30.08.2000

Socialist Alliances

The next steps

On Saturday September 30, individual members and organisations affiliated to the Socialist Alliance network meet in Coventry. The principal item on the agenda is to be the forthcoming general election.

The draft election statement, code of conduct, financial plans, etc, promised by the Socialist Alliance's six officers - Pete McLaren, John Nicholson, Dave Nellist, Declan O'Neill, Dave Church and Rob Hoveman - have as yet to see the light of day. Needless to say though, the significant areas of contention are already pretty well known. My purpose here is therefore both to elaborate upon the differences between the Socialist Alliance's main components and explain the position of the CPGB. Hopefully this will facilitate discussions in Coventry and thus in its own small way bring nearer the unity of all revolutionary socialists and communists in Britain into a single democratic centralist party.

Amongst a wide range of comrades it is almost unquestioningly assumed that the Socialist Alliances are a united front. This is a misnomer. In the canon of Marxism - eg, the 4th Congress of the Communist International - a united front refers to a particular tactic, or set of tactics, designed to win over the working class to the side of communism.

By entering into negotiations and agreeing to jointly campaign with social democratic misleaders communists gain the ear of the majority of workers. The aim is to put us, the communists, at the forefront of the workers' day-to-day struggles and in the process secure mass support. So the united front is an initiative whereby communists actively fight alongside the mass of workers in order to defeat and replace reformist traitors.

That hardly describes the Socialist Alliance network. The unity we have achieved is between small revolutionary groups - the largest being the Socialist Workers Party. The SWP still counts its membership in the few thousands, not tens of thousands, and certainly not the millions necessary for a decisive socialist breakthrough in a country like Britain.

This is not a matter of abstruse theory. By pretending that the Socialist Alliance network is a united front, leading comrades in the SWP, the International Socialist Group, etc, excuse orientating the whole project far to the right. Instead of concretely exploring what we actually have in common, and taking a stand on our own principles, a largely phantom social democratic left is inserted into the equation.

Supposedly to make such elements feel at home, we have been told that the Socialist Alliances should shun 'controversial' demands such as 'No to all immigration controls'. Revealingly Mike Marqusee, an oft cited 'left reformist', quite rightly lambasted such crass opportunism when it was advocated in the London Socialist Alliance.

Actually, to the extent that unrestricted debate is encouraged in the Socialist Alliances sincere left reformists have nothing to fear from the revolutionaries who at present constitute the overwhelming majority. More to the point, reformism as a coherent programme, let alone a road to socialism, completely failed in the 20th century and now lies totally exhausted.

In order to rally the broad mass of the working class to our banner there is no need to reinvent left reformism. One might just as well try to resurrect Stalinism (we can leave that particular form of necromancy to Arthur Scargill). The working class might be unfortunate enough to get a halfway house if we fail to fully achieve our ends, but objectively there is no requirement for one. No political DNA exists which dooms the working class movement in Britain to be inherently reformist.

Marxism and revolutionary communism represent the truth and humanity's necessary future. Its basic ideas, immediate propositions and long-term goals are easily understood by any reasonably intelligent person. The working class in the 21st century needs a mass Bolshevik Party, not a re-run of Labourism. That is why the CPGB envisages a rapprochement within the Socialist Alliances around Marxism, not left reformism.

Another formulation frequently employed is that the Socialist Alliances exist in order to bring together socialists, greens and direct actionists. Again this might represent an aspiration, but is not our reality. Nonetheless, so guided, comrade Pete McLaren, editor of the Socialist Alliance's The All Red and Green, warns of the danger of "direct clashes" between ourselves and the Green Party - an organisation which opposed the LSA in the GLA elections and the Tottenham by-election.

Let us be crystal clear. Every genuine socialist is an environmentalist, but very few greens are genuine socialists. The Socialist Alliances should welcome so-called green socialists into our ranks - where we can work together for socialism and frankly argue through our disagreements. The Socialist Alliances though ought to be an alliance of socialists, not an alliance of socialists and non-socialists.

Moreover a sharp class line must be drawn between socialists and greens. Socialism is not merely a nice idea. It is the global self-liberation movement of the working class. The greens are neither socialist nor working class. That is why the CPGB favours deepening the red in the Socialist Alliances, not diluting it any further with greenism. Put another way, it would be wrong to avoid standing against the Green Party.

Debate at Coventry will undoubtedly be heavily influenced by the mistaken attitudes outlined above. Nevertheless things are sure to centre around five immediate questions: ie, Labour lefts, maximum or minimum number of candidates, factional identities, our manifesto, and organisation. The CPGB pledges itself to study very closely the material that is due from the Socialist Alliance's officers. We will also carefully examine the views, proposals and amendments coming from other affiliates. In the meantime we hold to definite opinions.

• It is vital to correctly grasp the class character of the Labour Party. Otherwise disaster is inevitable. In spite of Blairism it still remains a bourgeois workers' party. In short, the class base of the Labour Party is proletarian, but its leadership is thoroughly reactionary and pro-capitalist. So, although Peter Taaffe's organisation has thankfully abandoned the Labour Party as its chosen vehicle of socialist transformation, nothing qualitatively has as yet changed. That does not, and never has meant, automatically voting Labour. On the contrary communists and revolutionary socialists have always had a duty to combat Labourism in the ballot box.

Under today's conditions of the de-Labourisation of Labour we must adopt a sensitive approach to Labour lefts. Class conscious workers would not take kindly to a cavalier approach which fails to distinguish between Blairite clones and those perceived as staunch socialists.

The CPGB favours the Socialist Alliances drawing up some kind of minimal platform. Eg, full trade unions rights, a decent subsistence income for all, substantive equality between men and women, self-determination for Scotland and Wales, massive expansion of spending on NHS, housing, etc. We should demand and fight for support for such a platform from sitting Labour left MPs. There are only something like 10 of them. Such a course gives our comrades a focus, increases tensions within the Labour Party, but commits us to no particular course of action. It is not unprincipled to stand against Labour lefts. Nor is it unprincipled to vote for them. Circumstances decide.

• There is no crisis of expectations with the Labour government. The SWP, ISG, Alliance for Workers' Liberty, etc, have been proved wrong. Nor are we in the midst of a massive upturn in the class struggle. There exists a period of reaction of a special type - our organisations are not under threat by the state, but there is unprecedented bourgeois triumphalism. That explains the paradoxical nature of the present-day mood, especially among progressive minded young people - anti-capitalist, but not pro-socialist. Precisely in such a period the election tactic assumes particular importance. We must learn to use elections to agitate, educate and organise. Much can be done. There are plenty of useful lessons from the 2nd International.

Some comrades take a shopkeeper attitude towards activists and finance, as if they were finite. They think that the Socialist Alliance should not squander resources on standing candidates where we do not possess a ready-made organisation and deep roots. Comrade John Nicholson, Socialist Alliance joint convenor, in particular has drawn up an impossibly restrictive list of requirements, which, if imposed, would limit us to no more than 20 candidates in the general election. Far too few.

The CPGB is against all such conservatism. The Socialist Alliances liaison committee should be seeking to maximise, not minimise our impact. Here at least we would be well advised to follow the lead of the Scottish Socialist Party.

It is publicly committed to the aim of standing in every constituency: ie, 72 seats. The LSA did exactly that in the GLA elections. As we showed, fighting an election campaign itself goes to build organisation and finances, not only locally, but enhances our profile and support overall. The CPGB believes that we should set a target across the whole of the UK of standing at least 100 candidates - apparently the threshold now set to get a nationwide TV broadcast. Hence we obviously need to cooperate closely with others, especially the SSP.

In that spirit comrades are urged to give their backing to the following motion: "This Socialist Alliance conference welcomes the aim of the Scottish Socialist Party to contest all seats in the forthcoming general election. The steering committee of the Socialist Alliance would be greatly strengthened with the inclusion of delegates from Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland). Every effort should be made to field a united list of socialist candidates in the general election. All negotiations between the steering committee and the SSP should be conducted in the spirit of equality, solidarity and transparency."

• Obviously the Socialist Party in England and Wales fears being swamped by the SWP. Peter Taaffe's 'Ken Livingstone and a new workers' party' article which appeared in the April 2000 issue of Socialism Today ended in an anti-SWP diatribe. Interestingly it earned a stern rebuke from the SSP's international secretary, Frances Curran. She accuses the "Socialist Party in England and Wales" of making a number of big "mistakes" in London and a "yearning for a return of the glory days of entrism" in the Labour Party. She rightly urges SPEW, instead of engaging in idle chatter about a new mass party, to throw its full weight behind the living Socialist Alliance project (CWI Members Bulletin May 2000).

The CPGB is convinced that the best way to overcome fear of domination by the SWP, or anyone else, is to consistently strengthen democracy and enshrine the rights of minorities to automatic and proportional representation. We are still firmly of the opinion that the ban imposed by the LSA - ie, SWP - majority on the selling of partisan literature during canvassing, etc, was ill-advised. Nor do we wish to see candidates being forced to hide their affiliations.

That said, the CPGB wants a process of convergence to the point of fusion in a single democratic centralist party. We will therefore support candidates standing not as CPGB, SWP, Socialist Alternative, etc, but as Socialist Alliance. Particular loyalties can be given in personal manifestos/statements. There must be no more bans or proscriptions on papers, leaflets, etc. In fact they ought to be swiftly removed or broken in a collective act of defiance.

• The CPGB will be seeking to include within our manifesto a number of basic formulations on the nature of socialism. For example, "Socialism is conquered by the working class" and how socialism is "international or it is nothing". We also address the burning matter of Ireland, Scottish and Welsh self-determination and the unity of the working class. This perspective is encapsulated in our motion calling for a federal republic in Britain and an independent Ireland.

• With the forthcoming general election in mind the CPGB considers it a matter of urgency to expand the existing liaison committee of the Socialist Alliance. We are proposing that each affiliate standing/sponsoring candidate(s) should appoint a "recallable delegate" to a steering committee and that "extra officers and/or committees should be appointed" as the need arises.

The CPGB is moreover convinced that, during the course of the general election, meetings of such a steering committee should be at least weekly and, finally, that a headquarters must be established in London and a staff appointed - affiliates, in particular, should be asked to "supply finance and full and part-time volunteers". Such an approach, as outlined in our third motion to Coventry, is essential both in the interests of democracy and the practical requirements of running a serious campaign.