Weekly Worker 467 Thursday February 13 2003
Socialist Alliance
‘Indies’ meet - two views
The Socialist Alliance’s so-called independents are by definition a motley bunch. Lacking a programme and having been burnt by one or another of the sects, they retreat into localism, invent bureaucratic solutions to political problems and forlornly play court to the SWP. But parties - real parties - are built top-down and often require fierce factional struggles. The SA indies should either struggle to form themselves into a solid grouping that can have a real, useful effect or the individuals concerned should look to developing organisational relations with one or another of the SA’s pro-party factions. Certainly, as the two - very different - reports of their February 8 conference show, they are going nowhere fast as presently constituted
Rachel Cohen: Flawed but constructive
Last weekend’s conference of Socialist Alliance independents in Birmingham was smaller than the previous one (undoubtedly the looming demonstration and build-up for this, had made a difference, as had imperfect publicity). However, it was both good-natured and productive.
The day started with discussion about what the SA’s approach to the BNP should be. David Landau kicked this off with a presentation of his SA conference resolution, laying out a detailed and well rounded approach to the problem. More than one person commented that the SA would only be able to fight fascism if it provided a real alternative on the ground, and that this would most importantly mean getting stuck into local campaigns and the issues that mattered to people on the streets.
There was also some discussion about asylum-seekers, and the need to move from ‘defending’ them individually to asserting that asylum is a right, thereby speaking to a language of rights that people have some familiarity with. There was debate (and no firm agreement) about when and whether to stand down in favour of other parties (Socialist, Green, Labour) where the BNP were standing.
This discussion naturally spilt over into the next session - where the SA was going, where we hoped it would go! Everyone was clear that there was an urgent need for a socialist party. We were less optimistic that the SA was yet on the way to being this - campaigns are still too stop-start and the organisation not yet big or broad enough. Again people brought up local campaigning and ongoing work in the community as centrally important if a party was to emerge - we had to show people that we were going to work with them over the long term. The childcare campaign was seen as a good start along this road.
After lunch the focus shifted to specific conference motions and possible amendments, beginning with the system of elections to the NEC. Everyone at the conference felt that the slate system of election was undemocratic. While no one had major complaints about the current members of the executive, the lack of accountability of slates (especially for independents, who by definition will not have anyone to ‘represent them’ in backroom deals) was seen as a problem, both for existing members of the SA (who do not feel they have a voice), for ‘indies’ on the exec (who know they could be ‘deselected’ from next year’s slate without a bloc behind them) and in trying to convince potential members that the SA is a democratic organisation. Although not everyone was in love with STV, there was broad agreement that it was the best alternative currently on offer.
I was the only woman at this meeting, which made glaringly obvious the lack of gender equality within the SA, and perhaps gave my male comrades the added incentive to spend a significant amount of time discussing the motion about quotas for women. There was some disagreement about whether this was the right way to go about things, and probably a majority were against the motion without amendment (on the executive in particular it is going to be difficult to establish gender parity while the SA’s constituent groups only nominate men to be their representatives - perhaps they could think about this).
However, one comrade argued very strongly that, while he had in the past argued against quotas as ‘top-down’ and ‘bureaucratic’, the failure of ‘grassroots’ initiatives suggested that perhaps it was time to try quotas. Additionally new methods of organising (women do not use e-lists as much as men; are usually responsible for childcare and find certain meeting times difficult; interact in different ways within meetings), as well as campaign foci that relate to the issues women are more generally responsible for (childcare; care for the elderly; education; healthcare; part-time, service sector and casual work ...) were brought up. It was noted that it was not only women, but also ethnic minorities, youth, and the white, working class poor who are still underrepresented within the SA.
The general feeling of the conference was that it was critical that independents continue to work together (many felt that one of the most positive outcomes of the SA to date was the bringing together of socialists who had been without a ‘home’) and the issue of the SA independent group was brought up to this end. It was agreed that a leaflet for conference be prepared, with contact details, protocols for ‘membership’ (as agreed at the previous indie conference) and a voting guide, focusing on the votes where we feel that independents have a structural reason to vote for or against particular motions (because it is more or less democratic, accountable, or open to the influence of the SA’s members). Even this will of course only be indicative, given that independents by our nature need not agree on anything (especially issues of policy).
We will also organise a lunchtime meeting at the SA conference and be holding a social event (party) at a nearby location after it. The point of both these events will be to widen the network of independents and deepen ongoing contacts. It was hoped that these events be attended by independents on the SA executive and that good ongoing relations be established which will aid the accountability of the SA to its independent members.
While imperfect, this meeting was an indication that when we meet in person independents can work constructively. I did not feel everyone agreed on everything, but we disagreed civilly in the context of a shared desire to make the SA work.
Julian Silverman: Sad little assembly
I went to this sad little assembly last Saturday. It was our one opportunity to meet prior to the coming SA national AGM. Too late for resolutions, but not too late for amendments to existing ones. (I myself have still not received my conference agenda with the resolutions printed out, so I will have to spare you some of the excruciating details).
Sad? It was not that there were so few of us (around a dozen, with one or two more drifting in and out) - after all, our second - and decisive - conference was hardly any bigger. Nor was it that people were still sitting around in the bar with beer and coffee at 11.45, dazed from their journeys, filling in the silences with anecdotes concerning the monstrosities of ancient revolutionaries we had known long ago. First decision to be taken: do we move to the room we had booked or stay in the bar? The decision, like most of the others, carried nem con, was, reluctantly to move out of the bar but with the proviso that we must first pre-order our lunches for 1pm.
So, looking at our watches, we tiredly retired to the dark and leathery expanses, agreed a chair and an agenda and waited. First item was David Landau’s resolution on fighting fascists. Everybody felt the cold draught of some horrible reality at their backs. There was a fairly lengthy discussion, without a conclusion, on such issues as how little support we needed to put up candidates against Nazis fighting elections. With weak forces, the question was: which would make us look more pathetic and ridiculous: to have stood only to find ourselves hopelessly outvoted by the fascists? Or not even to have managed to stand a candidate at all? Opinions were divided, but I think the consensus was against even trying under those circumstances. There was general agreement that this was unsatisfactory and a certain fearful awareness started to creep into our consciousness that we should be rooted in the community.
And here the discussion drifted into the area designated as a general ‘Where are we going?’ thing. The only clear formulation, however, was the thought that the slogan ‘Asylum-seekers welcome here’ was wrong. We might like them, but not everybody did. After all, there were many people living in rotten conditions, on welfare, who resented foreigners. Since we had no practical suggestions for how to improve their lives we agreed that at least they did not have to like asylum-seekers. The idea that some asylum-seekers were doctors, etc and might ‘make a contribution’ was thought to be no argument: rather a provocation to those who could not be doctors, etc. So in order not to antagonise them, a solution was proposed whereby, where possible - ie, where it was possible to get the Socialist Workers Party’s assent - we leave out the welcomes and emphasise that asylum was a right (whether they liked it or not). There was general satisfaction.
Then those who could understand such matters discussed Phil Pope’s motion and details of the STV thing, and we all concurred, in the forlorn hope that abandoning slates would somehow influence the SWP into acknowledging they were a majority and abandoning their perverse reliance on a buffer of fellow travellers to allow them to bypass discussion and rule by default. This could mean one or two candidates on the national executive, which was felt to be a good thing, although nobody volunteered to explain what practical difference it would make one way or the other.
This discussion trailed on and then, once again, somehow meandered into the general stream of ‘Where do we go from here?’ (not that this was a question which anyone felt competent or prepared to answer). There was little dissent from the 80-20 formula so beloved of the old regime in the SA: a policy based on only mentioning the 80% supposedly agreed among the sects and the others.
The idea that the Socialist Alliance should be the first allegiance of all SA members was forcefully raised and as forcefully agreed. But nobody could see just how to formulate this demand in such a way as to have any effect on the SWP or other dominating groups. It was thought to be too late for a motion on our recent financial scandal, even though, as one comrade explained, “In my union this would have been a resignation matter” or, as another put it, “... and we were talking about asking unions to give us their money!” Nor could we find a suitable resolution to amend. There was an objection to the suggestion that it be put as an amendment to a resolution on finances, because we did not want to tarnish the SA’s image in front of the press! “Not in front of the children!” quipped one comrade, bitterly.
Talk of the gross political scandal which led to Liz Davies’s resignation - the effective undermining of the alliance by the SWP (and the cover-up by other members of the executive) - drizzled out rapidly. But we did agree to ask for an apology - or perhaps to raise the question under the report-back, should there be no reference to it. There was no discussion of precisely who should be apologising for precisely what. The SWP for sabotage? The officers for allowing it? And what lessons should we draw?
It was getting towards the end of our allotted time and we had not yet discussed the matter in hand: the motions, possible amendments, etc. So we decided to run through the lot quickly and prepare a list of recommendations like a proper faction or tendency. (One comrade suggested “caucus” - since that was what we were, he said. “No!” we roared. “Group?” “No!” “Platform?” “No” “How about Socialist Alliance?” “Ha ha!” We agreed on “IndieSA”. Pretty pathetic, we all thought, but that about summed it up.)
So we made our recommendations by mumbling through the book of motions like a Jewish father mumbling through the Hagannah or reciting the catechism - with the suitable ‘amens’, etc. Here the discussions took on a certain urgency as though here at last was something that might make a difference. And indeed, subjects covered inter alia - the wars, and mass mobilisation of the workers of the world against it (agreed), the building of a mass workers’ party (in favour), etc.
And finally (and, she claimed, only because our chairperson was a woman) the question of quotas for positions in the SA for women. The feeling was against. The chair said that, with reference to gender studies, she thought that SA meetings were not conducted in a way that was attractive to women. One comrade (me) said they were not conducted in a manner to appeal to workers, the youth, ethnic minorities or ourselves, either - and that in community struggles these issues of race and gender did not occur in the same way. That it was a question of who you identified with - and there they tended to identify with their class. But, going back to quotas, one comrade maintained that, although this was a bureaucratic way of dealing with the problem, without such bureaucratic measures he doubted that we would ever do the right thing.
That is why the meeting was sad. All the problems that anyone posed and all the solutions suggested were administrative - and irrelevant because they concerned an organisation over which we had no control and which, in any case, had no meaning in relation to the great events going on in the wonderful and terrible world around us. And, unlike others in the SA, and outside, we were all aware of this, but had next to no clue what to do about it. Or, if we did, such matters were not thought to be appropriate for discussion with the seriousness they deserved.
The meeting ended with an announcement that we would prepare a “mission statement” (?), meet during lunchtime at the AGM and hold a social afterwards, with a DJ (to drown discussion).
