04.07.1996

Left SLP trends

We reprint below extracts from a document distributed by West London Socialist Labour Party member Barbara Duke

Barbara and four others stood for election to the Socialist Labour Party leadership at the May 4 conference on an amendment to the economics policy document. These five ‘amenders’ - Stuart Crossthwaite, Lee Rock, Matthew Jones, Chris Ford and Barbara herself - certainly deserved the support of the left. Whatever our differences with the political thrust of their amendment, it was undoubtedly a revolutionary one.

Barbara topped the poll of the left candidates, picking up 71 votes. She, her co-thinkers on the economics amendment and the two comrades who stood for the Revolutionary Platform, all received good votes and pushed the bottom-placed candidates from the recommended list hard (see Weekly Worker May 9 for the election results). Therefore they represent important trends within the new party and the open publication of their views is to be welcomed. Barbara’s stated position that she would ... appreciate responses” is healthy. I hope she takes the opportunity to respond to the comments I make here.

Having said that, our reservations about Barbara’s political stance remain. I have little space to develop an extended critique, but it is worthwhile sketching a few disagreements.

First, Barbara dismisses the debate about nationalisation as a little bit of a diversion, a “red herring”. In fact, it is central.

Implicit in Barbara’s argument is the idea that somehow nationalisation is a progressive measure in and of itself. This is a false understanding that underpins the traditional Trotskyite view of the ‘proletarian property forms’ of the ex-Soviet Union. Barbara expresses it more obliquely when she writes of Soviet “property forms ... of the same type as those which workers could control”, but the same false methodology remains.

The historic task of communists is to flow with the progressive development of history, to give this objectively progressive trend conscious direction. The world economy creates the material basis for the world planning of production, for a world proletarian government. Is Barbara trying to suggest that the growing density and inter-connectedness of the global economy is not “in some sense progressive”? Surely the task is not to “build an international economy”, but to establish proletarian control over the one that already exists?

There is a profound contradiction in her argument when she discusses the ‘economic’ tasks of a proletarian state. She lapses into what could be called - if I were being uncharitable - a form of Jucheism, or reactionary economic autarky.

She says that the economy must be taken “into the hands of a state run by workers that can really take advantage of international economic resources and counterpose planning to the ruthless profit-seeking of international capitalism”. The unwritten assumption (a reasonable one) of this quote is that the form of a proletarian revolution will be national, against a particular state. The unreasonable assumption is that the task of this proletarian dictatorship would then be to nationalise the economy, to “counterpose” this planned economy to the “profit-seeking” of international capitalism.

The draft programme currently being discussed by the Communist Party approaches the question is a far more profound way, I believe. It states that

“the workers’ state would be wrong to nationalise some pre-set number of companies or list of industries ... the full socialisation of production in Britain is dependent on and can only proceed in line with the completion of world revolution.”

The immediate task of the proletarian state is

“the systematic extension of workers’ control over production ... The scope of workers’ control should be gradually extended as the working class ‘wrests by degrees’ power over the economy from the capitalist class and management experts.”

In our view, this process - inextricably linked with raising the cultural level of the class, its capacity for organisation and leadership - must continue until full workers’ management of production is achieved. It is at this stage that the economy will be fully socialised and will be communally owned: that is, in the “hands of the state - ie, of the proletariat, organised as the ruling class” (Marx).

Barbara’s document nods in the direction of a genuine internationalism, yet is flawed by its misunderstanding of the progressive tasks of a workers’ government.

More generally, the document smacks of a narrow workerism. In her discussion of “single-purpose” groups like anti-nuclear campaigners or anti-motorway groups, Barbara tends to display a dismissive approach. She even suggests, that as many of these groups “pay little attention to the question of class” and as many of their demands are not ‘supportable’, their struggle is “misdirected”. Instead, the key is “economic struggle at the point of production”.

This is to fatally reduce the struggle of the working class to narrow sectionalism, not the broad hegemonic role envisaged by the founders of our movement. To paraphrase one of these founders, our ideal of an SLP leader is not a trade union official, but a tribune of the oppressed. A genuine workers’ leader responds to every infringement of democracy, no matter what class or section is affected. The proletariat must become the hegemon of the battle for democracy - the key to the revolution - in contemporary society.

Barbara’s document belittles this and thus - unconsciously- negates the revolutionary role of the working class itself.

Mark Fischer

SLP economic policy - Discussion document

At the founding conference on May 4, I was one of a group of five comrades who moved an amendment to the economics policy paper. This came out of our involvement in the discussions in the economics workshop and outlined a few basic points which we felt were missing from the policy paper.

One thing is clear from the founding conference - we need further discussion on economics and on other issues, to really elaborate policy that can meet the interests of the working class, now and in the future. The policy paper, the suggested amendments and the discussion at the conference were only the beginning of this process. I certainly do not consider the amendment we moved to be the last word on the subject.

The final paragraph of the economics policy paper, calling for an economics commission, is crucial - as is continued discussion throughout the party. I present this paper as a submission to that commission, and in the hope that it will stimulate more general discussion throughout the SLP. As we do not yet have formal systems for internal discussions, I have tried to distribute it as widely as possible, through my branch and other areas of SLP work I am involved in. I would appreciate it being passed on within the SLP and I would also appreciate responses.

Barbara Duke

Socialist Labour’s economic policy should be about two inextricably linked objectives - meeting the immediate needs of the working class today and setting up an economic system for the future that will fundamentally meet the needs of all. Capitalism does neither. We need to smash it and replace it with a system run by the working class: a centrally planned, collectively-owned economy that manages the resources of society in the interests of all.

We don’t need to wait until the SLP achieves political office. We can begin, even as a small, new party, in fighting for the things we need now. And we should do this regardless of the impact it will have on the capitalist system. Capitalism can only meet basic needs partially and temporarily, if at all. By fighting for our needs, we have no choice but to challenge capitalism.

We can begin with fighting unemployment, through measures like those outlined in the policy document - a four-day working week with no loss of pay, a ban on all non-essential overtime and voluntary retirement on full pay at age 55. The response to these sort of demands is often a state of panic - “How can we afford these things?” But to ask this question is to see things purely within the framework of capitalism. If capitalism can’t afford to give us jobs and a decent standard of living, then there is something wrong with capitalism.

The policy paper on economics answers the question as follows: “All of this can be financed through dramatic cuts in arms expenditure, the profits from companies taken back into common/social ownership and the savings which would literally flow from eliminating the scourge of unemployment.” But this kind of balance-sheet economics also places the question within the framework of capitalism.

The balance sheet that really applies is the reality of capitalist wealth on one side and our aim of transferring that wealth to those that create it through their labour - the working class.

( ... )

Workers need to take control of economic concerns - the industries in which they work, the utilities, the banks.

We cannot just talk about nationalisation. The question is who will run them once they are nationalised and who will benefit from them. This is why we have to talk about nationalisation without compensation - clearly taking these businesses, and their financial rewards, out of the hands of the capitalists and into the hands of the workers. We must fight for workers’ control of the economy, so that workers benefit from the economy.

( ... )

In a discussion in my branch about the policy paper and amendments, one comrade objected to the word “nationalisation”, arguing that this cuts against the international nature of the economy, which is in some sense progressive. I think this is a red herring. It is only by taking the economy into the hands of a state run by workers that we can really take advantage of international economic resources and counterpose planning to the ruthless profit-seeking of international capitalism. We would be painfully aware that a new system in Britain could not stand alone and would need to help build an international economy. We need to fight for workers to manage the economy on an international scale, and a plan that uses international resources to meet international needs.

In talking about socialist economic policy on the national and international level we cannot ignore those countries which have now or in the past claimed to be socialist ... [While the Soviet Union degenerated politically] the economic forms which existed were still of the same type as those which workers could control. Capitalism had been smashed. The state had a monopoly of foreign trade. The laws of the market did not apply.

( ... )

So, how do we fight for our economic needs? The policy document makes the following point: “Today, radical opposition in Britain is symbolised not by the Labour and trade union movement, but by groupings such as those which defeated the Poll Tax, the anti-motorway and animal rights bodies, Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear campaigners, and those fighting against open-cast mining.” It says of these groups that they are “single-purpose’ with no clear general political perspective - but they are challenging the system”, and that they “remind us that only through direct, including industrial, action and defiance of unjust laws can we achieve real advance”.

Socialist Labour must make absolutely clear that it is not enough simply to “challenge the system”. Without a “general political perspective” based clearly on the needs of the working class, we will get nowhere, for only the working class has the organised strength necessary to bring about change. Many of these groups pay little attention to the question of class, and many of their objectives cannot be supported by the working class. The need for industrial action, for economic struggle at the point of production, cannot be tucked away between two commas. We shouldn’t just accept the misdirected energy of much “direct action” occurring in Britain today. If radical opposition is not symbolised by the trade union movement (and with the current leadership it certainly is not), then that is a situation which we need to fundamentally change.

If the SLP is to be involved in economic struggles, we must be in the trade unions, fighting for them to really defend the interests of workers ... We need to use the strength of the unions to fight on all kinds of political issues which are not directly related to the workplace - unemployment, racism, women’s rights ...

The Socialist Labour Party will use parliament, but we must recognise that the real fight will take place outside that framework. By organising the strength of the working class we seek to fundamentally change the economic system and all its institutions. Only through this will Socialist Labour become the party that the working class needs.