Hands Off People of Iran: launch conference

More than seventy people attended the launch conference of Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPI) in London on Saturday, travelling from all parts of the country. It was a good start to the campaign, writes Stuart King.

This was the first conference of HOPI, following soon after it was barred from joining the Stop the War Coalition (STWC) at that organisation’s October conference. But in contrast to the picture painted by Andrew Murray and the SWP this wasn’t a day of ranting about the STWC and plotting how to destroy it.

Rather it was a positive attempt to bring together forces that wanted to campaign against an attack on Iran and build solidarity with workers in struggle in that country. Unlike the leaders of the STWC, our campaign is not afraid to criticise the Islamic government of Iran in its repression of women, trade unionists and lesbians and gays and the of the democratic movement in general.

Throughout the day it was made clear that HOPI’s aim was to work with, and within, the STWC to campaign against a US or Israeli attack. Delegates spoke about how on the ground, in the local branches of Stop the War there was little antagonism to HOPI and much sympathy. An SWP’er from Manchester explained how he had come to the conference despite pressure put on him not to.

The morning of the conference discussed amendments to the founding statement, adopting a clear position in support of the Iranian peoples right to defend themselves against imperialist attack.

There was considerable discussion around the call for a “nuclear free middle east” and the implications such a slogan had for the rights of a semi colonial country like Iran, threatened by Israeli and US nuclear offensives, to develop a nuclear industry and defence capability. In the end it was decided to alter the wording to make clear this was a demand for disarming Israel and the states that were threatening Iran with nuclear weapons. This was not very successful in my opinion, and Permanent Revolution had argued that taking a position on this question was not necessary in the campaign’s founding statement.

In the afternoon a number of resolutions were passed, largely around campaigning priorities for HOPI in the coming year. It was noted that the recent US intelligence agencies report, saying that Iran no longer had any nuclear weapons programme, had made Bush’s plans to launch a strike against Iran before the end of his Presidency much more difficult. This will not stop the destabilisation campaigns and the sanctions war against Iran and fighting against UN sanctions was seen as an important part of HOPI’s work in the coming year.

One of the resolutions emphasised the importance of work in the trade unions and developing links with workers struggles in Iran. These struggles have been met with singular brutality and the imprisonment of trade union leaders for 5 years and more. Another resolution noted the growth of the student movement and its fight against the semi-dictatorial regime. It called for a campaign amongst British students in its support.

The conference adopted a constitution for the campaign and elected a broad based steering committee to organise the work between conferences. It was positive to see a significant number of Iranians at the conference, and they are also represented in the steering committee. Further information on the founding document, resolutions and campaigning activities of HOPI can be found on their website at : www.hopoi.org

Mon 10, December 2007 @ 00:14

Bookmark with:

What are these?

discussion of this article

Simon Keller said…

So PR has nothing to say about the 3rd campism that underlies the politics of the main groups involved in HOPI... Simon K

Mon 10, December 2007 @ 19:17

Simon Keller said…

And before you say it "adopting a clear position in support of the Iranian peoples right to defend themselves against imperialist attack." means nothing in relation to this question. As if HOPI would not support the Iranian people defending themselves from attack but this completely side-steps the vital question of the relationship to the Iranian regime if it fights back against such an attack. The politics of the CPGB (who initiated HOPI) are 3rd campist and it would seem from this report that HOPI remains 3rd campist as well. Simon K.

Mon 10, December 2007 @ 19:28

Wladek Flakin said…

Were there any discussions about the relationship between the campaign/the left/the workers' movement and the Iranian regime in case of an imperialist attack?

Mon 10, December 2007 @ 19:32

Dan said…

Yes the CPGB does have some very poor politics in regards to imperialism. But so does the SWP who have dominated the leadership of the STWC. But that doesn't mean you don't enter into a united front. For instance the SWP are incredibly soft on the Iranian regime, as was the last STWC conference. I don't think that in itself would mean that therefore PR shouldn't be part of the STWC. I remember being part of Youth to Stop the War that WP/Revo set up and the CPGB and even AWL had members on the initial steering committee. As far as I can see there is nothing in the HOPI founding statement that commits HOPI to third campist politics. Can you point me to where there is? If so then this would be a problem, if not then I don't see why there can't be a united front, whatever the flaws of a group within HOPI. PR has a revolutionary defeatist position and we are clear that Iran should be defended from imperialist attack. And that includes the politics behind the slogan "victory to Iran".

Mon 10, December 2007 @ 21:00

Simon Keller said…

The main slogans of the HOPI campaign are: No to imperialist war! No to the theocratic regime! Without any clear clarification that this "double No" includes taking a side in the conflict this does indeed seem like 3rd campism to me. And when the main organisation behind the setting up of HOPI has an openly 3rd campist position (see my, and others, debate with the CPGB in the pages of Weekly Worker) then this 3rd campism is made even more clear. The CPGB are openly hostile to a revolutionary defencist (I think you meant that rather than revolutionary defeatist) position and would not have set up a united front group that took such a position. For HOPI to take on a revolutionary defencist position it would require a political struggle to overthrow the CPGB's political dominance of HOPI - this clearly did not occur at the conference. Indeed it seems the question was not even discussed. Of course it is possible to be involved in united fronts with other organisations whose overall politics you disagree with but it is quite a different matter to be in a united front when you disagree with the politics of the united front itself - that is just opportunism. That would seem to be a very real danger that PR are in regarding your support for HOPI and its implicit 3rd campism. Simon K.

Tue 11, December 2007 @ 10:42

TWP said…

To answer your query Simon: The conference adopted a proposal which stated that "The main enemy is imperialism" and something to the effect that "Iran is not a consistently anti-imperialist or progressive force". I abstained on this simply because I thought it could have been formulated more clearly. This involved a fair deal of discussion as did the PR resolution on nuclear power. However, and I agreed with Stuart on this, the question of the "right" to nuclear power and how we go about creating a nuclear free Middle East is something that is "a debate amongst socialists" and didn't necessarily need to be in a founding document. An amendment was adopted which specifically highlighted the fact that Israel, the US and UK had nuclear weapons which should be opposed but that we were for a nuclear free Middle East in any regard. There are differences among supporters over whether any nation has a "right" to nuclear self-defence (and indeed Noam Chomsky has a similar line to that of PR!) I personally do not agree with PR's position on this, but this shouldn't preclude us from working together. Needless to say I think your criticisms of HOPI as "Third Campist" are rather unfounded. It has taken a very clear stance against imperialist war - so much so I might add that the AWL will not participate (though I wish they would and have encouraged them to at least come and debate with us as I do not think their differences are enough to keep them out of this coalition).

Tue 11, December 2007 @ 13:53

James Turley said…

I was unable to attend the conference for health reasons, and have not seen the amended statement or anything as of yet. The trouble with insisting that some defencist formulation should be written into the statement is a more abstract problem of the relation of strategy to tactics. Fine - if it came to two rival amendments, say, one saying "in the event of an imperialist attack on Iran and the Iranian state fighting back, we will be on the side of the Iranian state" and another saying ""in the event of an imperialist attack on Iran and the Iranian state fighting back, we will be neutral", I would vote for the former. The thing is, to be consistent, you would then have to extend the statement almost infinitely, covering every possible eventuality - "in the event of this...", "in the event of that..." Because otherwise you create a privileged instance of that particular scenario, and imply that it is the most likely. *This skews the strategic line*, because it is not necessarily true that the scenario we have to make "special preparations" for is that particularly privileged one. Indeed, in this case it seems to be one of the less likely scenorios - those who found the time to leaf through Saturday's Guardian will have seen, spelled out, the desire for conciliation among large sections of the Iranian ruling class. One imagines, then, a meeting in September 1917 of the Bolshevik CC; Lenin gets up and says, "the bourgeoisie is cowardly and counterrevolutionary, we must win democracy by winning socialism", and somebody else gets up and asks "yes, but IF the bourgeoisie WAS revolutionary, would we support them?" It is irrelevant, beyond parlour games. What is important is that the Hopi statement provides a strategic perspective that will allow correct decisions to be arrived at whatever the sequence of events is. In my mind, this means an emphasis on the prostration of the Iranian state to imperialism, regardless of a current vogue for anti-american rhetoric among certain of its circles which are currently dominant. This is not a third campist perspective, because it does not posit what is normally called a "second camp" as a social actor of any real permanence or backbone. Of course, I don't know if it does that yet... It would, furthermore, be one thing if the emphasis on defencism was the outcome of a different strategic perspective from my own on the balance of probabilities for imperialist action and local response in Iran. But it seems, as is so common, that we have another of those hallowed orthodox-trotskyist "acid tests" instead, ready made positions to which united fronts etc must measure up *to the letter* before full support can be offered. JT

Tue 11, December 2007 @ 14:02

Simon Keller said…

TWP - HOPI may well have taken a "very clear stance against imperialist war" except that this is completely abstract if it doesn't deal with the question of what to do in the case of an imperialist attack. The main force fighting back against this attack will be the Iranian regime and its army. The CPGB have used this "The main enemy is imperialism" slogan before but it doesn't stop them from advocating a 3rd campist position of taking no side in what will be the central antagonists - imperialism and the Iranian regime. It is just a fig leaf unless you are clear on this question of taking sides. Simon K.

Tue 11, December 2007 @ 15:48

Simon Keller said…

James - of course you are correct that there can be an almost endless number of possible outcomes and related positions. However I presume you would agree that some possible outcomes are more likely than others. It is therefore not necessary to deal with all possible outcomes, merely those which are most likely based on a historical materialist Marxist approach. To compare the possibility of a US attack on Iran with the bourgeoisie being revolutionary is to be actually engaging in "parlour games". It is a debating trick to avoid dealing with the question of what to do about one of the real likely outcomes of the present situation. Despite the recent talk about using greater sanctions to force the Iranian regime to capitulate and the desire of some sections of the Iranian bourgeoisie to conciliate the threat of a military attack remains very real. It would be politically unserious to avoid dealing with the political problems that raises. This question cannot be ignored unless you are arguing that the likelihood of a capitulation by the Iranian bourgeoisie to the requirements of US imperialism (perhaps in the form of a replacement of the current regime with a more pliant and openly pro-imperialist one) has become so overwhelming that the possibility of a military attack is now not a scenario worth considering at all. I would argue that you will need a little bit more evidence than one issue of the Guardian to make that case. The main problem is that the HOPI statement does NOT provide "a strategic perspective that will allow correct decisions to be arrived at whatever the sequence of events is." For proof one has only to look at the CPGB who take an explicitly 3rd campist position in response to the possibility of a military attack. Simon K.

Tue 11, December 2007 @ 16:02

Simon Keller said…

James - Where have I referred to a particular slogan that must be agreed "to the letter" - this is just smoke and mirrors slander of Trotskyism to avoid the substantive point. And anyway you should remember that it is YOU who have made it an "acid test" that the anti-war movement must be critical of the Iranian regime. Otherwise you would be happy to join the StWC without creating HOPI. I actually agree with you that this is an "acid test" of the anti-war movement. Our disagreement is over there is another one, not with whether there are any "acid tests" at all. So stop playing these games and deal with the substantive point. You are fooling yourself, or being fooled by others, if you really think the possibility of a military attack on Iran has receded to a point of effective abstractness. Simon K.

Tue 11, December 2007 @ 16:16

Simon Keller said…

James - the HOPI statement of aims as amended by the conference is now on the HOPI web site. It ends: Our campaign demands are: * No to imperialist war! For the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq and all the Gulf region! * No to any imperialist intervention. The immediate and unconditional end to sanctions on Iran. * No to the theocratic regime! * Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression * Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression! * Support for socialism and democracy in Iran and therefore solidarity with all democratic, working class, socialist and secular movements in Iran. * Opposition to Israeli, British and American nuclear weapons. For a Middle East free of nuclear weapons as a step towards world-wide nuclear disarmament! Quite a wide-ranging number of "acid tests" covering a wide range of possible outcomes. And yet no room for a clear statement on what to do if the regime fights back against a military attack by US imperialism - something the HOPI statement itself recognises as one of the likely possible outcomes! Simon K.

Tue 11, December 2007 @ 16:39

Bill J said…

The amended HOPI founding statement is here; http://www.hopoi.org/main.html

Tue 11, December 2007 @ 18:21

TWP said…

But Simon you seem to be insisting that HOPI is not against a war with Iran when it clearly is. I am not sure what you are looking for in the statement. It's clear to me and others that if Iran were attacked we would oppose that attack. In addition, I am not certain I would say that I support the Iranian regime in the event of an attack - I would support the Iranian people and their right to resist such an attack. (This is the same reason I oppose the slogan "victory to the resistance" as it singles out repressive elements for support instead of the Iraqi people or Iraqi working class) The scenario I would prefer (and I assume other socialists would prefer) would be for the Iranian working class to use any imperialist intervention in a similar way to the Russian working class in the early 20th century when it used WW1 and overthrew the regime. However I think that's a rather less likely scenario today in Iran precisely because it is difficult for socialists, trade unionists and activists to organise under current conditions. Further, it's not a given that any overthrow would result in a necessarily progressive regime either. But HOPI also clearly states that it is for a socialist Iran and I believe this is part of the logic behind that formulation.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 10:36

Simon Keller said…

TWP - I have not said that HOPI is against an attack on Iran. My difference is over what tactics communists should take in Iran if that attack occurs. The Marxist tradition as developed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks for the imperialist era provide us with some methodological tools for understanding conflicts between capitalist states and our approach to them. I think your mistaken analogy with WWI highlights the problem with your position. The Bolshevik position in WWI was one of revolutionary defeatism. They argued that because it was an inter-imperialist war there was no side to be taken. A victory for either side would not make a fundamental difference to the prospects for world revolution. In a conflict between imperialist and non-imperialist states things are different and communists are revolutionary defencists - in these military conflicts we have a side with the non-imperialist against the imperialist forces. In both situations we are for taking advantage of the crisis of capitalist rule that exhibits itself in the outbreak of war to further revolutionary politics. But in one case we do this by being for the defeat of both sides and in the other we are for the defeat of the imperialists and are in a military bloc with the non-imperialists. This does not mean giving any political support to the Iranian regime, like the SWP and StWC do, but it does mean we make a military distinction between the two sides. We favour the victory of one over the other because a victory for the non-imperialist side would qualitatively improve the international revolutionary situation. If you are going to lay claim to the tradition of Lenin, the Bolsheviks and the Russian Revolution you might at least apply their method in the same way that they did... Simon K.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 11:17

Simon Keller said…

It might perhaps be argued, like James does above, that this is not an important question to have a position on at this time. However it should be remembered that HOPI would not exist if it wasn't for the fact that the SWP/StWC are giving political support to the Iranian regime as part of their opposition to a possible imperialist attack. The question of what tactics to take towards the Iranian regime lies at the very heart of HOPI's existence! Simon K.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 11:41

Simon Keller said…

TWP - that first line doesn't make sense, should read. I have not said that HOPI is not opposed to an attack on Iran.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 11:49

PR webby said…

Simon I appreciate you are keen. But is it really necessary to post 3 times in response to every remark? Out of the 16 posts here you have made 10, can you control yourself please?

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 14:10

Simon Keller said…

Well one of those is a correction and I was replying to two different people but point taken...

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 15:10

TWP said…

Simon - I simply don't agree with this statement: "a victory for the non-imperialist side would qualitatively improve the international revolutionary situation" I don't think that's necessarily true. I think the Tehran regime is reactionary. If you want to claim I am not a "Leninist" or some such thing because I don't agree with this then fine. I don't happen to think that whatever Lenin did and said can be immediately analogous to the present day political situation in any regard. I am not certain the Lenin's analysis of imperialism itself can be applied to the world after WW2. (In fact Lenin's concept of 'imperialism' is very much a pre-WW1 concept to begin with) If the very definition of imperialism as Lenin saw it does not accurately describe states today then perhaps his analysis of what revolutionaries should do in WW1 doesn't apply to modern Iran either. Just a thought.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 16:29

Simon Keller said…

TWP - well if we live in a different era from the imperialist one that Lenin was referring to, or Lenin was wrong about imperialism anyway then of course there would be no point in using his methodology for the current conflict. However then there is not much point in you referring to the Russian experience of WWI as a justification for your current position on Iran - which is what I was responding to. I happen to think that the general framework of world capitalism that confronted Lenin is broadly the same as we do now. In fact since the capitalist counter-revolutions in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe we live in a very similar world indeed. And if that is correct then the statement "a victory for the non-imperialist side would qualitatively improve the international revolutionary situation" is absolutely valid. This is irrespective of the reactionary nature of the Iranian regime as the obstacle they present to world revolution is an incidental one compared to the obstacle of US imperialism. If you don't accept the Leninist analysis of imperialism then what exactly are you proposing in its place? I've got to say that you sound rather impressionistic, as opposed to scientific, in your analysis. Simon K.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 17:19

Bill J said…

The reason for supporting Iran in any conflict with the USA/UK is not because an Iranian victory would "qualitatively improve the situation" of the class struggle, even though it probably would, we have no means of knowing how much until it happens. Rather it is because Iran is oppressed by imperialism. It is fundamentally an issue of principle around the rights of nations to self determination. Iran, an oppressed nation, has the right to defend itself against any imperialist attack. To deny Iran that right is to deny its right to self determination. That is why "third campism", in itself a nebulous phrase deployed to opposite effect by Workers Power and the AWL, is nonetheless a mistake, as it puts preconditions on the right of Iran to exercise its right to self determination. I think however, that you would have to try really hard to interpret HOPI's statement, as being third campist. Given that it makes it absolutely clear it is against imperialist war, supports the rights of the Iranian people to defend themselves by any means necessary and says imperialism is the main enemy. Interestingly the AWL the real third campists, say it is not - an accurate interpretation - in my view. Workers Power say it is - but with a different motivation, presumably to embarrass PR and because I think they don't want to actually do anything practical against the war or threats against Iran, but prefer to denounce everyone else and console themselves that we are all "centrists." I think btw the comparisons between the present phase of globalised imperialism and the belle epoque of pre-WWI imperialism described by Lenin are useful, as Keith's excellent and ground breaking article in PR7 shows.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 19:15

TWP said…

Simon - I'm not really concerned if you do think I sound impressionistic. So far you've said I'm not a Leninist and I am not "scientific". I really don't think either accusation is helpful or adds to the discussion that we are having. As far as I can tell you are claiming to have a line that is an absolute truth based on something that Lenin came up with in 1916. I am claiming that I don't think that we can keep applying these tired old slogans without looking at the current day reality. Lenin's concept of imperialism was largely based on a conception of empire expansion through physical force. Very simply put, expansion doesn't happen this way any longer. The war in Iraq isn't about territorial expansion. The US expands its economic empire largely by means other than physical force. Lenin wrote imperialism at a time when competing empires were at each other's throats. There was no hegemonic power at the time as the US is today - which happened in the wake of the Second World War. All of these facts are bound to have an impact on how Marxists view Lenin's concept of imperialism and that was rather my point. I believe part of being a Marxist is to continually re-assess theory with lived reality and the lived reality for Iranian workers is that they live under a reactionary regime which does not deserve the support of socialists. The Iranian people, on the other hand, do. The Iranian working class will have my support whether they are attacked or not - I think that it what HOPI is trying to do.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 19:16

Dan said…

I don't think a revolutionary defencist position is just about the right of nations to self-determination. While the right of self-determination is something that revolutionaries would usually support, the only principle as such is that of the taking of power by the working class. All other things are tactics. I think Trotsky is good on this in "Their Morals and Ours". I broadly agree with What Simon K is saying (although I do think you should i) not bombard the boards with so many posts, as it gets a bit like trolling and ii) have a less shrill and denouncing tone as it helps no-one). Where I would disagree is with his take on HOPI. In terms of agreement I think that the point about a defeat for an imperialist nation by a semi-colony presenting an opportunity for the wide working class is broadly correct. As summed up by: "This is irrespective of the reactionary nature of the Iranian regime as the obstacle they present to world revolution is an incidental one compared to the obstacle of US imperialism." Indeed it is even feasible that a victory for imperialism could improve conditions of the working class in the country attacks, but this is very unlikely (look at Iraq!). But the point is to look at things internationally. If imperialism is defeated by a force, even a reactionary force, then this will push imperialism back. For instance when the stalinist regime in Vietnam defeated the US this was a victory for the international working class, despite the reactionary nature of the stalinist regime in Vietnam. That's why I think it's important to state the "victory to Iran" is important. However I think it's stretching it to a point of being meaningless to say that HOPI's statement is 3rd campist (or implicit 3rd campism). It should probably be phrased better in places, and the fact that it's not could be the influence of the CPGB. However this is a very new united front and something worth getting stuck into. If it degenerates into the politics of the CPGB then that will be one thing, but there is no reason it has to. As said, the uncritical stance of the SWP and CPB (and as such the STWC leadership) towards Iran doesn't mean you shouldn't be part of the STWC. HOPI could become a useful organisation in the STW movement and I think it's too early to write it off already.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 20:22

Simon Keller said…

Bill - I don't know why you describe the AWL as "the real third campists". Given the position they have taken on each of the recent imperialist adventures they are well and truly in the camp of imperialism! I suppose you could argue that HOPI's position is "algebraic" in that they don't take a position on the question of siding with the Iranian regime against an imperialist attack or not. However to be "algebraic" on such a central question - in fact the very question they came into existence over - when the main component of the group (up to this point) is openly 3rd campist is fudging things to say the least. TWP - where have I said that there is any "absolute truth"? I merely think that Lenin and the Bolshevik's analysis of the imperialist era is "broadly" (to use the term I actually used) correct and a useful guide to action. This is more or less true for all Marxist analysis. Until such time as a new and better explanation comes along then we tend to stick with what until that time is the best explanation. Lenin's theory of imperialism and the broad outline of the tactics developed for the workers' movement in response should still be our guide to action until such time as a better alternative is developed in response to developments in reality - your doubts don't amount to an alternative theory and therefore cannot be a guide to action. I think you are simply wrong to say "Lenin's concept of imperialism was largely based on a conception of empire expansion through physical force" and suggest you reread his main pamphlet on the question. Also the degree of hegemony of US imperialism is not something that negates Lenin's understanding, indeed for most of his life he had lived under effective British hegemony. And as regards the relevance of the theory to today's conditions I look forward to reading Keith's article in the new PR. Dan - Glad to hear we at least partially agree on this one. Part of the problem with HOPI being unclear on what, if there is an actual military attack, will be a central question is that HOPI will split, with all the related political confusion and misdirected energy, at precisely the time when a strong anti-imperialist movement saying "Victory to Iran" is necessary. It is unfortunate that no-one was prepared to pose "Victory to Iran" as a demand for HOPI at the recent conference. This is not some secondary question - if there is a military attack it will become a central question! All you are doing is providing a platform for the CPGB and their allies in HOPI to spread their 3rd campist bollocks. The CPGB are just using you... Simon K.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 21:17

Dan said…

"I think you are simply wrong to say "Lenin's concept of imperialism was largely based on a conception of empire expansion through physical force" and suggest you reread his main pamphlet on the question." This is very true. Lenin's book on imperialism "the highest stage of capitalism" actually speaks a great deal about finance capital and its role in imperialism. I also agree that nothing much better has come along. Having said that we need to look at the changes that have happened and the current situation we're in. For what it's worth I think the economic analysis that PR have carried out is very useful from that point of view. The point about HOPI splitting could be true, if the CPGB force a third campist position. But to be honest if HOPI becomes successful as a united front then the loss of the CPGB wouldn't matter anyway. PR is clear that we support the "victory to Iran" slogan and the politics that go behind it. But I still don't get your point. This is a united front. The amended statement, from what I can see, clearly isn't 3rd campist. Indeed 3rd campists on the internet (including the AWL) are criticising it for this very point. Saying that HOPI is wrong because it calls for the "Immediate withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq, but no statement of opposition to the clerical-fascist forces in Iraq". And that "In the event of war, the attitude of HOPI is likely to be to side with Iran". But this aside the STWC won't call for "victory to Iran" and didn't call for "victory to Iraq". Indeed it wouldn't even go as far as saying "troops out now". But does that mean that we shouldn't be part of the STWC? I don't think so. The same goes with HOPI. If it was supporting 3rd campist positions I'd say we shouldn't be in it, but as far as I can see it doesn't and as it is a very new united front I think it could play a useful role in the STW movement. If you're right that we're just being used by the CPGB that will be ashame. Hopefully that won't be the case and more serious forces will get involved.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 22:13

Simon Keller said…

Dan - My point is actually what I said in my very first post on this thread in response to your report of the HOPI conference - "So PR has nothing to say about the 3rd campism that underlies the politics of the main groups involved in HOPI..." I thought PR stood by the Leninist approach to united fronts - joint action on the agreed points but freedom, indeed the necessity, of political criticism of any other wrong politics of your bloc partners. From what I can see HOPI is effectively a political non-aggression pact on this central question. You seem to be paying a political price for keeping the group together of not criticising your 3rd campist bloc partners. Also to the extent that HOPI has a public face it is mostly represented by 3rd campists as far as I can tell. The message that it is projecting to the workers' movement is a 3rd campist one despite your legalistic/formalistic analysis of the words of the statement the reality is that HOPI projects a 3rd campist position of an equal NO to both sides. Now maybe you can argue that this will be resolved by struggle but from what I can see you are not involved in any struggle within HOPI on this question. You are happy to debate the question of nuclear weapons and so on but not this more important question - why? Simon K. P.S. Once again I am amazed that you can call the AWL 3rd campist - I repeat, they are firmly in the camp of the imperialists. They consider reactionary Islam to be the greater danger and will side with the "democratic imperialists", just as they consistently do.

Wed 12, December 2007 @ 23:21

Dan said…

I take your point that open political criticism is needed in any united front, but I'd also take into account that this was the founding conference of a united front. I doubt that many reports of the founding conference of the STWC highlighted the fact that the SWP, SP, CPB etc wouldn't raise the politics behind victory to Iraq. But of course in other polemics this would be raised. And PR members are hardly keeping quiet on it. For a start I'm openly stating our politics on here and criticising the CPGB. And in future debates in HOPI this will come up, and these debates will be had. I agree that HOPI, at present, is probably fairly heavily influenced by the CPGB, but this can change. Indeed if it gets any real forces on board (and it will have to if it is to become in anyway useful) then that would change rapidly. I don't agree that HOPI projects a 3rd campist position, and from that point of view it is important to look at the founding statement, especially as it is a new united front. But as said, if it remains dominated by the CPGB then this will become a problem. The STWC has many political problems, but as a united front I'd still say it is worth being part of at the moment. How much the politics of "victory to Iran" got debated I don't know as I wasn't there. Maybe someone who was there could fill this in a bit more. But I'd stress again that this was a founding conference. The question of "victory to Iraq" wasn't a big point of debate at the initial conference of the STWC, as it was a united front around the slogan of "stop the war". PS On the AWL. Maybe you're right and they have gone fully over into supporting the imperialists.

Thu 13, December 2007 @ 00:43

Simon Keller said…

Dan - I think you make too much of the "new" and "founding conference" thing. HOPI has existed for quite some time now and its political basis is quite clear. I, and others, have been debating this in the pages of Weekly Worker for nearly a year now, since HOPI was launched by the CPGB. The "founding conference" merely made some small amendments to the statement of aims. There is no indication that its fundamental character has been changed. I therefore think it is disingenuous to argue that PR wouldn't have known about the 3rd campism being pushed by the campaign and its initiator, the CPGB. I think that it will be good if PR starts to criticise the 3rd campism of the CPGB and others involved in HOPI but given the strategic importance of this question to Leninism you will forgive me if I think your silence about it at the "founding conference", according to your own report, is a little worrying and backs up my suggestion that HOPI is effectively a political non-aggression pact on this point. I don't think it is a question of the AWL "going over" into supporting imperialism. They have consistently supported imperialism in its wars of aggression - which is of course an expression of their underlying Shachtmanite methodology. Simon K.

Thu 13, December 2007 @ 08:32

Bill J said…

How can you say that HOPI "is effectively a political non-aggression pact?" Given that PR moved and won amendments to make it absolutely clear that the Iranian people have the right to defend themselves against imperialist attack? Unlike you PR actually argued for our politics in HOPI and won various positions within it. You weren't even there Simon. The problem with your sectarian position is that as you seem to be afraid of engaging with other forces in the anti-war movement, and so you don't even have the political argument. Better to sit at home on your computer and denounce it from the sidelines. A habit which ironically you share with Workers Power and the AWL, who for all their alleged differences end up with the same position - do nothing but shout loudly about it. And no HOPI doesn't have a position of Victory to Iran, but then neither does the StWC it is not after all a party but a united front around raising solidarity with Iran, against the war threat of imperialism and for the struggles of the workers and oppressed domestically.

Thu 13, December 2007 @ 13:06

Dan said…

Simon, It may well be the case that HOPI was set up a while ago (although even so this was less than a year ago) but this was the founding conference and the first real opportunity for people to have an influence. As said if it remains dominated by the CPGB it will be of little use, but I don't think this has to be the case. And demanding that HOPI has the slogan "victory to Iran" has no more logic to it than demanding the the STWC has the slogan in regards to Iraq or Iran. Also I never claimed that PR didn't know about the 3rd campism of the CPGB I just don't think the founding statement is 3rd campist (which is the basis of the politics of HOPI as a united front) or that the CPGB have to stay dominant. After all they are a group of around two dozen people. As said I doubt a report of the founding conference of the STWC would have been best served by a political attack on the SWP and SP for not supporting "victory to Iraq", because that wasn't what the united front was coming together over. But that doesn't mean that PR (and before it WP) didn't openly criticise the SWP and SP for doing this and openly raise those politics in the STWC. Anyway, we shall see! Dan

Thu 13, December 2007 @ 13:34

Chris Strafford said…

A few things I would like to add.
Firstly HOPI is not third campist, we call for the defeat of imperialism see the accepted PR amendment to the founding statement:
"The task of the anti war movement in Britain and HOPI is threefold. One to fight against any imperialist attack on Iran and support the Iranian peoples right to defend themselves by any means necessary.
Secondly not to flinch from publicising the reactionary nature of the Tehran regime and its attacks on the workers and democratic movement. Thirdly to build links with all progressive forces fighting the regime workers, women, trade unionists, socialists. "
Simon, Would you care to explain how that is even implicit third campism? Secondly saying that the CPGB is using or in control of HOPI does not actually match with reality. Can you count how many CPGB members are on the national steering committee?
The CPGB have poured alot of resources and time into HOPI but if you was at the conference you would see that the majority of comrades were not from the CPGB. In Manchester the majority of the activists involved in the campaign are not aligned to the CPGB, I think the same could be said about the HOPI activists in Scotland and other parts of the country. Another point would be that HOPI was established by Iranian exiles around Rahe Kargar and Workers Left Unity Iran, the CPGB was one of the first organisations to support the call for a principled campaign withing the anti war movement.
Thirdly the CPGB does not hold a third campist position. It is for the defeat of imperialism. Mark Fischer at HOPI conference said that the victory of Iran over the Imperialists would be the better of two evils, whilst the Hekmatists who are third campist called imperialism and the regime equal poles of terrorism.
In 2003 the CPGB called for the victory of Iraq: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/472/ww472.pdf With regards to Lenins analysis of Imperialism. Whilst Lenins analysis of imperialism must be looked at and form the basis of further analysis we must move beyond going back to old formulas time and time again. Marxism is not a stagnant movement which has a select few holy texts that are used by defenders of the holy truth. Marxism is a living and ever advancing movement.

Thu 13, December 2007 @ 14:23

PR webby said…

Hi all sorry about the crash. Our site doesn't like Macs sometimes or unusual characters, so if you're going to use some please paste it out of plain text. cheers PR Webby

Thu 13, December 2007 @ 18:03

SteveR said…

comrades, what's this "third camp"? not the imperialists or Ahmedinejad? count me in! I never got it over the Soviet Union either... If (small "if"!) the imperialists attack Iran, of course we are for the defeat of the imperialists; but this doesn't mean we are for the victory of Ahmedinejad - rather, for the victory of the iranian workers and oppressed, who we support against the current 'leadership' of Iran:- surely this is ABC. and i should qualify my "we":- i haven't yet joined the HOPI campaign, so am just chatting abstractly...

Thu 13, December 2007 @ 23:54

Simon Keller said…

Chris - Go to the HOPI web site (www.hopoi.org) The main slogans of the HOPI campaign are: No to imperialist war! No to the theocratic regime! The intro to what HOPI is about says: "Hands Off The People Of Iran fights against the threat of any imperialist intervention, war or sanctions against Iran. It looks to build active, practical solidarity with grass-roots radical secular forces in Iran, the militant women’s, workers and students movements. We want regime change, both in Iran and in the imperialist countries." This reads like 3rd campism to me. The full statement does include the PR amendment that you refer to but despite going into much detail about the situation and what should be done, it does not say anything like "to the extent that the Iranian regime fights back against any imperialist attack we have a military side with them" which would make things clear. Why not? I base my statement that the CPGB is 3rd campist on their explicit arguments in favour of 3rd campism in the pages of Weekly Worker: "Communists would not side with Washington against Tehran, nor would they side with Tehran against Washington" Weekly Worker 668 Thursday April 12 2007 Article by Eddie Ford "we certainly refuse to side with the small criminal against the big criminal" Weekly Worker 669 Thursday April 19 2007 Letter by Dave Isaacson "I shall be calling for the defeat of imperialism. I also want the defeat of the Iranian state by the working class. It is not only possible to fight on two fronts: it is also necessary" Weekly Worker 679 Thursday June 28 2007 Letter by Phil Kent Simon K.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 02:07

Simon Keller said…

Bill - an amendment stating that "the Iranian people have the right to defend themselves against imperialist attack" is all very well and good but the CPGB 3rd campists have no problem with that statement either (see my quotes in reply to Chris). It is not a question of the Iranian people defending themselves but rather what should be their relationship to the Iranian regime if it also fights back against the imperialists. You argue that it would be wrong for HOPI to call for "Victory to Iran" because it is a united front and not a party and yet HOPI is able to make many other quite sweeping demands. The "Victory to Iran" slogan would not look out of place in the list of demands. There is clearly another reason for it not being included... There are real physical reasons why my intervention is limited to an internet intervention but it might be better if you kept such cheap shots out of the discussion and discussed the political ideas themselves. Simon K.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 02:20

Bill J said…

Well you may say its a cheap shot, but your method of exaggerated polemic, combined inactivity is one that is widely shared on the left. There is a saying - put your money where you mouth is - I like it. I suggest if you can't back up your attacks with action, you learn to moderate your tone. (Actually moderate your tone anyway, its not constructive no matter what.) You quote various articles from the Weekly Worker. So what? I'm not a member of the Weekly Worker. They have plenty of terrible articles in that paper - its well known for them - what's that supposed to prove? The basis for your accusation of "third campism" against HOPI was that it put pre-conditions on its defence of Iran. Yet it doesn't, as the PR amendments success proves. Logically if you support Iran's right to defend itself, then you want that defence to be successful, therefore you want its victory. So in fact all you are arguing about is a point of semantics. It's the sort of thing people do at computers.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 09:53

Dan said…

If Simon can't do stuff for real reasons then fair enough and nothing more should be said about it. But I hope he can understand why someone might make a comment like that given the amount of keyboard warriors out there who spout all day on the internet but won't do practical stuff. But as said given what you've said then no more should be said on the matter. Once again I'd repeat that HOPI is a united front. The STWC is a united front and doesn't have the slogan "victory to Iraq" and wouldn't even have the slogan "troops out now". But I don't think that means people shouldn't be part of the STWC. Do you? And I'd apply the same logic to HOPI. As long as the politics of the united front aren't something you actively disagree with then I don't see the problem. I know you keep saying that the CPGB are 3rd campist, but the important thing is the founding statement and I don't see how that can be read as 3rd campist.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 11:11

Simon Keller said…

Bill - my quotes from Weekly Worker were in a response to Chris who argued that the CPGB were not 3rd campist - when in fact they are openly so. I was wanting to prove that they are 3rd campists against his assertion that they are not. The debate that I, and others, have had with the CPGB in the pages of Weekly Worker make their 3rd campist position crystal clear. You may think that the PR amendment "logically" leads to wanting the victory of Iran but you are in a united front set up by open 3rd campists who argue that the "logic" of HOPI's politics leads to the necessity of not taking a side with the Iranian regime against US imperialism. Up to this time this is the "logic" of HOPI's politics that has been presented to the wider public. This is not a semantic point but a political reality of the HOPI campaign - one that you apparently want to avoid confronting. As regards your comments on my tone and "exaggerated polemics" I am not going to comment other than to refer people to reading what I have written in this thread and asking them to judge for themselves. As regards "putting my money where my mouth is" you of course make a valid point in general. However, while I want to keep my own personal circumstance personal, I presume you would accept that there can be reasons why an individual may be limited to a purely literary intervention. While this means I am not able to personally test out my ideas at meetings and on demonstrations like others without the particular constraints that confront me I would hope that would not necessarily mean the content of my ideas and arguments are not worthy of being considered. Simon K.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 11:11

Dan said…

Simon if you want to have a debate about the CPGB do it elsewhere. Any more debate about the CPGB will be deleted. As for your tone, I think it could be less shrill and less full of denouncements. But this is a side issue. HOPI might be united front set up by the CPGB but the STWC was set up by pacifists, Stalinists, reformists and centrists. So what? There was nothing in the founding statement of the STWC that stopped you being part of the united front. The same can be said of the founding statement of HOPI.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 11:17

Simon Keller said…

Dan - I actually do think that it is a problem that the StWC didn't take up an open position for the defeat of US/British imperialism and the victory of Iraq. The more open and algebraic slogans used seemed to have helped facilitate the dominance of pro-UN and pacifist politics from its platforms. That is the message that went out to the huge numbers of people who were mobilised on the mass demonstrations prior to the beginning of the war and it has played a central role in the political demobilisation of the anti-war movement since that time. With hindsight (at the time I thought that the internal dynamic of the demonstrations would lead to the development of a real anti-imperialist anti-war movement despite the intentions of the SWP and their pacifist allies) I can't help thinking those who criticise the StWC for not being openly anti-imperialist have a valid point. I am therefore motivated by what I have learnt from the lesson of the experience of the StWC in arguing that any united front against the likely US/Israeli attack on Iran should be openly calling for the victory of Iran and for taking a side with the regime if it fights back. I do think it is hard to discuss HOPI and the dangers of 3rd campism without referring to the CPGB. But it is your web board so I will attempt to do so, just as I have moderated my tone - which I think you will agree is more temperate than when I first posted here and carried over the more robust style of UK Left Network. Simon K.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 11:57

Bill J said…

I don't agree that the StWC should have taken a position for the Victory to Iraq. To do so would have narrowed the united front from several million to less than a handful. By opposing the war in Iraq, the movement was de facto anti-imperialist because the imperialists wanted war. The mistake was not to fight for mass working class action to stop the war. And for the left within it, (principally the SWP) to adapt to its milieu, not raising or explaining the right to self determination, self defence, or calling for a break with the union leaders if they hindered action, dropping troops out now etc. Actually in this regard Galloway, in spite of his other faults, was pretty good. If HOPI supports the right of Iran to defend itself then it is anti-imperialist too. Of course it is to an extent a hybrid organisation, something of a united front, something of a consciousness raising group, which is why its fine in my view to raise something more than minimal united front demands but that's the nature of the beast, not something to get het up about, especially as there is no limit on what we are able to say within it and no pre-conditions made for our participation in it. You could say it needs to support victory to Iran, but this is not necessary if its supports the right to self defence and would have the further negative consequence that it basically collapses as an organisation. So you are faced with a choice, do you want an organisation which supports Iran's right to self defence and within which you can explain why that needs to go so far as victory, or do you not want an organisation? Personally I don't think its an unprincipled compromise, to argue for the former to prevent the latter. But the one thing that I am totally against is the empty rhetoric of the likes of Workers Power and the AWL, who in spite of all their chat, end up with the same result - they do nothing but talk. In the case of the AWL its obviously because they support the war in Iraq, support the Zionists and would probably support an attack on Iran (after it had happened.)In so doing, earning the justified ire and contempt of the audience, but unifying themselves as a group of the "just" against the world. In the case of Workers Power, its because their base is so ideologically weak that they cannot participate in united fronts other than to denounce them. In so doing, earning the justified ire and contempt of the audience, but unifying themselves as a group of the "just" against the world. Everything is different - but everything's the same.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 13:03

Dan said…

"Dan - I actually do think that it is a problem that the StWC didn't take up an open position for the defeat of US/British imperialism and the victory of Iraq."
Well we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one then. I do have a problem with the STWC not agreeing to "troops out now" but not "victory to Iraq/Iran". As that wasn’t the basis of the united front and neither should it of been unless you wanted to reduce the STWC to the rump of the far left.
Now the fact that revolutionaries like the SWP and SP stayed quiet about their politics within the STWC is another question altogether as were actions like pandering to the UN and inviting Charles Kennedy onto a STW platform (that was more the SWP than SP). If the far left groups had been more open about their politics when given a platform and criticised the pacifists that would have been a big step forward, but I can’t agree that having a united front from day one that said "victory to Iraq" would have been the right thing to do because you would have been left with a united front based around a 3-4000 people at most.
However I do think there is an argument that you could simultaneously build an anti-imperialist united front both within the STWC and outside it. "I do think it is hard to discuss HOPI and the dangers of 3rd campism without referring to the CPGB." Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind you referring to the CPGB or their politics in relation to HOPI, what I don’t want is a big debate between you and CPGBers about the CPGB and whether the CPGB is 3rd campist or not as the Weekly Worker would be a better place for that. I actually agree that if the CPGB stayed dominant that would be a problem. Apart from anything else it would show that HOPI hadn't become anything like a real force.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 13:38

Simon Keller said…

Bill & Dan - I must confess I am surprised by your retrospective pessimism about the possibility of building a sizeable anti-imperialist anti-war movement on the basis of "Victory to Iraq". My memory of WP's analysis at the time was that they thought there was a massive degree of anti-imperialist sentiment on the mass demonstrations. Perhaps you were a minority in disagreement with that analysis but if you did agree why are you so pessimistic about it now? I think WP was right and that anti-imperialist feeling was real. At the time I thought that this would increase and sweep away the pacifist illusions being promoted from the StwC platforms. Of course with hindsight we can see that what actually happened was that this nascent anti-imperialism got drowned in the pacifist platitudes coming from the StWC leadership. Of course the question of how, and when, to intersect this anti-imperialist feeling and draw mass forces away from the SWP/SP mis-leadership and towards an explicitly anti-imperialist united front is key. Dan - your idea of "simultaneously building an anti-imperialist united front both within the StWC and outside it" sounds like it would be a very sensible tactic. I have a memory that someone (FRFI?) raised this as a proposal at the time of the big demonstrations against the war on Iraq - is PR going to be actively taking up that two-pronged approach in the context of the likely coming war against Iran? Simon K.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 16:30

Dan said…

Simon, I wouldn't say it is pessimistic but realistic. Also we were very much at odds with Workers Powers line at the time and the difference of what eventually turned into a split focused around WPs analysis that we are in a "pre-revolutionary period" and that capitalism is in crisis. We produced a wealth of figures showing the in fact profits and production of raw materials and manufacturing goods have been booming since 2000 and that OECD strike figures are at an historic low. Indeed around the time of the mass anti-war movement the UK had the lowest strike figures on record (around 150,000 days lost in the year, compare this to 10 million days a year in the 1970s). But while WP produced little to no emperical evidence they just kept making the same assertions that capitalism was in crisis. Even going as far as to say the London ESF could have resulted in a qualitive change for the working class movement in the UK. If you were at the London ESF and saw how little resonance it had with trade unionists and workers in the UK you would realise how out of touch this was. They also said that a 5th international could have been built out of the World and European Social Forums, again totally misreading the period we are in. PR has produced loads of stuff on the world economy and I'd say take a look. It is based on our analysis of the collapse of the stalinist/degenerated workers states and the massive markets this opened up for capitalism. "Of course with hindsight we can see that what actually happened was that this nascent anti-imperialism got drowned in the pacifist platitudes coming from the StWC leadership." Which is why revolutionary socialists should have used the platforms to put forward a different way forward. Unfortunately the SWP just apped what the reformists and pacifists said. Also, as said, I would have had no problem with a united front of anti-imperialists inside the broader united front of the STWC. But I think that to have had "victory to Iraq" as the politics of the STWC from day one would have been ultra leftism. I think the two-pronged approach could be a possibility now, especially given what has happened with the STWC. Hopefully PR can explore that idea both within the STWC and HOPI. PS I believe it was the IBT who pushed that idea, not FRFI.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 19:16

Simon Keller said…

Dan - I have read quite a bit of the split documentation and you are pretty much right on the period stuff as far as I can see. I didn't realise the PR critique included a different assessment of the anti-imperialist dynamic of the mass anti-war demonstrations and I think you are understating the very real potential that existed. I still don't get what you are arguing on the united front. You appear to agree with my criticisms of the StWC but still defend its existence. It seems like you are arguing that it was correct to build a broad coalition which ended up being dominated by pro-UN and pacifist politics because it would provide an audience for the real anti-imperialist united front within it? Of course this idea was never actually tested as WP opposed the idea of any anti-imperialist united front so all we had was the pro-UN/pacifist StWC that politically demobilised the mass movement. Thanks for the correction re: the IBT. I found the leaflet about it on their web site and it looks pretty good to me though of course they were unable to make it happen so it stayed a paper position. I look forward to seeing if you guys are more successful at putting it into practice. Simon K.

Fri 14, December 2007 @ 22:21

Dan said…

To be honest our differences on the anti-imperialist nature of the STWC/movement wasn't exactly the crucial question! But there is no doubt that the historical weakness of the organisaed working class, coupled of the fact that we were in the middle of a boom, would have had a real impact on the nature of the STW movement. And indeed the organised working class weren't tied in that much with the STW movement. Indeed I think the only properly organised strikes against the war were the Motherwell train drivers and two schools where PR members worked. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I think it was right to have a broader united front, but that revolutionary socialists should have been assertive in their politics. Setting up a tiny anti-imperialist united front instead of interacting with the STWC wouldn't have helped in my view and wouldn't have built anything significant to counteract the mass pacifist/liberal nature of the STW movement. Indeed even most of the revolutionary groups wouldn't have been in it. Of course it could have been that objective circumstances would have meant you couldn't have changed things whatever you had done. But as said I do have some sympathy with having an anti-imperialist united front within the STWC. By the way my ideas on the anti-imperialist united front are personal ones, so not sure if PR will take them up collectively! Cheers Dan

Sat 15, December 2007 @ 14:34

Simon Keller said…

Now I am confused. It is not a question of "Setting up a tiny anti-imperialist united front instead of interacting with the STWC" rather that the way to interact with the StWC and the masses mobilised in the demonstrations would be through setting up an anti-imperialist united front - an "instead" would be sectarian but that it not what I am arguing. Isn't the only way that revolutionaries could have been "assertive in their politics" within the wider anti-war movement would have been by forming some kind of anti-imperialist bloc to be a pole of attraction against the bullshit coming from the platforms of the StWC. Without this anti-imperialist alternative I really can't see how the StWC as a broader formation promoting pro-UN and pacifist politics was a good thing as it just demobilised the nascent anti-imperialism within the masses mobilised in the wider anti-war movement. You seem to be arguing that there was something intrinsically good about the StWC, irrespective of the existence of an anti-imperialist alternative - is that right and if so what was good about it? Simon K. P.S. Good luck arguing with your comrades for setting up an anti-imperialist united front!

Sun 16, December 2007 @ 01:25

SteveR said…

comrade Keller at last gets down to it and tells us, Friday 14.Dec at 11:57 that he thinks STWC should side with the [highly reactionary, totally anti-working class] regime of Ahmedinejad hopefully we may be organising a founding meeting of HOPI in Bham in the new year - when i have joined it and can find anyone to help!

Sun 16, December 2007 @ 11:51

Dan said…

Maybe we're at crossed wires here! I'm saying that the STWC shouldn't have had the politics of "victory to Iraq" as there needed to be a far broader united front to that. But I'm also saying that within that broad united front that i) revolutionary socialists should have been open about their politics on the platforms (the SWP were the ones who had the main chance to do this), and been openly criticial of liberals and pacifists on the platforms (and indeed argued that someone like Charles Kennedy shouldn't have been on the platforms as he was pro-war)) and ii) I'm saying that an anti-imperialist united front within the broader united front might have been a good idea. Hope that clears that up! Cheers Dan

Sun 16, December 2007 @ 12:44

Simon Keller said…

Dan - you state "the STWC shouldn't have had the politics of 'victory to Iraq' as there needed to be a far broader united front to that" but have not explained WHY you think this was needed. All this broader united front did was to demobilise the nascent anti-imperialism of the masses of participants on the anti-war demonstrations. With hindsight it is clear that the StWC actually played a negative role in the struggle to stop the war, which could only have occurred if a real anti-imperialist anti-war movement had been built. Also I am surprised that you are describing the SWP as revolutionary socialists when all their recent actions have been far from revolutionary and only socialist in the most abject Labourite reformist way. Simon K.

Sun 16, December 2007 @ 21:48

Simon Keller said…

SteveR - I have been saying that there is a side to take fairly consistently for the last year or so, here, in the letters page of WW and on UK Left Network. Presumably you fit nicely into the CPGB's 3rd camp who refuse to take a side in the coming conflict. This of course makes you think HOPI is perfect politically - PR comrades take note! Simon K.

Sun 16, December 2007 @ 21:55

Bill J said…

Simon people like you give socialism a bad name. While doing little or no activity yourself (by your own admission), you nonetheless feel free to sate your desire for the silliest name calling on various web boards and e-mail lists, including here (our bad luck.) Your sort of contribution (basically a pale but very weird) imitation of pre-revolutionary Russian emigre politics, has a natural home - in fact there's a choice - Workers Power, the Campaign for a New Marxist Party, or the AWL. Why don't you join one of them and leave us alone? As long as the left indulges individuals like you then there will be no future for it in Britain - or anywhere else. If you have nothing good to say - then don't say it. (Oh and while I'm at it, please resist the temptation to post three replies so as to have the last word.) Thanks for that in advance - if for nothing else.

Sun 16, December 2007 @ 22:33

Dan said…

Firstly I don't believe there was that much of a nascent anti-imperialism of the masses of participants on the anti-war demonstrations (in your words!). On that we will just have to agree to disagree. I think the point of a united front is to have a broader campaign and through that to draw more forces towards revolutionary politics. However as the main far left players in the STWC dropped their politics and criticisms this was clearly not going to work. However I don't think the answer was to reduce the STWC to a rump of a few thousand people by having victory to Iraq politics for the united front, but for revolutionary socialists to be upfront about their politics within the broader united front. Whether this would have been successful or not we have no way of knowing as it didn't happen. Personally I think it could of worked and radicalised the STWC and that an anti-imperialist united front could have played its part. As said though we can't wish away objective conditions and it might well have been the case that the stop the war movement would have failed whatever revolutionaries had done. Also while I wouldn't be quite as harsh as Bill I do agree with his general point that your way of debating is all too typical of the far left and puts many people off. As the far left in the UK gets ever smaller these kind of traits seem to get worse and worse.

Sun 16, December 2007 @ 23:39

Simon Keller said…

Bill - Where exactly have I indulged in the "silliest name calling" in this discussion? You say I should "put up or shut up" - well I turn that around on you. Anyone reading this discussion can read the debate so far and judge whether it is me or you who have been "silly". I defend my right to a political voice and for my ideas to be taken seriously despite the physical handicap that restricts my ability to attend meetings and go on demonstrations. I find your refusal to engage with my ideas because I am unable to measure up to some pre-determined level of physical activism quite offensive. I think that you actually give the game away when you say "If you have nothing good to say - then don't say it." The real problem is not my supposed disruptive style or lack of activism but the revolutionary content of my ideas. If we are going to lower the level of this discussion to historical analogies then I would note that your response has a lot in common with that of Stalinist bureaucratic mud throwing to avoid substantive discussion. Dan - I appreciate that unlike your "comrade" Bill you have been willing to engage in a real discussion - though I also would ask you to "put up or shut up" by quoting from my "way of debating" that is supposedly so terrible. I am disappointed that you continue to defend the proposition that building the StWC on a pacifist basis was necessary without any attempt to explain why or how this was the case. You seem to agree about what the role of the StWC has concretely been but still you defend it. Maybe there is something I am missing but you have made no attempt to EXPLAIN your reasoning. You are going to convince nobody by simply repeating your assertions with no analysis behind it. We seem to disagree over the degree of nascent anti-imperialism that existed back in 2002/2003 but I think it is fairly clear that even your pessimistic projection of a few thousand people organised around victory to Iraq would have been much better than what we have actually seen with the StWC and its demonstrations where the anti-imperialist message is completely isolated in the tiny far-left groups like WP, PR, IBT, FRFI, SL etc - a couple of hundred people at most. Simon K.

Mon 17, December 2007 @ 09:30

Simon Keller said…

Dan - re-reading your last post I think I have now got what you are saying, so apologies for my last post saying you hadn't explained yourself. As I read your argument the problem was not the nature of the StWC per se but rather that the SWP didn't play its proper role of raising a revolutionary message. I think we have a difference over whether the SWP are capable of/willing to promote any kind of revolutionary politics but certainly we agree that they have not done so in the StWC. Surely this makes the question of building an anti-imperialist united front within the wider anti-war movement even more important. Given the evident sectarian inability of some of your comrades to engage in political discussion on anything but their own terms I wish you all the best of luck in trying to convince PR to start building this necessary united front. Simon K.

Mon 17, December 2007 @ 13:17

Dan said…

Look can we leave aside any remarks about Simon's ability to do activity. He has said he is disabled that prevents him being active on demos and at meetings and that is the end of the matter. Comments about his debating style are fair enough but the other stuff is not an issue and not on. Simon in terms of your debating there is a tone that runs through your posts that feels far more like constantly denouncing others for not not measuring up to being true revolutionaries rather than a comradely and constructive debate in trying to move things forward. Unfortunately that is far too common on the left. Rather than be constructive it is all about one upmanship. I'm not telling you this to have a needless dig but because I think you'd get your points across better if you had a more comradely way of discussing things. If you want to ignore this advice then fair enough. The IBT is a good example of this behaviour by the way in that they spend most of their time denouncing the centrist crimes of others rather than putting across a positive message and actually debating with people's ideas rather than denouncing them. On the STWC I thought I had explained myself. I think a broader united front was necessary to bring in wider forces in order that revolutionaries could engage with them. Unfortunately most of the far left forces involved kept quite about their far left politics and didn't criticise the liberals and pacifists in the united front. I think this would have been a better way forward than setting up a tiny alternative united front that had no-one in it but an ever shrinking far left. Now as neither of these things happened we have no way what would have been the better option. And as also said maybe neither of these ways of would have worked because of objective circumstances. So to repeat I think a broader united front was necessary to bring in wider forces. BUT I think that the far left had to be open about their politics and criticisms of the pacifists and liberals and this didn't happen. I also think that an anti-imperialist united front could have had a plcae WITHIN this broader united front. I don't think I'm being pessimistic by the way but realistic. An anti-imperialist united front around the slogan "victory to Iraq", with no connection to the broader STWC, would probably have got no more than 200 people involved in it to be honest.

Mon 17, December 2007 @ 13:29

Simon Keller said…

Dan - I can see the point you are making about united fronts needing to have slogans that draw in as many people as possible while also allowing room to raise revolutionary politics. That was my own assessment of the potential of the StWC when it was set up. But of course there is also the danger of united fronts being set up on too broad a basis that ends up in the revolutionary message getting drowned out. With hindsight it seems clear that this is what happened with the StWC. Now maybe the particular slogan "Victory to Iraq" would have been too narrow but it is obvious that something needed to be different about the StWC. It also seems absolutely clear that there should have been an anti-imperialist united front of the type the IBT argued for at the time, and you argue for now. As you say there is no guarantee that things would have worked out differently but at least this would have laid the potential for anti-imperialist politics in the anti-war movement being able to break out of the far-left ghetto it is currently consigned to. I really do hope you are successful in winning PR to this perspective as if PR, and others, don't take this up than we are inevitably going to see the same drowning out of anti-imperialist politics in response to the coming attack on Iran. Perhaps I do have a tendency to be too quick to criticise what I perceive as wrong positions but I will defend the importance of doing so when necessary. I guess part of the art of politics is learning to get this balance right. In my defence I would argue that, on this thread at least, I have included a large amount of non-sectarian argumentation to back up my perspective and haven't just denounced people - you might look closer to home for an example of that! I'd also say you make an unfair attack on the IBT. They do spend time on criticising other positions but also give their own positive perspective on what should happen. I think the main weakness of the IBT is that they are too passive but in terms of the propaganda they do produce they get the balance about right. Simon K.

Mon 17, December 2007 @ 14:23

Bill J said…

Why do you think I was only referring to your "physical activism"? There are plenty of useful things to do without attending meetings and demos, like theory or what not, none of which you seem inclined to do. But whatever, I've had enough of this so I'll leave you to carry on without me.

Mon 17, December 2007 @ 18:15

Dan said…

There is a danger of united fronts being too broad but as hardly any of the far left within the STWC voiced their politics, and the SWP, who were by far the most dominate pretty much just went along with the pacifists and liberals we don't know what would have happened had there been a stronger far left presence. As it happened you had the choice of either trying to put pressure on the SWP and other far lefts to be more vocal or set up an anti-imperialist united front with a couple of hundred people in it. In the circumstances I'd say the only thing that could of been differently is to have had an anti-imperialist united front within the broader STWC. The other position, that the IBT took, was to not join the STWC and just do your own thing. Which didn't achieve anything. I'd say joining the STWC was right, but that there should of also been an anti-imperialist united front within the STWC. But I agree that the current STWC is a miserable affair! Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with criticism I just think the far left has too much of focus on going hammer and tong at each other and not having more constructive debate. And it's all too easy to get sucked into it as if people are attacking you then it's easy to get defensive. To be fair I think the debates on here have got far better when they have been less defensive. Apologies if this seemed like a personal attack, I didn't mean it that way, I just get frustrated with the culture of the left in the UK and I know I am more than capable of being unreasonable as well. As for the IBT it's just the feeling I get when I read their stuff. It just reads like a series of denounciations followed by "this is the one true way". I just think that kind of polemics turns a lot of people off. But anyway that's just my view. Fair point by Bill about presuming he was talking about physical activism. There are many other useful things that people can do.

Mon 17, December 2007 @ 18:49

Simon Keller said…

Bill - It is so illuminating to see another fine example of PR's "comradely and constructive debate in trying to move things forward" - oh but wait you aren't interested in debating with people who disagree with you. Sorry but I really couldn't resist replying - the irony of this tinpot wannabe Stalinist lecturing me on tone is just too much... Simon K.

Mon 17, December 2007 @ 19:03

Simon Keller said…

Dan - When you first mentioned the idea of an anti-imperialist united front you described it as "simultaneously building an anti-imperialist united front both within the StWC and outside it" which sounds exactly like what the IBT leaflet proposed. Now you are saying this a-i u/f should be "within the STWC" and counter pose this to the IBT's proposal. But what exactly does this mean? Are you saying that a condition of membership of the a-i u/f would be that you had to be a member of StWC as well? I envisage this a-i u/f as being a formation capable of organising contingents on the demonstrations behind "Victory to Iraq", or similar, banners and also of initiating militant action against the war where the StWC refused to. This would mobilise both members and non-members of the StWC. The way your describe it sounds more like a pressure group on the SWP leadership of the StWC to try to get them to do the decent thing - a kind of loyal opposition to the SWP. I hope I'm not right about that as it sounds like you are taking the worst of British Trotskyism's deep entrist approach to the Labour Party and replicating it in the anti-war movement. Simon K.

Mon 17, December 2007 @ 19:35

Anonymous said…

Can we leave out the digs? Anyway in terms of the AIUF I think that it could have been built both within and outside the STWC. But I don't agree with the IBT when they say that people shouldn't have built or joined the STWC. I think that both things should have been done. Sorry I probably sounded a bit vague. Cheers Dan

Tue 18, December 2007 @ 00:58

Dan said…

Can we leave out the digs? Anyway in terms of the AIUF I think that it could have been built both within and outside the STWC. But I don't agree with the IBT when they say that people shouldn't have built or joined the STWC. I think that both things should have been done. Sorry I probably sounded a bit vague. Cheers Dan

Tue 18, December 2007 @ 00:58

Simon Keller said…

Apologies - Bill's approach to this discussion just brings out the worst in me. What do you think the main role of the AIUF should be? Is it primarily a pressure group within the StWC or is it a separate organisation with its own aims whose membership happens to overlap? Would you be happy to work in the AIUF alongside groups who didn't join the StWC, such as the IBT & FRFI? Simon K.

Tue 18, December 2007 @ 09:15

Dan said…

I think the AIUF could be both a pressure group within the STWC and a seperate organisation. Depending on what was getting more results then you might put more resources into one or the other activity. I just disagree with the IBT that you shouldn't get involved with the STWC or build it. As it goes Workers Power has helped to build an AIUF within the European Social Forum and the contingent at Rostock contained a couple of Turkish stalinist groups and COBAS. However the thing that is ashame is that because of their analyis of the economic period we're in (capitalism in total crisis), they have a totally wrong analysis of the ESF. However the idea of the AIUF in the ESF (or WSF) isn't a bad one in my view. The problem it faces is that in between long gaps the ESF does nothing and that the AIUF would have had to have taken on a life outside the ESF. But sadly the ESF seems like it is on a fast road to nowhere now. And while I would be happy to work with groups that weren't in the STWC if the AIUF didn't get more serious forces on board it would be a waste of time. But that doesn't mean it's not worth a go. But I have to say that sitting in a room with FRFI, the IBT and hardly anyone else doesn't exactly feel me with festive glee!

Tue 18, December 2007 @ 12:08

Simon Keller said…

Well one could say the same thing about virtually any initiative that communists take in the current period given the low level of class struggle. Given that the idea hasn't been tried yet it is a bit hard to tell what forces it would attract. Hopefully it will get a chance as if not then it is hard to see any hope in the StWC led anti-war movement. Simon K.

Tue 18, December 2007 @ 12:38

Hands Off People of Iran: launch conference

Bookmark with:

discussion of this article

Simon Keller said…

Simon Keller said…

Wladek Flakin said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

TWP said…

James Turley said…

Simon Keller said…

Simon Keller said…

Simon Keller said…

Simon Keller said…

Bill J said…

TWP said…

Simon Keller said…

Simon Keller said…

Simon Keller said…

PR webby said…

Simon Keller said…

TWP said…

Simon Keller said…

Bill J said…

TWP said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Bill J said…

Dan said…

Chris Strafford said…

PR webby said…

SteveR said…

Simon Keller said…

Simon Keller said…

Bill J said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Bill J said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

SteveR said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Simon Keller said…

Bill J said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Simon Keller said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Bill J said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Simon Keller said…

Anonymous said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

Dan said…

Simon Keller said…

add to the discussion