15.12.1994

Communist Party perspectives for 1995

THE COMING YEAR will see the 75th anniversary of the formation of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Naturally, the bourgeois press will try to ‘celebrate’ this milestone in their own fashion - by writing the umpteenth ‘obituary’ for our Party and for communism itself.

The Communist Party will be celebrating in rather a different way. Our perspectives for the coming year are still to be finalised by the membership, but in broad terms our plans are agreed. We will make 1995 the year of the Communist Party.

This has nothing to do with ‘sectarianism’ or ‘self-obsession’, as some may foolishly claim. The state of the class struggle in contemporary Britain, and the world context in which it takes place, demands that our class be equipped once again with combat organisations - genuine mass communist parties. That is what our organisation is in business to do in Britain and why we categorically demand of all communists that their place is in the CPGB, fighting alongside the Leninists to reforge our Party.

Of course, our plans are not drawn up in a vacuum. We formulate our perspectives against a background of five interrelated phenomena.

1. First and foremost, the world period of profound political reaction

In contrast to the petty bourgeois left - Socialist Workers Party, Militant Labour et al - our organisation recognised that the defeat of bureaucratic socialism in Eastern Europe and the USSR would not usher in a wave of revolutions and victorious liberation struggles.

Undoubtedly, this reactionary period is fragile and contradictory. The victory of capitalism comes at a time when its world economy has nothing to offer the peoples of the former socialist countries. Nevertheless, the counterrevolutions were a world historic defeat for the international proletariat. The period remains one where progressive politics in general are at a low ebb.

The recent events in Ireland confirm this overall picture. While Sinn Fein has not been defeated militarily, the fact is that it has been forced to sue for peace on imperialism’s terms. The settlement in Ireland represents the same sort of negative resolution of revolutionary ‘hot-spots’ (as Gorbachev dubbed them) as we have seen in Afghanistan, South Africa and Palestine.

Similarly the intense problems faced by bureaucratic socialism in Cuba indicate that the general tenor of the period remains one of defeat, disintegration and decline of working class politics.

The harsh realities of capitalist restoration have provoked discontent from the masses, but nothing in Eastern Europe or the ex-USSR yet smacks of being the answer.

In a number of countries the old ‘official communists’ are making a comeback, transformed into modern social democrats. All these parties are looking to make the transition to capitalism more bearable by combining it with social elements of the past. But they have no ability to carry out such a utopian programme - and are well aware of this fact.              

Therefore we see these as developments which reflect the discontent of the working class with the capitalist restoration. The proletariat will inevitably express this discontent in the form of a yearning for the past, in the absence of a political programme that can make sense of the present and point the way to the future - that is, a programme of genuine revolutionary communism.

Yet while the working class does not enter the stage as an independently organised political force, social explosions in the former socialist countries actually pose the danger of fascism - of things getting worse before they get any better. We cannot passively rely on the period of reaction being lightened by revolutionary developments in the east - by some contemporary form of the ex Orienta lux (light from the East). 

2. The exhaustion of the governing party

Domestically, the scene is dominated by two interrelated factors. First, the revival of the Labour Party not simply as a viable alternative bourgeois party of government, but effectively as the government in waiting. Secondly, by the palpable exhaustion of the Tory agenda.

The extent of Tory disarray has recently been illustrated by two disastrous votes in the Commons - the first on post office privatisation and the second on vat on fuel.

Significantly, the government defeats were inflicted by the elements of the left and then right wing respectively. This starkly underlines the utter political exhaustion of the Tory programme and the electorate’s disillusionment with it. Once, Tory voters were prepared to put up with the pain of the Thatcher years and keep giving the government a mandate to push through measures that disturbed the equilibrium of society. But that was when there appeared to be a purpose to it all.

When the Tories seemed to have a viable programme for society - all of it, it must be emphasised - their winning slogan might have been ‘no pain, no gain’. For fifteen years people have put up with the pain, but still have no or very little gain. Tory backbenchers from both wings of the Party therefore are starting to reflect the discontent of constituents who no longer believe in the government.

Party divisions effectively rule out bold initiatives for the rest of the tenure of this government ... however long that is. The response of Major and leading figures in his party to the proposals from Labour for constitutional reform illustrates that the Tories are now in the position of being conservatively reactive to the initiatives of Blair’s party, of trying to preach the merits of a status quo that millions are manifestly discontented with.

The government’s recent humiliating defeat at the hands of its own recalcitrant backbenchers illustrates not so much the staggering ineptitude of the Major government’s apparatchiki and the man himself - although it certainly does that as well. It underlines just how out of control the Tories are. They now seem incapable of formulating policies and being able to discipline their MPs to vote for them. If this continues, it is hard to see how this government can carry on running society: it is unable to command consensus in its own ranks, let alone in the country generally.   

So, the current orientation of the Tories - which is not winning them wider support in society - is far more to do with internal Tory Party power balances and appealing to their traditional base.

Amazingly, the crisis paralysing the government party takes place against a backdrop of very low levels of working class struggle. If there were an upsurge of struggle, the effect would not be to unite Tory ranks - far from it. It would on the contrary act to further prise the Tories apart. This is a weak, fragile bourgeois government which objectively offers excellent opportunities for working class struggle to burst through and really rock society.

3. The rightward shift of Labour and disappearance of the working class as an independent political factor

Yet despite the objectively excellent conditions for struggle, we have pointed to the fact that in many senses the working class has disappeared as an independent political factor.

The dumping of clause four is interesting in this context. As we have shown, the central motivation for the introduction of this constitutional sop was to frame a conscious alternative to Bolshevism at a time when the influence and prestige of the Russian revolution was huge amongst workers in this country.

Since then, clause four has been the justification for generations of leftwingers to deliver the votes of the militant working class to this bourgeois workers’ party. The fact that Labour will now dump even this sop to the proletariat illustrates the extent to which our class has lost its independent presence. Labour’s potential new ‘big idea’ - constitutional reform - is a programme formulated with an establishment audience in mind. Although it will undoubtedly assume a populist form of some sort, it is not a sop to the working class, but an approach to the bourgeoisie (see Ian Mahoney’s article in this issue).

Also, the irony of the campaign to defend clause four that has recently cohered and will continue on a low level in 1995 should not escape us. It is largely composed of individuals and organisations who voted for Prescott as the ‘lesser of two evils’. Prescott of course was heavily implicated in the behind-the-scenes plotting to kill the clause. He is now regarded as the trusted ‘left hand’ man of Blair and is charged with - as the Sunday Times put it - “delivering” the left.

Despite the claims of some leftwingers that the extinction of clause four is the ‘last straw’, the left in its contemporary form is unlikely to make a break from Labour until a viable alternative begins to compete more seriously for the allegiance of the working class. This is why our organisation has placed an emphasis on the electoral tactic in the current situation.

4. The low level of struggle of the organised workers’ movement

In contrast to the semi-hysterical posturing of the SWP, the trade union struggle in Britain is currently at a very low ebb. The official figures for strikes - which are at the lowest level since records began - undoubtedly do not reveal the true picture. But then they never did, even when they were showing high levels of strike days lost.

The struggles that are taking place are overwhelmingly defensive and offer few opportunities for the intervention of the Communist Party. Some end in defeat; some end in stand-off semi-victories, such as the recent signal workers’ fight. None are seeing sections of the working class go beyond low levels of trade union struggle, to start to learn political lessons in a fuller sense.

It is hard to say when this gloom in the trade unions will lift. In the meantime our organisation will certainly intervene as effectively as we can where and when struggle breaks out. But we must understand, if conditions remain as they are, the main arena for the work of the Party will be outside the unions at present.

From everything we have described above, there is clearly far more fluidity and flux in the field of what could be classified as ‘mainstream politics’ than on the industrial front. At the moment, this is the arena in which workers’ anger and discontent will be most graphically expressed, not through the medium of the unions. This is where our Party will concentrate its intervention for the coming period.

5. Vacuum at the heart of British politics

Sections of the left have no doubt been overly excited by the electoral successes of the fascist British National Party. Our Party has pointed out that in fact the success of the fascists represents not so much a positive vote for nazism, but rather the absence of something - ie, a political vacuum.

The BNP in its current form has certainly established some sort of electoral base among certain sections of the white working class electorate in the east end of London. It has used the publicity and momentum of this base to score impressive votes in some other parts of the country.

Yet there is little chance that the BNP will make a national breakthrough. It is too tainted with its nazi past (and present).

The success of this odd group reflects working class disenchantment with the Labour Party and the lack of a viable alternative. The majority of the left studiously refuse to provide this alternative and treacherously insist that the working class must return to its ‘traditional’ role as voting fodder for the Labour Party. They thus constitute themselves as part of the problem rather than part of the answer.

While the Labour Party can perhaps now partially fill this vacuum with its ‘big idea’ of constitutional modernisation, the objective conditions remain ripe in Britain for the emergence of a mass radical-right movement, or on the left a revolutionary one.

The inevitable disenchantment that will follow the Labour Party’s failure in government to arrest decline, to give anything to the working class, will mean these conditions will become all the more acute. Indeed, looking forward to perhaps the Labour government after the next, we should remember that fascism in this country in the 1930s was headed by a disillusioned moderniser from the centre left of the Labour Party, Sir Oswald Mosley.

Obviously, we are not suggesting that history will repeat itself in some automatic way. We are simply underlining the fact that the objective conditions for the breakthrough of either the extreme right or the extreme left are present in Britain. And that rightist challenge can come from many different quarters, not simply from the born again Hitler lovers of the BNP.

This poses tasks not simply to our organisation, but to the revolutionary left in Britain as a whole.

Our plans

Obviously, the two main opportunities for intervention that our Party will be taking up over the coming year are the local elections outside London in April and May and the build-up to the next general election. The fact that 1995 sees the 75th anniversary of the Party also allows us to complement our work with a sharp propaganda weapon about the need for the reforging of the CPGB today and we will utilise every opportunity we can to gain publicity for that message.

The year of the Party

We will include a series of special articles and supplements in our paper to mark this anniversary and to educate readers on both the need for a Communist Party and the history of our organisation - good, bad and indifferent. Obviously, the annual Party rally to celebrate our foundation this year assumes special significance for us. We will use this opportunity to launch the Communist Party’s draft programme, to be agreed at our organisation’s 7th Conference (see below).

Local elections

We aim to stand 20 candidates at least in the elections outside London. The campaigns for these candidates will be part of our ongoing battle to build national organisation around the country, for our Party to become truly locally implanted.

The fact that these local elections are ‘staggered’ through April and May will be an advantage for us. However they are outside London - by far the strongest area of Party organisation - and that is a big problem.

We will have to bolster the campaigns around the country with London comrades. We urge readers of the Weekly Worker to keep an eye out for their nearest candidate and come along to help.

Party draft programme

Our organisation has already completed a great deal of work around the draft Party programme, centrally through a year’s extended study in our London seminars. In a sense, all the work of our organisation - polemically and practically - has been work towards the production of this draft programme.

In Jack Conrad’s Which Road? - itself a pre-programmatic document - we make clear that “the need for a communist programme arises from the needs of the movement itself ... The communist programme ... represents the crystallisation of the Communist Party’s principles and overall strategic approach to the conquest of state power ... The programme is the foundation for the building of the Communist Party and developing its strategy and tactics. It firmly links our continuous and all-encompassing agitational work with the ultimate aim of communism ...” (Which Road? p235).

The production of the CPGB’s draft programme in the 75th year of its existence - the first truly revolutionary programme of the Party - and its presentation to the workers’ movement for discussion and dialogue, will be a powerful weapon in the fight for a reforged Party.

The general election

Clearly, the next general election will be a watershed contest for British society. The Labour Party is almost certain to win and its election will significantly change the context in which British politics are fought out.

Our organisation will strain every sinew to intervene as effectively and comprehensively as we can in this important election. Where we stand candidates will largely (but not perhaps exclusively) be dictated by where we have succeeded in building local organisation. We will fight to fill the political vacuum with a communist alternative.

We must also pose the challenge to the rest of the left, however. As we have pointed out, if revolutionary organisations were able to stand independently of Labour this would be a major step forward for our class. Depending on the size and effectiveness of the challenge, it could perhaps shift the whole centre of political debate onto a working class rather than explicitly bourgeois agenda.

This is why we will be approaching other revolutionary groups - at all levels of their organisations - and individuals in the Labour Party to agree with us a minimum platform for working class defence.

Our organisation would certainly fight for a vote for any individual or organisation standing on a platform of what the workers need, not what the system can afford.

Conclusion

No set of Party perspectives are set in stone. If Marx could write that “every step of the real movement is more important than a dozen programmes”, our paper plans for 1995 would certainly have to be discarded in the event of a powerful forward surge of our class. Our emphasis on the electoral tactic - an emphasis that has proved very fruitful, we believe - is formulated in the context of the low levels of working class struggle in general.

However, whatever precise form the activity of communists takes over the coming year, whatever our main arenas of intervention, the coming 12 months will continue to be the year of Party. Whether in the field of electoral work, industrial struggle or mass movement, the reforging of this vital weapon is the key question facing our class. With a Communist Party, our proletariat will be everything.

We call on all readers, all partisans of the working class to join us in this battle.

Make 1995 the year of the Party!

Forward to a reforged CPGB!

Mark Fischer

National Organiser, CPGB