A badge of honour

[michele cryer]

Respect's Lindsey German speaks up for the Lefts support of Muslims in Britain...

www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1260026,00.html

[octoberlost]

Islamaphobia is bad but its got to be said that Islamaphillia is also a huge danger, Lyndsey et al have ditched class politics in favour of crass communalism, which isnt a million miles from the stratergy of the BNP

[michele cryer]

Do you feel that Respect is ignoring the needs of others in society for the sake of supporting Asians?

Please visit the respect website and read about the other causes that they support.

Michele

[octoberlost]

No michele, not asians - muslims.

I am very familiar with both Respect and its fore-runner the SA, of which I was an active member. The problem is that class politics of actually engaging people on a political level about the effects of capitalism have been ditched in order to cosy up with Imams.

Im no trot but I can tell you that this is not only unsound but completely out of touch with the Marxist ideas the SWP et al follow. Where in the history of socialism/communism is there a precedence for working with the hierarchy of a particular faith? There isnt, if socialism means anything then it means bottom up not top down.

[michele cryer]

Sorry Octoberlost, I see what you mean now, and yes I agree that socialism is about bringing power to the working classes rather than bowing/scraping to the leaders...(imams in this case).

I hope that that isn't what Respect is really doing, however if that is the way it is coming across to people then obviously some changes in their approach are necessary.

Michele

[octoberlost]

Michele Cryer
I hope that that isn't what Respect is really doing, however if that is the way it is coming across to people then obviously some changes in their approach are necessary.

I can spend ages explaining why I feel this is a naive comment, but Ill resist and just give a few pointers.

As we know Respects driving force is the leadership of the SWP, the SWP basically follow a hybrid of theories derived from Marxism-Leninism or its later day Trotskyism (ML).

This ML theory holds that the working class cant reach class conciousness by themselves, they instead need a party, an elite vanguard to educate them with revolutionary ideas and this is to be used as a lever to further the struggle of this party towards political power for the emancipation of the working class. (See Lenins 'What Is T Be Done)

Now since workers cant do emacipate themselves (according to Lenin) the party needs to take power in there name, to create a workers state.
This resulting theory means two things, firstly its NO DIFFERENT WHATSOEVER FROM ANY OTHER STRAND OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, in that it doesnt empower people just acts 'in their interests', which is just another pretext for exploitation by another class and secondly the theory of ML is power obsessed, since its a top-down form of socialism, and will constantly seek compromises in order to achieve political power. If this means doing deals with imperialists, making arrangements with backward union bureaucrats, or pandering to religious oppurtunism then its all in theory, because remember Lenin tells us at length the end is more important than the means.

This is IMO the basis of all trot/communist trends, I can explain in more detail if one wishes, however thats not to say I have disrespect for Marx, who one should note said "the emancipation of the working class will be the work of the working class" which is a completely different idea to what Lenin et al are suggesting.

I was a trot for a number of years but having discussed with others and read a few critical texts, I can tell you Im hostile to anything that derives from Leninism. Like Marx says our class can liberate itself by its own actions, not through the very same structures which we are exploited by, and for this reason Im against political parties and working through parliament.

I would recommend reading,
www.geocities.com/~johngray/bolsh.htm
www.geocities.com/~johngray/panparty.htm

[michele cryer]

I admit 2 being very very naive where politics is concerned. Having attended the Marxist forum the other night I heard lots about why the russian model of Socialism isn't true Socialism at all, but just uses the name in oder to oppress the masses.

Please, as I have never had ' formal' lessons in politics, would you spell out to me the ways in which you feel respect are the same as the russian models..if that is what you feel...I really do need to be educated!!

thanks

Michele

[octoberlost]

Respect, (S for Socialism) follows the belief that progressive political change can come through the very political structures which alienate and exploit us. They do so in the belief that the problem with the current situation is that 'bad people' are in power and that we only need to replace them with 'good people'.

This is a complete and utter joke.

So instead of rejecting the political structures which we have problems with, they compromise and work towards gaining power within the system. This means the changes they actually make are minimum and made all the worse because they claim to 'represent the working class'. This is the basis of Bolshevik teachings, which as Ive stated previously arent radically different from lets say New-Labour, the only difference being that Lenin believes in a minority ruling through a potential political coup.

See for example how the 'left' communists (including S. Pankhurst) were booted out of the Commuist parties for not excepting that parliamentary activity was a means by which to empower people.
www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/jones/jonesintro.htm

Government exists as a minority to lord over and coerce the majority, how on earth can this be changed simply by power changing hands?
Freedom can only exist as a practice...

[michele cryer]

thanks Octoberlost. Will try to keep his short, as my keyboard is faulty, and is taking ages to copy/paste certain letters...

respect does not claim to be a totally Socialist party. It is a coalition of many organisations, including socialists.

Members of SWP decided to join respect so that the causes which both parties agreed upon would have support from each.

respect does not judge members according to their other beliefs..religious or otherwise...personal views are kept personal, and only issues upon which the whole of the organisation is agreed are fought for.

Am I correct in assuming that you would prefer the majority of members to be the ones 'making policy'? rather than a 'few'? I agree with that.

As you do not agree with the current parliamentary system, what would you suggest as an alternative, which would be acceptable to the majority of voters in the UK.

Michele

[octoberlost]

If I come across as dictatic, sorry. And Im starting to feel Im writing too much (rant)....

But I have a profound distrust for the SWP and their ilk and its a harsh reality that I bought a by-product of what they were selling for a number of years, so Im pretty cross with myself.

RESPECT for the most part is the SWP, this can be disguised in several ways but the key for making others join this new organisation is creating a watered down front, which can appeal to people who wouldnt otherwise join the SWP. A side effect of this watering down is the non-existence of class as a driving issue and this goes hand in hand with pandering to religious bigotry of certain muslims.

There are as an example numerous points where RESPECT as avoided the issue of gay rights, abortion and religious schools, a point done to keep the supporting mosques onboard, yet is this the actions of principled socialists?

The best statement of my politics can be summed up as 'for a society based on mutual aid and co-operation, against government and economic repression' this can only be done through a sometimes painful bottom up, and not the top-down of the SWP...

[michele cryer]

octoberlost said:

If I come across as dictatic, sorry. And Im starting to feel Im writing too much (rant)....

Don't worry, it's a pity that nobody else has posted on this issue...in order to get more varied points of view than just ours, but I believe Michelle is going to help remedy that.

octoberlost said:

RESPECT for the most part is the SWP, this can be disguised in several ways but the key for making others join this new organisation is creating a watered down front, which can appeal to people who wouldnt otherwise join the SWP.

I can see why you hold this opinion as many of our local branch members are SWP, however we are hoping to recruit more non SWP members who can then have the same opportunity to be elected as members of the steering committees, and as candidates, as everyone else. Should this not happen in my local branch I will be very concerned and shall ask questions.

octoberlost said:

There are as an example numerous points where RESPECT as avoided the issue of gay rights, abortion and religious schools, a point done to keep the supporting mosques onboard, yet is this the actions of principled socialists?[/qoute]


I agree that 'principled socialists' should be willing to speak up on issues which are often controversial...however, it is my belief that respect has chosen to let those members who wish to deal with those issues continue to do so privately, whilst continuing, as respect members, to deal with other broader issues that affect the country as a whole, and on which the whole membership is agreed.

octoberlost said:

The best statement of my politics can be summed up as 'for a society based on mutual aid and co-operation, against government and economic repression' this can only be done through a sometimes painful bottom up, and not the top-down of the SWP........

I agree with this statement but am unsure of how u would sell this to the country? and how you would put it into effect..how u would deal with issues of funding for the NHS and other institutions upon which we rely.

Michele

[Mitch]

I am in agreement with Octoberlost, although he is in danger of disappearing up his own theoretical arse!

I like to make up my own mind, especially on a local level as often local activity can be slightly different than the picture nationally. So, I was active in both Unite Against Fascism and explored Respect to check out whether it was the coalition it proclaimed to be. It became obvious to me pretty quickly that both were appropriated, top-down style as Octoberlost suggests, by the SWP. I watched others drift away, opinions and debate disguarded, I have seen many in the community who have acted autonomously, or spoke up for themselves being ditched and disowned by the SWP - and I am in agreement with Octoberlost that the SWP's tactics are not a million miles away from the BNP's in terms of the way they use people for their own ends.

MOVE ON, MOVE OUT, AND WORK AROUND!

There are many who know this, and now it is time to build - who will join a Social Forum in Burnley and Pendle where people can come together in the knowledge that they can express their opinions freely in a forum of debate, not control.

Rise up, read and make up your own minds, and in the words of the great Janis Joplin, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose'.

That is where I sit, and let the chips fall where they may.

[michele cryer]

thanks for posting Mitch...at least now the debate can open up a little..I'm still gonna give both the SWP and respect a chance for the time being, in the hopes that they achieve some of the goals that they have in mind, and in the absence of any other political organisation offering these policies in a way which is acceptable to the majority of 'ordinary' people in the UK...we are in a 'free market' economy...capitalism is a part of our lives and it will be difficult to stray away from the accepted parliamentary practises in the near future, and I would prefer to vote for a coalition with whose policies I agree than to not vote at all in the meantime. Having said this, I will be pleased to become a part of a Social forum in burnley and Pendle, and I too feel strongly that members ought not to be 'told' what they are 'allowed' to debate..and at what time...

back to the original post on this subject..the question raised by Octoberlost was the extent to which respect had ditched 'class politics' in order to appeal to Muslims in the UK...I believe that his objection to doing so, partly, is because some of the politics of some Muslim organisations within respect are considered 'right wing'...not in touch with women's rights/issues and are homophobic...(please correct me if those are not a part of you objections Octoberlost)...I would like to hear some other members' thoughts on this, and any arguments against these perceptions of the Muslim groups...and is respect able to form alliances with groups which hold these opinions, and still be a socialist organisation and not 'compromise' itself, as suggested by Lindsey german.

Perhaps general political views about respect and other organisations could be posted separately on the political forum.

Michele