14.01.1999

Scargill goes public

Simon Harvey of the SLP

Desperate times call for desperate measures

Our general secretary has at last been forced to openly admit the existence not only of leadership differences, but of rival factions within the Socialist Labour Party, including on the national executive.

The SLP Information Bulletin - dated December 1998, but circulated to the membership within the last week - gives us a rare report of controversial decisions taken by the NEC at its December 12 meeting (see extract below). Of course comrade Scargill would have preferred not to have to inform ‘his’ party about such matters. Much better to “focus on the real struggle” - ie, where the membership simply follows the leadership’s wise guidance on questions of policy, and does not concern itself with the small matter of the kind of party the working class needs. But recent events had left him with little option but to take the bull by the horns: not only did he force through three motions to reinforce his control, but felt obliged to actually tell the members about what he has done.

The problem was that these questions were already public knowledge amongst remaining party activists. Many of them are on the verge of resigning because of recent events, which culminated in the election of Royston Bull, then editor of the Economic and Philosophic Science Review, to the vice-presidency last November, replacing Scargill’s former close confidant, Patrick Sikorski of the Fourth International Supporters Caucus (Fisc).

Readers will recall that the leading Fiscites (Pat Sikorski, Carolyn Sikorski and Brian Heron) were increasingly dissatisfied with Scargill’s dictatorial regime - a mood which was exacerbated by his failure to organise a full annual congress for 1998. The only show of democracy allowed at the November 14 special congress in Manchester was in the elections for national officers and the new NEC. When it was known how the Manchester congress was to be organised, Fisc decided to launch their ‘Appeal for a special conference’ in order to “bring [the problems] out into the light and fix them together”. They quickly gathered 53 signatures from among their close contacts, headed by comrades Heron, Carolyn Sikorski, Terry Dunn and Helen Drummond.

Clearly Fisc and their allies felt that this move was totally in line with the constitution, which states that “A special congress may be convened at any time by the national executive committee or upon request by 25% of the membership calculated for this purpose on the voting entitlement at the last party congress” (clause V1 (2)). Their appeal even included the sentence, “We have a constitution which all must respect and abide by.” In order to provide some background, they circulated Pat Sikorski’s proposals aiming to clip Scargill’s wings, ‘Renewing our sense of purpose’ (see Weekly Worker November 12 1998) and the general secretary’s rambling ‘A reply to renewing our sense of purpose’.

Scargill was furious. He decided to ditch his former Fiscite courtiers, giving the nod to the ‘Campaign to support Scargill and the national leadership of the Socialist Labour Party’ with its list of recommended candidates for the NEC elections. Comrades Heron and Dunn were beaten by a slate of loyalists, EPSR supporters and Harpal Brar of the Stalin Society, while a sullen comrade Drummond withdrew. And of course Roy Bull easily saw off Pat Sikorski for the vice-presidency. Only Carolyn Sikorski was successful - re-elected unopposed by the Fisc-dominated women’s section.

Fisc hit back in its London power base, where Heron is regional president. Suddenly ‘discovering’ the homophobic contents of the EPSR, Fisc demanded that Bull be “immediately removed from his position” (ie, that Scargill should overrule the democratic election), failing which it would be “completely impossible to consider any further electoral challenge on behalf of the party in London”. In other words Heron and co would go on strike when it came to the European elections in June.

So now we have comrade Scargill’s ‘even-handed’ response. Both Fisc and the EPSR are told to behave in the hope that he can keep both factions on board. He even lets it be known in another part of the SLP Information Bulletin that he has “paid tribute to the hard work of Brian Heron” in the setting up of the youth section. But the Scargillite motions - all backed “overwhelmingly” by the NEC - are full of contradictions.

Firstly there is the outrageous ban on members circulating any documents within the party “other than with the authorisation of the NEC”. Members are told they have the abstract right to request a special congress - but no means whatsoever of coordinating such a call. Branches are clearly not allowed by this edict to write to each other at all (although Scargill has carelessly forgotten to outlaw telephone calls).

There is only one organisation which - theoretically - could muster 25% support without contacting any other CSLP or party affiliate: the 3,000-strong North West, Cheshire and Cumbria Miners Association. Even if the party membership total is calculated using Scargill’s normal method - adding up all the names of every person who has ever applied to join - the NWCCMA would have around half. Using the ‘constitutional’ method - the “voting entitlement at the last party congress” (3,775 affiliated members, plus a mere 450 individuals) - it would have almost three quarters. In reality most affiliated members, including those belonging to the NWCCMA retired miners’ club, have never even heard of the SLP.

In other words only Scargill himself can call a special congress. Either he gets the NEC to exercise its constitutional right or, in the unlikely event of his inability to win an NEC majority, he tells Paul Hardman to fix it through the NWCCMA. Of course in normal circumstances membership consultation is the last thing our general secretary wants.

The motion on the EPSR is noteworthy in that it more or less forces Bull to distance himself from his own bulletin. In fact Bull has let it be known, using an intermediary through the Weekly Worker, that he is no longer the editor (officially at least). Neither he nor his EPSR comrades on the NEC are likely to write for it under their own names. But the EPSR is clearly not a proscribed publication, even though clause II (4) of the constitutions supposedly bans groups “which have their own programme, principles and policies, distinctive and separate propaganda” from membership.

Up to now Scargill has turned a blind eye to the EPSR’s open circulation - the Bullites have been more than useful to him as sycophantic cheerleaders and anti-communist witch hunters. But now the widespread outrage at its homophobic contents, intensified after Bull’s election, means that comrade Scargill can no longer simply ignore the cut-and-paste weekly. The EPSR must submit to self-censorship. Not only must its publishers “give an undertaking that it will not comment on the affairs of the SLP”, but its contents must not “lead SLP members to conclude” that it is being discriminatory against women, homosexuals, etc.

The ban on public “comment on the affairs of the SLP” is yet another dictatorial, anti-democratic and frankly counterproductive ruling for any working class organisation that genuinely wants to find a way forward. Then there is the implication that any individual SLP member need only “conclude” that a publication is “attacking and discriminating” - irrespective of the truth - to presumably allow Scargill to demand its closure.

Personally I have no time for many of the opinions that find their way into Bull’s rag. Despite its supporters’ denials, its views are homophobic - whether they like it or not. See, for example, Steve Johns’ horror in his letter to the Weekly Worker last week at the thought that “homosexuality is as preferable as, and on a norm with, heterosexuality” (January 7). As all good ‘Marxists’ know, homosexuality is a “perversion”, an “emotional and sexual malfunction”. The EPSR prefers good old bourgeois ‘family values’, where “a loving father figure” guarantees that little Johnny will turn out straight as a die. And they call this “science”.

But that is not the point. Surely the best way to defeat wrong and reactionary ideas is through exposing them out in the open. I am not suggesting that, for example, the Weekly Worker should have a liberal, ‘anything goes’ policy on what it publishes. Everything must be judged on its merits. I would not expect it to give prominence to a dissenting voice during a key action. And we ought to have no hesitation whatsoever in stamping on racist or homophobic views being put out in the name of the party. Nevertheless, in general comrades must be entitled to say what they want - and in their own publications if necessary.

In my opinion it is not the EPSR’s homophobia which is the most dangerous aspect of its views. In fact it is symptomatic of the Bullites’ contempt for all working class struggles for democracy - whether it be national self-determination, women’s equality or gay rights. They have no notion of our class championing the oppressed in order to liberate itself, nor of the victory of communism ushering in a new age of freedom, where each individual can find full expression - physical, cultural and, yes, sexual. Their ‘socialism’ is one where the workers must conform to the Great Leader’s will.

But back to the SLP Information Bulletin. It is always useful when bureaucrats are forced into print. For instance, in 1996 Scargill bluntly told an SLP trade union conference, “There will be no factions in the SLP.” His leaflet handed to a meeting of the Campaign for a Democratic SLP (by his then ally, Terry Dunn) in 1997 informed those present that “any member who attends a ‘faction’” is acting contrary to the constitution. Yet his third NEC motion states that only those “individuals, groups, factions or journals/bulletins” who “refuse to comply with these policy decisions” will face disciplinary proceedings.

The implication of this sentence is that in general it is now quite all right not only to form a “faction”, but to publish a “journal” - just what the EPSR and comrade Harpal Brar (editor of the Stalinite Lalkar bi-monthly) have been doing ever since they joined our party. Yet even this is apparently contradicted by a warning to “those individuals who organise groups and/or factions contrary to the party’s constitution”.

Just who can do what, Arthur?