01.09.2004

Socialist-Labourism or republican socialism?

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group argues for one step at a time

The move towards a workers’ party taken by the Liverpool ex-dockers and the 47 surcharged former councillors is a significant initiative. The Campaign for a Mass Party of the Working Class is of interest not just in terms of what it might achieve, but what it tells us about the current state of working class politics in England. The Liverpool comrades have gone beyond calling for a workers’ party and are now deciding the party name, its constitution and programme.

The first issue on the agenda is the party name. The Revolutionary Democratic Group submitted a discussion paper for consideration. We argued that the name is an important issue which must accurately reflect the politics of the party. Some comrades may think that the party name does not really matter very much. Any name will do. This is wrong. The party name is of great importance. It is a political statement addressed to the working class about the nature, character, programme and aims of the party. It must be treated seriously and a name chosen ‘scientifically’.

However, we were convinced that the name should not be discussed in isolation from the other ingredients that define the party. Our submission says: “To chose the name before we define the type of party and programme is to put the cart before the horse. A name like ‘Respect’ means very little until we know what kind of party it is. Is it, for example, a republican socialist party or a revolutionary Trotskyist party or some other type of organisation? The name should tell workers about the type of party, as defined by its strategy and programme. It should be honest and educative.”

Our case is fairly straightforward. We need a republican socialist party along the lines of the Scottish Socialist Party. In the Socialist Alliance programme People before profit we have a left unity programme that can serve as the starting point for a republican socialist programme. We can begin to build on that basis. The party needs to be organised with the maximum democracy and rights for platforms and tendencies, including the right to openly publish their views. Such a party cannot be launched immediately. But we should be able to make real identifiable progress in preparation for the forthcoming general election.

The case for a republican socialist party rests on four important developments in the class struggle. First, has been a collapse of working class political representation. Traditionally the organised working class was represented through the Labour Party and the ‘official’ CPGB. The trade union bureaucracy supported Labour and working class militants backed the ‘official’ CPGB. Over the last 10 years this form of representation has collapsed, as the Labour Party moved to the right and the ‘official’ CPGB was liquidated. There is now a real political vacuum on the left which points to the need for a new workers’ party.

Second, the experience of the Labour government since 1997 has convinced trade union activists that Labour is opposed to their collective interests. The RMT and FBU are no longer affiliated and other unions are reducing their financial support for Labour. We are in a similar position to the end of the 19th century, when trade unions began to break from the Liberal Party and a new working class party was set up. The fact that some trade unions show signs of breaking with Labour indicates that a new mass party is possible.

Third, the parliamentary system (or constitutional monarchy) is now under severe strain because of economic and political change. The integration of capital and European states into the European Union has undermined national sovereignty. The pressure for democratic change in Ireland, Scotland and Wales has brought greater political autonomy and the growth of new or previously marginal parties, such as Sinn Féin and the SSP. The Blair government has concentrated and centralised more power into its own hands. There is a growing sense of powerlessness and alienation amongst working people. Labour’s constitutional changes have made the system more unstable. There is a new danger from the right with the growth of the BNP and UKIP. The war in Iraq and the mass anti-war movement has served to highlight a growing crisis of democracy. Consequently any progressive working class party must put forward a democratic programme, providing answers to this crisis.

Fourth, the socialist movement remains weak and fragmented. It is divided between those inside and outside the Labour Party. The Marxist groups outside Labour have been unable to form a united party. We now have Respect, Socialist Alliance, SA Democracy Platform, Socialist Party, Workers Power, Communist Party of Britain, Independent Working Class Association, not forgetting the Socialist Workers Party, CPGB, RDG, Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, etc. This means that we must fight to unite all socialists into one party.

The Scottish Socialist Party is an example of a republican socialist party. It stands for an independent Scottish republic, which it sees as opening the way to a socialist society. The SSP is neither a Labour-type party nor a revolutionary communist party. It is a party of socialist unity with contains both socialists and revolutionary Marxists. The modest but real progress made by the SSP can be explained in part because it fits with the objective circumstances in the class struggle.

The conclusion we should draw from all this is that we need a republican socialist party in England and Wales. What is the scientific name for this party? Obviously we should call a spade a spade. A republican socialist party should therefore adopt the name ‘Republican Socialist Party’!

As previously reported, the majority of the committee of the campaign voted for ‘United Socialist Party’. Is this the wrong name for a republican socialist party? Or does this name point to a different type of party? We made the mistake of choosing a name before clarifying what kind of party and programme the name should portray. Therefore we must employ some ‘forensic’ science to find out what kind of party and programme is being proposed.

In his interview with the Weekly Worker Terry Teague explains the political conclusions the dockers drew from their experiences about the need to try and unite the left, with its different factions, to set up a new democratic socialist party (August 12). We can heartily concur with this conclusion.

But when asked, “Should it be like old Labour or something different?”, He replied: “When you say, ‘old Labour’, you have to be specific. It would be a party that would have a lot of the aims and objectives of, say, Clem Attlee’s manifesto in 1948 or Harold Wilson’s in 1964 - without the attacks on the trade union movement, of course. But it would contain many of the policies for social change. It would have nothing to do with the manifesto of 1997 or 2001.”

There has been no discussion about the programme of the new party. But the draft party constitution makes sufficient programmatic statements to see which way the wind is blowing. The preamble, for example, says: “We live in a capitalist society, dominated by the interests of big business, the banks and insurance companies, which exploit the working class for profit. That is why over 100 years ago a mass movement of the trade unions and working class communities, to represent their interests against capitalist exploitation, founded the Labour Party. But the New Labour Party has broken faith with the working class.”

The statement goes on to catalogue a series of New Labour attacks on the working class, not forgetting asylum-seekers or Iraq. The theme is the historic betrayal by Blair’s New Labour. It is not about breaking from the political heritage of Labourism.

The draft party constitution puts forward the following points. The new party:
l stands for the socialist transformation of society. To replace capitalism with an economic system based on democratic ownership and control of the key sectors of the economy. A system based on social need and environmental protection rather than private profit and ecological destruction.
l will provide political support and solidarity to all those who are involved in fighting back against injustice, whether it be trade unionists, community organisations, tenants groups, anti-motorway protesters, anti-nuclear protestors, animal rights campaigners, anti-racist organisations and other campaigns and protest movements.

- will oppose discrimination in any form on the basis of race, religion, language, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability.
- will campaign for a socialist Britain with the aim of establishing a united and broader alliance of democratic socialist states.
- actively promotes the international solidarity of the working class and oppressed to defeat capitalism and imperialism, while preserving its political and constitutional autonomy.
- will build the closest possible links with socialists in Scotland and Wales, across Europe and worldwide.
- stands ultimately for a new socialist world, where poverty, starvation, environmental destruction, exploitation, war and racial hatred are eradicated.

It is not that most socialists would disagree with this (although I think it betrays a nationalist conception of socialism). It is what is missing that jumps out of the page. It is the silence that betrays the kind of party that is being conceived here.

Most obviously this programme does not mention parliamentary democracy. What attitude is the new party taking to that question? Like it or not, parliamentary democracy is a major feature of politics in Britain. We can assume the party intends to stand candidates for parliament. Parliamentary democracy has to be central to the politics of the party, just as capitalism must be central to its economics.
Compare this with the programmatic statements of the Socialist Alliance and the SADP in People before profit. Here we find a programme of parliamentary reform which, taken together, constitutes a democratic republic. Despite the efforts of the SWP to suck up to socialist-Labourites by ignoring parliamentary reform, the demand for a democratic republic is a demand for now, not simply for the socialist future.

Therefore hiding behind the name ‘United Socialist Party’ is a socialist-Labour party. This is a type of party whose ideology is economism. It promotes the idea that progress for the working class means concentrating on improving economic and social conditions. The working class should not interfere or involve itself in political matters and especially constitutional affairs. In the ‘upstairs and downstairs’ of bourgeois politics, the ‘servants’ should stay in the basement where they belong.

A socialist-Labour party therefore accepts the constitutional monarchist state, and concentrates on social justice and greater equality. Like socialism, republicanism is a long-term aim. As the ‘official’ CPGB programme The British road to socialism says, there will be no place for the monarchy under socialism. But under capitalism the BRS can accept the monarchist state as part of the natural order. In bourgeois ideology the monarchy, which in the UK symbolises the permanent rule of the capitalist class, harms nobody!

At the last committee meeting on August 21 the focus switched to the constitution of the new party. The chair, Jimmy Nolan, made clear his view that the position was ‘polarised’ between the ex-dockers’ aim of a party and the Socialist Party and the ex-councillors, who wanted a loose campaign. This was not a strategic or programmatic difference. It was ‘merely’ a difference over the timing of this move between those who want a socialist-Labour party. But even a tactical difference can bring the campaign close to a split.

The dockers proposed all political organisations should dissolve into the new party in 12 months. Comrade Eric proposed an amendment to extend the time for dissolution, but retained the principle that in a given time all political groups must disband. The SP proposed political groups should affiliate and accepted no time limit. Workers Power proposed the right to form platforms in the new body and opposed a fixed time scale. The RDG proposed that the annual general meeting should decide when and if groups should disband, but accepted that the aim would be a single unified party with full rights for political platforms, including publications and public right to disagree.

In their contributions the SP and the 47 accepted this characterisation of a polarisation into two positions. Workers Power and the RDG argued that there was a third position. This should be clear in the case of the RDG, because the party name issue reveals a strategic and programmatic difference, not merely a tactical question of timing. Along with Workers Power, we stood in favour of a party project, understood the urgency of the coming general election and the position in the trade unions, but did not believe a fixed time scale could or should be set for the dissolution of socialist groupings into the new party.

This position had support from several members of the committee and the discussion moved on to a single point. Would the dockers accept the amendment proposed at the previous meeting and included in the RDG proposals, that a future AGM of the new organisation should decide when and if groups should be asked to dissolve into the new party? The dockers through Jimmy Nolan explicitly rejected any further compromise about moving away from a fixed time scale for all political groupings to disband. He said that the dockers had already compromised by accepting comrades Eric’s amendment allowing for a longer time.

The meeting pressed for a vote on Tony Mulhearn’s amendment (tabled at the previous meeting on August 7) putting any decision about the dissolution of groups to an annual general meeting. All of the committee expressed the view that with that amendment a consensus could go to the next full meeting. The amendment was put and seven votes recorded in favour. At this point the chair did not ask for votes against or abstentions. It was assumed by all that the amendment had carried. The chair then argued that the committee should vote on the amended constitution proposed by a Socialist Labour Party comrade, as further amended by the dockers, without mention of the seven votes or taking the new constitution as amended following the vote.

This caused confusion and requests for the chair to acknowledge the vote for the amendment. It was only at this point votes were taken for and against, and after Jimmy Nolan had said the dockers might withdraw from the entire process. The vote tied at seven for and seven against. It was agreed by the committee that both positions should be put to the future full meeting. Comrade Nolan refused to commit to a date for this meeting and it was not clear if the dockers would proceed with the process or go off alone. The SP-47 and dockers are moving towards a split.

There are two divisive issues. First, the nature of the party, which is reflected but not fully clarified in the disagreement over the party name. Second, the process by which socialist groups will dissolve. The SP-47 are refusing a fixed time scale and prefer a looser, federal arrangement. The first is a strategic question and the second is tactical.

Nobody said the road to a party would be easy. Nobody should take their bat and ball home. We need more and wider discussion on where we are going - to a socialist-Labour party or republican socialist party - and how we can get there in terms of building confidence and winning the genuine support from existing socialist organisations. Issues for the working class cannot be imposed or settled by small committees.