10.10.1996

Dark forces in the east

SL Kenning looks at latest developments in the Socialist Labour Party

Reports coming from East London and Essex branch of the SLP remain disturbing. This is a stronghold of the Fourth International Supporters Caucus and those determined to turn the SLP into a tame Labour Party mark II. The contempt the Fiscites have developed for natural justice and the elementary rights of the membership bodes ill for our future as a mass socialist party. Our dark forces want the rank and file to behave in a way that befits docile slaves, not confident class fighters.

The branch meeting of September 30 was stitched up in such a crude and hamfisted manner that comrade John Hendy himself was moved to the point of breaking ranks. This is significant.

Comrade Hendy QC is a member of the NEC and played a vital backroom role in formulating our so-called constitution. Yet in his professional life comrade Hendy uses his considerable barristerial skills in a David and Goliath contest with the rich and powerful. Though the state and whole panoply of parliament- and judge-made law stand against him, comrade Hendy has scored some notable victories for trade unionists, migrants, political dissidents and the victimised. He richly deserves his reputation as a champion of the oppressed and a man of integrity.

Too busy to normally attend branch meetings, comrade Hendy must have been amazed and ashamed to see how the constitution he helped draft is being used in practice.

A motion condemning the undemocratic voiding of comrade Bob Davies’ membership and calling for the “right of appeal” in the SLP had been submitted by comrade Robert Hunt to the last branch meeting. However the Fiscites ensured that it would not be debated by shunting in front of it an endless series of trade union and other mundane reports. The Bob Davies motion duly fell off the agenda.

The motion was therefore resubmitted for the September meeting. However the Fiscites were ready with another device to prevent debate on it. The Bob Davies motion was sandwiched between two motions, both emanating from comrades Brian Heron and Carolyn Sikorski (alias Smith and Jamieson of Fisc). It was proposed that each motion be given “an equal limit and times on the number of speakers.” Not surprisingly a number of comrades strongly argued that the Bob Davies motion should at least be given precedence. The chair, comrade Anne Brook, obviously well rehearsed by the Fiscites, refused to put the suggestion to the meeting. Instead she made a chair’s ruling. Thanks to the purported constitution that meant there would have to be a two-thirds majority.

So comrade Heron was able to dominate the proceedings with his motion (seconded by his partner ,Carolyn Sikorski). Here it is in full:

“This branch sees that Socialist Labour (SL) is trying to create a new sort of party, where all members have equal rights and where we try and build a friendly and supportive organisation.

“This branch notes that efforts by other political parties which call upon their members and supporters to ignore SL’s constitution and join the party threaten our efforts to build a new type of party. Members and supporters of other parties lie on their application forms to join SL when they sign that they agree to and abide by the constitution. Worse than the initial lie, the branch notes that if members and supporters of other parties are allowed to join in secret then it undermines the democracy of SL. Secret groups make secret binding decisions about SL’s activities and politicise at their meetings before SL’s members as a whole have a chance to take a view.

“The NEC is duty bound to protect and defend SL against false membership applications and thereby defend the democratic rights of the whole membership.

“The branch notes that false membership applications are not a matter for SL’s disciplinary procedure. If somebody thinks their application has been rejected unfairly then they can submit their application to a higher body, up to the NEC, or they can re-apply at a later date.

“The branch is in favour of SL adopting a disciplinary procedure, with the right of hearing and appeal, and welcome the fact that the NEC intends to take this discussion soon”.

Comrade Heron is incorrect when he claims that the SLP’s draft constitution gives members equal rights. Trade union affiliates (clause 1a) do not, for example, have the same standing as individual members (clause 1b). More to the point comrade Heron is wrong when he insists that members have to “agree to” the constitution. In fact what is asked is acceptance (clause 3). There is a world of difference. It is not a matter of semantics. I would expect that the overwhelming majority of SLP membership disagrees with the national chauvinist clause 5, which states that individual members must have “resided in Britain or Ireland for more than a year”. Does that make the membership of those who object void? Comrade Heron would appear to be saying ‘yes’ - be warned.

Of course, neither I nor anyone else actually knows with any scientific certainty what the majority of comrades think about the constitution. There has after all been no party-wide debate on the constitution, let alone a congress vote.

Witch hunting has a logic. Comrade Heron quite clearly now advocates a regime for the SLP which is far more authoritarian than Blair’s New Labour. In the name of equality and hunting down communists his motion robs members of the normal right in all democratic organisations to form open or closed caucuses. Again, be warned.

Comrade Heron entertains visions of himself as masterful autarch. Frankly, Brian, you are not up to it. But your mock-heroic posturing does remind one of something from the pages of Lewis Carroll. Comrade Heron demanded that the meeting pass his motion - unanimously!

The Queen of Hearts was, if anything, more outrageous. Seconding the motion, comrade Sikorski actually warned those present that if she caught anyone yawning or looking at their watches she would immediately stop - off with their heads! If the need for a mass, democratic SLP was not so urgent, the arrogance and hypocrisy of these Fiscites would be funny.

Comrade Sikorski informed the meeting that NEC members Brenda Nixon and Dave Proctor were “horrified” that comrade Bob Davies had requested that they vouch for his political commitment. Comrade Nixon in particular was said to be aware of the dangers posed by the CPGB. Could this be the same comrade who said earlier this year that “True socialism is represented by the Communist Party”, that “if it hadn’t been for the SLP call I would have joined the Communist Party” (Weekly Worker January 11 1996)?

Despite attempts by the chair to silence them, at last others were allowed to speak. Defenders of comrade Davies reiterated their view that an injustice was being done and that a majority - though not a two-thirds one - at a previous meeting had opposed the NEC’s voiding of his membership. Comrades also complained about the lack of democracy in the SLP, not least in the way meetings were being conducted.

There was a 16:10 vote in favour of comrade Heron’s motion. The leadership, it should be pointed out, still commands a degree of automatic loyalty. However, the chair then informed the meeting that as a result of this vote points (a) (the NEC has “acted undemocratically”) and (c) (“campaign for a right of appeal”) in the Bob Davies motion could not be debated because they were now out of order. Of course at no time did comrade Brook indicate this would happen, in spite of the fact that she was specifically asked just prior to the vote on the Heron-Sikorski motion. The mover of the Bob Davies motion was asked to submit the motion minus points (a) and (c). Quite rightly, comrade Hunt refused.

Comrade Bob Crow quickly jumped in. There was no need to discuss comrade Bob Davies at all. Given the time, the meeting should be closed. At last comrade Hendy objected. The Bob Davies question must be debated at a reconvened meeting. Comrade Hendy’s proposal was accepted by the majority of those present - the witch hunters were in a state of shock. But what “friendly and supportive” constitutional tricks will Fisc try next time?

Workers Power shifts left

Socialist Labour’s modest growth, combined with Blair’s unabashed espousal of liberal capitalism, is bound to produce stresses, strains and, in due course, splits within and from the pro-Labourite revolutionary left. The Socialist Workers Party is a prime candidate. Its activists are finding the prospect of voting Labour at the forthcoming general election more and more unpalatable. The Vote Labour, but ... ’ arguments in Socialist Worker editorials neither persuade nor carry conviction. Crisis and disintegration beckons.

What goes for the SWP goes for its child of 1975, Workers Power. Of course, being much smaller, Workers Power travels lighter and therefore might well provide a foretaste of what is to come. Workers Power has repeatedly blown hot and cold on the SLP project. This does not merely reflect its creaking theory but inchoate factions.

I have been reliably informed that there have been narrow votes in London against the left’s proposal for Workers Power to positively engage with the SLP as it is. Undoubtedly there has also been some fraying at the edges. Here and there supporters and a few actual Workers Power members now possess SLP cards. On the other hand because of the ‘drip, drip’ effects of Blairism there is a predictable shrinkage in the reflex pro-Labour camp. The two factions therefore find themselves evenly balanced. That explains the series of flip flops in its press.

Last year our friends gave an academic welcome to “Arthur Scargill’s call for discussions on the left to consider the establishment of an SLP” (Workers Power December 1995). However, in February the same organisation was dismissing the SLP as a “reformist” and “Stalinist bureaucratic sect”. In March Workers Power refused to support Brenda Nixon in the Hemsworth by-election and like other pro-Labourites brazenly advocated a vote for the Walworth Road appointee (Workers Power March 1996). An apologetic Richard Brenner was forced to explain in these pages that “a vote for the SLP can only mean one thing”: that is, “support for its programme” ... Only if the SLP accepted Workers Power as an affiliate “would we consider the SLP as our party and vote for it” (Weekly Worker May 16 1996). Yet in June the left line managed to publicly reassert itself. The SLP, it was said, “remains in the process of formation” and that the fight for its soul “has only just begun”.

Last month we reported that Revolution, Workers Power youth, had applied to affiliate to the SLP youth section. Now we have an unsigned - hence, I presume, authoritative - article giving critical support for the SLP’s Revolutionary Platform. Delphically it goes on to urge “all those in the SLP who read this paper, listen to our arguments, respect our record in the class struggle and our ideas: we appeal to you to fight for these ideas within the SLP” (Workers Power October 1996). One can imagine our witch hunters amending their McCarthyite constitution: “A member of the party who joins/supports/respects/listens to the arguments of a political organisation other than the party shall automatically be ineligible to remain a party member.”

If the Workers Power formulation means joining the SLP then it is excellent news. There is no need to point out that the Weekly Worker was correct all along - your belated action proves it. We now need to coordinate. I personally look forward to working together with Workers Power. Having said that, there remains a big silence in your politics, comrades.

Workers Power does not say whether or not it will back SLP and other left candidates in the forthcoming general election. You are duty bound to answer - not least to equip your own members in our SLP. Fighting for a revolutionary SLP necessitates a complete break with reflex pro-Labourism.

News of the News

Just a short note on Socialist News. Comrades will have noticed and been disappointed by its non-publication in October. This is worrying, given our commitment to a monthly paper. Branches cannot organise on a ‘maybe’ basis. The paper is a necessity, not a luxury. Thankfully the November edition is being prepared. Can I also say in reply to those comrades who wrote privately objecting to my criticisms of the first issue of Socialist News that I have long argued for an SLP paper. Though frankly I think the first paper was bad, my remarks were designed to be constructive. Without controversial articles, letters and debate Socialist News will not be worth the bother for the serious reader. Let me also reiterate my call, especially given the failure of the paper to appear in October, for an elected editor.