07.07.2004

Prioritise democracy

Phil Kent attended 'Ideas for Freedom', the Alliance for Workers Liberty's annual school, on July 3-4

There is no denying that the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty’s ‘Ideas for freedom’ weekend school was much livelier than last year’s rather flat event - at least if the first day was anything to go by (I was unable to attend the Sunday session). There were about 100 comrades present.

The AWL has a new found confidence - though the only thing that seems to have changed for them during the year is the birth of the Labour Representation Committee, whose July 3 founding conference was being held elsewhere in London on the same day. The LRC offers the AWL the prospect of a site for activity well away from Respect and the Socialist Workers Party. Otherwise they were debating the same things as last year: namely Israel/Palestine and the reactionary nature of islamism - on the latter they were backed up by the Worker-communist Party of Iraq.

Those of you that are familiar with the debate know that the majority in the AWL, following the unfortunate example of their guru and leader, Sean Matgamna, bend the stick far too far in favour of Zionism. The impression they give is that Zionism is at base reasonable and rational, which it is not, and, following from that, the Israeli Jewish people have a right to their (Zionist) state, which the Palestinians must learn to live with in order to qualify for their own, not quite equal state. They lay the blame for the present deplorable situation in the region predominantly on Palestinian and Arab chauvinism. Their criticism of Zionism is more muted. This is a line that serves to separate the AWL from the rest of the left on the basis of a ‘holier than though’ attitude that virtually everyone but themselves is anti-semitic and should be treated as such.

The AWL is divided over Chirac’s law in France against the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols at school (in practice, islamic symbols are being targeted at present, although political symbols are also banned). The AWL minority, along with the WCPI, actually supports the ban on the grounds that it protects muslim girls from being pressured by their reactionary parents into accepting an inferior status for women. 

True, if the working class pressures the capitalist state into enacting legislation in our interests, that is a good thing, although why a ban on religious and political expression should fall into that category is beyond me. But the working class programme is essentially about getting people to act collectively in their own best interests and does not on the whole require the banning of things, but patient debate and an intransigent defence of democracy. In this instance most of the French left has in effect been recruited by the government in the pursuit of its chauvinistic agenda - all in the name of a crude, anti-religious ‘secularism’.

It is not surprising that at least a section of the AWL is equally infected. After all, its attitude to groups like the Muslim Association of Britain demonstrates that the AWL treats islam as a fixed entity, decided on for good, rather than an ideology whose followers, like those of all ideologies, are influenced by their social environment. It places an equals sign between MAB, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and those who massacre christians in Sudan. They are all the same … except, of course, that they are not. In fact, ideologically, MAB is partly a reactionary lament for a mythical past, partly a left-moving protest against New Labour and the Bush-Blair invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The school was organised with several different sessions going on at the same time - which means that one can only attend parts and the moving between sessions certainly wastes time and occasionally creates confusion. But the problem is not really time. Nor is it money. If the left came together and organised a common school, all these problems could be overcome, but that would require a break from sectarianism.

I will illustrate this point by an off-the-cuff remark made by Jill Mountford in a session aimed principally at new members on the subject of ‘What will socialism be like?’ She correctly pointed out that socialism is the rule of the working class and that it will be democratic.

Moreover we will have different socialist parties competing for votes. Not much wrong with that, except that if we are going to be organised separately after the revolution why should we be united before the revolution? 

She also stated that we would nationalise everything after the revolution (alongside the correct formulation that production would be organised through the free association of the producers, which should lead to the dissolution of the state). Nationalisation, of course, can simultaneously protect workers from the bosses and protect capitalism from the workers.

Having a vision of socialism is useful in so far as it is linked to the struggle in the here and now. Maybe I am being unfair, but the word ‘nationalisation’ suggested to me that in the here and now Jill prioritises the economic struggle at the expense of the political struggle, though she is well aware that capitalism strives to keep the two apart and that under socialism the two will be united.
This view was reinforced by the session on ‘Free trade and fair trade’, introduced by Paul Hampton. He exposed the unfairness of capitalist trade very well and plugged the role of the AWL’s No Sweat campaign in combating exploitation in the workplace. But there was no mention of the political struggle for democracy or the need to organise for revolution.