Marxist
Education Portal
Ourselves alone? Why the name ‘Socialist Party’ should be rejected
Name Debate III
September 1996
From the editor
The EC is publishing the following documents which are to be debated at the National Committee in October. It is clearly unrealistic just to restrict these documents to NC members (some are circulating in any case) and comrades want to see material quickly. However, we should stress that these are only part of the debate – a debate that will take place in all the branches and will culminate in a national conference.
These documents are part of a polemic; a style that seeks to clarify issues by sharply contrasting, opposing arguments to achieve clarity around perspectives and our methods. The correspondence is published as received. [Note – we have had to omit the correspondence – socialistworld.net]
Normally the EC would reply to each of these individually as there are many points, aside from the name change itself, which should be discussed. Also the authors may have changed their minds since submitting them.
Some comrades have withdrawn letters on that basis, however, these letters also add to the overall debate, especially to the central task of recruitment. This is a very large MB and must be paid for. A branch report on sales will be distributed at the NC.
Mike Waddington – Editor
Ourselves Alone? Why the name ‘Socialist Party’ should be rejected
By John Bulaitis, Phil Hearse & Jared Wood
1. The ‘Reply’ in the last members bulletin by Peter Taaffe (The Name Change Debate, Members Bulletin 18) rightly says that the debate on the name has “proved to be a catalyst for an analysis of the stage through which we are passing and future perspectives”. Above all, this involves a discussion about which layers the organisation will orientate towards and build amongst, in the period up to and beyond a general election. These issues are of far more importance than that of the name itself, which is in fact a secondary question which can either marginally help or marginally hinder a certain perspective. However, the written statements of the EC majority and the arguments used in aggregate meetings reveal a one-sided approach and exaggerated view in regard to number of crucial questions.
2. The position of the EC majority on the question of consciousness and the name is caught in an obvious contradiction. The comrades are quite downbeat about the situation at present (stressing the historically low-level of strikes), but tremendously upbeat about what will occur after the election of a Blair government. But, as all comrades know, it is struggle, events themselves, which mainly transform consciousness, not just propaganda by socialists. If we expect the more-or- less rapid unfolding of stormy struggles, we can expect an important development in the consciousness both of the more advanced workers, and the working class as a whole. That means that what, arguably, might appear as an obstacle name-wise today, will be posed quite differently in a period of ascending struggle. The only way an argument linking ‘Militant’ to terrorism can be sustained is on the basis of a continuing low level of struggle. If “France (December 1995) will come to Britain”, it means militancy re-growing on a massive scale. While of course consciousness always lags behind the objective situation, there is no reason to project the consciousness of today onto the radically transformed objective situation which will emerge tomorrow.
3. Some aspects of this debate go beyond the issue of perspectives, and touch on the very question of what kind of party we are aiming to build. The central tasks proposed by the EC majority are in para 7 and para 23 of Peter Taaffe’s article: “The broad, socialist layer of previous periods is now a very thin layer, and we have to reach beyond this strata to build our forces. The main task facing us now is to win support for a socialist programme and socialist ideas generally. “(para 7) Then (in para 23), presumably on the basis of a “broader appeal” and a “new, broader name (para 35)” the document says “there is no reason why we cannot build a small mass party numbering tens of thousands particularly in the next two(!), three, or four years” (all our emphasis). We believe the EC majority should urgently clarify what is meant by these formulations. We believe it is wrong to argue that our “main task” in the next period should be reduced to fighting for a “general” socialist consciousness; and we also believe that posing the question of building a “small mass party” in the short term is misjudged and threatens to disorientate the organisation.
4. We believe that the name Socialist Party should be opposed not just because, as Peter Taaffe accepts (para 25), it is “a little bland… or even anodyne and colourless”, but because the arguments in favour of the name are based on a perspective which is at best confused and at worst seriously mistaken.
Perspectives and a new socialist party
5 . The EC majority say that they would not be proposing the name change and the new orientation if the Socialist Labour Party of Scargill had developed in the way it potentially could have. It is worth recalling the perspective we outlined on the question of a new socialist party as recently as January 1996. The perspectives document agreed at conference says: “Already a mood exists amongst a layer of advanced workers for a new Socialist Party. We must raise this idea within the trade unions. It will become a slogan as such at this moment but could come into its own sometime after the general election. We must also seek to collaborate with genuine left currents, as with the Socialist Movement in Scotland and with others in the “Socialist Forum. Events and our arguments will prepare the ground at a certain stage for the emergence of a new mass “socialist party.” (published in Members Bulletin No 12, page 17.)
6 . This perspective stemmed from two main considerations: a) the fact that the changing character of the Labour Party – what we have called the process of bourgeiosification – has meant that “there already exists a mood amongst a layer of advanced workers for a new socialist party” (Peter Taaffe writing in Socialism Today, Nov. 1995); and b) the fact that the general election, and particularly the election of a Blair government will give a massive impetus to the more-or-less rapid unfolding of “accumulated” contradictions and struggles.
7. Although Marxists, and a small but significant section of the working class, understand already what a Blair government will represent, the mass of the working class will see the defeat of the Tories as a victory. A Labour victory would lift an immense psychological weight, raise expectations and unlock many of the current obstacles to militant action. In addition the general election will speed up the process of political recomposition of the workers’ movement as well as bourgeois politics. Electoral defeat could explode the fault lines within the Tory Party. The issue of a de facto or even an open coalition between New Labour and the Lib Dems could be posed, hastening a recomposition of the centre of politics. The parliamentary Labour Party will move even further(!) to the right with the intake of a new levy of Blairites.
8 While a victorious Blair government could well enjoy a certain honeymoon period, very soon expectations amongst broad sections of the working class would be dashed – particularly in relation to the minimum wage, the welfare state and unemployment. In such a situation stresses between the government and the unions, especially at rank and file level, would be immense. The recent rash of strikes – on the Post office, the Tubes, and in the Civil Service – are extremely significant, taking place so close to a general election; and are a foretaste of a raised level of confidence and combativity of the workers that will develop in the next period. The political upheavals and “social turmoil under a Labour government would be fertile ground for a broad-based socialist party, such as could have been built but for the narrow-minded factionalism of Scargill and his lieutenants. Even without such a party the possibilities will be opened up for significant growth of our organisation.
9 . In a previous period mass opposition to the class-collaborationist policies of the Labour leaders found expression through the Labour (Bennite) left. A certain distancing between a section of the union tops and Blair is likely to take place; and opposition from the small remnant of Bennites is inevitable. But the social and political weight of this left is much reduced from the position often years ago. To an advanced section this helps us to clarify the role of social democracy and the blind alley of reformism. But the lack of political representation of those forces to the left of the Labour leadership also creates complications, in fact an obstacle to the renewal of a mass socialist consciousness. It is to this logjam that the call for a new socialist party addresses.
10. We have rightly pointed out the triumphalist delusions of the SWP, who think that they can fill the space to the left of Labour. The fact is that no existing far left organisation – and that includes ourselves – has the weight or authority to fill the space or entirely monopolise the vacuum to the left of Labour. That is indeed the logic of the call for a new socialist party. That is why we said: “A new socialist party must represent a new point of departure for the British working class… Militant Labour will do all in its power together with others on the Left, to establish such a party.” (Peter Taaffe, Socialism Today Nov. 1995.) We understood that a broad socialist party could give a focus to and create a movement and organisation on a much higher level to what could be achieved by ourselves alone.
11. Scargill’s move towards setting up the SLP, for a period, put flesh on the bones of our call for a new socialist party. The organisation correctly did everything possible to bring this potentiality to fruition. Such a party, like the SSA in Scotland, could only be built on the basis of political openness and democracy, and ready to include different currents, trends and individuals within it. The decision of Scargill and his entourage to build a narrow organisation, rather than a broad socialist party, was a major blow to the development of a socialist alternative. As we pointed out many times in our material – summed up in the articles in ‘Rebuilding Socialism’ – the objective basis is there for a new socialist party of perhaps ten or twenty thousand people. This was what would have been possible if Scargill had included our organisation and adopted a broad approach. However, this was not to be: a major opportunity was wasted, at least for the time being.
12. Such a new socialist party would not have been a really new mass party of the working class, but only its (potential) nucleus. Building a new mass working-class party – with hundreds of thousands of members and millions of voters – is a task of historic proportions, unlikely to be fully achieved within a few years. Only where a mass reformist or centrist organisation suffers a vertical split – such as the Communist Refoundation split from the PDS in Italy – can a new mass party of the working class be so rapidly assembled.
13. Scargill’s authoritarianism and sectarianism has, unfortunately, complicated the whole question. But Scargill’s antics should not change fundamentally the perspective we have outlined of the development of a new socialist party and the orientation we adopted of fighting for it. A new socialist party can only be built by a broad coalition of forces. It is impossible to “fill the vacuum” and play ourselves the role a new socialist party would have played by building a “small mass party of tens of thousands” in the next few years. The whole situation is, of course, very frustrating. But we cannot resolve the difficulty by a name change.
The position in Scotland
14. The only part of the UK where the space to the left of the Labour Party can be largely filled by one organisation is Scotland. The development of the Scottish Socialist Alliance, and its potential transformation into a broad socialist party potentially open up ‘5-party polities’ – Tories, Labour, LibDems, SNP and the SSA. The recent by-election result in Toryglen confirms this potential.
15. The difference in Scotland is a result of the different, higher rhythm of the class struggle (symbolised by the movements around the Poll Tax and Water) and a different evolution of the workers movement – including the greater specific weight of the Communist Party than in other parts of Britain. But critical in these developments is the national question; it is the national question that makes Scottish left politics more advanced. Scotland is undergoing many of the same developments as the rest of Britain: the historic decline of the Tories, mass disillusionment with Labour -but the national question has decisively accelerated these processes.
16. The success of the SSA so far is because it has succeeded in bringing in broader forces and different currents. It has done in Scotland what Scargill should have done. The success of the SSA in Scotland shows the possibilities. The socialist alliances in other parts of Britain have been uneven and not universally successful. This is because of the character of the period and the sectarianism of Scargill. But that doesn’t mean that the orientation to building socialist alliances is incorrect. We should continue to fight to popularise such a development on an all-Britain basis, taking up for example the decision of the FBU to investigate political funding for non-Labour socialist movements. At the same time we fight to build our own organisation. But we do not have the illusion that fighting for a broad socialist party and building our own organisation are the same thing; or that we can by pure effort and willpower we can play the role a broad socialist party would have played.
17. Scotland proves the point. If it were possible to fill the political vacuum to the left of Labour by ourselves, why did we launch the SSA? And why should we think that it’s possible to do in England and Wales -fill the space to the left of Labour -when it is not possible to do it in Scotland where the situation is politically more advanced?
Pessimistic perspectives not justified.
18. The defeat of the Bennite left was part and parcel of a series of defeats suffered by the labour movement during the 80s: the miners strike, rate capping, Liverpool, Wapping etc. These defeats have combined with the ideological effects of the collapse of Stalinism in radically reducing the consciously socialist layer in society. The working class faces the next decisive period in a situation where socialist consciousness has been much reduced. There is no disagreement about this.
19. The current level of consciousness can in no sense be used to justify a pessimistic perspective. We cannot look at the situation in Britain through the eyes of the past five or ten years. Out of the development of mass anger, struggles and movements rapid political conclusions can be drawn. New layers will come to the fore who have no ‘socialist consciousness’ in the present period. With new struggles will develop new militancy. Provided it has a realistic perspective and appraisal of the possibilities a revolutionary party in the next period can register substantial growth.
Out of which forces will we build: the advanced section or the broad mass?
20. However we have to have a clear perception amongst which layer will we be building. The problem with the EC documents is that they counterpose, on one hand, the “very thin layer” with a socialist consciousness against, on the other, -the consciousness of the “broader” mass. Yet, between these two categories stands another: that is the more advanced, radicalised, dynamic, and combative layer. It is from this section – the most combative layers – who will rapidly come forward and draw radical conclusions in the course of struggles in the next period, that a revolutionary organisation will be built. This should determine our political priorities, types of activity, orientation and general public profile. It is also the major consideration when deciding on the name.
21. The ranks of this advanced section will be strengthened by the processes that will unfold, the struggles against its betrayals, after the election of a Blair government. Even if, as is not impossible, Blair managed to conjure up defeat from the present exceptionally favourable circumstances, there would still be – after a period – the prospect of substantial struggles developing. The possibility of a massive outburst from the alienated youth and the development of big struggles in the workers movement with syndicalist overtones would be on the agenda. Even if things fall in the most favourable way-the election of a Blair government and the rapid development of mass struggles against its betrayals – a revolutionary organisation will be primarily built through orientating to the advanced, radical layer not to the broad masses.
22. Elections are a very important propaganda weapon for socialists, enabling them – as the article criticising Callinicos in Socialism Today puts it – “raise the banner of socialism and their organisation, recruit, make propaganda and provide a political focus for working class demands”. The formulations in this article are entirely correct. However, they are one side of the intervention of Marxists in the next period, and not the most important one either. The profile of an organise-tion built primarily for elections will be different to one built primarily for the struggle. In particular, our profile has to be adapted to attracting and recruiting the most rebellious and active forces. This is precisely the problem with the name ‘Socialist Party’. The name sends out the wrong signals to our members. It creates confusion about the sort of organisation we are trying to build. As an alternative we support the more combative name: Militant Socialist Party.
23. 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. Developing tactics and perspectives for intervening in these layers is the key to building the organisation. While the combative and active sections are small in relation to society as a whole, they are very large in relationship to us – and will become even more so under a Blair government
24. Capitalist restructuring and the decline in traditional manufacturing industry has rendered obsolete the old traditional view of an “advanced worker”. In this period 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 radicalisation will take place. We can expect and must prepare for struggles over cuts, services, pay, redundancies etc. New fresh layers will come to the fore in these struggles; indeed the recent strikes and many trade union conferences have shown that there is already a new militant layer beginning to be formed in the workplaces. In addition to this, the social and political radicalisation in the next period will, indeed already is to some extent, give rise to a very complex series of movements and campaigns, involving women’s’ struggles, anti-racist movements, environmental, housing, disabled people, lesbian and gay, youth and other movements. Our task is not to simply “cast the net” but to identify the advanced active layers and organise our work and interventions accordingly.
25. The idea of a new, broad socialist party is in part aimed at giving an overall perspective to these various diverse campaigns, struggles and movements, which will develop under a Blair government. The logic of the call for socialist alliances, in a sense a ‘trial run’ for a new socialist party, was precisely to try to draw together some of these elements. The fact that they have developed unevenly doesn’t mean that the orientation to socialist alliances, in the absence of an already exiting socialist party, is incorrect.
26. We believe the argument, backed up by anecdotes to prove that Militant is “sinister” “too extreme” and “puts off people” etc., and that the name Socialist Party would be more “popular”, “appealing” etc. is flawed. A revolutionary party does not choose its name, or decide its programme, by opinion poll. It must have an image and political profile that is attractive to the most politically advanced sections who will form the backbone of the party but at the same time is accessible and allows us to connect to the broader mass. We have to take into account, of course, the present level of understanding and attempt to build a bridge to the tasks of changing society. But we don’t adapt to the present level of consciousness of the more politically backward layers.
27. Trotsky made precisely these points in a letter to the American Trotskyists in 1938: People who are frightened by the militant name today will understand its meaning tomorrow. The political name is not for a day or a year but for a historic period.” …If our name is not understandable or “agreeable” to the backward millions, it can become very attractive to tens of thousands of active elements. We are a vanguard party. During the time in which we are assimilating the thousands and tens of thousands, the millions will learn the real meaning of the name from the economic blows to which they are subjected. “(Trotsky A revolutionary name for a Revolutionary Youth Group, December 10, 1938) Of course the character of the period during which Trotsky was writing was fundamentally different. However the issue he is addressing-that is the relationship between the advanced sections and the broader masses – is pertinent and extremely relevant to this debate.
Dangerous projections in EC documents
28. As we have already seen, Peter Taaffe’s document (para 23) argues that “there is no reason why we cannot build a small mass party numbering tens of thousands, particularly in the next two (!), three or four years.” (The context of this quote leaves no room for ambiguity; what is being talked about here is us forming such a party).
29. This statement is at least an exaggeration; it also amounts to the abandonment of the perspective of a new socialist party. If there is “no reason” why we cannot build a small mass party ourselves, then there is “no reason” to argue for a new socialist party. On the contrary, we should merely argue to build Militant Labour (or whatever it is called) on the one hand, and fight for a new mass workers’ party (an historic task) on the other. That is indeed the position the EC majority are now arguing. But in practice the fighting for a mass workers party will be mainly propaganda; the effective, operative, part of the strategy will be the fight to make our organisation a “small mass party” within a short period of time.
30. Such a perspective is misjudged, and threatens to throw the organisation, at best, into confusion. Arguing for the transformation of our revolutionary organisation in the short term into a ‘small mass party’ can only disorientate the organisation and completely mis-educate the newer members. It is necessary to keep our feet on the ground and have a realistic assessment of the situation.
31. Of course, contrary to all caricatures, it’s not a question of a debate between those who want a “small mass party”, and those ‘conservatives’ or ‘dinosaurs’ who are content with a small propaganda organisation. The possibilities for building a revolutionary organisation are not limitless in any period. They depend on the scope of the struggle, the extent of its radicalisation and politicisation, and the number and political level of the existing cadres. Whatever the scope of any particular struggle, you can only build in relation to what you already have.
32. With a correct orientation, there is “no reason” why our party cannot substantially build in the next period. We are talking about thousands of recruits, and a radical transformation of the situation in which we find ourselves now. This means turning our face to the radicalising trade unionists, youth (including black youth) and women, together with the activists from the various campaigns and movements which will develop in the next period. A much larger and rejuvenated organisation, built out of these layers and struggles, would of course be able to play a decisive role in some mass struggles, as we did in Liverpool in the mid-1980s and during the poll tax. We can build a base with a following amongst a section of the mass on a very localised basis or in one or two towns, but this is not the same as being a ‘small mass party’, recognised as an authoritative leadership by a (small) section of the masses.
33. The ‘small mass party’ scenario only works if it is meant to indicate that our organisation can become a key factor in the fight for a new socialist patty which can become a ‘small mass party’ and not that we ourselves can rapidly become such a party.
Dominating the space to the left of labour?
34. Our recruits will come mainly from fresh layers who will be radicalised by the big struggles and events that impend. However, it would be wrong to ignore the fact that we will not have a monopoly of the space to the left of Labour in the next period; we shall have to face competition, in particular from the SLP and the SWP. Any peremptory dismissal of these forces, particularly considered on an all-Britain scale – is light-minded. The SWP, in real terms, is four or five times as big as we are. This is not just ‘window dressing’, as anyone who went to Marxism ’96 will testify. They can be written out of the picture in documents, but not in reality. By building our organsiation and by, at the same time adopting a non-sectarian approach to the left as a whole the possibility exists to prise open some cracks that are developing in their ranks. But, in the immediate future, they will remain an obstacle which has to be faced up to.
35. While not having the same numerical advantage, the SLP has managed to scoop up certain groupings of unionists and ex-Labour people. It’s not true that they will be in no sense a problem for us, particularly given Scargill’s authority. This can be seen by the size of the meetings Scargill is already attracting in some areas, for example -250 recently in Lewisham where he gained a big response when he called the SLP a ‘revolutionary party’.
36. The conclusion is obvious: any idea that we can simply monopolise the political space to the left of Labour – such as would be necessary to build a ‘small mass party’ – is false. The fight for a new socialist party remains on the order of the day, and an important propaganda weapon against the sectarian delusions of the SWP. Moreover this situation requires that, in addition to building socialist alliances wherever we can, we must continue to have to most open, collaborative and Unitarian approach to the SLP. It is a question of continuing the orientation towards the formation of a new broad socialist party, and trying to unlock, especially in a post-election situation, the narrow-minded sectarianism of the SLP leadership.
37. In addition, the problem will be given a subsidiary twist in the event of a Blair government, by the likely development of at least a vestigial Labour left. While this will be a pale shadow of the former Bennite development it will further complicate the political terrain on the left. There can be no doubting that a certain number of Labour MPs, and especially MEPs, hold out the possibility of a split with Blair and New Labour. Some of them, for example Michael Hindley MEP, proclaim it openly. While the SLP see these people as automatically coming towards them, it is not in the bag.
38. Moreover, there is the potential for sections amongst the trade unions to give backing to other political formulations other than the Labour Party, especially with a Labour government spearheading an attack on living standards. We already have seen signs of this in the FBU. In other words, we could be faced with quite complicated developments, involving complex united front tactics and raising the need to politically differentiate ourselves from other trends and tendencies.
Our political priorities: Trade unionists, Youth and Women
39. The overall political profile of the organisation is far more important than the name in attracting the most advanced, radical layers. We have to be militantly anti-capitalist as well as radical on all the key social issues. Our main orientation must be to the developing movements amongst trade unionists, intervening amongst women and amongst the youth. In all these fields we must develop our united front tactics. We have to continue to gain a reputation of being an organisation that is open to political debate and discussion with other trends. We have to be willing, indeed determined, to work with other forces in broad lefts, socialist alliances and campaigns.
40. In the unions we must continue to fight to build democratic broad left type organisations. These must primarily orientated to connecting with and developing struggle, rather than being purely electoral machines. The coming together of a number of CWU branches to put pressure on the bureaucracy to call the recent strikes is extremely significant and shows the potential that is opening up in the unions for a united front strategy spearheaded by an organisation like ours. But our tactic in the unions must be a “dual” one. It is too one-sided to say, as in para 35 of Peter Taaffe’s document, that “our work in the unions …has been conducted under the banner not of ‘Militant’ but of Broad Lefts”.. We must build and advocate united left work but at the same time continue to ensure that our own distinct identity as the revolutionary section of the left-through organising around journals like we have produced for the CPSA, Unison, Firefighters, building workers etc.
41. EC speakers have stressed that the level of strikes is at an all-time historical low. This, of course is true (although it is already beginning to change). It is also true that there has been a big full in the number of activists in the branches and as shop stewards and reps. However there is still a small but significant minority of trade union militants – and many of them are a younger, fresher layer. The work of our union comrades, backed up by the work of our branches, must be orientated to strengthening our links and raising our standing with this advanced section in the unions. By doing so now we can place ourselves to reap big rewards when this section is enormously numerically strengthened on the basis of the higher level of struggle that will break out at some point after the election. The danger is that if the priority of our branches is “looking for a new audience”, “going broader”, “reaching out”, the emphasis will not be on the concentrated, consistent and detailed work that is necessary to build a base in the unions.
42. An orientation which stresses the importance of building in the most dynamic, combative and radicalised layers will inevitably stress the importance of Young Socialist Resistance in our overall work and profile. The lack of stress on this issue in the debate on the name change is surprising. It is not just a question of to what extent we co-sponsor or organise things in the name of the youth organisation, but what overall importance does the youth organisation have in our strategy to build the organisation. Is it a secondary, supplementary tactic, or is it absolutely central to our work in the next period? Are we expecting all districts and most branches above a certain minimal size to be building Young Socialist Resistance branches? If the answer is ‘yes’, then the question of the specific weight of Resistance in our overall profile is highly relevant to this debate. But it is also a question of what resources – practically – are going to be allocated to this work.
43. There has been an enormous radicalisation amongst women over the past period. This is a result of the fact that working-class women have faced the brunt of the Tory attacks; there is especially the situation of single mothers – the poorest section of society. The onslaught on the welfare state has been combined with a series of ideological attacks in support of the bourgeois family; for example attacks on young single mothers as ‘scroungers’, and a growing assault on abortion rights. A whole section of women have began to draw far-reaching conclusions, thinking “holistically” (as one academic put it) about the nature of their oppression. The possibility is opened up for the organisation in the next period to launch a socialist women’s organisation. This is exactly the kind of ‘broad’ tactic which the organisation will have to undertake in the next period of deepening radicalisation.
44. The difference between the scope of the radicalisation we can expect in the next period, as against a ‘1930s’-type model, means also that the organisation has to continue to be at the cutting edge of the liberation struggles of disabled people, lesbians and gay men and, of course, black people. It has to be the most intransigent and determined of all the left organisations on these issues.
45. It is absolutely essential that we develop strategy and tactics in the unions, amongst the youth, amongst women and in the campaigns and struggles of other oppressed section of society. We attempt to connect with and draw into struggle the “broadest layer”. We work in these movements to both build them and to recruit the best fighters into the revolutionary party. This is not to say that we have an elitist view that someone must be a rounded-out revolutionary before they join; our doors should be open to those seeking a socialist alternative and who are prepared to fight for it. But the essential point is that we can only win the “broader layers” tomorrow by gathering, educating, and training in the ideas and methods of revolutionary Marxism the most politically advanced and combative layers today. We cannot substitute our subjective wishes to build a mass party (a large or a small one) for an objective process which will transform the consciousness of the broader layers of the working class. It will be the great upheavals and struggles that loom that will give us the opportunity to connect the politically conscious layer of the working class that we have assembled in a revolutionary party with the “broader layers”.
What are the barriers to growth?
46. The implication of the argument of the EC majority is that if we had been called Socialist Party, rather than the “sinister” Militant in the recent period we could have grown at a faster rate, recruited more youth etc. However this argument downplays the fact that the main barriers to growth have been and still are real obstacles rooted in the objective situation.
47. We have noted how campaigns against the Criminal Justice Act and other movements, against the background of a decline in socialist consciousness after the 1980s defeats and the collapse of the Soviet Union do not find automatically 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.
48. This is not something that can be wished away by simply changing our name. Suspicion and scepticism about Leninist-type revolutionary organisations – whatever they are called – will continue to exist in broad radicalised layers for a period, precisely because of the experience of Stalinism. This is why, whilst building our own party, we should also continue to fight for the building of a broad socialist party, with different trends and currents, which would have much more authority and appeal to many radicalising layers than an openly revolutionary party.
49. We cannot expect a sudden and spectacular solution to this problem but we can expect it to progressively change over the next period. That is why we can be optimistic about the prospects for our organisation. 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. 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, any more than Pepsi-Cola will solve its competitive position vis-a-vis its well-known rival by changing the colour of its cans.
Our political profile
50. The type of radicalisation that is likely to develop in the next period also means we have to look carefully at the style and type of profile that the organisation has to adopt. Again, this is far more important than our name. Crucial here are the effects of the collapse of Stalinism on the sensibilities of broad layers. As Lynn Walsh explained at the 1995 weekend school debate with Hilary Wainwright, we are not living in 1917 Russia. This means, he argued, that democracy, the freedom of tendency and expression throughout the labour movement and its allies, has to be at the heart of our concerns. For us this means not only a willingness to engage and debate with other currents, including in our own publications, which cannot appear as monolithic ‘line’ journals.
51. At the same time, however, we have to combine this openness and democratic approach with a defence of building a democratic centralist organisation. To do that we have to explain that the caricatures of Leninism made by the right wing and pro-bourgeois elements are quite false. A democratic centralist organisation is not, as crude anti-communists maintain, authoritarian and monolithic; on the contrary there is open debate and a free expression of differences; such a caricature is refuted by the whole history of the Bolshevik party.
The Lessons of France
52. The mass strikes in France in December 1995 – which on some days reached the point of a general strike in the public sector with one million workers in the streets – are an important benchmark for analysing the development of consciousness and the nature of the period. This is especially the case, since the EC majority has raised the question – “France will come to Britain” (para 34 Reply by Peter Taaffe, MB18).
53. However in the debate, supporters of the EC majority are only stressing the inherent limitations in the French movement, and especially the point that it was ‘not a movement towards socialism’. Of course, the fundamental character of the movement was that of a mass revolt of the workers – going way beyond the limits set by the CGT and Force Ouvriere trade union bureaucrats – to defend the welfare state. It was not an explicitly anti-capitalist movement – i.e. it was not a revolution.
54.However, such vast movements, drawing into combat wide layers of the proletariat, always involve varying levels of consciousness. To say there was no anti-capitalist element in the movement, or that any anti-capitalist consciousness was not present, is absurd. On the contrary, even symbolic things, like the proliferation of red flags, the singing of the ‘Internationale’ and the political role of the left organisations, proves the point.
55. Such mass strike struggles always start as a revolt against the effects of the market and capitalism, not against capitalism as such. But they help generate, sustain and crystallise anti-capitalist and pro-socialist consciousness. The December 1995 revolt gave a shot-in-the-arm to the on-going process of trade union recomposition – the building and strengthening of independent union federations like SUD and the FSU, as well as the various oppositions inside the CFDT, together with formations like the AC! campaign against unemployment. At the same time, the events strengthened the impact and political recomposition of the left. Following the events, the Communist Party launched a series of rallies open to the whole of the left, where Trotskyist speakers., including our comrades, got a good reception from even sections of the CP faithful. Our comrades reported in early 1996 that far-left events – especially of organisations which had played a positive role in the movement – were twice or three times the size of one year ago. The Lutte Ouvriere fete, admittedly a very distorted reflection, but a reflection nonetheless, was very large this year.
56. All this shows that attempting to analyse events like the December 1995 strikes in a schematic fashion by putting a socialist plus or a non-socialist minus against them is a futile enterprise. Equally, there is in France a strong socialist/communist minority within the working-class movement – whose organisations may have been much reduced but which are not at all destroyed. This minority is a product of (at least) 100 years of history – if not the whole curve of development since 1789 – which has not been expunged by the defeats of the 1980s and the collapse of socialism. The workers’ movement needs to be organisationally rebuilt and politically recomposed. It does not need to be refounded, built from scratch, as if the first three Internationals had never existed!
57. As in all other major European capitalist countries, including Britain, the recomposition of the left, in the context of the existing workers’ movement, is a complex process which cannot be reduced to fighting for an elemental “general”, socialist consciousness. For example, how could you approach the French workers’ movement, or the French working class in general, in election campaigns which explain that capitalism is bad and we need socialism? How would you differentiate yourself from the abstract propagandism of Lutte Ouvriere, whose election campaigns are exactly passive propaganda against capitalism and for socialism? How in the workers’ movement do you differentiate yourself from the Communist Party, which will of course denounce capitalism in words for as long as you want? Isn’t it necessary for the revolutionary Marxists to have their own distinct programmatic, strategic and tactical proposals – as well as a distinct name?
58. Moreover, the fight for a new socialist party, a party which fights in the interests of the workers, is of necessity a complex road, through the recomposition of the left, which will inevitably involve various different currents. ‘Ourselves alone’ in France, as everywhere else, is a declaration of either political suicide or the path to building a propagandist sect.
Conclusion
59. Favourable perspectives and prospects are opening up for the organisation in the next period. We can substantially build the organisa tion. We can become not a small mass party, but a big revolutionary organisation. The organisation revitalised with new cadres from the struggles that will unfold would be a powerful factor in the battle to form a new socialist party. If we had several thousand more members, we would be in the position, not just because of our numbers but because of the struggles we have led and the example of the successes in Scotland and the likely successes of Socialist Alliances in several areas, to act as the catalyst on the issue of forming a new socialist party.
60. But a pre-condition to building the organisation is, firstly, rejecting any idea that the “main task” is one of popularising socialism in a “general way” and, secondly, understanding that a revolutionary party cannot, in today’s conditions, rapidly become a “small mass party” purely by self-will and hard work. The building of a revolutionary party capable of broad growth and an attractive profile adequate for the tasks of the coming period requires an openness and attention to the radicalising forces among trade unionists, women and youth; it requires a correct united front orientation; it requires an openness to political debate and discussion with other trends; it requires a will and determination to work together with other forces in socialist alliances and campaigns; it means holding onto the perspective of a new socialist party, without attempting to substitute the revolutionary organisation for that socialist party. Despite protestations to the contrary, the statement that we can build a small mass party in the next few years means that in effect it is assumed that our organisation can itself carry out the tasks of such a party. This perspective is not at all ‘broad’, it is sectarian. Insofar as the name ‘Socialist Party’ sums up that perspective, it should be rejected.