More on Scargill's SLP

[Scott Marshall <scott@xxxxxxxxxx>]

By Mike Hicks, general secretary Communist party of Britain

   FOLLOWING the 1995 Labour Party conference, it was universally agreed
that the Labour Party under the leadership of Blair and the modernisers had
taken a sharp turn to the right.

   This can be clearly identified with the dumping of clause four, the
acceptance of an anti-democratic rule book, copping-out on the issue of
cutting defence spending, the apparent support for a two-tier education
system and many other issues.

   Above all, the crucial issue of the links with the trade union movement,
with the possibility of more reductions in the share of the votes provided
for in the new rule book.

  Does the situation require the setting-up of a new party of the left or is
there a potential for a fightback within the Labour Party?
   Within the Communist Party of Britain, at all levels of debate including
its congress in November and its executive committee in January, the
proposed new party has been discussed and resoundingly opposed politically.
A lot of sympathy was expressed with the frustration felt by good socialists
at the failure of new Labour under Blair to meet the aspirations of working
people. A charismatic and principled leader like Arthur Scargill will strike
a chord among the many left activists who are feeling demoralised.

   Yes, there is a massive attempt by Blair and the modernisers to shift the
aims and constitution of the Labour Party away from the potential of
securing a government capable of winning socialism in Britain. But there is
a great gap between right-wing aspirations and the ability to achieve them.

   Trades unions still have 50 per cent of the vote at Labour Party
conferences, 12 out of 29 NEC members are elected by the unions who also had
the largest vote in the five seats reserved for women.

   The Labour Party, which was set up in 1906, was not socialist. Clause
four was drafted on a double approach Q both as a result of pressure from
the organised working class, especially the shop stewards movement, and from
the Fabians to divert the Labour Party from becoming revolutionary following
the 1917 revolution in Russia.

   Clause four was in existence when Ramsey MacDonald Q an extreme
right-wing Labour leader Q led the first Labour government in 1924.

   It was in existence in 1926 when Walter Citrine led the general strike as
general secretary of a TUC with 4.5 million members. At the end of that
strike, he became Sir Walter Citrine and the TUC had 3.5 million members.

   Clause four was in existence during the period of Mondism, today called
social partnership but always meaning class collaboration.

   Clause four was in existence during the period of the national
government. It did not prevent any of these developments. No-one would seek
to diminish the importance of clause four, but, at the end of the day, it is
the level and degree of success of the class struggle which makes it meaningful.

   The Communist Party was set up in 1920 and existed within the federal
structure of the Labour Party until 1922 when it was expelled by the Ramsey
MacDonald leadership.

   It was always political in that it sought to introduce the science of
Marxism Q and later also Leninism Q into British working struggles as a
process culminating in the British Road to Socialism which has remained the
partyUs programme since 1951.

   The CPB never split from the Communist Party of Great Britain and only
re-established when it became clear that the CPGB was about to liquidate and
that those party members who had been expelled, excluded and purged would
not be readmitted, despite four years of struggle in the wilderness and
appeals to return to the party had been dismissed.

   The CPB re-established on the basis of the rules, aims, constitution,
programme and polices of the CPGB. This is important to understand, because
it does not appear that the SLP is basing itself on rules, aims,
constitution, programme and polices of the Labour Party. We say that those
contemplating the SLP should stay in the Labour Party and fight.

   The present-day Labour Party is not in the position of liquidation and
can still be seen as the mass party of the working class and can still be
won by extra parliamentary activity.

   Our programme states that socialism can only be won when the mass of the
working people decide that as a fact. The key to it is the organised labour
movement Q the trade unions Q and we must see our position within that
organised section.

   The trade union movement is larger than in the 1920s with over seven
million members.

   At the last Labour Party conference, over 30 per cent of delegates voted
for progressive policies and progressive NEC candidates.

   The deep feeling of British people for their welfare state makes the task
of rightwingers a difficult one. Splitting the forces of the left makes it
easier for them.

   At the next election, which is due to take place in the next 17 months,
we must defeat the Tories. It is the Tories who have imposed the barbarism
of the unfettered market economy on the British people.

   We must fight for left policies to be adopted by an incoming Labour
government. It is class struggle which will determine the character of the
mass party of the working class together with its future.

   Splits in the left can only weaken this process, no matter how well
intentioned.

  Surely the strategy for the left in Britain today is to develop a
broad-based alternative economic and political strategy.

   First, this demands a defence of the welfare state and a campaign for
full employment. It requires government investment in the infrastructure and
in the economy Q if necessary borrowing, in the first instance, in order to
kick-start the economy.

   But most important, a confident working-class movement must be developed
through extra-parliamentary campaigning and activity so that pressure can be
exerted on the TUC and the Labour Party.

   Then, the transnationals can be challenged and their power united by a
nation state representing the views of the people.

   To help overcome unemployment, the state could start massive building
programmes, put unemployed builders back to work and provide housing for the
homeless. Conversion in the arms industry could be undertaken to moderate
British industries.

   A shorter working day, a shorter working life with men and women retiring
at 60 as a first step.

   These and other measures could transform takers from the state into
givers and start to reverse the #27 billion taken from welfare resources to
pay for unemployment.

   Revenue can be raised by renationalising the highly profitable privatised
industries and paying for this with the issuing of government stock, closing
tax loopholes, reversing the tax gains given to the rich, introducing
limited import counters and the repatriation of some of the #572 billion
invested overseas.

   Such policies, if adopted, would not create socialism, but they would
start to move the balance of wealth and power away from the super-rich and
towards working people.

   They would help to create the conditions for an advance to socialism.

   A united left and progressive movement campaigning vigorously can effect
change both in the TUC and the Labour Party.

   A fragmented left will leave the field open to the right wing.





     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------