HARRY SLOAN looks more closely at the document put forward by Arthur Scargill on November 4 as the basis for a new Socialist Labour Party. MANY ON the left, especially in the trade unions, will share the sense of anger and frustration that animates Arthur Scargill's scathing analysis of the state of 'New Labour' under Tony Blair.
Some will initially be attracted to the idea of launching a new left party: but the conditions for building a left-wing, class struggle breakaway from the main party of the British favourable.
Scargill's claim that there is no hope whatever for a revival or successful struggle by the left in the Labour Party appears also to echo the views of prominent members of the Communist Party of Britain - who have never been in the Labour Party - and Militant Labour. Our last issue carried a lengthy response to such ideas (Militant fails to define the moment. Socialist Owlook No.93).
The difference is that Militant pulled out of the Labour Party several years ago - long before blair occame leader of Clause Four was scrapped. They announced that they were now building a 'marxist' left challenge to Labour. This tactic has - like other such experiments by the British far left - lod to a rapid decline in Militant Labour's membership and influence They may have come to the same point from anteren directons, out scaral and sitant both face the same colossal contradiction: the very conditions which have paved the way for Blair's crushing victories over the Labour left are also the most unfavourable for promoting any kind of left wing split from the Labour Political allies Scargill's text ably catalogues the succes. sion of policies overturned by Blair: but it does not discuss the political coalition within the Labour Party that gave Blair the votes he needed to push through these changes.
Indeed so keen is Scargill to argue that "New Labour' is "now almost indistinguishable ...or. nearer home. the Liberal Democrats" that he omits the scandalous - but crucial - role that is still being played by the trade union "New Labour' is very different indeed from the Democrats and Liberal Democrats: it still maintains a political link with the trade unions And while this link can be used in times of right wing domination to stitch up bureaucratic procedures against the rank and file, it can also. as we saw in 1978-82, result in dramatic upheavals if union leaders are compelled to fight Even now, 50 percent of the vote at Labour conference is controlled by the trade unions. Workers look to Labour to represent their inThe problem is that most of the union lead. erships - even those who between conferences nave occasionary maoc leil spoones oc fending Clause Four or appearing to criticise Blair - have been happy to cast their votes for his policies. Without their votes he could not have implemented his policy changes.
The outcome is therefore a product not just of the politics of Blair and his leading clique, but also of the trade union bureaucrats, who have been among the most avid exponents of the line that we must get the Tories out at any price, and clock a Labour sorchment. Scargill: surprisingly his document does not discuss bullding base in trade unions But the timidity of the top union bureau. crats, and their willingness to isolate and crush those who - like the miners in 1984-5 - step out of line and attempt a fightback, has, over a penod of cars, aiso succccoco in camping: down the militancy of the trade union rank and Strikes are at the lowest level for 100 years.
Trade union membership is in decline, trade unson advisin is at a low coo, and shop stewards organisations have been ground down by 16 years of bosses' offensive. This means that the union leaders feel little pressure from their rank and file, ready to do deals with Blair at their members' expense.
We can expect these conditions to change with the defeat of the Tories and the clection of a Blair-led Labour government.
The ousting of the party of the class enemy from government will help regenerate the missing confidence and fighting cansity of key sections of the working class - especially in the public sector which is likely to be the first to feel the effects of Blair's right wing policies. They will not feel bound by the poliThe challenge for the left is to ensure that the groundwork has been laid to give organised and political leadership to those who will be Scargill appears indifferent to these issues. His document does not discuss the unions, and implies that the clection of a right wing Labour ter. The new party would, it seems, campaign Scargill's conception of a Socialist Labour Party is one that would function primarily as a parliamentary party a snould commit sci to fight every Parliamentary seat").
The new party threatens to divert from the fight to orcanise the left at the base of the unions, and from the necessary challenge to Blair inside the Labour Party itself.
it would he launched in the most unfasour. able circumstances for class struggle politics. and once launched, the new party would be left on the sidelines of the battles that must eventually erupt within the mainstream labour movement - and Labour Party - after the next The marginalisation would be total. If Scar. gill burned his bridges and left the Labour Party, he would be frozen off the national stage by the media. The new party would quickly be reduced to a curiosity among the lists of also. rans in local elections.
It appears that some supporters of the Socialist Labour Party project believe that they might be able to win the affiliation of some regional trade union bodies. This is most imEven if there were isolaed regional coun cils where delegates might be persuaded to take such a step, union constitutions do not allow for such autonomy in the application of their Political Funds It is hard to imagine any union where a membership ballot on disaffiliation from the Labour Party - almost certain to be the next govemment - and affiliation to the Socialist Labour Party - which is unlikely to get even one MP elected - could win majority support. new party would need much clearer politics to offer workers a way forward. Scargill's starteg poist eflocts a leg-standing cretarion ce "Do we, and others who feel as we do, stay in a Party which has been and is being "politiare wils, Socialle "Or do we leave and start to build a Socialist Labour Party that represents the principles. values, hopes and dreams which gave birth nearly a century ago to what has, sadly, now become New Labour?"
Socialist strategy
His document again and again insists that the Labour Party before Blair was a 'socialist" party, and asserts that Clause Four "was designed to clearly clearly commit the Party to a "At the time of its formation, the Labour Party had both a Constitution and policies which projected a Socialist philosophy, policies and programme."
Scargill's simplistic view of the politics of the Labour Party ignores the outrageous and reactionary policies of a succession of Labour 'socialise" window dressing of Clause Four and set out to collaborate with capitalism.
Attlee's post-war Labour goverment, with its landslide majority and its sweeping nationalisations, set out not to establish socialism but to patch up British capitalism and to uphold its imperialist interests.
The Wilson and Callaghan govemments of thie 1960s and 1970s confronted the unions, cut health and education spending, built new nuclear weapons, supported the European Common Market, and paved the way for almost every one of Tony Blair's current policies.
So it's just not enough to build a new left party based on Clause Four and Tond musions of a past golden age of Labour's 'socialism". A party to play a leading role for the left in the labour movement and the struggles of the oppressed needs to develop a comprehensive socanst propramme, and agree porcies and tactics. This is a very big task.
Supporters of Scargill's suggestions come from a wide range of political background and experience. To build this heterogeneous support into a coherent party requires extensive. democratic debate.
Unfortunately democracy is one item not on offer trees Scargit: the sew Pary k wens would be set up on a "take it or leave it" basis:
"1. Convening a special Discussion Conference", to which all those committed to founding such a Party should be invited with the aim of formulating a Constitution and Advance commitment In other words an 'invited" list would be asked to agree in advance of any decisions on 'committed to founding' it. And lest anyone gill has already insisted that the new party "asimple Socialist Constitution and a structure to fight our class enemies. This structure glings and sectarian arguments."
This advance commitment to a monolithic stricture is a potentia time-bomb beneath any initiative to launch the new party, and a serious obstacle to its possible political development.
By walng our acoac, i would proclude any clarification on the role and practices of stalinism, any deeper analysis of the politics of the trade union bureaucracy, any development of transitional demands to bridge the gap beracen toogy s shuadon and she toll pro gramme of socialism, and any debate on international issues - all of which will emerge as problems to be confronted, and potentially lead to splits if there is no democratic mechanism to permit differences to be argued out.
Today's labour movement needs a class struggle, socialist leadership to combat the class traitors icaoing ine Labour Pansy and TUC: but this role cannot be filled by a new party bogged down at the level of repetition of Clause Four, and which turns a blind eye to the real political problems of today's labour moveIt is not always wrong to build a left wing challenge to mass reformist parties - even when these besin with 3 small minority. But the formula Scargill has proposed is the wrong answer and comes at the wrong time to lead to the result its supporters wish to achieve.
Far from advancing the fight, it would weaken the left and strengthen the right wing. A more productive approach would be for Scargill and his co-thinkers to spearhead an inititive to omanise and politicise a broad left in the unions and Labour Party that can contron Blairs acy burcucrac support. and prepare for the battles to come against a Labour
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No 94, November 25 1995. Page 8