19.01.2006

Wanted: a party with a Marxist programme

The January 21 conference on working class political representation called by the RMT - the largest rail union - looks as if it will be a pretty tame affair, says Mark Fischer

The RMT's website makes it crystal clear that "the conference will not be used to promote the establishment of a new political party and will be a non-resolution-based conference. It will be an open public debate to discuss the crisis in working class representation"  (www.rmt.org.uk).

It is questionable just how much "open public debate" will be squeezed into the three hours scheduled, given that six top-table speakers are already advertised, with the clear implication that more will be unveiled on the day. The truth is that the RMT leadership has organised this conference reluctantly, as union general secretary Bob Crow's unenthusiastic article in the Morning Star demonstrates (December 22 2005). As well as warning us not to expect too much, he explains that the conference will also be expected to cover rather nebulous issues, "such as how to reverse the continued decline in working class people standing for public office and the continuing low turnouts in elections."

The fact that the gathering is in the small hall of Euston's Friends Meeting House - which holds a maximum of 220 people - emphasises that the union leadership is looking forward to a pretty low-key affair. While Bob Crow is clear in private that a new organisation is needed, he has been equally firm that the January 21 conference will not openly endorse the call for one.

Essentially, the conference has been organised begrudgingly by the leadership because of the success of a motion to last year's RMT AGM that mandated it to do so. Despite the fact that it was actually passed with the formal support of the RMT executive, one activist told me that the leadership is "not quite ready for it" in political terms. "It is at the stage of beginning to recognise that something has to be done, but has not come to grips with what that actually means in the real world." This confusion will be amply reflected in the make-up of the top table, where Jean Lambert, MEP for the decidedly non-working class Green Party will sit, while there is no place for the Respect coalition, the current 'unity' home of the largest organisation of ostensible Marxists in the workers' movement, the Socialist Workers Party.

This lack of solid perspective is also revealed in the history of the RMT conference motion that produced Saturday's event. Originally proposed to the 2004 union AGM, at that stage the leadership managed to ensure that it was amended to take its emphasis away from new political forms towards the fight to reclaim the Labour Party. The RMT subsequently affiliated to the Labour Representation Committee, "re-formed to secure a voice for socialists within the Labour Party, the unions, and parliament" (www.l-r-c.org.uk).

In and of itself, the January 21 conference is unlikely to produce much tangible progress. But it is, of course, indicative of the more general turmoil and fluidity over this question of working class political representation. At least some of the burning issues associated with it will get some sort of an airing on the day.

For example, the Socialist Party launched its own 'Campaign for a New Workers' Party' at its annual school in November 2005 and has announced an open conference of the initiative scheduled for March 19. Apparently, this meeting will include the election of a committee to take the campaign forward.

This general fluidity and questioning of old organisational allegiances represented by the SP conference and implied by the RMT's event are to be welcomed. However, the key question remains - what exactly constitutes genuine working class political representation in the first place?

Its seems to us remarkable that 106 years after the formation of the Labour Party, many of those who dub themselves 'Marxists' in our movement finds themselves advocating the reinvention of Labourism in the 21st century.

The organisational/programmatic decline of the left continues unabated - and yet its members have proved themselves incapable of engaging as Marxists in mass politics.

Take Peter Taaffe, the leading figure of the Socialist Party, for example. This is the comrade who once told us idiotically that the collapse of the regimes of eastern Europe presaged "the red 90s". Today, he at least has the gumption to revise that assessment when he tells us "consciousness has been thrown back, partly because of the lingering effects of the collapse of the Berlin wall and the idea of socialism and a planned economy, together with the effects of neoliberal policies".

His conclusion? "It is therefore necessary for any new formation or party to proceed, in the first instance, with a basic programme, which can unite significant left forces, appealing above all to the new generation" (Socialism Today November 2005). In other words, yet another reformist attempt to recreate the Labour Party.

We welcome the RMT conference as part of the ongoing and growing debate in our movement over what sort of party our class needs. We will argue for what seems to us self-evident from the entire history of the 20th century - that a genuine political organisation of our class needs to be armed with the programme of Marxism.

Take task seriously

An e-posting from the Respect office on January 18 complains of Respect's exclusion from the platform at the RMT conference "despite speakers having been invited from the Scottish Socialist Party, the Green Party and the Socialist Party". We spoke to Greg Tucker - RMT activist, and member of Respect and the International Socialist Group - about what he hopes will come from the day

It is an important sign that people do want to discuss the vacuum that has been created by the move of New Labour to the right. There are all sorts of debates to be had about how we fill that space. At least it is a positive thing that the RMT is hosting a conference about this.

What we want is to move from discussion to taking the task of filling that vacuum seriously. We need to take steps to develop new political formations. Respect, I'm sure, will want to play its part in that process - not as the answer, but as part of the process of finding the answer. I hope the RMT and Respect can work together to push that process forward.

To me, there are historical parallels with the formation of the Labour Party. The forerunner of the RMT - the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants - was wedded to the idea of Lib-Lab MPs. It had Liberal MPs who were members of the union and supported what the union stood for. However, there was an argument by members of the Independent Labour Party that the union had to move beyond that towards the formation of an independent working class party. This came together eventually in the formation of Labour.

The debate then was never that the ASRS should join the ILP. It was how to form a new organisation, in which the ILP would play a part. I think that is the approach Respect should have. We shouldn't go there to demand that the RMT affiliate to Respect, but with the recognition that, if the RMT were to make a real move to help develop a new organisation, then there would be a great deal of support for that - far bigger than Respect can directly muster at this stage. We would have to be part of that process.