This document was endowed at the Irish conference [the conference of the Irish section of the Committee for a Workers’ International – ed] in early August. It is included here as a contribution to our debate.

1. The discussion on the name of our organisation has proven to be very fruitful, even though arriving at agreement on a new name has not been an easy task. As the discussion has developed the issues of perspectives, strategy and tactics has come to the forefront, and these issues are now presented for discussion in a much more concrete fashion. It is not the purpose of this resolution to deal with those questions in a detailed way, but they are key factors which have to be taken into account in the discussion of our name. All the comrades must see this discussion as being related to the resolutions and discussions on perspectives and tasks that will take place at Conference.

2. There is a widespread agreement that we should change from the name Militant Labour. The term Militant creates an impression of a certain “aggressiveness” when people first come into contact with it. It creates a barrier for us getting across the real nature of our organisation and what it stands for. We could have a long discussion as to how much a barrier Militant is, but all comrades accept that it is a barrier, at the very least.

3. All comrades also accept that we can overcome this barrier through our work, through people getting the opportunity to hear our ideas, see us in action, etc. But the question is now, why continue with a name that is seen as a barrier? With our organisation poised to make a real breakthrough on the electoral front, we will have the opportunity to reach a much wider audience. However in electoral work we have to get our ideas across in leaflets, etc., a detailed explanation of who or what we are is not possible. Our elected representatives will make contact with people through the media, etc., where again, only a short

and simple explanation of ideas is possible. This means that the initial impression we make on this wider audience is extremely important, and our name has to be a far more important consideration in this respect.

4. It would be wrong to distort the importance of our name in terms of votes in elections. In the next elections in the south we will stand under the name of the organisation but also as part of an alliance against local charges. But if we make a significant electoral breakthrough, big opportunities to build our organisation will be presented and it is in this area that the question of our name is crucial.

5. Unfortunately, it has been our experience that adding a word to Militant does not overcome the problem of the impression given by Militant. For a period in the south we used the term Militant Socialist (before the open turn), in an attempt to explain the type of “Militants” we are. However, a new problem is created. Rather than qualifying the type of militants we are, we end up qualifying the type of “socialists” we are, i.e. Militant, “somewhat extreme” socialists. If you want to add a qualification to the term Militant, the best option is actually Militant Labour.

6. Having decided that we should consider a new name, the actual task of coming up with a suitable alternative is not easy. This difficulty flows from the complex nature of the period we are going through. The events of the 1980s, the role of “left” governments in France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, the collapse of Stalinism, and the general capitulation to the market by not just the right wing leaders, but also the left tendencies in the international labour movement, have resulted in a throwing back of the consciousness of the working class.

7. A layer of politically active workers, who participate in the mass workers’ organisations, or who participate in the trade unions or a political basis, and who would have regarded themselves as socialists, does not exist at this stage on a wide basis. In the period after the Russian Revolution, and even in the 1960s and ’70s, though on a smaller basis and with a reduced consciousness, the existence of this advanced layer of workers who regarded themselves as socialists meant that the main task for Marxists was to present themselves as a clear cut Marxist tendency in a broader socialist movement. In this task “harder” names, were appropriate. But even by the 1970s, such names would have cut you off from even the more advanced layers.

8. However consciousness is not a fixed entity, it is changed and shaped by conditions. The key factor shaping consciousness now is the worldwide crisis of capitalism and the effects of this on jobs, wages, working conditions, social services, etc. At this stage this reflects itself in a broad consciousness against the effects of the market. A new layer of activists is developing who while not having an alternative to the market, are prepared to engage in and lead struggles against its effects. At a certain stage this will develop into struggles against the market itself, and a broad anti capitalist consciousness will develop.

9. The active layer will look for an alternative to the market. But this does not mean that the failures of Stalinism or Social Democratic or Labour “socialism” will be forgotten. The redevelopment of the political landscape in the image of the post war period is not what is posed. We have entered a new and very different period. It is a complex period, with similarities to the situation faced by Marx and Engels, where an explanation of the basic ideas of socialism was accompanied by the task of building up basic workers’ organisations to conduct struggles on the day to day issues of the class struggle. It is of course more complicated in that the working class have gone through 100 years of experience, of building mass organisations and their subsequent degeneration, and of the Russian Revolution and its degeneration,

10. The link between the concept of “socialism” and Stalinism, and social democratic reformism has been broken and this is a very positive development for the future. In response to the international trend in the old mass workers organisations to openly embrace the market, and increasingly break their links with the working class, in effect a movement to become liberal (and in many instances not so liberal), capitalist parties a realignment in the workers’ movement has begun internationally. Where these new workers’ parties have come into being, while not having a rounded out revolutionary programme, there is a general trend to be very open to the genuine ideas of Marxism, and the involvement of forces which would have been shunned in the past as “Trotskyists”. The exception to this is Scargill’s SLP in Britain.

11. Once a movement to challenge the market develops, an interest in and acceptance of a radical socialist alternative will accompany it. A new socialist consciousness will develop, initially on a lower and more basic level, but with the potential to reach a much higher consciousness than at any time since the period of the early 1920s.

12. Why is it necessary in a discussion on the name of the organisation to lay such an emphasis on these processes? Because the consciousness of the more politically advanced workers and youth must be a crucial factor for us in deciding on our name. Our task is to become the political party of this layer, our name must seek to attract them. It should be a sign-post as to the direction we wish to travel, not some hankering after what existed in the past. By adopting the term socialist as the key component in our name we will be taking a bold step towards the best activists in the workers’ movement, in the communities, among the youth.

13. Only a minority of the activists would consider themselves socialists at this stage. We can however make a direct appeal to this minority, even just on the basis of our name if we make a significant breakthrough in the next general election in the south. Calling ourselves socialists will not act as a significant barrier to other layers. It will be an advantage that a layer of activists who are not consciously socialist and don’t even think in terms of political ideologies, but are watching how we work in struggles alongside them, and are listening to our ideas, will be weighing up the pros and cons of joining a “socialist” organisation. An openly “socialist” organisation can effect the consciousness of a wide layer by its intervention in the class struggle. The question of our name can have a direct and significant impact in the discussion on what are the alternatives to the market.

14. For the broad mass of the working class, it will be our record in leading struggles, and in providing them with an electoral alternative to the parties and politicians who have repeatedly failed them that will be crucial in determining their attitude towards us. If we can do the two tasks mentioned above well, the term socialist will not be a significant barrier, even in elections, and even at this stage. This has been well proven by our experiences in Dublin West. When Joe Higgins won his position as a councillor it was due to his record in initiating and leading a number of mass struggles in the Mulhuddart area that counted. The name we stood under at the time, Independent Labour, didn’t really register. When we stood in the last general election, the key factor was not our name, which was the same as we used in the local elections, but the fact that Joe Higgins was not well known throughout the constituency. We did not benefit from the general swing to Labour, even though the term was included in our name. In the recent by-election, the work Joe had done on the water charges issue over two years was the deciding factor in the huge increase in our vote. Having the term labour in our name again, though this time Militant Labour, did not result in us being affected by the massive drop in Labour’s vote. In effect we stood as an anti water charges candidate, the name Militant Labour neither won nor lost us votes.

15. In the discussion which has taken place so far there is a wide acceptance of the desirability of including the term socialist as the key component in our name. The difficulty lies in finding a suitable word to go along with it. All of the names which have come now to the forefront in the discussion, Socialist Labour, Socialist Party, Socialist Left have advantages and disadvantages. The discussion has tended to concentrate on what name has the least disadvantages. This is due to the complexities of the situation, the different political situations we face north and south of the border and the question of how a broad realignment will take place in both states, a process which is only at the very beginning and where there are inevitably a lot of questions which have to be left open at this stage. A factor is surely also in the minds of our members that we have at present a name which is a certain barrier, and we don’t want to compound the situation by adopting a new name which may also prove to be a barrier in certain circumstances.

16. It has to be said that a search for a perfect name, which does not contain any potential disadvantages would be like the search for the Holy

Grail. The positive part of our name will be the term socialist, not the appendage alongside it. What we have to do is carefully weigh up the political advantages and disadvantages with each of the suggested names.

17. The name Socialist Labour has certain advantages, especially in the north at this stage. Because a Labour party has not existed in the north for the last 25 years, the term labour is identified with the idea of an independent political voice for the working class. By calling ourselves Socialist Labour we can in effect sum up our position of working to build an independent workers’ party and making it clear that we want such a party to have a socialist programme. Socialist Labour would also represent a certain continuity from Militant Labour in both states. It would indicate our orientation towards the broad labour movement, in contrast to the fringe groups on the left.

18. However, there are disadvantages to this name which have to be carefully considered. The Labour Party have been in power for the last four years in the South. The term labour is identified with the sell-outs and betrayals of the Labour Party. The vast majority of people will not make a distinction between Spring’s Labour and the concept of the broad labour movement. We have to make clear that we have broken decisively with the Labour Party and what it stands for. We have no perspective of rejoining the Labour Party, there is no left wing in Labour which we wish to identify with, and we do not have a perspective of Labour moving to the left, of becoming attractive to a layer of workers and youth etc.

19. When we adopted the name Militant Labour these were more open questions. We at least had the perspective of orienting through our name to those workers and youth who would vote for the Labour Party. The situation has changed. There is no valid political argument for having any identity with any aspect of Labour now, quite the contrary.

20. Some comrades argue that we should identify through our name with the socialist labour tradition, represented by Connolly and Larkin. It is quite correct that there were always two labour traditions, that of the right wing leadership, and a minority tradition of workers and socialists fighting against them. We had a perspective that this minority tradition would become dominant in a left Labour Party, and lay the basis for Labour to develop as a mass force. We identified with this tradition not out of sentiment, but because we had a perspective that the political awakening of huge masses of workers and the youth would take place through this left tradition becoming the dominant force in the Labour Party.

21. This perspective has not been borne out. The right wing have achieved a dominance as never before, under their control there is no perspective of the development of Labour as a force amongst the working class. In fact we have to place a question mark over the future of Labour as anything more than a small rump party. A new, socialist party is needed now to replace Labour. Would the term socialist labour sufficiently indicate that this is our position? To forget about Labour and build a new and different type of party, one which is socialist, with real democratic control over its leadership, and which is committed in principle to an independent class stand?

22. This question is linked to a discussion as to what force, what type of party needs to be built to replace Labour. We can build our organisation into a small but significant revolutionary party in the next period. We can fill the vacuum on the left for the most politically advanced workers and youth. But what is needed is a broad based, class struggle party which can open up political activity for thousands and tens of thousands. such a party could quite quickly gain the necessary support and social weight to replace Labour. We stand for the building of such a party, and if we succeed in putting together an alliance for the gene-al election, and if it succeeds in getting people elected to the Dail, we will be faced within a year at the most with the task of trying to bring such a broad based party into existence.

23. It may be that such a party may call itself the Socialist Labour Party or Alliance etc. What would be the point of having our organisation called Socialist Labour working within this formation? It would not make sense to anyone. We would need a name to distinguish ourselves as a separate Marxist force. If as is more likely, a new broad formation did not adopt the term labour in its name, the situation would be even more complicated. What would Socialist Labour mean then? That we were a force with a distinct orientation to Labour? A name is after all a sign-post as to where you are pointing. We would give an entirely false political indication of who we are, or even worse, fetishists who cannot let go of the past.

24. In the north the situation is just as complicated if we look into all possible future developments. Firstly a Labour government coming to power under Blair’s leadership in Britain can very quickly change the popular conception of what is meant by the term labour. When we view this in conjunction with the very open perspective as to how Labour (the grouping that contested the forum / talks elections) may develop, the situation is quite complex. Labour may develop as a left-wing socialist party if under our influence it can attract a layer of workers, youth and trade union activists. But there is no guarantee whatsoever of name Socialist Labour could lead to a similar problem as described above for the south.

25. The name Socialist Party has very definite advantages. Primary among these is that it would send out a strong message that we see ourselves as a serious force, as a fully fledged independent party which has set itself the task of becoming a mass force. It would dispense with any doubts as to whether our organisation was something you could join, which has been a certain disadvantage of names like Militant or Militant Labour.

26. Another advantage is that although the discussion is continuing and there are reservations about this name, it is likely to be the name adopted by the organisation in England and Wales. A link with the name of the organisation in Britain is not crucial, certainly in the south, but it is an important consideration for our work in the north.

27. However, when we again take into account the question of broad realignment on the left, the name Socialist Party does have disadvantages. In the north, if the conditions develop for us to remain in and build Labour, it could pose difficulties to do so as the socialist Party.

28. The same point would apply to the question of a broad force in the south. It would not be a problem if a realignment took place as an alliance of left parties, but this is unlikely to be the case, north or south. A left alliance or party in the south will most likely involve our organisation and a range of individuals on the left, maybe some campaigning groups, and tiny remnants in reality of some of the left groups. It would require a very skilful and sensitive approach on our part to build such a broader grouping. This could be a disadvantage with the name Socialist Party.

29. In England and Wales, the comrades do not have a perspective of a broad realignment taking off for a period of time, maybe two or three years. But in Scotland, where the comrades are working in the Scottish Socialist Alliance, to call ourselves the Socialist Party would be tactically wrong. For this reason a discussion around the name Socialist Left has begun.

30. This is a name which should be considered as a possible alternative in Ireland. Comrades are correctly concerned that we should not have a name which could lump us in with fringe sectarian groups. Socialist Left, would not have the same advantage as Socialist Labour or Party in this respect, but it is also not an openly “sect” also does not have the advantage of the use of the word party, which as explained before, removes any vagueness as to whether we are an organisation people can join.

31. The problem about using the term left is not now of the same degree as when we discussed the open turn. Then we had the trend of the Stalinist parties, like Democratic Left, whereby this indicated not just a name change, but an abandonment of any pretence of socialist ideas and the embracing of market forces. Would it in some way link us in people’s consciousness with Democratic Left as opposed to Labour? This is very unlikely to be a serious problem. Democratic Left is a spent force, certainly in the north. In the south they are increasingly losing their identity as a separate force from Labour, and will possibly merge with Labour over the next period of time.

32. In deciding on a new name we should strive to have one name for the organisation in Ireland. It would not be unthinkable to have two slightly different names, but linked through the term socialist. In Britain, where there is one national organisation, it maybe that a different but linked name will be used in Scotland. However, the question of having one name in Ireland does have a different content. A Scottish national consciousness has developed, and can develop further, without having the same divisive effect on the working class in Scotland as the national question does in Ireland.

33. All the points which apply to the name of the organisation apply equally to the names of our papers. While it is not absolutely necessary for the name of the papers and the organisation to be the same, it makes sense to have a link between them. This would be achieved by using the term socialist in some form in the name of the papers.

34. In conclusion, we have to consider the time scale in relation to the question of changing our name. There is a greater urgency given the situation with an approaching general election in the south, where we can make a decisive breakthrough by winning a Dail seat. While we will stand in this election as part of an alliance, the comrades standing will also do so quite clearly as members of our organisation. In making a breakthrough, we want to maximise the opportunity to place the name of our organisation on the political map as never before. While it is generally correct to have an open mind about changing our name in the future, as conditions change, it would not be to our advantage to fight the general election in the south under a name which would have to be changed in its immediate aftermath, or even within a year or so.

35. For this reason the National Committee is proposing that a special one day conference be organised at the earliest possible date in the Autumn. To bring this discussion to a close and decide definitely on a new name. This document is being presented to provide a background to the discussion, it will not be presented for voting on at Conference.

36. The opportunity must be used now to have the fullest possible discussion to unite our comrades around a new name and to go forward and avail of the opportunities posed to build the organisation.