29.02.1996

Revolutionary republicanism

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) challenges Paul Cockshott's understanding of the democratic revolution

In Weekly Worker 129 Paul Cockshott identifies some points of agreement and disagreement. I am not going to argue, at this stage, over points of detail about whether we should have “elected judges” or replace them with “elected juries”. This could be an amendment to our minimum programme. This in itself does not overthrow its fundamental concepts. So it is the fundamentals that I wish to concentrate on.

Paul says we are both agreed that “the establishment of state capitalism is a necessary progressive step on the way to communism”. Not quite. The extension of state ownership or state capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a necessary and progressive step. But under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie it is usually carried out either to nationalise the losses of bankrupt enterprises, or in fighting an imperialist war, or as a concession to buy off working class pressure, etc. This in itself doesn’t take us towards communism.

Democratic revolution

Paul seems to recognise the necessity of democratic revolution. He says, “Dave is right: we should advocate democratic revolution.” Good. But there are clearly differences over what this means. Democratic revolution arises in a society deep in crisis, when there are divisions within the ruling class and when its people are prepared to take action to win greater political power. Examples are many and varied. But a common element is the involvement of the masses and the destruction of the old constitutional order. During the revolutionary period a new set of constitutional arrangements are put in place. Democratic revolutions ‘from below’ tend to produce provisional governments and constituent assemblies.

Not bourgeois revolution

Democratic revolution should not be equated with ‘bourgeois democratic revolution’. This is an anti-working class theory of the democratic revolution. Neither should it be confused with democratic and constitutional reform, which is merely legislative patching up of the existing constitution, usually without mass struggle. When we consider democratic revolution from the perspective of a definite class, then we must become more specific. Each class has its own aims. The working class is inevitably drawn into the process of democratic revolution. For us the key question is whether the working class will act independently. Will the working class seek to transfer power to its own dictatorship? As communists, who want to become the vanguard of the class at every stage of the revolution, we approach the democratic revolution proclaiming the class aim of the democratic dictatorship.

Stages

Paul accuses us of having “a stages theory of revolution”. This statement is taken as some sort of proof that our theory must be wrong. It is an accusation that seems to mesmerise people who have forgotten to think about real revolutions. Ignorant people think that revolution is an instant event, as if it happens at 10.15am on Wednesday June 23. If this were true there would be no possibility of ‘stages’.

Real revolutions are processes, which last for months and even years. There are clearly identifiable stages, even if only to identify a beginning stage, middle stage and end stage.

The task of Marxist science is not to pretend that we have instant revolutions without stages, but rather to identify as precisely and scientifically as possible what stages have actually existed. Which theory of stages is correct and which is wrong?

Paul is playing to the gallery by suggesting that there are no stages and then sneaking in a few stages of his own. We have a theory of stages. But we do not have the particular Stalinist/menshevik theory of stages in which a bourgeois democratic stage is separated from a national socialist stage. This is what Paul was dishonestly or disingenuously trying to suggest.

The RDG identified at least three Russian stages. First, the overthrow of the existing constitution. Second, the emerging dual power republic. Third, the transfer of power to the Soviets. We could take it up to five if we added a pre-revolutionary stage and the stage of civil war. We can make it six if we include the defeat of Kronstadt.

Paul is quite right to suggest we have a “Russian model” and that our minimum programme is based on a “direct transposition of the Russian revolutions stages onto Britain”. What is wrong with “direct transposition”? Paul points out that Russia had a Tsarist constitution, but we have a constitutional monarchy. Of course they are different. But you still have to overthrow them if you want to make a revolution. Surely that is the first stage not the final stage of our revolution.

The rest of the so-called Bolshevik left do not want to make a revolution. They do not want to overthrow the constitutional monarchy. They do not want any “direct transposition”. The hope is that the monarchy will abolish itself or be dumped by the bourgeoisie or will quietly wither away on its own. In the meantime they can concentrate on supporting Labour. Organisations like the SWP, Militant, Workers Power, CPB, Socialist Organiser do not advocate a minimum programme based on the experience of the Russian revolution.

So where did they get their theory from? Probably the same place as Paul. Paul pours scorn on our “Russian model” and has developed his own ‘superior model’. Which working class did he borrow this from? Paul has freed himself from the bondage of history and designed a model of revolution based on ‘Nowhereland’. You go to your ivory tower, get out your drawing board and design a revolution from scratch.

Paul’s stages

Paul’s model has two stages. The first is called ‘direct popular rule’. The second stage seems to be a ‘workers’ dictatorship’. The first stage is a republic, without a monarchy or a House of Lords, but also without the House of Commons or indeed any representative institutions at all. It is not a dual power republic. There is no constituent assembly. Each citizen votes on all legislation.

The direct popular republic is not a workers’ republic. It must be a form of bourgeois republic. Such an atomised form of republic would only help those with economic power. Without the dual power of worker councils, it would hardly prove to be transitional. This would be a lower form of bourgeois republic. This cannot be proven because we have no real examples. It is a utopian republic of atomised voters. At the centre of this republic is not the ‘power’ of the individual consumer, but the individual voter.

Paul has a two-stage democratic revolution. I do not condemn him for having stages in his revolution. The problem is that they are the wrong ones.

Reformist republicanism

Paul’s republicanism is contradictory and confused. On one hand he argues for a direct popular republic. On the other he dismisses republicanism using liberal arguments about why it is not worth abolishing the monarchy. He equates republicanism with simply getting rid of the monarchy. For him it is no more significant than whether the monarch should live at Buckingham Palace or take an extended holiday to the South of France. It cannot be more than a minor reform. The only class capable of bringing this about is the bourgeoisie. So why bother? At this point he has arrived back at a conservative position.

Paul reasons thus:

a) If we abolish Charles III, he will go quietly, not put up a fight. There will be no blood or civil war. So why bother?

b) A republic can only come from above. That would not be a revolution. So why bother?

c) Britain is not an absolute monarchy like the Tsar. We have a democratic monarchy. So why bother?

d) “The king has been under the thumb of the capitalists since 1688.” So why bother? Actually the queen is one of the biggest capitalist profiteers in the country.

e) “In Britain the bourgeois revolution occurred more than 300 years ago.” So why bother to repeat all that blood and civil war? (We are arguing for a proletarian democratic revolution not a ‘bourgeois’ revolution.)

f) Finally, replacing a king with a president makes no difference. So why bother? Incidentally, where does it say in the RDG programme that we advocate a president?

Revolutionary republicanism

We see the constitutional monarchy as a whole political system. It includes the monarchy, Lords, two-party system, etc, and also the bureaucracy, police and armed forces of the crown. Revolutionary republicans see the need for the use of force to end this system.

We look to the mass mobilisation of the people and especially the working class as the key to abolishing the system. We are not waiting for the bourgeoisie to come up with reform. We want democratic revolution now.