09.07.1998
For or against inclusive democracy
Danny Hammill reports on the July 5 London Socialist Alliance general meeting
This was a vital meeting. The fate - and future nature - of the LSA lay in the balance. Much of the discussion formally was about organisational structures. But in reality the fierce debate around organisation was saturated with politics - and shaped by the clash between different contending programmatic perspectives.
In a touch of high drama, when the vote was eventually taken on the CPGB’s motion, it turned out to be a dead tie - 18 for and 18 against. The forces of inclusive democracy and the ‘amalgamated’ bloc showed themselves to be the left and right wings of the LSA - and, as Dennis Skinner was fond of saying, “You need both wings to fly”. So for us the immediate task is to secure the principled unity of the LSA.
Before the substantive discussion began, comrade Julie Donovan from the SP proposed that the meeting be limited to two hours. After all, some comrades had children to look after, Sunday lunch to cook, etc. A majority voted to finish early. (In reality, comrade Donovan was desperate to avoid debate, particularly motion three from the CPGB, that “the LSA is committed to building an all-Britain SA” - and she freely admitted this at the end of the meeting.)
Another negative aspect was the foul spirit of Labourite-style political correctness which some comrades wanted to impose on the meeting. Socialist Outlook’s resident feminist demanded to know how many women were on the list of comrades waiting to speak. She also spoke about male domination - ironic, given SO’s stated intention of ousting LSA coordinator Anne Murphy and installing Toby Abse. This point of order was the comrade’s sole ‘contribution’.
However, it turned out be an extremely productive and illuminating meeting, despite the bureaucratically induced time-famine. Unfortunately the LSA chair, Ian Driver of the SDG, failed to show up. This meant that comrade Murphy - LSA coordinator and CPGB member - had to stand in for him.
Comrade Peter Manson proposed CPGB motion one. He emphasised how its plan for inclusive democracy did not preclude “bread and butter issues” or “local campaigning”, as many in the anti-CPGB bloc have foolishly - and dishonestly - claimed. “All components of the LSA must have autonomy and full rights,” said comrade Manson.
The comrade also pointed to an elementary fact of political life. There are different types and forms of democracy. Therefore we must adopt the form of democracy appropriate - as the bourgeoisie do. They adopt either the first-past-the-post or proportional representation for their elections, depending on whether they want to include or exclude minority groups. The working class must be as flexible as the ruling class.
The LSA is an alliance. Therefore affiliates must have an automatic place on its steering committee, stressed comrade Manson. To illustrate this he asked the meeting to imagine the scenario if for example the SWP decided to affiliate. If it joined two weeks after the LSA’s annual conference, it would have to wait nearly a yearto get a representative on the steering committee - if we adopted the ‘amalgamated’ motion proposed by the SP, SO and the SDG, which advocates annual elections. On the other hand, if it joined two weeks before,its members could swamp the AGM and secure 100% of any steering committee.
Comrade Manson concluded by explaining that the CPGB was not trying to introduce a democratic centralist structure into the LSA - quite the opposite. But the structures envisaged by SP-SO-SDG would almost guarantee that the LSA ends up in the hands of a self-perpetuating clique. The CPGB is actually for soviet-style democracy - elected and recallable delegates.
Nick Long of Lewisham SA and the SDG proposed the ‘amalgamated’ motion. At the start of the meeting he handed out a leaflet, co-authored with Terry Liddle of Lewisham SA and Greenwich Green Party, entitled ‘For building real and campaigning Socialist Alliances’. Whiter than white, the leaflet protested that “there is no ‘hidden agenda’ of exclusion”. It told the meeting to “break out of the mind-set of small-sect politics” and to “reject centralism and paranoia - support the amalgamated resolution”. In reality, Nick Long’s leaflet was an anti-CPGB, anti-communist charter. Possibly a witch hunter’s charter. Terry Liddle’s signature points to the danger of pink-green McCarthyism emerging in the LSA.
Comrade Long repeatedly stressed that we need to build fighting and campaigning local organisations - “Take forward what we have already”. The focus must be on local communities, said the comrade. Then we can have a “real impact”.
Accurately, comrade Long stressed that this was a “watershed meeting”. For him even more so. At the previous Wednesday’s meeting of Lewisham SA, he had abruptly announced that he would “withdraw” from the alliances if the ‘amalgamated’ bloc motion was defeated. With so much at stake, comrade Long presented it as a straight choice between either a “telephone box alliance” (of the existing left groups) or a mass-based alliance with “real people”. From all this, he concluded that the position of Anne Murphy was “untenable” and that she should be replaced by Toby Abse - who could present a “public face of independence” for the LSA. Both Nick Long and Toby Abse seemed to be under the impression that comrade Murphy of the CPGB, not comrade Driver of the SDG, is LSA chair.
The portrayal of comrade Abse as an ‘independent’ is pure hypocrisy of course. He is a member of the Ken Coates/Hugh Kerr-led Independent Labour Network. In other words, Toby Abse’s supporters in the pale green SDG think it is perfectly OK for the LSA to present its rightist social democratic face, but not its revolutionary one.
Mike Howgate, ex-WRP and a former SLP member, said the SAs were dominated by unaffiliated socialists “pissed off” with all the left groups. The SAs can help bring in a “new milieu” who had not been ‘contaminated’ by politics or other left groups - so the comrade hoped. He wearily predicted that the left groups would caucus away like mad on the LSA, whatever structure was adopted. “I want to see the groups replaced by a majority of individual socialists,” he said.
He critically supported the ‘amalgamated’ bloc motion to wind down the LSA steering committee. (Comrade Howgate also contributed a novel interpretation of history - during revolutions the masses remain aloof from the parties and factions of the left - perhaps our learned friend might care to take another look at Russia 1917, Germany 1918, Italy 1920, Spain 1936, Portugal 1975, etc.)
Comrade Marcus Larsen of the CPGB mocked comrade Nick Long’s reassurances that he had no hidden agenda. From all accounts, the telephone lines became red hot as Nick Long attempted to apply a “three-line whip” on all those in his rotten bloc: the CPGB must be defeated and excluded. Comrade Larsen produced an internal letter from comrade Duncan Chapple of the SDG [Correction: Comrade Chapple is a member of Alternatives, a recent split from the Socialist Outlook group that has been engaged in fusion talks with the SDG. See 'Correction' in next issue - Ed]. For all its Aesopian language, its anti-CPGB, exclusivist agenda was clear. It concluded that it would be better to “find ourselves in the position where we … are in different alliances” rather than work with the CPGB. The SDG’s anti-CPGB conspiracy was well and truly blown. Comrade Long did not deny that he was familiar with the contents of the Chapple letter.
Comrade Larsen also pointed out that the United Campaign to Repeal the Anti-Trade Union Laws, which had three quarters of a million adherents, was run on a strictly affiliated basis. All national unions, no matter how small, had automatic representation on its steering committee - a clear example of a “democratic and working class structure.”
The lines of demarcation were not clear to some. Comrade Ian Dudley - ex-Spartacist League, ex-IBT, ex-SLP, ex-Marxist Bulletin - stated that “in the abstract” both the proposed structures were democratic. He could see no “qualitative distinction” between the two motions. In the debate he detected a “false polarisation” between the CPGB and the amalgamated bloc. Comrade Dudley also thought it a shame that the meeting was discussing structures rather than politics.
The comrade also revealed his greenophobia. He was “forced” to support the CPGB’s motion because the rival motion talked about alliances with the greens. These forces are non-socialist. Therefore they should be excluded. Comrade Dudley also commented that socialists should not draw the conclusion from the Socialist Labour Party that a party is not necessary. A party does not equal bureaucratism.
Comrade Julie Donovan reiterated her complaint that the meeting was being held at 11am on a Sunday. The comrade seemed to feel the timing represented an outrageous communist attack on the institution of the family. She informed us that monthly meetings were “not the way forward” - perhaps the tempo of work would be too much for her comrades. (After all the SP-led Hillingdon SA had not met for 18 months prior to the LSA’s launch.) Comrade Donovan also expressed disdain at the thought of sitting in a room and “debating issues”. Workers do not do this, apparently. (A common complaint. Comrade David Lyons of the SDG expressed his “disappointment” at the fact that the LSA so far had spent most of its time on “political debates”.)
We should stick to the 80% we supposedly all agree on, insisted comrade Donovan. We should discuss only “relevant” issues. This means being with “real people”.
At least some comrades in the ‘amalgamated’ bloc grouping had retained some degree of honesty. Comrade Dave Packer of Socialist Outlook admitted that the meeting was not primarily about organisational structures. It is fundamentally about which direction the SAs should take. Do we adopt the structure of the CPGB “central committee” or do we go out there and embrace “real forces”?
There is no real organisational opposition to Blair, said comrade Packer of the auto-Labourite SO. A “real party” requires regroupment. The SAs will not just evolve into a party. Therefore, he said we should not be setting up “rigid structures”. Like the comrades from the SP, Packer was allergic to “debating societies” - which is what the LSA will apparently become if the CPGB wins the day. Comrade Packer concluded: “The idea that there is a gigantic plot to remove Anne Murphy is ludicrous.”
Somewhat in contradiction, the SDG’s David Lyons reassured comrade Murphy that the campaign to oust her was not personal, but political. Very comforting. He thought that Toby Abse would be a “good compromise”. If we had six “fleshed out” borough alliances, continued comrade Lyons, then perhaps the CPGB’s motion would be appropriate. This is unfortunately not the case. Therefore we need “intermediary” structures.
Comrade John Bridge from the CPGB was more convinced than ever that we were witnessing an anti-CPGB stitch-up, for all the protestations to the contrary. The democratic coup against democracy in Manchester, the Chapple letter, the ‘amalgamated’ bloc all show that the CPGB is not suffering from “paranoia”. There is a real conspiracy. He bluntly attacked some of the sillier myths about the CPGB. The CPGB could not bureaucratically dominate the SAs even if it wanted to - the CPGB does not have the numbers for a start. But it does have the politics - and the determination to become the majority through showing the power and correctness of those politics. No one is stopping SP comrades from engaging in local campaign work and building borough alliances. He invited the localists to go out and do it, if they so wished. But the SP and others should not blame the CPGB for their own failure.
The anti-CPGB bloc, declared comrade Bridge, was not only conspiratorial, but anti-political and anti-theory. In order to liberate themselves workers have to grasp culture. Socialism cannot be delivered from above - either by great leaders or a ‘socialist’ parliamentary majority.
Comrade Bridge concluded by savaging the “farcical misrepresentation” of the CPGB’s motion - which aims to preserve and enshrine inclusiveness and protect minority rights. The CPGB demands inclusive-ness. The CPGB demands democracy. Comrade Bridge damned the hypocrisy of those who talk about democracy but practice anti-democracy.
Not everyone enjoyed the lively nature of the meeting. Terry Liddle, ex-Stalinite, ex-Labour Party, and now a Green Party member, complained that the meeting was becoming too “adversary and belligerent”. He announced that the next meeting of the London Federation of Green Parties was going to discuss its future electoral relationship with the LSA. He was worried that in next year’s elections green and socialist candidates might end up standing against each other - even though we probably have 80% programmatic agreement, according to him.
A comrade from Hackney SA was shocked by the Chapple letter and the rampant anti-CPGBism on display. We need the LSA so we can plan in “an organised and targeted way”, she argued. It would be disastrous if we split into a myriad of separate local alliances.
Steve Nally of the SP and Lambeth SA could not see the point of setting up “grand structures” (ie, the CPGB’s very spare, minimalist and completely flexible plan) when there is “nothing” on the ground. (He ignored the ‘amalgamated’ bloc’s alternative “grand structure”.) We need a “practical way” to build socialism, as opposed to sitting in a room discussing theory ... and politics. Looking around him at the forces gathered, comrade Nally exclaimed that this meeting was “the dead talking to the dead”. Comrade Nally might include himself among the “dead”: it should be remembered that he appeared on television after the police riot in Trafalgar Square promising to ‘shop’ the anti-poll tax protestors to the authorities.
George Thompson of SO, with commendable logic, said borough alliances were “problematic”, in that they did not necessarily reflect real communities. Should we not have smaller and even more local structures then (street or household alliances?). Perhaps the first step should be to recruit your partner.
Lee Rock of Socialist Perspectives, a self-confessed “avid reader” of the Weekly Worker, commented that before the meeting he had been 60-40 in favour of the CPGB motion. Now after watching the amalgamated bloc in action he shifted even more to the CPGB’s position. He had no fear of the CPGB - despite being compared in the Weekly Worker on one occasion to Stalin’s secret police chief, Yagoda. As long as the work gets done, comrade Rock is prepared to work with anyone - even the CPGB.
Jim Smith of the Movement for Socialism - the rump of the unlamented Workers Revolutionary Party - also urged “critical” support for the CPGB’s motion. The comrade thought it vital to defend the right to automatic representation. (In a leaked letter, displayed at the meeting, Nick Long had listed all those who belonged to his anti-CPGB alliance - the MfS was one of them). Gerry Downing from Workers Fight also urged support for the CPGB’s motion - “We need to set out how it is possible to include different tendencies” in the Alliance. It is wrong to “de-prioritise” the LSA steering committee. Comrade Downing detected a hidden agenda to remove comrade Anne Murphy. He thought it was wrong to polarise the two motions in such a sharp fashion.
The ‘amalgamated’ bloc’s motion was “too narrow and too detailed”, in the opinion of comrade Mark Fischer from Hackney SA and the CPGB. The CPGB supports the notion that borough alliances should have a wide degree of autonomy. Believe it or not, the CPGB was not opposed to Lewisham SA holding meetings on the Millennium Dome, as implied by Nick Long. As for the greens, there was “no question” of excluding greens who say they are socialists. But there should be no “band-wagon chasing of greens”. He urged the meeting to take the CPGB motion the way it was intended - ie, “in the spirit of inclusion, not exclusion.”
Comrade Stan Kelsey of Brent SA and the CPGB said there was no contradiction between building top-down and bottom-up - “The more you have underneath, the more you need on top”. He strongly objected to the false dichotomy between socialists and “ordinary people” - and between action and discussion. The more action that occurs, the more discussion you need. So-called “ordinary people” become socialists and leaders - given leadership and the right ideas. Does the SP propose to stop talking to “ordinary people” when they become socialists and Marxists? Apparently.
Anti-CPGBers push the fallacy that if you have shorter and shorter meetings ... you will get more and more people coming in. This is make-believe politics, said comrade Kelsey. Instructively, when the comrade said that a meeting can and should last for a month if necessary, he was met with instant guffaws of philistine laughter. Our so-called Bolsheviks forget their claimed history. The idea that workers could ever sit in a discussion for more than two hours was obviously preposterous to the localists of the SP-SO-SDG. This speaks volumes about the ‘socialism’ of those so opposed to the CPGB. A socialism that excludes the workers - except as a loyal slave class eager to do the bidding of their liberators from above.
Up to and even during a revolutionary situation revolutionaries are in a minority - though, counted in millions, they strive to lead the majority. By supporting the CPGB, said comrade Kelsey, you were defending your minority rights to become the majority. The comrade also raised the question of the Scottish Socialist Alliance. It has been cretinously suggested by comrade Lyons et al that the CPGB are splitters because they oppose the liquidation of the SSA into the reformist-nationalist Scottish Socialist Party. The opposite is the truth. The SSA are the splitters. They have split Scottish workers from English and Welsh workers.
Toby Abse of Lewisham SA, a keen advocate of localism and pink-green alliances, put his cards squarely on the table. For this he should be congratulated. The ‘amalgamated’ bloc motion was about defeating the CPGB, comrade Abse bluntly told the meeting. The workers - and Toby knows this for a certain fact - are not interested in discussing abstract theory. Socialism, Marxism, world communism, etc are ludicrous distractions. Ordinary people will not come to meetings where such politics are discussed. Only the ‘fanatical’ CPGB could fail to see this. If the CPGB got its way, the LSA would be “continually discussing theory every five minutes”. Comrade Abse eventually came to his central point. The SAs need to link up with the London Federation of Green Parties. Being red, the CPGB, by its very nature, poses a serious threat to this pink-green project in the mind of comrade Abse.
As for the CPGB’s commitment to minority rights - that was “crap”. In a typical “bureaucratic manoeuvre”, the ‘CPGB’ was charging a membership fee of £2 for all who turned up on the day (ie, LSA allowed people to join on the day of the meeting). Even worse, comrade Abse had been informed of the time and venue only at the “last minute”. Late post ... blame the CPGB wreckers. (Leaving aside problems with Royal Mail, the meeting has been openly advertised for the past two weeks in the Weekly Worker, a paper which we know comrade Abse examines with almost obsessive attention.)
A member of the SLP thought that comrade Abse’s speech provided an “excellent summation” of the case being put forward by the SP-SO-SDG-green bloc - ie, are you for or against the CPGB? The “hidden agenda” could not be more clear. The elaborate plots and conspiracies of Nick Long and Duncan Chapple had been exposed. Anti-communism could “destroy” the LSA, he thought. It has not done the SLP any good, that is for sure. The structure outlined by the CPGB was evidently federalist, not centralist or Leninist. There should be automatic representation for affiliated organisations - not least so we know what they think.
The meeting demonstrated the unhealthy and essentially anti-communist politics of the SP-SO-SDG-green bloc. But we are glad to report that it did not win the day. Although the CPGB motion one fell on a tied vote, all but one of Hackney SA’s five amendments (supported by the CPGB) were accepted.
Amendment one called for the Alliance to be “based on inclusive, not exclusive principles”, the “toleration of minority views” and the opportunity for minorities to become majorities. It fell on a tied vote, 18 to 18.
Amendment two, calling for “principled” links with other organisations, including the greens, was passed with 28 for and two against (both Socialist Party - the other two SP comrades abstained).
Amendment three included the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Labour Party as organisations the LSA should seek links with. It was carried unanimously.
Amendment four deleted the demand for less frequent - ie, two-monthly - LSA committee meetings. There were 19 votes for, 16 against.
Amendment five dealt with “initiating action”. There was only one vote against - an SDG member.
Motion two was therefore carried with its worst elements deleted.