30.11.2000

SWP conference

Missing ingredients A Socialist Workers Party member reflects on this year's gathering

"Anti-capitalism defines everything" - part of Chris Bambery's closing remarks at the final session of the Socialist Workers Party conference earlier this month. He had just claimed that the SWP had predicted the development of an anti-capitalist movement and events like Seattle.

Whether the SWP can lay claim to Seattle is a question I will leave other comrades to answer, but as a party member I would say "anti" defines the SWP attitude to politics, and it does so in more than one sense. Firstly the party defines itself by being anti-Blair and anti-capitalist, etc; and secondly, while on the one hand we stress the importance of 'politics', we consistently fail to discuss and fight over real political questions. While we fight in the economic field and the ideological field, we consistently leave the political field fallow - or, perhaps more accurately, sterile. The resistance to Blair and what he represents constitutes a healthy political attitude, no doubt, but can we simply define ourselves on what we are against? I do not believe so. We must also define ourselves by what we are for.

The attitude to politics in the SWP is summed up by our attitude to having a programme. For the first time in a decade the subject of the programme has been raised around conference - the nuance here being necessary of course because it was not boldly raised at conference itself, but left to the Pre-Conference Bulletin. In Bulletin No1 comrade Eric Karas reminded the party that at the Socialist Alliance conference in Coventry John Rees told the meeting that, "The SWP will not impose its programme on the Socialist Alliances." The comrade innocently asked what the SWP's programme was, pointed to the need for a clear revolutionary socialist programme, and went on to consider some points that might be included in it (see 'Which way for SWP', this issue). He felt that those points, including republican statements, might enhance the party's slogan of 'Tax the rich'. The comrade called for the party to strive for the highest and most conscious form of working class organisation.

As can be seen, the comrade received a reply in Pre-Conference Bulletin No2. This contribution asserts that a programme, while useful at times, such as when the party wished to present a series of demands, was an irrelevance at others. The comrade claims that in Russia 1917 a 'programme' of 'Bread, peace and land' was sufficient. Based on this, we may perhaps conclude that today a programme of 'Stop the bombing, tax the rich and renationalise' should be enough.

Of course, as we know, even during the heights of revolution the Bolsheviks were discussing programme and tried to involve every layer of the organisation in drawing it up. Comrade Karas is told to read Socialist Worker if he wants to know what the party's programme is. This debate, if you can call two short articles in two Pre-Conference Bulletins a debate, represents one between Bolshevism and anarchism. The Bolsheviks were clear in upholding the principle of having and treasuring a programme, as a vital part of the democratic centralist method. A formal party programme is, put simply, a means of political centralism, while dialectically being part of the democratic method.

This year's conference was memorable because of another return to former party practice: the reformation of the party's national committee, albeit elected in an advisory capacity to the central committee. This action represents a clear attempt to centralise through increasing and enhancing the party's democratic structure. But steady on, not too much democracy, please! A proposed amendment to this change to the constitution - calling for the NC to consist of members initially elected by conference but thereafter by district meetings; to have its members subject to recall; and to have the ability to take decisions binding on the CC - was voted down.

A neutered NC of 100 comrades has been formed: 75 members hand-picked by the central committee and 25 elected by conference. There were about 40 comrades standing for the 25 seats. Conference delegates were expected to make their choices based on statements like "I'm a new member and a student." It all should have been so straightforward, but, democracy being a rather alien concept in the SWP, there was palpable confusion on the conference floor and a situation somewhat reminiscent of Florida: mistakes in the voting papers, with one candidate missed off the ballot paper, election statements being mixed up and a comrade from the CC's list standing down. At one point we were told it did not even matter if ballot papers, because of the confusion or otherwise, had been spoiled.

Those of us who want to see a fully democratic NC with more ability to control the party's direction need to build for next year's conference now. Comrades must be ready to form a faction in the pre-conference phase of next year's conference, calling for recallable delegates and democratic control over the CC, in order to see an end to the one permanent faction within the party.

The SWP is changing, slowly, reflecting the changes in its political milieu - in particular the reactionary moves rightwards within the Labour Party. The party can no longer inhabit the stagnant pond of reformism without reforms. The united front tactic is the political consequence. One comrade at conference correctly identified the danger of the tactic: its potential two-way nature. As a result he rightly called for every member to grasp Marxist politics and become a leader.

For me as a grassroots member of the party, we can only lead the class if we know where we are going. We will need a map and a compass and some understanding of navigation - it is only then we can lead. Just as that comrade stated, Marxist educationals are not an optional extra. But neither are the programme and party democracy. The three - understanding, a plan and the ability to discuss and amend it - are all essential for democratic centralism and class leadership.

To define and position ourselves according to where we do not want to be is a start, but we have to be aware, and have a little more than a vague notion, of where we are going to end up.

Martin Kay