Democracy is still issue no. 1

Scan page 6

The Labour Part!' Special Conference: the fight for accountability remains the key to a successful fight for socialism retary paign viritin LI. al butes sion vote Derek Cattell ist Organiser, 11). Vladimir Derer (secof the Camfor Labour Democracy, in his bersonpacity, contridiscuson the block opene d by (social- ICaninl August Derek Cattell's letter is well timed: a discussion by the Left of this controversial subject is long overdue and, as he stresses, considcrations such as that the trade union block vote may sometimes favour the Lett should not determine the Left's attitude towards it.

Unfortunately he does

not make clear whether he is opposed just to the present overwhelming weight of the trade union block vote, or whether he would like to see the whole conference voting structure changed His comment on the Wembley college "the new electoral college which gives 40% of the votes to the unions can only help to increase the union domination") sems to indicate that he inclines to the first view.

In fact Wembley demonstrates that there is nothing necessarily rigid and sacred about the present distribution of the voting strength under the existing conference structure.

Callaghan:his betrayals in government encouraged the move towards an accountable leadership Comrade Cattell is also right to suggest that the role of the block vote should be considered in terms whether it helps or hinders the Labour Party in adopting a socialist programme, and one might add, in carrying it out.

Here Comrade Cattell seems to suggest that the block vote is a hindrance.

It is true that the trade unions, if left to themselves, will only pursue aims which are compatible with a capitalist framework. What finally determines their attitude, however, is the leadership offered by the political party of the working class.

Accountability

After all, it was not the block vote which was the cause of the failure of the successive Labour governments to introduce socialist measures. Far from initiating policies of wage restraint, for example, trade unions had to be persuaded by Labour's parliamentary leadership before - in the mistaken belief that these were part of a socially just policy - they accepted them.

Nor is it true that the bulk of the Labour Left"

saw the main problem in terms of accountability of the leadership. as Comrade Cattell suggests. Whether they regarded the 1973 Labour programme as il socialist one or not, the Labour Left in its broadest sense (from the Militant tendency and other far left sects to the parliamentary Tribune group) never made accountability of Labour's leadership its first priority.

Only CLPD, joined later by the Rank and File Mobilising Committee did do so. Both Militant and Tribune in fact always gave preference to other "more important" issues.

Most CLPD supporters were, of course, never under any illusions about the relative inadequacies of the 1973 programme. Yet the policies this programme advocated, with all their imperfections, were significantly more radical than anything the parliamentary leadership was willing 1o pursue.

Support

More importantly they had the support of the rank and file activists and trade unionists.

The problem for socialists within the Labour Party had never been that they did not have a "socialist programme". , nor that they were stopped from preaching its relative merits. The problem always was that they were unable to get majority support for such a programme by means of propaganda and educational work alone;

the exclusive pursuit of which activity is the sacred cow (or chronic obsession)

of the Lett.

So long as the Left limits itself to this, the unintended consequence of such activity is merely the upholding of the status quo.

What during the seventies changed the situation was not the decades of socialist preaching but the successtul mobilisation of the rank and file behind the demand to democratise the party structure. A socialist road ahead leads through the support of similar demands a trom a "socialist" point of view no doubt totally inadequate)

and the defence of what had already been achieved.

It is a pity that Derek Cattell should advise socialists to go back to the old position which has been confirmed to be ineffective. He is in good company, in line with Tribune, 106, Clause Four, all of whom are claiming now that the democratic battle has been won. We must tocus attention on other issues.

The tact that (omrade Cattell wants us to give priority to explanations (such as that parliament is really a bourgcois institution) is not all that different from the ILP/LCC/Clause Four argument that what is important now are the details of the Alternative Economic Strategy.

Propagandist In both cases, whatever the justification, we are asked to divert our efforts from mobilising the rank and file behind such demands as are attainable at this stage, to propagandist activities which, by themselves, will achieve nothing.

Comrade Cattell's call for a Labour Party converted "from an electoral machine to a party which actively intervenes in the daily strüggles of the working class" and for setting democracy "in this context" is, like the LCC's (and ILP's)

call for a "Campaigning Mass Party" , bound to remain a piece of empty "radical"

rhetoric. Labour's rank and file still need to learn that only by concentration on and mobilisation for a few prioritised aims that are crucial in the context of the existing situation are genuine changes likely to be effected from which eventually a campaigning mass party which would intervene in the daily struggles of the working class might result.

But notwithstanding the above, Comrade Cattell's implicit emphasis on the need to build a socialist core Benn emerged 10 lead thẻ rank and file within the Labour Party has considerable relevance to the question of the block vole.

It is not possible to build a socialist core without at the same time demanding that the constituency parties be given a voting strength al conference that corresponds to their contribution. Without this their efforts will not be taken seriously.

Healey: fighting a desperate battle against party democracy The "right" proportion of the voting power to be allotted to the constituencies has been a matter of some debate among the relatively small circle of those constituency activists and trade unionists who realise the urgency of the need to redress the baiance in the present pattern of conference voting.

To relate voting strength to the financial contribution may seem plausible but it is an expedient which lacks moral justification. However an equal share in the political influence of unions and constituencies reflected in their command over conference votes does meet this requirement, and incidentally the sums spent on the Party by the trade unions and CLPs are, at the present level of regular financial contributions, also roughly the same The "left" opposition 1o the reform of conference voting is based on several considerations.

One is that with the disappearance, or even a minor moditication, of trade union dominance of conference. its social composition would favour the middle class members of the Party.

Davitive discrimination in, favour of the working class Labour supporters 1s. oi course, desirable, but preferential treatment of trade unions is hardly the only possible or ideal form of it. Indeed past record shows that trade union dominance of conference frequently failed to safeguard working class interests.

Another objection 1o d retorm of conference voting derives from the failure to ditterentiate between the character of a political and a trade union organisation.

Politicisation

Trade unions art organised on a narrowly conceived defence of economic interests of their members. For this reason trade unions cannot fulfill the functions of a socialist party.

Obviously a high level of politicisation of trade unions is vital, but it is also important to realise its limits. The strategy of relying on the trade unions to counter the middle class influence within the Labour Party is constructed on a romantic conception of both the trade unions and the working class.

Its immediate consequence is the neglect of the task to build a socialist organisation of the working class.

Traditionally it is the socialist sects which most rely on the trade unions to influence the Labour Party policy in a socialist direction when they grudgingly acknowledge, or at least tacitly accept, that the Labour Party is the political organisation of the British working class. Since most of the sects refuse to join the Labour Party the only way they can enter the Labour Party polities is through the trade unions.

Pathetic

It is not without irony that in terms of the ideology which they claim to allegiance, trade unions are an organisation the aims of which are circumscribed by the framework of capitalism.

It is therefore somewhat pathetic that they should strive to influence the Labour Party in a socialist direction through their efforts within such organisations.

No doubt there must be a sound dialectical explanation •for this seeming _contradic..