26.10.1995

Debating the IS tradition

THE International Socialist Group and the Alliance for Workers Liberty met to debate the International Socialist tradition at a public meeting last Saturday. Sean Matgamna spoke for the AWL, arguing that there was no real IS tradition. The Socialist Workers Party had never been ‘Leninist’. Cliff had become ‘Luxemburgist’ in the 1960s and ‘Leninist’ in the 1970s for opportunist reasons. Matgamna saw the IS of the 1950s as simply the opportunist predecessor of today’s SWP. Ian Land spoke for the ISG, defending the IS tradition, because it was better than Trotskyism.

 The ISG was adamant that it does not want to talk about programme and is sick of being asked by other organisations what its programme of action is. But it is one thing to say you have not got a programme and something else to say that you are not interested in debating the question. Its anti-programme stance seems to stem from a number of sources: its lingering SWP-ism, its disillusionment with the left and its current antipathy towards organisation. There is a big difference however in recognising that the left between its present form is not the answer for the working class and not wanting to be part of the answer.

Although much of the left today treats programme as something ornamental rather than a living process to be developed in struggle, there is no doubt that the working class needs answers. The ISG formally agrees that spontaneous working class struggle will not of itself lead to successful revolution, but it continues the IS/SWP tradition of worshipping spontaneity.

A comrade from the Revolutionary Democratic Group asked both speakers whether they believed the SWP to be the main barrier in the Marxist movement to building a communist party. Ian failed to answer this, but later explained that, “It is a barrier, but not the main barrier.” We will be interested to find out who Ian thinks is a bigger barrier. Sean Matgamna said he had not really considered it. Appearing genuinely perplexed, he said he was not sure, but thought the SWP was part of the problem. Funny that the AWL does not have a clearer attitude, seeing that it so often goes into print about the SWP.

The AWL continues to justify its deep entryism into that bastion of socialism, the Labour Party. Matgamna tried to persuade us that the election of a Labour government would be a progressive step forward which would unleash the power of the working class. No explanation was made as to why or how this would happen. However his organisation appears more uncomfortable in its Labourism than usual and says it is shifting its position.

Finally, Matgamna agreed on the need to regroup healthy socialist elements. He did not enlarge on this, but naturally we welcome this development.

Anne Murphy