07.09.1995

Scottish and Welsh parliaments?

Dave Craig from the RDG locates the points of agreement and difference in the debate on the national question

THE ONGOING debate on the national question has thrown up a number of issues - the theory of stageism, the Leninist theory of the state, the meaning of self-determination, the historical process of change and the revolutionary democratic road to socialism. I want to review what we have established so far and take up some new arguments put forward by my opponents.

Stageism

Danny Hammill’s article (Weekly Worker 106) suggests that the Revolutionary Democratic Group has adopted the Menshevik-Stalinist theory known as ‘stageism’. Before we bandy terms around, we need to say what we mean by them.

I understand the term ‘stageism’ to mean the theory of two kinds of national revolution - bourgeois democratic and socialist. According to this, the bourgeois democratic revolution is appropriate and necessary at the beginning of the development of capitalism and industrialisation. It is relevant for those economically ‘backward’ countries which might be feudal, rural or colonial. The socialist revolution is for ‘advanced’ countries coming at the end of the epoch of capitalism.

Between these two types of national revolution is a relatively peaceful or non-revolutionary stage, period or epoch of capitalist industrialisation. During this, the working class steadily builds up its trade unions and parties ready for the big day when the socialist revolution begins.

Stageists apply this model to the United Kingdom and come to the following conclusions. The UK is an advanced capitalist country with the bourgeoisie in power, and parliamentary democracy. Therefore we cannot be at the ‘stage’ of bourgeois democratic revolution. We must be at the ‘stage’ of socialist revolution. In this respect Danny, like the SWP, is an orthodox stageist. Consequently he seems to think, quite mistakenly, that the RDG are unorthodox stageists. He assumes that we are predicting a bourgeois democratic revolution because we have not realised, or take no notice of the fact, that the UK is an advanced country with bourgeois democracy. Ironically Danny accuses us of stageism because he is looking at our arguments through the prism of his own stageist theory, which he thinks we have misapplied.

The RDG does not predict either a bourgeois democratic or national socialist revolution for the UK. The demand for a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales and a united Ireland is not based on these concepts of revolution.

The stageist theory is rubbish because it is a reactionary distortion of the historical process. We can make no valid prediction about the nature of the British revolution if we use this theory. Danny will not be able to see the revolutionary significance of the national question in the UK, until he frees himself from his own imprisonment in stageist theory.

Lenin’s theory of the state

Peter Manson (Weekly Worker 109) moves firmly onto the terrain of the Marxist theory of the state, as set out in Lenin’s State and revolution - good. He claims that I have failed to grasp the views of Engels and Lenin. This is nonsense. But it is true that I did not set out all their views on the question of republicanism. So Peter is justified in broadening the argument. Unfortunately for him, Lenin’s position on the federal republic still does not support his position.

Lenin’s position can be briefly summarised in general terms as follows:

1. A democratic republic offers greater democracy than any kind of monarchical state.
2. The centralised democratic republic offers greater democracy than a federal republic.
3. A federal republic can be regarded as an “exception” or a “hindrance” to development. Clearly for a democratic centralist there is no generalised preference for federalism.
4. But in certain special conditions a federal republic will be a transitional “step forward”.
5. Lenin explains two special conditions - the existence of a monarchy plus the national question.
6. Engels and Lenin cite Britain as an example of where a federal republic would be a step forward because we have both a monarchy and a national question.

Taken together these comprise Lenin’s theory of bourgeois democracy. The RDG accepts all these points. The conclusion is clear - a federal republic may in some circumstances be a progressive democratic demand or step forward and in others a reactionary demand or a step backwards.

It seems that the RDG and Peter Manson agree on this point. It is a very important point of agreement. Yet Peter writes about this in a way that gives a false impression.

He says, “Does the exception [federalism] automatically apply in the case of a monarchy?” Looking at Lenin’s thesis, the answer is obviously not. It requires two conditions - the monarchy and the national question. Peter’s answer is also “obviously not”. Germany, in the 19th century was a nation separated into principalities and monarchies. Engels explains that federalism would be a step backwards.

This contradicts nothing that Engels, Lenin or the RDG says. It is a non-argument. At no point has the RDG or Lenin argued that a federal republic is always a step forward from a monarchical state. Peter then points out Lenin’s view that the French centralised democratic republic was more democratic than the Swiss federal republic. We are agreed. This contradicts nothing that the RDG has argued.

So after all these bullets have been fired off where do we get to? Back to the key question of Britain with a monarchy and a national question and Lenin’s argument that a federal republic would be a step forward. Peter eventually asks himself, “But surely I cannot deny that Engels considered the federal republic to be a ‘step forward’ in Britain?” And his answer? “I do not deny it.” Why so reluctant? Is this to be hidden away in the fine print? Surely he should be more positive and say, ‘OK, I admit it- it’s a fair cop - caught red-handed, agreeing to what the RDG argued - according to Engels and Lenin, a federal republic would be a step forward in Britain.’

Of course Engels and Lenin might have been wrong. And it would be honest if Peter came out and said they were wrong. But he tries to wriggle out of that by saying that “I would certainly contest Dave Craig’s assertion that Lenin and Engels ‘predicted’ that Britain would ‘evolve’ along federal lines”.

Prediction? Let the readers judge for themselves. Lenin says:

“Even in regard to Britain, where geographical conditions, a common language and the history of many centuries would seem to have ‘put an end’ to the national question in the various small divisions of the country - even in regard to that country, Engels reckoned with the plain fact that the national question was not yet a thing of the past, and recognised in consequence that the establishment of a federal republic would be a ‘step forward’ ” (Lenin CW 25 p453).

It is true that Engels did not say, ‘Britain will evolve into a federal republic.’ But his statement is clearly a prediction. He predicts at some unspecified future time the reappearance of the national question. As a consequence a federal republic would come onto the political agenda and represent a progressive outcome. Of course this line of historical development is not deterministic and does not preclude other outcomes.

Peter has to say this to avoid the real issue of whether their theory of the state on which they based this ‘prediction’ is right or wrong.  Peter is diplomatically silent on this one.  In 1935 or 1955 you might think perhaps they were wrong. The monarchy seemed secure and there was no significant nationalist movement, But can Peter be so certain they were wrong today?

Lenin adds a very important proviso to the Engels ‘prediction’.  He says, “Of course there is not the slightest hint here of Engels abandoning criticism of the shortcomings of the federal republic or renouncing the most determined advocacy of, and struggle for, a unified and centralised democratic republic” (CW 25 p452). And there is not the slightest hint of the RDG abandoning criticism of the federal republic either.

A federal republic of Britain and Ireland?

Still there is common ground between the RDG and Peter, since we are both in favour of a multinational state which includes England, Scotland and Wales. But Peter sees this as a ‘British Republic’ with a single parliament. We see it as a federal republic of three nations, each with its own parliament and the right to secede written into the constitution.

Peter now comes up with a new idea for a federal republic of Britain and Ireland. This shows that Peter is not opposed to a federal republic as such. But again this seems to indicate that Ireland and ‘Britain’ would each have their own parliament, but not Scotland or Wales.

This is what Peter is really objecting to - a Scottish and Welsh parliament. This is the only consistent aspect of his argument. This seems to me a reactionary position. There is only one party in British politics that objects to this - the Tory Party.  So this point needs examining further.

Self-determination

The second major question is self-determination. I argued that the right to national self-determination does not exist in the UK. Peter accepts this - that is also a point of agreement between us. Dave Hulme is not so clear. He says, “Dave [Craig] complains that under the present constitution the right of national self-determination does not exist.” Yes, I do complain. Every English person should be complaining about this. Are you suggesting that the CPGB is not complaining, that it has passively accepted the status quo? Certainly the British bourgeoisie are silent about this. If it affected their interests, you can rest assured that they would be shouting, complaining and threatening all out war.

Then Dave Hulme says, “According to him [Dave Craig], this renders the demand for self-determination meaningless.” Since this is the very opposite of what I have argued on two occasions, I am almost staggered by it. Let me try again. Because the right of self-determination does not exist, the demand for self-determination has special significance.

It is not just a matter of words, but of immediate agitation and mass action. When the right to strike does not exist, it is not a matter of deciding we support it in the abstract, it is a matter of mass action to win this right.

If we are in favour of this right, we must aim to mobilise the working class to win it? How should this right be exercised? If the answer is that we do not know, then self-determination is a meaningless phrase. This is why some comrades in the CPGB now recognise the need to develop their policy. It is nothing to do with rapprochement with the RDG, but recognising political reality.

Ireland

Peter says that “Dave appears to accept my argument that British imperialist domination of Ireland is completely different from the relationship between England and Scotland.” That is nearly correct. I say ‘different’, but not ‘completely different’. Let us be more specific. Ireland, Scotland and Wales have never had the legal right to self-determination. The difference is that Ireland tried to exercise that right and was met with violent suppression. Can Peter accept that this specific difference is reflected in the slogan of a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales and a separate united Ireland?

Evolution versus revolution

Engels’ prediction that a federal republic would be a step forward did not come out of the sky. It must have come through his understanding of the dialectical process of change, which depends upon the class struggle. We should all agree that the British state and constitution has evolved, is evolving and will continue to evolve. We should all agree that the motor for this evolution is the class struggle.

There is an historical process going on ‘beneath our feet’. This is not fatalism or determinism, nor does it rule out revolutionary change. But the key to understanding this process is the class struggle between the reactionary and progressive classes. Does Engels’ prediction mean there can only be one predetermined outcome - a federal republic? Of course not. We might end up with fascism or separation. To see a tendency or line of development does not mean ‘fatalism’.

What we are discussing is predictable historical tendencies, not definite outcomes. The outcome will be influenced by many factors, including the actions taken by the Communist Party. There is nothing fatalistic in this at all.

Dave Hulme poses the question as evolution or revolution. He argues in an ultra-left fashion in setting evolution against revolution. Evolution does not preclude revolution any more than steadily heating up water precludes it turning into steam.

Revolution speeds up historical development rather than stops it. Dave decides to attribute to me the following point of view - that ‘It is better to assist the evolutionary process rather than prepare the violent overthrow of the bourgeois state.’ Why should we not ‘assist’ the evolutionary process by preparing for the violent overthrow of the bourgeois monarchist state?

Was it not true that in Tsarist Russia the ‘evolutionary’ process was leading to the eventual end of Tsarist absolutism? Did this prevent the Bolsheviks from preparing for violent overthrow? Why does Dave Hulme think that violent overthrow must go against the tide of history rather than push it forward?

In conclusion

The debate is moving forward. There are now some important points of agreement between Peter Manson and the RDG.

1. We both agree that a democratic centralised republic is more democratic than a federal republic.
2. We both agree that Lenin argues that a federal republic is a step forward in some situations (eg, Britain - monarchy plus national question) and a step backwards in others (eg, Germany).
3. We both agree that the right to self-determination does not exist in the UK.
4. We both agree that Ireland is different to Scotland and Wales and that this must be reflected in different policies (eg, separation for Ireland and federalism for England, Scotland and Wales).
5. We are both in favour of a multi-national republic, including Scotland and Wales.
6. But Peter is opposed to Scotland and Wales having their own parliaments.