14.03.2002

Workers' party or sect?

Comrades from the CPGB were pleased to accept the invitation from the Alliance for Workers' Liberty to attend the their annual conference, held over the weekend of February 23-24. Turning up to conference is one of the conditions of AWL membership - as is going to your trade union conference and the AWL annual summer school. Almost all of the AWL's approximately 100 comrades were crammed - quite literally - into a room at the University of London Union, along with a handful of supporters and other visitors. As well as the CPGB comrades, representatives from the ex-VdT grouping in the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (France) were also present. Unlike most on the British left, the AWL has a healthy attitude to debate and openness. Its method is to ensure that differences are debated out and publicised, either in its journals or internal bulletins. However, these internal bulletins are hardly top secret and were freely available to visitors at the conference. Naturally, this is all to be commended. But it does have to be said that a willingness to allow for the full expression of differences should not translate into a licence for self-indulgence or gratuitous time-wasting. We perhaps saw an example of such frivolity during the Saturday debate on the AWL's position on the recent imperialist war against Afghanistan. The AWL's line was broadly similar to that of the CPGB - for an independent working class position against both imperialism and the Taliban/Al Qa'eda. This obviously correct position was though lambasted by Tom Rigby, who, incredibly, described the US-led assault as a "just war" meriting "critical support" from socialists. This got short shrift from the rest of the membership, and speaker after speaker came up to argue against comrade Rigby, who, in the words of one senior AWL comrade in a conversation afterwards, was "playing games". Just one other comrade voted for his line and the leadership position was overwhelmingly backed - but not before the time allowed had overrun substantially, which meant that two scheduled debates had to be curtailed. If comrade Rigby was indeed "playing games", then the purpose was presumably to expose the AWL's inconsistency in its attitude towards imperialism. After all, during the Balkans war, it had refused to use the slogan 'Stop the bombing', since it claimed that this would be tantamount to backing Milosevic's murderous attacks on Kosova. If that was the case, then in Afghanistan, declared comrade Rigby, the demand to 'Stop the war' ought to have been regarded as a "de facto bloc with the Taliban defencists". As Martin Thomas pointed out, comrade Rigby's "critical support" for imperialism was "a direct inversion" of Workers Power's backing for the Taliban: it depended on who you thought was the 'greater enemy'. But that is the wrong method - there is a case for arguing either one is 'worse' than the other, but revolutionary socialists and communists do not 'choose the butcher' - we consistently search for the democratic solution, not the lesser evil. It is a pity that the AWL did not see that during the US air attacks on Serbia. The real point of course about the Balkans war is that for the left just to issue the call, 'Stop the bombing', without also supporting the right of the Kosovars to fight for self-determination, was to objectively side with the Milosevic regime. That was the political sin committed by the SWP and their pacifist and Serbian nationalist 'co-thinkers'. On the Sunday there were elections to the national council. Usefully, comrade Sean Matgamna argued that the council should not be a body of "like-minded people" looking for an "easy" political life - "political antagonism" should not be grounds for non-election. In the comrade's opinion, the national council needs to be an "objective representation" of the organisation as a whole, which exists to promote a certain "culture" as well as "political activism". This year the AWL's national council was reduced from 26 to 23 members - which still seems too bulky. After the election results were announced there were rumblings of discontent - even a few cries of "Disgrace!" Why? Some comrades were very unhappy that the composition of the new NC had remained the same, as opposed to getting an injection of new blood. So comrades Mick Duncan, Duncan Morrison and Matt Cooper - currently not on the NC - remained unelected. There were also votes for members of the standing orders committee and the disputes committee (which last met in 1983). Next on the agenda was the lengthy resolution on the 'labour movement'. A good chunk of the debate centred around an amendment from comrade Rigby - that is, the unions should use their political funds to organise a referendum on privatisation and for the return to public ownership of, for example, the railways. In the words of the amendment, "The target union to launch this is Unison. The campaign - to be run under the slogan, 'Public services - not private profit!' - would involve mass canvassing, demonstrations, etc. We counterpose the idea of using funds for such a referendum to the unions giving an additional penny to Labour's election campaign above the bare minimum to remain affiliated." Reservations were expressed. Some comrades were concerned at the potential "massive" cost of such a venture - surely "the money could be spent on better things"? Comrade Pete Radcliff was also worried that such a referendum could be cynically manipulated by the union bureaucracy - who would turn it into a 'vote of confidence' for themselves. However, criticisms aside, the amendment was easily passed. There was also much discussion on the recent election successes of leftwing militants like Bob Crow. The main resolution states: "A few swallows do not make a summer - but there is some hard evidence of a sea change, and the left are not the only people saying this "¦ Left candidates who say they will lead a fight for members' interests have been elected in a number of unions - PCS and NUJ and, with all the relevant reservations about Billy Hayes, CWU. There is no direct correlation between voting for someone who wants to fight (or says they want to fight) and actually fighting, but nonetheless this is clearly very positive." Many AWL comrades were not quite so enthused or "positive" about these recent developments. There were a number of complaints along the lines that comrade Crow is "a Stalinist" - therefore, presumably, is somehow predestined to sell out. Why should we welcome the election of a left bureaucrat? However, correctly, comrade Janine Booth slammed this conservative, almost fearful, mindset: "We should be positive, excited, about the election of Bob Crow," she exclaimed, adding that, "The AWL must give the labour movement the right strategy" vis-à -vis comrades like Bob Crow, Billy Hayes, Greg Tucker, etc. During the debate on the Socialist Alliance it was clearly revealed that there is a substantial 'anti' camp. These comrades still have an 'ourselves alone' mentality. Or, just as bad, view the SA as merely part of their historical-ideological turf war with the Socialist Workers Party. For example, comrade Jean from South London claimed pessimistically: "We cannot unite the left in the SA." Significantly, she was of the view that the primary - only? - purpose of the SA was to act as a site where the AWL can "break off sections of the SWP" and win them over to the AWL. Other speakers expressed such sentiments. Recruitment, recruitment, recruitment to the AWL "¦ and what about the SA? Pete Radcliff alluded to this bunker mentality. He thought that too many comrades defaulted to a stance of "immediate hostility" to the SWP in all its works. As he observed, "Too many comrades are too easily repelled by the SWP." Unlike eight or nine years ago, he continued, "we can now relate to SWP members, some of whom are sympathetic towards us". This sentiment was echoed in a later debate by comrade Matgamna. He found it "strange" that AWL members were not going "aggressively" after SWPers - after all, "for the first time in decades it is possible to talk to them". Comrade Barker from Norwich said if you are not an SWP member then the SA is the only game in town - quite literally in his case. The comrade ventured, "If we ain't in the SA, we can't get to the SWPers." The whole debate around the SA had a narrow feel. There is a pessimistic view that the SA can never develop into a mass organisation. It exists purely as part of the 'cold war' against the SWP. As one comrades put it, it is important to guard against "a culture of anti-SWPism". We hope the AWL as a whole takes this sound advice. During the SA discussion, comrade John Bridge of the CPGB was invited by the chair to speak. After an initial objection to this proposal from comrade Mark Osborn and others, it was put to a vote of the meeting. Subsequently, comrade Bridge briefly addressed the meeting. He explained that the CPGB did not view the Socialist Alliance as a recruiting ground. We had a bigger - partyist - picture. He also reminded comrades that the left, including the SWP, was part of the answer and "not just part of the problem". Comrade Bridge said that our SA work must be patient and serious - it was "our duty to equip the SA with politics", he said. When it came to the debate on students there was a strong undercurrent of moralism. Jill Mountford harangued AWL student members for not doing enough work, not thinking enough, not recruiting enough, etc. The number of students coming towards the AWL was seriously down. This cannot be allowed to continue, she implored, frequently, demanding: "We must raise the AWL's profile. We are the people on campus with the big ideas on big politics." Therefore each individual member must change his or her "mindset" and recruit more students to the AWL. At times, these exhortations had an almost hysterical feel - it was, apparently, "make or break time". One got the impression that comrade Mountford wanted to harass AWL members sufficiently to make them feel guilty. Disappointingly, there was no mention of the SA during the whole debate on student work. In the debate on the organisation's international work. Alan Brookmyre from Glasgow passionately appealed for funds to translate "our ground-breaking unearthing of the real history of revolutionary Marxism" (ie, the AWL's The fate of the Russian revolution) into Ukrainian for the comrades in the Ukrainian Workers Tendency. Interestingly, in a reference to the Weekly Worker which was on sale at the back of the room, comrade Brookmyre said that he had "shuddered" when he walked into the room and saw the hammer and sickle and the words 'Communist Party'. Equally as bad, when you log on to the AWL website a picture of Marx appears! For comrade Brookmyre, we must not use such "discredited language" - ie, 'communism', 'Marxism', 'socialism', etc. In the Ukraine, he said, the "easiest way to lose a political argument is to say you are a communist". This may well be true of course, but surely it is our duty to win back these words, not meekly abandon them to our enemies. Moreover, the comrade's comments hardly address the situation we face in the UK - where it is almost unknown these days for a leftwing paper-seller to be told, 'Go back to Russia!' (or the Ukraine). In other words, we are not confronted by virulent anti-communism (more a sense of wonder, if anything - you still believe in that?). There was also a motion on publications. Sean Matgamna urged comrades to distribute, distribute, distribute and sell, sell, sell the latest issue of Workers' Liberty. He described it as "a uniquely saleable commodity" - mainly thanks to the 45,000-word article on Afghanistan penned by the comrade himself. His particular target is the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan military officers "who seized control" of the country. Comrade Matgamna appears to lay the blame for the Afghan tragedy squarely on the shoulders of "Afghan Stalinism" and "the April 1978 coup". According to him, Afghanistan was a "backward country" which was "unready for collectivism and socialism" "¦ or maybe any sort of democratic revolution at all? In summing up the conference as a whole, it is clear the pluses outweigh the minuses. However, minuses are there. For example, why is it essential to promote open, public debate - as both the AWL and the CPGB argue? Because only in that way can a united party of the working class be forged - a party that allows for the expression of all opinions, permits the minority to fight to become the majority and enables mistakes to be quickly corrected. A party that is capable of taking on the might of the state. However, if you do not place the establishment of such a historically necessary formation at the very centre of your work, then conducting open debate AWL-style is, arguably, simply a more 'civilised' way of behaving and - crucially - promoting your own small group at the expense of building the party that the working class really needs. A nicer version of the SWP, if you like. Thus the mantra that the Socialist Alliance is "just one area of work" - of lesser importance in fact than the currently promoted 'No Sweat' campaign against sweatshop labour, which can "unite trade unionists with single-issue campaigners from the colleges and semi-anarchist anti-capitalist youth" - hopefully drawing them all towards the AWL and providing "a substantial basis for the creation of a viable AWL youth group". Why, asked one comrade, shouldn't the AWL's youth paper Bolshy be put to such use, in the same way as Workers Power uses Revo? Putting more resources into Bolshy, revamping Workers' Liberty, redesigning and renaming Action for Solidarity - all these things are desirable and possible, it seems. But working with the CPGB to launch a Socialist Alliance paper? Sorry, we are told, it is just not "viable". While the leadership urged comrades to "be active in the Socialist Alliance's campaigns for the May local government elections", and its document called for a "real political life in the SA", the AWL does not appear to have any clear idea of where the alliance should be going. Like openness and a healthy culture of debate, left unity is just another 'good idea' - it might not lead to a party, but it might allow you to win others to join your own group. In standing back from the fight to transform the SA into the core of a new party the AWL is left without any clear strategy for working class advance. Thus conference agreed that the organisation "would continue to vote Labour where no credible independent working class left candidates were available" - or in the words of a sucessful amendment , "We restate that 'we vote Labour if, where and when it is the best form of working class political representation available'." 'Vote Labour or socialist' is no solution, comrades - it breeds passivity and hence sows the seeds for future disillusionment. The SA must be won to take an active role inside the Labour Party, and that could well mean working hard to support certain Labour candidates - a perspective long argued by the CPGB. Regrettably, for many comrades in the AWL, the SA remains a secondary consideration. Indeed, for a stubborn minority, it hardly registers on the political radar screen at all. In fact, the final debate on 'Renewal' had a distinct whiff of sectarian arrogance to it - with numerous references to "the absolute uniqueness of what the AWL has to say". Indeed, as one comrade expressed it, the AWL was "the only living, thinking, political organisation", a viewpoint repeated in Solidarity by comrade Gerry Byrne: "Alone of the left, the AWL has committed itself to a rigorous examination of its history and received positions. It is no surprise then that, almost alone, it held to an independent working class revolutionary position, denouncing September 11 as an unsupportable atrocity, condemning fundamentalist terrorism and the killing of civilians that was inevitably part of Bush's bombing of Afghanistan as equally unsupportable" (March 1). Logically, with this sort analysis, the "main problem" confronting the AWL is the fact that "it is not big enough". Now where have we heard that before? Nevertheless, the CPGB look forwards to increased cooperation and work with the AWL. The struggle for partyism will continue. Peter Manson, Danny Hammill * The Alliance for Workers' Liberty is on-line at: http://www.workersliberty.org.uk