31.10.1996

For a republican government of the left

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) replies to John Stone (Weekly Worker October 3) on the theory of democratic revolution

Like the rest of the left, the RDG wants the present Tory government kicked out. But we are republicans. We are totally opposed to all the monarchist parties (Tory, Liberal Democrat and Labour). We want the Tories replaced by a republican government of the left, not a capitalist Labour government.

A republican government would be an historic break with the Tory-monarchist traditions of British society. We believe that the Socialist Labour Party, CPGB, Militant Labour and the Socialist Workers Party, etc should fight the forthcoming general election not simply in opposition to the Tories and Labour, but positively, in favour of a republican government.

The real issue between the RDG and comrade John Stone of the Liaison Committee of Militants for a Revolutionary Communist International is about whether our immediate tasks are to advocate a republican government or a Labour government. The call for a republican government is a challenge to the LCMRCI, Workers Power, and the British Trotskyist tradition of talking left (‘For a socialist republic') and acting right (supporting Labourism).

In fact a Labour government was not mentioned in John’s article. So we need to investigate how the ‘Workers’ republic’ slogan can provide left cover for Labourism. In order to focus on the central question, I am going to ignore the national question (I agree with the comments of Nancy Morelli in Weekly Worker October 24).

Let us begin with the question of political slogans. We need to distinguish between immediate political demands and propaganda slogans. Immediate demands relate to the current stage of the class struggle. Propaganda slogans seek to raise consciousness about the medium- to longer-term aims of the Party.

The Bolsheviks put forward their own immediate political slogans. For example in 1905 they called for a “provisional revolutionary government” and for “convening a constituent assembly”. But they did not put forward slogans like ‘workers’ republic' or ‘international socialist revolution’ or ‘for communism’ as immediate demands.

The slogan for a workers’ republic is a propaganda slogan, not an immediate political demand. It becomes an immediate political demand when we raise the slogan ‘all power to the Soviets’. Neither John nor the RDG nor any Marxist organisation that I am aware of is adopting the slogan ‘all power to the soviets’ as a current slogan.

Ultra-leftism uses the propagandist method, counterposing propaganda slogans to immediate demands. For example if workers fight for higher wages, ultra-lefts may well argue that we need communism, not a bourgeois wage increase or bourgeois republics. This is the method employed by comrade John. It is the same as posing the propaganda slogan of an Irish workers’ republic against the immediate demand for a united Irish republic. In deciding the correct slogans it is not a question of the highest bidder. Comrade John calls for a “socialist or workers’ republic”. Another outbids him with ‘international socialist revolution’. A third comrade is declared the ideological winner with the slogan of ‘world communism’.

The working class in the UK is not facing a struggle between a bourgeois republic and a workers’ republic. If we want a serious debate over immediate political tasks, it is between calls for a capitalist Labour government and the demands for a republican government of the left. John, arguing for a “workers’ republic” against a republican government, is giving support to Labourism.

What is the relationship between the bourgeois republic and the workers’ republic? Of course the bourgeois republic and the workers’ republic are, on one level, opposites. No Marxist can deny this. But the RDG considers that their relationship can be transitional. A bourgeois republic can lead to a workers’ republic. This was not only predicted by Marx, but proven in the case of the Russian bourgeois republic of 1917.

It surprises me that Trotskyists, who see themselves as experts in transitional demands, cannot even consider that a bourgeois republic is a transitional demand. If we can have a sliding scale of bourgeois wages, why can’t we have a bourgeois republic?

Comrade John does not deal seriously with the question of whether and under what conditions a bourgeois republic is transitional to a workers’ republic. It means not taking seriously the question of transitional politics. Instead John is in danger of reducing politics to the level of ‘communism is better than socialism’, and ‘a workers’ republic is better than a bourgeois republic’.

John tries to convince us that he understands the importance of fighting for democratic demands. He says: “The RDG accuses us of ignoring democratic demands. No, we do not ignore them” (Weekly Worker October 3). In order to prove this, he puts forward a list of democratic demands such as

“national self-determination of the Irish nation as a whole, for the release of all political prisoners, for proportional representation, for the abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords, for the right of Scotland and Wales to have their own national assembly and, if they want, independence”.

All these demands are in the RDG minimum programme. They do not in themselves constitute a workers’ republic, because they do not include the demand for the abolition of the House of Commons.

The RDG stands for the abolition of the House of Commons. But this is a propaganda slogan, not an immediate political demand. We do not call for the abolition of the Commons until such time that soviets are a viable alternative.

John Stone is not calling for the immediate abolition of the House of Commons. As we know, he wants us to vote Labour at the next general election. His platform of democratic demands includes the abolition of the monarchy but not the abolition of the Commons. John’s democratic platform is therefore a demand for a bourgeois republic. This is the very thing he is arguing against.

Of course John could get out of the hole he has dug himself into by adding the abolition of the Commons to his immediate democratic platform. But then at the next election he would be urging for workers to vote for a Labour government and to abolish the Commons at the same time.

It seems to me that John has not seriously considered the question of democratic demands. Rather he has invented a few demands ‘off the cuff’ to counter our jibe that he is ignoring democratic demands.

How will John’s democratic demands be won - by democratic reform from above or mass democratic revolution from below? Trotskyists are often in favour of democratic reforms. But they reject the idea of democratic revolution. Why should revolutionaries support democratic reform but consider democratic revolution either impossible or Menshevik? This is an interesting paradox. It goes back to the false concept of bourgeois democratic revolution.

Democratic revolution is part of the theory of permanent revolution. But we base our ideas on the concept of proletarian democratic revolution. This is a democratic revolution led by the working class which establishes a workers’ republic. John does not acknowledge this point nor does he say where this is wrong. What he does is foist on us his own concept of bourgeois democratic revolution.

John sums up our position as follows. He says the RDG

“have the following schema. In Britain we need to replace the monarchy with a bourgeois republic. For that aim we need to mobilise the masses to achieve a dual power republic. Later the workers’ councils would have to take power and establish a new republic. Nevertheless, even a revolution like that would not be a socialist revolution until the most important countries in the world have entered into such a process” (Weekly Worker October 3).

This is nearly an accurate summary of our view of the permanent revolution in the UK. Since we see that the leading role in the struggle for democracy belongs to the working class, this is not the theory of bourgeois democratic revolution or national socialism.

In a Weekly Worker article comrade Brenner (Workers Power) calls us the “Menshevik RDG” (May 16 1996). This is because he wrongly thinks we have a theory of bourgeois democratic revolution. The problem is that these comrades are themselves operating with this theory, using it in a negative sense to justify rejecting republican slogans.

John says: “The Mensheviks advocated a purely democratic programme in backward Russia, but in advanced industrial countries they advocated a socialist revolution.” This is correct. But let us see what it means. Mensheviks advocate socialist revolution in advanced countries. But so too do Trotskyists. As far as advanced countries are concerned there is a Menshevik-Trotskyist agreement for “socialist revolution” and hence a “socialist or workers’ republic”.

The RDG does not have this Menshevik-Trotskyist view. John acknowledges this. He says: “The RDG is advocating a formula that even Plekhanov and Martov [leading Mensheviks] did not raise for Britain.” He is clear - the RDG view of the British revolution is not Menshevik - not the politics of Plekhanov or Martov. John thus proves that comrade Brenner was either ignorant or deliberately misleading to claim we hold the Menshevik theory. Of course John has his own interpretation. He says our position is sub-Menshevik - that is, less than or lower than the Mensheviks’.

Our theory is a post-Menshevik-Trotskyist theory. But whether it is sub or post, lower or higher, it is certainly different - Workers Power, please note.

According to Menshevik-Trotskyist theory, the concept of democratic revolution cannot apply to advanced countries like Britain. So in Britain the Menshevik and Trotskyist theories agree. The concept of the democratic revolution which underpins both these theories is based on the French Revolution.

This suggests that democratic revolution be limited to a republic and bourgeois democracy. John believes that the French model of democratic revolution cannot apply to Britain. We totally agree. But our reasons for agreeing are very different. He thinks it cannot apply because Britain is an advanced country. We think the French Revolution is not the best example on which to base any theory of democratic revolution. We reject the French model. But the RDG rejects the French model as such, whereas John needs the French model to justify supporting a Labour government.

We base our theory on the Russian model of democratic revolution. The Russian revolution was a revolutionary struggle of the working class, which created the most democratic state - the dictatorship of the proletariat - the world has ever seen. The French model does not accept that the working class can lead a democratic revolution or that such a revolution can establish a workers’ republic.

We ‘Russians’ argue that the French revolution was an example of a democratic revolution. But viewed from the perspective of the Russian model, it was an aborted democratic revolution. Indeed most democratic revolutions are aborted by counterrevolution, as for example Iran, Nicaragua and South Africa.

We ‘Russians’ believe that the problems of democracy have not been solved in any country in the world. We want to solve these problems by democratic revolution, not democratic reform. We want the party of the working class to lead the democratic revolution.

The RDG is not based on the French model, unlike Monsieur les Mensheviks et Madame les Trotskyists. The question of whether the Russian model is sub-French or post-French can now be clearly answered. Not only does 1917 come after 1789, but it is a much higher example for the working class to base itself on.

John says: “We accuse our friends in the RDG of ignoring the socialist, transitional and anti-capitalist demands.” This is not true. First we have no agreed definition of the words “socialist demands”. But certainly our programmes for the democratic revolution ignores neither transitional nor anti-capitalist demands. As well as a minimum programme we also have a transitional programme for the democratic revolution. This contains demands for extensive nationalisation.

The French democratic revolution carried out no anti-capitalist measures. But we base our theory on the Russian democratic revolution that did use such measures.

Let me sum up.

John makes a number of theoretical mistakes. First, he mixes up immediate demands with propaganda slogans. His immediate demand is for a Labour government and we are for a republican government. When it comes to propaganda slogans, we are both in favour of ‘workers’ republic’, ‘international socialist revolution’ and ‘world communism’. But we are not playing at ultra-leftism by setting these slogans against immediate demands.

Second, John has not clarified scientifically the relationship between bourgeois republic and workers’ republic. Without this there can be no serious transitional politics. It becomes a moral question - a workers’ republic is nicer than a bourgeois republic. Third, his attitude to democratic demands is contradictory and reformist. Fourth, whilst he recognises that our theory is not Menshevik, he has not recognised it is a superior theory. This is because our theory is based on the lessons of the Russian democratic revolution and not the French democratic revolution. This is why the working class and not the bourgeoisie is the key to the democratic question.