08.07.1999

Time to change course

A member of the Socialist Party in England and Wales openly questions the Taaffe leadership

There is increasing concern amongst a section of Socialist Party members regarding the direction of the organisation and the leadership’s increasingly authoritarian and arrogant response to those who question them.

An ever decreasing membership, accompanied by an increasing centralisation of finance, has led to a demoralisation at branch level, as many excellent comrades are constantly pressurised to raise finance and recruit at any cost. The mass expulsions of the Liverpool dissidents; the rumbles of rebellion, as evidenced at this year’s congress - all paint a worrying picture. How is it that what was arguably Britain’s most effective and influential Trotskyist party has eroded to the point where a slide into sectist obscurity is a very real danger?

Full-timers and party loyalists would have us believe that it is ‘the objective conditions’ that are to blame (insofar as they see anything wrong at all). At best this is undialectical. Reality, as we know, consists of the subjective as well, and the wilful refusal of the leadership to shoulder any of the responsibility is to be deplored.

The roots of the current crisis - for that is what it is - can be traced back to the collapse of Stalinism and the resulting theoretical tornado that ripped through the international left. However many comrades were unaware of the internal tensions that existed until the infamous Militant versus Socialist Party name change debate brought things out into the open. Although the proposal itself was contentious, more so were the perspectives supporting it.

Peter Taaffe’s assertion that “There exists a vacuum to the left of Labour that we can partially fill”, and “There is no reason why we cannot build a small mass party numbering tens of thousands, particularly in the next two, three or four years” represented an ultra-left sectarian turn at odds with the needs determined by objective conditions (Members Bulletin No18, June 1996). At the same time the leadership’s dismissal of “the broad socialist layer of previous periods” as “a very thin layer”, and their insistence that “we have to reach beyond this strata to build our forces”, because “the main task facing us now is to win support for a socialist programme and for socialist ideas generally”, warned of a dilution of the revolutionary ethic and signalled an embrace of opportunism and reformism all at the same time (ibid). Quite an achievement!

The tone of the debate also forewarned of the current internal climate. The EC reply to the document submitted by Paul Hearse and John Bulaitis was a vituperative attack unworthy of Marxists seeking the support of the party, never mind the class. Despite the withdrawal of the more extreme formulations contained in the first draft, the version submitted to members still contained accusations of “distortion”, “misrepresentation” and, by implication, dishonesty (Members Bulletin No19, September 1996).

Unfortunately this is how the leadership is prone to behave. Comrades who resign are sneeringly dismissed: “A layer of long-standing members have left. A small section of them have tried to blame the organisation for their own inability to come to terms with the political period” (Members Bulletin No36, February 1999) - unlike the leadership who, as we will see later, have “come to terms with the political period” by rewriting history (ibid). Considering that amongst those who have resigned are comrades of the calibre of Nick Wrack and Margaret Crear - to name just two - this attitude is contemptible.

There can be no question of the leadership getting it wrong. Thus Peter Taaffe can assert:

“In Russia and in eastern Europe a pro-capitalist wing of the bureaucracy exists. It is a minority and there is no possibility of a return to capitalism” (Militant Tendency Stalinism in crisis p15, May 20 1988)

and then follow this up with:

“We are the only organisation that has been able to correctly analyse the events of the last decade. We have successfully analysed the causes and the impact of the collapse of Stalinism” (Members Bulletin No36, February 1999).

This refusal to admit errors, this inability to honestly and fraternally debate the way forward, has resulted in the current stagnation of the party. Notwithstanding the sterling work by many comrades at a local level, we have degenerated to a top-down, bureaucratically-centralised, finance-driven entity with an acute, possibly terminal, case of electoralitis, incapable of responding to the challenges set over the last decade and those of today. So much for the general secretary’s “red 90s”.

I expect comrades will ask two questions: why assume a pen name, and why use the journal of the CPGB rather than our own internal mediums? The reason is simple. Given the current internal regime, I believe that identification would lead to my expulsion; and secondly I believe it is important that more people be aware of the state of play regarding the party.

If my writing stimulates debate and steers us away from our current disastrous course, I will have achieved my goal.

Pat Strong