Can the United Left Alliance become a party of the working class?

3 August 2011

The emergence of the United Left Alliance and its recent June convention have led to a great deal of discussion within Socialist Democracy. A general report was followed by some discussions of the problems involved by Joe Carter.  Now John McAnulty adds a further view to the discussion.  We would welcome further comments on what is obviously an important issue.(ed)
 

For many people Socialist Democracy’s decision to join and support the United Left Alliance (ULA) in the run-up to the recent elections was something of a surprise. There had been a decade of "socialist unity" projects where we, although willing to join in many of the initiatives, had expressed scepticism about the strong elements of political sectarianism, reformism and electoralism that had informed the projects and we had counterpoised the need for joint action, for a working class party and, above all, a working class programme.

In the Irish general election these different positions became conflated. The immediate need was to register working class opposition to the austerity. The left, under pressure of the crisis, came together in the ULA and adopted a platform calling for a repudiation of the debt. Many young people joined in the election campaign. In the election the alliance won five seats and just under 10% of the vote in Dublin.

A major opportunity therefore exists for building a working class party, amplified by groups and individuals across the country moving to formally affiliate to the ULA.

The immediate problem is that that project of building a party appears unlikely to proceed and in fact has to some extent moved backwards. At the national convention the question was not on the agenda. The most that was suggested was that some way be found to represent non-affiliated individuals and branches on the steering committee. A number of political groups have sought affiliation, but this appears to be on the long finger. Acceptance of the political programme of the movement does not appear to guarantee membership. The fact that there was a ten-euro charge for admission to a trade union venue when the alliance has access to the state funding attracted by five TDs shows a certain lack of enthusiasm for drawing in working class members.

The mechanism operating in the rally was the mechanism of diplomatic discussion between the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party. One wanted a campaigning organization that included a call for socialism. The other a campaigning organization that did not make such a call. This formal debate around what is in practice a very narrow difference between the two organizations created a very sharp democratic deficit. 

The main discussions operated a ticket system. Speakers applied by ticket to speak and were then vetted by the chair. The fact of this vetting was to create a two-tier delegate structure, with preference given to SP and SWP members. Workshops were a great deal more open, but in the absence of any structures independent of the SP/SWP alliance they were simply a way of lobbying the groups.

This lack of structure, of democratic debate, was present both in what was discussed and what was not discussed. There is an attempt to build a rank and file trade union group, but it is not being organised by the ULA. There has more recently been an attempt to organise against water metering. The meeting involved the component groups of the ULA, but not the ULA itself. A number of demonstrations have been held, but they are organised by the SWP front organization "Enough" rather than by the ULA.

A worrying aspect of the convention was the absence of any discussion of the role of the TDs. This after all is the basis of any claim for a breakthrough for the socialist movement. It appears that there is no structure for directing the work of the TDs outside their own organizations.

This situation contains great dangers. The TDs will come under great pressure from the capitalists. For administrative reasons they are part of a Dail technical group that includes a dolly mixtures group of non-socialist independents. The larger group in the Dail is Sinn Fein, wrapping themselves in a left mantle that is accepted by at least one TD, Richard Boyd Barrett, in the ULA group.

It is also important to take into consideration the timing of the ULA rally. It followed on from the election success, but was not so close that there was not time for reflection. That means that the major groups in the ULA have decided against advancing the project of a new party and, as the election recedes, are presenting a project of a loose alliance of left groups. This will become less and less credible to the working class, throwing the whole project into question and tending to discredit both the ULA and its constituent parts.

It is also necessary to consider why organizations like the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party would oppose a new party, as both have experience of groups in Britain which had a party structure but where they have been able to maintain their own party structures - the Scottish Socialist Party and its structure of platforms is the classic example.

The point here is that both the SP and SWP believe that their organizations are the nascent revolutionary parties.  The success of broader organizations is judged by the level of recruitment to themselves. Their experience of unity projects in Britain has been that they have not recruited and have in fact been subject to intense internal division as a result of their involvement.

The reason for this negative experience is a Marxist concept called praxis. Militants use theory to plan and carry out actions. The result is debate, a re-examination of theory, and further action. In contrast both the SWP and SP are top-down organizations, with the leaderships deciding on interventions and interpreting results. In broader organizations the membership of the groups find themselves in broader debates, causing unwelcome dissention in their ranks.

The issue of a new party is not resolved. The SP and SWP are not in agreement. The TDs outside their ranks, Joan Collins and Seamus Healy, are more anxious to see a new party formed. Other political organizations, including Socialist Democracy, have applied to join. Individuals have joined the ULA, branches have formed. They are seeking a democratic structure and are unlikely to stay as voiceless footsoldiers. 

A specific contradiction exists around the issue of the North. The SP violently oppose a 32-county party. The SWP are happy to ignore the issue and to stand their front organization, People before Profit, against the SP in the assembly elections. In any case they are presenting themselves as a left seeking to put forward reforms in the Assembly and seem unwilling to acknowledge the totally reactionary nature of the Stormont structure. However there are militants in the North who wish to join the ULA and if a united structure grew in the North there would be great difficulty in formally adopting a partitionist policy as opposed to simply dodging the issue.

The debate around the formation of a new party remains unfinished. It is the issue that draws the attention of many militants and we wish to participate in it. However, both unity and democracy require an object. Our intervention must address the issue of a program for the new party and for the working class. 

The glaring weakness of the ULA convention was that only the Socialist Party put forward a call for a working class transformation of society - and it was quite clear from the context that this was a long-term aspiration rather than a guide to immediate action. Overall the discussion at the convention was about persuading or forcing the existing capitalist state to act in the interests of the workers.

The working class have suffered staggering defeats over decades. The majority of the socialist movement automatically discount independent action by the working class and look to other social forces to substitute for it.

The SP and SWP differences should be seen in this light. The SWP, along with the majority of our own movement, the Fourth International, support popular "anti-capitalist" movements that tend to attract middle-class radicals and advance a rather vague reformism. The Socialist Party reserve Marxism for their publications. Their policy is a united front with Social Democracy, specifically with "left" trade unionists around the social democratic demands that they will agree to. 

The limitations of these approaches can be seen in the recent sell-out of British Airways cabin staff by "left" bureaucrat Len McCluskey of UNITE. This initially led to criticism by the SWP, followed by a swift retreat when the SP and Communist Party attacked them. Now the trade union left are united behind McCluskey, who is heading a European Resistance conference against the cuts, with Sinn Fein, itself posing as a left organization, providing one of the speakers. The relative weakness of the Irish movement is shown by the fact that a similar sell-out of Aer Lingus cabin staff passed almost without comment, let alone criticism.

Because of the relative inactivity of the working class and the fact that the socialist movement is not immediately advancing a program of socialism or a method of working class self-organization and action, the proposals tend towards "better" capitalist policies to be achieved by greater democracy. 

So the banks should be nationalised under democratic control - but that is effectively what Fianna Fail did in the Bank bailout. 

There should be a better fairer way to invest more and save jobs - that argument put the trade union leadership inside the tent with the European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund.

The movement took a step forward before the elections with calls to repudiate the debt, but in the absence of a perspective that includes working class action that led to the presentation at the ULA convention by Terrace McDonough arguing for a return of the Punt - a policy that would totally impoverish Irish workers.

In the interim Germany and France have imposed a partial debt repudiation that doubles the period of debt and is carefully calculated to extract the absolute maximum that can practically be extracted from Irish workers.

All the proposals that the left put forward turn to dust. There are no reformist solutions on offer from capitalism. The traditional organizations of the working class - labour parties and trade unions - move more firmly and decisively to the side of capital. 

Even the most basic forms of defence, the most basic reforms, can only be achieved by the actions of the workers themselves, yet the socialists hesitate to make such calls because of the inactivity of the workers and the absence of class consciousness make such calls appear a form of implausible ultraleftism, running against the current understanding of the workers and cutting off the possibility of alliance with the left of the trade union bureaucracy.

The tensions in the ULA are between the SWP and SP, between Joan Collins and Seamus Healy and these groups, with other socialist groups who have applied to join the alliance and with individual members and branches composed of these independents. However, while there is a great deal of agreement about the need for a new party and for democratic structures, there is a great deal of confusion about the potential to advance reformist demands, to work with the trade union bureaucracy and about the need to put forward a policy specifically in the interests of the workers and based on the independent self-organisation of the workers.  Socialist Democracy wants to be part of a democratic debate, to be part of a new party, but to do so by setting out and debating the programme of a working class party. The forces in the ULA at the moment are either unwilling to or insufficient for the building of such a party, so we have to turn our attention to the organisation of the working class, to nascent forms of struggle such as the rank and file trade union organisations and prepare for the inevitable confrontations between workers and capital that lie ahead. 

The centre of any working class programme must continue to be the utter repudiation of the debt and of all the elements of the offensive arising from the debt. Workers did not cause the debt and shouldn't pay a cent. We should resist at every level, fighting the redundancies, wage cuts and withdrawal of services at every level.

We should stand for the expropriation of bankrupt speculative property, for the closure of the banks and the building of a workers bank. Major resources such as the Corrib gas field should be controlled by the workers. The subsidies to transnational companies through low rates of corporation tax must end.

The trail of speculation and corruption reaches into every town and village and can be linked to every restriction and closure of local services.  Services must be directly under the control of popular committees. Private companies must be prevented from sucking our blood through the control of public services.

We should call for and implement all forms of financial disclosure at every level. Who are the criminals? What resources do they hold and where are they? What are the links between the politicians, the speculators and the bankers. Where does the money supposed to bail out Ireland end up?

Ireland is a country lacking any vestige of self-determination. We oppose the control of the European Central Bank and of the IMF. We oppose the Good Friday agreement and the legitimation of British rule in the North.

We counterpose to the existing chaos an Irish workers republic in alliance with the European working class to build a united socialist states of Europe.

A central element of any program is the absence of a  working class movement to implement it. The traditional organizations of the Labour Party and trade unions have collapsed completely and act directly as agents of capital. This issue has been decisively decided by the inclusion of Labour in the current Fine Gael coalition and of the trade unions in the memorandum of understanding being implemented by the ECB and IMF.

The fact is that the trade union betrayal was accomplished without any sizable opposition emerging. The lack of opposition extends into the socialist movement, with the left  plumping for unity with the bureaucracy.

The working class is much stronger in many parts of Europe, but the pattern there is not dissimilar. The building of a workers party is going to take a long time and the socialists will be confined to propaganda and exemplary actions where the class struggle allows it.

The issue of the United Left Alliance is the issue of the extent to which the existing socialist movement, or part of it, can unite around a programme of action and advance the building of a workers party. 

Given the pressures of the capitalist crisis, the answer should not be long in coming.