03.11.2005
The SA and the party question
Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group looks forward to the November 12 conference and argues against the CPGB call for a Marxist party as an immediate priority
On November 12 the Socialist Alliance (Provisional) will be holding a conference to consider relaunching the organisation. One of the central questions to be debated is the need for a new working class party. There are three formulations. At one extreme is the position of the SA (P), set out in its aims clause A3, which calls for winning "support in the working class movement for a democratically organised republican socialist party, along the lines of the Scottish Socialist Party". At the opposite extreme is a proposal from the CPGB, calling for "the fight for a Marxist Party as an immediate priority". In the middle, containing elements of both, is a motion from the Democratic Socialist Alliance, proposing "the organisational model of the Scottish Socialist Party", although politically the new formation should be "a workers' party based on the fundamentals of Marxism". The real differences are therefore most clearly exposed at the two opposites. Like any debate this has a context. The closure of the Socialist Alliance in February 2005 was a setback for the forces of socialist unity. It is not the first time nor the last that a defeated side begins to fall out among themselves. In March the SA (P) was set up to prepare for a relaunch. This was supported by a majority of the SA Democracy Platform, who agreed that, with the closure of the alliance, its Democracy Platform was now defunct. But the minority did not accept that and decided to form themselves into a new group, the Democratic Socialist Alliance. The question posed by the forthcoming conference is whether there is a viable plan for a new Socialist Alliance through which it can become relevant again in 2006. Central to that is the question of a new working class party. All sides will come to the conference and debate these issues. But the defeat of February 2005 will create its own reaction, the most likely being a turn to left sectarianism. The less real forces we have, the more 'revolutionary' we naturally become. It is not difficult to anticipate a tendency for a Socialist Alliance that declares for a fully-fledged democratic centralist party with a full-blooded revolutionary programme. Indeed, the smaller the conference, the more likely we are to have an emergency resolution calling for an immediate mass armed uprising. Not that this would imply any serious intent. The purpose would be to identify the cowards, traitors and conciliators in our own ranks so we can begin a new round of internecine warfare. We can do little to change the sectarian 'atmosphere' of defeat. What we must do is deal seriously with the political issues faced by the working class movement and plough on regardless. One major question the movement has to deal with is the small matter of the absence of a working class party. On the most abstract level this is a debate between the 'mass party' and the 'Marxist party'. This is about politics, not numbers. On the side of the mass party is the SA (P) case for a republican socialist party, which is argued in one of a number of discussion papers circulated by the officers (see below). Of course, the Revolutionary Democratic Group would like a mass RDG party. From our point of view this would be ideal. But unfortunately this 'perfect' solution is not on the cards either now or in the foreseeable future. That will not change even if we argue for it. If we see a mass CPGB party as the next best thing, this will not happen either. This is despite the fact that the CPGB have been arguing for this for years. What we have to take account of is the current state of the working class movement and the consciousness of the active layer of the class. A mass working class party is needed now if there is to be effective opposition to New Labour. This is something recognised in the movement, not just among the Marxist groups. If a mass party is to be created in the current period it will not be either an RDG or CPGB party. Of course, simply to counterpoise the mass party as an opposite to the Marxist party is not to see the dialectic. A Marxist party (ie, Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist) can arise from within a mass party. Indeed a mass party would provide the most fertile soil for the green shoots of real Marxism to grow and flower. The dialectic of class struggle does not mean that a Marxist Party will automatically arise or even succeed if we build a mass party. It will depend on the politics and struggle of Marxists within it. In this sense I agree with the arguments put by Dave Parks (Weekly Worker October 27). In the current situation the slogan of a mass party links directly to the Scottish Socialist Party. The SSP is a small mass party. It is a party which has succeeded in winning a certain hegemony over Scottish socialists. It is not a Marxist or revolutionary Trotskyist party. Yet Marxism is accepted as a legitimate part of the party. The election of six SSP MSPs testifies to a party which can relate to the broader layer of the working class. We cannot rest content with an analysis that stops at the door of the SSP. We have to take the argument one step further. The progressive aspect of the SSP is not simply in its declared aim of socialism, but the fact that it addresses the issue of government, democracy and constitution. The SSP stands for a Scottish republic. Democracy and republicanism mark out the SSP from the Labour Party. If as internationalists we generalise from the SSP, we arrive at the republican socialist party, not Scottish nationalism. In 2001 the CPGB virtually came to the same conclusion through its intervention in the Socialist Alliance. The CPGB called on the SA to "prioritise democracy" by putting forward a set of democratic republican demands. At about the same time the CPGB began agitation for a "Socialist Alliance party". If it became a party this 'prioritise-democracy Socialist Alliance party' would no longer be an alliance. It would simply be a republican socialist party. The difference was that the CPGB insisted that such a party must be Marxist. We on the other hand only insist that Marxists take a lead in creating this prioritise-democracy socialist party. It should be noted that 'prioritise democracy' is not a reference to the internal party regime, but political democracy in relation to government. We should take another leaf out of the CPGB book as regards the "non-ideological party". A republican socialist party is defined by the historic tasks it sets itself and the class interests it serves. It is not defined by adherence to a particular ideology or set of theories such as Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism or Trotskyism. Workers are more likely to define the party in terms of what it is going to do. Intellectuals are more concerned to identify which theory or ideology it holds. A non-ideological party is not a party without ideas or theories. In the same way, a secular society is not one without religions. On the contrary without an official state religion there can be the maximum freedom for different religions. A non-ideological (or 'secular') party does not claim to hold an official theory of Marxism, Leninism or Trotskyism. But it may contain a range of theories and ideologies, which have the full freedom of expression. Let us consider the approach taken by Marx by comparing the First and Third Internationals. The First International was launched at a time when the working class had still not fully recovered from the defeat of the 1848 revolution and the Chartist movement. The Third International was a Marxist or communist international and the product of a world war, mass revolt by the European working class and the Russian Revolution. The working class, especially in Russia, had become a revolutionary class and built a mass revolutionary party. It was the revolutionary wave that reached its peak in 1919 that provided the real impetus for the Third International Marxist party. In 1864 the situation was very different. The First International was neither a Marxist party nor a revolutionary party. But it was an attempt to bring together the mass organisations of the working class. Marx did not stand back or suggest that it was up to somebody else to set it up so he could later join it. By being involved from the beginning Marx was able to have a major influence. It was not a Marxist party, yet Marx wrote its statutes. The launch in September 1864 involved workers' leaders who represented real class forces. The committee set up to launch the new party included Owenites, Chartists of various types, Proudhonists and supporters of Mazzini. When Marx drafted its 'Inaugural address to the Working Men's Association' he had to compromise to keep the diverse forces on board (see A Nimtz Marx and Engels - their contribution to the democratic breakthrough New York 2000, p180). Marx recognised that the revolutionary consciousness of the working class in England had disappeared and the working class had become bourgeois in its attitude. On a wider level he had a sober recognition that the political consciousness of Europe's working class in 1864 was not what it had been in 1848. However, Marx seized the opportunity of developing a broad mass working class party as the means of re-engagement with the working class. Marx explained that "it was difficult to frame the thing so that our view should appear in a form that would make it acceptable to the present outlook of the workers' movement "¦ It will take time before the revival of the movement allows the old boldness of language to be used" (ibid p180). Marx and Engels agreed they must be strong in deeds, but mild in manner. They believed that in a broad mass party a split was inevitable. But their tactic was to delay a split as long as possible. Marx's approach teaches us something relevant or today. So there is no misunderstanding we are not calling here for a relaunch of the First International. What we can learn from Marx is something about the relationship between 'Marxists' and the working class movement and the state of class consciousness. Ignoring this and simply arguing for a Marxist party is not 'Marxism', but a species of left propagandism. Now let us come back to the middle position from the DSA group calling for "the organisational model of the Scottish Socialist Party" and "a workers' party based on the fundamentals of Marxism". The DSA clarifies the meaning of the "organisational model" of the SSP as "a unitary, democratic - ie, non-federalist - party with full liberty of tendency, platform and faction". Unfortunately the SSP is not non-federalist. Before it was possible to launch the SSP its forerunner, the Scottish Socialist Alliance, had a looser, federal structure. When the SSA became a party it did not entirely abandon federal structures. Clause 2.2 says: "Trade union bodies - including trade union branches, shop steward committees and district, regional or national-level trade union organisations - can affiliate to the SSP. Affiliated organisations have the right of representation to regional councils and national council". Far from this being "unitary, democratic", this relationship with trade unions is closer to the federal structure of the Labour Party. The "organisational model" of SSP is its constitution with all its politics stripped away. The SSP is for Scottish independence, a democratic republic, socialism and internationalism. The DSA is not in favour of any of this. The reference to the SSP boils down to freedom for platforms and tendencies in some form of Marxist, Leninist or Trotskyist party. The DSA position is in reality a democratic centralist Marxist party, with the freedom for platforms and tendencies. The model here is the Bolshevik Party (1917-18), whose democratic centralism allowed tendencies and platforms a wide degree of freedom, including the right to produce their own newspapers. This was a real mass working class party. It was the outcome of a revolutionary mass working class movement. Unfortunately our situation today is more like 1864 than 1917-18. Instead of calling a spade a spade, the DSA bows its head to the SSP. When the smokescreen about the SSP is stripped away, the DSA has basically the same position as the CPGB: "the fight for a Marxist party as an immediate priority". Matthew Jones, a supporter of the DSA, says that "Marxists should openly argue for a Marxist Party in whatever formation comes into being in the next period. In that sense I would agree with the CPGB motion. That it is our job - to fight for a Marxist party." The issue is "whatever formation comes into being". It is not good enough to leave that an open question. "Whatever formation" is surely an oblique reference to the mass party. In this we need the approach taken by Marx in 1864. We need the inspiration of the SSP. Instead of another economistic Labour party, we need a mass party that "prioritises democracy". In other words we need a republican socialist party. On the face of it we should expect a bloc between the DSA and the CPGB in support of the Marxist party on one side and on the other the republican socialist party along the lines of the SSP. However, these clear lines of demarcation are not quite what they seem. The CPGB takes forward the logic of its position. If we need a Marxist party we must engage with the majority of Marxists, who are in the Socialist Workers Party. The SWP is in Respect. Therefore it is necessary to enter Respect. This is anathema to the DSA. They seem to conceive of the Marxist party without the vast majority of Marxists. That sounds like suspiciously like another sect. In any case the CPGB has two faces. One of them is much closer to the RDG as the 2001-02 CPGB campaign for a 'prioritise-democracy Socialist Alliance party' suggests. That implies the CPGB could live with our position, even if they did not love it. Their other face is for taking a left position, which may seem ideal in the atmosphere of a defeated socialist alliance movement, but little use for Respect. So it really depends on how the CPGB decide to play it. In today's conditions we need a mass party of the working class. Therefore the real choice is between the economistic politics of Labourism, as advocated by the Labour Representation Committee and imitated by Respect, and a republican socialist party along the lines of the SSP. At the November 12 conference the SA(P) officers will be proposing a viable plan for a new Socialist Alliance. This will present a campaigning perspective, a clear position on the mass party, and a new federal constitution that can encourage and facilitate socialist organisations to cooperate despite our differences. Surely something new is about to Arise. Discussion paper 5 - the case for a republican socialist party The SA (P) clause A3 says: "The Socialist Alliance aims to win support in the working class movement for a democratically organised republican socialist party, along the lines of the Scottish Socialist Party". The purpose of this paper is to elaborate on that aim. 1. A republican socialist party We live in a capitalist market economy, governed through the institutions of a constitutional (or parliamentary) monarchy. These are two important defining characteristics of the economics and politics of the United Kingdom. Capitalism concentrates wealth into the hands of a small minority who own and control the bulk of the country's productive resources. The constitutional monarchy concentrates political power in the hands of a small minority of bureaucrats and politicians. Economic wealth and political power are united in the service of the ruling class. A republican socialist party aims to replace the constitutional monarchy with a democratic, secular republic and the capitalist market economy with socialism. The party seeks fundamental change in the distribution of power and wealth in our society. Therefore at the most basic level, a republican socialist party is what it says it is - a militant working class party which fights for a democratic republic and socialism. Republicanism and socialism However, a definition of a working class party in terms of its historic tasks or aims does not fully capture its essence. The term 'republican socialist' are not just two words put next to each other. They form a unity of the opposites. On one side 'republican' is a political demand. On the other side 'socialist' refers to the social transformation of the economy. What then is the relationship of politics and economics? We can answer this by reference to Marx and Engels, who considered that winning political power was essential for the socialist transformation of society. Their emphasis was on the class struggle as a political struggle to win power. Engels says that "if one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power in the form of a democratic republic" (VI Lenin Selected works Vol 2, Moscow 1976, p288). The democratic republic was seen as a strategic political objective on the road to socialism. This was not accepted by the leadership of German socialism. In the kaiser's Germany the SDP avoided the republican question in the party's Erfurt programme. Engels made this the focal point of his criticism of the draft of the Erfurt Programme. In 1892 Engels says that "Marx and I, for 40 years, repeated ad nauseam that for us the democratic republic is the only form in which the struggle between the working class and the capitalist class can first be universalised and then culminate in the decisive victory of the proletariat" (A Nimtz Marx and Engels - their contribution to the democratic breakthrough New York 2000, p268). There is no question of confusing a democratic, secular republic with socialism. They are not the same. Yet, far from contradicting socialism, the arrival of a democratic republic opens the road to socialism. A democratic republic creates the circumstances and the means by which the working class can win political power and begin the socialist transformation of society. Programme This has consequences for the programme. The 'immediate programme' is the programme with which the party conducts its current agitation. Whether this is a single programme or is called a 'minimum' or 'transitional' programme does not matter. If a party formulates its programme in terms of a 'minimum' and 'maximum' programme, the demand for a democratic republic must be in the minimum programme. Therefore a republican socialist party is a working class party that recognises the demand for a democratic secular republic as a strategic goal in the party's immediate programme. Russian Social Democratic Labour Party and German Social Democratic Party The RSDLP and German SDP were the two most important working class parties at the beginning of the 20th century. The former can be identified as a republican socialist party because the demand for a democratic republic was central to its minimum programme. The SDP accepted the kaiser's regime. Like the British Labour Party they settled for social reform under a constitutional monarchy. 2. Scottish Socialist Party The SSP considers a Scottish republic as the road to socialism. The SSP is therefore a republican socialist party as we have defined it, albeit with a nationalist perspective. The party has evolved from its early emphasis on Scottish independence towards greater emphasis on democracy and republicanism. The 'Declaration of Calton Hill' signifies a shift that is taking place, even though the issue of nationalism remains. Our call for a republican socialist party does not depend on the existence of the SSP. The words "along the lines of the Scottish Socialist Party" in clause A3 are not essential to define the party. We can identify its politics without reference to the SSP. If the SSP disappeared tomorrow, socialists in England, Scotland and Wales would still need to fight for a republican socialist party. Nevertheless the SSP provides important lessons for the working class movement in England. The SSP shows it is possible to build a mass party to the left of the Labour Party. It has united the majority of the socialist movement and provides a genuine challenge to the Scottish Labour Party. The SSP is democratically organised with rights for platforms and tendencies. It is starting to get support from trade unions such as the RMT, CWU and FBU. The Scottish example shows that a republican socialist party is not an abstract theory. It is a feasible and practical answer to the vacuum on the left. If a republican socialist party is possible in Scotland, it is also possible in England and Wales (or for that matter Ireland). The example of the SSP should help to inspire the struggle for a new party. The full document can be read at www.democracyplatform.org.uk
Worker