09.11.2006
Uniting Marxists as Marxists
Jim Moody reports on the launch conference of the Campaign for a Marxist Party
November 4 saw a modest but important step forward towards the organisation of revolutionaries, when a small, but serious meeting voted to establish a Campaign for a Marxist Party.
Instigated by the Critique Supporters Group (CSG) around Hillel Ticktin, Saturday's conference in London's Somerstown Community Centre was also sponsored by the CPGB, the Democratic Socialist Alliance (DSA), New Interventions and the Revolutionary Democratic Group (RDG). Around 40 comrades debated several crucial questions concerning how Marxists are to unite in one party in Britain and reach out to millions.
Conference got off to a good start by immediately agreeing procedural suggestions made by the Greater Manchester DSA. This facilitated the discussion of motions and amendments in an orderly and comradely manner.
Hillel Ticktin opened the debate with an address laying out his ideas, which, though he may have aired them before, nonetheless set the tone for the proceedings. He described Stalinism as a "historically flawed form" which was bound to come to an end. Nevertheless, it was "difficult for the left to do very much while Stalinism was in existence". At no point in the last 70-80 years, when Stalinism was dominant, was capitalism under challenge, said comrade Ticktin. Therefore, "The end of the Soviet Union is not a case for mourning" - in fact we should take advantage of the fact that the "social democratic, semi-Stalinist ethos is no longer around". Comrade Ticktin insisted that Stalinists could not be considered part of the left.
He went on to clarify his position on the form of the party, refuting the idea that he or those around him wanted just another sect. Rather we should "aim to bring other people" into the party, whose exact form will "show itself in time". Referring to the "amazing growth of finance capital", comrade Ticktin suggested we are in the midst of the "first genuine capitalist crisis since the 1930s". The current situation was "akin to the situation at the time of Marx down to 1940". He concluded optimistically by asserting that we were moving into a situation where we will "become part of a very big party".
Founding principles
The first two motions dealt with the founding principles of the new organisation. Matthew Jones moved the CSG motion, which proposed three such principles, and was followed by Phil Sharpe for the DSA, whose motion contained 12 points.
Two amendments, moved by John Pearson of the Greater Manchester DSA, aimed to delete the last two points of the CSG motion. Comrade Pearson argued that the DSA motion was superior in formulation and that he feared the denunciation of comrades as Stalinists in the future should the two points remain. But conference was unconvinced and the amendments were lost.
Comrades Lee Rock, Mike Macnair and John Bridge moved extensive CPGB amendments to the second half of the DSA motion. In doing so, they took issue with elements in the original motion that were deeply flawed. Comrade Rock called for rejection of particular payments for party officials, and opposed cooptions and membership referendums; he pointed out that minorities' rights were insufficiently laid out and their responsibilities unstated.
Mike Macnair criticised the phrase "socialism from below" as too woolly - the Socialist Workers Party has no problem with it despite its own bureaucratic centralist regime. Similarly "workers' control" could be deemed to refer to something like the Yugoslav experience. He also condemned use of the expression "human rights" in the original motion, since it was part of the hypocritical armoury of the bourgeoisie. Comrade Bridge proposed a lengthy addition to the final sections of the motion, putting "a bit more meat on the bones" of a worthy, but too lean exposition on class collaboration and the party's tasks in combating it.
Gerry Downing, a comrade from the Workers Revolutionary Party tradition who is currently unattached, warned against Stalinophobia, arguing that Stalinism was no longer a major block to revolution in Britain. He also complained that the question of the Labour Party and the trade unions was not being addressed by the motions. But Alan Barnes, in supporting the CGS motion, said that the Labour Party does not pretend to be Marxist and was therefore not relevant to the issue being debated.
Comrade Pearson objected to the CPGB amendments, declaring that they did away with a "central principle of Marxism - the dictatorship of the proletariat". Comrade Bridge later refuted this. He was happy to use the phrase, but rejected the implicit putschism contained in comrade Pearson's interpretation of it: revolution is "the act of the majority - a clear majority across the advanced countries", said comrade Bridge.
Despite comrade Sharpe's insistence that the original DSA motion meant "we are fighting for socialism from below - in modern terms", his suggestion that comrade Macnair "supports a Kautskyite position" like Ted Grant supposedly did, and that the CPGB might be inserting "a democratic stage prior to revolution", all five CPGB amendments were carried by the conference. Both substantive motions were then agreed without demur.
Programme
The second section of the conference dealt with the central question of programme.
In proposing the DSA's motion - the only one under consideration in this section of the agenda - John Pearson maintained that the Socialist Alliance's 2001 programme People before profit was "the highest common achievement of the left of Labour, post-1945" and that it should be used as the template for the new Marxist party's programme. He objected that the CPGB proposal to put the Weekly Worker at the disposal of a new Marxist party amounted to "annexation by invitation" and claimed that People before profit (PBP) "addresses the needs of the working class", as it talks about "rent controls ... health and safety at work ... disabled harassment ..." According to comrade Pearson, the main thing that was wrong with PBP was its "context", which prevented the SA "from being a pro-party project".
John Bridge responded by outlining how he, Mark Hoskisson of Workers Power and others had pushed People before profit as far to the left as was possible in the Socialist Alliance, given the domination of the SWP. But even so it was hardly "a programme for the working class coming to power". There was no way that the left social democratic PBP could provide the basis for a programme for Marxists to unite around: "We are not proud of People before profit." Rather "the left should hang its head in shame" for having done no better.
Steve Freeman (RDG) agreed with comrade Bridge that PBP was "not the basis for a Marxist party" - although, of course, he thinks that campaigning for a Marxist party is a waste of time in any case. For him, what current circumstances demand is a "republican socialist party" - for which PBP would be fine, at least as a basis.
Phil Sharpe asked if the CPGB comrades were arguing for a "modernised version of the Erfurt programme", though he too criticised PBP, which consisted of "promises made by a future socialist government to a passive electorate". Matthew Jones considered PBP to be "contradictory internally", since it was "a reformist programme adopted by revolutionaries". It was an excellent example of the failure of the left - "a product of their bankrupt political method".
Mike Macnair also rejected the idea that PBP should be the starting point, as suggested by the DSA, since it was merely "a variant of the British road to socialism", from which we had to "absolutely, fundamentally break". Rather he proposed that the CPGB's Draft programme should be considered, alongside other proposals, as the basis for a Marxist programme. Other comrades, including comrades Barnes, Ticktin, Downing and Chris Gray, supported the CPGB amendments, which were all carried by conference. The substantive motion on programme as amended was agreed without any votes against.
Structure, organisation and tasks
The Critique Supporters Group motion was the first in this section and was largely agreeable to everyone.
However, a section of the previous motion on programme was carried over into this session, and formed the final point. Several comrades objected to its wording, which started: "In intellectual circles we will fight to develop the humanism of Marxism against the remnants of Stalinist ideology and fashionable post-modernism."
Comrade Macnair felt this was a very unclear formulation and was suspicious of what a 'humanist' Marxism might be. Comrade Ticktin concurred that there was no such thing as a humanist Marxism, but said there was an "absolute need to argue that Marxism is Marxism and not Stalinism". A substituted form of words was quickly agreed and the whole motion was accepted by conference, with no votes against.
The second, shorter motion in this section was proposed by the CPGB. This called for the elected officers to "enter into fusion talks with the CPGB" over the next year. After a degree of initial hesitation from some comrades present, following a frank explanation from Lee Rock and John Bridge of what was being proposed, this motion too was accepted by conference without opposition.
The conference elected comrade Jones as secretary, comrade Pearson as treasurer and Dave Spencer of the DSA as bulletin editor. Comrade Ticktin is to be responsible for international contacts, while the CPGB's Nick Rogers is to be London organiser.