Though Cowards Flinch

Continuing the theme I began two days ago, with my article on the proposed Convention of the Left in Manchester, three weeks from today, I wanted to discuss some of the issues Susan raised in her gracious reply to my thoughts on the subject. Of supreme importance has to be answering the question, what is the point of the Convention? Of equal importance has to be the question, is the Convention well-suited to its purpose? Finally, for those of us who would like the see the Labour Representation Committee take up a leading role in the fight for socialism, we should ask, what role can the LRC play?

Susan is quoted on the Convention website as endorsing the whole thing with the following sentiments:

“The Convention of The Left is a serious opportunity for those of us who feel disillusioned by New Labour’s neo-liberalism to discuss the way forward. (…) I am also keen to campaign on issues like globalisation, peace and climate change with comrades from across the political spectrum. I look forward to taking part in the Convention.”

The concept of uniting the left is not a new one: whether under initiatives like the Socialist Alliance or RESPECT, left unity is almost the shibboleth of socialism in the UK. Though, by Labour Party and LRC rules, we’re forbidden from being involved in any electoral alternative to the Labour Party, I would say firstly that almost any member of the LRC would concede that there is vast scope for co-operation even outside campaigning for election. Susan names three areas herself: globalisation, peace and climate change.

What concerns me at this point is the nature of that co-operation. Apart from mutually organising demonstrations, appearing on the same steering committees and organising committees and occasionally voting together in unions (e.g. NUS), I’ve yet to see an example of clear co-operation by the disparate left in the bread and butter activities we need to be engaged in. To give an example, how many of the left groups co-operate to send members into un-unionised workplaces?

Until we’re active together on re-establishing the muscle and sinew of class struggle, all the leading union figures in the country speaking from a podium on our behalf won’t matter a damn. At its crux, this is my objection to the Convention of the Left. I don’t believe that it will even form a basis for a minimum programme around which all the left groups can co-operate on a practical level. At most it may lend some publicity to campaigns we’re all for, such as Defend Council Housing.

My reasoning behind this is simple: at this one Convention, we’re going to have all the usual faces, spending one day only on the question of political organisation and unity, and even then there is no mechanism for actually deciding everything. At best, the people in attendance will be enriched by hearing various points of view spoken and will then go back to their homes and places of work largely unaffected in their outlook. This is rendered all the more likely because the people in attendance are going to be the leaders of the various sects and groupuscules and their supporters.

Among the various socialist parties, some people have been in charge for so long that they’re unlikely to deviate from their party line on the basis of reasoned argument. Or, more distressing, they’re entirely likely to deviate from their party line on the basis of an unreasonable, unprincipled argument. Not that certain sects have a history of doing exactly that or anything. For these reasons I simply don’t see anything valuable beyond the research papers coming out of this Convention of the Left.

What I would like to see is, first of all, a series of Conventions held around the country, open enough to be backed by all the left groups, including the Socialist Party. The more there are, the better, because it will decrease the travelling distance for most people, who can neither afford time or money to go to Manchester. These Conventions of activists could then discuss the best way to approach increasing the levels of activists and union members in their localities, and upon campaigns which urgently need fought.

The basic rules of democratic centralism could easily be applied; everyone is free to distribute their own material to activists, but a steering committee elected by each Convention would decide (subject to amendation and ratification) the material that was to be put out in the name of the Convention itself over the course of the listed campaigns that needed fought. If a rota of activists was established to take part in the campaigns each weekend, then weekends off could be used for party-building stalls and so forth.

Given the strength of the LRC in terms of its membership, it would occupy a commanding role in any such series of Conventions. It wouldn’t have to surrender the principle of supporting Labour at elections, nor would it be put in the embarrassing position of campaigning for one sect over another at election time. Similarly the sects could continue their practice of running competing candidates in the same election if they really wanted to. At election time, Convention work could simply be suspended.

On a practical level, such an attitude couldn’t be sustained: eventually increasing levels of working class activism would spill over into the demand for the creation of a unified electoral platform. No doubt in such circumstances, even within the LRC there would be a demand to field candidates for election even where they might compete with right-wing Labour candidates. I don’t see that as a bad thing; eventually one of two things has to happen. Either the LRC reconquers and democratises the Labour Party or it leaves the Labour Party altogether.

Things will not remain as they are, indefinitely. As time goes on and more union activists drift into outright antipathy towards Labour, as more of the smaller unions disaffiliate and as the membership of the Labour Party continues to collapse, the current position of the LRC will become untenable. Either it will see itself waxing powerful through a regeneration of activist levels and their conquest of the bureaucracy, or it will see diminishing returns to its union work as the bureaucracy stifles activism.

Meanwhile, for these unitary conventions, the menial labour of creating union branches and fighting for their affiliation fees could be greatly assisted by the LRC. Each newly fledged union branch could be offered a choice: affiliation to the LRC itself, the money from which would filter back into the Convention via LRC aid, or direct affiliation to the Convention. The Conventions could take on the dual role of activist plebiscite and trades council, bearing in mind that the TUC actively fights militant trades councils which affiliate to it.

Each convention could take direct responsibility for the creation of new branches of activists in the various urban centres under its sway. A “southeastern” Convention could, for example, aim to have affiliates in Canterbury, Dover, Southampton, Portsmouth and the Medway towns by the end of its first year of existence. It could co-ordinate funds to enable people to go out to those towns and to talk to workers as they go into work, to talk to students on campus and so forth.

Of the proposals which I’ve outlined, it should be relatively easy to put them into effect were the sects prepared to be open about their membership in various areas, or if each were prepared to provide a contribution to a central effort based on the annual contributions it receives. The fine print would be decided by each area for itself, and renegotiated every year at an all-members meeting, but the crux of the whole thing is either that openness and democracy are a watchword or we’re reduced to talking shops once again.

One giant convention in Manchester is not even aiming at any of this; in fact the aims of the Convention are confused. Despite the best will in the world, the Convention itself doesn’t know what to do with any of the potential answers to the questions it poses. The basic one is the following: “New Labour is dead: but what will replace it?” The answer won’t be a new Party because the LRC will go off in a huff. It won’t be join Labour because the SWP and others simply won’t accept that.

This leaves me with the feeling that the whole exercise is simply being conducted as an opportunity for each group to recruit whoever it can from among the loosely-affiliated or independent-types who show up, then bugger off with absolutely nothing decided on the wider questions of political co-operation and unity. Each party risks nothing by this venture, and so each will sit ensconced in the fortress provided by its party line. At one giant national conference, there won’t even be the opportunity to appeal over the heads of the leaders to the actual membership of the sects.

I hope I’m proved wrong – but things don’t seem to be off to a galloping start.