London public meeting, 6 July - Respect and the SWP: A self-inflicted disaster

[IBT]

Respect and the SWP: A self-inflicted disaster

Sunday 6 July 2008 - 2pm
Room 2A,ULU, Malet Street, London WC1E

When the popular-frontist Respect Coalition was launched by George Galloway in 2004 what did the British left do?



Helped to found it, defending its policies even when they didn’t agree?
Criticised it, but called to vote for it anyway?
Didn’t support Respect, but supported the equally cross-class Stop the War Coalition?


‘The question of questions at present is the Popular Front.The left centrists seek to present this question as a tactical or even as a technical maneuver, so as to be able to peddle their wares in the shadow of the Popular Front. In reality, the Popular Front is the main question of proletarian class strategy for this epoch. It also offers the best criterion for the difference between Bolshevism and Menshevism.’
(Leon Trotsky,‘The POUM and the Popular Front’, 1936)

No support to popular-frontism wherever it raises its head!

[IBT]

Meeting organised by the International Bolshevik Tendency

[Zurdito]

RESPECT was not a popular fornt, thoguh no doubt the SWP leadership would have loved it to be one. A couple of muslim petty-bourgeois minor millionaires doesn't make it a popular front though, RESPECT did not have the backign of any significant section of the British bourgeoisie or state...which is why it failed.

Still, good luck with your meeting.

[Sam_b]

RESPECT was not a popular fornt, thoguh no doubt the SWP leadership would have loved it to be one

Load of rubbish. Why not substanciate a bit?

[IBT]

Excerpt from the IBT leaflet “Class Collaboration – at the Ballot Box and on the Streets: Respect and the Stop the War Coalition”:

The truth is of course that Respect was a popular frontist project from the very start and the SWP leadership knew exactly what they were involved in. Respect’s Founding Declaration (co-written by the SWP) made this abundantly clear:
‘But the yearning for a political alternative is even wider than the anti-war movement. Pensioners, students, trade unionists, Muslims and other faith groups, socialists, ethnic minorities and many others have been deeply disappointed by the authoritarian social policies and profit-centred, neo-liberal economic strategy of the government.

‘There is a crisis of representation, a democratic deficit, at the heart of politics in Britain. We aim to offer a solution to this crisis.’
As we wrote at the height of Respect’s popularity:


‘Respect is quite explicitly a cross-class alliance of all those who want to redress the “democratic deficit” in the bourgeois parliamentary system.’
(1917, No. 28, December 2005)

The politics of Respect have nothing in common with genuine Marxism, but they do represent a significant trend in the British workers’ movement and a particular form of misleadership that needs to be politically marginalised if the revolutionary project is to be successful. It is important to examine what was wrong with Respect and what lessons can be drawn for revolutionaries.

‘The main question of proletarian class strategy’

Respect failed because it specifically sought to keep working-class discontent and class struggle within the boundaries of parliamentary politics. While its leadership bent over backwards to include as many social layers as possible to address the ‘democratic deficit’ in Britain, no significant section of the bourgeoisie was interested in building the project and it proved impossible for Respect to make any major electoral breakthroughs. While the SWP leadership’s conflict with Galloway exacerbated the failure, it was not in itself the cause.

In times of heightened social struggle, the capitalists are more inclined to ally with reformist misleaders in what are known as popular fronts – cross-class alliances between working-class and nonworking-class organisations. Well-known examples include the popular fronts in France and Spain in the 1930s, Allende’s Unidad Popular in Chile in the early 1970s, the Lib-Lab coalition in Britain in the late 1970s and the Olive Tree government in 1990s Italy. The end result is to contain social struggle, as the reformist leaders tell the workers not to be too militant or they will offend ‘our’ bourgeois allies, break up the coalition and let the right wing into power. In fact a working class which is politically and militarily dependent on ‘progressive’ elements of the bourgeoisie is easy prey for the right, as dramatically demonstrated in Chile by Pinochet’s bloodbath against the workers whom Allende had refused to arm.

While the low level of class struggle today means that the danger of a bloodbath is clearly not imminent, it is still vital to recognise, and unequivocally oppose, class collaborationism whenever it is posed as a way forward for the workers’ movement. It is only through such political training that we will avoid future setbacks and be able to stand resolutely against the suicidal politics of the popular front when it is ‘popular’ and draws the masses behind it. Even on a smaller scale, class collaboration leads working class discontent away from fighting for our immediate interests as a class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Spoken like a true International Bolshevik Tendency sectarian. :rolleyes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html