Socialist Alliance, Joint Convenor of Network of Socialist Alliances in England) THE RECENT meeting of the "Network of Socialist Alliances in England" (working title) spent much time and energy debating a future structure. This was in an attempt to unite more formally a wide range of local Socialist Alliances, individual supporters, related groups and activists, including environmental, direct action, peace campaigns, trade unionists and industrial struggles.
The gathering was wary of imposing a constitution from onhigh without consultation - and then declaring that all members have already agreed it and that all future members must sign up to it explicitly before joining.
On the other hand, most people felt that something clearer and more structured may be needed, now that more groups and individuals are showing an interest in working together.
This is not least because the liberal "work with anyone" approach forces us to allow the inclusion of those who don't actually want to work with anyone else! Inevitably the process meant taking one step forward and half a step back but we're still here and there's a clear commitment to move forward.
But we can't minimise the problems involved. Communists genuinely want a mass working class party with a central committee. Some want it based on the "UK State", and do not recognise parallel developments in Scotland or Wales (never mind the situation in the 6 Counties in the North of Ireland). Less empty debate, more action on real issues is the way to build the left Socialists working with campaigners from different backgrounds think that a looser federal structure, based on networking and mutual respect, is a more likely and more desirable future. Language varies from the Leninist and its historical truth to the broader demand for dropping words like "socialist" and "green" altogether, focusing instead on "social justice and ecological sustainability".
This question of orientation is the major fault-line running through the debates. And it's political, not organisational (even if it is true that one form of structure would We must favour some groups campaign with more than the other). So it has to the disadvantaged, be tackled politi- dispossessed and cally. disenfranchised Subordinate to it are questions of affiliation Should any structure be individual only, should it guarantee places for every affiliated group, or for every local alliance? Who defines what constitutes a "group" or an "alliance"?. Should it just be simpler in any case? And there's the question of approach. Is it acceptable to be able to join something simply for the purpose of exposing it as not the something that you want?
If you want a "Central Committee" about which you can complain for its failure to "lead", why not join an organisation which gives you this, rather than seeking to promote discord amongst comrades who clearly don't want to be in that sort of organisation ever again?
We have all been at meetings which progress very well while we're considering practical action to carry out supporting industrial struggles, fighting against racist deportations, campaigning for civil liberties. They then fall apart at the end when people start haggling about who to elect to whatever "committee" is being set up. Somehow we have to combine a willingness to engage in (not just tolerate) political debate, with a real commitment to a process, of enabling participation and encouraging new people to get involved. Disagreement about policy can be expressed, at the same time as ensuring that rules of comradely behaviour, between people, are paramount. Allowing someone to speak, on the grounds of inclusiveness, cannot mean allowing every member advantage of this and bore every. one else to death. This simply excludes everyone else.
The real danger is that the left gets sucked into discussing its constitution endlessly and stops itself from campaigning in the here and now. If the (underemployed) Secret Services of this country were trying to keep the left from any (overdue) successes, they could not find a better way of going about it!
Instead, we must be taking up the campaigns with the disadvantaged, dispossessed and disenfranchised who have suffered for over 20 years from attacks on living standards, cuts in jobs, pay, services, and persecution because of gender, race, sexuality, disability.
We must be supporting the Tameside Care Workers (sacked for striking over pay cuts) and building a massive campaign for a maximum wage and a minimum income We must be publicly opposing the increased powers to unaccountable immigration officials and the vicious and unnecessary antiterrorism laws which give the word of senior policemen the force of law. We must support the anti-nuclear missile campaigners and oppose Clinton for dropping bombs on the developing world. This means clearly challenging Blair. who is Clinton's leading fan, by putting forward an alternative to the unregulated global free-market economy, which is failing all the peoples of the east as well as dividing the rich further from the poor in the west.
That is why Socialist Alliances, such as those in Greater Manchester, Coventry and Warwickshire, Walsall, and Kent, have taken the lead in uniting, co-ordinating, or just plain inforring people around particular issues. When Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq earlier this year, it was Socialist Alliances which ensured the development of joint Coalitions against War in the Gulf. between organisations ranging from the SWP to CND, with the theme of No War. Stop Sanctions, and Troops Out of the Gulf.
When Roisin McAliskey was persecuted by Jack Straw's Home Office, it was Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance which organised support for the local pickets of the German Embassy.
When the Tameside Care Workers took strike action, their union secretary came under fire for daring to defend them, not least because he had just won the election to Branch Secretary openly standing as a socialist and as a supporter (and Chair) of the local Socialist Alliance itself. And we led the support work, of disrupting scab agencies recruiting to take the care workers' jobs (two agencies backed down as a result).
Making a difference This pattern of activity is echoed in Alliances and similar groups everywhere. Socialist Alliances can make a difference, and are already doing so.
But the secret (not very secret) of the left's inability to unite in this country is its willingness to go into terminal fragmentation and internal division just at the point where unity on practical action could take place. Socialist Alliances haven't necessarily got the answer to overcoming this — yet; but we are still here and we are moving forward. We urge evervone who wants to see Blair's Bubble Burst to start to work with us - to begin to overcome both the ruling exploiters and the possible damage of splitters in our own ranks.