Marxist
Education Portal
Statement on the Name
EC draft document
From the editor
We are publishing the EC draft document on the debate around our name. This is ahead of the National Committee meeting and is not the normal procedure. The draft was circulated to NC members about 10 days ago, for a debate on 8 June. The final document, with any amendments and alternative proposals, would then have been circulated for a full debate.
This has proven to be unrealistic, as the debate as already begun with regions already holding meetings on it; therefore we had no alternative but to issue this draft earlier than intended. We will publish all other material in another MB after the National Committee meeting.
Mike Waddington 19 May 1996
1. A DISCUSSION is currently taking place within the ranks of our organisation on the issue of our name, whether we should change it and if we do what are the different options. So far this discussion has taken place in an episodic and largely in a semi-official fashion. It is now necessary that this should take a more structured form. We hope to go some way to achieve this through this statement which we will be presenting to the National Committee.
2. While we cannot rush the discussion, the issue assumes some importance now in view of the proximity of a general election and whether or not we should change the name in preparation for this.
3. There is perhaps no issue which generates more controversy than the name of a revolutionary organisation, what title we should give to a youth organisation, the name of a revolutionary organisation’s different journals, etc.
4. We explain in the book on our history that the adoption of the name ‘Militant’ took place amidst great controversy. ‘Militant’ was reluctantly accepted by the majority of comrades at that time because of the lack of a viable alternative. Despite any perceived limitations at the outset, all names become associated with a particular personality, a body of ideas, an heroic stance in history by an organisation, etc.
5. In accordance with this tradition, recently, there was intense discussion and debate over the decision to change the name of our monthly theoretical journal. We should not be surprised at controversy on this issue. History shows that proposals to change the name of any serious Marxist organisation inevitably generates controversy. What is involved usually is not just a name, but the history of the organisation, an estimation of the concrete historical circumstances and the need to have a balanced appeal both to the advanced layers of the working class and the broad mass. What should be the profile of the organisation? Do we just take account of the current situation or do we have a name for the big events which are likely to develop in the future?
6. The Bolsheviks were compelled to adopt different ‘public’ names in different periods. At one stage, when struggling against the Tsarist autocracy they assumed the mantle of ‘Consistent Democrats’. In the semi-legal conditions which existed following the defeat of the 1905-1907 revolution Tsarism permitted some parties to operate. The regime would, however, have immediately banned the Bolsheviks if they had operated under that name or the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). Lenin correctly argued that it was necessary to utilise even the limited opportunities that existed for legal work and accordingly to change the ‘name’ of the party in this arena at least. With this, of course, went the dangers of generating certain ‘democratic’ and reformist illusions. This was corrected, however, internally within the Bolshevik party -which was, in reality, a faction of the RSDLP at that time – and by successful illegal work.
7. But, when conditions changed, Lenin did not hesitate to go further and propose a change in the official name of the party itself. In order to draw a clear line of demarcation between genuine Marxists and the social democratic traitors of the Second international Lenin proposed renaming the party the ‘Communist Party’. He went further in 1919 when he suggested that the party should change its name from the ‘Communist Party of Russia’ to simply the ‘Communist Party’. Lenin wanted to emphasise that this party was a party of international revolution. Only Trotsky voted for Lenin’s motion at the Central Committee. Lenin did not, however, fight for this position at the congress of the Russian Communist Party in view of the foundation of the Third International with its international programme and organisation.
8. Many other examples could be given in the recent period of where mass formations in particular have been compelled to change the public ‘name’ of the organisation because they were operating against a dictatorial or semi-dictatorial regime. For instance, the ANC remained banned in South Africa right up to 1990 while the United Democratic Front (UDF) was able to operate within South Africa, although it was well understood that this was the ANC by another name. Many other examples could be given from the history of the workers’ struggle in Spain for instance against the Franco dictatorship and elsewhere.
9. Of course we do not face the same conditions in Britain as these organisations confronted. Moreover, we have operated in the past few decades in the situation with less abrupt turns in the situation than those which confronted the Russian Marxists in the first two decades of this century. This, however, brings with it a certain baggage. As Trotsky pointed out: “Even the most revolutionary parties can run the risk of lagging behind and of counter-posing the slogans and measures of struggle of yesterday to the new tasks and new exigencies.” (The Third International After Lenin)
10. He points out that the daily struggle for the masses sometimes absorbs all attention, creates its own tactical routine, and diverts attention away from the strategical task flowing from the changes in the objective situation. Trotsky was, in the main, warning here of the dangers of a right deviation in the Third International. By habit and routine, absorbed in the tasks of building a mass base, they would be unprepared, he argued, for the abrupt turns and the revolutionary opportunities that would be presented.
11. He also warned, as Lenin did many times, against an overestimation of the revolutionary potential in any period, leading to ultra-left errors. The basic trait of Bolshevism was granite-hardness, in the theoretical sense, combined with extreme flexibility in programme, organisation and also on the names that should be adopted at each stage: “Bolshevism was always strong because of its historical concreteness in elaborating organisational forms. No arid schemas. The Bolsheviks changed their organisational structure radically at every transition from one stage to the next.” (The Third International After Lenin)
12. This method was brought to bear by Trotsky in analysing the situation which followed the capitulation of the German Communist Party (KPD) to Hitler’s assumption of power in March 1933. Trotsky very quickly raised the slogan of a new party for Germany. He initially met with considerable opposition. And when it was clear that there were no serious repercussions, no debates, questioning or criticisms of the Stalinist leadership within the Third International’ Trotsky then declared that the Stalinist ‘International’ was ‘dead’ in a political sense. He then raised the need to prepare for a new international, the Fourth international.
The method of Lenin and Trotsky
13. We mention these historical analogies here not in order to drag in arguments by the hair with which to reinforce proposals for a change in name. We face a quite different historical situation to the conditions described above. But an understanding of the method of Lenin and Trotsky is vital in approaching this issue. We face a different and changed period, which requires us to show the same kind of tactical flexibility, as did the Bolsheviks and Trotsky at different times.
14. These general comments are not sufficient, in and of themselves, when approaching the important issue of a change in the name of the organisation. A proposal to make a change must be justified by the concrete historical circumstances which we face today and are likely to face tomorrow. There is agreement in our ranks that the collapse of Stalinism and the move to the right in the workers’ traditional organisations means that we face an entirely different situation than previously.
15. This required a sharp change in tactics, towards an independent organisation, which allowed us to seize the opportunities which existed. We only have to imagine the state our organisation would be in today if we would have remained imprisoned in the tactical straitjacket of entrism. Not only would we have missed the opportunities which have existed since 1992 but we would have also given greater scope to those organisations, such as the SWP, who did operate in an ultra-left fashion but nevertheless under an independent banner.
16. However, the turn, as events demonstrated, was not enough for us to progress. A further degeneration of the Labour Party under the Smith and then Blair leadership also compelled us to effectively abandon any idea of transforming the Labour Party. This in turn led to us publicly raising the idea of an alternative workers’ party to the Labour Party (we were the first organisation to do this).
17. On the wing, so to speak, we were forced to analyse the reasons for the change in our position. None of this was achieved without opposition, which was sometimes quite considerable, from comrades who wished to retain the ideas which had served us so well in the past. Even now there is not a full understanding of the theoretical reasons which compelled us to raise the idea of new parties of the working class.
18. This flows from the character of the period which the working class, the labour movement, and we face at this stage. Every period has special features of its own. There are, however, some similarities in the situation which faces the revolutionary movement today and that which existed at the time of the formation of the Second International (a special document is being produced by the International which will deal with this issue in a much fuller way that can only be touched on here).
19. The First International, organised by Marx and Engels, established the idea and the need for an International. Marx successfully involved English trade unionists, anarchists and others alongside the scientific socialists in one broad, common organisation. The First International was liquidated because of the new period which followed the defeat of the Paris Commune compounded by the intrigues of the anarchists. The First International was not capable, in the words of Trotsky, of developing a “fused mass force behind its social revolutionary programme’.
20. The task of the Second International, formed at the Congress of Paris in 1889, was precisely the building of mass workers’ parties in different countries and of a mass socialist consciousness. The Second International, in reality, represented a coalition, or a federation, of different trends; the revolutionary wing of Lenin, Trotsky, and to some extent Rosa Luxembourg, the centrists of Bebel and Kautsky and the reformists like Bernstein.
21. The reformist degeneration of the Second International could only be completely disclosed with the betrayal of the social democratic leaders at the outbreak of the first world war. Nevertheless, the Second International did perform the necessary historical task of developing broad political organisations of the proletariat and of helping to create a basic socialist consciousness.
22. The Third International represented, after the collapse of the Second International, the delineation of the revolutionary forces on a world scale which was taken further in the formation of the Fourth (this issue will be dealt with in more detail by the document produced by the International).
23. In the situation which confronts us in Britain and on a world scale there are present some of the elements of the period of the Second International. Consciousness has been thrown back for the reasons we have sketched out many times; collapse of Stalinism, along with the boom of the 1980s, the move towards the right of the leaders of the workers’ organisations and the increased bourgeoisification of the traditional organisations.
24. From 1968 to the mid-1970s and again in the early 1980s – particularly in Britain with the rise of the large Bennite left wing within the Labour Party – our main task was to delineate genuine Marxism from other trends and the different socialist currents. The throwing back of consciousness means that different tasks are posed in the 1990s.
25. 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.
26. Our decision, in Britain, to support a broad-based, mass socialist party has some similarities with the approach of Engels towards an independent workers’ party, a Labour Party, in the USA, in the latter part of the last century. Marx and Engels were no mean theoreticians but nevertheless ruthlessly criticised those ‘Marxists’ who insisted on doctrinal purity at the expense of building a broad independent workers’ party. It was Marx who coined the famous phrase: “One real step forward of the mass of the working class is worth a dozen programmes.”
27. Engels, also in relation to an independent party in the US stated that: “The first great step of importance for every country newly entering into the movement is always the constitution of the workers as an independent political party… so long as it is a distinct workers’ party… that is the main thing. That the first programme of this party is still confused and extremely deficient… are unavoidable evils but also merely transitory ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop, and they have the opportunity only when they have a movement of their own – no matter what form so long as it is their own movement.”
28. He was not slipshod when it came to arguing over programmatic points. But his idea was that the first task was to achieve the political independence of the working class. Then through a combination of the experience of the masses themselves and the intervention of the Marxists socialism would naturally be embraced by the masses.
29. Of course we do not face exactly the situation which Marx and Engels confronted. The US working class then, and now, had no experience of an independent class party. The British workers and their European counterparts have almost 100 years of creating independent parties. Now they see them being bourgeoisified. We can argue over the degree of bourgeoisification, and the different stages which have been reached in the social democratic parties in different countries.
No mass left wing will develop in the Blair government
30. One thing is clear, however; the Labour Party in Britain has gone much further than most of its European counterparts (indeed it is now a ‘model’ for all the ‘modernisers’ in the different social democratic parties). The membership is now overwhelmingly middle class. The rule changes mean that ‘bonapartist’ powers are concentrated in the hands of Blair and his entourage which effectively allows them to overrule decisions of the national conference. This has resulted in a weakening and, in future, probably a complete break with the trade unions. This means that the ability to change this party in a socialist direction is ruled out for a whole historical period and probably for ever.
31. No mass left wing, in the sense of the Independent Labour Party in 1932, will develop in protest against the pro-capitalist policies of a Blair Labour government. A parliamentary left will oppose Blair, and will probably eventually split away. However, they will not take a huge body of workers with them, for the simple reason that these workers no longer inhabit the Labour Party. A left split will be, in effect, a parliamentary split, which may then find an echo amongst socialist inclined workers looking for a new mass organisation but presently repelled by the narrowness and sectarianism of Arthur Scargill’s SLP. All of this means that new tasks, with a new approach, need to be adopted by the Marxists in this period.
32. There is no doubt that in time the working class, through its experience of rotted capitalism, will begin to draw socialist conclusions. We have never accepted the idea that ‘socialist consciousness is brought to the working class from the outside’, (see MB16 Discussion on Democratic Centralism for elaboration of this point)
33. This does not mean, however, that the role of socialist intellectuals and of parties is of no consequence. To accept this idea would be to deny the role of the ‘subjective factor”, of parties and leaders in the formation of socialist and class consciousness and particularly in helping to determine the speed at which this develops. While the proletariat will inevitably draw socialist, and even revolutionary, conclusions the role of a party and its leadership in speeding up the development of this consciousness can be quite decisive.
34. We have, in effect, a dual task at the present time. We must genuinely seek to collaborate with others in the development of a mass socialist party as an alternative to right-wing Labour. We should support all steps towards this, such as the formation of socialist alliances and at the same time we wish to build our organisation. Unlike the CPGB and others, we have no illusion that what is posed at this stage is the development of a mass revolutionary party, in the form of the Socialist Labour Party.
35. We are not approaching this question in precisely the same way as Trotsky did in the 1930s. In his discussions with the American SWP on how to put forward the slogan of a mass Labour Party Trotsky drew a distinction between what was possible and what was likely. Trotsky was in favour of fighting for the most radical programme possible and the greatest influence of the Marxists within a mass Labour Party. At the same time his perspective was that a mass party would develop, in the first instance, as a reformist, or possibly even as a centrist formation, both in programme and organisation. Nevertheless, the general approach of Trotsky was to fight for the most rapid crystallisation of a revolutionary party.
36. We face a somewhat different situation today. We have, we repeat, a dual task; to fight together with others for the formation of a mass socialist party and at the same time to seek on all occasions to strengthen our influence and membership. Arguing for a mass socialist party is not the same as arguing for a mass revolutionary party.
37. We are the revolutionary party, albeit a small one at this stage. We are arguing for the formation of a mass party which will not be a ‘Labour Party Mark II’. We advance the idea that it must be specifically socialist in its programme but with a form of organisation, federation, which can allow the participation of all genuine socialist currents and organisations, including our organisation. If it takes off, as it undoubtedly will at a certain stage, this in turn can provide the seed bed for the growth in influence of the revolutionary party and organisation, which in turn can lay the basis for a mass revolutionary party at a later stage.
Mass socialist party
38. The mass socialist party we envisage will have some of the features of a united front, although it will not be a united front in the classical sense. The IU (United Left) in Spain, combines the features of an electoral front and a party. And as with all united fronts it inevitably means that we accept a limitation, a compromise, on its programme and also on forms of organisation in order to get the project off the ground.
39. However, within the common framework, through our own publications, we have full freedom to put forward our full programme. In the discussions with Scargill’s lieutenants, leading up to the formation of the SLP, we spelt out to them that we did not intend to act as we did when we worked within the Labour Party. We stated specifically that we did not intend to seek to immediately dominate the SLP. We even made the suggestion that no single party affiliating to a federal-type party should have the possibility of dominating the structures of the SLP.
40. In Scotland we have gone from the realms of theory to show in practice that this proposal was no bluff on our part. We proposed that in the Socialist Alliance that no single organisation should be able to get more than 40% of the positions within the alliance. Some of our opponents wished to limit this to 30%, but our proposal was accepted. Why have we adopted what was called, in the English civil war, a ‘self-denying ordinance’. This would be denounced as ‘opportunism’ by ultra-left sectarians, in the same way as Engels was characterised by the Marxian ‘doctrinaires’ in New York in the last century.
41. Our tactics on this issue are determined by the need to develop a basic socialist consciousness amongst the mass, a precondition for the development of the revolutionary tendency. In a sense it is part of the process of attempting to create an audience for our ideas.
42. While this approach represents a new departure for us, it in no way resembles the approach that some other organisations have adopted of ‘building the left’. This usually involves political and organisational subordination to a few left leaders as a means of gaining influence’ in place of the real growth in membership of the revolutionary organisation.
43. This is not the approach of our organisation today. We wish to build independent socialist organisations of the working class and at the same time the revolutionary party as well. We do not in any way hide our intentions, but proclaim it openly. Without an understanding of the main elements in the situation which confronts us it is impossible to correctly gauge what should be the public profile and with it the name of the organisation at the present time.
44. We are justifiably proud of the history and the record of our organisation under the banner of Militant. Scorned by the bourgeois and their labour movement mouthpieces, the name ‘Militant’ is a badge of honour. Militant is a symbol of organised working-class resistance in Liverpool, in the poll tax, in the battle against the racists and fascists, in the struggle to resist the right within the labour and trade union movement and to build a socialist and Marxist alternative.
45. Moreover, it is indisputable that in the reawakening of the working class some workers will turn to Militant precisely because of our political and theoretical intransigence in the face of the ideological offensive of the bourgeois, and the capitulation of the right within the movement to this.
The best champions of the ideas of socialism
46. But, at the same time, if the arguments above are accepted, then we need to be seen as the best champions of the ideas of socialism, that socialism and socialist ideas will come back onto the agenda in a big way once a mass movement of the working class takes place. The next big wave amongst the working class will be towards socialism. A huge vacuum now exists on the Left of British politics. This will be even greater once there is a big revival of the working class. Other organisations are organically incapable of filling this vacuum. We can fill this gap at least partially and to a much greater extent than others. But the pre-condition for future success is that we are properly situated to take advantage of a big working class revival towards socialism.
47. Consequently, it is essential that we should have the word ‘socialist’ in our name. By the same token the term ‘Labour’ is now synonymous with Blair and the abandonment of socialism and will be a barrier, if not now, then in the near future to us finding the ear and then winning the best sections of the working class. Militant has an honourable socialist and revolutionary pedigree. But there are many workers, advanced as well as the mass, who will awaken to political life in the future, who now have an accumulated prejudice against the term ‘Militant’. We propose that the time has arrived for a change to our name.
48. When we first adopted this name it was synonymous with trade union and political ‘militants’. It conjured up a vision of those who were implacable in the defence of the role of the working class, of trade union struggle and of socialism and Marxism. To some extent this still remains the case for politically informed workers.
49. But the term ‘militant’ has, for many workers and youth, acquired sinister connotations. This is partly because of the quite deliberate campaign of denigration by the media. They never lose an opportunity to describe Islamic fundamentalists as ‘militants’. Because of this and other connotations, the term ‘militant’ sounds, to the politically uninformed, militaristic, with even terroristic connections.
50. It can be objected that the press will always denigrate any name including ‘socialist’. Indeed this was the case in the past. A similar campaign was launched against the name ‘communist’ or ‘Bolsheviks’. It was correct to resist abandoning these names when the revolutionary attraction of the Russian revolution still held sway on the minds of significant sections of the workers.
51. But even before its overthrow, Stalinism, with ail its dictatorial traits, meant that the term ‘communist’ came to symbolise something different to Marx’s original conception. In Britain at least the term was a barrier to finding the ear, in the first instance, of the advanced workers.
52. The situation is of course somewhat different where mass communist parties existed, in Italy, France, Portugal, and Greece, etc. Even here a failure to separate themselves from Stalinism meant that these ‘communist’ parties were unable to attract a potentially revolutionary layer particularly amongst the new generation. They were repelled by a party still connected to a one-party, totalitarian regime. This was one of the factors which led, in France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, to new mass socialist parties of a centrist character.
53. This proposal has generated fears, particularly amongst some trade union comrades, that it denotes an increased ‘electoralist approach’ to the detriment of trade union work. This is not the intention, nor will it be realised in fact, if the issue is approached in the right way. When we made the ‘turn’ similar arguments were deployed by comrades in the trade union field.
54. Yet we have never stood in elections for the sake of it. We have always connected the struggle for council positions and for parliament with wider class issues, frequently of a trade union character. In Scotland the poll tax, the struggle against water privatisation and now against the savage council cuts are an integral part of our stand in elections.
55. To some extent because of the recent relative quiescence in the trade union field, ‘community issues’ have assumed a greater importance than the directly industrial or trade union issues. But, as Liverpool and the struggle of the dockers has demonstrated, once there is an industrial revival our election stance is organically connected to important industrial struggles. This will be of increasing importance in the period that is opening up.
56. Of course there is a very important electoral element involved in the change of name. It would be much easier standing under the name of ‘Socialist Party’ to attract a wider layer of independent lefts, revolutionaries, and general socialists (who are not yet ready to join us) to work for candidates standing under this banner rather than ‘Militant’ which is seen as a much narrower name and organisation.
57. We have raised elsewhere, in the internal article on the programme, some disadvantages in calling ourselves a party, particularly with fresh layers of workers and youth. But it proved difficult to find an appropriate title with ‘socialist’ included and not to be called a ‘party’.
58. The Irish leadership, who believe that they should also drop ‘Militant’ are considering calling themselves ‘Socialist Alternative’. We believe in Britain with our influence and size, and with the possibility of rapid growth in the future, then we have no alternative but to call ourselves a party. Our profile would not be sharp enough if we did not, particularly when we are competing with others who describe themselves as parties.
59. The objection that the field is already crowded with organisations with ‘socialist’ in it -SWP, SLP – is not in itself sufficient reason for not changing our name to ‘Socialist Party’. Undoubtedly it complicates our task. If the SLP had adopted a broad open character as we suggested, it could have become a significant pole of attraction for tens of thousands of workers.
60. But given the narrowness of Scargill’s approach it will be a relatively small organisation. Moreover, internal upheavals within the SLP are inevitable given Scargill’s autocratic attitude as well as the limitations of SLP policy. The SWP, on the other hand, face splits and divisions because they too are incapable of correctly understanding this period, and always seek to emphasise the need to build their organisation, if needs be at the expense of advancing the general movement of the working class.
61. Our challenge on the electoral field, the proposal for alliances, has already introduced confusion and splits in their ranks. If we act correctly by changing our name, and in good season, then we will be able to make a much bigger impact over a period of time than either of these organisations.
62. The looming general election requires that we must come to an agreement soon on our name. While it is a question of mainly putting down a marker for the future, we will make a much bigger impact under the banner of ‘Socialist Party’ than ‘Militant’ or ‘Militant Labour”.
63. The terms ‘Militant’ and ‘Militant Tendency’ are not ideological descriptions, accurate expressions of the ideas which we represent. They denote a trend, a minority grouping within a party, a union, etc., fighting to win a future majority. This is the way we saw ourselves, as also did our opponents, in the entrist phase of our existence. ‘Militant’ does not portray us as a party, standing in its own right and fighting for the biggest possible influence and ultimately for a majority within the working class.
64. The objection can be made: What happens if in the future steps are taken towards the formation of a mass socialist party? Depending on our relationship with such a party we would not exclude, in advance, negotiations leading to an agreement that we would give up ‘Socialist Party’ as a step towards a mass party. Then we would have to choose a name which accurately reflected our position as a powerful revolutionary minority within such a mass socialist party. But that is not the choice we face now. We have to choose a name which accurately reflects the role we perceive for ourselves now and in the foreseeable period ahead.
65. The proposal to drop ‘Labour” and merely call ourselves ‘Militant’ is a worse alternative than the present name of ‘Militant Labour’. The latter at least implies that we are appealing to a broader layer other than those advanced workers who already see themselves as ‘militants’. On the other hand, to merely insert ‘Socialist’ and have some name like ‘Militant Socialist Party’ would be to get the worst of ail worlds. The advantage of adding ‘Socialist’ would be nullified by the retention of the term ‘Militant’ which would be the initial introduction for many workers to our organisation and ideas.
66. The objection that the press would in any case still refer to us a ‘Militant’ or ‘Militant Tendency’, no matter what our name, is not valid. Of course to be begin with this would be the case, but the press itself would abandon this usage in the course of time. What we are discussing here is not just an episodic change but a name for the next period.
67. The experience of Scotland is instructive. They are not proposing that they should immediately change the name as we suggest. But this is because of the formation of the Scottish Socialist Alliance. Without this the comrades admit they also would be discussing changing the name.
68. How the Socialist Alliance will develop in the future, and the position we occupy within it, is the subject of a separate discussion. But already the press (Observer 5.5.96) describes Tommy Sheridan as the most prominent member of the ‘Socialist Alliance’ not ‘SML’. Of course ‘Socialist Party’ is very broad, even a bit bland, but will not appear so for workers once they see and experience its policies in action.
69. There were many objections to us abandoning ‘Militant International Review’ in favour of ‘Socialism Today’. Yet even many of the objectors now see the correctness of this step. The sales of this journal through independent outlets show that the name, rather than being a barrier, attracts readers, particularly first-time readers. It is a very good name not just for now but for the foreseeable future. We must have the same approach towards the name of our party.
70. To some extent It is impossible to find a name that adequately covers the audiences that we are aiming at. We have to balance an appeal to the advanced workers and youth as well as to the broad mass. We believe that the term ‘Socialist Party’ best serves this aim. We therefore propose to the National Committee to approve this statement recommending a change in the name of our organisation from ‘Militant Labour’ to ‘Socialist Party’.
71. We also recommend that this statement go out for a discussion in ail the branches and for an exchange on the issue to take place in the internal bulletin and a special one-day, or two-day national conference, probably in September, should be convened to consider all the options.
72. There is no proposal as yet to change the title of the paper along with the name of the organisation. A weekly paper does not necessarily have to have the same name as the party or organisation. The Russian Bolsheviks had Spark and Truth as their organs. The American Socialist Workers Party had a weekly Militant. Many other examples could be given. Undoubtedly it would be more consistent to change the name of the paper along with that of the organisation. In future we may, or may not, do this. But this is a matter of deliberation, discussion over a period. It is not urgent to discuss a change in the name of the paper.
73. It is, however, vital for the reasons mentioned above, to discuss and hopefully arrive at a decision soon on a name change.