Weekly Worker 567 Thursday March 10 2005

What next for SADP?

We need a new socialist alliance, argues Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group - but one based on the fight for a democratic republic and a new workers’ party

On Saturday March 12, a conference will take place in Birmingham called by the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform to discuss the issue of a workers’ party and the way forward. The question will be posed as to whether we need a new socialist alliance and, if so, on what political basis it should be formed. My answer to that question is that we do need a new socialist alliance.

It cannot be formed until the autumn, after the general election. However, a provisional organisation should be set up now of those willing and able to work together for this objective. But if it is going to have a political future it must have a political standpoint and method of working that will enable it to build a distinct and credible position in the socialist movement.

We need a republican socialist alliance. This is a new alliance within the parameters of the Socialist Alliance programme People before profit. It is an alliance that does what no other alliance has done, or is doing - and that is take up the fight for democracy, a democratic secular republic and a republican party of the working class. I know this is what is needed in the current situation. Whether this will happen remains to be seen. But, in terms of what is on the agenda of the conference, the proposal from Pete McLaren and Dave Church is the best on offer.

If we think of a socialist alliance as a movement for unity rather than a particular organisation, then the movement is still alive and well. The Socialist Alliance of 2000-01 has gone. But in its place we now have three socialist alliances. First is Respect, which is an alliance of the SA majority with George Galloway and some anti-war muslims. Second, we have the emerging Socialist Green Unity Coalition. Third, we have the SADP, which is a limited alliance involving the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Revolutionary Democratic Group, CPGB, International Socialist League, Workers International and a number for SA independents.

When the Socialist Alliance (mark two - the Socialist Workers Party version) came to an end at the February 5 AGM, its closure had significant knock-on effects. The SA Democracy Platform was also in effect dissolved. If there is no Socialist Alliance, it can have no platforms. Of course logic is not the same as politics. The SADP continues to exist. But it is now in a phase of self-assessment. What will the SADP do next? It is time to take a critical look at the SADP.

The SA Democratic Platform was born out of the struggle within the SA. It is important to understand what genes were inherited from the parent body. But how did the infant platform differ from its parent? The politics of the SA (mark two) were thoroughly economistic. This manifested itself in the lack of any democratic perspective and in the SA’s anti-partyism. If we want to understand the politics behind the failure of the SA we must look in that direction. The failure can be located in the political decisions taken at the SA conferences in 2000 and 2001.

Economism is a major political weakness of the whole left. But the SA concentrated the various strands of economism into one alliance. In essence economism is the failure to understand the relationship between the political struggle for democracy and the fight for socialism. The political struggle is the fight to win political power. It is the fight for democracy. In the UK this means opposition to the present constitutional monarchist state. It is the fight for a democratic secular republic. This struggle must be conducted by the party. The party is the instrument of political struggle. The struggle for democracy, the republic, the party and class power are different parts of a whole political method.

Economism does not ignore the political struggle. Neither does it totally ignore the republic. But it fails to understand or recognise the centrality of the political struggle. It has a narrow vision of the class struggle focused on the question of economic and social reform. Since trade unions are the main instrument for this struggle, there is a tendency towards a trade unionist view of politics. The objective of the struggle is narrowed down to seeking to improve the social position of the working class within the existing political-constitutional framework.

The political expression of this in the UK is the Labour Party. Labour is founded on the principle of avoiding the struggle for a democratic secular republic. It is or has been the extension of trade unionism into parliament. Labour promises social reform, by winning elections and becoming her majesty’s government. This was the kind of politics espoused by the Socialist Alliance. The SA was not interested either in a republic or a party.

The struggle between the economistic and republican perspectives in 2000-2001 shaped the political character of the alliance. In 1999 Merseyside and Bedfordshire SAs adopted the demand for a federal republic. But this was exceptional. At the 2000 conference this demand secured the support of about a quarter. It was opposed by the SWP. Although the demand for a democratic republic was included in People before profit (PBP), it was put into cold storage during the 2001 election. The SA never put the republican part of its programme into operation. This would have meant republican agitation, campaigning and mobilisation. It would have meant recognising the necessity for a republican party of the working class.

However, does this in any way account for the failure of the SA? At first sight it seems difficult to imagine how the failure to fight for its republican programme contributed to the SA’s political demise. But the SA faced a political earthquake which would shake the Blair government and the credibility of the system of government itself. How would economism relate to the Iraq war and the crisis in domestic politics?

The war in Iraq was the decisive turning point in the development of the SA. It exposed the weakness of parliament and the lack of any genuine democracy. The SA was unable to intervene in the anti-war movement to make the case for republicanism and a new working class party. Mass opposition to the war provided fertile ground to win support for these demands. But the SA was politically knackered.

The SA Democracy Platform was formed in autumn 2003. It was the result of growing dissatisfaction in the SA. It was launched out of an initiative taken by SA executive members Marcus Ström, Lesley Mahmood, Declan O’Neil and Margaret Manning. They were responding to a crisis in Birmingham SA and concerns that SA democracy was under threat. The other element that shaped the SADP was the question of the workers’ party raised by the M3 Committee.

The M3 Committee was named after the date of the first meeting on May 3 2003. This involved the AWL, CPGB, RDG, the Beds SA (Democratic and Republican Platform) and pro-party SA indies. It produced a composite motion for SA conference in favour of campaigning for a workers’ party.

The politics of the SADP were a fusion of agitation for internal democracy and the call for a campaign for a workers’ party. The founding meeting endorsed the SA programme, including the sections which related to democratic republican demands. Yet this minority was by no means united, as the debates and votes showed. At that time we were seeing in parallel the process that led to the formation of Respect. This issue came up in debate. But it was not resolved. In Respect we were still dealing with something predicted but not yet launched.

What did the SADP do? In essence the SADP conducted a struggle against the liquidation of the SA, for democratic accountability of the SA leadership and in defence of the PBP. But what it did not or could not do was purge itself of the deep-rooted economism inherited from the SA. Unfortunately the fight against this debilitating disease was weakened by the exit of CPGB (which, it has to be said, is the largest organisation amongst the tiny minority that has any understanding and critique of economism).

It was the SADP that made the main critical intervention at the founding conference of Respect. The issues we raised around republicanism, immigration controls, the workers’ wage and the general defence of PBP made their mark. They will continue to haunt Respect even without our presence. Our success was confirmed by a very creditable election campaign on June 10 2004.

The SADP encouraged and supported 23 SADP candidates standing in local elections in Stockport, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool and Walsall. In Walsall there were 10 candidates who got results ranging from 3% to 32%. This included four candidates who scored over 10%. In Sheffield (Burngreave) we got 10.8%, Stockport 9% and Manchester (Chorlton) 3.5%. In three wards in Liverpool we gained 2.5%, 5% and 5.9%. In addition there were candidates standing as independent socialists, closely associated with the SADP. In Birmingham Erdington the comrades picked up 9.2% and in Exeter 2.8% and 2.9%. In Swindon, the SA got 12%. The SADP candidates did well when you consider the damage that was inflicted on us by the SWP and International Socialist Group.

The SADP fought to ensure the February 2005 conference of the SA took place, and that the SA was held to some kind of account for the abdication of its leadership. We also played a positive role in getting the Socialist Green Unity Coalition up and running.

But in politics nothing stands still. The SADP has been overtaken by events. We are no longer at the front. If we take our central slogan for a workers’ party, the Liverpool dockers’ initiative has already moved in advance. They not only adopted the slogan, but set up a campaign. They attracted the Socialist Party and Workers Power, groups we were unable to attract. We were unable to intervene as the SADP in the “Campaign for mass workers party” Liverpool. If our official line is that all we want is a workers’ party, then what have we to add?
In setting up the USP the Liverpool dockers took the workers party slogan and ran forward faster and further than we have been able. They have gone beyond the abstract slogan and adopted a name, programme and constitution. They have unfortunately gone down the path of building a socialist-labour party. The slogan of a workers party cannot engage critically with that. The SADP does not have a clear majority position that can address those matters. Either we had to go forward politically and grasp the fearsome nettle of a republican working class party or our days were numbered.

The high point of the SADP, its moment of ‘triumph’, was the 2005 SA conference. The SADP led the opposition closure and secured 46% of the votes. Ironically this was at the same time the beginning of the end of the SADP. No sooner had we had this feel-good factor than the feel-bad factor kicked in with a vengeance. It started as an argument on the e-list and developed into an almighty bun fight between comrade John Pearson and more or less everybody else. It was the cold shower of reality.

The forces behind the SADP are all moving in different directions. The AWL is focused on the SGUC. The CPGB is focused on Respect. The ISL and the WI are reorientating to the Liverpool-based United Socialist Party. The SA conference gave real clues as to the orientation of the rest.
It was there that John Pearson put his motion that the SA changes its name to Democratic SA. This is now his proposal for Saturday’s conference. He wants the SADP to change its name but continue with the abstract slogan of a workers’ party. It is a cover for economism. It is a place for the economists to hide. This is living in the past. It fails to recognise the impact of the USP in taking up the workers party slogan and running with it.

The Republican Socialist Tendency put the only politically viable option to the SA conference. They called for a continuation of the SA but with a break from the old economism. This meant a republican SA which would campaign for a democratic secular republic and a republican party of the working class. There was also a motion to set up an interim alliance put forward by Dave Church, Declan O’Neil, Pete McLaren and John Nicholson. It is the potential alliance between these two groups of comrades that offers the best way forward.
Towards a new socialist alliance

Motion supported by Dave Church, Pete McLaren, Gerry Byrne, Jim Jepps, Chris Jones, Steve Godward, Danny Thompson, Sue Blackwell, Tony Greenstein, Steve Freeman and John Nicholson. Their proposal calls for a new socialist alliance:

1. We, members of the former Socialist Alliance, note that a majority of members present at the February 2005 AGM voted to close the alliance down.

2. We note that a significant minority (46 %) voted against closure. The closure was challenged on the grounds that it was unconstitutional according to clause C15: “The Socialist Alliance may be dissolved by a resolution of a special meeting, called for this purpose by the national executive or the national council or by request of 25% of the membership.”

3. We note that a number of SA executive members, both former members and members of the 2004 executive, wrote to the SA executive seeking negotiations for an orderly transfer of the alliance to representatives of those who wished to rebuild the alliance. This appeal was rejected by the SA executive.

4. We recognise that the failure of the former SA was a result of the politics and priorities imposed upon it by the majority. In particular we recognise the tendency to economism and the failure to recognise the need for a new working class party. This narrow focus disabled the SA on issues such as war, the failure of the present system of government, the need for a democratic republican alternative, and for a republican socialist party along the lines of the Scottish Socialist Party.

5. We call for the setting up of a provisional organisation to conduct agitation for a new Socialist Alliance, to be set up at a founding conference in autumn 2005.

Print this page