01.08.1996
Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance: Moving towards cooperation
Steve Hall of Socialist Outlook replies to Anne Murphy’s report of the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance Conference (Weekly Worker July 18). He includes his own report of the conference below
I read with interest your article ‘Fisc splits over ‘British Road’ in Weekly Worker June 20 and of the continuing exploits and political trajectory of former Socialist Outlook supporters in the Socialist Labour Party. This is an illuminating article, but it does not actually say who has split from whom and on what basis.
Given that there can be no more than a dozen or so Fourth International Supporters Caucus supporters in Britain - one wonders who the “internationalists” that you refer to, actually are. I fear therefore that your headline is perhaps in all reality more of a wish than an actual fact.
I say this also because the same article claims that “Back in January 1993 . . . Carolyn Sikorski partially succeeded in wrecking the conference of the National Miners Support Network. Doing Scargill’s bidding ...etc”. Further it states: “Only rebellion from the floor, led by CPGB comrades, prevented total farce”; and “With the help of the majority faction of Socialist Outlook a partial climbdown was forced upon what was then its wayward minority faction.” I have no problem with the first bit of this - “partially wrecking the conference”, “Doing Scargill’s bidding”, etc - but let us get the facts straight about the rest.
It was I who “led” this “rebellion” from the floor on behalf of the 50 or so delegates from the North West Miners Support Group Network and who was supported in doing so by the CPGB (a representative of whom spoke after me in the debate), Socialist Outlook, as well as supporters of Workers Press and Socialist Voice amongst others. (Indeed I was quoted in both Workers Press and your own paper at the time, in connection with the conference degenerating into a fiasco).
Since I am also a supporter of Socialist Outlook I think it would be more correct to say that the majority of Socialist Outlook supporters, with the help of the CPGB, “prevented total farce”; although looking back on it - since the Sikorski-Scargillite forces did manage to frustrate the effective organisation of a National Miners Support Network - the net result (despite our joint efforts) was in reality to turn the entire exercise of the Network into a farce. Again your account is inaccurate and more one of wishful thinking than of fact.
You also incorrectly talk of majority and minority factions. It would be true to say that the overwhelming majority of Socialist Outlook supporters were united in voting down the very small “Scargillite current” then associated with Socialist Outlook and which now organises as Fisc.
The main problem with this grouping (or ‘faction’, call it what you will) other than its continuing political evolution to the right (which your article shows) was, and indeed still is, since it is now surfacing in the SLP, its inability to accept the decisions of the majority and to carry them out, as well as its inability not to see itself as the unquestioned and infallible ‘leadership’ of any movement it is involved with - a characteristic they share with Scargill.
This was shown not only in relation to Socialist Outlook, but also in relation to the Socialist Movement Trade Union Committee (they split from it having led it and messed about with it for a couple of years, rather than see themselves voted out of all the positions) and now in their support for a regime in the SLP which bans tendencies and factions (except for their own ‘faction’ of course).
Indeed it comes as no surprise to me - as someone based in Manchester, where the Sikorski-Heron Scargillites had their ‘biggest’ base in relation to Socialist Outlook - to read in Weekly Worker of the closing down of the SLP’s Manchester branch and the witch hunts now being carried out against those who do not toe the official Scargillite line. I have no doubt who is involved. They would rather shut the whole lot down, I think, than lose control of it. In 1993 it was the fledgling NMSN: in 1996 it is the fledgling SLP.
This brings me on to the final ‘howlers’ - Anne Murphy’s Report of the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance conference (I include my report below). I do not know who Anne spoke to from Socialist Outlook but I cannot think who could have come out with this stuff, which is so way off the mark.
The Fourth International and Militant Labour in “unity discussions” indeed. “Socialist Outlook supporters in Britain have been told to work with ML with a view to fusion ... but where is the debate ... Internationally they [ML and the United Secretariat of the FI] both agree on the formation of a federal party.” And finally the worst:
“Socialist Outlook members told me that agreement on the charter on Saturday was a precursor to unity ... That at least explained the pages and pages of amendments being tabled by Socialist Outlook members and their exasperation at losing most of the votes on policy.”
What can I say? It is difficult to know where to start. Firstly, there is no open debate or coverage of the ‘unity discussions’ between ML and Socialist Outlook in Britain and of their respective international “organisations” on the formation of a “federal party” (which according to Anne “they both agree on”) - because no such debate or discussions are taking place.
What is taking place is exploratory and tentative discussions in Britain between ML and Socialist Outlook. These follow from an invitation to ML’s Committee for a Workers International by members of the USec to attend a recent meeting of its European Bureau and to take part in the discussion on Britain (a representative of Fisc was also present for this debate - take note).
Socialist Outlook supporters would not, I believe, even under the most favourable circumstances and even with the best will on all sides, envisage the likelihood of any short, or even medium-term ‘fusion’ with ML, nor would they see these talks (let alone a debate on the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance Charter) as a “precursor to unity”. This however has not prevented us, having been requested by them for such discussions, from talking to them: exploring potential areas of joint work and activity, examining agreements and disagreements on a comradely basis (these discussions are fully documented and have been circulated to Socialist Outlook supporters). I believe this to be entirely positive since it can only assist in overcoming the hostility and mistrust which has built up in the past.
The substantial gulf between us and ML can amongst other things be seen in many of the points we were voted down on at the GMSA conference. This included the important question - and we disagree with you also on this as well - of the need to fight for the return of a Labour government combined with a campaign for socialist policies - ‘a socialist campaign for a labour victory’ which fights for the repeal of the anti-union laws, defence of the welfare state, full employment (what you, I think, may call a minimum programme) and which is directed towards the 14 million Labour supporters who will rightly or wrongly be looking for a Blair victory against the Tories (as opposed to at best tens of thousands who may support leftwing fringe candidates).
This is our interpretation and conception of Lenin’s maxim: “We support Labour like a rope supports a hanging man.” It is not our intention to “deliver the working class unquestionably to Labour” (even if we had the power to do so) for the working class in its mass will do it for itself - but to prepare and organise for a Labour victory and for what comes afterwards.
Despite the fact that Blair is going to carry on basically where the Tories left off, millions have illusions in him as a way to a better life, or of being able to influence him when he gets in office. In the final analysis, 12 months of Blair in office will do a million times more for our cause and to win over the more politically conscious elements of the working class to a socialist programme than all the left propaganda of all the opposing candidates at the next general election.
It is unfortunate that these candidates, who will without a doubt be of a much better calibre than Labour’s and have much more radical programmes, will, whether we or anyone else like it or not, be marginalised in the drive to kick out the Tories. They and their supporters will therefore be distracted and detached from the real and serious task of building up the left at all levels in direct connection with the mass of the working class who are actually making preparations for a Blair and not a socialist or Militant ‘Labour’ government.
We do not and would not let this difference over electoral strategy, however, prevent us from working with other socialists, including ML, on practical questions of the day - campaign activity, etc - even talking to them on a national level. How on earth this, however, could be seen as a “precursor to unity” - other than in a completely abstract and historically possible sense - well, I just do not believe a Socialist Outlook supporter could have said it.
Please correct your articles appropriately - I am exasperated only by inaccurate reporting (I am hardened to defeats on policy issues).
Report on the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance conference
Principally this report is in connection with the positions taken by Miltant Labour at the conference, and questions I would like Socialist Outlook to take up with them in the joint discussions.
In their general approach they argued that it would be better to remit contentious issues for subsequent discussion to the new committee and withdrew a number of small amendments. We withdrew some of our amendments also, but we also argued that if this was taken to its logical conclusion, we may as well remit everything to the committee and all go home early.
They also said that the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance needed to learn how to walk before it could run and used this as a basis for arguing for the remission (and subsequent voting down) of an amendment making what they said would be “hard and fast” commitments to supporting and giving solidarity to those fighting “against the parasitic bureaucracies of China, North Korea, etc, who have politically usurped workers’ democracy in those countries”. This argument did not, however, stop them from voting through a number of “hard and fast” positions, including support for a “genuine socialist party or federation in the north” of Ireland.
Could the ML’s leadership explain all this? For this argument was also used to vote down an amendment to ‘For an end to imperialism’s control of trade’, which called for “the repudiation of Gatt and a revision of the terms of trade in favour of ‘Third World’ countries”.
This, one would have thought, was far less contentious than the ML-only position giving support to a socialist party in the north of Ireland - but was deemed by them to be also too “hard and fast”. Do ML agree with this or not? In arguing against it, it was also stated that this was a meaningless demand since only world socialism could achieve it.
Surprisingly ML’s ‘conference-controlling bloc’ did break down once on the question of Ireland. By 19-2 the conference adopted a Socialist Outlook amendment deleting support for “all party talks without conditions”, committing the GMSA to campaign for the “immediate withdrawal of British troops and other British state involvement in Ireland”. Only ML’s two main Manchester leaders voted against this. The debate on Ireland and the debate on electoral policy were the two most contentious debates of the conference.
ML also voted through an amendment (without justifying this in the debate) deleting “for oppressed nations” from the sentence, “for the right of self-determination for oppressed nations” (I am led to believe that this is in order to get round supporting Scotland’s right to self-determination which is not an “oppressed nation” in the classical sense). The sentence now reads “for the right of self-determination”. Does this include for the bourgeoisie, for fascists, for the protestants of the Six Counties, the Falkland Islanders? This is now a very abstract demand indeed. Could the ML leadership explain?
It now appears that ML supports socialism in one country. They beat down our attempts to remove a clause in the GMSA Charter which basically states that socialism is possible in Britain only if its wealth is redistributed. The clause reads, “We live in a wealthy country, but the wealth remains firmly in the control of the capitalist system and its supporters, whilst the makers of wealth - ie, the workers and their communities - receive an unacceptable quality of life ... It is clear that a socialist society can be created and maintained from the wealth within the country if it is redistributed to meet the needs of the many instead of the greed of the few.” What about the need for common ownership of the means of production and socialist planning? Socialism is not a mere redistribution of the wealth of an individual country.
ML favours merely a return to previous grant levels for local government and put forward nothing in the way of an alternative to the existing local council structures, which they presumably think are democratic enough. Although Manchester Airport is already run by a committee made up of elected representatives (all Labour), ML thought it necessary to include democratic control of Manchester Airport as an amendment to the Charter. How does this differ from what exists currently?
The real difference here in my opinion is that ML appears to generally accept the prevailing view of ‘bourgeois representative democracy’ bar abolition of the monarchy and House of Lords, etc, and changes to allow for proportional representation. It would appear to see this as the basis of its “constitution based upon a democratic socialist society”. Otherwise why did it again vote down a Socialist Outlook amendment which called for “the creation of new unitary, city, borough, town and rural district ‘councils’ within the framework of a new written constitution”? Is it actually against this, or did it just vote it down because it was not proposed by ML?. In my speech on this issue I actually likened such local councils to soviets. Is ML for or against soviets and the organisation of workers’ state power through them - or does it favour a bourgeois democratic constituent assembly and existing council structures?
Chris Jones made an excellent speech for a positive charter of workers’ rights, which includes the right to belong to a trade union, the right to strike without “a cumbersome ballot procedure”. He pointed out that the trade unions themselves should decide on what procedures they adopt for taking strike or any other action. We were voted down.
We also moved an amendment which would have deleted the words “non-violent”, so that the Charter would have read: “The GMSA commits itself to the use of militant, direct action as a means of overcoming oppression and achieving justice.” Chris Jones stated that we were not against non-violent action, but by including the words we would be committing ourselves to only non-violent actions. ML voted us down, insisting the words remained. This is very telling and is one of the reasons I would characterise the group as being at best centrist. Marx said: “The communists disdain to conceal that the views and aims can only be achieved by the forcible overthrow of the existing order.”
In justification ML appears to argue that from a tactical standpoint talk of violence will only alienate workers from us and that we should leave the onus for violence to the bosses (they never seem to use the words “bourgeois” or “bourgeoisie” either on similar ‘alientating’ grounds). Workers will come to understand this in the future. What I want to know is how this fits in with the quote from Marx and Trotsky: “to face reality squarely”; not to “seek the least line of resistance”; “to tell the truth to the masses, no matter how difficult it may be”, to “state what is”.
Does ML agree with Marx and Trotsky or not? Should we or should we not revise the classical Marxist and Trotskyist theory and view of the state? Is it for reform or revolution? If it is revolutionary why does it not point out in any of its publications the need for a workers’ militia (even after the revolution), the need for the abolition of the standing army and police force and for the physical overthrow of the existing state? ML actually runs scared of the word ‘revolution’ altogether in my experience (except relating to other countries, that is) and uses this ‘tactical’ argument as a cover. It thereby misleads both its own supporters and the working class that socialism can be achieved without violence - which is what I have always understood was called reformism.
When the bosses come down on us like a ton of bricks and start to kill a few people, many of ML’s members and probably most of the supporters will say: ‘You never warned us about this or said that this could happen.’ Consequently, ‘we have made no contingency plans and are defenceless’; whereas we will have taken this eventually into consideration and made appropriate plans.
ML also voted down the GMSA making a commitment to the return of a Labour government. This decision was probably the worst of the day and shows how besotted ML has become with ‘planting the flag’ electoralism and its continuing ‘left’ sectarianism towards Labour and the working class. It also argued in favour of the line that a socialist organisation ‘must stand in elections or it won’t be taken seriously’. This surely is a difficult point for the ML leadership to explain.
On the good side. We have been able to engage in a debate with ML without it turning into a bear garden. They have not always listened to us but we have at least set in motion the beginnings of a dialogue and a certain amount of joint work and activity which can only benefit us in the future.