09.04.1998

Frustration grows in SLP

Simon Harvey of the SLP

Resignation continues to plague the Socialist Labour Party. The tone and orientation of Nick Long’s letter of resignation (see below) letter is indicative of a certain mood amongst a layer of democratic party activists, current and former. The debacle of the last party congress, failure of the party to grow and a general frustration at the lack of any mass movement against Blair’s ongoing attacks has led to a degree of demoralisation and lack of clear direction.

Comrade Long - former activist in Lewisham and Greenwich SLP - begins by announcing that he has “decided to leave the SLP and have decided to concentrate all my efforts in building the Socialist Alliance”. It later continues: “Sadly, many socialists have left the party and the Stalinist regime [sic] and sectarianism of the party leadership seems to be gaining strength”.

On the surface of things, this seems to be decisive action in the face of the outrageous and unsustainable character of the internal life of the party. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Comrade Long argues that Scargill was and is correct to call for a new socialist party, but maintains that the SLP is not up to the job. Hence his orientation to the Socialist Alliances. While I whole-heartedly support work in the Socialist Alliances, I reject that this necessitates an ‘either one or the other’ approach and believe that comrades who are already in the SLP should maintain their party cards while pursuing activity in the SAs.

Comrade Long - now a supporter of the eclectic soft-left Socialist Democracy Group - himself points to the fact that the SLP project is not over. While grasping that it is not the answer (which has been the case since the first congress), he nonetheless fails to convince it is dead in the water. He states: “It is possible that the SLP will gain members in the coming period and establish itself as a significant influence in a number of industrial trade unions”. The success of the recent SLP-organised Reclaim Our Rights conference adds significant weight to this claim. In such a case, it seems premature to tear up one’s party card, no matter what the current regime. In fact, comrade Long has been openly operating within the Socialist Alliances for some time without his party membership being threatened. Surely this points to a certain degree of manoeuvre possible within the SLP despite (or perhaps because of) Arthur’s 3,000 back-pocket block vote.

Another pointer to the relative room-to-manoeuvre in the SLP and the failed perspective of merely walking out is the recent letter Arthur Scargill sent to now-Socialist Perspectives comrade, Martin Wicks. Comrade Wicks had become the de-facto self-appointed leader of the exclusively run ‘clever tactics’ democratic opposition prior to the last congress. His heads-down, do not pre-empt any splits, keep-it-all-in-the-family approach evaporated on January 10 at a meeting of the Democratic Platform when he advocated a moralistic walk-out of the SLP.

Socialist Perspectives was established to work in the Socialist Alliances and other areas. Scargill did not even notice it and sent comrade Wicks a letter after his resignation calling on him to desist his work in the Socialist Alliances. It was not even an expulsion letter. I think this shows what little real impact the walk-out had.

There is an important error to correct in comrade Long’s letter. He states: “Those comrades who had been leading the calls for greater democracy in the party have decided to leave and work to build Socialist Alliances”. It is true that there have been many resignations by soft-left democrats since the December congress. Many have gone on to undertake SA work. However it must be remembered that the Democratic Platform received almost a third of CSLP votes at the December congress. The January 10 meeting of the DP was split down the middle over whether to stay in the SLP or leave. Apart from the Marxist Bulletin, the remainder of Democratic Platform comrades remain within the party. Many are also active in Socialist Alliances.

Whether comrade Long was indulging in a little wishful thinking or had merely forgotten that other SLP democrats remain within the party’s ranks, I do not know. What is significant still is the fact that, although the SLP is not reformable into a mass democratic workers’ party, it retains a degree of party culture which is lacking in the Socialist Alliances. The SAs are today, at best, a united front for socialist propaganda. In many cases, they are yet to develop any coherent identity.

I still maintain that comrades should hold on to their SLP cards, struggle for democracy within the party and work with the Socialist Alliances. To cohere this position falls to those comrades around the Democratic Platform. While a layer of democrats remains active in the party, it is yet to define its tasks.

This lack of clarity is visible in the recent Democratic Platform bulletin (March 1998). The bulletin is merely a collection of recent articles published by elements of the SLP left combined with a number of NEC election statements from December, Terry Burns’s general election platform, and a statement from the SLP Wales regional executive on the December congress.

The merit of the bulletin is that the editor has acted in publishing something in the absence of any substantial contributions. It shows that despite comrade Wicks’s disappearing act and comrade Long’s wishful thinking, there are still democrats active within the SLP.

Nevertheless, from the nature of the Democratic Platform bulletin, it is clear that some thinking and regrouping needs to be done. What is the general line of attack for SLP democrats? How oppressive is the current internal regime? How easy/difficult is it to operate as an oppositionist? What of the necessity of working in the Socialist Alliances? What programmatic debates should we be pursuing in the SLP? Should the Democratic Platform bulletin be a limited discussion paper? Is a separate open publication required? What articles are being written for Socialist News? All these questions need addressing.

It remains a frustrating period in general. Despite the plethora of predictions that the election of a Labour government would produce a crisis of expectations nearly one year down the line, this has failed to materialise. The promised mass movement against Blair remains imaginary. This is not surprising, especially as many left activists passively assumed it would happen automatically with Blair’s election and just fall into their laps. The mini-rebellion by MPs around single-parent cuts, the expulsion of MEPs Kerr and Coates and the election of Livingstone over Mandelson to the Labour Party NEC point to the fact that there are rumblings of discontent behind the spin doctoring. Yet they remain mere rumbles. The Labour ‘left’ is completely marginal. Ken Livingstone lacks the courage to stand for London mayor unless picked by Millbank.

The Socialist Alliances, while containing much promise in the wake of failed expectations around Scargill’s regroupment project, remain immature in their development. To be walking out of the SLP in such a climate smacks more of individual frustration than a serious political orientation.