'we Hope This Time to Begin Real Discussion'

Scan page 13

Talk of 'unity' and 'fusion' is in the air once again on the British left, following the surprise proposal six weeks ago from the Socialist League (formerly the IMG) for immediate fusion with the Workers' Socialist League.

Some contacts and supporters of the SL have been speculating that talks are well advanced, or even that a fusion is imminent.

To find out, Socialist Organiser reporter Harry Sloan questioned John Lister, a member of the WL executive committee.

misino the fevland Vehicles strike (above), the IMG pulled out of the Leyland Action Committee, preferring to work with t convenor Mick Loyne 1oklum: What are the facts? How long have talks been going on?

They have not really yet begun: In tact, though rumours were rife that the SL might take the decision to issue a call for fusion from their December conference, the first we heard of it in concrete terms was when we read the account of that conference in Socialist Chalienge.

Only later did we receive a very brief note from the Socialist League proposing an initial explorative meeting, and stating that after that meeting they would send us 'a document explaining our proposals'.

The first meeting took place only last Wednesday, February 9. We are still whole discussion has yet to get off the ground.

How did the WSL respond to the fusion proposal?

Well of course we are in favour of attempting tọ build the widest possible unity within the Trotskyist movement: but we have to establish a political basis for such unity if it is to represent a step forward rather than a lurch into contusion.

We are obviously in Coyne: new vanguard? favour of discussions with the SL, and with the inter. national tendency - clie USFI - of which it is a section, to clarity vuestions of agreement and disagreement and see it it is possible to establish a principled basis for unity.

Some very important disagreements will need to be discussed and clarified. One particular major area of difference between ourselves and the SL has for years been how to analyse and combat the political role of Stalinist parties and Stalinist leaderships both in Britain and internationally.

We should recognise in this context that at the same SL conference which voted fur immediate fusion with us, one-third of the delegates supported the Castroite political positions argued by the American SWP - positions which we would consider to be neither revolutionary nor Trotskyist. In 'essence, theirs are Stalinist positions..

We think there are echoes of this in the SL's line - for instance in their failure to call for strikes and blacking action in Britain in support of Solidarnosc after the declaration of martial During the Leyland Vehicles On all the major international issues (Portugal, Iran, Nicaragua, etc) in the. last period we have argued positions which have been sharply at variance with those of the IMG/SL, reflecting real differences in analytical method, orientation and political programme. To fuse. without confronting such differences would be foolhardy.

• It would be a step forward if the St will now begin to discuss these questions which in the past it has avoided.

Campaigning

I should also point out that the proposal came as quite a surprise given the recent tense relations between the IMG/SL and the WSL on a range of campaigning issues in the British workers' movement.

Our supporters have clashed .-. sometimes extremely sharply - on work in Bu, the health service pay dispute, Poland -in each case the IMG refusing to work in broader campaigns which we have supported - and Palestine.

I think there is a general difference in the unions: the SL has focused less on developing rank and file groups, and more on getting close relations with people in established positions (like Mick Coyne in Leyland), than we would consider permissible.

Our attempts to involve the IMG in a broad campaign of mobilisation against the Tebbit laws resulted only in Socialist Challenge producing claiming the one car- centre proClaiming their own paign', which never seems to have got off the ground.

The door for joint work has been wide open, the St comrades have not chosen to come through it..

In other words the practical work of the two organtrıke (above), ine ivo punta vur isations does not appear to have been moving closer to a common method: the same political problems have recurred timi. and This does not rule out any prospect of eventual agreement: but it does show that 'immediate fusion" is not a serious suggestion.

Did the SL say what led them to the conclusion that they should propose fusion?

They told us that the two factors they had taken into account were on the one hand the change last autumn in the WSL's position on the Malvinas war — in which we adopted an Argentine defencist position - and on the other the fact that both organisations were taking an active interest in developments in the Labour Party.

This, they said, indicated that both organisations were drawing politically closer together.

We felt that this was a less than honest statement. Firstly we have made no secret of the fact that our change of position on the Malvinas war was carried by a small majority, and the WSL is known to be still divided on the issue. The SL plainly hope that the ' Argentine defencists' among ; us will be more responsive to their political pusitions.

Secondly, when we are discussing the fusion of revolutionary organisations, and the establishment of a common Bolshevik-type organisation, we need to base such a step on more than this or that common tactic.

We do not define the WSL in terms of our tactics in relation to the Labour Party, but in terms of our overall orientation to the Le wooworking duss, to all existing organisations of the labour movement and to its various leaderships, and our fight to defend and develop a programme ana methud of work adequate to the tasks of the present period.

The very least that would be required to accomplish a real fusion is a prolonged period of joint work, coupled with detailed discussion and political clarification - involving also an assessment of the SL's international parent body, the USFI, and the participation of our own international co-thinkers in the Trotskyist International Liaison Committee. í Only in this way could we ever hope to break down the mistrust that exists between organisations whose inatual relations have been for the must part prickly or hostile for nearly 20 years.

Why do you think the SL made the proposal?

I think it has always been true that the call for 'unity' can be very popular among sections of the British left who are understandably irritated • at the divisions amongst those fighting the It is unfortunately the case that these divisions for the most part reflect genuine political disagreements which must be resolved rather than ignored.

It is also true that within the Sh and among its supporters are many who look with some respect towards the work done by the WSL and our supporters in the labour movement.

I think the call for immediate fusion is designed to attract uncommitted forres from the left towards the Sl, as the campaigners for unity, to give their own supporters the impression that real strides ware being made towards fusion, and to put the WSL on the spot - making it seem as it we, and not the unresolved political questions, are somehow a barrier to instant fusion.

There is some evidence of this "playing to the gallery" by the SL. In a number of areas: their branch leaderships and supporters hare plainly been led to believe that fusion talks are well under way - vr even near completion, even though we only met at leadership level for the first time last week!

The very fact that the proposal was first floated in the pages of Socialist Challenge rather than making a direct approach to our leadership also indicates that the fusion call is aimed at the left in general rather than as a serious proposition to the WSL.

Does this mean that you have ruled out talks on unity?

On the contrary. We have always buen more than willing to begin a process of discussion on • Advertisement i The Socialist Workers' Party of the USA, an old-established Trotskyist group, has recently and suddenly announced that Trotsky's theory of 'permanent revolution' was wrong. after all. This new pamphlet -40p plus postage from PO BOX 135, London NI ODD - looks at the arguments Castro: one third or SL support his politics the bigger pollica 5=-* to determine whether en a political basis le= » established for tuster.

We hope thai in i the SL comrades *. = pond to such a alriss which we have sue: i many years.

Meanwhile. We *- = discussing with it proposals for joint more : the unions, and - De fully - collaborato: = = broader labour merest in the key period bese now and the Genera E tion.

of the of the politicai nai. evolution of the American yist International Liaison Commitler SWP

Scan page 14

Socialist Organiser no.120 February 17 1983 Page 14

----- pull-quotes -----

waiting for the SL's written proposals. So really the

Trotskyism or Castroism An anatis: An anahs: