Interim Platform
The platform as drafted left a lot to be desired though it contained many supportable demands. It is an interim document to cover the next couple of months, though some of the content goes far beyond immediate tasks or a statement of principles, even venturing into campaign priorities and commentary on the current political situation. However, it marked a step away from the poor political statement that was passed at the founding conference of Your Party and the effort to weld together anarchist and Trotskyist approaches was certainly novel. As for us, Democratic Socialists, a bit of self-criticism is in order, we moved a single amendment primarily aimed to challenge prescribing committees of action as the organisational form struggles will go through in the preface and replace it with a call for a mass democratic socialist party. Myself and Bryce Bailey argued that a permanent organisation, a party is necessary to cohere struggle, hold the memory of defeats and victories and not to simply rely on temporary bodies thrown up in struggle. Our mistake was that in our amendment we also cut lines on democratic self management and how workers gain experience in struggle. Quite rightly this was pointed out as a cut too far and our amendment fell. As an organisation we agreed to participate in the Socialist Federation in a critical but comradely and constructive way, so recognising this mistake is in keeping with how we want to work with other socialists and activists across the movement.
The platform itself was a shopping list of demands, campaigning points, commentary and principles and after being amended remained quite incoherent. The approach leaned heavily into spontaneity, immediate demands and caution when it comes to the British state. For example, the amendment on dissolving the standing army was rejected by a small majority and the primary argument against was the usual mix of comrades saying they agreed with it but are just not yet ready to vote for it and the line you would get from the Communist Party of Britain that such statement would bring the unwanted attention of the British state. Still, over a third of the meeting voted for it which suggests some progress is being made to reacquaint the movement with a foundational pillar of the socialist programme.
Amendments on opposing the Green Party and liberal identity politics from the Spartacist League fell and so did an amendment on sovereign national industries. I spoke against the last amendment, arguing that it pointed to a national road to socialism when what we really need to be aiming at is a continental revolution at the minimum. An attempt by Anticapitalist Resistance’s Duncan Chapel to commit the new federation to back Plaid Cymru and Green Party local election candidates through promoting an anti-cuts pledge was thankfully roundly defeated, Richard Gerrard argued that committing the federation in advance to back such candidates was a mistake and I also spoke against asking if and how nationalist parties of the Greens offer any way forward for the working class and about positions beyond cuts to local services, such as opposition to NATO or Trans liberation. Meanwhile, amendments enshrining ecosocialism, broadening liberation politics, supporting the rights of the people of Scotland and Wales to decide whether they should continue in the union and for a united Ireland all passed. Simon Hannah’s motion on proportional representation passed though the debate saw two members of Democratic Socialists on different sides of the discussion. Also passed, though they felt slightly out of place in terms of a political platform, were frameworks for ongoing programme development and organiser training. The amended platform was then adopted by 52 votes to 3.
Structure
The second part of the day dealt with the structure of the new federation. Now I know a lot of comrades enjoy these kinds of discussions, the intricacies and all the rest but these debates often do not set my world on fire. However, quite clearly a small number of Socialist Federation supporters have been hard at work over several weeks and it is worth noting the effort and care they have taken to present their documents openly and publicly. Moreover, it turned out despite my expectations to have a couple of fireworks and serious political differences did emerge.
The most contentious debate surrounded the submission (C1.13) of an amendment by Workers Power’s Marcus Halaby, which was defeated by the narrowest possible margin, 24 votes to 25. It was essentially a delete all and replace motion and received a plurality of votes at the earlier conference where the Socialist Federation emerged from the chrysalid of the Members’ Charter. It radically reduced the length and complexity of the federation’s constitution much to the ire of those who penned the primary document and some of the already passed and would-be deleted amendments. During debate, Marcus’ submission was criticised by some as a "wrecking amendment" because, coming near the end of the amendment schedule, it would have significantly altered parts of the structure document after numerous earlier amendments had already been agreed. That criticism was, however, obviously misplaced and a bit unfair as he did not determine where his amendment appeared in the running order as the sequencing of amendments had already been established through the conference agenda and amendment schedule adopted by conference.
An unfortunate amendment (C1.6) from Anticapitalist Resistance dealt a blow to member democracy in the federation by throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach to factions and caucuses. The amendment removed references to caucuses representing "a minority political platform or a shared interest", the amendment restricted the constitutional basis upon which members could organise collectively to liberation caucuses. While factions and caucuses can be distinct organisational forms, excluding minority political platforms and shared-interest organising from the caucus model represents a retreat from member democracy. This reflects a longstanding tendency found in sections of the left to discourage or show a lack of foresight when it comes to the organisation of political minorities despite themselves existing as organised tendencies. The result is a constitution that provides fewer democratic avenues for members to organise around developing political ideas or emerging forms of oppression than the original draft envisaged.
The adoption of Option 2 in C1.7 raises further political questions. I tend to follow the perspective of socialists such as the late A Sivanandan that by prescribing institutions for black and racialised communities, in the federation’s case a single caucus, it defines for others acceptable spaces for anti-racism and a limited and controlled space to organise - whereas Sivanandan would see organisation, caucuses and so on emerging autonomously from the lived realities of oppression and collective struggle rather than being neatly pre-packaged by a constitution. Moreover a catch all caucus flattens profoundly different experiences of racism and oppression, or, indeed, different political viewpoints. The federation adopted an approach no different to the trade unions, students’ unions and the Labour Party. A genuinely democratic approach would allow oppressed groups and political minorities to determine for themselves the basis upon which they organise.
In that respect, James Kulmer's alternative was undoubtedly the stronger democratic model, much more rooted in the insights and lessons from the black radical tradition than the economist straightjacket of British trade unionism. James proposed caucuses that members themselves could establish around shared politics, nationality, liberation struggles, specific oppressions or other common interests, rather than limiting organisation to prescribed constitutional categories. Such an approach would have encouraged political self-organisation from below instead of recognising only those identities sanctioned by the constitution.
Other amendments on electoral engagement, training, looser rules on affiliation and so on were passed. An amendment, again from James Kulmer, that committed the federation to support the creation of clubs, associations and spaces for social and political work fell. Bizarrely the argument against rested on the idea that a former supporter had somehow copyrighted these ideas. The creation of such bodies is very much the norm, or should I say was the norm in our movement with parties and unions creating and supporting everything from brass bands to drum 'n' bass nights to reading circles to self-defence groups to football clubs and much more. The structure motion as amended was ultimately carried comfortably (49–2, with 5 abstentions) and whilst many safeguards were put in place the amended document is noticeably more restrictive than it might otherwise have been regarding the autonomous political organisation of its own members.
Prospects
The conference elected a five person committee to organise the next conference that will be in person, but with proper provision for those with caring responsibilities or disabilities. There were also a number of solidarity speakers, the first two were effortlessly the best of the day, the first on the right to food and the second representing a housing campaign fighting eviction. Mel Mullins, RMT activist and one of the seven Grassroots Left candidates to win a seat on the Your Party CEC, spoke from Jamaica and called for solidarity and exiting the culture of trashing each other. Our friend Ewan Tilley also gave a tub thumping speech asking us to become the barbarians at the gates.
There certainly are some serious problems facing the federation that this conference did not and probably could not overcome. The first is one we all share in the post Your Party period, a lack of engagement, energy and declining numbers. Having 80 at a Sunday conference after the hottest week of the year is no small feat but that is half the number of those who attended the first conference at the end of May and 13% of those who have signed up either to the Members’ Charter or the federation. It is very difficult at present to mobilise with so many disappointed and reeling from what happened with Your Party but it does place the ambitious approach and the survivability of the federation in question, as it does with ourselves in Democratic Socialists and many other groups. Secondly, the incoherent political platform and the basis that common work is being carried out on will need to be resolved, questions on NATO and Ukraine or Trans liberation or relating to the Green Party for example can’t be smoothed over or fudged, likewise the approach to programme needs to fundamentally shift from accommodating spontaneous and anarchist fantasies towards a deeper revolutionary approach that lays out the political basis for working class power and the communist future that sits on the horizon.
Postscript
Five days following the conference Mel Mullins was suspended by Corbyn’s leadership clique for damaging the party, swiftly followed were the suspensions of Solma Ahmed and Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, two other CEC members elected from the Grassroots Left slate who were not present at the conference. Your Party officers taking this action after Mel spoke at the Socialist Federation conference whilst Jeremy Corbyn’s face is plastered up on university campuses across the country helping to promote the Socialist Workers Party’s annual Marxism festival, after they were publicly humiliated and expelled by Corbyn and his cronies would beggar belief in usual circumstances. But this is all very predictable, the same bureaucrats who ran Corbynism 1.0 into ground haven’t learnt any lessons and are so wedded to the dull but deeply anti-democratic methods of the trade union bureaucracy that such sanctions against respected and hardworking socialists are par for the course. It always is one rule for them and another for the rest of us. Mel, Solma and Naomi must be free to carry out their work as elected members of Your Party’s collective leadership without sanction and accusations and those responsible for these moves should be removed from their posts and considered outside of our movement. As Democratic Socialists we stand unequivocally in solidarity with all three.
Report by Chris Strafford