26.03.1998
Republicanism and the national question
Should Marxists fight for a republic now under capitalism? Or should republicans wait till the socialist revolution? We reprint a speech given by comrade Dave Simpson, a supporter of the SLP Republicans, in the debate with Marxist Bulletin held in central London on March 4
First, this is not a debate between a federal republic and a workers’ republic. This is a false way to present the question. Both SLP Republicans and the Marxist Bulletin are in favour of a workers’ republic based on workers’ councils. The question is how we get to a workers’ republic. Is it a question of propaganda? Calling for a workers’ republic and opposing anything less than that. Or is it a matter of transitional politics - taking definite political steps towards a workers’ republic. This is the approach of the SLP Republicans. We believe that a federal republic is a step forward, a step towards a workers’ republic.
I am going to begin by looking at what Lenin said in State and revolution. Then I will consider the idea of transitional politics, then the case for republicanism, before finally considering federalism and the national question.
In State and revolution Lenin says: “Even in regard to Britain, where geographical conditions, a common language and a history of many centuries would seem to have ‘put an end’ to the national question in the various small divisions of the country - even in regard to that country, Engels reckoned with the plain fact that the national question was not yet a thing of the past, and recognised in consequence that the establishment of a federal republic would be a ‘step forward’” (VI Lenin Selected works p291).
Let us consider the arguments against what Engels and Lenin said. First is the obvious point that just because they said it does not mean it is true. They could easily have been wrong. Quotes prove nothing. On the other hand, just because they said this does not mean they were wrong. They could possibly have been right.
Either way, no Marxist can simply ignore or dismiss such a statement out of hand. Given the importance of Engels and Lenin for our movement, any Marxist, serious about the national question, would have to give due weight to this statement. Marxist Bulletin needs to explain why Engels and Lenin were mistaken to say this, and why their own view is superior.
Second, it seems ‘common sense’ to say that they were wrong. As Engels himself implies, England, Scotland and Wales have been so integrated for many centuries that the national question was solved years ago. It is surely obvious that the national question is a thing of the past, not for the future. This ‘common sense’ is reinforced by the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of stageism. This implies that the national question is a problem of the bourgeois democratic revolution. In a highly developed country like Britain, the bourgeois democratic revolution was sorted out in the 17th century. This Menshevik-Stalinist theory supports ‘common sense’. It is the common sense of the British left.
Any Marxist knows that ‘common sense’ is often nonsense, or in fact bourgeois sense. Quite clearly, in this case, neither Engels nor Lenin are impressed by it. They seem quite happy to ignore the straightjacket of the bourgeois democratic revolution. Engels sees the national question as something for the future. So the next question is whether life has proved them wrong and ‘common sense’ right?
Certainly when this prediction was made and for many years after, with the exception of Ireland, it would seem they were wrong. Until the late 1960s it appears that the national question was a thing of the past. However, for the last 30 years the national question has slowly but surely come onto the political agenda. The new assemblies in Wales and Scotland are the latest development and by no means the last. The United Kingdom has not become a federal system. There is no English parliament. But we are well on the way. Federalism is the logical constitutional next step. At the same time the British monarchy is also under fire and republicanism is becoming part of a new political agenda.
The issue is no longer whether their prediction is coming to pass, but why it has taken so long. The answer is surely the success of the British Empire and the post-war ‘social monarchy’ in holding back social and political change. Now the impact of decolonisation, the end of the long post-war boom, the impact of Thatcherism, the integration into Europe means that the whole constitutional structure is unravelling.
The road towards a federal republic, which Engels perceptively saw on his political map, is now opening up. Engels’ and Lenin’s ‘futurology’ about the British state was not misconceived. They understood not only the bourgeois state in general, but the historically evolving British monarchist and unionist state in particular. They were not mistaken. They were far sighted. The Marxist Bulletin is puny in comparison. Their understanding of the development of the British state compared to Engels and Lenin is zero.
The national question is propelling the UK towards a federal republic and there is very little that Marxist Bulletin can do, except watch in amazement and wonder what the hell Engels and Lenin were talking about. Perhaps they will try to play the socialist King Canute, while the tide of history washes over them.
My main argument is not based on a quotation. A case should be made quite independently of what Engels and Lenin said. A democratic republic (whether federal or not) is a transitional demand. It is a very powerful demand because it is not invented out of thin air, but rooted in the historical movement of the British state. Between today’s conditions and the future workers’ republic are a set of transitional demands, which do not in themselves constitute the abolition of parliament. By mobilising around these demands and winning them, the working class changes itself and becomes ready for power.
We can use the analogy of a game of football. Our enemies are on the attack. We are penned in our own penalty area, on the defensive. As soon as we win the ball, someone shouts “shoot”. Whilst it is formally correct that we cannot win without shooting, it is a piece of leftist nonsense to think we can score from our own penalty area. Our task is not to shoot but to pass the ball up through mid-field to our star striker, who is in their penalty area. Then shooting is practical politics.
Transitional politics is not about scoring the winning goal, but rather about getting the ball from our defence into an attacking position. But our striker may fail to score. We may be tackled or shoot over the bar. The enemy may counter-attack. Of course a federal republic will not automatically become a workers’ republic. Passing the ball to the star striker is not the same as scoring the winning goal. Marxist Bulletin want to warn everybody of this. They want to avoid it by keeping the ball in their own penalty area!
A democratic republic is a progressive democratic demand, not the final goal. The case for this is also made in State and revolution. The weakest argument is that of formal logic. A democratic republic is more democratic than a constitutional monarchy - the democratic and hereditary principles clash. We are comparing the conservative democratic republics of France, Germany, and the USA with Britain. This is not to have any illusions in conservative republics. Capitalism and exploitation exist in all cases.
Formal logic is not the main argument. We are concerned with dialectics - the process of becoming a republic. Some Marxists seem incapable of thinking beyond the static comparison of the USA and France with the United Kingdom in 1998. Our concern is about how a country becomes a republic. There are many examples to draw on including England in 1649, US in 1778, France in 1789, 1848 and 1870, Russia in 1917, Germany 1918 and Spain in 1930.
A state can become a democratic republic, either from above, or from below. If it comes from above, it will be a conservative republic. Australia seems set to follow this path. If it comes by mass action from below, it will be a revolutionary republic. A workers’ party cannot afford to ignore the republican question or sit on the side lines. It must ensure that the republic is fought for and won by means of working class action. Premature talk about the workers’ republic diverts the working class from militant republican struggle and makes a reformed monarchy or a conservative republic more likely.
Finally there is the question of federalism. Unlike nationalists we do not begin with a prejudice in favour of separation. There can be economic and political benefits for the working class of a single state. Of course, as democrats, we uphold the principle of national self-determination, which includes separation as an option. Separation is preferable to forced unity imposed by the bourgeoisie, as we see in the case of Ireland.
We are fighting for the unity of the international working class. This includes fighting for the unity of the English, Scottish and Welsh working class around the demand for a federal republic. We want to abolish the unionist monarchy in favour of a voluntary federal republic. The Scottish, Welsh and English people should be asked to join the new federal republic. The principle of self-determination should be written into the constitution, so that even if the Scottish and Welsh people agree to join, there is a peaceful and democratic means of leaving if the people change their minds.
This is the case for a federal republic as a progressive, democratic and transitional demand. It is a demand whose main strength is that it is centrally concerned with rebuilding the political unity of the English, Scottish and Welsh working class and winning the principle of self-determination. We do not need quotes from Engels and Lenin to make our case. It stands on its own merits. But we should not ignore the brilliant insights that some of our greatest leaders have left behind for our consideration.