The Socialist Alliance?

[Rod Sleeves]

Back in 2000 - 2001 the Socialist Alliance arguably managed to organise the largest broad left coalition in years, not only were all the main revolutionary left groups involved, but labour party branches, former councillors, community and TU activists all got involved at least for a while, and even formed their own local branches without too much influence from trots.

I got involved for a couple of years, it was what got me into active politics beyond trade unionism, in my local branch, there were former Labour party parliamentary candidates, and councillors, "anarchists", greens, trade unionists, SWPers, AWLers, Millies, ex-millies, community activists, and people who hadn't previously been active politically. It was actually a good environment to learn about practical campaigning politics, and different theories - sometimes we'd get at least forty people at a branch meeting, and during the 2001 general election we were meeting at least weekly.

Despite poor election results we did genuinely seem to at least be successful in attracting people who were on the edge of getting involved in left or radical politics, and might not have otherwise. There was also the SA Trade Union conference which could have gone a lot further than it did.

Was it simply the last gasp of a dying British left, or did it have the potential to grow into something much bigger? A new genuinely left political alternative, not just electoral but campaigning?

 

[joevsimp]

I think that if it hadn't collapsed due to (IIRC) fighting between the millies and the swappies, we'd be discussing whether or not they'd win (or possibly regain) a seat in the European parliament, rather than will NO2EU keep their deposit

 

[tbaldwin]

I think it did have potential. But there is probably less potential for something similar now. Once the SWP took it over it was always going to end up down a dead end... But its not just the SWP thats the problem. It is that too many of the people attracted to the Left who go on to dominate most groups are completely out of touch with the views and aspirations of the majority of the population.

Any group that hopes to have a real impact has to distance themselves from hypoicrisy and hysteria. A lot of people would vote and join a pragmatic alternative but the Left in this country seem incapable of providing such an organisation.

 

[butchersapron]

On more lesson that you can't build a party based on the needs of those parties. Cue dennis and fisher_gate arguing for ten pages

 

[butchersapron]

I think that if it hadn't collapsed due to (IIRC) fighting between the millies and the swappies, we'd be discussing whether or not they'd win (or possibly regain) a seat in the European parliament, rather than will NO2EU keep their deposit

Why?

 

[Divisive Cotton]

The stuff from ra is still worth reading on this subject

http://www.redaction.org/lsa/a_plan.html
http://www.redaction.org/lsa/a_plan.html

 

[joevsimp]

I think they would have benifitted from various factors the same way respect did, but given that the organisation was already in place would have been better placed to capitalise. If Michael Lavallette had been elected for a Socialist Alliance that was a dynamic, coherent bloc that was ging places, rather than a Socialist Alliance that was already dying things would have been a lot different

 

[belboid]

I think that if it hadn't collapsed due to (IIRC) fighting between the millies and the swappies, we'd be discussing whether or not they'd win (or possibly regain) a seat in the European parliament, rather than will NO2EU keep their deposit

you don't remember correctly. The SA was actually bigger after the SP walked away. Recruited more members, won more votes, won its only seat.

Had it actualy built on its (few and limited) successes, and signed up a bunch of people who'd never been in the alphabet soup of trotland, it might have got somewhere. Instead one of the main groups with actual experience of succesful electoral far-left politics walked off in a sulk, and the other flailed around for a while working out how to do it, and then jettisoned the whole project for a short-term 'get rich quick' scheme called Respect.

 

[Rod Sleeves]

The stuff from ra is still worth reading on this subject

http://www.redaction.org/lsa/a_plan.html
http://www.redaction.org/lsa/a_plan.html

Hitherto, the price paid for being on the wrong political track was public indifference, and the ignominy of being regarded as a joke by working class communities, And on the surface it may appear that the LSA is still being ignored. But it is worse than that. In London, certainly in the by-elections contested, the work has been put in. In White Hart Lane for instance, the LSA candidate could boast that he had ‘more canvassers supporting him than all the other parties put together’.With such a well-oiled party machine the message must be getting across’. Which means that having eliminated the usual political get-outs, what remains, no matter how unpalatable, must be truth. And the truth being, the unreconstructed ‘ideal’ to which the Left remain so devoted is no longer being ignored, it is now being consciously rejected.Thus, as a result of being ‘owned by the ideal’, the Left are not leading the working class but accelerating toward open political collision with it. Calamity awaits. Worse than stupidity this is crime, beyond crime, this is, also, fittingly, punishment.

Hmm, yeah that bit certainly seems to ring true.

As for Belboid's point about the SA growing after the departure of the Socialist Party, that wasn't the case in my neck of the woods - we lost members immediately who while they disagreed with the SP's decision to quit and in fact were extremely pissed off with them for leaving them alone with the SWP, quite a lot of the independent and ex Labour lefts also blamed the SWP, and drifted away, while most of the new people disillusioned by the split also drifted off into inactivity, or felt pressured to join the SWP for warmth and promptly left once they realised their game. At the same time, some new people did join, but actual growth halted and reversed.

To me the SA with the SP inside was at least a more balanced and open structure, that was not overwhelmingly dominated by one faction.

 

[belboid]

it would have retained some of that balance had the SP not walked, and their wouldn't have been the same one faction dominance across the country, different strategies and tactics could have been tried and tested in different parts of the country.

The RA critique has some validity, tho the bit quoted above is a rather poor section of it. The silly belief that getting a lot of canvassers out in one ultra-safe labour ward equates to a 'well oiled party machine' is laughable (whether the well oiled bit comes from the LSA or RA I dont know, but its rubbish either way). All that means is some comitted people put a lot of work in. No one with any experience of electoral campaigning would believe that having a healthy number of people out wouyld translate into an immediate vote, so the point made there is null and void. tho if it wasn't, it would reflect badly on RA's later political projects, as the votes they got were smaller across the whole of hackney than the vote Paul Foot got standing for hackney mayor (which was a very respectable vote and third place). Did that mean that the SA was no longer being rejected by the working-class, or that HI/IWCA were being rejected even more?

 

[butchersapron]

it would have retained some of that balance had the SP not walked, and their wouldn't have been the same one faction dominance across the country, different strategies and tactics could have been tried and tested in different parts of the country.

The RA critique has some validity, tho the bit quoted above is a rather poor section of it. The silly belief that getting a lot of canvassers out in one ultra-safe labour ward equates to a 'well oiled party machine' is laughable (whether the well oiled bit comes from the LSA or RA I dont know, but its rubbish either way). All that means is some comitted people put a lot of work in. No one with any experience of electoral campaigning would believe that having a healthy number of people out wouyld translate into an immediate vote, so the point made there is null and void. tho if it wasn't, it would reflect badly on RA's later political projects, as the votes they got were smaller across the whole of hackney than the vote Paul Foot got standing for hackney mayor (which was a very respectable vote and third place). Did that mean that the SA was no longer being rejected by the working-class, or that HI/IWCA were being rejected even more?

One ward and 2469 votes for the IWCA versus an across all the wards 4,187 for foot.

 

[belboid]

did they get that much?? I thought it was about half that.

okay, that does affect my argument a bit, tho the gist of it still holds

 

[Rod Sleeves]

it would have retained some of that balance had the SP not walked, and their wouldn't have been the same one faction dominance across the country, different strategies and tactics could have been tried and tested in different parts of the country.

Yes, I agree.

The RA critique has some validity, tho the bit quoted above is a rather poor section of it. The silly belief that getting a lot of canvassers out in one ultra-safe labour ward equates to a 'well oiled party machine' is laughable (whether the well oiled bit comes from the LSA or RA I dont know, but its rubbish either way). All that means is some comitted people put a lot of work in. No one with any experience of electoral campaigning would believe that having a healthy number of people out wouyld translate into an immediate vote, so the point made there is null and void. tho if it wasn't, it would reflect badly on RA's later political projects, as the votes they got were smaller across the whole of hackney than the vote Paul Foot got standing for hackney mayor (which was a very respectable vote and third place). Did that mean that the SA was no longer being rejected by the working-class, or that HI/IWCA were being rejected even more?

While I don't think the IWCA has proven its every tactic to be valid (despite some impressive results in Oxford), I think it can be shown to have done better in those areas where it stood than the SA did anywhere in London at any time, including in the Hackney mayoral elections.

I'd also question where Paul Foots vote actually came from, while he was a decent and committed socialist, what % of his vote was from working class communities, and what % was from the museli belt? I'd be interested to see the effect of his candidacy on whether the Green Party did as well as expected.

I do think since the collapse of the SA, the IWCA and the SP as well as some of the local anarchist groups have shown us several possible ways forward in terms of community organising at this point. I wonder if the SA had survived as a pluralistic organisation it would have been a vehicle to encourage working class militancy, community, and workplace organisation.

 

[dennisr]

it would have retained some of that balance had the SP not walked, and their wouldn't have been the same one faction dominance across the country, different strategies and tactics could have been tried and tested in different parts of the country.

Interesting re-write of history....

For four years PRIOR to the late involvement of the SWP one group COULD have 'dominated' by the weight of its numbers alone - the SP. This was alien to the whole principle of a united left though - of learning to trust and work with each other while maintainig the rights of smaller political grouping and interests to have their say. A federal structure.

Belboid along with others got all excited at the idea of 'the biggest group on the left's' very late arrival on the scene and along with many voted to jettison the federal structure that ensured ensured that no one group dominated. This was the proviso - one man one vote - that the SWP had for joining.

The SP did not 'walk off in a sulk' - it just recognised what was going to happen given the entire history of the SWP and its distorted 'unity' tactics. We told you so frankly.

One year later the SWP unceremoniously closed the SAs down in starting on thier new 'Respect' binge - destroying the years long work and building of a genuine alliance that had gone before.

Belboid - DON't blame us - we told you what would happen. And it did - sooner than we thought.

 

[dennisr]

On more lesson that you can't build a party based on the needs of those parties. Cue dennis and fisher_gate arguing for ten pages

- Nothing to do with 'party' interests. Everything to do with the membership of the SAs, desperate for 'unity' even on an unprincipled basis, voting away the federal structure that ensured all different voices could be heard on the basis of "we really need the SWP on board". They handed the SAs over to one unprincipled group. (well, they had principles of a sort I suppose- 'rule or destroy').

It was a good initiative destroyed by the confusion of 'a front of left groupings' equates to a 'united left'. Sadly, it does not. And now they come bleating back to the sensible group that saw through the flim flam. They even want to blame them for 'not maintaining the balance' - they had a choice voting away the federal structure on some doomed 'unity' kick was the one they took.

 

[Rod Sleeves]

Don't blame me, I voted for Pete McLaren's federalist proposal! - which I think the SP were prepared to accept. Still the idea that the SP were being stroppy was widespread in my area (and at conference, after the vote), and cost them decent potential support.

ETA: I seem to remember at the time the majority in favour of the one member one vote proposal was not very big, and that the combined total for McLaren's and the SP's proposals was almost the same (it was voted on using a first and second choice electoral system).

The fact is the SP could have stayed and fought it's corner, in my local SA they came to the next meeting and tried to get the local to vote to dissaffiliate, they lost and walked out grumpy even towards well wishers, that also cost them.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

The Socialist Alliance was riven apart by the clash of egos between its two biggest organisations - the SP and SWP - in my opinion. But actually, I think its programme derived its strength from the coming together of these two different traditions of trotskyism, and having a socialist programme meant that like the SSP, the Alliance had potential to recruit people from a libertarian milieu. I think a future electoral alliance would have to be more akin to the New Anti-Capitalist Party in France than Die Linke. I have no desire to repeat the experience of Respect of uniting with liberals, opportunists and careerists & building something that isn't explicitly focused on class struggle from below.

I would argue that Paul Foot had a lot of respect from working class people & had some profile due to his one time Daily Mirror column.

One weakness of the SA was that tiny sects had a disproportionate influence. For example, groups with less than 50 members in the entire UK had a place on the leadership. You had groups like the AWL with extremely dodgy politics when it came to imperialism.

In Wales, one tension was that there was a bunch of nationalists from mid/north Wales who constantly wanted us to become a nationalist organisation.

The organisation here pretty much died when the Socialist Party left. Most of the independents who had been involved got demoralised and drifted out.

Having said that, the behaviour of the SP was odd in some respects & pissed off the independents. For example, they insisted on standing candidates as Socialist Alternative (their electoral name, rather than as Welsh Socialist Alliance) - which didn't really build the Alliance & if other candidates had followed suit it would have meant standing candidates as SWP, Cymru Goch, AWL, Workers Power etc, when a candidate from the SP stood, it was ran as a SP campaign with SP literature & the SP recruited no independents to the alliance. Nevertheless, I was disappointed to see the SP walk out of the Alliance.

It is clear that any genuine left electoral challenge should involve the SWP and SP, as the biggest left groups in Britain.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Another odd phenomenon in the local Alliance was that after meetings. SWP, Workers Power and independents would all go for a drink in a nearby pub, the SP would always go for a drink in a different nearby pub.

This seems to be a classic SP style of politics of always trying to keep their members isolated and kept separate from other organisations.

 

[belboid]

Interesting re-write of history....

what the one you undertake below? I really cant be arsed to do all of this one yet again, but I will point out where you are simply factually incorrect.

Belboid along with others got all excited at the idea of 'the biggest group on the left's' very late arrival on the scene and along with many voted to jettison the federal structure that ensured ensured that no one group dominated. This was the proviso - one man one vote - that the SWP had for joining.

well I'll ignore your somewhat childish 'got all excited' bit (a fair rejoined to my 'sulked away' perhaps), what actually happened was that around that time the SWP (and a couple of others) joining made it possible that the SA would be not just the SP and a couple of other trot groups, but a bigger, genuine left of labour organisation. the SP staying would have helped that process. The SP's proposal, whilst supportabgle in various ways, was absurdly over-complex, and would have given the tiny grouplets an influence way beyond what was meritted by there size. It is a very difficult balance to get right, but I, and most of the new non-group membes, agreed the SWP's proposal was a bit better than yours on the day.

The SP did not 'walk off in a sulk' - it just recognised what was going to appen given the entire history of the SWP and its distorted 'uniy' tactics. We told you so frankly.

and yet for two years i heard various of your members going 'we shouldnt have left' - maybe only in area's where the SA was doing rather better than the SP, but even so... And, as you were told at the time, your walking away (whether in a sulk or not) enabled that to happen, and far quicker than it might have otherwise. You helped to create a fait accompli

One year later the SWP unceremoniously closed the SAs down in starting on thier new 'Respect' binge

you're at least two years out there den, but hey ho.

Belboid - DON't blame us - we told you what would happen. And it did - sooner than we thought.

I dont blame you, well not entirely by any means. I just do not accept your view of what happened, nor your fatalism about whether it was bound to or not.

 

[belboid]

The fact is the SP could have stayed and fought it's corner, in my local SA they came to the next meeting and tried to get the local to vote to dissaffiliate, they lost and walked out grumpy even towards well wishers, that also cost them.

absolutely, that seems to have been an all too common reaction, sadly

 

[dennisr]

The Socialist Alliance was riven apart by the clash of egos between its two biggest organisations - the SP and SWP - in my opinion.

egos had nothing to do with it.

mistaking the unity of left groups as some 'unity of the left' had everything to do with it.

how do you explain the five years prior to the SWPs late arrival to the then genuine federal alliance - why did the SP not 'dominate' (given its supposed 'ego')??

The democratic rights of smaller voies was build inot the structure of that alliance - unfortunately they voted that away and one year later - hey, presto...

 

[dennisr]

It is clear that any genuine left electoral challenge should involve the SWP and SP, as the biggest left groups in Britain.

no its not. what a load of half-baked tommy rot and 'i heard it down a pub' hearsay

its clear the structure of of any organisation should not be lightly tossed aside at the whim of pretended 'unity'.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Firstly, I joined the Welsh Socialist Alliance in 2001, so can't really comment on it before then.

Secondly, I find it strange that Dennisr disagrees with my suggestion that a foundation for left unity would be the involvement of the two biggest left organisations in Britain - the SWP and SP.

 

[Bakunin]

*Sighs*

It used to be the case that the powers-that-be were a mite worried about the threat posed by the 'Reds under the bed.' Nowadays they don't have anything to worry about because, if you find two Reds under the same bed, they're probably fighting each other more than their apparent mutual enemy.

'Left Unity' (if indeed there ever was such a thing, because there certainly doesn't seem to be any more) is a sad and pathetic joke that would be funny if it weren't so tragic. If the various left grouplets were to put aside their differences and make honest and genuine efforts to work together then maybe the old left wouldn't be dying on its arse like it seems to be at the moment. Unfortunately, there's so much bad blood between the various factions that the State must be laughing itself almost to the point of a coronary watching the old left run in ever decreasing circles, and with a liberal sprinkling of political footbullets along the way.

 

[TylerD]

The SWP definitely seems to have lost its way since Tony Cliff shuffled off this mortal coil in 2000.

It seems to be the same people, now in their 40s and 50s, who have been in it for 20-odd years. I suppose that shows they've at least overcome the old "high turnover of members" problem - but they don't seem to attract many younger people any more.

I'm not sure the British left in general will ever get over its sectarian ways, to be honest. The Life of Brian parody still seems all too apt after all these years, sadly.

 

[dennisr]

well I'll ignore your somewhat childish 'got all excited' bit (a fair rejoined to my 'sulked away' perhaps), what actually happened was that around that time the SWP (and a couple of others) joining made it possible that the SA would be not just the SP and a couple of other trot groups, but a bigger, genuine left of labour organisation. the SP staying would have helped that process.

- How could we have delayed the process? When the SWP saw an unprincipled opportunity with Galloway they jumped ship. They shut down the SAs with theweight of their votes. Something you voted for the right for them to do!!

The basis of the alliance, imo, was to build genuine unity of the left rather than simply all the 'lefty' paper sellers meeting in the same pub room - by working together over a period. The SAs COULD have been the basis of a genuine new 'left' as trade unionists and community campaigners moved in to create something more than an alliance of paper sellers. The potential movement to the left was delayed anyway - as we can now all see - so the act of trying to hold together the alliance once it was handed over to one group would never have given us enough time.

But it never got that far because most of the paper sellers already working well together saw 'unity' with the largest group of paper sellers as as the priority - you impatience for short-term 'unity' led to us all (not just the paper sellers...) taking a step back.

The SP's proposal, whilst supportabgle in various ways, was absurdly over-complex, and would have given the tiny grouplets an influence way beyond what was meritted by there size. It is a very difficult balance to get right, but I, and most of the new non-group membes, agreed the SWP's proposal was a bit better than yours on the day.

And look what it allowed them to do. Foolish.

Why could the SP not do this when it was the largest grouping? What had changed? What had you voted to change??

You helped to create a fait accompli

no, the people who voted for the change in structure created the fait accompli - history very rapidly proved us right (regardless of the hopes of some of our members)

Come on Belboid - folk have tried to blame this on some 'ego' clash between the SP and SWP. I am just pointing out exactly what we pointed out would happen if folk voted to drop the very safeguards that meant one group could not dominate, We told you so at the time...

I dont blame you, well not entirely by any means. I just do not accept your view of what happened, nor your fatalism about whether it was bound to or not.

What about the role of those who voted to change the structure - what blame do they hold??

What you confuse as 'fatalism' is dimply a recognition of the entire nature of the SWP - proven again and again and again (christ half the posts in P&P go over and over the subject the moment the name SWP is raised...). We had had decades of experience of the SWP. We were not willing to vote away safeguards against any one group dominated (while we were still happy to work with them as long as safeguards are ensured). Sadly others saw that as a necessary compromise. it was a mistake on their part - and its a shame they cannot learn from this.

Sorry but again - we told you so.

 

[dennisr]

Firstly, I joined the Welsh Socialist Alliance in 2001, so can't really comment on it before then.

Secondly, I find it strange that Dennisr disagrees with my suggestion that a foundation for left unity would be the involvement of the two biggest left organisations in Britain - the SWP and SP.

I am surprised you find this problematic

A genuine left would not be a left of paper-selling groups. it would be a left of working class activists and trade unionists in which those left groups participate.

Those paper selling groups - including the one i have been a member of for a couple of decades - are nothing without wider working class participation. We should recognise that - we join in with the wider working class movement rather than them joining in with us.

This difference in perspective maybe explains the reasons that some lefts saw getting the SWP on board - in the SAs as more important than principled unity and democratic structure. its a mistaken view of the 'left'.

The unity of small left groups can only ever be a stepping stone to such.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Your comments about opportunism of working with an ex-Labour MP would have more conviction if it wasn't for your shameful shacking up with Stalinists standing on a far more politically dire programme in the No2EU debacle. And did not the Socialist recently carry a front page with the nationalist slogan 'Save British Jobs'?

 

[Udo Erasmus]

I am surprised you find this problematic

A genuine left would not be a left of paper-selling groups. it would be a left of working class activists and trade unionists in which those left groups participate.

The unity of small left groups can only ever be a stepping stone to such.

I take your point. But do you not think that the disunity of small left groups is an obstacle to such?

For example, a year ago I went to a big meeting organised by the local trades council to 'smash the pay freeze' with rank and file militants from different unions, what was noticeable was that in 2001 half of the pople in the room - ex-labour, SWP, Socialist Party, no party - were all in one organisation & as such could have pulled in a proportion of the other new people in the room into an organisation, but the fact that the people who were once united were now competing against each other meant that they couldn't pull in the people who were members of no group, as it was a case of 'one small group' vs. 'another small group'

I would also think that the French approach is right, any new formation would have to be explicitly anti-capitalist & genuinely democratic.

 

[dennisr]

Your comments about opportunism of working with an ex-Labour MP would have more conviction if it wasn't for your shameful shacking up with Stalinists standing on a far more politically dire programme in the No2EU debacle. And did not the Socialist recently carry a front page with the nationalist slogan 'Save British Jobs'?

That was a pretty desperate leap in your thought processes (and complete avoidance of the points i replyed with in the process...) wasn't it?

But anyway....

A one-off electoral alliance - on the basis of the support of a major trade union (a first since the foundation of the labour party...) is, shall we say, slightly different to jumping into bed and saying 'i'll have you babies' and drop my entire programme and any 'in'appropriate 'shibolleahs' in the process + destroy the entire unity process others on the left had been working through for years by closing sown the SAs without any discussion.

A principled alliance is a lot more than keeping ones mouth shut and cheerleading 'indefatigable' leaders uncritically.

Don't accuse the SP of being in anywhere near the same boat.

that mistake has now cost those idiots dearly - really bitten them in the arse - and I cannot say I am that upset about it

Oh and NO it did not - were did you read that??