[under capitalism. And he quotes examples of these…]

Scan page 11

under capitalism. And he quotes examples of these 'ambiguous demands' - the demand for the right to work, for a mass housing programme, a sliding scale of wages - but what he quite clearly chooses to forget is that their meaning is clear. The demands cannot be misinterpreted as can "Labour -Take The Power!"

Ennis quite correctly pointed out that the slogan means different things to different people. For a start is 'Labour' the Labour Party or is it the working class? Is Power' state power or parliamentary power? What does 'Take' mean in the abstract way that the slogan is presented? Take what power? None of these things are clear. They do mean different things to different people at different times. Even Stu Clarke and Chris Knight disagree as to whom the slogan is addressed to. The slogan is wide open to misinterpretation.

We assume that the demand refers to the Labour Party (although not everyone would interpret it in that way as I found out by asking a few of my friends what they thought that 'Labour' referred to). In the context in which it is presented, i.e. a Labour Party not in office, then it appears as a call for the Labour Party to either take office or somehow seize control of the state - an armed struggle for power perhaps? In the present period?

Who was it that Stu Clarke said had a sectarian attitude? Ît is most certainly not Ennis! I suggest that Clarke looks to sections of the ranks of Briefing before starting to accuse others. The context in which it is placed is seemingly irrelevant to the Clarkes and Knights of this world. It has become a slogan to be produced regardless of the objective conditions that prevail, as part of a sectarian schema.

In the present period I WAS very interested in the welcome given by the Editorial of SO 163 to the unity call to the labour Left published in the February edition of the National Labour Briefing Supplement. As you rightly say, proper unity can only take place on a principled basis with "serious political discussion on the issues that divide us"

However on Page 12 of the same issue under 'Left Press" the same Labour Briefing was slagged off in the most sectarian manner by Fergus Ennis. Fergus starts off, "Don't let the pessimists kid you that these are times of universal defeat and retreat for the Left. Briefing is still advancing. " This cynical approach does not seem to me to be a very good beginning for the "serious political dișcussion" advocated in the Editorial.

Fergus Ennis to my mind has gone over the top. Basically, he complains that the likes of Ted Knight and Ken Livingstone and their "local government left" supporters are not revolutionaries. But then who is surprised by that? The point is do we denounce them, marginalised at the back of the hall, as Martin Thomas puts it, or from outside the hall, like the SWP; or do we, like the SO editorial, unite in a movement and in the process of struggle point out and develop in as courteous and comradely manner as possible our own distinct brand of socialism?

The new element in the 19805, which both Martin Thomas and Fergus Ennis seem to have forgotten is that of the fight for democracy, accountability and re-selection in the Labour Thus the Left expects elected councillors to stand by manifesto commitments and councillors expect trouble if they do not. Add to that the Tories' ratecapping and privatisation proposals and you have all the elements of a very real crisis indeed.

What we should be pointing out to "municipal socialists' is that in no one way can their pet reforms be carried out without a real campaign amongst the population and local government workers against the government. And what better place to point this out than on the council itself!

The Labour Party is organised as an electoral machine and it is perhaps natural that members should gear themselves to 'power' through elections of councillors, MPs and so on. It is possible therefore that the Briefing slogan "Labour take the power" could be interpreted as reinforcing this passive role. But not inevitably so, as Fergus suggests. For he ignores the whole development of the Labour Left over the past period in which Socialist Organiser has played a crucial role:

SDP We have, after all, driven out a whole section of the right wing to the SDP: not enough, perhaps but this is no mean achievement. In a number of areas. the left has taken control of District Parties and Constituencies, de-seleted sitting MPs and councillors, put their own candidates furward.

In all of this the spirit of democracy and accountability are to the fore, rather than the traditional backstairs manoeuvres and mafia-like deals. In other words, there is an active struggle taking place and still continuing during which lessons can and need to be learnt. In this context the slogan "Labour take the power" would be interpreted as stressing the self-activity of the movement and the need to roll it forward into the trade unions and into the council estates, to challenge the power of the class enemy and their agents.

It is my experience that rather than suffering a period of defeat, the Labour Left at the moment is taking stock, maybe licking a few wounds, but learning from recent struggles and locking for answers. In that case Briefing is correct to be optimistic and to claim it is advancing. It would be a shame if Socialist Organiser retrenched into a sectarian defeatism.

Yours fraternally, DAVE SPENCER Coventry

Scan page 12

Socialist Organiser no. 169 March 8 1984 Page 12 Where we stand *Organise the left to beat back the Tories' attacks! No to attacks on union rights; defend the picket line; no state interference in our unions! No to any