05.11.1998

For inclusive democracy

Socialist Alliances

Comrade John Nicholson, joint convenor of the Network of Socialist Alliances, is the latest to polemicise against an organisation whose name he cannot bring himself to utter - the CPGB.

Writing in the October edition of Socialist Outlook, comrade Nicholson reports on the September 5 launch conference of the Network. Discussing the morning session, when there was heated debate around the proposed constitution, he agonises over the difficulties his “liberal ‘work with anyone’ approach” cause him and his co-thinkers. The problem is, you see, this approach “forces us to allow the inclusion of those who don’t actually want to work with anyone else!”

Comrade Nicholson makes clear who these awkward, uncooperative types are in his next paragraph. He continues:

“Communists genuinely want a mass working class party with a central committee. Some want it based on the ‘UK state’, and do not recognise parallel developments in Scotland or Wales (never mind the situation in the Six Counties of the north of Ireland).

“Socialists working with campaigners from different backgrounds think that a looser federal structure, based on networking and mutual respect, is a more likely and more desirable future. Language varies from the Leninist and its historical truth to the broader demand for dropping words like ‘socialist’ and ‘green’ altogether, focusing instead on ‘social justice and ecological sustainability’.

“This question of orientation is the major fault line running through the debates. And it’s political, not organisational (even if it is true that one form of organisation would favour some groups more than the other). So it has to be tackled politically.

“Subordinate to it are questions of affiliation. Should any structure be individual only, should it guarantee places for every affiliated group, or for every local alliance? Who defines what constitutes a ‘group’ or an ‘alliance’? Should it just be simpler in any case?

“And there’s the question of approach. Is it acceptable to be able to join something simply for the purpose of exposing it as not the something you want? If you want a ‘central committee’ about which you can complain for its failure to ‘lead’, why not join an organisation which gives you this, rather than seeking to promote discord amongst comrades who clearly don’t want to be in that sort of organisation?”

First of all, let me point out the utter dishonesty of refusing to name your opponent. Presumably, comrade Nicholson believes that by not specifying the CPGB he is excused from any duty to accurately represent our views. That is not so. Everyone knows who he means and the ‘anonymity’ of the accused does not make such unfounded allegations any less outrageous. Who, for example, are “the splitters in our own ranks” he refers to later in the article?

For an organisation that actually took the initiative in setting up the London Socialist Alliance to be accused of joining “simply for the purpose of exposing it” and to “promote discord” is bizarre, to say the least. It hardly seems worth the effort of replying to such inanity. Nevertheless, let me explain the CPGB’s attitude to working class political organisation in general and the Socialist Alliances in particular.

It is true that we “genuinely want a mass working class party with a central committee”. We would be very strange communists if we did not aim to achieve a Communist Party - although I suspect comrade Nicholson would be surprised by how we understand the democratic centralist organisation upon which it would be based. It should be open to all revolutionary socialists who for the moment remain scattered in numerous sects. But such a formation cannot be plucked out of thin air. It certainly cannot be imposed. Its advocates at present constitute a tiny minority in the working class movement.

Far from being on the verge of launching a mass Communist Party, the working class does not even see itself as an independent political force. Therefore we must do everything we can to promote its independence - in particular the new, tentative moves that first see light of day as a break from Labour. That is why we actively supported the formation of the Socialist Labour Party, and we are just as enthusiastic about building the Socialist Alliances. Here in London, for example, our comrades are continuing to cooperate with others in the setting up of new SAs. But, just as we did in the SLP, we fight within the Alliances for inclusive democracy, with space for every tendency - including ourselves - to express their views.

In this regard, comrade Nicholson writes:

“Allowing someone to speak, on the grounds of inclusiveness, cannot mean allowing every member of one tendency to take cynical advantage of this and bore everyone else to death. This simply excludes everyone else.”

Here he is attempting to justify his own behaviour, as chair of the September 5 Rugby conference, in quite deliberately refusing to let leading CPGB comrades, including myself, speak to our proposals. Of course, had the meeting agreed to extend the debate on structure to allow every comrade who wanted to speak to take part in the discussion, as we proposed, then no such problem would have arisen. But comrade Nicholson and others opposed allowing as much time as necessary for the most important item on the conference agenda.

The Network cannot be a Communist Party, nor are we attempting to make it one. Repeating ad nauseam that we want it to be led by a “central committee” does not make it true. Rather than caricaturing what we stand for, it might even be worthwhile actually looking at the structure we proposed at the Rugby conference and comparing it with the proposals put forward by the unelected Liaison Group.

Whereas the Liaison Group, of which comrade Nicholson is a member, wanted a leadership to be elected at an annual conference, we called for a system of automatic representation on the Liaison Committee for affiliated political organisations and local Alliances. The Welsh Socialist Alliance, whose first annual conference takes place this weekend, is proposing a similar structure. Each affiliate would retain full autonomy and the leading committee would be controlled from below. Every delegate on the Liaison Committee would represent a particular constituency, would be accountable to it and could be replaced immediately. It would be a structure that reflected the nature of the Network as an alliance. By contrast proposals for a directly elected committee and officials are more suited to an established party. Officials who owe their position to an annual plebiscite can claim to speak for the whole, but in reality are not accountable to any constituency. Ironically it was the Liaison Group’s proposals, supported by comrade Nicholson, which would land the Network with a leading body resembling a “central committee”.

What of the accusation that, in our enthusiasm for organising socialists across the UK state, we “do not recognise parallel developments” in Scotland, Wales and the Six Counties? We “recognise” only too well that the Scottish Socialist Alliance/Scottish Socialist Party has now completed its embrace of nationalism, thus splitting the working class movement against the UK state. Thankfully the Welsh Socialist Alliance has not adopted such an overtly nationalist course, but what is wrong with all comrades coming together in one all-Britain network, while retaining their national, regional and local autonomy? There is no Welsh or Scottish state to be overthrown. Why exclude comrades from the united fight against the UK state? However much we support the right to self-determination in Scotland and Wales, we only advocate separatism in the most exceptional circumstances (such as Ireland). We must organise against the existing state.

It is clear from the tone of comrade Nicholson’s article that, in the name of “mutual respect” and “inclusive-ness”, he actually wants to exclude the CPGB. He has already seen to it that the CPGB is in effect excluded from the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance, where he is the convenor. This attitude does not augur well for the future of the Network.

Anne Murphy
Convenor, London Socialist Alliance