1997 SLP CONGRESS

REPORT

Chris Edwards

December 1997

The Socialist Labour Party congress took place in December 1997. There were

delegates from 114 SLP constituency parties (constituencies being the electoral

units for general elections). There was one regional trade union affiliated to

the party (Lancashire Area NUM) and one trade union branch of UCATT, the

construction workers’ union. Scargill claimed that the total membership was just

over 5000, but this probably includes the affiliated trade union membership, the

majority of which cannot be regarded as active supporters of the party. Not all

members are organised into constituency parties, particularly in the rural

areas.

There was a clear majority of syndicalists, Stalinists and right-centrists/left

reformists in the conference. But there was a significant revolutionary minority

and it was very vocal. The Scargillite syndicalist trend appears to be the

dominant one in the party. The left of the SLP was very much in evidence on the

first day and around a dozen delegates (including myself) moved the reference

back of the conference arrangements committee report because of the numerous

motions and amendments ruled out of order of by the NEC. Needless to say we

failed.

The National Executive Report was then introduced. It included a disciplinary

procedure. Delegates were only presented with this at the start of the congress

and were expected to vote on this long document the same morning! It did not

allow for a final appeal to annual congress and it did not allow for a clear

separation between the NEC and the complaints committee/final appeals committee.

NEC members could sit on these committees but they could not be at the NEC

meeting when the complaints committee/final appeals committee report was being

considered.

Anti-Gay Bigotry

During the lunch break, I gave out my NEC election platform and also a leaflet

exposing the Bullites on the issue of anti-gay bigotry (the Bullites, named

after their leader Royston Bull, are an ex-Healyite group expelled from the WRP

in the late 70s. Their politics are, roughly speaking, a cross between the

extreme sectarianism of the Northites and "born again" Stalinist Castroism,

remininscent of the Barnesites) As I was handing out leaflets at the exit to the

congress hall, I discovered that the Communists Party of Great Britain

(CPGB)--sponsored Campaign for a Democratic SLP (CDSLP) had organised a fringe

meeting that lunch-time on the question of gay bigotry in the SLP. The CPGB has

evolved in the opposite direction to the Bullites. Coming from Stalinism, they

have evolved in the direction of "revolutionary Leninism" campaigning for for

masny years for the old Communist Party to rediscover its revolutionary past in

the early 1920s. They have distanced themselves from Trotskyism, yet in many

ways ar more "Trotskyist" in their practice than the "Trotskyists", such as the

USEC. They have also picked up some of the ultra-leftism of the smaller

Trotskyist groups. The speakers were Peter Tatchell, a well known leader of

Outrage!, the gay rights group, Richard Farnos, convenor of the SLP lesbian and

Gay commission (who broke his leg and could attend as it turned out) and Bob

Davies a CPGB spokesperson. Tatchell was standing opposite me while I was

handing out my leaflets with the CDSLP organisers and they all seemed pleasantly

surprised that I was giving out leaflets on the same issue. Although there was a

crisis meeting over the black section issue at the same time, I decided to

attend the gay meeting.

It was reasonably well attended. Present was Pat Arrowsmith, a well known

lesbian activist in her fifties. The CPGB speaker, on several occasions,

referred approvingly to the fact that my constituency had moved a congress

amendment on the issue of gay bigotry in the SLP and also to our leaflet on gay

bigotry. One of the Bullites was present in the meeting and later made an

appalling, demagogic contribution in which he said that gay rights was a

diversion from the fight against capitalism. Only "middle class trots" advocated

struggling around such an issue. "Everybody in this room is a Trot", he

announced, to derisive laughter (people started ostentatiously shaking hands

with each other in mock surprise). It was particularly amusing since, although

the CPGB has always distanced itself from Trotskyism (they call themselves

"revolutionary Leninists"), it has absorbed, without acknowledgement, a good

deal of Trotskyist politics. The CPGB has always argued that Trotsky’s

abandonment of the Comintern was an ultralft mistake. It was necessary to

continue the fight against Stalinism within it. When the Communist Party

attempted to dissolve itself in the early 90s the Leninist tendency, as they

were then known, took the party to court and opposed it, and won. So they are

now the continuity of the Communist Party of Great Britain despite the fact that

they are a tiny rump of the former membership.

Tatchell made an interesting contribution arguing that fighting for gay rights

strengthened the class struggle not diverted from it. He had raised the issue of

gay rights in the South African ANC, whose leadership had always had a similar

position to the Bullites. As a result of his intervention some years ago, the

ANC shifted to a position of paying lip service to "gay human rights". Today,

Mandela’s South Africa is the only country in the world whose constitution

recognises gay human rights, he said. He argued that often the cause of

homophobia was a result of a subconscious fear of one’s own latent, suppressed

homosexuality. He had known Angela Davis in the US many years ago when she had

also argued that gay rights was a diversion from the class struggle. A few years

later, she came out as a lesbian. Tatchell thought that her earlier opposition

to gay rights was a good example of this phenomenon. He mentioned the research

of a prominent US psychologist, who tested homophobic men. He used an electronic

dvice to measure penile erection while showing these men erotic gay images. The

results indicated that these homophobic men were definitely aroused by the

images. All in all the meeting was very useful.

Black Section Scrapped

A motion to scrap the black section moved demagogically by the Stalinist Indian

Workers’ Association, was, at first announced as defeated. But the Lancashire

NUM delegate got up and asked why his vote had not been registered. The tellers,

using a shifty looking RMT Vice-President, Bob Crow (ex-Morning Star) as an

intermediary, said the voting slip had been lost! The platform looked very

embarrassed, with Scargill attempting to distance himself from what was going

on. Then two minutes later, while the platform was still fumbling for a way out

of the mess, hey presto, Bob Crow came back to the platform and reported that

the Lancashire NUM's 3000 votes had "just been found"! Scargill looked as if he

wanted the earth to swallow him up at this point! He insisted on re-voting. This

episode inadvertently revealed to the congress delegates that the single NUM

delegate had more votes than the whole of the rest of the congress.

As can be imagined this caused uproar. A Socialist Perspectives delegate, Lee

Rock, got up to the microphone and said that delegates might just as well go

home and that we should end the conference here and now and simply ask the NUM

delegate how he was going to vote. He got a large round of applause, including

from some Scargillites. The platform was looking confused. This advantage to the

left was then thrown away through an inept move by a Socialist Perspectives

supporter. Scargill began to address the conference to regain the initiative. A

Socialist Perspectives delegate stormed up to the microphone (he had already

done it once before and got away with it despite the chair forbidding him to do

it) and attempted to interrupt Scargill in mid-speech in order to protest (I

think--we never got find out) against the block vote. This ill-judged move

appeared to delegates as being very disruptive since it was done while someone

was in mid-speech. This gave the Scargillites the opportunity to distract the

membership from the voting fiasco. He was howled down by the Scargillites with

shouts of "Out! Out!" while someone snatched the microphone away from him.

Scargill continued his speech and a semblance of normality was restored.

At this point, some delegates from Birmingham, including a black woman, walked

out of the conference to jeers of "go!" and "build your own party!" from the

Scargillites. They were followed by the Holborn and St Pancras delegation. This

was the low point of the conference. Several people said they were resigning on

the spot and frantic efforts were made in the foyer by people to stop them

leaving the conference. This was achieved in some cases on the basis that a

planned SLP Marxist Bulletin (IBT) fringe meeting was brought forward and that

it would be transformed into an emergency joint meeting of all the left currents

at the congress. Around 70 delegates and observers attended this meeting later

that day.

The Lancashire NUM vote was cast in favour of scrapping the black section and so

it was carried by 3000 and something votes to 300 and something votes. This in

turn caused the Sikorskyites (ex-USFI people in the SLP leadership) to announce

one by one that they were pulling out of the Scargill slate for the NEC--all of

them, plus prominent Asian lawyer Imran Khan and one or two others, in protest

against the scrapping of the black section. They all believe strongly in black

self-organisation. This caused a certain shock to delegates.

Meanwhile, the conference was virtually abandoned by the left, who were

discussing among themselves in the foyer or in the subsequent fringe meeting,

and the important debate on Ireland had no one from the left present except

myself. And I was not called to speak by the "short-sighted" chair. The only

good resolution, opposing the pro-peace process line adopted at the founding

conference, fell because nobody was present from the constituency party to move

it. This happened in the case of other debates which followed later that day and

the following day. As a result there was no challenge to the pro-peace process

line of Patrick Sikorsky, the SLP spokesperson on Ireland. The Bullites motion

also had the same position with a sycophantic line of hero-worship of the IRA

and its record. A pro-unionist delegate moved a motion defending the loyalist

veto, but it received very little support. In the debate on membership earlier

on that day, he had also moved a motion restricting membership of the SLP to

residents o the United Kingdom and excluding "foreigners such as residents of

the Irish republic". This was obviously a chauvinistic line and he was jeered by

the left in the congress. The existing formulation allowed residents of the

Irish republic to join even when living in Ireland. Another motion correctly

pointed out that as a British party, the SLP should not be organising in the

Irish republic since this infringed Irish independence. In other words it too

opposed membership of the SLP by people permanently resident in Ireland, but for

opposite reasons to the unionist speaker, i.e. respect for Irish

self-determination, not chauvinism. I voted for this last motion. The debate on

immigration suffered from the same problem--the only good amendment, calling for

opposition to all immigration controls, fell because there was no one in the

room to move it. Likewise, during the debate on ant-racism, an amendment calling

for no platform for fascists also fell for the same reason. This was very

unfortunate. But I think theleft had drawn the conclusion that it was pointless

to struggle since the NUM vote would ensure their defeat.

SLP Left Fringe Meeting

The fringe meeting was packed. The average age was younger than the conference

as a whole, but there were very few women and only one black person present. The

meeting was a joint SLP Marxist Bulletin/Socialist Perspectives event. Other

tendencies participating were: CPGB/Weekly Worker (a current that came out of

the old Communist Party of Great Britain, which is a somewhat ultra-left

revolutionary group); the SLP Republicans (a grouping expelled from the British

SWP some years ago); supporters of Socialist Labour Action (a group of

ex-Workers’ Power people who joined the SLP); the Liason Committee of Militants

for a Revolutionary Communist International (another ex-Workers Power grouping);

and the Spartacists who gate-crashed the meeting, though they were not members

of the SLP. There were quite a few independents as well. I attended the

beginning of the fringe meeting, but left to participate in the Ireland debate,

and then I returned afterwards to catch the final part of the meeting.

The meeting unanimously agreed a statement condemning the lack of democracy in

the congress, which was distributed the following day. It was supported by 57

delegates and observers who stayed until the end of the meeting. Everyone was in

agreement about the disgraceful way in which the congress was being run. The

meeting discussed what to do next, with some saying leave the SLP now and

others, notably the CPGB saying stay in (even though they had already largely

been expelled!).

This joint meeting of the left was followed by a closed Socialist Perspectives

meeting. This meeting had about 15-20 people at it. We discussed what to do next

for the second time. It was clear that many wanted to leave the SLP and do

something else, and it seems that many of the SP people in the south of England

have since left. Some of them appear to be having discussions with Workers’

Action, the majority of the WIL. Others may be discussing with Phil Hearse’s new

group, Socialist Democracy.

A Socialist Perspectives supporter, whom I met, by chance, in a pub after the

congress, proposed a bulletin to promote discussion among people across the SLP

boundary, so that people who leave the SLP can still discuss with those who

remain inside. It was even suggested that it should include Workers Action and

Socialist Democracy, which I thought was a good idea. Perhaps it should even be

extended further to include the Socialist Alliance people.

The second day of the conference dealt with a number of largely uncontentious

issues. Several left delegates did not stay for the second day either because

they had resigned in protest at the black sections decision or because they were

disgusted with the previous day’s manoeuvrings.

Midway through the morning, Brian Heron of the allegedly dissolved Fourth

International Supporters Caucas (FISC), came to the microphone and announced

that some of the people who had stood down from Scargill’s NEC slate, had had

second thoughts and were now standing again. It was an uncomfortably emotional

speech and he paused in the middle while he regained his composure. Trevor

Wongsam, the ex-Fourth International Supporters Caucas’s (USEC) only black

member, did not attend the second day of the congress in protest at the

scrapping of the black section. He later phoned up Martin Wicks of Socialist

Perspectives, for the first time, to say that he regarded the reversal of the

decision not to stand for the NEC as a "capitulation".

The result of the NEC elections was then announced. Socialist Perspectives had

stood a slate for the NEC against Scargill’s slate on the basis of the

Democratic Platform which consisted of a series of elementary democratic demands

in relation to the SLP internal regime. I stood for the NEC as part of this

slate on the basis of the Democratic Platform and also my own more comprehensive

platform, which was the Trotskyist programme published in In Defence of Marxism

No 2. The Marxist Bulletin people refused to stand on the democratic platform

and so they also had their own separate slate. The results were distorted by the

block vote of the NUM. If we discount the NUM block vote and just take account

of the constituency section (i.e. the party branches) votes, the Democratic

Platform slate won 27% of the vote, standing only six out of seven possible

candidates. The seventh place was taken by a Marxist Bulletin candidate who

gained a furteher 3% of the vote.

The debate on "defence of the constitution" towards the end of the last

afternoon, saw the Bullites move two witch-hunting motions which endorsed the

expulsion from membership of the party of people alleged to be members of the

CPGB and Workers Power. Several Bullites got up and made demagogic,

witch-hunting speeches. The CPGB and Workers Power had made a number of silly

ultra-left moves while in the party, either attacking the SLP publicly or

engaging in unnecessary provocations which were bound to bring a bureaucratic

reaction down on their heads. This gave the Bullites ammunition to use in their

witch-hunting contributions. The general refrain was that the SLP does not want

internecine warfare and factionalism. Many demagogic speeches had waxed eloquent

on this theme throughout the congress, often to thunderous applause, and the

Bullites found it easy to get applause on this theme also. Things seemed to be

going their way. I had my hand up to speak early during this debate and

fortunately the chair re-gained his eyesight and picked me to speak.

I firstly questioned the arguments of those congress delegates who equated the

right to dissent and form oppositional trends with "factionalism". They were not

the same thing, I argued. To illustrate this, I described the more democratic

internal regime of the Party for Communist Refounding in Italy--of which

Scargill had spoken favourably in the past. Numerous oppositional platforms

existed in this party and they were not suppressed, but formally recognised by

the leadership, I argued. These platforms were given proportional representation

on the leading bodies according to the votes they received at congress. The PRC

was a bigger and more effective party than the SLP and this system worked well.

It did not lead to factionalism and internecine warfare. There is not a

necessary correlation between granting the right to dissent, the establishment

of oppositional platforms etc., and infighting and paralysis. The same was true

of the German PDS, the former East German Communist Party, again a much bigger

and moe effective organisation than the SLP. There were numerous oppositional

platforms in that party which were tolerated by the leadership. This did not

lead to factional paralysis [I deliberately picked these parties because I knew

it would be difficult for the Stalinists to dismiss them since they were from

the Stalinist stable themselves and they were what many of them wanted the SLP

to become]. So let us scotch that myth, I concluded.

Then I turned to the Bullite witch-hunting motions. I exposed the hypocrisy of

the Bullites. They came from the Workers Revolutionary Party some years ago and

were now known as the International Leninist Workers’ Party. These people, whom

we had just heard witch-hunting other alleged entrists in the SLP, were

themselves an organisation in the SLP, with their own publication Economic and

Philosophic Science Review. What incredible hypocrisy! (applause from the left

and someone shouted out: "they are anti-gay bigots!"). I repeated what this

person had called out, loudly and demagogically, through the microphone. They

systematically and actively promote prejudice against homosexuals in their

publication Economic and Philosophic Science Review. And they have the nerve to

call for the expulsion of others. What hypocrisy! If ever there was a case for

expulsion it is those who promote prejudice against homosexuals within and

without the SLP (loud applause from the left). The chair said my time was up at

this point.

The best part about this opportunity to speak was that, after listening to

demagogic speeches all weekend about the evils of "factionalism", I had

succeeded in demolishing their arguments by referring to the healthier internal

regimes of Stalinist parties in Europe, which many Scargillites and Stalinists

admired. I had also exposed the Bullites in front of the whole of SLP congress,

including Scargill, for what they were. Secondly, my speech came at the end of

the final debate at the end of the congress. The Bullites were unable to

respond. I had had the last word in this debate and in the congress.

Afterwards a number of people came up to me afterwards and said my contribution

had been effective. The proof of this was given as I was leaving the congress. I

was collared on my way out by a Bullite who was obviously very rattled. He and

another of his co-thinkers attempted to brow-beat me about what I had done. One

of them was a thoroughly unpleasant, nasty piece of work who seemed a little

menacing. He had come up behind me and poked me in the back. I stood my ground

with them outside the building. It was clear that their objective was

intimidation. A woman from the CPGB came up and joined in the argument. She

handled them well, ridiculing them ("your politics are bent!"). I think this

must be a case of: "man in distress saved by damsel"! Pretty soon they gave up

with me as other members of the CPGB started to bait them. A loud slanging match

developed, and I slipped away and left them to it. It was obvious that the

Bullites were fuming after my attack on them. At least on the question of their

attempt to witch-hunt the CPGB and Workers Power, we had won a partial victory.

The Bullite’s accepted the platform’s suggestion that their motion be remitted

to the NEC. So it was not put to a vote in the congress.