As expected, the Reclaim the Campus conference on May 17 did not cohere the student left around a worthwhile set of principled politics. Instead it was a rebranding exercise for Education Not for Sale, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty’s student front. Ben Klein reports

The Reclaim the Campus conference was meant to refocus and broaden Education Not for Sale. Around 60 attended, a large chunk from the Alliance for Worker’ Liberty, the dominant force in ENS. Then there was a sprinkling from revolutionary youth groups: Revolution (Workers Power’s outfit), Communist Students and two leading members of the Socialist Workers Party/Student Respect – namely Rob Owen and Claire Solomon. The rest were a rather formless bunch from the so-called anti-capitalist movement, which the AWL has been so keen to tail.

The SWP comrades were there as observers. Revo was there because ENS has a few anarchist types in tow. We were there to challenge the AWL. CS sent a small delegation.

As we have made clear, there can be no fraternal relations between CS and ENS while the latter covers for imperialism and refuses to adopt a principled position on US-UK occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. A political litmus test.

Although things started at 11am, it was not until 3pm, after mind-blowingly dull ‘plenaries’ on such controversial topics as marketisation of education and the NUS governance review, that we actually got to discuss why we were actually there in the first place – ie, student left unity.

Dan Randall put forward the AWL’s proposals for ENS. He said that “students are in a situation where the potential exists to create a broad network of anti-capitalists around a number of key political bottom lines” in order to form “some sort of democratic society based on collective ownership and so on”.

Underlining how nothing new was to come from this event, he argued that ENS has always sought to be that anti-capitalist alliance between Marxist socialists (like himself), eco-socialist and anarchists, and we should not adopt a programme or platform that precludes the involvement or unity with those types.

Apparently, the “CS alternative does precisely preclude unity with these forces and would alienate them”. According to comrade Randall, “even adopting a proper Marxist programme, as opposed to the incredibly inadequate one that CS have put forward, would be wrong”. He did not explain at all why our programme is inadequate or what he actually disagrees with, however.

In formally proposing the CS platform I put forward the view that Marxists must look to what should unite us as Marxists – namely revolutionary democracy, consistent internationalism and a commitment to working class rule. I pointed out that the conference had not only been called, organised and built by purported Marxists, but also that most of the speakers, the chair and nearly all of the programmatic and constitutional proposals came from purported Marxists too.

What was needed, I argued, was a broad outline of the principles around which we as revolutionaries could unite – this is what our platform embodied and why it should be adopted.

There is no reason why those who say they are anarchists could not be won to accept those principles. It is true that this project will, initially at least, not win over a majority of students. Indeed, arguing for Marxism on the student left was hard enough amongst the so-called Marxist left in today’s conditions. Whereas the sects talk about the Bolsheviks and revolution at their own meetings, when they set up so-called broad fronts they do not put forward their own politics, but merely seek to reflect existing consciousness.

Tina Becker added that the CS platform is not about excluding those who are not Marxists, but it does unapologetically propose Marxist politics. Marxism does not provide the basis for a “confessional sect”, but for the unity of all those committed to revolutionary change.

Sacha Ismail (AWL student organiser) argued that there are situations where you do not put forward your “whole programme”. He called ENS a “hybrid” and counterposed the need to act unitedly on given issues to agreement on everything. Of course, we are for acceptance of Marxist principles as a guide to action.

Troops out now?

AWL student comrades did not uphold the social-imperialist position of their organisation on Iraq (the AWL majority opposes the call for ‘troops out now’). Instead they preferred to go for a rotten fudge. Comrade Randall suggested opposition to “imperialists and predators big and small”, alongside “No to war on Iran, against the occupation of Iraq” (nothing about Afghanistan though). AWL students are obviously acutely aware how unpopular their ‘troops in’ position is. Even amongst their own, albeit thin, periphery. They certainly did not want to be humiliatingly defeated at their own conference on this crucial issue.

Vicky Thompson of Hands Off the People of Iran proposed a straight forward amendment: “Opposition to imperialism. The immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.” Opposing this, AWL majority member Sofie Buckland insisted that the call lends support to the reactionary islamist militias. She was adamant that ENS should not take a position on this question – despite its fundamental importance for the British workers’ movement. So much for being “against the occupation of Iraq”.

ENS has long been tainted by the AWL’s social-imperialism. The fact that comrade Thompson’s amendment was passed despite AWL opposition should be welcomed. However, knowing the AWL, I would not hold out much hope that it will be acted upon. Although eight of the members of the 10-strong leadership body are broadly committed to ‘troops out now’, the two convenor positions are safely in the hands of the AWL and it is almost certain that the whole issue will be swept under the carpet.

AWL front

CS comrades consistently pointed out that this was nothing but a rebranding of the AWL’s ENS front. We argued that genuine unity must be based upon programmatic clarity – principles cannot be thrown overboard in the name of the lowest common denominator.

This may have helped focus the minds of Revo comrades. Exactly what sort of organisation was it signing up to? So at the last minute they put forward an amendment to the proposed constitution, demanding the deletion of references to ENS as a membership organisation – a proposal which struck a chord with the anarchists present. After a half-hearted attempt to oppose this by comrades Buckland and Robin Sivapalan, the AWL gave in. Presumably the comrades did not want to come across as being too dominant.

The result is that there is now another student organisation with almost exactly the same politics as the SWP’s Student Respect and the Labour left-sponsored Socialist Youth Network, but without any formal membership structure.

Student Respect had cancelled its own student ‘left unity’ conference, which had been billed for the next day. Perhaps the SWP had been unable to mobilise enough outside its own ranks to make it worthwhile. But Rob Owen was definitely in a good mood. Laughing off accusations that the AWL and SWP have essentially the same approach to politics, he talked about plans for a “bigger, broader conference in a couple of months time”. Predominantly, he said, aimed at defeating the NUS governance review.

Hands Off Hopi!

When it came to motions, Vicky Thompson was given two minutes to argue why ENS should affiliate to Hopi.

The two speeches against came from diametrically opposed positions. Firstly, comrade Randall claimed Hopi is not a serious campaign. Allegedly it was absent from the demonstration to release Iranian trade union leader Mansour Ossanlou outside Tehran’s London embassy. In fact four Hopi steering committee members were there. But no AWLers. Nevertheless, the message from comrade Randall was clear: Hopi is Iran-defencist.

Then Luke Cooper from Workers Power’s Revo described Hopi as a “propaganda bloc” which equated the Iranian regime with the forces of US imperialism. A good polemic against the AWL, perhaps. But hardly against Hopi, whose starting point is that US imperialism is the main enemy.

The vote was so close there had to be a recount (an AWLer sympathetic to Hopi had his hand pulled down). Eventually it was clear that the unholy alliance of imperialist apologists and resistance glorifiers had won the day. On the one hand, Hopi is called “third campist” by those who think our Iranian comrades should join the Revolutionary Guard if conflict with the US breaks out. On the other hand, Hopi is labelled “defencist” by those who think that imperialism can provide some sort of space to protect workers in the Middle East from “clerical fascism”.

Later on, Kave, an Iranian student and supporter of Hopi, gave the most inspiring speech of the day – but perhaps it was aimed at the wrong audience. He outlined recent developments within the Iranian student movement, noting its self-definition as communist, and argued that if it is to progress then there must be a mass revolutionary party free of the Stalinism of Tudeh and capable of leading the struggle of the Iranian workers to take power.

Surely the same applies to Britain. The left must break with petty sect projects and the frontism of Respect, ENS, etc.