15.01.2004
What about the workers?
Respect's convention on January 25, no matter what its outcome, will merit a minor historical footnote, if for no other reason than the achievment of an unexpected unity of the left - even for one day. Marcus Ström reports
Respect's convention on January 25, no matter what its outcome, will merit a minor historical footnote, if for no other reason than the achievment of an unexpected unity of the left - even for one day.
Not only will it bring together a scattering of committed anti-war activists, anti-imperialists and non-aligned socialists. Also present will be the Socialist Alliance and its main constituents (CPGB, Socialist Workers Party, Alliance for Workers' Liberty, International Socialist Group) alongside two ex-SA organisations - the Socialist Party and Workers Power. It seems likely that the Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain and, we are told, sections of the Indian Workers Association will be there too. We may even see the Muslim Association of Britain as observers. MAB president Anas Altikriti is speaking at a Respect rally in Wakefield on January 21.
The Unity Convention has set itself the task to standing as an alternative to New Labour in the European Union and Greater London Assembly elections on June 10. How long these various organisations and factions will manage to stay together is so far unclear, though.
The current signatories of the Unity declaration are George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob, John Rees, George Monbiot, Ken Loach, Linda Smith, Lindsey German and Nick Wrack. That is, five supporters of the Socialist Alliance plus an expelled Labour MP, a radical muslim and a Guardian columnist. While it is encouraging that Linda Smith has also signed up, one regional official of the FBU is all we have from the trade unions. In general the unions are notable for their absence. Yet without the active support of organised labour, including at a rank and file level, electoral success will be fleeting, if achieved at all. Nor is it likely that any Labour Party branch will be sending delegates. This reveals a failure to take the Labour left seriously. Despite Blair and Blairism, it remains a working class party and one with a reviving left. Populist platitudes are no substitute for class politics and cannot provide the cement to secure lasting or meaningful unity.
Hopes were high that the support of Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT transport union, and Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS civil servants union, would be forthcoming. Indeed, Nick Wrack, chair of the SA, said in his recent statement to members: "Please find below the text of the declaration which has now been agreed by all those who attended Sunday's meeting. The text has subsequently been agreed by George Monbiot and we anticipate that it will be endorsed by Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka" (Weekly Worker December 11 2003). That expectation remains unfulfilled. Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka did not return my calls seeking clarification on their reluctance or inability to sign up.
The RMT has changed its rules so as to permit branches to back non-Labour candidates who support the policies of the union. That has allowed RMT Scotland to affiliate to the Scottish Socialist Party. A bold move which has triggered heated disputes in the union, although there appears to be no clear left-right division over this question. Of course, the right wing is committed to remaining loyal to the Labour government and picking up any crumbs that might be thrown its way as a reward. However, many leftwingers in the RMT hold to a strategy of 'reclaiming' the Labour Party. Others simply wish to leave.
This has created problems for Bob Crow on the executive. Comrade Crow, a former member of the CPB, and then Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party, is attempting to fight "¦ but only on one front at a time. The SSP link-up is too much for some and Labour loyalists and the RMT right are hitting back. Now Labour is threatening the union with disaffiliation.
The RMT will hold a special general meeting in Glasgow on February 6 to discuss the future of its political fund. This follows receipt of correspondence from the Labour Party stating that the union's decision to allow branches to join up with the SSP, in line with last year's AGM decisions, is inconsistent with the union's national affiliation to Labour.
The letter from Chris Lennie, deputy general secretary of the Labour Party, to Bob Crow states bluntly: "The RMT has placed itself outside of the constitution of this party. Unless the decisions regarding affiliation to the Scottish Socialist Party are immediately revoked, the matter will be reported to the national executive committee at the earliest opportunity with a recommendation that the RMT be treated as disaffiliated from this party forthwith" (December 17 2003).
In this situation, to come out all guns blazing for an as yet untested populist coalition led by a maverick MP in alliance with the Socialist Workers Party would not be the easiest thing for comrade Crow.
To make things even more complicated, the 'reclaim the Labour Party' left is organising too. Lucy Anderson, candidate for Camden and Barnet in the Greater London Assembly elections, has committed herself to the RMT's pledge questions regarding renationalisation of the railways and other issues. She has been duly endorsed by the RMT executive as a candidate. This pre-emptive move, encouraged by deep entryists such as Bob Pitt (editor of What Next?) and Socialist Action (one of many fragments originating from the International Marxist Group), is aimed at making it difficult or impossible for local RMT branches to back non-Labour candidates.
So, although Bob Crow has spoken at meetings alongside Galloway, he feels unable to publicly back Respect. He is fighting in Scotland. That seems enough for now, especially as Respect is untested.
Mark Serwotka has different problems. While tensions on the PCS executive have played a part, comrade Serwotka seems to entertain misgivings about George Galloway and his record. On top of that the PCSU general secretary positively favours adoption of the euro - a position he underlined at TUC congress. Yet Respect's draft declaration is anti-euro. Moreover, since the PCSU executive now has a workable leftwing majority, there is a more integrated relationship between him as general secretary and the executive. Comrade Serwotka initially operated relatively independently of the former (rightwing) executive; now he is more susceptible to pressure. This has caused further questions over his support - public or otherwise - for Respect.
While comrade Serwotka has not signed up, he has agreed to speak. I understand he is booked for an Oxford meeting on January 19. It is unfortunate that these two prominent comrades have not been able to commit themselves to the January 25 unity convention - so far. It weakens ties with the trade union movement as a whole and leaves a question mark over the chances of this formation contributing towards the struggle forge a revolutionary working class party in Britain.
Where does this leave the Socialist Alliance and its pro-party minority? The SA executive pledged to fight for Respect to adopt a working class and socialist platform, but it has pathetically reneged on that commitment. So it falls to the SA's Democracy Platform to argue for this perspective on January 25.
Meanwhile at the forthcoming national council on January 17, the Democracy Platform will move a tranche of motions which, if carried, would commit the SA to back working class and, "of course", socialist politics at the convention. These include: for a workers' representative on a workers' wage; for open borders and against immigration controls; for the 'R' in Respect to stand for 'republicanism'; for the democratic selection of candidates; and for an outline of 'What we mean by socialism', taken from People before profit.
Of course, as it stands, each organisation can only move one amendment at the convention, but these politics will be put forward by different organisations anyway. If our motions are passed at national council, it will then oblige the SA to call for a vote for them on January 25.
The Democracy Platform decided at its committee meeting in Birmingham on Saturday January 10 that its motion would be to commit respect's elected representatives to living on a workers' wage. Comrades from the SWP and others, including Nick Wrack, are suggesting this is a deliberate attempt to tell George Galloway to "fuck off". It is no such thing. Let the AWL plough that barren furrow. I still can see no real reason why George Galloway would not enthusiastically support our motion. Indeed I am told he has available ample funds from journalism, etc, which, taken together with the equivalent of a skilled workers' wage, would give him more than enough to meet his needs. I could even imagine him committing himself to donating his entire MEP wage to the new coalition.
While the Unity Coalition is being born out of a movement against the war in Iraq, it is also the result of the failures of the Socialist Alliance to grow and dig roots due to the SWP's stubborn refusal to put our unity on the only firm foundations - moving towards a fully fledged political party. The SA was effectively hidden away during the Iraq war so that the SWP could try and grab recruits. Now we are seeing a recurrence of this situation - the SA is once again being put on ice. The SWP wants to be the only socialist pole in Respect and it has blocked moves to affiliate the SA. Rivals, even one dominated by the SWP, cannot be tolerated. Should Respect fail, the SWP might fall back on the SA. But will anyone be left?
There is an ever increasing opportunist appetite driving the SWP to the right. The lower the electoral results, the more it wants to junk principles. Instead of patiently building the SA - with a weekly or daily paper, with education meetings and events, with civilised debate and day-to-day work in communities and workplaces - the SWP seems to believe that all that is required is stringing together meaningless platitudes and signing up 'big name' personalities.
This is the very danger of electoralism that the SWP once warned against: "The search for votes pushes a party towards a softening of its message, towards a search for accommodation with the union leaders in order to secure backing and finance" (Socialist Worker November 25 1995). This is what the SWP perceived to be the dangers of standing in elections. As the Bolsheviks brilliantly proved in Russia, they were wrong, of course. But they seem to have believed it so passionately that they it has caused them to fulfil their own prophesy. Standing in elections means only one thing for the SWP - electoralism.
Paradoxically the formation of Respect underlines once more the urgent need for a mass workers' party in Britain (and across the European Union for that matter). A party that stands in elections but promotes, in both propaganda and practice, the ideas and programme of revolution and democracy. Until that happens no serious advance can be made.
Marcus Ström * RMT special general meeting: Friday February 6, 9am, room M201, George Moore building, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow