Marxist
Education Portal
The New Period -The Real Issue
From the [Members’ bulletin] editor
The October National Committee recommended that we change our name to SOCIALIST PARTY by 56 votes (82%) to 11(16%) (with 1 abstention). The EC document was endorsed by 56 (81%) to 9 (13%) (with 4 abstentions).
Militant Socialist Party was not agreed; 3 in favour (4%) and 65 (96%) against. The Merseyside document on Socialist Alliances was not endorsed: 9 in favour (13%), 50 (74%) against and 9 abstentions. The document for Militant Labour was not endorsed: 5 in favour (7%) and 60 (88%) against and 3 abstentions. Ourselves Alone was not endorsed. 3 votes in favour (4%) and 62 against (91%) and 3 abstentions.
MB 20 carries more material and documents for the pre-Conference discussion. The Real Issues at Stake (from the authors of Ourselves Alone) was circulated to NC members before the last NC meeting (October 12-14). A Reply from the EC: The New period – the real issue is also enclosed [below], together with the paper that was discussed by the Scottish Committee …
The New Period -The Real Issue
EC STATEMENT
What’s in a Name?
1) SINCE THE FALL of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, we have been living in a new period. We therefore have to adopt new policies, strategy and tactics which correspond to the new conditions. The “Open Turn”, which meant standing in elections under our own banner and generally developing a much bolder profile, was a major step towards coming to grips with the new situation. Adopting the name “Socialist Party”, if it is accepted by our Special Conference, will mark a further important step forward.
2) The issue of the name of our organisation is a tactical or presentational issue, not a matter of principle. But it would be wrong to therefore conclude that it is not an important question. During the debate many comrades have expressed the view that they feel “Militant”, because of its association with Islamic fundamentalism, para-military and guerrilla groups, or its overtones of extremism – has now become a barrier, if not a serious obstacle, between our organisation and the people we are trying to reach. At the same time, strong support has been expressed by many comrades for our argument that “Socialist Party” will be a more effective banner in the next period. “Socialist” makes clear our ideological aim, while “Party” sharpens our profile as a party making an appeal for new members and support. Moreover, we can stamp on the Socialist Party the bold, fighting character of our organisation.
3) A strange feature of the debate has been that a minority of comrades who are opposed to dropping “Militant” and the adoption of “Socialist Party”, argue their case without seriously addressing the issues which specifically relate to the name, as if they believe them to be matters of little importance. The change to “Socialist Party” – if accepted – will encapsulate a series of changes in the presentation of our ideas and tactics, changes which, in our view, are absolutely necessary to take account of the new situation in Britain and internationally, and especially the more complicated consciousness of different layers of the working class.
4) Nineteen eighty-nine was an historic watershed, comparable in some respects with the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 and the opening up of the post-Second World War period in 1945. The collapse of the Stalinist regimes in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe has had a profound effect on the consciousness of all layers of the working class. Some sections of workers had illusions in these regimes as models of socialism, while other sections, probably the vast majority, were repelled by their distorted, totalitarian character. Nevertheless, the Stalinist states -whether they were viewed as “communist”, “socialist”, or “centrally-planned economies” -were universally seen as alternative, non-capitalist societies which for a time rivalled capitalism. The complete collapse of these regimes after 1989 was a counter-revolutionary event of world-historic importance. It allowed the capitalists internationally to hammer home the message that “socialism won’t work” and that “the capitalist market (preferably combined with liberal democracy) is the only workable system.” The leaders of the traditional workers’ organisations, themselves undermined by the development of neo-liberal policies, were completely incapable of answering this ideological offensive. As a result, the left in the bourgeois-workers’ parties and the trade unions has been decimated by these events, and most of the Marxist left has also been completely disorientated.
5) The ideological effects of these counter-revolutionary developments can be overcome on the basis of renewed struggle of the working class. But to ignore current reality would be a serious mistake. A clear understanding of the present conjuncture is a prerequisite of effective intervention in the struggles which will develop.
6) The main effect of the collapse of Stalinism has been on the subjective factor, on consciousness. The collapse neither fundamentally strengthened capitalism, nor fundamentally weakened the working class.
7) Since the end of the post-war upswing in 1973-74, world capitalism has moved into a period of depression, that is of long-term stagnation and decline. The collapse of Stalinism strengthened the hand of the capitalist class in swinging away from the “welfare state” or the “social market” towards the older, more barbarous policies of “free-market” capitalism. This has produced a much sharper polarisation between the super-rich minority and the poor majority, and has given rise to permanent mass unemployment and the impoverishment of a large section of the population. The super-exploitation of the ex-colonial lands has also been intensified, aggravating all the terrible problems of the Third World. In the short term, the capitalists have enormously boosted their profitability. For the longer term, they are cutting away at the very foundations which provided the basis for growth and stability during the post-1945 “reprieve” of capitalism.
8) Significant sections of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries have suffered an undermining of their living standards since the 1970s, as well as a series of set-backs and defeats on the industrial and political planes. The workers, however, have not suffered defeats on the scale of the 1920s and 1930s, when Mussolini, Hitler and Franco physically smashed the workers’ movement and imposed slave-labour conditions on the working class. On the contrary, the proletariat internationally has accumulated unprecedented numbers and social weight, the material basis of enormous potential power.
9) The workers’ power remains latent, however, because the proletariat lacks consciousness of its own role in society and its potential ability to move and transform society. The social democratic leaders of the traditional workers’ organisations and the trade unions are now utterly bankrupt politically. They are separated from the workers by their huge salaries and privileges, and ideologically they now overwhelmingly accept the capitalist market. When the capitalists turned back to neo-liberal policies in the late 1970s, clawing back the concessions they had granted to the workers during the upswing, the labour leaders were incapable of defending the post-war gains in wages, social benefits and democratic and trade union rights. Time and again the workers have proved they have the capacity and the determination to struggle, whether in the British miners’ strike of 1984-85, the 1994-95 strike waves in Italy and France, or the recent strike wave in Belgium. But without fighting policies and resolute leadership, such movements lead at best to partial or very temporary victories. The problem lies with the subjective factor, and it is to this that we must pay special attention in the next period.
10) The unfolding crisis of capitalism will provoke big struggles and social explosions. Of this we have no doubt. Events will impel a radicalisation of the working class, which will provide the basis for the growth of class consciousness and a renewal of socialism among wide sections. But it would be a serious mistake to think that this will be a straightforward, automatic process. We should not expect a repeat performance of previous periods of intensified class struggle, nor can we simply repeat the theoretical formulas, or the strategy and tactics of the past. We have to grasp the concrete features of this new period, and work out fresh ideas and methods. We have to be prepared for new, perhaps unexpected, variations in the disintegration of the traditional mass organisations and the emergence of new formations.
11) This is the fundamental issue at the heart of the current debate within the organisation. The main failing of the position of John Bulaitis, Phil Hearse and Jared Wood (“BHW” for short), expressed in Ourselves Alone (OA), and The Real Issues (Rl), is that they fail to understand the character of this new period. They are more concerned with trying to fit general formulas to the new situation than with analysing present day reality. We recognise that we are testing the comrades’ willingness to read yet another document. Nevertheless, we feel that BHW’s The Real Issues at Stake reveals the incorrectness of their arguments even more clearly than Ourselves Alone. It is therefore worthwhile for us to respond on some of the key questions.
Which Layer?
12) THE QUESTION OF which layers our organisation will orientate towards and build amongst is, according to BHW, the key question – more important than the name. (OA: 1, Rl: 2) The position of BHW comes out much more clearly in The Real Issues. They argue that we have to orientate towards the advanced layers. Moreover, it is clear from The Real Issues that they believe that we can only reach broader layers by working through the advanced layer. (Rl: 7) This is their “operative conceptual framework” (to use their phraseology).
13) They claim it is an “obvious framework”. “Marxists have always distinguished, in classical terms, between the socialist vanguard, the advanced workers, and the mass of the class.” (Rl: 32) Unfortunately, this analysis is based on an appeal to an orthodox Marxist trinity rather than a realistic appraisal of the current period. To maintain this “obvious framework” BHW have to uphold the idea of the continued existence of an advanced layer big enough to support their classical schema and justify the orientation they are advocating.”
14) BHW refer a number of times to the EC’s argument that the “advanced layer” or the “layer with a socialist consciousness” has now been reduced to a “very thin” stratum. (OA: 20, Rl: 34) They do not explicitly say whether or not they agree with this characterisation, but the clear implication of their argument is that they do not accept our analysis that the advanced layer is now very thin. They do not recognise the fragmentation, disintegration and disorientation over the recent period of the former organised, class-conscious, socialist left within the workers’ movement.
15) In Ourselves Alone they refer to the “dynamic and combative forces” to be found “among radical, mainly younger trade unionists”. (OA. 35, quoted again in Rl: 35) Yet on the question of the advanced layer amongst the unions, they want to have it both ways. They acknowledge (OA: 41) that there has been a dramatic fall in the level of strikes and a big fall in the number of activists participating in the branches and taking on the roles of shop stewards and reps. “However [they say], there is still a small but significant minority of trade union militants – and many of them are a younger, fresher layer.” (OA: 41) BHW argue that our work in the unions “must be orientated to strengthening our links and raising our standing with this advanced section”, and they claim that “going broader” could lead to a neglect of “the concentrated, consistent and detailed work that is necessary to build a base in the unions.”
16) This point was answered by Roger Bannister and other comrades. We are continuing our systematic work in the trade unions. We are building Broad Lefts and have recently strengthened our support in a number of unions, like UNISON, CPSA, NUT, etc. In the recent period, however, an older layer of activists, the former “advanced layer”, have become routinist, sceptical about the possibilities of struggle, and reluctant to take initiatives to strengthen the left. They have gone back in consciousness and are in many ways an obstacle to new struggles. The best response for fighting policies, as in the UNISON election, comes from newer, fresher layers – a new generation of activists which is beginning to emerge.
17) in reality, BMW do not take on board the qualitative weakening of the advanced layer in the trade unions. They formally acknowledge a weakening, but they do not grasp the real effects of this weakening. At the same time, they attempt to construct a new “”advanced layer” of the working*class. In Ourselves Alone BHW refer to “the more advanced, radicalised, dynamic, and combative layer.” (OA: 20) “The most dynamic and combative forces will be found among radical, mainly younger, trade unionists, the youth, and some of the most exploited and oppressed groups in society -especially sections of black youth and working-class women. It is to these layers that the revolutionary organisation must orientate.” (OA: 23, quoted again in Rl: 35)
18) BHW make various qualifications. In Ourselves Alone they accept that in the current post-Stalinist period radical campaigns and movements “do not automatically find a socialist expression. On the contrary, many newly radicalising forces, especially in the youth, are sceptical about socialism, and particularly of joining a relatively small revolutionary party.” Once again, however, BHW formally acknowledge this limited, fragmented consciousness without grasping the implications of what they are saying. The point they are emphasising is that this layer is particularly sceptical about joining a small revolutionary party as opposed to a broader formation. In reality, this layer is sceptical at the moment about socialism, particularly about the possibility of achieving a socialist society. They are sceptical about joining any socialist formation, whether “relatively small” or “new and broad”. The crucial question for us is how can we reach young people and workers who are beginning to search for a way out? What kinds of campaigning activity will be most attractive to these layers? What will be the most attractive way to present socialist ideas to this layer?
19) BHW claim that the EC fails to make “any distinction between those who are radicalising and those who are not.” They reject our argument that the consciousness of these radical layers is “not that different from the mass”. (Rl: 37) However, in the discussion at the NO a number of comrades gave examples of the level of consciousness of the different types of people involved in these movements. Paula Mitchell gave specific examples of young people involved in the YRE. Some of them were primarily anti-racists, others were also concerned with issues such as lesbian and gay rights and Third World struggles. They all want to organise and fight for better things, but they do not have a clear idea of what the alternative should be. None of them was a socialist until they came across our comrades.
20) In the recent period, we have intervened very effectively in radical movements and campaigns. The broad movement against the Criminal Justice Bill, in which we played a decisive part, is a good example. At the same time, we have made a realistic appraisal of their political character. Many of the youth involved are radicalised on particular issues. Their participation is episodic. Some people are extremely active on one or two issues, and ready to take direct action and confront the forces of the state, but at the same time are very confused on other issues. They mostly do not understand, as yet, the need for a long-term strategy for building a movement or an organisation capable of a sustained struggle to change society. Active involvement and radicalisation do not generally lead, at this stage, to rounded-out anti-capitalist conclusions as far as the majority of these “newly radicalising forces” are concerned, let alone to socialist conclusions. In so far as they recognise the need for organised campaigning and direct action on various issues, the “newly radicalising” layers are certainly in advance of broader layers. But in relation to class consciousness -recognising the role and potential power of the working class – and socialist consciousness, they are not that far ahead of the broader layers. BHW, however, continually confuse radi-calisation and activism with the development of socialist consciousness.
A New Broad Socialist Party
21) BHW CLAIM THAT we have changed our position on the question of a new broad socialist party. They quote at length from our editorials in Socialism Today early in 1996. Then, they say, we were arguing for “a new socialist party in the foreseeable future… not a mass workers’ party in the long term.” (/?/: 25) The EC’s position, they claim, means “the abandonment of the fight for a new socialist party.” (Rl: 19) BHW speak as if nothing has changed since January 1996, when Scargill publicly announced the launching of the Socialist Labour Party (SLP). But the situation has changed. Events have moved on. The limited character of Scargill’s initiative has become clear. BHW themselves say “the SLP was an enormous wasted opportunity”. (Rl: 30) But to them this apparently makes very little difference to our strategy and tactics.
22) We still have the perspective of the development of a new, broad workers’ party. But we recognise that, because of the negative effect of Scargill’s SLP, the timescale for the development of such a formation has been extended into the future. Events will place the development of a new mass workers’ party back on the agenda. This will develop at a certain point during the crisis which will unfold after the likely election of a Blair government. We cannot, however, predict an exact timescale. But it could be one, two or several years before such an opening occurs. We have therefore modified our strategy and tactics for the immediate period ahead in order to reflect the changed situation since Scargill announced the launching of the SLP in January.
23) BHW have a completely abstract approach to the question. They say that Scargill’s original call for the SLP “corresponded to an objective need in the situation” and, “irrespective of what Scargill has done”, the “objective need in the situation still exists…” (Rl: 30) This is a very one-sided, superficial approach. Of course, there is a need for a new workers’ party. We were the first to analyse the process of bourgeoisification of the Labour Party and to draw the necessary conclusions, long before Scargill secretly hatched his plan for the SLP. But the formation and growth of a new mass workers’ party depends on a combination of objective events and subjective factors. In the current period the subjective factor is critical. Scargill, or rather what Scargill represents or symbolises in the eyes of wide sections of workers and young people, was a potentially decisive subjective factor. But rather than playing the positive role that he could have done, Scargill has played a negative role. BHW take no account of the concrete effects that this has had. Scargill’s initiative raised the expectation of a wide layer of activists, but the opportunity was lost and cannot be immediately repeated. Scargill has not merely made the process “more complicated”. In the sectarian form that Scargill has imposed on it, the present SLP will actually act as an obstacle to the formation of a new workers’ party in the next period.
24) As soon as we learned in late 1995 of Scargill’s (at that time secret) plans for launching the SLP, we publicly came out in favour of the formation of a new, broad socialist party. In a series of editorials and articles in Socialism Today, we explained why the development of such a party would be a big step forward for the working class. BMW quote many passages making this point. But we made other points as well, which they appear to have forgotten. While adopting a positive approach to Scargill’s initiative, we warned that the dogmatic, undemocratic methods which Scargill was pursuing would “not be understood or accepted by a new generation of socialist activists”. Moreover, in our internal discussions at the time we warned even more strongly that it was by no means guaranteed that the SLP would take off. On the contrary, Scargill’s unreconstructed Stalinist methods could lead to the SLP stalling before it reached the end of the runway. Our tactic was to push for an open, inclusive, democratic formation involving the broadest possible spectrum of activists and socialists. We did this through our press, in local discussions with activists, and even through private discussions with the people around Scargill. But we maintained a realistic estimate of the possibilities of the SLP developing, warning that it could be abortive because of Scargill’s methods.
25) It is clear from Ourselves Alone and from The Real Issues that BMW, even at the time, did not understand our approach to the SLP. They say that Scargill’s call created an excitement because it corresponded to an objective need in the situation. (/?/: 30) True. But the objective need had been there for some time. The new factor in the situation at the end of 1995 was Scargill’s decision, following the final abandonment of Clause IV by the Labour Party Conference in October 1995, to break from Labour and call for the formation of a new party. As we pointed out in our statements at the time, Scargill’s personal authority was an important factor in the situation. Because of his role in the 1984-85 miners’ strike – because he is seen by broad layers of workers and youth as an implacable advocate of working-class interests and socialism – he had the potential to attract thousands, possibly tens of thousands, to a new party if he approached the task in the right way. Scargill’s role as a mass leader was potentially an important catalyst. That is why his initiative opened up the possibility of a break in the situation.
26) The role of the individual, however, can have both a positive and a negative aspect. Despite his broad appeal, Scargill represents a sectarian Stalinist tradition, which is alien to many activists. By refusing to adopt a more open, flexible approach, Scargill has restricted the growth and influence of the SLP. It is based mainly on an older layer of trade union and left activists, many of whom reflect the old Stalinist influence within the labour movement. They do not understand the changes that have taken place internationally since 1989 and they have no idea how to appeal to newer, fresher layers.
27) The Socialism Today articles also make another point which is not referred to by BMW, that Militant Labour and Scottish Militant Labour had “pioneered the route now being joined by the SLP.” The successes of Militant in leading the broad mass struggle which defeated the poll tax, in Broad Left organisations in the trade unions (like the Campaign For a Democratic UNISON), our role in many other broad campaigns (against racism, against water privatisation in Scotland, against violence against women, against the Criminal Justice Bill, against motorway developments, etc), and our decision in 1991-92 to stand independent candidates under our own banner were undoubtedly a factor in pushing Scargill towards the SLP initiative. One of Scargill’s motives is a desire to cut across the development of Militant Labour, which he sees as a threat to his own influence.
28) In other words, it is totally false for BHW to argue, as they do, that there is a sharp distinction between a revolutionary party orientating towards the advanced layer, on the one hand, and an orientation towards broader lay ers through the possible development of a new mass formation, on the other. In reality, since the struggle in Liverpool and the anti-poll tax movement we have – as a revolutionary organisation -gone much further in organising mass activity than the SLP will be capable of doing in the foreseeable future. There was the possibility, at the initial stage, that Scargill’s influence could attract wider forces than we had previously been able to mobilise under our own banner. But this has not proved to be the case. In fact, many activists have refused to join SLP precisely because of Scargill’s decision to exclude Militant Labour from its ranks. They recognise the role that we have played in a whole series of local and national campaigns.
29) Nor did we ever have the conception that the successful growth of the SLP would depend primarily on the gathering together of existing left groupings or the remnants of groupings. There are certainly groups and individuals on the left who can play a role in the development of the struggle in the next period. But if this is what is meant by “recomposition of the labour movement” it will not be sufficient to develop a new, broad mass workers’ party – as we pointed out at the time. In the editorial to Socialism Today No. 3, Time for a New Socialist Party, we said: “Many of those who will be involved in the launching of a Socialist Labour Party will be former Labour Party activists and current trade union activists. But the main political constituency for such a party will not be found among these layers. Its potential support is overwhelmingly amongst fresher layers of workers and young people who have never been active in traditional labour movement organisations. [Scargill’s SLP proposal] document acknowledges the role of other ‘voices of protest and direct action, but the political implications of these social movements for a new party must be taken on board.” We argued that a bold, confident appeal to these layers would bring them into a new party. But such a “bold, confident appeal” has to be based on an understanding of the new period we are working in. It has to be based on fresh formulations of socialist policies which correspond to the new situation. Most of the “re-grouped” (or perhaps recycled?) forces in the SLP are totally incapable of this. Even the best of the older layer of left activists will only play a leading role in the next period if they adopt a fresh approach which corresponds to the new conditions.
30) We have to realistically acknowledge that the character of the SLP and the course taken by Scargill is a temporary set-back for the development of a new mass party. BMW, however, argue that “the chances of forging a new socialist party in the next period are increased by us fighting for it.” (Rl: 27) This is a case of revolutionary romanticism, of raising desirable aims which are completely divorced from political reality. A broad-based workers’ party, basing itself on the class struggle and radical anti-capitalist policies, would undoubtedly have far more influence on the mass of workers than we could exert ourselves in the next period. This is why we continue to support the idea of such a party. But to attempt to build a new mass party when the materials for its construction are not currently available would be completely futile. We would use up our resources and energy without achieving anything significant. By building our own forces and spreading our own influence in the immediate period ahead, however, we will be far better positioned to play a key role in the construction of a new mass workers’ party when favourable conditions develop, as they will at a certain stage in the future.
31) Militant Labour has a long track record of campaigning activity (participating in single-issue campaigns, building trade union Broad Lefts, and using elections as a campaigning platform). The strategy we are proposing, given the failure of the SLP to take off at this stage, is a continuation and development of our past methods, especially those we have developed since our “Open Turn” in 1991-92. It would be interesting to hear, on the other hand, exactly what BMW mean by “recomposition”. They frequently use this term without explaining concretely what it means. What exactly do they propose “to do now to build a new socialist party”? (Rl: 6) Who exactly are they saying we should be working with? What forms of organisation do they propose we Should be constructing?
Scotland and Socialist Alliances
32) BMW ARGUE THAT the “many others”, that is the “campaign and trade union activists, others radicalised by the struggle, other socialists – who cannot be immediately won to our revolutionary organisation whatever our name… provide the basis for a longer-term groupment of activists, whether that takes the form of a Socialist Alliance or some other form of organisation.” (Rl: 7) They “propose the necessity and possibility of coming together to forge local alliances around cuts, local government, environmental campaigns, etc -specific local alliances which can lay the basis, at a later stage, for Socialist Alliances, and indeed, a new Socialist Party.” (Rl: 9) According to BHW, “the EC majority’s line cuts completely across such an orientation.”
33) We do not, it is true, accept that we can only reach new layers through some “longer-term groupment of activists”. We are, however, continually attempting to forge local alliances against cuts, in support of Liverpool dockers, FBU and Post Office workers, and on many other issues. Our difference with BHW is that we do not see the formation of socialist alliances as a precondition of our campaigning activity.
34) The claim that we have changed our position and turned away from campaigning alliances or attempting to build socialist alliances is extraordinary. On this issue too, BHW are adopting a completely abstract position which ignores the experience of recent months.
35) It was our organisation which raised the question of forming socialist alliances, when the question of the SLP first arose and the danger appeared of a narrow, sectarian strait-jacket being placed on the new party by Scargill. We tested the waters and attempted to bring together as many groupings, individual activists, etc as we could under the banner of Socialist Alliances. Apart from Scotland, however, the results have been very limited. In some areas, the socialist alliances have a certain basis, such as Hillingdon and Coventry, mainly reflecting our campaigning and electoral activity in the previous period. But most of the alliances are extremely weak.
36) The Socialist Alliance Co-ordinating meeting, which we convened in Coventry on 5 October, attracted about 50 people, representing groups in Coventry, Scotland, Merseyside, Manchester, Kent, Hillingdon, Brent, and Walsall (Democratic Labour). The assessment of the comrades most actively involved in the socialist alliance work is that the materials do not exist at the present time to give the socialist alliances substance.
37) We have not abandoned an orientation towards socialist alliances. But after testing the ground and finding that the possibilities are very limited at the moment, we cannot make the building of socialist alliances our main priority. If in the future the mood develops amongst wider sections for the formation of alliances, we would turn towards their development. But we cannot simply wait for the mood to develop or the materials to appear. We have to build and strengthen our own organisation now, through our own activities and under the best banner for us to make an appeal to broader, fresher layers.
38) BHW claim that there is a contradiction between our strategy in Scotland and our strategy in the rest of Britain. Why, they ask, “in a situation [in Scotland] where we were clearly the strongest single force on the left-was it necessary to build this alliance [the SSA]?” (Rl: 11) But as a number of Scottish comrades pointed out at the October NC, BHW have turned things on their head. Scottish Militant Labour was able to play a leading part in the formation of a Scottish Socialist Alliance precisely because of the strength and influence that SML had built up through the anti-poll tax campaign, the fight against water privatisation, and SMUs electoral campaigns. If the Scottish organisation had waited until there was an SSA up and running before they launched mass campaigning activity, the SSA would not have been a viable formation.
39) BHW talk of “the dynamic of unity on the left”, which can “create an appeal way beyond the possibility of ourselves alone.” (Rl: 12) But the unity of insignificant forces will create no dynamic at all. A united force can, as BHW argue, have a wider appeal. But it would be a mistake to lose sight of the fact that it is the strength of our organisation and our political clarity which is a decisive factor in the effectiveness of the Scottish Socialist Alliance.
40) There is a lot of wishful thinking in BHW’s position: the situation would be more favourable if there were the development of a new, broad socialist party; it would be better for us if there were socialist alliances throughout the country. But when the materials do not exist, we have to develop an orientation, strategy and tactics which will allow us to build in the immediate period ahead. This does not mean that we will not discuss and work with other groupings and individuals. It does not mean that we will not attempt to build broad campaigns. But it does mean that for a period we have to work under our own banner, to build our own forces in order to position ourselves for future developments.
What Type of Party?
41) BHW CALL FOR the building of a “big revolutionary party” and reject the idea of building a “small mass party”. At first sight, this may appear to be merely a quibble about words or definitions. The Real Issues and the discussion at the NC, however, brought out the underlying difference of approach.
42) BHW insist on the building of a revolutionary party, whether small, medium or large, because it fits with their classical trinity: the party is based on the socialist vanguard, it orientates towards and builds from the advanced layers, and through the advanced layers it will reach the mass, (see OA: 21, 45) They argue, moreover, that a successful approach to the mass depends on a “regroup-ment” of left or socialist forces.
43) The BHW approach would have some validity if there were a significant advanced layer towards which we could orientate. Of course it would be a more favourable situation for us if there was still a substantial layer of class-conscious, socialist activists. Our argument is that, given the fragmentation and dispersal of the advanced layer, there is no alternative but to orientate towards broader layers.
44) BHW complain that our approach is “a complete challenge to what the organisation has argued until now.” (Rl: 32) This comment, however, shows that they are either unaware of the history of our organisation or they have forgotten it. In the 1970s and early 1980s, when there was a strong left-wing within the Labour Party and a strong militant left in the trade unions, much of our activity was orientated towards the advanced layers. But we never had the position that we could reach broader layers only through the advanced layers. We always tried to combine a number of tasks. We attempted to recruit from a layer who already had a socialist consciousness, winning them to the ideas of Marxism and developing them as revolutionary cadres. At the same time, we adopted elements of mass activity. When we were still nominally an entrist organisation, we led the struggle in Liverpool and the campaign against the poll tax. What were these, if not mass campaigns? While attempting to win socialists to a round-ed-out Marxist programme and recruit them to bur organisation, we always organised broad activities, through participation in industrial struggles, mass campaigns, and through initiating our own broad campaigns.
45) The argument of BMW is that we can only “go broad” through “participation in mass campaigns, building fighting broad-left style formations in the unions, socialist alliances, and through fighting for a new broad socialist party.” (Rl: 3) They argue, despite our past successes (for instance, in the poll tax struggle), that “going broad” is “both doomed to failure and will inevitably confuse and disorientate our membership.” (Rl: 4)
46) Only “some individuals”, BMW argue, “can be won immediately to our organisation.” (Rl: 7) Surely, the clear implication of this is that only a small handful can be won directly to our organisation in this period. “Many others -campaign and trade union activists, others radicalised by the struggle, other socialists -… cannot be immediately won to our revolutionary organisation whatever our name.” These broader forces could only be won to “a longer-term groupment of activists, whether that takes the form of a socialist alliance or some other form of organisation.” (Rl: 7)
47) It is hard to see how, on this basis, BMW think it will be possible to build a “big revolutionary organisation”, as they claim in Ourselves Alone (59). Where are the materials, now or in the immediate period ahead, for the “longer-term groupment of activists” which they consider indispensable for the growth of the revolutionary party? They are clinging to a schema. They do not take on board the decline and fragmentation of the advanced layer which existed in the past. On the other hand, they do not recognise the possibility of winning support, with the right strategy and approach, from the more conscious, potentially active elements within the broader layers. That is why BHW insist on the formula of a “revolutionary” party, defined as an organisation which appeals primarily to the advanced layers rather than broader layers.
48) For our part, we still have the perspective of building a revolutionary party. We will continue to uphold a clear, bold Marxist programme for the socialist transformation of society. We will continue to recruit activists and develop cadres. We are in no way counterposing broad activity, mass work, to the task of building a revolutionary party. But we are recognising that in this period we have to go broader, to cast our net wider, to attract the best activists and thinking workers and young people who are looking for a way out. That is why we have introduced the term “small mass party”, not to dilute our revolutionary methods, but to supplement them with tactics which will enable us to build in this particular conjuncture.
Reaching Out to the Masses?
49) BHW CLAIM THAT we are advocating the abandonment of the advanced layer or the broader radicalised section in favour of mass work. But while they put a lot of effort into constructing a new advanced layer to fit into their classical trinity, they have nothing to say about the broader mass. They treat the broader layers as if they were a single, undifferentiated mass. They imply that the EC’s call for “broader work” and “reaching out” means an indiscriminate trawl of the mass. They imply that this would entail a dilution of our ideas and a concentration on electoral campaigning in order to pick up whatever mass support we can find.
50) The broader layers, however, are not one undifferentiated section of society. Our argument is that, while there has been a fragmentation of the former advanced layer (with defeats, unemployment, tiredness, disillusionment, lack of understanding of the new period, etc), at the same time there is within the mass a fresh layer of thinking workers, of potential activists, of youth and workers, who are questioning society and looking for a way out. At the moment, it is even an exaggeration to describe them as a layer. They are scattered elements on many different levels of activity and consciousness. But these elements, with the right catalyst, could begin to be crystallised into a layer – a fresh advanced layer – and move into action.
51) A broad, class-struggle party with bold anti-capitalist policies would be the most effective catalyst for galvanising these scattered elements into activity. That is why we have argued the case for such a party, and why we will continue to advocate such a formation. But such a party does not exist at present, and the character of the SLP has actually set back such a development for a period. Of course, there is an “objective” need for such a party. But the political materials have not begun to develop, because such a development will depend on a combination of objective and especially subjective factors which are not yet present. We cannot simply wait for the emergence of a new mass party, attempting to build a vanguard party in a vacuum.
52) In the next period we can reach out to a significant layer of these potentially active elements if we adopt the right approach. To do this we need a bold, attractive socialist profile. One of the key tasks in this period is to present and popularise a socialist programme. We have to campaign and fight on transitional and immediate demands, but we also have to rehabilitate the ideas of socialism by relating them to issues which come up and struggles which develop.
53) We have to use elections as a platform to reach a wider layer. In this field, our name, the presentation of our ideas, and the formulation of our policies and our slogans are especially important. This is not a question of deciding our policies through “opinion polls”, as BHW allege (or of “adapting] to the present level of consciousness of the more politically backward layers.” (OA: 26) We have to present our socialist policies skilfully, in a way which connects to the consciousness of thinking workers and young people and evokes a positive response. If the initial impact we make provokes a negative reaction, we will cut ourselves off from a big layer who can potentially be won to our ideas.
54) This does not mean to say we intend to become a primarily electoral party. Our profile in elections is only one reason for adopting the name Socialist Party. We do not accept the sharp division drawn between “elections” and “struggle” by BHW. (0/4:22) Our election campaigns are inseparable from our other activities, and the considerations of profile and presentation which apply to election work also apply to other struggles.
55) As in the recent period, our election campaigns will be one aspect of our propaganda, campaigning and recruitment activity. Nevertheless, in the next period election campaigning will be especially important as a means of reaching a broader layer in order to build wider support and a bigger periphery of contacts. We will not, however, down-play trade union work, or abandon the CADV, or neglect youth work. Nor will we turn away from single-issue campaigns and social movements. These are all scare stories raised by BHW in Ourselves Alone, none of them with any justification. We will appeal to both activists and broader layers as an independent socialist party, calling on them to join our ranks or support our policies and campaigns.
56) We will continue to work together with other campaigns, left groupings, and individual activists. We are not claiming that we are the only organisation which can fight for socialism or organise campaigns. But we cannot ignore the fact that in the present period other groupings on the left are very weak, and some of the most active (like SWP and SLP) are extremely sectarian and incapable of effectively leading struggles. Our organisation, on the other hand, if we adopt skilful methods, can have a powerful effect in re-establishing a socialist consciousness amongst fresher layers of workers and young people, through propaganda and campaigning activity.
57) Some of the scattered elements we could reach may be involved in various single-issue campaigns, or influenced by them. But many, at this stage, are not actively involved in anything. They are angry at the effects of anti-working class policies, they are questioning the system, but at the moment they do not see any way forward. BMW do not see the need to reach out to this as yet scattered layer. Hence their rejection of the idea of mass work or any attempt to build a small mass party.
The Role of the Working Class
58) IN THE REAL Issues BHW say they are “disturbed” that the EC called on them to “clarify their ambiguous statements on this issue”, that is, on the role of the working class in general and the industrial working class in particular.
59) This was raised by the EC because Ourselves Alone and John Bulaitis called for a rejection of the “old stereotype” of the advanced worker: “We must ditch any stereotype of the ‘advanced worker’ as simply the mainly male activist of the industrial working class. We cannot have the 1930s image of how the future unfolding radicalism will take Place.” (OA: 24) “The character of this consciousness (of the working class) [writes John Bulaitis] will be different from that in the past. The old stereotype of the working class as male, manual workers is over. Clinging to this idea will be a barrier to the rebuilding of the socialist movement. Struggles, such as those for women’s liberation, over the environment, and lesbian and gay liberation, must be linked to class politics and an anti-capitalist programme.” (Socialism Today, number 11, quoted in /?/: 44)
60) Why did Ourselves Alone raise this issue? The organisation has never upheld a stereotype of the working class as “male, manual workers.” In the 1960s, with the strike of the Ford’s women machinists in 1968, we emphasised the key role of women workers within the proletariat. From the early 1970s, when we first launched anti-racist campaigns (through the LPYS at that time) we recognised the crucial importance of black and Asian workers within the working class. Since then, we have taken up the issues of lesbian and gay rights, the disabled, environmental issues, animal rights, etc, participating in those struggles and attempting to link them to working-class struggle. So why was the question raised?
61) We called on BHW to clarify their position because their points about the “old stereotype” seemed to us to be linked to their attempt to theoretically construct a new “advanced layer” of the working class largely from campaigns and movements around issues such as women’s liberation, lesbian and gay liberation, the environment, anti-racism, etc. These are important struggles in which we have participated. The demands of these especially oppressed layers must be incorporated in any rounded-out programme of working-class demands, and we have elaborated transitional demands on all these issues. But we do not accept that these struggles can be given greater weight in our perspectives than the key struggle of the working class in the workplaces, or flowing onto the streets from the workplaces. BHW (Rl: 48), however, reject our argument, which has long been the position of the organisation, that the working class, and especially the industrial working class, will “draw behind it those youth, blacks and Asians, lesbians and gay activists who are presently scattered in single-issue campaigns.”
62) “What kind of vision of the working class underlies this statement?” they ask. They tell us that “overwhelmingly, these groups are part of the working class.” (Rl: 51) There is no dispute about this. They also tell us that “the programme of revolutionary socialism has to integrate thoroughly the demands and struggles of the oppressed.” (Rl: 51) We have always done this in our policies and slogans. This is not the issue. But what do BHW mean when they say “the character of the radicalisation will be different from that of the past” (Rl: 52)? The only interpretation that can be placed on this is that the struggle of the working class in the workplaces, and especially the struggle of the industrial working class, will be less significant in the process of radicalisation in the future.
63) The Real Issues indignantly rejects any suggestion that BHW support ideas of people like Ernesto Laclau, who argues that the working class cannot be seen as “the privileged agency of radical socialist change”. (Rl: 46) BHW assert that they defend “the centrality of class identity in the struggle for socialism”. (Rl: 46) Very good! But what about the centrality of working-class struggle?
64) For Marxists, the key role of the working class does not merely depend on working class “identity”, that is, merely on membership of a social stratum. It arises from the part workers play in production, on their role in the workplace. It is their position in the workplaces that gives the working class its cohesion and its ability to organise and struggle. It is the ability of the workers to withdraw their labour power and paralyse production that gives the working class its potential power in society. Quite obviously, the structure of the working class has changed, with the restructuring of economies in the recent periods. Some of the former “heavy battalions”, like the British miners, no longer have the weight they had in the past. On the other hand, other sections of workers, who now play a decisive role in the economy, have come to the fore, like transport workers, telecoms workers, etc. Public-sector workers and transport workers, where there is generally a higher level of unionisation, have played a major part in recent struggles in Britain and internationally. Nevertheless, workers in the manufacturing area, which still lies at the heart of the capitalist production process, although reduced in numbers, still are a key force with enormous potential power.
65) This is not to say that economic issues are the only issues of any significance. We do not have a syndicalist approach, that work-place and trade union struggles are the be-all and end-all of working-class struggle. Nor do we neglect the role of especially oppressed sections within the working class. Issues of particular importance to women, such as sexual harassment, the right to choose, etc, will continue to be taken up as important issues in the workplaces, as they have been in the past. Nevertheless, it is the power, or rather potential power, of the working class within the workplaces which remains crucial to the struggle of the working class. The conflict of workers with their bosses is the root of all class conflict. This does not mean that we reduce the struggle to purely economic issues. Not at all! The programme of the working class, if it is to be rounded-out and represent the generalised interests of the working class, must include a whole range of demands on political, social, cultural, and moral issues, as well as those of the especially oppressed sections. Nevertheless, the ability of the working class to fight to achieve these demands still depends decisively on the struggle arising out of the workplaces, and the industrial working class will still be crucial to this struggle.
66) The Real Issues raises the example of the Grunwick strike. “This battle involved predominantly Asian women workers. As workers they were fighting class oppression but – what the EC majority ignore – is that integrated in their ^Struggle were demands against the racial and sexual oppression they faced.” (RI: 51) A glance at the material we produced during the Grunwick strike will show that we never for a moment ignored the issues of racism and sexual oppression. What The Real Issues ignores is that the Grunwick strike was significant because it was a work-place struggle which used the methods of mass pickets and drew on the support of other organised workers. Many workers face racial and sexual oppression, which can be taken up through campaigns of various kinds. Nevertheless, it is the ability of workers to launch struggles in the workplace that is ultimately decisive.
67) Historically, movements such as women’s liberation, the struggle against racial oppression, the movement of gays and lesbians, emerged as political movements following the massive strike waves of the late 1960s and early 1970s, which reflected the enormous power accumulated by the working class towards the end of the post-war upswing. In the recent period, however, the movements of the specially oppressed sections have appeared to predominate because of the decline in industrial struggles and a relative weakening of the workers’ movement. Our organisation has been at the “cutting edge” of many Of these struggles and will continue to be. There is no question of abandoning campaigns like CADV, or YRE, or our intervention in the lesbian and gay movement. We will continue to formulate programme and perspectives for these struggles. We do not neglect these movements, nor do we try to promote “a mythical working class”, as BHW claim. But, yes, we do recognise the “centrality” of the struggle of the working class.
68) It is BHW who are trying to create a mythical character for the radicalised layers and campaigns which they are trying to build up into a new “advanced layer”. These campaigns and movements are not homogeneous. A large proportion, possibly a majority, of those involved are working class. The different organisations and campaigns, however, are far from being consistently orientated towards working-class struggle. It would be an absurd exaggeration to argue that they have a consistent, rounded-out anti-capitalist outlook, let alone to claim that they are guided by socialist ideas.
69) It seems to us that in arguing that the “social profile of the working class has changed dramatically” (RI: 50), BHW are in fact suggesting, without explicitly spelling it out, that the character of our perspectives and programme has also changed.
70) The EC statement says that the especially oppressed sections (the youth, blacks and Asians, lesbians and gays, etc) will be “drawn behind” the working class when it moves into action. This is not counterposing an outdated stereotype of industrial workers to other sections of the working class. It is reaffirming what we have always argued, that when organised workers move into action, deploying the strength derived from their position in the production process, they will give confidence to other sections of the workers, including weaker, less organised sections. The sharpening of an anti-capitalist, proletarian consciousness amongst workers, directly involved in struggle will raise the consciousness of other layers, including middle-class strata, inspiring them to move into struggle as well. This was what was meant by “draw behind”, a shorthand formula for the powerful effect on much wider layers of a mass movement of the workers. It involves class strength, radicalisation of consciousness, raising of confidence.
71) This is interpreted by BHW to mean that especially oppressed groups will be “dragged behind” the industrial working class (/?/: 51), suggesting that we are saying they will merely be passive followers, insignificant compared to industrial workers. This is a misrepresentation – a crude vulgarisation – bfour position. At a certain point, particular struggles of women workers, immigrants, students, or even protests by oppressed or victimised individuals can have a big impact on the political situation. But the development of a powerful, sustained, effective mass opposition to big business and the capitalist state depends decisively on the mobilisation of broad layers of the working class, and especially on an organised struggle of the industrial proletariat.
Socialist Consciousness
72) HOW WILL SOCIALIST consciousness develop? This is a crucial question on which BHW, in our view, have a simplistic position which does not take account of the new situation since the collapse of Stalinism. Their comments in The Real Issues only reinforces this impression.
73) Not only has the advanced layer of class-conscious, socialist activists been reduced to a very thin stratum, but the general level of class-consciousness among broad layers of the working class has been pushed back. This was shown, for example, by the mass movement in Belgium provoked by the sacking of Connerotte, the magistrate investigating the paedophile murder case. Anger at government corruption, also reflecting deep opposition to government cuts in social spending, erupted in a series of spontaneous strikes in the car industry, steel-making, transport, and the public sector. Yet the massive rally in Brussels on 20 October, with over 350,000 marching through the capital, took the form of a “white march”. Under pressure from bourgeois politicians and the labour leaders, the workers accepted that it should be a non-political, “moral” demonstration. This contradiction between the power of the workers and the non-political form of the struggle is symptomatic of the current period.
74) The deepening of capitalism’s economic and social crisis, which is unavoidable in this period of world economic depression, will produce stormy upheavals in society. Workers, young people, specially oppressed sections, sections of the middle class, will be pushed into struggle against big business and the capitalist state. Events will provide the basis for the development of class consciousness and a revival of socialist ideas among broad layers. But because of the shattering of the left and the general setting back of consciousness, this will not be an automatic, straightforward process. It will depend decisively on subjective factors, above all on the intervention of the forces of revolutionary Marxism. To successfully fill this role, however, we have to have a realistic understanding of the conditions under which we are now working and the tasks we will have to carry out.
75) BHW have a rather doctrinaire approach. In relation to the name, for instance, they dismiss as “flawed” the argument (based on comrades’ experience) that ‘Militant’ now appears “sinister” or “too extreme”, without bothering to give any arguments. BHW consider that our attempt to take account of the consciousness of thinking workers and young people is an attempt to choose our name “by opinion poll” and “adapt to the present level of consciousness of the more politically backward layers.” (OA: 26)
76) Their view seems to be that the present period merely represents a temporary setback and that, with the reappearance of struggles in the next period, we will return to business as usual. They argue, in relation to the name, that “what arguably, might appear as an obstacle name-wise today, will be posed quite differently in a period of ascending struggle.” We too believe there will be a revival of mass workers’ struggles, which will create the conditions for a revival of socialist consciousness amongst broad layers. Where we differ from BHW is that we do not believe that this revival will develop through exactly the same forms as in the past, or require the repetition of exactly the same old methods on the part of the revolutionary left.
77) Although BHW say that building a revolutionary organisation depends on the intervention of Marxists (RI: 40), they see the development of class consciousness amongst broader layers of the working class as primarily an objective process. They appear to believe that radicalisation is virtually identical with the development of class consciousness, or at least that radicalisation will automatically lead to the development of a higher level of class consciousness. The extent of radicalisation ;and the emergence of class consciousness, however, depend on subjective factors. These include intermediate levels of leadership within the trade unions, mass campaigns, political movements, etc, which can either hold back or accelerate the development of consciousness. The fragmentation and disorientation of the left since the 1980s has weakened the subjective factor at every level.
78) Developments in the United States, for instance, show that radicalisation is not automatically linked with a class-conscious, anti-capitalist consciousness. Because of the severe erosion of workers’ living standards, there is widespread anger at the big corporations, as well as a deep suspicion and antagonism towards the capitalist state machine. But because of the limits of the trade unions, which involve only about 14% of workers, and the absence of a mass workers’ party, this radical discontent is not as yet expressed in a class-conscious form. In Britain and continental Europe the consciousness has not been Pushed back as far as in the US. Nevertheless, there is a certain Americanisation of the situation in Europe, as the European capitalists attempt to implement neo-liberal policies. An accumulation of intense anger amongst workers at the effects of the capitalist market is undoubtedly preparing social upheavals and political struggles -and for the future growth of class consciousness. But it is a mistake to believe that it will develop along the same lines as in previous periods.
79) In their Footnote 3 to The Real Issues, BHW attempt to clarify their position on the events in France in December 1995, but they succeed only in further demonstrating their confusion. The EC has outlined its analysis of France in other material (Reply to BHW, MB19, September 1996). In relation to the general question of the development of consciousness, however, BMW’s mechanical approach is highlighted by their comments in paragraph F14:
80) “From this angle, it was historically inevitable that this mass consciousness [social democratic and Stalinist consciousness] would go into crisis and semi-collapse, with the break-up of its material underpinnings [the ending of the boom period]. Only with the regrowth of struggle, in an uneven way, will a new consciousness, fundamentally different from the mass social democratic and Stalinist consciousness of the past, be born. But, it is crucial that we recognise that, despite the semi-collapse of this mass consciousness, the number and social weight of the more advanced and militant socialist forces is nowhere near back to the position of the 1950s and early 1960s.” (RI: F14- emphasis as in the original.)
81) A number of points can be made about this paragraph. First, the last sentence is yet another attempt by BHW, in spite of the evidence of the recent period, to argue that there is still a substantial advanced layer of class- conscious, socialist activists. Whether, even in France, it is numerically stronger and has more weight than in the 1950s and 1960s is a debatable point. But this kind of quantitative comparison takes no account of the political weakening, the fragmentation, and above all the ideological disorientation of the left since the end of the 1980s.
82) We would not accept, moreover, that the mass consciousness of the pre-1989 period was exclusively social democratic or Stalinist. There were advanced layers of the working class with a highly developed class consciousness and socialist aspirations, in spite of the social democratic and Stalinist leaders. The revolutionary, socialist instincts of the proletariat were demonstrated in the May events of 1968. This consciousness has been set back, as the mass strike wave in December 1995 showed, despite its scale and militancy.
83) More than anything else, however, paragraph F14 implies a mechanical, out-dated conception of the development of socialist consciousness. This appears to be linked to their schematic trinity of the vanguard, the advanced layer, and the mass. The key role of the subjective factor is identified with the intervention of the Marxists into the advanced layer in order to build a large revolutionary organisation. (Rl: 23, 40) “We argue” say BMW, “that mass struggles and the radicalisation which flows from them, however partial and hesitant, create the preconditions for the building of a revolutionary organisation irrespective of whether there is a ‘mass socialist consciousness’.” (RI: 40) Radicalisation is produced, in their view, by the objective conditions and “through a recomposition of the labour movement and the movements of the oppressed”. (Rl: 40)
84) In Ourselves Alone, moreover, they argue that “Those rebelling against the effects of capitalism will always – in the final analysis -begin to look for global alternatives. None of the potential alternatives : anarchism, ecologism, eco-anarchism, etc – have the explanatory power and long-term attractiveness of socialism in general and Marxism in particular. The barriers to recruitment will begin to break down; but this is an objective process and cannot be short-circuited by changing our name…” (OA: 49)
85) If we could rely on “the final analysis”, on the historical inevitability of socialism producing steady progress towards class consciousness and a mass socialist outlook, it might not be so necessary to take account of the actual class consciousness in this historical conjuncture. The collapse of the Stalinist regimes, however, marked the end of an era which opened with the Russian revolution in 1917. The tendency towards the complete bour-geoisification of the traditional bourgeois workers’ parties and the disintegration of the social democracy marks the end of an era which began with the formation of the mass workers’ parties at the end of the nineteenth century, during the period of the Second International. There has been a fragmentation and disorientation of the left within the workers’ movement, of the advanced layer of class-conscious, socialist workers. This has inevitably had a major impact on the consciousness of the mass of workers. The “attractiveness of socialism in general and Marxism in particular” has been weakened and complicated during this period. This, in our view, is a temporary phenomena which can be overcome on the basis of renewed struggle. But in order to build the forces of Marxism in the next period, we must have a realistic appraisal of the complicated mass consciousness which exists. It would be a big mistake to dismiss the current complications as a mere glitch.
86) The idea that the “regroupment” or “recomposition” of the labour movement will produce mass radicalisation is put forward by BHW in a very superficial way, without any explanation of the processes they envisage:
87) “There is always an interaction between the activities of socialists and the workers’ organisations, and the way in which the struggles unfold. The role of the subjective factor is absolutely crucial. For example, it is impossible to understand the dynamic of the struggle in Italy in the autumn of 1994 without understanding the role played by Communist Refoundation in initiating the mobilisations. Radicalisation does not just proceed through the development of the consciousness (ideas) of individuals, but through a recomposition of the labour movement and the movements of the oppressed.” (RI: 40 – emphasis as in the original)
88) There is no doubt that left formations like the Communist Refoundation and left leaders like Bertinotti can have an important effect through mobilising the most militant sections of the working class. After all, that is why we are in favour of the development of a broad, mass workers’ party in Britain. But to make a general claim that the formation of new mass left parties will automatically give an impulse to mass radicalisation, regardless of the character of their leadership and the conditions in which they operate, is completely abstract. The Workers’ Party (PT) in Brazil, for instance, has moved way over to the right in the recent period. There is no guarantee at all that it will accelerate the radicalisation of the Brazilian working class in the next period. In Italy, while the RC played a crucial role in the mass struggles of 1994, there is no guarantee now that it will continue to move in a radical, leftward direction. What course will Bertinotti take when the current unstable centre-left, bourgeois government reaches a breaking point? If the RC leadership fails to offer a way forward for the working class, there is no certainty that the rc will grow in strength and influence. “Recomposition”, in itself, guarantees nothing. It is the policy, strategy and tactics of the leaders of these “regrouped” formations which will be decisive.
The Role of the Socialist Party
89) WE BELIEVE THE conditions are being prepared for mass radicalisation and the revival of socialist consciousness amongst broad layers of workers. We also consider that even in this period it is possible, with the right methods, to win a scattered layer of thinking workers to socialist ideas. After all, that is why we are proposing to change our name to Socialist Party. Our organisation will be able to significantly strengthen our own forces, and at the same time have a powerful effect within broad movements and new mass formations as they develop. In order to do this, however, we have to have a realistic, balanced analysis of the present period and a clear understanding of the tasks in front of us:
(i) We have to advance a clear analysis of the crisis in capitalism and the present world situation: the attractiveness of socialism depends on our giving a clear Marxist explanation of the new features of capitalism (for example, globalisation) in this period of depression, showing the direction of the main trends in society, and giving a clear perspective for the development of the crisis.
(ii) We have to clearly explain the false, failed routes to socialism: (a) Why Stalinism, the bureaucratic distortion of the planned economy, reached a dead end and disintegrated; and (b) Why the reformism of the Social Democratic and Labour Parties failed to bring about a fundamental change in capitalism, and why the economic and social changes since the end of the post-war upswing have undermined the material basis for reformism.
(iii) We have to defend the key role of the working class as the only force in society which can bring about a fundamental change of society and guarantee social progress.
(iv) We have to fight for broad, open, democratic forms of mass workers’ organisations, which will arouse, educate, organise, unite and mobilise the broad layers of working class in struggle.
(v) We have to boldly advance a programme for the socialist transformation of society, defending the idea of a planned economy and workers’ democracy, as part of a transitional programme, including immediate, fighting demands.
(vi) We have to defend working class, socialist internationalism, making it the guiding principle of all our activities.
(vii) We have to build our organisation while actively engaging in the class struggle: we have to work out our ideas theoretically, but present them in bold, popular language which can reach wide layers of workers, young people, women, immigrant workers, and specially oppressed workers; we have to develop cadres capable of playing a leading role in struggle, while building our support and influence among wide layers of working people.
90)These are the revolutionary Marxist tasks facing a new Socialist Party.