14.08.1997

Tackling danger head on

Below we reprint Arthur Scargill’s article in defence of the witch hunt, as it appeared in Socialist News (August 1997)

SLP general secretary Arthur Scargill confronts attacks on the party’s constitution

In November 1995, I was invited by comrades active in the labour movement to present a discussion paper titled ‘Future strategy for the left’.

The month before, New Labour had ditched clause four of its constitution, adopted new rules which ended any commitment to socialism, and openly embraced the concept of the free market and capitalism.

In my discussion paper, I explained why I could no longer remain in a political party which had abandoned all pretence of commitment to socialism, and I proposed that discussions take place with a view to forming a ‘Socialist Labour Party’.

I wrote: “I believe the case for a Socialist Labour Party (SLP) is now overwhelming - but if such a party is to be born it must be on the basis of class understanding, class commitment and socialist policies. A Socialist Labour Party would require a simple socialist constitution and a structure designed to fight our class enemies. This structure would demand an end to internal wranglings and sectarian arguments.” The left has for too long been diverted and divided by internecine warfare, tragically often between groups or factions of good, hard working comrades with different agendas, whose quarrels have served our class enemies - but not our class!

Bitter experience has taught me that no political party of the left can succeed on the basis of a federal structure - as an ‘umbrella’ for separate organisations or parties, each with its own agenda, each wanting to build its own grouping, based upon its policies or strategies, within the SLP.

I believe that Socialist Labour must be one organisation, with the central aim of abolishing capitalism and establishing a socialist system of society.

The issue of ‘federalism’ was hammered out before the formation of our new party, at meetings spanning a three-month period, because it was recognised as representing a fundamental principle that must be decided upon prior to actually forming the SLP.

There were comrades at those meetings who supported federalism, and who argued that people should be able to join the SLP whilst remaining members of other political parties/organisations. These comrades could not agree with or accept the constitution, and so - behaving with great integrity - have not joined Socialist Labour.

I respect their decision! No left party can build the fight for, let alone achieve the aim of, socialism if there are fundamental disagreements of principle over its constitution and policies.

That is a lesson I’ve learned in a political career spanning 45 years. I know from first-hand experience the dangers that federalism presents. If we are to build on our achievements thus far and grow into a mass political party, we must tackle these dangers head on; unless we do, they will interfere with the development of Socialist Labour, whose impact thus far has been remarkable.

Our party was born against the backdrop of 18 years of Tory rule, with the British trade union and labour movement divided, refusing to stand up to the Tories and the ruling class. It is therefore not surprising that against this background our party finds itself facing problems with internal divisions, even at this early stage in its development.

Over the past few months Constituency Socialist Labour Parties and individual members have been bombarded with correspondence from bodies naming themselves the ‘Revolutionary Platform’, ‘Campaign for a Democratic SLP’, etc, together with ‘open letters’ from people who describe themselves as SLP members even though they are not members of the party.

Conferences and meetings have been convened by these bodies. Their overriding aim is to challenge Socialist Labour’s constitution and demand that the SLP becomes a ‘federal’ party, allowing other political parties and organisations to join. The groupings and individuals involved seem to be more interested in building a fight within our party than in developing a campaigning political organisation whose central aim is to fight the ruling class.

It’s important to remember that when a person joins the SLP and signs an application form, she or he undertakes to accept and abide by the constitution and rules of the party. Those who join also agree to accept the programme, principles and policies of the party.

I think it’s necessary here to quote from our party’s constitution, particularly since every person who joins has signed the application referred to above:

Clause II (4)

Individuals and organisations other than bona fide trade unions which have their own programme, principles and policies, distinctive and separate propaganda, or which are engaged in the promotion of policies in opposition to those of the party shall be ineligible for affiliation to the party.

Clause II (5)

A member of the party who becomes a member of and/or supports a political organisation other than the party shall automatically be ineligible to become or remain a party member.

Clause III (2)

Constituency and local parties must:

(a) accept the constitution and rules of the party;

(b) accept the programme, principles and policies of the party.

Clause III (3)

Individual members must:

(a) accept the constitution and rules of the party;

(b) accept the programme, principles and policies of the party.

Those who are involved in campaigns against the SLP constitution and policies formulated by our members are not only wasting time and energy needed to build a mass political party, but are directing attention away from the specific issues upon which the SLP should be campaigning.

Our fight - in direct action and electioneering - is against capitalism, not against each other. Anyone who cannot accept the constitution and policies of our party should not be a member. Those involved in convening conferences and meetings, or circulating correspondence to CSLPs and members attacking our constitution and policies are acting against the constitution, and must realise that they will have to be dealt with accordingly.