10.07.2002

Marxism 2002: Marx and Sparks

The Socialist Workers Party took the opportunity of this year's Marxism to launch Red Spark, a youth organisation "based on the politics of the SWP and [for] school and college students who want to fight capitalism", says Ian Mahoney

Around 30 trusted young comrades were gathered together prior to the formal launch on July 7, the first Sunday of the event. An editorial board of 12 was created - "basically those who put their hands in the air,"ï¿½ I was told. Aside from that, Red Spark will have very little formal structure - partially understandable for such a new organisation, but a bureaucrat's dream when it comes to unaccountable control. Participants in the meeting, for example, complained subsequently about the heavy-handed intervention of some party members, particularly a comrade Richard, the SWP's youth organiser. This comrade's role in the meeting appeared to be to ensure that it did not stray too far away from SWP orthodoxy and he repeatedly interrupted the debates on the format of the new group's paper, earning himself few friends. Despite this, there has already been some dissent in the new organisation about its relationship to the 'parent' body. One participant in the inaugural meeting told me that he was aware of a general sentiment in favour of creating a distance from the SWP, particularly the Socialist Worker Student Societies that are widely regarded as failures. While various apparatchiks present themselves as supportive of this attitude to a certain extent - 'It's your organisation,' people were frequently told - the reality will be rather different, I suspect. Interestingly, the idea that the new entity should collaborate with other revolutionary youth organisations - in particular, Workers Power's Revolution - was quickly stamped on. Indeed, there is some talk that this new initiative has been taken as a direct sectarian response to the limited successes of 'Revo' - incredible, but possibly true. Workers Power issued a leaflet welcoming the new group, correctly commenting: "Anything that acts to increase the number of young people organising anti-capitalist activity is a good thing."ï¿½ However, the leaflet adds that "the best way for a revolutionary youth organisation to grow, train future revolutionaries and operate is if it is autonomous "ï¿½ not simply a department of the party, obliged to carry out all decisions made by the party in the way that, for example, a party branch should do"ï¿½. The leaflet cites Lenin, explaining why "we must decidedly favour organisational independence of the Youth League "ï¿½ For unless they have complete independence, the youth will be unable "ï¿½ to train good socialists from their midst "ï¿½"ï¿½ (VI Lenin CW Vol 23, Moscow 1977, p164). Later in the same leaflet, WP even goes as far as to suggest that the Communist Youth International, formed in 1919, "was both organisationally and politically independent of the Communist International. The communists fought within its sections for their views, but the youth sections were entitled to adopt their own policies"ï¿½ (my emphasis - IM). The substantive 'political independence' of the youth leagues at this time is questionable, but the real conundrum for both Revo members and comrades in the new Red Spark lies in the sect nature of the parent bodies. Discipline in both WP and the SWP is based on 'agreement' with the politics of the organisation. (WP has recently revised its open position on this, correctly identifying "acceptance"ï¿½ of programme as the basis for membership. However, given that its perception of 'democratic centralism' permits no open expression of dissenting views, the practical distinction is lost on me). Thus, the publications Revo and Spark are largely indistinguishable. Both are frothy and replete with swear words. Characteristic of both, however, is a complete absence of serious criticisms or dissent (of course, it is early days yet for Spark - but if Socialist Worker is anything to go by "ï¿½). For example, an exhaustive trawl through the issues of Revo we have on file will not reveal one article or letter even marginally critical of the core politics of WP - and this covers a period when the organisation adopted the scandalous position of advocating victory to the Taliban in the recent Afghan war, for instance. Did everyone in Revo agree? We know that they did not. Did the editors not receive even one critical letter or article? More to the point, what would they have done with it if they had? WPers have responded to this criticism by citing inane articles on animal rights, featured for example in Revo 52, as evidence of the project's 'open' nature. Not convincing, comrades. A serious political challenge from an articulate left opposition in the ranks of either Revo or Red Spark would precipitate the same sort of heavy-handed response, I suspect, despite WP's correct warnings against the SWP's "submissive culture of bureaucratism"ï¿½. We too welcome the formation of Red Spark. It is good that young comrades are organised and have the chance to learn political lessons in organisations fighting to train them as young communists. Our criticisms of the culture of the parent bodies of such groups in no way detract from the fact that - in general - both Revo and Red Spark represent positive developments.