01.08.1996

Communists in the SLP - donkeys or partners?

Dave Craig of the RDG replies to Martin Blum on the call for a Communist-Labour party

I was recently given a copy of a Socialist Labour Party leaflet. It said: “Socialist Labour was formed earlier this year by former Labour supporters to reclaim and extend the principles Labour used to have.” Without in any way denying the crucial role played by ex-Labourites like comrade Scargill, this is a biased statement.

The SLP is more than just dissident Labour lefts. At the founding conference of the party there was significant participation by Marxists or communists. At the national level an important role was played by comrades Heron and the Sikorskis. Even if we think they have adapted themselves to Labourism, nevertheless they come from the Trotskyist Fourth International tradition.

I would argue that the SLP is in reality a confused product of two traditions within our movement: Labourite and Marxist. Clearly the dominant tradition is Labourite. I would guess ex-Labour comrades wrote the leaflet - either out of ignorance or to assert that the SLP belongs to them.

The slogan of a ‘Communist-Labour party’ relates to the real issue of what kind of party the SLP is. Strictly speaking, it is wrong to describe the SLP as a Communist-Labour party. It is nearly a Communist-Labour party. It is in the realms of practical politics to fight for and win a majority of the SLP to this conception of the SLP. That would represent a step forward in the long struggle to build a revolutionary democratic Communist Party.

Of course ultra-lefts are not interested in practical steps. They are interested in moralistic sloganising and beating their chests. Their slogans are: “Nothing less than a Communist Party is acceptable”, and “No compromises”. Such a tendency exists in the CPGB, according to Mark Fischer, its national organiser (see Weekly Worker July 11). These ‘lefts’ speak of “irreconcilable divisions” and demand “war” and “dual to the death”. Do they campaign now to kick Scargill and the reformists out of the SLP? Of course not. All their ‘tough talk’ is empty rhetoric.

The slogan of a ‘Communist-Labour party’ is a compromise with the reformists. We must have the courage to call a spade by its name. This is something which these ‘lefts’ do not have. In Leftwing communism - an infantile disorder Lenin attacks the ultra-left slogan, “no compromises”. He says it is necessary to determine in each case which compromise is a “sell-out” and which is a necessary retreat brought on by the balance of forces. When a robber is pointing a gun at you and demanding your money do you say, “No compromises”, or do you hand over the money and live to fight another day?

Fortunately the CPGB national organiser is in touch with the real world. First he distances himself from the call for a Communist-Labour party, describing it as “problematic” and “open to rightist interpretations”. This may help to placate the leftists in the CPGB, but it is ducking the issue. Even the slogan of a “Communist Party” is “problematic” and “open to rightist interpretations”, usually by rightists.

But after distancing himself from the Revolutionary Democratic Group, he comes up in effect with the notion of a ‘left-right party’. He says: “The SLP is an important arena for the struggle for the development of a working class party. Neither the left nor the right have an interest in destroying this arena, in expelling or excluding the other.” He says: “Clearly revolutionaries are in some sort of relationship with the reformists at the current stage of development.”

The national organiser makes it clear that he is in favour of left-right unity, since the article itself speaks positively about the need for “SLP unity”.

It does not especially matter whether we describe the SLP as ‘left-right’ or ‘revolutionary-reformist’ or ‘Communist-Labour’. The Observer described the SLP conference as Tony Blair’s “awkward squad” plus another “very awkward squad” (my emphasis). They are all terms to describe the same phenomenon. No doubt these terms are all “problematic” and “open to rightist interpretations”. But as communists, we must give a revolutionary and scientific interpretation.

The fact is that Labourites, Marxists and communists are all in the SLP. It would be churlish to deny that they were in some kind of organised relationship. The real question is what kind of relationship - are we donkeys or partners?

One possibility is that Martin Blum is doing the donkey work for the Labourites in a left reformist SLP. Alternatively he is working hard as a communist partner with the Labourites.

Martin does not want to be a partner. That would imply a compromise. So he would rather be a donkey. While he is working away for the reformists, he can chant the mantra, “We need a Communist Party” ten times a day. It will make him feel better. In practical terms Martin is no different to those not so well known ex-Sparticists who are also doing the donkey work for the left reformists, but have given up on the mantras.

At the next election the Labour Party is planning to mug the working class. We need a partnership in order to ambush Labour, recruit their socialist members, steal their votes and prepare the working class for the battles ahead. Like any partnership, it comes into existence because we do better together than separately. It will end when this is no longer the case. We need Scargill and the Labourites, and they need us.

Partners have to work hard. Each is recognised by the other. Each will get an appropriate share of the spoils. But donkeys get a pat on the head. They can be relied to work forever without any prospect of gain. That is what donkeys are for.

Martin’s article is a halfway house. It represents someone who is stuck in the middle and not yet sure which way to go. He is in the SLP. He wants nothing less than a Communist Party. He rejects the idea of a Communist-Labour party as a compromise with reformism. He wants no compromises. He wants no recognition from the reformists. In other words he is already doing the donkey work for Scargill and the Labourites.

Martin says: “What the history of the past 150 years has shown us is that there is only one type of party that can fit the bill and that is the Communist Party”. Not exactly. Certain types of Communist Party do not fit the bill.

Nevertheless we can agree with the point of principle. Unfortunately there is no possibility of forming a revolutionary democratic Communist Party at least in the short term. This problem cannot be wished away. Nor can it be solved by proclaiming the SLP to be a Communist Party. It is not.

The Provisional Central Committee decided early on the SLP was a significant initiative on the British left, which communists should get involved with. But it did not say to its troops, ‘Let’s join this left Labourite party.’ The PCC said, ‘It is an open book and if enough of us get involved we might be able to make it into a Communist Party.’ The RDG was saying something similar.

The ‘line’ was correct but the rationale was wrong. There was no chance of the SLP being founded as a Communist Party, with communist principles and programme. At the same time we were right to say that it would be a different type of organisation with communist participation than without.

But rather than waste time saying, “What if more Trotskyists had joined?” we can base ourselves on the facts. The fact is the SLP was not founded as a Communist Party. The real question, which I asked before, was “whether the SLP is a step towards a Communist Party or whether it is a new barrier”.

Martin answers: “Quite frankly this question cannot be fully answered one way or another. The process has not been fully played out.” Of course it cannot be “fully answered” because we do not have perfect insight into the future. But a partial answer or a conditional answer would help. How about a stab at it or even a wild guess? But Martin ducks it altogether.

Probably the majority of communists, if we include the Socialist Workers Party, think that the SLP is a left Labourite alternative to a Communist Party. The SWP sees it as a new barrier between the working class and Marxism. If this were true, the “donkey faction” in the SLP would be busily digging its own grave. We might call for a Communist Party, but we are building up the fortifications against it. Actions are more important than words.

It is not good enough for Martin to say he does not know what he is doing or why, because he does not have perfect insight into the future. The SWP will accuse him of being a donkey for the reformists, even if I do not.

However Martin contradicts himself at the end of his article. He accepts there are reformists in the SLP, who should be permitted to “remain in the party if they carry out majority decisions”. He says: “Our task is to build a strong revolutionary wing of the SLP ... In this way we will win ‘legitimacy’ ... We will win a place in this new party from a position of strength.” This does not contradict anything I am arguing. In fact here he is implicitly arguing for a Communist-Labour party. My only qualification is to note that communists are in a minority and not in a position of strength.

The RDG is campaigning for the SLP to be Communist-Labour party. We want all communists or Marxists to have a rightful place in the SLP as partners with the Labourites. We believe this would be a step forward for the working class movement.

Consequently we are for SLP unity and against expulsions or witch hunts. This would weaken and perhaps even destroy the SLP. Apparently Arthur Scargill is against witch hunts and civil war inside the SLP. So is the RDG. We are totally on the side of Scargill if he will fight for SLP unity and against any witch hunters.

Comrade Scargill should make his view clear. A letter to the Weekly Worker would be helpful. But we need more than words. I have heard for example of an attempt to expel a Marxist comrade from East London SLP without any proper allegations or any evidence whatsoever. Comrade Scargill, president of the SLP, must act now to put a stop to this kind of nonsense.

Anybody at the present time arguing for unjustifiable expulsions or witch hunts will provoke civil war inside the SLP. They are arguing to split the SLP. They will wreck the SLP.

It seems that the Fourth International Supporters Caucus (Heron and the Sikorskis) are out to create a split. Their attitude seems to be “war”, “irreconcilable delusions” and “dual to the death”. They have this in common with an ultra-left minority in the CPGB. We want working class Labourites and communists to unite in building the SLP.

But we will fight tooth and nail against witch hunters. No principled Marxist who has any experience in the working class movement will sit on the side lines. If all the communists and Marxists are driven out of the SLP as a result of a civil war, then the SLP will not be a Communist-Labour party. In its first real internal struggle, it will have been shaped as an anti-communist party. The stakes are very high. We must have no more leftist wild talk in the ranks of the communists.