Marxists and the British

Labour Party

The New Turn - What Is the Alternative?

Minority Document

A Turn or Open Work?

24) The proposed 'Turn' with the establishment of an open revolutionary organisation/party will not provide the bridge to these layers. On the contrary, we can damage ourselves in their eyes by embarking on this adventure. Our great advantage in the past was to be perceived by these workers as part of the Labour Party, but at the same time separate from it. We were seen as a socialist minority fighting the reformism of the labour leaders, not from outside of the labour movement, but as a component, but independent part of it. This was a colossal capital for us in the eyes of these workers, even if they did not agree with us totally at this stage.

25) It is clear from the debate, that many comrades are still unclear about what is meant by the new 'turn'. It has been promoted by the leadership as 'all things to all comrades'. The 'turn' has been promoted as "more open work" especially in England and Wales. This is then lumped in with the "even more open work" in Scotland.

26) To begin with, the question of "more open work" is a complete red-herring, and is being used as a smokescreen to launch an open revolutionary organisation/party, starting in Scotland, then in England and Wales as we are emptied out of the party, within a measurable period of time.

27) There is no disagreement over "more open work". In reality it is nothing new. What have we been doing in the poll tax battle if not "more open work"? What have we been doing with the YRC if not "more open work"? What have we been doing for the last five years if not "more open work"? We are in favour of continuing this policy of "more open work", providing it does not conflict with our perspectives, strategy, or our fundamental method of work.

29) The proposal, which will have colossal consequences for our work nationally and internationally, is for us to declare ourselves an open revolutionary organisation/party. The original Scottish document falsely declared that the problem we face is that the image of the tendency among some of the advanced layers could be that of "a loose pressure group inside the Labour Party". (Scotland, Perspectives and Tasks 107)

30) The document refers to the examples of open public organisations such as the SWP and the Scottish National Party. Only by setting ourselves up as an open revolutionary organisation/party "we can attract towards us the best fighting elements of the working class and youth in Scotland who are already looking for an alternative to Kinnock's Labour Party" (Scotland, Perspectives and Tasks 107, our emphasis). The turn is therefore clearly attempting to establish an open revolutionary party as an alternative to the Labour Party in Scotland.

31) The Scottish document explains this must be done "even if this means mass expulsions from the Labour Party". (Scotland, Perspectives and Tasks 108). There can be no doubt that all our forces will be expelled if they are associated with this "open revolutionary alternative to the Labour Party".

32) To believe, as the document says, "with our friendly approach facing towards the party it will make little difference to our position within the broad labour movement" (Scotland, Perspectives and Tasks 108), is to completely underestimate the damage such a step would mean. The proposal is to establish an organisation/party that will stand candidates in the general election, Scottish Assembly elections, regional and district elections against the Labour Party.

Especially now with a growing mood for unity in the labour movement in the run-up to a general election, such an action will cut ourselves off from labour workers in the unions, shop stewards committees, and workplaces.

33) Comrades will object that this revolutionary organisation is not a party. But whatever we say, if we establish an open organisation with all the trappings of a party, standing candidates against the Labour Party, then the workers will see it as a party.

34) To compare our organisation/party with that of the old Communist Party, especially in Scotland, lacks all sense of proportion. The Communist Party established itself over half a century in the factories, pits, shipyards, etc with the colossal authority behind it of the Russian Revolution and the Communist International. It created powerful points of support in the trade unions and shop stewards committees as well as the factories. Any damage they did in standing against Labour was made up by their powerful position they already had in the workplaces. Despite the support for some of our key comrades, we are far from establishing this position at the present time. Standing against Labour can erect barriers to our work in the trade unions and amongst those Labour workers still loyal (at this stage) to their traditional organisations.

35) The consequences of establishing an open revolutionary party in Scotland will have dramatic consequences for our work in England and Wales. With one Labour Party and one trade union movement, there is no "political Hadrian's Wall" separating Scotland from the rest of Britain. The line of the paper promoting the revolutionary party in Scotland, its activities and election campaigns, will make it unsuitable as an entrist paper in our work. The idea of using a Scottish supplement will fool no one as it will be regarded obviously as the same paper. In any case the paper nationally will have to support and justify the line in Scotland, just as we had to support it in Walton. We would be rapidly expelled - not for campaigning for our socialist programme but promoting an open revolutionary party standing in elections against Labour. It would also tend to undermine our work in the trade unions, especially those affiliated to the Labour Party.

36) This is not a secondary question but a crucial difference. If you are expelled for defending the working class then you retain the sympathy of workers who believe that you have been victimised by the leadership. To be expelled for promoting a separate revolutionary party and standing candidates against Labour will be seen by workers in an entirely different light, especially in the run-up to the General Election. We will be regarded as having provoked our own expulsion from the Labour Party.

37) The comrades object when we say that the organisation will be breaking from the Labour Party if we adopt the new 'turn'. We don't believe that it is the intention of comrades to 'rip up their cards' (although we have made the serious error of allowing hundreds of comrades to do so in the last few years by not renewing their membership), but their very actions in promoting the open revolutionary party in Scotland will be regarded by Labour workers as consciously breaking from Labour. This will be all the more so as we are recognised as having had a consistent approach to the labour party. Workers will sec us as moving away from the Labour Party, and we will lose all the sympathy that we had built up through our consistent patient approach over the years. It will weaken our trade union work and erode our base in industry.

A Full-Scale Purge?

38) If the 'turn' goes through, then within a relatively short period all our forces will be emptied out of the Labour Party nationally. Some leading comrades have argued that we will be expelled in any case so what's the problem. "A full scale purge is on the cards irrespective of whatever action we take" (Scotland, Perspectives and Tasks 110). To begin with, even if Labour wins, a complete purge of our comrades is not inevitable. The witch-hunt is a struggle of living forces. To say it is "on the cards irrespective' is to have a fatalistic approach.

39) Although the witch-hunt has accelerated over the last few years, the amazing feature has been the slow progress of expulsions. The right-wing first threatened to purge us all in the late 1970s. The fact that only about 220 have been expelled to date is a testimony to our tenacity and superior tactics, as well as the basic democratic traditions of the labour movement. Nevertheless, as in the 1950s with its struggle against the Bevanites, the bureaucracy has carried out suspensions of MPs, councillors, and Constituency Labour Parties, as well as the exclusion of potential members. We explained at the beginning of the year, in British Perspectives 1991: "As the leadership and its hangers-on move to the right, witch-hunts against class fighters are inevitable. It could not be ruled out that the expulsion of Marxists, in the event of a labour victory could be attempted on a far wider scale than up to now." (British Perspectives 1991, 168).

40) In contrast to the categorical fashion in which the issue is now posed by those who favour the 'turn', the witch-hunt was then, in January 1991, explained in much more conditional and balanced terms. Of course, the witch-hunt has proceeded and intensified, especially in Liverpool, but we must avoid taking a fatalistic view of the outcome. It is precisely the tactics of Walton, followed by the Turn that will make a mass purge far more likely.

41) Our work in the Labour Party would be wrecked, despite the incredible view of the NEB majority that Labour Party work would become an "auxiliary", and that "we should strive to maintain all points of support we have inside the Labour Party and strive to develop aspects of this activity more tightly". (For the Scottish Turn resolution, and para 12 in Scotland Perspectives and Tasks document). How could it be 'auxiliary' or 'maintained' when we are all out of the party? We cannot be blind to the real consequence of this new 'turn'.

Entrism - 40 or 60 years?

42) Does it matter if we are all expelled? We have spent 40 years in the Labour Party conducting entrism not as Trotsky perceived it, but as long term work in the mass organisation. Incidentally, it is not simply a long-term orientation to the mass organisation, as this would mean we were an organisation outside of the Labour Party facing towards it. This has not been the case for four decades.

43) As we explained previously, the entrism of the 1930s and 1940s was based on Trotsky's classical conception. It presupposed a ferment inside social democracy and the crystallisation of a mass loft wing moving in the direction of Marxism, which the revolutionary party would enter and win over to the revolutionary standpoint. For Trotsky it was a short-term tactic. The perspective was for the rapid development of the revolutionary party at this time. What we have been conducting over the last 40 years was not classical entrism. The conditions for this tactic have never existed in Britain during that whole period. Our work was of a qualitatively different nature. We developed, extended and enriched Trotsky's ideas of the 1930s and adopted them to the period from 1950 onwards.

44) The references to the RCP and the debate around entrism in the 1940s misses the point completely. That discussion was based wholly on Trotsky's classical conception of entrism and the perspective of a rapid development of the revolutionary party. There was no question of long-term work in the Labour party as we have been doing. The consequences of openwork were therefore fundamentally different. We have to take into consideration the damage to decades of work we have already put in, and the jeopardy to our present and future work. On this will depend the key question of building of a mass organisation in the future.

45) The reason why we talk of the threat to forty and not sixty years work is not to be clever and avoid Trotsky's ideas in the 1930s, but to refer to our particular work in the mass organisations and the colossal capital that we have built up arising from this work. If comrades want to discuss 'entrism' in general, then why not take the experiences back 70 years to Lenin's attitude to the Labour Party or even further back to Marx and Engels - as Trotsky had done? That would be fruitful, but our main concern arising from these concrete proposals is the danger to our consistent approach to the mass organisations over the last four decades.

46) Incidentally the reference to our turn towards the Communist Party in 1956 to show our flexibility is breathtaking. The Communist Party was in absolute crisis after the Hungarian events with large layers of its membership in turmoil. At this stage the organisation was posed to attract those workers leaving the Communist Party. Our comrades had been in the Labour Party five years and were only about 40 in number. The danger of a brief turn to these layers was minimal. The bureaucracy hardly knew of our existence, never mind concern itself with our activities. In fact, PT in the introduction to 'Entrism' poked fun (p2) at the Healyites for suggesting in their document 'Pabloism in Britain' that our 'main pivot of revolutionary activity as being the open organisation' (p2).

47) Instead, PT described our turn to the Communist Party as "fields where a certain amount of attention must be devoted". This episode lasted a matter of months. We had nothing to lose from it and everything to gain. Today things are entirely different. If we now set up the open revolutionary party then we would have much to lose and little to gain. To quote further from PT's introduction:

"A great opportunity will be presented to us to develop as a mass tendency in the conditions which will develop in Britain in the next decade. But on one condition - that our comrade correctly absorb the lessons of our work within the Labour Party and theoretically arm ourselves for the coming period. We have carved out for ourselves a favourable position from which big advances can be made. We have remained firm on principles, on our programme, and flexible in the way we work in the mass organisation (our emphasis) We could have succumbed to the moods of opportunism and its twin adventurism, as did the sects. Comrades can satisfy themselves that we resisted both pressures...We can be justifiably proud of our achievements. But the real history of the tendency is only just beginning. We are only at the start of real entry work with the outline of those conditions laid down by Trotsky just beginning to take shape". (p5, our emphasis).

48) At that stage PT was clear that our work was not orientating towards the mass organisations but was actually in the mass organisations.

49) Although the development of events turned out to be more protracted than anticipated, the article correctly pointed to the opportunities that would begin to develop in the period of a Labour government. The article was written in 1973 on the eve of the Wilson-Callaghan government. As we predicted it was a government of counter-reform which pushed the trade unions to the left and produced a left wing in the Labour Party around Benn. The boom from 1982 largely cut across these developments in the Labour Party and provided the Tories with material conditions (as well as the outcome of the Falklands war) for electoral victories in 1983 and 1987. The Labour Party shifted to the right.

50) However, just before the 1987 general election, in a pamphlet on Liverpool, PT outlined the likely perspective if Labour came to power: "That government will be a right wing government in the manner of the Gonzalez government in Spain, the Papandreou government in Greece and the recently defeated Socialist government in France. It will come to power against the background of an economic crisis far worse than the one which faced the Labour Government of 1974-79.

"After an initial honeymoon period of perhaps 18 months to two years, an inevitable revolt will grow within the ranks of the trade unions and be reflected within the Labour Party. The ruling class and their shadows within the labour movement can see this. James Callaghan in an outburst at a meeting of Cardiff South Labour Party said that Labour was likely to win the next election, but would soon run into trouble within 18 months: 'Heaven help you if by then Marxists are still on the GMC." In other words the right wing understand that the Marxists can become a catalyst to the inevitable opposition of the rank and file to the retreat of the right wing."

51) We are facing a further general election in the next few months. The situation is very volatile. As explained above, we could be faced with a Kinnock government operating under far more difficult conditions that 1974-79. It will be a government of crisis possibly similar to the minority Labour governments of 1924,1929-31. It will be precisely in this period that the very conditions for classical entrism for which we have been preparing for 40 years may begin to mature, giving the revolutionary organisation tremendous possibilities for growth. And yet, it is at this very time that the comrades are proposing a tactic which will, in effect, dissolve the Labour Party work. Is it any wonder that we call the 'new turn' an ultra-left adventure?

[Continue...]