25.03.1999

SWP in crisis

Scargill’s decision to contest the Euro elections has thrown Tony Cliff’s organisation into disarray

Only two weeks after its launch, the Socialist Alliance in London - the bloc of left organisations formed to contest the European elections - is in danger of losing its softer elements. The decision by SLP dictator Arthur Scargill to nominate himself as the number one candidate in his party’s slate has caused some participants, most notably the leadership of the Socialist Workers Party, to have second thoughts.

Being deeply divided at the top and fearing that a low vote in June would completely expose its grandiose pretensions and end-is-nigh predictions to its own rank and file, the SWP is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Auto-Labourism is increasingly painful, given the Blairites’ open espousal of bourgeois values. At the same time, while claiming that there is “deep bitterness against the government in Britain” (Socialist Worker February 13), the leadership does not dare test its thesis at the polls. Such exaggerations are for internal consumption only. The activists have to be kept active.

Typically the Cliff leadership clique has kept the rank and file totally in the dark. The SAs have hardly rated a mention in Socialist Worker, and there was no debate on the ‘electoral turn’ at the SWP’s national conference. Nor has the latest wobble at the top been relayed to and agreed by the branches. Clearly the SWP is an organisation bereft of democracy and any clear sense of direction. Fragmentation will surely come.

The SWP question dominated Tuesday’s meeting of the London SA committee. The outcome of the ensuing debate within the constituent organisations will exert significant, probably decisive influence on the prospects for the whole left unity project. It is therefore a matter of cardinal importance.

The CPGB wishes to make its own position absolutely clear: along with the majority of participating organisations, we demand that the SA should stand firm in the face of what would appear to be Scargill’s deliberate spoiling operation, designed to split the left vote and thereby give some semblance of credibility to the shell that was the SLP. Embryonic though the SA may still be, it represents the future for united socialist cooperation in battling against Blair. The project is too important to be placed in jeopardy by the sectarian vanity of one man, and those who are too cowardly to face him down.

Earlier this month, the SA addressed an urgent appeal to Scargill, calling on him to prevent the socialist vote being divided, by uniting with other socialists in a single electoral slate. Individual organisations have contacted him with a similar message. None has received a reply, and, judging by past experience of Scargill’s intransigence and dogged sectarianism, our calls for rapprochement seem bound to fall on deaf ears. So be it. We would rather fight with the SLP in the alliances against the common enemy, but stand we must - Scargill is the splitter, not the SAs.

The ‘threat’ to the SA posed by Scargill’s candidacy needs to be judged soberly. Comrades agree about the obvious fact that among militant workers Scargill’s name still has considerable resonance. It is self-evident that the SA’s potential vote will be squeezed to some extent but, as a number of comrades pointed out, the impact could well be equivocal. The London electorate is diverse and, where the left in general is concerned, relatively sophisticated. To the younger generation, Scargill may well have little appeal. To speak in terms of the Scargill intervention as leading inevitably to a “derisory” showing by the SA, and thus causing the alliance grave harm, is to be pessimistic, indeed defeatist.

The SLP’s election battle will consist entirely of a ‘top-down’ attempt to play the Scargill card with the media. This cannot be otherwise, as its infrastructure in the region, as throughout the country, is practically non-existent. Given the degree of disillusionment with the antics of king Arthur among the few remaining ordinary SLP members, it is quite probable that many of them could be persuaded to work for the SA, providing we hold firm to our principles.

Then there is the question of policy. The SLP’s entire approach to Europe, clearly the dominating issue in the coming campaign, is entirely negative. “Vote us in to get us out” is the slogan that encapsulates a policy objectively little different in substance from that of the Tory rightwing Europhobes.

With these concrete factors in mind, we would argue that there are no grounds whatever for any panic reaction on the part of the SA. Scargill’s intervention was hardly a bolt from the blue. Yet the SWP appears to have been badly spooked and now feels compelled to “weigh the pros and cons” of its continued participation in the SA. Comrade Pat Stack made it more than clear that the SWP may decide to leave the alliance.

Of course, as comrade Marcus Larsen of the CPGB pointed out, the SWP has a right to pull out, but we would urge our SWP comrades not to do so. Whatever the outcome of the SWP’s frantic deliberations, there can be no question of the SA abandoning the field. If the SWP backs away from the fight, their action will undoubtedly hurt the SA in London and, as Independent Labour Network comrade Toby Abse noted, it would also weaken the efforts of other Socialist Alliances, as well as surely damaging the SWP’s own reputation as a serious organisation.

Even if the most gloomy prognostications of our SWP comrades were fulfilled, we would still say that the SA is about more than winning votes in one election. Our task, as comrade Julie Donovan of the SP observed, is to put down a marker for the future by demonstrating the left’s willingness and capability to unite.

Along with the CPGB and SP, both the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and the ILN were in favour of standing firm. The International Socialist Group, whose commitment to putting up a candidate has always been questionable, is now more uncertain than ever.

Despite having just expressed his organisation’s doubts over the whole project, comrade Stack gave full backing to the majority view that the slate should be headed by well known names and non-party activists. Comrade Larsen’s proposal - that all 10 slots should be allocated to the six participating groups, who could then, if they wished, surrender their places to such candidates - was rejected by all the other organisations.

Also comrade Larsen’s attempt to have three motions considered was declared inadmissible by comrade Donovan from the chair, who ruled that all motions to be discussed must be presented at the previous meeting from now on. In addition the CPGB’s draft election manifesto was not debated - the other representatives declaring themselves well satisfied with the economistic platform previously agreed (before the CPGB was allowed to participate).

The only circumstances under which comrade Stack was prepared to contemplate reopening discussions on the platform would be if the SLP did a miraculous about-turn and agreed to participate.

The comment of comrade Jill Mountford of the AWL was rather apt: “Just when will we stop allowing Scargill to veto us?”

Michael Malkin