interviews, GILL LEE from Socialist Outlook discusses with two key participants in the Socialist Movement, HILARY WAINWRIGHT from the Socialist Society and TONY BENN MP their assessments of the Shef. field Conference and what they see as the key steps
Page 9
NUR VEST HAM DRANGN Graeme Cookson NALGO and NUR demonstrators; solidarity is important, but not enough Wainwright: "the Socialist Movement is asserting that the labour movement is a coalition and claiming the right to organise within it" An interview with HILARY WAINWRIGHT Q: What is your balance sheet of the Shef- field Conference? HW: The conference indicated a solid base of people who look to the Socialist conference to provide a national political focus. It raised the first phase of the income we need to pay for a full-time organiser. The policy papers represented an advance, several of them were the result of a year's work by well-organised policy groups. Our first attempt to draw up a coherent strategy statement provided a useful focus and in most policy workshops the dis- cussions were more productive than in the past. The press reports indicated that the overall message of the conference got through; that we intend to campaign for socialism throughout society, not just in the Labour Party. There were negative aspects 100. The num- bers were down - an indication that organisa- tionally we have not adequately consolidated people's initial enthusiasm. And we did not clearly enough convey the change from being a conference to a movement. Page 10
FEATURES
INDIR
With hindsight, we should have prepared the sessions on campaigning priorities more thoroughly. This would have given a more practical feel to what a movement is about. In some workshops there was still a depressing degree of sectarianism. I don't mean political disagreement; there will always be that and that's healthy: I mean a destructive desire to block any movement in the discussion, a refusal to listen, a constant barrage of single transferable speeches. Q: Some criticism has been made, for example in Labour Briefing, of the fact that there didn't seem to be adequate channels for democratically discussing, amending and adopting the policy documents. Do you see this as a problem?
HW: I don't think you can start having votes and ammendments before you have a membership structure and the resources to get documents out well before the conference. l the policy workshops, people could indicat areas of disagreement with the main strategy documents so that these would be continuing areas of debate. I don't think all the convenors made that clear and that was a failure in our organisation.
The preparation of the conference - policy work linked to campaigning - must become a priority. We won't be able to agree on every-
ust aim to agrec, with yores, on the ma nd it would be strid to try. but
themes for which we stand and practical priorities over the year. Q: How do you see us overcoming the relative weakness of the Sheffield conference in attracting people who would primarily identify themselves as trade unionists?
HW: We have to put much more emphasis on just finding out how workers are expressing disaffection, how they are resisting in ways we wouldn't recognise as political. While being programmatic in our internal discussions we've goi to be more innovative in our campaigning. There are many new initiatives which do not hit the headlines, such as organising casual and part-time workers or campaigns linking workers and commuters on health, safety and environmental issues.
We need to work more systematically on iwo levels: through national political debate by using the media more cunningly, and through popular resistance. We in the Socialist Movement, and we who have been politically active for most of our lives are ignorant of those networks of people who are disaffected and potentially rebellious, but don't identify with the left; people who voted Green if they voted at all. We've got to make contact with them, not initially by recruiting them, but by getting to understand their concers.
We've got to be more than a solidarity movement; we've got to be putting wider arguments and finding ways of reaching a popular audience. Sometimes, because the unions are necessarily sectoral, wider issues don't get brought out. We've got to be more than supplementary pickets, we've got to take on an ideological and political role. Q: One of the strengths of the Socialist Movement so far has been the link between people in the Labour Party and people outside, struggles in the Labour Party and struggles in the unions and campaigns. Do you see it continuing to develop in that direction, or in the direction of the formation of a new political party?
HW: I see the first path as the future. Because of the union/party link there is a sense in which the Labour Party is a coalition. It's never really been treated as one, because the Labour leadership has a kind of monopoly over it. I think the Socialist Movement is about asserting that the labour movement is a coalition and claiming the right to organise within it O: Perhaps one of the weaknesses of the Socialist Movement as revealed at Sheffield was the relationship to it of the Canpaign Group, who had a relatively weak presence. How do you see that link evolving?
HW: The Campaign Group of MPs are the parliamentary spokespeople of the Socialist Movement; or at any rate they should be.
For the national profile of the Socialist Movement to be developed we need to establish a working relationship with the Campaign SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 17, Summer 1989
Benn: «We're spreading the word in the trade unions; there are strong lefts in the trade unions now, and we need to draw them in and organise in solidarity, like the meetings I spoke at in Hull and
Group, where they take on particular areas of work: for example, a Campaign Group MP could be assigned to each of our campaigning priorities, and make the most of their role as spokespeople. Q: There has been a Green policy group in Chesterfield since its inception. How do you see that evolving after the Euro-election result?
HW: I think the impact of the Green vote could be very positive. There are problems with the weight of Labourism on the socialist left. Although the Green leadership is quite anti-left, many Green activists and voters are raising issues which challenge the old Cold War politics and many are explicitly anti-capitalist.
The Association of Socialist Greens was formed as a result of the first Chesterfield conference, though at times they have felt marginalised. The result of the vote will be to make the socialist greens stronger in the Socialist Movement. Eco-socialism, like socialist feminism, is leading us to redefine many aspects of our vision. The Socialist Movement can be a means by which the insights of these different movements are debated and woven into a whole, while at the same time these movements retain their autonomy.
An interview with
TONY BENN MP Q: What do you see as the political base, strengths and weaknesses of the Socialist Movement?
TB: I think it's important to stress it isn't another electoral organisation, it isn't a sectarian breakaway, looking for some purity under some discipline of a particular ideological bent. It's a place where people can actually meet and speak, rather like the peace movment or the women's moment or the black organisations or the Greens and so on; that's the purpose of it.
We had two socialist conferences which were very much bigger and more successful than we thought, and we tried to broaden it out; so although 80 per cent are probably Labour Party members, there are also people from other groups - the Socialist Workers SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 17, Summer 1989
FEATURES Piers Cavendish
Tony Benn: "people don't want to be told what to do... London around the docks dispute" Party, the Greens, the women's movement, Women for Socialism, and so on. The Movement has taken off because a vacuum has been left by the policy review.
It's not very strong at the moment on the trade union side. That's not really the fault of the Movement, but some trade unions were suspicious of it because they thought it was ultraleft or something, and therefore they haven't played as big a part as I would like to have seen them play. It's got good internation. al links, and it's trying to develop a Solidarity Network, so that it doesn't become a talking shop. The Campaign Group is the tip of the iceberg, one eighth visible above the water, with seven eighths below water - being the struggle outside parliament. O: How do we overcome the reluctance of trade unions to get involved? You have a very strong personal base in the trade unions...
TB: Remember that the trade unions have gone through ten years of despair, and it's when hope appears that things begin to
change. I would hope that this would build up now. But you have to be critical about it The Socialist Movement (SM) hasn't got a strong enough trade union representation, espocially in the organising committee. We're trying to go about correcting it by spreading the word in the trade unions; you try to raise it at trade union conferences; there are strong lefts in the trade unions now, and we need to draw them in; and you or- ganise in solidarity, like the meetings I spoke at in Hull and London around the docks dispute. Q: You've talked about of struggles, and one of its important roles has been do you see a role for the SM as a body which gives political leadership to struggles too? For ex- solidarity with the dockers, should the SM try and give politi- cal leadership to their struggle? Yes. I think the Labour Party should do that, and the Campaign Group, it's not confined to the SM. The term leadership can be inter- preted in different ways. Some people say you should tell people what to do, tell them to come out. I've always taken the view that your function was to explain how these 'battles were won, which is by strug- gle, and then when people do decide to act you support them 150 per cent. But I've always been doubtful of going around telling other people what to do, be- cause I think they don't appreciate it. They have to make a decision themselves, and un- less you're part of the struggle you're not put- ting your own neck on the block. In the miners' strike, when I did something like 222 meetings around the country, I would never tell them what to do: but I was always there to assist, and raise the issue in the House. During the miners' strike I did say we should give serious consideration to a general strike: that's the nearest I have ever come to breaking my own rule, but people should be able to know they can rely on you. When you're in a struggle you've got to be able to come and see people in your local Labour Party or whatever and know they'll help you. Certainly it's true that if you're not in- volved in giving solidarity, anything you say about political direction is completely mean- Page 11
ingless. Q: Fiow does this relate to saying the only way in which struggles can be won? For example if we take the dockers' strike, I would say that the only way in which it can be won is by people deciding to break the law. It cannot be won in any other way.
TB: I can understand that, and this is where my analysis comes into play. You can't tell someone else to break the law; but if they do, you support them. Supposing a docker did break the law because he heard a speech by me telling him to do it: it would have a qualitatively less effect than if he decided to do it; and as trade unionism becomes literally illegal - because this new trade union legislation is going to take us back to before the Combination Acts - the argument becomes clearer and clearer.
What I do is go around and tell people all our rights were won by breaking the law. That's just a step back from saying "break the law": but if they do, then you support them. You're more welcome if you operate in an educative and supportive role rather than telling people what they should do.
I feel the same on the poll tax. A member of parliament not paying the poll tax will just have it taken off his salary: but somebody who has already got a loan off the Social Fund is going to suffer personally; we have to be responsible about that. Q: But isn't someone who is unwaged even more in need of a leadership role being taken by someone who will say Millions must not pay the poll tax'?
TB: It's a big question but you'll have to ask me whether I've ever been criticised for this other than by intellectuals of the left groups. I've never ever been criticised for not telling the miners to go on strike. On the other hand there was tremendous support when the five dockers went on strike and I moved at the National Executive a motion that was agreed unanimously - that unless they were let out by Tuesday, the Labour Party would support a General Strike.
That was fantastic, and that was what they wanted; they didn't want me to tell the five dockers what to do. It's a difference of analysis about how leadership should be exercised. People want backing, they don't want lectures, that's the basis on which I've worked for a long time. Leadership doesn't necessarily mean you push yourself out, it means you back the people who are taking the lead. The people whao are taking the real lead are the dockers, the Pergamon Press strikers, those are the ones who are giving the leadership. You mustn't assume that leadership is the special prerogative of MPs. Q: Hilary Wainwright said yesterday that the Campaign Group of MPs should play more of a role as the parliamentary spokespersons for the Socialist Movement. How do you see the link between the Campaign Group and the SM being developed? Page 12
FEATURE S
TB: It's an important question because the roots of the Socialist Movement are various. There's a group who were set up after the 1981 deputy leadership campaign who supported me, and that was really the grandfather of the Campaign Group, set up formally after 1983. Then you have the Socialist Society, set up after the Great Debate of 1980 with Tariq Ali, Hilary and myself, Sheila Rowbotham, Stuart Holland. The Socialist Society was formed and had a tremendous start, and then began to shrink a bit. Then the Conference of Socialist Economists (CSE) was set up; so there are a number of contributing elements. One thing we have decided to do recently, after widespread consultation, we've decided to change the name of the Campaign Group to the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs.
The Campaign Group itself has lost a few people over the years - for a variety of reasons, one being that if you join the Campaign Group and then denounce it, you go straight onto the Labour front bench, and the power of patronage is very strong. The House is a very individualistic place and people are incredibly busy. Once a week we gather and we have all kinds of people coming to see us: from El Salvador, the Pergamon Press strikers, workers from South Africa; and we perform this function of a collective surgery.
We have considered whether we should reform the Campaign Group on the basis of being a kind of shadow Party, but the Group doesn't want to do that. We work very well together but I think to try and over-structure it might not work. I was disappointed that more Campaign Group MPs didn't come to Sheffield, but then they are all very busy. I think the Movement will continue to grow and consolidate, but it still is a movement in an embryonic stage. It isn't a major political force.
As the SDP dies, the Socialist Movement is born; as Labour picks up Tory votes in a shift to the left, the Greens come along and pick up votes at that end; and as Thatcher declines, the Wets get stronger. Wherever you look, you can see the whole thing shift to the left. I think the 1990s are going to be wholly different. The policy review was written in the winter of despair and published in the spring of hope, and they are absolutely out of time. The policy reviews are the last events of the pessimistic 1980s and the 1990s lie ahead of us: what we're doing and saying is going to be very influential.
We're trying to tilt the direction of thinking about politics: we've had twenty years of Thatcherism in Britain, not ten, and our objective must be to build a consensus for socialism. Q: At the Morning Star fringe meeting at Sheffield you called for the Morning Star to become the daily paper of the Socialist Movement. Given that the SM is made up of different currents - including ourselves, the SWP, and Labour Party people who
wouldn't necessarily support the politics of the Morning Star - is that a good Idea?
TB: I said it would be a good thing if the Morning Star did become the daily paper of the SM. The Morning Star is the only daily paper which provides the news items I want to read: it tells you what's happening in all the strikes, and on the whole its news items are not so bad. I think we've got to get over this historic argument between Stalin and Trotsky - they're very important streams, but to suggest that this is going to be the touchstone is a sectarian approach. Q: But if we were going to have a daily paper of the Socialist Movement, wouldn't we want one that was democratically accountable to the SM itself rather than controlled by one party or another?
TB: Another socialist daily paper would probably be a good thing. The Morning Star is actually accountable to its readers.It's not really, as some people in the left groups tend to think, tied to Moscow and the old Moscow line. You have to encourage all the left papers, but if people could get hold of the Morning Star as a daily paper they would be better informed. Q: At the second Socialist Conference we had the Benn-Heffer leadership challenges and at Sheffield we had the Socialist Policy Review. We seem now to have about 900 people who attend regularly; what focus can we use over the next year to turn the conferences into a Movement and keep people together?
TB: The Benn-Heffer campaign - and it was a campaign - was a very exhausting thing to do, and a lot of people were critical of it at the time. We went round the country; that played a notable part in building up a network of people, and the organisers of that campaign are now asociated with the SM. I think it deferred the policy reviews for twelve months.
What will happen next year depends a lot on other ihings. If the industrial militancy continues, the Labour conference will have a very different flavour from the one that was anticipated when the policy reviews went through, and then there will be scope for developing the argument in a way that is persuasive and influential. Q: Do you feel that the vote for the Greens has strengthened the left within the Labour Party?
TB: Yes, the Greens got 15 per cent with unilateralism. It's always been the Labour leadership's historical argument that there's nowhere else for the left to go. I'm not in favour of people voting Green; but I know that now there is somewhere else to go, and when you get Green pressure instead of SDP pressure on the Labour Party, that will tilt it in a direction that's good. An environmental policy is as incompatible with capitalism as a socialist policy. SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 17, Summer 1989
Understanding Trotsky
Leon Trotsky (left) chatting with Lenin and Kamenev, May 1920 Infallibility does not exist in this world. Trotsky was mistaken more than once in his analysis and especially in his political decisions, just like Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, Engels and Marx before him. There were chinks in his armour - as with all men and women. But his was still a golden armour inspiring our admiration. It will continue to do so for successive generations of activists, intellectuals and ordinary readers.
This great revolutionary steps out from the pages of Broué's biography as an extremely attractive, human personality - much more so than in the legend presented both by his enemies and his unconditional admirers. He was not at all the authoritarian, airogant martinet of a leader portrayed by his friend Lunacharsky, even though he was a man completely absorbed by his successive political/organisational projects. Trotsky was very sensitive, often inclined to compromise, and his reserved manner hid SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 17, Summer 1989
TROTSKY SUPPLEMENT Mandel on Broué a capacity for expressing deep affection. His ability to communicate with huge crowds reached heights rarely equalled in this century. But he also knew how to win and keep longlasting individual friendships and affection, the best-known being that of Christian Rakovsky.
Like all the classic Marxist thinkers, his interests were not limited to politics and economics but were universal. He was keen on literature, philosophy, history, the natural sciences, military theory, technology, psychology and painting. One of Marx's favourite Latin dictums 'I am a man and nothing human is foreign to me certainly applied to Trotsky. One of the less obvious merits of Broué's book is to bring Trotsky's deep humanity and get it across to the reader.
II
Trotsky was a weaker tactician and politician than Lenin, the bom leader. Lenin was better at drawing around him broad teams of capable collaborators, keeping their specific contributions but integrating them into an increasingly effective collec-
tive. This was one of the fundamental reasons for Vladimir Ilyich's spectacular success in building the Bolshevik Party. On the other hand Trotsky was the boldest revolutionary theoretical thinker and produced by the workers' movement in the twentieth century. Even today one is dazzled by the depth of the analysis in Results and Prospects, written in 1906. All the history of our century is summarized in this analysis.
Alone among Marxists, Trotsk foresaw that in the imperialist-deter mined framework of uneven and combined proletariat was going to lead the first socialist revolution to victory (we out might say today the first socialist revolutions) not in the most advanced industrial countries, where it was al ready numerically hegemonic and culturally stronger than elsewhere, but in a relatively less developed country, Russia, where it was politically the most advanced, and where the correlation of social-political forces was most in its favour due in particular to the weakness
Until now, Isaac Deutscher's 'Prophet' trilogy has been the seminal work strategist on the life of Leon Trotsky. Now it has been overtaken by Pierre Broué's masterly book (Fayard, Paris, the 1988), writes