According to Stuart King and Permanent Revolution, the founding meeting in April decided to focus on starting local groups where possible and allow a breathing space for a political platform to emerge from the diverse politics of the comrades involved. So the platform was expected to be debated/discussed in the Autumn.

Now having had some experience of discussions around platforms and programmes, they can be very difficult and complex,even where there is openness and lack of dogmatism and various traditions don’t get too much in the way. And frustrating. so I would have thought that the anti capitalist initiative would require at lest that amount of time before attempting to define itself politically which is essential if the organisation is to have direction and clarity.

According to Stuart, Workers Power,circulated a political platform at the July 14th meeting two days, in advance, which does seem to be a case of posturing as the most far sighted leadership, rather than a serious attempt to stimulate discussion and convince by detailed argumentation. Although having said, that I would usually be in favour of debating things out, rather than a procedure to close debate. But having not been immersed in the activities /discussions it is difficult to make the correct call from outside the process.

The statement from Workers Power appears rather bad tempered and impatient. The A.C.I is dismissed as a waste of space,not in terms of numbers, but what came out of it- nothing. That is useless in terms of programme/platform. There are sneers at Ex members of workers power for allegedly wanting a discussion club. This phrase is often used by Bureaucratic centralist groups to comrades who want discussion and debate not simply discipline and instructions. Ironically and inconsistently workers Power were calling for programmatic/platform discussion at the meeting.

But for me, looking at the statement of Workers Power, the most damaging aspect of it is where the mask slips and a certain attitude or closed mind is revealed: the rhetoric about these useless ex members of workers power seeking a new left and fashionable libertarians. Now that is a phrase from the archives to dismiss non Trotskyists and ex Trotskyists or ex members of workers power, which seems to be the same thing for the leaders of workers Power. From what I have seen I would think many comrades would not fundamentally disagree with their platform or would be against some kind of where we stand statement. But sneering at libertarian communists, as dedicated followers of fashion, is not an attitude that would have developed the A.C.I. anyway.

At the moment is is local networks which meet regularly and then a semi regular national coordination made up of volunteers and delegates. We have a volunteer team of editors for the website who meet seperatly and report back to the national coordination. The coordination only has powers granted it by the last national meeting, so we are organising the Rebellion event and approaching other organisations and individuals to get involved. I think we need a structure in the future which is a little more formal in terms of delegates and even a modest apparatus but in my opinion any national organisation needs to respect the autonomy of the branches and the working fractions in any union. The ability for leaders to ‘instruct’ members to take action should be reserved for conditions of civil war, in my opinion.

“I mostly know about you lot from the CPGB’s frothing attacks on you”

The CPGB’s attacks were ridiculous, criticising us for forming a sect and liquidating and not adopting a full Marxist programme at out first bloody meeting! Unbelievable!

Barry > “For instance to simply repeat the outdated and inadequate formulations on Rank and file from the early Communist international will not be very fruitful in debating how to free workers from trade union hierarchies.”

That might very well be the case, I would like to know more about the commune’s approach to unions.My feeling is for a mixed approach, rank and file structures in some unions plus new unions at other times (IWW’s victories for cleaners a small glimour of hope on the horizon), but also I think advocating the “militant” unions forming seperate federations outside of the TUC is also a possibility. I am quite flexible on it I just think we need to get rid of the bloody bureaucrats!

Barry> “Did Workers Power fall short of some higher standard of ‘Democratic Centralism’ or did you reach the conclusion that the Bolshevik model is no longer adequate for the modern world?”

In my opinion WP’s model of DC was very much the Bolshevik faction a la 1912, whereas I am more interested in the RSDLP circa 1906, united, broader, autonomous, freedom of criticism inside and outside the party, a leadership that has to win the arguments amongst the members for action, not just assume control, etc. If that is DC I could live with it, but I suspect that most of the left would not. Perhaps the Commune has an even more libertarian approach?

Barry> “Or have you just placed the Bolshevik model on one side,suspended belief so to speak.”

My feeling is that if anyone can build an exact replica of the 1917 bolshevik party and organise a revolution again then good luck to them, though fusing the party with the state after a revolution is a recipe for Stalinism again. The Bolshevik model had more applications for Russia at that time but now I just think it cuts against the grain too much and the left has a very one sided view of what it is, absolute unswerving loyalty to the line, assumptions of top down control authority etc. Really we need to be focussing on bottom up democratic processes which are inclusive and bring people with you in deciding policy and direction. In WP we would discuss policy on the leading committee and then it would filter down through the ranks, only being over turned at subsequent leadership meetings of conferences. This might be necessary in conditions of dictatorship or civil war, but today I think we can afford the ‘luxury’ of some bottom up democratic discussion of politics which is then condolidated at higher levels into policy. I say that but the ACI hasn’t actually doen any of that yet because I think we are still not at a critical mass stage when that kind of process is legitimate and has any kind of authority. I reckon the ACI needs to coordinate better, bring in more people and organisations and then begin to discuss policy and its programme/manifesto. Until that point there is really no gain from the small numbers we have now agreeing everything and then we just ‘build the organisation’. This is a debate with WP, because they believe we need a programme now in order to attract people otherwise “people won’t join because they won’t know what the ACI stands for”. Anyway that is another discussion.

Areas of fruitful discussion 1) What kind of organsiation do revolutionaries need today? 2) How can we free workers from the stifling restrictions of the union hierarchies 3) How can we mobilise people to fight austerity? 3) What does the Greek events tell us about the wider issue (Greece is at the cutting edge of austerity as such it is in ‘the vanguard’ if you will, what happens there is a useful indication of what might happen elsewhere) 4) modern theories of imperialism, what is the international basis at which capitalism reproduces itself. 5) Social oppression, self organisation for women, Black people and LGBT, what could that look like? 6) on a more theoretical level a Marxism which emphasises the subjective activity and actions of humans over the deterministic structuralism of some other forms of Marxism would certainly be a welcome development!

First of all myself and many other people involved in the initiative are very open minded about where it will end up. I personally think that trying to replicate the Bolshevik experience of 1917 is a fantasy, and we would have to question whether even if it was possible that it was desirable. I think that if people do want to repeat a historical model then the more open RSDLP model which had several tendencies and factions within it and autonomy for local branches is a more healthy and realistic kind of party to build, but then why do we have to just go back to the Second International? Isn’t what we need to build today inevitably going to need to be more flexible and modern?

Jackie smooths over some points of disagreement in her article between ex-WP members and Workers Power. Whilst I cannot speak for everyone, my comment that the WP resolution could be the “…end of the process” referred as much to the idea of a longer resolution of policies as it did to the content, I am reluctant to call things ‘parties’ (as in a mass working class party) because the ACI is certainly not that and would have to utterly transform itself into something else in order to be that. Whilst I am in general agreement with most of the policies around Palestine, the unions, the need for strikes and so on, I am not sure posing it in the way that WP does it the most helpful. But in that sense the phrase “we fight for the formation of a mass working class political alternative to the Labour Party” is not the worse formulation in the world, since a political alternative is a very general term which can mean different things to different people. Is this an opportunist fudging of differences? No, I think it is a recognition that the left is in a very weak state so we can afford to suspend some strategic differences in order to build up some dynamic left thinking and movement in the current dire situation.

I also think the comment that the ACI “is not sympathetic to the libertarian left traditions” is jumping the gun! The ACI is very new and itself has no position on libertarian left traditions, though some members within it may have already decided they are hostile. But then of course the Commune is made up of people who are ‘hostile’ to Bolshevism, so do we conclude that never the twain shall meet? I honestly believe that the most fruitful space for left politics right now is between Bolshevism and libertarianism, as long as there are not head bangers on either side who are de facto sectarian to the other, there is a real potential for a political synergy in a radical fight against austerity which is responsive to the new movements, anti-bureaucratic and theoretically creative. The best outcome is for the ACI to create a dynamic tension between different traditions and ideas which results in agreed actions and campaigns, but reveals the necessary debates and disagreements that lead to those ideas and conclusions. Is the question of a revolutionary communist party a la 1917 a breaking point for many people? Yes – but we are a million miles away from that so why focus on what could lead to an escape from the logjam now?

At the meeting there were a couple of ex-SWP members, an actual SWPer, someone from the Salon/Institute for Ideas, someone from the Alliance for Green Socialism (which stands independent left candidates in Leeds – a coalition which includes one or two Trotskyists and other expelled from the Labour Party), someone from the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (which also stands candidates, in a pact with the AGS), someone from the Green Party, a couple of us who were in Big Flame and who participated in Socialist Unity (which joined (harmoniously) with the International Marxist Group in standing candidates in the late 1970s), someone who worked for an independent left candidate in Barnsley, one or two who were Labour Party members, but mostly independent leftists – about 35 in all.

There was a lot of discussion about the peculiarities of Bradford (particularly its notably left-independent tradition (e.g. the founding place for the Independent Labour Party)), the particularly astute tactics Respect adopted in Bradford (especially its ability to mobilise Muslim women and youth and white workers) and the huge affection Gorgeous George managed to generate (I expressed my worry about the implications of his type of charisma).

When it came to discussion of the role of electoral campaigns for socialism, several of us were in favour. One, who is still in the ILP, said he thought the far left would just degenerate, as usual, into sectarian dispute as soon as it had declared unity – and I admit I share that anxiety.

This is one reason why I think the way forward might be to get into bed with Respect. Apparently, it has learned a lot from the debacle with the SWP in east London. Clearly, GG is a mixed blessing, and maybe a liability (has he really said that Assad is a great man? Just as he thought Saddam was?). But Respect has two great assets. For the first time, a political party has captured the interest and involvement of British Asians. I have always argued that the British left is nothing if it cannot fill itself with British black and Asian people (and all the other ethnic minorities for that matter). It is important to keep stressing that Respect also won the vote of thousands of disaffected whites. Secondly, it is relatively free of the obsession with policy, programme and organisation that has proved such a burden to the far left sects (including the anarchists and libertarians). Respect’s spontaneity, exuberance – even its slight air of chaos – is both attractive and, it would seem, effective.

Jackie Lucas’s account of recent ‘unity’ discussions among the various Trotskyist sects filled me with a gloomy sense of deja-vu. The account of Respect in Bradford on the other hand lifted my spirits. Particularly when the speaker said that GG was on trial in Bradford, and he was only a part of the story. Some of you might have heard the new Respect Cllr Ilyas Kamani on the radio condemning the Rochdale groomers, and condemning British Muslims for their sexual repression and refusal to discuss these issues. (There was a long interview with him in the Independent enlarging on those themes.) He’s an Imam, which adds to his credibility. A Bradford British Muslim whose PhD research includes interviews with Bradford youth, who was at our meeting last night, told me privately that his pir (Sufi master) had advised him, and all his followers, to vote Respect (fully aware that Respect’s foot soldiers include ‘Muslim’ drug dealers and criminals). The presence of progressive Muslims, especially when heaps of them are women, would offer a step-change to left politics, and the sectarians would be left behind, again.

Let me know what you think of Respect. We were told they had only six members in Bradford prior to the elections, so I guess the old Respect might not be a good guide, and maybe Bradford Respect’s success is just a flash in the pan.