02.11.2006

Marxist party - an illusion

In the absence of a world revolutionary party, a national communist party could only be a capitulation to British nationalism, argues Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group

After 1920 the working class in Britain was represented by two parties - the Labour Party and the Communist Party of Great Britain. Labour provided a channel for trade union interests and the desire of working people for reform. The CPGB stood for the revolutionary aims of the class. Of course, the CPGB was taken over by Stalinism and abandoned a revolutionary perspective. By the 1980s Trotskyism was replacing a declining CPGB, which collapsed in 1991. The Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party are now the main Trotskyist organisations to the left of the Labour Party.

Today it has become increasingly obvious that the socialist and working class movement has a major problem. Labourism is in crisis, Stalinism has collapsed and Trotskyism is failing. There is neither a mass party of the working class nor a party of the revolutionary minority. These two issues can be discussed separately. But the problem of the mass party and the revolutionary minority cannot be solved separately, because they are interconnected.

The working class and socialist movement is already involved in a process to create a new mass party involving the trade unions. The Scottish Socialist Party has gone farthest along this road in winning affiliation from the RMT union and moving away from Labourism. Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party was the first attempt to find an answer. Since then we have had the first two Socialist Alliances, Respect, the Labour Representation Committee and the Campaign for a New Workers' Party. None of them have the answer, because they do not recognise the crisis of democracy in the UK. It is absolutely necessary to break with the politics of Labourism. We have to find inspiration from Chartism, the first mass, democratic, working class party.

Mike Macnair was mistaken when he said that the new Socialist Alliance (or SA3) supports a new Labour Party ('Developing a Marxist programme', October 19). It does not. It calls for a republican socialist party. This is something the economistic Labour Party has never been in its entire history. A republican socialist party represents an alternative politics to Labourism, because it puts to the forefront of its political message the urgent need for the radical renewal of political democracy.

Revolutionaries should be involved in the struggle for a mass republican socialist party. This must be conducted in the LRC, Respect, the CNWP and the SSP. The fight for a mass party does not contradict the struggle for a revolutionary party. On the contrary it take us along the only correct path which leads to the working class movement, by taking into account the current state of class political consciousness.

The November 4 conference called by Critique and sponsored by the Democratic Socialist Alliance and CPGB around the slogan of a Marxist party relates only to one side of the problem seen in isolation: what we do about the crisis of Trotskyism and the revolutionary party. We do not think the slogan of a Marxist party is correct. The vast majority of Marxists are unlikely to attend. But the Revolutionary Democratic Group has agreed to sponsor this conference. We think it is important that different strands within Marxism meet, discuss and debate the issues openly.

Let us begin with that slogan. The crisis of Labourism has brought forth a number of Labourite projects. In the LRC, Respect and the CNWP there is politics variously reclaiming Labour, real Labour, or old Labour, etc. No doubt the crisis of Trotskyism will produce plans to revive Trotskyism. The myth is promoted that Trotskyism failed only because of a lack of internal democracy. Hiding behind the call for a Marxist party may be the aim of another Trotskyist party. The term 'Marxist' may be a fudge, when what is needed is sharpness. We must pour cold water or, better still, sulphuric acid on the idea of another Trotskyist party.

Marx said, "I am not a Marxist." By the same token Lenin was not a Leninist and Trotsky not a Trotskyist. We should reject any definition of the party in ideological terms such as 'Marxist', 'Leninist' or 'Trotskyist'. The new party should be the party of science. It should approach all questions from a scientific point of view, whether this is socialism, political economy, anthropology, biology or any other study of the natural world or human society. The watchword of the party of science is proclaimed in the words of 'The Internationale' - "Away with all your superstitions - servile masses arise, arise." In short, science must liberate Marx from 'Marxism'.

Scientific socialism has no use for ideas or theories built into cults, whether around Jesus Christ, Karl Marx, Chairman Mao or Kim Il Sung. The cult of Lenin and Leninism reached its absurd in the embalming of his body in Moscow. Ideological cults only serve to mystify science and alienate the masses. We do not want or need a party based on the cult of Marxism, Leninism, Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, etc. The party of scientific socialism should be 'secular' in adopting no official cult. It should be left open to individuals or factions to define themselves as Leninists, Trotskyists or Stalinists if they choose.

A few years ago the CPGB promoted the idea of a "non-ideological party". This does not mean a party without ideas or theories. Science can recognise the huge contributions made by Marx, Lenin or Trotsky. It can recognise and critically appraise significant contributions made by others - for example, Engels, Luxemburg and Gramsci. Despite the terrible crimes of Stalinism we can still study and learn from Stalin's writings - on the national question, for example.

The non-ideological party recognises that the advance of science is a collective effort to which all may contribute, whether in a major or minor way. Neither should we lose sight of the fact that without the collective activity of the Russian working class, for instance, there would be no advance in the science of revolution. In science there can be no dogma. Theories and ideas previously thought to be true may be subsequently disproved. We must therefore seek to build our party on the basis of the scientific method and the best science currently available.

A party of science can only function with full freedom of criticism and debate in the search for truth. A party which suppresses the truth and silences or expels critics cannot serve science or the liberation of the working class. The advance of science goes hand in hand with a fully democratic culture. Openness of ideas and scientific debate remain fundamental, even where illegality makes normal democratic norms impossible.

The second problem with the slogan of a Marxist party is that it seems to obscure whether we are talking about a British Marxist party or a world revolutionary party. Given the new period of globalisation and the spread of information and communications technology, the world party is both more necessary and more possible than ever. The politically conscious and revolutionary part of the world working class must organise itself into such a world party.

The four previous attempts to build an international ended in failure. Marx played a leading role in building the First International. The Second International based on 'Marxism' split over World War I. The Third International based on 'Leninism' became a tool of Stalin's foreign policy. The Fourth International, like 'Trotskyism', has failed and broken up. All made a major contribution to building a world party - we can learn from their achievements and their mistakes. But if the Campaign for a New Marxist Party is not a campaign for a 'Marxist' international, then a fatal mistake will be made.

The party we must fight for is the world party. What is the scientific name for this? Of course, Lenin spoke about Marxism. But he used the term 'international revolutionary social democracy'. This should be used in modified form. 'Social' refers to socialism. This should be replaced by 'communism'. Our aim is world communism or human liberation. In 1917 the Bolshevik Party changed its name to 'Communist'. We should follow that advance.

The words 'revolutionary' and 'democracy' are in the original. However, since the rise of Stalinism they take new significance. Stalinism destroyed democracy in the world communist movement and undermined or destroyed many democratic movements. Stalinist communism played a counterrevolutionary role. Any new world communist party must emphasise its revolutionary and democratic component. Real democracy is revolutionary. It requires a revolution to achieve it. International revolutionary democratic communism identifies the aims of the world party and the means of achieving it.

We must have no illusions in any idea of a British Marxist party. Building an independent national Marxist party is a dead end. National communism or communism in one country is impossible. It makes no more sense than a national communist party. Unfortunately ultra-leftism is liable to forget this in its urgent desire to launch a revolutionary party where it is. The error is voluntarism and the belief that we can do anything if we try hard enough.

In 1919-20 the CPGB was not formed as a national communist party or as a result of a British desire for unity in the abstract. The Russian Revolution and its extension into Germany led to the formation of the Third International. The CPGB was formed as the British section. The same was true of many communist parties. The Fourth International had the same approach.

In the 1970s British communists were divided between Stalinists (CPGB), Trotskyists (WRP, Militant, International Marxist Group, etc) and 'state capitalists' (International Socialists/SWP). This disunity cannot be explained solely or even mainly by the unreasonableness or sectarianism of British Marxists or the lack of party democracy. These divisions grew out of world politics. They were a product of a worldwide struggle in the communist movement, fiercely divided over the results and interpretations of the Russian Revolution.

Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. We should add to Lenin's famous dictum that without a theory of revolution there can be no revolutionary strategy or programme. The Second International was built around the theory of two kinds of national revolution: bourgeois democratic and (national) socialist. This theory is known as 'stageism'. The Fourth International was founded on Trotsky's version of permanent revolution. This theory should also be rejected, but without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The Russian Revolution destroyed the theory of stageism. Trotsky's permanent revolution concerned the relationship between the democratic revolution and socialist revolution. The Russian Revolution showed this should be understood in a new way. Far from abolishing democratic revolution, the Russian Revolution finally destroyed the old idea of bourgeois democratic revolution.

The democratic revolution was led by the working class and opposed by the bourgeoisie. The working class was not satisfied with bourgeois democracy, nor did it agree to limit itself to parliamentary forms. Neither was this revolution a single event on a single day. It was a whole period of revolutionary class struggle beginning in February 1917 and continuing until 1921. When this revolution failed to transform itself into an international socialist revolution, the counterrevolution took over and Stalinism took power.

We can summarise the new theory of permanent revolution around the following points.

l Democratic revolution

l Workers' power

l International socialist revolution

l World communism

This theory of permanent revolution provides an international framework from which to develop a revolutionary programme. The theory is just as relevant in Iraq or Iran as in Britain, France or Italy. The idea for a British Marxist party based on People before profit must be rejected. People before profit was a common programme for the left. It is neither 'Marxist' nor revolutionary nor based on any theory of revolution.

Where does this leave us? We need to campaign for the world party of science, an international revolutionary democratic communist party. We need to begin from a theory of permanent revolution and develop a programme from that. It is vital that we seek to draw communist groups from other countries into a dialogue. In this respect I welcome the work of the CPGB in getting international participation in Communist University, with comrades from Iran, Turkey, Russia and Iraq.

There are many good reasons for British communist groups to unite. But forming, or pretending they are about to form, a British Marxist or national communist party is not one of them. There is no world party and we cannot form one soon. A national communist party or British Marxist party is a dangerous illusion and a capitulation to nationalism.

We cannot overcome the problem of the absent world party without being ruthlessly honest. We cannot pretend we are overcoming the problem by calling for the formation of a national Marxist party. The truth has to be faced. Only then can we devise the correct policy for overcoming problems. Otherwise we are making an opportunist adaptation to British nationalism.

Does this mean there is nothing we can do in Britain? Shall we just wait until somebody forms a world party? Not at all. We should build international links with other revolutionary communist groups. We must apply our politics to the class struggle here. Workers face continual attacks from the Blair government and a growing crisis of political democracy. The working class needs the maximum unity of socialist forces in the fight against the capitalist Labour government. We must relate to the crisis of working class political representation arising from a bankrupt democracy and the absence of party.

The active part of the working class is not revolutionary. But it does recognise the need for a new mass party. Communists have to be part of that struggle. We need a two-pronged approach for a mass republican socialist party and for the organisation of a Bolshevik-communist (or 'Marxist') faction within it. That independent faction must work to prepare the ground for a new world party. This means rejecting ultra-left sectarianism, which is the main barrier between revolutionaries and the working class.