16.07.1998

Principled minority

Around the left

It is clear that the period of reaction is hitting home. Many left groups are beginning to feel the strain. The Socialist Party (England and Wales) has lost Scotland, its largest region. The Socialist Workers Party has declared its intention of engaging in election work after decades of bitter ‘anti-electoralism’. A determined section of the London Socialist Alliance wants to replicate some of the very worst anti-communist practices of the Socialist Labour Party.  Many of the smaller left grouplets are looking more unstable with almost each day that passes.

Then we have the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. This is an organisation which has had quite a face change in recent years. As Socialist Organiser it was notorious for its hyper-sectarianism towards the rest of the left. SO’s sectarianism - and politics - was of a virulently rightwing sort, fuelled by its fanatical pro-Labourism. When Kinnock’s anti-Militant witch hunt extended itself to SO, it responded by attacking “Leninist sects” on the grounds that they had no right to be in the Labour Party - and by squealing to the Labour NEC witch hunters that SO was “demonstrably not of that type”. Such grovelling did it no good however. After reading an ‘incriminating’ report from ex-Workers Revolutionary Party member Joyce Gould - Labour’s very own Yagoda - SO was declared a banned organisation on July 25 1990. 

Alongside this reactionary, kamikaze-like anti-leftism SO developed a set of backward and sometimes weird political positions, such as its objective pro-Zionism. SO steadfastly maintained that the left’s anti-Zionism was no more than thinly disguised anti-semitism. And SO’s ‘anti-Stalinism’ was virtually indistinguishable from mainstream bourgeois anti-communism. Thus it enthusiastically supported the ‘anti-imperialist’ struggle of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. It was not for nothing that The Leninist, predecessor to the Weekly Worker, classified Socialist Organiser (or the ‘Soggie Oggies’ as they were not so affectionately known by the rest of the left) as architects of “cold war” or “M15” socialism.

Now things have changed somewhat. Naturally, much of the old Socialist Organiser nonsense remains - it still likes to cast the SWP’s anti-Zionism in a sinister light. But, to AWL’s credit, it is developing a culture of openness. It encourages debate and polemic with other left groups. It is not afraid to admit that there are differences within the organisation on a whole number of important issues. Its theoretical approach to the Soviet Union is essentially non-ideological. AWL comrades have views ranging from state capitalist, degenerate workers’ state to Shachtmanite bureaucratic collectivism (whatever that might be exactly). The open expression of ideas is something we applaud.

The latest issue of Workers’ Liberty details the sharp disagreements within the AWL over the British-Irish Agreement. The AWL called for a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum on Blair’s peace deal: the majority position within the organisation. A minority called for an abstention - to all intents and purposes a boycott. The fact that these differences - which are fundamental - have appeared openly in the AWL’s press is only to be welcomed and we hope other left groups are taking note.

The minority boycottist position was championed by comrades Sean Matgamna and Mark Osborn in the pages of Workers’ Liberty. Theirs is a principled stance which is similar to the analysis and politics put forward by the Weekly Worker. To argue for a ‘yes’ vote was to support an imperialist peace and sacrifice working class independence. With a few exceptions, such as Workers Power, the left capitulated like jelly in front of Blair and his ‘New Britain, New Northern Ireland’ project. But at least the AWL had an open and explicit ‘yes’ position, as opposed to the SWP’s subliminal ‘yes’ stance.

It must be pointed out that AWL’s general view on Ireland is thoroughly rotten and pro-imperialist - the malign spirit of Socialist Organiser lives on. For the AWL the Six Counties is the site of a “communal” war between Catholics and Protestants. An irrational and ancient struggle between the Orange Order and the Ancient Order of Hibernians. The poor old British imperialist forces are stuck in the middle of these warring tribes. If the British troops withdrew from the Six Counties there would be an instant bloodbath. Workers in the Six Counties must drop their irrational attachment to nationality and religion. ‘Bread and butter’ trade union politics, allied to the civilising influence of British imperialism, provides the only hope. This economistic, very rightist, anti-republican, anti-IRA (who are “militant chauvinists” in AWL-speak) stance on Ireland shapes and colours the arguments of both the majority and - regrettably - the boycottist minority. Perhaps, hopefully, as the debate unfolds, we will see comrades break from the AWL’s traditional pro-imperialist economism.

The introduction to the debate states:

“Workers’ Liberty advocated a ‘yes’ vote in the recent referendum on the Good Friday agreement. A minority disagree strongly with this position. In the following pages the issues are thrashed out” (June).

The arguments put forward by the majority are the wearily familiar ones we have come to expect from the left - voting ‘yes’ gives us an audience, war is nasty, it is a small step forward, etc. Frankly, the views peddled are idiotic. “At best [the agreement] provides a new framework within which the leading communal politicians on each side can manage that conflict ... the simple fact is that more communal polarisation means less workers’ unity and a return to war means more polarisation” (Pat Murphy). The referendum is “essentially a vote for or against ‘peace’. And the only alternative on offer is a return to the military campaigns of both sides of the communal divide” (Jim Denham). “It is a better option (or lesser evil) than continuing the constitutional status quo” (Dave Ball). “If voting for the agreement is likely to keep the militant communalists marginalised longer than voting against - then fine, we should say that - and advocate a ‘yes’ vote” (Pete Radcliff). Some of the arguments of the majority are so banal it is frightening.

Counterposed to all this liberal and pacifistic nonsense, we get the common sense - in the Marxist sense of staring reality in the face - of the minority. Comrade Matgamna correctly states:

“A ‘yes’ vote is a positive expression of faith in the agreement to really achieve what London and Dublin and the various green and orange political parties say it will. It is to accept that the political issues and alternatives are as defined by the authors of this agreement ... Many people will vote ‘yes’ as a vote for ‘peace’: the question is - is it? And can Workers’ Liberty treat it as only that?”

Comrade Matgamna goes on to argue: “This agreement institutionalises sectarianism and communalism within an artificial state framework, with a changing population ratio between the communities. That will be a destabilising factor. It is possibly the seed of a future communalist war.” In other words, comrade Matgamna does not share the pro-imperialist faith of the majority, who want to believe that Blair’s deal will bring peace. Yes, it may. But whose peace?

Importantly, the comrade challenges the methodology employed by the ‘yes’ majority:

“As Marxists we analyse the reality as it is, try to find our feet in it and ways of getting from here to the socialist goal we work for ... We have our own standpoint and our own politics. We do not accept the gun-to-the-head choice of lesser evils they normally offer: to do that is to forgo politics outside their frame. The lesser evils are also theirs. We settle for neither their lesser nor their greater evils.

“Here it is very much a question of our fundamental revolutionary socialist working class postures towards official society and those who shape its destiny. To say ‘no’ where they say ‘yes’, and ‘yes’ where they say ‘no’, would be to define ourselves as only their negative imprint. But even when we both say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, our ‘yes’ is not theirs. We say ‘yes’ to peace. But we should not say ‘yes’ to the idea that this new arrangement is the answer.”

The response of comrade Mark Osborn is even sharper. The majority, writes comrade Osborn,

“claims we are ‘voting yes to working class politics in Ireland’. This is grade A fantasy. Whatever next? - ‘Vote Labour for socialism’? ‘Vote Tory for workers’ rights’? ... the question on the ballot was: do we back the peace agreement cobbled together by British and US imperialism, the Irish ruling class and the more mainstream communalist politicians in the North? Yes or no to this question, not the one you’ve invented.”

He continues:

“If the referendum question had been, ‘Do we favour working class politics in Ireland?’, I would have no problem in voting ‘yes’. But the agreement is a document produced by our political enemies. It has nothing to do with ‘working class politics’. The working class, as a class, has no imprint on this deal.”

Eventually, comrade Osborn widens out the discussion and questions the whole thrust of the AWL’s politics. Sounding to all effects and purposes like the founding declaration of an opposition platform, the comrade says:

“An argument used in discussions not represented here is this: the workers of Northern Ireland want peace and that’s why they’re voting ‘yes’. We must relate to them. It is ‘sectarian’ not to vote ‘yes’, it cuts us off from the workers. Obviously it is pleasanter to be with the big ‘winning’ side; it is more politically convenient - if reality and our principles allow it - to criticise from within a movement than from without.

“But just travelling with the class - with its imprecise feelings and general moods - would carry us to Bhutto’s Peoples’ Party in Pakistan in the 1970s, even Peron in Argentina and certainly Mandela and the ANC in South Africa - or, in 1930s USA, to FD Roosevelt. No doubt the Workers’ Organisation for Socialist Action - the comrades who stood as socialists against the ANC in the South African elections - found themselves ‘isolated’. They got a tiny vote. But sometimes it’s necessary to lay down a marker, to take a stand for class independence, to rally the left as best we can, to educate a cadre.”

We concur with the sentiments of comrade Osborn and all those in the minority grouping. Their differences represent a substantial break from the AWL’s whole ‘lesser evil’ methodology.

We look forward to following the debate. But the fierce battle waging around the Good Friday agreement between the opportunist majority and the principled minority is too important to be confined to Workers’ Liberty. The pages of the widely read Weekly Worker are also open to both the majority and the minority. This way the internal debate convulsing the AWL can be used to “rally” and “educate” the whole of the left.

Don Preston