04.03.1999

ILN-SWP try to oust CPGB

In a worrying development, the Socialist Workers Party supported an hysterical proposal by the Independent Labour Network to effectively kick the Communist Party of Great Britain out of the Socialist Alliance, the fragile electoral bloc for the European elections in London.

At the meeting held on Tuesday March 2, of the manifesto sub-committee of the Socialist Alliance, formerly the United Socialists, ILN representative comrade Toby Abse nervously tabled a motion “regarding the continued participation of the CPGB in the Socialist Alliance project”. Sub-committee chair, the Socialist Party’s Julie Donovan, put back the ILN’s contentious motion to the end of the meeting’s business to allow the work of the committee to continue. Another ILN proposal effectively called for the re-opening of negotiations around the electoral platform of the Alliance. It urged special amendments to the platform’s section on the environment and equal opportunities.

Before debating the controversial motions from the ILN, the agenda proceeded in a businesslike and comradely fashion. Matters concerning the finance committee, trade union contacts, sponsors for the electoral bloc and the details of the Tuesday March 9 rally were discussed. Comrades from all organisations, except comrade Abse from the ILN, took on responsibilities from the meeting.

Comrade Abse was then invited to introduce his motion to amend the Socialist Alliance platform. While minor in detail, the ILN’s attempt to re-open negotiations around the platform amount to an attempt to drag it to the right. Seemingly the most urgent detail for comrade Abse concerned the inclusion of a statement on genetically modified foods - an issue that ironically was absent from the ILN motion.

In response to comrade Abse’s proposals, CPGB representative Marcus Larsen argued that re-opening discussions around the platform could endanger the fragile unity already achieved. Pointing out that the platform as constituted fell short of what the CPGB considered as adequate and that the CPGB had been deliberately excluded from negotiations around the platform, comrade Larsen said if negotiations were to be re-opened, the CPGB would be asking for substantial redrafting.

Comrade Martin Thomas of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty said that we “can’t unpick what was agreed three months ago”. Following on from comrade Thomas, comrade Rob Hoveman of the SWP was more circumspect, saying that he was “not keen to reopen the bulk” of the platform for discussion. However, he argued that as issues moved on, it was necessary for us to be able to respond to them.

While arguing that renegotiating the platform was not advisable, the SP’s Julie Donovan said that we would be “mad” to release the platform as our main propaganda in the election campaign. The comrade from the International Socialist Group - supporters of Socialist Outlook outside the Labour Party - said he was sympathetic to the CPGB’s position as they had not been included in the negotiations for the platform. He argued that separate literature could expand on positions sketched out in the platform.

Anticipating the meeting of the London ILN which was to occur the next evening, comrade Hoveman asked comrade Abse if the issue of amending the original platform was a barrier for the ILN’s continued participation in the electoral bloc. Comrade Abse said it was not, but he could not speak for the entire ILN.

Marcus Larsen spoke in favour of minimalist joint propaganda and of the danger of re-opening the platform through the back door if the SA propaganda/manifesto committee was going to enter into long debates about our future explanatory leaflets. If we responded in the manner suggested by comrade Hoveman, Larsen argued, we would be approaching issues ‘as they developed’ in quite different ways, reflecting the varying politics of our organisations. While debates around the electoral bloc could be useful, they could become a bottleneck on the practical propaganda work of the Socialist Alliances.

Rounding up the item, comrade Donovan put three proposals to the meeting for recommendation for the broader Alliance committee to meet in two weeks time. The first proposal concerned the principle of whether we would open negotiations around the platform. No one - including comrade Abse - objected to the proposition that the original platform be left as it is.

The second proposal from comrade Donovan was that the issues of the environment and equal opportunity be included in our election material. There were no objections. The third proposal from the chair was for the substance of the ILN amendments to be included in the leaflet to activists and in other propaganda. The International Socialist Group representative had pointed out that he opposed the substance of the environment amendment and comrade Larsen said that he opposed the substance of the equal opportunities amendment, particularly around its proposals for “positive discrimination”. The third proposal fell.

The meeting then went on to deal with the ILN’s thinly veiled expulsion motion:

“London ILN proposes the following motion regarding the continued participation of the CPGB in the Socialist Alliance project:

1. The CPGB claims that it supports the Euro-election platform agreed by ILN, SWP, SP, SO and AWL, using the term ‘critical acceptance’. In the view of the ILN there is much evidence of criticism, but little evidence of acceptance, never mind support. In recent issues of the Weekly Worker, the platform has been described as ‘rightist, economistic and … totally inadequate’; ‘not a socialist platform in substance’; ‘a workerist shopping list’; ‘it goes no further than to seek to resurrect the failed social palliatives of old Labour’s left social democrats’. This ‘weak platform’, claims the Weekly Worker, faces the threat of a ‘further rightist direction’. It is ‘non-socialist’ and ‘dismally reformist’. Comrades proposing a broad front are described as being ‘opportunistic’ and ‘fundamentally defeatist’. If this is support, or rather ‘acceptance’, it would be interesting to see what denunciation and rejection consists of.

2. The CPGB’s involvement in the Socialist Alliance has not been subjected to proper democratic discussion either between the original members of the SA or within individual organisations.

In these circumstances ILN proposes:

1. That the CPGB’s continuing involvement in the Socialist Alliance project should be considered as provisional. CPGB should not be given a seat on the platform at the public launch next week.

2. The continuing involvement of the CPGB in the Socialist Alliance should be properly discussed to the satisfaction of all the original members of the Socialist Alliance.

ILN, March 2 1999.”

Underlining comrade Abse’s obsession with the contents of the Weekly Worker, he said that he was “more closely involved” with this proposal than the motions to amend the platform, saying he had gone through the Weekly Worker with a “fine tooth comb”. He went on to claim that the CPGB was the only organisation at the table which refused to use a “transitional method”. Comrade Abse raised the spectre of lampooning by the Evening Standard because the CPGB’s programmatic demand for the right of the working class to defend blacks, lesbians, gays and working class areas by any means necessary.

Comrade Abse included selective photocopies of Weekly Worker articles - ‘ILN split danger’ (February 4) and ‘Meeting the challenge’ (February 18). Echoing his anti-communist motion, he said that if these were examples of critical acceptance, he would hate to see what rejection would look like.

In response, comrade Larsen said that this move by the ILN was dangerous and contrary to the interests of the working class. He said that the CPGB, even though bureaucratically excluded from the formulation of the platform, was prepared to critically support it, as the unity of the left in London for the European elections was a positive thing in itself. In addition, far from there being little evidence of support from the CPGB, comrade Larsen pointed out that it was in fact the ILN that had just tried to amend the joint platform, not his organisation.

He argued that rejection by the Socialist Alliance of the CPGB would result in our Party standing a full slate of 10 candidates in London and elsewhere. If excluded, or put on a ‘provisional status’, comrade Larsen said that the CPGB would be forced to do just that. He further said that a further split in the left vote was a situation the CPGB wanted to avoid and that is why it was critically accepting the joint platform.

Comrade Larsen added out that the CPGB had entered the Socialist Alliance with a clear understanding that there were no gagging orders.

The representative from the International Socialist Group said that the Weekly Worker had “come a long way” since they had tried to ‘foist’ their structure on the London Socialist Alliances in January 1998 and said that this should be encouraged. The comrade failed to notice the paradoxical nature of his remarks. The LSA, the other unity grouping of the left in London unanimously agreed this very same inclusive and democratic structure in October 1998 - the representative of Socialist Outlook included. In January 1998 an attempt by SPEW, SO and the SDG to establish their exclusive control narrowly, but thankfully lost the day.

Comrade Martin Thomas went along with the spirit of the International Socialist Group representative. The comrade said that it was practice that counted and that the CPGB seemed to be committed to unity in practice. Comrade Julie Donovan also lined up against a witch hunt, pointing out that she rarely agreed with anything in the Weekly Worker, but that this could not be a barrier to unity.

Comrade Hoveman took a different stance. Inclusion in the electoral bloc was dependent on established “bona fide” commitment. He had “not seen this yet from the CPGB” and would support the ILN.

In response, comrade Larsen pointed out that at two out of the three previous activities of the United Socialists/Socialist Alliance, the SWP had been conspicuous by their absence and that if we were going to play the game of “bona fide commitment” then the SWP and even the Socialist Party’s involvement would come into question - but certainly not the CPGB’s. He pointed out that there had been minimal mention of the alliance in either the SWP’s or SP’s newspapers. Even Socialist Outlook had been trying to ride two horses at once.

Putting the motion to an indicative vote for report to the larger committee, comrade Donovan recorded the ILN and SWP in favour of the motion with the CPGB, SP, ISG and AWL voting against.

Marcus Larsen