24.02.2005
Communists and alliances
As expected, discussion on Respect and how communists should relate to it was the main theme of the CPGB school on 'Communists and alliances' held in London over the weekend of February 19-20. Three openings which grappled with the attitude of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky to communist work in alliances helped illuminate the Respect debate. Mark Fischer spoke on 'Marx and alliances' - particularly the work of Marx and Engels immediately before and after 1848. At that time in Germany the working class was small and undeveloped, and it had been uncertain whether the bourgeoisie could play any progressive role in the democratic revolution. That matter was soon decided: the German bourgeoisie were cowardly, pathetic and wanted a compromise with the king of Prussia. Yet even today, the more stupid elements of the left still argue in terms of the 'tasks of bourgeois democracy': they spread the lie that democracy comes automatically with the development of capitalism and the means of production. Marx and Engels, on the contrary, argued that workers must play the leading role in the battle for democracy, which meant acting in alliance with other classes and their parties. Specifically the peasants and the urban petty bourgeoisie. The Marx-Engels team criticised those such as Gottschalk who tried to confine the working class to economic struggles to ensure it remained uncontaminated by the democratic movement. Marx and Engels emphasised the need to fight for the space for the proletariat to develop both organisationally and politically. In their newspaper articles they explained the difference between the bourgeoisie and the democratic movement, and also between the various classes within the democratic alliance. They saw their role as cohering a working class and communist pole within the broad movement, and developing organisational links with the peasantry and the urban petty bourgeoisie. Comrade Fischer described the lessons Marx and Engels drew from the failure of the 1848 revolution. First, the bourgeoisie had to be regarded as an enemy. Secondly, while cementing alliances with other parties, the proletariat must at all times maintain its political independence - possible only through programmatic clarity. In the debate comrade Anne Mc Shane argued that, although it is broadly true that democracy comes from below, the real situation is more nuanced. The recent freedom of information and human rights acts did not result from an upsurge from below. The bourgeoisie knows that it is strengthened and its rule is stabilised by being superficially democratic. John Bridge replied that such legislation does not represent democracy. Capitalism has an interest in the rule of law and overcoming arbitrariness, because unlike in other state forms the ruling class in capitalism, the capitalist class, is separate from the bodies of armed men which form the essence of the state. Sections of the left peddle the fraud that the advance of democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries was an inevitable part of the development of capitalism. Was it any wonder then, that the working class rejects socialism, especially when the bureaucratic socialist sects dissociate our project from democracy and deny it in their internal practice? Comrade Tina Becker pointed out that unlike in Marx's day the working class is now the majority of the population, so making revolution should be much easier. However, there is the small matter of the subjective factor, which makes it crucial for communists to fight for political clarity. Part of that fight entails engaging in alliances in a principled way. Cameron Richards said in such different political conditions he is not convinced that the experience of Marx and Engels, or Lenin, or even Trotsky with his united front versus popular front prism, provide an adequate blueprint for how to deal with Respect. As in previous schools, comrades Bridge and Mike Macnair disagreed about the peasantry. Comrade Macnair argued that the interests of the peasants and petty proprietors are in antagonistic contradiction to those of the working class. The interests of the peasants are not expressed by democracy, but by a Napoleon or Stalin or Mao figure bringing 'justice'. Comrade Bridge replied that although, as comrade Macnair said, Marx and Engels did not solve the problem of the peasantry, they did lay the theoretical groundwork. While the class interests of the proletariat and the peasantry were indeed different, they were not antagonistic. In 1848 the proletarian programme of the Communist League was to make the peasantry part of the solution, and that meant the working class had to spread its revolution internationally. The question of proletarian alliances with the peasant class was discussed further by comrade Bridge in his talk introducing the second session, on alliances in 'The Leninist tradition'. In Russia the communists faced the same problem as did Marx and Engels in 1848 - of a small working class and a predominantly peasant economy. Lenin knew that without an alliance with the peasantry the revolution could succeed only in the cities, counterrevolution would then crush them in the manner of the Paris Commune of 1871 - many tens of thousands would be killed. Comrade Bridge explained the different formulations of the nature of the alliance presented by Lenin and Trotsky, who were both agreed on its necessity. Comrade Bridge went on to give an account of the Bolsheviks' promotion of alliances that their participation in the tsar's duma gave them the chance to build - not only with the Mensheviks and peasant-based Socialist Revolutionaries, but with the bourgeois liberal Cadets. After the revolution the Bolsheviks faced two main tasks: defeating counterrevolution at home and spreading the revolution to Europe. In both of these they had to locate enemies and allies. Comrade Bridge spoke about the role of Lenin in the formation of the CPGB in 1920, using his authority to persuade the different Marxist groups to unite, and also to work in the Labour Party. In Britain, as in all circumstances, Lenin urged comrades to adopt whatever tactics are necessary to advance the cause of the working class. Bolshevism has many lessons for us, and one of the most important is the recognition that a given tactic, a given alliance, might be valid at one time, but unprincipled at another. In working out its tactics towards the rainbow of petty proprietor parties, argued comrade Macnair, the working class needs to be aware of the tension between its need for independent organisation and independent political expression, on the one hand, and its need for a strategic bloc, on the other. Tactics have to be infinitely flexible, and might even include working inside bourgeois parties in the right circumstances. Comrade Mc Shane said at the time of the Russian Revolution society was moving to the left and communists were more likely to be able to influence their alliance partners. By contrast, in the current period of reaction and political calm communists in such alliances are liable to be pulled to the right. Comrade Fischer agreed, but pointed out that the Bolsheviks did not exist in a situation characterised by advance all the time. Comrade Peter Manson thought that, the weaker we are, the more we need to enter into alliances, despite this danger of movement to the right. Comrade Bridge pointed out that, the stronger we are, the more chance we have of making alliances. Several comrades made the point in different ways that if communists do not enter into alliances they cannot effectively engage with society, cannot influence events, and what they say becomes meaningless and fossilised. Communists should fight for their programme to become hegemonic: it is not inevitable that they will be pulled to the right. Comrade Bridge repeated that a party that does not engage with others in alliances is not engaging in real politics but in a form of religion. In comrade Lee Rock's words, they are reduced to "Spart-like behaviour", standing on the sidelines handing out leaflets and explaining why they are not supporting whatever movement is taking place. Comrade Macnair began his opening on 'Trotsky and popular fronts' by describing how orthodox Trotskyists often find themselves in precisely the situation described by comrade Rock, partly because they refused to have anything to do with popular fronts. He gave a comprehensive history of the popular fronts of the 1930s, the reasons for and consequences of their formation. He also described the theoretical elaboration of the popular front idea by post-war academic Marxism, and Trotsky's criticisms of the strategy. Even though Trotsky was obviously wrong about capitalism being in its final death agony in 1939 and containing an underlying dynamic towards fascism, it is still true, as Trotsky argued, that the instability of mass political consciousness means that it is impossible to stop a revolution halfway at a stage of stable reforms: the revolution has to be completed or be crushed. Numerous examples of this in the 20th century demonstrate that the popular front policy does not work, the comrade pointed out, since its aim is to advance the working class only up to a given point. Comrade Macnair described how even in Britain, where the Communist Party was very weak, it still tried to form alliances with bourgeois forces, but succeeded only in attracting the shadow of the bourgeoisie: actors, vicars and peaceniks. Comrade Macnair concluded his introduction by pointing out that unlike many of his modern followers, Trotsky himself did not advocate keeping a "spotless banner" completely aloof from popular fronts. Far from it. He advised revolutionaries to join the socialist parties (even as they were engaging in the popular front governments of France and Spain) in order to attempt to draw a class line and break the workers from bourgeois forces. Comrade Manson maintained that the parallels between the popular fronts of the 1930s and Respect are not exact. The 'official communist' parties were motivated by the diplomatic interests of the Soviet state, and to demonstrate to the socialists that they could now be trusted not to go too far they tried to pull in token bourgeois elements as a form of guarantee. But the SWP is motivated only by the need to recruit to the SWP and there is no social democratic party in Respect which it needs to reassure. Comrade Richards pointed to an "element of confusion" in the ranks of the CPGB, about whether an alliance needs to contain a definitively bourgeois component to be classified as a popular front. This confusion is common on the left. Many make the mistake of looking at the class character of the forces involved, rather than the politics. As comrade Jack Conrad wrote in 2003, he said, the essence of the popular front is that a revolutionary organisation abandons its programme in the face of forces to its right. The underlying theme of the weekend was tackled head-on in the final session of the school - on Respect and our approach to it - which was informed by the historical lessons brought out in the first three sessions. Comrade Bridge recounted the history of the Socialist Alliance, our hopes that it would lead to a united Communist Party, and that the SWP leadership had already destroyed it before they saw two million people on the February 15 2003 demonstration and decided to form a larger alliance which they hoped would draw in these millions. As the school had made clear, communists favour alliances, but insist on the maintenance of working class political independence. Respect is not just an episodic alliance: it is an officially registered party, with a non-socialist programme determined by its largely phantom right wing. The SWP describes Respect as an alliance between secular socialists and muslim activists, and formulates its policy according to this definition. In practice this often means an alliance between the SWP and the Muslim Association of Britain, the British section of the Muslim Brotherhood, even though MAB participates more in the spirit than in force. Comrade Bridge spent some time discussing the history and politics of the Muslim Brotherhood, and argued that, although the MAB has moved far away from the fascistic politics that its parent organisation espoused in the 1930s, it is not, as SWP leader John Rees tries to imply, an organisation of the working class: while it is true that many of its members are working class, the politics of the group are not, comrade Bridge said. The SWP is a centrist organisation which is constantly being pulled further to the right by this largely phantom right wing. However, the CPGB and Weekly Worker act as another phantom in Respect - phantom because the SWP tries to silence debate, gerrymanders delegates and excludes our members. Despite that we were able to support or put forward motions to Respect's October 30-31 conferences which compelled the SWP to show its true colours by voting against its former 'principles'. Comrade Toby Abse did not think the MAB "conversion to democracy" was genuine: he described it as a clerico-fascist organisation putting on a moderate face to facilitate its work in Britain. He said the SWP has theorised its approach to the MAB by comparing it with the CPGB's work among the Jewish community in the 1930s. But it is a false analogy. The CPGB worked with secular and working class Jews: it did not go to the self-appointed community leaders in the synagogues. The SWP is moving away from orthodox Trotskyism, he said. He disagreed with those who claim Respect is effectively a continuation of the Socialist Alliance. In the SA all the groups were socialist, it was an alliance of socialist groups, part of the working class. Respect is not part of the workers' movement, and entering a bloc like Respect, as the CPGB has done, is a step to the right. He urged cooperation with existing socialist forces, however weak, and said we need an organisation which addresses itself to the whole working class rather than ineffectively to only a section of it. There was some discussion on the resolution passed at the CPGB aggregate in December, that the CPGB will call for a vote only for working class candidates in the 2005 general election, and specifically not other Respect candidates such as those of MAB. Most comrades agreed with this position. Comrade Mc Shane among others said Yvonne Ridley peddles profoundly reactionary politics and the CPGB should never have called for a vote for her. Comrade Macnair said the differentiation between working class candidates, who we will support, and non-working class Respect candidates such as Ridley, who we will not support, is an effective way of dramatising the need for working class independence in a popular front such as Respect. This goal of dramatising the need for working class independence was the reason why he had previously argued for the CPGB to refuse to back Ridley and MAB candidates in the 2004 European elections, he said. In reply to those comrades who argue that such differentiation between candidates was impossible with a list system such as was used in the European elections, comrade Macnair argued that there was no possibility of any Respect candidate except the first on a list being elected and we should have drawn up our policy in relation to that candidate. Comrade Mc Shane supported the aggregate resolution, but said we need to go further, and challenge candidates to state their position on secularism and other principles before offering them our support. Comrade Bridge disagreed, saying that the correct tactic now is to support working class candidates, not to put conditions on our support. The aim must be to drive a wedge between them and the non-working class forces. Comrade Lee Rock was dubious about the aggregate resolution: as all Respect candidates will be standing on the same platform, it is impossible to differentiate between them. In reply to this, comrade Manson pointed out that the Respect programme has been formulated in such a way that it can be interpreted differently by different candidates. Comrade Richards said we should be willing to work with MAB on specific issues, but to have a common political programme with them is going too far. He said there is still some confusion in the CPGB about Respect, and a number of different approaches, and we should continue to debate the question. Comrade Bridge summarised the two dangers we must avoid: the sectarian uselessness of the 'party of the pure', on the one hand; and compromising our principles in order to forge alliances on the other. He emphasised that, for Marxists, no tactics are impermissible if they serve the interests of the working class and the world revolution. Mary Godwin
Worker