06.12.2001
Pro-party and pro-paper
Over 50 people attended the 'For a democratic and effective SA' fringe meeting on Saturday December 1, which was held straight after the SA's structure conference. The main speakers were Dave Church, Martin Thomas and Jack Conrad. It was encouraging that a good number of non-aligned comrades came along.
There was general disappointment expressed at the behaviour of the Socialist Party comrades - who walked out of Logan Hall in protest at what they saw as the formation of a new, centralist, 'SWP party'. For some, the SP's withdrawal represented a devastating blow to the SA project - less so for others. However, some comrades - most notably, Dave Church - said they could quite easily understand what drove the SP to take such a course. In the words of comrade Church, who wants to be part of "an SWP recruitment drive?"
Martin Thomas particularly regretted the Socialist Party's formal withdrawal from the SA (it had been on the cards for quite some time of course). The comrade urged the SP to reconsider, expressing the view that the Alliance for Workers' Liberty is still quite happy for the SP - even now that it is on the 'outside' - to be coopted onto the new SA executive. After all, the AWL comrades urged the conference to support the Pete McLaren 'federalist' stem - which if it had been passed would have kept the SP 'inside'.
Comrades Thomas commented on how the SWP voted down virtually all the resolutions/amendments which were for "pluralism" and "inclusivity". Worrying. Centralism - yes; top-down autocracy - no. The comrade was also particularly dismayed by the speech given by Mark Hoskisson of Workers Power on the resolution/amendment calling for an SA publication which contains different and contending viewpoints. Comrade Hoskisson had denounced the call - which to him would be akin to a "tower of Babel". As comrade Tina Becker of the CPGB retorted, "How can he call himself a Leninist?" Indeed, comrade Hoskisson's December 1 remark is on a par with his other brilliant observation - at the October 16 Stop the War conference in London - that there was a "contradiction" between the CPGB/AWL call for secularism and defence of the right to religious worship.
Comrade Thomas also made fun of Lindsey German's Hoskissonite comment that the SA "needs a paper like it needs a hole in the head". Yes, quite right - just as we all need a hole (ie, mouth) to eat, so the SA needs a hole to put politics into.
For comrade Thomas the fate of the SA depends on how our "significant minority" conducts itself in the future. Remember - a lot of the votes at the structure conference were won by quite a narrow margin. The SWP were not the absolute winners. Therefore, it was to be regretted that "we did not operate very well" on December 1.
As for the SWP, continued comrade Thomas, it was forced to take the SA seriously because it knew it had to - finally - take electoral politics seriously. The comrades knew that they could not stand under their own and risk getting less votes than the SP and SLP - think of the demoralisation that would follow. So what to do? "Get into the Socialist Alliance and hegemonise it", as comrade Thomas put it. Naturally, the SWP does not need "stroppy people like us in the SA" - that interferes with its sect building. However, it is stuck with us.
Dave Church was "disappointed", if not "depressed" by the proceedings of December 1. Yes, "I can identify with the SP", said the comrade, who never had any intention of joining the SWP - least of all through a "front" organisation. We all knew what was going to happen - the SP had said in advance they would split if the SWP gets it way on the constitution. Comrade Church did not like how "the majority derided the SP" and "rubbed its nose in the dirt". This is actually only half the story - on his way out Dave Nellist won a round of applause from many non-SPers, including the CPGB delegation.
Thanks to the SWP and December 1, continued the comrade, "we are going to be split, divided", and, yes, "victory is miles away". Comrade Church expressed the opinion that he was "not going to put much effort into building an SWP front" - in all honesty, "it is hard to see myself as part of it".
Quite correctly, comrade Church derided the idea that the SA has to "pretend" to "agree" on everything. The bourgeoisie and its media does not go through this pretence - they are not afraid to express disagreements, sometimes quite violent ones. Why should we on the left be any different?
A view fully in accord with those of comrade Jack Conrad of the CPGB. He noted that a third or more comrades had voted for a paper - ie, had "voted for an effective organisation", while "the SWP had voted for an ineffective organisation". Contrary to what some comrades seem to feel, the SWP will not be telling us what to do. The comrade thought that the Socialist Alliance was not an easy recruitment ground for the SWP. Remember, most independents in the SA had "already been through the sects and do not want to do it all over again". In that sense, this people are "hards" - not easy SWP fodder. The SWP now knows this.
In making the call for an unofficial SA paper - comrade Conrad stressed this was not for any narrow factional or sectarian reasons. "We want to be a minority", said the comrade, adding: "We positively welcome other voices". We will throw the Weekly Worker into that struggle, he continued. With our allies in the SA, said comrade Conrad, "we can make a better weekly than the Weekly Worker". The comrade emphasised the point that this new paper should "not exist to do down the SWP" - its only function would be to coordinate and improve our ideas and actions "¦ and by that way actually build the SA.
Comrade Dave Osler was very 'pro-paper'. However, according to the comrade, we have to face reality. The SWP is "calling the shots" - therefore we are not guaranteed a paper. Far from it. To get one requires "coordination and collaboration" on the left - which does not have a particularly good track record on this front.
Correctly, comrade Osler stated the new unofficial paper had to be a good paper - it is "all or nothing, no messing". Crucially, it must not become or be seen as "just a successor to the Weekly Worker and Action for Solidarity" - if so, that would be a "terrible handicap from the start". However, the idea on a good, inclusive SA paper is an exciting prospect.
There were other views. Comrade Will McMahon of Hackney SA reminded us that the SP had being preparing to leave for at least a year. But, despite that, the SA "can unite diverse groupings and individuals".
Other comrades were far from up-beat. Steve Freeman of the Revolutionary Democratic Group thought the conference has been "a big setback" - measured against RDG objectives, "it failed" - ie, the aim of a party, the aim of a paper and, perhaps most importantly of all, the aim of "a democratic federalist constitution". There was now the danger that the SA could "lose momentum".
Terry Liddle was of the view that "when push comes to shove" the SWP will get its own way. For the comrade, the SWP regarded the SA as essentially an "on-off-on" electoral front. The comrade was also worried that the Green Socialist Network - who recently joined the SA - would now pull out saying, 'Told you so'. Comrade Liddle supported the idea of a paper - but stressed that the SWP had voted against it. Therefore, thought comrade Liddle, if you publish a paper - out you go! Comrade Toby Abse also found the conference "a depressing experience" - his model has always been Communist Refoundation in Italy. With the SP walkout, said comrade Abse, we now face - like in Lewisham - the prospect of left candidates standing against each other. Disaster.
At the end of the fringe meeting, comrade Jack Conrad usefully warned us against "SWP phobia". There is no need to "fear" the SWP. The best way to counter the SWP's influence was to build and recruit people to the SA - the base line being our People before profit manifesto, for all its faults. As for the SWP - it "needs a cultural revolution", to shed its fear of debate, discussion and dissension.
The era of the sects is over. Not only are disagreements "natural": it is actually human to disagree. Automatons are no good for the working class and our project of universal human liberation - for this task we require self-activating, thinking, conscious cadre.
Danny Hammill