Socialists and local government Let's go up front!

Scan page 10

I agree with most of what he says about the local government left, though I think that it is artificial to separate the local government left from the broad Labour left. They share the reformist politics which is the key political weakness in the Labour left's approach to local government. It is those politics which have 'failed the test of the class struggle."

In turn, this is the reason why we should have SO councillors in a position to expose the deficiency of those politics, and able to act as a beacon around which the serious left in the labour moyement can be rallied to fight the Tories. We should not withdraw to shout abuse or advice from the sidelines. We have been right to attack the Socialist League and the SWP for doing that.

It seems to me that conclusions on socialist work in local government do not flow in a straight line from Martin Thomas's just criticisms of the Labour left's strategy for opposing Tory cuts. The left is rightly criticised for failing to mobilise opposition to the cuts and for using rate rises as an alternative to confronting the Tories. But, the important question we should ask ourselves is this? Had they gone for confrontation and failed what would our attitude have been then?

In that situation I think we too would have opted for "doing the best we could within the existing structures." indeed in a strike we often face a situation where, having done all we can, we are forced to recognise defeat, make compromises and 'do the best we can'. Our criticism of the Left should not be for doing the Two pamphlets summing up the ideas of Socialist Where We Stand - 20p plus 16p postage. 'How to fight the Tories' - 10p plus 16p postage. Or the two together for 45p including postage. From Socialist Organiser, 28 Middle Lane, London N8 best they can within the existing structures, but for their failure to mount the kind of opposition to the Tories which might have broken those structures.

Bastions The idea of left wing Labour Authorities acting as bastions of socialism is criticised on the ground that little can be achieved through local government other than gestures. This criticism is wrong for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it overstates the case that nothing can be done. The establishment of Nuclear Free Zones led to the Tories being forced to drop their Hard Rock Civil Defence exercise. It was a weakness of SO that we did not draw attention to the fact that if Labour Authorities and other groups had organised in a similar way to resist the Tories' cuts and government-forced council house sales a similar reversal of Tory policy might have been won.

Martin Thomas says that the GLC's and Ken Livingstone's stance on Ireland is radical Liberalism. But such policies are not radical Liberalism any more than support for the convening socialst ORGANISER How to fight the lories Them Where agi Fight socialist policies! of Constituent Assemblies in certain circumstances would be radical Liberalism - or make us radical Liberals for advocating it, as we might.

Livingstone helped generate discussion on Ireland within the Party. Is that positive or not? If it is then we should recognise it as an advantage that the GLC is seen to be arguing those policies.

Even where the GLC has been politically inadequate, as over Fares Fair, there have been invaluable lessons for the working class. One of the prime objectives of revolutionaries is to demonstrate that bourgeois democracy is a sham. Where we have councillors or MPs, their role at all times is to say to the working class: "These institutions are a sham. Rely on your own strength." The intervention of the Law Lords to stop the GLC's fares reduction was the clearest proof, short of a military coup, that bourgeois democracy is a sham. It would not have happened had it not been for a left local authority adopting the policy in the first place.

The statement that 'the preparation for that overthrow (of the profit system) comes principally through the self education of the working class in struggle, not through the enlightening efforts of left wing municipal administrators" is pure economism a la SWP. We do not believe that the working class can self educate itself in struggle, but that we as Marxists have to intervene to draw out the lessons for the working class as we go through the experience with them. Will we be best placed to draw out those lessons, and gain the ear of the class (especially in the public sector) as Labour councillors or Arthur SO Councillors The question really is about how we see the question of building SO. It seems to me that Martin Thomas proposes a complete abandonment of the ideas that have guided us for the last five years. Those ideas were essentially that we should stop talking to ourselves and start talking to the working class or at least to its most advanced sections, represented by the Labour left. We set out to help build a broad left current in which we would argue for our politics. In particular we have tried to be the ones who make initiatives rather than the ones who "offer critical support"

It was this idea that led to the establishment of SO, of Women's Fightback, and of the Rank and File Mobilising Committee and the Mobilising Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions. From none of these campaigns have we made massive numbers of converts to SO's politics. But does that mean that we were wrong to initiate them? Have they not been, especially in the case of the Rank and File Mobilising Committee, an important contribution to the development of the class struggle and given us a credibility in the eyes of the best sections of the Left that we never had before.

What has happened in Stoke as a result of us giving a lead in action, rather than criticising from the back of the hall, is that far fewer people on the left think of us as a bunch of sectarian idiots, and our opponents are far less able to get away with characterising us as such.

We were, for example, able recently via Labour Against the confrontation with the Tories in a way he does not want. We must attempt to see that that happens. There will undoubtedly be battles over cuts in r'ication and the rest of the puutic sector as well as other industrial actions.

We should see our job in all these cases not only as fighting inadequacy Kinnock and the soft left. Again the Tories' attacks on local government via rate capping and abolition of the Metropolitan Authorities means that we should be giving a lead in fighting the Tories, and exposing the inadequacy of the politics of the local government left and the soft left.

Our tactics must flow from the work that each local group is doing. In a group where SO supporters are well-placed industrial militants, it would be silly to pull them out to go off and become councillors. But in a group like Stoke where there are no militant worker comrades and where all the work has been built up around the Labour Party, standing councilors flows logically from that. Were we to withdraw from that we would simply isolate ourselves.

It goes without saying that whether SO supporters function as industrial militants or as councillors that at all times they should be arguing for SO's politics. Whichever is the case, it is clear that we will be better placed to give a lead to the struggles if we have comrades holding these positions than if we do not.

If, as a result of arguing our politics our comrades face deselection - so be it. In the process we will fight a political battle to expose the politics of those who want to deselect us. SO groups must use and back up those comrades who are in leading positions to the best advantage during any struggle. Our councillors should see their role not as administrators, but as socialist militants who orientate with SO's politics to workers' organisations and to tenants, community and other groups.

ir ten.

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

Te we stand Socialist ORGANISER for

Our criticism of doing structures the kind of might have

Organiser O badges 25p each, or £2