29.08.2013

Left Unity: Self-liberation, not manipulation

Nick Wrack was the second speaker at the Fighting for a mass party session

Comrades, first of all, I would like to thank the CPGB for inviting me to participate in this discussion, and I think the way that Jack has approached this is important: it is a discussion, as far as I am concerned, rather than a debate between antagonistic positions. In Left Unity and in the broader labour movement there is the need for an exploration of the sort of ideas that can arm the working class for its strategic objective, which is to take power. So these discussions are extremely important.

I would also like to pick up on a metaphor that Jack used in his opening contribution. I do not know if he is historically or geographically correct in terms of the migrations of people in Polynesia, but the metaphor is similar to one I have used in the past concerning Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands. Darwin noted that the same species was present on different islands, but they had been separated for so long that a large number of varieties had developed - different permutations of tail feathers, colours and so on. Yet it was clear that they were all still finches.

And the Marxist left in many ways is like this. The separation of the different groups, for reasons that we do not have time to go into today - whether it is the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party, Socialist Resistance, Workers Power or the CPGB - have ended up on their own little islands. Society and even the labour movement is so big that each of these groups can go along quite happily without coming into any proper contact - or debate or discussion - with the others. So we learn our own terminology and inside our own meetings we know exactly what we mean by a certain word. We develop our own methods and tactics and these things become habituated in our very being as socialist activists. We really need to dismantle those barriers - to bring those islands together - and start talking.

And it is very important when we are talking that we define the terms that we use. Inside Left Unity there has been a lot of talk as to whether we should call ourselves socialists, whether we should openly state that our aim is socialism. I think it is very important to understand that different people are saying these things for a number of reasons.

Some do so because they are genuinely not socialists - they are hostile to socialism. One LU supporter recently posted a comment saying he is a mutualist - he has clearly thought about it and decided that he is not a socialist. If I did some research into mutualism I might find that we have areas of agreement, but the point is that he declares he is not a socialist.

There are other people who, because of the defeats and the setbacks of our class over the last 30 years particularly, think that in order to advance we must refrain from calling ourselves socialist or talking about socialism - the word itself has been tainted or tarnished. There is, of course, a large element of truth in that, so it is important not merely to criticise such people: we must engage them in that discussion.

There are, though, other people expressing similar views who are dyed-in-the-wool, committed, convinced Marxists - the words that they use and the discussion in their meetings are about the revolutionary transformation of society. I regard such people as comrades, but I do not agree with them on this point. I do not agree that in order to get from where we are now to where we hope to be in the future - that is, in a position where the working class is able to take power and transform society - we must argue for less than what we believe in. I find this deeply disturbing, troubling and worrisome. But it actually reflects an approach which I would like to elaborate upon.

Alternative vision

But first let me respond to Jack’s contribution, pretty much all of which I agree with. I think that the proposed amendments to the Socialist Platform statement put forward by the CPGB are very interesting and I am completely open to discussing these at our meeting on September 14. We have already added some formulations, such as our objection to imperialist wars and military interventions, which was not in the original draft. No doubt there may be things we will have to express differently or add to.

I agree with Jack on one of the central themes: our vision. What inspires us? What inspired each of us to become a communist, a Marxist, a socialist, a revolutionary? It was the idea that all the shit (which is what it is) that we have to put up with in our daily lives, all the impediments and obstacles that our families have to endure - whether it is our parents, as they get older, or our children or grandchildren with all their incredible talents, abilities and potential - simply hold them back in so many ways.

Yet we believe in the power of our class and the process of change because of our understanding of history. We believe that there is an alternative. And when we say that there is an alternative, we do not mean that there is an alternative way of doing capitalism (and in this connection there is something in the debate that needs to be teased out: when in the Left Party Platform statement they write, “There is an alternative”, we need to ask, ‘Well, what is it?’)

It is all very well talking about “an alternative” in terms of the need to tax the rich and spend more. Don’t get me wrong: I am not opposed to that. But the alternative I am talking about is a fundamental, root-and-branch transformation of the very way in which society is organised. So that it is no longer organised in the interests of a tiny class - less than one percent of the population; so that it is organised in the interests of the mass, of the majority, of the whole of humanity, so that everybody can aspire to whatever it is they want.

What is our ultimate goal? It is a classless society. It is a society of abundance. It is a society without a state. This is our vision of a new society, in which everyone can develop to their fullest potential and where Marx’s aphorism, “From each according to their ability; to each according to their need”, can be put into practice.

Today children in some parts of the world do not have a hope in hell of getting to the age of five, millions of women still die in labour, two billion people live on less than a pound a day. Yet we have a tremendous, inspirational vision for humanity - almost seven billion people across the planet - for a completely different form of society. That vision is something that we should not just meekly put forward in discussions with the few with whom we talk about socialism: we should be proclaiming what the Marxists of the past would call the ‘good news’! It may sound a bit religious, and I am not a religious person, but ‘Have you heard the good news?’ That you do not have to live like this? That your children and your grandchildren do not have to grow up in the same society as you? We are combating an ideology - an ideology that has been reinforced over the last several decades, and this is part of the problem we are confronting.

I think that even amongst a section of the Marxists confidence has been dented. So we have got to go out and tell people how things can be different. We must begin a debate, a dialogue. Part of creating a new party which aims for an alternative to austerity and to the destruction of things that we have grown used to surely is to actually say what that alternative is. It is not just ‘If we tax the banks and the rich we will have a bit more money for this or that’. That is merely putting a little bit of sugar on the gruel, when what we want is a full, bountiful meal. We must inspire people with our aims, our visions.

An ideological offensive has undermined the idea of change: ‘Things have always been like this’; ‘You can’t change things, so just accept your lot’. But there are examples of an alternative throughout history and we have to be the people who point to it, who insist that actually you can change things and that society itself, life itself, is a constant process of change. And what we want is a fundamental change, a fundamental breach with this system, with capitalism. If you want to call it a revolution, then, yes, call it a revolution.

I agree with what Jack talked about in terms of the programme, because the Socialist Platform has been criticised for being inexact about the transition from capitalism to socialism - as if we ought to include in the programme how we perceive the molecular process of the revolution will progress in the future. People are critical of the platform because it does not mention soviets, for example. For me that is not something that should go into the platform statement; rather we should stress the independence of the class, the class acting for itself, armed with the ideas that we have begun to elaborate and to which others can be added.

This platform is obviously part of a discussion which is ongoing in Left Unity. But it is not just a discussion for Left Unity: it is for the whole labour movement. We need to be trying to create a discussion throughout the entire society. We want a discussion about the nature of the society that we live in, about the nature of the economy that dominates our lives; about the people who run our society. Let us try to have this debate and challenge people to discuss it with us.

Imagine if a Left Unity spokesperson is invited onto Newsnight, for example, and is asked the question, ‘What sort of party is your party?’ Are they going to answer, ‘A socialist party’? And if they are asked, ‘What do you mean by that?’ they will have to have answers. ‘Do you mean like the Labour Party in 1945?’ Well, do we? No, we don’t! However many reforms the Labour government implemented, anyone with eyes can see that it is all being taken away. Why? Because, so long as capitalism remains in place, any reforms, any gains will be constantly under threat and will eventually be taken away if we do not act to prevent that. We want to live in a society where we do not have to get up in the morning facing another campaign to save another hospital. Strange as it may seem, we want a society where there are hospitals and medicine for everybody.

Put people off?

One of the criticisms that I just find hard to comprehend is that if we put these ideas forward we will put people off. Let me put together a combination of different arguments by way of example: ‘You want a narrow party,’ it is said. Yes, I want a party of just me! That way I can avoid having disagreements (though even then I am constantly arguing and disagreeing with myself).

No, actually we want a party of millions. We think that we can get a party of millions. Why? Because we are confident in our ideas. We think that if we explain our ideas, painstakingly, slowly, patiently, enthusiastically, in all sorts of different media, we will be able to persuade people. Frankly, if what we are saying is too narrow, if those ideas are not capable of enthusing and inspiring millions of people, then we may as well pack up now. Society cannot be transformed; there can be no socialist transformation, in fact, there will be no revolution unless it is carried out by the majority in society, the working class majority.

So this argument actually goes back to the comprehension of both what a revolution is and what a revolutionary party is. Is a revolution a conscious act of the majority of the working class who have been won to socialist ideas? Or is it the act of a minority in society, a putschist or a Blanquist approach to change? I am not in favour of that. I do not think it can work.

But hang on a second. Some of the people who say that the Socialist Platform is too narrow are, as I have established, themselves Marxists and actually probably agree with 90% of the platform, though they may write it in a different style (and I would have no problem with that). But to those people who do agree with the platform and then say that it is too narrow I would ask: ‘So how are you going to change things? You’re recruiting to your group on the basis that you say that your interpretation of Marxism is correct, but isn’t it largely in line with what our platform says? And if you think that the Socialist Platform is too narrow then doesn’t it follow that your own programme is too narrow as well? And if your own programme is too narrow shouldn’t we all give up and go and do something else?’ The fact is our platform is not too narrow at all.

We recognise where we are starting from. We are realists. (And here in large part I agree with the criticisms Jack made of the Workers Power platform - even from the point of view of today’s tactics I do not think they start where we are in terms of the class. I still hope that Workers Power will support the Socialist Platform.) So who are we going to put off? We may not persuade everybody immediately - in fact, I know we will not! But I would rather start with ideas that are clear, not vague and nebulous and capable of any number of different interpretations. To build anything that will last you need to get the foundations correct. You can always add to it in numerous ways once they are in place. It is not a question of just laying down the bricks in any old order, using a bit of this material and a bit of that material, as though it doesn’t really matter what we do with them because all we need to do is build something now. We need to be clear from the beginning what it is we are trying to do.

Another argument alleges: ‘You’re only interested in abstract propaganda.’ The obverse of that is that we are not interested in campaigns. You do wonder sometimes if the people making these accusations about the Socialist Platform have actually read anything that those who support it have written or said. No socialist worth their salt ignores the active day-to-day struggle that our class is engaged in. We support it, we participate in it. But we try to do more - and that has nothing to do with ‘elitism’ or ‘hectoring’. If we can give concrete tactical advice in relation to a particular struggle, then, yes, great. But we also try to locate each particular fight within the greater class struggle - the battle in society over the surplus. What about a battle where the end result is one where we are in control of what is produced, so we do not need to have those day-to-day battles any more?

Let us go back to the criticism that ‘You’ll put people off.’ Place yourself in Lewisham when a few months ago 25,000 people marched to save their hospital. Now I do not know what the political views of the majority of that crowd were, but I do know that they were in favour of defending the hospital. So we say to them, yes, we have to fight to save this hospital, but we will surely end up talking about politics in general. As communists, as socialists, we will surely explain how that struggle fits into our vision of society as a whole - a vision of a society where there would be medical facilities and healthcare freely available because the people would control production and determine how labour-time is allocated and what it produces. Presumably the person we are talking to will then say, ‘I can’t talk to you any more - you’ve put me off. I’m only interested in saving the hospital.’

The thing is, when you begin to break it down, the argument is quite bonkers. I am not saying that every conversation we have ends up with someone becoming a committed Marxist, but isn’t that actually how we all start?

People new to politics read a news story or see an image. Perhaps it is a hospital closure, a policeman beating up a student or a young black kid. Perhaps it is Marikana or Egypt. But it makes their blood boil. You can imagine young kids searching out answers on the internet and coming across Marxism, socialism, communism and they start looking into it. They think, this is really interesting. We want a party for them to turn to, a party that spreads those ideas and over a period of time builds up an army of persuaders, of activists who will disseminate the ideas of socialist change.

Anti-capitalist?

However, the argument continues, ‘No, in this period, we have to tailor things down so we don’t upset anyone, so nobody walks away.’ The Left Party Platform talks about “anti-capitalist parties” in Europe, whose example we should follow. Well, yes, I am in favour of an anti-capitalist party. But then the comrades go on to describe them as “anti-capitalist parties that stand again neoliberalism”. For me, there is a problem in that formulation. Because if you are standing against capitalism that is one thing, but if you are against neoliberalism then that is something different. Now people would say that I am a pedant. But it is important in my opinion to have a degree of pedantry in these things. We are not just against neoliberalism. If we say that it gives the impression that somehow we can go back to a capitalism before neoliberalism which will allow us to stop austerity.

Maybe that is the 1945 thing - though, to be fair to Ken Loach, I do not actually think that is what his film was saying. Some comrades think that Ken Loach is somehow calling for a return to the post-war Labour government, but The spirit of ’45 is about how the yearning for change, for socialist transformation, was betrayed by social democracy. Social democracy just tinkered with things: it took the plate of gruel that you would not want to eat and sprinkled some sugar on it, attempting to make it palatable for a while. Yet we want to get rid of the plate of gruel - sugar or no sugar.

The Left Party Platform talks about these anti-capitalist, or anti-neoliberal, parties that are “fighting for alternative social, economic and political policies”, and no doubt they are. Actually I think it is a good thing that in the absence of anything else these parties have come into being, but I do not think that they are the answer. What are these “alternative social, economic and political policies”?

There seems to be a suggestion that austerity has simply an ideological cause. As if these nasty capitalists - and I have no doubt that they are nasty - have said to themselves, ‘What we need is an ideological attack on the welfare state’. They do not like it because it takes from what they think they should be getting. And when there is a crisis in their system (I think it is a crisis of profitability, but that is an interesting debate we can have some other time), they need to make sure that they keep getting what they think they deserve. And this is the reason for social democracy’s collapse even further to the right: any party that comes into government trying to manage capitalism will end up operating according to capitalist imperatives.

Social democracy has existed in embryonic form since the beginning. You could see the seeds of it in the Social Democratic Party of Germany with Bernstein. Social democracy is like a Trojan horse inside the labour movement bringing in alien ideas. It is like the serpent in the garden of Eden whispering, ‘Bite the apple!’ ‘Take office!’ We reject all of that. Socialism for us is about transforming humanity, inaugurating a new world.

Yes, that is going to take time - following all the setbacks we have had we are starting from a low point. But I am optimistic. I think that there are tens of thousands of conscious socialists out there and if there was a party that began to articulate and to fight for and to champion their ideas clearly, confidently, I think a lot of people would join it and it could begin to implant itself in society, drawing in new layers into struggle.

Some people have read our platform and thought that we are suggesting that, since we are putting forward a statement of aims and principles for changing society, we think it is going to happen tomorrow. We do not. That could not be further from the truth. It is going to be a long, slow, painful process, in which things will accelerate at times and be slower at other times.

However, when you set off on a journey it is a good idea to know where you are going. We have a destination. Our destination is the classless society. So the question is, what is our route map, what is our line of march? So can we not agree in Left Unity that that is our goal? Or will people say, ‘No, that is not our goal. Our goal is to get a few people elected into parliament’? If we start by saying that our goal is the classless society, everything else falls into place and can be seen in perspective.