[Marxism] Respect in split
jbustelo at gmail.com
Thu Nov 1 18:26:20 MDT 2007
Lenin's Tomb writes: "I mean, supporting Sultana Begum (for instance) was
hardly a kick in the balls to the Muslim
vote, was it?"
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
Lenin's Tomb: "Now, that would have been a legitimate issue for resolution
at conference, but unfortunately, Galloway decided to try and mount a putsch
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.
"I also propose a crucial new post of National Organiser, preferably
full-time, whose task would be the aforementioned re-organisation and
re-energising of the key clusters of Respect support and the encouragement
of members everywhere," Galloway wrote. "This position would sit alongside
the position of National Secretary," held by Rees.
Especially since, as I understand it, when the issue finally came to a vote
the SWP members in the Respect leadership also supported the proposal, and
it carried unanimously.
Lenin's Tomb writes: "... focusing only on Muslims and not attempting to
systematically or seriously relate to the remainder of the working class."
Can you give some *concrete* examples of this?
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.
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?
More information about the Marxism