07.04.2004

Defend the Socialist Alliance

The defenders of the Socialist Alliance project took a small step in the right direction at the April 3 meeting of the Democracy Platform of the Socialist Alliance. Of the DPSA’s 60 members, 35 comrades attended from a range of SA branches, with fraternal observers from the Socialist Party (USA) and the Alliance for Green Socialism.

In Britain the crisis in the SA comes at a dangerous moment. The failure of parliamentary democracy goes hand in hand with the collapse of working class political representation and the growth of fascism. Motions were submitted on all these questions. The most urgent matters related to the local elections, the fight against the liquidation of the SA and the need for a republican strategy. The issue of Respect, which had seemed at one stage the key issue, did not come up directly.

The first item was the agenda itself. Dot Gibson proposed that because of time constraints all motions containing the word ‘republican’ be moved to a special meeting in May or June called to discuss them. John Pearson spoke against this proposal. It reminded him of dodgy delaying tactics in the Manchester SA. Steve Freeman also opposed this on behalf of the Revolutionary Democratic Group. But comrade Gibson’s proposal was accepted by 13 votes to six with 16 abstentions, so three RDG motions were removed from the agenda.

The main issue was now the standing of some SA candidates and the conducting of a campaign against the liquidation of the SA. The Socialist Workers Party and its allies in the International Socialist Group abandoned the SA for Respect at the March conference of the alliance. But they kept control of the alliance to try and ensure branches were closed down or prevented from standing socialist candidates in the local elections.

The liquidation of socialism was an objective proclaimed by Thatcher. It was taken up in the Labour Party by Blair. The Socialist Alliance was a response to these attacks on working class politics, seeking to unite all socialists into one alliance. Neither Thatcher nor Blair turned up at the recent SA conference to destroy the SA. The SWP and ISG came along instead with a liquidationist policy designed to achieve the same end.

When workers go on strike, the bosses do not actually attend strike meetings to put over their point of view. Yet within such meetings and on the picket line the bosses’ arguments will be voiced, albeit in coded language, by some of their employees. The battle against the employers’ ideas takes place between workers themselves. So, whilst the SWP and the ISG did not attend the meeting of those ‘on strike’ against the SA bosses, their liquidationist arguments were nevertheless there to be contested.

On one side of the debate were those calling for the defence of the SA. On the other side were our own liquidators. They were arguing that the SA was dead, that we should leave and form another organisation and we should not attend the next conference. What could help the SWP better than this? Of course the SWP never said the SA was dead. They did not need to. They were too busy killing it in practice. But CPGB comrades may remember the brouhaha that accompanied Marcus Ström’s article in the Weekly Worker when he declared the SA deceased. Marcus never said this. But the words were introduced by the editors to reflect the fact that the CPGB was leaving the SA for Respect.

All the liquidators have their common theme that the Socialist Alliance is dead, including the SWP, ISG, CPGB and Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. They all want to break away from the SA and form something that will attract loads of members. The masses will flock to us. Those breaking to the right identified this as Respect. Those breaking to the left also called for something new and exciting to be launched. As if by magic the problems of socialist unity will be solved, if only we left the SA!

John Pearson proposed a militant anti-liquidator motion to the DPSA meeting. The RDG comrades fully supported it (minor quibbles excepted). It said:

“The Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform rejects any notion that the SA has ‘failed’ or that it is ‘dead’. Any failure has been that of some of the component organisations of the SA, in particular the Socialist Workers Party, rather than of the unity project itself. The original impulse for unity of socialists that brought about the formation of the SA, remains valid, necessary and urgent.

“The DPSA represents the healthy forces within the SA, which deny the right of the liquidationist leadership majority to kill off our hard won unity project. As we stated in the ‘Unity appeal’ that we distributed at the Socialist Alliance conference on March 13 2004, we seek to rally those who wish to defend, maintain and build the SA.

“The ‘task group’ resolution, passed by the liquidationist majority at that conference, is not only unconstitutional and therefore unacceptable; it also signified the unsuitability of the official leadership to continue to act as such. The DPSA will seek to rally all those SA branches and individual members of the SA who repudiate the official leadership and who agree to organise independently of them, in order to take forward the task of cementing the unity of socialists. We will do this by pursuing the DPSA’s founding aims of building a democratic and inclusive Socialist Alliance, by fighting to win support for and to develop the SA programme People before profit and by working to take forward the project of socialist unity in the context of building a new working class party.

“The SADP recognises that one possible reaction towards the outcome of the March 13 SA conference may be a tendency to turn to localism. We must discourage this, as it weakens our unity. In the context of the June 10 local elections in particular, it is vital that we project a national unity both in name and in programme. To this end, in response to the expected refusal of the SA nominating officer to authorise candidates to use the ‘Socialist Alliance’ title on ballot papers, we urge branches and groups of members who stand candidates to use the title we have registered: ie, ‘Democratic Socialist Alliance’.

“The DPSA reaffirms its decision to reach out to other socialists and organisations of socialists in order to build unity. In view of the actions of the official leadership at conference, which fostered a split in the SA, it is clear that we were correct to open up DPSA membership to comrades who are not currently SA members. We will now seek to accelerate that area of recruitment.

“Finally, we will organise to secure a majority supporting the aims and objectives set out above at the SA annual conference later this year. Should the official leadership of the SA refuse, or fail, to convene that conference, the SADP will do so.”

The fate of this motion would tell us something about the ideological health of the DPSA. Tony Greenstein led the attack with a series of amendments. In particular he wanted to remove reference to the Socialist Alliance not being “dead”. Tony had left the SA over a year ago, saying it was finished, but rejoined to do battle at the March conference. It was a recognition that the DPSA was organising resistance. This is the real point. The SA is not dead whilst militant socialists are still fighting back against the liquidators. It is what we do, not what the SWP does, that counts. Nevertheless his arguments got some resonance with those totally pissed off with the SWP and who wanted to be in an SWP-free zone.

Tony’s amendment to paragraph one, in support of the view of the SWP-ISG-CPGB and AWL that the SA is dead, was carried by 14 votes to nine. He also wanted to remove paragraph 6 on attending SA conference, but was defeated by 14 votes to seven. The substantive resolution was then agreed by 19 votes to one.

Two other liquidator motions were submitted by the Manchester DPSA and the AWL. The Manchester motion said: “The Democracy Platform supports branches and individuals who wish to continue activity under the banner of the SA and specifically to stand candidates in the June local elections. The DP will therefore facilitate the setting up of an autonomous network of SA branches that are prepared to undertake this independent activity.”

The key words here were “setting up an autonomous network of SA branches”. The implication of this was to take branches out of the SA and set up a new organisation. This is the last thing we need when the SA is under attack. Had it been carried unamended, it would simply have added to the sense of demoralisation and collapse.

The RDG therefore put forward an amendment calling for the deletion of “the setting up of an autonomous network of ” and substituting “support and help to coordinate”. The amendment was carried by 18 votes to 7, and the substantive resolution passed overwhelmingly. It now concludes: “The DP will therefore support and help coordinate SA branches that are prepared to undertake this independent activity.”

The AWL motion, which called on the DPSA to “facilitate the coordination of these active local groups through a federation of independent socialist alliances”, was also defeated. This was similar to the Manchester motion, although the movers of the Manchester motion disagreed as to whether it meant the same or not. In the end the AWL resolution was defeated by 10 votes to nine. These decisions were bad news for the SWP. The militants who wanted to stay in the SA and fight the liquidators won the day - but only just.

How the SA comes to an end is vital in terms of its longer-term impact on the socialist movement. If it simply dissolves or is formally wound up, or is cynically put in cold storage, it will do serious damage to the fight for a new workers’ party. It will be used by the Labour left to prove that socialist unity outside Labour is impossible.

The liquidationist position taken by the CPGB therefore damages socialist unity and undermines the fight for a workers’ party. To preach the collapse of the SA is to demoralise the fight for a workers’ party. The refusal of the CPGB to work constructively with the DPSA has to be condemned as putting sectarian interests first.

If nothing constructive is salvaged from the debacle of the SA, it will set back the fight for a new workers’ party, perhaps for many years. The SA will become the standard case study in left sectarianism. The DPSA is the only chance we have of preventing such a setback.