18.04.1996

Revolutionary democratic road: Russians versus Greeks

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) continues the debate with Paul Cockshott on revolution and republicanism

The first stage of our democratic revolution is the transition from the constitutional monarchy to a dual power republic. This is a possibility, not a prediction. It is the best outcome we might achieve, given our own history, political consciousness and the alignment of class forces. The reality may be far worse.

The battle between the royalists and republicans has already begun. We are witnessing the preliminary skirmishes. As communists, we are not simply part of the republican movement - we aim to become its leading force. The problem is the rampant anarchism within our own ranks.

In the capitalist epoch, a republic is a form of government without hereditary institutions. As communists, we are republicans as a point of principle. We are against all hereditary, unelected and unaccountable officials. Of course there are a variety of types of republic, including fascist, military, parliamentary, dual power and proletarian, as well as centralised and federal. We would certainly oppose a constitutional monarchy becoming a fascist republic. But this is an exception to prove the rule.

So when Paul Cockshott, living in a constitutional monarchy, declares himself “anti-republican”, he is giving aid and comfort to the royalists. Such “royal communism” is nothing new. The same sort of debate took place under the Prussian monarchy. In 1849, Marx and Engels, as republicans, fought against ultra-left anti-republicans such as Andreas Gottschalk, a leader of the Cologne Workers Association. Marx called this tendency “red monarchist”. Later Ferdinand Lassalle and his followers were attacked for being “royal Prussian socialists” (see KM Draper, Theory of revolution, p207). Complete nationalisation of everything that moves - yes; but abolish the monarchy - no!

At present we are engaging in a theoretical debate to try to find the truth about the theories and assumptions which underpin both positions. The revolutionary democratic road to socialism and communism is based on the idea of the revolution as an ongoing or uninterrupted process. The world revolution begins from the national democratic revolution and spreads to the international socialist revolution and communism.

I think it is fair to say that Paul Cockshott agrees with this conception of the revolutionary process. But we are disagreeing over the theory of the national democratic revolution.

Stalinist stageism

The dominant theory of the national democratic revolution has been the Stalinist-stageist model. This defines the revolution as bourgeois democratic. Furthermore this revolution is not directly connected with the socialist revolution. There has to be a non-revolutionary stage of capitalist economic development between the two revolutions. Hence the term “stageism”.

The RDG totally rejects the notion of bourgeois democratic and national socialist revolution and hence the stageist model as such. We consider it to be a reactionary bourgeois theory. We reject it for all countries everywhere.

Proletarian democratic revolution

Our theory of the national democratic revolution is based on the idea of the proletarian democratic revolution. This is a democratic revolution led by the working class and bringing about workers’ democracy, the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat. The classic example is the Russian democratic revolution (1917- 21).

Paul accused the RDG of basing our theory on Russia. We pleaded guilty. Why? Because it is the best historical example of working class revolution, for all its mistakes, suffering and tragedy, that we have.

Paul accuses us of copying the Russian model. This is not true. We have simply extracted from the Russian revolution those aspects which are of general historical significance to the working class. Tsarism, for example, was a specifically Russian social formation. A theory that depended on the existence of tsarism could not have general relevance.

Internal stages

A vital distinction needs to be made between the stageist or Stalinist theory and the internal political stages within the democratic revolution. Internal stages express the contradictions of the revolution, producing its forward or backward motion. The concept of internal stages is absolutely essential for any scientific understanding of the revolution as a dialectical process.

This distinction is not widely understood. As soon as we try to discuss the scientific basis for internal stages, Marxist opponents accuse us, falsely, of being Stalinist “stageists”.

Paul began by accusing me of stageism. But clearly he now recognises the distinction. He says: “Craig is right. I do envisage revolution as a staged process.” That is a very useful admission. I will not accuse Paul of being a “stageist” simply because he quite correctly recognises that revolutions have internal stages of development. He himself is trying to identify what they are.

Dual power republic

Using the Russian example, I suggested that a dual power republican stage was of general relevance. Take the example of the Paris Commune, which is thought to be the first example of a workers’ republic. In fact France in 1870 was not a workers’ republic. It was a dual power republic. One power existed in Paris and another power outside. This contradictory stage was ‘solved’ by the crushing of the Commune.

Utopian revolution

Paul is unable to suggest any alternative revolutions on which to base his theory. The silence on this point is deafening. If there is a better example than Russia, please inform us and we’ll ditch our example. But without concrete examples, Paul does not have a theory of the revolutionary process at all.

I accused Paul of basing his theory on “Nowhereland”. Paul was stung by this jibe to reveal the example of “ancient East Mediterranean” - which, for want of a better title, I will call the ‘Greek Democracy’.

But this is not an example of an actual revolution. It is an example of democratic government in pre-capitalist society. So I should revise my original charge. Paul’s theory of democratic government is neither utopian nor based on nowhereland. It is based on the ancient Greeks. However his theory of revolution and its internal stages is utopian, based on no-revolution-anywhere.

Greek dialectics

Paul uses the dialectic to suggest that his view of democratic government is relevant for today. He says that primitive communism comes back as modern communism through the “negation of the negation”. By analogy Greek democracy may come back by such a double negative. I can accept this logic.

Modern communism is not simply a copy of primitive communism. It is a classless communal society on a higher level. We will not be hunting big game animals, but surely be plugged into the internet. Similarly we will not simply repeat Greek mass democracy. It will appear in its modem guise.

Paul describes Greek democracy as “rule by the mob” or “rule by the poor” or “rule by mass meetings”. This kind of democracy has already reappeared in the Paris commune, the Russian soviets and the Iranian shoras. It is not so much Greeks versus Russians, but the Greek masses transforming themselves by double negative into the Russian working class. Today mass democracy will be proletarian soviet democracy.

This is not in contradiction to another double negative. Why shouldn’t the English republic of 1649 doubly negate itself? First turning back into a monarchy and then back into a republic on a higher level. This will reappear, not at the end but at the beginning of our next revolution. Something which Paul appears to have ruled out.

The first stage

The communist movement needs ideological and political clarity. At any given stage, we have to know the next step - both its potential and its limits. This is what the Party of action needs in order to act correctly. Otherwise the Party becomes part of the historical garbage that is getting in the way and holding the revolution back.

Given that we both accept the existence of stages, we must have a clear understanding of the first stage of the democratic revolution. We have defined it as being the transition to a dual power republic. If this is our immediate task, it is more than likely that it will not be achieved.

The counterrevolutionary bourgeoisie will do everything in their power to prevent it. A dual power republic poses the most serious danger to their hold on power. This is despite the fact that a dual power republic is still a bourgeois republic.

Constituent assembly

How will a society make the transition from a constitutional monarchy to a republic? It depends on which class wields the axe. In theory it could be the bourgeoisie, who behind the scenes might compel the monarchy to abdicate and then impose a new constitution of the country perhaps endorsed by the existing royalist parliament.

We can see recent examples of constitutional revolution in South Africa and Russia. In South Africa the constitution was agreed by negotiations with the racist regime. This was a method most advantageous to the old regime and least advantageous to the democratic masses. In Russia, Yeltsin took power and then wrote a new constitution, giving himself vast powers, which was endorsed by a ‘take it or leave it’ referendum.

Avoiding a constituent assembly is a vital tactic in the armoury of the capitalists. True to form, Paul pours scorn on the idea of a constituent assembly. Paul’s opposition seems to be based on a fear that the masses will elect the wrong people, who might then come with the wrong constitution. Better to leave it to the Yeltsins and Mandelas and their British equivalent. An even more reactionary argument is that Paul believes that a constituent assembly is something strange and foreign. We just do not do that kind of thing in Britain.

An alternative scenario is a republican government coming to power at the head of a mass movement. Whether this is by election or popular uprising is not crucial. Such a government would be provisional: that is, unconstitutional and illegal. It would have to take action against the royalist establishment, who occupy all important positions in the state.

One of its tasks would be to hold special elections to constituent assemblies (England, Scotland, Wales). This puts the question of constitution before the whole population. It politicises the people. It asserts that the people have a right to have a voice in this matter - something denied to the Russian and South African working class.

Paul says that “Craig imagines that this [abolition of the monarchy] will involve a constituent assembly and a provisional government.” Revolutionary republicans are dreaming again! Not really. A republic is now on the political agenda. We have to seriously consider how it will come about.

I think that a constituent assembly is extremely unlikely because of the class forces that will be ranged against it. The capitalists will avoid it if at all possible. Most of the communists have either never given it a second thought or, like Paul, are fighting against it. The capitalists have very little to worry about, especially from the British left.

Alternative first stage?

Paul sees the first stage as the transition to a direct (popular) republic, with the proviso that he refuses to call it a republic. At the beginning of the democratic revolution he will oppose a dual power republic, a provisional republican government and a constituent assembly. Presumably he will oppose purging the royalists from the state. This is also dreaming. But it is the dreams that will fill the heads of the counterrevolutionaries.

This is not to rule out the relevance of Paul’s Greek example. This may or may not be the best example of democratic organisation in the history of the world. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to say. Paul should elaborate further. For me, the jury, whether elected or drawn by lot, is still out on that one.

The real problem is that Paul has no theory of revolution, including its internal stages. The idea that Greek democracy will be the first stage is pure assertion. It could just as well be the second or third stage. I can repeat the charge that Paul’s theory of revolutionary stages, as opposed to Greek democracy, is based on Nowhereland. We cannot use this non-theory as the basis for sound revolutionary tactics.

Conclusion

We both recognise the democratic revolution. We both recognise that the revolution passes through various stages of development. But we cannot agree on the first stage. Paul has no materialist basis or concrete examples to indicate what constitutes the first stage. He has no basis except his own prejudices for discussing tactical questions such as the constituent assembly