Weekly Worker 410 - Towards a Socialist Alliance Party!

In this week's Weekly Worker, paper of the Communist Party of Great Britain;


For a Paper and Partyism

Communists has always argued that within the Socialist Alliance there lies a
compelling logic towards the formation of a party. The continued existence
of the left in fragmentary sects and semi-feudal cliques is acrime that
condemns us to the fringes of political life in Britain. The Socialist
Alliance presents us with an historical opportunity to overcome this
division and fight, as one, and for the highest political unity of the
working class.

The December 1 conference on the alliance’s structure will lay the basis for
the future development of our fledgling project. There is much at stake. How
bold will we be? Will the Socialist Party pick up its ball and leave if it
does not get its way? And if it does where will that leave Dave Nellist, our
national chair? Will the end result be seen as a Socialist Workers Party
stitch-up: the formation of an Anti-Nazi League for elections?

There has been much shadow-boxing in the lead-up to conference. Through all
the dust kicked up, one thing is emerging: it is time to move beyond the
petty interests of the sects and small groups and start acting in the broad
interest of the socialist movement and the working class itself. But this
must be done on the basis of inclusive democracy. That means leaving behind
the politics of special rights for the groups. Federalism is not a solution
for us, and neither is a bureaucratic unity.

Genuine partisans of the Socialist Alliance project want to build on the
unity and momentum we attained in the general election. While the
achievements of the campaign were admirable, our amateurishness was also
revealed. Since then, rather than being pushed forward, the Socialist
Alliance has been put on hold.

Our starting point must be what the working class needs - and that is a new
mass party, based on a democratically agreed programme that charts a path to
socialism ie, the rule of the working class - and beyond that to general
freedom.

The aims and objectives being moved by the CPGB and Workers Power would
place the recognition of the need for such a party in our constitution.
Anything else is inadequate. There is no suggestion that by doing so the
Socialist Alliance would become a party on December 1: that would be pure
substitutionism. What it would do is place at the heart of the Socialist
Alliance a symbolic recognition of our aspiration to become a party - the
leading part of the working class.

The CPGB does not believe that the fusion of the existing revolutionary
groups with the support of a number of independents - either exiles from
this or that sect or those leaving the Labour Party - would amount to a
party of the working class in the full sense of the word. However, a genuine
party is not something static, but a process that might have extremely
modest beginnings. The fusion of the revolutionary groups with the expressed
intent of forming a genuine class party would act as a powerful point of
attraction for all socialists, progressives and anti-capitalists and hence
stage by stage would allow us to decisively lift our methods of work from
the localist and amateur towards the heights the working class needs to take
political power in Britain.

Clearly a federal arrangement is inadequate for this task. The Socialist
Party is championing federalism - not in the interests of the movement, but
in the interests of its little group. It fears subordinating itself to the
democracy of socialists united in the SA. It has few friends left who
support its petulant demand to veto any democratically agreed decision of
the Socialist Alliance. If it walks out to “negotiate a more honest
relationship with the SA”, it will take little with it. While this would
damage the SA to some extent, it will damage the SP much more.

The other groups advocating federalism (Alliance for Workers’ Liberty,
Workers Power, Revolutionary Democratic Group) are more positive than the
SP: they support the development of the Socialist Alliance, but are yet to
lift their horizons beyond the immediate needs of their grouplets.

A unified structure and leadership is what we need. But this must not be at
the cost of democracy and autonomy below. There are dangers in the SWP/ISG
et al constitution that need to be removed. For one, there is a conflict of
power between the proposed executive committee and national council. In
fact, the national council is supreme, as it can replace members of the
executive with a two-thirds vote. The national council is to be a second
chamber, it seems - the SWP’s very own House of Lords.

Secondly, the nature of the slate system of electing our executive means
that there is little chance of ‘troublesome’ yet popular candidates finding
their way onto the executive. You have to take each slate as a whole. With a
first past the post direct election method, it is possible for an election
preparation committee to recommend an executive to conference, but excluded
individuals or groups can still fight their way on without overturning the
entire proposed executive.

Also lacking in the SWP/ISG structure is the role of a Socialist Alliance
paper. Lindsey German may think that the SA needs a paper “like it needs a
hole in the head”, but a collective organiser, agitator and educator is
urgently required if we are to knit together our organisation and
consolidate a mass base. Without a political paper the Socialist Alliance
will carry on as an on-off SWP united front.

We are against ineffective federalism and against bureaucratic control.
These are also the central tenets of the statement, ‘For a democratic and
effective Socialist Alliance’. Whatever the outcome of the conference, the
platform around this statement must fight to further our unity and our
democracy. If we are lumbered with remnants of federal ineffectiveness, or
blessed with the SWP’s reserve powers, we must continue to struggle for a
higher, more democratic form of organisation. If we are left without a
paper, we must set about the task ourselves - albeit as a Socialist Alliance
minority.

It is unfortunate, to say the least, that since the June 7 general election,
the leading element in the Socialist Alliance has put the whole project on
the back burner. This became even more apparent with the imperialist war on
Afghanistan. The SWP priortised the Stop the War Coalition, operating
exclusively as the SWP, and virtually ignored the Socialist Alliance. As SA
executive member John Nicholson rightly says, “We must go further, extending
the range of Socialist Alliance activity so that it incorporates all other
struggles. Resisting global capitalism, supporting those seeking asylum,
fighting against the intrusion of private profit-making and market
principles into public services, stopping the Nazis wherever and whenever
they appear. And not just stopping the Bush-Blair wars, but positively
promoting peace - these are all alliance tasks”.

He goes on: “We are socialists and we should never be afraid to say so,
openly and clearly. We bring socialism closer by building alliances as the
highest common factor of our work, not just the lowest common denominator.
It is indeed time for a united left and it is up to all of us to put the
Socialist Alliance first and foremost in order to achieve this” (Left Turn
November 2001).

We need to learn the lesson of the Ipswich by-election. A total of 153 votes
or 0.56% of the whole poll. This desperately poor result is not
fundamentally a problem with the activists locally. While no doubt the SWP
has been concentrating more on anti-war work, the prime responsibility lies
for such a performance with our national leadership. Since the general
election, our profile has been low, our momentum has dangerously ebbed. Can
you blame Ipswich voters for not taking us seriously? As the SWP is the
dominant faction, it too must take its share of the blame. While it treats
the Socialist Alliance as one of its united fronts (especially one modelled
on old Labour in order to contest elections), our ability to intervene and
build a mass base will be frustrated time and time again

Marcus Larsen
SA executive committee