02.03.2000

Labourism or republicanism

The Scottish Socialist Party's annual conference debated a motion on republicanism. The movers, supporters of the Republican Communist Network, called on the SSP to take up the tradition of revolutionary republicanism and apply it in Scotland today.

The motion called on the SSP to make the abolition of the constitutional monarchy one of its central demands, "if we are to have real political and social progress both in Scotland and other parts of Britain". The party was urged "to seize every opportunity to raise republican slogans and demands". It called on the SSP to "give voice to the aspirations of working class republicans". Republican demands "should be at the heart of our work when communities are in struggle and should form an important part in our intervention in the trade union movement".

The motion was too much for Tommy Sheridan MSP, and the main tendency in the SSP, the Committee for a Workers International (CWI), formally known as Scottish Militant Labour. It was voted down by over 90 votes to 36. The CWI speakers declared that they did not have any objections to abolishing the monarchy. But they feared the consequences of passing the motion. It would commit the SSP to taking republicanism seriously and campaigning for it vigorously.

The CWI position is fairly typical of British Marxism. It is shared by the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party, Workers Power and the whole Trotskyist movement. They all agree with abolishing the monarchy. But they believe that it is a trivial question to be sorted out in the dim and distant future. Abolition of the monarchy will be a by-product of setting up a socialist republic. File it away - no action required.

The differences between the CWI and the RCN on the monarchy can be summarised as the distinction between soft or liberal republicanism and militant revolutionary republicanism. Why is British Marxism dominated by liberal republican ideas? I would identify three factors - political method, liberal royalist culture and Menshevik-Stalinist theory. I will deal with each in turn.

All revolutionary Marxists are in favour of a workers' republic - the dictatorship of the proletariat. There is no disagreement on this between the SWP, SP, WP, Alliance for Workers' Liberty, CPGB, Revolutionary Democratic Group, the Communist Tendency, RCN, etc. A workers' republic is one step on the road to international socialist revolution and world communism. However, there are important differences in how we reach these goals.

There are two basic methods which I will call 'propagandist Marxism' and 'class struggle Marxism'. Propagandist Marxism seeks to achieve these goals by propaganda alone. In order not to compromise with capitalism the propagandists abstain from the class struggle. This method can often be identified by the word 'only'. Only world communism is the answer, or only a workers' republic provides the way forward. The result is abstention from or opposition to all struggles for reforms.

Class struggle Marxism was the method of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. This accepts the need for propaganda for the general ideas of the workers' republic and world communism. However, reaching these goals cannot be achieved primarily by propaganda, but by intervention in bourgeois politics. Bourgeois politics is the politics of everyday life in bourgeois society. It is the politics of the class struggle, as manifest in economic, political and ideological struggles.

Class struggle Marxism is itself split between the 'economists' and the 'political Marxists'. Of course the 'economists' relate to the political struggle and the 'politicians' relate to the economic struggle. But the economists believe in the primacy of the economic struggle and the kind of politics which arises 'spontaneously' from it. They want to "lend the economic struggle itself a political character". The SWP follows the theory of economism. The party makes propaganda for a workers' republic, but gets involved in the class struggle. They see real class struggle as the economic or trade union struggle. The SWP has no immediate political programme and until recently did not stand candidates for election. They routinely presented standing in elections as 'electoralism' and a compromise with bourgeois politics.

Political Marxism believes in the primacy of the political struggle, setting immediate political goals for the class struggle. Political Marxism intervenes in the economic struggle to support workers. But we do so with the aim of winning them to join the struggle for political aims. These aims do not arise spontaneously. They come from Marxist theory - that is, the lessons from previous class struggles, particularly the Russian Revolution.

In Britain, the political wing of class struggle Marxism is divided between Labourism and republicanism. These are quite different political aims. One aims for a Labour government, and the other is seeking to win a democratic republic by class struggle methods. Labourism means intervening in bourgeois politics to reform the constitutional monarchist system. Republicanism means overthrowing that system. Whereas Labourism is part of the constitutional monarchist political furniture, republicanism is about smashing up the furniture.

British Marxism has a soft or liberal line on republicanism because of the dominance of the ideas of propagandism, economism and Labourism. But there are other important factors. The UK is a country in which monarchism is deeply embedded in the political culture. The dominant attitude on the left is liberalism. British liberalism supports the monarchy by preaching 'live and let live' politics. According to this, the monarchy is not so bad. It has no power and does not do anything. Getting rid of it is hardly worth bothering about. This attitude permeates the whole Marxist left.

Marxist theory might provide a counterweight to liberalism. But the left is disarmed by the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of bourgeois democratic revolution. This theory says that only the bourgeoisie can lead the struggle for a republic and this can only happen if you live in a backward country. This theory absolutely rules out any militant struggle for a republic. It is not allowed and is not possible. The workers of Britain cannot take revolutionary action to rid society of monarchism. To do so would violate Menshevik-Stalinist theory.

The current political situation in Britain is characterised by sections of the left breaking from Labourism. The fact that the SSP now exists in opposition to Labour and with a seat in the Scottish parliament is one indicator. The foundation of Scargill's Socialist Labour Party, the setting up of the SP in England and Wales, and moves by the AWL and the SWP to stand anti-Labour candidates confirm this. The position of Ken Livingstone is another manifestation. Supporting Labour is no longer a viable strategy for British Marxism. Meanwhile Blair has taken a new route, trying to patch up the constitutional monarchy. This has disorientated the left. They are abandoning Labour, but have not grasped that republicanism is the only Realpolitik. At the moment British Marxism is in no man's land between Labourism and republicanism. They cannot go back and they do not know how to go forward.

What happened at the SSP conference precisely expressed this state of political consciousness. The SSP is a break from Labourism. It is a focal point for those turning from Labourism to the left. Scargillism, Living-stoneism and the Socialist Alliances are manifestations of the same trend. Quite clearly the CWI's rejection of the motion on republicanism is a measure of how far they have come and how far they still have to go. The revolutionary republicans around the RCN have much work to do to win over the SSP.

This leads back to the theoretical debate on republicanism I have been having with Barry Biddulph (Weekly Worker February 10 and 17). Even if we are obscure people writing in an obscure newspaper, the issues raised are of importance to the whole working class movement.

The argument boils down to two debates which are best separated. Debate number one concerns the real world of British politics today. It is a debate between the bourgeois constitutional monarchy and the bourgeois or parliamentary republic. The second debate is an abstract theoretical debate between a bourgeois republic and a workers' republic.

Let us begin with the first debate. The ruling class fully support the monarchy, as do all the bourgeois parties. Thatcherism and the dismantling of the welfare state has undermined the role of the constitutional monarchy. We have had the whole saga of royal marriages and the death of Diana Spencer. The continuation of the monarchy has been questioned for the first time in post-war history. Blair's government has been forced to develop a plan for constitutional change, which can prop up the monarchy. But the situation in Scotland, Wales and Ireland opens the possibility of the advance of republicanism. A significant minority of the people - between 25% and 30% - are in favour of a republic. In Scotland the number rises to over 50%. But this is passive, soft republicanism. There is no working class party capable of exploiting this situation because of their own soft republican tail-ending.

In the struggle between the constitutional monarchy and the bourgeois republic, Barry is opposed to the latter. In effect he sides with the constitutional monarchy. Of course he does not say, 'I am supporting the monarchy'. But he is dead against a parliamentary republic.

Barry is therefore giving aid and comfort to the monarchy. He does this by adopting the method of propagandism. Imagine a workers' meeting to discuss strike action. Some workers reject fighting for a wage increase. The militants are in a majority and support a 10% increase. Along comes Barry and proceeds to tell the workers not to fight for a wage increase. What they need is to abolish the system of wage slavery. Various quotes from Marx show that he wanted to abolish the wages system. The militants are confused by this. In the vote for action half of them abstain. As a consequence a majority of workers now vote against action. This is how propagandism assists the status quo and how Barry helps the monarchy.

The real political question is whether or how to reform the constitutional monarchy or whether to abolish it altogether. If we favour the latter, how can this be done and which class must take the leading role? My position has been made clear. A bourgeois republic is a democratic reform. It is a transitional demand, not an end in itself. But the exact nature of this republic will be shaped by the class struggle. Is it introduced from above or won by popular working class revolutionary action from below? The latter is likely to produce a 'dual power republic' - transitional to a workers' republic.

The debate has come to focus on the dual power republic. This is the kind of republic that developed between February and October 1917. Barry has asked me how the Russian republic between February and October 1917 can be a constitutional republic like America. The answer is it cannot. More importantly I have never ever claimed it was. On the contrary it is Barry who is fixated on America or France. According to him, every republic must be exactly like them or it is utopian. This is the real dogma, which Barry is sticking to through thick and thin, despite the historical evidence of Russia 1917.

The essence of the argument does not depend on the use of term 'dual power republic'. To prove this point, let me restate the case without using it. There are two kinds of bourgeois republic. One is the 'normal' or ordinary constitutional republic of the American type. The other is a bourgeois republic of a special or extraordinary type, like the Russian republic between February and October 1917. The characteristics of this special republic are that it has no constitution, but does have dual power. It is pregnant with civil war and is of a temporary or transitional character. No serious Marxist can deny the existence of this special type of republic. In State and revolution Lenin quotes Engels on this.

I am not fixated by the term 'dual power republic'. I am equally happy with a range of alternative terms such as 'transitional republic' or 'civil war republic'. But I like the term 'dual power republic' because it annoys my opponents and draws them into the open. Barry loves dual power, but absolutely hates a republic. It is like 'Dracula meets garlic'. He cannot stand having one connected with the other. So much so that he loses all his rational faculties. He is forced to deny that the bourgeoisie still held power between February and October. According to the logic of Barry's position, the bourgeoisie were overthrown in February, not, as all Marxists agree, in October. The words 'hole' and 'stop digging' spring to mind.

What of the second debate? This is more abstract. It is between a non-existing bourgeois republic and a non-existing workers' republic. Barry tries to superimpose this argument over the previous one. He wants to present me as supporting the bourgeois republic against the workers' republic.

This is total nonsense. Between these two theoretical options, I support a workers' republic. In fact while we remain in this rarefied space, let me say that I support a centralised workers' republic, not a federal republic or separate workers' republics. Barry is dabbling in nationalism if he places federalism and separatism on an equal footing with a centralised workers' democracy.

Still, that is an abstract answer to an abstract question.