Drafted July, 1991.
Introduction This text is not intended to be a general perspectives document. We are faced with a difficult situation with no date for a general election and a conference which cannot be left any later. An election in November is not ruled out but it is more likely to be called for the spring or early summer of next year. In this situation, where we do not know if we are to be faced with a Labour government, a Tory government or a coalition government for the next few years it is very hard to discuss our general perspectives in any real way. Such a discussion would inevitably involve endless speculation and the predictions of various scenarios. This document therefore deals in a conjunctural way with the political situation in Britain up to the election and only tentatively discusses some possible outcomes. Neither does the text discuss all areas of our work but concentrates on our role in the pre-election period and the election campaign itself. (Comrades should note that there is a seperate session/Doc on TU work.) However, it should be stressed that what happens between now and the general election lays the basis for what happens after, so this is a very important period.
Our longer term perspectives will need discussion after the election has taken place. Many of our comrades have not been politically active under a Labour government so if Labour wins we will need a substantial new discussion on how we organise and intervene. 1) BRITAIN'S DECLINE UNSTOPPED.
The depth of the current economic recession and the almost unprecedented rate of increase in wnemployment is at the centre of the political situation in Britain. These questions are closely linked to the sharp debate over the future of British capitalism in Europe.
British imperialism, now amongst the weakest of the G7 major capitalist economies, began the year deep in recession. Despite Treasury and Tory central office optimism, based rather narrowly on July retail figures and a small boost in exports, Britain appears to be on the midst of the worst slump since at least the early eighties and possibly the second world war.
Most of the indicators suggest that it could be the most severe of the three major recessions since 1945.
Industrial output is falling and businesses are going bust at. record rates - 500 per week, early in the year, rising to 900 per week by June,'91 compare these figures to the total of 2,634 going into receivership in the whole of 1990! In the third quarter of 1990 GDP fell by 1.2%, the sharpest contraction since the early 1980s. In July '91, the Treasury released figures that predict a shrinkage of the economy this year of more than 2%.
The building industry crisis, particularly in the new housing sector, and the car industry slump, highlight this grim picture. In the motor sector, new car sales in June dropped by 31.2% on the year, the steepest fall since the start of the recession nearly two years ago. Calls are being made to
cut the base rate (11.5% in early July) to stimulate ~ demand - but membership: of the ERM restricts government room for manoeuvre.
The sectors worst hit are manufacturing, construction and property (accounting for 40% of decline); then retail and distribution (accounting for 13%); and then finance and distribution (accounting for only 10%).
Profits have also undergone their sharpest decline since 1981, while the official unemployment figures. have risen to over 2.2 million (June), with an average of 3,000 redundancies a day since Major became Prime Minister.
This was infamously described by Chancellor Lamont as ‘a price worth paying' to bring down inflation.
The most optimistic forecasters predict an upturn by the end of the year, others are increasingly pessimistic, particularly as the USA remains in deep recession, and now four of the G7 members are also officially in recession. Surveys carried out by the Institute of Directors and Dun & Bradstreet published in July,'91, reinforce the view that the slump is deepening, particularly in the key manufacturing base. They showed that 43% of businesses have frozen investment, that almost half of the directors interviewed expect profits to continue to fall (only 15% thought they will increase), 45% of companies expect to shed jobs in the coming three months (against 15% who expect to add to their payroll), most companies in nearly all sectors are de-stocking and cutting their inventories in anticipation of further falling sales. The majority saw no short term prospect of © improvement, particularly companies in the Midlands and the SE - .in contrast to the 1980/81 recession. Also, in contrast to 1980/81, interest rates will remain too high for a rapid recovery.
In contrast with the obvious failures of the Tories' economic programme, > their social agenda has been much more effectively implemented. Savage cuts in public expenditure and Poll-Tax capping have slashed into health, education and other social service provision in an unprecedented way, in order to pay for tax cuts benefitting the rich. Massive restructuring, marketisation and privatisation are underway in the health service and in all sectors of education and libertarian ideals have significantly erodedthe post-war liberal consensus on the welfare state. The Tory ideogical, legal and economic offensive on the family has scored notable successes. Thus the map of British society today has changed considerably from that in 1979 on a number of different levels and in a way that cannot be ignored in formulating strategies for the left and the Group.
However, none of these "successes" is without its contradictions for the bourgeiosie. For example, the battering of education and in particular the advent of student loans which in its first year is already forcing students to drop out for financial reasons will not produce a technically skilled but docile workforce as intended but a progressively less and less skilled one. A decline in the health of the nations, burgeoning unemployment. and the creation of a particularly impoverished layer of the working class all cut both ways. While transport and the general infrastructure of society is literally crumbling.
The credit-led boom of the mid-eighties with its yuppies and consumerism concealed for a time the fundamental failures of Thatcherism. . This time the Tories cannot even claim to be restructuring the economy, it is a
recession triggered in part by the world recession, but also spured on and deepened by their own policies; in particular the deregulation of the money markets and the exporting of North Sea Oil profits and entry into the ERM which has brought the basic weakness of the UK economy face to face with its European rivals.
Although the Thatcher Government achieved a series of victories against the working class throughout the 1980s,:in particular against the Miners, and shifted the balance of power. sharply towards the employers, they have, not... resolved the structural problems of the British economy ~- in ‘particular .under-investment and lack of profitability. They have not made it competitive with its main rivals. Tt seems that the small reductions in interest rates which are possible within the Exchange rate mechanism CERM), Without a devaluation of the pound, will not be enough to tur the situation around by this time next year, given the present forecasts.
Therefore, unemployment is set to go on rising for the rest of this year to over 3 million Cofficial figures) and business failures will continue at a. high level.
The shake out and drastic rationalisations of industry at the beginning of the 1980s, which were pushed through by the new Thatcher government in order to overcome the problem of serious, historic, undercapitalisation and uncompetitive, declining sectors, failed to stop the relative decline of Britain. Today, despite this rationalisation, the so-called ‘leaner’, 'fitter', free market Britain experienced in 1990, a combination of the highest inflation, lowest growth rate and largest current account deficit in the EC! Higher productivity and profitability was not achieved by massive and sustained investment in key manufacturing sectors but by job losses. Encouragements to foreign investors from North America and especially Japan did not compensate for low domestic investment levels.
Thatcher did not challenge the historic tendency of key sectors of the bourgeoisie to concentrate its resources on the quick profits derived from financial and property speculation and international corporate raiding through the city, and the tendency of these sectors to invest their capital abroad. In fact, Thatcher was most closely allied to these sectors, in particular those big capitalists who concentrated on investment and takeovers in the USA, during the 1985-89 'boom'. British based multinational Trusts took the lead in this. Remember the Hanson Trust 'doing rather well over there'! The British bourgeoisie has traditionally maintained a much higher proportion of its capital invested abroad than any of its competitors. This dominant role of the City has had historically negative results for industry and is a major factor in the British economic catastrophe.
Under Thatcher, while substantial capital was invested in the quick-profit service sectors which experienced a huge growth everywhere in the advanced capitalist world, and in property, particularly in new building in the City and in Decklands (£9 billion alone and it's not finished), key manufacturing sectors continue to be relatively starved of capital. The result has been that the sharé of manufacturing in GDP is lower than any other major industrial economy, while the overall size of national economy (GDP) and the taxable hase has declined relative to its competitors. This
means that the French government can afford a super transport system and $300 million on a new Opera House and Britain can't.
This distortion of the British economy caused by the special role of the City can be seen in the contrast between GDP and GNP figures. The GNP figures, which include foreign earnings etc, show Britain as second in Europe:
Germany: Population of 79million —- GNP $1100 billion GB: us 57million —- GNP $900 billion France: = S6million - GNP $750 billion However, the more significant GDP figures tell a different story. Today Britain's GDP is closer to that of Italy than to France, not to mention Germany .
In a broader context it is clear that Britain is one of the weakest leading capitalist economies, which is facing the prospect of a long recession which will further weaken it vis a vis its main competitors, despite the claims to the contrary by Major at the London G7 World Economic Summit. The historic decline of British capitalism, its place in Europe, together with the current deepening slump are clearly central to the Tory political crisis and the demise of Thatcher. 2) BRITAIN'S PLACE IN THE 'NEW WORLD ORDER'?
Britain's long term relations with the EC and Europe have been a major factor in pulling apart the Tory bloc. The Gulf war has not solved any of the contradictions of British capitalism either domestically or in global terms. Nor has it slowed down the world recession or restored confidence in the World Banking system. The British bourgeoisie is still torn between "Atlanticism' and 'Europeanism' although the terms of the conflict are changing.
The historic role of British capital as a global operator, together with the role of the City of London as a world financial centre, has lead British Imperialism to prefer a subordinate role as second lieutenant beneath the US protective umbrella. The rise of a European unity, increasingly under German leadership and the relative weakening of US imperialism has challenged this world order, leaving Britain faced with an insoluble contradiction.
On balance, it seems that the dominant sectors of the bourgeoisie have swung behind European integration - although this pendulum clearly swings back and forth. Fven the city is fearful of being left out in the cold, and wants to become the key financial centre of the Commmity. However, it appears that the reactionary nationalism at the core of the Tory party is over-determining the discussion within bourgeois circles. 'Europhobia' is not restricted to Thatcher and Ridley, nor the Bruges Group.
Unfortunately for the ruling class, the Labour Party also flounders around over this central strategic question for British Imperialism. Despite the apparent Euopeanist line of the shadow cabinet, a substantial section of the Party and unions remains sceptical (and with good reason) about the
consequences for, and future of, British industry within an integrated Europe. However, a coalition with the pro-Europe Liberal Democrats could ensure a clearer pro-European leadership for the ruling class if it is required.
Today, 'Atlanticism', a world order established in the context of the 'cold war' and the absolute predominance of US Imperialism, has taken on a new dimension. Although NATO still remains a key instrument of US hegemony its guns and its diplomacy are pointing at new targets - here lies the main Significance of the Gulf War. In fact ‘Atlanticism' remains at the core of Bush and Thatcher's conception of ‘The New World Order'. In its new form it offers to the USA's main rivals the prospect of a joint hegemony. But is this just a new formula for maintaining the old, increasingly weakened order, in a new guise? The tussle of wills at Summits and the like will reflect the degree to which US hegemony is maintained or the degree to Which it is a new collaboration; a power sharing between relative equals essentially hetween the G7 major economic. powers.
Neither Germany nor Japan is able to take the world leadership but each demands a greater influence. This could be achieved by the Anglo/American plans, involving greater collaboration between the major powers, possibly with a strengthened role for the United Nations Cie, the Security Council).
This is clearly the prefered option of Major and the Tory leadership - a trans-global collaboration that would counterbalance Germany in Europe and put a break on European federalism. A failure to restructure global relations in this way, for example, another collapse of the crucial Gatt talks on world trade, could lead to precisely that: a break-up of the world into three competing blocs - North America, Europe and the Pacific Rim Cand possibly the Soviet Union as a fourth).
This outcome would be a disaster for British Imperialism (although probably the prefered option of French Imperialism with its Gaullist dream of a Europe dominated by a Franco/German alliance), which would lose its place at the top table and force it into Europe as a subordinate power. Very big stakes are being played out today and some of them are at the root of the Tory crisis.
The task of the left and the working class is to counter these plans and exploit the contradictions that exist within the ruling classes. In particular we must ensure more than ever that the left maintains an internationalist perspective. actively suupports the fight against the 'Third World' debt and builds workers' sclidarity in Europe - East and West . 3) THE TORY CRISIS DEEPENS AND ELECTORAL FORTUNES EBB.
We have rightly said in the past that there has been a shift in British politics to the detriment of the Tories over the past year and a half. The ditching of Thatcher was an attempt by the Tory party to overcome this crisis of confidence, but it was also about Europe. The immediate electoral effects were distorted for a period by the Gulf war. However, despite the pathetic nature of the Labour leadership, the dominant trend in voting patterns has not fundamentally changed, though it ebbs and flows. The
decline in Tory popularitv is clear, and symptoms range from popular revulsion against the Poll Tax, increasing awareness of a growing two-tier and underfunded health service, to the rise in unemployment and the depth of the recession.
The upshot of this is that Labour is likely to win the general election whenever it comes - or more accurately the Tories will lose it. This is by no means certain but the most likly outcome. Major, although retaining some popularity is losing his grip and is flapping around hoping for a stroke of good luck, particularly with the economy. In the context of a deepening recession, the Tories lost their best shot, which would have been June. The poor economic forecasts may still make them decide to go for the Autumn, rather than a full term.
One of the elements causing this shift away from Thatcherism has been the “consequences of her hard line market philosophy. Privatisation and the assault on the public sector and local government has been a Thatcherite cause which has clearly led to a decline in the quality of life and conditions for the working class. Market forces which can be presented as forcing short term change and development, also bring the destruction of valuable social gains so dearly won in the past, and the enrichment of the few. The failure of the economic 'miracle' has brought all this into high relief. Workers have realised that the introduction of the market into the NHS and the destruction of local government and the social services has adversely effected their lives. The appeal of promised reductions in the standard rate of income tax has receded from view as people want more public expenditure and investment into the infrastructure and services such as transport and the NHS.
Tf growing opposition to Tory nolicies and free market philosophy has weakened them electorally, the fact that they are politically split over a number of important issues has worsened the situation for them. The removal of a leader such as Thatcher has left deep wounds which will take a long time to heal and could emerge in a damaging way at almost any time. But also, they remain split over the Poll Tax and are split from top to bottom over Europe with the Atlanticists finding their feet and telling Major that the line has been drawn beyond which they will split the party wide open. 4) THE OTHER CAPITALIST. PARTY The Liberal Democrats have emerged from their troubles by stressing the Liberal side of their tradition, but without PR they will remain marginalised in Parliament. However, they are benefitting from both the Tory divisions on Europe and other failures in government, and by a weak Labour Party leadership steering right, into bourgeois consensus politics.
The bourgeoisie will once again promote them in order to minimise the scale of a Labour victory, and as a guarantee in a possible bourgeois coalition.
A hung Parliament would bring them centre stage and Kinnock would quickly backtrack on his dismissal of such a coalition arrangement. This would be a setback for the working class and sow division and confusion. We should do more propaganda in the paper warning against the effects of a coalition and
the need for class independence as a precondition for a Labour policy which is in the. interests of the working class.
The Green Party, strictly a radical petit-bourgeois party, rather than a bourgeois party, has come under an offensive from the right and have generally failed to capitalise on the growing awarenes of ecological issues as the major parties make gestures in that direction. The left should maintain friendly links with left Green forces and promote united front initiatives with the Greens. 5) THE BATTERING OF THE WORKING CLASS.
The situation facing the working class is very serious indeed. Three factors combine. The economic recession and unemployment rising towards three million before the end of the year; the grip of new realism which has been established systematically since the end of the miners strike, and the anti-union laws which were facilitated both by the defeat of the miners and the new realist project.
The collapse of confidence as these factors have come together over the past six months is quite profound. The unions are taking the biggest drubbing for decades. Massive job losses are now occurring as a matter of routine. Strike figures are at their lowest for decades and de-recognition is on the increase. Those at the top of the unions argue that nothing can be done, while those at the bottom feel that management is riding high and to take them on plus the law is too dangerous.
The employers are strong and confident and taking advantage of this for all they are worth. Employers in both public and private sectors are forcing in changes which in the past would have been routinely opposed.
Tt is not that the employers have won the political battle over these changes or that people no longer feel strongly about. them. The response to the poll tax shows that the will to fight is very much there. Most strike ballots still result in a vote for the most militant option. The difficulty generally is either getting the ballot in the first place or getting it carried out once it has gone for action. What is not there at present, is the confidence to challenge these limitations. Without the full support of the union (and even with it in some cases) it is very difficult to win and there is a real chance of getting the sack in the process.
There is no point in trying to put a gloss on the situation. The Tory antiunion laws have been a spectacular success and the 1990 Act has been the most: effective of all. Now the rank and file of the unions are caught between the anti union laws and new realism. Often in order to confront the employer they have to confront the law, yet in order to fight the law they need the support of the union. The union is in the hands of the new realists and in favour of complying with the law.
New realism continues to dominate the movement. There are some advances at the level of the union structures like the vindication of Scargill, the elections in UCATT and the Morris victory in the TGWU. But generally this is not reflected in the level of class struggle. Real left development will ot CLAM Fy ot ee
come the other way around, with militancy at the level of the rank and file pushing the structures to the left. The Morris victory is important because it stops the hard right in its tracks and keeps the union on its original course, but it does not take the union to the left or out of the general Cif slighly reluctant) framework of new realism.
How is this going to be turned around? In the past, offensives by the employers and the government were generally turned back by the intervention of a militant and well placed section of the trade unions that made the “breakthough and gave the lead. Most of these sectors - miners, dockers, Fleetstreet. printers for example - have been smashed. Others such as the car and engineering workers have heen severely cut back or saddled with right wing leaderships. More recently organised sectors who have not previously played that role and often do not have such direct industrial strength have come to the fore. But it is hard to see how one sector is going to lead the way in the short term. What is more likely is a rise in the tempo of struggle in a number of sectors which begin to regenerate the unions at the level of self-organisation, which is the area hit hardest in the Thatcher period. 6) THE NEED FOR A LABOUR GOVERNMENT The Genera] Election and the election of a Labour Government will provide an important opportunity for the working class and its allies to turn around this serious situation. Paradoxically we face the prospect of the most right wing Labour Government since the war being elected, but the working class has never needed Labour to be elected so much.
This is not because of anything Labour would do. On the contrary. Labour would continue the basic elements of Tory policy and if they were opposed they would use the anti-union laws they intend to keep for that purpose.
The election of Labour even under Kimock, however, would trigger a sharp rise in the confidence of the working class despite the policies it was elected on. At the same time it would undermine the confidence of the employers and deepen the divisions within the Tories and the ruling class bloc. This is not to say that there would be a sti ike wave straight away.
Particularly if Labour was elected with a small majority. the pressure would be there to give it a chance and keep it in office. But the feeling that it is possible to make progress and not be defeated all the time would quickly emerge. This would eventually result in a rise in the level of class struggle which would then come directly into conflict with the Government and the New Realists in the bureaucracy . Our attitude to a Labour Government is that whilst supporting any positive measures it carries out, and demanding more, we do not support it as such. The weight of our propaganda will need to be aimed at the development of struggles against its continued austerity policies and the building of a strong, political opposition te them in the labour movement.
The most likely character of the first. two years of a Labour administration would be one of growing conflict with the unions, with most trade union leaders arguing compromise but increasing hostility and militancy from the base.
A Labour defeat in the election, on the other hand, and a Toryfourth term, would be a serious setback for the working class. It would strengthen the ruling class and the employers and probably iead to widespread disillusionment in the Labour Movement. It could also lead to eruptions inside the Labour Party and the demise of Kinnock Can electoral failure for the third time) and possibly the expulsion of the left as an even more right wing leadership was put into place. We cannot predict the results of such a course of events, but even if opportunities for building revolutionary currents were created, it would be a worse situation overall for the working class as a whole.
7) LABOUR'S FAILED OPPORTUNITIES You only have to look at your TV screen to see that we are already in a pre-election period which dominates the political situation. We therefore need to shape our positions now, and as the election of a Labour government is important we have to be fully involved in campaigning for it, whilst putting forward our own politics. We should be campaigning for Labour in England, Scotland and Wales.
Unfortunately the Labour leadership is incapable of exploiting Tory difficulties, even in its ow terms. Nowhere do they occupy the high ground (except the NHS). From the point of view of the class struggle they act more than ever as the lieutenants of capital, claiming they understand the ‘national interests' of capital better than the Tories. Together with the New Realist TU bureaucracy they are major obstacles to struggle against the ruling class and the Tories. They failed to exploit the spontaneous revolt against the hated Poll Tax, but put the knife into the miners and into Scargill, they support Labour controlled local authorities carrying out Tory cuts and privatisations. They refuse to promise to restore the cuts and levels of investment, eg in health, until the economy can sustain them (sic), or re-nationalise privatised sectors, or repeal the anti TU Laws. Labour has broken with most conference policies and by presenting itself as more ‘European’ than the Tories it will take equal responsibility for the devestation of British industry wrought by membership of the ERM and the effects of 1992.
In order to consolidate its drive to the right, Labour is bent on attacking the internal democracy of the party and witch-hunting active socialists, in particular the M*. these expulsions represent an attack on the whole organised working class movement because they narrow down all avenues of dissent, undermine unity and reduce accountablity. The campaign against the witch-hunt and for democracy must take on more importance in our work than at present - a new Glasnost inside our own movement is what we demand.
In pursuing the witch-hunt the Iabour leadership is falling headlong into the trap prepared for it by the Tories and the Liberal Democrats who will demand more and more blood on the floor until labour tears itself apart.
The neutering of the Labour Party and TU leaderships, by shifting the whole bourgeois consensus to the right, creating, through sustained pressure, New Realism, has been one of the greatest successes of Thatcherism in the eighties. Today you hardly ever see TU leaders on the TV news or on round table discussions. They are necessary as a comterweight when the rank and file are strong. When the level of the class struggle goes down they become unecessary from the point of view of the ruling class. Apart from Scargill no TU leader has a national presence today. But they can't achieve what they have done in the USA - TU membership remains high and the LP has not been replaced by the Liberal Democrats as the second eleven.
Nonetheless the battering of the working class and squeezing of the left inside the organisations of the class has made the task of building a national alternative to New Realism very difficult in this conjuncture. The Socialist Movement remains the the only viable co-ordination of militants with a national structure and national leaders, but it is very weak organisationally and politically. In this context the decline of the left
continues. It is almost inevitable that ultra-left reflexes will emerge at this time of frustration and difficulty. But at this moment, in the run up to a general election, with renewed witch-hunting, it is especially the wrong time to abandon the fight inside the MO. On the contrary, any false counter position between MO and trade union work would marginalise us. . 8) THE DECLINE OF THE CP Following its split and the events in the USSR and Eastern Europe both wings of the CP have entered a profound political and ideological crisis | and have declined rapidly. Effectively they are in a state of disintegration. The CPB has lost most of its industrial base and the CPGB/Changes current has shifted far enough to the right to be calling for tactical voting for the Liberals.
The CPGB is also internaily split, though all of its currents start from the same ideological base (post modernism/post Fordism etc). Marxism Today is now openly pro-capitalist and is likely to leave by the end of the year when the CPGB becomes the Democratic Left.
From the time when they had an important influence in the unions (far beyond their actual numbers) the Stalinists have become a force which can increasingly be challenged by the far left. The Morning Star as a paper is now weak and vacuous. It has little political line. Currently they have welcomed the decisions of the G7 summit and its decisions in relation to the Soviet Union and headlined: "Major Hails Accord With USSR".
The LCDTU was both an organising centre and a blockage to effective action in the unions, with a base in industry which the far left could not match.
This has now changed to the extent that the LCDTU conference on the antiunions laws this year was a third the size of the Unshackle the Unions conference -- which was itself supported by elements of the CPB. We should continue to work with such elements in the framework of the SM and seek ways to intervene in the disintegration process. 9) THE CRISIS OF M* AND WALTON A number of factors have brought M* to the point it is today - clearly split and threatening io stand more candidates against Labour in the name of ‘Real Labour'.
First, is the scale of the witch-hunt and their incorrect way of fight ing it. Their traditional approach is one of avoiding confrontation with the bureaucracy, which, combined with their sectarianism, has meant that. they have never seriously participated in any unitary campaign against it. On the contrary, their unilateral and sectarian approach has walled them off and isolated them from the rest of the left in the MO.
Second, their equally sectarian orientation to the anti-Poll Tax campaign has led to division in their ranks. The strategy of M* has been to regard the MO's (and the labour movement's) role in the campaign as secondary. So while some of their supporters and councillors have taken up the issue of
non-collection inside the MO, in most areas it has been done separately from the mass campaign. An example of this has been their opposition to representation of MO structures on the Anti-Poll Tax Federations.
More importantly, in large areas of the country, involvement of M* in the Poll Tax campaign has been at the expense of any work in the MO. This has resulted in recruitment of new cadre out of the campaign on the basis of opposition to any involvement. in the MO. Some have estimated that today nearly two-thirds of its supporters are now outside the MO, although this is probably an exageration. It was obvious that once the Poll Tax campaign ebbed that there would be a growing tension between those who wanted to turn back to the MO, and those, strengthened by the new recruits, who wanted to build M* in a more open way as an alternative party. This pressure was felt acutely in the Liverpool Broad Left and to a lesser extent in Scotland.
Now it appears that at least in some parts of the country, obviously Liverpool, together with rumours of Scotland and elsewhere, they are to stand more candidates against the MO. Given M*'s historic capitulation to labourism, it would be very surprising if this change of line did not lead to open splits in an organisation controlled by a bureaucratic apparatus which is now divided.
Of course there are similar pressures opperating on the whole left: the domination of New Realism in the organised labour movement, on the one hand, and the emergence of a small, militant layer of activists hostile to the organisations of the working ciass Cbecause they are so right wing) is a problem for any organisation with an orientation to the organised working class movement. Gur twin-track approach has endeavoured to adjust to this Situation. But M* transformed a difficult situation into a disaster for them through tactical errors.
We need to have an orientation to this crisis in the M*, explaining the need to carry on with the fight in the MO as well as on other fronts, while ruthlessly exposing the inadequacies of M*'s historic illusions in the possibilities of transforming the MO.
Liverpoo] Walton was therefore a mistake at a number of levels. Nationally, because the emergence of a new alternative party to the MO can only succeed if it has a basis in objective reality, ie. it is based on a genuine national movement of the class or a section of the class to the left. And locally, because it needs a significant section of the local labour movement to support and sponsor such an initiative to make it a success. In the case of Walton, these conditions did not exist.
In reality, M*'s endemic sectarianism and triumphalism, combined with the explosive consequences of a wrong line over the Poll Tax, resulted in crisis and then a leftist error. This was combined with a narrow minded localism CThe BL had no real links beyond Liverpool except through the Militant editorial board), the choice of wrong issue (the official candidate was not in fact imposed, as was the case with the councillors) and the wrong time (a by-election just before a crucial general election), resulting not in an alternative to the MO, but a fiasco which weakened and divided the left locally and nationally - and will comtinue to do so for
some time. We were therefore correct not to su i 2 2 no support the standi of t broad left candidate at this time. 7 ne For Mahmoud to have gained 15% of the vote as was predicted by Tony Mulhearn on election night TV, we would have been in a very different national political situation. There are of course no principles involved here but it is an important tactical issue. Standing such candidates does require a Significant base in the working class. If it were the case that the Walton candidature was about to act as a catalyst and focus which would unite the class struggle left nationally, or even locally, and had gained the sympathy of a layer of the masses then we should have gone with it, irrespective of the witch-hunt. But this was not the situation. In this respect we should not make the error of equating the Liverpool BL with militant sections of the Labour movement, it is a political current dominated by M* with a big M, which took a unilateral decision to stand.
If conditions come into existance in the future, in particular if a sizeable national left could be brought together and united around such a project, then a serious discussion could take place. Even then, the left would have to choose the moment and the issue carefully in order to make the right. impact and gain a real hearing in the working class.
A more likely alternative would be a scenario in which the MO left as a whole was expelled and forced to form a new party. We would have little option than being a part of it. These questions could be posed in the future, but not at present. Trotsky's writings on the ILP are useful in any discussion about challenging the hold of Labourism over the working class.
We must increase the coverage in our paper of our alternative perspective to that of the Liverpool BL, of building the Socialist Movement and a unitary Anti Witch-hunt Campaign through the MO and TUs. 10) THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
We fight for a Labour victory, whilst being critical of Labour's politics and policies. This line is both an essential part of our united front approach to the mass organisations and informed by the need for a Labour Government. .
We argue that the focus for the class struggle left should be the "Socialists For Labour” campaign, initiated by LPS. The Socialist Movement as a whole must also become an active focus for a socialist campaign for Labour. We should stress that the SM could do itself very great damage if it is not fully and unequivocally behind the election of a Labour Government. As the campaign builds up the whole movement will be holding its breath for an end to 13 years of Tory rule and if the SM and Socialist is not fully part of that it will be quickly marginalised and useless in the post election period.
In Scotland and Wales our position should be vote Labour and fight for Scottish and Welsh assemblies and the right to self determination. We must also seek to start a dialogue with left nationalist forces in Scotland and Wales. The left within the whole British state must ensure that the
national question is a part of the left's agenda. A failure of the workers' movement in England to take up the question of national rights, including for British withdrawal from Ireland, will result in further division within and between the working classes of these nations.
We need to build ‘Socialists for Labour' as an active campaign in the run up to the election. The initial statement is not intended as either a detailed shopping list on every item imaginable, or a full revolutionary programme, but basic demands around the most pressing issues facing the working class and oppressed. Nor is it a petition to an incoming Labour government, but a platform around which we want to build an effective campaign, raising the issues in advance of the election, but continuing, in ‘whatever form, afterwards. It wil] link up with struggles and organise the left opposition to the inevitable sell-outs of a Labour government, attempting to force it to carry out such policies.
We need to seek out the widest possible support for SfL and its statement , not merely among Iabour Party activists, but Trade Union and campaign activists at all levels. Endorsement by official Labour movement bodies is highly unlikely given the domination of new realism and the prevailing view that the best way to get a Labour government is to keep quiet about any left criticism. But many will sponsor as individuals, and the greater the body of support the more pressure there will be on those who are reluctant, such as the Left MPs. We have to argue for the whole of the Socialist Movement CWfS, SMTUC,SMOC, as well as LPS) to take up and build this campaign as part of drawing in new forces.
The extent of activity around the campaign will depend on the level of support, but a national meeting is already planned to discuss campaigning and elect a broader steering committee. Local initiatives will depend on circumstances, but we must aim to link up with anti- Poll Tax campaigns around the issue of amesty; strikers and union activists around the antiunion laws; lesbian and gay campaigns around questions of equality, etc without expecting them to agree with the wider platform. In some towns it may be possible to set up local ‘Socialists for Labour' groups. Similarly Left Trade Unionists, MPs and PPCs who are unwilling to sign the statement can be involved without the need for them to formally commit themselves to the campaign. | .
We Should also begin to develop propaganda in our paper around the key issues the working class will face under a Labour government such as breaking the coalition (if it happens), a campaign to repeal the TU laws which will be a major issue, rooting out the Tory changes in Educat ion and the NHS, including bringing back into the NHS the new trusts as well as private sector hospitals, dealing with unemployment etc. , 11) AGAINST THE WITCH-HUNT The witch-hunt in the MO is about to reach new depths. The probable disendorsement of Fields and Nellist as parliamentary candidates, the Suspension of Birkenhead CLP for the crime of al leging that there were irregularities in Frank Fields reselection, and the expulsion of those who are said to have campaigned for Mahmood in Walton come as decisions are
about to be made on the form of action to be taken against comrades in Lambeth and Brighton.
Because of the refusal of M* to campaign against the witch-hunt over the years and the sectarianism of those who will not defend M* because of their political disagreements, on top of the obedience to the rule of Kinnock which dominates the MO, the Left is in a weak position to defend these comrades. However, the meeting held in April involving representatives from all the witch-hnmted areas, and the ‘Campaign against the Witch-hunt' which was set up out of it, are a small but important breakthrough.
Successes against the witch-hunt will be difficult, but now the Campaign Group, including Livingstone, have begun to challenge the Labour leadership over it, new opportunities will emerge for developing the broadest possible campaign. The SM and socialist must energetically raise this issue.
This campaign must continue even if Fields and Nellist are expelled, ie. it must campaign vigorously for their reinstatement. In any event, a broad based forum must be in existence which can collectively decide the next step. Unilateral decisions to stand against Labour in a General Election must be avoided. This is one of the lessons of Walton.
The fight against the witch-hunt is not just an important act of solidarity in the face of bureaucratic attacks, it raises basic questions of democracy and the right of tendency, which effects the whole labour movement. We insist that the bureaucracy is attempting to close off all avenues of dissent within the workers' movement. These are crucial questions and we argue for a serious united fight. This is a rejection of any moves out of the MO at this time, on the contrary, our organisation must be at the centre of this camapign.
M* is likely to return to the use of the courts in opposition to the witchhunt and we continue our principled rejection of this. We counterpose to it the building of an active campaign which, in particular, takes opposition to the witch-hunt into the Trades Unions, something which has not been done systematically up to now.
The national meeting of CAW in Manchester on September 2ist should be built along these lines, arguing for a broad defence campaign and against any M* concept of them running a campaign alone.
We have a particular duty to defend our own comrades who face the witchhunt, both in terms of the campaign, and in terms of using then to speak at meetings around the country to build it. Branches should contact the office immediately about this. 12) THE REGENERATION OF THE LEFT The decline of the left has been huge both in the MO and the unions, where new realism is now almost universal. But at the same time a large militant vanguard has not stabilised outside the organisad Labour movement . With the exception of the Poll Tax, most campaigns are reduced to handfuls of activists. The regeneration of a new left will undoubtedly be stimulated by a Labour victory, but it should not be expected to be immediate - there
will be pressure not to rock the boat. Initially a Labour win en ve presented as a victory for Kinnockism and it will require a new peri a struggle to overcome that. Labour, with the help of the TU bureaucracy ba do everything in their power to hold down union struggles - but the left can be reshaped as people take sides with thoge in struggle.
Some intensification of the class struggle is probable whatever the outcome of the election but it is likely to be quite different if Labour wins.
Avoiding speculation, we can assert that future differentiation and left development will depend primarily on the level of class struggle (the Bemite movement of the early 80s came out of the mass struggles of the 70s), but fightbacks are much more difficult at a times of defeats.
Nonetheless the organisation should prepare, and give special emphasis to Trade Union work.
If Labour loses there will probably be a shake-up within the party with many of those who have gone along with Kinnockism to get a shot. of the government at ary cost, breaking with him. How this would then shape up is more difficult to see since it may well take place with the imposition of a Smith type leadership to the right of Kinnock. a) The development of the Socialist Movement .
Our aim is to build a class struggle left wing across the labour movement.
By far the best focus for this is the SM, which represents the legitimacy and continuity of the most important political and industrial struggles of the last decade - the Benn/Heffer challenge for the Labour leadership plus the miners strike and the Scargill leadership of the NUM. This is a potential and not a forgone conclusion. There remains, serious problems with the realisation of the SM's potential and much wili depend on how Marxists intervene into it.
It could be at the centre of a recomposition of the left in the event of a Labour victory. In this context, the role of the SMTU Comittee, in shaping up a militant layer in a post election period could be very important.
The original Chesterfield conferences were an important focus for the antinew realist left in the MO and to a much lesser extent in the Unions, and represented an initial move by the Benn/Scargill current to organise their base. The move towards a ‘movement’ was a further step in that direction but it was a step which has only happened in practice to a very limited degree. The serious weakness which has remained is the inability of the SM to organise on the ground as opposed to its more successful sectoral initiatives.
The proposal for a SM paper is a further attempt to push the process of organising the base forward. The success of the paper is now a crucial factor in the further development of the SM. We have to do everything in our power to make it a success, but there are still serious obstacles tuo overcome. One of the most importaut is achieving a clear understanding and agreement on the political presentation and target readership of socialist.
There is a debate to be had. If socialist is to organise the base of the SM it needs to be acceptable to the activists of the SM. On the other hand it needs to be broad enough to expand the base of the SM. This has not at
thepresent. time been resolved. In the end, however, if the activist of the SM de not feel able to relate to the paper it is hard to see how it can do its job.
Organising the base of the SM means achieving something which has clearly been lacking up to now. The SM needs to be an organiser of the left in the future in a way not achieved in the anti-poll tax movement or the movement against; war in the.Gulf. It needs to offer a political and organisational lead to the left on a class struggle basig# ~ and:for this it needs to: have an adequate organisational and political structure itself. For such a role the socialist would need to be the public voice of the SM - not a paper so broad that it carries every view except its own. This would. not stop a diversity of views ee expressed, but. it would have a line on the key issues.
Tf this approach is to be” success ftil our, intervention is absolutely crucial. We need to allocate more resources to our political intervention into the SM to win its key leaders and editorial team to these views.
Our supporters should be member's and active militants of the ‘Socialist Movement ', build its initiatives, particularly in the sectors, and promote its paper; eg, ensuring local Labour movement. bodies subscribe to it, and put it on our stalls etc. We need to increase ow local and national input into the SM. We should consider arguing for the Movement to call a conference of the left after the election, regardless of the result . Such a conference could also have a European dimension on fighting the effects of 1992, with visitors and observers from revolutionary and left reformist/centrist currents accross Europe.
13) OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF WORK LEADING UP TO THE ELECTION a) Unshackle the Unions Campaign and the SMTUC. The SMTUC, within which we are a key force, is building a number of important campaigns over the next year. The Unshackle the Unions campaign is the centre piece of these. The Women In The Unions day school in November also has the potential to be a very important event which could at the same time help to regenerate Women For Socialism. A major conference of the SMTUC in the spring plans to focus on the massive issue of new employers techniques now spreading rapidly throughout industry. We have to build and resource these projects. (See separate TU document ) b) The anti-poll tax campaign. The Poll Tax was a key element in Thatcher's downfall and remains a major problem for the Tories.
We are now in a new phase of the anti-poll tax fight. Although the huge groundswell of non-payment forced the Tories to retreat, they have not abandoned the battlefield. Not only is there a strong poll tax element in the so-called council tax, not only have we got another two years to pay the poll tax, but the state is still serious about the harassment of the millions who have not paid - even more so after the sucessful jailing of Terry Fields. Not only that, the atttack on local government is to continue and poll tax capping is in full swing along with the cutting of jobs and services.
We have been campaigning against the poll tax for three years, most of the time as a major priority. The key issue at this stage of the battle is against the bailiffs and the prison. This is made easier by the huge success of the non-payment campaign in getting the tax changed. Non-payment is set tc rise in the next two years and will continue over into the council tax - if the Tories are reelected. 4.5 million summonses have been issued. The figure for Britain for non-payment is therefore in the region of 7m. This is less then that claimed by the ABAPTF, but a huge number of people to defy the law.
These 7m people have been informed by the anti-poll tax campaign, but only a small number organised by it. The media have successful ly played down the scale of non-payment, ctherwise politicians would not be able to harass up to 20% of the poorest of their electorate.
The main task of the campaign now is to mobilise that 20% in a campaign for amnesty - both amnesty tor non-payers and those who have been jailed for activity on demonstrations and protests. It is a kind of mass defence campaign. Non-payment as such is still important but the decisive question is defending non-payers. There are three inter-related aspects to this stage of the campaign. a) The fight in the labour movement. b) The local campaigns against the councils and the government. c) The ongoing organisation of non-payers through work on the streets and in the courts.
At all levels of the campaign, we should continue to insist on the connection between the fight against the poll tax and cuts in council spending. The Tories and Labour try to blame non-payers for the cuts. The opposite is true. It is only the ani-poll tax campaign which has forced the government to give more resources. The aim of the poll tax and to an extent
14) BUILDING THE ORGANISATION.
The nature of the con juncture, at least since the last conference, has made the task of party building difficult for us. There have been important struggles - the poll tax and the anti-war movement in particular — but the situation in the mass organisations, the low level of the class struggle and the defeats in Local Government has been a negative factor. The most difficult situation has been the continued weakening of the left in the MO combined with a worsening position in most unions. Most campaigns, except the Poll Tax, have been reduced to small numbers of activists. Our last full conference recognised some of these difficulties and introduced two a which would shape our work quite dramat ical lysover. ‘the next: year “and. a half.
First, that objective political condition dictated that, within the context of our special tactic, we re-emphasise the work of the branches towards the trade unions. Second, that the shrinkage of the MO left, the weakened position of B*, and the possibility of a SM newspaper meant that we should prepare for the possibility of changing our system of press. At last September's B* AGM, we failed to get any agreement for a radical reorientation of that paper, and we agreed on an “amicable separation".
Since then B* has continued as a narrow propagandist monthly magazine based almost exclusively on work in the MO. But we must avoid schematism and impressionism. The blow up over Walton, the subsequent deepening of the witch-hunt and the begining of a response from the left, shows the continued importance of our work in the MO at this time.
A) Our system of press. The move to a fortnightly paper has been on eof the most significant and most successful changes in the organisation since the last conference.
Our special conference at the end of last year concretised the decisions of the: national conference and decided on a system of press which would include our own "party paper” plus strong support for a new paper of the Socialist Movement. This would be a paper which would undertake the crucial task of building the SM but clearly would not be a part of our system of press in the way that B* was.
A minority of comrades, particularly the Glasgow comrades and some of the ex-SLG comrades were strongly opposed to the change. The Glasgow comrades advocated a quarterly magazine as our system of press. “The launch of our paper on May Day this year was the result of a huge effort, which has been repaid by its success, and it quickly began to galvanise and reshape the organisation. The quality of the paper has been high and we have met our initial sales target. The profile of the organisation has increased dramatically, including at national events. The paper has been favourably received by the branches and by a broadening periphery.
We did, however, pay a price for this. Up to 20 comrades including the original comrades who came in with B*, several in Glasgow and several of the ex-SLG comrades resigned from the organisation specifically over the
the council tax is to penalise the poor for local spending thus presurising councils to cut. With possibly almost another year before an election, council workers, labour councils and consumers should be throwing their weight behind the fight to smash the poll tax and with it the attack on local government . c) Continue to build the Debt Campaign. The modest but significant demonstration of 1,000 plus, belies the importance of this issue. The media recognised the significance of the Debt issue, but without the effort of our organisation, which made a good mobilisation, and contingents from France and Belgium, this campaign would not have materialised at all.
There were a few SM forces with a specialSocialist broadsheet, a CL Bookstal] and’ a small contingent of the RCP. No other far left. group built the demo, this includes the S*, who despite their ‘third worldism', were absent, apart from ‘observers'.
Despite the limited active forces in the campaign, it did achieve some significant Labour Movement sponsorship Cbut little on the day). There were very few TU or LP bamers. In future we should endeavour to get support from a wider range of prominent personalities and we should try to build the campaign in the colleges. The paper should continue to give the issue of the third World dept extensive coverage. d) Women's Liberation Work. This important area of work has suffered considerably since the last Conference from a lack of resources and political differences inside the organisation combined with the continuing fragmentation and right ward drift of the women's movement in general.
However, the Women in Trade Unions Conference provides a project for us to begin to centralise our work around, as well as helping to reorientate Women for Socialism. In addition we must develop a more consistent and ongoing involvement in the National Abortion Campaign at both national and local levels. ©) Lesbian and Gay Work. The forthcoming election promises both a vicious campaign from the Tories on the question of the family and lesbian and gay issues, particularly if they fall further behind in the opinion polls, but also offers the possibility of the election of a Labour government with a commitment to legislation on lesbian and gay equality.
The Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights' "Labour Must Deliver" campaign is key to keeping the pressure up at every level in the Labour Party and trade unions on these questions. Nor is this simply the task of our lesbian or gay comrades who play leading roles in LCLGR, but is one for the organistion as a whole.
We must also continue to be involved in a building links with local lesbian and gay groups over specific issues as they arise, both locally and nationally.
move to a "party paper" and the break with B*. Some objected to the higher political profile for our distinctive politics, considering it sectarian etc. These comrades preferred to sink themselves into broader more diverse activities, rather than build a revolutionary marxist tendency. This temporarily caused us to lose some ground organisationally, since although the paper has created increased interest in the group, this takes longer to consolidate in terms of growth than it takes for comrades to resign. There have been some recruits (most significantly the comrades from the S*) over the same period but they have not made up fully for this loss.
It is also true that the matter of the paper has not been the only problem in some areas, for example, in Scotland. A lack of discussion on the Scottish national question and a lack of attention to Scottish politics by the leadership has played a part as well.
Of course, there is also always room for improvement and a continuing effort must be put in to developing and widening the participation in and circulation of the paper, strengthening its finances, and maximising its potential in terms of our public profile. b) Trade Unions. Although the last conference called for a re-emphasis of our work in the TUs, the reality was that given the difficult situation inside the MO the organisation was already moving in that direction. With the success of SMTUC initiatives, and since a comrade began to work as TU organiser, this work has been strengthend much more. The TU cssn has become more effective and the two fractions which have been held have been very successful. It is clear that it is still possible to increase the percentage of our comrades doing effective trade union work by a substantial amount. c) Youth and student work. (There will a specific discussion on these areas of work at the next OC - Sept - which will produce amendments) qd) The Branches. Branches are the basic building blocks of the organisation and resources must be given to improving communication between the branches and the office, and between branches, to producing material, such as basic pamphlets and new members packs etc, which would be useful for the branches in different areas of work, assisting in the organisation of forums and educational programmes etc, and developing branch leaderships integrated into our overall system of leadership.
National branch organisers meetings will be convened by the national organiser on a regular basis, as forums for both practical work and political discussion. Further, less frequent meetings of branch finance or paper organisers etc should also be held.
We should also pay attention to building our organisation in areas where there are not branches currently in existence. MALS should be seen as potential branches and resources devoted to help them organise public forums etc accordingly. e) Commissions and Fractions. Commissions and Fractions are key structures in the organisation of our work and must be more systematically resourced and integrated into our system of leadership and methods of communication.
There should be a review of the functioning and work of the commissions established after the last conference, so that gaps that have developed and problems that have arisen can be thoroughly dealt with, as well as learning from the successes and areas of improvement. The women's secretariat and .general organisation of our women's liberation work needs particular attention in these discussions. f) Recruitment and Education. In a difficult period of the class struggle education and propaganda clearly play a crucial role in recruitment and the development of the organisation. Systematic education has been patchy but the major gain we have made is the re-establishment of the Education Cssn and the work it has has put into the production of education packs and the organisation of this years residential summer school - something we should aim at as an annual event. This work must continue to be developed as a priority.
The other major initiative is the Outlook for Socialism event in November.
This can be built into a big event which could be a major focus for recruitment . g) Finances. That “finances are political" is one of the cliches of the movement, but that makes it no less true. To achieve any of the political tasks we set ourselves at the conference the organisation needs to be on a sound political footing! This necessitates the rationalisation of our central financial operations and the strengthening of branch financial organisation, the completion of the dues audit and fundrives and most crucially the development of money raising initiatives which do not depend solely on our membership. -h) The World Movement. We have already begun to raise the profile of the the WM, for example in the Debt Campaign, but more can be done in other campaigns, or by active promotion and support of marxist forces sympathetic to the WM in Eastern Europe and the SU, and by our organisation selling and promoting IVP and IMR. The tour of Cde Achin was successful and it is clear that there is a lot of milage for us in such initiatves. The World Congress discussion raised the level of the whole organisation in relation to international questions. In order that this is not lost, the incoming leadership should ensure that the debates inside the WM are made available to the whole membership. The SA Cssn has made proposals for such a tour by a WOSA speaker towards the end of the year.
Drafted for CC by:
Davies and Hudson.