29.09.2004

Boycott now, join later

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group argues that 'wait and see' is the best approach towards Respect

The CPGB should recognise that something is wrong with its line on Respect. It has lost good comrades in Manny Neira and Ian Donovan. This came directly from an internal battle over Respect. When Manny left it seemed as if Ian had won. But now we can see that is not the case. He has lost.
The CPGB faced two dangers. On one side a sectarian hostility to Respect and on the other side opportunism. In joining Respect the CPGB avoided the former but slipped into the latter. This was at the root of the formation of the Red Platform. The danger of opportunism comes on the question of programme. We must be guided by our minimum (democratic and republican) programme.

Respect adopted a programme that was sub-minimum, and therefore no different in essence from other forms of liberal reformism or ‘royal socialism’. Yet the anti-war movement was a proto-democracy movement. To take that movement forward meant to raise and strengthen the orientation to democracy. But Respect ducked the question of democracy under the influence of Socialist Workers Party economism and opportunism.

The Respect programme has been compared to the Socialist Alliance programme. There is a very close similarity with the SA priority pledges, with one or two concessions. But before we praise the SA programme we should remember that the SA leadership never had any intention of fighting for the democratic-republican parts of that programme. In Respect, the SWP stripped all that away. Respect is a more honest representation of the SWP’s economist and minimalist politics. It is the SA programme without the pretence of democracy and republicanism.

The fact that a programme misses out particular points is not the key question. For example, the SA was for a democratic republic, not a federal republic. This was a real mistake. It shows the alliance was confused over the national question and the relations between England, Scotland and Wales. It should be highlighted and criticised. But we did not refuse to join the SA because of this. The key question now for politically active workers is not this or that point in the programme, but the question of party.

A republican-socialist workers’ party is objectively necessary. The circumstances now exist where such a party can and should be formed. We argued for a new workers’ party in the days of the Socialist Labour Party. At the 2001 SA conference we submitted the Scottish Socialist Party constitution - with ‘Republican’ replacing every reference to ‘Scottish’. But the situation today is much more favourable because of the shifts taking place in the trade union movement. The mass organisations of the working class are starting to reconsider their attitude to New Labour and whether a new party is necessary.

There are four key factors that impact on mass consciousness. First, there is the vacuum on the left as a result of Labour’s shift to the right and the liquidation of the (Euro-Stalinist) CPGB. Second is the ‘crisis of democracy’ brought into sharper focus by the war on Iraq. Third, there is the desire for socialist unity reflected in various ‘unity projects’ such as the SA, Respect and the Liverpool dockers. Finally, there are current shifts in the trade union movement.

These spell out the following conclusion. The vacuum means a new party. The crisis of democracy means a republican party. The necessity for socialist unity means a socialist party. The changes in the attitude of the trade unions points to a mass party. Taken together, this points to a mass republican socialist party.

Yet consciousness in the socialist movement has not caught up with reality. Deep-seated economism produces a narrow vision of what is necessary. The majority of socialists are clinging to the old politics of a socialist-Labour party. Their blinkers do not enable them to see anything else. They feel naturally comfortable with the politics of Labourism, which seeks social reform through the existing constitutional system, combined with the longer-term aim of a socialist society.

Socialist-Labourism avoids the central question of democracy and how Britain is currently governed. Republican demands are largely ignored. They are kicked into the long grass - relegated to the maximum programme for the dim and distant future. The main dispute between the socialist-Labourites is whether this party should be built inside or outside the Labour Party.

Respect is the latest attempt to build socialist-Labourism outside the Labour Party. The plan is to steal Labour’s muslim vote from under its nose. The war has given Respect a real opportunity to do this. The programme is determined by this task. It is in essence the SA’s socialist-Labourite priority pledges adapted to islamic sensibilities. By picking a new type of name - ‘Respect - the Unity Coalition’ - George Galloway and the SWP are disguising their attachment to socialist-Labour politics. They are trying to sell us the same old vinegar in new bottles.

Respect is not republican, is hardly socialist and is not a party. It is set up against a republican socialist party. The Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform went to the Respect founding conference and participated in the policy formation. At the end of that conference it was clear that Respect was not a step towards a republican socialist party. On the contrary, compared to the token paper commitment to republicanism of the SA, it was a retreat. The aim is to build another Labour Party, around an alliance of muslims, trade unionists and economistic socialists, seeking ‘peace and justice’ under the British crown.

The boycott tactic
In 1905 when the Russian people needed a constituent assembly, the tsar came forward to offer a monarchist parliament (duma). It was easy for the liberals to present the latter as a step towards the former. Let us support it critically, said the liberals. But the Bolsheviks opposed it and called for a boycott. They argued that, when the tsar was trying to deceive people by playing to their democratic aspirations, we must be sharply hostile. The message must be very clear. This tsarist duma is a trick. It is not the way forward. The people will not get that message if we say we support it, even with criticism.

It is worth remembering that the boycott of the duma was a tactic. The Bolsheviks did not say they would never stand candidates on principle. The boycott was a tactic for a specific time and circumstance. Later, when tsarist reaction was victorious and the duma became an established fact of life, the Bolsheviks stood candidates.

During the formation of Respect, the destruction of the SA and the retreat from ‘paper republicanism’, the unity coalition was being sold as a new, exciting way forward. The mood among the majority of socialists in the SWP, International Socialist Group and CPGB was either enthusiastic or supportive of the new project. It was therefore essential that revolutionaries took a stand against this mood. The slogan ‘Join and build Respect’ does not do that. It complements the mood by tailing the liberal-Labour politics of the SWP.

The October 2004 conference must be met with a boycott and open criticism of the project. Our purpose is to pour acid on all the illusions being fostered by Respect leaders. A boycott is a form of struggle against the programme and organisation of Respect. It is a tactic in the struggle for a republican socialist party. It says we are not joining Respect and not building it or promoting it. It is not a republican socialist party and is not intending to become one.

In the June 10 elections we stood with the SADP and against Respect on grounds of programme and party. This was nothing to do with petty bourgeois moralising about Galloway. At the end of October 2004 when Respect’s formative period comes to an end, we should review our attitude towards it in the light of the conference. We should consider it in relation to the central fight for a republican socialist party.

The CPGB building Respect
Both the CPGB and Revolutionary Democratic Group made open criticism of Respect in the pages of the Weekly Worker. But the argument that such criticism would only be taken seriously because the CPGB called for the building of Respect is fallacious. On the contrary the criticism would be more serious if the CPGB had the courage to boycott Respect. The idea that we are fully on board the new ship, but are just drilling a few holes on the hull as we leave port, is not likely to be appreciated by the crew. It certainly did not please comrade Donovan.

Perhaps the CPGB did not boycott Respect because they hoped for a seat at the top table, as happened in the SA? But Respect is a very different kettle of fish. It was set up against what the SWP saw as the SA’s ‘ultra-left’ wing, which in its terms included the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, RDG and CPGB. Joining Respect to become part of its leadership was a non-starter.

Both the RDG and CPGB are in favour of a revolutionary communist party. However, in failing to relate this aim to the real state of mass consciousness, the CPGB converts this call for a revolutionary party into an ultra-left dogma. The choice for the CPGB is either to follow its dogma into splendid isolation or to shift its practical politics to the right. Through the SLP, SA and Respect, the CPGB chose the latter. But this move to the right has not been theorised. Herein lies the great danger.

In moving to the right to relate to mass consciousness, the CPGB has to choose between the path of a socialist-Labour party or the fight for a republican socialist party. The former is a form of economism which tails mass consciousness. The latter relates to mass consciousness, but seeks to raise it by diverting it onto the democratic road. This is the path which brings us closer to a revolutionary party.
However in posing ‘left’ the CPGB mobilises all its revolutionary fervour against the republican socialist party. Without recognising it, it has ‘diverted’ itself onto the low road of economism, giving aid and comfort to Respect, the latest vehicle for socialist-Labour politics. Starting from the revolutionary party, the CPGB ends up giving practical support to the socialist-Labour party.

When the CPGB backed the socialist-Labour programme of Respect, it abandoned the republican socialist programme of the SADP. It took sides with the former against the latter. In effect it endorsed the economism of the SWP and drew a line between itself and its former allies, including RDG comrades who had historically been its closest allies. The two groups in the socialist movement that have shown any commitment to militant republicanism were now divided over Respect.

It should be no surprise to find that comrade Donovan, whose background is in orthodox Trotskyism, can sympathise most with the socialist-Labourite logic of the CPGB. He became the most enthusiastic advocate of Respect. This in turn set the stage for the emergence of the Red Platform. But the Red Platform did not come out of thin air. It partly reflected the fact that the SADP did not simply collapse in the face of Respect.

The SADP did not obey the diktats of the SWP to wind up and give up. We took a militant line when the majority decided to boycott Respect. As a consequence a small number of SA militants fought back and continued their election campaign. This in turn had its impact inside the CPGB.

The stage was set for a fight within the CPGB between ‘supporting and building Respect’ and criticising it. As the June 10 elections drew near, so this tension heightened. On one side was comrade Donovan, who emphasised ‘build and support’, and on the other the Red Platform, which sought to raise the level of criticism. In the end the CPGB decided that, although the Red Platform was wrong, it would rejoin the SADP. The boycott tactic had at least helped achieve a small victory.
The proof of the CPGB line of ‘join and build Respect’ was in the eating. Hardly any CPGB members got involved in Respect on the ground. ‘Joining and building’ amounted to no more than advertising Respect in the Weekly Worker. This is not so much a criticism of the CPGB, when we consider its small size - made worse by the fact that the CPGB was now bereft of any real allies. The real contribution of the Weekly Worker was in its criticism of Respect. But this did not require public endorsement of Respect and burning its boats with former allies.

AWL and RDG
We should recognise that the AWL played an important role in resisting the collapse of the Socialist Alliance into Respect. The RDG, AWL and a few independents were able to form a bloc of ‘refuseniks’ through the SADP on the basis of boycotting Respect. When virtually everybody ran away from the SA, it was vital that some comrades stood firm and refused to panic. It was that resistance that gave encouragement to the CPGB’s Red Platform. The platform had something to relate to and could not simply be dismissed as an ally of the AWL.

The RDG and AWL are both in favour of a new mass workers’ party. Both agree that the idea that we can launch a mass revolutionary party in the current situation is ultra-left. A mass workers’ party cannot under current conditions be a revolutionary communist party. However, so far we cannot agree what kind of new party is necessary and possible. The RDG is in favour of a republican socialist party. The AWL seems to be in favour of a socialist-Labour party (‘seems’ reflects a more complex and contradictory position). As socialist-Labourites, the AWL does not rule out the idea of ‘reclaiming Labour’. Indeed from its position it would seem sectarian to do so. Voting Labour against Respect follows the same logic.

The RDG, on the other hand, is calling not just for a ‘break with Labour’. but for a break with the bankrupt ideology of Labourism. Our aim is to ‘reclaim’ republican socialists from the Labour Party to set up a new party. Republican socialists must begin to organise themselves independently of the Labour Party. We do not see MPs who break with the Labour Party to the left as the main enemy, despite any criticisms we might have of them. But they are only useful to the working class in so far as they grasp the need for a republican socialist party. If they do not, they become part of the problem and not part of the solution. This is how we viewed Scargill when he set up the SLP.

The RDG position is objectively to the left of the AWL. The AWL is simply adapting its politics to the prevailing socialist-Labour consciousness. This consciousness is more popular with those who are angry with Labour and want their old party back. But it is a political consciousness that looks back to a post-war society and labour movement that has gone for ever. The slogan of a republican socialist party points to a different future and a different way forward. It is in advance of where most workers are. It contradicts and ‘argues with’ economistic common sense.

However, during the period of the formation of Respect, the AWL appears to stand to the left of the RDG. The AWL took the mantle of the hardest opposition to Respect, accepting no compromises. There could be no compromise with Galloway and anything he does. Of course there is nothing wrong with highlighting the past failings of Galloway or indeed any other Labour MP. But neither should we deny his role in the more recent mass anti-war movement, for which he was expelled from the Labour Party.

However, the AWL used Galloway to create a smokescreen over Respect. If Galloway was the main enemy, then so was Respect. But the June 10 elections showed that this anti-Gallowayism was from the right, not from the left. The AWL supported Blair’s Labour Party against Respect. It had in effect formed an anti-Galloway bloc with Blair and his henchmen. Galloway is a terrible person compared to that god-fearing and oh-so-charming family man, Mr T Blair, a paragon of bourgeois virtue! (ie, hypocrisy).

When all this smoke has disappeared, the core issue between the AWL and the RDG is between the path of a socialist-Labour party and that of a republican socialist party. This might seem an obscure argument between one small and one tiny group on the fringe of the socialist movement. But it is the real choice that the politically conscious section of the working class faces.