There is another way to resolve Labour’s toxic wrangles around complaints
Published
by
Richard Kuper
JVL Introduction
People can change, stresses David Rosenberg.
People aren’t generally attracted to the far right and racist movements by hate but because they seek help with real problems that mainstream politicians and parties fail to respond to.
We must replace the paranoid and toxic atmosphere sometimes felt in the party with an atmosphere “for learning, positive consensus and progressive change”.
This article was originally published by Rebel Notes on Wed 24 Jul 2019. Read the original here.
There is another way to resolve Labour’s toxic wrangles around complaints
Loading article text…
I do agree with the general thrust of this article: most of the antisemitism I have come across in a long public sector and labour movement career has been of the thoughtless, ignorant type, rather than explicit and aggressive.
When challenged, those responsible have usually been shocked to hear that what they’ve said could be regarded as antisemitic and have apologised profusely – the most recent example was a discussion about calling Spurs supporters “Yids”(!)
I believe that “passive” antisemitism of that sort is best dealt with by discussion and education and that suspension and expulsion should be reserved for the “active” antisemites. There is no benefit to anyone in punishing ignorance and thoughtlessness.
As for the Chakrabarti Report, I agree that it is a big step in the right direction and am unclear why it hasn’t already been implemented. However, I must repeat my earlier comments that it isn’t in accord with best disciplinary practice in the labour movement, in that it only allows for appeals on the basis of breach of process. I would expect that appeals could be allowed on any basis, including proportionality, failure to give due consideration to evidence, bias on the part of the Panel, etc, etc.
An excellent, nuanced set of observations by David Rosenberg. I will add to Mike Scott’s comment.
I attended the JVL counter-demonstration in Parliament Square, when the anti-Corbyn faction of the Labour Party were sharing a platform with some of the Board of Deputies and others.
This happened to be on the evening of an All Members’ Meeting of my CLP, Kensington. I repaired there, still wearing my JVL badge. An elderly comrade noted the badge and I gave an explanation. He ruminated, then made an antisemitic remark of the mindless sort that David and Scott highlight, to the effect that of course, Jews do control large swathes of the media.
My reaction was to point out that this remark smacked of conspiracy theory and such theories were a slippery slope, from which no good would come. I added that the Labour Party is the party of all its members, but we do ourselves a disservice if we build our politics on such fantasies.
After the meeting, the same comrade sought me out and told me that on reflection, what I had told him was correct and he would not make the same error again.
I have experienced milder from of antisemitic remarks in my professional and social life. In 40 years of Labour Party adherence and until that evening, I had never experienced any antisemitism from within.
I’d like to think that the elderly comrade is one saved for the Party and not expelled for his thoughtless remark. I will not be running to anyone, shouting “Out, damned spot.”
I agree with this question of dealing with different opinions in the way David Rosenberg does. It is discussion that allows people to situate themselves in the field of any question. When the question requires knowledge of history and of world politics, the general membership cannot be expected to enter the party at the most advance level of sophistication. The party needs to be an educator, and to create party structures where political debate takes place. None of this is happening however, and this is the source of the slowness in members getting to know and getting to learn. A workers’ party is not just a tool to get the working class to join the train of power. It must be the tool through which it learns to become the power, and drive its own train to power.
The party that we have a present wants to change society FOR the working class. It must become the party to let the working class change society itself.
I suggest that many in the party’s structures – such as they are at present – are not mistaken or uncomprehending. They are afraid. If the working class leads social change, the party of the working class has to become the servant of the working class. Its role is no longer to tell the working class what is good for it, but to let the working class assert what is good for it. The role of such a working class party becomes that of transmitting to its members the experiences and the traditions of all national and international working class history. Such a party finds the need to set up schools, reading circles, internal public meetings that bring the party members close to the workers, debates on the strikes, reasons for the strikes, opposition to the profits of automation never going to the workers, opposition to the wars that the owners resort to – for profit motives – and that the ordinary workers are expected to join, praise and glorify. The party needs to encourage the Unions into schools. To teach to the labour members the history of every part of the working class movement. And the party must teach to the members the experiences made in working class power in the world. The view of the party regarding membership education is disciplinary. It is based on the concept that bad people are incapable of learning and changing. This is where doing things FOR people takes the party. It amounts to not trusting people to know what they want and eventually rule themselves, hence society.
Outside the party, the owners of capital watch with great anxiety the progression of this debate in the party. They support our party leaders who don’t want the working class to develop any social role, and they stimulate our party leaders who expel workers because they cannot convince them. This is capital versus labour, in the party itself.
In truth, the rise of this concern in the party results from the absolute need for the party to change; because the alternative for it is to disappear, like the socialists in the rest of Europe.
There is much more to be said regarding all this.
Greetings.
Great and incredibly thoughtful article, yet again, David. Thank you.
It’s good to hear such common sense views by David Rosenberg on Labour party’s dealing with anti-Semitism.
it should be compulsory reading for Tom Watson. His pose as the St George who kills the anti-Semitic dragon, is in fact simply a crude (and very ill-judged) bid to become party leader.
The Chakrabarti report, with its focus on natural justice, does indeed deserve a shout-out (in favour) from the wider membership. As I recall, when it was released it was effectively neutered by a chorus of disapproval from the usual suspects. Let’s not lose sight of its importance and potential usefulness.
It is so beyond ironic into the furthest reaches of the bizarre that we are living through an aggressive PR campaign these days where the right is trying to paint the Labour Party as just such a cause, as if it were the modern day BUF, which has “a poison running through it” – and this precisely in order to drive the membership “to retreat into political paralysis or become cynical”.
If that is, indeed, the front line in this PR war, I think David Rosenberg’s “rebel notes” and the astute comments above me do set out the best way forward.
Thank you David. Very good argument and undoubtedly correct.
It reminds me of Suresh Grover’s comments at my CLP (Camberwell & Peckham) who said in response to a question, “I don’t advocate zero tolerance,” to the total astonishment of those present. Racism is so pervasive, he argued, that there are bound to be members of society or a mass party, who reflect some of that and need education. If we simply say, zero tolerance, then we are closing down a dialogue and ending our chances of changing their attitudes.
It’s all very well harking back to past victories against British fascism, what we’re up against now, the setting up of Jewish issues as an obstacle to Labour Party empowerment, is so devious and cunning I keep looking for possible parallels in the Third Reich(?).