25.10.2000

Party notes

Dishonest reports

That this paper is now required reading is becoming almost a commonplace on the left. Despite themselves, however, our allies/opponents will occasionally supply generous corroboration by publishing some piece of tendentious, misleading and sectarian crap masquerading as a 'report' of an event also covered in our paper. This offers us the possibility of careful comparison.

The vitally important September 30 Socialist Alliance conference in Coventry is a prime example. When we contrast three different reports of this gathering, Weekly Worker (October 5), Socialist Worker (October 7) and The Socialist (October 6), we throw some light on the nature of the organisations that penned them.

The Socialist Worker piece by Theresa Bennett and John Rees is probably the worst. Apparently, conference was composed of "Socialist Alliances from around the country" and "many other radical and left-of-Labour forces like the Leeds Left Alliance". John Nicholson, "former deputy leader of Manchester's Labour council and now one of the leaders of Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance", gets a mention and a paragraph of his unremarkable speech is reproduced.

Comrades Rees and Bennett also describe the forces they see being attracted to the SAs around the country: "Everywhere there are many independent socialists, former Labour Party members, trade unionists and campaigners who are keen to join with the left."

And what is the composition of this "left"? Who is in it? Does it outnumber the individuals Rees and Bennett cite or vice versa? More to the point, how was this "left" represented in Coventry and how did its different component parts act?

In truth, the SWP has a fantasy 'united front' template in its head for the SAs and is determined to report activities in that light. It simply cannot reconcile this model with the reality of the SA as overwhelmingly a converging bloc of revolutionary organisations, rather than an alliance between the revolutionary party and a reformist majority, the classic 'united front' form.

Thus, the SWP is compelled to consistently exaggerate the role of the ex-Labour Party individuals and grouplets the SA has so far been able to attract. From its report, one would conclude that there were far more reformists than revolutionaries there. In other words, if you relied for your information the Socialist Worker, you would not have a clue what was going on.

The Socialist gives the job of mangling the results to Hannah Sell, the SP's national campaigns organiser. Presumably, in an attempt at levity in an otherwise po-faced piece she assures her readers that, "Despite trying to write others out of history publicly, privately the SWP realise we are an important force."

On one level, this reveals the same type of touching pathos evidenced by Marlon Brando's sad character in On the waterfront, when he assures Rod Steiger, "I could have been a contender." Like Brando's washed-up pugilist, the Socialist Party has a great future behind it. On another level, it is eye-popping hypocrisy, as Sell has just spent the entire article systematically airbrushing out other political forces .

She starts with the observation that, "Alliance membership includes a number of important local campaigning organisations and alliances", although, exactly like comrades Bennett and Rees, she is a little pushed to talk about the numbers involved. However, the truth has a habit of finding its way in. She admits that "the Alliance is overwhelmingly made up of existing organisations". 'Which ones?' one might be forgiven for asking. Apart from the SWP the only group that gets briefly name-checked is the International Socialist Group (who could 'mobilise' only a handful to Coventry).

Instead, comrade Sell describes the proceedings of the day as a dust-up between the SWP in one corner and "the SP ... and the majority of independent local alliances" in the other. As she puts it, "The debate at the conference was between those, ourselves and several local socialist alliances, who wanted to remove ... remnants of centralisation [from the proposed electoral protocol] and those, primarily the SWP, who wanted to further centralise the SA" (my emphasis).

Leaving aside comrade Sell's anarchistic rejection of centralism and defence of federalism as a principle, her description of two blocs fails to explain why Coventry saw a whole string of votes that reflected the very material presence of a third force. So when she alludes to "others", she is actually referring to Communist Party members, supporters and sympathisers who voted with the SP on some crucial democratic questions. Because of her organisation's crass sectarian culture she is unable to compel her unwilling fingers to type the words 'Communist Party'.

Admittedly, Sell does state: "Given that most of the groups and individuals [what groups, what individuals? - MF] ... support the SWP on most key issues, the protocol the SWP pushed would have effectively given them control of the alliance."

But, more to the point, in defence of democracy it was precisely the intervention of the bloc headed by CPGBers that stymied the proclivities towards bureaucratic centralism - a fact conceded by a leading SWPer on the day, who grimly assured us we would never be allowed to play that role again.

Similarly, we were also able to vote down the anarcho-bureaucratic proposals of the SP. Out of the 400 present, the real balance of blocs at Coventry was around 150 SWPers versus 150-plus SPers, with 40 in the CPGB bloc. There were also smaller delegations from Workers Power, the Alliance for Workers' Liberty and the ISG. Obviously, these organised political forces "vastly outnumbered representatives of local alliances and non-affiliated individuals" (Weekly Worker October 5) a truth you would never guess from the fairy tales in The Socialist and Socialist Worker.

Without being able to look reality squarely in the face even those features that contradict its perspectives - the revolutionary left does a disservice to the working class. Worse, if it insists on blatant fabrications to make reality fit its preconceptions, it risks constituting itself as a barrier to rebuilding working class politics.

Mark Fischer
national organiser