WeeklyWorker

11.07.1996

For communist unity

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) writes on progress towards communist rapprochement

Can Arthur Scargill’s SLP fill the vacuum on the left? The Labour Party has moved to the right. Blair’s New Labour has shed the pretence of being anything other than a liberal pro-capitalist party. The break-up of the Soviet Union led to the final liquidation of the Euro-Stalinist Communist Party (CPGB). What we need is not a new Independent Labour Party (ILP), but a new revolutionary democratic communist party. We need to unite all working class militants in a party whose aim is communism and whose means is the revolutionary struggle for democracy.

Today we have a communist movement, but no communist party. It is a movement dominated by two organisations, the SWP and Militant Labour. The rest of the movement comprises of small groups like Socialist Organiser, Workers Power, CPGB (Provisional Central Committee), RDG, ISG, Open Polemic, and the RWT, etc.

Despite their pretensions, neither the SWP nor Militant Labour are communist parties. They are rival tendencies within a disunited movement. Militant tends towards Labourism, (as indicated in their name) and the parliamentary road to socialism. The SWP leans towards ultra-leftism, as a result of its syndicalist and propagandist politics. At the same time the SWP backs New Labour in elections.

How might a revolutionary democratic communist party emerge out of this weak and divided movement? The SWP believes that a new communist party will emerge out of recruitment to itself. ‘Go for growth; recruit all and sundry’ has been the SWP’s major tactic over the last few years. It is a tactic which has not worked. The SWP has shown itself incapable of any other response. For example the SWP has been unable to relate to the emergence of the SLP.

The problems of the SWP are much deeper than rigid tactics. The party is tied to economistic politics. It does not have any programme for the British revolution. It does not have the necessary politics on which a revolutionary democratic communist party could be founded.

We reject the idea that each tendency should pursue a policy of separate development, or Marxist apartheid. We need to come together. We need dialogue and debates. We need to unite our forces. In 1920 the CPGB was formed out of just such a process. The fusion of different organisations into one united party, at the London Unity Conference (1920), brought together revolutionary organisations including the British Socialist Party, the Socialist Labour Party, the Workers Socialist Federation and the South Wales Socialist Society.

The question of communist unity is one of the fundamental problems of the day. Each group and tendency can be judged by how it handles that problem. We have to plot a path between sectarianism and opportunism. That is difficult to do in practice. We may make mistakes. But it is without doubt the correct path to follow.

The SWP is certainly not following that path. The central committee rejects any dialogue with other communist organisations around the question of communist unity. Its position remains a sectarian one. Last year we wrote a joint open letter with the CPGB to the SWP central committee. We appealed for the SWP to take a lead in the fight for communist unity. We said that the RDG and the CPGB were always ready to have discussions with the central committee, with the intention of eventually joining the SWP.

That was rejected out of hand. The central committee did not even bother to reply. No surprises there. The SWP central committee is a totally unprincipled organisation. You only have to observe how it expels its own comrades to find that out. Nevertheless that is no reason to ignore it. The fight for communist unity is the best means to expose any unprincipled behaviour.

The RDG is a faction of the SWP. Strictly speaking we are a banned faction of a tendency, the IS tendency or the ‘state capitalist tendency’. We have identified the SWP central committee as the main barrier within the communist movement to building a revolutionary democratic communist party. The struggle against the central committee has to be an important component of the struggle for genuine communism. It is part of the struggle for communist unity.

IS Group

Since Marxism 95 a number of new developments have confronted us. First, some of the SWP members who were most sympathetic to RDG politics have been ousted from the party. We include amongst them Chris Jones, Chris Weller and Alan McStravick. For a number of years, the RDG fought the central committee alone. Now we have been joined by the IS Group, launched by ex-fulltimer Andy Wilson. The ISG has shown, almost despite itself, a propensity for spontaneous growth. It now has branches in Wolverhampton and in the Derby area. Add together the RDG and the ISG and there has been a small, but significant, growth of the ‘state capitalist’ opposition to the Cliffites.

Rapprochement

At Marxism 95 the RDG began cooperating with the CPGB (Provisional Central Committee). We have worked closely with these comrades for over a year now. We have identified key aspects in their tradition - that of the early years of the Communist Party - which we also uphold:

The SWP central committee pays lip service to some of this, but defends none of it in practice. In the 1970s the IS/SWP had a programme, stood candidates, tried to build a minority (or rank and file) movement, created the Right to Work campaign and used the united front tactic. In the 1980s and 90s, the SWP has abandoned these aspects of early communist politics.

Soviet Union

Of course there are important differences over our views on the former Soviet Union. The RDG considers it was a form of ‘state capitalism’ whilst the CPGB uses the term “bureaucratic socialism”. This gives it a position similar in its conclusions to more orthodox Trotskyism. Even this term does not adequately capture the views of many CPGB comrades. One of their leading members, Jack Conrad, has a similar view to the RDG, that the Soviet Union was a form of state capitalism from 1917-28. In 1928, according to Jack, the Stalinist regime adopted central planning and began to create bureaucratic socialism.

These important questions remain to be debated more fully. But we have never let such differences stand in the way of cooperation and debate. During the last year we have agreed two important statements on a common strategy and on factions.

We have agreed with the Provisional Central Committee to adopt a common strategy, which we call the “revolutionary democratic road to socialism and communism”. This does not mean total agreement. There can still be important differences within this strategy. But it does mean that there is now sufficient agreement for us to seriously consider fusion.

The joint statement on factions, which we believe would be necessary for any fused organisation, now means that merger between the RDG and the CPGB is in the realm of practical politics.

A third force

The RDG has now come to the point of presenting our draft programme to the central committee and the rest of the SWP for discussion. If the central committee is not prepared to consider our draft, then we will need to reassess our future relationship as a faction.

We are considering whether it is possible to create a third force within the communist movement. We see this as an alternative tendency to the SWP and Militant. We are in favour of creating a revolutionary democratic communist tendency. It is a matter of assessing whether this is feasible. Certainly the rapprochement between the RDG and the CPGB has opened up that possibility.

RDG-ISG unity

The RDG has quite good relations with the leading members of the IS Group. This year we have met with them to plan our work for Marxism 96. Both groups are prepared to co-operate. But we think we need to go further. The fact of the matter is that the ISG and the RDG both want a democratic centralist SWP, that is, a democratic internal regime. If such a regime were established, then both the ISG and the RDG would be members of the SWP. We would be debating our differences in the same party.

It is crazy that the ISG and the RDG have so far failed to form a single organisation with the freedom to publish and have differences of opinion. After all, that is how we want the SWP to operate. We know for example that Andy Wilson has very similar views to the RDG on rapprochement and the SLP. There is no reason why we should not be in the same organisation. We want to make it absolutely clear to all ISG members that we are in favour of communist unity. We have been and remain ready to begin discussions with them about fusion into a single organisation, with the necessary democratic freedoms and safeguards.

Socialist Labour

Another significant event during the last year has been the emergence of Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party. The importance of this has been that it represents a shift to the left by a minority in the working class movement. Because of the NUM and the miners’ struggles, Scargill carries some credibility. His call for Socialist Labour has been dismissed or ignored by most of the left. But many working class militants have responded positively.

The RDG welcomed this move. We have encouraged our supporters to involve themselves. The SLP might become a significant party on the left. It may become as important as or more important than the SWP or Militant Labour in terms of a fight against New Labour. Certainly Scargill has declared his intention to stand up to 100 candidates.

However we must have no illusions in Socialist Labour. It is not a revolutionary democratic communist party. It has no short-term prospect of becoming one. As things stand at the moment, it has no long-term prospect either.

The most optimistic feature of this was the founding conference. A minority communist left wing emerged. It included Tony Savvas, from the SWP. It became clear that many of those involved in the SLP were not Labour lefts, but had Marxist politics.

The SLP is not a communist party. But neither is it simply a left social democratic party, although that is the dominant politics. It is almost a hybrid, a sort of Communist-Labour party. It has two toes in the communist movement and one foot in the politics of the Labour left. Either way it cannot be dismissed.

It may prove to be a bridge towards the eventual refounding of a communist party. On the other hand the Labourites might drive the Marxists out and establish themselves as the ILP Mark II. What will be crucial is the struggle. This is one reason why Tony Savvas should not have left the SWP in the first place, nor left the SLP at the first whiff of grapeshot from the reformists.

Let us return to the basic question of the party. How will a revolutionary democratic communist party be formed in the United Kingdom? We certainly cannot predict this with any accuracy. But we believe the fight for communist unity is an essential part of the process. We have to fight for unity on many fronts.

First, we fight for unity with all revolutionary democrats in the SWP and against the sectarian policies of the central committee. Second, we must fight to build an independent revolutionary democratic communist tendency, a third force within the communist movement. Such a tendency may emerge out of the rapprochement process, which so far involves the CPGB, RDG, Open Polemic and, we hope, the ISG and the RWT. This tendency must conduct the fight for communist unity on a higher level. Third, we must support the communist wing of the Socialist Labour Party. The RDG is working for unity in all these directions. We must not forget the question of communist unity in relation to Militant Labour. But for us, in practical terms, this is one for the future.

Some points of agreement between the Provisional Central Committee and the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the Socialist Workers Party)

During the last year or so we have been able to identify a number of common points of agreement. These points represent the political basis for the ‘coming together’ of the two organisations.

These points are by no means the end of the debate, but are the beginning of further discussion and clarification. For example a “federal republic”, a “revolutionary democratic road” or “minimum programme” are quite capable of different interpretations. But they differentiate us from “unionist”, “the parliament or syndicalist roads” and maximalist programmes.