Date: Mon, 25 Nov 96 13:01:54    
Subject: M-G: BRITAIN:REVOLUTIONARIES,THE SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY AND "NEW" LABOUR."



BRITAIN:
REVOLUTIONARIES,THE SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY AND "NEW" LABOUR." 


Since the official founding of the Socialist Labour Party(SLP) in Britain at 

its first national conference in May,the ostensibly revolutionary left in 
Britain has,for the most part,been somewhat less than clear about what 
stance Marxists should be taking towards what amounts to the most 
significant left split from the British Labour Party(LP) since the formation 

of the Independent Labour Party (ILP) in the early 1930's.
On the one hand,there is the knee-jerk belief by some on the far left that 
it is no longer permissable for revolutionaries to argue for critical 
support for the Labour Party in electoral situations (in the absence of the 
standing of a genuinely revolutionary candidate) because Blair has now moved 

the LP so far to the right.It is certainly true that Blair and his coterie 
of "modernisers" have moved the LP rightwards and the longer term aim of 
Blair and company will be to sever the trade union link altogher.This is why 

it is no accident that Blair's "inner circle" of Mandelson,Prescott and 
Smith have recently been hob-nobbing with senior officials representing the 
openly bourgeois Democratic Party in the USA.However,the severing of the 
trade union link will not be feasible this side of the Blairites being able 
to secure sufficient party funding from sympathetic businessmen (characters 
whom Blair spends most of his time addressing at various plush Confederation 

of British Industry functions these days)to replace the large financial 
affiliation and backing the LP currently enjoys courtesy of scores of trade 
unions.It is also worth remembering that,as a bureaucratic layer,the big 
national trade union leaders (Morris,Edmonds etc.)stand to lose their own 
political and economic role if they allow Blair and company to sever the 
t.u. link without either a fight or,as perhaps may be more likely,some sort 
of rotten deal is struck.
On the other side is the belief that the SLP is a premature split (i.e. 
before the next general election which effectively abandons what some see as 

inevitable struggles that will break out inside the LP when clashes take 
place between rank and file LP members and t.u. delegates on the one 
hand,and against a very right -wing Blair led Labour government [general 
election victory permitting] implementing the sort of anti-working class  
policies it is advocating even while it is still in opposition.)
Surely what is required is a more measured approach as the situation 
regarding the SLP is still fairly fluid.Here,it would appear that those 
leftists who effectively put all their eggs in one basket on one side or the 

other have either jumped the gun or,perhaps not recognised whether or not 
the formation of the SLP constitutes an effective left split from the LP. 
Both the International Bolshevik Tendency (IBT) and the Communist Party of 
Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)(CPGB) are now arguing that it 
is not permissable to call for a  vote to the LP.Indeed,organisations such 
as the liquidationist IBT and the CPGB generally share the foolish,knee-jerk 

view that any sort of vote to the LP,critical or otherwise,is not tactically 

permissable.Apparently,this is because Blair and company have steered the 
party further and further  rightwards,abandoning Clause IV,part 4(itself 
never more than a somewhat vague paper commitment to radical reforms),doing 
its best to ditch any future commitment to state capitalist 
renationalisation of the former "publically owned" industries sold off by 
the spiv-like Tory government and pledging to keep in place the near-slavish 

Tory anti-trade union legislation which gives workers in Britain probably 
fewer rights in the workplace than just about any other country in Europe.
hilst these things are certainly true they represent a ’quantitative,not a 
qualitative "change in a British social-democracy that has long since 
presided over the most shamelessly pro-imperialist,bi-partisan oppression of 

the north of Ireland (Labour sent the troops in in 1969 and brought in the 
so--called Prevention of Terrorism  Act in 1974.).The same LP also presided 
over the overtly racist virginity tests,degradingly imposed on Asian women 
seeking to enter Britain in 1971.It was also the LP that brought in the 
notoriously anti-union "In Place Of Strife" industrial relations bill in 
1976,a bill  which pre-dated the Tories' own anti-union onslaught in the 
1980's.And the same LP dutifully backed the meddlesome American imperialist 
incursion (thankfully defeated)into Vietnam in the 1960's.
n truth,the LP did all of these things because,ever since it evolved out of 
the old Labour Representation Committee in 1906 at the behest of the 
t.u.leadership wanting a break from the openly bourgeois Liberal Party,the 
LP has always been a pro-capitalist,pro-imperialist party with a ruling 
class friendly leadership and an overwhelmingly working class base.So have 
we seen what could be described as the decisive event where the LP has 
ceased to be a social-contradiction,i.e. ceased being a bourgeois workers 
party ?We would say no and in doing so,challenge those who think that the LP 

is basically the same as say,the US Democratic Party,to tell the working 
class when and where such a decisive(i.e.qualitative) event took place.
Whilst correctly identifying the LP as still being a bourgeois workers 
party,albeit one which is selling out in opposition rather than,as in the 
past,selling out in government,the one time politically healthy Workers 
Power(WP) group has shot itself in the foot more than once when attempting 
to evaluate the political evolution of the SLP.Whilst it is perfectly 
legitimate to recognise that the political evolution of the fledgling SLP is 

relatively fluid,WP has,since the formation of the SLP,managed to 
(correctly) call for the need for a revolutionary SLP,dismissed  the same 
party as: ".set to become just the kind of party we don't need."(’Workers 
Power "197, Feb 1996),and postulate that: "The SLP will either sink rapidly 
into obscurity,or become a confusing obstacle in the way of socialists who 
want to really get rid of capitalism."(ibid.)
ll fairly definitive,readers of WP would be forgiven for thinking-and WP 
have  certainly covered pretty well all  options.
owever,with all the sharp political insight of a bunch of eclectic 
blockheads,the confused worthies of WP have,after observing the SLP's 
founding conference,gone on to announce: "The party begins.",adding with 
great gusto that: "...one thing is certain:the struggle for the political 
soul of the Socialist Labour Party has only just begun."(’WP" 201,Jun 1996)

This self-confessed flitting about from evaluations ranging from definitive 
dismissal to optimistic,if passive crystal ball -gazing (all within four 
months!) is hardly the sign of a politically stable organisation.In fact,the 

master tacticians (sic) of WP have,with all the finesse of a rather spoilt 
child who,on not getting its own way on the football field,promptly storms 
off with HIS ball, tersely announced that :"If we and others are able to 
influence the SLP's membership sufficiently to make an open ideological 
struggle  within the party a real possibilty,if we find it possible to join 
as a revolutionary organisation with full rights,and if the party continues 
to grow in numbers to a substantial degree ,then of course (how delightful 
is this "of course "!(sic)--GC)we would consider affiliating.Our aim would 
remain a revolutionary SLP and our attitude would then be emphatically 
pro-party." (WP reply to CPGB in’ Weekly Worker  "143,May 16 1996.)
Here,WP chooses to hide behind a veritable plethora of "ifs", "buts" and 
"maybes".WP need to ask themselves a few searching questions here,the most 
important one being :"When was the last time a supposedly  revolutionary 
organisation was welcomed with full rights into a workers organisation with 
a reformist leadership that is tinged with Stalinism?"
e suspect that you will look in vain for a positive answer here comrades.It 
would now appear that WP's one time well -oiled tactical flexibility machine 

has rusted up more than a little given their own rather 
rigid,’right-"sectarian proclamations.Surely if there are 
active,militant,leftward moving workers (which is what the SLP is largely  
made up of)breaking from the  treachery of the LP;if not Labourism 
itself,and seeking (albeit inadequately in our view -LCMRCI)a road to 
struggle and socialism,it is surely the duty of those claiming to be 
revolutionaries to utilise tactics to find a way get alongside these 
workers.After all, a united front with these workers,which can actively 
facilitate joint work and provide the  road to much needed debates around 
the dreadful positions the SLP has on defence spending and immigration 
controls,is surely needed.Or maybe WP are waiting for a written invitation 
>from SLP general secretary Patrick Sikorski- or perhaps even Arthur Scargill 

himself!
	On the question of critical support at elections,WP have made some 
correct criticisms of the ultra-left "no vote to Labour" 
arguments.However,when WP steadfastly refused critical support to the SLP 
candidate (B.Nixon) at the Hemsworth,Yorkshire by-election in 
February,certain other inconsistencies have surfaced in the programmatic 
armoury of WP.For instance,Nixon polled nearly 1,200 votes (i.e. 5% of the 
total votes cast)in a Labour stronghold after the SLP had only been in 
formal existence for about four months.Interestingly,the SLP stood against 
Labour on a platform which,whilst not being revolutionary,did call for 
opposition to,and a fight against Tory cuts and attacks on working class 
lives.This was not unlike the general platform argued for by L.Mahmood of 
the old Militant Tendency (Mahmood stood as a"Real Labour" candidate) in 
Liverpool in 1991.Despite a lot of campaigning in the Liverpool labour 
movement,Mahmood polled only 2,600 votes and WP was then urging critical 
support for the "Real Labour" candidate.According to WP,this critical 
support was necessary because of the witch-hunt being launched against 
Militant supporters (themselves soon to be  deluded by the knee-jerk belief 
that the LP is now an openly bourgeois party) inside the LP by the Labour 
leadership.However,more recently,WP has argued against giving the same 
critical support to the right-centrist Scottish Militant Labour (SML) 
supporter T.Sheridan in Glasgow,despite Sheridan having sufficient support 
(i.e. workers illusions) among Scottish workers to be elected over 
the Labour candidate and onto Glasgow city council.In fact,when Sheridan 
stood on the same sort of political ticket in 1992,WP  offered a healthy,if 
rare word of self-criticism after realising their error in not calling for a 

critical vote to Sheridan.By 1995 WP were proclaiming that:"Militant 
Labour........represents a consistently left-wing alternative."’(WP" 189,May 

1995).However,WP was still unclear on who workers should critically vote for 

and at this time,SML had built up  sufficient influence amongst Scottish 
workers to secure not one,but SIX councillors in Scotland!Such timid 
prevarication and continued tactical confusion on the part of the  
supposedly revolutionary WP group is uncomfortably close to the   old 
Marxist dictum which points out that: "Those who do not learn from the 
mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them!"...Oh dear.!......For WP's 
international organisation,the League for a Revolutionary Communist 
International (LRCI),electoral tactics have been even more confusing.For 
instance,in 1994 the LRCI called for a vote for the centrist Workers List 
Party in South Africa,an organisation that had so little real influence 
amongst black South African workers that it polled only 4,000 votes (0.02%) 
nationally.And in France,where the presidential candidate of the centrist 
Lutte Ouvriãµre polled over 1.6 million votes among leftward moving French 
workers,the French section of the LRCI,Pouvoir Ouvrier,argued for a vote 
for--- the reformist Parti socialiste/Stalinist Parti Communiste ticket!!For 

WP and its dwindling band of international affiliates,inconsistency  and 
confusion currently reign supreme.
	Back in Britain,when we look at the SLP,what should revolutionaries 
and militant workers say and do?In terms of electoral tactics,despite the 
bankruptcy of "New Labour",a vote for the Blairites against the hated Tories 

is still a nominal class vote,where the bedrock organisations (trade unions) 

are still overwhelmingly affiliated to,and influential in the LP (especially 

on Trades Councils,General Management Committees,National Executive 
Committee etc.).But when leftward moving workers, sick of Labour's 
betrayals, and honest class fighters instigate a conscious leftward split 
>from Labour to form the SLP and stand for struggle in a left reformist or 
centrist sense,surely the only way to act is to attempt to intercept this 
leftward move with fraternal solidarity and patient arguments that can win 
good class fighters (as opposed to clapped out centrists) to a genuinely 
revolutionary socialist perspective.Here,putting their chosen electoral 
candidates to the test in the ongoing class struggle will be best achieved 
by advocating critical support to the SLP where it stands and a critical 
vote to the ordinary LP against the Tories as a nominal class vote in the 
majority of areas where the SLP cannot hope to field candidates.
	Those militants who are serious about fighting to realise a real, 
revolutionary socialist perspective,need to recognise that such a 
realisation involves combatting not just the treachery of the Blair-led LP 
(which millions of workers still vote for),but also the essentially 
left-reformist (and ultimately no less treacherous)perspective of the SLP. 
							G.Chapman.         
   



’ON THE STRANGE CASE OF THE  WORKERS POWER GROUP AND THEIR SHRINKING  
NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE FIGURE.
	"’ On the eve of the British TUC conference(1995),WP was arguing 
that:"All workers should be pushing for a legally guaranteed minimum of æÃ8 
(gross wage) an hour."("’WP"’ 192,September 1995).This particular figure did 
not appear to be based on anything concrete,although perhaps WP have 
attempted to keep ahead of the bourgeois European Union because :"While 
æÃ4.15 is better than  no figure at all,it is still a poverty wage,nearly 
æÃ2 below the decency threshold."(ibid.).So far so good,as the æÃ8 WP have 
quoted could be read as an attempt to activate a transitional demand as any 
real workers struggle for such a figure would almost certainly bring workers 
into a direct conflict with the big financiers and even the capitalist 
state.
Twelve months on and on the eve of the 1996 TUC conference WP are now 
arguing that :"The EU has established a decency threshold of around æÃ6 an 
hour:why should British workers earn less ?"("’WP"’ 203,September 1996).Why 
indeed! However,this is not the end of the matter as WP has continued by 
adding:"As a safety net to protect the most exploited and vulnerable 
sections of the workforce,we need a national minimum wage of æÃ6 an hour,and 

it is this that socialists and trade unionists will need to be campaigning 
for up and down the country in the months and years to come."(ibid.)
Clearly there is nothing wrong with revolutionaries raising arguments about 
minimum standards,wages etc.However,WP has made no mention of the "’sliding 
scale of hours and wages"’,even in a propagandistic form.The increasingly 
eel-like WP (i.e. very slippery) have quietly dropped their 1995 call for a 
minimum wage of æÃ8 an hour--with no public explanation whatsoever (unless 
WP think that the cost of living for workers has actually gone down during 
the past twelve months !!!).How sad that in this respect,WP has quietly 
dropped the task of attempting to raise Trotskyist transitional demands in 
the workers movement (hoping that no-body will notice perhaps?).Instead WP 
appears content to put a left face on its current  (and we sincerely 
trust,unrewarding)role of opportunistically  cheerleading for a bunch of 
bloated bureaucrats in Brussels.As we pointed out in our first issue,WP's 
positions change like the wind---and increasingly with no explanation! "




     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---