Network of Socialist Alliances recall conference
Unity and debate
Whatever constitution the Network adopts, genuine trust and unity can only be built if comrades with differing positions feel their views have been properly heard. That is why on March 27 the CPGB will propose there be no time limit on the structure debate
The Network of Socialist Alliances four-man Liaison Group of Pete McLaren, John Nicholson, Dave Church and Dave Nellist have rejected the CPGB's call to devote the whole day to debating the structure and constitution of the organisation, when the founding conference reconvenes on March 27. This flouts the decision of the September 5 1998 conference in Rugby. As a compromise, the CPGB will propose that the structure debate be open-ended, taking up as much time as necessary, and that other business be dealt with if time permits.
The Rugby conference ended in fiasco, unable to adopt a constitution, precisely because the same unelected Liaison Group filled the day's agenda with other business, trying to stampede comrades into rubber-stamping its own cumbersome, unworkable, bureaucratic structure - misnamed "inclusive" and "non-sectarian". Whoever disagreed with the four wise men could then be accused of disrupting the agenda.
The very avoidable failure of the Network to get its act together with an inclusive, flexible structure, capable of incorporating socialist organisations which have not yet joined (such as the SWP) with immediate full democratic rights, has left the Network floundering in irrelevance, while existing organisations have formed real socialist alliances to fight the Euro elections. The Network is in danger of missing the boat altogether.
The Liaison Group members appear to share Arthur Scargill's sectarian disdain for socialist organisations other than his own. Like Scargill, they want to rule the roost over a compliant rank and file, for whom Soviet-style democracy consists in voting 'yes' to the proposals of the wise leaders. Alternatives are viewed as hostile and disruptive. Like Scargill, they dream of atomised 'ordinary folk' flocking to their banner.
In contrast, faced with the immediate task of contesting elections, united slates have been formed not by isolated individuals, but by existing socialist groups. The Network constitution must remove barriers to the participation of organisations not yet involved by giving immediate full democratic rights to any which join. That is why the Liaison Committee should consist of recallable representatives of all affiliated organisations, rather than being elected by annual conference. That is why Liaison Committee officers should be elected by the committee itself, and not stand above it with a superior status given by conference - a recipe for rule by prima donnas.
The inclusive, democratic structure proposed by the CPGB and modified by the London Socialist Alliance would ensure that all affiliates have a voice, and that political changes below, in the local Socialist Alliances and affiliated organisations, can be easily reflected above. The last thing needed to facilitate the growth of socialist unity is a self-perpetuating clique of annually elected 'stars'.
Unable to learn the lesson of the Rugby fiasco, the four wise men are again trying to restrict debate on the aims, name, membership, subscription level and organisational structure of the Network of Socialist Alliances to a mere two hours, and force through a constitution which would leave them entrenched as national officers. This despite an extra resolution and two amendments being added to the previous 17 proposals. Even five minutes for each proposal would already take up an hour and 40 minutes.
Now for some comments on the items on the agenda.
Voting order
Where several votes are proposed within one section of the debate - ie, on 'aims', 'membership' and 'organisation' - they should be taken at the end of the respective sections. For 'aims' and 'membership', the Liaison Group has proposed an incorrect voting order, effectively asking us to vote on the substantive motion before the amendments have been resolved. Comrades should not be asked to choose between Option B (the LSA/CPGB motion) and Option A until both have been discussed.
Progressives and Greens
A new motion from Socialist Democracy, Lewisham Socialist Alliance, The Way Ahead and the Green Left has been placed as the first item, presumably as an amendment/addition to the constitution. Despite its ambiguities and weaknesses, this motion - emphasising socialist support for "all progressive campaigns and groups" and welcoming the participation of "environmental and green activists" in the Socialist Alliances - should be critically supported. Although trade unions are included, the working class itself is not even mentioned. If socialism is an act of self-emancipation by the working class, which must champion every democratic struggle against oppression in order to liberate itself, then "all progressives" need to be the concern of the workers, in order to make themselves into a class.
Comrades should be aware that the Greens are a mixed bag. Some Greens are distinctly anti-working class, anti-socialist and reactionary. All the Network's overtures for electoral unity with the Greens have fallen on deaf ears. In Hackney, Socialist Unity candidate Anne Murphy had to fight the North Defoe by election against a Green Party candidate with no socialist pretensions. The same will happen in the June EU elections. We must not dissolve Socialist Alliances into non-socialist ones.
Aims
In this section, the long-winded text of the Rugby interim agreement (the Liaison Group's proposal at the 1998 Rugby conference) is explicitly "opposed to automatic representation on affiliation", arguing tortuously and illogically that such a stand would somehow enhance the influence of "smaller groups and individuals". Nothing of the kind! The only influence enhanced would be that of the Bonapartist annually elected officers, who could 'balance' atop the alliances below.
However, all this undemocratic stuff is now being dropped, it seems, in favour of the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance 'shorter revision' - a de facto admission of the unacceptable nature of what the Liaison Group tried to impose at Rugby, and a concession in the face of the coherent and principled objectives proposed by the LSA/CPGB.
But only the LSA/CPGB proposals locate socialism as a working class project, which cannot be "delivered from on high", making clear it is "international or it is nothing". Only the LSA/CPGB proposals include minimum democratic demands, essential for a socialist programme: for abolition of the monarchy and House of Lords, an immediate end to British rule in Ireland and self-determination for Scotland and Wales. They incorporate support for "all campaigns that seek to advance the interests of the people - economically, politically and environmentally".
Name
There is no substance in the choice between the LSA/CPGB's "Network of Socialist Alliances" and GMSA's "Socialist Alliance". We have dropped our Rugby proposal to include "UK" in the name, and are pleased to see "England" is not being proposed either. The principle of not excluding socialists in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who wish to participate in the Network can perhaps be upheld under 'membership'.
Membership and subscriptions
Here the Rugby interim agreement and the GMSA proposals differ in substance on only one very significant point: whether membership subscriptions should be set at œ6 a year/œ3 unwaged (Rugby) or œ60 a year (GMSA). The higher GMSA figure, while clearly unrealistic, offers a clue to the 'vision' behind both proposals - of atomised rank and file socialists gradually, under the benevolent patronage of the four wise men, learning how to work together in a non-sectarian way, ultimately transferring their allegiance to the enlightened ones with the help of a structure totally unsuitable for an alliance.
This is their imagined pathway to a new mass socialist party: not the unity of existing organisations and the coming together of all socialists through united work and open discussion, but the drawing off of members into a new 'anti-sectarian', but truly sectarian, rival organisation to add to the list. Instead of seeking to unite the most advanced, the self-appointed Network leaders can only stomach soft individuals.
Membership, for both motions, requires "commitment to an anti-sectarian and cooperative way of working" - but who intends otherwise, and who will judge? Membership of other groups and organisations "should be declared" every year, preparing the ground for Scargill-type witch-hunts. Failure to declare your membership of, for example, the CPGB would clearly be an expelling offence.
Lastly, and perhaps most inoperable of all, affiliated organisations must "ensure paid-up membership from within their respective organisations" (my emphasis). We would be perfectly happy with 'encourage'.
In truth, just as the 'anti-sectarian' phrases are recipes for sectarian exclusion, so is the restriction of membership, in both the Rugby and GMSA proposals, to England. Steve Freemen's amendment to open the Network to socialists in Scotland and Wales, should be supported. Our class enemy is organised into the UK state. Socialists and the working class must therefore organise statewide, as proposed in the LSA/CPGB motion. Far from implying support for the UK state, statewide organisation is the only effective way to oppose it. Dividing socialists and the working class along nationalist lines guarantees defeat in the class struggle.
Organisation
The key issues here are the nature of policymaking conferences, and of the Liaison Committee and officers.
Whereas the Rugby interim agreement and the Liaison Group motion both propose conference voting rights for all individual members, the LSA/CPGB proposals proceed from the concept that the Network is primarily an alliance of organisations - both affiliated political organisations and local and regional Socialist Alliances - while encouraging individuals to participate in and build local alliances.
Delegates, not individuals, should have voting rights at policymaking conferences, to prevent giving undue advantage to whichever political tendency is strongest in the locality of the conference venue - a point acknowledged in the Coventry and Warwickshire SA motion, in which policymaking meetings "may need to be delegate in terms of voting".
Delegate conferences also mean that a relatively large organisation, such as the SWP, would not be able to dominate a conference by suddenly swamping it with voting fodder - but it could quite legitimately exercise a major influence if its members succeeded in getting themselves elected as delegates from local SAs. Those who genuinely want socialist unity will not fear this, provided minorities have the right to argue for their views.
The LSA/CPGB proposal for a Liaison Committee consisting solely of recallable delegates, and electing (and replacing) its own officers as and when it sees fit, is the simplest, most democratic, most flexible and responsive method of representation, perfectly appropriate for an alliance of different organisations and different political tendencies. The Liaison Group compromise motion has already given up its previous horrendous plan for 'representatives' of local alliances and of affiliated political organisations to be elected at annual conference. But it still clings to the notion of five national officers elected by conference, and therefore not responsible to the delegate-based Liaison Committee - something the Radical Preston Alliance motion quite rightly fears could lead to "the establishment of a central bureaucracy". The Liaison Group compromise is only a concession in the direction of the principled proposals of the LSA/CPGB.
Comrades should vote for the real thing.
Ian Farrell
