18.04.1996

Unforgiven

Of course, Fisc (or at least, an early manifestation of it) and the Communist Party have crossed swords before. This document - a 1993 internal paper of Socialist Outlook, produced by the ‘Fix its’ which included Pat and Caroline Sikorski - refers to the January 9 1993 Miners’ Support Conference and the challenge presented there by The Leninist (as they incorrectly dubbed CP supporters).

In the heady days of 1992/93, when the air was thick with talk of a general strike in solidarity with the miners and around broader class issues, the Communist Party fought for the democratising of the solidarity movement. This meeting - which attracted over 500 delegates - had been advertised as “a chance to meet and discuss tactics and plan activities” (cited in the CP paper of the time, the Daily Worker, January 16 1993).

Of course, the Socialist Movement Trade Union Committee (SMTUC) mandarins - centrally Pat and Caroline Sikorski - had other ideas and tried to impose a rally on these people. As I wrote at the time,

“A conference is not a conference when the organisers refuse to accept resolutions from affiliated bodies; when the plan is to atomise delegates, who in the main know each other and already work with each other, into regional ‘workshops’ with no report back to conference as a whole; when the time of the so-called plenary sessions is totally taken up by a panel of invited, pre-arranged speakers” (Ibid).

The floor of conference (including supporters of Socialist Outlook themselves) rebelled and forced a partial climbdown, although the advantage was lost and a large part of the day was indeed wasted.

Typically, the Sikorski/SMTUC approach to the conference had already been rejected. At a pre-Christmas meeting in 1992 to organise the event, the structure of the January 9 meeting was debated. The idea of a rally-format with no plenary sessions and no report backs was rejected by 18 votes to 2 (Pat and Caroline Sikorski, of course). Then, with utter contempt for the movement that these people are supposed to be the servants of, they attempted to impose their narrow, sectarian agenda on this meeting of our movement.

We wrote they should be forgiven for that ... “this time”. Organising such a “farce” just once was “forgivable”. We told them however that to continue in the attempt to impose this wrecking, destructive project on the working class movement would be “wilful, sectarian damage ... And for that, no one should be forgiven” (Ibid).

So, here we are again, Fisc comrades. Clearly there is a definite political continuity between your bureaucratic role in the National Miners Support Network and what you are (secretly) up to today in the SLP.

Don’t you think it is time you explained yourselves openly to the movement? Or do you think your particular political project is too important to be explained to the ‘great unwashed’ who actually make up its ranks?

Mark Fischer