Socialism 2006, the Socialist Party’s annual school, was held over the weekend of November 25-25 at the University of London Union. But the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party hardly featured, reports Tina Becker



Attendance was perhaps slightly lower than last year, when we estimated that about 800 came along to the event. Around 700 attended this year’s main rally, where Tommy Sheridan’s “first meeting in England since his court victory over the Murdoch press” undoubtedly attracted some people who did not bother to attend any of the 31 sessions of the school itself. These were organised in three blocks over the Saturday and Sunday.

Remarkably, however, there was no session on what only last year seemed to be the SP’s answer to Respect: the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party, which, it seems, is very much on the back burner. Nobody tried to sign us up to the campaign and there were no CNWP posters, leaflets or stalls. Peter Taaffe did refer to it at the main rally, as did other SP speakers throughout the weekend, but the contrast with last year was marked. Even in the debate where you would have expected the CNWP to be pushed the most strongly - ‘New Labour after Blair: can it be shifted left or is a new workers’ party needed?’ - it was not mentioned by the SP speaker, Clive Heemskerk.

Most of the other session titles were anything but inspiring: ‘How to build a trade union in your workplace’, ‘Is society still divided into classes?’, ‘How can we defeat the BNP?’ Other meetings - for example, on women’s liberation - were “interactive” and consisted of the audience relating anecdotes about divorce and women’s guilt.

Whatever criticism we level at the Socialist Workers Party and its annual Marxism event, at least the SWP organises some sessions you actually want to attend. Also, while Marxism has at least the aspiration to be a festival of some sort (and succeeds to some degree), the Socialism event tends to be drab and downbeat. To its credit, however, the SP is relaxed about permitting a variety of speakers from the floor, which allows for something approaching a genuine exchange of views.

Things are very much aimed at new members, many recruited through the SP’s Socialist Students. And, sure enough, a large proportion of those attending were young, indicating a certain sea change that we have also experienced in the CPGB-sponsored Communist Students. Nevertheless, we already noted this at last year’s event - quite obviously, the revolving door is as much a problem for the SP as it is for the SWP.

Interestingly, there was very little evidence in the debates of the SP’s layer of experienced middle cadre. Most of the sessions we attended were characterised by confused, low-level and incoherent contributions from members of all ages - who often contradicted each other on quite basic questions. At Marxism, you normally get a couple of leaders or middle cadre who ‘sort out’ any confusion by laying down the latest party line.

The typical SP member, then, is first and foremost involved in their trade union branch or the campaign to save their local hospital or library - theory comes way down the list of priorities (and it shows). Since the Militant Tendency was thrown out of the Labour Party, the comrades have been struggling to find coherence. Leaving the Socialist Alliance (when it rejected the SP’s demand for a ‘federal’ structure) was part of an attempt to stop further degeneration.

The formation of the CNWP was an effort to provide some consistency and cohesion, something real to fight for. But clearly, while the SP has somewhat recovered from its most recent downward spiral (which saw only 250 people attend its event in 2003), the organisation has not been able to ‘fill the gap’ vacated by the SWP when it set up the decidedly unsocialist Respect.

The CNWP seems to have flopped and the SP is now downplaying it. The comrades were hoping for masses of disillusioned Labourites, left reformists and trade unionists to join the campaign to set up a Labour Party mark two - although, just as the SWP runs Respect, the SP ensured it kept a tight grip on the CNWP.

But try finding a link to the CNWP from the SP’s website - not easy. You have to go to the ‘Campaigns’ page and then via the SP’s own ‘mass workers’ party’ section. The CNWP site itself has not been updated since September and the steering committee has not met for around six weeks. The March conference set a target of 5,000 supporting signatures by the end of the year, but press officer Pete McLaren tells us that it has only just reached 2,500.

Clearly the SP’s attempt to conjure up a new Labour Party was doomed from the start - rather than just “breaking from the Labour Party”, the left would do well to develop a coherent programme to win workers from Labourism.

But in politics things move on quickly. Instead of the CNWP, the SP is now pushing its campaign to ‘Save the NHS’, also the title of the closing rally. A worthy cause no doubt and one that “gets people to stop and speak to us on stalls”, as a comrade told us. But hardly a campaign that is designed to advance the radical transformation of society.

The SP’s economism was very visible throughout the school. Its version of socialism amounts to a trade union-type shopping list plus nationalisation (with a mere nod in the direction of workers’ control). The idea that our class must wage a revolutionary battle for extreme democracy, rather than elect a parliamentary majority of reformist legislators that will vote through an “Enabling Act”, is completely alien to the Socialist Party.