June 1996

From the editor

Members Bulletin 18 is wholly devoted to the name change debate.

Peter Taaffe has written the first article based on the EC reply to the discussion at the NC on 8/9 June. This reply also coincidentally answers some of the points raised in the letters received before the NC, which are published in this MB.

The NC did discuss another document from Nick Wrack, which proposed Militant Socialist Party. After the NC discussion, as Nick himself explains, he withdrew this document. However, the EC thought that it would help the debate if this document, although withdrawn by its proposer, was also made available to all the comrades. The next NC is scheduled for 31 August/1 September, where proposals will be made. We have always made clear that it was our intention to submit any proposal for a change of name to a special conference. No date has yet been fixed.

The closing date for items for the next Members Bulletin is 31 August. As these debates are very well attended perhaps you could use the occasions to collect money to pay for this Members Bulletin and send the money off (cheques to WSB).

Mike Waddington – Editor

Reply to Discussion and Points Raised on EC “Statement on the Name”

(Members’ Bulletin No. 17)

By Peter Taaffe

1. THE EC statement proposing a change in the name of the organisation has, as expected, resulted in intense discussion and controversy within our organisation. The discussion at the National Committee on 8-10 June was one of the most deep-going discussions ever on strategy and tactics for the building of the organisation.

2. The name change proposal has proved to be a catalyst for an analysis of the stage through which we are passing and future perspectives. We hope that a full discussion will now unfold in the organisation including, if necessary, in the Members Bulletin, with written comments, criticisms and elaboration of points not contained in the EC document.

3. The purpose of this statement is to comment on some of the points, particularly objections to the EC proposal, which have been raised in the discussion so far.

1930s?

4. THE FIRST and most vital point is the question of the character of the period, touched on by the statement. Is there, as some comrades say, a comparison between the 1930s and today? We believe not, but an examination of the period is revealing for this discussion.

5. The 1930s was a period of intensified struggle between the classes when the choice before a number of countries was either revolution or counter-revolution. This was the case in Germany, Italy, France at certain stages, and in Spain. We also had the existence of the first workers’ state, the Soviet Union, which, despite the Moscow Trials and the one-party totalitarian regime, still attracted the advanced workers through the existence of the planned economy. There was a broad socialist consciousness and a big layer of advanced workers who considered themselves not just socialists but revolutionaries and Marxists. Trotskyism’s main task was to differentiate itself from reformism and Stalinism, to show that it was the genuine continuation of the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. The 1930s were characterised by the threat of socialist revolution but also by the triumph of fascism in Spain and Germany, which reinforced the earlier victory of Mussolini in Italy. These were great historic setbacks for the proletariat.

6. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989/90, in no way could the early 1990s be compared to the big defeats of the 1930s. The bourgeoisie undoubtedly gained, particularly in the ideological sphere, as we have explained. But the basic power of the proletariat, to be more precise its potential power, remained largely intact. This has been shown by the massive mobilisations of the working class in Britain in October 1992 around the closure of the pits, in Belgium in the public-sector revolt in 1993, in the massive general strike and biggest demonstration in Italian history in the autumn of 1994, in the revolt of the Air France workers, students and then of the public-sector workers in France in 1995/96. This has been followed by a brewing revolt in Belgium and Germany, in Sweden, and elsewhere.

7. 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 uni form. There are still some 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.

Second International

8. OUR TASK today, as we explained in our statement, is a dual one. We have to help foster a broad socialist consciousness by means of propaganda and by helping to create new parties of the proletariat. At the same time, we have to build our party, which is a revolutionary party. Our tasks today have some similarities to those the Marxists undertook in the period of the Second International. This point was disputed at the last NC and therefore it is necessary to elaborate the point made in the EC statement.

9. 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.

10. It is possible that drawing this comparison has led to a number of misunderstandings. Our intention is not to build our organisation along the lines of those ‘mass parties’ which existed at the time of the Second International. We do not intend to repeat the historical mistakes of the proletariat by recreating the Second (and Third) Internationals. But because consciousness has been thrown back, we have to help to recreate this broad socialist consciousness.

Social explosions

11. C0MRADES MAY object that this contradicts the point made earlier about the mobilisation of the working class on the industrial plane. These movements are extremely important, and symptomatic of the social explosions which will take place in Britain in the period opening up, particularly after the next general election. But we have to try to be specific about the present stage of the struggle of the proletariat. The movements, in general, have been a revolt not against the market as such, but against the effects of the market, in terms of cuts, the deterioration of the workers’ conditions, etc.

12. The next stage will be marked by a revolt against the market, that is a pronounced anti-capitalist mood, a rejection of capitalism. This will be accompanied by the re-emergence of socialist ideas, first amongst an advanced layer and later amongst a broad mass. We are not putting this forward in a kind of schematic or rigid fashion. Even now there is a small layer of youth and workers who are searching for the ideas of socialism and even of a revolutionary organisation. This is a layer which we have reached through our ideas, sales of the paper, leaflets, propaganda, activity in the trade unions, etc. But this is much smaller than the broad circles of workers who accepted socialist ideas in the past.

13. Of course, even now there are many layers of workers who draw different conclusions at different stages. The worry of many comrades is that by changing our name we will not be sufficiently attractive, not have a ‘combative’ profile for this group of workers. This is undoubtedly a danger. We can overcome this, however, by showing in practice, as we have done in the past, that we are a combative organisation. The greater risk for us now and in the foreseeable future would be to have a name which is an obstacle, a barrier for workers and youth taking their initial step towards our organisation.

An obstacle

14. THIS IS why we believe that ‘Militant’ is not the best signboard for attracting these layers. It is not an “insurmountable obstacle” or a “big obstacle” for us either to sell the paper or win people to our organisation. There is no need to over-state the case. Comrades are absolutely right when they say that, whatever misconceptions workers have, when we reach them and argue with them we can convince them that we are not the “horrible people” portrayed by the media. But what about that much broader layer of workers that we do not immediately reach?

15. They will have an impression of what our organisation stands for on the basis of the name. We repeat, in the past this was not a big problem. ‘Militant’ was quite attractive to workers, particularly industrial workers, when it was synonymous with the struggle for wages, improvement in conditions, democratisation of the unions, etc. It was also quite attractive for the purposes that we set out for ourselves in winning an important position for Marxism in the Labour Party. But we cannot now ignore the connotations which are put upon this term by the bourgeois press. The Irish comrades have argued very effectively that it is a barrier to them in Ireland because of its association with terrorism and particularly with the paramilitary organisations. Some comrades, while accepting this for Ireland, question whether it is a factor in the consciousness of the British working class. But the Irish comrades also argue that it is not just the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland but international factors, the association of ‘militant’ in the press with Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups, etc. In The Guardian (11.06.96) we have a striking example of this. Over a report detailing the killing of eight Israelis by Hezbollah in the Lebanon is the headline: “Militants strike against Israelis.” This is not an isolated example but a constant theme of the media. Another example was shown in the Daily Mirror (17.06.96) dealing with the recent bomb in Manchester. The story detailing the horror of those injured carried the sub-head “Militants”.

16.Comrades can object that the same denigration of ‘socialist’ will be used by the bourgeois media in the future. But given the development of a broad socialist consciousness it would not have the same effect as the constant use of ‘militant’ in relation to terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist groups. Even if comrades think that this argument is an exaggeration, that there is no real association of ‘Militant’ with terrorism and fundamentalism, it is indisputable that the term conjures up an aggressive posture. This image is not conducive to what we are trying to do at this stage. We are trying to reach a broader audience, particularly in the next few years, which will awaken to political life and be attracted by a broader name. ‘Militant’ does not fit this bill. It is a marvellous symbol of the past of our organisation, the heroic struggles in the poll tax battle, in Liverpool, etc. But while honouring the past, it is necessary to look towards the future.

Character of our party

17. THE NAME is particularly important for elections. Here it is a question of reaching a wider audience with written propaganda, through the media, etc. rather than with individual contacts. This does not constitute a short cut on our behalf. Nor is the idea of a Socialist Party a panacea for immediately solving all the problems of building the organisation in a rapid fashion. Nor can we expect a massive increase in our vote in a general election just by changing our name. The amount we will spend in a general election, however, is a powerful argument for an early change. In this respect some misunderstandings have arisen over what was meant by the EC in paragraph 56 which states: “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.” Some comrades have interpreted this as arguing in favour of us becoming a broader, looser organisation. This is not the impression we wanted to give, nor is it our intention to liquidate or dilute the organisation so that it is no longer the revolutionary organisation which comrades joined. We wish to broaden the appeal of our organisation, but not its character nor its internal structures and functioning. On the contrary, the document which we produced on “Democratic Centralism” (MB16) makes clear the kind of organisation which we are trying to build. Changing our name from ‘Militant Labour’ to ‘Socialist Party’ does not involve a change in the character of the organisation itself.

18. The argument that the public name will blunt the consciousness of our own members of what our own organisation is, does not, we believe, hold much water. As with our work in the Labour Party, we will fight against such tendencies by the internal cohesion of the organisation, a conscientious attitude by the leadership towards developing the consciousness of the revolutionary party, etc. The claim that by adopting ‘Socialist’ we will fall into a “social democratic swamp” because of the betrayals of ‘socialist’ parties in Europe is wide of the mark. We argued in the document on “The Programme” (MB13) that we have to take the specific, concrete conditions in each country in determining tactics, including an appropriate name for the organisation.

19. Because of the discrediting of PSOE in Spain or the Socialist Party in France it would be entirely inappropriate to call our organisation ‘Socialist Party’ in these countries. But in Britain the situation is different. The Labour Party has existed for nearly 100 years. There is a tradition, of right-wing reformism which is associated with the term ‘Labour’. To move towards a ‘Socialist’ Party would be a big step forward in the consciousness of workers. That is why we have been demanding a “mass socialist party” in Britain. If the term ‘socialist’ is already discredited, as some argue, then the founders of the Socialist Labour Party have also got it wrong. It is the ‘Labour’ aspect in its title which we believe will become rapidly discredited and not the fact that it is called ‘Socialist’.

Other socialists

20.COMRADES HAVE legitimately pointed to the fact that there will be a certain amount of confusion with different parties claiming to be ‘socialist’. This is unfortunate. But if the arguments of the EC are accepted, those organisations with ‘socialist’ in their title will be capable of reaching the new layers of the proletariat who will arise to political life. If this is so why should we not have, in the words of one NC member, a chance of “biting the cherry” first?

21. Other comrades have argued that by changing our name to Socialist Party we will be seen as displaying a certain “arrogance” in relation to the rest of the left, particularly towards potential allies in the ‘Socialist Alliances’. But the situation in England and Wales is fundamentally different to the position in Scotland. In effect the ‘Socialist Alliances’, apart from a few areas, have not really taken off at this stage. Nevertheless, it is possible that changing our name to ‘Socialist’ Party may alienate some lefts who at a later stage could join in with the ‘Socialist Alliances’. However, we have to determine our tactics on the basis of the situation as we see it unfolding in the next period. We will make it clear that adopting a new name will not change our attitude to working with other groups: we will continue to stand for united action with other organisations and individuals through Socialist Alliances.

22. What is raised here is the perspectives for future split-offs from the Labour Party. 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 the slashing of public expenditure. This is the experience of the ‘Left Party’ in Sweden, in Norway, in Finland, and in other countries in Europe. Even the RC in Italy could capitulate to the pressure for ‘retrenchments’ unless it develops in a clear, revolutionary direction. Rather than one ‘big bang’ – a massive split in the Labour Party along the lines of 1932 with the developments in the ILP – it is more likely that we will see a disintegration of the social democracy in Britain and throughout Europe.

23. 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.

24. Comrades who say we are claiming the banner of the mass ‘Socialist Party’ which will develop in the future perhaps misunderstand what we are demanding. The EC may be inadvertently responsible for this through the imprecise formulas in our original document. The confusion arises because we demand a future “mass socialist party”, while at the same time arguing that we should call ourselves a ‘Socialist Party’. There undoubtedly appears to be a contradiction in this and even perhaps a suggestion that we are intending to create the “mass party” ourselves, without alliances. This is not our intention. But it would be preferable for us now to put forward the demand for a “mass, independent, class-struggle party of the working class”, rather than a “mass socialist party”. This would clarify the position of what kind of organisation we are intending to establish at this stage, alongside the perspective of a future mass party of the working class (for which, of course, we would advocate a socialist programme).

Socialist Party?

25. WHILE THERE has been some movement from comrades who were formerly opposed to dropping ‘Militant’, there is still a certain uneasiness, if not opposition, to us adopting the name ‘Socialist Party’. As stated earlier, the key objective is to get new layers of the working class and youth, not just now but in the next few years, to become interested in our ideas. ‘Militant’ will be a barrier to some. There is an acceptance that we must have ‘Socialist’ in the name. But ‘Socialist Party’ is variously described as being “a little bland” (the phrase used in the original EC statement), or even “anodyne and colourless”. There is undoubtedly a certain truth in this and the EC is open to suggestions which would give the term ‘Socialist Party’ a harder ‘combative’ edge. Up to now it has not been possible to find a suitable prefix which can differentiate the Socialist Party as a ‘combative’ party. Even if we do not manage to come up with something that will more clearly differentiate us, in the course of time the name ‘Socialist Party’ will be identified, as are Militant supporters today, with an interventionist, combative approach. The same people with the same outlook, will be organising and building as well as intervening under the new banner of this party. The name will become associated with a certain approach, which ‘Militant’ denoted in the past.

26. Comrades object that we will be jettisoning our history by abandoning ‘Militant’. We do not believe that this will happen. To begin with the press will continually refer to us as the ‘former Militant Tendency’ or ‘formerly Militant Labour’. This will eventually drop out of usage. Is there a danger, therefore, that our history, our involvement in the poll tax struggle, in Liverpool, etc. will be lost to a new generation moving into activity? First of all, this new generation will mostly have no consciousness that we were responsible for the defeat of the poll tax or for the Liverpool intervention, of what we have achieved in Scotland today, or of the battle against the fascists in the early 1990s. We will have to remind them through publications like our recent history, and by constant references to these events, of their connection with a new ‘Socialist Party’ banner.

27.Other comrades raise the objection: what proof is there that ‘Socialist Party’ will guarantee that we will be more attractive to broad layers? Similar objections were raised during the debate on the “Open Turn”. How could we guarantee that a new strategy and tactic, with new slogans, would guarantee success? Politics, especially revolutionary politics, cannot be compared to simple arithmetic, the addition and subtraction of known quantities: it is more like algebra, where equations include unqualified factors. It is necessary to envisage not only how the working class will move in the future but what their likely consciousness will be in the process of this re-emergence. It is necessary to have the historical imagination to see how events and therefore consciousness will develop.

Election success

28. IN OPPOSITION to changing the name, comrades have invoked the success we have had in elections. We are all very proud of the achievements in the electoral field. But we should have a sense of proportion. Our success has been because of a combination of factors. First of all, the correctness of putting forward an independent socialist challenge on the electoral field. Secondly, where we have done well it has been because of our campaigns, the poll tax, the struggle against cuts, comrades who are particularly well known through championing tenants’ rights or, as in the case of Dave Nellist, a marvellous record as an MP. Of course, the ideas of ‘Militant Labour’ have an attraction as well. But it is more the role of the individual comrades involved in struggles at this stage which account for us making certain electoral inroads. In Ireland, for instance, the success of Joe Higgins in the Dublin West by-election was largely because of our leadership in the battle against water charges.

29.The name is not inconsequential, particularly in the future, but at this stage plays a subordinate role to what we do in elections. In the future, however, the name will be important, if not vital in elections. This is mass work where we have to reach people with literature, appearances in the media, etc., where general impressions are important. We believe that as the ‘Socialist Party’ we would find a bigger audience than as ‘Militant’ or ‘Militant Labour’.

Militant Socialist Party

30. SOME COMRADES argue for ‘Militant Socialist Party’ because they want to include ‘Socialist’ in the name but they want a more distinctly revolutionary name than ‘Socialist Party’. In reality, however, this is an argument for the status quo: workers would hear or see ‘Militant’ not ‘Socialist’. The general perception of our banner would be the same as now. One or two comrades have even argued in favour of calling ourselves ‘Revolutionary Socialist Party’, but the great majority of comrades realise that this would be a step too far.

31. As to preserving the historical connections of our organisation: if we abandon ‘Militant’ then we will have to conserve our history in books, speeches in special meetings, etc. One of the reasons for opposition to the name is, undoubtedly, because of our history. We were formed during a period of economic upswing, with less abrupt changes in the situation, as explained in the earlier EC document. To some extent our experiences were unique, maintaining one name for the organisation and one name for the paper over a period of more than 30 years. Compare this to the American Trotskyists in the inter-war period. They were variously described as the Communist League, then they became the Workers’ Party, eventually establishing themselves as the Socialist Workers’ Party. All of this took place in the period of six years (over a ten-year period, which included work in the American CP, they changed their name five times).

Dangers of any turn

32. WILL THIS not take the revolutionary edge off our organisation, adversely affecting the consciousness of our members? Will adopting a broad name mean that the organisation itself will become broader, looser and therefore lose its revolutionary character? Irrespective of any name, these dangers exist. When we worked in the Labour Party we were always concerned that some comrades could perceive us as the radical left of the Labour Party rather than a revolutionary organisation working in the Labour Party. Indeed, some comrades undoubtedly adapted themselves to the Labour Party and were lost to the revolutionary tendency.

33.0ur organisation, moreover, has never been composed of one hundred-percent rounded-out revolutionaries. We have recruited people who initially were not ‘revolutionary’. No revolutionary party can get Bolsheviks ‘off the shelf. People join a revolutionary organisation for a variety of reasons but in the process of involvement in the party become, on the basis of correct programme, tactics and leadership, welded to the ideas and practices of a revolutionary party. There are periods when the doors of the organisation will be thrown open and the small number of cadres will be ‘swamped’ by a broader layer of workers who are looking for a revolutionary road and a revolutionary education. We do not face that situation now. But who will say that in the next two, three, or four years, as the case might be, there will not be opportunities to recruit a broad layer of workers who. while not yet revolutionaries, will be moving towards a revolutionary position? The calling card might be the ‘Socialist Party’, but the aim will be to win them to a rounded-out understanding of our programme, policies, tactics, etc.

Industrial straggles

34. THE OTHER objections made by some trade union comrades is really of a two-fold character. We will be “dimming the banner” of ‘Militant’ at a vital time in the development of the trade unions. We would be dropping this name just at the historical moment when it will come into its own. Undoubtedly, “France will come to Britain” in the sense that the mass movements of 1995 and early this year will be repeated in Britain in the foreseeable future. There will, undoubtedly, be a resurgence of ‘militancy’. There are no differences between any comrades on this point, but that is not in itself sufficient reason for maintaining ‘Militant’. Militancy will arise but, in this new period, without the fresh layers involved necessarily seeing themselves as ‘militants’ or readily accepting the label ‘militants’. It is unlikely that the next generation of industrial activists will consciously use the term ‘militants’ to describe themselves.

35. As to the lowering of our profile in the trade unions: We have done heroic work over decades. The political identity and record of Militant is clear to the activists. Our work in the unions, however, has been conducted under the banner not of ‘Militant’ but of Broad Lefts, campaigns for democratic unions, and in the teachers’ union through the equivalent of the Broad Left, the ‘Socialist Teachers’ Alliance’. In other words, in recent years our trade union activity has been primarily conducted under a ‘broad’ banner. There is no reason why the adoption of a new, broader name for our party should in any way complicate or undermine this work. On the contrary, in terms of attracting new layers of the working class, new layers of shop stewards and active workers, we believe that ‘Socialist Party’ will be a more attractive name than ‘Militant’, particularly in the future.

36. Trotsky and Lenin never hesitated to set aside names or terms which appeared as ‘foreign’ to even the more advanced workers. Look at Trotsky’s approach towards the events in Germany in 1923. He opposed the slogan of ‘Soviets’ because this would appear as an attempt to superimpose on Germany a ‘foreign’, that is a Russian, name. This could be both exploited by the bourgeoisie and be a barrier to workers accepting the idea of independent, fighting organisations of the working class to prepare for the revolution. Trotsky put forward the idea that it should be the shop-stewards’ committees, broadened out, which would in effect play the same role of ‘Soviets’ without calling them by this name. These ‘workers’ councils’ had a history in Germany going back to the revolution of 1918 and subsequent revolutionary events.

The Paper

37. UNDOUBTEDLY THE weak point of the EC’s document is the contradiction between us advocating a change in the name of the organisation and yet not proposing a change of name for the paper. The main reason we proposed changing the name of the organisation as a matter of urgency was because of the approaching general election. We believed that the main priority was to change the name of the organisation. Even though there would be a ‘contradiction’, highlighted by those who opposed the EC’s recommendation, this would not be of insurmountable proportions. Militant could still be sold even if we call ourselves ‘Socialist Party’. But the discussion, which was originally a discussion for the NC, has broadened out to the general character of the period, not just the name of the organisation. It would therefore be unrealistic to try to separate the discussion on the name of the organisation from a discussion, at a later stage (as we originally proposed), on the name of the paper. The EC therefore proposes that this discussion should embrace the name of the paper as well. In our opinion, both should be changed for the reasons mentioned above and also for consistency in approach. The name of the paper must be the subject of debate and discussion, but it must, in our view, have ‘Socialist’ in it without ‘Militant’. This is an issue upon which we expect lively exchanges of opinion in the Members’ Bulletin.

38.This discussion naturally raises the past of our organisation. The name ‘Militant’ signifies for us a glorious page of achievements in decisive battles of the working class over the past 30 years. But it is the future which is decisive. We must position ourselves for the mighty events that will unfold in Britain. We cannot have any obstacle to our reaching the new layers of the proletariat who will move into action. This is what this discussion is about.

39.There will undoubtedly be strongly held opinions expressed forcefully in the discussion. There is nothing wrong with this. But the discussion must be free of rancour. We must use it to raise the level of understanding of every member of our organisation to prepare for the great events which impend.