02.07.1998

Liberal democracy - as far as it goes!

Dave Craig comments on the rapprochement process

In the current period of defeat, retreat and reaction, the Revolutionary Democratic Group advocates two forms of rapprochement - broad and narrow. I will use the terminology of Bolshevism and Menshevism borrowed from the Russian movement at the beginning of the century to explain the difference.

Broad rapprochement means seeking to unite Bolsheviks and Mensheviks into a single party. The RDG have promoted broad rapprochement using the slogan of a “communist-Labour party”. This is why we supported the formation of the SLP and identified it as a political location for rapprochement.

Narrow rapprochement is seeking to unite all Bolsheviks into a single tendency, with the aim of becoming an independent revolutionary party in the longer term. For this aim, we advocate a revolutionary democratic communist tendency. These two aims are compatible, if we take account of the state of our movement and the interests of the working class.

The revolutionary democratic communist platform provides a basis for narrow rapprochement. It is agreed by the CPGB, the RDG and - if somewhat at arms length - the Marxist Bulletin. The platform is not a programme. Indeed there is a lack of programmatic agreement between the three groups. This is one reason why, as yet, we are unable to create a politically centralised tendency. We are no more or less than autonomous groups of revolutionary democratic communists. We have no common programme or perspective or joint organisation. That is a fact of life and not something to boast about.

The platform is like a magnet. It attracts some and repels others. It helps identify revolutionary democratic communists, who should come together and work for rapprochement. This means beginning serious programmatic discussions. Certainly the RDG and CPGB have had programmatic discussions and debates over a period. Marxist Bulletin should join such discussions, as an equal partner, bringing in its own programmatic positions.

On the other hand, Ian Donovan of the bulletin Revolution and Truth, and a former supporter of Marxist Bulletin, is opposed to revolutionary democratic communism (see letters Weekly Worker June 4). Ian is on a completely different trajectory. We can certainly debate with him. But we must not sow any illusions that we could form any common tendency.

We would have no problem in working with Ian in organisations like the SLP or the Socialist Alliances, where we can work with all sorts of centrists and ultra-lefts. But narrow rapprochement is neither possible nor desirable. At present Ian is outside our tendency and opposed fundamentally to it, as we are fundamentally opposed to his ideas. It is worth remembering that his ideas on democracy are representative of a broad strand of economism within the British Marxist movement.

Ian begins by saying that “the four points of the platform of the ‘Revolutionary Democratic Communist Tendency’ have the quality of ‘apple pie and motherhood’ ”. In other words, they are so obviously good that nobody can disagree with them. If this were true our tendency would be massively supported. In fact it is not true, and Ian soon explains that he does not agree with point one. He agrees with motherhood but does not like apple pie.

“What,” says Ian, “does a revolutionary democratic attitude mean?” A fair question, but also a revealing one about Ian’s own politics. Neither does Ian agree with the point that “the working class can become the leading force within society by championing the struggle for democracy”. He seems to have forgotten that the Russian working class did exactly that with Lenin’s leadership. It was Lenin who called the working class “the vanguard fighter for democracy”.

Ian’s confusion and disagreement over point one takes us to the heart of the matter. You can be a revolutionary democrat and not a communist - for example Robespierre and Cromwell. But you cannot be a genuine communist if you are not a revolutionary democrat. They go together like motherhood and apple pie. All communists must oppose any attempt to separate one from the other or identify revolutionary democracy as the private property of the bourgeoisie.

Revolutionary democratic communists have a definite attitude to every question of democracy. This can be captured by words such as ‘consistent’, ‘revolutionary’, ‘resolute’ and ‘militant’, as opposed to ‘inconsistent’, ‘vacillating’, ‘liberal’, ‘half-hearted’ and ‘soft’. But more precisely, it involves taking a definite view of both bourgeois and proletarian democracy.

First we want to replace bourgeois democracy with proletarian democracy, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this we are replacing a lower form of democracy based on parliament with a higher form based on soviets or workers’ councils. We reject any notion that establishing a workers’ state can mean swopping one set of bureaucrats for another. A ‘bureaucratic workers’ state’ is a contradiction in terms.

This does not fully define a revolutionary democratic attitude. It does not deal with the tricky problem of bourgeois democracy itself. Bourgeois democracy is not a fixed quantity. Like everything it is subject to constant change, as a result of the class struggle. What attitude should workers take to such change?

At one extreme are those who ignore it. The anarchists for example want to blow up bourgeois democracy rather than utilise it for class struggle. Ultra-left communists are bound to the same idea. They want to blow up bourgeois democracy, not with bombs, but words. ‘Proletarian democracy is better than a bourgeois republic.’ If these words are repeated often enough and with a very large megaphone, bourgeois democracy will collapse, regardless of the level of class consciousness and class struggle!

It is the same megaphone that advises workers, striking for higher pay, that under communism we will abolish the wages system. Why change wages when our aim is to abolish them? Why change bourgeois democracy, when it is also for the chop? Why seek a solution to the national question now, when under socialism we will abolish nation states? Ignore the struggle for change because eventually we will have socialism. This can be made to sound very ‘left’, it is in fact simply conservatism.

At the opposite extreme are the centrist communists. They think the ultra-lefts are silly and utopian to ignore bourgeois democracy. Instead they want to support every petty democratic reform that the bourgeoisie hands down. ‘Something is better than nothing,’ is their pathetic ‘battle cry’, as they prostrate themselves before the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois democracy belongs to the bourgeoisie and we must do nothing to challenge them. This was how Scottish Militant Labour recently supported Blair’s devolution plans for Scotland.

The ultra-left and centrist communists are twins - two sides of a single coin that Lenin termed economism. One of the essential foundations of Leninism is the distinction between revolutionary (social) democracy and economism. This line is drawn very clearly in What is to be done? and repeated throughout his work. A revolutionary democrat approaches every question of bourgeois democratic rights as a consistently militant democrat. It was for revolutionaries to help train the working class, by means of political exposures, to become the “vanguard fighter for democracy”.

We can get the flavour of this, for example, in Lenin’s articles on the national question in 1915 (CW Vol 21, p408). Lenin attacks comrade Parabellum, who “in the name of socialist revolution scornfully rejects a consistent revolutionary programme in the sphere of democracy. He is wrong to do so.” Parebellum was wrong because he was acting as a “leftist” not a revolutionary democrat. Lenin goes on to explain that

“We must combine the revolutionary struggle against capitalism with a revolutionary programme and tactics on all democratic demands: a republic, a militia, the popular election of all officials, equal rights for women and the self-determination of nations.”

Lenin is not indifferent to bourgeois democracy in the name of socialism or a workers’ republic. Neither is he prepared to accept a few democratic crumbs thrown down by the capitalists. He says:

“It is inconceivable that the proletariat as an historical class will be able to defeat the bourgeoisie unless it is prepared for that by being educated in the spirit of the most consistent and resolutely revolutionary democracy.”

Such a quotation is not some crazy aberration. I could produce hundreds of quotations to indicate the same “spirit”. Unfortunately Ian cannot educate the working class in this “spirit” for it is entirely lacking in himself. It causes him to wonder out loud, “What is a revolutionary democratic attitude?”

Economism is not revolutionary democracy. It is the opposite. It is liberal democracy. It is Paddy Ashdown hiding behind a red flag. When Paddy was a young radical he wanted to blow up bourgeois democracy in the name of individual freedom. When he grew up he abandoned this leftwing childishness. He wanted to defend bourgeois democracy - that is, in Britain, the constitutional monarchy - and give more rights to women and blacks. But there must be no republicanism or mass revolutionary struggle for democratic aims.

Let us consider what Ian says about bourgeois democracy. He says: “Of course Marxists defend the rights of the working class that have grown up under bourgeois democracy, against reactionary attack.” Ian will defend what we have. But there are strict limits. He says that “The working class in general and revolutionaries in particular must become the most consistent fighters for democratic rights of specifically oppressed groups. But that is as far as it goes.”

Apart from the last sentence, in general, I would agree with that very limited statement. Except that he reveals his attitude, accidentally, in the phrase about workers’ democratic rights “that have grown up”, instead of ‘which were won by class struggle’. I am sure that Ian accepts that democracy did not ‘grow up’ like magic mushrooms, but was a product of class struggle. But he leaves the impression that although it was correct for the working class to win democratic rights in the past, there is really no need for that sort of thing today. He is therefore really quite complacent about democratic rights. We have the full set, unless you are an oppressed minority. The phrase, “That is as far as it goes”, tells us a lot about Ian’s position. He wants to place strict limits on how much democracy we can have and who is permitted to fight for it. He is in favour of more rights for women within bourgeois democracy but a republic is ruled out as a step too far. The very idea that we should extend bourgeois democracy to its limits by revolutionary mass action is certainly beyond limits.

This sums up Ian’s attitude to “apple pie”. In general he wants nothing to do with it, unless the bourgeoisie tries to take it off the table. Then he will fight tooth and nail to keep it there. But he is not a greedy person. He only wants a slice more and not the whole pie. As he assures us, “that is as far as it goes”. So he is in favour of proportional representation but not a republic. This is something that all our liberal democrats are agreed on. The last thing either Ian or Paddy Ashdown want is mass revolutionary struggle - or indeed any struggle - to win a republic. A bit more democracy, please - but that is as far as it goes. This is what unites Blair, Ashdown, Scottish Militant Labour ... and finally Ian Donovan.

As I mentioned before (Weekly Worker May 28) our proto-tendency suffered a setback as a result of the departure of Scottish comrades from the CPGB. This has created a minor disagreement between the CPGB and RDG over how to deal with the resulting situation. My initial response was to refer to a “Dundee Group” which I argued should remain part of the proto-tendency. However I mistakenly implied that the “Dundee Group” was already in the tendency. From the angle of correct and agreed procedures the CPGB had every right to object. But politically, after following such procedures, it would be wrong to object.

Having reflected further on this, it is important to consider the politics from a different direction. In the present climate with the growth of Scottish nationalism, it is problematic and dangerous for the CPGB to be reduced to an organisation based in England. This is equally true for the RDG and for the revolutionary democratic communist tendency. We must do everything possible to unite revolutionary democratic communists in Scotland with those in England into a single tendency.

To put it another way, the dispute between the CPGB and revolutionary democratic communists in Scotland must not be allowed to weaken the fight against Scottish nationalism. To say otherwise would be to adopt a sectarian course - placing the interests of a small group above the interests of the class. I am confident the PCC would not do that.

In the present situation in Scotland, time is of the essence. It is vital that the RDG and PCC come to agreement on this now. I am sure that when the PCC have considered the situation more fully we will be in agreement to do what is necessary.

Revolutionary democratic communism

1. For revolutionary democracy
We hold a revolutionary democratic attitude to all questions of bourgeois democracy (eg, civil liberties, women’s rights, national question, racism, constitutional change, etc). We utilise bourgeois democracy, defend it against all anti-democratic forces, including the capitalists and the fascists. We seek to extend all democratic rights by mass struggle and revolutionary action. We consider the working class is the only genuinely democratic class under capitalism. We consider that the working class can become the leading force in society by championing the struggle for democracy.

2. For workers’ power
We support the democratic self-organisation of the working class in trade unions, workplaces and communities. We are in favour of workers’ control of all industries and services. We are in favour of replacing parliamentary democracy with a more advanced form of democracy, based on workplace and workers’ councils electing delegates to a workers’ parliament. This must be defended by an armed working class organised as the state (ie, the dictatorship of the proletariat).

3. For international socialism
Socialism cannot be built in one or a few countries. It must be developed by the international organisation of the working class. Socialism is the transitional period between world capitalism and communism.

4. For world communism
Our aim is to abolish the world market system of capitalism and replace it by world communism. Communist society is a classless worldwide community based on global planning, cooperation and mutual solidarity between the people of the world.