Log in

View Full Version : Is respect falling apart?



Devrim
14th September 2007, 18:20
Is Respect falling apart? 'Gorgeous George' wants to kick the SWP's John Rees out of the position of National Secretary.
Originally posted by Socialist Unity+--> (Socialist Unity)The following is an internal SWP document, I reproduce it because this is an important debate for all who wish to see a broad alternative built to the left of Labour, and it should be in the public domain. It reveals that George Galloway wishes to see the removal of John Rees as National Secretary of Respect (a fact that I guessed by the fact in Galloway’s own document the national secretary was never referred to by name only by office). The stakes are therefore very high for the SWP’s Respect strategy, and there will clearly be two slates for the steering committee presented to conference - a straight choice between the SWP and Galloway. The selection of delegates to conference is likely therefore to be very hotly contested. It is also worth watching the following clip of Alan Thornett’s view of the current crisis in Respect, from Liam Mac Uaid’s blob.


SWP
The Debate in Respect: The SWP Response

The SWP is deeply committed to the Respect project. If a snap general election was called next month we would throw our all into campaigning to secure the election of every and all Respect candidates. We will be working to build up our campaigns for next years GLA and local elections.

We share a sense of pride, along with all those in Respect’s ranks, to have one of the youngest councillors in Britain, a Bengali woman, and a pensioner representing a Derbyshire council seat whose name resonates with a history of working class struggle.

So it is with a deep sense of regret that we have to address differences which have emerged between the way George Galloway sees Respect developing and the way we see it, following the sending of a document by George to members of Respect’s National Council.

The enemies of Respect have, unfortunately seized on this, with the ‘East London Advertiser’ reporting this as an attack on the SWP claiming:
‘He [George Galloway] is believed to want to move Respect away from the Socialist Workers Party groupings that have been upsetting Muslim supporters who he needs in order to maintain his Westminster career.’
George has since then issued a rebuttal saying his document is not “an attack on any organisation or section within Respect”.

Regarding the three points with which George concludes his document – the strengthening of the Respect national office by the appointment of a national organiser, the creation of an elections committee and an end to the supposed ‘anathematisation’ of Salma Yaqoob - we hope that it will be possible to come to agreement around the three proposals raised by George and have made it clear we are happy to discuss these. But, tragically, the argument has been pushed beyond that and beyond this simply being a discussion of how to improve and strengthen Respect.

A Record of Success

The success that followed the launch of Respect was staggering. In the June 2004 GLA and European elections George Galloway got 91,175 votes for the European Parliament in London while the Respect list polled 87,533 in the Greater London Assembly (which meant Lindsey German came just short of the 5% needed to win a seat) while Respect got 20% of the vote in East London in the GLA elections. In Birmingham Respect averaged 7.4% and in Leicester 10% in the Euro elections.

In the June 2004 Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill parliamentary by-elections Respect candidates Yvonne Ridley and John Rees polled 12.4% and 6.4% respectively.

In Tower Hamlets Oliur Rahman won our first council seat in August 2004 and a month later Paul McGarr polled 635 votes in Tower Hamlets Millwall ward, coming second behind the Tory winner who gained 828 votes, and pushing New Labour into third place.

Then in the 2005 general election not only did George Galloway secure a truly historic victory in Bethnal Green and Bow but it was accompanied by strong votes in Birmingham Sparkbrook, both Newham seats and in Canning Town and Poplar.

In May last year success followed with councillors elected in Tower Hamlets, where we are the second biggest party, Newham and Birmingham. That was followed this year with Michael Lavalette storming home to win an overall majority in his ward, another councillor elected in Birmingham to join Salma Yaqoob and Ray Holmes winning Shirebrook North West on Bolsover council. Significant advances were made elsewhere from Bristol to Cambridge to Sheffield.

Then in August a tremendous effort ensured we held the Shadwell council seat in a by-election caused by the defection of one our councillors to New Labour. That made up for much of the disappointment of the Southall parliamentary by-election where the established parties squeezed us in a snap poll following Gordon Brown’s anointment as Labour leader.

The Nature of Respect

Respect was conceived as a pluralistic coalition and therefore has always been based on compromises among its main constituent parts. The SWP has made plenty of compromises and is ready to make more in the future. But we fear that what is being demanded of us now would amount to the subordination of the socialist left within Respect and would therefore drastically undermine Respect’s nature as a genuine coalition.

Respect grew from the coalition of forces at the centre of the great anti-war movement, which organised Britain’s biggest ever demonstration against the invasion of Iraq – and so much more. Naturally not everyone in the Stop the War Coalition was prepared to take the step of joining the new coalition but many of the leading figures in the movement did take that step.

Unfortunately Labour has not suffered the kind of mass defection which took place in Germany with trade union leaders and prominent members of the SPD breaking away to create the new Left Party. Rather, New Labour has seen a haemorrhaging of its membership and support with people leaving individually.

Respect was thrown out of balance from the start by the failure of other leading figures on the Labour left to take the kind of principled stand that George did and break with New Labour. This made Respect disproportionately dependent on the excellent support it won from Muslims, as became particularly clear in last year’s London elections. It is the effort of the SWP, in response to this weakness, to widen and diversify Respect’s working-class support that George and his allies have been attacking.

Respect and the Remaking of the Left & the Working Class

For the SWP it was vital Respect broke the pattern of left wing candidates securing one or two percent of the vote. That meant concentrating forces in our strongest areas to guarantee success. After this year’s elections we argued at the Respect National Council we now had to move beyond that to ensure we developed into a truly national force.

Yet Respect was for us something else:

We have always understood the deep Labourist tradition within the British working class will not just be swept away with one blow. Respect has the potential to become a long term home for traditional Labour supporters who are in revolt against their leadership’s pro-war and neo-liberal policies.
.
For us the coalition was premised on it bringing together the dynamic forces at the heart of the anti-war movement, forces which also represented a potential new tide of class fighters. These forces were caricatured from the start by the B-52 left as being a Muslim-Trotskyist alliance. Yet the lists which contested the 2004 Euro and GLA elections brought together much more – experienced trade union activists, African-Caribbean figures, candidates from the Turkish & Kurdish community, women and LGBT activists, pensions fighters and student campaigners.

A Fight Not of Our Choice
This is a fight the SWP did not choose. We chose not to rush into print with a reply to George and approached George on a number of occasions to secure a meeting with him to try to discuss the issues raised.

Eventually a meeting was held on 4 September between SWP representatives (John Rees, Lindsey German, Alex Callinicos & Chris Bambery), George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob, Ger Francis, Abjol Miah, Linda Smith and Glyn Robbins.

It is important to say that at this meeting we made it clear we were happy to discuss and come to consensus on the three proposals George concludes his letter with – and that remains the case.

That, however, was not what the meeting centred on. This was not an argument or discussion about how best to build Respect. In a 30 minute introduction George discussed his proposals for five minutes and then the rest on attacking John Rees.

The main plank of this was an attack on us for ‘endangering the whole project’ by our actions in Shadwell, in particular by our support at the selection meeting for a young woman Bengali candidate rather than the eventual winner, Harun Miah. This was true but it should of course be added that it did not stop us throwing everything we could into support for Councillor Miah, a fact demonstrated by the thanks we received afterwards from both him and Abjol Miah.

In the discussion that followed George’s introduction both Salma and Abjol called for John Rees to resign with Abjol calling for ‘a complete change of leadership.’

The SWP representatives made clear they were happy to discuss George’s three proposals but were not prepared to swallow demands for John Rees’s resignation.

This is not just a question of loyalty to a comrade who has pursued a strategy on which the SWP is in agreement. The attack is not on John but on the SWP - as the emphasis on Shadwell indicates.

If, say, we were prepared to accept this demand any replacement National Secretary could face a similar ultimatum in event of future disagreements.

So what is at stake here?

In Preston and Newham in particular Respect has built itself into a force representing that original vision of Respect. Michael Lavalette has acted as a real ‘tribune of the oppressed’ organising locally in defence of the NHS, in opposition to the invasion of Lebanon and over a host of local issues. Recently he helped organise an OFFU social which drew 70 local trade union representatives. That model is in the process of being repeated in areas where Respect has a strong possibility of getting councillors elected following advances in this year’s local elections – Bristol, Cambridge and Sheffield are among them.

We all shared a vision of Respect as being a broad coalition. It is our enemies who are so intent as portraying it as an ‘Islamo-Trot’ marriage of convenience. What we fear is a withdrawal into the electoral common sense that only particular ‘community leaders’ can win in certain areas.

In Tower Hamlets it was important Respect had councillors elected from the Muslim community – representatives of the most oppressed community in Britain – but it would have been good to have returned other candidates too, who reflected the totality of the working class in the East End.

In Birmingham in the seven target seats in May’s local elections, those with the greatest chance of achieving election, the candidates selected were all men from the Pakistani community. Helen Salmon was voted out of being the candidate for Moseley & Kings Heath ward. (See Socialist Worker 3 February 2007, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10591)

That is something we opposed but when we lost we accepted the result and continued to strive to build Respect locally.

At the recent meeting with George and others we were told by Abjol that a white candidate would not be able to win a seat in Whitechapel for ten years. We were put under pressure to support Abjol’s nomination for the Bethnal Green & Bow seat being vacated by George. At least two other challengers are in the ring, one the young Bengali woman councillor previously mentioned and the other a long time Bengali Labour activist. It is perfectly acceptable for us or anyone else in Respect to vote for one candidate and if they are unsuccessful to then campaign loyally whoever wins the nomination.

What’s Changed, What’s not Changed

In his document George argues:
‘The conditions for Respect to grow strongly obtain in just the same way as they did when we first launched the organisation and had our historic breakthrough in 2005.’

Well the answer is yes and no. The war remains central but other issues have gained in importance. Blair has gone to be replaced by Brown and while we dismiss the hype about the ‘Brown bounce,’ the replacement of Blair has had a certain impact, in particular rallying dissident union leaders.

We face the strong possibility of there being a general election between now and next spring but that was not at the centre of the 4 September meeting.

In the Muslim community the battery of security laws has helped intimidate people while Brown and Livingstone have consciously attempted to co-opt Muslim leaders in a way Blair never could.

On the plus side there is growing unrest over pay, with Brown trying to police his public sector pay limit. On the post and Metronet picket lines we saw the wider politicisation filtering down as activists were open to the need to mount a radical challenge to New Labour in a way that wasn’t true two or three years ago.

George’s document makes considerable criticism of the Organising for Fighting Unions initiative, although this was decided upon by Respect’s highest bodies. Yet the whole initiative was premised on the need to expand Respect’s base of support within the organised working class and to re-connect with a layer of trade unionists who are not yet ready to embrace Respect.
Similarly the criticism of Respect’s intervention on this year’s Pride seems strange given that since the SWP started going on Pride two decades and more ago Labour, the Lib-Dems and major trade unions have been consistently represented on it. The criticism is even stranger given the slander constantly thrown at Respect by our enemies that because of Respect’s support in the Muslim community it is somehow soft on homophobia.

That need to extend Respect’s base of support is something SWP members believe is vital. That’s why we encouraged the local meetings on gun crime, which drew a good response from the African-Caribbean community and beyond.

The original vision of Respect lay behind the whole selection procedure for the GLA that has seen a list of candidates that reflect fully the London working class. A retreat into a party whose elected representatives are overwhelmingly male and Muslim would be to retreat into the caricature of us drawn by our opponents. It would be also unacceptable not just for socialists but for so many who come from the trade unions, from Labour backgrounds and from the anti-war, women’s and so many other movements.

We want to fight for Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unionism.

The Central Committee
[/b]

bloody_capitalist_sham
14th September 2007, 18:29
George Galloway hates Trotskyists, he calls them trotskyites. Plus, if you listen to his radio show on talk sport on fri and Saturday evenings he always has this scottish Stalinist on, called Karl from Plaistow.

Also, i think Respect means different things to Galloway and the SWP, like, i think the SWP want it more to help build their own party, wheras galloway sees it as more of an electoral party only.

Dr Mindbender
14th September 2007, 22:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:29 pm
George Galloway hates Trotskyists, he calls them trotskyites. Plus, if you listen to his radio show on talk sport on fri and Saturday evenings he always has this scottish Stalinist on, called Karl from Plaistow.

Also, i think Respect means different things to Galloway and the SWP, like, i think the SWP want it more to help build their own party, wheras galloway sees it as more of an electoral party only.
Galloway is like Scotlands answer to Ken Livingstone. Always talking the talk, but never with both feet off the cappie's fence.

Devrim
15th September 2007, 10:20
To me it seems that the SWP have too choices; Either walk, or knuckle down, and do what George says. Neither will appeal to them much.

Devrim

Sugar Hill Kevis
15th September 2007, 10:25
OMG Trotskyites splintering!

Galloway is far too rooted in his own narcissism to be of any benefit to the socialist movement. His rhetoric and oratorical skills are top notch, but that doesn't make him a hero of the workers.

Jazzratt
15th September 2007, 14:32
Respect was never anything much and Galloway simply served to make socialism a laughing stock. Even the SWP has done more to advance leftism.

I'm surprised that respect lasted this long, it was always a bit of three-legged horse and fairly single issue.

Philosophical Materialist
16th September 2007, 07:54
The split loomed and was likely to come. SWP as the "socialist vanguard" of RESPECT saw its rôle as getting SWP-friendly socialists into candidate selection. Galloway was in it for himself and saw RESPECT as a vehicle for his own political career.

Class struggle within RESPECT saw ruptures along two factions. Firstly, the Troskyist SWP-led faction; and secondly the bourgeois patriarchal faction. Galloway aligned himself with the latter as their votes had been important to his own electoral success and wider RESPECT voting demographics. But it seems that traditional working class socialists were becoming increasingly sceptical of RESPECT which appeared to be a party that was being used by local bourgeois businessmen and so-called "community leaders" to enhance their own prestige at the expense of working class socialism.

Issues such as GLBT rights, feminism, secularism also serve to highlight key differences between the two factions. RESPECT did always come across as a "one trick pony" to outsiders because it seemed to just talk about the Iraq War, but ultimately it was the anti-war stance which originally united the two main factions. Until now, the SWP justified its accommodation of working with religious reactionaries because it was important to defend British Muslims, as one "the most oppressed minority." However, Britain's most oppressed minorities are gay Muslims and first and second-generation migrants of Bangladeshi descent. With patriarchal bourgeois Muslim men looking for greater participation in RESPECT whilst seeking accommodation for their reactionary viewpoints, this has further brought tension between the two factions.

Cheung Mo
16th September 2007, 16:13
Islamists and all theocrats are the enemy. They have been funded and propped up by Washington as counterrevolutionary force whenever such was necessary to prevent socialism from dominating the Middle East.

spartan
16th September 2007, 16:23
Islamists and all theocrats are the enemy. They have been funded and propped up by Washington as counterrevolutionary force whenever such was necessary to prevent socialism from dominating the Middle East.
Agreed! And now that the Left in the middle east are not really as big a force as the Islamists the Islamists have now turned on the very people who funded them when they first were set up, against the Left in the middle east, the politicians in Washington! When it comes to Capitalist imperialists against Religious imperialists the Left should not have to choose from the two (like some have suggested here) but instead should attack both because neither of the imperialists offer anything to the Proletariat!

redarmyfaction38
16th September 2007, 23:01
spartan has it down pat. playing stupid political alliances with groups that hate us is suicide not progression.
respect, as political party, is a contradiction in itself, the swp, whose stance onnot engaging in bourgeouis parliamentary elections was imo always to be admired, finds itself mired in bourgeouis political expediency!
george galloway, whilst deserving of "respect" for his humiliation of the usa 's pathetic attempts at demonisation of leftist views and politicians, is not a socialist imo, another stalinist maybe, another wannabe "hero of the working class", but a socialist?
now to me, a "socialist party" supporter with "anarchist" tendancies, the situation within the "left" looks like this;

the swp has continued in its confusing tradition of swinging right to left and back again according to the suppossed political consciousness of the working class.rather than build on the numerous clas warriors it has within its ranks, accept the setbacks caused by economic and political cicumstance, it has chosen to try and create, imo, a radical parliamentary party, based on the middle class rather than the working class, it has ignored the attempts of radical trade union leaders in the rmt, the psu and poa to form a "new workers party" on "party interest" rather than "common interest".
all around the world, where it comes to supporting workers, rather than political process, the swp and its affiliates have been found wanting.
beingwilling to accept the greed and self interest of politicians like george galloway, above the interests of our class, buying into muslim interest, rather than having a clear worker based political policy based in economic and social demands will be thebundoing of the swp and respect. which to me, an old class warrior is a shame.

YKTMX
17th September 2007, 16:27
The split loomed and was likely to come. SWP as the "socialist vanguard" of RESPECT saw its rôle as getting SWP-friendly socialists into candidate selection. Galloway was in it for himself and saw RESPECT as a vehicle for his own political career.

The former is untrue and I suspect the latter is also.

The goal was never about getting SWP-ers elected as candidates, as the document shows, the SWP has supported all Respect candidates, whether they were "SWP-friendly socialists" or not. If the goal of Respect was merely to get socialists on the ballot paper, then it would have been rather perfunctory, because, as the document also admits, revolutionary socialists almost always appear on ballot papers and are stuck at 1-2%. The goal was as advertised, to build a broad coalition to the Left of New Labour centered around opposition to War and Privatization. The reason many on the British Far Left disapproved was because they didn't like the ways in which the SWP were trying to "bring in" British Muslims. They saw it as insufficiently principled, marked by compromised, un-Marxist etc.

As for Galloway, it may well be he just saw Respect as a good way of getting re-elected. Though, I must say, his election marked the first time someone to the Left of Labour has been elected to the UK parliament for five decades, so if this was his assumption, it was a fairly risky one.

However, I've never been impressed by people that say that the one thing that stands out in Galloway's career is Careerism. I mean, considering where many of his erstwhile colleagues in the Labour Party have gone (Brown, Chancellor Darling, Michael Martin etc) he seems like the zenith of principle to me.

I've never doubted that he has an extremely high opinion of himself and sometimes he confuses self-publicity with the socialist cause (the Big Brother catastrophe, for example) but this is a personality flaw more than a political one.


I am convinced however that the original goal was a decent one.

And the people on the "Left" who criticized the SWP for being too consensual and willing to engage with Muslims, some of whom may hold socially conservative views, were wrong. Engaging with people is the only route to winning them to socialism.

Sniping from our little caves on the snide never did anything for socialism.

Devrim
20th September 2007, 12:16
Originally posted by YKTMX+September 17, 2007 03:27 pm--> (YKTMX @ September 17, 2007 03:27 pm) And the people on the "Left" who criticized the SWP for being too consensual and willing to engage with Muslims, some of whom may hold socially conservative views, were wrong. Engaging with people is the only route to winning them to socialism.

Sniping from our little caves on the snide never did anything for socialism. [/b]
Of course engaging with people is important. It is also about how you engage with them. The SWP chose to engage with them as Muslims, not as workers, or socialists.

I commented on something similar to this on a different issue yesterday:


Originally posted by [email protected]
It is completely understandable how workers from the Middle East in general, but specifically Iran, don't want to line up with the imams. It is only a couple of decades since there was wholesale slaughter of communists, and worker militants there.

Those who are lining up with the imams are putting themselves on the other side of the fence from the best workers in the Middle East.

The SWP though have a much closer view from, which to analyse the UK than I do:


John Rees
We believe that the constant adaptation to what are referred to as ‘community leaders’ in Tower Hamlets is lowering the level of politics and making us vulnerable to the attacks and pressures brought on us by New Labour. It is alienating us not only from the white working class but also from the more radical sections of the Bengali community, both secular and Muslim, who feel that Respect is becoming the party of a narrow and conservative trend in the area.

The problem is not a defence of immigrants, but the way that the SWP thought that it could do this by allaying with 'a narrow and conservative trend' of religious interests.

Devrim

Dr Mindbender
20th September 2007, 12:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:32 pm
Respect was never anything much and Galloway simply served to make socialism a laughing stock. Even the SWP has done more to advance leftism.

I'm surprised that respect lasted this long, it was always a bit of three-legged horse and fairly single issue.
Whatever happened to the Socialist Alliance? Respect has no revolutionary kudos at all.

Philosophical Materialist
20th September 2007, 12:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:27 pm
The former is untrue and I suspect the latter is also.

The goal was never about getting SWP-ers elected as candidates, as the document shows, the SWP has supported all Respect candidates, whether they were "SWP-friendly socialists" or not. If the goal of Respect was merely to get socialists on the ballot paper, then it would have been rather perfunctory, because, as the document also admits, revolutionary socialists almost always appear on ballot papers and are stuck at 1-2%. The goal was as advertised, to build a broad coalition to the Left of New Labour centered around opposition to War and Privatization. The reason many on the British Far Left disapproved was because they didn't like the ways in which the SWP were trying to "bring in" British Muslims. They saw it as insufficiently principled, marked by compromised, un-Marxist etc.
Your point conflicts with what happened over RESPECT's candidate selection by the council by-election in Shadwell where a petit-bourgeois candidate was chosen over the SWP's preferred candidate, much to the SWP's annoyance. Of course the SWP supports all RESPECT candidates once selected, but it still prefers SWPers to be candidates.

The SWP sees itself as the vanguard of RESPECT, a pragmatic anti-war alliance but one where the SWP thought could use to increase its influence and give ideological direction.

Zurdito
20th September 2007, 23:36
RESPECT was an insult to the working class. they allied with Muslim landlords and Bengalie businessmen, the whole thing was a vehicle for exploitation. On their website they pronounced temselves "the party for Muslims". And now they complain that Galloway is a communalist? :lol:

Zurdito
20th September 2007, 23:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:23 pm

Islamists and all theocrats are the enemy. They have been funded and propped up by Washington as counterrevolutionary force whenever such was necessary to prevent socialism from dominating the Middle East.
Agreed! And now that the Left in the middle east are not really as big a force as the Islamists the Islamists have now turned on the very people who funded them when they first were set up, against the Left in the middle east, the politicians in Washington! When it comes to Capitalist imperialists against Religious imperialists the Left should not have to choose from the two (like some have suggested here) but instead should attack both because neither of the imperialists offer anything to the Proletariat!
erm, imperialist doesn't mean you would like an empire, if it did, mad Joe the town drunk would be an imperialist. To be an imperialist means you have an empire. Which empire do the Islamic extremists have? Has Al Qaeda capital dominated European internal markets? :rolleyes:

Edgar
21st September 2007, 03:45
So in other words Galloway wants RESPECT to be the party of petty-bourgeois muslim "community leaders" but the SWP feel they've comprimised their socialist principles enough already and aren't prepared to do so anymore?

Galloway has always been a fraud when it comes to his "socialist" ideals, which seem to amount to nothing so much as a demand for the return of Old Labour. But he admits he's not a marxist, so why expect something useful to come from him?

spartan
21st September 2007, 13:06
Zurdito:
erm, imperialist doesn't mean you would like an empire, if it did, mad Joe the town drunk would be an imperialist. To be an imperialist means you have an empire. Which empire do the Islamic extremists have? Has Al Qaeda capital dominated European internal markets?
Groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban have a desire to create an Islamic Caliphate which is an empire so i suppose you could with some confidence and justification proclaim them to be imperialists or at the very least these groups desire imperialism. Religious imperialism of course.

Philosophical Materialist
21st September 2007, 14:27
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:45 am
So in other words Galloway wants RESPECT to be the party of petty-bourgeois muslim "community leaders" but the SWP feel they've comprimised their socialist principles enough already and aren't prepared to do so anymore?

Galloway has always been a fraud when it comes to his "socialist" ideals, which seem to amount to nothing so much as a demand for the return of Old Labour. But he admits he's not a marxist, so why expect something useful to come from him?
I think that is a good summary of the situation. I expect a split to come from this unless Galloway and his petit-bourgeois businessmen allies back down (which I don't see happening). If the SWP caves in, then it loses its loyal rank-and-file, which would destroy the party. I suspect that RESPECT will wind-up and the SWP will start another left-populist project.

I think Galloway is a lot of hot air with the occasional snappy soundbite. He does care about the anti-war cause and some social injustices, but it is just that these concerns are far less important to him than his own ego and careerism.

Devrim
21st September 2007, 15:24
Originally posted by Philosophical [email protected] 21, 2007 01:27 pm
I expect a split to come from this unless Galloway and his petit-bourgeois businessmen allies back down (which I don't see happening). If the SWP caves in, then it loses its loyal rank-and-file, which would destroy the party. I suspect that RESPECT will wind-up and the SWP will start another left-populist project.


I agree. The SWP will blink first.
I wonder what nonsense they will latch onto next.

Devrim