[Marxism] Respect in split

[Jscotlive@xxxxxxx]

Lenin's Tomb:
 
My argument is that it began with the working
class, and necessarily  included the defense of the most oppressed and
vilified group in British  society.  It was never about separating Muslims
off from the rest of the  working class, and I made this clear.

Reply:
 
And they are no less oppressed or vilified today. I refer you to Mohammed  
Atif Siddique's recent sentencing to 8 years for the crime of looking up 
certain 
 websites and articulating certain views. Yes, it is important to defend 
Muslims  and immigrants with socialist and Marxist analysis. But it appears 
that 
the SWP  have decided to make this less of a priority. You maintain that they 
have not,  that Galloway and his supporters are guilty of electoralism. An 
electoral party  can also be a campaigning party. The problem, as I have heard 
it, 
is that the  SWP always viewed Respect as nothing more than an electoral 
front. Again,  elections are won through the work done in communities way in 
advance. This idea  of an electoral front is fatally flawed. Galloway saw that, 
saw 
that this was  the orientation of the SWP, and has reacted against that. 
Galloway's continuance  as an MP, his profile, has to be a vital component of 
any 
left orientation in  the UK at present. He is by far the most prominent 
anti-establishment figure in  the UK and an anti-imperialist of international 
repute. 
 
On the other hand people like John Rees and Lyndsey German are hardly known  
inside their own house. This is no insult. It is simply a fact that at this  
juncture Galloway, despite any faults he may have, is more important to the 
Left  than the SWP leadership's whims.
 
Lenin's Tomb:
 
Any analysis that writes off the British working class
necessarily ends  up in this reactionary position of focusing only  on
Muslims.

Reply:
 
What an unbelievable flip-flop this is. For the past three or four years  the 
SWP have defended themselves against accusations of siding with reactionary  
Muslims and now here you are saying exactly that. Again, this dispute has  
nothing to do with principles, it has everything to do with the hubris and  
attempt by the SWP to seize control of Respect.
 
Lenin's Tomb:
 
Don't be absurd.  You are repeating the reactionary filth of the  'pro-war
left', who think that Muslims can't be left-wing or socialist. 
 
Reply:
 
Not only a flip-flop but a contrary analysis proffered in two succeeding  
paragraphs. First it's reactionary to side with Muslims. Next it's reactionary  
filth to think that Muslims can't be left wing or socialist. Truly amazing. 
 
Of course, Muslims, anyone, can be won to socialist arguments. But it takes  
time, it is a process, requiring sensitivity to their cultural traditions,  
religion, etc. The SWP have done some great work in this regard, I would be the 
 
first to acknowledge that. But suddenly they've turned their back on it and 
run  for cover behind the familiarity of Marxist dogma. This is a major  
blunder.
 
Lenin's Tomb:
 
The Iraqi resistance would right now be being wiped out with  genocidal
violence even worse than at present if it were not for the antiwar  movement,

Reply:
 
Oh really? So the fact that British troops have been forced to begin  
withdrawing, the fact that the US military hasn't been able to pacify the  
country, 
all that is due to the antiwar movement?
 
Come on, eh, be serious.
 
Lenin's Tomb:
 
I'm afraid that your inability to keep up with the argument, your  calamitous
way with the facts, and your rabid sequence of non-sequiturs makes  it
difficult to even take you seriously.  And I think I've noticed this  problem
before.

Reply;
 
I'll let others decide on that one. As for me, normally I take  note of what 
you write. I happen to like your blog. However, on this you  disappoint me. 
This circling of the wagons around the SWP leadership does  your organisation 
or 
the Left in general no favours.
 
I hope it can be settled sooner rather than later. I think going ahead with  
the Respect conference next month would be a mistake. I agree with those who  
argue that it should be put back until after the SWP's conference in Jan. That 
 way the membership will be more informed and the time would allow for things 
to  settle down a bit. 
 



   
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism