From: grenfeld-AT-zetnet.co.uk
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:40:33 +1000
Subject: Re: THE BRITISH SLP AND THE TACTICS OF TROTSKYISTS IN BRITAIN


Comrade J

The way you write this is not a fair representation of the Revolutionary
Platform. It implies that the RP is a trotskyist revolutionary grouping and
this is not true.

You also say that the slogan of a federal republic is for a bourgeois
federal republic. You also know this is not true, but your interpretation
of it. This is because you suffer from an economistic and mechanical
approach to democratic questions. The slogan for a federal republic of
England, Scotland and Wales is to win the working class to struggle for
political demands, as well as economic demands. The content of this
struggle is for the working class to lead such a struggle for a federal
republic, it would immediately raise the question of class power. Sure,
such a campaign could be thrown into counter-revolution, but so could any
struggle. The point is for communists to lead such a struggle on an
important question in the British isles, the national question.

You suffer from a menshivik formalism and mechanical approach to the
democratic questions. You say such questions are bourgeois, you abdicate
responsibility for democratic questions to the bourgeoisie. Marx urged all
communists to be the champions of the oppressed, the champions of
democracy. If you just chant socialism, socialism, you will not ever lead a
living struggle of the working class, just your own phantoms. The
bourgeoisie WILL take the lead in the national question, and solve it in
their own interests. The slogan for a federal republic takes them on at the
very heart of the nature of the british state, which is, unless you haven't
noticed, a constitutional monarchy.

There are some leftists who interpret the slogan for a federal republic in
a menshivik way. I think that the RDG do this. They approach the question
>from the same, yet oppostie angle as you do. They too agree with you that
the slogan for a federal republic is a bourgeois slogan. But they see this
a necessary stage (which in their wobblier moments accept could be
theoretically reduced to zero) in achieving a socialist republic - hence
their 'step' of a "dual power republic". This is of course poppycock. But
you must see that you approach the question in the same way.

I have heard you say "if the scottish people want a ..... [insert
democratic demand here] then I support them". This is no way for a
communist to talk. This is what Tony Blair is saying. We must be the
champions of overcoming the democratic deficit in Scotland and Wales. We
must struggle for the right of self-determination up to and including the
right of cesession. If we do not also advocate the actual *means* for such
cesession - ie: a federal republic, then we are dismissing the whole
struggle and being abstentionist. At the same time, we fight for the
revolutionary unity of the working class of England Scotland and Wales.
This to me is the only consistent revolutionary marxist way to approach the
national question in Britian. How else should we approach it. Simply call
for a socialist republic? Why not call for abolition of the state? Why not
demand communism??? The very slogan of a socialist *republic* is just as
bourgeois in the fact that you are demanding a form of the state, a
republic, which is a hangover from bourgeois society. Calling for a federal
republic, a united Ireland and fighting for working class hegemony of these
struggles is central to the revolutionary overthrow of the British ruling
class and its putrid state. Of course, in a revolutionary situation (which
I hasten to remind you we are not in) the ruling class will very likely
capitulate to the demand of a federal republic, this is the crucial part of
the revolution, the point were we are strongest and they weakest, this is
when we take power through the Councils of Action/WOrker's councils or
whatever the organs of working class power are called.

The slogan for a socialist republic does not get around this. The ruling
class will also capitulate to such a slogan by putting in a Ken
Livingstone, or Arthur Scargill or even Peter Taafe government, so they can
rally their forces for the counterrevolution. What the slogan of a federal
republic does is concretise our politics in the here and now. It raises the
sights of the working class beyond economic demands (which 'socialism' can
clearly be couched in - witness the program of Militant calling for
nationalisation of top 200 companies, under an Enabling Bill in
parliament!!)

Jose, please think about the real world and stop trying to make the real
world fit your pre-made categories and tidy trotskyist world. You do a
disservice to yourself and to the revolutionary movement otherwise.

>	THE BRITISH SLP AND THE TACTICS OF TROTSKYISTS IN BRITAIN
>
>	On May 4th around 600 people attended to the founding conference of
>the British Socialist Labour Party. Its creation represents the most
>important left wing split from Labour in more than sixty years.
>	The most significant previous Labour=92s left split was the
>Independent Labour in the aftermath of what Trotsky called a
>pre-revolutionary situation in the time of the big depression. Trotski
>recommended that his followers enter in that party with the aim of creating
>a revolutionary wing. He advocated that revolutionaries should not adopt a
>sectarian policy towards reformist Labour. Inside the ILP they should
>constantly demand Labour break with the bourgeoisie and to fight for working
>class aspirations, ie a united front policy with Labour.
>	As yet, there are no MPs, national unions or regional committees in
>the SLP. Most of the Labour=92s left remains in the official party and they
>consider Scargill=92s move as a premature rupture from a movement in which
>millions of workers have illusions that Labour could replace 17 years of
>Tory anti-popular administration.
>The SLP have a left reformist programme and a bureaucratic constitution that
>forbids any left organisation from affiliation. Despite the fact that the
>SLP has less members than Militant Labour or the Cliff=92s SWP, it has an
>important audience in the unions and is led by a national workers=92 figure
>(the leader of the miner=92s strike). It is said that several thousands
>workers know Peter Taffe (Militant=92s leader), some tens of thousands know
>Tony Cliff (the SWP leader) but millions of workers know Scargill. The SWP
>is a big propaganda society while the SLP has the potential to became an
>important electoral and union focus.
>The SLP is becoming a pole of attraction to thousands of activists. Hundreds
>of subjective revolutionaries and trade unions militants joined the SLP with
>the aim to break with reformism and create a revolutionary party. That is
>why it is important to address that milieu.
>When the SLP was launched the SWP adopted a sectarian attitude. Cliff saw it
>as a rival organisation. The SWP want to appear as the only socialist
>opposition to Blair. In the last Marxism (the SWP annual event) it have tens
>of forums but non of them about the SLP.
>Militant Labour tried to fuse with Scargill=92s project. Nevertheless, he
>decided to impose a constitution that forbade other organisations from
>affiliating. ML decided to promote its own "Socialist Alliances" which has a
>special audience in Scotland.
>The SLP now claim to have between 1,000 to 2,000 members. Hundreds ox
>ex-members of far left groups and also of the CP plus many former small
>organisations (like several dissidents groups from Cliffism or the fourth
>internationals) are inside the SLP. The SLP is attracting many people that
>is unhappy with Blair new Labour which is programmatically similar to the
>Conservatives.
>A revolutionary organisation has to have a pedagogic approach to these
>left-moving forces. A group with some tens of members should have comrades
>working in both Labour and in the SLP fighting inside these and other
>working class organisations for a united front policy against the bosses and
>for a revolutionary programme.
>Inside the SLP some former dissident members of Workers Power are fighting
>for a revolutionary programme inside it. Last weekend of July a national
>conference with 30 delegates decided to create the first organised
>opposition inside the SLP. The Revolutionary Platform adopted many
>revolutionary amendments. In that conference there was a debate between
>comrades who advocate a socialist revolutionary programme and comrades who
>wanted to adopt a  "democratic revolutionary" programme whose strategic aim
>was for a (bourgeois) federal republic. The conference resolved to fight for
>a Socialist Workers republic and for a Socialist Europe.
>In relation to the next elections we wouldn=92t advocate a vote for the SLP or
>Militant everywhere. We would only advocate a vote for non-Labour left
>candidates when they have real working class support. In places when they
>don=92t represent any significant force we would not endorse them. We don=92t
>support their programmes but we support some of their progressive demands
>and, what is most important, we try to make a united front with the best
>working class fighters that are around that movement.
>A revolutionary party should advocate critical support for Labour and that
>means to have an active participation inside it. At the same time we need to
>address to all of the working class leftwing forces when they have a
>SIGNIFICANT influence in the masses to stand fighting class candidates.






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