17.01.2002
Socialist Alliance needs a paper
Every serious argument in the Socialist Alliance, every plan we make for future activity, every meeting we undertake in its name and every attack on us from the bourgeois press point in just one direction. The SA needs its own regular paper. This must be a serious publication, charged with fighting to build the organisation, promoting its agreed politics and reporting its own activities and issues of importance to the class. But it must also include open discussion of the important differences that continue to divide us. It is no exaggeration to say that the fight for a paper is key to the success - perhaps even the survival - of the SA project. This debate is the concrete manifestation of the controversy over the future of the alliance itself - should we be moving towards a democratic and centralised workers' party, or resign ourselves to an existence as an on-off Socialist Workers Party front in the style of campaigns like Globalise Resistance or the Anti-Nazi League? Saturday January 19 sees a conference of the non-aligned comrades in the Socialist Alliance. This gathering follows the successful fringe meeting convened by these comrades during the December 1 SA conference in London. Comrades who organised this impromptu gathering were pleasantly surprised by the numbers who attended - about 70 - and reported a palpable sense that something more needed to be done to cohere the 'independents' in the alliance and to press for the project as a whole to move forward (see 'Non-aligned members unite' Weekly Worker December 6). On one level, the comrades will have difficulty cohering politically. The category of 'SA independent' is a problematic one, as it encompasses a very wide political swathe of comrades with divergent backgrounds, experiences and opinions. This has been reflected in the discussion that has preceded Saturday's conference on the independents' e-list. Quite distinct differences have emerged around participation in the conference, the type of organisation the SA needs to become - even the nature of the symbols that the organisation should adopt (with one comrade advocating we drop the red flag and have Robin Hood as our emblem!). This said, we welcome the meeting and wish it success. We certainly oppose the sect-arrogant Paul Foot of the SWP who contemptuously referred to such comrades as "the national association of non-aligned socialists" (quoted by comrade Osler in his Weekly Worker article). In truth, many of those who today find themselves "non-aligned" are experienced veterans of organised revolutionary groups, particularly the SWP. Their negative experiences of the anti-democratic, sectarian insularity of many of these groups actually propelled them out of organised politics in the first place. Indeed, one of the strengths of the SA is that such comrades are no longer catapulted into the political wilderness when they leave the likes of comrade Foot's SWP. Perhaps that recognition is what prompted his rather peevish outburst in the first place. 'Independents' with first-hand political experience of the arid world of many of the left sects are possibly not the 'proper' sort of 'independents' SWP leaders had in their collective mind's eye when they dubbed the SA a "united front of a special type". Of course, political diversity is not a problem in itself. We do not subscribe to the Workers Power school of political philistinism - exemplified in a wretched speech to the December 1 conference from Mark Hoskisson - that open expression of divergent political views equates to the chaos of a "Tower of Babel". However, there is clearly a problem, recognised implicitly in the blurb that expands on Saturday's agenda items. Outlining some key topics to be discussed in the workshop on 'Towards an indie caucus?', Dave Osler wonders: "Can independent activists with disparate politics - within a shared socialist framework, of course - meaningfully coordinate activities within the Socialist Alliance, while avoiding the authoritarian organisational practices of much of the left?" (Independents' SA e-list posting, January 2). The logic of the question leads inexorably towards a publication - although the workshop exploring this possibility is far too narrow in its remit. Titled 'A bulletin for the indies?', it intends to explore whether "independents need some sort of publication to pool ideas and experiences". While we would not oppose comrades who define themselves as 'independent' cooperating to produce a journal, we must point out that adding to the plethora of existing publications produced by groups organised in the SA is no long-term answer. In fact, the fight for an open paper of the alliance as a collective would be an important blow in undermining the "authoritarian organisational practices of much of the left" that comrade Osler writes of. A major service to the workers' movement as a whole, in fact. The January 12 CPGB aggregate agreed that our organisation would be prepared to cease publication of the Weekly Worker to add our resources to an open, democratic weekly paper of the Socialist Alliance (see p9). The majority bloc at the December 1 SA conference voted against the establishment of such a paper. But a substantial minority did back the call. If the SA minority's paper cannot as yet be the official paper of the SA due to the sectarianism of the SWP, then we need a partisan, but unofficial publication. Just look at what has been happening politically over recent weeks and the role leading SA figures have played. Our comrades have been at the forefront of an important outbreak of militant trade union activity. However, to find out what Greg Tucker and Mark Serwotka (not to mention Bob Crow, who called for a vote for SA candidate Louise Christian in the general election) have been up to, SA members have to sift through the lies of the Sun, Evening Standard or The Times. "The strikes that have crippled that rail company, and that are spreading, can be traced directly to the door of a Trotskyist-dominated organisation that is giving the hard left new muscle. The activist whose status is the core of the dispute, Greg Tucker, and his main champion, Bob Crow, the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union assistant general secretary, are stalwarts of the Socialist Alliance "¦ Scarcely known to most voters, despite having contested enough seats at the last election to secure a party election broadcast, the Socialist Alliance is the most coherent fighting force in Britain across the territory that stretches to the left of Tony Blair "¦ red radicalism has looked like a beaten force. Until now" (The Times January 15). In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on SA comrades on the rail, SAers were encouraged to respond by writing letters to The Times and other bourgeois papers. A mailing from the SA office suggests that "comrades ... follow up the press attention we have received in the past few days with short and snappy letters to the major dailies" (January 15). While this is not wrong, it is hardly enough. It reeks of amateurism. If we really want to be the "coherent fighting force" against Blair and New Labour The Times dreads, we desperately need to coordinate politically. A paper is not an optional extra for this. It is a necessity. The CPGB is campaigning to bring together forces to discuss the setting up of such a publication. The main condition for our participation will be that it is a democratic paper that allows the open airing of different points of view. If we have the opportunity to publish our politics without political censorship we see no reason why we should continue to produce our own separate weekly propaganda. The type of SA paper we are campaigning for would: * Fight to build the SA in the spirit of its best practice so far. The right to free debate on the politics that should inform our activity and - as for our general election challenge - united action for the collective goal. Comrades should remember that this democratic culture was not something that the SA was born with. The CPGB has fought for it tenaciously. We have resisted attempts to silence us by, amongst others, the Socialist Party (before their walkout, hypocritical champions of 'democracy' in the SA), the SWP and hostile individuals. A combination of openness and centralism reflects the practice of a workers' party at its best and must find concrete expression in any united publication of our alliance. The prissiness displayed by leading SWPers on the SA's e-lists to even mild criticism of their organisation underlines that this fight is an ongoing one. * Create the scaffolding to build the SA as a real organisation, with ongoing work and presence in working class communities. Not only would activists be able to communicate with each other to discuss their activities; the financing, production and distribution of the paper would create the infrastructure for the type of organisation the working class needs. A party with roots, in other words. * Feature reports of political developments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as England. While the British bourgeoisie organises our exploitation in a highly centralised way, the left has voluntarily split its forces along the lines of nationality. An open, democratic SA paper with input from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could help to heal these harmful divisions. The run-up to the local elections seems a perfect time to launch such a paper. The SA executive plans to issue a single 'campaigning broadsheet' for the whole election period. No points for guessing how lively such a 'Vote for us' brochure will be or whether it will reflect debate in the local alliances. During a period of heightened political activity, a regular paper is essential, reflecting the pace of work of comrades on the ground. It should feature agitational articles illustrating points in our election manifesto. It would also need longer theoretical pieces explaining in more depth the way we view the world and why. Vital would be first-hand reports from local groups, giving a real taste of the campaign on the ground, including advice on effective campaigning. We need a paper because if we take even the politics that we have agreed to unite on so far - centrally People before profit - then a collective agitator, educator and organiser for the Socialist Alliance as a whole is simply indispensable. It is a matter of regret that the majority bloc in the SA - centrally the SWP - are determined that we will not have one. This must be challenged - crucially by production of an SA paper that begins to show in practice that a press is key to the future development of the alliance. With every argument won in its pages, with every new reader and every new contributor, an unofficial paper would start to transform itself into the official paper of our joint organisation. Lindsey German of the SWP commented that the SA needs a paper "like a hole in the head". Thankfully, your head is actually full of holes. They let in light and therefore vision. Sound enters via two holes and leaves through another - this is called human communication. Oxygen makes its way in through two other apertures and thus the body as a whole survives and thrives. Despite her worst intentions, comrade German is spot on with her analogy - the SA does need a paper like a hole in the head. Tina Becker Motion agreed by CPGB aggregate, January 12 This aggregate welcomes moves towards a Socialist Alliance paper and calls upon other forces to join with us in making this a reality. The CPGB is prepared to close down the Weekly Worker and put its resources into such a paper, provided our views find full reflection in the pages of the new journal.
Worker