01.05.1997

Bad old habits

Around the left

‘You make your bed and you lie in it.’ This adage certainly applies to the revolutionary left, post-May 1. Regrettably, large sections of the revolutionary movement have failed to provide any sort of leadership or vision to the working class. In fact, some have behaved with near criminal irresponsibility, preferring to ‘opt out’ when it comes to making hard political decisions.

Workers News, publication of the Workers International League, is a very good example. It has not even blinked as Labour gallops frantically to the right in search of ‘middle England’. For WIL, the more things change, the more they remain the same. It stubbornly, and stupidly, hangs on to its old script - which, of course, we all know off by heart. But just for those who have forgotten it, here it goes:

“Putting Labour into office is the first step towards transforming elementary consciousness into serious militancy, and establishes the best conditions for a struggle against the Blairite modernisers” (April-May).

Naturally, WIL believes that those - such as the Socialist Party or the Socialist Labour Party - who stand against Labour are “sectarian towards the mass of the working class, as well as opportunist in [their] electoral ambitions”. It even describes the SLP’s election campaign as “madness”, on the grounds that the “results will destroy the morale of the membership and place a huge question mark over the party’s future” (incidentally, it makes the daft remark that the CPGB’s “policies are closest to the SLP’s reformism”).

Oddly enough though, Workers News also tells us to vote for Dave Nellist (SP), Tommy Sheridan (Scottish Socialist Alliance) and Arthur Scargill (SLP).

Why vote for “sectarians”? WIL believes that it is “feasible to call for a vote” for those specific candidates, as they have a “substantial base in their locality” and are “likely to find a reasonable level of support among workers”. So, WIL’s ‘principles’ are determined by the vagaries of parliamentary elections and voting figures.

Socialist Worker has been reduced to trotting out an illogical and dishonest political line, as exemplified by the slogan, ‘Vote Labour or socialist’. The SWP tells workers to vote Labour, and yet also informs them casually that “the harsh truth is that Blair and Labour in office would prove even worse than they have been in opposition” (May 1, my emphasis).

More importantly, when it comes to actually choosing between Labour or a socialist, the SWP has extreme difficulties in breaking from its bad old habits. Thus, in Brent East the local SWP branch has pledged its support for the shifty opportunist Ken Livingstone, rather than supporting the SLP candidate, Stan Keable. Amusingly, one of the feeble excuses given by SWP members was that Arthur Scargill does not recognise Stan as an SLP member, therefore ...

The Socialist Party too is not immune to illogicality - or at least to bouts of frustrating ambiguity. Does it advocate a vote for Labour in constituencies where there are no left candidates? We have received no clear answer to this vital question. True, the ‘What’s socialism got to do with it?’ column in The Socialist cryptically alludes to this dilemma, stating:

“Some have asked Socialist Party members in areas where we have no candidates: ‘Who should we vote for?’ Or should they even bother voting at all?”

Good questions. Unfortunately, we do not get a reply, just a load of waffle about how “standing in elections are not an end in themselves” and how “the struggle to change society will be won by the mass actions of workers outside the hallowed walls of parliament” (April 25). Yes, very good, comrades, but should workers vote Labour or not?

What our movement desperately needs is boldness and clarity, not fudge and timidity.

Don Preston