LRC conference report

Over 250 delegates and members attended the Labour Representation Committee’s (LRC) annual conference on 15 November in London, writes Stuart King. It was a larger conference than we have had for sometime, perhaps reflecting a desire to discuss and debate the economic crisis and what it means for socialists.

The LRC represents the left of the Labour Party and includes Labour MPs, such as John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn and Katy Clark as well as Christine Shawcroft from the Labour Party's NEC and a supporter of the Grassroots Alliance, (correction - PR webby) affiliated unions and left groups, and over a 1000 individual members. Non-LP members and groups are allowed to join on condition that they are not involved in standing candidates against Labour.

Over 20 resolutions were submitted, grouped in relevant sections of the agenda and formed the basis for discussion throughout the day. This was a very democratic conference where speakers from the floor, both movers and opposers, dominated the proceedings. As a result there was a healthy and fraternal debate over policy – something completely absent from the now stage-managed LP conferences. The only problem was the compressed time, which meant contributions from the floor were limited to around two minutes – an argument maybe for a two-day conference in the future?

Not surprisingly the agenda kicked off with a discussion of the credit crunch and recession. There was a general feeling that the discrediting of neoliberal capitalism and the failure of the banks in the credit crunch opened up the opportunity to put socialist arguments and should strengthen the left in the LP. Resolutions in this section concentrated on policies the LRC should fight around. One element was the question of how socialists should respond to the nationalisation of Northern Rock and the financial stakes that the government had taken in the major banks.

There seemed general agreement that these were state-capitalist measures that had little to do with socialism unless they were linked to workers control and a government plan to use such nationalisations to take measures in the interests of the workers – not to bail out the bosses. John McDonnell pointed out the scandal that Northern Rock was one of the most aggressive banks in repossessing workers homes while supposedly being in the hands of the state.

In the next session, “the Commune” (a recent split from the AWL) made their debut with a semi-anarchist resolution on “social ownership and workers self-management”. They denounced “statist conceptions that have proved a historical failure” (presumably a reference to Marxist socialism) and declared that “The state is not a vehicle to achieve ‘socialism’”. Had they merely been talking about the capitalist state they would have been correct, but clearly they were referring to the state in general and the use of it by socialists. The point that needed to be made was that nationalisations have to be linked to workers control and, at a national level, to workers management and the fight for a workers government – to the need to smash the capitalist state and fashion a new one that is under the direct control of the workers organisations. Unfortunately no one who opposed this resolution (including me) made it to the microphone and as a result it was nodded through, but with a significant minority against.

In the international section of the conference, after hearing an interesting speech from an MP from the Socialist Left Party in Norway, two resolutions were passed one on Iraq and one on Iran. This latter one included a proposal that the LRC affiliate to the Hands off the People of Iran campaign (HOPI). Predictably the resolution on Iraq, which re-affirmed the LRC call for immediate pull out of troops, was opposed by Martin Thomas of the Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL), who worried that if that happened the country would be left in the hands of “sectarian militias”. Mike Phipps for the LRC anti-war commission pointed out that the majority of these “sectarian militias” were, and are, financed by the US occupation forces. Both resolutions were passed with only a handful of votes against – the AWL of course voting against affiliation to HOPI.

Not to be deterred the AWL followed up, in the section on domestic policy, with its yearly resolution aimed at getting the LRC expelled from the Labour Party by committing it to support socialist candidates standing against Labour. Maybe they hoped LRC members would have fallen asleep by the time they reached the last paragraph of the second page of the longest resolution presented. But the eagle eyed and those who had spent 40 years trying to reclaim the LP for socialism (and intend spending the next 40 years doing the same) weren’t having it. As usual only a handful of AWL votes went up in support of the resolution.

Other resolutions of note included a good resolution from Islington CLP on education calling for secular education and the ending of faith schools, against private finance and the academy schools programme. This resolution is also going forward to the London LP conference. The New Communist Party (NCP) also put forward a resolution on the threat of fascism. It is one of the more bizarre elements of the LRC that this super-Stalinist organisation, which supports the dictatorship in North Korea, is allowed through the doors of a democratic socialist conference – yet here they were telling us about the dangers of the “surveillance state” in Britain. Well comrades, try a few years living under the Great Leader Kim Il Sung and you might learn something yourselves about the “surveillance state”!

The conference ended with an important discussion that touched on direction and strategy for the Labour left. Susan Press moved a resolution on behalf of West Yorkshire acknowledging the “success of the Convention of the Left (CotL) in Manchester” and called on the LRC to help organise one around the Brighton LP conference in 2009. This led to a debate that revealed different attitudes to both CotL and the non-LP left. Speakers against the resolution tended to dismiss the CotL, one going as far as to express her annoyance that all these people in Manchester were sitting on their backsides rather than getting “stuck in” to change the LP. Other comrades, and this included john McDonnell took a very different and much more positive attitude to working with CotL and other radical movements outside the LP.

Again the resolution was passed overwhelmingly which was positive. But there are clearly unresolved tensions in the LRC that were not clarified at the conference, perhaps for fear that it could split the LRC itself. The difference is basically between those who want to plug away (perhaps forever) at “reclaiming the LP for socialism” and those who recognise this holds no attraction for a new layer of activists who have come into politics in opposition to New Labour policies – on climate change, airports, in anti-academy and anti-privatisation campaigns.

People like John McDonnell recognise that given the anti-democratic changes that have neutered most democratic forums in the party, a perspective of concentrating on changing the party from within, on its own, will only lead to tiredness and disillusion – to a withering of activists on the Labour left. It needs to renew itself, and socialism, by linking up with organisations outside the party that are fighting for similar policies to the LRC even if they refuse to join Labour. For the “reclaim Labour” tendency (which includes a good few entrists like Alan Woods’ Socialist Appeal) this is moving onto dangerous ground – it could divert from “the real struggle” of reclaiming labour and would also run the risk of a witch-hunt of the LRC from the Labour bureaucracy.

A democratic organisation should be able to have these discussions out at its conference – rather than in the pubs and after committee meetings. And the LRC is mature enough to have such discussions without splitting at its first real difference.

Sun 16, November 2008 @ 18:10

Bookmark with:

What are these?

discussion of this article

George B said…

There was a significant factual error in Stuart's report of what I, like him, thought was reasonably successful conference.

Christine Shawcroft is not (as yet at least) an MP, but is on the Labour Party's National Executive Committee as a supporter of the Grassroots Alliance, which is a separate entity from the LRC. Remarkably, the Alliance holds four of the six places on the executive still allocated to the constituency party organisations.

I believe that she was actually voted out of the post of vice-chair in the elections at the conference, with Susan Press replacing her.

Having also attended last year's event, I thought that there were more participants this year, though it remained disproportionately white and male. Still, there seemed to be more delegates from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, while the comparative absence of women's participation is at least recognised as an issue that need to be addressed.

As Stuart noted, there are clearly not so submerged tensions within the LRC, not least around the question of its relationship to the Labour Party, the Convention of the Left and "far left" more generally.

The coming year of apparently deepening recession will certainly test its capacity both to deliver solidarity and give shape to working class resistance as and when it develops.

Sun 16, November 2008 @ 20:03

Dan said…

What is wrong with a resolution saying that the LRC should support non-LP socialist candidates? They should do!

Just because the vast majority of LRC members won't support it, doesn't make it any less right.

Sun 16, November 2008 @ 21:06

bill j said…

Should they? Since the collapse of the Socialist Alliance, I can't think of many non-LP socialist candidates who would have been worthy of support.
It seems to me that this is raising a possible tactical point to a principle, is it really worth the LRC getting themselves expelled from the LP for something that they may never do?

Sun 16, November 2008 @ 21:25

David Broder said…

A significant minority opposed our motion? Around 10% maybe. And who were they? Stuart, two from the AWL, the New Communist Party and the Communist Party of Britain!

Reply to Stuart here - http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/report-on-lrc-conference/#comment-1084

Sun 16, November 2008 @ 23:59

Pete Firmin said…

Stuart, If there are "tensions" in the LRC they are certainly more nuanced and complex than you suggest You pose it as simply an argument between those who think the Labour Party can be reclaimed and those who want to make a break for freedom now.

Yet many (possibly even the majority) of those opposed to moves to standing candidates do not believe the Labour Party can be reclaimed for socialism. Indeed, quite a few never thought it could be, even before New Labour pushed through its changes.

The question is whether the Labour Party is a terrain on which we can fight and attempt to win people over, and even on (rare) occassions force policy changes, or whether it is a terrain which we simply leave to the neo-liberals. That doesn't, of course, mean neglecting the struggle in our unions and campaigns, but trying to link them all.

The fact is that given the current state of the movement (and our electoral system), the vast majority of electoral challenges by the left are an irrelevance. Should the LRC throw its (still meagre) resources in with them at the cost of attempting to win over forces in the Party and its affiliated unions?

Mon 17, November 2008 @ 07:45

SteveR said…

^more bizarre elements of the LRC that this super-Stalinist organisation, which supports the dictatorship in North Korea, is allowed through the doors of a democratic socialist conference – yet here they were telling us about the dangers of the “surveillance state” in Britain. Well comrades, try a few years living under the Great Leader Kim Il Sung and you might learn something yourselves about the “surveillance state”!^

so the NCP SHOULDN'T be allowed through the doors..? And isn't it correct that we in uk DO live in a "surveillance state"?
surely it's positive that the LRC is open to those that are NOT members of the LP, and i should think that members of some type of "communist party" won't be among those that want to "reclaim" the LP for some mythical "socialist" past that has never existed. on this point i agree with Pete Firmin that the LP is [or should be] a "terrain of struggle"... as the LP does remain a [type of] workers' party.

Mon 17, November 2008 @ 09:59

stuart king said…

On Pete’s point. I’m sure there are many more shades of opinion in the LRC than I managed to deal with but I didn’t say the division was between those who want to “reclaim labour” and those who want to “break for freedom now” – John McDonnell, as I thought I explained, doesn’t fit into either of these stereotypes.

Dan asks aren’t the AWL right to call on the LRC to support non-Labour socialist candidates? Well only if you think this is a good time to get the LRC expelled or split it (because undoubtedly if such a resolution was passed the Labour MPs and a whole section of the LRC would split away). It really is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas and when I pointed this out to the AWL all they could really say about it is that “we could duck and weave”. Hardly a convincing argument when you are asking the Labour left to publicly endorse breaking the LP constitution.

Does this mean we (PR) are against supporting socialist or workers candidates against Labour – no. It depends on the circumstances, their support in working class communities, their policies etc. And we would argue this in CLPs as we did when Dave Nellist was expelled from the LP – we said then the Coventry CLP should continue to support him up to and including expulsion from the LP. This doesn’t mean, either, that we would never put such a resolution to the LRC – a mass class struggle, major unions breaking from the LP and actively standing candidates and building an alternative socialist party – in such a case you might well say to the LRC “come on lets join it”. But you would do it openly not by “ducking and weaving” and pretending they wouldn’t be expelled. Unfortunately we are not in such a class struggle situation today – whatever the CNWP thinks.

Steve the NCP is a political tendency that cheered the crushing of the Hungarian workers in 1956, supported the tanks that suppressed the Prague spring of 1968 and who now support a hideous Stalinist dictatorship that has brought famine and terror to N Korea. If they ever got near power they would crush every element of workers democracy and put you and me, Steve, in the gulag.

No I don’t want to be in the same organisation as them, and if the LRC had any contacts with socialists or oppositionists in N Korea they would be acting a spotters for the N Korean Embassy. But I suppose we, on the London LRC e-list, will have to continue suffering the indignity of being invited by the NCP to celebrate Kim Il Sung’s birthday celebrations once a year at the Embassy – at least until someone has the guts to chuck them out!

Mon 17, November 2008 @ 12:00

Dan said…

"A significant minority opposed our motion? Around 10% maybe. And who were they? Stuart, two from the AWL, the New Communist Party and the Communist Party of Britain!"

I don't think the full conatations of the motion could have been understood. Or are you seriously suggesting that the LRC has become an anarchist organisation?

Stuart I take your point on the LRC. But I think that such a question could well be posed if the RMT decides to stand candidates. I'd also encourage "save our services" type campaigns to stand candidates and would hope the LRC would support them.

Mon 17, November 2008 @ 15:09

David Broder said…

"I don't think the full conatations of the motion could have been understood. Or are you seriously suggesting that the LRC has become an anarchist organisation?"

Yawn.

Calling us anarchists, or the content of the motion "anarchist" is ridiculous, traditional mud slinging. Workers' self-management has a long history in the communist and workers' movement.

Of course, you appear to believe that the fact that the Cuban state bureaucracy has massive control over the economy means that the economy is therefore in the hands of the working class (if only it ruled "politically"!)... I don't think opposing that is "anarchist".

Tue 18, November 2008 @ 00:53

Charlie Marks said…

The problem we have here it seems is that if the LRC begins to have any success in organising - within or without the Party - there will be expulsions...

And on the NCP. Comrades, have we not learned by now that no good comes of isolating those we disagree with and only talking with those we agree with? We should relish the opportunity to debate in a respectful manner.

Tue 18, November 2008 @ 02:01

Dan said…

"Yawn."

Why are you reacting like this? I didn't mean anarchist as an insult! I thought the motion was implying that we shouldn't have any kind of central control after overthrowing capitalism. Of course what is meant by central control and a workers state is also a grey area so it's a bit of a confused debate.

However I really don't believe that the LRC actually supports what you are saying in the motion. That isn't an insult to your politics, just a recognition of I find it hightly unlikely that the LRC has shifted its political position so dramatically.

I think you've misunderstood the theory of the degenerated workers state. It doesn't mean that the working class has control over the economy at all. Anything but. But it does mean that the economy isn't capitalist.

"The problem we have here it seems is that if the LRC begins to have any success in organising - within or without the Party - there will be expulsions..."

This is a very valid point and something which continually constrains members of the LRC in their politics and campaigning. As I've noticed in my union branch (my branch secretary is in the LRC).

Tue 18, November 2008 @ 11:37

Dan said…

Why are my comments appearing at the top of the page?

Tue 18, November 2008 @ 11:38

bill j said…

Yes it does have a long history. In the anarchist part of the movement. What's the problem? The label fits, wear it.

Tue 18, November 2008 @ 14:33

Charlie Marks said…

I honestly think that given the lack of democratic proceedures w/in labour party - on policy as well as personel (brown's coronation) - the best place for socialists is outside of Labour.

I had hoped that McDonnell's inability to even contest Brown's "orderly transition" would lead to a serious discussion on the party question. This was deluded thinking on my part. Were the LRC MPs to break-off as Real Labour or defect to the Greens, for example, then at the next election they'd have an uphill struggle defending their seats. The Labour leadership would be glad to be shot of the rebels, I'm sure.

The LRC's focus with regard the labour party should be in respect of policy - which ordinary members have no say in. Giving members the ability to vote on party policy (and suggest policies to be put to a members vote) would revitalise the party and perhaps boost flagging membership.

As I already said about comradely debate, I'd add to that by suggesting that the LRC continue overtures towards Compass with respect of cooperation etc.

Wed 19, November 2008 @ 02:03

bill j said…

I really think the issue of inside or out of Labour is a diversion. It may have had more purchase if the outside of Labour initiatives of the last years had been more successful. But they've all been a disaster. Its not convincing therefore, to tell people to leave the Labour Party, to join what? The fragmented and sectarian left outside, not a great prospect is it?
That's why I think the Convention of the Left and LRC which open themselves up to Labour and non-Labour members, without getting hung up on the question of a "party" are the way to go.
We need to demonstrate in practice that working together is actually more effective than staying apart - this is far from clear at present. If there is to be a future party it will not be announced but built by a period of co-operation and joint working to encourage and enable debate and to deliver progress in the class struggle.

Wed 19, November 2008 @ 10:41

Charlie Marks said…

I think that the view you express is becoming more common, bill. Certainly, I am hopefull that the CotL, the LRC, etc. will encourage more comrades to put aside party loyalty and focus on loyalty to our class.

Thu 20, November 2008 @ 02:12

susan press said…

Just to clarify I was elected LRC Vice-Chair at the National Conference, replacing Christine Shawcroft who is on the Labour NEC
My agenda was not personal but a political one based on the perspective that the LRC can no longer afford the luxury of obsessive focus on "re-claiming Labour" at the expense of engaging with other groups and disaffilated trade unions. We can not either afford to be expelled from the Labour Party ( nor would I wish that to happen) so like most at the Conference I strongly oppposed the AWL motion.
I did not know they had split - I think that reinforces the view there is nothing to be gained by being sectarian. Bill didn't point out the number of people opposing the Convention Of The Left was, literally, one or two. But that still gave me right of reply in which I made it clear I thought that was a negative and unacceptable way to proceed given the COL's success.
The other platform on which I stood was the desperate need for the LRC to become more regionally-focussed. I hope my election as co Vice-Chair with Maria Exall will facilitate that.

Sat 22, November 2008 @ 12:28

LRC conference report

Bookmark with:

discussion of this article

George B said…

Dan said…

bill j said…

David Broder said…

Pete Firmin said…

SteveR said…

stuart king said…

Dan said…

David Broder said…

Charlie Marks said…

Dan said…

Dan said…

bill j said…

Charlie Marks said…

bill j said…

Charlie Marks said…

susan press said…

add to the discussion