Republican Socialist Platform
1. The global financial and economic crisis since 2008 has been transformed by governments imposing austerity policies into a massive redistribution of income and wealth from working people to the rich and powerful.
2. This has led to a ‘crisis of democracy’ as people have protested against the lack of democracy in their governments. Democratic uprisings and protests have impacted on authoritarian and liberal regimes alike. Since Iceland in 2009, democratic movements spread from Tunisia and Egypt right across the Middle East, and onto Russia and more recently Syria and Turkey. There have also been the Occupy protests in Spain and America and elsewhere. Meanwhile, in Greece the banks have imposed austerity policies on the people rendering Greek ‘democracy’ more or less irrelevant.
3. The UK is not a democracy. The country is governed by an oligarchy which rules in the name of the Crown through the constitutional laws of the ‘Crown-in-Parliament’. This involves the hegemony of the Crown over Parliament and the people of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The so-called Glorious Revolution was the beginning of an historic compromise of Crown and Parliament forged between 1688 and 1707. This was never intended as a popular democracy. Despite subsequent democratic reforms, a largely unaccountable bureaucracy, with more and more centralised control, has ensured that political power remains concentrated in the institutions of the Crown, governing “from above”.
4. The contradiction between this lack of popular democracy and the official ideology of liberal parliamentarianism has been regularly highlighted by corrupt practices and exposed by protests and popular struggles, most notably over the poll tax and the Iraq war. During the economic and financial crisis, support was freely given by Labour to City institutions while austerity was imposed by the Crown. The subsequent Coalition package of cuts and privatisation was never endorsed by the electorate but cobbled together after the 2010 general election.
5. Today, the public is increasingly disillusioned with ‘politics’ and alienated by corruption, a lack of democracy and a lack of public accountability. However, people do not necessarily draw radical conclusions from this. The Tory right and UKIP point to Europe as the source of Britain’s failing democracy.
6. A progressive resolution of the ‘democratic deficit’ requires the building of a mass movement for radical democratic reform. The anti-poll tax movement and the mass opposition to the Iraq war contained the seeds of such a movement. In Scotland, opposition to the poll tax fed into demands for a Scottish parliament. But in England, both movements failed to generalise beyond these particular issues into a ‘permanent’ democratic movement. In 2011, the Occupy movement re-awakened the democratic impulse from which emerged demands for a new constitution or ‘Agreement of the People’.
7. Crucially, the Labour left and Trotskyist parties in the UK have failed to champion the cause of fundamental democratic change. They have occasionally paid lip serve to the ‘democratic deficit’ seemingly unaware of the direct economic and social damage this has inflicted on the lives of working people. In essence, Labourism does not fight for republican democracy aiming, instead, to secure reforms by accommodation with the Crown. By not fighting for republican democracy, the Trotskyists have been a mirror image of Labourism, posing against it a demand for total ‘socialist revolution’ in theory while in their practice not going beyond defending the welfare state.
8. We need a different kind of party to the traditional ‘parties’ of the left. Such a party would recognise the central importance of the struggle for democracy in mobilising all oppressed sections of society into a mass movement for radical change, a new democratic constitution, and a social republic. This party, drawing on the republican and socialist traditions going back to the Levellers and Diggers and inspired by the militant struggles of the Chartists and Suffragettes, would seek to build and provide leadership for a broad democratic movement, thus becoming a republican socialist party.
Haider Bilal, Russell Caplan, Jane Clarke, Rada Daniell, Steve Freeman, Mick Hall, Peter Morton, Diane Paice, Danny Thompson, Julie Timbrell, Phil Vellender,
If you would like to add your support please email – RSPlatform@hotmail.co.uk
22 comments
22 responses to “Republican Socialist Platform”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
ongoing
Just Stop Oil – Slow Marches
Slow marches are still legal (so LOW RISK of arrest), and are extremely effective. The plan is to keep up the pressure on this ecocidal government to stop all new fossil fuel licences.
Saturday 27th April: national march for Palestine
National demonstration.
Ceasefire NOW! Stop the Genocide in Gaza: Assemble 12 noon Central London
Full details to follow
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
If this was a faction, I’d be tempted to align with it, but as a platform it seems out of place. This seems to be a more radical repositioning than can be accomplished with any resolutions at the founding conference, which as far as I’m aware is what the other platforms are primarily for.
Dan,
You are right about radical repositioning. May be radical repositioning is what the left needs!!
Regards
Steve
Agreed! But it’s going to take a lot of effort. Bringing around Left Unity to a new position and analysis seems to me to be something that should be done after the actual establishment of the organisation itself. While it’s important to get started as soon as possible I’m not convinced this is the right way to go about it.
Is the Republican Socialist Platform planning to present a statement to the opening conference? Will it ask the general membership then and there to agree to a proposal? If so, I’m interested to hear what that would be, because I’m worried it would be jumping the gun somewhat. On the other hand if that’s not the case, perhaps it should be a little clearer as to what this platform is actually for?
I ask not in opposition, but because I am sympathetic to the positions taken by this platform. I just want to know exactly what I would be supporting here.
I’ve linked in my facebook account to this post, I’d be interested in getting connected with the people involved in this.
can someone tell me what is meant by a “platform”? I havent a clue. I like the idea of republican socialist any way.
Francesca
On platforms I am not too sure either. I have seen no definition. We have taken it to mean a Political Statement which seeks to define or give political direction to Left Unity. That is what our platform does. If you would like to add your support email the hotmail address at end of platform
I like the idea of this platform but have similar reservations to Dan.
Cromwell sold out the levellers after they won his war for him and the result was b sellout and return to monarchy making the whole civil war utterly pointless except for a few elitists who got more power for themselves.
I support the abolition of the crown which must be taken as read from the platforms title?
Is this to be presented as a basic tenet for this platforms stand within Left Unity?
Dear Neil,
The English revolution was defeated rather than pointless. It will seem pointless unless the present generation learn from it and apply it’s lessons today. This is what we are trying to do. If support for our platform grows then the Levellers are making a come back just when they thought it was all over.
The answer to your question is that Rep Soc should the basic ideological stand point of Left Unity – call it the republican road to socialism or the democratic road properly defined. We would ask you to consider adding your support to the Platform
Dan,
Supporters of the Platform are intending to hold a meeting in London in late October/early Nov. you can get in contact via the hotmail address above. There are two more articles – Towards an alternative Platform and Towards a republican socialist platform that explain a bit more about our thinking.
Basically we have 3 directions for Left Unity to go. First a Left Labour Party – as Left Party. Second a revolutionary socialist or communist platform – the Socialist/Communist platform. Third is a new idea of a Republican Socialist party. These are three different strategic directions.
There is also Class Struggle platform but everybody believes in class struggle so this platform could match up with slight amendment to all three strategic platforms.
Supporters of RS platform think there is a real need for a new direction for the left – a republican socialist party. Left Unity could be the start of that or it might reject it. A left Labour Party would be in direct competition with Left Labour and the communist platform in direct competition with the SWP and Socialist Party.
Steve
Steve, I’m sympathetic to your positions and analysis, but believing that your group could bring around the members of Left Unity before the party is even formed seems hopelessly optimistic to me.
It seems to me that if you make any headway at all it will take years to achieve, given the deep rooted nature of the positions you oppose. I could be persuaded to support such an endeavour but not without a realistic view of the situation.
I absolutely believe we need to develop a socialist perspective that goes above and beyond Marxism if we want the left to have any future, but that means understanding the circumstances we find ourselves in. If you have any hope of Left Unity embracing the republican socialist platform any time soon I imagine you will be sorely disappointed.
On the other hand, if your intentions are to simply work within Left Unity and advance your platform when you can, I suspect that that would be much more productive and less soul-crushingly depressing.
Dan,
I have no false expectations that the RSP will win. We are going up against deep rooted traditions of Labourism and Trotskyism which still dominates the left. In addition we are the Johnny come latelies when all the dancers have already chosen their partners and nailed their colours.
The ideological reconstitution of the left is a longer term project and does not depend on Left Unity. We have set up the RS Alliance with supporters across the political spectrum of the left including members of the Labour Party, Trotskyists and libertarians. The RSA will not be put off. Left Unity is not the same as left unity which is what the RSA is working for.
However monumental though the task is we have many thing working in our favour which will force people to have a radical rethink. If you are sympathetic to this aim then work with us.
hi All,
I really like the statement. I think you can put it as amendment to the other platforms. For me it’s quite shocking to live in a country where there are queen and lords. it’s outrageous.
About left unity, I think it can be a very good project because we are all anti capitalist. As the statement 9 3/4 asserts, can’t be a question of winning or loosing. “we must remember we are all on the same journey “. I’d like to add we must feel it. platforms are not opposite to each others. we have to build our very real bridge to the future, we have to elaborate an economic and political real path to socialism and we can do it just if we are together. let’s work on it.
regards, Gioia
Dear Gioia,
How about you working with us on this? There is a hotmail address for you to get in contact will RSP supporters. For the RSP it is not about winning or losing but developing ideas and arguments the left needs if it is to become a more effective and united force. Once the argument is taken seriously we will win our case but that won’t happen soon. But it will be quicker the more comrades like yourself support us.
There is a new case for the RSP coming out soon to take the argument further.
Regards
Steve
Dearie me, This is a very strange , and actually constitutionally illiterate, “Platform Statement” indeed. It totally ignores the strategies and policies required to combat the current austerity Offensive , in favour of a completely red herring “constitutional structures struggle ” ! It also fails to analyse or recognise the well understood fundamentally unequal distribution of political power, derived from unequal wealth ownership, inherent in all capitalist states, regardless of constitutional structures. It instead posits some abstract struggle for (totally unexplained) “republican democracy” as the proposed core objective of our new Party !
For your collective information, we do actually live in a “democracy” ,(which includes very real rights and freedoms which need to be valued and recognised) , but a BOURGEOIS CAPITALIST democracy of course – which intrinsically includes all the well recognised special power privileges for the rich and influential, the lobbyists and the party funders, the reserve powers of the Monarchy – and of course the usually hidden reserve powers of the “deep state” state machine security services and armed services – should the “democratic process” overstep the limited bounds tolerated by the capitalist class. That’s what “capitalist bourgeois democracy ” looks like – EVEYWHERE. For real democracy – get rid of the privileges of the capitalist ruling class, ie, abolish capitalism, and replace with a democratic socialist state.
Suggesting that some abstract struggle for (a completely unexplained) “democratic reform” , including demanding today the abolition of the Monarchy ,would in any way either chime with the mass popular mood, or threaten or change the overwhelming economic and hence political power of the capitalist ruling class is naivete of the worst sort.
Left Unity needs to build a mass movement of resistance to the current capitalist crisis-caused Austerity Offensive. It is through this real everyday struggle – keying in with the real concerns of millions of citizens being impoverished by the ever growing welfare cuts and reductions in working and living standards, that the real issues of “who should run the UK, and for what purpose”, and the appropriate political structures to achieve a radical social change, will be thrashed out.
Your strangely abstract “platform statement” is a complete distraction from our real tasks.
Oh dear,
John is angry with the Tories. In frustration he turns this inward, hardly concealing his contempt for those who have different views. This is how he approaches his criticism of the Republican Socialist Platform.
Starting with “Dearie me” to let everybody understand he has deigned to patronise us with the benefits of his wisdom; he begins by condemning this “very strange, and actually constitutionally illiterate, ‘Platform Statement’”. Then he accuses us of a “completely red herring ‘constitutional structures struggle’”! The words “constitutional structures struggle” do not appear in our platform but John puts them in inverted commas to suggest that it is our term and adds a “!” to imply we are very strange – a word he likes.
Then he tells us “For your collective information, we do actually live in a ‘democracy’”. [Why then is democracy in inverted commas?]. The Platform is accused of “naivity of the worst sort”. The struggle for democracy is “abstract” compared to the “real everyday struggle”.
We are told to build a mass movement against austerity. Then after that, he says we can, or will be allowed, to discuss “who should run the UK, and for what purpose”, and “the appropriate political structures to achieve a radical social change, will be thrashed out”.
We can take it as given that everybody in Left Unity in whatever platform is opposed to austerity and already fighting against it. We don’t need to be told to do what we are already doing. The Republican Socialist Platform is focused on “who should run the UK, and for what purpose”, and the “the appropriate political structures to achieve a radical social change”. John says this “will be thrashed out” after the anti-austerity movement has been built. It’s a stage two issue!
Left Unity is trying to form a party and the Republican Socialist Platform thinks or demands John’s stage two should “be thrashed out” now. Indeed leaving stage two be discussed later is the essence of opportunism as Engels pointed out when the leaders of German Social Democracy refused to discuss the republican question in the Kaiser’s Germany. Next minute they were marching to war.
Since John is opposed to discussing ‘Stage Two’ during ‘Stage One’ he logically concludes that the Republican Socialist Platform is a “strangely abstract ‘platform statement’ (and) is a complete distraction from our real tasks”. We wouldn’t accept John’s two stage theory of political discussion or that austerity and democracy are separate questions.
Even if we did recognise two stages it should be obvious that what we plan to do in Stage Two feeds back into what we do in Stage One. No wonder John only speaks about tactics and the word strategy is ‘strangely’ absent from his discourse.
The really significant point is not answering John, but recognising his politics are only a very hostile expression of a wider left politics articulated in the Left Party platform. It is no coincidence that John is a supporter of the Left Party Platform.
If we peel away all his hostility we can find some core issues still to be discussed. I see John as the advanced guard of the Left Party army. John has been sent out for a bit of political skirmishing. The main body of his army and its leaders are still in their encampment. No matter, let us accept the challenge of the Left Party Platform, as announced by their messenger, and take up the arguments on behalf of the Republican Socialist Platform. Let the battle commence…
John’s comments help us to identify the differences between the Left Party Platform and the Republican Socialist platform. John points to
i). What John calls “constitutional structures struggles”
Ii) The question of whether the UK is a democracy.
Iii) The problem of economism (or liberalism) and the worship of spontaneity (or tailism) which underpins Labour left politics.
We will need to check where i and ii are covered in the Left Party Platform.
Left Party Platform and “Constitutional Structures Struggles” (CSS)
Yesterday I was walking along Platform 9 and 3/4 when I heard a cry. In front was a great big hole in the ground. I peered into it and heard a distant plaintive call for help. It sounded like the leaders of the Left Party platform. There was a hole in their platform where constitutional structures struggles should be. As the tectonic plates of politics moved so a crack of doom opened under their feet and they fell down it. It was the worst case of walking into the future with your eyes closed since the days of Ethelred the Unready.
The term “Constitutional Structures Struggles” (CSS) is a strange one, invented by Left Party Platform supporter, John P. He used it to attack republicanism and accuse the Republican Socialist Platform trying to encourage people to struggle to change the constitution. The allegation was that we were thinking of a constitutional future beyond 1945. By accident he drew attention to the fact that back then George VI was securely on his throne.
In 1945 the King was the symbol of a constitutional structure supported by the Labour Party. Despite seeking to return to 1945 the LPP is not calling for George to be brought back. It has moved on and made peace with Elizabeth II. The LLP wants an end to austerity but has no plan to upset the royal applecart. Hence LPP opposes CSS because it has no aim of mobilising support for a democratic republic. The model is 1945 when Labour brought us British ‘socialism’ under the Crown.
JP’s strange term points to a certain truth about the political ideas of both the LPP and Republican Socialist Platform. We must not be derailed by an argument about who came up with a new term first. The honour must be awarded to John. Accusing the Republican Socialist Platform of taking up CS struggles is more praise than we deserve. We merely urged socialists to follow in the footsteps of some of the greatest constitutional structures strugglers.
Let us begin with the Levellers, the radical democratic and republican Party in the English civil war. Not only did they wage a massive struggle to overthrow the old Constitutional Structure but came up with a new one called the “Agreement of the People”. Next, if the ignore the American and French CSS, came the Chartists. They were the first working class party of ‘constitutional structures strugglers’, who tried to change the constitution with their 6 points backed up by mass action. Then later the Suffragettes took direct action to change the constitutional structure (or law), by fighting for women’s right to vote.
Can we imagine the equivalent of the Left Party platform supporters at a suffragettes rally with placards saying “Down with this constitutional structure struggle”. LPP supporters may think this an outrageous extrapolation. Of course they say they would have supported constitutional structures struggles in the past. It is future CSS which their Platform has zero interest in. Still, there is always opportunism. If a CSS gained popular support LPP would want to jump on the bandwagon, following in the wake of CSS not leading them.
It would be better to say that the LPP has no interest in provoking a fight with the ruling class over its constitutional structures. The Labour Party and the LPP are agreed to play the game of politics by their rules. The LPP-LU will stand for parliament and on winning a majority take office as Her Majesty’s Government just as Labour did in 1945. This is why LPP is hostile to ‘Constitutional Structure Struggles’ as an unnecessary diversion from the Labour road to socialism.
Still we don’t have to live in the past. We can see ‘constitutional structures struggles’ played out in Egypt. Or we could come nearer home and see Scotland engaging in its own CS struggles. Only a conservative would think “thank goodness there are no CS struggles going on in England”. The absence of such struggles here is a testament to the triumph of ‘Toryism’. Constitutional conservatism has a fine tradition in England. When it appeals to the working class it’s called the Labour Party. So you can see the ideas the Left Party Platform are leading Left Unity into the arms of the Labour Party and the constitutional structures of 1945.
Time is pressing – so I’ll make only one more attempt to explain this to you. The working class in the UK is in full retreat in the face of a growing capitalist offensive which is hell bent on destroying all of the Welfare State gains of the post 1945 era, smash trades unionism as a potential resistance organiser, reduce the unemployed/disabled unemployed to total destitution, and force wages and conditions of workers generally to the “competitive” levels of migrant workers in Guandong Province or Vietnam. But you want us to prioritise a struggle about the UK “constitution” ! Without anywhere specifying what this struggle should aim for .
OK. Point one . The UK is not an “Oligarchy”. It is a pretty conventional Bourgeois Democracy. This is fundamentally different to an Oligarchy . This is not to deny that the rich haven’t got hugely more social power than the rest of us – but that’s because it is a bourgeois CAPITALIST society in which even the most “democratic” constitution will be manipulated by the capitalist class with the hugely unequal economic power to manipulate/own the press, bribe politicians, pay for massive lobbying of the political process.
Let’s imagine a bourgeois democratic state with no ridiculous hereditary Monarchy – even a “constitutionally limited” one like ours, but instead a head of state elected by everyone. Let’s imaging a state with a constitution guaranteeing a wide range of rights to all citizens – enforced by an independent judiciary. Let’s imaging a state with a federal structure, each federal unit with its own legislature, free to make a wide range of tax and revenue and other important decisions to suit each local federal area. You see where I’m going with this ? If I was to go into even more detail about the constitutional structure of the USA it would , on paper, appear to be a perfect constitutional model for a democratic society. But of course the USA is a capitalist society, with an incredibly unequal distribution of wealth. With this wealth the US capitalist class are able to manipulate the entire political and judicial process to suit their own minority ends, and always have done – since the state’s foundation. The fine detail of a bourgeois democratic state’s “constitution” isn’t the actual problem.
It is capitalism which is the problem, specifically currently worldwide and in the UK, the multi aspect battle against the Austerity Offensive, whether against the privatisation of the NHS, Workfare, benefit cuts, trades union struggle in the workplace, against the scapegoating of the unemployed, anti racism/anti fascist activity, that Left Unity needs to be drawing the working class into struggling against at this point in time – not some very abstract debate about “constitutional structures”. Do you seriously believe that “independence ” for Scotland, or Wales, would in itself significantly shift the balance of economic, and hence, class, power away from the globalised capitalist class to the Scottish, or Welsh, working classes ? If you do, your “Platform” needs to explain this in concrete terms. Would abolishing the Monarchy , in itself, do this ?
Your peculiar “Platform” has absolutely nothing to say about any of the vital real world issues facing real working people today. And of course nothing concrete to say about any proposed “constitutional reforms” either ! It is abstract windy posturing, with no clearly spelt out tactical or strategic aim or purpose. It is a distraction from the real struggle, ie, a waste of everyone’s time !
Left Party Platform versus the Republican Socialist Platform
Is the UK democratic?
Democratic Audit says “Experts agree that democracy means ‘rule of the people”. (How Democratic is the UK? – The 2012 Audit Executive summary). In the UK the people do not rule. They are not sovereign either in constitutional law or in practice. This truth is recognised by the RS Platform which says quite firmly that “the UK is not a democracy”.
Left Party Platform supporter John P raised this point. He criticised the RSP for saying the UK is not democratic. As always there are three views on this. First Cameron, Clegg and Milliband all say “yes of course the UK is democratic”. This is the view of all the capitalist parties which dominate the political thinking of the country. It is ‘obvious’ and ‘common sense’.
The RSP says the opposite. It disagrees starkly with the capitalist parties and ‘public opinion’ although the latter is quite cynical about ‘democracy’. They say Yes and we say No.
In this debate there are echoes of old arguments about the USSR. Thatcher and Reagan said it was socialist (and therefore evil). The SWP argued the opposite, saying it was (state) capitalist. But in the middle where those saying on one hand a workers state but on the other hand degenerate. The truth did not lie in the middle.
The middle ground
On UK Democracy there is a third middle position. Moderates in the middle say on one hand yes and on the other hand No. They can see both sides of the case. This is the position which the LPP upholds. They have compromised with Cameron, Clegg and Milliband’s view about great British Democracy. Of course being in the middle is not necessarily wrong. But quite often it is reflective of a class point of view which is capable of seeing the bosses view and seeing the workers view as well. It is the Guardian readers ‘balanced’ view.
JP develops the LLP’s middle position. It is a very balanced view. On one hand he tells us the state is democratic saying “For your collective information, we do actually live in a “democracy”. The word ‘democracy’ is in inverted commas to imply he doesn’t really mean it. On the other hand he points to “corporate power and the secret state” which is not democracy’s friend.
We can therefore be sure that the LPP has an uncertain view about British “Democracy”. It is not sure whether to do anything about it or not. On balance it has come down in favour of the status quo and has no plans to challenge it.
The LPP has therefore concluded the UK is a ‘bourgeois democracy’ which is a magic word Marxists use to talk among themselves and impress each other by their knowledge of French. Leave your brains at the door when you see this term. Some Marxists think it means that all bourgeois democracies are the same and not just in France! If this is Marxism it is ahistorical and poor indeed.
Some prefer to identify the UK as a “Capitalist Democracy”. I have never yet heard of a democratic capitalist business. They are bureaucratic top down organisations. The bosses may be liberal or authoritarian but we cannot call them ‘democratic’ unless we want to be accused of language abuse. There are some Corporations such as in Germany that let workers participate and even elect a representative to the Board. But German firms are not democracies.
Capital is not democratic in the economic sphere. It would be bizarre to think in the political sphere this class would deny its own essence and create a “democratic” political system. As a class the capitalists are not a democratic class and cannot create or build a democratic state. JP knows this and yet feels it is his duty to disagree with the RSP. The phrase “the UK is not a democracy” is there in the RS Platform to sniff out Labourism. It has done its job.
Does this mean the UK is fascist? Of course not. It is a liberal regime that allows the working class to vote and join unions and for the masses to participate. Fascism and liberalism are not the same. But both are hostile to democracy, that may be called true democracy. There is no reason to imagine that bourgeois democracy is any more democratic than German capital renown for their participation schemes. Yes we have won the right to participate in parliamentary elections (thro a series of constitutional structures struggles) and be consulted, but don’t call this a ‘Democracy’ any more than Siemens or VW are democratic organisations, even if Cameron Clegg and Millie continually tell us the UK is democratic.
Left Party Platfrom and Republican Socialist Platform
In response to JP. Time is pressing us to identify the difference between the Left Party Platform and the Republican Socialist Platform. Our aim is to make the political distinction between the LPP and the RSP crystal clear and we should thank John for helping in this by presenting the politics of the LPP albeit in his own angry fashion.
John says “But you want us to prioritise a struggle about the UK “constitution”! Without anywhere specifying what this struggle should aim for”. This is simply not true. The RS Platform says we should struggle for a “Social Republic”. This is in contrast to the LPP which is in favour of a “Social Monarchy” as in a return to 1945.
The LPP says the welfare state (1945 social monarchy) is under heavy attack. You suggest the only way to defend it is by trade union action or direct action. But surely Left Unity is about political action which is why it is trying to form a political party. Is the LPP saying political action including political campaigns and standing candidates (with the intention of winning seats??) is a waste of time? If political action has no role why is LPP setting up a party?
Anarchists and syndicalists believe the only way to defend the social monarchy is by direct action including strikes. The SWP has a version of this type of trade unionist politics focused on strikes and more strikes as the only answer. In contrast the Labour Party was set up because the working class recognised the necessity for political action as the means of changing the law.
The RSP believes political action aimed at changing the law is absolutely necessary. The RSP wants to change the King of laws, or the law of laws, or what Germans call the Basic Law (i.e. constitution). The working class is being screwed because the Labour Party is the monopoly supplier is political services to the working class. Labour is a loyalist party and LPP wants to set up a loyalist Left Unity party. The republicans want to set up a disloyal party which makes it clear we do not support their political system and the Basic Law that defines it. Workers should not play politics by their rules because their rules are not democratic and not legitimate.
LPP versus RSP
Further replies to LPP supporter John Penney. The UK is not a monarchy (rule by one person). It is not a democracy (rule by the masses). It is an oligarchy (rule by a few). The name of this ‘few’ is the political class which we call correctly and constitutionally the “Crown”.
The Monarch is not the ruler obviously. It is preserved as a form of false consciousness for fooling the right and left, thus keeping everybody united. The right think the monarch is the symbolic guarantor that “democracy” has not and will not take over. The left think the monarch is irrelevant and therefore we can rest at peace with the constitution because we are not a republic like France or America.
The LPP is a representative of this false consciousness which is part of the ways which the British ruling class perpetuates the political enslavement of the working class. How ridiculous is the Left Party Platform defence of monarchy? John says “Let’s imagine a bourgeois democratic state with no ridiculous hereditary Monarchy – even a “constitutionally limited” one like ours, but instead a head of state elected by everyone”. What is the purpose of all this “imagining” – this whole abstract invented saga which we abolish the monarchy in our minds?
The invention of Planet Looney Left, in which the monarchy is abolished without conflict and class struggle, and the peasants carry on working in their fields without noticing anything has happened. It is a conservative mind game – to prove that if we abolished the monarchy it would still be the same. So let’s not bother. This is “Marxism” at the service of conservatism.
John argues that capitalism not the state is the problem. This is a one sided ‘economistic’ view. Capitalism is a global problem affecting workers across the world. But nothing can be done about this because capital is protected by the state. The central importance of the state in keeping their system working is why we need political action. This means we have to have political aims and political means of achieving them. LPP aims to defend or restore the social monarchy and the RSP says we should fight for a social republic.
John says the RS Platform is “peculiar” or strange. This is supposed to put people off. It suggests this platform stands out because it is not the normal, traditional left politics of the Labour Party or the Trotskyist parties which people are familiar with (and often hostile too). Far from this being a put-down it is a back-handed compliment.
The UK is a conservative country. They suggest it is ‘peculiar-strange’ not to be conservative or royalist. It is ‘peculiar-strange’ to be a republican and heaven forbid socialist too. The RSP is doubly ‘mad’ because we are not only republican but socialist too or vice versa. If we turn the world upside down then such madness turns out to be the only sane thing to be or do.
Surely the point in this discussion is that any kind of analysis that is likely to illuminate the way forward must be able to articulate the relation between the specific instance of Britain and its political economy, with the general global situation of capitalist crisis and the attack on working people. Left Unity must move beyond the shibboleths of the past and demonstrate a clearer analysis of the current predicament. Republican socialism is not simply a question of the monarchy as if its mere abolition is all that is required. The crown is the particular form in which the British ruling class reproduces its position of power, influence and dominance thereby legitimising the attacks on the working class. Mobilising to resist and defend against the austerity onslaught can only be one immediate and minimalist aim of a new party of the Left. But we don’t need another incremental addition to the plethora of left wing political organisations doing much the same thing. We need a new analysis, a new vision around which a clearer politics can be conducted.
Ironically Tony Benn is one of the few Labour politicians who has publicly apprehended the nature of the British state and the significance of the crown in impeding the struggle to build democracy. It is easy to get rid of the monarchy, even the crown has done that. It is another matter to rid ourselves of the crown. Any monarch who stands in the way of of the British ruling class can be and has been replaced. But the crown remains the guarantor of the legitimacy of the British constitutional order that carries out the current attacks on the the working class, the sick, the old etc. It is the specific way capitalism is organised in Britain. Defending against austerity without exposing the mechanisms that legitimise its ‘democratic credentials’ is missing an important part of the struggle and therefore likely to result in future problems of tactics and strategy.
Howdy, gentlemen ;)
As a recent member of LU and even more recent friend of the RSA, (and as a French national living and working in the UK) I’ve been reading the above discussion with utmost interest. John Penney’s initial ‘pavé dans la marre’ (that’s French for spanner in the works) really made a huge impression on me at first, and I thought, oh no, Cécile, what are you doing, you’re joined a bunch of real abstractits (that’s French for looneys). Steve Freeman’s shrewd logical sense, implacable knowledge of British political history and impassioned but reasoned reaction now make me feel rather terribly sorry for the LPP but one needs to respect one’s opponents (I didn’t say enemy) and I have no doubt that the LPP can not only ‘take it’ but acknowledge, in this instance, its own weakness. Now, the literary fiend in me is also having enormous fun here because really, you couldn’t make it up with names like Freeman and Penney… God bless the English — and the Irish, and the Scotts!