related articles

Not fit to govern

Writing in a personal capacity, Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group argues that Respect is a barrier to the formation of a republican socialist party

was sorry to hear that Peter Manson was “confused” by the way I voted in the June elections (Letters July 1). I did not call for socialists to vote for Respect. But in London I voted for George Galloway. I did not vote for Lindsey German or Respect in the London mayor or GLA elections. Why did this confuse Peter and what did it all mean?

For Marxists the important thing about elections is to raise the political consciousness of the working class and strengthen its combativity and organisation for the class struggle in the period after the election. Lenin in Leftwing communism explains that in electoral work the aim of communists “should not at all strive to get seats in parliament, but everywhere get people to think, and draw the masses into struggle” (see Weekly Worker May 20). The message is one of ‘thinking’ and ‘struggling’.

Traditionally there has been a disjunction between what socialists say before an election and what they say during one. In the 1980s and early 1990s the Socialist Workers Party appeared to oppose Labour between elections. But at election time it gave critical support. The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty did the same during this election.

Enjoy this article?
How about showing us your appreciation? Producing the Weekly Worker costs a substantial amount of money. Our only source for that financial backing comes from people like you: readers and supporters of our newspaper. You may not agree with the CPGB on every dot and comma, but we know that 1000s of comrades appreciate our open, critical and democratic press.

Click here to find out how you can donate to the Summer Offensive 2004, our annual fundraising drive.

Neither of these socialist organisations had significant votes to give Labour. What they could do, though, was influence the views of working class activists.

This ‘dual’ line of opposing Labour in the class struggle and then supporting it “with no illusions” in elections needs some explaining. In 1984 the miners were on strike and Labour leaders were busily stabbing them in the back. Yet the SWP backed Kinnock in the elections in 1987 and 1992, and Blair in 1997. The implication was that class struggle was important and elections were not. So we might as well vote Labour.

Of course the distinction between ‘class struggle’ and elections is false. Elections are a political manifestation of the class struggle. In the contest between parties, social classes struggle for power. In elections the enemies of the working class dress up in party clothes, make every type of false promise and sow the seeds of every illusion. Far from going soft on Labour at election time, socialists must sharpen their criticism. It is a time for socialists to destroy illusions, not manufacture them.

Labour represents the interests of the capitalist class. But, unlike the Tories, it has traditionally presented itself as the workers’ friend. When the working class is weak, the Labour government openly pursues anti-working class policies. If the working class is strong, Labour will make concessions and head off rebellion by incorporating the trade union leaders.

As Marxists our task in elections is to identify the enemy parties and tear down their disguises. Those who say ‘vote Labour’ are not clear in their own minds who the enemy is. If our job is to raise the consciousness of the active section of the class, then we must be as hostile to Labour in elections as we are during strikes. Our message is that liberal capital is your enemy. Indeed it is more dangerous posing as the workers’ friend. We do not vote for our enemies, even during elections.

Our line at elections is merely an extension of the class struggle politics before the election began. So what is the root of SWP ‘dualism’? It is an expression of economism and the disconnection between economic and political struggle. Lenin explains that the practical conclusion of economism is that “economic struggle be left to the workers and political struggle to the liberals” (VI Lenin CW Vol 23, p13). This was the formula for SWP politics in the era of Tony Cliff.

Outside election time the SWP behaved like syndicalists. They supported strikes and trade union militancy. SWP members were told that elections were not important. They did not stand candidates. During elections, a time of heightened political awareness and struggle, the SWP conceded the political leadership of the working class to the liberal-capitalist Labour Party. Eventually the slogan, ‘Vote Labour with no illusions’, became so embarrassing as to be untenable and the SWP joined the Socialist Alliance. But the same opportunist method remains.

The basic communist message is that liberal Labourism is the enemy of the working class. Economism is liberal ideology, which weakens and divides the working class movement and makes independent working class political struggle impossible. Against economism, communists recognise the working class as the democratic class and the “vanguard fighter for democracy”. A workers’ party is therefore 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” (VI Lenin SW Vol 1, p156).

We have to apply this to the concrete circumstances in the UK today. First there is a low level of economic struggle. Second there is no workers’ party that represents the independent interests of the working class. There are many socialist and communist sects, but no party. Third the political system is in decay. The Iraq war and the mass anti-war movement have highlighted a growing crisis of democracy. What conclusion flows from this? What do we want workers to think about and struggle for right now?

The communist answer is contained within, and concentrated in, the slogan of a republican socialist party. Last year, before Respect had been set up, we pointed to the vital and urgent need for such a party. We gave a clear definition of its character as a workers’ party whose aim is socialism. It is a party of socialist unity, bringing all socialists and communists into one single organisation. So what does the ‘republican’ part of it mean?

A republican socialist party is a workers’ party which gives a high priority or emphasis on the struggle for democracy in general and a democratic secular republic in particular. It is not a party trying to reform or patch up the constitutional monarchist system or govern through this system. It is a party which represents the working class as the “vanguard fighter for democracy” and which “expounds and emphasises” the “general democratic tasks before the whole people, without for a moment concealing our socialist convictions”. It is a party that “raises, accentuates and solves” the problem of the constitutional monarchist system.

Most socialists content themselves with the standard abstract definition of Labour as a bourgeois party supported by the trade union bureaucracy. But Labour takes on the political characteristics of the British ruling class. The monarchy is the symbolic head of the ruling class. In paying homage to the crown, Labour establishes its fitness for office and its commitment to the constitution and the state. Like the Tories, Labour is a loyalist or monarchist party.

In switching from voting Labour, via the SA, to Respect, the SWP drags its royal Labourite garbage behind it. The ‘R’ in Respect stands for ‘royalty’, not ‘republicanism’. Importing old Labour’s royal socialism into the platform of Respect shows it has no idea where it is going. Respect continues the historic failure of the British socialist movement to champion the cause of democracy. New perfume cannot disguise the smell of rotting monarchism.

If the left had spent even one minute thinking about how we could win power and become a government it would come to the obvious republican conclusion. As Engels says, “If one thing is certain, it is that our party and the working class can only come to power in the form of the democratic republic” (quoted in State and revolution, VI Lenin SW Vol 2, p288). The Scottish Socialist Party has almost come to the same conclusion. It will never come to power as a socialist party under the British crown. But at least with Scottish independence the SSP is thinking about political power and how to get it.

Not so the left in England. In dumping the republic, Respect declared that it is not interested in winning power. It has no ambitions other than protest. In coded language it says, ‘We are not fit to govern, but vote for us anyway.’ This is the basic message of the whole English socialist movement. Then we wonder why the working class will not vote for us.

The slogan of a republican socialist party is the only objectively correct slogan in the current situation. The left will only go in the right direction in so far as it takes up this slogan. A republican socialist party can be a step towards a mass communist party. But on one condition - that communists take up the fight and put themselves in the vanguard of the struggle to form it. The CPGB declares it will not promote such a party, but join it if it was formed. They place on themselves a self-denying ordinance, which undermines the struggle for a communist party.
The source of all Peter’s “confusion” is here. The CPGB is only in favour of a democratic centralist revolutionary communist party. If the call for such a party was simply general propaganda, then no communist can or should object. But if it is meant to be agitation or a call for immediate action, it is wrong-headed ultra-leftism. It becomes the completely untenable position of a sect.

An immediate agitational call for launching a mass communist party is a piece of ludicrous political theatre. It is either a call for another sect, or a disingenuous appeal to join a sect like the CPGB or the RDG. Sect politics takes no account of the consciousness of the masses and its advanced sections. There is no mass revolutionary consciousness. There is no revolution taking place that would teach the masses very rapidly about the need for such a party. There is not even a high level of class struggle. The communist sects can hardly agree to be in one room, never mind one organisation.

The immediate call for a mass revolutionary communist party must and will fall on stony ground. The experience of the CPGB shows this. In the early 1990s the CPGB called for a revolutionary party and stood revolutionary candidates in elections. But the revolutionary communist masses did not flock into the CPGB. The CPGB gave up putting up communist candidates. The membership is more or less the same small size as years ago.

On the other hand the CPGB joined every socialist unity project from the Socialist Labour Party to the Socialist Alliance, and now Respect. Weekly Worker sales have grown. This is not simply due on the content of the paper. The content has reflected activity and intervention by the CPGB in all the socialist unity projects. The last known CPGB members to stand for election did so as socialist unity (ie, Socialist Alliance candidates).

The CPGB is opposed to a republican socialist party because it is a “halfway house”. But the CPGB is not opposed to Respect. It was at the founding conference. It has encouraged every member to join and vote for it. The CPGB would be sitting on the Respect executive if only the SWP had been polite enough to invite them. Respect is not a republican socialist party. It is not republican. It is hardly socialist and it is not a party. It is not even a halfway house.

Communist left sectism is a barrier to doing what is necessary for the working class and communist movement. The CPGB has not understood that the transitional method applies to party-building as a well. When the CPGB first advocated a federal republic, it was condemned by ultra-lefts, who argued for nothing less than a workers’ republic. The lefts said that a federal republic was a halfway house and it was therefore wrong to advocate it.

The transitional method breaks this sort of political nonsense by marrying communist aims with the recognition of mass consciousness. It is not a matter of telling the masses about communism and a communist party. It is about finding the path to this in the real world. For communists to oppose a republican socialist party is to exclude themselves from playing a leading role in building it. It is to put sect interests before the interests of the working class with its currently constituted level of struggle and consciousness.

Now let us return to the criticism made by Peter in his letter. In 2003 we called for a republican socialist party. It is the slogan which calls on workers to “think” and “struggle”. When we come to the elections of June 2004, we do not invent a new line. There is no opportunistic ‘dualism’. We do not invent a new line in order to get seats, votes and salaries. The prime purpose is to get workers to “think” and “struggle”.

In June 2004 we call on workers to vote for a republican socialist party. But such a party does not exist. It is why we raise the slogan in the first place. So therefore we call on workers to vote for parties with republican and socialist programmes. The election is a means of extending our agitation and putting over the same message. We call for a vote for the Socialist Alliance (Democracy Platform), Alliance for Green Socialism and the Socialist Party. We do not call for a vote for Respect. Respect does not have a republican socialist programme. Therefore we do not support it.

It would be opportunist to argue for a communist party in 2003 and Respect in June 2004. This would be consistent only if Respect was the concrete manifestation of a communist party. But simply switching to Respect to get votes or seats would be opportunism, bending under the pressure of bourgeois elections.

Peter is not in favour of a republican socialist party. In which case, we cannot expect him to argue for it at election time. We cannot fault his consistency. Equally he might see himself as a republican and socialist when there are no elections. Perhaps he turns into a royal socialist pumpkin as soon as election clock strikes 12 and campaigning begins? Perhaps he thinks that at election time votes are more important than thinking and struggling?

Respect is not a republican socialist party and cannot become one on the basis of its current programme. It is marching in the wrong direction. We have to be honest about Respect and tell workers the truth. Without democracy or republicanism, Respect cannot become the party we need. That is the main message that communists must put over. We should not carry the slogan ‘Vote Respect’.

All this is clear and consistent with the interests of the working class. But there was a sting in tail. I made an additional point. I voted for George Galloway, but not Lindsey German or the Respect slate in the London elections. What does this mean? I wanted to make clear that my hostility to Respect is not based on anti-Gallowayism. It is because Respect is a barrier to, and an alternative to, a republican socialist party. And the main barrier is the SWP, not George Galloway. This almost stands the AWL position on its head.

In conclusion it seems to me that Peter was confused for three reasons. First, he is not in favour of a republican socialist party. Second, he does not agree that the central point of the election is not to win votes, seats or salaries, but to get workers to think about the need for a republican socialist party and to take action to build such a party. If the election persuaded 500 or 5,000 workers of this, it would have been a real step towards the party.

Third, Peter does not want to see this message. He declares it ‘out of order’ on the grounds of electoral technicalities. I could not just vote for Galloway in a list system. Technically he is right. But he has missed the point. It is not a technical exercise. It is the political message that counts. In the fight between Respect and the republican socialist party, the SWP, not Galloway, is the problem. But the biggest problem at the minute is the CPGB fighting for Respect and against a republican socialist party. Since in current conditions the latter is the only road to a communist party, then the CPGB has taken an objectively anti-party stance.