20.10.2010

Win Labour for the working class

Following a five-hour discussion on the CPGB's strategic orientation to the Labour Party, the October 16-17 membership aggregate endorsed the Provisional Central Committee's tactic of critical support for Diane Abbott in Labour's leadership election by a two to one majority. Alex John reports on the debate

The PCC put two documents before the aggregate: ‘Draft theses on the Labour Party’ (see opposite) - not to be voted on, but to stimulate discussion over the coming period on the question of communists’ strategic orientation to Labour; and a short motion on the recent LP leader election - “This aggregate endorses the decision of the PCC that the CPGB should call on Labour Party members and affiliated trade unionists to vote first preference for Diane Abbott and give no further preferences.”

On the less important tactical question of critical support for Abbott, there seemed to be no movement. I cannot identify a single oppositionist who was won round to vote for the PCC motion - or vice versa. The opposition argued that the tactic was wrong: the line of demarcation between left and right should have been drawn to the left of Abbott. Although no-one argued directly against communists joining and working within Labour, this seemed to be the logic of some contributions.

However, the debate over the Abbott tactic seemed to reflect important differences which, hopefully, will be overcome during the forthcoming period of discussion on strategic orientation to Labour - the minority opposition tending to express a short-term approach as if the Labour Party were all but done for.

Speaking first, Jack Conrad accepted the criticism that the PCC had initially not made its support for Abbott explicit enough. He had thought Peter Manson’s June 10 article, ‘Use opportunity of Diane Abbott leadership bid’, clear enough, but the explicit call to maximise her vote was missing. At our June 19 aggregate, the PCC had opened the discussion on strategy towards the Labour Party, and there appeared to be a consensus over supporting Abbott, although this question had not been specifically put before the membership.

Uncontroversial

When nominations opened in the Labour leadership election on May 10 the CPGB’s tactical position had been uncontroversial within the organisation. We were calling for the nomination of John McDonnell, chair of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs and of the Labour Representation Committee. We also accepted as self-evidently appropriate his declaration that if his name did not reach the ballot paper, he would not give his support (and nor should we) to any of the other four candidates - Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, David Miliband and Ed Miliband. All had been ministers in the New Labour government.

However, when fellow SCG member Diane Abbott nominated herself, things became complicated. The PCC’s initial reaction, said comrade Conrad, was “sabotage!” - speculating that Abbott might have been persuaded to spoil McDonnell’s chances.

On May 27, under the headline ‘Diane Abbott splits left’, James Turley pointed out in this paper that not much “politically differentiates Abbott from her better-established rival ... Both are opposed to the government’s programme of cuts, and would be opposed to a Labour government’s programme of cuts; both opposed the Iraq war from the outset, unlike Johnny-come-latelies like Ed Miliband ... In the absence of significant political disagreement, Abbott’s campaign amounts to splitting the left-Labourite nominations and votes.”

On June 9, McDonnell withdrew in favour of Abbott. Establishment rightwingers added their names - David Miliband, Harriet Harman, Jack Straw et al - and she became the right’s preferred left candidate. Nevertheless, the PCC was unanimous in its tactical position: critical support for Diane Abbott - the bigger the Abbott vote, the more encouraging for the left - and no vote for the four ex-ministers. But the message failed to reach a number of members, until eventually they asked for clarification - and did not like the answer.

While Abbott was not our preferred candidate, comrade Conrad emphasised that we also have disagreements with comrade McDonnell. Our support for him also carried criticisms. The CPGB leftists, he said, were not taking the Labour Party seriously by arguing that Abbott is a warmonger and pro-cuts, when in fact she calls for cutting Trident and has signed up to Counterfire’s Coalition of Resistance.

Comrade Conrad summarised the position of the most vocal oppositionist, Chris Strafford, as follows. After 13 years of New Labour government, the LP is hollowed out. Among the influx of tens of thousands of new members, at least 10,000 are ex-Liberal Democrat members or voters. With our small numbers, the best we could do with Labour is a smash and grab raid. Faced with unprecedented cuts, our main focus should be the movement against them.

In contrast the PCC, he said, asks: if there is an explosion of anger, what forms of organisation can ensure it is not dissipated? Yes, we must fight to unite the rival cuts movements, but crucially we need political organisation. The Weekly Worker ‘Our history’ column is saying to the left: What is the point of rival campaigns? Learn the lessons of 1920. Organising the left in a Communist Party is an urgent necessity. The death of Labour has been announced many times - already in the 1920s and 30s. The International Socialists walked out of Wilson’s Labour Party in the 1960s. So did the International Marxist Group, calling it a rotting corpse. But class parties do not die easily.

Just like the Tory Party, Labour is unlikely to disappear this side of a revolution. Destroying the Labour Party was the sectarian Comintern policy of ‘third period’ Stalinism. The Labour Party is, at least theoretically, winnable. If the trade unions can become “schools of communism”, the bans and proscriptions can be lifted and the Labour Party can become a united front containing all factions of the working class, in which the communists can fight to become the majority. We should look to the example of the National Left Wing Movement, set up by the CPGB in 1926. However, the Labour Party is not “the only show in town” - we continue to take the extra-Labour left seriously. But there is no point in a mini-Labour Party mark two.

Rejection

The first to oppose the PCC motion was comrade Turley - speaking “for myself”. He pointed to the difficulties in attempting the PCC’s strategic path. Labour “has an immune system, which does not distinguish between us and Militant”. The Labour Party machine is “crushing the life out of the party”. While the right needs to be ‘responsible’ and electable, the left is tied to that, and wants to use the state to win an ever more impoverished ‘socialism’, limited by ‘keeping the Tories out’. Eg, Dennis Skinner backing David Miliband - ‘the man the Tories fear most’. Difficulties indeed - but not inherently insurmountable, in my view, in the context of winning the working class for communism - also a big job.

Justifying his rejection of the PCC’s motion, comrade Turley differentiated between Abbott and McDonnell. She is a “media-personality type of politician, currying favour backstage”, and is subject to influence from above. He, in contrast, travels the country visiting picket lines and attending meetings of activists - and is subject to influence from below. All true points, relevant for choosing between them, but not - in the light of James’s comments on May 27 (above) - for rejecting the only left candidate.

Chris Strafford complained that the PCC did not make practical use of its backing for Abbott “to strengthen the struggles of the class”, and did not organise interventions in Labour Party meetings. (This is largely true, except for those Weekly Worker supporters who are actively involved in their constituency parties, and did intervene in hustings. But, as Jack Conrad replied, our main form of activity at present is propaganda.) He claimed that the PCC “tried to prettify” her by failing to mention her support for British forces in Sierra Leone, and repeated his claim (refuted in detail by comrade Peter Manson) that she voted for the continuation of the war in Iraq. There was “no basis for voting for Abbott”, said comrade Strafford.

Comrade Strafford opposed the strategic orientation to the Labour Party proposed in the PCC theses. Instead, he offered “a balanced approach”: he was for communists joining the Labour Party, but the PCC theses “said nothing about what communists should do in the party”. He opposed using the affiliation tactic, correctly proposed by Lenin in the 1920s, he said, to put Labour into government in order to destroy illusions in it. But 13 years of New Labour government has already destroyed illusions. The example of the National Left Wing Movement is irrelevant today, because neither our small organisation nor the disparate left groups can compare with the 1920s CPGB, nor is the situation comparable. The Russian Revolution was fresh in the memory, the CPGB was new and growing, and the Labour Party was the centre of working class activity. Gregory Zinoviev’s united front tactic aimed to liquidate the Labour Party, not transform it.

Comrade Farzad declared that she did not oppose working in the Labour Party, as some comrades may have thought. But today there are major differences with the 1920s. Then the first socialist country was new and Lenin was recommending measures to weaken imperialism in any way possible. Today, the left inside Labour is a similar size to the left outside - but is more difficult to find. Some activists are in the radical left and in the Labour Party. Therefore we should work in both. The Labour shadow cabinet will support the cuts, so it is hard to envisage constituency Labour Parties fighting them. It will be difficult to go to people who are fundamentally social democrats and argue Marxist views.

Comrade Farzad opposed support for Abbott, saying this was a retreat from our earlier tactic of only backing anti-war candidates. War and immigration, she said, are “determining factors between revolution and reform, and 2003 equals 2010 in this respect” - an argument which in my view reduces flexible tactics to fixed dogma. The international left has difficulty understanding how the British left can be part of the imperialist Labour Party, she added. Nevertheless, she is “not dismissing working in the Labour Party”.

Mike Macnair argued that Labour in opposition tends to be driven to the left. In the coming months and years, political dynamics will produce an increased presence of the Labour left in proportion to the left groups outside Labour. Because of our small size, he said, at present we can do very little ‘on the ground’, and it is our literary intervention that is the most important part of our work. But that can be highly effective, so it is no use comrade Strafford arguing that we did nothing in practice to support Diane Abbott. However, we lack detailed information about the Labour Party and our main need at present is to learn in order to write about it more accurately. The theses, however, are “not about what our small group can do, but what a Communist Party could do”. Our tactic was correct because “a reasonable vote for Abbott would have shown there is a left”.

Similarly Nick Rogers argued that, in the Labour Party leadership election, the only way to mark the strength of the left was to maximise Abbott’s vote. On the Greater London Council, Abbott had been a leftwinger when, under Livingstone’s leadership, it was advantageous to be left. Later, in parliament, she could have moved to the right, like Paul Boateng, but did not. Her voting record shows that she has continually rebelled against the Labour whip, albeit not as consistently as Jeremy Corbyn and McDonnell. Abbott is “part of the ‘awkward squad’”, he said. “To deny she is part of the left is not to understand the nature of the Labour left”.

Lee Rock, opposing the PCC motion, argued that the Labour left “does not exist at present”, and that the Abbott campaign has done nothing to build it. Although Abbott’s vote was stronger in the unions than in the constituencies, “most union votes for Abbott were not from Labour Party members”. Emphasising the differences between her and McDonnell, comrade Rock said Abbott had supported tube privatisation and called for the replacement of imperialist troops in Afghanistan by “UN troops from Muslim countries”. Where organising a class fightback was “bread and butter” for McDonnell, Abbott was “never seen on a picket line”. Opposing the approach of the theses, comrade Rock argued that the Labour Party had already been tested and exposed by putting it into power.

Replying to the discussion, comrade Conrad insisted that Abbott was anti-war and anti-cuts, but our support for her had included sharp criticisms. The strategy presented in the theses was not designed to win short-term advantage: it was a long-term strategy aimed at driving out the pro-capitalist right and winning the Labour Party for socialism - but not predicting the outcome of that struggle. The vast majority of CPGBers in the early 1920s had been Labour Party members. The ineffective left groups had united in the Communist Party and become effective. The 1920s NLWM is the highest example of left unity in the Labour Party. Effectively it had the programme of the CPGB and fought under the slogan: ‘Turn the Labour Party into a real Labour Party’.

The PCC motion to endorse its recommendation to support Diane Abbott in the leadership contest was carried by a majority of two to one.