10.07.2002

Marxism 2002: Coming too quickly

On Sunday July 7, the SWP's John Rees led a discussion titled, 'Do we need a broad socialist party or a revolutionary party?'

Much of his opening was uncontroversial for the revolutionaries in the packed audience. He ably - if a little abstractly - outlined the need for a conscious, organised vanguard. Comrade Rees illustrated the dangerous limitations of reformist and centrist politics and reaffirmed the contemporary relevance of Bolshevism. Or at least, his understanding of it. For implicit in comrade Rees' 40-minute opening - indeed, in the actual title of the session itself - was the assumption that 'broad' parties are non-revolutionary, while revolutionary parties by definition are 'narrow'. Thus, despite the comrade's praise for the healthy evolution of Rifondazione Comunista, he criticised the Italian organisation for not being "openly revolutionary"ï¿½ - the ambiguity generated reformist illusions, he suggested. Essentially, the same criticism was levelled against the Scottish Socialist Party. These were "broad socialist parties"ï¿½, as opposed to a revolutionary organisation such as the SWP. Their broadness and inclusivity was an important characteristic that marked them out as centrist/reformist formations, John seemed to be saying. Unfortunately, the majority of the speakers in the debate reinforced this 'broad' versus 'revolutionary' dichotomy. For example, Socialist Alliance independent Toby Abse recommended the "SSP and Rifondazione models"ï¿½ precisely because of their ambiguous nature, a centrism that is apparently appropriate to this stage of the recomposition of the international workers' movement. However, the discussion did take an interesting turn with the intervention of one SWPer who questioned the characterisation of the SA as a "united front"ï¿½ of any kind, 'special' or not. He noted that its dynamic was fundamentally different to "our other united fronts"ï¿½. When the Anti-Nazi League was successful in an area, the "Nazis disappear back into their sewers"ï¿½ and that's the effective end of the campaign's intervention locally (part of the problem, surely?). However, a breakthrough with the SA was different: "The more successful it is, the more consistent work is needed,"ï¿½ he correctly noted. In this spirit, the comrade went on to criticise the fact that "only the SWP had been brought to the heart of anti-war work"ï¿½ - the SA was 'disappeared', in effect. Despite these intelligent observations, this comrade remained trapped within the broad/reformist versus narrow/revolutionary template set up by the debate. He ending by calling for a "broader socialist party"ï¿½ to evolve out of the SA, with the SWP as a "revolutionary faction"ï¿½ ï¿½ la SSP. However, his intervention had the merit of concretising the debate on party forms. Alan Thornett (International Socialist Group) and Nick Wrack (SA independent) contributed, both looking forward to some sort of party perspective for the SA "in the future"ï¿½. Rob Hoveman of the SWP warned against premature moves towards declaring a party. On what basis would it be established, since the vast majority of SAers were currently revolutionaries of various types? The pivotal question of "reform versus revolution"ï¿½ has been "avoided"ï¿½, according to comrade Hoveman, in order to make the SA "as big as possible"ï¿½. Replying to the debate, comrade Rees likened the call for the formation now of an inclusive revolutionary party out of the constituent elements of the SA to "premature ejaculation"ï¿½ - an analogy he thankfully didn't pursue. "What's the point of making the SA into a revolutionary party,"ï¿½ he mused revealingly, "when the revolutionary party exists already? I don't want to be paying two sets of dues!"ï¿½ He asked the critical SWPer why he would want to get rid of "the most successful revolutionary organisation in western Europe?"ï¿½ In fact, the SSP was a negative example, a manifestation of "liquidationism"ï¿½. The SWP found itself doing something that was "not ideal"ï¿½ in Scotland, but, given the success of the SSP, it would have been "sectarian to stand apart"ï¿½. More dubiously, comrade Rees reassured the audience that the SA was rapidly reaching comparable levels of electoral success to the SSP. It had made more ground in the trade unions over the political fund question and in the anti-war movement than the Scottish organisation. The implication being, 'Relax, we don't have to do anything different. It will all fall into our laps.' It is likely that the solitary SWP dissident reflected merely a feeling of unease in the organisation. If he had represented a hardened trend, he would have been well advised to keep his head down, given the SWP machine's intolerant treatment of 'factionalists'. His arguments were flawed by the common assumption he shared with the likes of John Rees, Rob Hoveman and even the majority of non-SWPers in the audience: that is, revolutionary parties are narrow entities built using the same organisational template as today's SWP - sects, in other words. They could not be more wrong. * Blustering Bambery * National or global socialism? * Marx and Sparks * Debate of a different kind