With Momentum going through a “Refounding” process, we are publishing contributions from members or groups with proposals for the future of Momentum. We note that, paralleling our introductory comments to our interviews with Momentum’s NCG candidates that, the level of discussion has generally been quite low (or perhaps, more precisely, and even more troublingly, the discussion has been almost entirely absent) and as with those interviews, we hope providing a platform for discussions about Momentum’s future may help to bring forward arguments and enable member participation. If you or your group would like to contribute ideas, email [email protected]
The Momentum Refounding process comes at a potentially critical moment for the British left. Though the end of Corbynism exposed a failure to cement structures that would exist and mutually grow beyond a parliamentary movement, the recent gains in the UNISON and UNITE NEC elections, as well as the victory of Sharon Graham in the UNITE general secretary election suggest that the left does retain a level of institutional support. Where Momentum—the largest left wing membership organisation in Britain—fits into this recomposing of the British left will largely be answered by how politically and structurally coherent it can become via the ongoing refounding process.
What is Momentum?
On their website Momentum describe themselves as a people-powered, vibrant movement. Unfortunately this description doesn’t help categorise Momentum within the historical context of political organisations. As a membership organisation it is necessarily the conditions of membership that define the contours of the organisation’s politics. As the only condition of membership is membership of the Labour Party, it is therefore the Labour Party that inevitably sets the limits on the political horizon of Momentum. One could argue that this condition of membership is rarely enforced (we all know of Momentum members who are no longer in the Labour Party), but the formalised necessity for Labour Party membership is enough for any half-competent party bureaucrat to understand the balance of forces between the party and Momentum. Until the membership is untethered from the party, the radical potential of Momentum will remain limited.
The Labour Party is often referred to as a “broad church”, and Momentum resembles something similar – a loose coalition of political trends. Local groups are not homogenous structures but left to their own devices. Many have organised themselves in the manner of local CLP groups while others have no formal structure at all. Decision making at the national level is largely in the hands of the National Coordinating Group (NCG). This results in members who may be active and autonomous at a local level but are actually disengaged at the level of the national organisation. Supporting slates containing transphobic candidates whilst hosting trans-solidarity events is emblematic of this problem, where responses to divisions are fudged through empty rhetoric and diplomatic agreement over vague generalities.
Sects, factionalism and parasitism
Currently it is difficult for the lay member to produce an informed analysis of the state of the organisation. Momentum does not release data on membership numbers or finances, restricting analyses of the current condition of the organisation and how it can best be utilised in the future. In April 2018 Momentum celebrated hitting 40,000 members. It’s worth keeping in mind that this is less than 0.01% of the UK population. Too small to represent a class movement, too large and politically rudderless to organise as a sect, the end of Corbynism saw Momentum become ripe for small, politically coherent sects to absorb Momentum members. It is difficult to assess whether this has happened to any great extent. Often misused as a term of abuse, “sect,” as Hal Draper argues, properly describes a small group that embodies the socialist movement in being tightly cohered around a political programme—rather than, say, its relationship to social structure—and crucially it need not be “sectarian” or otherwise obstructive to the formation of a broader movement but is rather an essential source of impetus, momentum even, for wider socialist mobilisation. By contrast, a faction is a grouping that shares a political vision and that sits within a wider political organisation. As an example, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) contains numerous factions with their own political vision.
Without a clear political platform of its own, there are no real coherent factions within Momentum. The NCG elections saw two slates proposed – Momentum Renewal and Forward Momentum. Neither came anywhere close to a coherent political platform (although Momentum Internationalists – in a parody of left slate fetishism – did push their own politically coherent slate to stand for the Forward Momentum slate). This lack of factionalism is unsurprising as there has been no space within Momentum to actually deliberate a set of politics. Too often the left has viewed factionalism as parasitic—as a process by which smaller, more politically developed organisations can assume control over larger, better resourced ones. This is only really a problem in organisations with sufficiently centralised structures. What makes this particularly frustrating is that we are more likely to work in alliance with (or under terms set by) reactionary bourgeois parties—see the necessity of Labour Party membership above! – than countenance organised factions within wider groupings. Factionalism is not only healthy but a necessity in such tumultuous times, in which the left has nothing close to a consensus strategy.
When labour transformed submitted its refounding proposal—which was centred around the democratic construction of a political platform and minimum programme—one criticism levelled at us was a failure to assert our own politics, instead leaving it to the Momentum membership to decide. This could be seen as an act of cowardice or a lack of faith in our own political platform. By our own volition we are a small, politically coherent organisation – ie a sect. Why shouldn’t we seek to assert our own politics on a larger, politically ambiguous organisation like Momentum?
The question fails to account for what Momentum currently is (as discussed in the preceding section). With the current disconnect between local and national, the lack of political coherence, and the lack of member agency, it would be strategically naïve for a small sect to attempt to assert its politics on an organisation with little knowledge of the actual political base of that organisation. Instead what we are advocating is to build structures that allow members to deliberate across local groups and involve themselves in the political formation of the organisation. At that point there would be a platform for factions to cohere within a wider organisation and advocate for their set of politics in a deliberative arena, as opposed to attempting to enforce their views in a manner completely disconnected from the social base of the membership. Moreover, our proposals call for establishing the democratic structures and processes that would allow for factional deliberation in a way that can effectively resist the top-down imposition of a political programme.
Towards Coherence
Almost to the point of self-parody, labour transformed has been speaking of coherence since the organisation formed. There has been an inevitable fragmentation post-Corbyn and Momentum is best placed to develop a political coherence of the British left. This is largely based on the mundane logic of finance and resource. With tens of thousands of members and national visibility, Momentum has the funding to employ staff and run in a manner that organisations run by volunteers simply cannot. But it is the membership that must decide on the political direction of the organisation, and it is to that end that labour transformed’s proposals aim to create the structures to facilitate this.