07.06.2006

Wrong 'new layers'

Dave Isaacson reports on the Leeds launch of the Campaign for a new Workers' Party

More than 30 people attended the Leeds launch of the Campaign for a New Workers' Party on Tuesday May 30.

Over a third of those present were young comrades who had come along with Workers Power and the Revolution youth group. WP has clearly had some success recruiting young comrades in Leeds and other areas lately. They have been heavily involved in youth rights, anti-deportation and anti-racist work and are now throwing their energies into the CNWP. It was good to see that one of the two platform speakers was from WP - especially as the group seemed to have more comrades present than the Socialist Party, the CNWP's main driving force. The other speaker was leading SPer and CNWP treasurer Fiona Pashazadeh.

The WP speaker opened by stating that the "starting point of the discussion" had to be "the need to overthrow capitalism"; that "reforms are not enough"; and that we must fight for "what is necessary for the working class to be emancipated "¦ we need to argue for a revolutionary programme now". Despite the differences we have with WP - not least over party democracy, reactionary anti-imperialisms and Labour Party work - this was a good opening that pushed home the central point: that we must fight for "what is necessary "¦ a revolutionary programme". Besides ourselves in the CPGB it seems that Workers Power is the only other group that calls, in formal terms at least, for the left to unite around a Marxist programme.

Comrade Pashazadeh attempted to counter these calls for a revolutionary party by arguing that the CNWP is "not just about uniting the left groups" and that "we need to hold back" and wait for "new layers" to join before we can agree on any programme. Of course this fudge on the question of reform or revolution is nothing like an equal compromise. It is a victory for those espousing reformism (the SP), as that is what it will limit us to.

In the discussion that followed, all of those that spoke were members of political groups, so we did not get to hear from the raw 'new layers' that the SP thinks we might frighten away with our talk of revolution. These new layers are clearly a phantom right wing analogous to the "muslim activists" that Alex Callinicos and the Socialist Workers Party use in Respect. Both serve as convenient excuses for the SP and SWP to drop principles in the search for votes and the ability to "make a difference".

The 'new layers' that were present were to a large extent those brought along by Revolution. Unlike what the SP pessimists will tell you, there is no necessity for a reformist halfway house in order to attract such people - the first comrade to speak in the discussion argued that we must "fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat". All the SPers present could do was dismiss these young comrades as "ultra-left" and claim that Revolution had not brought any "real working class people" along. As Respect member and CPGB supporter Sachin Sharma commented, comrades do not cease to be "real working class people" once they join a left group.

I spoke next and argued that revolutionaries and Marxists (which the SP claims to be) must fight for what they believe in. If we are to win the allegiance of the working class, we must be honest. We cannot pretend to be reformists for now and reveal our true revolutionary colours when we think workers are ready for it. We start as a minority, but the advantage we have is that only revolutionary politics can provide solutions, whereas reformism is utterly incoherent.

I argued that the CNWP's declaration is a recipe for another (micro-) Labour Party. Any genuine working class alternative needs to be based on the ideology of Marxism. If it is not, it will be based upon another ideology that, in the last analysis, will inevitably be a bourgeois ideology.

Only two SP comrades spoke from the floor in the discussion. Regional organiser Alistair Tice attempted to theorise the SP rejection of the perspective of building a revolutionary party. He argued that the collapse of the USSR had allowed international capitalism to go onto the ideological offensive. As part of this the Labour Party had undergone a qualitative change from bourgeois workers' party to bourgeois party. As such he disagreed with WP members who had said that we must build a new workers' party quickly, as Labour is likely to swing back to the left in opposition.

Following the political discussion it emerged that there were also differences when it came to how the CNWP should operate in Leeds. The SP did not want the campaign to meet again publicly until October. Clearly political discussions of this sort are an embarrassment to them and they would prefer to continue to quietly sign people up to the declaration as the SP, rather than have to work with the other left groups involved and engage them in political discussion. WP argued that we should have monthly "open forums" that start with a political discussion on a topic decided beforehand and then go on to sort out organisational business. This was clearly preferable to the SP's proposition and won in the vote.

Unfortunately SP and WP comrades rejected comrade Sharma's call that we elect a steering committee that includes representation from all of the groups involved. WP accepted that it will become necessary before long, while the SP wanted everything to be kept ad hoc to enable those elusive 'new layers' to take a lead.