10.09.1998

Network of Socialist Alliances launch: One step forward, two steps back

Last Saturday’s Rugby conference of the Network of Socialist Alliances was intended as a step towards creating a democratic structure. Bad politics and a bad agenda ensured failure

The September 5 conference was faced with a choice between two distinct forms of structure. The Liaison Group proposed a cumbersome system of electing the leading committee, more reminiscent of a bureaucratic party than an alliance. In contrast the CPGB put forward an inclusive structure of automatic representation for all affiliated organisations. The meeting agreed to hold a recall conference early next year to finally determine the form in which our forces can most effectively cooperate.

The conference voted by a margin of 51 votes to 36 that the structure proposed by the Liaison Group be adopted in the meantime on an interim basis. However, in effect this meant the status quo continues, since no elections were held along the lines contained in its proposals. The unelected Liaison Group will continue to function as it has up to now.

All this showed only too clearly that the CPGB had been correct to propose at the beginning of the conference that sufficient time be allowed in order that every aspect of the structure could be debated and everyone who wanted to speak would be able to do so. But Liaison Group chair John Nicholson insisted that only the truncated morning session could be spent on the question of organisation, as there were invited speakers due to address the conference - on Europe and low pay - in the afternoon. In the first vote of the day the John Nicholson-Dave Nellist-Pete                                   McLaren-Dave Church leadership was supported by 54 comrades, with 24 backing the CPGB proposal to continue discussion on structure all day if necessary. The final outcome vindicated our approach. The recall conference will be devoted entirely to this one question - but in six months time.

The Socialist Party’s Dave Nellist spoke in favour of the Liaison Group proposed structure with its unworkable electoral colleges, exclusion clauses and ethical socialism. His main argument against automatic representation was that the ensuing committee would be too large. Speaking for the CPGB, Peter Manson pointed out that if needed the committee could elect sub-committees for specific purposes. Under the CPGB proposals the Liaison Committee would consist of elected and recallable delegates - one from each affiliated national organisation and one per 100 members from local, metropolitan or regional Socialist Alliances. This committee would elect its own officers who would in turn be recallable. Similar proposals were also put forward by Martin Wicks and Dave Spencer of the Socialist Perspectives group.

In other words, this structure would reflect admirably a rapidly developing, fluid network of alliances, as opposed to a more formally institutionalised organisation, where officers would be elected at an annual conference, and the outcome of the vote, along with all the decisions of the Liaison Committee, could theoretically be determined by a 51% bloc around one group.

Several comrades who were prepared to go along with the Nicholson-Nellist-McLaren-Church Liaison Group nevertheless expressed strong reservations about some aspects. For example comrade Tony Reid wondered how in practice three members elected to the committee by national organisations (as the Liaison Group proposed) would be able to represent numerous and very different political formations grouped under the Network umbrella. Pete Firmin of Socialist Outlook “broadly supported” the leadership structure. He was against the “CPGB idea” that the leading committee should be responsible for “day-to-day running” of the Network - ironically a simplified and shortened version of the Liaison Group formulation. Other comrades also tilted against an invented notion that the CPGB’s loose and highly flexible structure was actually a “central committee”. It is understandable however why Labour-loyal groups like SO would want to resist the possibility of a united socialist challenge to Blair’s party.

Comrade John Pearson of the Campaign for a Democratic SLP made a telling contribution, outlining how he had been excluded from the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance after the GMSA structure had been changed from a system of representative inclusion to one of annual elections dominated by an exclusivist bloc. The Manchester coordinator who oversaw this democratic coup against inclusive democracy was none other than John Nicholson, the chair of the conference, who was now backing just such a scheme for the Network.

Comrade Nicholson, despite opening the conference with a call for “participative and non-confrontational” debate, ran the meeting in a most abrasive and hostile manner. Any procedural motions of which he disapproved were rudely dismissed. He also pointedly refused to allow leading CPGB members to speak - treating some to childish personal abuse.

Apart from the question of structure, two other themes dominated the morning. There was controversy over the proposed name and therefore scope of the organisation. The CPGB proposed the Network of Socialist Alliances in the United Kingdom, whereas the rival draft wanted to limit the membership to England. CPGB comrades consistently argued for the active unity of all workers against the state. Nobody oppressed by the UK state should be excluded from the fight against the UK state. Our opponents ludicrously claimed that this amounted to ‘the English’ telling the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish what to do. Anticipating this debate, comrade Nicholson read out a message from the Scottish Socialist Alliance (shortly to liquidate and become the Scottish Socialist Party) which welcomed the recognition of “the right of socialists in Scotland to organise separately from England”. Nobody was questioning that right, but the central question here was whether we ought to cooperate practically against our common enemy within one democratic and voluntary framework.

The argument against ‘imposing’ a structure on comrades outside England was turned on its head by a Socialist Alliance comrade from London who also proclaimed himself a supporter of Dundee-based Campaign for a Federal Republic. He pointed out that not all comrades north of the border welcomed the proposed SSP. Many were against the SSA’s nationalist isolationism. Such comrades should not be excluded from working in an all-Britain framework. The SSP itself should be encouraged to affiliate.

The second recurring theme concerned the composition of the Network. Should it be an alliance of socialists, as the CPGB proposed, or should its politics be watered down so as to make it acceptable to “all socialist, green, direct action and other radical groups and individuals”, as the Liaison Group argued? Comrade Manson read out extracts from a pamphlet calling for the protection of the environment, elimination of waste and for sustainable activity to protect the earth’s natural resources. He asked rhetorically whether the conference thought the authors should affiliate to the Network. He then revealed that the extracts came from a vacuum cleaner manual put out by Electrolux. The CPGB and others stressed that the network should openly welcome socialist greens, socialist direct action groups and socialist individuals.

None of the Liaison Group attempted to defend their formulation, although some comrades did back the call for close red-green cooperation from the floor. To some extent this was countered by a Green Party member, Stephen Platt from Doncaster. He “deplored” the fact that the Green Party had already selected its candidates for next year’s Euro-elections without any prior consultation with any groups on the left, including the Network. Comrade Platt thought that the Alliances should go ahead and stand - the Network should “make its presence felt”. Despite the Liaison Group’s best efforts to dilute its socialist content in an attempt to win what it imagines will be popular support through classless environmentalism, its efforts have carried it towards political irrelevance. An indication of this was the fact that no Green Party representative turned up to address the meeting, even though the Rugby conference date had been changed to avoid a clash with the Green Party conference.

The afternoon session was not without interest - even if it was at the expense of a fuller discussion on the Network’s structure. The debate on Europe featured John Palmer from the editorial board of Red Pepper, Hugh Kerr MEP of the Independent Labour Network, Michael Hindley MEP, still - just - a Labour Party member, and Ron Dorman from the Campaign against Euro-federalism. Opinions ranged from the national socialist ‘get out of Europe’ of comrade Dorman to the classless internationalism of comrade Palmer. As comrade Marcus Larsen from the CPGB pointed out, an independent working class perspective was totally absent.

The final item was what comrade Nellist described as “one of the most important aspects of why we’re here” - an anodyne and poorly attended discussion on low pay introduced by Jean Thorpe of Unison. The Socialist Party in England and Wales is of course engaged in an economistic campaign around the issue, and no doubt comrade Nellist believes that highlighting the question at the conference - along with his proposal to collect one million signatures on the question - would strengthen his hand in the internal SP dispute around the value of the Socialist Alliances. Beleaguered general secretary Peter Taaffe is known to want to downplay the SAs in favour of building his “small mass party”, while comrade Nellist is one of a small minority who is active within them. Apart from comrade Nellist and some local SP comrades selling The Socialist, there was only a handful of SP members present - none of whom made, or even tried to make, a contribution to the discussion.

Although the Liaison Group won the votes, it was a Pyrrhic victory. The CPGB won the argument. Unable to force through its unworkable structure, the Liaison Group was compelled by the presence of a large 40% minority to defer a final decision to allow for further consideration of this essential question. The CPGB has subsequently written suggesting the setting up of a constitution working party, on which a representative from the CPGB and the Independent Labour Network, as well as comrades Nellist, Nicholson, Church, McLaren and Martin Wicks, should sit. That will allow clarity on where we disagree and where we agree.

Our enemies spend an inordinate time in thrashing out laws, institutions and treaties which ensure and facilitate their cooperation. Partisans of socialism ought to spare no effort in negotiating and fine-tuning a common structure, which can contribute towards winning a better world.

Alan Fox