14.01.1999

Network must choose

London Socialist Alliance shows the way ahead

Having abysmally failed at Rugby in 1998, the unelected Liaison Group of John Nicholson, Pete McLaren, Dave Church and Dave Nellist is to make another attempt to put the Network of Socialist Alliances onto something like a firm footing this March. A repeat conference which minimises discussion and tries to railroad through a pseudo-party structure could prove disastrous.

Thankfully, as urged by the CPGB from the start, this time round there is to be a pre-meeting. Delegates from the various Socialist Alliances and supporting political organisations come together in London on January 16. The idea is not to vote on the various proposals that have been tabled: rather to give them a reasonably full airing. Even though the three-hour agenda is woefully inadequate, the CPGB wholeheartedly welcomes such an approach. At last we can sit down with each other and coolly and constructively thrash out the various options.

The Nicholson-McLaren-Church-Nellist Liaison Group appears to have lost what little coherence it once possessed. Profound fault lines visibly exist. Despite getting its ‘Fair society’ aims and structure adopted on an “interim basis” at Rugby the majority were quick to abandon the creaking ship. Not only was there a determined 40% opposition - centred on the CPGB - but the Liaison Group recognised that their elaborate structure was bound to sink on launch. Sad to say, the alternatives on offer from that quarter are not much of an improvement.

Coventry and Warwickshire Socialist Alliance - headed by comrades McLaren and Nellist - rejects any “large or unrepresentative committee”. It has also taken a stand against “an annual conference”. Strangely at the same time Coventry suggests the annual election of “functional officers” by a delegate meeting. Besides this contradictory and unelaborated position there are a couple of other discussion notes. Kent Socialist Alliances favours preserving the non-democratic status quo. In contrast the Radical Preston Alliance wants “functioning officers” elected at an annual conference and organisations “whether national and local” having “one representative”. Martin Wicks, on behalf of Socialist Perspectives, simply calls for a committee made up of representatives of affiliated local alliances and political organisations.

Only two sets of draft rules have been presented. On the one hand those “amending” the Liaison Group’s from John Nicholson and the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance majority. On the other hand the draft unanimously agreed by the London Socialist Alliance general meeting in October 1998 (originally proposed and fully backed by the CPGB). If those who presently constitute the Network of Socialist Alliances desire unity under a clear set of rules, then they will have to choose one or the other.

Despite superficial similarities their approaches are fundamentally at variance. Stripped of the details, Manchester outlines a party-type structure based on a relatively committed individual membership. Its Liaison Committee would exercise wide powers, including “arrangements for seeking and enabling electoral unity” (organisation, clause 5). London recognises that we are far from any such stage yet. An ‘alliance’ party is premature, to say the least. London therefore envisages the Network as a “federal” arrangement designed to coordinate the work of autonomous local and regional Socialist Alliances and affiliated socialist organisations. Evidently claims that London SA and the CPGB argue for the Network to adopt “hardline Marxism” and a “Bolshevik-style” central committee are either mischievous, dishonest or plain stupid.

In drafting the Manchester rules, comrade Nicholson has given ground to our criticisms of the Liaison Group’s two original sets of proposals. They are not so overt in terms of top-down dictatorship. Less sickly green. Slightly more red in hue. For example “individual socialists/greens and autonomous socialist/green direct action organisations” has been replaced by “individuals and organisations” (preamble). In the same compromising spirit it is now stated that our aim is “to build a democratic socialist society”.

Nevertheless it goes without saying that Nicholson and his Manchester draft owes everything to sentimental socialism and the passing fad for greenism and not a thing to working class socialism (nowhere is socialism defined, nor is the class struggle or even class mentioned). And, as a certain Karl Marx once observed, “Where the class struggle is pushed to the side as an unpleasant, ‘crude’ phenomenon, nothing remains as the basis of socialism but ‘true love of the people’ and empty phrases about ‘justice’” (K Marx MESW Moscow 1975, Vol 3, p92). In the realm of reality, of course, socialism without the rule of the working class can only exists as its opposite: eg, Stalin’s USSR, Attlee’s Britain, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, Olaf Palme’s Sweden.

Means determine ends and ends determine means. Not surprisingly then comrade Nicholson’s “immediate objectives” ignore the necessity of the workers winning the battle for democracy under today’s social conditions and promoting their own class internationalism. Unlike the London proposals, nothing about the monarchy, House of Lords, nor self-determination for Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Our friends in the Manchester majority merely seek “to promote locally based socialist/environmentalist alliances and to encourage constructive dialogue and practical action between these and other organisations and individuals, at local and national levels” (aims and objectives). Anodyne stuff.

In contrast LSA makes it absolutely clear that the Network of Socialist Alliance is an alliance of socialists. Not all environmentalists or greens are socialists. Many are liberals. Others are conservative. Some are downright reactionary. Actually the greens as a whole represent a petty bourgeois movement which covers a wide spectrum ranging from the critical-utopian to the overly fascist: eg, David Icke, the Third Wave, etc. Needless to say, LSA is not opposed to the affiliation of green organisations and individuals who declare themselves socialists. Such affiliations are to be applauded.

Where politically the Manchester proposals are weak the organisational details are malign. Far from facilitating the convergence of socialist individuals and organisations, they would achieve the reverse.

Let us begin with the section on membership. Manchester excludes everyone not “working or living in England”. Socialists in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are barred. Though we are all ruled by the same United Kingdom state, in the name of an unspoken English nationalism our forces are to be deliberately and perversely divided.

The Manchester draft has junked the Liaison Group’s hypocrisy about striking a “balance” between “smaller groups and individuals” and “larger organisations”. Instead of its Byzantine electoral college we are now presented with an “alliance” of individual members. Affiliated organisations have no role apart from the privilege of “nominating” people for election to a Liaison Committee. In fact they have less rights than individuals. Only duties. Despite that comrade Nicholson still fears any undue influence they might exert over his project. That explains a whole raft of bureaucratic clauses.

We are told affiliation “assumes” a “commitment to an anti-sectarian and cooperative way of working”. A pious hope, perhaps. In all probability though, a thinly veiled threat. Will those deemed ‘sectarian’ or ‘uncooperative’ be barred along with socialists from other parts of the United Kingdom? Events in Greater Manchester, where comrade Nicholson spearheaded a purge of the CPGB, give us legitimate cause for concern; as did the similar but unsuccessful coup attempt by an unprincipled bloc in London.

Individuals joining the alliance from “other groups and organisations” are supposedly “welcome”. However, comrade Nicholson dreads any such influx. These ‘aliens’ are to be policed. The Manchester draft demands on “application/renewal of membership of the Network” that these comrades “declare” their true political allegiances. Such McCarthyism should be given short shrift.

Worse comes. Affiliates “must also ensure individual paid-up membership from within their respective organisations”. ‘Encourage’ would be fine. But frankly “ensure” is sinister. Take the Socialist Party in England and Wales. We know for a fact that it cannot get its own membership fully “paid-up”. Despite a rapid decline to well below 500 many lag far behind. Yet the Manchester draft insists on high dues payments. Individuals are expected to hand over a minimum of £5 per month: ie, £30 annually. If SPEW fails to “ensure” all its membership carry the double burden, what happens? Would it too be barred?

This system of dues payments, collected monthly, with local Socialist Alliances passing on two fifths of the total to the Network, shows all too clearly that comrade Nicholson is determined to instantly conjure up a party-type structure and level of commitment. It is both foolish and untenable.

The Socialist Alliances are a loose, immature and ill-defined political formation. To impose such a regime, even if it could be administered, would, in fact, kill the project stone dead. The Socialist Alliances do have a layer of individual members, the biggest concentrations being in London and Coventry. But our strength derives not from unattached socialists. In general their morale is low. No, our strength comes from the various organisations we unite. That must be recognised and patiently built upon.

Finally in terms of the Manchester draft let us turn to the section on organisation. A 15-strong Liaison Committee would be elected “annually” by a conference of individual members. Obviously this introduces a tremendous geographical bias. Those living nearby will find it easy to attend. Those living far away will not. That is why a system of elected delegates is altogether better.

In another denial of real democracy the Manchester draft states that a decision-making conference can be called by one quarter of “paid-up members”. Who has the list? Who is “paid-up”? Does anyone really expect individual members to write in spontaneously? The London draft is far more democratic. Under its stipulations a special conference is called at the wish of one third of the Socialist Alliances. Transparent. Easy to organise. Impossible to argue with.

The whole Manchester construct runs counter to the idea of building alliances. Far from including minorities and guaranteeing representation for all groups, the opposite is the case. What we have before us is an annual poll whereby any political bloc that can muster or negotiate through some backroom deal 51% of the votes of those who turn out or can be bussed in for the day can dominate the whole Network. Such a bloc chooses all “five officers” along with the “10 other” members of the Liaison Committee. Hypothetically a 49% minority, consisting of bigger or smaller political groups and Socialist Alliances is thereby excluded.

The problem is compounded by a clause which bureaucratically circumscribes even that democracy. No one political organisation “shall have more than 30%” of the Liaison Committee “or of any other elected body within the Network”. Furthermore the Manchester draft insists that “organisations as a whole shall not have more than 50% of such membership” (organisation, clause 2).

The Manchester rules require affiliated Socialist Alliances to operate a ceiling limiting who can be elected. One more violation of local autonomy. The LSA Steering Committee is usually attended by delegates representing half a dozen political groups and a similar number of borough Socialist Alliances. Apart from a single exception, they are all in political parties or groups. According to the Manchester draft, meetings could only proceed with that unaffiliated comrade alone ... the presence of anyone else takes us over the one third threshold. It should also be noted that the same applies to the present Liaison Group. Those with votes must surely be free to elect whomsoever they wish. If that gives a political organisation over 30%, that is democracy.

How can the Manchester system be made to work? Would successful candidates be declared null and void? Would they be turfed out because they took the quota of political organisations above 50%? Who decides? Would nominations be monitored by an incumbent Liaison Committee? The whole approach stinks. Then there is the loss of talent. There is a general tendency for those who are organised to be more politically advanced, dedicated, experienced and crucially more representative. Either way there must be free elections.

Obviously comrade Nicholson and other members of the Liaison Group are haunted by a growing acceptance commanded by the LSA system. Our draft rules stand firmly for inclusive democracy. Every affiliated national political organisation should have the right to send one instantly recallable delegate (that could include the Scottish Socialist Party). However the Network should be solidly based on local, regional and workplace Socialist Alliances. For every 20 members Socialist Alliances should be able to elect one - recallable - delegate (a ratio which must increase as more members are accumulated). Here in Socialist Alliances individuals can really be represented.

The LSA plan applies the same flexible practice to officers. Treasurers, editors, chairs, coordinators, trade union organisers, etc should be elected when and where needed, not according to some snapshot popularity poll by an atomised membership. Officers should be strictly accountable to their peers. They should be elected and replaceable by those whom with they work alongside. The mayoral or presidential system has no legitimate place in our tradition. It breeds arrogance. We need another Arthur Scargill like a hole in the head.

John Bridge
CPGB representative on LSA Steering Committee.