20.09.2000

CPGB aggregate

Blair's crisis

The September 19 aggregate of CPGB members, held in London, discussed an analysis introduced by John Bridge of the recent fuel protests and the political ramifications of the resulting crisis. Although only around 2,500 people directly took part in the protests, they created the greatest crisis of the Blair government, and the almost universal support they received is now reflected in a Tory lead in the polls.

Comrade Bridge insisted that, despite these polls and the support for the protesters, what happened was not an all-encompassing people's movement. Nor a working class protest like that against the poll tax. The fuel revolt represents a rebellion by the petty bourgeoisie against the Labour government and 'green taxes'. Comrade Bridge compared the fuel protests with the 285,000-strong Countryside Alliance demonstration in London on March 1 1998. This new action sprung from the same social base, a class on the margins of capitalist production being squeezed by competition and desperate to defend their businesses from destruction by the blind laws of the market.

In March 1998 they were activated from above, centrally organised by the aristocracy and Tory grandees. This month's protests were not coordinated or controlled, but were the spontaneous action of the petty bourgeoisie itself. Hence the Jacobin methods. Despite the relatively small numbers involved, the protest can be described as a mass action of this class, which, as comrade Bridge reminded the meeting, is traditionally the social base of fascism.

Some observers have speculated that the protest movement could evolve into a fascist organisation. The 'official communist' Morning Star describes it as "counterrevolutionary". But comrade Bridge thought it more likely to be reabsorbed into the mainstream of Conservatism - William Hague has already made his overtures. This is because fascism only emerges as a "social battering ram", said the comrade, when key sections of the big bourgeoisie seek to use the petty bourgeoisie in order to smash the working class and violently overcome the divisions threatening the system. In Britain today the working class does not exist as an independent political force, and the crisis was not of the system, but of the government.

In this new situation there is a new political dynamic, involving the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie and the state, which must be understood as standing above all classes to some extent, albeit preserving law and order for the benefit of the exploiters.

Some, notably the Socialist Party in England and Wales and the Socialist Workers Party, have uncritically tailed the petty bourgeois fuel protesters. In the case of the SWP the incoherence resulting from failure to develop an independent communist programme is amusingly illustrated: at the same time as virtually endorsing the protesters' demand for cheaper fuel, the SWP continues also to tail the green movement - which calls for more expensive fuel as a way to conserve resources and limit environmental damage. More seriously, if the socialist alliances were to follow the SWP line of chasing populist causes, it could end up backing a Tory-led movement.

Others, notably trade union leaders John Monks and Bill Morris, condemn the protesters and call for them to be dealt with firmly by the law. Maybe it has not occurred to them that such calls could be used in the future to justify repression by the state against workers in struggle. But then again, the trade union bureaucracy has no wish to revive militancy. However, to refuse to support lorry drivers blockading oil refineries because lorry drivers scabbed in the miners' strike, or to dismiss the protesters as not deserving of working class support because in terms of capital assets they may be millionaires, is to abandon the politics of hegemony, comrade Bridge argued.

In the struggle to become the ruling class in society, the working class must have answers for all oppressed and exploited groups, including the petty bourgeoisie. We need to express solidarity with these protesters, said the comrade, but at the same time recognise that the working class must organise itself and have its own programme. We must win the battle of ideas against the ruling class for the allegiance of the intermediate strata, but this cannot be achieved by uncritical support for their sectional interests.

The programme of the CPGB includes a demand for the abolition of VAT and the debts of farmers and small businesses to the big capitalists and cheap credits, and also for a rational fuel and transport policy including free urban public transport. These questions should be seriously debated by the Socialist Alliance as it prepares its manifesto for the general election. Comrade Bridge argued that we must take into account the environment and the need to minimise profligate use of fuel and other valuable resources. It would be a mistake to mock the Greens for wanting to save the planet, or to surrender that slogan to the Greens. After all, only the working class and socialism can save the planet.

Comrade Bridge's opening produced a wide-ranging debate in which a large degree of consensus emerged.

In the afternoon Marcus Larsen reported on latest developments within the Socialist Alliance, in preparation for its conference in Coventry on September 30. The conference will determine the SA's broad approach to contesting the forthcoming general election. Comrade Larsen outlined several political goals the CPGB should fight to achieve at this gathering, which after discussion were agreed by Party members. We want to encourage as many socialists as possible to stand in the election, but definitely under the Socialist Alliance umbrella. There has apparently been a move away from what comrade Larsen called the ultra-minimalist line in the SWP. Already several borough socialist alliances in London have committed themselves to standing candidates, some in two constituencies, and this is to be welcomed.

Less welcome is the shift away from the London model of giving all political affiliates automatic right to representation on organising committees, as we see in London. Until now the SWP has tried to avoid turning the alliances into an SWP front, thinking that an inclusive approach would be more attractive to the left Labourites whom they expect will join - all the while the SA's are held up as an example of a united front despite their overwhelming absence. We argue for the rights of minorities to be guaranteed - the basic principle of an alliance and the way to build revolutionary trust and eventually full unity in a single all-Britain democratic centralist party. Comrade Larsen reported that if this argument about minority rights is lost certain affiliates are talking about leaving the SA - a serious mistake.

A further SA conference is likely to be called in February to decide on the details of the manifesto. Even so, at Coventry the CPGB intends to press for a vote on at least the principles of the election manifesto. Are we revolutionary democrats, international socialists, etc . or merely a warmed-up version of social democracy with a fashionable sprinkling of green politics added for form's sake? We will also call for the establishment of a national Liaison Committee to meet in London, monthly until the election is called and thereafter weekly. Comrade Larsen shrugged off fears of anti-Londonism. Our proposal had nothing to do with 'London chauvinism'. It is dictated by the simple fact that all the principal left groups - who will be overwhelmingly providing the funds, know-how and volunteers for the campaign - have most members and are based in the capital, as are the main media.

Having been outmanoeuvred all along by the SWP because of its own wilful sectarianism, SPEW is threatening to stand 18 election candidates under its own Socialist Alternative banner. The CPGB will continue to work for left unity and urge the SWP majority to behave in a manner that facilitates the rapprochement of the revolutionary left through inclusion and free debate - there must be no more bowing to authoritarian temptations such as the ban on canvassers selling their own literature. Should Dave Nellist and co really be told that they cannot sell The Socialist while talking to voters in Coventry? No wonder the SPEW leadership and wide swathes of its rank and file still refuse to throw in their lot with the SAs.

The aggregate concluded with a discussion on the Republican Communist Network. The RCN is holding an AGM in Edinburgh on October 28. Some of our comrades work in the RCN and will therefore attend. But there were voices who questioned the usefulness of participating in the RCN, if it meant aligning with overt nationalists. These comrades stated that the RCN's role as a left opposition in the SSP would be largely negated if it failed to prioritise the fight against nationalism - the official programme of Tommy Sheridan, Alan McCombes, Allan Green, etc.

The SSP is now Scotland's fourth largest political party, and its success has persuaded the SWP to apply to join. The SWP is economistic, and tries to ignore or downplay the national question. The SSP is national- reformist and wants to play it up to the point of a breakaway Scotland. Not surprisingly, the outcome of unity talks between the SSP and the SWP is still undecided. The SSP demands the SWP commits itself to the break-up scenario and stops selling Socialist Worker. The SWP has agreed - if Scottish Socialist Voice goes weekly. The SSP demands more. The SWP offers it . in other words the SWP is being forced to liquidate before it can dominate the SSP.

Whatever the outcome, the CPGB urges its members and supporters in Scotland to continue to argue for principled working class internationalism, and against nationalism and separatism.

Mary Godwin