26.11.1998

Anti-economist tendency

Over the last few months I have reported that the rapprochement process between the Revolutionary Democratic Group and the Communist Party of Great Britain had stalled. It was in danger of going backwards. There are some real issues that need to be discussed and hopefully over the next few months we will begin to do that. Meanwhile there are signs that we are now beginning to move forward again.

One of the first positive ideological steps was the CPGB educational school on economism. The school showed the need to fight the deadly virus of economism that has virtually destroyed the communist movement in the UK as a revolutionary movement.

For most of the British left, the primacy of the economic struggle is its sacred cow. This does not mean the absence of politics. When the more class conscious members of the SWP approach a picket line, they do so in solidarity with workers in struggle. They come to the picket line bearing gifts - solidarity, money and politics. The politics is introduced in conversations, leaflets or through selling copies of Socialist Worker.

But what kind of politics is on offer? Typically the answer is economistic politics, the politics of the liberal bourgeoisie. There are two varieties of this poison - right economism and left economism. The first is critical support for Labour and its programme of reforming the constitutional monarchy. The SWP urged its supporters to vote Labour and vote ‘yes’ for devolution in Scotland and Wales. The Socialist Party and Scottish Militant Labour backed Blair’s attempt to patch up this foul and rotten system of corruption. Indeed the stench has become so strong that even the SWP are trying to distance themselves from Labour.

The SWP considers that the ‘real’ class struggle is only on the picket line. Here the SWP are very militant. They bring an element of syndicalism into the equation. From the picket line, they hope to build up to a general strike and the overthrow of capitalism. But on the level of national politics, the SWP dutifully serves up critical support for the liberal programme of the Labour Party. This is the classic economist formula - the workers are for the economic struggle, but the political struggle should be left to supporting the liberals. This boils down to saying that the SWP is in favour of higher wages, best won by militant action, and democratic reform, best won by voting ‘yes’ in Blair’s referendum or voting Labour in the general election. Militant trade unionists, but not militant democrats.

Left economists have a different approach. They are in favour of militant trade union struggle. But the politics they bring to the picket line is a rejection of national politics completely. They are not simply against voting Labour. The working class must not interfere in the working of bourgeois democracy at all. They want nothing more and nothing less than the abolition of parliament.

It sounds very radical. But it is the equivalent of saying that there is no point in fighting for higher wages; we should simply abolish the wages system. To fight for higher wages on this theory is to legitimise wages. The answer to today’s politics is simply to say we want none of it. Abolish the lot and give us a Revolutionary Socialist Workers’ Republic. There is a purist and moralistic streak in this kind of politics, whose roots are surely in the temperance movement. The demon drink or demon politics is evil - keep away from it.

The politics advocated by right and left economism have one thing in common. In the realm of high politics - who runs the country and how - they both concede to the hegemony of the liberal bourgeoisie. To the question - shall we fight in the cesspit of bourgeois politics? - the rightists say ‘yes’ but only by following or supporting the reformist bourgeoisie. The leftists say: ‘No, we refuse to fight. We are leaving it to the reformist bourgeoisie.’ Guess who is laughing all the way to the bank?

Unfortunately there is no other terrain for political struggle apart from the cesspit of bourgeois politics. It is here that the bourgeoisie is leading the country, including the working class. It is here the working class is being led by the nose, and is struggling for its survival. Communists have to enter the cesspit and plot an independent course, through it, towards dry land. Then we have something that makes sense and can be supported by the working class.

The right economists do not ignore bourgeois politics, but have no independent course. The left economists say simply that somewhere over the horizon is the dry land of the workers’ republic. But as to plotting an independent political course, forget it. When workers are trying to find a way forward, these are the people whose ‘help’ is to turn out the lights out and steal your compass. In the dark they will be shouting, ‘It will be alright if we ever get out of this mess’. And the liberal bourgeoisie will be shouting, ‘For the next step forward, follow me’.

The idea that economism equals the absence of politics is an absolute lie. This theory has been invented by the economists themselves to cover up their crimes against the working class. Ian Donovan of Revolution and Truth has been peddling this kind of politics. He has set himself up as chief economist, not unfortunately for Morgan Grenfell or some other merchant bank who might pay him handsomely for his services. No, he wants to be chief economist for the working class and he is offering his services free. Unfortunately the SWP have long since cornered the market.

In a classic statement, he told the CPGB’s weekend school he would not be against abolishing the House of Lords if it happened. Here we have the distilled essence of economism. First, it reeks of an indifference to political matters, which characterises all economists. They start from the assumption of the primacy of the economic struggle. Since the House of Lords is not about economics or what happens in the workplace (an incorrect assumption), then it is nothing to be too concerned about. Second, his attitude is ‘tailist’ - he will go along with it or perhaps watch it happen. It is a squabble within the bourgeoisie and no real concern of ours.

Economic struggle is the struggle with the boss class over who runs the workplace and how. Political struggle is the struggle with the boss class, organised into parties, over who runs the country and how. The House of Lords is very much about the latter. The boss class is divided over what to do next. But our economists seem to think that the working class should simply watch and perhaps cheer occasionally and concentrate on wages and trade union struggle. This is how Ian Donovan thinks and it is how a non-political working class thinks. He is thus pandering to the most backward ideas amongst the workers.

A party of the working class is set up to intervene in the political struggle. That is its prime function. On the question of the House of Lords, the workers’ party must have an independent view and mobilise the working class to take direct action to bring about its class policy. We approach the question of the House of Lords as republicans, not as liberals who want to patch it up. If workers are indifferent to this, then the party must educate them to see the importance of constitutional affairs. The bourgeoisie understand the centrality of politics and political power and how this affects what happens in the workplace. A workers’ party must educate and organise the workers to understand the same.

The connection between the fight against economism, to which the weekend school made an important contribution, and rapprochement is this. The fight against economism is not the private preserve of the CPGB. It should be a joint struggle. We want to win as many allies as we can to this struggle. This is why we are in favour of an anti-economist tendency.

The Revolutionary Democratic Communist Tendency has identified a common starting point for unity between the RDG and CPGB. Its platform is implicitly anti-economist. This is why we immediately got into an argument with Ian Donovan over point 1. Unfortunately it seems we will be waiting a long time before Revolution and Truth tells the truth about economism and whether the immediate political tasks of the working class movement are to abolish parliament or to abolish the monarchy.

We have also had rejection of the platform from Open Polemic. We are still in the dark as to exactly which points they disagree with. On the face of it they reject revolutionary democracy, workers’ power, international socialism and world communism. What that leaves them with I can only guess. We have also had opposition from Allan Armstrong of the Communist Tendency, who is opposed to international socialism and world communism.

On the more positive side, a number of organisations are not opposed to the platform. In the past I have mentioned the Marxist Bulletin which is now part of the International Bolshevik Tendency. Sean Matgamna of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty has endorsed the platform. The AWL has now agreed to print the platform in the January issue of their journal and seek the views of their members. We have asked the Trotskyist Workers Fight group to consider their views and we have had a positive response from one of their leading comrades. It is obviously premature to claim support, or no disagreement, with the platform from AWL or Workers Fight. But the signs are positive.

Rapprochement has, for us, two sides. One is to seek to broaden the process through involvement with other groups, not by liquidating our platform, but by defending it. Second is to seek to deepen our alliance with the CPGB and bring us closer together. On this we had reached an impasse. However, we have now begun to take small steps in the right direction. The CPGB wrote to the RDG proposing that we were invited to each other’s aggregates and events and that we contribute some regular finance to support the Weekly Worker and proposing a date for another joint national aggregate. The RDG made a modified proposal as follows:

a) National aggregates of both organisations should contain a standing item at the end of the agenda for tendency business. Either organisation can submit via their representative, items for discussion, notified two weeks in advance. Voting on motions will be possible. But these will be advisory or non-binding on either organisation.

b) The rest of the aggregate agenda should be in theory divided into closed or private business and open business at which the other organisation is invited as observer/guest. In practice the organisation holding the aggregate should decide if either of the sections be reduced to zero (all private or all open).

c) Special national aggregates as originally agreed should continue. One is provisionally agreed for January.

On the question of the Weekly Worker, we said that we are prepared to make a financial contribution. We have done so already, but not on a regular basis. We asked that the CPGB provide us with full information on the costs of production and distribution. Such information will be treated as confidential. This has now been agreed by the Provisional Central Committee. Detailed points will be worked out by the representatives of both organisations. This agreement is modest, but if it works it will be important in getting some forward momentum.

Dave Craig

RDG (faction of the SWP)

RDCT platform

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.