04.04.1996

Some questions to Militant Labour

There are important ambiguities in the position of Militant Labour on the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Alliances and the question of a new party of the working class. We have two main questions to ask ML comrades. We would be interested to feature answers either from the organisation as a whole or individual members with an opinion to share.

Should working class militants join the Socialist Labour Party?

Initially ML expressed great enthusiasm for the Scargill initiative. When the SLP was being mooted, ML stated that “there already exists a mood amongst a layer of advanced workers for a new socialist party” (Socialism Today, November 1995). By February 1996, ML was far more cautious after Scargill’s restrictive draft constitution had been made public. It noted, correctly, that this supposed “SLP constitution” was “drawn up in advance, with the assistance of lawyers, and presented as a fait accompli” (Socialism Today, February 1996).

There is a difference between something being presented as a fait accompli and it being accepted as a fait accompli. Yet ML states that a successful challenge to this constitution “seems unlikely in the immediately future” (Ibid). As we have argued to others, this is to be intimidated by a phantom. At present, the SLP has no constitution - Scargill himself calls his document a “contribution”. Those forces in the SLP who are attempting to impose this “contribution” as a “fait accompli” have now been shown to be in blatant violation of it themselves (see page 4 - ‘No SLP witch-hunts’).

There is a state of fluidity in and around the SLP project: it is this reality that revolutionaries must start from. It seems that some comrades influenced by ML have indeed taken this more positive approach - but a ‘ragged’ orientation to the SLP is to have the worst of all worlds. It should not be a matter of personal choice, but serious organisational orientation.

Of course, ML comrades in general have a negative attitude to the experience of ‘entryism’. They write, understandably, that they are not “willing to return to the kind of political straight-jacket which the Labour leaders imposed” on them in the past (Ibid). But the situation is totally different. The Labour Party which contained Militant Tendency was an existing, bureaucratic machine framed by the bans and proscriptions on communists and revolutionaries from the 1920s onwards. The SLP is not yet established. The situation is molten.

We are certainly not advocating a strategy of ‘heads down’, long-term entryism - or in fact - entryism of any kind. ML should be open about its orientation and open about its comrades’ political affiliations.

The wariness of anything that smacks of entryism also arises because ML left so many of its people behind in Labour when it finally split in 1991. Yet this is fundamentally a political question, not one of organisational or tactical orientation. It expressed the fact that ML’s politics contain the unresolved tension between revolution and reform - the organisation is “neither fish nor fowl”, as founder leader Ted Grant put it at the time of the schism.

Without the cohesion of a genuinely revolutionary programme, an organisation must become progressively social-democratised. Such politics inevitably engender the tendency to split along left/right lines. This is a problem that will face ML in the future, regardless of an orientation to the SLP in the here and now. The answer is not abstention from the SLP: it is to resolve this political tension positively in favour of revolution.

What are the ML perspectives for the Socialist Alliances?

Again, we see a certain raggedness in the attitude of ML on the ground. Nationally, ML’s position is that,

“given the initial character of the SLP, the extent to which it will develop in the next period is very uncertain. In this situation, the development of the socialist forums will continue to be vital preparatory groundwork for the formation of a new party of the left” (Socialism Today, February 1996).

As we have already made clear, we believe it is a mistake to take the “character” of the SLP at this stage as given. Yet, given the priority ML seems to place on the Socialist Alliances around the country, there are some problems:

In some areas, ML members participate enthusiastically in the SAs and view the exchange of views between groups in them as healthy. In other areas, ML is far more hesitant and impatient of what it sees as ‘time-wasting’ debate.

There are moves afoot towards national coordination of the SAs. Does ML now believe that these forums are not simply “preparatory groundwork” for a new party, but actually its embryonic form?

If so, surely an approach to the Socialist Workers Party - an attempt to crack its fragile sectarian shell - is now urgently required? The CPGB will continue to fight for comrades from ML to be allowed into the SLP. If necessary we will pursue this fight against political friends who now tell us that Scargill’s restrictive draft is “understandable”. The place for all partisans of the class - ML included - is in the ranks of the SLP.

Ian Mahoney