18.04.1996

Left and right in Manchester

Similar discussions occurred at a public meeting of Manchester SLP, where the Liverpool dockers and Pat Sikorski began a discussion on ‘The Labour movement and the trade unions’.

Pat emphasised the need for independent political organisation, opening up discussion on the Party question, the historical role of the Labour Party and the CPGB and the formation and tasks of the SLP.

Pat had made reference to the fact that the Labour Party constitution and rules had been changed and could not be discussed for two years.

This prompted some communist SLP members to raise the concern that the constitution of the SLP was being implemented without discussion and, it is mooted, would be voted on without discussion. If passed, it could not be changed until 1997.

Pat assured the meeting that the constitution would be discussed.

I expressed the concern that existing organisations were being excluded from the discussions of the SLP before it was even formed, and indeed were being witch-hunted by key members like himself. Pat replied that he did not want lots of different organisations in the SLP. It should recruit independent workers and become a mass working class party. Apart from the fact that he somehow sees key, militant, organised and active workers as not part of the working class, this view actually contradicts the view of his Fisc organisation, as published in last week’s Weekly Worker. When did he change his mind?

A group of ex-Socialist Outlook members talked amongst themselves throughout the meeting, demonstrating the height of anti-working class sectarianism, and rudeness come to that. It was significant that they did not have the confidence to express their views openly in the meeting.

SLP members in Manchester told me afterwards that many members of the branch agreed with what I and SLP communists said, and thought it was imperative that the SLP was an inclusive, not an exclusive project. They felt that the Socialist Outlook comrades, who confess to being on the right of the SLP, were marginalising themselves. The most active, honest and partisan revolutionaries are obviously gaining the most respect.

Socialist Outlook comrades were at pains to assure me that Fisc has been dissolved. This turns out to be news to other members of Fisc. Whether or not it has been, it is clear that these comrades are constituting a very divisive and unhealthy tendency within the SLP.

Some Socialist Outlook comrades who showed a more partisan approach nevertheless expressed their concern to me that I had raised criticisms of the SLP in a public meeting. Disagreements should be a private matter, they said, as demonstrated by Fisc’s behaviour. The working class will be put off by disagreements. Again this is an attitude contemptuous of the working class, not borne out by history or reality. It is obviously nothing more than a cloak for these comrade’s own dishonest and conspiratorial approach to politics.

All discussions about how the working class achieves socialism and liberates humanity should be the property of the working class as a whole, not a few self-proclaimed leaders who want to act as patriarchs of the class.