09.07.1998
Alliances enter new phase
The general meeting of the London Socialist Alliance was an important turning point. It brought into the open a number of issues which have been simmering under the surface for the last few months and allowed a debate to begin.
Despite the fact that there were, and still are, some comrades intent on stifling the project, the opportunities for unity now look more positive than had previously appeared to be the case. Members of the CPGB, as well as Workers Fight, SLP, and various non-aligned leftwingers fought back successfully against the attempt by the ‘amalgamated’ bloc of the Socialist Party, Socialist Outlook and the Socialist Democracy Group to democratically oust the CPGB. The CPGB motion - calling for inclusive democracy and automatic representation on the steering committee for all affiliates - fell. Nevertheless it was a Pyrrhic victory for the ‘amalgamated’ bloc (18 for; 18 against). All of Hackney SA’s amendments to the ‘amalgamated’ bloc motion were carried apart from one which fell - again due to a tied vote. Although the question of presidential-style elections versus automatic representation has still not been definitively resolved, the forces for democracy and inclusivity should feel confident.
The questions raised on the day are central to whole future of the alliances nationally. The right of representation of all affiliated organisations, the need for principled links to socialist greens, rather than submerging socialism into the green project, the question of openness and tolerance rather than back-room manoeuvre: all these go right to the heart of the future for the alliance movement which we are in the process of building.
Those that believe that differences can be glossed over, because at the moment workers are ‘not interested’, are in effect writing off the working class. Working class self-emancipation begins in the here and now. It must be intrinsic in how we debate and develop. Contrary to what the SP continually implies, revolutionaries are not unimportant. We are not, as Steve Nally said, the “dead”. Such pessimism is designed to prevent or belittle theoretical and political debate. It stems from a bureaucratic culture where the members and cadre alike are told what to think - it therefore debases every working class man or woman who becomes a socialist. It is an attitude the Alliance movement should reject - it is an attack on the culture needed if the working class is to master society. The SP and those like them who mock gatherings of the left and urge us to go home to Sunday lunch rather than talk to each other must be criticised for objectively anti-working class attitudes.
We are now in the period leading up to the national conference of Socialist Alliances on September 5. That day affiliates and supporters will debate the future aims and structure of the alliance. Proposals have already been put forward by the National Liaison Group. It talks about setting up a federation of national, regional and local organisations with the goal of establishing a society based on “as far as may be practicable, the equality of all people”, “a full return of all wealth” and “to maintain such defence and security arrangements, which, together with the promotion of peace and freedom, delivers people from tyranny, prejudice and the abuse of power”. Hardly scientific socialism; indeed they are far more akin to clause four socialism than working class self-emancipation.
On the question of the interim organisation which would “allow individual socialists and autonomous socialist, environmentalist, and direct action organisations, to work towards agreed common perspectives”, the Liason Group document proposes a mixture of directly elected personalities and political blocs. The AGM as a whole is to elect six national officers, while each “national federated organisation” may appoint one representative to the National Liaison Committee. In addition delegates from local SAs will elect two representatives to the committee, as will delegates from “other federated organisations” and individual members. “National Federated organisations” are defined as “having more than 500 individual members” (significantly the Independent Labour Network has just announced it has 500 members). Here we have all the worst features of the Labour Party.
There is no automatic representation for all affiliated organisations. Election of officers and representatives of smaller groups will be won on the basis of backroom deals. The majority will reproduce itself. The minority can be excluded.
Direct election for posts at an AGM is not a useful or democratic way for a working class alliance to form its leadership. Instead of the affiliated political organisations and groupings of local alliances deciding themselves who should go forward on their behalf, the decision lies in the pocket of the dominant political bloc.
In reality those below know who is best suited to act on their behalf, and they should have the right to withdraw them at any time. They should not have to wait a year if their representative fails to come up to expectation or there is a shift in political opinion from right to left, or from left to right.
Although it is clear that a tiered system would be necessary, there can be no doubt that a soviet-style democracy would provide a far more responsive and inclusive structure for the national committee than one which is directly elected by the dominant political bloc at an AGM.
Those who argue that discussion of organisation evades political questions could not be further from the truth. Political programme presupposes certain forms of organisation. One need only think back to the historic split between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks to see this. I would hope therefore that the Liaison Group will respond to such points so that we can better determine our attitude to the proposals they have put forward. There would be nothing worse in September than to vote through a fudge.
Finally, it is good to see that the motions passed by Hackney and Brent SAs in support of London’s right to choose its own rep, and noting the recent Manchester anti-CPGB purge, have had an impact nationally. Thankfully Pete McLaren replied to the Brent motion on behalf of the Liaison Group. He said, in a letter dated July 1: “I would strongly support the right of [an] Alliance to select its own representative.” He also stated: “At present there has never been a problem with other supporters attending Liaison Group meetings.” He remembers after the Coventry meeting when “Anne Murphy was amongst those informed of this fact”.
Of course, as he says, the Liaison Group at the present time, is unelected, informal and therefore not yet open to automatic representation. Nevertheless his views stand in sharp contrast to those of National Network convenor John Nicholson. He has a big problem with any comrade from London that is not to his liking. He queried the validity within London of the election of myself. This attitude, and the consequent blocking of any participation and involvement from London in the National Network, does not bode well for those who might otherwise be persuaded to put their trust in Nicholson’s leadership qualities.
If we are not careful there is a real danger that the Alliances will get the same odious undemocratic reputation that Arthur Scargill’s SLP currently enjoys. Comrades committed to openness and the rights of minorities must make their voices heard.
Anne Murphy