THE inherent problems in the formation of the Socialist Labour Party are increasingly apparent. When Arthur Scargill first mooted a new party he said that the Labour Party had fundamentally changed with the scrapping of Clause 4; it was now no different to the Tory or Liberal parties.
Yet he decided his new party would not stand for election against the Labour Party where there was a left candidate.
Scargill now seems to have resolved this contradiction. Several recent meetings have been told that it makes no difference whether the Tories or Labour are elected.
Leading SLP member and RMT Deputy General Secretary Bob Crowe said at the conference of Trades Councils that the SLP will stand against all Labour candidates-"including the Benns and the Corbyns".
While this is unlikely-given the problem of resources—it clearly shows a profound political problem.
We think the comrades are mistaken- -not just because we call for a vote for the Labour Party, but because the left as a whole needs to unite around campaigning and action rather than electoralist adventures.
The foundation conference did nothing to address how the SLP defines itself in relation to the Labour Party or the rest of the left.
Indeed there was very little discussion of policy in general —the National Executive Committee will be left to decide.
Regrettably the policy documents prepared for the conference were posed in terms of the policy for an SLP goremment! Scargill clearly sees the SLP as primarily an electoralist party; a future of lost deposits awaits.
The thorny question of party democracy remains a serious problem.
The constitution is not up for discussion until 1997. having already been decided by Scargill and his closest circle of comrades. The outlawing of groupings within the party was not eiscussed.
Those who left the Labour party for the SLP frustrated by top-down decision-making and lack of democracy are finding their new situation remarkably similar to the one they left behind.
The ballot paper for the NEC contained a list of those "recommended by the outgoing NEC". Who elected this outgoing NEC in a party which had existed for two days?
Of the few policy debates which did take place, the one around anti-racism aroused most controversy Adoption of support for "non-racist immigration controls"—traditionally the line of the CP. —reflects the influence of stalinist politics over many of the party's members.
But it was appalling to see those who had until recently opposed all immigration controls as intrinsically racist changing theis minds.
The Trade Union policy before conference committed the SLP to support for the defiance of the anti-union laws.
Yet Bob Crowe insisted recently repudiatea seconaary action al Craigentinny in Scotland.
The policy document rightly committed the SLP to a fight for union democracy and to commit the unions to defending the interests of their members. But there was no mention of building left organisation with other forces in the unions.
Membership was announced as 1,200- -- a lot less than those already in explicitly revolutionary parties. An ironic touch was the greetings from the Spanish IU (United Left) and the Italian PRC (Party of Communist Refoundation) in which they defined themselves as "like you, alliances of groupings on the Left". Scargill simply left to set up his own party. He had not been willing to organise with the Left within the Labour Party, nor within the unions The SLP is no such thing. In fact exclusions have already begun for breaking the ban on belenging to inner-party groupings. The Socialist Labour Pany is radically unlike the IU and PRC both in functioning and purpose. SLP leaders Pat Sikorski (left) and Bob Crowe (right) speak at a meeting planning industrial action on the London Underground Both Italy and Spain have a tradition of mass Communist Parties. The formations of the left that have arisen in the last few years in these countries rest upon their political fragmentation and recomposition. Britain is different.
The Communist Party of Great Britain has never been a truly mass forcecertainly comparable with the continental parties. Although it has had an important implantation in a numberof unions, it has always never been a decisive component of the labour movement-compared. for example, to the Labour Party left.
The Labour Party is linked to the structures of thy unions far more closely than social democracy in continental Europe. Unions have delegates to party meetings at every level, right up to conference and the NEC. This is in the party. Any political fight in the party has implications for the unions.
Scargill will not be able to replicate the patterns of continental politics because the history, politics and structures of the British labour movement are so different.
The call for a new party is therefore not just a problem of mis-timing—it is a diversion which will sap the energy of those who should he fighting elseIt diverts the left away from the site of battle. This can only strengthen the right.
The lack of democracy and perspective flows from a bureaucratic concept of organisation and politics. Scargill, with his flawed analysis of what has happened to the Labour Party, simply announced that he was leaving to set up his own party. Now he has done it.
He had not been willing to organise with the Left within the Lahour Party nor within the unions. There has been next to no debate-even amongst supporters of the project. Instead there has been a number of set piece rallies.
The SLP is in the process of cutting itself off from developments in the labour movement through a combination of sectarianism towards Labour and an over-emphasis on elections. It is also depriving itself of a policy which can provide a lead to campaigns and strug. gles.
Instead of working with other socialists to build the fightback throughout the labour movement. the SLP leadership have turned away from this task.
Those involved should rethink