related articles

Big bomb or damp squib?

A discussion took place in the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform earlier this year over what name we should register in order to stand unofficial SA candidates on June 10.

            Among the names proposed was ‘Republican Socialist Alliance’. This brought a hostile response from some comrades. One put the case against most clearly, saying: “The word I want in is ‘socialist’, because I’m one, and my candidate is one. The word I want out is ‘republican’”. The comrade went on to explain that, although he was republican, “I think it is too provocative in the current climate. Large sections of the public support the monarchy, and it is not the right time to trumpet its abolition, as such a word would virtually oblige us to do.”

            The comrade was correct in explaining the implication of using the term ‘republican socialist’. Using the ‘R’ word “would virtually oblige us” to make a serious commitment to the abolition of the constitutional monarchy. Equally, avoiding the word is about steering clear of any such ‘provocation’. When the Socialist Workers Party opposed the proposal that the ‘R’ in Respect should stand for republicanism, it was playing the same game. When Respect voted not to include democratic and republican demands in its programme, it defined its political location as the left wing of the constitutional monarchy.

            Calling for a vote for republican socialism means supporting organisations whose programmes include the demand for a republic and the aim of socialism. On this criterion Respect would not get our votes, because, even though it carries a vague promise of socialism, it has no republican-democratic demands.

            We would vote for the Socialist Alliance (DP), the Alliance for Green Socialism and the Socialist Party. We should have been prepared to ask individual candidates such as Lorna Reid (Independent Working Class Association) and Respect candidates about their views on republicanism and socialism.

            The failure of the Respect programme to address the question of democracy was not a minor matter. It is fundamental to any genuine socialist project. Unless and until the left grasps the centrality of republican democracy to the liberation of the working class, we will make no significant political progress. We will remain trapped in a constitutional prison which artificially restricts our political choice. This is not to deny the importance of ‘bread and butter’ issues.

            We now face a growing and serious crisis of democracy. Far too much power is concentrated in the hands of the executive - the elected dictatorship. Over the last 20 years there has been an increasing centralisation of state power which has grown alongside the privatisation of corporate power. There is now a real alienation of ordinary people from the political process. A feeling that government is dishonest, manipulative and corrupt is widespread.

            In 1992 there was a 75% turnout in the general election. By 2001 this had fallen to 57% and more than seven million people no longer voted. Alongside all this has been the growth of the fascist BNP. They averaged 17% of the vote in the seats they contested in the previous local government elections, giving them 16 councillors across Britain. On June 10 they were hoping for the biggest electoral assault ever mounted by the far right in this country. The growth of the BNP is a crude measure of the extent to which parliamentary democracy is in trouble.

            The war against Iraq did not cause the crisis. But it served to bring the problem to the attention of millions. It proved that parliament was a useless talking shop. The parliamentary game was simply an opportunity for the executive, hand in glove with US imperialism, to present its criminal activities in the best possible ‘democratic’ light. The pretext for seizing control of Iraq’s oil and supporting Israel was the fairy story about weapons of mass destruction only 45 minutes away.

            Parliament proved incapable of exposing the lies and deception. It allowed the government to set up its own inquiry - appointing Hutton and fixing the terms of reference. The Hutton inquiry provided more evidence of lies, half-truths and buck-passing at the heart of government. Neither Blair nor any of his ministers were found guilty of misleading the public. The Hutton whitewash showed how a powerful executive is able to use judicial inquiries as a means of self-preservation. It was a job that parliament should have done independently.

            Respect was not set up to expose the real nature of the bureaucratic-monarchist state or mobilise working people in the fight for democratic change. It was simply seeking to collect anti-war votes and blow Blair out of the water. Could Respect ‘terrorise’ Tony Blair by mobilising the votes of muslims? Getting votes is the be-all and end-all of this strategy. This is why the programme of Respect was not seen as important. Respect had one aim and one aim alone: to use the muslim vote to ‘blow up’ Blair and hope that the explosion would stimulate the working class. Ken Livingstone successfully deployed the same tactics and is now back inside New Labour.

            Marxism rejects this method, which has more in common with terrorism. In What is to be done? Lenin makes a connection between the methods of economism and terrorism. Subservience to spontaneity is their common root. They “bow to different poles of spontaneity: the economists bow to the spontaneity of the “labour movement pure and simple”, while the terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the “passionate indignation of the intellectuals” (VI Lenin Selected works Vol 1, p149).

            The revolutionary socialist Svoboda group advocated terrorist methods in Russia in 1903. Their rationale stressed terrorism’s “excitative significance”. It was seen as a means of “exciting” the working class movement and of giving it a “strong impetus” (ibid p151). Hence calls for terror and calls to lend the economic struggle itself a political character are merely two different forms of evading the most pressing responsibilities: namely political agitation and political struggle. “One group goes in search of artificial ‘excitants’ and the other talks of ‘concrete demands’” (p152).

            The Marxist method is completely different. Lenin attacks the economists and terrorists for their failure to understand that the working class is the “vanguard fighter for democracy”. Communists are obliged “to expound and emphasise general democratic tasks before the whole people, without for a moment concealing our socialist convictions. He is no social democrat [communist] who forgets in practice his obligations to be ahead of all in raising, accentuating and solving every general democratic question” (p156).

            Lenin’s emphasis is on political agitation, raising democratic consciousness and the organisation of the working class. This is not treating workers like stupid people, who need to be woken up by bombs, stunts and the drama and excitement of spectacular events. It was timely for the Red Platform of the CPGB to quote Lenin’s Leftwing communism on the purpose of electoral work (Weekly Worker June 3). Lenin says that communists “should not at all strive to get seats in parliament, but everywhere get people to think, and draw the masses into struggle”.

            This brings us back to the question of the revolutionary programme. In the current period this is the minimum (or, as some prefer, ‘transitional’) republican-democratic programme. This is the bottom line for Marxists. It is a brake on opportunism. It is an anchor against the pull of spontaneity. It puts ‘clear blue water’ between ourselves and the left wing of the constitutional monarchy. By giving unconditional support for Respect, the CPGB have weakened themselves. They have abandoned their own republican programme in exchange for the opportunity to bask in the reflected glory of Galloway and his gunpowder plotters.

            We need to understand the democratic experience of the working class movement over the last 20 years, shaped by the defeat of the miners in 1984-85 and the shift to the right in the trade unions and Labour Party. Thatcher began her general attack on local democracy. She attacked Lambeth and Liverpool councils and abolished the Greater London Council.

            By privatising council houses, the Tories intended to remove a major incentive for working class people to vote in local elections. By introducing the poll tax, the Tories would ‘persuade’ many of the poorest citizens to remove themselves from the electoral register.

            In Scotland the anti-poll tax movement connected with a growing dissatisfaction over the lack of national democratic institutions. The movement against the poll tax gave real impetus to demands for constitutional change and self-government. It produced new leaders of the Scottish left such as Tommy Sheridan and a new organisation in the Scottish Socialist Alliance, the forerunner of the Scottish Socialist Party. The promise of a Scottish parliament helped Blair win a large majority in Scotland and brought a new party of the left. The experience of the SSP is vital for the movement in England.

            First, the success of the SSP is the product of a democratic movement which brought constitutional political change in its wake. A Scottish parliament and proportional representation opened up opportunities for a new party of the left. If we want a new left party in England, it is not a matter of waiting for constitutional change to help us out. We have to make our own ‘luck’ by building a democratic movement and fighting for political change now.

            Second, the SSP is not a revolutionary communist party. It unites socialists, left nationalists and communists. It is a party of the left. Given the current state of the working class movement and the fragmented and isolated position of revolutionary communists, we have to fight for a party of the left.

            It is in the interests of the working class that we fight to build more effective resistance to the employing class. Revolutionary communists must not simply paddle their own canoe in splendid isolation from the broader socialist movement. On the contrary they must be the strongest and most determined advocates of left unity.

            Third, the SSP programme reflects the need for broad class unity and therefore does not seek to abolish parliament. It goes no further than a Scottish republic. It is a republican socialist party, although this ‘republicanism’ takes the guise of supporting the demand for Scottish independence. The demand for Scottish independence is a key part of the SSP frontal attack on the British constitutional monarchist state. This defines the party as an anti-constitutional party.

            In England history is trying to repeat itself as farce. The need for broad class unity was reflected in the launch of the Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party and in the Socialist Alliance movement itself. The Socialist Alliance expanded with the arrival of the SWP, but without a popular protest movement to build on. After the 2001 general election, the new SA remained like a ship on dry land without a popular/class tide to float on. Then the firefighters’ dispute, the RMT and the anti-war movement changed the situation. A massive wave appeared that would enable our little ship to float. Unfortunately, when the officers on the bridge saw the wave coming, they order the ship to be dragged onto higher ground to make sure we wouldn’t get wet.

            The massive anti-war movement is a major turning point in the politics of the UK. Not only did it highlight the crisis of democracy: it brought into being the beginnings of a pro-democracy movement that could change the shape of our politics. Whilst Respect is a response to that movement, it is a completely inadequate response. We need a mass, democratic and republican movement which can unite not only those forces in Respect, but the Communist Party of Britain, the Green Party, the Socialist Party, the SADP and a range of trade unions and progressive organisations such as CND.

            In addition we need a working class party based on the experience of the Scottish Socialist Party. There is one obvious and clear conclusion. We need a republican socialist party. We need a republican Socialist Alliance. We need to vote for anti-war parties with republican socialist programmes.

            Let me now turn to points made by Nick Rogers (Weekly Worker June 3). Nick is clearly supportive of republican-democratic demands, but thinks it would be better tactics to vote Respect with no illusions. Republican-democratic demands include the full range of democratic rights, including secularism, rights for women, gays and migrant workers. It must be stressed that these demands are not a luxury, but concern basic rights for working class people.

            We cannot defend republican-democratic demands if we are prepared to abandon them for the sake of votes. We would be behaving in the same opportunist way as the SWP. Unconditional support for Respect is surrendering the only weapon we have - our ability to criticise their lack of principle and their opportunism. That is a heavy price to pay in exchange for nothing more than the hope that Respect might discover democracy at its October conference.

            The CPGB have sold themselves very cheaply. They have not extracted a single concession or promise from the Respect leadership in exchange for unconditional support from the Weekly Worker. It is true the CPGB criticised Respect, but at the same time it made it clear that it would vote for Respect’s royal socialist programme.

            Nick says that republican socialists are not engaging with real processes taking place within Respect. But surely the point is that these demands are engaged with real processes in class society. Hence the best way to engage with the real processes in Respect is not to capitulate to the narrow economistic vision of the leadership. We have to defend the republican programme, confident that “society” will teach Respect about the need for such a programme.

            Nick then suggests that defending this will effectively discriminate against muslim workers. This is simply wrong. The muslim working class have been subjected to the most anti-democratic measures and discrimination. Why assume that muslim workers would not be the most supportive of republican-democratic demands?

            Their very real experience teaches them about the importance of democratic rights. Of the 600 people arrested under terrorism legislation, less than 100 have been charged, and only six convicted. The vast majority have been muslims. This is only the tip of an iceberg of discrimination which affects muslim workers disproportionately.

            On the question of republicanism we would be better trusting the democratic instincts of muslim workers than left groups like the SWP. Individual SWP members may well support republican demands. But party loyalty and discipline will silence them.

            Of course we should draw a clear distinction between muslim workers and muslim fundamentalists. If Respect is stacked full of fundamentalists then democratic demands will fall on stony ground. This is not so if democratically minded muslim workers join Respect or stand as candidates.

            Nick is right in one sense when he says the response of the Revolutionary Democratic Group and the Red Platform is inadequate. But the problem is wider than just us and includes the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, CPGB and the SADP.

            We are facing a new political situation since the Iraq war. Respect is posing new problems for the left. We have not yet managed to develop a united response. On Thursday June 10 the political bomb thrown by Respect was set to go off. Was there an almighty bang or a damp squib? When the dust settles, the struggle for republican democracy and socialism will continue. Then we will see which positions are strengthened and which undermined l

Dave Craig

Revolutionary Democratic Group