LAST SATURDAY'S conference called by the Clay Cross Labour Party clearly showed two things. First, what a huge pep exists between the political impact which developments in the Labour Party have on the working class and the very Simited ability which the Labour left has at present to organise any independent forces. Second, that any socialist strategy which is hased simply on developments in the Labour party is doomed to failure.
Hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of workers support the struggle of Clay Cross council. Every militant in the working class movement has heard of the struggle of Clay Cross. The issue could still touch off a crisis in the Labour Party that will be of national sig nificance.
But if we compare the politica! impact of Clay Cross with the taroes orpanised by their conference, what cy Labour Parties, 150 LPYS, and 200 Trade Union branches registered at the conference is tiny compared to the political impact of Clay Cross.
Even more remarkable was the lack of independent forces. From the voting it appeared that there were only around 60 delegates, less than 20% oF the conference, who were not members of one revolutionary organisation or another.
FAILURE
But of course even a small initial number can be sufficient it a clear position exists on how to go forward. Unfortunately, that did not exist, and that is why the conference itself, although not necessardy what may come later over the Clay Cross strugale, must be considered a failure.
The most remarkable thing about the conference, ensured by its domination by the Militant current, was its lack of relation to the struggle which is actually being waged by the masses. To judge from Militant's intervention at the conference you would hardly have guessed that a vital national struggle for nurses pay is going on, that NALGO and other sections of workers have been in struggle to protect their wages against inflation, that a reactionary general strike has taken place in Ireland which threatens to shift the whole balance of British politics, that a systematic attack on picketing is being carried on by the police, or that fascist and racist orgunisatons are stepping up their activity to an unprecedented degree.
For every word said by Militant on these struggles a thousand words must have been said on the structure of the NEC of the Labour Party, Labour MPs salaries and so on. No policy was forthcoming. except for a few calls For resto pass on now to cancage the grip of the relormists in the present struggles involving lens or even hundreds 01 houseds of workers he soe amenoment auDace to ene sesostion Irom Clay Cross was for a recal! Emergency Labour Patty conterence. This avoided all the questions on how struggles which are actually taking place However, despite support from the CaY Cross de Castes Maliant supressfully urged its rejection.
FARCE
The orientation of Militant became almost Tarcical on certain questions For example, the resolation Militant supported an Chile did not even mention that a demonstration was being held in Septemher, or the existence of the Chile Solidarity Campaign, which has already helped in the blacking campaign and organised in May a demonstration of 10,000 on Chile!
The result of such policies is that the conferenot callnot resch becond the Lahour Party to draw in the many new, fresh forces which have taken part in the big struggles and strikes of the last six years.
Despite all these limitations was the conference important? Was it correct Tot The revolutionary left to have inter vened? The answer is undoubtedly yes.
Despire the huge organisationa! decline of the Labber party and its left. developuents in the Lahour parry still Red Weekly 13 June 1974 Page 6 - have an echo inside the working class which goes far beyond anything the revolutionury left can produce. The chance to use developments in the Labour Party as a sounding board for revolutionary ideas is a very important one. We must confront the politics of Labour MPs and leading "lefts -"Can Socialism come through Parliament?' by Roger Kline. Published by the International Socialists, 10p This recent pamphlet of the international Socialists says some right and many wrong things about Parliament.
What it is most notable for however is drawing out the logical conclusions of 15's position on the Labour Party: how reformism maintains its grip over the working class, and therefore, how revolutionaries can becak that grip.
The central conclusion of Kline on me Labour Farty a that ma potou of mass strugee, most of all in a revositionsry situation the tahout Party is irrelevant. He says it is not so much that the Lahour party is lett" or "right in such a situation as that it is irrelevant in such a situation' (p18 -there are many other such passages)
LINE OF DEFENCE A slight moment's thought shows that this view is nonsense. In a teally mass upsurge - most of all in a revolutionary situation - the Labour Party, far from becoming irrelevant, would occupy the centre of the stage. History, not lo mention polinical common sense, shows that the bigger the upheaval of the working class the more the Labour Party will be the last and most powerful political tine of defenct of the ruling class.
The road to working class defeat in a revolutionary situation is never signposted by men shouting long live capitalist exploitation or Forward to military dictatorship', but by the seductive tones of "A peaceful road to socialism and Democracy and Parliam icrelevant, it will he the central political problem which revolutionaries and the workie class will have to overcome.
The reason why Kane and the IS get in such a mess, forgetting clementary revolutionary facts which in abstract they understand perfectly well, is pecpuse They do not understand the difference berween the organisationaf bold of the Labour Party over the workutg class and the meciogical and poisical hold of sabourism This is shown pefectly when Kline tries to explain to us why the Labour Party s irelevant in a mass wasurge He simply gives us a whole series of facts about the organisational decline of the Labour Party ce. 'Active membersup of mc вари гт осе рі:
Of course it is important to . understand the orginisational decline of the Labour party. But this organisational decline is not at all the same thing as the ideological hold of labourism over the working class. The Labour Party has never exercised its domination sunply loush is activists or even by the far cote powerful weapon of the trade ution bureaucracy, These people Andy Bevan - Clay Cross Conferance chairmen, busy helping bog propeedings down in "Militant's labourist politics people whose political message goes well beyond the bounds of the Labour Party.
The conference could have given a fighting lead on such important questions as solidarity with the nurses struggle, the fight to get British troops out of ireland, and the Militant current.
Photo: CHRIS DAVIES (Report the campago apainst British support for the Chican junta Unfortunately almost all these opportunities were lost because of the hureaucratic methods and bankrupt politics of Rosa Luxemburg - ask her whether social democracy is irrelevant in periods of mass struggle 1 At the height of an insurrectionary situation, in 1919, in which workers all over Germany had begun to build organs of an alternative workers" state, the German equivalent of our Labour Party was elected physically demobilise and smash workers' salf-organisation, using the bourgeois army Ionary leaders such ai Luxamburg and Karl Liebknecht. The dangers in IS's misassessment of the Labour Party in Britain, prio to perious or mass upsurge are bor But as well as understanding the diffenchor between the organisational hold ot the labour Party ano te ideological and political hold of labourism, we also have to understand the reiarion between the two. It was the organisation of the Labour Party which above all structured and reinforced the prip of a particular ideology over the working class. The Labour Party has gone very far to the right within that framework, but it has not gicitatiseir broken with it. It remaios otos, smare preciser, bour com party of the working class, within the frame work of a labourism from which the working class has not broken.
She labour Party may continue to decline orginisationally - although even that is hy no means certain, as we could tapidly find out if someone like Bean walked out of the Gavern ment, But the Lahour Party, be it "left, "right", or upside down, will never be irrelevant. IS are just deluding themselves, trying concretely to give a justification of syndicalist type politics, if they think otherwise.
provided.