10.11.2005

Debates from amongst the wreckage

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group gives his account of the issues involved at this weekend's attempt to launch another Socialist Alliance

In the last issues of Weekly Worker we have considered the failure of the Labourite Socialist Alliance (mark two) in its economistic politics. The SA fought the 2001 election on 'priority pledges' designed to appeal to old Labour supporters. This approach failed in the run-up to the Iraq war, as the Socialist Workers Party abandoned the alliance for the Stop the War Coalition. It paved the way for Respect. We also showed that in 2001 the SA opposition, although disunited, raised the issues of republicanism (CPGB), federalism (Alliance for Workers' Liberty and Revolutionary Democratic Group) and the lessons of the Scottish Socialist Party (RDG). It was not until 2003, when the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform was launched, that the opposition were able to unite. The SADP was a compromise amongst the various strands of opposition. It originated as a move by SA executive members Lesley Mahmood, Marcus Ström, Margaret Manning and Declan O'Neil. At its founding meeting the platform for "democracy inside the SA" merged with the forces gathered round the M3 Committee taking up the case for a workers' party. The founding statement of the SADP stood for the full version of the SA's People before profit programme, which was set out in three sections - for republicanism, social change and internationalism. The SADP stood for "a democratic republic". It held that People before profit has a series of democratic demands which, taken together, constitute a democratic republic or "republican democracy". These demands include: "Abolish the monarchy, the House of Lords, the privy council and crown powers"; and "Establish fixed-term democratic elections, based on proportional representation and accountability of all elected officials and all MPs to their constituents"; and "Disestablish the churches of England and Scotland - for the complete separation of church and state, and the freedom to worship, or not, as we choose"; etc, etc. The section, 'For internationalism', refers to a series of policies based on "international democratic and socialist principles". After this, socialism is identified as "making solidarity the guiding principle of society. We mean the working class organising to liberate itself from the rule of profit and creating its own democracy, abolishing the privileges of managers and officials. Every major industry should be reorganised on the lines of social provision for need - publicly owned and democratically controlled by workers and the community." The SADP did not have a specific section on the environment. The new SA proposal for an 'alliance for republicanism, internationalism, socialism and the environment' (Arise) seeks to redress that by identifying and including environmental issues. Despite the importance of what the SA and the SADP had to say on republicanism, in practice both did next to nothing to turn words into deeds. The new SA has some serious campaigning work to do if it is not to continue or even retreat from the 'talking shop republicanism' of the SADP. Where the SADP went beyond the SA was in promoting the call for a new workers' party, as put forward by the M3 committee. The SADP platform says: "We will fight for socialists to unite in a new socialist party, with ample rights of tendency, as exemplified by Rifondazione Comunista and the Scottish Socialist Party." The formulation reflected a compromise between those calling for a Marxist party and those calling for a "republican socialist party". This disagreement was hidden from view. But it was brought out in the open at the Birmingham conference in March 2005. The SA (Provisional) resolution was passed calling for a "republican socialist party along the lines of the SSP". At the same time a motion was passed from the CPGB for a Marxist party. Finally the question of federalism debated in 2001 appeared in the SADP statement. This calls for changes in the SA constitution. The third proposal calls for the SA to "adopt a structure that encourages affiliation and representation of affiliated organisations". Now the proposal from the SA (P) for the new SA seeks to implement this through the Council of Socialist Organisations. Far from the SA (P) retreating from the positions of the SADP, the very opposite is true. The proposal for the new SA seeks to turn the words of the SADP on republicanism into action. It seeks to bring out in the open the arguments about a mass party versus a Marxist party. It proposes to establish principled relations between affiliated socialist organisations and the SA membership. The proposals from the SA (P) are without doubt an advance on the SADP. What issues arise in the attempt to relaunch the SA? More or less the same issues as arose in 2001-03, albeit on a smaller scale. The principal divisions over the direction of the new SA appear in the resolutions. These concern the nature and name of the alliance, the role of democracy and republicanism and the kind of party that can take the working class movement forward in the present circumstances. What is the Socialist Alliance? I will use the term 'democratic socialist' rather than the more pejorative 'reformist' or 'social democrat', and the term 'communist' rather than 'Marxist' or 'revolutionary'. The SA was basically about the relationship between the democratic socialists, congregated in and around the Labour Party, and the various communist groups. The SA was never about communist unity around a communist programme. It was a project for socialist unity, bringing together democratic socialists and communists into an alliance. The need for this unity came directly from the class struggle. The advanced section of the class demanded that socialists of all kinds unite more effectively against the common New Labour enemy. The working class movement had little time for what was seen as petty squabbling in the face of major advances by the class enemy in the guise of the Labour government. A more united socialist movement would support and encourage real defections and rebellions from New Labour. We have seen this from Arthur Scargill, Ken Livingstone and George Galloway. We have seen the defection of the RMT and the FBU. The greater the unity of the socialist forces, the more effective the opposition to Blair. Workers have little time for how many theories of Trotskyism can dance on the head of a pin. The harsh reality of class struggle against New Labour leads to the necessity for a common programme of socialist unity. People before profit was such a programme. It was never a Marxist or revolutionary programme. The question for communists was whether they could defend a common programme despite their own reservations and criticisms. A natural tendency for left sectarianism and revolutionary phrase-mongering might lead communists to destroy a common programme. Of course, if the SA was strong and representative of the state of class consciousness, it would contain a majority of democratic socialists. The communist minority would have to recognise their real position in relation to the class. However, if communists accidentally find themselves in a majority because of the failure of the democratic socialists to fight for class unity it would be tempting to take control and adopt a revolutionary Marxist programme. This would be the mother of all pyrrhic victories. It would suggest that in the fight against Labour, communists act like sectarians. The SA was a response to the needs of the class struggle. It was destroyed by the SWP moving to the right. Can the lunatics run the asylum, now the SWP warders have fled to Respect? The answer is obvious - not if they behave like lunatics. The best fighters for socialist unity are the communists. In practice that means that communists must defend the SA as a socialist unity project. This requires political discipline to resist the temptation to convert the SA into a Marxist alliance for a Marxist party. What name? When the SA leadership did not stand candidates in the 2004 elections, John Pearson and Barry Biddulph proposed the electoral name 'Democratic Socialist Alliance (People Before Profit)' as a temporary and expedient means of getting the agreement of the electoral commission. This took on greater significance at the final SA conference in February 2005. John put down a motion to change the name of the Socialist Alliance to 'Democratic Socialist Alliance'. Had the SADP defeated the SWP and taken over the SA we would have immediately faced an argument for a name change. The strange thing about this is that had we won the vote against closure we would then have control of the SA electoral name. There would be no need for 'DSA'. It was now clear that the case for the DSA as an expedient for the electoral commission was not the real argument. John would oppose the SA name even when there were no electoral reasons. The name 'DSA' has a political meaning not fully explained or theorised. John Pearson gives two basic reasons for the November conference to adopt 'DSA' (email, October 26). Firstly, the name has already been used in elections and we need to "maintain some consistency". This is a weak, electoralist argument, implying that because the electoral commission forced us to abandon the SA name we are now stuck with the change. To paraphrase Marx, this is the past weighing like a nightmare on the brain of the living. The name 'Socialist Alliance' is in any case more consistent, since the vast majority of SA members have never been in the DSA, including the majority who were in the SADP. So if "consistency" is a serious argument, 'SA' wins hands down. Since the first of John's arguments does not really hold water, the real reason must be the other one. It is a logical connection to John's theory of the party. He says that we are from the SA and we "hold the intention of developing a democratic party for socialism". If this seems uncontentious, it is because nobody has yet thought about it and it has been theorised even less. Is a Democratic Socialist Party any socialist party like old Labour with platforms? Is it a Marxist Party with platforms? Finally, of course, the DSA is the name of an already existing organisation. Anybody who wants to join the DSA can already do so. It is surely wrong for any group, whether it be the RDG, CPGB or DSA, to come to the conference and try to get us to adopt its name. Presumably if we do not adopt their name the DSA will continue anyway. So it is no more than an attempt to vote us into a group we have not voluntarily joined. Republican or Labourite socialism Because of the dominance of Labourite and economistic ideas in the working class movement, republicanism is always a point of controversy. The proposed constitution has three references to republicanism. First, clause A2 says: "The Socialist Alliance promotes the ideas and principles of democracy and republicanism, an environmentally sustainable global socialism and working class internationalism." Clause A3 refers to the need for a "republican socialist party, along the lines of the Scottish Socialist Party". Clause A5 speaks of the present constitutional monarchist state as a barrier to democracy and socialism and identifies the working class as the class that can replace that with a "democratic, secular republic". All these clauses are being opposed by a combination of Mike Davies (Alliance for Green Socialism), John Pearson and Dave Spencer (both DSA). Mike Davies goes for a clean sweep. He wants to get rid of "democracy and republicanism" and "working class internationalism" from A2, remove the word "republican" from A3 and strike out clause A5 on republicanism and self-determination. The motion from Dave Spencer "rejects any notion that the SSP should be our model on political "¦ reasons such as its position with regard to republicanism". Although 'republicanism' is presented merely as an example, it is in fact the only aspect of the SSP politics that concerns Dave. John Pearson calls for "a working class socialist party", thus removing the word 'republican' and Mike Davies does the same, calling for "a socialist party organised along the lines of the Scottish Socialist Party". John Pearson claims that the aim of a refounded SA is a "democratic, secular republic" rather than the party. This is obviously false. To win a republic you need a mass working class republican party. The party is an absolutely indispensable tool for any serious republicanism. It is more accurate to say that if you want to avoid the fight for a republic then a socialist Labour party would be fine. That is the essence of the position of Mike, John and Dave. Labour is not and has never been a republican party and has never included the dreaded 'R' word in its aims. According to John, the notion of a democratic secular republic "has not been won in democratic debate within the socialist alliance movement". He says "it is an idea which is indeed worthy of debate". The words "worthy of debate" betray the thinking of liberalism, not Marx and Engels, for whom this question was never in doubt. But John has suffered some sort of amnesia when he forgets that the SA's People before profit is a republican programme. In the SADP the 'Democratic republic' is one of three sections in the policy statement. It is true that the SA executive ignored the republican aspects of People before profit. When they decanted to Respect they dropped it altogether. The demand for democratic republic was agreed by majority decisions. But the culture or 'rebellious spirit' of republicanism was completely absent. What we had was soft timid republicanism and the culture of Labourite-economism. Behind all this are the differences between liberal republicanism and militant republicanism. The controversy arises within in the wider society where the state is organised through a constitutional monarchy. Divisions within the society and amongst the working class are replicated in the socialist movement. All socialists claim as an article of the faith to be republicans. But that is as far as it goes. Then the arguments between the liberals and the militants begin. Liberal republicans spend more time opposing militant republicans than conducting republican agitation. Their republicanism is reactive against monarchist propaganda or against republican agitation. They think monarchist propaganda is offensive but republican agitation is unnecessary. They equate republicanism with anti-monarchism. They think the monarchy will be abolished in the aftermath or as an afterthought when we have established socialism. The militant republicans see the question in almost opposite terms as the beginning of the socialist transformation. The struggle for democracy is the process through which the working class comes to power. Consequently democratic republican agitation and organisation is obligatory in any serious socialist strategy. Militant republicanism is not simply about having a correct principled attitude. That must be the starting point. There is a subordinate, but important argument about strategic positioning of the new SA on the left. The two main left organisations involving socialists are Respect and the Labour Representation Committee. The former rejected republicanism at its founding conference and the LRC forgot to include it. The new SA must adopt a clear and distinct position as the only serious campaigners for democratic republicanism. The DSA want to kick republicanism into the long grass. They see themselves as Marxist revolutionaries, who like the SWP have no time for mere republicanism. They are effectively in alliance with Mike Davis (AGS) who equally wants to downgrade republicanism. But there is no pretence of revolutionary Marxism from Mike. He is opposing this from the right. What Mike and John have in common is the lowest common denominator approach. They can both live with the word "socialist party" which removes reference to the "highly controversial" or "intensely arguable" word "republic". They can unite around the words "socialist party" for which one means revolutionary Marxist party and the other a Labour Party albeit a greener version. John Pearson doesn't actually argue against militant republicanism although he thinks it is "intensely arguable". He attacks it by associating it with the RDG. Republicanism makes you a stooge for the RDG. There is a hint of the kind of moral panic that used to accompany 'reds under the bed' scares. The well-known witch-hunting approach doesn't actually argue about the issues, but attacks those putting it forward, questioning their motives etc. It is ludicrous to imply that militant republicanism is the property of the RDG or the CPGB. It has a long tradition from the Levellers, Tom Paine, the left Chartists, Marx and Engels and James Connolly for example. It is a weapon for the working class in its struggle for freedom. Marxism? Finally we have the debate over the question of a republican socialist party versus Marxist party, which began in the paper over the last two weeks. A republican socialist party starts from the fact that we live in a capitalist market economy, governed through the institutions of a constitutional (or parliamentary) monarchy. The party aims to replace the constitutional monarchy with a democratic, secular republic and the capitalist market economy with socialism. A republican socialist party is what it says it is - a militant working class party which fights for a democratic republic and socialism. However, it is more than that. It is the recognition of a democratic road to socialism. The fight for democracy and hence a democratic, secular republic is the political road the working class must travel if it is to come to power and make socialism a practical policy. To remove reference to the republic is therefore to sink to the most backward economism. This was stressed repeatedly by Marx and Engels and supported by Lenin in State and revolution. The final point is that a republican socialist party is non-ideological. It is defined by its tasks, not by its adherence to any various ideologies of Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyism.