08.11.2001

Follow the SSP example

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group argues that the December 1 conference of the Socialist Alliance should agree on the eventual aim of transforming the SA into a party

The Revolutionary Democratic Group, in common with the CPGB and other Socialist Alliance supporting organisations, is making the case for an SA party. We have put, or will shortly be putting, our arguments to meetings in Hackney, Bedfordshire, Merseyside, Greenwich and Southwark. We believe our case is strong. We are ready to debate the issues with anybody in the SA, anywhere, any time.

Of course the war in Afghanistan does make a significant difference. So I will confine my remarks in this article to arguments that were valid before September 11 and the subsequent outbreak of war. I hope to show in a future article why the war gives the issue of party a new and more vital impetus.

Our ?line? can be briefly summarised as follows: we should follow the example of the Scottish Socialist Party. The SSP made a successful transition from the Scottish Socialist Alliance. We are not proposing simply a copy, but seeking to match and improve on their experience. If our Scottish comrades can do it, so can we.

Our estimate of the state of (pre-war) consciousness in the SA is that we are not ready to make the transition to an SSP-type party on December 1. We have in any case not been properly prepared for such a move by our leadership. We must make a number of key constitutional reforms.

First and foremost, we must adopt the aim of setting up a party, when the time is right. We must agree we will not become a party without a founding conference called specifically for that purpose. That is the democratic way to launch a new party. We must not become a party by bureaucratic manipulation. Second, we must as a matter of urgency establish a Socialist Alliance newspaper. Finally, we need a transitional SA constitution based on the principles of democratic federalism.

The case for a new party of the left goes back a long way. Arthur Scargill and Tommy Sheridan are the two most important working class leaders who have made the case not only in theory, but in practice. It is perhaps no coincidence that these two are famous for their leading roles in the two most significant class struggles of the 1980s: the miners? strike and the anti-poll tax movement.

The argument goes something like this. There is a massive gap to the left of New Labour. Labour has abandoned its socialist traditions and the CPGB, which was the focal point for industrial militants, was liquidated. Not counting the phoenix of course! The revolutionary left has been unable to fill the gap on its own. Meanwhile there is real discontent and alienation among sections of the working class. The Liberal Democrats, greens, nationalists and the BNP are busy exploiting the situation.

There is real danger for the working class movement. Workers need their own party, independent of the corrupt and bankrupt Labour Party. We need a party that unites all the forces of the left. We need a real alternative. Whilst we cannot conjure this up out of thin air, the SA is now the best opportunity we have.

In the last year, the SA has begun to lay claim to the title of new party of the left. A major step forward was made at the Birmingham conference. This laid the basis for the 2001 election manifesto People before profit. This document, despite all its weaknesses, has central importance to the SA project.

It is the product of a democratic process. After much debate, including disagreements about militant republicanism, we united around the manifesto and fought the general election together. The left can disagree without having a split. The 2001 manifesto gave the SA an independent political existence. It was not the Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party, CPGB, Alliance for Workers? Liberty or even the RDG. The SA had begun to develop a politics of its own.

The present evolution of the SA can be found in the contradictions hidden within this manifesto. We have identified two, although no doubt there are many more. The first of these is between the contents of the manifesto and the SWP-inspired priority pledges, which are printed on the back cover.

The RDG refers to People before profit as a republican socialist manifesto. We do so for good reason. It calls for the abolition of the constitutional monarchy, but not the abolition of parliament. It does not call for a workers? republic, workers? state or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Neither does it confine itself to simply ?improving? or preserving the existing constitution, as Blair and the Liberal Democrats do.

Everybody seems to be in denial over this. Hardly anybody in the SA wants to admit to republicanism, never mind actually promoting it. We can call the document a socialist manifesto, but definitely not a republican socialist manifesto. Look at the SA election priority pledges. No mention of democracy, republicanism or war! What a narrow view of politics. The pledges imply that in the short term the priority of the SA is to be loyal subjects of her majesty?s government. We are just asking for a few economic and social reforms. We don?t want the keys to the bakery - just give us some crumbs!

Even Peter Manson, the editor of Weekly Worker, who should know better, argued that the 2001 manifesto was not a republican socialist manifesto. Perhaps Peter is the kind of person that thinks that if he puts on a big hat and funny moustache, we won?t know it is him. But Marxism is to see through every disguise and expose the truth.

If I said, ?Look, that is Peter over there in disguise?, he would still try to deny it. He would prove it by asking all his friends. Guess what? Not a single person recognised him! We all know that comrade Craig is biased. He has a political reason to call it a republican socialist manifesto. But almost everybody else has a political interest to deny it. Even if Peter took his hat and moustache off and said, ?Look, it?s me?, his friends would still say, ?No, it isn?t. We remember Peter and he had different coloured hair.?

Peter does not recognise a republican socialist manifesto, even though it is staring him in the face. Perhaps he fears it is a slippery slope that will lead him to the Scottish Socialist Party. He loves the CPGB. He wants everybody to joint it. The next best thing is that the SA simply adopts the min-max programme and becomes the CPGB. That might be a good idea, but it is not based on the real movement of the advanced part of the class.

In Scotland, the SSA became the SSP. That is evidence of real movement. Nobody is claiming that England is in advance of that. SWP, SP, AWL, CPGB and RDG supporters are all in the SSP. Workers Power and the International Socialist Group are either in it, or would be if they had members north of the border. In truth, none of these organisations has principled or serious objections.

How can the RDG and the CPGB ever hope to unite if the CPGB will not call a spade a spade? Especially when the main problem we are facing is the economism of the SWP. If the CPGB can prove scientifically that the 2001 manifesto only calls for the reform of the constitutional monarchy, or that it calls for a workers? state, then the RDG will throw in the towel and apply to join the CPGB immediately.

The second contradiction can be found in the introduction to the manifesto by Dave Nellist, the chair of the national network of Socialist Alliances. In his election address to the British people, Dave says: ?On the basis of the pluralist, democratic involvement of the different strands of socialism, which we have brought together in this coalition, we believe we can grow, and offer a greater challenge to the established parties.?

The stress here is on the coalition or united front. But two paragraphs later he says: ?In this election we won?t get the same attention as the establishment parties - but we aim to be the major minor party.? I applaud this statement. Whether it is major minor or minor major party, I do not care. But the aim of a party is surely not just bullshit for fooling the electorate. Did Dave Nellist mean what he said?

There is a democratic point here. What Dave said about the aim of party was his personal opinion. As chair this carries considerable weight. At the December conference, the rank and file membership must be allowed to vote to confirm that Dave?s statement actually represents the majority view. It is surely his responsibility as chair to ensure that democracy prevails on this point.

The Workers Power draft constitution has the merit of containing a clause that refers to the aim of a party. But it is hardly democratic, if the only way we can vote for the aim of a party, is to vote for the rest of the Workers Power package. This is why the RDG has submitted the following motion about the democratic road to a party to the SA conference:

1. This conference agrees that the SA should include amongst its agreed aims the setting up of a new party when the conditions are right.
2. When the SA, through its representative bodies, decides that conditions are right, this (December 1 2001) conference agrees that the party should be launched by means of a founding conference. Sufficient notice must be given to members, and allowance made for the necessary preparation time, to ensure a successful launch of the new party.

The conference arrangements committee must ensure that members get the opportunity to vote for or against the aim of a party. If we pass this motion, we agree to become a party eventually.

The question of the date is not for now. It would be a piece of self-indulgent nonsense to spend time discussing dates. Everybody has a different opinion. But the SP, CPGB, WP, AWL and ISG are all agreed we want a new party eventually - that is, five of the six principal organisations. Many independent members also want a party. Many of those who joined during the election mistakenly think we are a party already.

Pete McLaren, a founder member and a comrade who has played a major role in building the SA, does not want an SA party. He has more of a libertarian perspective. He may be representative of 10% or many more of the membership. Either way, a test of SA democracy would be whether such comrades felt they had a fair chance to put their case against. As long as it was done democratically, comrades like Pete who do not want a party could live with the aim.

This simply poses other questions. Will the SP back Dave Nellist in his aim of a new party? They should do in terms of their call for a workers? party to be formed eventually. What about the SWP? In truth they have not made up their minds yet. They could dump Mike Marqusee and form a libertarian block with Pete McLaren. Will the pro-party forces allow the SWP to avoid the question of aims? Which way will the SWP jump if they cannot avoid voting on it? It is one of the interesting questions for December 1.

Finally we might ask whether adopting the aim of a party would make any particular difference to the SA in 2002? Comrade Rob Hoveman (SWP) tells us that we have no need to worry about becoming a party. If some of us think it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. Not if Rob is making the quacking sounds it ain?t. The aim of a party moves the whole debate on. It means that the SA is still a campaign and not yet a party. But it becomes a campaign for a party. Our interventions will become much sharper with more collective purpose. Should the anti-war movement or the trade union movement back a new party? We will definitely need an SA paper to supply the answers.