25.01.2007
What now for the Marxist Party campaign?
To call for a Marxist party is to intervene in the movement in a sect way, writes Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group, continuing his reply to Mike Macnair
I will focus this article on the ore concrete question of what the new Campaign for a Marxist Party (CMP) should do. The most important issue here is the theory of permanent revolution. This was also central to Gerry Downing's arguments in the pages of this paper.2 It is such a major topic that I will set it aside, including in relation to Mike Macnair's useful comments on that question, for a separate article. Here I will address Mike's other points, except on permanent revolution, about the Marxist party.
In essence there are two things this new campaign can usefully do. First is to encourage theoretical-programmatic discussion and clarification. Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary programme. Without the latter, we have no party. Second in Britain we must intervene correctly in the movement for a mass workers' party. To do this we have to defeat left sectarianism. If the campaign turns out to be dominated by sectarian politics, it will produce nothing useful for the working class.
These two tasks come together when we can launch a Marxist platform or faction in a mass workers' party. In current conditions this is best way to build the influence of Marxism in the advanced part of the working class. It is the road that leads to the eventual launch of a Marxist party. These preconditions for party in terms of programme and connections with the advanced part of the working class do not now exist.
In Britain today a movement for a new Marxist party hardly exists. About 40 people attended the launch of the CMP. Although it was well advertised in Weekly Worker, the overwhelming majority of Marxists did not attend. The most important Marxist organisations, the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party, were absent. The smaller Marxist organisations, such as the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, the International Socialist Group, the Communist Party of Britain and Workers Power, were also missing.
The majority of Marxists in the SWP and SP have no perspective of launching a new Marxist party. They see themselves as the political base for such a party. They are not going to change their minds for what they see as the dubious privilege of giving the CPGB and their allies recognition or influence.
Matthew Jones of the Critique group seems to think there are plenty of independent Marxists waiting to respond to our campaign, judging by his intervention at Communist University 2006. There is no evidence to support such optimism. There is no possibility of 40 comrades launching anything recognisable as a Marxist party now or in the next few years. Without the support of a majority of Marxists we do not even reach first base. This is recognised in setting the modest objective of beginning to campaign for such a party.
There is no prospect or possibility of actually setting up a new Marxist party. It is not on the cards. It is not going to happen. This cannot be insisted on too strongly. This is a long-term project. Those who mistakenly think we can launch a new Marxist party in the next three years will be sadly disillusioned. Of course, there might be a political earthquake that would radically alter the prospects. But not on the basis of current trends continuing.
We only have to look at the experience of the CPGB or Revolutionary Democratic Group. The CPGB has been campaigning for a new Marxist party since at least 1994-95. It has taken us 12 years to get from there to here. Whilst much has been achieved in that time, we are not significantly closer to its launch. Effort, will power and lots of optimism have not succeeded in making a party. It is by no means certain that the next 12 years will achieve more. If this alienates the light-minded, so be it. But serious communists want to concentrate on what can actually be done.
World party
The first thing is to concentrate our work on ideological-programmatic clarification. An obvious starting point is the actual meaning of 'Marxist party'. Is this a campaign for a world Marxist party or a British Marxist party? It seems to be the latter. Is this born out of the mistaken belief we can launch a (British) party rather than merely drafting and debating a world programme?
The Communist manifesto was the programme for a world party. In its opening section it says: "To this end, communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages".3 Despite the obvious European limitations, the intention was clear. They may only have been 40-strong, but they were not writing a British programme for a British party.
This does not mean the national question was ignored. In 1848 Marx and Engels wrote a programme for Germany. This was called 'Demands of the Communist Party in Germany'.4 The word 'in' ("in Germany") is significant. The Communist Party existed internationally, or at least outside Germany, although a section of its membership were "in Germany" addressing the German workers.
If we agree the first task of the campaign is theoretical-programmatic, then localism or nationalism is even more absurd. Are the British cleverer, more theoretical and with greater revolutionary experience than communists from other nations? Is it best that the task of theoretical-programmatic clarification be left to us British?
There is no reason to think, nor is it desirable, that to develop a programme you must first live in Britain. With the aid of modern information technology the task of developing a programme can involve Marxists in Britain, Russia, Turkey, Iraq, Iran or Australia, to name but a few places. If we called ourselves the 'Campaign for a World Marxist programme' it would be more realistic, more practical and more useful than sowing illusions that we can shortly set up a British Marxist party.
Many internationals
To be honest, I think Mike might agree with this. He says there is a "small half-truth in comrade Craig's argument". Later he says: "We can identify our common ground and our differences with other Marxists internationally and hence move potentially towards a new international." This is what I am arguing. But one step further. We should engage with international communists as equal members of our campaign from the start.
However, I do not want to represent Mike as being in support of this view, since most of his points seem opposed. First he is outraged at the alleged hypocrisy of the RDG. He thinks we have opportunistically seized on 'internationalism' merely to torpedo the CPGB plan for a British Marxist party. Even if this were true, and it is not, it would not constitute an argument against internationalism.
Then he cites his own experience in the Mandelite Fourth International. He says in those days he would have agreed with me. But he became disillusioned with their internationalism. I think he may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. He points to a world littered with failed opportunist internationals: "The problem is that there are too many existing dead-end internationals." We want to launch our rocket to the moon, but will not do so because we might crash into all the debris in outer space.
Such arguments could equally apply in Britain, where there are also plenty of burnt out rocket engines. Whilst there is truth in Mike's observations, they do not constitute an argument for a British campaign with a British membership, debating a British programme. Would this be another version of the famous halfway house which the CPGB seems so frightened of?
Globalisation has drawn the whole world much closer together and made fantastic strides in international communications. When it comes to developing a programme, we need to involve Marxists in other countries wherever we can. We need them in this campaign. We have to make this a campaign for a world party, not just a party confined to this kingdom.
International revolutionary democratic communism
The second issue concerns a debate over how we identify our politics - as 'Marxism' or as 'international revolutionary democratic communism'. I argued for the latter because it is scientifically correct. It is the modern equivalent of the old term 'international revolutionary social democracy', used by Lenin. We are replacing 'social democracy' with 'democratic communism'.
Mike says: "As it happens, CPGB comrades agree with comrade Craig that 'Marxist' is not the ideal description for the sort of party we want to see created." He proposes 'communist' instead. This is all right as the shortened version. But we should agree on the full Monty.
The term 'communist' is associated with Stalinism. Most parties bearing the name 'communist' are connected historically with Stalin's USSR. We must differentiate ourselves by emphasising a new communism which is revolutionary democratic and internationalist. This takes us back to Marx's own politics.
Mike himself recognises that 'communist' is insufficient. He immediately begins explaining the type of communism he means. He argues for "certain very basic strategic commitments", which include "radical democracy" and "international working class unity". We arrive at the same point, where the new communism is international, and radical (or revolutionary democratic).
International revolutionary democratic communism can be used alongside 'Marxism' or simply 'communism'. The RDG produced a bulletin called Republican Marxist. We sometimes refer to ourselves as 'communists' and sometimes as 'revolutionary democratic communists'. However, if push comes to shove and we had to chose one term, it would be the full version and not the term 'Marxism'.
Was Marx a Marxist?
I emphasised this by quoting Marx saying, "I am not a Marxist". Mike's reply was to argue about what Marx really meant. This is not the point. I do not particularly care what he meant. I am using his words at face value, but giving them new content or meaning. Mike says it means "If this is Marxism [in reference to other comrades' views], I am not a Marxist." Obviously he did not mean, 'I'm not a Marxist because I'm a Tory or a Liberal'. In my version he would have said, 'If this is Marxism, I am not a Marxist. I am an international revolutionary democratic communist.'
I looked up the quotes. Engels says in a letter to Bernstein: "Now what is known as 'Marxism' in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product - so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: 'Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi je ne suis pas Marxiste.' [If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist]".5 He repeats a slightly different version in 1890 in a letter to Schmidt: ""¦ Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French 'Marxists' of the late [18]70s: 'All I know is that I am not a Marxist'."6
Every revolutionary democratic communist is a Marxist. Not all who call themselves Marxists are revolutionary democratic communists. Much of what passes for Marxism is in fact economism, with the revolutionary democratic politics stripped out. This is one reason I have taken an extreme position which says we should dump the term 'Marxist'. "Je ne suis pas Marxiste" does just as well.
Rejecting 'Marxist' or 'Marxism' is too extreme for many. Most Marxists tend to be conservative about such matters. 'Marxism' makes us feel safe and secure. In the transitional phase most will continue to use both sets of terms in parallel. However, those of us who recognise the need to challenge economism will promote the revolutionary democratic version.
'Marxism' does, however, have one advantage. If we want to gather everybody together in one room, that term is best. Nobody feels offended by it. Whether we consider ourselves Stalinists or Trotskyists, we all accept Marxism. But what is good for bringing comrades together is no good if we want to forge a new tendency. Hillel Ticktin recognised the same problem from a different angle. If the campaign is open to all 'Marxists', Hillel thinks we will need a clause in the constitution to exclude Stalinists.
Mass party and sectarianism
Let me turn to the second (English-British) task for the campaign - discussing and intervening in the political movement of the working class. At the centre of this is the absolute necessity of drawing a sharp distinction in Britain between the mass workers' party and the revolutionary Marxist party.
In Britain there is a movement for a mass workers' party. We should not get hung up on the word 'movement' because at present it is stagnant. At a guess it may be 5,000-strong. It includes those aligned with Respect, the Labour Representation Committee, the Campaign for a New Workers' Party, the Socialist Alliance and sections of the trade union movement identified with Bob Crow, Matt Wrack and Mark Serwotka. Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party was the first and failed attempt at this back in 1996.
The movement is weak, divided and ideologically dominated by Labourism. Whilst that remains the case, it cannot succeed. The most obvious division is over the assessment of whether the Labour Party can be recaptured for Labourism. In my view Labourite ideology has not and cannot succeed in uniting this movement into one party. It is based on an outdated conception of the state of British politics.
Marxists must intervene in this movement and seek to lead it. We should arm ourselves with the traditions of the first mass working class party, namely Chartism. Chartism succeeded in uniting the mass of the working class around a democratic programme. The call for a republican socialist party provides a clear political conception of what is necessary to unite the movement for a mass party and take it in a progressive, class struggle direction.
A republican socialist party stands against Labourism and economism. It is in advance of this movement. But it does not divide it in the sense of causing a split. It does not in itself separate, for example, Bennites and Marxists. However, the call for a Marxist party does divide the movement between democratic socialists, or 'reformists', and revolutionary communists. In the present period maintaining this divide in rival organisations is in the interests of the Labour leadership and the capitalist class.
Sectarianism
Sectarianism means ignoring this political movement, dismissing it or refusing to intervene in it. When sectarianism does intervene, it will do so with the 'Marxist party' slogan in order to exacerbate divisions and create a split, counterpoising the revolutionary Marxist party against the development of the movement.
The opposite side of sectarianism is opportunism. This means intervening without raising any party slogan whatsoever. The aim of an opportunist intervention is to win a few recruits by exposing the compromises of the leaders of the movement. Silence on the party question means tailing the movement and not proposing an alternative direction to Labourism and hence fighting for the leadership.
Mike tries to make a case that the RDG has a sectarian attitude to this movement. The charge falls. We do not counterpoise the Marxist party to this movement. Nor do we dismiss it or refuse to participate in it. It is true that there are no RDG members in Respect. But this is partly a tactical issue and a result of our small size. We have concentrated our efforts on the Socialist Alliance and the CNWP. We have no principled objection to Respect. It is part of the movement we critically support. You may recall we put forward a democratic perspective at Respect's founding conference and argued that the 'R' in Respect should stand for 'republicanism'.
Mike makes two points in different parts of his article. It is illuminating to bring them together. First he says: "We should not counterpoise ourselves to any attempt to organise the class movement and its left, but as far as possible participate in it and endeavour to fight within it for communist politics."
On the face of it I agree with Mike here. But it all hangs on the meaning of the words, "fight within it for communist politics". If it means using Marxism to develop the politics and slogans with which communists can fight for the leadership of the movement, then I would agree.
Trotsky fought for communist politics when he took up Chartism against Ramsay MacDonald. But the words, "fight within it for communist politics", have another interpretation. Later Mike spells out what he means. He says we should be "intervening in this movement as it is, as far as possible, to fight for a united party of the Marxists, on the basis of a Marxist programme, which could actually fight effectively against Labourism".
Here we get to the contradiction at the heart of the CPGB's current line. Shall we intervene in the movement for a mass party in a sect way by calling for a Marxist party? Or shall we intervene in an opportunist way without proposing a party, confining ourselves to promoting communist views on secularism or abortion?
What Mike has to answer is whether the CPGB's position is for a Marxist party and against any other kind of workers' party. The answer always comes back that the CPGB is opposed, but will join if others create it. This means tailing reformism, conceding hegemony and ruling out any fight for non-sectarian communist leadership of the political movement.
Marxist perspective
Our Marxism tells us that we should argue for the unity of the movement into a single party, a republican socialist party. We should argue for such a party to stand at least 100 candidates against Labour at the next general election, giving prominence to arguments for democracy. Marxists should play a leading role in achieving this and at the same time work for the unity of revolutionary Marxists in a platform within the new party. The Campaign for a Marxist Party and the perspective I have outlined enables us to work for this now.
What I have argued on the mass party is implicitly an English perspective. The same principles apply in Scotland and Wales (I leave aside the question of Northern Ireland). In Scotland, first the Scottish Socialist Party and now the Solidarity split shows a different stage has been reached in the struggle for a republican socialist party. This should not be taken to mean that I am in favour of separate parties to fight one ruling class. I am not. We have to work for ever closer unity with comrades such as the Republican Communist Network in Scotland and Wales.