16.09.1999

Peter Taaffe’s political leprosy

Pat Strong of the Socialist Party demands that the organisation’s leaders come clean on differences over the SWP and left unity

The recent correspondence between the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (see Weekly Worker September 9) and rumours of a split in the Socialist Party executive committee regarding the question of closer links with the SWP once again raise basic questions concerning our attitude to and practice of internal democracy and revolutionary openness.

A statement by the party’s industrial organiser, Bill Mullins, has been circulated to SP members of Unison, allegedly adopting a hardline anti-SWP stance. It urges comrades not to participate in the SWP’s lobby of the Labour Party conference on September 26, and condemns that organisation’s approach to left unity and its response to the witch-hunts currently taking place in Unison. (I say ‘allegedly’, because, not being a privileged member of comrade Mullins’ inner circle, I have not been permitted to see the document!)

In contrast, loyalists speak of a faction, headed by general secretary Peter Taaffe and national organiser Hannah Sell, that apparently wishes to explore the possibility of closer links with the SWP. However, speaking at a public meeting in Leicester on September 13, Peter Taaffe, in response to an SWP intervention from the floor urging support for the lobby, stated:

“As Blair is totally insulated from workers - he has his money from big business - the lobby is a waste of time. It won’t change anything, no matter how big, no matter how well attended, so, although individual comrades will be attending, we are not supporting the lobby.”

After the meeting, though, the truth was rather different, when Taaffe bluntly asked SP comrades, “Why should we build anything that benefits the SWP?” While this short-sighted sectarianism is not in the least surprising, what is of rather more concern is that the wider issue of left unity is ‘debated’ in this manner. Other than the publication of the SP/SWP correspondence in Members Bulletin No37, the entire issue has been and is being conducted over the heads of the rank and file. It remains the province of the executive committee.

It is surely a disgrace that only a tiny section of the membership has had sight of Mullins’ document. Furthermore, how can an organisation claiming to operate on the principles of democratic centralism (or unity) exclude virtually its entire rank and file from any discussion, never mind one that is so important for the revolutionary movement today as left unity?

Of course, this type of behaviour is symptomatic of the political bankruptcy infecting not just the Socialist Party, but much wider sections of the British left. Quite apart from the need to include as much of the class as possible in discussions, quite apart from the importance of allowing workers to distinguish “which leaders are pursuing this or that line” (Lenin), the sharpening of your individual and organisational political programme which results from engaging in informed and often heated exchanges is not only valuable, but is indispensable to the building of a living, breathing, vibrant revolutionary party.

Alas, the converse is also true. The suppression of debate, the policing of your own members, their emphasis on bureaucratic, organisational and administrative forms - these lead as surely as night follows day to a stagnant, moribund political culture where comrades are recruited at the lowest political level and remain there. This results in a kind of political leprosy, with whole chunks dropping from the main torso. For further proof, you need only consider the recent events in Liverpool, Manchester, Pakistan and Scotland.

What is more, such stagnation is inevitably reflected in the pages of your organisation’s paper. You will search the pages of The Socialist for signs of a healthy internal life or even for meaty theoretical articles. No, pure agitation is all that is on offer - ain’t life hard and, my word, ain’t Blair a bad man!

Of course, the justification for this ‘dumbing down’ approach is the crass idea that the consciousness of the class has been thrown so far back that “The main task facing us now is to win support for a socialist programme and for socialist ideas generally” (Members Bulletin No18, June 1996). As if somehow genuine revolutionaries arguing for a clear revolutionary programme are prevented from discussing with less advanced elements of the class!

This patronising attitude speaks volumes about the kind of society SP loyalists are seeking to establish. Revolution is not about the self-liberation of our class; it is not about raising the working class to the status of a ruling class: no, what we are in effect saying is ‘we know best’ - involving the class in debate at the highest possible level will only confuse them - after all, their consciousness is very low, isn’t it?

Comrade Taaffe, we urgently need to think again. We need a political and cultural revolution, where comrades are recruited, integrated and educated at the sharpest political level; internal bodies need to be fully open and democratic. Debate must involve all sections of the party, the left and our class, and, of course, our paper needs to reflect this.

The idea that anything less will be sufficient to build a genuine revolutionary party with the vibrancy and confidence to lead our class to power is laughable.

At the moment, sadly, the only thing growing in our party is philistinism and demoralisation.