15.05.2002

Learning the lessons

T he second national council came at a time when the Socialist Alliance had been given a much needed boost to morale by its reasonably good results in the local elections. The meeting was much better organised and attended than the first national council in February. There were around 50 local alliances represented, plus members of the executive, who also have voting rights. Observers from the Scottish Socialist Party, the Welsh Socialist Alliance and Green Socialist Network attended. Leeds Left Alliance was invited to send an observer, but did not avail itself of the opportunity. There were three main threads at the meeting, held at the University of London Union. First, a very worthwhile, informative and positive discussion of the election results; following this was an at times heated debate and vote on Palestine-Israel; and finally there was a discussion on future conferences and perspectives. Election campaign Rob Hoveman, our national secretary and member of the Socialist Workers Party, led off the discussion on the elections. He reported that we had contested 209 council seats and stood three mayoral candidates. While commending all alliances for their efforts in pursuing an energetic campaign, the comrade, in what can only be a positive turn, expressed some disappointment that we had not stood considerably more candidates. The mood was optimistic, yet realism prevailed in terms of our as yet modest electoral work. Our national chair, Liz Davies, remarked that a friend had helped her keep a sense of proportion by asking, in response to her obvious satisfaction at the results, "Did you get anyone elected?" Yes, we have a long way to go, but the results gained across the country certainly exceeded expectations. In London, the Socialist Alliance averaged 7.4%. In other parts of England our average was just over 4%. This reflects the fact that in many areas outside the capital electors only had one vote, rather than the three per ward common in London. Comrade Hoveman said that after gaining 57,000 votes in the general election, there had been a "lean period" for the alliance, which had been overcome to some extent by the success of the March 16 trade union conference. Looking forward to the Greater London and European Union elections in 2004, comrade Hoveman said that there are eight regions to contest in England - a deposit of £5,000 per region was required at the last EU poll. Of course, the fact that the alliance had a lean period, as mentioned by comrade Hoveman, is connected to the fact that the SWP views the SA as one of its many united fronts. Rather than the centre of political work for socialists, it is but one arm of activity for our comrades in the SWP. Thus, as the 'war on terrorism' was declared, emphasis was directed away from the SA to the Stop the War Coalition. Let us hope that some lessons have been learned and that we do not see comrades from the SWP refocus their work in Globalise Resistance or the Anti-Nazi League at the expense of Socialist Alliance activity. Following comrade Hoveman's remarks, there were reports from Kensington, Norwich, Hackney, Hull, Pendle, Plymouth, Islington, Haringey, Sheffield, Greenwich, Wigan, Colchester, Brent, Lambeth, Birmingham, Newham, Manchester, Camden, Burnley and Brighton. The discussion on our election experiences was rich and varied. Almost all these comrades said that it had been a mistake to have been so cautious in the number of candidates. Comrade Richard from Pendle argued that standing candidates where little or no campaigning was undertaken was perfectly acceptable. Others reported that they had been convinced to stand at the last minute and had surprised themselves with the number of votes received. The only voice advising a more limited electoral intervention was that of Terry Conway of the International Socialist Group. Mike Arrowsmith (SWP) from Hackney said that there was no one aspect of the campaign that stood out as the vote-winner. He said it had been a range of approaches: consistent leafleting, street work, canvassing, visibility. Canvassing was singled out for special mention by many. Identifying supporters - or potential supporters - was vital for consolidating our base for ongoing political campaigns, it was pointed out. Another theme concerned campaigning material. Where local alliances had produced newsletters or one-off election broadsheets (such as in Hackney), comrades found this very useful. Of course, what was sorely lacking from our campaign was coherence. There had been practically no national media presence or national campaign. This situation cries out for a weekly Socialist Alliance newspaper. Members' bulletins and local newsletters are insufficient for the mammoth tasks and challenges ahead. There was some discussion regarding the British National Party vote. One comrade said that he had "beaten the BNP in 20 minutes" with one voter. Patiently explaining to a self-professed BNP voter where the real causes for housing shortages lay, where working class poverty came from, convinced the erstwhile BNP supporter to switch to the Socialist Alliance. "And I'll tell my sister to vote for you too," was the conclusion of the discussion. This approach - as opposed to the 'Fascist scum' finger-waving or 'Don't vote Nazi' lesser-evilism of the Anti-Nazi League - is the way ahead. While we should not shy away from physical confrontation with organised fascists where this is necessary, patient explanation and debate to combat fascist ideas is the key. The interventions of the Independent Working Class Association are not something to be aped unthinkingly despite its good returns. Its head-in-the-sand localism gave us no real lessons for the future. Rob Hoveman pointed out that there was an absence of politics in the IWCA campaigns. While diligent work on local issues has its merits, it can hardly be the alpha and omega of our interaction with working class communities. Ducking the big political questions - war, immigration, nationalism, the police, the monarchy and constitution, legalisation of drugs - is no short cut to socialism, but to other sorts of politics. In essence, the IWCA is not much more than a ratepayers association with bomber jackets. Mention was made of the Socialist Party's local election results. Dave Nellist in Coventry and Ian Page in Lewisham were re-elected, but the SP's second candidate in Lewisham, sitting councillor Sam Dias, was defeated, as was Labour defector Paul Malliband in Preston. Israel-Palestine Council business then turned to the Middle East. Three substantive motions were presented: from John Rees (SWP and executive committee member), Martin Wicks of Swindon Socialist Alliance and Martin Thomas (Alliance for Workers' Liberty and EC member). There were four amendments to comrade Rees's motion. John Rees's aim, he said, was "to put the Socialist Alliance in a position to be part of the biggest solidarity movement with the Palestinians we have yet seen in this country". Polls have shown public opinion to be very pro-Palestinian, and we must chime in. Referring to the short resolution from the AWL, which I seconded, in favour of three slogans - 'Solidarity with the Palestinians', 'Israel out of the occupied territories', and 'Two nations, two states' - comrade Rees said it was problematic because it included the "whole programme" of a particular alliance faction. His was more limited. It did not include the SWP's position for Palestine to be reorganised as a (single) "democratic, secular state". However, it was necessary, he argued, to establish some basic points. Israel, he claimed, is a creation of the imperialist states. It could not last a week without US aid. Israel's aim has consistently been to drive the Palestinians from their land. It is "a state based on systematic exploitation of the Palestinian people". The conflict in the Middle East is hugely unequal, the US-equipped Israeli forces confronting poorly armed Palestinians. In these circumstances we should not condemn the Palestinian suicide bombings. Rather it was Israeli policies which put Palestinians in a position where "people only have resort to using their own bodies". Martin Wicks called for the alliance to campaign only for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and for a boycott of Israeli goods. He did not, however, dissent from comrade Rees's main thesis: "It is extraordinary," said comrade Wicks, "to have comrades arguing for the right of the Israeli jewish nation to exist." Council should, however, prefer his more concrete, practical resolution to comrade Rees's much longer one. What was "extraordinary" to me was the complete absence of consistent democracy in the politics of such comrades. Martin Thomas called for a campaign based on "Solidarity with the Palestinians; Israel out of the occupied territories; two nations, two states." He argued that socialists cannot ascribe "collective guilt" to the Israeli nation because of the reactionary politics of Ariel Sharon. Further, he said that there is no place in the language or practice of socialists for the desire to abolish nations by force. Margaret Manning from Manchester and Mark Hoskisson of Workers Power moved amendments calling for the first motion to include the demand for a single, democratic, secular state of Palestine. I contested the argument that Israel had been "constructed by imperialism". Indeed, as the CPGB theses on Israel-Palestine state, "The [Zionist] colonists rebelled against the colonial power after World War II and launched a violent struggle for independence. But that does not detract from the original colonial-settler nature of Israel. The first war against the British (United Nations mandate) colonial power was a combined war - against Britain, against the colonised." I also contested John Rees's absurd assertion that we could not support a two-states solution, as this is what imperialism was favouring. I argued that the only reason why US/UK imperialism was now trying to foist an undemocratic settlement based on two separate states, was because of the decades-long struggle of the Palestinians themselves. The US had previously opposed the creation of any kind of Palestinian state. Indeed, until the 1970s, an independent Palestine - within part of the old British mandate territory - had been opposed by not only imperialism, but by Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The first organisation to argue for a democratic two-state solution was the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine - the 'third force' of the Palestine Liberation Organisation after Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Andy Gibbons of Oxford Socialist Alliance moved a series of amendments to the first motion. These aimed to distance the SA from an uncritical approach to the Hamas-inspired suicide bombings and to make 'Solidarity with the Palestinians' and 'Israel out of the occupied territories' our main slogans. The statement, "The national council believes that suicide bombings are not the way forward for the Palestinian people", brought howls of dissapproval. In the forefront of opposition to this amendment was John Baxter, SWP organiser in Manchester. He said it was not the role of socialists to condemn people so desperate that they are "throwing themselves at the Israeli war machine". How he equates blowing up a pool hall and indiscriminate killings of Israeli civilians with actions against a "war machine" is beyond me. The proposal to boycott Israeli goods was also contentious. Comrade Thomas argued that for the alliance to adopt such a policy would leave us tailing the Arab states and anti-semites who target jewish-linked businesses. Comrade Baxter boasted that he had been involved in picketing Marks and Spencer as a legitimate act of Palestinian solidarity. A minor amendment from John Fisher was carried. The amendments for a single Palestinian state were defeated by the SWP voting as a bloc against SWP policy - SA policy must be different, it seems. However, this was apparently too much for comrade Baxter, who claimed he had been "mandated" to vote for a democratic, secular Palestine. The Oxford amendment on suicide bombings was defeated overwhelming with only seven votes in favour. Oxford's amendment on the two slogans was also overwhelmingly defeated. Two amendments from comrade Hoskisson concerning practical links between the British labour movement and the struggles in the occupied territories were passed. The AWL/CPGB-supported motion moved by Martin Thomas received only six votes in favour. Future events The final part of the day concerned future SA conferences. On the table were suggestions for a youth event on the theme of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism moved by Mandy Baker; a conference to decide our policy on the euro referendum; our annual general meeting; and a trade union conference following on from the March 16 success. All four proposals were supported in principle. The next executive meeting will work out the final timetable. It seems likely that the conference on Europe and the euro will be in September. In a positive move, it was agreed that this conference will not only deal with the issue of the single currency, but explore other aspects of SA policy on Europe - the European Social Forum; anti-privatisation and anti-neoliberal cooperation on a European-wide level; the 2004 EU elections; the EU constitutional convention and so on. The youth/student gathering is mooted for December or January. It has been agreed that our next AGM will be in February 2003. There is also the possibility of an 'activists conference' in September. In contrast to the March 16 event, it has been suggested that this bring together Socialist Alliance and other activists in the unions to discuss concrete working plans around the democratisation of the union funds and other matters. This will pull together any existing work in the Socialist Alliance trade union networks, as agreed by the April executive committee meeting. Marcus Ström Executive committee member