16.01.1997

A vision beyond capitalism

As the Liverpool dockers prepared for an international day of action on Monday January 20, Lee-Anne Bates spoke to Jimmy Nolan, chair of the Liverpool Dockers Shops Stewards’ Committee and Socialist Labour Party member, about the need for working class political organisation

Have you had much support for the day of action next Monday?

We have had tremendous support from all over the world. In the same way that capital is becoming increasingly globalised, so is anti-working class legislation. South Korea is just the latest example of the global attack on workers, but also the seeds of global fightback by the working class.

Longshoremen in Japan, where there are about 50 ports, are having mass meetings on January 20 to inform their members what our dispute is about - but also to organise themselves, because deregulation and casualisation are being implemented there as well.

We have support from the West Coast of America, who will also be convening meetings. In Europe the only support that hasn’t been confirmed is Belgium, where two of Liverpool’s major shipping companies go.

Prior to Monday we have a national support group meeting on Saturday with representatives from different workers’ organisations from around the country. Last Saturday we met with 20 representatives of trade unions from the North West who are going back to their members to condemn the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. There is no shortage of anger against the anti-trade union legislation in this country. It is just hard to turn that anger into positive action at the moment.

Can that situation be turned around?

Certainly it can. You can see and upsurge in working class people now because all they get from employers are insults. Who knows how long it will take for that to cohere into a fightback, but the anger is there and that is a step forward.

Do you think the working class needs its own party to channel that anger towards a positive vision of the future rather than isolated reactions in the workplace?

That’s precisely it. We all know that the political parties in this country only use parliament to introduce legislation against the working class and for capitalism. With the rightwing onslaught of the Labour Party I think working people are becoming more conscious both economically and politically and are not willing to simply elect MPs who will use their power against the people.

Since joining the SLP you have spoken at a number of meetings for them around the dockers’ dispute. Is the SLP well placed to win those workers no longer prepared to support the Labour Party?

Labour has given the dockers no support of course, but there are members of the Labour Party locally and nationally who are supporting us. I hope those many good members in the Labour Party will make a break now to the SLP.

The SLP was formed because it has been proved without any doubt that the Labour Party is not going to transform capitalism into socialism - not that I ever believed it: I joined the CPGB in 1966 precisely because I didn’t. But New Labour has no viable programme and so the contradictions within it are boosting the formation of the SLP.

Good people from various political organisations are joining the SLP because I, for example, have been in continuous struggle between workers and the employers and even governments on the docks for 34 years. I know that socialism is the only way workers can win that struggle.

I think the SLP should be supported, although I know you, Militant Labour and others think that the constitution of the SLP should be changed. But you cannot lose sight of the fact that it is a political party which must have discipline to go forward. Now that does not mean debarring people, but it does mean proper organisation.

For me we should be supporting the manifesto of the SLP rather than worrying about the constitution. That is another problem which can possibly be changed through proper debate at conferences, but it is the principle and the potential of the SLP which must be supported. Here we have a party that is for socialism. I have had years of industrial struggle and in real terms you go nowhere, you make temporary advances in a given industry. But if you look at the conditions of the vast mass of the population today, we clearly need a broader vision of change.

There has got to be a combination of political and industrial action and this includes utilising parliament, because we cannot leave a clear field for the capitalists here. Increased globalisation raises increased contradictions for capitalism nationally and internationally, but workers can organise to exploit those contradictions rather than be played off worker against worker.

You mentioned the need to rally around the SLP’s manifesto, but surely many different views can be discussed and fought out in the party without this contradicting unity in action. The CPGB has applied for affiliation to enhance that unity.

The SLP will support organisations that advocate a socialist society. Throughout the history of the workers’ movement in Britain we have been plagued by different groups fighting amongst themselves. I have absolutely no doubt that comrades in the CPGB would act in a disciplined way and pursue the objective of socialism. But in the history of our movement different views have caused confusion and disruption and the multitudes of splits. The SLP is only 10 months old and is committed to transforming society, which is why I think all comrades, including those in groups applying for affiliation, should join.

Surely discussion on how we transform society has to be the task of the class as a whole. It has to be out in the open, not suppressed.

Of course that is true. Many of my comrades on the docks will vote Labour to get the Tories out because they still believe New Labour will make some changes. The task we have is to show that New Labour is not going to transform society but more likely maintain the legislation that oppresses us all.

There are a lot of different groups advocating socialism and obviously it is a hard struggle to bring those groups together, but for me that is the major task for socialists at the moment.

I think that can take place without an affiliation clause. The CPGB, I know, is prepared to work with other organisations, but at the same time because today we are still haunted by our historical differences - for instance, between Stalinism and Trotskyism, which has done so much damage - that coming together is very difficult. Nevertheless since the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore we can leave that question to the academics, if you like - not that it isn’t still important. But on the shop floor we need a united strategy.

If you take the ICP, which has changed its name to the Socialist Equality Party, they have not done any serious examination of the conditions of workers today and only try and discredit our international work: all they do is attack. Groups like that need to change and be prepared to work in solidarity with workers. That way we can have the theoretical discussions as well.

The oppressive nature and the contradictions of capitalism are pushing us into working together and there is no doubt that we should all be in one party.

If you get the best working class elements and organisations together, those groups that just want to disrupt and attack will be marginalised. But to build a mass party you have to start with the principle of openness.

What I am saying is that the SLP has only just been formed and it needs to develop its own identity and strength. If you start with affiliation it loses that. We must remember that the SLP has been born out of defeat in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and in a capitalist offensive. It must become mass, but we have to start where we are.

The dockers are all in different parties, but when we started the dispute we didn’t say, ‘You all have to be in my party if we are going to work together.’ We welcomed any political organisation or trade unionist to our meetings. Anyone can say what they want and through that process unite our support.

Both ML and yourselves want to affiliate and I would be made up if you were in the SLP, but at the same time we are trying to build a party not an affiliation of groups.

We’ve applied to affiliate because the constitution already has an affiliate structure. Now I am in favour of a democratic centralist party, but am willing to work in a disciplined way in a federal-type party to further the struggle for working class organ-isation and socialism. The constitution allows some groups to affiliate and not others.

I do fundamentally agree that all of us who have the same objectives need to come together.

The SLP initially gave that opportunity, as with the formation of the CPGB when different groups came together to thrash out their disagreements and form one party. That opportunity was set back when the SLP then set itself up in separation to the other existing revolutionary organ-isations.

In the dockers’ struggle I accept majority decisions, even if I don’t agree with them, as the groups which formed the CPGB did, but I do not think the conditions exist for organisations to come together and accept that discipline at the moment. The divisions run too deep. Good socialists in some groups still talk about the Soviet Union as if it still exists. They’re not living in the reality of today and facing those tasks.

That is the problem we have tried to address by arguing that socialists should come together around a common programme of action for today and as long as that discipline exists differing views can be argued out. I’m not saying that is an easy move for the left to make, but certainly one that should be fought for.

I certainly hope those discussion amongst the various groups do and will go on. There will be a lot of discontent under a Labour government. At the moment we are still up against the argument that we must get rid of the Tories, but the situation will be much more volatile after the election.

Having said that, I agree that we must bring together the best fighters for the class now and many of them are in existing organisations. ML is particularly strong in Liverpool. But we do have an ideological problem. I think ML and yourselves should join and maybe that means affiliation. Then ideological differences can be discussed and changed in the CSLPs and at conference.

There is no doubt that elements of the constitution need to be examined carefully and maybe changed. I have been recruited to the principle of the SLP and have not examined the constitution in detail: for example, the year’s residency clause in the constitution is being opposed and needs to be examined.

But we need a democratic centralist party that is strong through democracy and can educate and develop our class politically building on that politicisation which takes place in economic struggle. I have been in the wilderness since the Democratic Left was formed. I did not leave the CPGB really: it left me. Unfortunately I did not know of your organisation. I’m interested in forging a party that can transform society and that’s the chance I see with the SLP.

Nobody wants a Labour Party Mark II or another bureaucratic organisation. The membership will ensure that does not happen.

Do you think there is an argument to be had about the nature of the transformation of society. Some people for instance want to stop at socialism, whereas I see it as a transitional stage towards communism and the full liberation of humanity?

I agree with that, but at the moment we are fighting for the transition, and that means state power and the control of the economy. We have learnt from the Soviet Union that the transition to communism must be international. Socialism in Britain cannot exist on its own. It is a struggle against imperialism, which is a revolutionary one. The SLP says that parliament is there to be used, but does not say that it can bring socialism.

The dockers have already shown there is a basis for internationalism, but it has to be organised politically as well. We have to raise the sights of the working class far beyond the limits of just another Labour government.