10.07.2002

Marxism 2002 - The Fringe: Political will for SA paper

The first of three fringe meetings sponsored by the CPGB, Alliance for Workers' Liberty and Revolutionary Democratic Group discussed the need for a Socialist Alliance paper - it was packed, with standing room only at the back. Mary Godwin reports

The three speakers - non-aligned Socialist Alliance stalwart Dave Osler, Marcus Strï¿½m of the CPGB and Chris Jones of the RDG - along with the majority of contributors to the debate, agreed that an unofficial SA paper would be a good thing, although there were some significant differences. Comrades from the AWL preferred to intervene from the floor rather than provide a platform speaker. Comrade Osler has been calling for left unity and a common paper since 1993 - he read an extract from an article he wrote for Socialist Organiser to prove it. The left press today ranges in quality from the competent to the poor, he said, with articles often consisting of arguments copied from bourgeois left writers in The Guardian with a few bullet-points adapted from Trotsky's Transitional programme tagged on to the end. We could do better - there are many good writers in the Socialist Alliance. Mark Hoskisson of Workers Power claims an SA paper would be a Tower of Babel, but this more accurately describes what exists now - with the various left groups sometimes engaged in a relationship of mutual incomprehension. In fact an SA paper would provide us with the lingua franca. A Socialist Alliance paper would be a "tremendous step forward"ï¿½, said comrade Osler. As it became established, the Socialist Alliance itself would advance. While he described the Weekly Worker as "a real breakthrough in leftwing journalism"ï¿½, he anticipated a time when the era of competing papers and sects would be behind us. A substantial minority at the last SA conference voted for the launch of a paper, comrade Strï¿½m reminded the meeting, and that included a clear majority of comrades who were not members of the Socialist Workers Party. The strongest, most organised proponents of the project - and that must mean the AWL and CPGB - should take the lead in producing a paper to regalvanise the alliance, to give direction and debate differences. It would unite and strengthen us. Without it, the project looks shaky. This was a recurrent theme in the discussion, several comrades expressing frustration at the way the SA activity has declined since the local elections, with the SWP once again putting it on the back burner. Speaking for the RDG, comrade Chris Jones remembered joining the SWP as a result of reading Socialist Worker. SWP publications have declined in quality since then. He said all SA contacts should be reading an SA paper, to cohere the SA, put people in touch with the leadership, and act as a platform where different political tendencies could develop and inform others through debate. The proposal for local newsletters, while positive in one sense, was in another sense like asking each Socialist Alliance to re-invent the wheel. While the RDG was "pleased to be able to pay money into the Weekly Worker in order to express our point of view"ï¿½, he too looked forward to the day when we could establish a common paper of the Socialist Alliance. Two main issues were raised in the discussion. First, is it possible to produce a Socialist Alliance paper now? And, secondly, what sort of paper should it be? As comrade Strï¿½m pointed out, the technical objections to an SA paper sometimes put forward by the SWP's Rob Hoveman are in a way echoed by those AWL comrades who say building the organisation must be put first. The CPGB believes that the launch of a paper would actually help in the development of the SA - indeed it would be a boost in the process of transforming the alliance into a party: no doubt that was the main reason why the SWP opposed it. This was the experience of the original CPGB: the publication of The Call acted as a catalyst in its formation in 1920. Martin Thomas of the AWL suggested the best way forward was to work to win a majority of the next SA conference in favour of a paper. Most comrades thought this was not enough: we cannot wait for the SWP to decide to revive the SA. The strongest argument for an official SA paper is the successful production of an unofficial one. As comrade Anne Mc Shane put it, we are more likely to win people's support by launching a paper than by trying to persuade them that one is needed in the abstract. Comrade Strï¿½m emphasised that we have to be ambitious. An unofficial SA paper could have a key role in recruiting people to the SA on our revolutionary platform, enabling us to become the majority faction. Even if the SA project were to fail, we would still need a paper to cohere our forces. The content of a minority SA paper gave rise to some disagreement. Sacha Ismael of the AWL contrasted Solidarity, which he said orientates to the working class, with the Weekly Worker, which publishes debates among the left. He accepted a balance is needed, but said the Weekly Worker has the balance wrong. Weekly Worker editor Peter Manson accepted that the CPGB paper lacks breadth of coverage of, for example, the trade unions, but insisted that an SA paper should be nothing like Scottish Socialist Voice, which is supposedly orientated to the working class but in reality is shallow, patronising and boring. Comrade Dave Osler, in his reply to the debate, agreed that a new paper should combine the strengths of both the Weekly Worker and Solidarity. In the past, he said, it was true that the Weekly Worker had carried too much on "the ins and outs of micro-sects"ï¿½. But Solidarity tends to carry articles along the lines of "Oh woe - the NHS is in a terrible state"ï¿½ - "thanks, comrades, but we did know that"ï¿½. Comrade Terry Liddle said the workers in his tenants association know the Labour government has shat on them: he needs a paper that explains what the Socialist Alliance is. Referring to AWL criticism of the Weekly Worker, comrade Strï¿½m challenged the AWL to say which articles they would leave out. Intense discussion of political questions like the monarchy, republicanism and Europe take place in every factory and pub: they are not conjured up out of nothing by Weekly Worker writers. Ordinary people are not stupid - they are the future ruling class and can be trusted with big ideas. Arguments about the content of the new paper involved discussion of the role of the independents in the Socialist Alliance. Comrade Steve Church asked how we can recruit new members to the SA in order to turn it into a party. A paper consisting of debate between sects would not bring in the wider layers of independents who are not revolutionaries. Comrade Manson pointed out that the overwhelming majority of SA independents would actually describe themselves as 'revolutionary' or 'Marxist' - most have been in some group on the left at some time. While, on the one hand, comrade Jones accepted this, on the other hand he suggested that one possibility was for the establishment of a paper for the "revolutionary minority"ï¿½ in the SA. However, his preferred label for the paper would be "communist-Labour"ï¿½ - like the SWP, the RDG wants the alliance to fit into its preconceived format of what the SA ought to be - a halfway house, where the revolutionary "minority"ï¿½ would in due course try to win over the phantom reformists. For comrade Jones the paper would ideally reflect this template too. Comrade Mathew Caygill of Leeds identified himself as being part of the "flotsam and jetsam"ï¿½. He said the crucial question is not whether the paper should be reformist or revolutionary - surely that would depend on what its contributors wrote. Let is be full of debate, while at the same time looking outwards, he said. Comrade John Bridge said the CPGB and AWL should launch a minority paper without waiting for or relying on the independents - an attitude that some AWL comrades expressed. In fact the longer we hesitated, in the belief that such a paper would not be 'viable' without the immediate active participation of non-aligned comrades, the less likely it was that such support would be forthcoming. On the contrary, it was essential that our two organisations gave a lead. Martin Thomas accepted that it would be a good thing for the AWL and the CPGB to cooperate in such a venture, but said more time is needed for discussion first. Other AWL comrades thought that such discussions should be broadened so that the question of an AWL-CPGB merger was put on the table. Again, the implication was that establishing a joint paper would be putting the cart before the horse. A few comrades felt an unofficial SA paper could not succeed against hostility from the SWP. Others predicted that the SWP would take it over. Answering these doubts, comrade Anne Mc Shane insisted we must challenge the leadership of the SWP. It can be forced by events to change. Comrade Jones agreed that the best way to fight the domination of the SWP is to take the initiative and produce an unofficial paper, while at the same time demanding that the SWP cooperate in producing an official publication. For comrade Osler it was simply a question of political will. While he would like nothing more than a merger between the AWL and CPGB, the question of an SA paper should not be presented simply in terms of the two groups, he said. Comrade Strï¿½m suggested that we should consider publishing a pilot issue for the SA conference on the euro in October, and called for a Socialist Alliance paper to be made a central issue at the SA AGM in February. Mary Godwin