26 April Regroupment Meeting
I thought he meeting on the 26 April was a very positive start to a process of revolutionary regroupment. There were perhaps 120 people there with RS21 sending about 8-10. But there is an overlapping of membership now with lots of people dual carding ACI/ISN, ISN/RS21 etc - not to mention Left Unity (LU).
There were four discussions – trade union question, approach to LU, feminism, Ukraine. All very open, political, and with people trying to engage with other peoples arguments.
Trade Unions – was largely dominated by a discussion with Socialist Resistance (SR) who rejected the idea of building a rank and file organisations in the trade unions. This wasn’t just a tactical question about whether or not such an organisation was feasible in the here and now, but rather a difference in approach to how we transform the trade unions in fighting organisations.
Alan Thornett (SR) presented what I thought was largely a caricature of the lefts approach to the R&F question, using WP as the straw man. According to Alan this approach downplayed the importance of left leaders, made no distinction between left and right in the TU leadership, considered that the working class was only held back by bureaucracy, and believed that rank and file trade unionists were constantly up for struggle and ready to go on general strike etc. This argument rather fell flat when speakers pointed out, including from WP, that no one thought this. Virtually all speakers distinguished between left and right in the TUs, supported the left when it fought but stressed the importance of criticising it when it undermined the struggle.
SR rejected the idea of building a rank and file organisation with the aim of transforming the TUs from top to bottom. Instead it offered a perspective of activists in the unions supporting the left TU leaders, a position that leads to downplaying criticism while attempting to nudge the leadership to the left – in the Fourth International this tactic used to be called building a “class struggle left wing”. As SR has developed it, it is not dissimilar to the Communist Party’s strategy of building “Broad Lefts” in the unions whose main aim is to win over the leadership positions for the left. In the Socialist Teachers Alliance SR, and the SWP in recent years, have pursued this strategy. This has effectively led to hoisting “lefts”, Christine Blower, Kevin Courtney, Alex Kenny, into leadership positions with no control by the R&F. Once there these same leaders become part of a bureaucracy reluctant to encourage militant action or risk challenging the anti-TU laws. The collapse of the left leaders in the pensions struggle and the frittering away of militancy in the teachers strikes, are just two recent examples of where this strategy leads. Clearly SR have not learned the lessons with Liam McQuade (SR) declaring at the conference that the NUT indeed had a “class struggle leadership” around Christine Blower and Kevin Courtney.
The debate provided a useful discussion bringing out what people meant by a R&F organisation and transforming the unions. Most people had a relatively sensible idea of what was possible in the unions at the moment and the need to rebuild at the base. I made the point that there was a direct relationship between the confidence workers felt and the leadership and strategy offered by the leadership of a union.
Left Unity – This discussion was fairly tentative given that RS21 and probably a third of the meeting were not involved in LU – either for tactical reasons, it was not considered useful in their area, or political reasons, RS21 has not decided to join yet but appears open minded. Again there was the danger of caricaturing peoples positions in this debate. SR suggested that all those who were not in favour of a building LU as a broad left-reformist party were wanting to turn LU into a tiny revolutionary communist party with a programme to match.
Again this is a simplistic and wrong view. Working with people in the ACI/ISN/WP in LU, I think we all want a party that extends beyond the narrow revolutionary left, that involves ordinary militant workers who want to fight, socialists who are not revolutionaries and people who are broadly anticapitalist. We think we can unite all these groups in a party that is militant, fighting and anticapitalist, around a set of policies that challenges capitalist austerity and offers a socialist way forward. I think this idea was reflected in many of the contributions to the debate on Saturday. What many objected to was the idea that we should limit ourselves to left reformist politics, that somehow the only thing possible at the moment is to build a left reformist, “Old Labour Party Mark II” type party.
I think it was positive that many in the discussion, including the ISN and RS21, recognised need to examine lessons of Socialist Alliance and Respect and draw some conclusions from what socialists did right and wrong in those organisations.
Feminism – I thought this was the most diffuse and unfocused section in the debate, probably because it was put on agenda late without a clear idea what it was focused on. RS21 made a number of theoretical contributions, not easy in 3 or 5 minutes, there was a brief discussion of “intersectionality”, and another of why it was difficult to involve women in the left. Everyone agreed on the need for caucuses in the revolutionary left, for work amongst women, looking at how the cuts/austerity impacts on women in particular etc. But there were so many different issues being discussed in a short period it was hard to pursue a debate or get a clear idea where different groups stood on issues, there was little or no discussion of the proposed women’s journal for instance.
Ukraine – This was virtually all the other groups versus WP discussion, but it was conducted in a thoroughly comradely and engaging fashion and I think WP was given at least 30 or 40% of the speakers to balance the debate. I can’t go over all the arguments but it seemed to me that that WP tends to read back from the outcome of the Maidan movement (a rightist, neo-liberal govt with far right/neo-fascist elements) and interpret the events in the last year in that light. So the Maidan movement was right wing from the start, leftists should have abstained from it, it has resulted in a govt under strong fascist influence, therefore the Russian speakers in the east are right to arm themselves, seize towns and hold referendums under Russian “protection”. Crimea’s referendum might not have been perfectly democratic but it “reflects the views” of Crimeans.
The majority of the meeting tended to argue that the Maidan movement was a mass movement to oust a corrupt President/regime, that because of the weakness of the left (many of whom boycotted or arrived late to the movement*) ended up being protected by the militias of the far right. That the far right’s leadership in protecting and driving forward the struggle gave them an influence in government far above their actual political support in the movement or in the country. I think WP overestimates the influence of fascism on the current government and in this way echoes the Russian government’s propaganda.
One thing that was missing was a debate about Svobda, as to whether it is fascist, a fascist-front party, right-wing populist or something in transition from one to the other. But I got the impression that most of the groups had not really analysed this question – that is the nature of fascist front parties in Europe now and how they are developing. The FN in France, for example, which I think has moved away from being a fascist-front party to being a “normal” right-wing populist one. I think the same process can be seen in Italy. That is, where the working class is on the retreat and not threatening capitalism, a fascist party, even a fascist-front party, is not needed, or financed/supported, by major sections of capital. So there is a general pressure for these parties to shed their fascist past and street gangs and to seek power in the accepted electoral process. Obviously in periods of deep crisis, Greece, the opposite happens. Ukraine might be somewhere between the two at the moment.
Where we go nextThis meeting of the groups was generally a positive day that started a process of political discussion. What was lacking was any clear idea of how to take the process forward. The ISN put forward a straightforward and sensible proposal on next steps (at end of IB 2) but because it had been agreed not to have any votes at the meeting by the steering group the people at it could not even discuss or express and opinion on how to proceed.
If we are to unify the groups as a revolutionary organisation we certainly need more discussion of political topics like the one on Saturday but we will also need to move to more formal conferences where resolutions can be put on these type of topics, to be discussed, amended and adopted with minorities and majorities. It is only that process that can decide which groups/individuals have enough political agreement to move from their own revolutionary organisations to a new unified one.
SK
London ISN/ACI
*see a translation of an interesting and self critical, Ukrainian left conference held in mid April – in Workers Liberty 321, 23 April 2014.
