07.05.1996

Party to be won for revolution

The Socialist Labour Party founding conference marked a bold move away from the Labour Party and towards the independent working class organisation we need. So what sort of party is the SLP?

Ever since Arthur Scargill first mooted the idea of a Socialist Labour Party, leftwing newspapers have been anxious to describe the sort of party it is or might become. Some were more positive than others, but almost exclusively, with the initial exception of Militant Labour, which took part in the original secret meetings, they put themselves into the role of observers, not makers of history.

The Provisional Central Committee has from the very beginning emphasised the need for all revolutionaries to be part of the process of forming the SLP. Only through the intervention of revolutionaries can it become the revolutionary party the class needs. This is not an academic question. To stand aside from an historic movement of a section of the class is a dereliction of our duty. Our theory, our views, our determination to transform society is useless unless they fuse and become a weapon of the class as a whole.

The founding conference was a rousing one for all revolutionaries involved, and should be a call to all those who have as yet not thrown themselves into this struggle for Party. The Party inevitably is not handed to us on a plate. There is clearly a struggle to be waged in the SLP, but hopefully a partisan, comradely one which takes us all closer to the clarity and solidarity that is so crucial.

A key revolutionary wing emerged at the SLP founding conference, but this time it lost. This is due in no small way to the fact that tens of thousands of revolutionaries still stand outside the SLP. If they maintain their isolationist stance they will damage the prospects of the whole of the class. This first conference was a key moment and the prospects for the left in the SLP have already been seriously damaged.

The key debates last Saturday were over the policy documents on Ireland and anti-racism. If anyone was in any doubt about the significance of the formation of the SLP, I would urge them to consider the debate over Ireland and the position now adopted by the SLP.

Two amendments to the policy document were accepted by the working group for inclusion in the substantive document. Nevertheless, debate on the question of Ireland still took up a substantial proportion of conference time, with members quoting Ireland as the litmus test to emphasise how important it is that the SLP is clear on this question. Those speaking against the methods of the republican struggle were in a minority. Though Eamon Graal from Manchester SLP had agreed previously to withdraw “The principle of no selective criticism of republican activities” from his amendment since it was implicit in the document, the majority of conference made clear that “republicans should be supported in their war against imperialism, by any means necessary” and the policy document should be taken in this spirit.

The document was passed almost unanimously. It included an amendment from Eileen George of Swindon SLP: “Immediate withdrawal of British troops from Ireland”; and an amendment from Eamon Graal of Manchester SLP:

“An immediate withdrawal -militarily and politically - from the north of Ireland. The immediate and unconditional repeal of those Acts (1920, 1921 and 1949) which have both divided the island of Ireland and consolidated the political veto exercised by sections of it. The immediate repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (1974) and the Prevention of Terrorism (Further Powers) Act (1996). The immediate and unconditional release of all Irish political prisoners.”

The adoption of such a position by workers breaking from Labour and forming an independent organisation is undoubtedly a positive move in a revolutionary direction. Ireland has been the litmus test for workers and the left in Britain. Historically the class failed to take up the struggle on the side of the republicans against the state which oppresses us all, and large sections of the left have also failed in this test. This failure has left republicans fighting a war against the British state on their own, and disarmed the British working class in its own revolutionary struggle. It has sided with its own state. It has handed that state the ability to mobilise and build up its arsenals of war and oppression. Too often we have come against police tactics and laws practised against workers in the Six Counties and unleashed on workers in Britain.

That is not to say of course that the SLP conference was unambiguously revolutionary. That would have been surprising, given that the first wave of SLP members comes from a wide variety of backgrounds. Many are from the Labour Party, many from a wide range of different leftwing organisations. Some have never been politically organised, some have been active trade unionists and campaigners. Consciousness by definition is not spontaneous. It is reached by bringing together our individual experiences and the history of our movement as a whole, discussing them in the broadest way possible and testing out our conclusions in practice and re-examining them. This is Party, the scientific practice of the class necessary to begin the reaction of our explosive formula on society as a whole.

The clearest debate between revolutionary international socialism and reformist national socialism came at the end of the conference in the discussion on the ‘anti-racism’ policy document.

The debate over the ‘economy’ document at the beginning of conference was not so clear. A number of complicated amendments had been submitted to a very long and detailed paper. The basic argument was revolution and workers’ control versus reformist nationalisation, but these debates were obscured in this instance by complicated formulations, and most importantly, a lack of coordination amongst individuals on the left who put separate amendments. The amendments fell, with only about 20% of conference in support. Nevertheless a significant 20% of principled and uncompromising revolutionaries.

An amendment had been submitted to remove a vague phrase in the ‘anti-racism’ document to “re-examine in the cold light of day all existing immigration controls within the framework of establishing a humane and non-racist immigration system”. The amendment was to replace this with “The SLP will scrap all immigration controls and the Asylum Bill”. Speaker after speaker rose in support of this amendment, saying that if capital can move freely, so should workers. Immigration laws were condemned for being racist but also anti-worker, as they controlled the movement of workers in order to ensure a regulated supply of cheap labour. The laws were used against workers, not against the rich. Our movement is an international one and we should champion the rights of workers to live and work wherever they want. Many could not see how any socialist could argue against this right.

The two main speakers against the amendment were Trevor Wongsam, who moved the document, and Brian Heron. Interestingly, both are ex-members of Socialist Outlook and now in the Fourth International Supporters Caucus. Trevor said it would be ridiculous to pass this amendment because under socialism, if we had open borders Britain would be under threat by loads of fascists trying to get in. To his disgrace and the annoyance of the floor he claimed, wrongly, that no black member had supported the amendment and that it was unfortunately just the result of “small group politics”.

As if this were not enough, the floor of conference had to be urged to let Brian Heron continue, against angry heckling, as he said it was “ridiculous to lay down an abstract principle - what happens if white South Africans want to come to Britain?”

This was not the first time that the accusation of ‘abstract principle’ had been used against principled amendments. Basic democracy is not an abstract; it is something all workers need to champion. The liberation of humanity might be abstract to Brian Heron, but it is something that we dedicate our lives to by fighting for concrete democratic rights in the here and now. One can only presume that Brian thinks that self-determination for Ireland, Scotland and Wales is an abstract principle, in case the Scottish people, in some abstract world of Brian’s, start a war against socialist England. Perhaps also a minimum wage is an abstract principle in some abstract world of Brian’s, where socialism in Britain is surrounded by hostile forces and impoverished.

This is national socialism and reformism, concerned about how we create ‘socialism’ in Britain. Opposed to it is international socialism and revolution. This is about how workers throughout the world make revolution in their own country and make that revolution international and permanent. Socialism cannot be built in one country: surely the Soviet Union should teach us that much. Socialists are internationalists with the whole of humanity as their concern, not the government of Britain. If a revolution in Britain was isolated, it would try to defend itself against a hostile siege. This is not an immigration policy: it is about the urgency of spreading revolution or being defeated.

What is important about this debate is the rank dishonesty of the ex-Socialist Outlook and Fourth International Supporters Caucus members who argued and voted against this amendment. The vote went to a count and for the first time Pat Sikorski and Carolyn Sikorski on the platform also produced their cards to vote against the amendment. Others who voted against the amendment need to be won to a revolutionary position. But these comrades are quite well aware of the principled revolutionary position, yet argued against it out of sheer opportunism - unless of course they have flipped over against revolution.

The argument over immigration controls is well known in the revolutionary movement and in the Trotskyist Fourth International from which these comrades come. Their position is not only anti-Marxist but - speaking as someone who does not consider herself a Trotskyist - I believe it is a travesty of the great revolutionary, Trotsky, and of Trotskyism in general.

The amendment was defeated by 182 votes to 114, and so the conference at its end began to unravel. A clearly demarcated internationalist and therefore implicitly revolutionary wing of 114 and a reformist wing of 182 identified themselves. The Fisc comrades are on a right-wing trajectory, while those from an ‘official communist’ tradition and from the Labour Party, including Scargill, are moving to the left in breaking from Labour.

The revolutionary wing which emerged is by no means defined. It will contain all sorts of different ideas, views and positions. This is after all the nature of the class and of life itself. But it is internationalist. Through the open struggle of ideas this wing can gain cohesion and strength and win others. This is the task of revolutionaries in the SLP.

Only six of the 26 policy documents were discussed, the others being referred back to the national executive committee. Naturally conference was concerned that it had not been able to discuss these documents, not least the ‘Europe’ document, over which there is controversy between an isolationist and an internationalist workers’ approach, with amendments calling for a workers’ Europe; and the ‘republican constitution’ document which was initially labelled “unconstitutional” by Brian Heron, as reported in the Weekly Worker, but then did appear for discussion at conference, though it had not been circulated previously.

A number of revolutionaries stood for election to the national executive committee with surprisingly positive results, given the lack of organisation and coherence. A left slate of five comrades from the ‘economy’ working group and two comrades who stood on a platform for a revolutionary, republican and democratic SLP gained votes ranging from 71 to 47, and all came in the top 25 of 94 candidates. Barbara Duke, who received the top vote of these candidates, only failed to be elected by one vote, with the other left candidates following close behind.

370 ballot papers were collected in. The top vote was for Brenda Nixon at 199 and the average vote of those elected was 129. There was a recommended list. Anne Scargill was the only one not on the list to be elected after Dennis MacDonald withdrew. Arthur Scargill, Pat Sikorski and Frank Cave were unopposed for the three officer positions.

The candidates on the revolutionary platform were from the North West, where a revolutionary caucus is now meeting regularly. They are keen to spread this organisation throughout Britain so revolutionaries in the SLP can come together to discuss their ideas. Their leaflet included a contact address which is included at the bottom of this article.

Trevor Wongsam’s sectarian comment about “small group politics” was unfortunately not the only blip in an otherwise very fraternal and positive conference, which included speakers from Cuba, the United Left in Spain and the Communist Refoundation in Italy. A number of communists however had been barred from conference for a number of different reasons. It seems for some their views are not welcome in the SLP.

Mary Ward from Scotland was told that her membership had not been accepted. This after the Scottish Committee had accepted it and after she had travelled down from Dundee for the day. She therefore approached Arthur Scargill but was only told, “How can I have you in the Party when you are calling on members of other organisations to join the SLP?” He referred to an article in the Weekly Worker in which Mary emphasised the need of the SLP to win the Scottish Socialist Alliance to its banner and the banner of Party. It seems that Peter Skelley of the RMT, and ex-member of Militant Labour, was also removed from the recommended list as a result of an interview in Militant in which he urged SLP involvement in the Socialist Alliances.

Last week we quoted the phrase being banded around the SLP that you cannot play for two football teams. This seems to be something coming from the leadership of the SLP, whereas many members see the breaking down of sectarian divides and the possibility of one united working class party as a hugely positive move after the confusion and sectarian fighting that has been their experience of the left. We all have criticisms of the various different left groups of course, but the major one must be that we are not in the same party. This is the only way forward.

To compare the formation of the Party of the class with that of a football team, it must be pointed out, is hopeless sectarianism. Revolutionaries are for the class as a whole and we must organise the class as a whole if we have any hope of being successful.

Arthur Scargill in the closing speech quite rightly drew a line of demarcation between socialists and the Labour Party. In a call to those who called themselves socialists and yet remained within a loyal capitalist party, he said: “I want to make it clear to every Labour MP, to every Labour councillor who claims to be a socialist and a leftwinger, that if you really do believe in socialism there is no principled way in which you can remain in a party that is totally opposed to socialism.” Socialists must organise for revolution, not for a Labour government. The Labour Party has been exposed too often to make support for it a legitimate tactic at the moment. There are no socialist illusions in Labour now. Those left organisations which still peddle this line and do not join the fight inside the SLP for the Party the class needs do a disservice to the class and are trailing way behind those such as Scargill who have made an organisational break with Labour. The Labour Party is part of the capitalist beast, but this does not apply to leftwing revolutionary organisations.

Many of the best class fighters are organised revolutionaries. To dismiss this section of the class is to erect more sectarian barriers, not to break them down. Our different views should not divide us. We are united in our battle for socialism, for the working class, for the liberation of all humanity. We should not be battling in the streets like fans of rival football clubs. Yes, we have many different views. A thinking, dynamic class does have many different views and the more these are debated together and fought for together, the closer we come to the truth.

In Scotland the vast mass of active militants are organised through the Socialist Alliance. The SLP in Scotland is a small group standing outside the SA at this time. If the SLP is a serious fighting class organisation it cannot allow this situation to continue. Mary Ward has fought a sometimes lonely struggle to bridge the gap, telling the alliance that it must be part of an all-Britain party if we are to smash the British state, and telling her SLP comrades that to ignore the SA is to doom ourselves to isolation.

The chance of forging all partisans of the class into one party should not be ditched lightly. We have made the point that Arthur Scargill is one of the few people who could have opened up this chance. That is why the SLP is important. But if it is to be successful it has to become the Party of the class, not another sect. This is an argument that all SLP members need to be waging vigorously now. Scargill summed up the mood of the conference in saying, “The solution to the problems we face is to abolish capitalism itself”. The question now for SLP members is how we do this. Revolutionary rhetoric alone will not do it: we need a clear revolutionary programme. That requires much more discussion and clarity which is not the property of one man, one executive, or one group, but the class as a whole, carried out openly - vitally in print, so that it is available to all.

The conference ended with someone from the back of the hall beginning the Internationale. Slowly the whole conference rose to join in. It is in this revolutionary internationalist spirit that the SLP must be taken forward.

Lee-Anne Bates

NEC election results

The first 17 were voted onto the NEC. (R indicates the recommended list)

Those below were not elected on to the NEC. (EA indicates those standing on an amendment to the ‘economy’ document. RP indicates those standing on the Revolutionary Platform)

There were 69 candidates with less than 40 votes:

Helen Drummond 38, Chris Boylan 34, Steve Cowan 31, Victoria Brittain 29, Ian Dudley 27, Trevor Wongsam 27, Dot Kelley 24, Josias Maluleke 24, Anne Brooker 23, Chris Erswell 23, June Katchchild 22, Peter Skelley 22, Blanche Carpenter 21, Terry French 21, John Milligan 20, Brid Breatnach 19, Mick Cashman 19, Alec McFadden 19, Zoe Pritchard 19, Peter Gates 18, Jan Pollock 18, Martin Wicks 18, Dave Roberts 18, Anne Goss 17, Billy Kelly 17, Terry Donlevy 16, Kevin Slocomb 16, Karen Thatcher 14, Elaine Evans 13, Dave Spencer 13, Tony Savas 12, Rick Sumner 12, Tony Gross 12, Davey Ayre 12, Peter Bentley 12, Nigel Ball 11, Nigel Ashfield 11, Jacquelin Lamblickman 10, Bill O’Dowd 10, Brendan Conway 9, Tim Rose 9, Bob Hayes 9, Micky Conway 9, Michael Bentwell 8, Steve Gartland 8, Brian Gibson 7, Jim Lawrie 7, George Lloyd 7, Trevor Townsend 6, Colin Wren 6, Charles DeCartenet 6, Len Burch 5, Roger Grenville 5, Len Lamblickman 4, Brian McKeon 4, Derek Visor 4, Lee Westfullick 3, Andrew Mills 3, Stuart Thompson 3, Mike Newman 2, Stuart Goodman 2, Tobias Durnall 2, Paul Bourman 2, James Fitzpatrick 1, Nicholas Whitehead 1, Peter Hogans 0.