WeeklyWorker

11.10.2006

Arise - what next?

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group takes a closer look at the debate on the future of the Socialist Alliance

"The great appear great to us only because we are on our knees: let us arise."

With these words James Connolly concluded his address to Dublin workers in 1897. The occasion of Connolly's speech was Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee. He condemned the whole event as a "feast of flunkeyism". He told his audience that the Irish Socialist Republican Party had never hesitated to "proclaim its unswerving hostility to the British crown". He welcomed the opportunity to do so again. All who grovel at the shrine of royalty deserve "the contempt and hatred of Irish revolutionary democracy".

Connolly's quote was taken from the French revolutionary, Camille Desmoulins, a member of the Club des Cordeliers, on the left of the Jacobins. Terry Liddle, who found this connection, says that Connolly saw it in the Edinburgh and Leith Labour Chronicle in 1894.

The word 'arise', such as in the context of the struggle led by Connolly, is a call for the masses to get up and fight for their rights. It has a long association in poetry, music and verse with the radical and working class movement. Shelley's poem 'Ode to the asserters of liberty', begins: "Arise, arise, arise!" His 'Masque of anarchy' calls on the workers of England to "Rise, like lions after slumber". Edward Carpenter's 'England, arise' was sung with great gusto by members of the Independent Labour Party. Tom Anderson, who in 1901 led one of the biggest strikes in Glasgow, wrote 'Arise, ye sons of labour' on May Day 1916.

And, of course, "Arise, ye starvelings from your slumbers. Arise, ye criminals of want" are the opening words of the 'Internationale'. It calls on the working class and the oppressed masses to rise up against the international capitalist system. It is a revolutionary call for freedom, democracy and socialism. "Arise, ye workers" was proclaimed on the banner of the dockers during their 1972 strike. The slogan could be seen on the mass demonstrations outside Pentonville prison in support of the dockers jailed for defending trade union rights.

'Arise' was taken up by some Socialist Alliance members who opposed the February 2005 closure decision supported by the Socialist Workers Party. A provisional organisation planning to relaunch the SA adopted what came to be called the four pillars of the new alliance - socialism, environmentalism, republicanism and internationalism. Later a comrade suggested that by rearranging the order, together with the word 'alliance', this could form the acronym, ARISE. By accident we found a link between a radical and class-struggle tradition and the idea of the SA as a phoenix arising from the ashes of the former alliance.

The connections did not end there. Historically republicanism in England can be traced back to the Levellers in the 1640s, the first republican party. The Levellers in the New Model Army opposed Cromwell's plan to invade Ireland. From the 1770s Tom Paine's internationalism saw him defending the American and French republics against his own ruling class. In recognition he was given honorary French citizenship and elected to the national convention, representing Pas de Calais.

England was home to Karl Marx as he supported class struggles in Britain, Ireland and Europe. Marx was a militant democrat, republican and internationalist. Through Capital, he laid the foundations for modern socialism. Perhaps less well known was his concern with the environment. Today global capitalist competition, analysed by Marx, has brought us to the brink of environmental catastrophe. We have yet to make the last link in Arise over the environment (nominations, please!). But in 'Arise' we can certainly identify the Levellers, Tom Paine and Karl Marx.

Arise posed the question of the SA in a new way. It would seek to unite socialist groups and independents on the basis of the People before profit programme. It would aim to bring together different trends within socialism which might identify themselves as international socialists, republican socialists and green socialists. In the tradition of the SA it would aim to become a militant rather than 'revolutionary' organisation, open to both 'reformers' and 'revolutionaries'. At the November 2005 SA conference the Arise aims were accepted, with new clauses added spelling out the SA's traditional opposition to racism, fascism and specific oppressions.

How did these politics relate to the previous Socialist Alliances? The first SA (No1) was known as the red-green SA. It was led by the Socialist Party and organised through a liaison committee. This was replaced in 2001 by SA No2. This was the Labourite SA led by the SWP, designed with old Labour ideas to appeal to disillusioned Labour supporters and voters. Renationalise the railways, more money for the NHS, no cuts and a higher minimum wage. Not wrong in themselves, but implicit in accepting the existing system of government, the hallmark of Labour.

The leadership of the new SA (No3) now fell mainly into the hands of the Alliance for Green Socialism, the CPGB and the Revolutionary Democratic Group. Whereas SA1 depended on the Socialist Party and SA2 relied on the SWP, there was no equivalent hegemonic group in SA3. The largest grouping on the executive are AGS members, who have effectively been in the position to decide the real political direction of Arise since the last conference.

A tiny issue appeared at the first SA executive meeting. It illustrates the old adage that a little scratch can develop into gangrene. Objections were raised to the acronym Arise. Socialism felt insulted that republicanism had come first. It was therefore necessary to defend the honour of socialism by changing the word order into 'Asire' (I leave aside the inclusion of opposition to racism and fascism, etc, on which we all agree). This was hardly worth an argument. Had 'Asire' any meaning at all or any relationship to struggle, it would have been just as good a way to promote SA politics. Since it did not, it was a piece of silliness to change it round. But it revealed a 'concern' about republicanism amongst AGS members on the executive.

This same 'concern' was to become more pronounced with the bigger issue round the corner. In 2006 the political vacuum on the left in England and the lack of a working class party has been posed more sharply than ever. The year began with the conference organised by the RMT union on working class political representation. It was followed up by the launch of the Socialist Party-sponsored Campaign for a New Workers' Party. Now we have seen the setback in Scotland with the split in the Scottish Socialist Party.

The SA constitution has a clause on the party question. A3 says: "The Socialist Alliance aims to win support in the working class movement for a democratically organised republican socialist party, along the lines of the Scottish Socialist Party." In the year of the party this clause should have been implemented, at least to be tested in practice. The SA executive did not like it and passed a resolution to remove the word 'republican', effectively suspending its use. The executive decided to support 'socialist party', a position proposed by Mike Davis (AGS) at the founding conference, when it was defeated.

The consequences of this soon became apparent. First, instead of challenging the Socialist Party's plan for another broad, economistic Labour party, the SA simply went along with it. Second, when the split in the SSP occurred, a majority of the executive took a neutral position, instead of standing opposed to the breakaway. The fact that Tommy Sheridan walked out on the SSP was no reason to step back. The SA has SSP members who all stayed with the SSP. This seemed to count for nothing either.

The issue that divided us was militant republicanism. But we were not even campaigning on the environment, where the AGS could have taken a lead. Was the problem caused by the CPGB and RDG 'insisting' on the importance of democracy and republicanism? Or did republicanism simply highlight the economism and opportunism of the British left and its main components: the Labour left, SWP and Socialist Party. Would the new SA challenge economism or acquiesce to it?

Arise meant we should fight for militant republicanism and militant environmentalism. The AGS majority were for the latter and against the former. So what is militant republicanism? In my view it has two main elements. First, the demand for a democratic republic is seen as a current political demand. It is something for the present. It is to be acted on now. Moderate or liberal republicanism sees it as a long-term goal. They can wait for later and in the meantime concentrate on other matters. This is equivalent to the distinction between 'Troops out now' and 'Troops out eventually'.

The ultra-left or 'revolutionary' version of moderate republicanism concerns the theory of spontaneity. Immediate demands require conscious political action. But the future can be surrendered to the future. We can ignore democratic political change now, because one day a mass movement will turn up and sweep it all away.

The second aspect of militant republicanism is the need for a republican party as the instrument for winning a democratic republic. Sinn Féin has passed both tests of immediacy and party. But militant republicanism is not the same as socialism. Of course, you can be a militant republican without being a socialist. But you cannot be a real socialist in a country like Britain without being a militant republican. For socialists and Marxists a republican party must be a class-based party, a working class republican party. It must be, in other words, a republican socialist party.

It is now apparent that we have not been able to build on this 'Arise' perspective. The AGS-led majority on the executive do not agree with it. We have reached an impasse. Either we change the constitution and keep the same executive or we stick basically with the same constitution and elect a different executive.

The future direction of the SA depends primarily, although not exclusively, on the struggle between the AGS, CPGB and RDG. If the CPGB lines up with the AGS, the SA will shift towards liquidation. In a bloc with the RDG it may be possible to pull through. Of course there are two ways the CPGB can help the AGS. It can positively back the direction of the AGS. This will not happen, of that I am sure. But negative support means opposing the AGS verbally whilst withdrawing and effectively conceding leadership to the AGS.

The motion from the CPGB poses the issue sharply. It says:

"This AGM notes:

(1) that the Socialist Alliance (mark three) has failed to make any progress towards its aims adopted at the refounding conference;

(2) that this reflects the facts, (a) that the organisation was founded on insufficient political agreement to support the production of any form of publication which could have cohered it as a national organisation; (b) that the attempted alliance in its majority was unwilling to recognise the importance of the existing organised left in any attempt to build a new party;

(3) that membership has at best stagnated and the current executive has proved unable to work effectively.

"The AGM therefore resolves to recognise that the attempt to refound the Socialist Alliance has failed, and to dissolve the organisation and return the funds to the members and affiliated organisations."

The positive side of this resolution is 'Wake up and smell the coffee'. Point 2a is bit vague -we need to know more about that. Point 2b is not correct. The mere fact that we have become involved in the SP's Campaign for a New Workers' Party confirms this. 2b may be a reference to Respect, but if so it should be specific. Having said that, points 1, 2a and 3 seem basically correct. Nevertheless, one year is hardly long enough to test matters or elect a different leadership, or even a different set of constitutional aims.

On the negative side, the last paragraph does not propose any alternative. What should we do instead? What are the non-CPGB SA members supposed to do? Should we retreat from politics or concentrate on trade union activity? Since this is not explained, we can only hazard a guess. The motion itself gives us a clue. The CPGB thinks we have not intervened in the left. Does this mean joining Respect as well as the CNWP? It is not clear why closing the SA would help that when what we need is a common and united-front approach to the rest of the left.

One alternative is to change the constitution to create a new SA (or SA4). The picture is not entirely coherent. But the proposals coming from different AGS comrades would resurrect the red-green SA with a liaison committee instead of a directly elected executive. This would be like going back to SA1, but without the Socialist Party at the helm. It would require the removal of the republican clauses (A3 and A5), but the maintenance of the green clauses (A7).

However, reinventing SA1 will lead to the liquidation of the SA just as surely as the more straightforward CPGB motion. The main focus for red-green Labourism is the SP itself. As soon as the SP opens up the CNWP for individual membership and local branches, then there will be little or no reason for the SA to continue. This option is no better than waiting for the SP to get its act into gear.

The third option is to maintain the Arise constitution. Nobody has shown that the constitution has prevented us doing anything. It is true that the executive did not implement the constitution on A3. Either we have to change that clause or elect a different executive. The real problem is political inertia and lack of direction. That is not a problem unique to the SA.

What we need is to focus our perspective on one national campaign over the next six months. There are a 101 worthy things we can do. But to save the SA we should focus on one - provided, of course, it is the right one. As I argued last week, we should prioritise campaigning for working class political representation (Weekly Worker October 5). Arise has something distinct to say about this. Working class political representation is as much about democracy as about party. We do not need another Labour Party. We need a party, like the Chartist Party which mobilised masses of workers in struggle for democracy.

So, in summary, the options are: liquidate the SA; liquidate the SA into the Labourite Campaign for a New Workers' Party as soon as the SP allows it; or embark on an independent course and take up the fight for working class political representation.