Socialist Unity

Good to see that some in the Socialist Party seem to be still pushing for at least tactical unity around elections (see letter For socialist unity in future elections). It's a pity the leadership of the Socialist Party can't be as positive.

As an former member of Militant it's depressing to see the organisation engaging in the same sectarian behaviour it once accused others of. The decision to withdraw from the Socialist Alliance and to criticise Respect from the sidelines seems to me to have been be a mistake. This is not to suggest that others were blameless in the matter or to downplay the difficulty of creating united fronts but there seems far more benefit in unity than division.

Of course, Militant's criticism of others' sectarianism was, to an extent, disingenuous. Like others on the revolutionary left, orthodoxy (or rather, adherence to its own particular analysis) was more important than dialogue or joint action. Discussion of theorists or ideas that fell outside the accepted canon (a fairly limited one of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky) were frowned upon or dismissed with faint amusement.

On the other hand, the organisation has a lot to teach others on the left. While the years spent in the Labour Party had some negative effects it also had many benefits, not the least of which were strong roots in the working class (in key areas) and a wealth of experience in local campaigning and electioneering. Respect could benefit from such experience, provided others - most notably the SWP - were able to act in a truly collaborative fashion.

One of the issues raised during the discussions over the future of the Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party and Respect, has been the task of creating counter-hegemony and what the term actually means. I would suggest that for the foreseeable future it is not so much about creating a unifying orthodoxy, rather it is about creating unity around tactical and strategic objectives, and also about creating a discursive space in which ideas with their roots in Marxism can be exchanged and refined. More importantly, it is about creating an oppositional culture that is vibrant, rather than one that is narrow and sterile.

Part of the problem is that the Trotskyist left was constructed upon a model that evolved in insurrectionary circumstances, and was refined by a core of embattled revolutionaries. Before the Civil War and the growth of Stalinism crushed it, the Bolshevik organisation demonstrated a diversity that many would find hard to imagine. Indeed, few modern revolutionary organisations demonstrate the diversity of thought that characterised the Russian social democrats during exile.

New thinking is needed for a new era, especially if were are to build an opposition to New Labour and neo-liberalism. Obsessing over othodoxy or shying away from building unity are not part of that new thinking or new future.