An EC Reply To The Documents Of Phil Hearse / John Bulaitis / Jared Wood; Clive Heemskerk; and The Merseyside Committee Resolution To The National Committee

1) OUR ORGANISATION has a proud tradition of internal discussion being conducted in a democratic fraternal manner. Most comrades who participate in discussion attempt to address the real arguments which are advanced.

2) The document of Clive Heemskerk is in the traditions of our organisation. We do not agree with him, as we will explain below, on a number of fundamental points of perspectives and of the name. But he does honestly identify the position of the EC majority and attempts to argue against it. Similarly the statement of the Merseyside Committee, with which we also disagree, seeks to address the real arguments and positions of the EC majority.

3) Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the document of John Bulaitis, Phil Hearse and Jared Wood. Their method is to distort the arguments of opponents. Through the use of selective quotations, of quoting only part of a paragraph and not the complete paragraph, they give an opposite meaning to what was intended. They ‘demolish’ arguments which the EC majority have never used. This method does not lead to clarification of the issues. It does not raise the level of understanding but muddies the waters, distorting and misrepresenting the opinions of the EC majority. [Editors Note: During the course of the debate, Jarad Wood disowned this aspect of the document bearing his name, and distanced himself from it.]

4) This method is clearly seen in the third paragraph of their document. They write: “The central tasks posed by the EC majority are in paragraph 7 and paragraph 23 of Peter Taaffe’s article.” Instead of then going on to quote the whole of the paragraphs mentioned they selectively quote part of these paragraphs to give a one-sided impression of the EC’s arguments. They quote from one part of paragraph 7: “The broad, socialist layer of previous periods is now a very thin layer and we have to reach beyond this strata to build our own forces. The main task facing us now is to win support for a socialist programme and socialist ideas generally.” (Emphasis by John Bulaitis and Phil Hearse and not by Peter Taaffe in the original). Comparing the EC majority’s position to that of the SWP (para 10) and even of Lutte Ouvriere in France (para 57) the impression is given that the EC majority wishes to reduce our organisation to merely advocating socialist propaganda, unrelated to clear strategy and tactics and a detailed programme for intervening in the workers’ struggle.

Consciousness

5) BY QUOTING the whole section and setting it in the overall context of our document the false method of John Bulaitis and Phil Hearse will be shown. In paragraph 7 we wrote: “At the same time, the consciousness of the proletariat is extremely confused. The consciousness, particularly of the advanced layer, which existed in the early 1970s or the period of 1979-83 in Britain was ahead of the position today. There was a broad layer of workers who considered themselves socialists and our task was to convince them that our particular ‘brand’ of socialism/Marxism was the most appropriate. This is not the situation today. The broad, socialist layer of previous periods is now a very thin layer, and we have to reach beyond this strata to build our forces. The main task facing us now is to win support for a socialist programme and for socialist ideas generally. Of course, the consciousness of workers is not uniform. There are still workers today who accept socialism (though not on the scale of the 1970s or 1980s, let alone the 1930s), and we still have the task of winning this advanced layer to more rounded-out ideas of Marxism.”

6) The EC majority is not advocating that we act like a propagandist sect arguing just for ‘general’ socialist ideas. Yes, we have to argue for socialism, to rehabilitate the ideas of socialism and seek to reach as wide an audience as possible. But at the same time, as we say in this paragraph, “we still have the task of winning this advanced layer to more rounded-out ideas of Marxism”.

7) James Connolly, a pioneer of the Irish labour movement, advanced a basic and “general” socialist case (e.g. Socialism Made Easy) and also the more worked-out programme of Marxism. He was not alone in this. All the main parties of the Second International sought to argue the “general” case for socialism. Today, for the reasons explained in the EC majority documents, we have to carry out a similar task. We are the only ones who argue for socialism in a “general” sense. Does this mean that we don’t argue for a worked-out Marxist programme? It is absurd to suggest that we don’t. It is the present EC which has initiated a discussion on a new programme for our organisation (see Members Bulletin 13).

Dual Task

8) IN OUR first document we explained that we have a dual task in this period. We have to “help to recreate this broad socialist consciousness” and at the same time build a revolutionary organisation.

9) The same selective method is employed with regard to paragraph 23. The authors quote just one part of this paragraph: “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.” Why do they not quote the whole paragraph which after all is not very long? It reads: “We do not intend to abandon the Socialist Alliances, but priority must be given to those tactics which can most effectively build our organisation now. We do not have an ultra-left perspective of building a mass revolutionary party of millions in the coming period. But 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.”

10) Thus we quite clearly state: “We do not intend to abandon the Socialist Alliances.” Yet the authors christen their document Ourselves Alone

11) Where have we ever argued for a strategy of ‘ourselves alone’? We have said that there is a big vacuum, not only in Britain but in Europe and indeed on an international scale. Have we ever said that we can fully occupy this space? On the contrary, in the first statement on the name we argued: “A huge vacuum [will] exist on the left-Other organisations are organically incapable of filling this vacuum. We can fill this gap at least partially [our emphasis] and to a much greater extent than others. But the precondition is that we are properly situated to take advantage of a bg working-class revival towards socialism. Consequently, it is essential that we should have the word ‘Socialist’ in our name.” (MB17, paras 46/47, p7)

12) These words are quoted in Clive Heemskerk’s document which attempts to honestly present the position of the EC. Not so the authors of Ourselves Alone. They argue in paragraph 36 of their document: “Any idea that we can simply monopolise the political space to the left of Labour – such as would be necessary to build a ‘small mass party’ – is false.” Who has ever argued that we would be able to monopolise completely the space to the left of the Labour Party? But we have argued, and will still continue to argue, that we can partially fill this vacuum but not on the basis of the ideas of the authors of Ourselves Alone. What is correct in this document, in relation to future perspectives, is borrowed from the EC majority with long approving quotes from the articles of Peter Taaffe and of Lynn Walsh (although with them drawing entirely false conclusions on the character of the theoretical journal which we will comment on later).

On Pessimism and Strike Statistics

13) HOWEVER, IN so far as they dip their toes into the water and discuss future perspectives for a Labour government, for the Socialist Alliances and the SLP, they are extremely rigid. Moreover, they are fundamentally mistaken on how the processes will develop with regard to splits in the traditional organisations and the phenomenon of new left, mass parties. They inform us: “The current level of consciousness can in no sense be used to justify a pessimistic perspective. “This is a little rich coming from the authors of Ourselves Alone who at recent aggregates were ‘downbeat’ if not outrightly pessimistic. They argued: “We can’t grow substantially until there is a decisive change in the situation.” Nothing is possible in Britain, it seems, until there was a big change in the objective situation, we would fare ‘badly’ in the next general election.

14) We do not expect that we will get spectacular results in the next general election because of the overriding need of the working class to get rid of the Tories. We are standing in order to explain our position to as many workers as we can reach and to warn of the consequences of a right-wing Blair-led Labour government. But we can make a mark in the consciousness of many workers and raise the profile of our organisation. He is accusing the EC of being “downbeat” about the present and “tremendously upbeat” about what will develop after the election of a Blair government. It seems that EC spokespersons in some meetings have also laid a very heavy and therefore, according to our critics, a one-sided interpretation on the current low level of strikes in Britain.

15) Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not a question of verbal comments, but it is written down in the perspectives documents adopted by the whole organisation as recently as the January conference (see MB12, p11). We wrote then: “A special document by the TUC has… shown that the official strike statistics only tell part of the picture. While the government measures days lost through strikes it does not deal with the huge increase in industrial unrest which stops short of a strike. Because of the battery of legal weapons at the disposal of the employers, trade unions are using more selective strikes and ‘other forms of disruption lasting less than a day as a bargaining tactic to compel employers to improve wage offers’ (special survey by the TUC). Fifty-nine per cent of unions say they win all or some of their demands as s result of industrial disruption.” Many other quotes similar to this can be given from our documents showing that we seek to have an all-sided approach. We do not just rely on crude strike statistics as an indication of the mood which exists amongst the working class.

16) At the same time the strike statistics, even with the qualification that we give, are one indication of the consciousness of the working class at this stage. Strikes are at an historically low level, although there has been a huge increase in individual cases going to industrial tribunals, numbering about two million a year. In other words trade union officials are tending to represent workers individually rather than the working class acting collectively at this stage. This is different to the situation of the 1970s or the early 1980s for that matter. It is legitimate for comrades to mention the strike statistics in 1979, so long as they are qualified in the manner suggested above. Then, and particularly throughout the 1970s, the role of the proletariat, particularly the industrial proletariat, was clear and set the tone for the whole movement. The fact that the power of the unions is dissipated to some extent in pursuing individual cases rather than acting collectively does say something about the present stage of the movement and of the consciousness of the working class. We have to differentiate between radicalisation and big radical movements on the one side, and the drawing of socialist conclusions on the other.

Movements and Socialist Consciousness

17) Our Authors say: “We cannot look at the situation in Britain through the eyes of the past five or ten years. Out of the development of mass anger, struggles and movements rapid political conclusions can be drawn. New layers will come to the fore who have no ‘socialist consciousness’ in the present period.”

18) The clear implication is that they see an automatic revival of broad socialist consciousness merely on the basis of big events. They fail to see, as the EC majority has pointed out, that there have been colossal movements of the proletariat in Britain in 1992 around the miners, in Belgium, Italy, recently in France and also in the big movements in Germany. Yet there has not been a re-emergence of mass socialist consciousness nor even yet a broad anti-capitalist, that is anti-systern, movement. These have been movements largely against the effects of the cuts, rather than against the market itself, let alone embracing broad socialist conclusions.

19) Marxism has nothing in common with attempting to prettify the situation. Reality always has two sides, as Marx pointed out. We have to soberly address what is and at the same time point towards likely developments in the future. It would be fatal for us to mix up and confuse radicalisation with the development, at this stage, of socialist consciousness. The working class will draw socialist conclusions, some small layers do at the present time, as we have argued, but it will take a combination of big events and the intervention of Marxist/socialist forces before a big socialist wave will develop in Britain.

20) Will this automatically develop under a Blair government as the authors of Ourselves Alone clearly expect? It is impossible to give a definitive answer on this, particularly as far as time scale is concerned. It is true that a Blair government can come into rapid collision with an expectant working class. The events of France can visit Britain. Blair has even hinted at either a ban on strikes in the ‘essential services’ or the introduction of ‘compulsory arbitration’ which will be aimed at severely limiting the ability of public-sector workers to take action in defence of their rights and conditions. Therefore big struggles are inevitable, although the timescale cannot be predicted in advance. Indeed perspectives have to be very conditional in this period. There is the economic situation, both in Britain and on a world scale, which could result in a recession at the same time or shortly after a Blair government comes to power. This will have a big bearing on perspectives for the government, as will developments in the Tory party which could result in a split with a layer of Europhiles going over, either openly or tacitly, in support of Labour. But, for all the reasons that we have mentioned in previous documents and have touched on here, a radicalised movement will not necessarily lead, and particularly automatically, as JB, PH and JW suggest, to a mass revival of socialist consciousness.

France – December 1995

21) THE EVENTS of France and recently in Germany are important in helping us to understand how events are likely to develop in Britain. More important in a sense are developments in Sweden which we have commented on in the paper (Militant 7 June 1996 page 12: “Sweden – a Taste of Blair’s Future?”).

22) Again, in reference to France, we have a distortion in the comments of the authors of Ourselves Alone. They write: “To say there was no anti-capitalist element in the movement, or that any anti-capitalist consciousness was not present, is absurd.” But whoever argued this? On the contrary we did not wait for the authors of the document to inform us about the singing of the Internationale and the carrying of the red flag by a layer of workers in the French events. We made this comment precisely in our first document on the name. “There is still a minority, including a revolutionary minority, who retain a socialist consciousness, some of whom can be won to a revolutionary programme and organisation. This is underlined by the singing of the Internationale on the mass demonstrations in France. But taken as a whole one of the most important tasks of the Marxists today is to rehabilitate the ideas of socialism, in collaboration with other forces, in a mass sense.” (MB17 para 25, p5)

23) But what was the broad character of the movement? Did the mass of those involved in the struggle draw or express broad socialist conclusions? The answer is no. The movement did not even embrace a clear governmental alternative to that of Chirac/Juppe. Why was this? It arose from the confused consciousness of the French proletariat, including that section who participated in the strike.

24) By the way it is inaccurate to say that the events in France “… on some days reached the point of a general strike in the public sector” (Ourselves Alone, para 52). The movement was not a general strike, nor even a complete general strike in the public sector. It had some of the effects of a general strike in bringing transport to a grinding halt, in the solidarity displayed by workers who were not on strike but who suffered with long journeys to and from work, etc. In some of the provinces the demonstrations were bigger than in 1968. But the movement in no way corresponded to the crude generalisations advanced by the authors of Ourselves Alone.

Sober Assessment Required

25) THE CAREFUL, sober assessment of the situation undertaken by the EC majority is foreign to them. We have pointed to a certain growth in the French trade unions as an important development arising out of this movement. Attendance at ‘far-left’ fetes is no indication of a mass revival of socialist consciousness as our authors seem to indicate. A certain radicalisation has taken place as well as a growth in the trade unions, but the idea of a mass revival of socialism resulting from the events in France is removed from reality. If this was not the case then the government would have beaten a complete retreat in the face of the mass movement.. But the reality is that the Juppe plan has not been completely withdrawn. The railway workers achieved a temporary victory. But the government is coming back with further methods of retrenchment and austerity, which is a guarantee of further big upheavals and strikes in France.

26) Of course, one of the factors which allows the French bourgeois to do this is the failure and the lack of an alternative of the leaders of the French workers’ movement. The consciousness of the proletariat is also a factor here. Juppe, even during the course of the movement, jeered at Jospin in the National Assembly, that the French Socialist Party (SP) leaders had no clear alternative to his plan. And the truth is that the working class, while implacably opposed to the plan and wishing to see it defeated, did not have a clear idea of an alternative. The slogan of a ‘Socialist/Communist government’ found no echo whatsoever in the events in France, because of the discrediting of the SP and the fact that the CP was not a viable mass alternative at this stage.

27) We were compelled to put forward an algebraic formula of “a workers’ government based upon committees of struggle”. But this demand would find very little echo (and not just because of the smallness of our forces) given the consciousness of the proletariat in France at this stage. The authors of Ourselves Alone may try to accuse us of “pessimism”. We prefer a sober objective appraisal of the situation which will guard against disappointment but which at the same time prepares our comrades to seize the opportunities which exist now, as well as an optimistic perspective for the future. Does this mean that in France we cannot grow in this period? Absolutely not. There is a minority, but a smaller minority than before, who have been affected by the December events who can be drawn into our ranks. But this is not at this stage a huge layer. If this was not the case then how to explain that apart from the trade unions neither the mass parties of the French working class nor the ‘far-left groups’ have grown significantly since the December events?

28) Some of the same factors we describe were undoubtedly present in the recent events in Germany. Our organisation found an echo for our demand for a 24-hour general strike against Kohl’s austerity programme. The Guardian newspaper carried reports of workers demanding a 24-hour general strike. But neither this mood, nor the mood for an all-out public-sector strike in France, posed in the minds of the workers in France the question of power. This is entirely different to the situation of the 1970s. The whole thrust of our propaganda, in and around the general strike then, was that it posed the question of power, which was grasped by the ‘advanced’ workers at that stage. That is not the case today. Even where the demand for a general strike is accepted it has more the character of what happened pre-first world war. Trotsky described how the Belgian labour movement, in the pre-first world war period, saw the general strike as mass pressure on the government to give concessions, which sometimes it did, rather than posing directly the issue of power. In France 1968 and even in the 1926 general strike in Britain, the issue of power was posed.

29) Does this mean that we have to draw pessimistic conclusions from the present position in Britain and for that matter in Europe? Not at all. Big movements, of a radical character, are inevitable. In this movement a minority of radicalised workers and youth, potential revolutionaries, will come to the fore. Some, a small layer, will already be searching for socialist conclusions. Another layer can draw socialist and revolutionary conclusions on the basis not just of events but through the correct intervention of the revolutionary organisation.

“Workerism”?

30) AS TO the character of the working class in the present period JB, PH and JW draw wrong conclusions. They write in paragraph 24, with reference to the working class today: “Capitalist restructuring and decline in traditional manufacturing industry has rendered obsolete the old traditional view of an ‘advanced worker’. In this period we must ditch any stereotype of the ‘advanced worker’ as simply a mainly male activist of the industrial working class.” John Bulaitis, in the current issue of Socialism Today (issue 11, review of 100 Years of Socialism) writes: “The character of this consciousness [of the working class] will be different from that in the past. The old stereotype of the working class as male, manual workers is over. Clinging to this idea will be a barrier to the rebuilding of the socialist movement. Struggles, such as those for women’s liberation, over the environment, and lesbian and gay liberation, must be linked to class politics and an anti-capitalist programme.”

31) Comrades should think clearly about the implications of these statements. An explicit criticism was made in the past, usually by the sects, of the alleged position of Militant, of so-called “workerism”. We have never supported the old “stereotype” of the working class as “male, manual workers”. Nor is this in any way an accurate reflection of previous periods of struggle of the working class. In the 1970s the immense power of the proletariat was evident particularly in the movements between 1970-74. But it was never a movement “simply” of “mainly male activists of the industrial working class”. We had, in the 1970s, the involvement of the miners’ partners and families in the heroic struggles of 1972 and 1974. We had the struggle for equal pay, the growth of trade unionism amongst women workers as demonstrated by the Ford women workers’ struggle. Women workers featured in the ‘winter of discontent’. What about the heroic Grunwick strike, involving predominantly women workers, in which John Bulaitis participated, but now seems to ignore in the schema which the authors of Ourselves Alone present both in relation to past and future struggles of the proletariat? The numbers of the industrial working class have declined due to de-industrialisation and restructuring, as we have pointed out many times. But this does not mean, as could b implied by Ourselves Alone, that the role of the industrial working class, and the advanced workers who will emerge in the future, both male and female, will not play a decisive role. John Bulaitis, seems to imply that such a role is ruled out in the future: “Clinging to this idea will be a barrier to the rebuilding of the socialist movement. Struggles such as those for women’s liberation, over the environment, and lesbian and gay liberation must be linked to class politics and an anti-capitalist programme.” (Socialism Today)

Weight

32) IN THEIR document they argue about the “new fresh layers who will come to the fore”. We have pointed this out many times. We must fully intervene in the struggles amongst working-class women, continue with the work around CADV, over the environment, as we have done with the CJA, the justice movement, etc, as well as in the lesbian and gay movements. But it’s not just a question of linking these movements to “class politics and an anti-capitalist programme”. It is also necessary for a Marxist organisation to recognise that it will be a mass movement of the working class, within which the industrial working class will play a key role, which will draw behind it those youth, blacks and Asians, lesbian and gay activists who are presently scattered in single-issue campaigns. Our authors have not even noticed the most important features of the mass movements in France, Belgium, Italy and Germany. At the core of these was the decisive sections of the industrial proletariat such as the transport workers in France.

33) It has been an axiom of our organisation up to now, which JB, PH and JW now seem to dispute, that it’s not just the numbers of the working class which are important but their social weight in production. There are the new layers of the working class. They will play a big role. The industrial working class may be a minority but nevertheless they are decisive for the struggle for socialism and the building of a revolutionary party. It is at the core of our perspectives for rebuilding the labour movement and of our own organisation. At the moment this section of the working class appears to be dormant, gives the impression of being paralysed by a combination of anti-trade union laws and the passivity of the trade union leaders. However, that will change as the events in Europe have demonstrated. And once they move they will draw behind them all those sections of youth and workers who at the moment are scattered in single-issue campaigns.

34) Look at what has happened in the course of the London Tube dispute. Look at the way ‘Reclaim the Streets’ cyclists have demonstrated solidarity with the tube workers on strike days. See the way they have gravitated towards the dockers. They recently attended some of the meetings organised in London of the dockers’ support group. As in all big movements of the working class, particularly of the industrial working class, once they are on the move they mobilise behind them other radicalised groups, the intermediary layers, such as shop keepers, etc. This is underlined by the miners, demonstrated in a series of movements including the most recent in October 1992. Are the authors of Ourselves Alone abandoning the perspective of the working class, and above all of the industrial working class, being the central force which will gather behind itself environmental activists, those involved in the lesbian and gay liberation movement? They should clarify their ambiguous statements on this issue.

The Second International Analogy

35) SIMILARLY CRUDE criticisms, devoid of any understanding of the real ideas put forward by the EC majority, are shown in the comments made in relation to the comparison drawn between the period between of the Second International (before 1914) and the present situation that faces us. We went to great lengths to explain in both the first document and also in the second document that there were differences in the situation which existed in the latter part of the 19th century and now but there were “elements” of this. Now our worthy critics maintain that we want to go back to the period of the Second International: “It [the workers’ movement] does not need to be refounded, built from scratch, as if the first three Internationals had never existed.” (Ourselves Alone para 56)

36) In paragraph 9 of our ‘Reply’ we explained the position clearly: “History never repeats itself in exactly the same way. There are always special features in any period. Moreover, to paraphrase Hegel, all comparisons are odious. Having said that, humankind will be incapable of progressing without drawing comparisons from the past, the use of analogies, of similarities, etc. When we spoke of a period similar to the Second International we were not arguing that there was a simple repetition today of the position then. As was pointed out at the NC, the latter part of the 19th century was characterised by a period of capitalist upswing. There were slumps like that of 1896 but the curve of capitalism was upwards. We are now in a period of British and world economic depression. But the consciousness which existed then and in the early part of this century has some similarities with the situation today. That is why we used the term in our original statement that there were ‘elements’ of the situation today which existed at the time of the Second International. The difference between then and now is that it will not take us as long to assemble the forces of a mass revolutionary party. Events will be compressed into a much shorter time. We will not be faced with decades of work before big opportunities for creating a mass force will exist.”

37) Nowhere, either in this paragraph or in paragraph 10, is the idea put forward that we have to go back to scratch in rebuilding the labour movement and helping to recreate a broad socialist consciousness. Moreover, we have explained, we will face the opportunity of building a mass revolutionary party in a much shorter time span than in the latter part of the 19th century and the earlier part of this century. Why is this? Precisely because the working class, once it begins to move into action, will stand on the shoulders of the historic achievements of the working class internationally, including the “first three Internationals” as well as Trotsky’s experience in attempting to develop the Fourth International.

A ‘Vertical Split’ ?

38) THE REAL arguments of the EC are never addressed by the authors of Ourselves Alone. Their stock in trade is to grossly caricature the positions of the EC, to set up straw men then knock them down, and spend pages demolishing arguments that the EC never put forward. In so far as they move beyond the realms of false generalisations to concretely explain what they think will take place in the future, they demonstrate a complete incapacity to understand the character of this period or what is likely to take place in the traditional organisations. They argue, for instance: “Only where a mass reformist or centrist organisation suffers a vertical split – such as the Communist Refoundation split from the PDS in Italy – can a new mass party of the working class be so rapidly assembled.” (Ourselves Alone, para 12) This is merely a repetition of the ‘big bang’ theory of mass left splits from the traditional organisations.

39) It is not a complete nor accurate reflection of what has happened in the past. PASOK in Greece, when it was formed in 1974, did not develop from a “vertical split”. It was an entirely new party formed by a new generation of workers repelled by Stalinism but looking for a revolutionary road. A similar process developed in Portugal. The Socialist Party went from 50 members, mostly lawyers based in Paris, to a mass party without a “vertical split”. We could give other examples from the ‘underdeveloped’ world, knowledge of which is, it seems, a closed book to the authors of Ourselves Alone.

40) We argued in our reply (MB18) that the “vertical split” theory was no longer a likely perspective for developments in the traditional organisations. We wrote in paragraph 22: “It is very unlikely that there will be a rapid mass split towards the left from the next Labour government. Events in other countries have shown that at this stage the tendency of the left parties, never mind the left within the Social Democratic Party, is to capitulate to the programme of cuts and slashing of public expenditure. This is the experience of the ‘Left Party’ in Sweden, in Norway, in Finland and in other countries in Europe.”

Fragmentation

41) RATHER THAN big splits to the left it is more likely, as we have argued not the authors of Ourselves Alone, that there will be a fragmentation of the former social democratic organisations, such as the Labour Party in Britain, over a period. This will be paralleled by efforts to create a mass left alternative. But where the authors of Ourselves Alone make another fundamental error is to expect that this will happen necessarily in a rapid fashion. It is more likely that it will develop over a protracted period.

42) The same applies in their approach towards the issue of socialist alliances, the perspectives for the SLP and the slogan or idea of a new mass workers’ party.

New Workers’ Party

43) FIRSTLY ON the issue of the slogan of a new workers’ party, comrades should note that it was not JB, PH or JW but the present EC, who first of all drew the conclusion that the Labour Party was a bourgeois party, necessitating us raising the idea of a new mass party of the working class. Even the authors of Ourselves Alone have to quote at length from some articles by Peter Taaffe and others on this issue. We wrote in our perspectives document: “Already a mood exists amongst a layer of advanced workers for a new socialist party. We must raise this idea within the trade unions. It will not become a slogan as such at this moment but could come into its own sometime after a general election. We must also seek to collaborate with genuine left currents, as with the Socialist Movement in Scotland and with others in the ‘Socialist Forum’. Events and our arguments will prepare the ground at a certain stage for the emergence of a new mass ‘socialist party’.” (MB 12, p!7)

44) Even then, unlike our critics of today, we put the building of our own organisation at centre stage: “The main orientation in our work should be towards building Militant Labour, to advance on every occasion the profile of our organisation. Above all we must educate every comrade on the need to create a periphery of close contacts. Arguments in favour of a new socialist party would not cut across this task. Indeed we can only have a decisive influence in any future mass formation if we build our organisation now.” (MB12, p!7) Was this a sectarian approach as our critics suggest?

45) A little later on we argue in the same document: “Militant Labour can appeal to an important section of workers and youth at this moment. But for five or ten who would support Militant Labour there are a hundred or a thousand workers who are looking for a mass left alternative. Our programme and slogans must echo the aspirations of these workers. We reject completely the ultimatist approach of organisations like the SWP, ‘Join us or you are useless’.” (MB12, p17) By the way this shows that it was us who criticised the SWP for not putting forward a ‘broad position’ to mobilise the potential which existed for the creation of a mass socialist party.

The SWP – Themselves Alone!

46) WE DON’T underestimate nor do we overestimate the obstacle presented by the SWP for the development of a genuine revolutionary organisation in Britain. We made a certain intervention in Marxism ’96. But it is entirely false and light minded to suggest, as the authors of Ourselves Alone do, that the SWP are four to five times larger than Militant Labour. The evidence for taking the SWP’s claims for membership at face value is attendance at ‘Marxism’. As if the attendance at this gathering is decisive. Undoubtedly some layers attend such a school out of curiosity. They are joined by ‘revolutionary tourists’ from the regions outside of London in particular, who ‘take in the theatre’, or a visit to Kew Gardens, alongside a session, or sessions of ‘Marxism’. Cliff, the leader of the SWP, claims 10,000 members. It is doubtful whether they have more than 3,000 active members. But even if they had a lot more, as we have argued on many occasions, they are utterly incapable, as the struggle over the Criminal Justice Bill in Scotland demonstrated, or the present dockers’ struggle, of engaging in broad movements of the working class.

47) However, from the point of view of building their own organisation the SWP’s emphasis on building their own profile, as well as the stance of Lutte Ouvriere for that matter, has more justification for it than the arguments of the authors of Ourselves Alone. Indeed their emphasis on building the ‘Socialist Alliances’ would play right into the hands of the SWP. Both these organisations have built a significant position by emphasising their profile, albeit in a sectarian fashion. They have been more successful at attracting members than others who precisely engaged in numerous attempts to build largely phantom organisations of the ‘left’. Expending enormous energy in searching for, and failing to find, a mythical left they have ended up by either completely disintegrating their own organisation or severely weakening themselves.

Socialist Alliances

48) OUR CRITICS wish us to go down this road. Let us be clear about this. Other organisations were engaged over years in trying to ‘put flesh on the bones’ of the ideas advanced by John Bulaitis, Phil Hearse and Jared Wood. They substituted the hard task of building and strengthening their own organisation for “alliances” which meant that they have virtually disappeared into ‘networks’ and a ‘left swamp’. This is the real danger which faces our organisation, if the ideas of this tendency were accepted. This is what their quite ‘dangerous’ and false ideas in relation to the perspectives for alliances represent in effect. We were quite careful to say: “We do not intend to abandon the socialist alliances.” Despite this we are precisely accused of “abandoning the perspective of the alliances”. This is not true but we have carefully assessed what the Socialist Alliances amount to at this stage, and what weight they should be given in our orientation and work in the next period.

49) The authors of Ourselves Alone concede that the situation is different in Scotland with the formation of the Scottish Socialist Alliance, than in the rest of Britain. It must be added that the development of the SSA is taking place in a more concentrated area than if it would have developed throughout the rest of Britain. The SSA largely draws its strength from the West of Scotland, mostly the Strathclyde area. In Scotland there is a more viable left than exists in the rest of Britain. This is certainly the case if one looks at the left on an all-Britain basis. There are the outlines of Socialist Alliances in a few towns in Britain. Even then, they are not on the scale of the SSA, nor do they compare to the ‘Broad Left’ in Liverpool during the 1980s. We will return to this later when we comment on the resolution from the Merseyside Committee.

50) What the authors of Ourselves Alone propose is that we should act as a kind of political detective in an endless search for a mythical left and illusory ‘socialist alliances’. There is a small Socialist Alliance in Manchester. We are fully participating in this and intend to continue this participation. There are two or three ‘Socialist Alliances’ in London. It seems there is a quite healthy alliance in Hillingdon and a much weaker body in Southwark. They are most developed in Coventry. We are also backing the initiative for a national steering committee on 5 October. The Welsh comrades have sought to collaborate with the very few lefts, including members of the SLP, in Wales. There were some serious efforts also made in Kent. There was an alliance set up in Hackney with 80 people attending and virtually 80 organisations represented, mostly of a hopelessly sectarian character.

51) The basis for successful ‘socialist alliances’ in general does not exist on an all-Britain scale, particularly in England and Wales, at this stage. To waste our time hunting for, and setting up bodies which are composed 99% of our own comrades, with little or no participation of genuine lefts is entirely futile at this stage.

52) The idea of ‘socialist alliances’ in every area is largely stillborn for the very reason that the left is either still tied to the Labour Party or is virtually non-existent in an organised form. However, even where we participate, and the EC is not opposed to this, this should not be at the expense of building our own organisation, or of emphasising its independent profile. This is the crux of the difference between our critics and the EC majority both in our perspectives towards the socialist alliances and also the issue of the name change.

The SLP

53) JB, PH and JW have a similarly false position when it comes to perspectives for the SLR They have a static analysis of what has been an evolving situation with regard to the SLR The setting up of the SLP in a completely sectarian fashion has complicated the perspective for a new independent, mass workers’ party. Many workers who leaned towards the formation of such a party will have been put off. They will be more cautious towards any immediate new steps in this direction. It will now take time, perhaps much longer than we previously estimated, before big support for a new party crystallises. The authors of Ourselves Alone have a completely mechanical perception of how a new mass party will develop. Their arid schemas take absolutely no account of timescale. Their dogmatic perspective amounts to: Struggle will take place, socialist consciousness will suddenly come back onto the agenda, a new mass party will quickly arise and therefore we should busy ourselves in laying the basis for this in phantom socialist alliances.

54) Let us remind comrades of what the EC argued at the time of the announcement of the SLP. We drew a comparison with an aeroplane; it could take off or crash land. We then corrected our analysis to say, in the light of Scargill’s narrow sectarian approach, that neither of these perspectives now seemed probable. It was more likely that the aeroplane would stagnate on the runway. In other words the SLP would not disappear, but neither would it ‘take off. Subsequent events have demonstrated the correctness of that analysis. The SLP, while claiming 5,000 members (in reality much less than this because potential ‘affiliated’ members are included) is made up at this stage of a limited number of activists, much smaller than our organisation, and a largely paper membership.

55) Will the SLP take off under a Labour government? We believe this is extremely unlikely. There can be left splits, in all probability small splits, led by people like Jeremy Corbyn and a number of MEPs, towards the left. Will they link up with the SLP? Again this is extremely doubtful. These left MPs are already repelled by the methods of Scargill. Could some other major left development take place, with left MPs, linking up with supporters of Red Pepper, socialist-inclined elements in the environmental movement? We cannot be categorical on an issue like this. It is possible that a significant left split could develop at a certain stage. If such a development was to take place we would seek to orientate towards it, in the same way as we did towards the SLP.

New Labour Left?

56) ON THE other hand it’s possible that no significant splits towards the left would take place even under a right-wing Blair government. The capitulation of the leaders of the traditional organisation to the ideological offensive of the bourgeois, and ‘reality’ of the market, and particularly to the pressure of the world market, shapes events in all capitalist countries at this stage. Not just right-wing, ex-reformist organisations have capitulated to this trend, a la Sweden and Goran Persson’s recent budget, but also it’s quite striking that all parties which once claimed to be ‘left’, to one degree or another, have bent the knee to the ‘inevitability’ of market pressures. Thus the ‘Left Party’ in Sweden accepts the government’s programme of cuts and austerity. The same with other left parties in Scandinavia. The same with the Socialist Party in France, the PDS in Italy, PASOK in Greece, etc. And why is this taking place? Because accepting the ‘reality’ of capitalism these ‘left’, or formerly left, parties merely seek to ameliorate the worst effects of capitalist austerity. They see no ‘alternative’ at this moment in time. Witness the capitulation of the left within the Social Democratic Party of Sweden to the capitalist offensive of Goran Persson.

57) Even before Blair has come to power we have witnessed the spectacle in Britain of Ken Livingstone appearing on Newsnight justifying workfare. Blair will dangle a few government jobs, probably of a very minor character, before the enfeebled left in the Labour Party and some of them will jump at the prospect of sharing ‘power’. Even in Germany the left party, the PDS, has recently admitted, through its major spokesperson, Gysi, that it wants to go into coalition with the Social Democrats at a national level (it already cooperates with the SPD at local and state level). Even the RC in Italy could move rightwards. Already it has accepted “economic guidelines” of the Prodi government.

58) Under the pressure of big events undoubtedly this or that left figure will break from Labour, maybe even groups of lefts will split away. But when will this happen, what is the timescale for such a development? It could develop in a relatively rapid fashion, but it is the position of the EC that this is not the most likely. Therefore if a split of a significant character to the left from the Labour Party is delayed for one, two, three, four, five years as the case may be what should be the perspectives and orientation of our organisation? Should we wait, expend colossal energy in searching for a mythical left that we can bloc with in ‘socialist alliances’? Or should we, as the EC majority propose, raise boldly the independent profile of our organisation, with a name that is capable of attracting the new layers of the working class, and then seek energetically to build this organisation?

Never Ourselves Alone!

59) “AH, YOU see, you really want a policy of ‘ourselves alone’!” We have never pursued a policy of “ourselves alone”. In Liverpool we attained the position in the Labour Party and on the Labour Group precisely by an intransigent policy on programme and a stubborn defence of our name and our revolutionary profile while at the same time putting forward the most flexible tactics. It was the EC who implacably defended our ideas and programme but employed flexible tactics in the Liverpool struggle. It is precisely the present EC, which the critics now accuse of sectarianism, who developed, together with our Liverpool comrades, and carried out, the policies that led to the success in Liverpool. So too in the anti-poll tax struggle. This required a bold imagination as to the potential which existed, combined with flexible tactics.

Small Mass Party

60) THE AUTHORS of Ourselves Alone jeeringly dismiss the EC majority’s contention that: “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.” We did build a “small mass party” which led the Liverpool struggle and took the initiative in the anti-poll tax battle as well. As a result of our work in the 1980s we achieved a membership of 8,000. What is this but a “small mass party” which played a mass role in Liverpool and in the anti-poll tax battle on an all-Britain scale.

61) With Phil Hearse’s utter pessimism that “nothing can be done” until a complete change in the objective situation we would never have engaged in the anti-poll tax struggle. On the surface it appeared in 1987 that the Tories were once more triumphant, the working class was politically and economically prostrate, the leadership of the trade union and labour movement were moving to the right at a speed on knots. It was precisely at this stage that we took up the anti-poll tax struggle and predicted that we could build a mass movement, first of all in Scotland, then in the rest of Britain which could defeat the Tory government. To superficial impressionists, organic sceptics and sectarians such a task appeared as hopeless as the perspective for building a small mass party in Britain in the next period. The term “next two, three, or four years” was not an exact arithmetical prediction but was meant precisely to be elastic. If we had merely said ‘in the future’, our critics would have accused us of lack of precision! We do believe, unlike the authors of Ourselves Alone, that it is possible to build a powerful revolutionary organisation if we combine the struggle to build our independent profile, our strength, our numbers and cohesion together with flexible tactics. We can build amongst the youth, in the trade unions, and amongst working women.

62) PH, JB and JW claim: “This statement is at least an exaggeration; it also amounts to the abandonment of the perspective of a new socialist party. If there is ‘no reason’ why we cannot build a small mass party ourselves then there is ‘no reason’ to argue fora new socialist party. On the contrary, we should merely argue to build Militant Labour (or whatever it is called) on the one hand, and fight for a new mass workers’ party (an historic task) on the other. That is indeed the position the EC majority are now arguing. But in practice the fighting for a mass workers’ party will be mainly propaganda; the effective, operative, part of the strategy will be to fight to make our organisation a ‘small mass party’ within a short period of time.” (Ourselves Alone, para 29)

63) The EC majority has not abandoned the perspective or the fight for a new “mass workers’ party”. Nor do we consider that this struggle is merely one of “propaganda”. Within the trade unions, under a Labour government, our comrades will be arguing for such a party. Where the opportunity presents itself we will also take concrete steps, together with others, towards the formation of such a party. But can our critics guarantee that there will be “others”, a significant left force, that will come together with us in the short term, to build such a party? If this is not the case, as is possible even under a right-wing Blair government, what is our task but mainly to argue in a propagandistic fashion for such a party? Or do the authors of Ourselves Alone propose that we come together with the myriad little sects to form a phantom “mass party”? If the process of forming such an independent mass party is delayed, as is possible but not certain, what should we do then? They in effect advocate a policy of waiting for a “fundamental change in the objective situation” and putting all our eggs in the “new socialist party” basket. In practice their policy is one of quiescence and a downplaying if not abandonment of the building of the independent profile, numbers and cohesion of the revolutionary party.

Flexible and Conditional

64) THE EC is conditional on the possibilities of left split-offs from the Labour Party. The possible development of large formations of the left cannot be completely discounted. If we confront this situation we will switch and seek to influence such a development. However, for the reasons explained above, we believe that this is not the most likely perspective. The essence of revolutionary politics at this stage is to have a flexible, conditional approach while at the same time presenting boldly the necessity to build our organisation. There is nothing “sectarian” in this. There is nothing which in any way justifies our critics comparing the ideas of the EC majority to the leadership of Lutte Ouvriere. It is the present EC which supported and argued for a broader approach in the CPSA involving the amalgamation of our Broad Left with BL84. In not one single trade union is there evidence that the EC has argued for the policies concocted in Ourselves Alone. In Unison, for instance, we have made appeals even to the SWP to combine the forces of the left in an open democratic Broad Left. In the teachers’ union we have argued for the STA and the CDFU to come together but to assume a more open and democratic character than either of these organisations have at the present time.

65) But we do advocate a higher profile for our revolutionary organisation. At the moment our efforts are too scattered over a dozen different campaigns. The most important ‘campaign’ is to build our organisation, to pose the question of increasing our membership, of strengthening and even rebuilding the structures of our organisation. Successful united front work is only really possible from a position of strength. This is why we have a certain success in the SSA in Scotland. Only where we have built a significant force in the unions was it possible to carry through successful united front work, to be more precise an element of the united front work.

66) Contrast this to the advice proffered by the authors of Ourselves Alone who advocate (in para 36) that we try and “unlock, especially in the post-election situation, the narrow-minded sectarianism of the SLP leadership”. These ‘mental locksmiths’ have the delusion that Scargill can be persuaded to abandon his “narrow-minded sectarianism”. We have adopted, and will continue to adopt a friendly attitude towards the SLP rank and file. Where has the EC ever advocated turning our backs completely on the SLP? Such an idea is a pure invention by the authors of Ourselves Alone. However, at the same time we have a realistic appraisal of the limited possibilities for us or the SLP at this stage. It does not involve big numbers of workers, as we have explained above. Moreover, there is evidence to show that Scargill does not want a big party, with a fighting active membership, which he would find difficult to control. He prefers a small active membership under his control and a largely paper membership. If there is a revolt against the Scargill leadership, not to be entirely ruled out, and there is a danger of him losing control, he will, in our opinion probably move to dissolve the party or expel dissidents. In either case we will orientate towards such a development. But this is not the main orientation which we should undertake in this or the foreseeable period.

Militant and militant

67) WHEN OUR critics address the issue of the name change, and they only do this incidentally and in passing in this document, it is precisely the character of the period that they totally fail to understand. Once more they use quotes from Trotsky, written in 1938. The authors of Ourselves Alone repeat Trotsky’s phrase about a ‘revolutionary name’. Both in our first and second documents we have pointed out that the situation today in no way could be compared to the 1930s. Bending to our criticism of those who use phrases from Trotsky in the 1930s, completely unrelated to the present situation, our critics concede: “Of course the character of the period during which Trotsky was writing was fundamentally different.” If it is “fundamentally different” why use a quote from Trotsky in an article in which he was arguing for the youth organisation of the SWP to adopt the name of the ‘Legion of the Socialist Revolution’?

68) Yet even our critics, who present themselves as bolder and more “combative” than the EC majority, shy away from accepting what Trotsky proposed or even presumably the more ‘revolutionary’ name ‘Revolutionary Socialist Party’. Why? Because even they understand this is too far ahead not only of the “broad masses” but of the “advanced” and even of the “advanced, radicalised, dynamic and combative layer” which they are aiming at. Not one single new argument has been advanced by the authors of Ourselves Alone either to support their preferred option of ‘Militant Socialist Party’ or in opposition to the name ‘Socialist Party’.

69) It is absolutely false to say that the argument in favour of dropping ‘Militant’ in favour of ‘Socialist Party’ is based purely on anecdotes. In two quite lengthy documents we went to great lengths to explain the character of this period and of the period that we are moving into as we saw it. At the same time, we gave examples of the views of workers who agreed with the EC majority that ‘Militant’ was no longer appropriate as a name for our organisation. Dave Cotterill, when he spoke in the first, discussion at the National Committee, informed us that all the dockers and their partners who had joined us supported dropping ‘Militant’ and moreover favoured the name ‘Socialist Party’. Now unfortunately Dave Cotterill, together with the majority of the Regional Committee in Merseyside, think this “inappropriate”. (We will answer the arguments of the Regional Committee later).

70) The case that we have made out for dropping the name ‘Militant’ is sneeringly dismissed in a phrase about “sinister Militant”. The “more combative” name that they prefer of ‘Militant Socialist Party’ gets the worst of all possible worlds. Workers will see ‘Militant’ and the ‘Socialist’ element will be ignored. The EC’s case for a name change is positive, the need for ‘Socialist’ in the name. But also because of the character of this period we feel that ‘Militant’ now on balance has a negative effect, does not allow us to exploit fully the situation that exists and above all will develop in the future. There is no need to repeat here the arguments set out in the EC’s first two documents. But the authors of Ourselves Alone completely fail to even address the arguments that we put forward. The comrades in Ireland, with their feet on the ground, to a man and woman they have agreed to drop ‘Militant’.

Against Rigid Schema

71) JB, PH and JW object to our characterisation of them as “conservatives”. Yet what is a “revolutionary conservative” but one who fails to recognise profound changes when they take place and obstinately clings to a banner or an idea, or a formula, which has been overtaken by the march of events? The authors of Ourselves Alone fall into this category. If our organisation was to accept their method, their approach towards perspectives, and the name change they propose we would not only be unprepared for the period that is opening up we would become peripheral as far as the workers’ movement is concerned. The abstract way in which they approach the question of which layers we should appeal to demonstrates this fully. They divide the working class into three layers now; the advanced, which they now concede is small, apparently accepting the EC’s formula of “a very thin layer” with a socialist consciousness; then a broader radicalised section; and then the broad mass. We do not believe in this period that reality corresponds to this rigid schema and categorisation of the working class. There is, as we have consistently argued, a layer of advanced workers and youth who can even now draw revolutionary conclusions. But this is a very small layer. If this were not the case we would have recruited far more rapidly than we have done; either this is true or our methods are completely wrong which we do not believe is so. As far as other layers are concerned the difference between a “radicalised” section, which the EC alluded to first in the discussion – involved in the environmental movement and other single-issue campaigns – their consciousness is not that far removed from the broad mass. There certainly is not the rigid delineation that our critics outline.

72) The key question is what is the consciousness of this radicalised layer? Even the authors of Ourselves Alone concede: “Many newly radicalising forces, especially in the youth, are sceptical about socialism.” (Ourselves Alone, para 47) The truth is that even the idea of a ‘socialist party’ is a little bit ahead of their consciousness at this stage. We have explained this in the course of the debate. But we must have a name not just for today but for tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. ‘Socialist Party’ anticipates the inevitable reawakening of socialist consciousness, which will develop into a wave at a certain stage. For us not to have ‘Socialist’ in the title will be to tie one hand behind our backs. Of course we can explain our ideas, overcome the prejudices of a reawakening generation to the name ‘Militant’, where we can reach them and discuss with them face to face. Problems arise, however, when individuals or groups of workers see our banner from a distance. We must have one that attracts them and does not act as a barrier. Even if comrades do not accept our arguments in relation to the term ‘Militant’ now meaning something entirely different to what it meant originally, including now being associated through ceaseless bourgeois propaganda, with ‘terrorism’ and ‘militarism’, at the very least it is not an accurate ideological description of what we represent. If comrades object that ‘Socialist Party’ is inappropriate, come forward with an alternative which will fulfil a similar role but with more of an ‘edge’ on it. Up to now no viable alternatives have been put forward.

Never Sectarian

73) REVOLUTIONARY INTRANSIGENCE, implacable defence of our programme is in no way “sectarian”. How many times were we urged to adopt a “non-sectarian approach to the left as a whole” when we worked in the Labour Party? We showed the greatest tactical flexibility in discussions with the Bennite left but despite all their urgings for us to adopt a “non-sectarian approach” particularly towards themselves, we remained implacable and intransigent in our criticism. Always adherence to principle, is condemned by flabby centrists, as a refusal to adopt a “non-sectarian approach”. The only way that it would be possible to “prise open some cracks (in the left) that are developing in their ranks” is by building a strong revolutionary pole of attraction. Everything the authors of Ourselves Alone say about youth work, trade union work and work amongst women is, so far as it is correct, merely a repetition of what the organisation is attempting to carry out at the present time.

74) The lecture which we have received at their hands on the “importance of Young Socialist Resistance” is very ‘surprising’. The EC has had to struggle over a two-year period to convince the youth comrades of the need for ‘Socialist’ in the title of a youth organisation, and against the bitter criticism of some of those who adhere to the ideas of Ourselves Alone. Now we are accused of wishing this organisation to occupy a “secondary, supplementary” position in the overall work of our organisation. The reference to “what resources -practically – are going to be allocated to this work” (Ourselves Alone, para 42) is completely demagogic. If they have criticisms of what resources are precisely devoted to this work now, let them come forward with concrete proposals in opposition to those of the EC. This is just another example of the method of innuendo which is foreign to our organisation. The same goes for the hints and half-suggestions of a criticism of how the trade union work is conducted at this stage.

Our Journals

75) IN RELATION to the role of our public journals the authors of Ourselves Alone write: “For us this means not only a willingness to engage in debate with other currents, including in our own publications, which cannot appear as monolithic ‘line’ journals.” (Ourselves Alone, para 50) Lynn Walsh was correct in the debate with Hilary Wainwright to point out that we stand for democracy, freedom of tendency and expression throughout the labour movement. But in no sense has this ever meant that our journals do not have a “line”, an agreed position on key issues. Our public journals, including our theoretical journal Socialism Today, are primarily to communicate to as wide an audience as possible the conclusions of our organisations which are worked out, not in a “monolithic” way, but through democratic discussion and debate internally inside our organisation. There must be room for debate and discussion in our journals but in no way does this mean that we do not have an editorial policy or a “line” on issues.

76) Paragraph Remitted

77) We call upon the membership of the National Committee, and then the membership as a whole, to reject this document. It completely fails to understand the changed character of this period, has a false position on the present level of consciousness and how socialist class consciousness will be formed in the next period, is pessimistic about any real progress for the organisation short of a “fundamental change” in the objective situation. Above all it fails to take into account in a living dynamic revolutionary fashion – it is completely lacking in historical imagination – of how events are likely to develop in the future. In proposing the name ‘Socialist Party’ we believe the EC majority has correctly sought to re-arm the organisation for the period that looms in Britain and on an international scale.

On Militant Labour

78) CLIVE HEEMSKERK’S document, as we have explained above, is of an entirely different character. We do not accept his arguments in favour of the status quo, the retention of Militant Labour, but he does honestly and accurately attempt to portray the reasons why the EC majority puts forward the idea of ‘Socialist Party’. He agrees with many of the points that have been advanced by the EC majority. He highlights the possibility not only of future split-offs from the Labour Party but “the flowering of oppositional movements that will develop – single-issue protest campaigns, local or particularist movements against cuts, police harassment, etc, specific groups of workers moving into opposition before others (the public sector ahead of the private sector), and so on – which will provide the terrain out of which the forces of a new party can be pulled together.”

79) We entirely agree that such movements are more likely to take place and to occupy more importance for us than big splits from the Labour Party, at least in the short term. But, as we have explained above, a radicalised movement, and movements of a single-issue character will not necessarily and automatically result in a huge growth of socialist consciousness. Clive draws on the material which we have carried, following Peter Taaffe’s visit to Sweden, about the experience of the movements in Sweden. He holds out the prospects, as do the Liverpool comrades, of electoral alliances developing along the lines of what our comrades have done with the Justice List in Sweden. However, we cannot say in advance precisely how the situation is likely to develop with the Justice List.

80) Comrades point towards the FBU conference decision to review the use of the union’s political fund to enable it to back non-Labour Party candidates. But one swallow does not make a summer. There may be ‘straws in the wind’. It is possible that big trade union disaffiliations can take place from the Labour Party but not necessarily followed by movements towards an immediate alternative on the part of the official union organisations. On the contrary it is even possible that a period of ‘syndicalism’ will develop, a turning away from what workers understand by ‘polities’, including initially ‘revolutionary polities’ and the organisations which espouse these views. There will, however, be opportunities for our organisation amongst the more advanced layers in the unions as well as the unorganised sections of the class, which Clive Heemskerk speaks about.

81) But the idea that Militant Labour is a “perfectly good name” for the period of “fragmented politics” we think is wrong. The term ‘Labour’ against the background of continued austerity and savage attacks on workers by the Blair government will become massively unpopular. It is not true, as Clive hints, that ‘Labour’ only became unpopular four years after Labour had been in a coalition in Ireland. We successfully stood in the Dublin by-election four years after the general election. But Labour became very unpopular, after scoring its highest vote since 1969, very soon after the last general election. In reality our comrades in Ireland recognise they would have been better placed to exploit the situation developing now if they would have dropped ‘Militant’ and ‘Labour’ from their name at an earlier stage.

82) Clive tries to draw a comparison between the attitude which is now developing on the part of the Belgian working class towards the Socialist Party and the approach towards Labour after a general election. The Belgian workers carried slogans: “We are still socialist! The Socialist Party never again!” The clear implication is that workers in Britain could have future demonstrations with slogans: “We’re still labour! Blair never again.” But that will not take place. ‘Socialist’ in the consciousness of the Belgian working class clearly stands for radical change, that they, the workers who demonstrated, are still in favour of. Labour, with the traditions of 100 years of reformism has become associated in the minds of the best workers as anything but ‘socialist’. That chapter will be over as far as the great majority of the workers are concerned through their experiences of a Blair right-wing government. Many of the other arguments advanced by Clive we have answered in our comments, we believe above.

MERSEYSIDE RESOLUTION

83) THE RESOLUTION/STATEMENT of the Merseyside Committee begins with a brief introduction on the character of the period which we face. We do not entirely agree with the way that the comrades pose some of the questions.

84) For instance they write: “With this new period has come a disorientation of those on the left, amongst all groupings including the Trotskyist groups.” Do the comrades include our organisation “amongst all groupings”? If so this is entirely wrong. We believe that our organisation is the only one that has kept its bearings, that has correctly analysed the general features of the period following the collapse of Stalinism and the move towards the right of the tops of the Labour Party and the unions. We are sure this is an example of loose phrasing but we would like further comments from the comrades on this.

85) The comrades also write that the “bourgeoisification of the Labour Party is gradually being paralleled by the movements at the top of the unions to escape from the control of the activists and the steps taken to insulate the tops from the ranks of the unions: New Realism roughly translated is coming to mean the erosion of traditional forms of union organisation. While this will be fiercely resisted by the ranks the tops of the union movement intend to transform the unions into partnership schemes of the bosses. Through these processes we have also seen an increasing tendency to regionalisation and fragmentation of the movement with national movements becoming the exception rather than the norm.”

Trade Unions

86) WE HAVE pointed to the tendency towards the bourgeoisification of the union tops as well as the Labour Party as well. But the trade unions still remain viable workers’ organisations. We have to differentiate between a tendency, a trend, and when the process is complete. The countervailing factors which will prevent the trade unions becoming completely bourgeoisified is the inevitable reaction and revolt of the rank and file.

87) It was correct in the dockers’ struggle in Liverpool to lay emphasis on organisation from below by the dockers and to oppose putting the running of the dispute in the hands of the national officials. At the same time it would be wrong for us to generalise this and suggest that the national officials, or national action would not be preferable and possible at certain stages. In the CWU dispute we see both processes at work. On the one side the collaboration of the right-wing leadership with the Post Office management led to the organisation of a rank-and-file conference from below. This in turn generated mass pressure from below and compelled the national officials to ratify national action. In the French events of last year and in the more recent events in Germany, we also saw both processes at work. A rank-and-file revolt led to national action, albeit of a partial character. The trade unions still retain their dual character. Although the Merseyside Committee resolution is only a short statement we nevertheless think that it presents the situation in the unions in a certain one-sided fashion, which could lead to erroneous conclusions as far as the developments in the trade unions are concerned.

A Basis For Unity?

88) WE DO not agree either with the statement that: “Politically there is very little on paper which is different about the broad electoral programme of our organisation, the SLP, the CP, the Socialist Alliance, or the myriad of smaller left groupings.” (para 2) There is very much on paper with which we disagree with, for instance, the SLP, on a diverse number of issues such as the question of Ireland, black and Asian workers and many other policies which it is not possible to elaborate fully here. If we were to go into an electoral agreement with the SLP, the CP, the Socialist Alliances, it would represent a ‘compromise’ between our programme and those of the other organisations. That itself is sufficient to explain the differences which exist between us. The gist of the Merseyside resolution is that actions such as the dockers, and movements around the Hillingdon workers show the potential for viable socialist alliances at this stage. We believe the comrades attach too much importance and perhaps overstate the degree of “left unity” which has developed around the dockers’ struggle. There is no evidence to suggest, apart from Merseyside and Scotland, that there is a “broad left” which has linked up with us and others in support of the dockers. The main forces behind the dockers’ struggle have been primarily ourselves and small groupings such as the WRP.

89) Unity in industrial struggles is easier as the comrades themselves recognise: “these are industrial struggles where the question of unity arises more naturally and easily.” But the possibility of this “spilling over into the general political arena” we do not believe is likely at this stage. Small numbers in the SLP, in some areas, favour working together with us in Socialist Alliances. We have answered the point on the claimed membership of 5,000 members above. But we do not accept the perspectives of the comrades that the SLP has the “potential to recruit sizeable numbers”. They may do this on paper, as we have explained above, but we do not believe that the most likely development is a big active membership of the SLP. Nor do we believe that it is possible that if we work correctly we can force the SLP into a broader alliance and lay the basis for a broader movement in the near future.

90) Comrades draw a comparison with developments in Scotland and Ireland. They also draw on the experience of the Justice List in Sweden. In relation to Sweden, let us be clear, this was a temporary electoral agreement in the main. Our organisation, whilst still participating in the Justice List, concentrates 99% of its activity in building the independent profile of our organisation, ‘Offensiv’. In Scotland the situation is different for the many reasons that we have explained before. The situation in England and Wales is not the same as in Scotland. The comrades concede that there is a difference in “timescale” that there is a “different level of consciousness” and also that our organisation has played a pioneering role. They then question as to whether this is “fundamentally different” than what exists in England and Wales. But the very factors that they have mentioned show that this is the case. Precisely in terms of .”timescale” we are removed (by what time we cannot say) before the situation develops, if it does, along the lines of what we see in Scotland at this stage.

91) It is entirely wrong to suggest that we would be in a better position: “If our organisation in England and Wales had put more effort into building the outline of alliances, already other groups seem to be seizing the ground. After the refusal of the SLP to accommodate all groups, who could doubt the alliance, at least in outline, would have existed on a national basis.” (para 4) Well, the EC majority does “doubt” that if the approach of Merseyside had been adopted on a national basis that strong alliances would now exist. In the areas where this has been tried very limited success has been possible. This has not been because of a lack of effort on our part but because of the enfeeblement of the left at this stage in most areas. Even where they collaborate with us to some extent, as in Hillingdon, any idea that we could form a common electoral front is rejected by these lefts. That is because they are still tied to the perspective of work within the Labour Party.

Ireland?

92) THE ALLUSIONS to developments in Ireland, both North and South, and the comparison made with the position in Britain we think is wrong. First of all a temporary electoral bloc was formed for the recent Assembly elections. This was not a socialist alliance in the sense that we use this term in Britain. Its name accurately described it. It was a ‘Labour Coalition’ (our emphasis). It was made up of very disparate elements, some who were Labour but not socialist. Immediately after the elections there was a clash. The Coalition still exists but some of the leading figures are right-wing councillors. When comrades refer to the South they are not speaking about already existing ‘Socialist Alliances’ but of a discussion in the Irish organisation on the possibility of putting together such a formation. It is by no means guaranteed that a ‘broad left’ or ‘socialist alternative’ will be formed in Southern Ireland. As with us in Britain one of the factors that the comrades have to take into account is that while collaboration with genuine left forces for the development of a mass socialist alternative is necessary we must also maintain and enhance the profile of our organisation.

93) The Merseyside resolution completely discounts this side of the question. Despite the fact that in discussions up to now the leading NC members on Merseyside, expressed their support for the idea of a ‘Socialist Party’ we now find that they have concluded that this is “inappropriate”. And the reasons that they give is that this will in some way alienate the left from working together with us in the immediate period ahead and in the future. They also suggest that the EC neglects efforts to promote left unity. As evidence it was quite wrongly suggested, at the recent camp, that we had not been involved in efforts to unite the Broad Lefts in the different unions into a new national Broad Left. On the contrary we have been mvolved in such moves but the reality is that this ‘project’ has not taken off in a big way. This is because the Broad Lefts in the unions at this stage, in general, are weak. Another factor is the reluctance of the reformist left who dominate some of the Broad Lefts to go for such an organisation.

Socialist Alliances

94) THE WHOLE tenor of the Merseyside Area resolution is to play down the independent stand of our organisation and to submerge ourselves in “broad” movements, to frantically attempt to build ‘Socialist Alliances’. It implies that we stand in elections under these banners rather than under the banner of our own organisation. Such an approach we believe is fundamentally mistaken. It is always a question of ‘what we give and what we get’. If there existed now, or there were the prospects in the next period ahead, of a big left movement with which we would collaborate then it would be worthwhile considering going together into an election with these other forces.

95) In Merseyside in the past, it is true we have stood together with the ‘Broad Left’ under a variety of banners. However, this was at a stage when support for the Broad Left was on a much greater scale than exists now. Those who look or will potentially look towards the Socialist Alliance in the city of Liverpool at this moment in time are smaller than the left in the past. But even if there were equivalent numbers and the situation was roughly similar we believe it would be a mistake to submerge ourselves, particularly on the electoral field at this stage, within the ‘Socialist Alliances’. This seems to be what the Merseyside Area Committee is moving towards with this statement. To abandon our own independent name, no matter what it is, and stand under the ‘Socialist Alliances’ would pose the danger of undermining our independent political and organisational position.

96) Under certain circumstances, with proper preparation in the organisation, and with a clear understanding of the limitations of taking a step of this character, it is possible to work, even elec-torally, under such a broad banner. But to do this now in a period of independent work, when it is necessary to establish or re-establish the independent profile of our organisation we believe would seriously disorientate our organisation. It is quite wrong, as the comrades do, to suggest that the only way in which we will get new recruits is by linking up or building ‘Socialist Alliances’. Those new recruits will come from the campaigns that we will initiate, on issues such as the Job Seekers Allowance, by the development of the Young Socialist Resistance, by successful work in the trade unions (we recruited 12 from the CPSA at the recent conference) and by the overall development of our campaigns and initiatives.

97) Even in Scotland the Socialist Alliance is made up primarily, at this stage, not of new layers of the working class but of the existing members and cadres of other organisations. Its real potential will only be realised if we can reach new fresh layers of the working class through elections and campaigns conducted under this banner. It remains to be seen if we will be successful in this in Scotland. But there at least there are forces to work with.

98) In Merseyside perhaps there are some forces on the left, although now much weaker than in the past, around the SLP and others who we could work with. There is no reason why we could not give support to them where they stand in elections under their banner. Scargill will not allow the Merseyside SLP, or any membership of the SLP, to stand under any other banner. What other forces do we propose work with in the ‘Socialist Alliances’? We repeat they are even weaker than was the Broad Left in Merseyside, which was organically tied to what we were doing in the Labour Party at that stage

Conclusions

99) WE THEREFORE call on the National Committee to reject the conclusions of the Merseyside Area statement.

100) We propose we stand under our banner in all elections in which we have candidates in the forthcoming general election in England and Wales.

101) Additionally we propose to continue to work in the Socialist Alliances where they are viable and to carefully watch the development of the left.

102) We also propose that the National Committee should formally adopt the proposal to change the name of the organisation to ‘Socialist Party’.

103) We hope that the debate on the name will continue, but reject the fundamentally false method, tone and approach of the authors of the document entitled Ourselves Alone.

104) Only by adopting a clear change in position the purpose of which is to emphasise the independent revolutionary profile of our organisation will we be prepared for the stormy events which impend.

3 September 1996