18.04.1996

The struggle for socialism: Reform or revolution?

Lee-Anne Bates reports on discussions developing within the Socialist Labour Party

Hemsworth branch of the SLP had its first branch meeting on April 15. A small but positive meeting made plans to build the branch, initially with public meetings.

After the meeting I spoke to Arthur Scargill, who expressed his concern that members of the CPGB had joined the SLP in violation of the ‘constitution’. He did not consider this honest.

I pointed out that our organisation had always been honest about our views, unlike others, most notably the Fourth International Supporters Caucus (Fisc) which secretly opposes the constitution, but is putting it into operation for narrow, opportunist and sectarian reasons.

There was no secret about the fact that in the Weekly Worker we had called on all our supporters and partisans of the working class to join the SLP. We always understood that, as Scargill initially said, the constitution document produced was merely a contribution to the debate - it had certainly not been discussed or passed by the membership. Its implementation at this stage is therefore illegitimate.

Scargill asserted that the constitution had been debated and voted on by 18 people (which presumably includes members of Fisc)!Here he is referring again to secret meetings and secret votes. If it has been passed by l8 people, then these l8 people should abide by it, but how on earth does this mean that anyone else should abide by it? Workers joining the SLP now see the chance to form their own party. The SLP is not a party yet, so it is absurd to suggest that those who have joined the discussions to form it should have a constitution imposed on them, rather than be able to discuss, form and vote on it themselves.

Scargill made the distinction between Fisc which is an organisation and the CPGB which is a party, though this distinction is not made in the constitution. I explained that we had never claimed to be a party and that to us a party is part of the class. There is no working class party in existence today; there are only political organisations and groupings. If the leadership is now allowing organisations within the SLP project, this is a positive move. He replied we must be a party because we have ‘party’ in our name and people are asked to write to the CPGB box number. The fact that the ‘What we fight for’ column, which appears in every issue of the Weekly Worker, says “Our central aim is to reforge the CPGB” is apparently irrelevant. Being a party is decided, according to Scargill, on what you call your grouping, not objectively what you are.

Somewhat disingenuously Scargill moved on to the question of reform and revolution. He said the problem with members of the CPGB was that they did not think socialism could come through parliament. Other SLPers around me quickly intervened to say that neither did they. Scargill thinks the SLP can bring socialism through parliament, but a large proportion of the membership clearly does not think so.

This is a key debate which is beginning to take place in the SLP and obviously informs all the disagreements over the policy documents being discussed.

Discussion of the May 4 SLP conference was begun at the branch meeting in Hemsworth. It is hoped that soon after the conference the SLP will be able to produce a manifesto and work towards a newspaper.

At the end of the meeting Scargill made a point of attacking existing organisations and their criticisms of the SLP. He does not want anything to do with organised revolutionaries, as the working class apparently is not interested in these debates.

The falseness of this was highlighted by the fact that after the meeting SLP members, including Sinn Fein/IRA supporters and ex-Labour councillors, came up to me saying how much they liked the Weekly Worker. One of its strengths is that it makes a point of carrying different views and debate. It does not present just one dogmatic political line, decided in private from above - it is this that is really off-putting to thinking, active workers. Many of these workers have quite rightly felt unable to join organisations in which there seems to be no room for discussion and debate, in which the members are just expected to put the secretly decided party line into operation.

When Scargill first posed the idea of the SLP, he claimed to be against all “bans and proscriptions” that the Labour Party indulged in. It seems now that he is in danger of setting himself up as another Kinnock, Smith or Blair. Let’s hope he can be won back on track.