This was in the letters page of last week's Weekly Worker (I hope
neither the paper or comrade Biddulph mine my circulating it). I
thought it might be useful as it is a first hand account of what is
going on in London.
JohnWalker
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
LSA and Livingstone
The recent London Socialist Alliance rally certainly left
its mark in terms of enthusiastic campaigning for
socialism. But what kind of political mark will it make?
The rally was predominantly left social democratic in
political tone, which was set by the Socialist Workers
Party. In Paul Foot's speech, the implicit and explicit
theme was that socialism was easy: no problems - it is the
most simple thing in the world. There are homeless; there
are empty houses - what is easier than to put them
together? We are all on the same side - forget about the
details and sectarian squabbles. Let us all stand as
socialists with Ken Livingstone. All we need is activists
to encourage workers to have the confidence to act.
We have to transform ourselves to transform capitalism.
For the working class to become hegemonic in society
entails immense difficulties, which can be overcome, but
only if we address the problems and raise our political
culture and theory to overcome the obstacles. A fighting
mood is not enough. The devil is in the detail and
debating our differences is not necessarily sectarian. We
need agitators, but in the ideological sense of the Putney
debates in the English Revolution.
Anne Murphy was the only speaker to raise the problem that
Ken Livingstone and his slate might not be on our side -
if Ken chooses rich, liberal Tories and less rich liberals
or a rainbow coalition rather than a working class slate.
The meeting ignored the possibility of "keeping the Trots
out of sight", as the Evening Standard advised. This was
to avoid debating complicated tactical and other political
differences. But this was surely just the meeting where
such debates should take place, to raise not just the
mood, but the consciousness of the movement.
Pat Stack, the SWP chair, had ruled out any open
debate from the floor at the outset of the meeting. So
comrades could not discuss how a rainbow coalition might
effect the politics of Ken as a symbol of working class
discontent.
Another implicit theme of the meeting which surfaced in a
number of speeches was an emotional nostalgia for a lost
workers' party (old Labour). The naive sentiment that
before New Labour the Labour Party was to some extent
vaguely socialist or somehow belonged to us. So those who
considered themselves old Labour and those outside the
Labour Party who had similar values could all get together
in non-sectarian unity against New Labour.
This non-aggression pact between the SWP and old
Labour meant that the wider political issues of the
direction and character of the LSA and the need for a new
mass communist party were fudged. The new workers' party
could be a resurgence of old Labour and the ousting of the
New Labour leadership - with a little help from the far
left.
Piers Corbyn, one of the carefully pre-selected speakers
from the floor, was a symbol of this mood. He told the
meeting he had resigned. Not from the Labour Party, but
from his post of New Labour campaigns officer in
Southwark. He could not bring himself to campaign for
Dobson, but then again he could not bring himself to
resign from the Labour Party. Candy Udwin also struck an
emotional social democratic note when she said her New
Labour personnel manager - who is her rival candidate in
the elections - should not even be in the Labour Party,
let alone its candidate. But New Labour is exactly where
this personnel manager, who supports privatisation and
witch hunts against trade unionists, should be. Where else
would she be politically?
The vague emotionalism about the Labour Party being
gradually stolen from us is another example of the fact
that organisational independence does not mean political
independence from Labourism. Anne Murphy was arguably the
only speaker to systematically present a political
perspective that went beyond the spontaneous politics of
the mayoral campaign. Most of the speeches simply repeated
points about undemocratic stitch-up and so on, which had
already been made in the bourgeois media and the House of
Lords. It was pitiful for those who describe themselves as
the revolutionary left. But, as a leaflet outside the
meeting put it, what could you expect from organisations
which voted for New Labour in 1997? A fighting mood in the
workplace, or rather a small number of workplaces, does
not transcend the bourgeois separation of politics from
economics.
We need unity based on political clarity obtained from
open debate, not just emotional unity based on blurring
differences or reducing revolutionary politics to
confidence or the lack of it. If the LSA is not to leave a
left social democratic mark (which will not facilitate a
new workers' party) then there must be no ideological
truce with the SWP.
In this connection, I was surprised to see the CPGB
return to its previous critical view of Livingstone. Jim
Blackstock has rediscovered Ken's ambition, speculating
that his slate will be dictated by this (Weekly Worker
February 24). As Jim says, the political make-up of the
slate will be crucial. We should say, with the CPGB,
"Judge Livingstone on his slate." It is most unlikely that
the SWP will do the same.
Barry Biddulph
South London
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
