Lessons for left in SLP failure
Crisis in the Court of King Arthur
LAUNCHED at the wrong time, in the wrong way and with the wrong kind of politics and
organisation, it is not surprising that the SLP approaches its December conference in what
is probably a terminal crisis.
Only two years after its launch, the party has failed to capitalise on
its modest election results, and is now riven by internal strife. These bitter divisions
have nothing in common with the vigorous debate which would be a feature of any healthy,
democratic socialist organisation.
On the contrary, they are the self-inflicted wounds of a leadership
intent on maintaining control by trampling on the democratic rights of its members.
Socialist Outlook criticised the premature launch of the SLP just
prior to the general election. We made the point that the working class and its vanguard
would turn out in their millions to vote Labour to get rid of the hated Tory Government;
any candidates standing to the left of the Labour Party would get badly squeezed.
We argued that socialists should maintain a united front approach
against the Tories, ensuring a hearing in the working class for our criticisms of New
Labour.
However, it would have been entirely possible for the SLP to recover
from these and other mistakes, if it had maintained an open, non-sectarian and
collaborative approach to other socialist forces, and developed a democratic internal
regime. It is now clear that this is not to be.
From the beginning the SLP was a botched job. It was launched
unilaterally by a small group of people around Arthur Scargill without any consultation
with broader forces on the left in the Labour Party, trade unions or Marxist left.
Nonetheless, many socialists, frustrated and demoralised by the seemingly inexorable march
of Tony Blair’s New Labour to the right, welcomed Scargill’s launch of a new
workers’ party.
Great Expectations
"Like many other people who joined the SLP," writes
Councillor Ian Driver, in his recent resignation letter, "I had great expectations of
the party. I naively believed that the SLP would break the mould of leftwing politics in
this country and provide a unique and much needed opportunity to regroup socialists on a
non-sectarian basis.
"I thought the SLP would become a vibrant, broad-based
organisation that would welcome socialists from different traditions and provide a forum
for the discussion of new ideas .Unfortunately, none of this happened."
Ian, along with many others a campaigner for democracy in the SLP,
found instead a regime that revealed itself to be worse than the Labour Party. In fact it
had more in common with the old Stalinist parties, or with the monstrous caricature that
was the WRP.
"In particular I am sickened" Ian writes, "by the lack
of internal democracy in the SLP. ... political debate is actively stifled and, where members do succeed in
discussing politics, any ideas expressed contrary to those of the leadership are stamped
on."
Ian, who is a respected militant and member of Southwark Council in
South London, accuses Scargill and his cronies of "a total disregard for democratic
rights," and of "authoritarian intolerance." He complains of threatening
letters from Scargill or his henchmen to members, demanding explanations for this or that
misdemeanour.
Expelled
Members were expelled under the guise that they were never really
members, or because they were behind in their dues (even when they wanted to pay). No
evidence against them is shown, and any right to appeal is denied.
At the same time Scargill is quite happy, according to Ian and others
who have been forced out, to associate with disreputable elements who have resorted to
violence against party members, or who have publicly espoused homophobic views.
It comes as no surprise therefore that the upcoming SLP Conference will
be less than democratic. Anyone seen as a threat to the Scargill leadership team has been
excluded from standing for the NEC; branch resolutions to conference are vetted for
content and rejected out of hand.
In an interview in the Weekly Worker (October 2 1997), Ian says
that he thinks the left in the SLP, organised around the Revolutionary Platform and the
Campaign for a Democratic SLP, is fighting a losing battle. It seems they may leave after
the conference because of continued attacks on their democratic rights. He also believes
that there is no future for the SLP as it presently exists and the party will collapse
within a year.
What kind of party does the working class need?
Ian Driver intends to continue work with others on the left who are in
favour of regrouping. He argues that "there are a growing number who are coming to
the idea that the left needs a new organisation... We need to look at this whole question
in a new way. It goes back to the break-up of Stalinism. Socialists now realise that
organisations must be set up on a democratic basis, without dictatorial bureaucracy".
Conditions are rapidly maturing for ruptures and upheavals in the
workers’ movement. Scargill’s SLP is just the first manifestation of this
process. There remain differences in analysis as to the tempo, but for the first time
since 1945 a recomposition of the workers’ movement is posed.
The economic conditions for Labourist reformism have been eroded by
intensified competition on a global scale, with big capital engaged in a spiral of mergers
and takeovers, demanding more de regulation and drastic public spending cuts. The
Maastricht process and EMU are the political form of this.
This process is reinforced by the collapse of Stalinism which has
removed an important post-war pressure, the ruling class feels it no longer needs to
concede expensive welfare provision to the working class.
Blair’s New Labour government has been long in preparation for
this scenario, and will lead to a dramatic collision with the working class. For the first
time since the war, the conditions are being created for major splits within the
workers’ movement.
Wake up call
It is essential that the left in the Labour Party and the unions, ends its
sleepwalking. If a new party of the working class is to develop, it is essential that it is politically
prepared.
This is the first lesson of the SLP fiasco. Secret talks involving a
few chosen people behind closed doors have an inevitable bureaucratic result. Learning the
lessons of the SLP means rejecting pompous (and sectarian) self-declarations either by
vainglorious leaders, or a gaggle of tiny groups, with small forces.
A new party means bringing together, in an open and democratic
framework and based initially on a limited action programme, broad class struggle forces
from the Labour and trade union movement, the social movements, radical youth and the
far-left.
It is only size, social and political weight which can impose a sense
of responsibility, order and procedure on such an initially diverse political formation,
not the bureaucratic jack-boot.
Socialist Outlook believes such a party will only emerge out of big
working class battles with the Labour government. But the existence of a broad vanguard of
the class which is politically prepared for such an eventuality and able to give
leadership can ensure its success.
We would enthusiastically build such a party and argue within its
democratic structure for the adoption at a future conference of a more fully developed
revolutionary programme.
Click here to get
in touch with Socialist Outlook
Home PageSite IndexWhat we fight for Back
Issues The Fourth International About this Site. Links