03.03.2005

Dave Nellist, interrupted

Is the new Socialist Green Unity Coalition a retro Socialist Alliance circa 1990s? If so, wonders Mark Fischer, what's the point?

Dave Nellist of the Socialist Party in England and Wales kicked off his contribution at the February 26 press launch of the Socialist Green Unity Coalition's general election campaign with the comment that he felt like he was picking up a relationship with "old comrades" after being "rudely interrupted" a number of years ago. The break he was referring to of course was the SP's withdrawal from the Socialist Alliance at the December 1 2001 conference. Despite the February 26 press event being extremely short (I asked the only question, which comrade Nellist firmly told me would not be answered and then closed the meeting) this SGUC had the taste of what the SA might have been like if the Socialist Workers Party had not thrown its weight behind it, if the SP had remained the dominant trend. With the partial exception of comrade Nellist and his comrades in Coventry, the SP never wanted the SA to be more than a non-aggression pact. The SP leadership was motivated purely by fearful resentment against the bigger SWP, launching a fiercely sectarian turf war to defend what 'belonged' to it. Clearly, narrow sect rivalry continues to shape the outlook of many comrades (Hannah Sell of the SP proudly reported that the SGUC so far had 21 confirmed candidates - "close to Respect", she added, perhaps unconsciously). The main constituent elements, apart from the SP, are the Alliance for Workers' Liberty and the Alliance for Green Socialism. The Socialist Unity Network and the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform also appear to have become attached in the aftermath of the funeral of the Socialist Alliance on February 5. As we previously wrote, we will take a comradely, though critical, attitude to left unity initiatives of various brands "to avoid any further fragmentation of our already pathetically meagre forces" ('Sectarian killers at the funeral' Weekly Worker February 3). Clearly this SGUC initiative falls under this broad heading. Hannah Sell opened proceedings and reported that - despite the fact none of the "mainstream press" had turned up (I was, in fact, the only journalist present, "mainstream" or otherwise) - interest had been shown in the project from the media. She was right was that it was good for the coalition's esprit de corps to get its troops together and to formally constitute its campaign - but it was a little odd that, in the absence of any need to field questions from bourgeois journalists, the opportunity was not taken to discuss the campaign, the form of intervention, developments with other left electoral slates, etc. That is, for the assembled politicos - some of who had travelled for hours to be present - to actually talk some politics. Instead we had brief statements from reps of the SP, AWL, ASG and SADP - all very short, but certainly long enough to highlight the political problems with the coalition. In substance the platform these forces will stand on is extremely sketchy and certainly represents no advance on the comprehensive People before profit of the SA. On some questions, the bloc is actually to the right of Respect: it has the demand for "Troops out of Iraq" - without specifying when and how, this is a demand that Blair and Bush could sign up to, of course. Presumably it is a concession to the AWL's pro-imperialist twitch. So, in some ways, we are back to a version of the early SA. Few lessons appear to have been learned from what has happened since, however. For instance, Peter Radcliff for the AWL told us that the SGUC was designed to "bring together working class forces to continue the challenge started in 2001" with the SA's general election outing. The AWL - hypocritically - now tries to portray its comrades as enthusiastic SA partisans - comrade Radcliff sorrowfully reminded us that the "SA challenge was killed by the SWP". Just the SWP, comrade Radcliff? Didn't the SP deal it a body blow when it first demanded its right as a minority to block any SA initiative agreed by the majority? When this sectarian nonsense was rightly rejected, it wounded the alliance by splitting. And I do seem to recall at the same time the AWL refusing to launch a joint minority SA newspaper with the CPGB that could have helped staunch the blood flow. Why? For exactly the same narrow sectarian motivations that prompted the SWP to reject an official SA newspaper in the first place. The death of the SA was a temporary victory for sectism over partyism on the British revolutionary left and this is a malady that affects all organisations to varying degrees apart from our own. In keeping with the programmatic vision of the comrades involved, the politics of the new coalition are a warmed over version of old Labour. Key sections of its joint policy declaration suffer from exactly the same timid vacuity as Respect's. (In the absence of any concrete proposals, "defend the right to asylum and asylum-seekers' rights" is something Howard could sign up to, let alone Blair. Interestingly, my unanswered question that closed the proceedings was on open borders - a ticklish subject in Respect too, we find). We should interrogate this new formation in exactly the same way as we do candidates from Labour, Respect and other left formations asking for workers' votes in the May election. Are they working class politicians? Were they anti-war and are they anti-Iraq occupation? While we welcome the fact that people who call themselves Marxists have on some level recognised the value of organisational unity, even if at this minimal level, political differentiation remains vital.