The New Turn - What Is the Alternative?

Opposition Document

[Editor's note: Some simple spelling and punctuation errors in the original have been corrected. Some bold words (emphasis) were not retained during the scanning, and will be added with the next revision of the site.]

1) The debate over the 'Turn' has given rise to a number of related questions that we were not able to deal fully with in our original document. This was aimed specifically at criticising the 'Turn' and drawing out all the disastrous consequences that would flow from its implementation.

2) The discussion has now been drawn onto a higher plane. The EB majority reply to our document now talks of "two distinct trends in the leadership" one supposedly based on 'political retreat' while the other on "bold audacious independent work" (For the Scottish Turn 3). In the debates, EB speakers have repeatedly stated that the real issues revolve around the type of organisation we want for the 1990s. The question of perspectives has also been raised as well as the Opposition's alternative. We intend to deal with these issues in this document.

Incidentally the broadening of the debate clearly demonstrates that our request for a longer pre-conference discussion was entirely justified.

3) The new "majority" reply is an attempt to shore up the threadbare arguments of the original Scottish Perspectives and Tasks (Scotland Perspectives and Tasks) document. However, the method of this reply is a complete departure from the scrupulous methods of the past. We were always careful not to distort the arguments of opponents, not only in the labour movement but also within our ranks. Unfortunately quotes are ripped out of context and their meaning changed. For instance words are fed into our mouths:

"We will be no better than 'the sects, who try and create phantom "mass" revolutionary parties outside of the time, experience, and consciousness of the masses.'" (For the Scottish Turn 255). The emphasised words have been added by the Majority.

Our document actually says: "We were entirely different to the sects, who try and create phantom 'mass' revolutionary parties outside of the time, experience and consciousness of the masses." (Min 21), our emphasis in this document.

4) Similarly, the document takes half-sentences pulled out of context and sewn together by clever journalistic phrases. Quotes from Trotsky are torn out of context and related to fundamentally different conditions. The quotes from the RCP in the 1940s as well as those about Spain are dealing with a concrete situation, at a particular time, with profound differences compared to Britain at the present.

5) The "majority" reply contains many falsehoods and half-truths about the views of the opposition. Here are a few examples:

a) The Opposition believe that "we should remain in the Labour Party at all costs" (For the Scottish Turn 2). This is a complete fabrication. Where have we ever said this?

b) If we listen to the minority "We would not have boldly led the Anti-Poll Tax struggle. And now we would be advising councillors and MPs to pay up to avoid expulsion" (For the Scottish Turn 25). We advocated and fully supported the Anti-poll tax struggle. No one in the opposition has ever advocated that anyone "pay up" to avoid expulsion.

c) They say 'keep our heads down, educate ourselves and wait for better times.' (For the Scottish Turn 27). Again this is a complete fabrication.

d) The minority are against 'more open work' (For the Scottish Turn throughout). This is completely untrue. What have we been doing for the past 5 years or more?

e) "The leaders of the minority have argued that parliamentary representatives, when it came to the crunch, should retreat and pay their poll tax to avoid removal" (For the Scottish Turn 116). No opposition comrade has ever argued for anyone to pay their poll tax.

f) The Opposition 'would have advocated support for Kilfoyle' (For the Scottish Turn 187). Against the bourgeois parties we would advocate a Labour vote. Have we not done this in every single election, despite the individual candidate?

g) The 'majority' never had any illusions that we could win the seat in Walton. (For the Scottish Turn 188). Hopes were raised that we could win, or that we would come very close. We were told support was 'neck and neck' and that it would be all decided on the doorstep. FC, in charge of the campaign, said Walton could be another Govan. PT stated that we could get 10,15, or 20,000 votes.

h) "The minority do not believe that there are significant opportunities" for growth (For the Scottish Turn 205). Where can you find this fiction?

i) The minority are guilty of gross underestimation, or even outright denigration, of the successes of the organisation. (For the Scottish Turn 216). Another invention. Since when has seeking a sober balance sheet constituted denigration of the organisation?

j) For the minority "the main field of work is the Labour Party" (For the Scottish Turn 222). Where have we ever said this? Our main priorities are trade union and youth work, with the Labour Party as an important field for the future.

k) The minority offer a "prescription for paralysis". (For the Scottish Turn 241). Not true. We favour bold and audacious work amongst the youth and in industry.

1) "Bold, open work amongst the workers and youth? Or emphasising Labour Party work, when there is no activity within the party? (For the Scottish Turn 256). It is ridiculous to assert that this is our position. We have never counter-posed Labour Party work to that amongst workers and youth.

m) "No-one has advanced a rosy abstract 'tidal wave' theory, with 'the Labour left welcoming us back'." (For the Scottish Turn 285). To quote the Scottish document, "we should be under no illusions. It will require not merely a shift back to the left, but a tidal wave... Moreover, when such a tidal wave takes place, it would become almost impossible for the forces of Marxism to be excluded from the party." (Scotland, Perspectives and Tasks 36 and 37).

6) That the majority have to resort to fabrications and distortions of this kind is a clear demonstration of the weakness of their case.

7) We have been accused of frightening comrades and sowing panic in the ranks of the tendency. Our starting point has been to lay bare the real meaning of the 'turn' and draw out clearly its consequences. We intend to tell the truth to the comrades. Surely that is the prime responsibility of any comrade who holds the interests of the organisation at heart? If we believe the presumed turn will load to disaster, is it not our duty to say so? To do anything different would be immoral from a Marxist point of view.

8) Originally we understood there was broad agreement on British Perspectives. Did we not all stand by the last perspectives document - "Perspectives 1991"(British Perspectives 1991) -passed unanimously at the EB, NEB and then the national event earlier this year? This dealt with in broad terms: international perspectives. Eastern Europe and the USSR, the under developed world and British Perspectives. It covered specifically the character of the period, the economic crisis, the Tories, industrial struggles, the Labour Party, Poll Tax, youth, women. Blacks and last but not least, Scottish nationalism.

9) What has fundamentally altered in the last eight months to force us to dramatically alter our perspectives for the Labour Party or Scottish nationalism? In the debates EB majority speakers have stressed that there has been a fundamental change in the world balance of forces arising mainly from the collapse of Stalinism in the USSR and Eastern Europe. If so, what are the consequences for world perspectives and perspectives for Britain?

In the short term, far from strengthening Marxist ideas, it will, according to the 'majority' document, "undoubtedly give the capitalists a temporary access of confidence". In the long term, they say, "it will clear away Stalinism and its political apologists "(For the Scottish Turn 16). It goes on, "these changes have inevitably had a big effect on the working class." (For the Scottish Turn 17). If this is the case, what conclusions do they draw?

10) We are accused of "pessimism" in relation to perspectives and party building. This apparently arises from (a) our phrase 'society has moved to the right' (b) our refusal to accept the 'turn' and supposedly 'more bold and open work' (c) our defence of entrism, which leads according to the 'majority' to capitulation to the bureaucracy.

Perspectives

11) The prime task of Marxism has been to assess in a sober and realistic fashion the likely economic and political perspectives in Britain and internationally as a starting point for our organisational work. We have attempted to avoid a one-sided approach by drawing out all the fundamental processes developing in the situation. We live in a very complex period, where our perspectives by necessity are conditional. We nevertheless must give the most likely development of events and not hide behind a multitude of options.

12) The comrades have seized on a sub-phrase in our document ('society has moved to the right') and attempted to manufacture a whole philosophy around it. Perhaps in a rather bald way, we attempted to explain that the move to the right in the Labour Party was not down to the whim of the Labour leaders, but had material foundations in society. We believed this formulation was clear given the context. We did not expand on this as we assumed that there was broad agreement on perspectives. Incidentally we are not the only ones guilty of a loose phrase that could be taken out of context and deliberately exaggerated. For example the 'majority' document talks of "the advanced capitalist countries experienced boom from 1981 until the present... Moreover the boom is beginning to exhaust itself." (For the Scottish Turn 12, our emphasis). In fact the boom began in 1982 and came to and end in 1990, when the US moved into recession. The bourgeois are now looking for signs of a revival from the recession, not a boom "exhausting itself". It could be said that the whole position of the majority is based on a false economic perspective. But that would be an exaggeration given the context of the statement. To attempt to take things out of context and exaggerate them is not the Marxist method.

13) The period we have entered is a very complex one. On a world scale it is characterised by profound instability and crisis. The boom from 1982-90, however, affected in particular the advanced capitalist countries and provided the material basis for the successes of Thatcher and Reagan. The boom, despite its weaker character, provided a temporary injection for western capitalism and the strengthening of bourgeois ideas within layers of society. This was the main material reason for the re-election of the Tories in Britain and the Republicans in the US.

14) We explained this phenomenon at the beginning of the year, as the British Perspectives 1991 states: "The Thatcher government has been sustained in the main by the world economic boom from 1982-90. An additional key factor has been the abject failure of the Labour leaders to offer a genuine alternative to the policies of the Tories. This boom has had an effect in particular on the tops of the Labour Party and trade unions. It is a law that under boom conditions, the preserves of capitalism are reflected within the ranks of the labour movement, through the capitulation of the leadership to prevailing bourgeois ideas. (British Perspectives 1991 63)

15) "Such phenomena are inevitable in class society, where bourgeois ideas are constantly pumped out by the media, education systems and the apologists of capitalism. The labour and trade union leaders-are thoroughly implicated with the morality and ideology of capitalism. Even the working class can be, for a time, infected with these alien class ideas" This was the case in the past period amongst important layers. "Big sections of the middle class and better-paid workers," explains the document, "saw a certain improvement in their living standards during the course of the boom. Even in the North, the West Midlands and Scotland, sections of employed workers and middle class have benefited to a degree, from the boom. This applies to most of the industrialised countries. It is the material explanation for the domination of the Tories, especially in the 'Soft South' for so many years." (British Perspectives 1991 69)

16) The extended boom of 1982-90 therefore provided the material conditions for the strengthening of the bourgeois ideas. The move to the right in the tops of the Labour Party and trade unions did not fall from the sky. It was based on the material conditions - the boom - and it reflected this shift within society. What other explanation can there possibly be?

17) For a more rounded out explanation of general perspectives then of course, given the complex period, other contradictory processes are at work. The polarisation of wealth, the increase in poverty, the social decay, the disintegration of the infrastructure have all led to increased bitterness amongst certain layers of the class. While the bosses have been able to buy relative 'social peace' in industry, reflected by the lowest number of strikes since the 1930s, the increased exploitation of the 1980s has meant growing resentment at the intolerable stress that bears down on the workforce, "The illusions in capitalism and the capitalist market will be burned out by the experience of workers themselves" (British Perspectives 1991 159).

18) The "majority" document itself recognises that the boom of the 1980s, the shift to the right in the tops of the movement, together with the collapse of Stalinism has had an affect on the class:

"Conditions determine consciousness, and these changes have inevitably had a big effect on the working class. The older layers of workers, with experience of activity within the Labour Party and trade unions retain a loyalty to those organisations, although many are bitterly disappointed and disgusted by the current leadership and have dropped out of activity." (For the Scottish Turn 17)

19) "At the same time, there is a new generation of younger workers, who have grown up during the Thatcher era and whose view of the labour movement is conditioned by Kinnock and the right wing trade union leaders". (For the Scottish Turn 18)

"There are different layers of the working class, with different levels of consciousness and varying political moods." (For the Scottish Turn 21)

Reaching the Working Class

20) Of course there are different layers and levels of consciousness in the working class. Because of our size we have always understood that the road to the unorganised, more politically backward sections of the class would be through the organised layers. For us, the organised layers were those involved in the labour movement, especially in the shop stewards committees, trade union branches, etc. It is true that an older layer has dropped by the wayside, but a younger layer is coming through which we must strive to win.

21) As the British Perspectives 1991 document said: "in industry itself, the shop stewards committees which are closest to the rank and file, have a mixed character-there is a layer who are prepared to fight..." (British Perspectives 1991, 157) it went on "a new generation of workers is growing up prepared to fight" (British Perspectives 1991, 160). We must find a road to these workers. Alongside our current methods of more open work on the streets and on the estates, we must strengthen our orientation towards the factories and workplaces, for example with the youth work. This is particularly the case now with the collapse of the Communist Party.

22) However, we must not make the fatal mistake of believing that these layers have all seen through Kinnock, the Labour Party and reformism. Some, for example, who reject Neil Kinnock, look to John Smith or one of the other right wingers as an alternative. With 12 years of Tory Government, as we get closer to the election, these layers will feel the need to get a Labour Government elected. However critical they are of Kinnock - and this is widespread - they nevertheless see the election in class terms. Those who are seen to damage this prospect will be cut off from these workers. They may be put off by the pro-capitalist policies of the Labour leaders, but at this stage they see no mass alternative.

On the other hand widespread illusions exist in what a Labour Government could do, particularly amongst the trade union activists. Despite the hedging of the leadership, there is a belief that Labour would improve education, health, transport, etc. Moreover the call for a minimum wage of £3.40 an hour could become an important issue for millions of low-paid workers.

23) The road to the most downtrodden workers, and youth, disillusioned with "politics" and alienated from the labour movement (because of the actions of the leaders), is through the organised layers of the class who are emerging in the stewards committees, workplaces etc.

[Continue...]