10.02.2000

Socialist Scotland and the dual power republic

Lenin prioritised the fight for a bourgeois republic, argues Dave Craig

The Scottish Socialist Party has made its central demand "an independent socialist Scotland". Against this the Republican Communist Network should advocate a democratic republic, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether this republic should be centralised, federal or separatist (ie, independent). In practice the RCN in Scotland is operating a truce in its official statements on the territorial extent and constitutional form of the republic.

Let us concentrate on the argument between a 'socialist Scotland' and a 'democratic republic'. Which path should the working class take? What tactics should be employed in this fight? We will ignore the minor question of whether a socialist Scotland or a democratic republic should be described as 'modern' or 'old-fashioned'.

On the face of it the call for a 'socialist Scotland' is more leftwing and radical-sounding than the call for a 'democratic republic'. The RCN appears to have taken fright. To advocate a democratic republic would leave them branded as 'rightwing'. This is why some RCN members appear to think that 'workers' republic' is a better slogan because it is more leftwing-sounding.

Tom Delargy shows that leftist posturing is the main motivating force for many in the RCN. He points out that, "Everyone thought that the RCN would be derided as extreme right - not extreme left - if we counterposed the majority SSP position of an independent socialist Scotland with the limited demand for a capitalist republic" (Weekly Worker January 27).

Revolutionary Marxism does not decide its slogans and tactics on the basis of how left-sounding we need to be. Lenin quite rightly derided this as "revolutionary phrasemongering". This is the main weakness of the RCN. Fear that if we advocate a democratic republic, the CWI (Scotland) will call us rightwing capitalists and we will collapse like a heap of jelly! This is absolutely pathetic politics.

Revolutionary Marxism puts forward what is correct politically and fights for that through thick and thin, regardless of accusations that we are 'too rightwing' or 'too leftwing'. One reason why the Bolsheviks were successful in 1917 was because under Lenin's leadership they were prepared to oppose an immediate insurrection in July 1917. The Bolsheviks understood that it was premature. This 'rightist' move was absolutely correct and saved the revolution from total and final defeat. We will never build a real communist movement if infantile leftist posturing dominates our political line.

What does the SSP mean by a socialist Scotland? The SSP has already said it is in favour of the abolition of the monarchy. But it does not advocate abolition of parliament. The SSP is therefore for a bourgeois democratic republic. But this is dressed up in the red flag of socialism. What kind of socialism is this? At best this means a Scottish bourgeois republic carrying through radical nationalisation and welfare measures.

Having stripped away the camouflage, we have two types of bourgeois republic. One is the SSP's bourgeois republic introducing state capitalist 'socialism'. The other is a bourgeois republic providing the best conditions for building workers' councils - no pretence of socialism here. In case anybody has forgotten, we need powerful workers' councils before we can transfer power to a soviet or workers' republic. This is about as close as you can get to repeating the argument between the Stalinists and Trotsky in the Spain of the 1930s. The position of the CWI (Scotland), combining bourgeois republicanism and national socialism, is therefore thoroughly Stalinist. Perhaps SSP stands for 'Spanish Stalinist Programme'!

Only by openly and publicly recognising the aim of a republic is it possible to adopt militant and revolutionary tactics to fight for it. By contrast the republicanism of the SSP is disguised as 'socialism'. This is the kind of soft republicanism that helps the monarchist bourgeoisie. It has no perspective on merging republicanism with the class struggle.

The Marxist case for a bourgeois republic is clear enough. A bourgeois republic is a democratic reform. It means abolishing the monarchy without at the same time abolishing parliament. Whilst Marxism recognises the class nature of parliamentary democracy, we are only in favour of abolishing it if we can replace it with a higher form of democracy.

Abolishing the monarchy is a special or specially important democratic reform. We could abolish the House of Lords and maintain the constitutional monarchy. But we cannot abolish the monarchy without fundamentally changing the constitution. The political impact of abolishing the monarchy is far more profound than simply abolishing the House of Lords or introducing proportional representation.

The demand for a bourgeois republic is a transitional demand. It is not an end in itself, but simply a stepping stone to a workers' republic. How far such a process may go will depend on the class struggle. On the one hand, the republic may be introduced from above without mass struggle. On the other, it may be achieved by mass working class action from below. The more militant and revolutionary the working class fight for a bourgeois republic, the closer it will be to a workers' state.

This brings us to the distinction between a 'normal' bourgeois republic and the special type of bourgeois republic which I have called the 'dual power republic'. Barry Biddulph is campaigning very hard against the latter on the grounds that it is a "utopian republic" (Weekly Worker February 3).

A dual power republic is a bourgeois republic with dual power. The term 'dual power' refers to the power of the bourgeois provisional government on the one hand and the power of the workers' councils on the other. As Barry himself says, "The amount of power which falls to each class depends on the relationship of forces." That is true with one proviso. The working class cannot become the dominant power without overthrowing the bourgeois republic. In a dual power republic, the bourgeoisie is still the ruling class. The working class may be challenging their political authority. But it is not yet the ruling class.

Barry says that this type of republic "has never existed and never will". I dispute that. Of course I am not demanding that comrades use the title of 'dual power republic'. I have provided some alternative names - the 'transitional republic' or 'provisional republic' or the 'civil war republic'. Each name focuses on different aspects of the same class phenomenon.

It might seem that we are merely discussing whether 'dual power' or 'dual power republic' is a better term for the same thing. But I am not discussing every case of dual power. I am only concerned with dual power as it emerges from the overthrow of a constitutional regime. Consequently we are discussing the special combination of a provisional republican government and dual power. In the 1926 general strike there were aspects of dual power but no dual power republic. There was no political movement in 1926 to overthrow the constitution and establish any kind of republic. The working class movement was confined to limited economic aims. The state, the government and the ruling class were united behind king and constitution. The dual power republic differs from dual power in general in the same way that 1917 differs from 1926.

In opposing a dual power republic Barry is forced to invent curious ideas which he attributes to me in order to find something to argue against. For example he says that a dual power republic cannot be "the expression of a single power of a constitutional regime". Obviously - because it is the expression of the dual power of a regime without a constitution.

The dual power, civil war, transitional republic is a bourgeois republic that can lead directly to the dictatorship of the proletariat. This idea seems incredibly strange to Barry, but not to Lenin. In 1917 Lenin wrote State and revolution. He discusses the bourgeois democratic republic and makes the following observation. He says: "Engels repeats here in particularly striking form the fundamental idea which runs through all of Marx's works: namely, that the democratic republic is the nearest approach to the dictatorship of the proletariat. For such a republic, without in the least abolishing the rule of capital, and, therefore, the oppression of the masses and the class struggle, inevitably leads to such an extension, development, unfolding and intensification of this class struggle that, as soon as it is possible to meet the fundamental interests of the oppressed masses, this possibility is realised inevitably and solely through the dictatorship of the proletariat, through the leadership of those masses by the proletariat" (VI Lenin Selected Works Vol 2, Moscow 1976, p289).

Lenin is describing here a democratic republic. But this is not a stable republic like America, and certainly not the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is only the nearest thing to it. In fact it is so close that it produces an intensification of the class struggle: class war, not class peace. So much so that it leads inevitably either to the dictatorship of the working class or to counterrevolution.

What was Lenin thinking of? Was it the American or French republics? Or is it just possible that Lenin is referring to the situation all around him in Russia? Whatever was in his mind, it is clearly a bourgeois republic. You can call this republic anything you like. Barry calls it a utopian republic on the grounds that it cannot happen. But it did happen in fact, as every Marxist knows. This is why Barry's idea that the Russian republic between February and October 1917 did not happen and cannot exist is just bollocks.

Barry's main argument is that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie was abolished in February 1917. After that no class was in power. He says: "Dual power in Russia was not a bourgeois regime: it was a struggle between hostile classes for domination." What is most curious about this is the strange counterposing of a bourgeois regime and the struggle between hostile classes. Why can't the February republic of 1917 be both a bourgeois regime and a struggle between hostile classes for domination? In fact that is exactly what it was.

Therefore the main difference is that the republic which came into existence in February 1917 was a bourgeois republic; something Barry denies. He says it is utopian to imagine that this was a bourgeois republic. Yet as far as I can see it is incredible that any Marxist could deny it.

The idea that the government of Prince Lvov and later Kerensky were not bourgeois governments is bizarre. One of the Bolshevik's prominent slogans was "Down with the 10 capitalist ministers". Lenin says: "This dual power is evident in the existence of two governments: one is the main, the real, the actual government of the bourgeoisie, the provisional government of Lvov and co which holds in its hands all the organs of power; the other is a supplementary and parallel government which holds no organs of state power" (ibid p39).

The resolution on the provisional government passed by the 7th all-Russian conference of the Bolshevik Party in May 1917 says: "The provisional government by its class character is the organ of the landowner and bourgeois domination. The provisional government and the classes it represents are bound with indissoluble economic and political ties to Russian and Anglo-French imperialism" (ibid p95). For Barry to deny this was a bourgeois government depending on the state power of the landowners and bourgeoisie is just ridiculous. He is trying to prove black is white.

To try to disprove an established historical fact, Barry has to apply the most curious logic. He argues that a bourgeois republic must be a stable constitutional regime. Russia was not a stable constitutional regime. Hey presto, it was not a bourgeois republic! Is there any flaw in this argument? It is so glaringly obvious that it pains me to point it out. A bourgeois republic may be a stable constitutional regime like America. But there have been plenty of examples of unstable bourgeois republics: for example, France 1848, Russia 1917, Germany 1918, Spain 1931, Portugal 1974 and Iran 1979, to name but a few. These are all characterised by the fact that the old constitutional order has just been dumped.

Finally, I must refer to Tom Delargy's argument. He presents Lenin as an ignorant bourgeois democrat, not a revolutionary Marxist, until 1917. Then suddenly Lenin woke up and discovered that a bourgeois republic, like a constitutional monarchy, mean capitalism and exploitation. He then spent the rest of his life trying to convert people to his 'new' theory of opposition to the bourgeois democratic republic under all conditions everywhere. This does not fit with either the historical record, or the arguments in State and revolution, which Tom so selectively quotes.