Marxist
Education Portal
Our Programme and Transitional Demands
Peter Taaffe
1995, Militant Labour Members’ Bulletin 13
FROM TIME to time it is necessary for our organisation to re-evaluate its programme, its slogans, to examine its language and to update its ideas.
It is necessary to do this in Britain and on an international scale at this stage because, in the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism and the move to the right of the ‘traditional’ organisations, profound changes have taken place.
The political terrain upon which we operate has changed fundamentally. Other organisations completely incapable of adapting to the new situation have either sunk into obscurity, or been wracked by crisis. Some, like the SWP, will face splits in the next period.
In discussing the programme a key question is the mood and outlook of the working class. The consciousness of the mass of the proletariat has undoubtedly been thrown back when compared to the situation in the 1970s and early 1980s.
It is true that the pendulum is now beginning to swing back. This is shown by the general strike in Italy, in the movements in France at the end of 1994 and beginning of 1995, with mass demonstrations and the singing of the Internationale, and the more recent events in Sweden, in which we have played an important part.
But consciousness has not yet returned to the earlier stage when the basic idea of socialist change was accepted by big layers of the politically developed sections of the youth and working class people.
Update Demands
Because of this our organisation has been forced, so to speak ‘on the wing’, to examine some of our demands, to withdraw some which were no longer applicable, and to introduce fresh demands. We should not lightly jettison slogans and demands which have formed an important part of our programme in the past. But it would be fatal for us not to recognise the changes which have taken place and the need to readjust parts of our programme, specific demands and even some slogans we advocate.
The programme of a revolutionary organisation, to paraphrase Trotsky, should not be fixed like iron but flexible. Our strategic task is the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by a socialist society. But this task is impossible without the most careful attention to all, even small and partial questions, of a tactical and programmatic character.
An additional reason for re-evaluating our programme now is because of the independent revolutionary character of our work. In the ‘entrist’ phase, which we have to remember lasted for decades, there was always the danger of an opportunist adaptation to social democracy, particularly to the left, of reformism and centrism.
Some mistakes were made but in general this tendency was corrected through internal discussion and clarification within our ranks. Now, in a phase of increasingly independent work there is perhaps the opposite danger, of ultra-leftism. At the very least a tendency could develop leading to carelessness in the formulation of demands, and gaps in the understanding of new members about the need for transitional demands.
What is to be done?
Is there a clear understanding within our ranks of the need, in fact a greater need today, for transitional demands and the transitional approach of Trotsky and our organisation in the past? Or is there a feeling that all that is required today is to take to the ‘open seas’, to put forward the ‘boldest’ revolutionary demands and this will guarantee us a mass audience and growth in numbers? This approach would be fatal for the future of our organisation.
Another reason why we need clarity on the programme is that the very need for a programme is under attack. The radical left intelligentsia faced with a barrage of bourgeois triumphalism since 1989, is in headlong ideological retreat.
They echo, quite unconsciously in most cases, the ideas of the ‘Economists’ which Lenin confronted at the beginning of the century in his book What is to be done?
This layer argued that there is “no need” for a programme, or slogans, or even a ‘party’. Solutions will arise ‘spontaneously’ from the working class in action. This is an attack on the dialectical interrelationship between the working class as it develops under capitalism and the role of leadership.
We have always argued against the sects who echoed the wrong idea of Lenin (in the same What is to be done?) that “revolutionary consciousness is brought to the working class from the outside”. On the contrary, as we have shown many times, the basic ideas of socialism developed in the ranks of the proletariat (amongst the Chartists for instance) even before Marx and Engels came onto the scene. The Paris Commune, with its outline of what a workers’ state would involve, Soviets etc, were not developed by Marx and Engels or Lenin and Trotsky. These were thrown up by the working class in the course of its experiences.
The great historical merit of Marxism was to generalise – to codify – this experience and to give back to the working class a rounded-out programme. This was a summing up working class experience.
In Marx’s words, through a correct programme the proletariat can develop “from a class in itself (which is just raw material for exploitation) to a class for itself.
In other words it becomes conscious of itself as a class. The need for an organisation, specifically of a party, has been thoroughly explained by the great Marxist teachers. Trotsky’s famous example in his History of the Russian Revolution is the best explanation of a party. He likens the working class to steam which is harnessed by a piston box (the party) to become a force. Without the piston box, the energy, the movement of the working class, can be dissipated.
However, the piston box, that is the party, is nothing without the steam which provided the energy in the first place.
The Marxist method
The issue of the programme raises also the method of a genuine revolutionary organisation in contradistinction to the myriad sects.
The sects always proceed firstly from an elaboration of programme and even then in a completely abstract fashion, unrelated to the real movement of the working class. We, on the other hand, have a good historical tradition of basing our programme on the elaboration of perspectives. Only then is it possible to determine our programme, as well as specific demands to be put forward etc.
Sometimes in the past the elaboration of perspectives and our programme have been separated. A perspectives document was produced and a separate programme was also developed. Because of the character of this period it is necessary to integrate perspectives and the main programmatic demands, which should be put forward at each stage, as far as possible, in one document.
This was the method of Trotsky, in his writings on Germany before Hitler came to power, as well as in France and in Spain in the 1930s. Before re-examining the programme it is necessary to briefly restate the general ideas which informed Trotsky’s approach towards the elaboration of the Transitional Programme.
Trotsky’s view
Trotsky pointed out that the main contradiction of the epoch was between the objective prerequisites for revolution, which had matured, and were “rotten ripe”, and the immaturity of the ‘superstructure’, that is the consciousness of the proletariat and its vanguard – the advanced workers.
Trotsky pointed towards what could and what could not be changed in working class consciousness through the programme.
For us, as Marxists, the consciousness of the mass of working class people is part of the objective difficulties we face.
This consciousness can be changed by events, or mainly by events. On the other hand the outlook of the advanced layers, at least a layer of them, can be changed by theory, propaganda, argument and clear demands that correspond to the situation.
Therefore, it was necessary for Marxists, argued Trotsky, to elaborate a series of transitional demands as a bridge from the present level of consciousness to the idea of the socialist revolution.
Sectarians of all description do not need this bridge’ because, in effect, they do not intend to pass over to the other side, to win the mass of the working class to the idea of the socialist transformation of society.
The pre-first world war social democracy divided its programme between a minimum and a maximum programme. However, with the exhaustion of any progressive mission by world capitalism, signified by the First World War and the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks concluded that it was necessary to advance ‘transitional demands’. Some of these demands are contained in the brilliant little pamphlet of Lenin The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Avoid It.
The Bolsheviks, as with the Marxists today, did not reject partial, i.e. reformist, demands. In fact, the essence of the situation, under disintegrating world capitalism, is that the struggle for ‘reforms’ is bound up with the need to carry through the socialist transformation of society.
It would be fatal, as the sects invariably do, to put forward abstract formulas as a substitute for concrete demands, clear slogans, which arise from the experiences of the masses themselves. It was a theme of Trotsky in the discussions leading up to the writing of the Transitional Programme that even the greatest geniuses of Marxism cannot foretell every development of the working class. “No-one anticipated the development of the Congress of Industrial Organisations” (in the USA between 1933 and 1936) said Trotsky. This was a mighty movement of the US working class, of three million formerly unorganised workers into the trade unions over a three-year period. There will be many future developments that we cannot anticipate. There will be many movements which will throw up new demands, and sometimes old demands formulated in a different way, that we would need to incorporate into our programme.
For the record
There is another qualification that needs to be added. How we pose demands is to some extent decided by the size and the influence of the organisation.
A small propaganda group, and every revolutionary organisation passes through this phase, has no need to fill out every detail in its programme. However, when an organisation becomes larger, when it becomes a factor in the situation, it is necessary to give a more precise shape to the demands that we put forward.
But at ail times, what we demand, the slogans that we advance, are important. They determine the effect we have on those we are trying to win, and are also important from a historical point of view.
For instance, on the issue of Northern Ireland we can point back to the position that we took in 1969 on the deployment of British troops.
No other organisation can reprint the material from this period. Our material has stood the test of time.
However, this does not prevent our opponents from rummaging through the store rooms of history to see whether they can find even seemingly obscure and detailed points with which to undermine our position.
In Brazil, in the polemic which is taking place between the supporters of the CWI and the supporters of the LIT inside the PSTU, the LIT have dredged up how we allegedly voted on a “troops out” resolution at a conference in 1969 or 1970.
This shows that even when we constitute a small organisation the position we take on issues will be raised once we become a sizeable force and a factor in the situation.
Three sectors of the world
In 1938, Trotsky outlined a programme for the three different sectors of the world revolution, the advanced industrial countries, the colonial and semi-colonial countries, and the one Stalinist regime at that stage, the USSR.
Although the situation has now changed with the collapse of Stalinism, it is still necessary to divide our programme in this fashion in order to take account of the differences which still exist in the three different areas of the world.
It is true that the ex-Stalinist countries are all now bourgeois states (perhaps with the exclusion of Cuba; the question of China needs to be clarified further).
The social counter-revolution has been or is in the process of being carried through, but as yet they do not have stable economic forms. The process of introducing private property in place of state property has not yet been completed. Our programme would obviously have to take account of this. There is a large ‘state capitalist’ element, big sections of the economy remain formally ‘nationalised’, and a growing private sector. We would have to formulate demands which take into account the privatisations which have taken place: we propose that they be taken back into state ownership, into ‘public ownership’, under workers’ control and management.
Trotsky also elaborated three broad types of demand, which he included in the Transitional Programme. There are of course the immediate, ‘reformist’, day-to-day demands of the workers. Under this heading comes the demand for wage increases, shorter hours, defence of conditions etc.
Underdeveloped world
At the same time there are the ‘democratic’ demands which assume exceptional importance in the former colonial and semi-colonial world. Here, in general, the bourgeois, national, democratic revolution has not been carried through to a conclusion.
Take the example of Nigeria, which has an important section of the CWI. Faced with a military dictatorship our comrades have been compelled to draw on Trotsky’s idea of a “revolutionary constituent assembly”.
However, in approaching this question our comrades have shown that they don’t have a fetish about terms. The idea of a “revolutionary constituent assembly”, or the germ of such an idea, can assume many forms in the colonial and semi-colonial world.
In the early 1990s the movements for democracy throughout Africa were often mobilised around the call for a ‘National Conference’. Although the bourgeoisie used the idea of a Conference to control the movement among the masses, this demand was seen as the democratic way to decide their country’s future.
After discussion, the Nigerian comrades decided to replace the call for a constituent assembly with one for a National Conference while maintaining all their demands for the working class and poor peasantry to have a majority in the Conference and for the socialist transformation of Nigeria.
In Nigeria the bourgeois democrats took the initiative in forming a broad “Campaign for Democracy” alliance which our comrades correctly orientated towards and joined. In mid-1993 it was our comrades’ work which led to the Campaign for Democracy calling a general strike against the military regime.
In October 1994 there was the formation of the “National Conscience Party”, around demands for democratic rights and the ‘abolishment of poverty’. Although the NCP is, at present, a bourgeois radical, and not a workers’ party, our comrades are active within it. In both the earlier movement there was an element at least of an alternative ‘democratic body’ or ‘assembly’ around which the mass movement could coalesce.
By participating in such movements the basis could develop at a certain stage, particularly if the military refused to give way to civilian rule, for a full blown “revolutionary constituent assembly”.
Democratic demands
It is absolutely correct for Marxists and revolutionaries in a situation like this to put forward democratic demands, even though sections of the liberal bourgeois would formally support them. The right to strike, a free press, freedom of assembly as well as an alternative ‘democratic’ parliament or congress would form a necessary part of the Marxist organisation’s programme when faced with various kinds of dictatorship.
How then to differentiate from the liberal and even on occasion a section of the big bourgeoisie who can switch from supporting ‘dictatorship’ to the idea of ‘democracy’?
The Bolsheviks demonstrated that it is only the working class which is ‘consistently democratic’, will fight to the end for the full implementation of democracy. Moreover, such rights can be achieved not through ‘negotiations’ alone, but only by a mass movement. Invariably, however, a mass movement for ‘democratic rights’ will spill over into the social field. The masses want democratic rights not for the sake of it but in order to change and improve their conditions.
This inevitably brings the mass movement into collision with the ‘democratic’ bourgeoisie. There is therefore a tendency for even the most liberal bourgeois democrats to seek to reign in the mass movement, and when this is not possible to peel away into opposition. The masses, however, will remain with the revolutionary organisation if the correct tactics are used. This dynamic approach towards the struggle for democratic rights forms an important thread in the writings of Lenin and Trotsky and was demonstrated in action by the Bolsheviks in the period leading up to the 1917 October Revolution.
The CJA [Criminal Justice Act]
But the struggle for democratic rights is not restricted just to the colonial and semi-colonial world.
In this period of economic stagnation and long-term decay of capitalism on a world scale the tendency of the bourgeoisie, even in the advanced industrial countries, is to strengthen the repressive powers of the bourgeois state. The Criminal Justice Act in Britain is one example of a growing trend in Europe and on a world scale.
Of course it would be wrong to give the impression that the capitalists could establish, with little opposition, a ‘strong state’ in Europe at this stage. The relationship of forces still remains more in favour of the working class than the capitalists.
The CJA and many other anti-democratic actions by the Tories in Britain are largely for propaganda reasons, to create the climate to carry through repressive measures at a later stage.
However, we have shown that it is possible to successfully intervene and in some areas to win the leadership of such movements.
In general there would be no fundamental difference in programme between what we would demand on the CJA and what other groups argue. But differences arose, particularly with the SWP, on the slogans and the methods of struggle to be deployed in fighting against the CJA. In some senses this was the poll tax revisited. The superiority of the Marxists was demonstrated in the course of action, rather than just on the plane of general demands.
Some of those who were prepared in words to oppose the poll tax, peeled away once it became clear that the poll tax would be defeated through a programme of mass civil disobedience.
Independent working-class action
Given the decay of the ‘traditional organisations’ of the proletariat, one of the key questions which now faces the Marxist movement is the demand for independent political workers’ action and organisations. In the colonial and semi-colonial world it is a question of advocating the class, political separation of the proletariat.
With the triumph of the “market” the colonial bourgeoisie and with them the radical petit-bourgeois parties have moved decisively to the right. Parties which once demagogically reflected the demand for ‘socialism’ such as the Pakistani People Party (PPP), the ANC in South Africa, the PRD in Mexico etc, have all enthusiastically embraced the market.
Even the Peronists in Argentina, which in the past, while never embracing ‘socialism’, nevertheless took up a radical, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist stand. However, under President Menem it has moved to embrace capitalism and opened the doors to imperialist intervention with the plundering and the robbing of the resources of Argentina. This raises sharply the need to advance the idea of ‘workers’ parties’ in this sphere of the world.
Labour or Socialist?
Even the term ‘Labour’ is increasingly discredited in most countries, because of the role of the corrupted trade union leadership. Nor is this restricted to Africa, Asia and Latin America.
In the USA the demand for a Labor Party may have to be amended by our comrades there. The term ‘Labor’ is now identified in the minds of many workers with the corrupted trade union leadership of the AFL/CIO.
It would perhaps be more appropriate to demand a Socialist Party in the conditions which obtain in the USA.
It is clear that the raising of such demands in good season will prepare the ground for the formation of independent political organisations of the proletariat, and consequently the raising of the authority of our organisation.
The ‘Morenoites’ – the LIT – in Brazil first advanced the idea of a workers’ party which materialised in the formation of the PT (Workers’ Party) in 1979-80.
They were in on the ground floor and when the situation opened up with the ending of the military dictatorship they gained considerable prestige as well as members from correctly raising this slogan.
We also gained in the case of Greece where we anticipated the formation of the Socialist Party (PASOK), and in Spain where we also predicted the rebirth of the PSOE (Socialist Workers’ Party). This gave us a head start over our rivals in influencing the advanced sections of the working class.
In South Africa we supported the idea of a workers’ party. However, before the election we did not advance this as ‘slogan’. Now in the aftermath the election, and with the increasing opposition to the bourgeois leaders of the ANC, particularly from the trade unions gathered under the banner of COSATU, it is necessary to raise more openly and energetically the idea of a workers’ party.
Transitional Demands
The third category of demands were transitional demands. In the post-war boom (1950-74) the bourgeois could give concessions, sometimes big concessions, to the working class. In Italy a sliding scale in wages (the scala mobile – automatic pay increases tied to the rate of inflation) was conceded and remained an important conquest of Italian working class people right up until recently.
In this situation some of the sects, opportunistically bending to the prevailing mood, considered that the transitional programme was ‘outdated’. They did not criticise this or that aspect of the programme or demand. Trotsky fully recognised the need to adapt the programme to changed circumstances. But the very concept of the transitional method and programme was rejected.
In the case of the SWP, they refuse to adopt a programme. SWP members who argue for this are met with expulsions.
While we recognised that some of the demands were not entirely applicable, we nevertheless argued that “every vegetable has its season”.
Once capitalism moved into crisis, as it inevitably would, the transitional programme would come into its own again. On the other hand the ultra-left sectarians mechanically repeated the phrases of the Transitional Programme without understanding Trotsky’s method.
To merely repeat statements and formulas, drawn up at one period, but which events have overtaken, is clearly wrong. Thus Lenin in Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder argued that even in the best conditions allowed by capitalism, the trade unions could never really encompass more than about one-third of the working class. Trotsky repeats this idea in the Transitional Programme. However, in the post-second world war period, with big concessions given to the working class, the trade unions developed powerfully. In Sweden 83% of the population are still involved in trade unions (with a colossal 87% of women organised). In Belgium 70-80% were organised in unions. At their height, in the 1970s in Britain the unions encompassed 55% of workers.
Factory committees
Trotsky, because it was given for him that only a minority could actually be organised in the trade unions, advances the slogan of ‘factory committees’. The purpose of such bodies, which in general are only possible on a big scale during periods of mass upsurge or of a pre-revolutionary period, would embrace much wider layers of workers than those just involved in the trade unions. However, given the growth of trade unions in Britain and the development of the semi-official ‘shop stewards committees’, this demand was outmoded. The shop stewards committees embody the very idea of ‘factory committees’ advocated by Trotsky.
The situation was somewhat different in the case of southern Europe, in Italy, Greece and France in particular. Here the traditions of the working class is to throw up organisations spontaneously in the course of struggle. This meant that a variant of the idea of ‘factory committees’ had a certain validity for these countries.
Even now in France the trade unions membership has been reduced to 8% of the labour force. The idea of broader organisations, of action committees, is necessary to complement the demands for the trade unions to take action in defence of workers’ rights.
During the period of capitalist economic upswing we still took up elements of the transitional programme, particularly the demand for partial nationalisation, for instance of failing industries. We also advanced the idea of the state takeover of major firms. Incidentally, while we implacably opposed the sects for demanding Soviets on every occasion, we nevertheless advanced the idea of Soviets in a popularised form when we demanded a socialist plan of production.
We proposed that such a plan would be drawn up by committees of representatives of different sections of the working class (especially organised labour) and small business people.
Both Lenin and Trotsky stressed the need to speak in the language of the working class of each country and, wherever possible, to avoid the use of ‘foreign’ terms which the ruling class could use to frighten the proletariat.
This was one of the reasons why during the revolutionary events in Germany in 1923 he opposed the slogan of Soviets, which would have allowed the German bourgeoisie to create the impression of ‘outside’, that is Russian, intervention in Germany. Moreover, the elements of Soviets existed in the powerful shop stewards’ organisations, which broadened and filled out with representatives from workers other than the employed workers themselves, would, in effect, have become Soviets.
But, the essence of the present situation is that the transitional programme, the transitional method and many of the transitional demands formulated by Trotsky almost 60 years ago, will come back on the agenda in the next period.
Consciousness
In drawing up a new programme, and more importantly in deciding what particular demands should be brought forward at each stage, it is necessary to correctly gauge the level of consciousness of the proletariat and how it will develop. The objective prerequisites sketched out by Trotsky in the 1930s are today beginning to mature on a world scale. We are not yet in a pre-revolutionary period but such a situation could rapidly develop, perhaps much more rapidly than even the revolutionary tendency itself anticipates. Tasks which loom for decades can develop in years, those for years can develop in months, for months can develop in weeks, and tasks of weeks sometimes can be concentrated into a day or so.
Trotsky, in the discussions on the Transitional Programme, emphasises that he did not foresee ten years previously that a pre-revolutionary situation would mature so quickly.
The question of the consciousness of the proletariat is more complicated than it was in 1938. On the one side the objective situation economically, and increasingly socially, bears parallel with that period.
Economically we face as we have explained in documents and articles in the journal and paper a drawn out ‘depressionary’ period, with the existence of mass, and virtually permanent, unemployment. From a world point of view the bourgeois are incapable of solving the problem of the stagnation, and in some areas the decline, of the productive forces. But, the objective reality is not yet fully reflected in the consciousness of the proletariat.
The masses increasingly know what they don’t want but don’t, as yet, know what they want, because of the absence of an authoritative Marxist leadership.
Market illusions
In Sweden the labour movement and particularly our organisation has been able to explain the situation by taking up the phrase – “the dictatorship of the market” – coined by a bourgeois sociologist. The lingering illusions of the mass of the proletariat in resurgent capitalism is beginning to be broken. This will be completed by a combination of experience and also of agitation and propaganda.
Even in the ex-Stalinist states the pendulum has begun to swing against the market. In East Germany the process is most marked. An absolute majority now believe that “socialism” was a good system “badly put into practice”. To a lesser or greater extent in such countries the effects of a return to the market is reflected in votes against the openly pro-capitalist parties. Social democratic or quasi-social democratic ideas and parties, reflecting the confused state of consciousness of the masses, holds sway in most of the countries once under Stalinist control.
It is inevitable that given the state of consciousness of the masses that a stage of reformism, of left-reformism and even centrism (revolutionary in words and reformist in deeds), in other words of Menshevism, is not just possible but probable in all countries. The masses always take the line of least resistance.
Despite the Bolshevik’s authority in 1917 (with two revolutions and the authority of Lenin and Trotsky behind them), in the first period of the revolution the masses flooded to the compromisers, the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries. In April 1917 the Bolsheviks got no more than 6% of the vote in the Soviets. It took a combination of experience and the tactics of the Bolsheviks for the mass of the proletariat to place themselves behind their banner.
At the same time we must be clear that the programme of the revolutionary tendency is not determined by the existing outlook, the ‘mentality’, of the working class. Yes, we have to skilfully adapt our ideas to the prevailing level of understanding, to explain our programme in the simplest possible form, to re-examine the terminology in the way this programme is expressed. But our programme is determined by the objective needs of the working class under capitalism.
Revolution?
If it was based upon consciousness alone, particularly of the mass, we would not be putting forward the idea of socialism at this stage. The consciousness of the working class has been thrown back in terms of support for socialism. But we must still argue the case for socialism.
On the other hand, the sectarians put forward their ideas and programme in a most unskilful fashion. For them there are only two colours in the political spectrum, red and black. Life and politics however is made up of shadings as well as the bright colours. This raises the question of the slogan of “revolution” on which some discussions have already taken place both in Britain and on a world scale.
There is nothing wrong with bold language, of trying to explain the ideas of Marxism in a new and more exciting fashion.
Moreover, we are revolutionaries, we stand for revolution. Some sections of our international, such as in France and Pakistan, include the term “revolution” into the very name of their organisation: It is necessary both in terms of the name of an organisation and its programme to take into account the concrete national and social traditions of every country. We also use arguments in favour of revolution in theoretical articles, in our paper and in our monthly magazine. We do the same in special bulletins, leaflets, pamphlets etc. where we are aiming at a specific audience of young workers or students who, to some extent, are ahead of the great majority of the proletariat on some issues.
But to advocate that we would put forward the idea of “revolution” as a slogan for a mass workers’ audience, very baldly without explanation and without elaboration, is to run ahead of events. It goes too far. Put in a bald way it can be completely misunderstood and moreover can give a wrong impression of what we stand for.
We need to clarify this question not just for today but, more importantly, for the future when we are a much more important mass force. Then the bourgeois will attempt, as they did in the past in the case of the Liverpool city council struggle, to raise a mental barrier in the minds of workers to the ideas we are putting forward.
Therefore, it is necessary to formulate our ideas with care and not to set up unnecessary obstacles in the minds of workers. As in the past the bourgeois will attempt to picture us as “wild men and women with knives between our teeth”.
Violence
We have always approached the question of “revolution” at this stage, in a careful and defensive fashion.
When questioned on the issue of ‘revolution’ we never usually give a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. We invariably seek to explain the social content of such a demand along the lines of “if you mean by revolution a 30-35 hour week, a minimum wage of 200 a week, the taking over of the 200 monopolies; if this is your perception of revolution then of course we accept that idea.”
Today it is better to advance the idea of socialism, of a democratic socialist plan of production etc. If anything, given the collapse of Stalinism, and the throwing back of consciousness in relation to socialism, it is both necessary and more possible to explain this idea than the bald one of ‘revolution’, to a mass audience.
Some comrades have invoked the example of the overthrow of the Stalinist regimes in 1989. Then the idea of ‘revolution’ in Eastern Europe was much in vogue. We had to make it clear then, and subsequently that when the bourgeois deployed the term, ‘revolution’, they were not talking about a socialist revolution. Of course there was an element of this – political revolution – in the beginning. But the net outcome of this movement was a social counter-revolution, the restoration of capitalism.
We have to recognise that at the present time the very term ‘revolution’ is both over used and devalued. It is put forward as an idea of sweeping political change, within the confines of capitalism. Even Blair and his acolytes talk about the “unfinished revolution” in the Labour Party. In effect there is a counter-revolution against the programme and democratic rights of the labour movement built up over generations.
Some sections, even of workers, can quite easily embrace the concept of ‘revolution’ which they associate with their own personal circumstances without going outside the framework of capitalism. For instance many blacks, even the radicalised sections, can quite easily accept the need for a ‘revolution’ but at the same time reject the idea of socialism. The discussion on the programme should not take the form of hair-splitting. But, use of wrong formulations can create a wrong impression of what we are aiming for. If the term ‘revolution’ has to be used we must specify the class character.
It would be logical to call for a ‘socialist revolution’. We believe that this runs ahead of events, for the reasons explained above, and it is better to express the same idea in the more popularised form of the “socialist transformation of society”, “public ownership” of the commanding heights of a specific number of companies.
People’s Power
This issue is linked to the use of the term “people’s power”, and the description of our organisation as a “people’s party”, or our leading spokespersons as “people’s Champion”.
Such terms have crept into our journals and into public statements and propaganda of our organisation. To some extent this was excusable in the immediate post-1989 period. But it is a thoroughly unscientific term. The working class is included in an undifferentiated mass of “people”. If necessary it is preferable to use the term “working class” or “working people”. The latter term was deployed by Lenin to encompass the working class and the lowest strata of the petty bourgeois, working peasants, oppressed small business people etc.
Some verbal discussions have taken place on these issues which have largely clarified the questions.
Election tactics
But one of the most controversial questions in all sections of the CWI is the issue of elections and tactics we should deploy. Strictly speaking this does not belong to an examination of the programme. But it is not possible to build a Chinese wall between the programme and the tactics and slogans that flow from this.
It has to be recognised that in this period it is exceptionally difficult to strike the right balance in the formulation of correct slogans in relation to the traditional organisations. This arises from the different levels of consciousness and the different layers we are appealing to. This is allied to the unprecedented decay of the traditional organisations.
We were initially very cautious when we launched the turn, and also on the perspectives for the traditional parties. It is now clear that the process of ‘bourgeoisification’ is a trend, not just in Britain but on a European and to some extent on a world scale. Some traditional parties, such as in Spain, the PSOE, have already been transformed into, or are in the process of being transformed into, bourgeois parties. It has to be added here that the majority of the Spanish comrades do not agree that the process has been completed. There is room to discuss this issue in more detail but the trend is clear. The PSOE, given the utter discrediting of the Gonzalez leadership which may be reflected in the victory for the right wing party (PP) in the general election in the next period, could lead to its disappearance like the Italian Socialist Party.
The former Italian Communist Party, (now called the Democratic Party of Socialism), seems also to be heading in the same direction of becoming another bourgeois party. It invited to its conference not just Berlusconi, standard bearer of the right in Italy, but Fini the ex-fascist leader of the ex-fascist party, the National Alliance.
The Japanese Socialist Party first of all changed to the Social Democrat Party and has now has just dissolved itself into the “Democratic League”.
In Britain Blair is-determined to carry through his “project”, which even some on the left now complain, represents an internal coup largely of ex-members of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) around Blair, against the Labour Party itself. Blair himself boasted on his jaunt to Murdoch’s island in Australia, that by the time of the next election the Labour Party would be a “new Party”.
Even more distance will be put between the Labour Party and the trade unions, leading possibly to a complete separation.
A new socialist party?
All of this is preparing the ground for splits within the Labour Party – the basis for which we have explained in previous issues of the bulletin. This in turn means that we must raise the idea of a new Socialist Party in Britain.
There is a difference between a slogan, which is a part of your programme which can be fought for now, and a perspective for future developments. We do not as yet advance the slogan of a new Socialist Party. The basis for such a party is likely to be created only after the next general election. That does not prevent us from preparing for such a development today through propaganda, articles in our press, etc.
Is this not in contradiction to the idea of building our own organisation? On the contrary we must energetically build Militant Labour and draw into our ranks the more advanced sections of the working class. But there is an important layer who sympathise with our ideas, and support what we do in action who would find it difficult to join what they perceive as a relatively small organisation at this stage.
If however a large formation, with a specific socialist orientation, was to develop in Britain hundreds of thousands would flood into such a party. For the ten or 20 or hundreds who would join us there would be hundreds and thousands who would join such a larger formation. We are for the creation of a mass Marxist force in Britain. We do not advocate a new reformist party – “Labour Party Mark Two”. We advocate that our programme should be adopted by such a mass formation. It is highly unlikely that we would be initially successful. Nevertheless, the creation of such a force would provide a much more favourable milieu for the development of revolutionary ideas, the strengthening and the building of a revolutionary tendency.
We do not as yet advance this idea as a slogan but following a general election, depending on the outcome of events, we could do so in an energetic fashion.
In some areas preparatory steps have been taken in this direction, as with the “Socialist Forum” in Scotland. For England and Wales it is necessary at this stage to emphasise the degeneration of the Labour Party, which has gone much further than even we anticipated. The idea that a left would develop within the Labour Party in the next period can be virtually ruled out. ‘Conditionality’ can be taken too far. Every perspective is a working hypothesis
It is necessary to determine what is the most likely development of events and to orientate the organisation in this direction. The most likely perspective is that the Labour Party will continue to evolve even further towards the right, to become more and more “bourgeoisified”, and break its links with the organised trade union movement. It is therefore necessary to orientate our comrades towards the building of Militant Labour and at the same time arm them with the perspective (and the slogans at a later stage) of a new mass socialist force in Britain.
General election slogans
In the immediate period it is clear that in the general election we must base our approach upon the mass revulsion against the Tories. If, however, we just advance the slogan “Tories Out” it opens the door to “tactical voting” which is a concession to the idea that it is necessary to vote for the Liberals. Therefore, even if it creates a problem with some of the advanced layers of the working class, our demands in the general election is likely to be “Vote Militant Labour” where we are standing and “vote Labour elsewhere”. This must be linked to the idea of the struggle for socialism irrespective of the outcome of the election.
In Britain this is a relatively simple problem compared to the complexities facing some of our sister organisations, particularly in Europe.
A vote against the right?
On a European scale the slogan of “Labour to power on a socialist programme”, which served us well in Britain for decades, is now completely outdated. It looks and sounds ridiculous against the background of the Labour leadership in Britain and the Social Democratic leaders on the European continent specifically repudiating the very idea of socialism. Therefore the idea of voting against the right, in its different variants, is now the general position of our European sections.
However, a layer of workers and youth are so repelled by the degenerated ‘socialist’ and Labour leadership that they have either turned away from politics completely or have consciously abstained. Some have even resorted to the “blank vote”, to register their protest (in some countries you can officially record an abstention – the blank vote).
We have to take account of this mood but if we are not careful it is possible that we can make ultra-left errors which would cut us off not just from the masses but a layer of advanced workers.
Jospin v Chirac
We are justifiably proud of the adherence of the French organisation to our International. We have learnt from them and they have learnt from us in the course of the common experience within one international organisation.
But criticisms have been made by the leadership of the International of the tactics deployed by our French organisation in the recent presidential elections. (In a special International bulletin, the correspondence on this issue will be made available to the membership).
Our comrades correctly orientated towards the Communist Party in the first round of the elections, despite the pressure exerted by the considerable layers gathered around the “revolutionary left”, to back the Trotskyist Lutte Ouvriere.
Our organisation refused to bend to this pressure, because of the need to approach the ranks of the Communist Party, which include probably the best elements of the French proletariat at this stage.
However, the comrades also stated in advance that they would advocate a blank vote in the second round. The International Secretariat believed that this was a mistake and have entered a dialogue with the comrades for clarification of this issue.
It is true that it was not a ‘catastrophic mistake’ but in our opinion it was a mistake as we believe that the outcome of the second round demonstrated.
It is also true that the advanced layers demonstrated a big hostility to the right wing of the Socialist Party, the architects of the electoral catastrophe that has affected the Socialist Party. But the International Secretariat argued, in our opinion correctly, that notwithstanding the hostility towards the SP leaders, partly reflected in the 1.6 million who voted for the LO and the 2.6 million who voted for the CP in the first round, that in the second round there was likely to be a big class polarisation.
The majority of the workers would gather around Jospin, not so much positively in favour of him, but against Chirac, the candidate of the big bourgeois and the right.
Even in Spain and Belgium in recent elections, notwithstanding the ‘bourgeoisification’ of the SP in both countries, because of the lack of an alternative and as a means of stopping the right, the masses “holding their nose” voted for these parties.
The IS argued that the same process, notwithstanding the disappointments at 14 years of Socialist rule, would be evinced during the second round. This proved to be the case. Even 95% of the CP voters opted for Jospin and 60% of those who voted for the LO lined up behind him as well. It is true that a layer, particularly around the Communist Party, refused to accept the advice of the party leaders and cast a blank vote. But the revolutionary tendency does not automatically go along with such a layer. Sometimes it seeks to educate them in how best to win over and approach the mass, particularly those who are influenced by the SP.
The ‘details’ of Jospin’s programme or of Chirac’s for that matter, was not the key question posed in the second round. Much more important, particularly in the consciousness of the proletariat, was the consequences of a victory for the Right. In advance, we predicted that Chirac would go much further than even the socialists in attacks on the working class.
France had in any case been relatively protected from the kind of attacks on state expenditure, particularly on welfare payments, compared to Britain and other countries in Europe. Given the overall position of French and world capitalism that situation could not last. Chirac was bound to attack the living standards of the working class, and to go over into a more open offensive against the organisations of the French workers.
Even in the few months that he has been in power, this perspective has been born out. Our French comrades dispute this analysis and argue that they have not been seriously undermined by the stand that they took in the second round. This may or may not be the case, but that is not the key question. A larger organisation which through its advice inadvertently gives victory to the Right would have paid a heavy price and a loss of support amongst workers. The discussion on these issues is vital for the future of our organisation.
Italy
In Italy the situation is very complicated because of the sharp evolution to the right for the PDS. The PDS is breaking with ‘socialism’, never mind with ‘communism’. It is heading in the direction of becoming another liberal bourgeois party while the Reformed Communists which at the moment has strong centrist currents within its ranks, could end up as a “Social Democratic” party.
Our old slogan of “vote PDS” does not get the kind of ready support as in the past. It may now be necessary to emphasise the slogan of “vote RC” while recognising, because of the lack of an alternative, that the mass of the workers will still vote for the PDS. This is particularly the case, as
opposed to France for instance, because the PDS has never been in power. These general tactical considerations are linked to the demands that we have to formulate in relation to the traditional organisations.
Workers’ Party?
It would be inappropriate in the advanced industrial countries to advance the slogan of “workers’ parties”. It is more correct to demand new socialist parties, or variations of this.
Before we reach the stage of the development of new mass socialist parties the question of our electoral tactics will be posed. We have made heroic efforts in Britain, Ireland, Sweden and now in Germany to appeal in a limited way for electoral support. We have done exceptionally well in some countries such as Britain, Scotland and Sweden and now in Germany. In Britain and Sweden, however, we have now raised within the ranks of our organisation the need to pose the question of a broader electoral appeal, for a wider electoral bloc, involving forces outside of our ranks. This is why we have posed the question in Scotland of a future electoral bloc encompassing ourselves, organisations such as the Socialist Movement, and even the left of the SNP (until they recently broke away from the Socialist Forum).
What this represents is an element of the “united front” on the electoral plane. In the trade unions we have deployed similar methods in relation to the broad left, and there was an element of this approach in our attitude towards the anti-poll tax organisations.
In general we are prepared to block with other organisations, on condition that they have roots in the working class and are prepared to struggle.
Apart from the issue of tactics, the specific aspects of our programme must be thoroughly re-examined in the new situation.
Forming demands
The discussion so far has shown a certain confusion in how we formulate and how we put forward our demands. Take the issue of pensions. We have demanded 220 income for all workers including the pensioners, which is the European decency threshold rate. But, given the existing level of pensions, is it not “utopian” to demand that pensions should be increased to this level?
But our general demand for 220 has to be complemented with demands for an immediate increase in the existing pension which would not necessarily take it to the 220 level. Such a demand would arise from dialogue and discussion with the pensioners. There is no contradiction in demanding x amount increase and 220. Firstly, the call for 220, is a transitional demand, which can only be realised fully on the basis of the reorganisation of society on socialist foundations. The other is for an immediate increase, an amelioration in the appalling conditions of pensioners.
Shorter working week
The same applies to the struggle for the shortening of the working week. We demand one hour off the working week, even half an hour for that matter. At the same time we demand the 35-hour week, or in some countries in western Europe a 32-hour week, and in some specific companies the 28-hour week. There is no contradiction between fighting for immediate demands for the shortening of the working week and rises in wages, no matter how partial this is, and also proposing well thought out transitional demands for a shorter working week.
In relation to the shorter working week the question of how a 32-hour or a 30-hour week should be implemented over four days or five days, is an important area of discussion and debate. The exact formulation of such a demand can only be determined in a dialogue with the workers.
NHS
The same general approach is necessary towards the NHS. We have raised the demand for the ‘nationalisation’ of the NHS – that is the re-establishment of a free (at the point of use) national health service under democratic control.. In the recent period Margaret Beckett, at least in words, has offered to go down the road of renationalisation once a Labour government comes to power. At the same time it is necessary to take account of the specific conditions existing today with the establishment of Trusts. We need to argue and formulate ideas for the defence of past gains and at the same time to maintain national bargaining despite the fragmentation of the Trusts through privatisation. The same would apply to the railways if the Tories are successful in carrying through privatisation.
Nationalisation
Terminology is also important. Because of the experience of Stalinism, and the bureaucratic character of nationalised industries in Britain, the term ‘nationalisation’ is associated in the minds of many workers with a caricature of its original meaning. We have not hesitated to change our formulations in the past where they have conveyed the opposite to what we intended. For instance, we jettisoned Karl Marx’s formula of “the dictatorship of the proletariat” because it conjured up the vision of Stalinism. We have substituted the much better, more explanatory and therefore more acceptable idea of “workers’ democracy”.
In place of the term nationalisation, we should look for new ways of expressing the same idea, “public ownership” or the term that Trotsky used at one stage of “socialisation”. Of course we have to add the demand for workers’ control and workers’ management.
Immigration controls
Much more controversial and difficult questions are posed in the discussion on “immigration”, of drugs and of the police. I will not comment here on the question of the police or of drugs because we have separate articles on this in the bulletin. But the issue of “immigration controls” has been the source of recent controversy within our organisation. At the recent world school some discussion took place on this issue.
The concrete situation differs from country to country in Europe. We are dealing here with the specific issue of immigration in Britain, although there are features similar to the rest of Europe.
Our general position is well known; we oppose all restrictions imposed by decaying and outmoded capitalism. We oppose passports, we oppose the attempt to restrict the free movement of labour, the capitalists idea of “fortress Europe” etc. But truth is concrete and on this issue we have to take account of the different levels of consciousness of the proletariat.
We cannot put forward, in the manner of the sects, the bald slogan of “open borders” or of “no to immigration controls” or a variant of this. The sects, a la SWP, recently advanced at the time of the introduction of the Asylum bill, the slogan of “asylum seekers welcome”, which could be interpreted, and indeed was interpreted, as allowing ‘everyone’ to enter Britain. This approach immediately cuts you off from the majority of workers in Britain, who, despite all the arguments we use, accept the need for ‘some control’ over entry into the country. It is connected in the minds of most workers with their jobs, education, housing etc. We must, of course, energetically counter the false impressions which workers have on this issue. We must also show that all the capitalist controls would be unnecessary on the basis of a sane, i.e. a socialist system.
But we have to recognise the level of consciousness, yes, even the backwardness, of workers on this issue. We do not accept this backwardness but seek to overcome it by skilful arguments and demands. Most workers, including the majority of black and Asian workers in Britain, do not accept the idea of an ‘open door’. But they accept the idea of ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’.
The demand which we previously put forward, “No racist immigration controls”, took account of the consciousness of big layers of the working class, mostly white, but certain layers in the black and Asian community as well. However, there was undoubtedly a certain ambiguity in the slogan. Our emphasis was on opposing controls and on exposing their racist character. We have also raised the demand for representatives of black and Asian workers, together with trade union representatives, to check the role of the state and fight against undemocratic, racist procedures. We also call for full rights of appeal, including to the courts, which offer more “fairness” than the arbitrary decisions of ministers and their officials.
Our demand “No racist immigration controls” was correct – it enabled us to reach wide layers of white workers and older black and Asian workers who have prejudices or are influenced by racist propaganda. However, our recent work has brought us into contact with idealistic white youth, as well as a radicalised section of black and Asian youth, whose attitude is very different from the older generation. Their mood is one of implacable opposition to all immigration controls. They understandably react against the possible implication of our slogans that there could, in reality, be “fair” immigration controls under capitalism, which we have never argued and is not the purpose of the slogan. But because of the misconceptions that can arise amongst the layer we are working with at this stage, it is necessary to re-evaluate our slogans and the way that we present our ideas.
This does not mean adopting the slogan of “No immigration controls”, which is no different from calling for “open borders”. That would completely cut us off from being able to combat racist ideas in the heads of the white working class. Many older black and Asian workers accept the idea of ‘immigration controls’, fearing an “influx” will aggravate their already difficult situation.
Our key slogans – highlighting the main elements of our programme -should be 1) No to racist laws, 2) No deportations 3) The right to asylum 4) No break-up of families, – and other demands, such as an end to police harassment.
A discussion – A dialogue
We hope that the Bulletin will discuss this and the other questions of programme raised here and we can arrive at an agreed position on this. These are just some of the issues, posed in re-examining our programme. The above is in no way an exhaustive examination. We have mainly sought to elucidate some of the main points. Through the discussion we must imbue our comrades with the correct method. It is necessary also to have the widest possible discussion in Britain and in the CWI leading up to the drawing up of a programme which will allow us to intervene more successfully in workers’ struggles.
The International has plans for a programme on Europe, on globalisation and a manifesto for world socialism etc. In Britain in this coming period, which will be an explosive one, we must not be afraid to face up to thorough discussion which will clarify issues within our ranks. We must not hesitate to jettison or temporarily withdraw those aspects of our programme that no longer fit the needs of working class people in the present situation.
In this way, linked to the issue of broad perspectives, we can prepare the organisation for the explosive period that is opening up. The programme is not an “iron law”. We must be flexible, we must link the programme and specific demands to the objective situation and the mood of the masses. But if we are successful in inculcating the correct method, we can create a force capable of measuring up to the revolutionary storms which impend in Britain and on a world scale.