25.01.1996

Against conservatism

Paul Cockshott (Letters No125) criticises the Revolutionary Democratic Group’s draft minimum programme. He says that it “goes no further than that of bourgeois liberalism”. He claims our demand for a federal republic is “an incline to unreconstructed bourgeois national-ism”. He says we are lined up with Charter 88, left intellectuals, editors of New Left Review and Robin Cook. We are accused of “wanting communists to tail the liberal democrats”.

The second charge is “economic ultimatism”, which “rules out of court any economic or social transformation until there have been national democratic revolutions in every country”.

Economic ultimatism

Paul’s charge of “economic ultimatism” is partly a result of misunderstanding our position. The RDG’s minimum programme does not not spell out how far a national democratic revolution can go. We see the need for a second (or transitional) programme for the national democratic revolution and this was not stated in my article.

Aims

The national revolution or ‘national democratic revolution’ comes from contradictions in the development of the British state within the world imperialist system. A communist party would approach this revolution with a definite aim, leading the working class to establish a ‘workers’ state’. We see this as the most advanced form of democracy ever known. This is the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, a democracy based on workers’ councils, not a parliamentary system. A workers’ state, based on organs of power in every workplace, would not and could not leave the whole economy in the hands of the banks, landowners, the stock exchange and private capital. Workers’ democracy and private monopoly capital would prove in practice to be incompatible. Economic sabotage would force the state to take at least the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy into state ownership. Control would have to be exercised over the mobility of capital. There would have to be state control over exchange of foreign currency and over the prices of essential goods. Measures would have to be taken over the distribution of work and income.

The idea that the workers’ state would have no economic or social policy is false. However we disagree strongly with many socialists, who think that such a regime constitutes ‘socialism’: that is to say, ‘socialism in one country’. We reject that label as scientifically incorrect and therefore misleading to the working class. In our opinion this constitutes ‘state capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat’.

State capitalism

This is neither “liberalism” nor “socialism” nor “economic ultimatism”. It is national capital carried to its most socialised limit. It is a set of economic measures taken to defend the national revolution against imperialism. It represents not a higher stage of economic development, but rather a sharing out of the poverty and misery that will be forced on the working class so long as the revolution is isolated. It is taking over the corner shop and sharing out the five tins of baked beans. It cannot mean taking over the multi-national corporations, which are organised on a global, not a national basis.

Because Paul does not consider the limits which imperialism places on the national revolution, he tends to romanticise what it can do. Take for example the question of the state monopoly of foreign trade. The national revolution would need such control to defend itself against imperialism. But an international socialist revolution would not need such a monopoly. Why would the workers’ state in one country need a monopoly against other workers’ states?

The socialist revolution will abolish all monopolies of foreign trade in the process of socialising the whole global economy, moving to a higher level of internationalisation than anything imperialism can achieve. Paul’s charge that we have no economic plan or economic tasks prior to the international socialist revolution is not true. But it is fair to say that this was not made clear in the previous article.

Minimum programme

The minimum programme relates directly to the national revolution. It is based on the idea of a ‘dual power republic’ - that is, with two rival centres of political power. The dual power republic is the transitional stage between a bourgeois state and a workers’ state. In Russia such a republic existed between February 1917 and October 1917. It is a bourgeois republic emerging from the breakdown of the old constitution within which workers’ councils have become a significant political power, albeit not yet the ruling power.

This is a special type of bourgeois republic. It is not a normal stable bourgeois republic, as in the USA or Germany or France. It is a republic emerging out of a revolutionary crisis. If the working class were mobilised and the minimum programme were fully implemented we would be in a dual power situation.

If we take a football analogy, the minimum programme is equivalent to getting the ball from our end of the pitch into our opponent’s penalty area. This would be a great step forward when you consider that at the moment the game is being played exclusively in our half and we are permanently on the defensive. Of course getting the ball in the opponent’s penalty area is not the same as scoring the winning goal. If we get there our opponents may defend successfully. But at least we have a chance of scoring and winning.

Paul does not like our minimum programme because he thinks it does not guarantee that we will score. And it does not claim to. But if there was a ‘dual power republic’ in the UK, the working class would be firmly in the enemy’s penalty area with a chance to shoot at goal.

Liberalism

The minimum programme is in essence a dual power republican programme. It calls not only for a democratic republic but centrally for the building of workers’ councils as an immediate task. The struggle for workers’ councils at local, regional and national level means building now a national rank and file network for workers’ control of the workplace. Without this how could the working class begin to exercise real in-fluence over the democratic revolution?

Paul claims that this is “liberalism” because “All but one of the points are either already advocated by the liberal bourgeoisie in Charter 88 or are the standard components of bourgeois constitutions in other countries.” Of course even trade unions, shop stewards’ committees, workplace councils and the right to strike can be legally incorporated and made safe under bourgeois democracy. So too can the replacement of the standing army by a people’s militia and the election of judges. Should we oppose trade unions and workers’ councils on the grounds that some liberals support them?

The fact is that all bourgeois liberals want to avoid popular democratic revolution and especially a dual power republic. They know only too well where it can lead. In fighting to avoid the dual power republic, they have at least something in common with Paul. We should add for the record that neither Charter 88, Robin Cook, the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats advocate a republic. None of this lot wants to abolish the monarchy. Does Paul know the difference between reforming the monarchy and abolishing it? Can he tell the difference between reforming the House of Lords and abolishing it? This is the superficial level of Paul’s criticism. Both Charter 88 and the RDG want to do something about the House of Lords; therefore they are both “liberals”: QED.

In the UK the liberal programme and the democratic programme (minimum) are in essence quite different. To prove they are really the same, Paul has invented some dubious mathematics. If we subtract republicanism, federalism, self-determination, united Ireland, workers’ councils, the abolition of the anti-union laws, democratic trade unions and the right to strike, and add back the House of Lords, then - hey presto - the RDG’s minimum programme is the same as the liberals’!

Republicanism

Paul’s position on republicanism is ultra-left and therefore objectively conservative. He says the RDG demands “no more than a parliamentary republic”. He is opposed to every kind of bourgeois republic, even a dual power republic, because we assume he wants nothing less than the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Let us not forget that the Tories, Labour and the Liberal democrats are also opposed to a bourgeois republic, especially with dual power, for different reasons. They oppose a republic because they do not want the working class to have a chance of taking power. In effect Paul and the Tories have formed an anti-republican alliance, albeit for different and opposed reasons.

This is not a new argument. The Bolsheviks were revolutionary republicans. They too were accused by the mensheviks of placing too much emphasis on republicanism, helping the “republican bourgeoisie”. Lenin explained that the mensheviks

“like to accuse us of ignoring the danger of the proletariat becoming dissolved in bourgeois democracy. Our reply is a Social Democratic Party [ie, communist] which operates in bourgeois society cannot take part in politics without marching, in certain cases, side by side, with the revolutionary and republican bourgeoisie, without merging with it, whereas you march side by side with the liberal and monarchist bourgeoisie, without merging with it either ... Moreover, you have not even noticed or realised this coincidence.” (Lenin, Selected Works p499)

The British bourgeoisie, represented by the Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats, is anti-republican - both its conservative and liberal wings. Paul is marching side by side with these anti- republicans, without even noticing it. The RDG is marching side by side with the republican bourgeoisie, without merging with it.

The important qualification to this is that there is no republican bourgeoisie for us to march side by side with. So when it comes to marching side by side with the anti-republican bourgeoisie, Paul is marching with them but on his own.

Even if there was a republican bourgeoisie in the UK, we would do as the Bolsheviks did and “march side by side, without merging”. We would not be frightened off by various mensheviks and economists shouting “liberal” and “Charter 88” at us. Does Paul really think the working class will not take the historic step of abolishing the monarchy for fear of being called “liberals” by the anarchists?

Our liberals are not in favour of a republic. They are too cowardly and supine for that. Naturally they do not want the working class to take action itself. Their intellectuals have come up with various theories to justify this. They say to workers, ‘Do not abolish the constitutional monarchy because there is no difference to a republic.’ It will be exactly the same. Stay passive. Do nothing.

Paul uses this same old liberal theory. He thinks it is so obviously true that a constitutional monarchy is exactly the same as a democratic republic that he challenges us to prove that the “political influence of the working class is stronger in European republics than in the constitutional monarchies”. Paul wants us to make a very narrow comparison: an unstable constitutional monarchy with the stable republics of Germany or France in 1996. Only a British chauvinist would think the working class had more democratic rights or were better off under our system. But why not compare our constitutional monarchy with the dual power republic of 1917? Or why not think about monarchies in transition to republics, emerging out of revolutionary situations - England, 1649; France, 1789; Russia, 1917; Germany, 1918; and Spain in the 1930s? Paul is a bit selective in his comparisons.

No serious Marxist has ever denied that a constitutional monarchy is different to a democratic republic. No serious Marxist has ever denied that (other things being equal) one form is more democratic than the other. Lenin’s State and revolution which is the classic text, rejects any idea that they are both the same. We will leave Paul to try and work out whether the constitutional monarchy is more democratic or whether it is the other way round.

The theory that there is no difference between a constitutional monarchy and a democratic republic is a British theory, not a Marxist theory. This is what Clement Attlee had to say on the subject: “I wouldn’t raise a finger to turn a capitalist monarchy into a capitalist republic” (quoted in Documents of the SWP republican faction, p12). Why did Attlee come up with this? According to him it was because he wanted to concentrate on the “real issues” like poverty and unemployment.

The alternative view is that Attlee was a conservative who promised social reforms but had no intention of challenging the system of political power. Paul’s anti-republicanism, which he presents as super-radical, is nothing other than a reflection of the dominant thinking in British monarchical society.