New Workers' Party
New mass workers' party:
Conference for action needed
IN THE first of two articles, PETER TAAFFE, general
secretary of the Socialist Party, says that the time
for stepping up the campaign for a mass workers' party
in Britain is not just ripe - it is rotten ripe.
THE RECENT Labour Party conference has once more
underlined how the New Labour leadership is completely
disconnected from the problems and concerns of
ordinary working-class people. This was highlighted by
the thuggish treatment meted out to 82-year old Walter
Wolfgang, a refugee from Nazi Germany, who dared to
shout "Nonsense!" in response to Jack Straw's
statement that opponents of the Iraq War were like
pro-Nazi sympathisers!
Walter Wolfgang was held and questioned by police
under Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The attack on civil liberties by the New
Labour-dominated state is mirrored by its
authoritarian and intolerant approach towards its own
party's members.
Even worse was the brutal restatement in Brighton by
the New Labour leadership - Gordon Brown as much as
Tony Blair - of their neo-liberal mantra of no
concessions to the trade union clamour for the
abolition of Thatcher's law preventing 'secondary
solidarity action' by fellow trade unionists.
Further privatisation, particularly in the NHS and
schools, which will have calamitous consequences, was
promised. No action on the desperate housing problem,
support for big business to get its clutches into
children's education through a massive introduction of
academies; all of this was spelt out in Brighton. In
other words, more of the same, only worse, for
working-class people was the unmistakeable message.
Those who hoped that Gordon Brown, like a 'socialist'
St George, would slay the New Labour dragon once he
was in the saddle were dashed by his interviews and
speeches at the conference. He re-stated his
enthusiastic support for the New Labour 'project'.
Despite this, the trade union leadership and the Lefts
who remain within the party continue to believe, in
the teeth of all the evidence to the contrary, that
New Labour is redeemable and can be transformed in a
socialist direction. They point to the conference
decisions against further privatisation of the NHS, on
housing and even on 'secondary action' against the New
Labour leadership as proof of this.
But nothing could be further from the truth. No sooner
had the hypocritical singing of the 'Red Flag' died
down at the end of the conference than Blair spelt out
bluntly his view of his own party. He said on Sky TV
that those trade unionists and constituency delegates
- who voted 99% and 40% respectively in favour of
'secondary action' - were "crazies". This for daring
to defend the democratic rights of trade unionists!
Incredibly, Blair or Brown are less likely to repudiate
this and the other ten pernicious
anti-union laws introduced by Thatcher than the
Liberals were in 1906. The Liberal government, under
pressure from the newly created Labour Party, did
repudiate the House of Lords' anti-union Taff Vale
judgement, which allowed heavy fines - 'damages' -
against unions taking industrial action.
Yet the equivalent of Taff Vale today is precisely the
prohibition of 'secondary action' which effectively
neuters workers from taking industrial action in
support of their brothers and sisters fighting against
pernicious bosses and slave-like conditions and wages.
This has been amply demonstrated by the Gate Gourmet
dispute and its outcome, which was unfortunately not a
total victory for the working class.
Big business party
THE LABOUR leadership's stand on this issue alone is
enough for serious trade unionists to decide that this
party now represents big business and is always on the
side of the employers on decisive issues.
This is further underlined by the government's stand
on the retirement age of public-sector workers: "Work
till you drop." Forced to retreat from raising the
retirement age of the present workforce, it still
intends to create a 'two-tier' workforce for all new
entrants to the public sector.
On top of this, we have the obscenity of the Iraq War
with a majority - 51% at least - calling for the
withdrawal of British troops, while Jack Straw said on
Newsnight they could be in Iraq for another five or
ten years.
Is there a chance that all of this could be stopped by
a resurgent trade union movement together with
indignant Labour Party members? About as much chance
as a snowball in hell. A fervent and slavish supporter
of Blairism in the past such as Polly Toynbee
confessed: "Brighton has exposed Labour as a sham
deserted by its members." [The Guardian]
Even Blair admits that party membership is down from
400,000 in 1997 when Labour came to power to an
"official" 200,000 today. In reality, its only
'activists' at local level are usually a dejected
collection of demoralised councillors. These cling to
the battered wreckage of the Labour Party in a stormy
sea because there is no other lifeboat present to pick
them up.
A new mass party, even the first steps towards the
creation of one, would attract those who still 'hope
against hope' that in some undefined way Labour can be
transformed, because no mass alternative yet exists.
It would win greater numbers from young people.
Walter Wolfgang was courageous to raise his voice
against Straw's lies but not one other delegate on the
floor of the conference joined in, so politically
backward, cowered or intimidated are they by the
Blairite machine.
He stated that the party had been "taken over by a
gang of political adventurers. I will remain a member
for the simple reason that we can outlive them."
[Daily Mirror 29 September.] The courageous Walter
deserves full marks for his perspectives on his own
longevity but not for the Labour Party itself.
The Campaign Group of MPs also entertains the forlorn
hope that the Labour Party can be transformed. It has
been suggested that they put up a 'stalking horse'
against Blair that could trigger an electoral contest
for the Labour leadership in 2006. Even if successful,
the victorious candidate that could emerge is likely
to be Brown, the replacement of Tweedledum by
Tweedledee.
The disappointment of the last eight years of Blairism
will be compounded by an epoch of Brownism. It could
pave the way for the return of the hated Tories,
perhaps given a facelift by some kind of
Cameron-Clarke duumvirate. At the same time, the daily
drip-feed of attacks on the working class, which can
be enormously aggravated by a new world economic
recession or slump, will continue apace.
Campaign
NO! THIS is not the time for false hopes or
prevarication. Bob Crow, who has courageously
planted the flag for a new mass working-class party,
has suggested recently that the RMT could call a
conference in early 2006 of organisations and parties
to discuss this idea.
The Socialist Party supports all steps of this kind
which bring together genuine left, fighting and socialist
forces to discuss the programme and character of a mass party in
Britain, or even, in the first instance, a serious
step towards such a party.
If Bob Crow is unable or frustrated in calling such a
conference, then the Socialist Party will explore -
through a campaign with trade unionists,
environmentalists, young people, community activists
and leaders - the idea of calling a conference on the
issue of a new mass party.
The campaign would involve testing out the support for
a new party, the programme, structures and
organisation that would be necessary with, possibly, a
consultative conference next spring.
The Socialist Party has championed the idea of a new
party for more than ten years. In this time we have
had the experience of the Socialist Labour Party, set
up by Arthur Scargill, heroic leader of the miners in
their battle against Thatcher. However, he
unfortunately insisted on exclusive conditions for
membership and activity in this party. Consequently,
it has been sidelined.
That unfortunate experience was repeated in the
Socialist Alliance - which Militant Labour (now the
Socialist Party) originally helped to set up - when
the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) entered it. Instead
of opening up, they actually narrowed the structures
of the Alliance, so only those who marched to the
drumbeat politically and organisationally of the SWP
could remain.
They have, unfortunately, repeated this experience
with 'Respect' in alliance with George Galloway. The
basis of this party is too narrow, appealing in the
main to one section of the population, some Muslims,
many of whom have deserted Labour because of the Iraq
War and have cast around for an alternative.
At the height of the antiwar movement the Socialist
Party discussed with George Galloway and expressed our
preparedness to launch with him and other left
organisations a broad, left party, so long as it was
open, democratic and specifically socialist. Such a
party could, at the height of the antiwar movement,
have attracted broad swathes of left forces.
In discussions with us George Galloway indicated that
he was thinking of the Albert Hall - which holds 6,000
people - for its launch. Nothing came of this project
but after his expulsion from the Labour Party,
together mainly with the SWP he launched Respect.
Contrary to the impression he has given in some of his
public speeches, the Socialist Party did not turn its
back immediately on this initiative but waited, as
some other leftward-moving workers also did, to see
what this formation's political character was and,
crucially, what kind of structures would be set up.
Our suggestion, shared by others, for the setting up
of a loose federal structure that would allow
discussion, debate and action was rejected by Respect.
In particular, at the national conference of Respect a
proposal to allow 'platforms', as is the case in the
Scottish Socialist Party, was also refused when it was
suggested by some lefts who looked towards Respect
initially.
These are amongst the reasons why Respect is unlikely
to make a significant breakthrough amongst broader
layers of the working class. It is not excluded that
in George Galloway's own constituency of Bethnal Green
and Bow in Tower Hamlets council a number of seats
could be gained. However, this is unlikely to be
repeated on a similar scale outside of areas with a
high concentration of Asians or Muslims.
It is vital that any new party appeals to this section
of the population, amongst the most alienated and
oppressed layers. But nowhere can a viable mass party
be built on just one section of the working class.
Fighting programme
HOWEVER, THE urgency to create such a party is
underlined by the success of the Left Party in Germany
with 8.8% of the vote and 54 MPs following the general
election. The repercussions of this development will
be felt throughout Europe and not least in Britain.
The difference in the objective situation in Britain,
compared to Germany, is only one of degree. Blair and
Schroeder - despite the latter's protestations to the
contrary - had a shared agenda of Thatcherism,
neo-liberalism.
The main difference was that in Britain these policies
have been introduced over time - Thatcher first, then
Major, then Blair - whereas the German workers have
experienced 'fast-track Thatcherism'. The shock and
consequent political reaction, therefore, has been
more immediate in Germany. However, the same
underlying conditions exist in Britain.
The crucial subjective difference is that no major
left figure or trade union leader in Britain - apart
from Bob Crow - has called for or taken action to
create the conditions for a real new mass party. It is
urgent for the working class that such a step is taken
and is the reason why the Socialist Party intends to
energetically pursue this campaign.
Basic fighting demands for a new party
The programme and structures which will emerge out of
a process of discussion cannot be fully anticipated in
advance. We would, however, suggest that agreement
could be reached on a number of basic fighting
demands. The most important of these include:
The immediate abolition of the legal ban on 'secondary
industrial action' and the repeal of all Thatcher's
anti-union legislation.
* No to privatisation in schools, hospitals, the
civil service, etc.
* For a fully funded, democratic socialist health
service and for the immediate taking into public
ownership of the pharmaceutical monopolies,
compensation being only on the basis of proven need.
* A living national minimum wage at the level of
at least the European decency threshold and a living
pension for all, as well as opposition to the
government's programme to raise the age of retirement
for public-sector workers.
* For a socialist, democratic housing programme
and a crash programme to build cheap, 'social housing'
for those most in need.
* For a democratic socialist plan to save the
environment, both in Britain and worldwide, with
concrete measures to undo the environmental damage
done by unrestricted capitalism.
* For the public ownership of the 'commanding
heights' of the economy.
These are just some of the demands around which a
discussion could unfold.
In relation to structures, as we will explain in an
article in the socialist next week, it is vital that
the most democratic, federal and loose type of
organisation is adopted in the first instance. Above
all, the acceptance of the right of all trends and
tendencies to participate, including the right to
publish and distribute material such as newspapers,
bulletins and journals, as well as the right to form
platforms.
These proposals are made in order to set the
discussion in motion, which we hope will take place at
all levels of the working-class movement, amongst
young people in universities and colleges, in the
workplaces and union branches, in the environmental
movement and amongst all of those dissatisfied with
ailing British capitalism and searching for an
alternative.
Conference for action needed
IN THE first of two articles, PETER TAAFFE, general
secretary of the Socialist Party, says that the time
for stepping up the campaign for a mass workers' party
in Britain is not just ripe - it is rotten ripe.
THE RECENT Labour Party conference has once more
underlined how the New Labour leadership is completely
disconnected from the problems and concerns of
ordinary working-class people. This was highlighted by
the thuggish treatment meted out to 82-year old Walter
Wolfgang, a refugee from Nazi Germany, who dared to
shout "Nonsense!" in response to Jack Straw's
statement that opponents of the Iraq War were like
pro-Nazi sympathisers!
Walter Wolfgang was held and questioned by police
under Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The attack on civil liberties by the New
Labour-dominated state is mirrored by its
authoritarian and intolerant approach towards its own
party's members.
Even worse was the brutal restatement in Brighton by
the New Labour leadership - Gordon Brown as much as
Tony Blair - of their neo-liberal mantra of no
concessions to the trade union clamour for the
abolition of Thatcher's law preventing 'secondary
solidarity action' by fellow trade unionists.
Further privatisation, particularly in the NHS and
schools, which will have calamitous consequences, was
promised. No action on the desperate housing problem,
support for big business to get its clutches into
children's education through a massive introduction of
academies; all of this was spelt out in Brighton. In
other words, more of the same, only worse, for
working-class people was the unmistakeable message.
Those who hoped that Gordon Brown, like a 'socialist'
St George, would slay the New Labour dragon once he
was in the saddle were dashed by his interviews and
speeches at the conference. He re-stated his
enthusiastic support for the New Labour 'project'.
Despite this, the trade union leadership and the Lefts
who remain within the party continue to believe, in
the teeth of all the evidence to the contrary, that
New Labour is redeemable and can be transformed in a
socialist direction. They point to the conference
decisions against further privatisation of the NHS, on
housing and even on 'secondary action' against the New
Labour leadership as proof of this.
But nothing could be further from the truth. No sooner
had the hypocritical singing of the 'Red Flag' died
down at the end of the conference than Blair spelt out
bluntly his view of his own party. He said on Sky TV
that those trade unionists and constituency delegates
- who voted 99% and 40% respectively in favour of
'secondary action' - were "crazies". This for daring
to defend the democratic rights of trade unionists!
Incredibly, Blair or Brown are less likely to repudiate
this and the other ten pernicious
anti-union laws introduced by Thatcher than the
Liberals were in 1906. The Liberal government, under
pressure from the newly created Labour Party, did
repudiate the House of Lords' anti-union Taff Vale
judgement, which allowed heavy fines - 'damages' -
against unions taking industrial action.
Yet the equivalent of Taff Vale today is precisely the
prohibition of 'secondary action' which effectively
neuters workers from taking industrial action in
support of their brothers and sisters fighting against
pernicious bosses and slave-like conditions and wages.
This has been amply demonstrated by the Gate Gourmet
dispute and its outcome, which was unfortunately not a
total victory for the working class.
Big business party
THE LABOUR leadership's stand on this issue alone is
enough for serious trade unionists to decide that this
party now represents big business and is always on the
side of the employers on decisive issues.
This is further underlined by the government's stand
on the retirement age of public-sector workers: "Work
till you drop." Forced to retreat from raising the
retirement age of the present workforce, it still
intends to create a 'two-tier' workforce for all new
entrants to the public sector.
On top of this, we have the obscenity of the Iraq War
with a majority - 51% at least - calling for the
withdrawal of British troops, while Jack Straw said on
Newsnight they could be in Iraq for another five or
ten years.
Is there a chance that all of this could be stopped by
a resurgent trade union movement together with
indignant Labour Party members? About as much chance
as a snowball in hell. A fervent and slavish supporter
of Blairism in the past such as Polly Toynbee
confessed: "Brighton has exposed Labour as a sham
deserted by its members." [The Guardian]
Even Blair admits that party membership is down from
400,000 in 1997 when Labour came to power to an
"official" 200,000 today. In reality, its only
'activists' at local level are usually a dejected
collection of demoralised councillors. These cling to
the battered wreckage of the Labour Party in a stormy
sea because there is no other lifeboat present to pick
them up.
A new mass party, even the first steps towards the
creation of one, would attract those who still 'hope
against hope' that in some undefined way Labour can be
transformed, because no mass alternative yet exists.
It would win greater numbers from young people.
Walter Wolfgang was courageous to raise his voice
against Straw's lies but not one other delegate on the
floor of the conference joined in, so politically
backward, cowered or intimidated are they by the
Blairite machine.
He stated that the party had been "taken over by a
gang of political adventurers. I will remain a member
for the simple reason that we can outlive them."
[Daily Mirror 29 September.] The courageous Walter
deserves full marks for his perspectives on his own
longevity but not for the Labour Party itself.
The Campaign Group of MPs also entertains the forlorn
hope that the Labour Party can be transformed. It has
been suggested that they put up a 'stalking horse'
against Blair that could trigger an electoral contest
for the Labour leadership in 2006. Even if successful,
the victorious candidate that could emerge is likely
to be Brown, the replacement of Tweedledum by
Tweedledee.
The disappointment of the last eight years of Blairism
will be compounded by an epoch of Brownism. It could
pave the way for the return of the hated Tories,
perhaps given a facelift by some kind of
Cameron-Clarke duumvirate. At the same time, the daily
drip-feed of attacks on the working class, which can
be enormously aggravated by a new world economic
recession or slump, will continue apace.
Campaign
NO! THIS is not the time for false hopes or
prevarication. Bob Crow, who has courageously
planted the flag for a new mass working-class party,
has suggested recently that the RMT could call a
conference in early 2006 of organisations and parties
to discuss this idea.
The Socialist Party supports all steps of this kind
which bring together genuine left, fighting and socialist
forces to discuss the programme and character of a mass party in
Britain, or even, in the first instance, a serious
step towards such a party.
If Bob Crow is unable or frustrated in calling such a
conference, then the Socialist Party will explore -
through a campaign with trade unionists,
environmentalists, young people, community activists
and leaders - the idea of calling a conference on the
issue of a new mass party.
The campaign would involve testing out the support for
a new party, the programme, structures and
organisation that would be necessary with, possibly, a
consultative conference next spring.
The Socialist Party has championed the idea of a new
party for more than ten years. In this time we have
had the experience of the Socialist Labour Party, set
up by Arthur Scargill, heroic leader of the miners in
their battle against Thatcher. However, he
unfortunately insisted on exclusive conditions for
membership and activity in this party. Consequently,
it has been sidelined.
That unfortunate experience was repeated in the
Socialist Alliance - which Militant Labour (now the
Socialist Party) originally helped to set up - when
the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) entered it. Instead
of opening up, they actually narrowed the structures
of the Alliance, so only those who marched to the
drumbeat politically and organisationally of the SWP
could remain.
They have, unfortunately, repeated this experience
with 'Respect' in alliance with George Galloway. The
basis of this party is too narrow, appealing in the
main to one section of the population, some Muslims,
many of whom have deserted Labour because of the Iraq
War and have cast around for an alternative.
At the height of the antiwar movement the Socialist
Party discussed with George Galloway and expressed our
preparedness to launch with him and other left
organisations a broad, left party, so long as it was
open, democratic and specifically socialist. Such a
party could, at the height of the antiwar movement,
have attracted broad swathes of left forces.
In discussions with us George Galloway indicated that
he was thinking of the Albert Hall - which holds 6,000
people - for its launch. Nothing came of this project
but after his expulsion from the Labour Party,
together mainly with the SWP he launched Respect.
Contrary to the impression he has given in some of his
public speeches, the Socialist Party did not turn its
back immediately on this initiative but waited, as
some other leftward-moving workers also did, to see
what this formation's political character was and,
crucially, what kind of structures would be set up.
Our suggestion, shared by others, for the setting up
of a loose federal structure that would allow
discussion, debate and action was rejected by Respect.
In particular, at the national conference of Respect a
proposal to allow 'platforms', as is the case in the
Scottish Socialist Party, was also refused when it was
suggested by some lefts who looked towards Respect
initially.
These are amongst the reasons why Respect is unlikely
to make a significant breakthrough amongst broader
layers of the working class. It is not excluded that
in George Galloway's own constituency of Bethnal Green
and Bow in Tower Hamlets council a number of seats
could be gained. However, this is unlikely to be
repeated on a similar scale outside of areas with a
high concentration of Asians or Muslims.
It is vital that any new party appeals to this section
of the population, amongst the most alienated and
oppressed layers. But nowhere can a viable mass party
be built on just one section of the working class.
Fighting programme
HOWEVER, THE urgency to create such a party is
underlined by the success of the Left Party in Germany
with 8.8% of the vote and 54 MPs following the general
election. The repercussions of this development will
be felt throughout Europe and not least in Britain.
The difference in the objective situation in Britain,
compared to Germany, is only one of degree. Blair and
Schroeder - despite the latter's protestations to the
contrary - had a shared agenda of Thatcherism,
neo-liberalism.
The main difference was that in Britain these policies
have been introduced over time - Thatcher first, then
Major, then Blair - whereas the German workers have
experienced 'fast-track Thatcherism'. The shock and
consequent political reaction, therefore, has been
more immediate in Germany. However, the same
underlying conditions exist in Britain.
The crucial subjective difference is that no major
left figure or trade union leader in Britain - apart
from Bob Crow - has called for or taken action to
create the conditions for a real new mass party. It is
urgent for the working class that such a step is taken
and is the reason why the Socialist Party intends to
energetically pursue this campaign.
Basic fighting demands for a new party
The programme and structures which will emerge out of
a process of discussion cannot be fully anticipated in
advance. We would, however, suggest that agreement
could be reached on a number of basic fighting
demands. The most important of these include:
The immediate abolition of the legal ban on 'secondary
industrial action' and the repeal of all Thatcher's
anti-union legislation.
* No to privatisation in schools, hospitals, the
civil service, etc.
* For a fully funded, democratic socialist health
service and for the immediate taking into public
ownership of the pharmaceutical monopolies,
compensation being only on the basis of proven need.
* A living national minimum wage at the level of
at least the European decency threshold and a living
pension for all, as well as opposition to the
government's programme to raise the age of retirement
for public-sector workers.
* For a socialist, democratic housing programme
and a crash programme to build cheap, 'social housing'
for those most in need.
* For a democratic socialist plan to save the
environment, both in Britain and worldwide, with
concrete measures to undo the environmental damage
done by unrestricted capitalism.
* For the public ownership of the 'commanding
heights' of the economy.
These are just some of the demands around which a
discussion could unfold.
In relation to structures, as we will explain in an
article in the socialist next week, it is vital that
the most democratic, federal and loose type of
organisation is adopted in the first instance. Above
all, the acceptance of the right of all trends and
tendencies to participate, including the right to
publish and distribute material such as newspapers,
bulletins and journals, as well as the right to form
platforms.
These proposals are made in order to set the
discussion in motion, which we hope will take place at
all levels of the working-class movement, amongst
young people in universities and colleges, in the
workplaces and union branches, in the environmental
movement and amongst all of those dissatisfied with
ailing British capitalism and searching for an
alternative.
