The following document was presented to the recent National Committee by Nick Wrack, member of the executive committee and editor of the paper, but was withdrawn at the end of the discussion. It is carried here for comrades’ information.

by Nick Wrack (EC) (JUNE 21,1996)

The EC “Statement on the Name of the Organisation” is an important document which helps to clarify the broad strategic tasks facing the revolutionary party in Britain today. All comrades should welcome this document and the points it raises. If in the course of this discussion on the name we can deepen our understanding of the perspectives for revolution and the tasks of the revolutionary party that in itself will benefit the whole membership.

Dual tasks

Our organisation faces a new situation, both in Britain and internationally. With the bourgeoisification of the Labour Party and the other social democratic parties internationally the working class has the historic task of building new independent workers’ organisations afresh.

The events in Italy in 1994 and recently in France and Belgium show the new wave of struggle which will engulf all the countries of Europe. We are now witnessing the signs of the mighty German working class beginning to move. We have to prepare the organisation for the huge class struggles that will develop in Britain under a Blair-led New Labour government. Exciting and rewarding times are ahead.

Part of our task is to help the development of a socialist consciousness among the workers and youth who move into struggle and assist in the creation of a new mass socialist party in Britain. But while doing this we also have to win the most advanced sections of the working class towards revolutionary socialism and build the revolutionary party.

This “dual task” is stated in para 34 of the EC document. “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.” It is reiterated in para 43: “We wish to build independent socialist organisations of the working class and at the same time the revolutionary party as well.”

Militant Socialist Party

To assist us in carrying out these tasks and intervening in the struggles to come we need to change our name. Militant Socialist Party is the name best suited to meet the needs of this new situation while taking account of our past record and present reputation.

While making some valuable points about revolutionary methods of organisation and developing c Girts of perspective the EC document fails to justify its proposal to adopt Socialist Party as the new name of the organisation.

We should drop Labour from our name without hesitation. There has been a growing call within the organisation to drop Labour precisely because among sections of the best workers and young people the name is discredited. Having Labour in our name often leads to a confusion. Many people still think we are Labour, or linked to it, which obviously detracts from our attempts to develop an independent identity, clearly separate from Blair’s pro-capitalist New Labour. This confusion and the danger of being tarnished with the same brush could be avoided by dropping the name.

We should also incorporate ‘Socialist’ into our name. This will give a clearer expression to our ideological outlook and take advantage of the search for a socialist alternative that will increasingly develop as workers reject New Labour and the capitalist market.

But these two steps by themselves would be a mistake. We should also retain the word ‘Militant’ in our name. It represents a proud record of achievement which we would otherwise be in danger of losing. Militant will maintain continuity with our past and present reputation and used in conjunction with ‘socialist’, as in Militant Socialist Party, we will gain the advantages of more clearly expressing our fighting political character. Militant will increasingly become a term which will describe those involved in the industrial battles that will characterise British political life in the near future. We will have a name that will more and more come into its own on the basis of future class struggles.

We are socialists but we advocate a particular type of socialism – revolutionary socialism. We need a name which more accurately describes what we are. Militant Socialist Party fits the bill far better than Socialist Party. There is no contradiction between describing ourselves in this way and proclaiming on our banner that we call for the creation of a new mass socialist party.

The EC document makes a good case for dropping Labour and for adopting socialism but a very weak one for dropping Militant from the party name.

The return of militancy

The press has run a campaign to discredit the term ‘militant’, trying to reinforce the idea that ‘militancy’ is dead and no longer relevant. But as the events in France at the end of last year demonstrated, ‘militancy’ will once again be ‘fashionable’. Now the press is referring to ‘militant’ workers in Germany. In Britain there have been reports of ‘militant teachers’, ‘militant civil servants’, ‘militant post office workers’. The term is also applied to environmentalists, animal rights activists, students, protesters against the Criminal Justice Act and anti-fascists. Why discard a name that has such fighting connotations and which will be used increasingly to describe tens of thousands, if not millions, of the most advanced workers and youth?

The bourgeoisie and their press will always try to denigrate any working-class organisation that fights back, particularly one with a clear revolutionary programme and an organisational ability to

make an impact. Whatever name we choose, we will face the same difficulty. The only way to overcome this is to explain to the workers and young people we come across what we stand for. They will understand why we are attacked. Those who initially have suspicions about us will come to see through the press lies on the basis of their own experience, under the hammer blows of capitalism.

Socialist Party by itself is insufficient. It inadequately describes what we are. The adjective ‘Militant’ is necessary to distinguish us from the various other brands of socialism which exist now and may arise in the future.

‘Socialist Party’ is a completely colourless name, bland and anodyne. It does not adequately convey what we are. By adopting this name to appeal to ‘broader layers’ we will fail to present ourselves in the necessary distinctive way to the most combative sections of workers, especially young workers, and the unemployed youth and students.

There is another danger – that this lack of boldly and proudly defining ourselves with a more distinctive name will have an adverse effect on the consciousness of our own members. Adopting such a bland title as ‘Socialist Party’ could lead to a blurring of the perception our own members have of what we are. This would the dent the revolutionary edge to the way we intervene in struggles and the confidence with which we put forward our revolutionary programme.

The dropping of Militant, such a well known badge among workers and the left in general, would be perceived by many as an attempt to disavow our past. This could undermine our own comrades’ confidence when called upon to defend our past record.

There are also international examples which should lead us to reject the name ‘Socialist Party’. Just as ‘Labour’ is becoming discredited here in Britain, the ‘Socialist Parties’ in France, Belgium and Spain are already detested by the most advanced sections of the working class. In Italy the ex-Socialist Party leader fled the country to escape imprisonment for corruption. In Spain the Socialist Party carried out 14 years of vicious anti-working class policies, as well as being involved in corruption and murder.

In Belgium workers have attacked the Socialist Party’s leaders and its demonstrations in disgust at their pro-capitalist policies. To one degree or another all the European Socialist Parties are heading in the same direction as the British Labour Party. We should not adopt a name that could lead to confusion with these parties, either in Britain or abroad. As well as drawing a clear line between ourselves and Labour, we need to do the same with the other versions of social democracy.

As Socialist Party we would run the risk of being confused with other parties with similar names, like the Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Workers Party. Retaining Militant will make us more distinctive and help to overcome any confusion.

Reputation

It should also be noted that we have a reputation as Militant abroad as well as in Britain as Peter Taaffe’s articles on his recent visit to Asia show.

The task of building a reputation in Britain with a new name, let alone on such an international scale, which does not have the benefit of a certain continuity with the past, should not be underestimated. If the name had become such an insurmountable obstacle to building our party then it would be justified to embark on the task of re-establishing our reputation under a new name. But this difficult step is unnecessary. It could only be justified if the gains to be made from taking such a step were to outweigh the difficulties. There is nothing in the EC’s document to suggest that they will.

Open to change

The EC document presents a number of arguments for its proposals but not all of them are relevant. The first is the general point that a revolutionary organisation has to be flexible in matters of organisation. This is a very important point. We have shown ourselves to be capable of making changes, most notably by executing the Turn and launching the independent organisation Militant Labour. Of course, it is necessary continually to

review whether further changes need to be made, however drastic.

Paradoxically, revolutionaries can be very conservative. It is necessary always to study carefully arguments for and against change and ask whether change is being opposed because we don’t like to give up what we are used to. Opposition to the dropping of ‘Militant’ from our name is not governed by sentiment or conservatism but because we will lose more than we gain if we take this step.

It would be untenable to argue that Militant should be retained for all time and under all circumstances. For example, if in the future there were to be a genuine fusion with other revolutionary forces, there would be compelling arguments to come up with a completely new name. At some stage in the future we might want to more clearly define ourselves, for example, as ‘Revolutionary Socialist Party’ or some other name which we can not anticipate at the moment. But there is nothing to justify dropping Militant from our name at the moment.

The examples given in the opening paras of the EC document only support the need to be open to the idea of change and carry through change when it is necessary. They do not support the specific change proposed ie to adopt Socialist Party.

Lenin

The example of the proposal by Lenin to change the name of the RSDLP in April 1917 is perhaps the most relevant. In his April Theses Lenin argued that the party change its name from the RSDLP to Communist Party. (The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution and The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution, Lenin, Collected Works Volume 24) Lenin argued against those in favour of retaining the old name: “It is an argument of routinism, an argument of inertia, an argument of stagnation.” Nothing could be clearer. At decisive times, decisive changes must be made.

But the reason that compelled Lenin to advocate a change of name was that the term ‘Social Democracy’ had become discredited by the abandonment of international socialism by the leaders of the second international. They had voted for the imperialist war and sided with their own bourgeoisie against the working class of other countries. The Social Democrats had “distorted and betrayed” Marxism. That is why Lenin felt that the name could no longer be used.

This example cannot be stretched too far but it obviously has parallels with the word ‘Labour’ at the present time, not with ‘Militant’. As para 47 states: “… 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.” We want to separate ourselves from Labour, not from our own record. Contrasted to the way ‘Labour’ is increasingly perceived as a party which attacks the working class, Militant has an altogether different pedigree and reputation.

Badge of honour

The EC document itself states (para 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 a Marxist alternative.”

Having recognised this, the document completely fails to make a valid case for dropping Militant from the name. There is really only one argument advanced, contained in paras 47 and 49. After recognising that “Militant has an honourable socialist and revolutionary pedigree.” It goes on to state: “But there are many workers, advanced as well as the mass, who now have an accumulated prejudice against the term ‘Militant’. We propose that the time has arrived for a change of name.”

But what exactly is this ‘prejudice’? Is it not a reflection of the barrage of hysterical attacks on Militant over the years for its “working class resistance in Liverpool, in the poll tax, in the battle against the racists and fascists…” etc. This prejudice will not be removed by removing the word, only by proving in the course of struggle that their antipathy towards us is based on misconceptions cultivated by the “bourgeois and their labour movement mouthpieces.”

Sinister?

Para 49 contains the cornerstone of the EC’s argument in favour of dropping Militant. “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.”

This is quite simply a gross exaggeration of the negative connotations associated with the term ‘militant’. While it could not be denied that there is, on the part of some workers, a suspicion or even an antagonism towards ‘Militant’ or the term ‘militant’ (with a small ‘m’), it could not be claimed that this has been a significant impediment to our work or our ability to attract people to our ideas. That would be looking for reasons in the wrong place.

We have hundreds of examples of street sales of our paper Militant, from Hillingdon to Swansea, from Argyll Street in Glasgow to Margate, where we have been able to sell it in huge numbers. The name of the paper has not been an undue hindrance. We stop people in the streets with petitions with our party name, Militant Labour, clearly stated at the top. It is very rarely that someone will refuse to sign because of who we are.

In fact this regular activity under the clear banner of Militant Labour (often with Labour subordinate in size or placement) has helped to break down the many misconceptions about Militant. Militant are the people who are out campaigning in all sorts of weather on all the issues that affect the working class. That is a tremendous asset for us, not an impediment. There can be very few, if any, who really compare us with Islamic fundamentalism or with terrorism, however hard the media tries to establish the connection.

There is a glaring inconsistency in the document. The main reason for advocating that we drop Militant is the alleged reaction against it by ‘many workers and youth’. Yet the EC is not proposing that we change the name of our paper at the moment. But the paper is the main way that thousands of people come across us for the first time. If the name puts them off wouldn’t it be more sen

sible to propose changing the name of the paper as well and find something more amenable. This is the next logical step. The point is, though, that the name of the paper doesn’t put people off.

If we drop Militant from our name on the basis that it puts people off and is considered to be an impediment to our work, and this is the only justification advanced by the EC, then an inevitable consequence will be that confidence in our ability to sell the paper with that name will be undermined.

While there is no principled reason for having the same name for both party and paper it certainly does help to reinforce the party profile if we can sell a paper and use posters which make people draw the link between the paper and the organisation.

If the main point of changing the name to Socialist Party is for the purpose of elections, are we to carry out no paper sales in the town centres? Are we to no longer try to sell the paper when we go canvassing door to door? But if we are to continue selling the paper will this not counter the effect of adopting the proposed name?

Working with other socialists

The document claims (para 56): “It would be much easier standing [in elections, NVV] 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 than ‘Militant’ which is seen as a much narrower name and organisation.”

The document does not back up this claim with any argumentation. In fact the layer of people referred to here are the more politically aware workers and youth who know exactly who we are and what we stand for. They would know we remained the same under a different name. Why would they not support us as Militant Socialist Party if they would as Socialist Party? There is no reason to suggest that simply by becoming the Socialist Party other lefts would automatically become friendlier to us.

The key here, surely, is not so much the change of name but demonstrating that we are willing and capable of working alongside others on the left who do not share all of our programme. That is why we have started to develop the work in the socialist alliances.

We have already seen that some of these independent socialists are prepared to support us in elections and work for us now. This has happened in Lewisham where the Socialist Alliance had members out canvassing for our Militant Labour candidate.

However, the adoption of Socialist Party may well complicate our efforts to work together with others on the left in other socialist organisations. Their perception, whatever we intend, will be that we have proclaimed ourselves as the Socialist Party and the old allegations about Militant being sectarian or claiming to be something which it is not, will be raised, undermining our best efforts to win their confidence and build a working relationship with them.

Scotland

The experience of our organisation in Scotland shows that it is quite possible to develop a working relationship with others on the left and get them to work with us and even work for us in elections while still retaining the word Militant in our title.

Scottish Militant Labour took the initiative and has played the leading role in drawing together others on the left, both in existing groups and independents, into what has now become the Scottish Socialist Alliance.

This was possible because of the work we have carried out in past campaigns and the reputation this has earned us, our general approach and because we proved in practice that we could work with others for a common goal.

Even where, as in Scotland, the socialist alliances develop into significant broader organisations it is still important that we maintain our own clear identity. It is good that Tommy Sheridan is winning a reputation as the leader of the Scottish Socialist Alliance (para 68) but it is vital that he also remains well-known as a leader of SML so that we can use his position to draw the best people within the SSA towards us.

Through the mass campaigns and the elections we have contested in Scotland we have built up a

considerable reputation and developed our own electoral constituency. In some parts of Glasgow there are people who have voted for us three, four and five times. They have voted for us as Scottish Militant Labour. Tommy Sheridan was elected as Scottish Militant Labour. We have regularly out-polled the SNP. Having Militant in the name has not been an impediment. And all of this has been in the most difficult circumstances for us, when the swing against the Tories has meant Labour is riding high in the polls.

In Glasgow, at least, where we have developed this constituency for SML, it would be best if we could use the SML banner for the elections even though we will be standing as part of the SSA list, eg standing as Scottish Socialist Alliance/Scottish Militant Labour, if possible. As a minimum we should put out material where our comrades will be standing for the SSA explaining that they are also members of SML.

The EC document also says (para 67) that the organisation in Scotland will not be changing its name. This would mean having completely different names in Scotland and in the rest of Britain if we became the Socialist Party. Inevitably this will cause confusion over the relationship of the organisation north and south of the border and mean that the kudos the organisation in the rest of Britain could earn for the work done in Scotland would potentially be lost, and vice versa.

Coventry

The experience in Scotland shows what can develop in England and Wales. In some cases this is already clear. Dave Nellist has carved out a tremendous position for our organisation. Of course, in Coventry we have a long history, with Dave building up a following through his work as a Labour MP. But since the Turn the name has not held us back in elections. Under any other name the attacks on us and Dave would have been as great.

But the lesson of Coventry is that the denigration of Militant will be overcome by the work put in and the ideas we represent, not by changing the name. Following the 41% vote we received in Coventry in the local elections the local paper, the Evening Telegraph, carried an editorial headed ‘Why the Nellist Factor really haunts Labour’.

The article stated: “Last year Labour had a ready-made excuse for Nellist’s strong showing. It was claimed, without a shred of evidence being produced, that his supporters had run a racist campaign against Labour’s Asian candidate. This time we are told that Militant Labour canvassers used “intimidation and bullying” to secure support for their candidate. No proof, of course, but if this is true Militant must have an organisation on a par with the Mafia to secure 41% of the vote in St Michael’s ward through extortion.”

What is amazing here is firstly that a revolutionary candidate receives 41% of the vote and, secondly, that a bourgeois paper demolishes the adverse connotations of ‘Militant’ (“intimidation and bullying”, we’ve heard this many times before) in 85 words. People’s own experience will overcome any prejudices towards us, not the changing of our name.

Election successes

With our limited resources the election results we have so far obtained, given that we have yet to see a Labour government in power, are quite remarkable. The document seems to imply that we could have done better and will do better in the future under the name ‘Socialist Party’ but puts forward no evidence or argument to support this.

There is no reason to suggest that we could have done better in elections so far without Militant in our name. We have constantly explained that at this stage, in advance of a Labour government, we do not expect to do particularly well in terms of the number of votes we receive. That is not the main point in us standing.

We use the elections as a platform to put across our revolutionary programme and at this stage expect only to convince a small minority. Of course we do this in a transitional way, with a friendly approach to workers who do not agree with us. We are putting down a marker for the future, as we say.

The results we have obtained, both in numbers and percentage of votes have, in fact, been exceptionally good. Although we have only contested elections on a limited scale we have regularly been scoring over 5%, over 10% and sometimes much higher, even in places where we do not have a well-known candidate like Dave Nellist. These results would be good for long established left parties in Europe such as the United Left in Spain or the Communist Refoundation in Italy.

The Irish organisation may well be considering a change of name (para 59) but being called Militant Labour did not prevent them winning 25% of first preference votes and only losing the Dublin west parliamentary by-election by 370 votes. Nobody has seriously suggested that the name was a factor in not winning. In any case, the proposal to change their name is because of the specific problems in Ireland with the paramilitary connotations. These do not apply in Britain.

[It may be worth observing here that in Sweden, Germany and Austria, where we have launched independent organisations, the sections of our international have maintained a certain continuity with their past by retaining the name of the paper (the name by which they were known in the labour movement) in their new names; Socialist Alternative Voran (Germany), Workers’ League Offensiv (Sweden) and Socialist Offensive Vorwarts (Austria).]

Having Militant in our name has not so far been an obstacle to winning these election successes. Nor should retaining it in the future be an obstacle for building on these successes. In fact, it will be especially under a Labour government which is attacking the working class, at a time when ‘militancy’ and ‘militant’ struggle is returning, that our name will prove extremely useful.

Trade union work

Just as retaining Militant has not prevented us in Scotland and elsewhere from building alliances with other socialists, neither has it hindered us in building these alliances in the trade unions.

In the CPSA we have led the Broad Left and pioneered the idea of Left Unity, culminating in the successful 500-strong meeting at this year’s conference. In UNISON we have taken the initiative with the CFDU and broken down barriers with others on the left. To a lesser extent this has been repeated in other unions.

Being called Militant Labour has not hindered this work. What has been decisive has been our approach and method of work, demonstrating in practice that we can work with others, while not giving up on our programme. In the unions and workplaces especially, retaining Militant will pay dividends in the future.

In a period of intensified class struggle, those who the bosses and their media attack and denigrate will earn the respect of those looking for a way forward. Even those who may have been wary or even hostile to us because of misconceptions about our past will begin to study for themselves, and with our help, and see the real history of Militant in Liverpool and the battle against the poll tax.

A name is not just for elections. In fact elections, while presenting opportunities for revolutionaries, are not the most important arena for us. The most fruitful work will be done in the workplaces and among young people. We need a name that can strike a distinctive chord here as well as in the ballot box. Militant Socialist Party will enable us better to link the two fields of work. Our intervention with a distinctive, more combative name in the industrial and working-class community struggles will pay dividends in the elections we contest.

Our history

If we drop Militant there is the danger that a line is drawn separating us from our own past whereas we should be using our past to educate workers about how to struggle. This is the role of books like The Rise of Militant and Liverpool – a City that Dared to Fight.

Para 45 recognises that “in the reawakening of the working class some workers will turn to Militant precisely because of our political and theoretical intransigence…”. They will find this difficult if we have dropped the name from our banner.

Of course, our main task will be to win the new generation, those who do not know about Liverpool and the poll tax battle. But why should these young fighters be put off by a name that encapsulates what the very best of them will be looking for?

Bolsheviks

An argument against the retention of ‘Militant’, linked with the assertion that it has sinister connotations, is put forward in para 63: “‘Militant’ and ‘Militant Tendency’ are not ideological descriptions, accurate expressions of the ideas which we represent… ‘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.”

The first point is contradicted by para 4 which acknowledges that, despite any shortcomings, “all names become associated with a particular personality, a body of ideas…”. After all, the word ‘Bolshevik’ (‘majority’) was not an ideological description but it came to stand for revolutionary socialism as opposed to the reformism of the Mensheviks.

Even if there were some validity to the argument, it is answered by using the term as an adjective in the title Militant Socialist Party. The combination gives the necessary ideological description. The second point is answered by calling ourselves a party, which by definition contests with all other forces in society to win majority support

In para 64 the document suggests that in the future we would be prepared to “give up the name ‘Socialist Party’ as a step towards a mass party”. As we have the perspective of a new socialist party being created at a certain stage, why go through all the trouble of adopting a new name which lacks any continuity with our past when we may well change again in the relatively near future?

Making a mark

In positioning ourselves to take advantage of the “wave amongst the working class… towards socialism” (para 46), far more important than the name will be the work we do and the way we do it. This will best be helped by having both ‘Militant’ and ‘socialist’ in our name.

Within this wave of the working class towards socialism it will still initially be a minority, although a substantial one, who are convinced of the need for revolutionary socialism. Only on the basis of events, revolutionary events, and under the leadership of a powerful revolutionary party will the mass of the working class turn towards revolutionary socialism.

In order to build that powerful revolutionary party it is necessary to be as clear as possible about what we are. Of course, this will be done through our programme and our work but it can be greatly assisted by having a suitable name.

In 1938 Trotsky wrote: “A colourless name passes unremarked and this is the worst thing in politics, particularly for revolutionists.” (Leon Trotsky, Writings 1938-39, “A Revolutionary Name for a Revolutionary Youth Group”, December 10 1938) We want to make a mark. We should call ourselves the Militant Socialist Party.

Footnote from Nick Wrack:

I wrote the document as a specific reply to the original EC document outlining the arguments for the proposed name change to Socialist Party. It was a document written at a particular stage of the discussion which has now moved on. Following the discussion at the NC I decided to withdraw the document because I feel that there is a much wider and more important discussion to be had on the nature of the period and the tasks facing us. These questions of perspectives, including the way in which socialist consciousness will develop, are primary and the question of the name flows from them. I do not want this discussion to become polarised around the proposal for Militant Socialist Party versus Socialist Party as I believe this would obscure the more fundamental questions we need to address.