27.06.1996

SLP loses youth leader

Last week we explained why we understand, but cannot agree with, Tony Savvas’s decision to quit. This week we publish correspondence relating to it

The resignation of Tony Savvas from the Socialist Labour Party is a blow to the new party. The manner of his going says a lot about how the new party is being defined by the leadership.

The only place where SLP members have heard of Tony’s resignation and have now been given a chance to read his reasons and the response of leading SLPers is - once again - in the Weekly Worker. The leadership of the Socialist Labour Party regards openness as a weakness. This is the reflex of bureaucrats, not genuine working class politicians.

Comrade Scargill’s response is characteristically pithy and apolitical. He may well have read Tony’s comments on the fight against national chauvinism and fascism “carefully”. Unfortunately, they do not move him to comment.

Brian Heron’s personal reply at least has the merit of having some politics in it. I do not have the space here to comment on his defence of ‘socialist immigration controls’, apart from again pointing to the slippery opportunist slope the comrade is beginning to gather pace on.

Comrade Savvas is right that fundamentally our attitude to immigration controls encapsulates our attitude to the bourgeois state in the here and now, not future hunches about “unforeseen population movements” confronting a hypothetical socialist state in Britain. Brian is talking nonsense and - more worrying for someone with such a long history in revolutionary politics - the man knows he is talking nonsense.

Perhaps of more immediate interest are his jibes against the Weekly Worker’s articles on the Fourth International Supporters Caucus. He repeats the accusation he made to me personally at the May 4 conference of the party. We are, apparently, all “liars”; our stories are “fabrications”.

Brian will have problems defending such charges. After all, the Weekly Worker has published extracts from the internal documents of two other organisations to verify our claims - in fact, this is where we found the story in the first place. We have spoken to people who have admitted being in Fisc. We have chatted to others who have recently drifted away, who speak of the orientation of the organisation, the perspectives of Brian Heron and other Fisc-ers, and their misgivings about the direction in which it now moves. We have discussed with comrades from Heron’s last organisation - the International Socialist Group/Socialist Outlook - who have described the antecedents of Fisc and their pre-SLP factional battles in that group.

Others tell of Heron’s privately stated position that in a year or so, Fisc members will be able to trip happily from the closet and declare themselves “Fourth Internationalists”.

Brian’s bluster is a little unconvincing, therefore. If there is a conspiracy afoot, it extends far beyond the boundaries of the Weekly Worker to apparently include whole swathes of the British left.

So, is there anyone out there - apart from Arthur Scargill, obviously with his own reasons for turning a blind eye - who seriously believes that Fisc has never existed, that it is a product of the feverish imaginations of Weekly Worker journalists? Brian should perhaps take his own advice to comrade Savvas - “Be serious”.

Mark Fischer

Savvas to the NEC

Friday May 10 1996

I write to you as a representative of the Youth Section. I would like the NEC of the party to consider the following subjects: Youth Section database, Youth Section money, Youth Charter for Britain.

Youth Section database

After the founding conference the Youth Section had a meeting to decide who would take part in a steering group for the Youth Section during an interim period. A number of names were taken with a good geographical spread, and the idea is to get as much SLP youth material to those people who will then duplicate it and then distribute it in their own areas. In the interim period most of this material will probably be produced by London comrades who are keen to make sure that we have firm plans in place to allow the party to intervene in the schools and colleges this autumn.

At the moment however we only have a small number of names and addresses, and need the party to develop a system to allow the Youth Section to have names and addresses of all existing members who are under the age of 25, and others as they join. This will allow us to do general mailouts. As others under 25 join the organisation we will also then be able to send them an invitation to join the Youth Section.

The people who are part of the temporary steering group plan to organise a national SLP Youth meeting in London in the autumn. This will enable the Youth Section to evaluate what activists it has on the ground, and to properly plan a national strategy to recruit in the schools and colleges. The conference would also be used to elect a national youth organiser and an organising team, who will hold their positions until the next annual autumn conference. Those elected would have to be under 25.

Youth Section money

It goes without saying that all the above will take money, and we would like to hear how the NEC proposes to finance a well run Youth Section. I understand we are entitled to raise our own money, but this will clearly not be enough to organise in a consistent way nationally at the moment.

Youth Charter for Britain

Those of us who helped draw up the Youth Charter were very unhappy at the conference’s decision to refuse amendments on the ending of all immigration controls and support for a ‘no platform’ policy against the fascists.

The Youth Charter as presented to conference was supported by the party’s steering group, and no amendments were forthcoming from the party as a whole. Therefore we are writing to ask that the NEC ratifies all the points in our Charter.

We would ask the NEC to consider the following points.

No immigration controls

The party should acknowledge that the argument is a difficult one amongst some sections of the working class, but that is not to say we also accept the ideas which the ruling class successfully plants amongst those sections via its media and other vehicles carrying falsehoods.

It’s up to the party to point out how immigration controls encourage the far right, that there are plenty of empty homes in the UK, and that if capital can be shifted around the world then it is only logical that people, whether they are fleeing oppressive regimes or in search of a better life, should be allowed to enter Britain.

The argument used at conference about reactionary South Africans perhaps wanting to flee to a socialist Britain is not worth replying to. As for criminal elements trying to enter the country, plainly such people should be kept out. The socialist argument for no immigration controls under capitalism is plainly different to the one used under a socialist system - in the present we all know what it means, the more that race and immigration is portrayed as a problem by the right, the more racial attacks and racial harassment socialists have to contend with.

In a socialist Britain we would plainly need our interpretation of no immigration controls spelt out. Perhaps it would read: ‘All people who want to live in or enter Britain to help build a peaceful, multi-racial and socialist Britain are welcome. Clearly hardened criminals and reactionaries cannot contribute to such a society and are not welcome’.

No platform

In socialist tradition we should support a no platform policy towards fascists. We are not liberals or followers of philosophers who spin out ditties such as: ‘I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’

Openly fascist views cannot be tolerated in either physical, verbal or written forms, as such views support the position of no democracy for anyone else. The SLP should make it clear it knows the difference between fascism and racism, that it will seek to equally tackle the continuing problem of institutional racism which cannot be tackled in the same way as fascism.

The rest of the party, as well as the working class, should be reminded that it was no platform tactics which defeated the BNP electorally, that they were swept off Brick Lane by openly mobilising the largest numbers possible against them.

With this in mind we must state that we support no platform for fascists and are totally committed to tackling racism through education and action.

Yours fraternally,

Tony Savvas (East London and Essex branch)

Savvas to the SLP NEC

Monday, May 20 1996

Copies to: The President, the NEC, East London branch secretary, Youth Section (two copies)

I am resigning on the basis of the following points:

1. Although the positions on immigration controls and ‘no platform’ the party adopted at the founding conference were democratically decided, I cannot live with them as a party member. As a Welling defendant who faced a three-year prison sentence for a full year, as a result of the march on the BNP bunker, both positions are particularly alien to me. I was acquitted by a jury after pleading self-defence, so their understanding of ‘no platform’ is obviously more thorough than the party’s.

2. I do not believe the NEC is working to the party’s constitution fairly. As at least four members of the NEC are members of an organisation called the Fourth International Supporters Caucus, what right do they have of trying to expel alleged members or ‘supporters’ of the Communist Party of Great Britain or the Revolutionary Democratic Group? To its cost the party will find that both democratic debate and political dynamism, as well as morale, will suffer within the party if such expulsions are carried out.

3. Although I still believe the party is worth voting for, I now no longer believe it can become the party of working class militants it was supposed to become, and as a revolutionary socialist I do not want to spend my time on endless internalised debates on reform or revolution.

If they will have me back I intend to rejoin the Socialist Workers Party. You can rest assured that I will be one of a small number of SWP numbers calling for an SLP vote at the next election, as I still think the SLP is preferable to New Labour.

Good luck with the electoral politics.

Tony Savvas

Scargill to Savvas

May 28, 1996

Thank you for your letter dated May 20, 1996, informing me of your decision to resign from Socialist Labour, and I have read carefully the points you make about immigration controls/no platform’.

However, as regards your comments on other organisations, I should point out for your information that nobody has been expelled from Socialist Labour. In my experience, it’s always best to base decisions on fact rather than rumour or innuendo, which I would also apply to your allegation that there are four members of Socialist Labour’s NEC who “are members of an organisation called the Fourth International Supporters Caucus”.

Arthur Scargill

Brian Heron to Savvas

I was very sad to catch sight of your resignation letter today. I really do believe that comrades of your experience have an enormous amount to offer Socialist Labour, and, for what it is worth, I believe you to be honest and very capable.

The points you raise in your letter are, I believe, mistaken. I have already spoken to you about your interpretation of the passage in the anti-racist document regarding immigration controls. You make no reference to the argument about analysing all controls in relation to unforeseen population movements, where a ‘colonial’ population (Northern Ireland protestant community or South African whites) decides to ‘get out from under’.

It is a simple matter to specify the reactionary and racist acts and for Socialist Labour to condemn them. Can you not wait for that? It would at least test out any thesis that the party was making concessions to racism.

On the question of ‘no platform’. Your militancy and commitment does you credit - but an anti-racist policy does not begin and end with ‘no platform’. The rise of fascism in Germany was not a product of the lack of physical action on the part of the reds. This is, supremely, a question of politics, wherein the issue of ‘no platform’ has its tactical place.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of your letter for me personally is, however, your obvious belief that “four members of the NEC are members of an organisation called the Fourth International Supporters Caucus ... “and that they are carrying out a witch hunt.

When I first met you I asked about your political antecedents. You regarded this as justified given our Constitution and given your own leading role setting up the youth organisation.

Do you sincerely believe for one second I could have asked those questions, or had that discussion, while knowing of the existence of the Caucus you describe? The campaign of the Weekly Worker against Socialist Labour takes the form of attacking parts of its leadership for breaking its own Constitution.

The Weekly Worker are liars and their campaign is the equivalent of any hostile attack on the party: nothing more, nothing less.

Weekly Worker supporters told the paper the election results of the NEC. The paper writes that Skelly was dropped from a nominated list because of his interview with Militant. The first is a hostile act: the second is a complete fabrication.

It is particularly sad that you appear to be taken in by these people. All people who are members or supporters of other political parties are not valid members of Socialist Labour. You accepted that promise. Do you not think it should be defended?

In a year or two all this will be “of fond memory”. We will have a new working class party composed of, and run by, working class people who, using the platform of the general election, will have given legitimacy to every contest with Blair.

You must be serious. Do you think that the SWP with its sclerotic internal life and its dogmas will suddenly appeal to the thousands and the hundreds of thousands who want to fight Blair?

The leadership of the miners’ strike is the best leadership that the British class struggle has thrown up since the turn of the century. Is that not most likely to become the starting point for the refoundation of socialism in Britain in the coming years? To ask the question is to answer it.

Anyway, I wish you well. I hope you will reconsider and I hope we will work together again.

Brian Heron