12.09.1996

Organise the communists

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) continues the debate on the slogan ‘Communist-Labour party’

Martin Blum (Weekly Worker August 29) advances the slogan ‘for a democratic Socialist Labour Party’ and sets this against the idea of a ‘Communist-Labour party’. This is a false argument. If a car has no wheels and no engine, it needs both, not one or the other.

The slogan of a democratic SLP is addressed to the nature of the internal regime and its constitution. Of course I am in favour of a democratic constitution for the SLP with full rights for factions to openly express their views. So Martin and I are agreed. Perhaps Arthur Scargill agrees with this too.

But this is not an alternative to understanding what kind of party it is and might realistically become. By not understanding this gap between “is” and “become”, Martin fails to see that the concept of a Communist-Labour party is not about labelling what exists, but is rather a call to action.

It is a call for communists to organise. In fact the Revolutionary Platform motion which he cites quite clearly spells this out. It says we “should seek to organise the communist wing of the SLP and fight for the hegemony of our ideas amongst the communists and in the SLP itself”.

The SLP is not a Communist Party and has no immediate prospect of becoming one. I should add that this was also the case prior to the SLP conference. In the realms of reality, the SLP is either a left-Labourite reformist party or a Communist-Labour party. In so far as we can speak of a dynamic process, a process of formation on shifting political sands, this is the terrain of struggle. The SLP is a left reformist party. It could become a Communist-Labour party. The mere fact that Labour lefts and communists/Marxists exist in the SLP does not make it a Communist-Labour party in any real sense. It depends on the kind of relationship that is created.

I labelled it as “donkeys or partners”. This was a polemical device. Reality is no doubt more complex. Perhaps there are donkeys, partners, donkey-partners and many other combinations in between. The real question is ‘Which way is it moving - towards donkeyism or partnership?’

We know who the donkeys are. In Marxist jargon they are ‘liquidators’ or ‘deep entryists’. These comrades accept that the SLP is a left reformist party and they are adapting themselves to that. They are hiding their communist politics and doing the donkey work for the left reformists, hoping for a pat on the head.

If you were to ask one of these communist-donkeys if that was their role, what do you think they would say? Would they say, ‘Eeyore’? Or perhaps, ‘Yes, I admit I’m doing their donkey work.’ Of course not.

First they would be offended. How dare you suggest such an outrageous thing? Then we would get an intellectual spin like ‘Everything is dynamic’ and ‘constantly changing’. Can’t pin anything down, that is too “formalistic”.

Martin is different. He says, “I am neither a donkey nor a partner.” As a statement of fact I cannot argue with it. But as an ideological position it puts him in the centre ground between those fighting for a communist wing and the liquidators.

When Trotsky occupied the centre ground, Lenin called him a “conciliator”. He poured his greatest scorn on Trotsky. We know what the liquidators are. But the conciliators are worse. When we are trying to smash the liquidators, the conciliators are going round attacking us. Martin adopts the classic methods of conciliation. To defend the donkey-liquidators, he plays the anarchist. Calling a spade a spade or a donkey a donkey is “formalistic” and “scholastic”. Next he will be getting the Animal Liberation Front onto us (applauded no doubt by the liquidators).

Where is Martin himself? He tells us he is “in some sort of relationship with the Labourites”. How does he clarify what that is? Oh well, it is “dynamic” and “in the process of formation” and no doubt also “constantly changing”. If this is not a smokescreen, I’ll eat my hat.

Of course dialectics means that everything is in constant motion. But Martin is trying to use this in a bogus fashion. He is in the middle of a pitch black tunnel. He does not know whether to go one way, to join the donkeys, or the other direction, to join the partnership. As he staggers about, he tells us his position is one of constant motion.

Why did he not reply that the reformists were trying to turn him into a donkey, but that he was fighting as a communist to win his rightful place as a partner? That is the kind of “dynamic” we need. We can all understand that. Instead he tells us he is neither a donkey nor a partner.

Let us stop the polemic against those hiding in the centre and restate the case. The essence of the argument is a parallel with the distinction between workers as a class ‘in themselves’ (ie, existing as individuals) and as a class ‘for themselves’ (ie, conscious and organised).

Communists in the SLP are simply communists-in-themselves. As such, they are donkeys for the left reformists. This is not a Communist Party. It is a left reformist party. Only if communists in the SLP organise themselves into a communist wing, will they have a Communist-Labour party. Only by organising can they achieve a Communist-Labour party. Only by organising do they become communists-for-themselves (organising for communism). Only by organising do they become partners, not donkeys.

This is why the slogan of a ‘Communist-Labour party’ is not accepted by certain international Bolsheviks of a deep entryist persuasion. If they did, they would have to organise and unite with other communists.

The slogan of a Communist-Labour party is not a description of what exists except as a purely empirical head count. It is a political line or slogan which says:

(i) Communists must get organised and fight for their right to exist openly as communists in the SLP. That is a call for action.

(ii) Communists in the SLP must unite with the Labourites. We are not for civil war or driving out the Labourites. At the current stage in the class struggle and party formation, a Communist-Labour party is certainly an advance over a left reformist dead end. We must be for it.

The slogan ‘For a democratic SLP’ is certainly compatible with (ii). In effect it calls on Labourites and communists to unite for democracy. It is not in itself a call for communists to organise themselves as communists.

Be aware of the dangers of using the democratic slogan on its own. A Communist Party is or should be democratic for communists. It is not democratic for anti-communists. If they are found to be anti-communist we expel them. Unless we are total hypocrites, we can hardly expect anything more from left reformists. A democratic SLP might equally be understood as democracy for left reformists. If so do not expect too much democracy for communists.

This is why we need a democratic Communist-Labour party. This is one which promotes and safeguards the democratic rights of Labourites and communists. If the Labourites come to believe that communists are an alien element, uninvited guests, are not constructive co-partners, then shouts from communists about ‘democracy’ will fall on deaf ears. The slogan of ‘democracy’ will then be seen as special pleading by those who are out to ‘make trouble’.

The political line of a Communist-Labour party is a call for communists to organise themselves. Organise, organise. As a slogan, ‘Organise a communist wing of the SLP’ is perhaps a better way to express it. If Martin still thinks that such a slogan is “formalistic” and “scholastic”, then all I can say to him is “Eeyore”.