Date: Wed, 17 Jul 96 22:23:27 PDT
From: RH <global-AT-london.uk.pi.net>
Subject: WHY WE ARE RESIGNING FROM SOCIALIST OUTLOOK?


WHY WE ARE RESIGNING FROM SOCIALIST OUTLOOK?
 
Byrne, Fruitbat, Healy, Sollis, Winstanley 21 June 1996 
 
The situation inside Socialist Outlook cannot be reversed. Although we
supported the current leadership, this leadership has proved itself
unable to lead. Of course we were unable to give any sort of lead within
this context either. The appalling underlying conditions are combining
to close the options of the membership and to raise the question of
radical political re-alignment:
 
1. There is an adverse situation in the workers' movement because of a
long series of defeats, not just in Britain but internationally. These
contributed to the nature of the collapse of Stalinism in eastern Europe
and the USSR, which because it took the form of a move towards the
re-establishment of capitalism further adversely affected the workers'
movement.
 
2. The present conjuncture in Britain has developed into a
'wait-and-see' passive attitude to the prospect of a future Blair
government. The historically low level of struggle continues, although
we have seen some revival of dogged defensive struggles this year. The
formation of Scargill's Socialist Labour Party 'from the top down'
reflects the frustrated ambitions of a section of the trade union
bureaucracy, though it is also an expression of frustration by many
worker militants and illustrates their desir e to find a way to fight
the system.
 
3. Federalism within Socialist Outlook is so rampant that the group has
become little more than a network of committed activists. It has no
clear leadership or direction. Socialist Outlook has never been able to
construct a clear identity or establish a political space for itself;
the roots of this confusion lie in the refusal to discuss differences
within the organisation at the time of its formation. The paper,
reflecting this federalism, carries no clear strategy for the group and
its periphery.
 
4. The Tedency C minority leadership set the agenda before the last 
conference.
Their trajectory would have directed the group away from an orientation
to the labour movement and abandoned vanguard politics. In a certain
sense, because of the weakness of the bloc and the illusions of many of
the membership in ex-TCs relationship with the USFI leadership, ex-TC
leaders still set the agenda. Now the grouping around Davies have
surrendered to the USFI and are acting in concert with them to lead
Socialist Outlook towa rds Militant and the populist, centrist, politics
that this current embraces - which of course is now also the politics of
the USFI (The centrist politics of the USFI was semi-recognised by
Socialist Outlook, as illustrated by the formation of international T1.
Now conscious forgetfulness rules a section of the leadership).
 
5. The USFI leadership may trace itself back to the founding conference
of the FI but it cannot claim revolutionary political continuity. Nor
can it claim to be the leadership of the FI; it is just one of a number
of organisations claiming the mantle. The current trajectory of the USFI
is towards the liquidation of revolutionary politics and opportunist
regroupment on a minimalist basis with radical petit-bourgeois and
centrist currents.
 
6. There is a dire financial situation within the group where the dues
revenue from a rapidly declining membership is largely swallowed up by
huge mortgage and other financial contracts entered into when the class
struggle was in a far healthier shape and the membership was more than
three times what it is at present.
 
If Socialist Outlook continues down its current road the membership will
become part of an at best centrist grouping - either being swallowed up
by Militant, joining the AWL or Briefing or leaving revolutionary
politics entirely. Deciding to do nothing until total political
confusion reigns is the worst of all options. For that reason the split
document written by Cde Fruitbat and signed by the rest of us represents
a bold step out of the morass. 
 
Most of the signatories of this document supported the bloc constructed
at the last conference. The majority of Socialist Outlook genuinely
believed that this was the only way to save the organisation from
collapse. Looking back with the experiences and knowledge we have now,
the correct tactic would have been not to form the bloc but to have
organised a split - based around the labour movement orientation -
immediately after last conference. This question threatened to split TA
at that time.
 
The majority of Tendency A comrades' political instinct was the healthy one 
of
trying to avoid adding yet another organisation to the Diaspora of the
left. Unfortunately, by forming the bloc all we achieved was a stay of
execution in a state of permanent compromise and no clear direction. The
only gain that the experience of forming the bloc has given us is yet
further confirmation - as if we needed it after the experience of the
previous leadership - that such blocs cannot work because they have no
political line. Comrades involved are forced to make unacceptable
political compromises. Socialist Outlook is in a catch-22 situation
whereby the only thing that can save it is a strong political fight
between all the competing views, but conducting such a fight would
destroy the group. FA/TA waged such a struggle until the Conference and
won some of the best comrades. Therefore it follows that Socialist
Outlook is not worth saving if this struggle is  incompatible with its
existence. Our disagreement w ith many of our com rades still in the
group should be on how tactically to fight for revolutionary politics,
not on how to save Socialist Outlook.
 
CCs have largely been devoid of political discussions - reflecting both
the group and the bloc. The level of political culture in the group,
even at CC level is very low. There have been no discussions about
strategy and no discussions on the nature of the united front - an area
where there are the largest differences within the leadership bloc.
There has been no attempt to 'catch the bureaucracy in the cross-fire'
of mobilising the ranks and placing transitional demands on the leaders.
The only move toward s building rank-and-file type movements against the
leadership within the unions is the unite the broad lefts campaign, and
this suffers from having no analysis of where the broad lefts are at.
Socialist Outlook's star broad left - the STA in NUT - has gained
control of some branches, but its leadership have now become the left
bureaucracy (illustration - No platform is not Socialist Outlook line -
quote by a long-time I** member (lapsed January 1996) defending the
refusal of the Tower H amlets NUT STA lead ership to support loc al
anti-fascist activity during 1994/5, against pressure from the
rank-and-file of the branch). Socialist Outlook has never been able to
fight this degeneration in the broad lefts - the SMTUC fiasco is another
prime example - because even if it has some understanding of the theory
there is almost no attempt to apply it in practice. They still prefer
instead to see themselves as the 'best builder of the campaigns'. We are
enclosing with this letter a document setting out our position on the
united front.
 
While the TA line on this has been widely condemned as 'ultra-left'
within the organisation, it is significant that there has been no
attempt at a detailed repudiation of the ideas we fought for. Where
there have been political discussions on the CC, major differences have
emerged, and comrades from TA have fought consistently on these issues.
At the first CC after conference, Cde Debs produced a document on the
Asylum Bill which argued for a dual tactic of mass campaigning combined
with a fight for non-compliance. The ex-TC leadership, because of their
abandonment of vanguard politics, voted against such a line arguing
instead for a relia nce on an alliance of demonstrators, clergy and
Labour's fron t bench. All but one (step forward Cde Robinson) ex-TD
supporters also voted against the Debs document because their labour
movement orientation does not encompass a real fight against the
bureaucracy and they share the TC leadership politics on this (though it
must be said that some ex-TC supporters not on the CC were more
favourable to the non-compliance line). Now six months further on TC /
TD line has collapsed and the only remaining alternative is TA s.
Socialist Outlook will applaud the activity next week at UNISON
conference defending a non-compliance line; who would believe that only
last December our CC rejected this line as a hopeless ultraleft
misassessment of the possibilities that would sideline our intervention
into the campaign?
 
At the most recent CC, in the Ireland discussion ex-TC removed a
suggestion in the Irish Commission perspectives document that the Sinn
Fein leadership would sell out if they continued down their present
road. Did they replace it with a forthright condemnation of the sell out
represented by the acceptance of the unionist veto? Of course not - the
USFI are great supporters of the peace process. TA comrades waged the
fight on this. Some TC leaders have begun to characterise comrades in
Ireland as ultraleft be cause of their attitude towards the Sinn Fein
sell out; a major factor in this is probably an attempt to cut I**
comrades healthy support for the Irish comrades because this is a major
impediment to moving the group closer to Militant.
 
And what of Militant? TA's attitude towards discussions with Militant
has been consistent and principled. We are in favour of discussion with
any left group where there is a realistic prospect of regroupment or an
opportunity exists to break off a section of the membership of a
right-centrist group like Militant. We contributed to a serious
appraisal of Militant's politics (the Healy / Hall document), rejecting
the idea that they were moving to the left or that our two organisations
were converging. But aga in, because they can rest on the authority of
the USFI, the ex-TC leadership has called the tune. They reject any
substantial criticism of Militant's politics precisely because they are
already collapsing into this kind of politics themselves. Indeed, one of
the reasons ex-TC leaders have latched onto Militant's politics is to
neutralise the likes of us. Yet this poses a huge threat to Socialist
Outlook. The USFI leadership has disloyally gone behind our backs in
opening up talk s wi th Militant. They have also undermined the
principled stand taken by our comrades in Ireland against the shameful
capitulation of Militant to the PUP/UVF leader Billy Hutchinson, where
they have characterised this extreme right wing sectarian killer as a
'socialist'. Under pressure from Militant the USFI Bureau repudiated the
Irish comrades without even obtaining their views. Socialist Outlook
Irish Commission has taken a strong stand on this in open conflict with
the USFI Bureau. Ex - TC leaders are playing into the hands of the USFI
while their own former supporters in the Irish Commission lead the
fight against them.
 
This is matched by a failure of our leadership - both TC and TD - to
challenge adequately the political direction of the USFI leadership. Of
course they cannot challenge the opportunist adaptionist method of the
USFI because they share it. Whilst we genuinely believe that many USFI
activists are good militants and revolutionaries, the leadership is
liquidating the politics - and the sections - at every opportunity.
Within Socialist Outlook only TA ever came out with a substanti al
criticism of the USFI's politics. The consequence is that Socialist
Outlook is regarded by the centrists as easy meat. Militant is the
reward. In hindsight we should have seen that some of the old
leadership's move away from a labour movement orientation was indicative
of a more substantial break - with vanguard politics. Many of the ex-TC
leaders now take the line of 'straight to the masses' - in the most
adaptationist way. Thus the line on CAIAB, the call for a vote for the
SLP at Hemsworth, the initial disdain towards the Liverpool dockers,
the Newbury fiasco, the support for Militant's line on the Poll Tax and
so on. Ex-TC leaders have a one-sided view of where the British class
struggle is going. They say Newbury protesters are the new vanguard. But
this is an abandonment of a basic notion. We call for our politics to be
based on the working class not because they are the most radical section
of society or even the most oppressed, but because only the working
class is structurally located so that it can fight capitalism and lead
revolution.It is highly likely, especially in these periods, that
sections of the petit bourgeoisie will be more radical or vocal. But
they are not a substitute for building a working class movement.
 
Revolutionary politics involves locating ourselves correctly in the
labour movement and patiently developing the class consciousness of the
vanguard and building up the strength of the working class. Of course we
should work with and take up the struggles of other layers, but the
point is to direct these layers towards the workers' movement. But ex-TC
leaders view the Newbury protesters as the vanguard. At best they
represent the political vanguard of the petit-bourgeoisie, certainly not
the working class vanguard. Ex-TC leaders have lost sight of this
difference. Of course our criticisms are directed at the ex-TC
leadership and the bloc's inability to fight them. We distinguish
between the leaders and the base within Socialist Outlook. But while
many of the base do excellent political work, they work as individual
militants or at best as part of a network. Socialist Outlook has in
practice lost its awareness of the need for a revolutionary party.
Comrades have accused us of abandoning the fight within Socialist
Outlook. Our history of fighting is second to none. We trace ourselves
back through TA and FA to TR, TZ and Fruitbat / Harney / Kafka at 1994
conference, to Molly et al in 1992, to Fruitbat / Kilfoyle in 1991. Most
of the good comrades who fought alongside us then are now outside
Socialist Outlook having left in ones and twos. We have made the correct
and logical balance sheet of those fights; we have now opted for the
hard and challenging ta sk of building somet hing worthwhile from a
small beginning outside Socialist Outlook, rather than surrendering our
revolutionary politics to Socialist Outlook mincing machine.
 
We are leaving now because we believe that nothing more can be done to
change the group. The next conference will be at best a rerun of the
last. The precarious nature of the group means that political
compromises will always come to the fore. The July aggregate, if it
takes place, will perhaps reverse one or two decisions, but it will not
take the group forward. We have reached the conclusion that there is
more to be won outside the organisation that in. We believe that the
demoralisation in the group has  already gone too far. We hope that our
action will impel comrades to face these hard truths. Comrades have
raised the concern that we have jeopardised discussions between
Socialist Outlook and the WIL. We would strongly urge cdes to fight hard
for serious discussions to take place. We believe that the WIL has a lot
to offer and is much maligned by those who know nothing about them. We
believe that we are making a bold and confident move. We intend to form
a transitional organisation and to produce a journal and some pamphlets.
We hope to use our split to engage in a - limited - period of regroupment
discussions. It is no secret that many of us are sympathetic to the
WIL, having worked with them on Bosnia and in union activity. We would
want to discuss with them and with others including organisations
outside Britain. We believe that our new situation will allow us to
fight for the kind of politics that we believe in. We hope that we can
portray a solid political platform which we can win comrades to, and
eventually, hopefully, a healthy and growing organisation.
 
PS: On Socialist Outlook's organisational problems 
 
We think a committee should be formed now from volunteers and
representatives of all groupings in Socialist Outlook. This committee
would only convene in the event of the organisation collapsing. We are
prepared to be represented on it. Its purpose would be to sort the
financial repercussions to members who would be bankrupted or debarred
because of such a collapse. It is necessary to form this committee now
before later commitments to other projects and groups would leave
everyone to abandon these comrades . They pledged their homes and
livelihoods to the revolutionary cause on behalf of all members when
hopes were so high for the future of the IG/SG fusion. The committee
should discuss the best way to assist these comrades - financial appeal
to members, all ex-members and sympathisers and the wider labour
movement, large fund-raising event etc. It should seek wide advice on
how to wrap things up remembering that financial institutions will often
settle for a great deal less than the amount owed if they get something
out of a negotiated settlement. It would probably have to operate with
much legal circumspection. This may be seen as crying wolf but we feel
it is best to prepare now for this worst scenario.





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