Statement from the Merseyside Committee for consideration at the National Committee (agreed at the meeting of the 20 August 1996 with one dissenting vote).

1) THE STARTING point for the discussion is rooted in the EC document: the collapse of Stalinism, the falling back of consciousness amongst the advanced layers – indeed the partial disappearance of the ‘advanced layers’, the bourgeoisification of the Labour Party and the collapse of the left around the Labour Party, the CP and in the unions. With this new period has come a disorientation of those on the left, amongst all groupings, including the Trotskyist groups, leading in turn to partial regroupments on an international basis. Over the last decade our organisation has noted the growing disillusionment of young people with the established party political organisations, the turn to broad based one issue organisations, lacking basic structures but linked together informally through networks. We have seen increasingly this tendency reflected through the anti-poll tax campaign, water meter campaigns, anti-racist movements and the opposition to the CJA. The bourgeoisification of the LP is gradually being paralleled by the movement at the top of the unions to escape from the control of the activists and the steps taken to insulate the tops from the ranks of the unions. New Realism roughly translated is coming to mean the erosion of traditional forms of union organisation. Whilst this will be fiercely resisted by the ranks the tops of the union movement intend to transform the unions into partnership schemes with the bosses. Through these processes we have also seen an increasing tendency to regionalisation and fragmentation of the movement, with national movements becoming the exception rather than the norm.

2) The consequences of these changes have again been documented by our organisation. Many of the old, political differences have become historical issues, they have been dynamited away.

The rightward movement of the Labour Party has left a tremendous political vacuum open on the left. Everyone agrees there is a vast audience available for the left now and this will grow in the near future with new generations attracted to the ideas of socialism. In this sense there is already a powerful undercurrent for unity. Politically there is very little on paper which is different about the broad electoral programme of our organisation, the SLP, the CP, the Socialist Alliances or the myriad of smaller left groupings. In a recent leaflet by the CP the only differences were on price and import controls. The basic urge for unity has of course always existed, in the unions we see the increased acceptance of the need for common work around the campaigns for union democracy or around BLs. In the broader movements the Militant has been increasingly accepted, in the CADV, the YRE, the CJA and the environmental movements. In the bulletin and other material comrades comment on how we are perceived differently and how there is a real willingness to collaborate and work together. This is not only about our changed methods of work but also because there is fundamental sea change going on in the movement. Activists in one issue campaigns are disillusioned with Labour but want to see a social alternative. The dockers’ movement above all has seen the left, with the exception of the SWP and some of the more esoteric groups, working together, similarly with Hillingdon. These are industrial struggles where the question of unity arises more naturally and easily, but given the changes in the political situation, they are spilling over into the general political arena.

3) At a local level comrades have consistently pointed to the attitude of the rank-and-file SLP members who generally appear in favour of socialist alliances or working with our organisation. This is another manifestation of the general underlying mood for unity. With 5,000 members the SLP is not inconsequential, despite its low level of activity it has the potential to recruit sizeable numbers, so we need to take it into account when discussion the development of a mass socialist party. Under the leadership of Scargill it will be led into a blind alley, but under pressure from our organisation it could either be forced to reappraise its current strategy of face splits. If we work correctly we can either force the SLP into a broader alliance and lay the basis for a broader movement or they will isolate themselves from playing any effective role in this development.

4) In Scotland and Ireland – North and South – the developments have followed the pattern of developing through alliances, this seems to fit in with the general character of the period. In Sweden a similar development has taken place with the Justice List, yet the document from the EC says the situation in England and Wales is fundamentally different to Scotland (para 21 Members Bulletin June 1996). It may be different in terms of time scale, of a different level of consciousness and above all through the pioneering role that the Scottish organisation has played, but can this be said to be “fundamentally” different. Different -yes, but not so different. If our organisation in England and Wales had put more effort into building the outline of alliances (already other groups seem to be seizing this ground) after the refusal of the SLP to accommodate all groups, who could doubt that the alliances, at least in outline, would have existed on a national basis?

5) The root of the problem seems to be insufficient attention to the whole question of perspectives for the Labour government, the SLP and the left as a whole. Insufficient attention is paid to the likely developments under Labour – the likelihood of formal or informal alliances with the Liberals, the possibilities of Europhiles splitting from the Tory party and joining New Labour, the possibility of Blair introducing proportional representation (especially if he only has a small majority), the changing of Labour’s name – all of these issues should be addressed.

6) The documents of the EC acknowledge there will be a left split, but one which is likely to be small. Whilst not disagreeing with this we need to quantify the impact of this. Will it link up with the SLP -thereby giving fresh impetus to this or will a new formation emerge and if so what will be the character of this? We know already, through the debates around the SLP, that MEPs and a handful of Labour MPs are ready to split from the LP – their differences initially with Scargill was over the question of timing. Should they split they are likely to link up with the Socialist Movement, Red Pepper and the associated networked movements. In all likelihood such movements would take on a broad character and would have an association with the Scottish Socialist Alliance and the movements in Ireland. Whilst it is impossible to put dates to these movements our perspective is that fairly rapidly Labour, if in power, would find itself in conflict with the ranks of the unions, so this issue is not posed in some distant future, but rather in one to three years.

7) Taking the theoretical analysis of the period of the EC documents and charting the changes in consciousness and the organisations of the working class has correctly led to the conclusion that we should go for a name change. However, how we work with the left has become a key issue. We need to build our own organisation but at the same time the document posits the historical task of not only dealing with the consciousness of workers but also the task of rebuilding the organisations of the class. This is not for some far away historical dream but a current concrete reality – so we cannot take decisions which could affect future perceptions or relationships in a detrimental way.

8) The Second and Third International may have betrayed the historical interests of the proletariat (although surely we have always based ourselves on the first four congresses of the Third International), but in these organisations the matter of party unity was always a major concern. The political intransigence of the Bolshevik leadership did not prevent joint work with the Mensheviks up until 1912 and at a local level the rank and file of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were working together. Only the correctness of the Bolshevik programme and tactics forced the split, leading to the left Mensheviks allaying themselves with the Bolsheviks.

9) It is accepted that layers of workers and particularly youth will come directly to our organisation, but the majority will in the first instance look for the least line of resistance. In this sense the idea of a broad based SP has historically always been more attractive, but given the new historical conditions, this is doubly so. This explains why the SLP has not taken off, because of its exclusivity. Any future party will have to be broad based, democratic and probably federated.

10) In this sense we should have started the discussion from the theoretical analysis, the perspectives for Labour in government, the SLP and how Socialist Alliances are likely to emerge. If we accept the broad characterisations of the period, the elemental urge for unity of the left, the disorientation of the left, the blurring of differences (at least on the electoral plane) then the key issue was not necessarily the immediate name we should adopt, but our role in these movements. We need to maintain our own identity, we need to build our organisation on revolutionary and democratic centralist lines, but we have never done this in isolation from the rest of the left in these movements. We have recognised our organic link with the working class and its organisations. Are we now saying our sole task is to build our organisation? – Clearly not – the documents reiterate we have a dual task to build our organisation and to work with socialist alliances. But the alliances are relegated to the future. If they were to the forefront of our work then we could more closely see the potential difficulties of calling ourselves the Socialist Party. On the one hand we are the SP but we are calling for the formation of a mass socialist party. To avoid this confusion the EC now proposes to call for an independent class-based organisation, but surely this does not correspond to the theoretical analysis of the period i.e. firstly we will see the effects of the market then anti-market moves, then directly socialist and with such a wide formulation we could have the accusation that we are calling for a Labour Party Mark II, not a distinctly Socialist Party, which other groups on the left and split offs from the Labour Party could be calling for. We could have further confusion in Scotland if the Socialist Alliance was to-move to call itself a Socialist Party which SML was part of. In Scotland we could end up with a broad based SP and in England and Wales a revolutionary democratic centralist SP. No one should have any qualms about workers joining our organisation who are not rounded out revolutionaries, but we have to be aware of the revolving door syndrome. The SWP attracted large layers over the last few years, many of them youth and workers, most of them have now left. If we are called the SP and there is agitation for a broad based Socialist Party or Alliance it is clear that new recruits could easily become confused or disorientated.

11) Let’s take the theoretical position of the SLP at its inception. If it had accepted the idea of inclusive membership and a federal structure we would have joined, kept our own organisation, done open work, but we would have fought in most areas under the banner of the SLP. In some areas we would likely have been in a minority, so we may not have had the election candidates, nevertheless we would have worked for the party and campaigned energetically for candidates belonging to other organisations but belonging to the broad party. In Scotland where the Alliance is dominated by our organisation and the electoral programme is ours we are doing the same, similarly in the Labour Coalition in Northern Ireland and it seems we are proposing such a course for the South. So why are we not proposing the same general method of work for England and Wales? At the National Committee it was said that the left are incapable of building a movement without us, this may be true (although it is a very bald statement which needs a lot of qualification and explanation), but if we accept this why don’t we follow the examples we already have, get in on the ground floor and create the outline of the Socialist Alliances and be positioned for when new developments start to take place. If we created, in all the major areas, Alliances then the pressure on the SWP would grow and we would be seen as the people who practically got the idea of a broad based Socialist Party off the ground. In this sense we cannot afford to have the attitude that we need first bite at the cherry, or that if other groups don’t like it then tough.

12) The reports of comrades working in limited alliances, in Scotland and in Southern Ireland have shown they open up broad milieus out of which we can recruit, not that this will be extensive in the initial stages. But the important thing is the method of work. Comrades object that there are few genuine forces that we can unite with – but this applies to the position in Scotland and Ireland. In some of the larger cities we might find ourselves in all sorts of strange company but surely this would have been the case if we had gone into an all-inclusive SLP – surely we already have this in relation to our work in the Broad Lefts?

13) The important task is to link, once again, perspectives and tasks. Our strategy, flowing from the theoretical characterisation of the period and the perspectives, should be to launch a campaign to build alliances, to launch the idea of a broad-based Socialist Party, to go to the union rank and file and throughout the movement (in this should be included all the new youth groups) and campaign for this. In the course of working in this way we can counterpose our ideas to every other organisation and prove in practice our superiority. Linked to the work of Socialist Alliances is the need to work in the unions, to promote the ad hoc bodies, unofficial movements and broad lefts which will inevitably come into conflict with the union structures, especially if Labour is elected. The existence of the Trade Union laws, the economic fear of mass unemployment, the enmeshment of the union leaders with a Labour government and the weakness of the shop steward and left structures (partly a product of the falling back of consciousness of the advanced layers) will all assist in our task of winning layers in the unions to the idea of a new mass SP. The dockers’ dispute with its bringing together of the left and the moves to unite the BLs into a new national Broad Left show new structures are arising which could easily be linked to the project of Socialist Alliances.

14) If we were involved or initiated similar movements we could link our work around the Young Socialist Resistance, the CADV and international work into a general framework. To do this effectively, we have to urgently clarify the type of programme that we intend to intervene on. The example of the debate at the Manchester Socialist Alliance and previously in Scotland shows some of the issues that we will have to tackle.

15) This work around Socialist Alliances is only the outline of the movement, new forces coming onto the scene for the first time will create the real movement of a mass SP, not the multi-coloured shades of sectariana or the old tired elements from the past. But the important thing for our organisation is not to be separated from the broad movement. In broad based work, even with the current forces, we will be able to educate our own members and through debate and practical action prove our ideas are superior. Given the falling back of consciousness, the stage which the youth movement has assumed it vital that we adopt in practice a broad based approach which encourages debate and controversy – this is the way to reach especially the youth.

16) The alternative of declaring ourselves simply as the SP and in words only adopting the need to build socialist alliances, begs the question how and where are we to get the new recruits? What initiatives are we to launch, what issues are we to campaign on to draw a periphery around us out of which we are to recruit?

17) In this sense the changing of the name has to be accompanied by a clearly worked out perspective, programme and strategy for action which can orientate the whole organisation for the next period. This is the essence of democratic centralism, a clearly worked out political strategy which the leadership gains authority from. The name of the organisation, whilst being important, is secondary to our method of work, but if we adopt the above strategy then the name Socialist Party seems inappropriate. We therefore urge comrades to work out more clearly our strategy and tasks before we finally decide on a new name.