{"id":2034,"date":"2011-05-19T17:31:39","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T17:31:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/?p=2034"},"modified":"2021-03-05T15:27:59","modified_gmt":"2021-03-05T15:27:59","slug":"a-reply-to-james-turleys-whose-afraid-of-george-galloway","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/2011\/05\/19\/a-reply-to-james-turleys-whose-afraid-of-george-galloway\/","title":{"rendered":"A Reply to James Turley’s ‘Who’s Afraid of George Galloway’?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Weekly Worker<\/em>, <\/cite>no. 865, James Turley has attacked those who wrote an Open Letter urging no vote for George Galloway in the Holyrood elections on May 5th. The Open Letter was originally published on the Manchester-based blog, Infantile and disorderly<\/cite> (The Editorial Board of Emancipation & Liberation<\/cite> added its members\u2019 names<\/a> after the initial publication). So Turley\u2019s response was not made with the Republican Communist Network in mind. However, since his letter addresses the situation in Scotland, and seems singularly misinformed about the situation, here is a reply.<\/p>\n

Turley begins well enough, agreeing with many of the criticisms of Galloway already made by others. However, he soon reveals his ignorance of the situation in Scotland. He claims that Solidarity certainly did better under {Galloway\u2019s} tutelage than Sheridan\u2019s<\/q>. In the recent 2011 Holyrood election, the Left unionist Galloway-fronted, Solidarity-backed slate received 6972 votes. However, in the 2007 election, the Left nationalist Sheridan-fronted, Solidarity slate received 8574 votes. On neither occasion were Galloway or Sheridan elected. Sheridan only managed to achieve this as part of the united socialist SSA<\/acronym> and SSP<\/acronym> slates in 1999 and 2003. Under their auspices he received 18,581 and 31,116 votes respectively. However, it is easy to see how Turley makes such an elementary mistake. As a member of the CPGB he believes that being a Left British unionist wins more support from the Scottish working class. Since Galloway is one of Scotland’s foremost Left British Unionists he must, by definition, have done better than Left nationalist, Sheridan. Reality mustn’t be allowed to cloud ideology!<\/p>\n

Turley goes on to claim that the Open Letter signatories are misguided in basing their judgement on Galloway over Iran, because he is not standing for election in Tehran<\/q>.\u00a0One can find all manner of Labour Left or Morning Star<\/cite>-type candidates with extremely dodgy record of supporting dictatorial regimes abroad<\/q>, but the CPGB<\/acronym>\u2019s intervention is about drawing a class line<\/em> on the cuts issue<\/q>.<\/p>\n

This represents a fairly rapid retreat to a narrow British and economistic focus, especially in the context of the major ongoing democratic struggles being waged throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Galloway appears to have greater internationalist pretensions than the CPGB<\/acronym>. He has very publicly extended his support to a Muslim revolution<\/q>\u2026 because a very significant number of the population of Egypt support the Islamic Movement of Egypt and that Movement has no need to hide itself under a bushel<\/q>. (Stop the War Coalition meeting in London on 2nd February). In the Guardian<\/cite> of the 12th March, Galloway wrote that, I welcome the imminent victory of the Islamic movements in Egypt and Tunisia, which I think will provide very good government on the Turkish model<\/q>.<\/p>\n

With the collapse of Mubarak, the US and UK states are looking to the Muslim Brotherhood to buttress their slipping imperial control in the area. The Erdogan regime in Turkey is an ardent promoter of global corporate interests including privatisation. It continues to oppress the Kurds. Faced with ongoing democratic revolutions, in which the most advanced participants currently desire not Muslim but secular republics, and oppose \u2018their\u2019 state\u2019s wholesale handing over of resources to the global corporations, Galloway\u2019s genuine anti-imperialist credentials begin to look rather thin.<\/p>\n

However, the crux of Turley\u2019s argument focuses on Scotland and the CPGB<\/acronym>\u2019s class line on the cuts issue<\/q> {which} involves a vote for a) candidates of the workers\u2019 movement who b) oppose, and (at least say they) will vote against all cuts to public services. We also argue that voters should prefer Labour candidates who meet the conditions to non-Labour, though this is irrelevant in the Galloway case<\/q>.<\/p>\n

Funnily enough, Weekly Worker<\/cite> has not been able to name a single Labour MSP<\/acronym> candidate in Scotland who meets their anti-cuts criteria, despite their own turn to the Labour Party. Furthermore, this is not so irrelevant in the Galloway case<\/q>.\u00a0Anybody reading his Daily Record<\/cite> column over the last few years would soon realise that, not only is Galloway pro-Labour, but he has been selling himself as, in effect, another possible future Labour MSP<\/acronym>. This was based on his (misguided) assumption that Labour would gain most of the FPTP<\/acronym> seats in Glasgow in the 2011 Holyrood election, leaving less space for further Labour MSP<\/acronym>s on the top-up List seats. So he pointed out that a vote for Galloway was, in effect, a vote for an extra Labour MSP<\/acronym>.<\/p>\n

It looks very like Galloway was trying to work his way back into the Labour Party in a similar manner to Ken Livingstone. First, however, he would have to show that he enjoyed enough electoral support. However, when\u00a0Galloway was expelled by Blair from the Labour Party in 2003, he took very few people with him, unlike Livingstone. This is why he has had to seek the backing of those Trotskyist groups – in turn, the SWP<\/acronym>, Socialist Resistance (they later abandoned him) and now the CWI<\/acronym> and the SWP<\/acronym> again (!) along with their Scottish breakaway, the International Socialist Group – all of whom he despises. Their role is to act as his unquestioning foot-soldiers on the ground.<\/p>\n

However, if we look to Galloway\u2019s own stance over fighting the cuts he has no principled record in this regard either. He may verbally claim to be against all cuts to win the support of the gullible CWI<\/acronym> and SWP<\/acronym>. However Galloway is a member of Respect, which in East London is now little more than an Islamic communalist organisation. Respect councillors have voted through cuts in Tower Hamlets without a word of public criticism from Galloway.<\/p>\n

Perhaps realising that a call to support Galloway as a principled anti-cuts candidate lacks a certain credibility, Turley points instead to his support from the Sheridan splinter group Solidarity {with} its two main activist bases<\/q>, and later to the fact that Galloway remains reliant on support from willing left groups<\/q> – he means the SWP<\/acronym> and CWI<\/acronym>.\u00a0Here Turley is retreating to another dubious aspect of CPGB<\/acronym> politics – its belief that a principled Marxist Party can be built by uniting all the self-declared Marxist organisations in Great Britain into a single party. The ignominious break-up of the CPGB<\/acronym>-backed Campaign for a New Marxist Party highlights the futility of this approach. This collapse was more rapid than that of any other recent socialist unity initiative (the SLP<\/acronym>, SSA<\/acronym>\/SSP<\/acronym>, SA<\/acronym>, Respect, CNWP<\/acronym>), despite the much more limited range of Marxists involved.<\/p>\n

If you are serious in opposing the cuts, you certainly have to confront Labour complicity in their implementation, along with their MP<\/acronym>s\u2019, MSP<\/acronym>s\u2019, councillors\u2019, Party officials\u2019 and Labour-supporting trade union officials\u2019 opposition to any effective independent class action. But you also have to confront those Marxist sects, such as the SWP<\/acronym> and CWI<\/acronym>, which act as outriders for the Labour Party and trade union bureaucracy when it comes to demobilising independent class action. They promote their own front organisations to derail and split any independent movement. This is strikingly obvious in the fight against the cuts. Here we have to confront the wrecking tactics of the SP<\/acronym>-controlled National Shop Stewards Movement and the SWP<\/acronym>-controlled Right to Work Campaign (whose very names demonstrate they were both created with a different Party-recruiting project in mind than fighting the cuts).<\/p>\n

Turley\u2019s resort to the SWP<\/acronym>\u2019s and CWI<\/acronym>\u2019s declared support for Galloway only demonstrates the dead-end nature of this particular course of action. With the impending demise of Solidarity, the parting of the SWP<\/acronym> and CWI<\/acronym> in Scotland can not be far away. Look to Ireland, where despite their coming together in the United Left Alliance (essentially an electoral non-aggression pact), south of the border, they still managed to stand candidates against each other north of the border in the Stormont election on May 5th. And we are often lectured by the CPGB about the superiority of all-Britain or all-UK organisations because of their ability to unite socialists and the working class!<\/p>\n

However, Galloway has gone one step further in his attempts to promote disunity. Much of his campaigning has been on his own terms, with little regard to his CWI<\/acronym> and SWP<\/acronym> allies of convenience. Publicly he has placed a lot of emphasis on cultivating the sectional support of Catholics and Muslims. However, where Galloway has attended joint meetings he has played to the CWI<\/acronym> and SWP<\/acronym> gallery in his thinly disguised attempts to whip up verbal and physical abuse directed against prominent SSP<\/acronym> members in the aftermath of the Sheridan debacle. Sadly, given the number of emotionally damaged, attention-seeking individuals to be found in our society, there are some people who have stooped to such attacks. However, the prime purpose, of resorting to the misplaced use of \u2018scab\u2019 accusations to encourage such behaviour, is to deflect attention from the CWI<\/acronym>\u2019s and SWP<\/acronym>\u2019s own roles in promoting socialist disunity.<\/p>\n

They seem to forget that Sheridan was once prepared to hand over the names of Trafalgar Square anti-poll tax protesters to the Metropolitan Police. The CWI<\/acronym> didn\u2019t raise any criticisms then. Meanwhile some SWP<\/acronym> members in Scotland had started to pay the poll tax, because they argued that once the STUC<\/acronym> and Scottish Labour Party had withdrawn their backing from a campaign of defiance the struggle was over! They both have short memories!<\/p>\n

So, if you claim that you support candidates of the workers\u2019 movement who oppose and vote against all cuts to public services<\/q>, who should you have been supporting in Scotland?<\/p>\n

Turley mentions the fact that Arthur Scargill\u2019s Socialist Party has regularly out stripped the SSP<\/acronym><\/q> which has even less reason to exist than the SLP<\/acronym><\/q>. Now certainly, the SLP<\/acronym> did win considerably more votes in this Holyrood election than either the SSP<\/acronym> or Solidarity. However, the mere accumulation of passive votes at an election count is of little more significance than the vote for similarly 9th placed Georgia in this year\u2019s Eurovision Song Contest. The number of new active SLP<\/acronym> members resulting from their vote in Scotland, will probably be outstripped by the sales here of Georgia\u2019s Eurovision entry, One More Day<\/cite>!<\/p>\n

In addressing the anti-cuts struggle we have to look to the roles of Solidarity and the SSP<\/acronym>, which Turley grudgingly concedes still has activists<\/q>. In the last Local Council elections, held in Scotland in May 2007, both Solidarity and the SSP<\/acronym> gained a councillor each. Solidarity managed to get Ruth Black elected in Glasgow. So how has she performed in relation to the anti-cuts struggle? Well first she defected to the Labour Party and soon became embroiled in accusations of financial irregularity – a prominent anti-cuts spokesperson on the Glasgow Council she certainly is not.<\/p>\n

In contrast, Jim Bollan was elected SSP<\/acronym> councillor in West Dunbartonshire on the same day. Here he has been to the forefront of the struggle against the cuts, putting forward a \u2018No Cuts\u2019 budget, opposed by all the controlling SNP<\/acronym> and the \u2018opposition\u2019 Labour councillors. Jim has backed trade unionists and supported direct action by council service users. As a result of his staunch opposition to cuts, the SNP<\/acronym> ruling group suspended him for six months in 2009. In the person of Jim, we have somebody who has gone considerably beyond Turley\u2019s second voting criterion for giving electoral support – i.e. saying they oppose the cuts. If you add Turley\u2019s first criterion –\u00a0support for someone from the Labour movement – Jim had the support of Clydebank Trades Council in the face of his earlier suspension from office. Jim headed the SSP<\/acronym> slate for the West of Scotland on May 5th.<\/p>\n

In Glasgow, the most significant anti-cuts struggle at present is the continued Free Hetherington occupation at Glasgow University. Once again the SSP<\/acronym> has been prominent in this, particularly Scottish Socialist Youth.<\/p>\n

Now, of course, it is easy for Turley to make a smug dismissal of the current voting support for the SSP<\/acronym>. There is much that the SSP<\/acronym> can be criticised for in this and other regards. However, when it comes to assessing the anti-cuts opposition on Turley\u2019s criteria, then it is Galloway and his backers, not the SSP<\/acronym>, that is found wanting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Weekly Worker, no. 865, James Turley has attacked those who wrote an Open Letter urging no vote for George Galloway in the Holyrood elections on May 5th. The Open Letter was originally published on the Manchester-based blog, Infantile and disorderly (The Editorial Board of Emancipation & Liberation added its members\u2019 names after the initial…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1852,1858,1861,1867,1873,1854,1860,1875],"tags":[230],"class_list":["post-2034","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-how-communists-organise","category-oppression-liberation","category-alienation-self-determination","category-emancipation-liberation-and-self-determination","category-against-unionism","category-the-left-crisis","category-other-social-struggles","category-scotland-against-unionism","tag-author-allan-armstrong"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"views":18596,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2034","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2034"}],"version-history":[{"count":26,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2034\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18196,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2034\/revisions\/18196"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2034"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2034"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2034"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}