01.05.1997

Making the link

Revolutionary politics, openness and democracy must be fought for intransigently, say SLP members in London’s Vauxhall and Brent branches, in reply to Ian Driver, SLP parliamentary candidate for Vauxhall

It is disappointing that comrade Ian Driver should feel it necessary to distance himself from Stan Keable’s election campaign in Brent East Socialist Labour Party in a letter to Weekly Worker (April 24). Ian thinks that it is undemocratic and unfair to SLP members for Stan to stand on a programme that does not conform to the official programme of the SLP.

He goes on to imply that branches which do not conform to the Scargill-approved SLP manifesto are not really SLP campaigns, writing that in Vauxhall the campaign “has always been an SLP campaign, based on the policies of the SLP.” The comrade even asks the Weekly Worker to stop implying a link (or putting the CPGB view) of the campaigns in Vauxhall and Brent.

The view that only campaigns that are in conformity with the Scargill-approved programme are really legitimate undermines the campaign against voiding. Indeed this line of argument could justify further voiding. The Cardiff Central branch is campaigning openly on a revolutionary programme in the tradition or method of the transitional programme. The Cardiff Central manifesto certainly does not conform to Scargill’s left reformist or old Labour minimum programme. The Cardiff Central branch and the Brent branch have been staunch supporters of the fightback against voidings and witch hunts. To disassociate from their campaigns in this way weakens unity in the struggle for democracy in the SLP.

The SLP is not a democratic centralist organisation or a Leninist vanguard party. Democratic centralism entails full debate and discussion in the Party and the Party press. It involves the right of factions and caucuses. It demands a high political culture. After open debate and discussion there is unity in action.

The aim is to have unity based on theory or intellectual conviction. Failing that, unity in action is based on discipline, which is itself rooted in deep personal commitment.

That kind of party is anathema to Scargill. He fundamentally disagrees with Lenin’s dictum that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.

Instead he substitutes Labourite philistinism. As he said at the conference, the working class are not interested in what one socialist said to another in 1917. Scargill believes workers will be put off by socialist theory. He dismisses any attempt to develop theory or programme as “daft”.

The SLP is run at best like a bureaucratic provincial trade union or at worst like a small bureaucratic centralist Stalinist sect. Only dull orthodoxy is acceptable to the party boss in Socialist News. Requests to formulate party policy for elections and other issues at party aggregates or other representative forums have been rejected. As Ian admits, only a handful of policies were agreed by the party congress.

The lack of an adequate period or a long enough congress to really discuss and formulate policy were the result of Scargill’s cynical approach to workers’ democracy.

Given the lack of party democracy or the refusal of Scargill to play by the democratic rules, why should the opposition respect non-existent rules, tie one hand behind our backs in the fight or act as if we are in a different party? In the absence of democratic channels democratic adoption of programmes and ideas will be uneven.

Ian agrees that other socialist organisations should be allowed to affiliate to the SLP. But surely he does not expect them to leave behind their programmes? When Lenin advocated affiliation for the CPGB to the Labour Party in the 1920s, the condition was the freedom to openly campaign for revolutionary policies and to call the leaders of the party ‘scoundrels’, as the old British Socialist Party had been able to do before Henderson perfected the bureaucracy of the party.

Ian fears that different programmes will pull comrades in different directions. But class struggle itself will pull comrades in different directions. The way forward in the interests of the class will be decided by the intensification of argument, tested by the experience of party members. Sterile conformity will not find a revolutionary way forward.

Nor is Ian entirely accurate when he claims the election campaign in Vauxhall is based solely on the official policies of the SLP. Ian’s election manifesto calls for social ownership of all the big industries. This is described as an immediate demand, but is not integral to the SLP manifesto, which restricts itself to privatised utilities. Although in summary the destruction of capitalism is raised in vague general terms, this is done in the manner of the social democratic maximum programme (pie in the sky).

In addition, in the publicity for the Vauxhall public election meeting, the ‘Socialist alternative to New Labour’, included the demand for abolishing immigration controls, which is definitely not in the manifesto or the programme.

Defending our communities to defeat police violence is another demand which does not conform to official policies.

At this public meeting Ian verbally strayed from the official policies on these issues. This non-conformity went down well with the 50-strong meeting. Further, when groups from the revolutionary left tried to rubbish the party by demolishing the official programme, they were completely disarmed when the response of comrades was to say, ‘Yes, the official programme is reformist - join us to fight for a revolutionary programme’.

When Ian spoke in the meeting to elect the candidate for Vauxhall, he said he would accept whatever programme the branch accepted of the many on offer, none of which conformed to official policy imposed by Scargill. Yet later - like the majority of the branch - he accepted the conformity argument of the supporters of Marxist Bulletin, a publication produced by party members.

I think this was a mistake. Like the minority of the branch I thought we should have stood on a revolutionary programme.

If the constituency had accepted the arguments of a supporter of Marxist Bulletin and not taken part in Ian’s election campaign, for fear of provoking Scargill, I doubt if the branch would have had a future. The dynamic momentum of the branch would have been lost. Scargill would have been given the chance to reconstruct the branch around the election campaign.

Instead, the attempt to reconstruct the branch has flopped. The lively election campaign in Vauxhall has kept the activists together and increased unity in joint work. To date 13 people have expressed an interest in membership.

Stan Keable is standing on a minimum programme or programme of immediate demands. This is not the full programme of the CPGB that I have seen advocated by some of the leaders of the CPGB.

Many members of the SLP will agree with these demands. Many of the demands simply develop demands already in the official programme or do not express fundamental disagreement with the SLP programme, but, like Oliver Twist, ask for more on pensions and the minimum wage. After all even Arthur says we only want the earth. Obviously Stan takes him at his word.

Comrade Ian has taken an audacious stand against Scargill’s witch hunt against the revolutionary left in favour of democracy in the SLP. When Scargill and his bullies voided our branch and my membership, Ian refused to accept it. In doing so, he put his own membership at risk. Let’s not step back on the defensive now.

Barry Biddulph
Vauxhall SLP (voided member of a voided branch)