this discussion taking place:

http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/here-i-stand/

It is no mystery inside the coalition that this is the nature of the
argument, which is why our support for the candidacy of Begum over local
businessman and community leader Harun Miah so offended the Gallowegiati.
They wanted to return very much to Old Labour style machine politics, and
our argument for a socialist strategy apparently so appalled them that they
thought it appropriate to subvert the coalition's constitution, start
wrecking meetings and leak against us in the press.

It seems quite plausible and logical that nationally oppressed people --and
> especially Muslims under current circumstances-- would break with the main
> bourgeois parties in Britain well ahead of the bulk of the working people,
> and that a small force like Respect might well focus on these communities.


Not to the exclusion or demotion of a socialist perspective, however, which
is what the initial attack entailed.


Indeed, it seems like at least in some localities Respect is, in essence,
> the political expression of nationally oppressed communities. Why would
> this
> be a problem?


I don't know.  We seem to be stuck in the same problem of your inability to
listen.  I have never suggested that there is a problem with defending
oppressed minorities.  I have said that on its own it is inadequate, a fact
that is painfully obvious in light of Respect's stated goals.