19.09.1996

Two cards - why not?

SL Kenning looks at latest developments in the Socialist Labour Party

Those fronting the anti-communist witch hunt in Socialist Labour self-righteously maintain that you cannot be a member or supporter of two political organisations. Namely, the SLP and anything else. Of course our chief witch hunters are hypocrites of the first order. Comrades Patrick Sikorski, Carolyn Sikorski and Brian Heron have managed to get themselves on to the general purposes committee. They are also well known to be leading lights in the Fourth International Supporters Caucus.

Caught in a trap of their own making, they are forced into the desperate claim that there is no such thing as Fisc. That the whole thing is a fantastic invention by the Weekly Worker. The abundant evidence of Fisc’s antecedents, tactics and perspectives carried in these pages has to be flatly denied by them. That includes the report by Militant Labour’s Peter Taaffe of the Amsterdam meeting of the Fourth International. There, a supposedly non-existent Fisc gave a shamefaced defence of its activities in the SLP.

Comrade Arthur Scargill chooses for the moment to believe them. Because it suits his purposes, he turns a presidential blind eye. Ironically, secrecy makes Fisc very vulnerable and thus very loyal. If needs be though, the king can suddenly ‘discover’ that his kowtowing courtiers have all along been lying. For our president, not uncharacteristic. He actually says he was fooled by Militant when it had to pretend to be nothing more than a publication so as to stay within the Labour Party. Does comrade Scargill retrospectively support Kinnock’s purge? If the answer is yes, the reason is self-evident. The SLP is intended to be a Labour Party mark II for the trade union bureaucracy. To make it safe for Ken Cameron, Bill Morris, etc to affiliate, dangerous revolutionaries, above all the communists, must be hunted down.

It is explicitly stated in the Scargill constitution that “membership” or “support” of another political organisation is contrary to the rules. However, though this Labourite formulation was at some point agreed by the now defunct and unelected Steering Committee, the rank and file have never had a say. The constitution is being imposed from on high, and in the most damaging and oppressive manner at that. Expulsion - or voiding, as it is called in the SLP - has become commonplace and supremely easy.

All the National Executive Committee or one of its officers has to do is brand some opponent or malcontent a “member or supporter” of this, that or the other (so far it has been the CPGB). At a stroke membership is null and void. You might have had a party card since before the founding conference, paid your dues regularly, and been elected to trusted positions. It makes not a jot of difference.

The Inquisition and the NKVD had a hard time in comparison. No bother with prior correspondence, formal charge or evidence in the SLP. Neither show trial nor confession are required, as no defence is allowed. And naturally appeals are absent in the SLP. The only thing that is a must for the SLP leadership is the execution.

The member was, you see, never a member. By NEC writ they become non-persons and therefore have no rights. Frankly those who join the local darts team are in a better position. It is highly unlikely that the tactic of voiding members would stand up before even a bourgeois court. I am sure comrade John Hendy QC has warned the NEC.

Yet once we were promised democracy. Let me recall what was said immediately after the October 1995 Labour Party conference ‘updated’ clause four and returned the Labour Party to its liberal roots. Our president bravely called for “a Socialist Labour Party” to be established on the “basis” of “convening a special ‘discussion conference’ to which all those committed to founding such a party should be invited with the aim of formulating a constitution and structure” (A Scargill Future strategy for the left November 4 1995, p8).

But it was not to be. ML and other leftwing organisations were excluded from discussions. And when comrade Scargill produced his Constitution/rule book, dated December 10 1995, it contained clauses specifically designed to exclude others. Still, it was only a contribution, a draft. Or so most of us thought. That is why, at the members’ meeting of March 2 1996 in London’s Conway Hall, 20 to 30 comrades came together to discuss the SLP’s constitution. Despite members’ being ready with many ideas and suggestions, comrade Patrick Sikorski ruled them out of order. Now was not the time. The March 2 meeting was about SLP policy, not the constitution, he said. Nevertheless everyone was assured that the constitution would be fully debated before it was finally voted upon at the 1997 conference.

Perhaps a barefaced lie. Perhaps comrade Sikorski really believed it. Whatever the case, at some point the fateful decision was taken to make the Scargill draft SLP law. Certainly, since the May 4 1996 founding conference it has been used to justify the anti-communist witch hunt. Not surprisingly, there is no sign of officially sponsored discussion. On the contrary. Challenging the validity or even details of the Scargill draft constitution is to be suspect.

Today comrade Scargill makes great play on the impossibility of having two party cards. Yet less than a year ago he was defending the historic right of communists to be Labour Party members. With great effect he located the origins of Blairism in the anti-CPGB actions of Ramsay MacDonald, Philip Snowden, Arthur Henderson et al. Such ‘modernisers’ were “responsible for expelling the Communist Party from affiliation and introducing the bans and proscriptions which were prevalent in the 30s and later during the cold war period of the 50s” (A Scargill Future strategy for the left November 1995, p2).

Comrade Scargill is wrong in detail. Nevertheless his message about the Labour Party is right and, as the intended reconstituted federal party of the working class, it must surely apply equally to Socialist Labour. There is nothing illogical, contradictory or perverse about communists and others being members of two parties. When the Labour Party was formed it was built on the basis of accepting the affiliation of a wide range of different working class organisations - parties as well as trade unions.

The forerunner of the CPGB, the Social Democratic Federation, was among the original constituents of the Labour Representation Committee in 1900 (renamed the Labour Party in 1906). The SDF had a reserved seat on its nine strong executive. Only because of the sectarian leadership of Henry Hyndman did the SDF walk away from the LRC. It refused to commit itself to the SDF’s abstract version of socialism.

The SDF became the Social Democratic Party in 1908 and three years later, broadened through fusion, the British Socialist Party. After heated debate the BSP decided in 1914 to affiliate to the Labour Party. In 1916 it was finally accepted. The BSP was the principle initiator and component of the CPGB which was finally formed over the weekend of July 31-August 1 1920.

The CPGB’s 1st Congress narrowly voted to affiliate to the Labour Party. Many comrades, including those currently serving as Labour councillors, were disgusted by its record during World War I and wanted nothing more to do with it. Nevertheless the Labour Party contained within it an important layer of class conscious militants and a large section of the working class had socialist illusions in its leadership. MacDonald, its most able and prominent leader, said he would do the same as the Bolsheviks. Only he would use peaceful, parliamentary methods, not violence, to achieve his ends.

At the time there were no constitutional reasons preventing the affiliation of the CPGB. But for MacDonald, Henderson, Snowden, etc, there was an overriding political reason. Inside the Labour Party the communists would be a major obstacle to their so-called parliamentary road to socialism. The establishment would not look kindly upon the Labour Party if it contained communists within its ranks. From the moment it was formed the CPGB was hated, slandered and reviled by the capitalist class and its media. Labour had to prove it could be trusted. Success in rooting out the communists would be the litmus test - remember the barbed advice Matthew Engel offered the SLP leadership following our May 4 conference. If you ever want to be taken seriously, get rid of your “loonies”, he urged (The Guardian May 6 1996).

CPGB affiliation and the right of communists to maintain their individual membership of the Labour Party therefore concerned the very nature of the working class. Was the working class going to liberate itself and humanity through socialism and its own revolutionary self-movement? Or was socialism to be merely another name for reform within the system of wage slavery and commodity production?

The CPGB applied for affiliation immediately after it was formed. The Labour Party NEC rudely turned it down. The aims and objects of the CPGB were not in accord with the constitution and principles of the Labour Party, wrote back Henderson. The CPGB’s Provisional Executive Committee replied that “it understood the Labour Party ... could admit into its ranks all sections of the working class movement that accept the broad principle of independent working class political action”, and at the “same time granting them freedom to propagate their own particular views” (Report of 21st annual conference of the Labour Party Brighton 1921, p20).

Labour’s annual conference in 1921 saw the first big set-piece debate on communist affiliation. Amongst those supporting affiliation were AJ Cook and Herbert Smith of the Miners’ Federation and Robert Williams of the Transport Workers’ Federation. Against them Emmanuel Shinwell and Henderson. On behalf of the miners AJ Cook argued that that the communists had a rightful place within the party: “If there was no left wing in the movement - god help the movement!” Henderson in turn accused the CPGB of harbouring “disruptive aims”. Due to the trade union blocs ranged against them, the right avoided a direct vote. Suffice to say CPGB affiliation was overwhelmingly rejected, using a technical device.

Another CPGB application swiftly followed in June 1921. Again the communists were spurned. However a proposal for talks was agreed. These eventually took place at the end of December 1921. William Gallagher, Tom Bell, Arthur MacManus and FH Peet represented the CPGB. Henderson, FW Jowett, RJ Davis, George Lansbury and Sydney Webb the Labour Party.

Henderson cleverly tried to divert the discussion from communist affiliation to parliamentary democracy versus “soviet dictatorship”. Like some of our SLP leaders, he wanted to avoid the central issue of why, given the federal character of the Labour Party, the CPGB should not be allowed to affiliate. Given that sections, trade unions and socialist parties and societies with different and often competing platforms were accepted, why should the CPGB be kept out? Affiliation would strengthen the unity of the working class. The capitalist class would be the only gainer from anti-communism, said the CPGB.

One positive result of the talks was the agreement by the Labour Party representatives to submit a questionnaire to the communists. Submitted at the beginning of 1922, the CPGB gave its considered answers in mid-May. There were four questions.

1. Was the policy of the Communist Party not incompatible with the objects of the Labour Party, namely the “political, social and economic emancipation of the people by means of parliamentary democracy”. To this the communists stated that they were in perfect agreement with the aims of the Labour Party enshrined in clause four of its constitution. Of course, the communists had their own views about what methods were needed if it was to be achieved. The CPGB supported the idea of workers’ councils, and while it stood for participation in parliamentary elections, such activity alone could not lead to the realisation of socialism.

2. Was the CPGB’s policy consistent with the Labour Party’s “fundamental principle” of using “lawful means”? To this the communists replied that there was nothing in the Labour Party’s constitution saying it would never under any circumstances take extra-legal action. “The circumstances” must and will “determine” the forms of agitation. The CPGB cited the Independent Labour Party - the largest political affiliate. In March 1917 its executive went along with the call for workers’ and soldiers’ soviets (ie, councils). In 1920 the ILP advised workers to stage a general strike against any British intervention against Soviet Russia. Should the ILP be expelled? Or was the argument of the Labour Party only to be used against the communists?

3. The CPGB’s strict control over its members of parliament was incompatible with the attitude of the Labour Party. Once again, replied the Communist Party, the Labour Party is trying to single out communists for special treatment. The constitution of the ILP stated that its candidates must run their election campaign in accordance with the principles of the ILP. Why should the CPGB not enjoy the same rights over its members as the ILP?

4. Would the CPGB be loyal to the Labour Party? The CPGB replied that it only wanted the same rights that were given to and exercised by other affiliates, including the right to criticise policies and seek to change them. Given such rights, the communists would abide by the constitution of the Labour Party.

The Labour Party NEC considered the CPGB’s reply in May 1922. It decided to recommend no change in the previous policy. The Labour Party conference of that year in Edinburgh again defeated the move to accept communist affiliation. The union block vote killed the motion stone dead, 3,086,000 votes to 261,000. The conference also adopted a new rule moved by Henderson - here was the source of comrade Scargill’s “you cannot play for two teams” formulation.

Delegates to the Labour Party at every level must accept its constitution and principles. No one would be eligible who belonged to another organisation “having as one of its objectives the return to parliament or to any local government authority of a candidate or candidates other than such as have been approved as running in association with the Labour Party”. The right wing wanted to bar those individual communists who were members of the Labour Party and those communists who had been elected by their trade unions to represent them as delegates to Labour Party conferences, local and national.

The capitalist offensive that followed and the outstanding part played by the CPGB in resisting the attack on workers’ wages and conditions caused many Labour Party members to rally round the idea of workers’ unity. More and more Labour Party constituency organisations began to pass resolutions demanding the repeal of the Edinburgh amendment. Showing their defiance and militant spirit, they broke the Labour Party’s formal rules and elected well known communists to leading positions and to conferences. Thirty-eight communists were elected as delegates to the 1923 Labour Party conference, despite all attempts at prohibition (Workers’ Weekly June 30 1923).

The right staged a conspicuous but well ordered retreat. In the face of the militant surge amongst the rank and file, Henderson himself moved the deletion of the Edinburgh eligibility clause. It created anomalies and was difficult to administer, he maintained. Union secretaries were more blunt. Their members, whether communists or not, had the right to be elected delegates to a federal party of the working class.

The CPGB failed in its struggle to gain affiliation. It had though for the moment fought off the rightwing attempt to exclude its members from the Labour Party as individuals. This victory was gained, as with all battles against reformism, not by words alone. Experience taught the rank and file that the communists were to be trusted, that they were the most consistent fighters against capitalism.

The right was quick to hit back. With the capitalist press egging them on they were determined to “oust the communists”. Respectability and high office beckoned. The 1924 conference agreed to ban communists as Labour candidates and by a slim majority, communists were declared again to be ineligible for membership. The conference in 1925 met in a frenzy of anti-communism. Though the Tory government was preparing to face off the TUC general strike in order to smash the militant working class and the miners, the crucial Liverpool conference confirmed the stipulations against the communists.

With a few honourable exceptions, the left outside the Communist Party remained silent. Fear ruled. As ever, there were conciliators, including those who imagined themselves revolutionaries, militant socialists and even Marxists, who put keeping their Labour Party cards above principle. The witch hunt was perversely blamed by some of these on the victims, the communists themselves. The CPGB was well organised and had openly attacked the short-lived MacDonald government of 1924 from within and without the Labour Party. In what some on the conciliationist left regarded as political blasphemy, the communists had told the truth and branded it a “servant of the bourgeoisie” (Workers’ Weekly April 25 1924). For conciliationists all such criticism should be kept within the movement, kept private ... where it could be tolerated because it would do the leadership no harm.

From the moment of its foundation the CPGB was singled out for attack. Not only by the capitalist class but by those in the workers’ movement who look to use the capitalist state. It was no accident that the most fervent anti-communists ended up betraying not only the working class but even the Labour Party. MacDonald notoriously became prime minister in the Tory-dominated national government. As CPGB leader Harry Pollitt wrote in his autobiography, “The Liverpool conference contained the germ of the abject sell-out of 1931” (H Pollitt Serving my time London 1940, p210).

Comrade Scargill says he wants a return to the politics of Keir Hardie and the original Labour Party. Despite that he is using his personal authority and political power to fashion Socialist Labour along the lines of the 1925 Labour Party. Clause two, subsections four and five, in the Scargill constitution are nothing more than rewarmed MacDonaldism. They ban Communist Party affiliation and proscribe individuals from being members of the CPGB. The Labour Party took 25 years to begin the expulsion of communists. Comrade Scargill has taken only 25 weeks.

Yet history need not repeat itself. Anti-communism can still be defeated. Expulsions and voiding must be resisted. Within the federal SLP communists and all partisans of the working class have a rightful place. The working class needs unity and organisation at the highest level. Today we need our trade unions, our federal SLP and our Communist Party. Get a union card. Get an SLP card. Get a CPGB card.