Let’s talk about socialism
Nick Wrack, from Southwark Left Unity and one of the initiators of the Socialist Platform, was invited to speak at the CPGB’s Communist University on ‘Fighting for a Mass Party’. Here is an edited version of his opening contribution.
Comrades, first of all, I would like to thank the CPGB for inviting me to participate in this discussion, and I think the way that Jack has approached this is important: it is a discussion, as far as I am concerned, rather than a debate between antagonistic positions. In Left Unity and in the broader labour movement there is the need for an exploration of the sort of ideas that can arm the working class for its strategic objective, which is to take power. So these discussions are extremely important.
I would also like to pick up on a metaphor that Jack used in his opening contribution. I do not know if he is historically or geographically correct in terms of the migrations of people in Polynesia, but the metaphor is similar to one I have used in the past concerning Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands. Darwin noted that the same species was present on different islands, but they had been separated for so long that a large number of varieties had developed – different permutations of tail feathers, colours and so on. Yet it was clear that they were all still finches.
And the Marxist left in many ways is like this. The separation of the different groups, for reasons that we do not have time to go into today – whether it is the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party, Socialist Resistance, Workers Power or the CPGB – have ended up on their own little islands. Society and even the labour movement is so big that each of these groups can go along quite happily without coming into any proper contact – or debate or discussion – with the others. So we learn our own terminology and inside our own meetings we know exactly what we mean by a certain word. We develop our own methods and tactics and these things become habituated in our very being as socialist activists. We really need to dismantle those barriers – to bring those islands together – and start talking.
And it is very important when we are talking that we define the terms that we use. Inside Left Unity there has been a lot of talk as to whether we should call ourselves socialists, whether we should openly state that our aim is socialism. I think it is very important to understand that different people are saying these things for a number of reasons.
Some do so because they are genuinely not socialists – they are hostile to socialism. One LU supporter recently posted a comment saying he is a mutualist – he has clearly thought about it and decided that he is not a socialist. If I did some research into mutualism I might find that we have areas of agreement, but the point is that he declares he is not a socialist.
There are other people who, because of the defeats and the setbacks of our class over the last 30 years particularly, think that in order to advance we must refrain from calling ourselves socialist or talking about socialism – the word itself has been tainted or tarnished. There is, of course, a large element of truth in that, so it is important not merely to criticise such people: we must engage them in that discussion.
There are, though, other people expressing similar views who are dyed-in-the-wool, committed, convinced Marxists – the words that they use and the discussion in their meetings are about the revolutionary transformation of society. I regard such people as comrades, but I do not agree with them on this point. I do not agree that in order to get from where we are now to where we hope to be in the future – that is, in a position where the working class is able to take power and transform society – we must argue for less than what we believe in. I find this deeply disturbing, troubling and worrisome. But it actually reflects an approach which I would like to elaborate upon.
Alternative vision
But first let me respond to Jack’s contribution, pretty much all of which I agree with. I think that the proposed amendments to the Socialist Platform statement put forward by the CPGB are very interesting and I am completely open to discussing these at our meeting on September 14. We have already added some formulations, such as our objection to imperialist wars and military interventions, which was not in the original draft. No doubt there may be things we will have to express differently or add to.
I agree with Jack on one of the central themes: our vision. What inspires us? What inspired each of us to become a communist, a Marxist, a socialist, a revolutionary? It was the idea that all the shit (which is what it is) that we have to put up with in our daily lives, all the impediments and obstacles that our families have to endure – whether it is our parents, as they get older, or our children or grandchildren with all their incredible talents, abilities and potential – simply hold them back in so many ways.
Yet we believe in the power of our class and the process of change because of our understanding of history. We believe that there is an alternative. And when we say that there is an alternative, we do not mean that there is an alternative way of doing capitalism (and in this connection there is something in the debate that needs to be teased out: when in the Left Party Platform statement they write, “There is an alternative”, we need to ask, ‘Well, what is it?’)
It is all very well talking about “an alternative” in terms of the need to tax the rich and spend more. Don’t get me wrong: I am not opposed to that. But the alternative I am talking about is a fundamental, root-and-branch transformation of the very way in which society is organised. So that it is no longer organised in the interests of a tiny class – less than one percent of the population; so that it is organised in the interests of the mass, of the majority, of the whole of humanity, so that everybody can aspire to whatever it is they want.
What is our ultimate goal? It is a classless society. It is a society of abundance. It is a society without a state. This is our vision of a new society, in which everyone can develop to their fullest potential and where Marx’s aphorism, “From each according to their ability; to each according to their need”, can be put into practice.
Today children in some parts of the world do not have a hope in hell of getting to the age of five, millions of women still die in labour, two billion people live on less than a pound a day. Yet we have a tremendous, inspirational vision for humanity – almost seven billion people across the planet – for a completely different form of society. That vision is something that we should not just meekly put forward in discussions with the few with whom we talk about socialism: we should be proclaiming what the Marxists of the past would call the ‘good news’! It may sound a bit religious, and I am not a religious person, but ‘Have you heard the good news?’ That you do not have to live like this? That your children and your grandchildren do not have to grow up in the same society as you? We are combating an ideology – an ideology that has been reinforced over the last several decades, and this is part of the problem we are confronting.
I think that even amongst a section of the Marxists confidence has been dented. So we have got to go out and tell people how things can be different. We must begin a debate, a dialogue. Part of creating a new party which aims for an alternative to austerity and to the destruction of things that we have grown used to surely is to actually say what that alternative is. It is not just ‘If we tax the banks and the rich we will have a bit more money for this or that’. That is merely putting a little bit of sugar on the gruel, when what we want is a full, bountiful meal. We must inspire people with our aims, our visions.
An ideological offensive has undermined the idea of change: ‘Things have always been like this’; ‘You can’t change things, so just accept your lot’. But there are examples of an alternative throughout history and we have to be the people who point to it, who insist that actually you can change things and that society itself, life itself, is a constant process of change. And what we want is a fundamental change, a fundamental breach with this system, with capitalism. If you want to call it a revolution, then, yes, call it a revolution.
I agree with what Jack talked about in terms of the programme, because the Socialist Platform has been criticised for being inexact about the transition from capitalism to socialism – as if we ought to include in the programme how we perceive the molecular process of the revolution will progress in the future. People are critical of the platform because it does not mention soviets, for example. For me that is not something that should go into the platform statement; rather we should stress the independence of the class, the class acting for itself, armed with the ideas that we have begun to elaborate and to which others can be added.
This platform is obviously part of a discussion which is ongoing in Left Unity. But it is not just a discussion for Left Unity: it is for the whole labour movement. We need to be trying to create a discussion throughout the entire society. We want a discussion about the nature of the society that we live in, about the nature of the economy that dominates our lives; about the people who run our society. Let us try to have this debate and challenge people to discuss it with us.
Imagine if a Left Unity spokesperson is invited onto Newsnight, for example, and is asked the question, ‘What sort of party is your party?’ Are they going to answer, ‘A socialist party’? And if they are asked, ‘What do you mean by that?’ they will have to have answers. ‘Do you mean like the Labour Party in 1945?’ Well, do we? No, we don’t! However many reforms the Labour government implemented, anyone with eyes can see that it is all being taken away. Why? Because, so long as capitalism remains in place, any reforms, any gains will be constantly under threat and will eventually be taken away if we do not act to prevent that. We want to live in a society where we do not have to get up in the morning facing another campaign to save another hospital. Strange as it may seem, we want a society where there are hospitals and medicine for everybody.
Put people off?
One of the criticisms that I just find hard to comprehend is that if we put these ideas forward we will put people off. Let me put together a combination of different arguments by way of example: ‘You want a narrow party,’ it is said. Yes, I want a party of just me! That way I can avoid having disagreements (though even then I am constantly arguing and disagreeing with myself).
No, actually we want a party of millions. We think that we can get a party of millions. Why? Because we are confident in our ideas. We think that if we explain our ideas, painstakingly, slowly, patiently, enthusiastically, in all sorts of different media, we will be able to persuade people. Frankly, if what we are saying is too narrow, if those ideas are not capable of enthusing and inspiring millions of people, then we may as well pack up now. Society cannot be transformed; there can be no socialist transformation, in fact, there will be no revolution unless it is carried out by the majority in society, the working class majority.
So this argument actually goes back to the comprehension of both what a revolution is and what a revolutionary party is. Is a revolution a conscious act of the majority of the working class who have been won to socialist ideas? Or is it the act of a minority in society, a putschist or a Blanquist approach to change? I am not in favour of that. I do not think it can work.
But hang on a second. Some of the people who say that the Socialist Platform is too narrow are, as I have established, themselves Marxists and actually probably agree with 90% of the platform, though they may write it in a different style (and I would have no problem with that). But to those people who do agree with the platform and then say that it is too narrow I would ask: ‘So how are you going to change things? You’re recruiting to your group on the basis that you say that your interpretation of Marxism is correct, but isn’t it largely in line with what our platform says? And if you think that the Socialist Platform is too narrow then doesn’t it follow that your own programme is too narrow as well? And if your own programme is too narrow shouldn’t we all give up and go and do something else?’ The fact is our platform is not too narrow at all.
We recognise where we are starting from. We are realists. (And here in large part I agree with the criticisms Jack made of the Workers Power platform – even from the point of view of today’s tactics I do not think they start where we are in terms of the class. I still hope that Workers Power will support the Socialist Platform.) So who are we going to put off? We may not persuade everybody immediately – in fact, I know we will not! But I would rather start with ideas that are clear, not vague and nebulous and capable of any number of different interpretations. To build anything that will last you need to get the foundations correct. You can always add to it in numerous ways once they are in place. It is not a question of just laying down the bricks in any old order, using a bit of this material and a bit of that material, as though it doesn’t really matter what we do with them because all we need to do is build something now. We need to be clear from the beginning what it is we are trying to do.
Another argument alleges: ‘You’re only interested in abstract propaganda.’ The obverse of that is that we are not interested in campaigns. You do wonder sometimes if the people making these accusations about the Socialist Platform have actually read anything that those who support it have written or said. No socialist worth their salt ignores the active day-to-day struggle that our class is engaged in. We support it, we participate in it. But we try to do more – and that has nothing to do with ‘elitism’ or ‘hectoring’. If we can give concrete tactical advice in relation to a particular struggle, then, yes, great. But we also try to locate each particular fight within the greater class struggle – the battle in society over the surplus. What about a battle where the end result is one where we are in control of what is produced, so we do not need to have those day-to-day battles any more?
Let us go back to the criticism that ‘You’ll put people off.’ Place yourself in Lewisham when a few months ago 25,000 people marched to save their hospital. Now I do not know what the political views of the majority of that crowd were, but I do know that they were in favour of defending the hospital. So we say to them, yes, we have to fight to save this hospital, but we will surely end up talking about politics in general. As communists, as socialists, we will surely explain how that struggle fits into our vision of society as a whole – a vision of a society where there would be medical facilities and healthcare freely available because the people would control production and determine how labour-time is allocated and what it produces. Presumably the person we are talking to will then say, ‘I can’t talk to you any more – you’ve put me off. I’m only interested in saving the hospital.’
The thing is, when you begin to break it down, the argument is quite bonkers. I am not saying that every conversation we have ends up with someone becoming a committed Marxist, but isn’t that actually how we all start?
People new to politics read a news story or see an image. Perhaps it is a hospital closure, a policeman beating up a student or a young black kid. Perhaps it is Marikana or Egypt. But it makes their blood boil. You can imagine young kids searching out answers on the internet and coming across Marxism, socialism, communism and they start looking into it. They think, this is really interesting. We want a party for them to turn to, a party that spreads those ideas and over a period of time builds up an army of persuaders, of activists who will disseminate the ideas of socialist change.
Anti-capitalist?
However, the argument continues, ‘No, in this period, we have to tailor things down so we don’t upset anyone, so nobody walks away.’ The Left Party Platform talks about “anti-capitalist parties” in Europe, whose example we should follow. Well, yes, I am in favour of an anti-capitalist party. But then the comrades go on to describe them as “anti-capitalist parties that stand again neoliberalism”. For me, there is a problem in that formulation. Because if you are standing against capitalism that is one thing, but if you are against neoliberalism then that is something different. Now people would say that I am a pedant. But it is important in my opinion to have a degree of pedantry in these things. We are not just against neoliberalism. If we say that it gives the impression that somehow we can go back to a capitalism before neoliberalism which will allow us to stop austerity.
Maybe that is the 1945 thing – though, to be fair to Ken Loach, I do not actually think that is what his film was saying. Some comrades think that Ken Loach is somehow calling for a return to the post-war Labour government, but The spirit of ’45 is about how the yearning for change, for socialist transformation, was betrayed by social democracy. Social democracy just tinkered with things: it took the plate of gruel that you would not want to eat and sprinkled some sugar on it, attempting to make it palatable for a while. Yet we want to get rid of the plate of gruel – sugar or no sugar.
The Left Party Platform talks about these anti-capitalist, or anti-neoliberal, parties that are “fighting for alternative social, economic and political policies”, and no doubt they are. Actually I think it is a good thing that in the absence of anything else these parties have come into being, but I do not think that they are the answer. What are these “alternative social, economic and political policies”?
There seems to be a suggestion that austerity has simply an ideological cause. As if these nasty capitalists – and I have no doubt that they are nasty – have said to themselves, ‘What we need is an ideological attack on the welfare state’. They do not like it because it takes from what they think they should be getting. And when there is a crisis in their system (I think it is a crisis of profitability, but that is an interesting debate we can have some other time), they need to make sure that they keep getting what they think they deserve. And this is the reason for social democracy’s collapse even further to the right: any party that comes into government trying to manage capitalism will end up operating according to capitalist imperatives.
Social democracy has existed in embryonic form since the beginning. You could see the seeds of it in the Social Democratic Party of Germany with Bernstein. Social democracy is like a Trojan horse inside the labour movement bringing in alien ideas. It is like the serpent in the garden of Eden whispering, ‘Bite the apple!’ ‘Take office!’ We reject all of that. Socialism for us is about transforming humanity, inaugurating a new world.
Yes, that is going to take time – following all the setbacks we have had we are starting from a low point. But I am optimistic. I think that there are tens of thousands of conscious socialists out there and if there was a party that began to articulate and to fight for and to champion their ideas clearly, confidently, I think a lot of people would join it and it could begin to implant itself in society, drawing in new layers into struggle.
Some people have read our platform and thought that we are suggesting that, since we are putting forward a statement of aims and principles for changing society, we think it is going to happen tomorrow. We do not. That could not be further from the truth. It is going to be a long, slow, painful process, in which things will accelerate at times and be slower at other times.
However, when you set off on a journey it is a good idea to know where you are going. We have a destination. Our destination is the classless society. So the question is, what is our route map, what is our line of march? So can we not agree in Left Unity that that is our goal? Or will people say, ‘No, that is not our goal. Our goal is to get a few people elected into parliament’? If we start by saying that our goal is the classless society, everything else falls into place and can be seen in perspective.
And another good idea if you are going on a journey is to equip yourself properly. In our case with some good, solid aims and principles.
21 comments
21 responses to “Let’s talk about socialism”
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.
Saturday 21st June: End the Genocide – national march for Palestine
Join us to tell the government to end the genocide; stop arming Israel; and stop starving Gaza!
More details here
Summer University, 11-13 July, in Paris
Peace, planet, people: our common struggle
The EL’s annual summer university is taking place in Paris.
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
An interesting talk, Nick; but a bit of a “don’t mention that damned embarrassing elephant” that you do a talk to the current manifestation of the Communist Party of Great Britain , about the power and attraction of “socialism” to masses of people – yet no mention at all of the profound “well poisoning” of the socialist message by Stalinism !
What is the most damning “evidence” that the capitalist class and their mass media output can produce to undermine the political “message of hope” that socialism actually represents ? without a doubt it is the ghastly, murderous, historical REALITY of that perversion of socialism represented by the Stalinist dictatorships of the Soviet Union , Eastern Europe, China, North Korea. That system of bureaucratic police state repression always claimed it WAS “socialism” in action – and all over the world, not only in the states which experienced it, the working classes of the world facing the oppression of conventional capitalism are thinking “yeh, this Austerity Offensive is bloody terrible – but THAT nightmare was bloody UNBEARABLE !”.
Now I have no doubts that the murderous tyrannies claiming to be “communist” or “socialist”, were the oppressive outcome of a particular historical process – arising from the isolation and eventual defeat of the 1917 Worker’s and Peasants’ revolutionary state by the Stalinist bureaucracy. It’s going to a lot harder to persuade “Joe Public”, even militant working class ones, of that fact .
Therefore just assuming that the rhetoric – the “good News” of socialism is in itself self evidently inspirational to masses of people, is simply wrong . If it was we wouldn’t be standing here today, in shambolically total retreat from the bosses’ Austerity Offensive, worldwide. Even in places where masses of people are in open revolt against the impoverishment of capitalism – Egypt for instance – very few have yet embraced socialism as the solution. In fact almost anything else is seen as preferable – religious fundamentalism being a dead-end biggie delusion of course. It doesn’t help that in many of these states , Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, the oppressed masses were assured for years that the corrupt ,Nasserite/Baathist,statist, tyrannies which robbed them so brutally and systematically, WERE some sort of “socialistic ” state form !
In the UK (and Europe generally) we have the additional “negative ideological overlay” of the collaborationist record of Labourite social democracy. I’m afraid the briefly “limitedly radical” post 1945 period of Welfare State creation by Labour is now pretty much expunged from popular memory – and the “socialism” that is remembered is the distinctly “thin political gruel” of Wilson/Callaghan – or even the completely non-socialistic banker grovelling incompetence of Blair Brown – which is seen as responsible for the Great 2008 Crash. That is still seen as being something to do with “socialist” failure at a mass ideological level. Because the New Labourites still claim, when convenient, that they are “socialists” (Even Cherie Blair has been known to continue to claim to be a “socialist” !). And the Mass media certainly claims that Labour is still “socialist”.
So, the idea that there is any positive “drawing power” to assist the building of a mass radical party by invoking “socialism” as a term, or that many of the important key policy enablers of a socialist transformation , particularly nationalisation, progressive taxation, building up trades union power, have any “popular traction” ,as yet, is to delude ourselves. This is all stuff that we, the miniscule radical Left, “buy into” in glorious isolation. Assuming these ideas and policies are self evidently attractive on a mass scale TODAY, is simply to participate in that “grande illusion” of the tiny radical Left – and hence by pursuing this political path we simply isolate ourselves ever more from the potential of building a genuinely mass political movement which can draw tens of thousands of working people into active opposition to the current Austerity Offensive. It is through STRUGGLE, initially around very basic , defensive, demands, alone that we can build a mass movement. Out of the raised political temperature of struggle the opportunity for the successful raising of socialist solutions reaching far beyond the limits of reformism, will eventually occur. The revolutionary Left has to be patient. Now is not the time for maximalist rhetoric .
This is why all three of the “hard” socialist Platforms are tactically completely inappropriate as a strategy to build a mass radical party of resistance – and why , woolly and lacking in concrete detail as it is, the Left Platform Statement is the only “Statement” on offer which holds out any hope at all of recruiting beyond the tiny multi-sect groupings , maybe 8,000 or so in total, which is the ENTIRE activist radical Left in the UK today. You say in contrast :
“I think that there are tens of thousands of conscious socialists out there ”
“tens of thousands” you say ! OK, there are undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of people with a wide range of generally “left wing’ish ” attitudes in their , often contradictory “personal ideological bundles” . The Anti Iraq War mobilisations show that. But to believe that this extraordinarily diverse mass of “leftish inclined” people is yet in any coherent, joined-up, way radically socialist enough to join and actively participate in a mass radical socialist party with an agenda as hard (and Far Left jargonised) as the Socialist Platform offers, is a fatal delusion.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m highly suspicious of the motivations of some of those keenest about the Left Platform Statement – the pungent aroma of Green-Party-style empty rhetoric and political opportunism wafts about the Platform Statement. However, unless we can build a mass party – and only a very broad, radical, but easy on the heavy Marxist rhetoric, approach has any chance of achieving this – we will never even be in a position “Brighton Greens- style” to have to confront the opportunists, and class collaborators undoubtedly in the ranks of such a “broad Church” movement
Spot on John P.
FYI: The CPGB’s ‘What We Fight For’ plaform states,
“Socialism represents victory in the battle for democracy. It is the rule of the working class. Socialism is either democratic or, as with Stalin’s Soviet Union, it turns into its opposite.”
It also has a draft programme that is distinctly anti-Stalinist. Members of the current CPGB come from a variety of backgrounds, ranging from libertarian and Trotskyist to ‘official Communist’.
We aren’t Stalinists, Trotskyists, or Luxemburgists. We are communists.
More info in the FAQs
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/about-the-cpgb/faq
John, as I’ve said before on these pages, I simply reject the notion that defensive struggles have not caught fire because of poor leadership and that a more radical leadership can get them going. People struggle because they feel they have the right to and 3 decades of neoliberal ideology has shattered that belief. It is nothing to do with social democracy and the TU leadership, which have also been changed into less confrontation and more collaboration than used to be the case.
If you don’t acknowledge the power of ideology and of ideological victory, that is why you do not see the need, which Nick does, to relate day-to-day issues with an alternative perspective on life and possibility, in order to get struggle going on a sustainable basis.
The charactiersitic form of struggle of the post-Credit Crunch world has been massive upsurges with momentum that lasts for weeks only and which then fade away, for want of an alternative persepctive and what that alternative gives – the belief that struggling is morally the right thing to do.
Forget the minutiae of platforms – this issue, along with where we all stand regarding the Left Party Platform’s insistence on ‘restoring the gains of the past’ are the two key issues to be resolved within Left Unity in the run-up to conference. You seem to be in the camp that still believes that there is something automatic about struggle within capitalism, so objectives can be talked about further down the line. This is rooted in always blaming ‘false’ leaders for the lack of militancy and it has had its day. Capitalism has changed in so many ways, especially ideologically, since the 1970s, when stagflation created massive wage struggles and kidded the Left into thinking working class struggle would always be with us.
John
Just to underline my point, here is the guy writing a book about what he calls “The Age of Rage”. Every uprising he touches on in this taster article is suffering from the same inability to imagine a longer-term way forward:
http://roarmag.org/2012/08/the-age-of-rage-welcome-to-the-world-revolution/
LU has to learn from the new circumstances we find ourselves in or repeat the mistakes of recent years. That means being prepared to fight the ideological fight.
The proposition that criticism of the hard red far left dialetic is based on a wish not to “upset anyone”… rather than on an understanding of the constraints under which workers like myself operate which means I work a long day, look out for my family, am risk-averse, not as generous as Id like ot be sometimes, don’t have a lot of time to read subtle differences like why Stalin wasn’t really a socialist and just want someone to give me a good agenda in a language I can understand, like Respect did at Bradford West … shows a silky dis-concern for the forces at play.
To be honest you lecture like one of those silky middle class guys with lots of spare time who will probably be quite safe if things go badly wrong … I need to be more cautious and I will be.
There’s my vote: gently, gently but surely – or forget it.
ATB, GerryC
If Nick had chosen to confront his hosts of the CPGB (Weekly Worker) with a tirade against ‘Stalinism’ and its evils and crimes, he would have been wasting his breath and very much preaching to the converted. I am all in favour of discussing these questions and think they should be discussed in some depth and at some length, but you don’t have to approach things from this angle all the time.
Mind you, if he had tried to bring up the question of Stalinism not in the form of a tirade against the CPGB, but rather as a pointer to an explanation for the problem of the fragmentation of the far left, he might have got further in his analysis.
There is a real problem with Nick’s analysis. The analogy he makes with Darwins’s discovery of the mechanisms of evolution; how different varieties of finches evolved on different small islands because of geographical separation, without actually evolving into separate species, does not stack up:
“And the Marxist left in many ways is like this. The separation of the different groups, for reasons that we do not have time to go into today – whether it is the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party, Socialist Resistance, Workers Power or the CPGB – have ended up on their own little islands.”
Such an analogy does not hold up for a moment. Accuse me of being literal-minded if you like, but these groupings were never geographically separated. They compete for the same recruits, they engage in political competition with each other all the time, their cadre know a great deal about each other and make and break blocs with each other on all kinds of issues on a regular basis. They are geographically contiguous, and they are different species, even if many are unviable. In nature, not all species are viable.
This analogy does not explain the fragmentation of the far left. No wonder he says that “we do not have time to go into [this] today”. But, not ‘having time’ to ‘go into’ the reasons for the separation, but merely deploring the results of this problem, leaves the cause unaddressed.
If you look at this in terms of real politics, there has to some kind of explanation in terms of political views and traditions. The explanation has to be programmatic, however complex and indeed labyrinthine the ultimate explanation of this.
To use a Darwinian analogy correctly, the explanation is not one of merely different varieties, but of different species, even with a common pedigree. Treating them as just superficially different varieties of the same thing is tantamount to trying to wish this problem away. The bureaucratic regimes in organisations like the SWP and the Socialist Party, for instance, are not mere accidental variations from the rational and democratic regime of a genuine Marxist current.
They are fundamentally different, and reflect different politics and political purposes. Bureaucratism, including petty bureaucratism always reflects some fundamental conflict between what an organisation says it stands for, and what it actually stands for in practice in the real world.
For instance, the SWP claims to be a revolutionary socialist organisation, but in both Respect and the Socialist Alliance it fought hard to marginalise revolutionary ideas in favour of those of Old Labour. That is not some superficial variation in a common species of ‘Marxism’, but a fundamental anti-Marxist bureaucratism. It reflects the bureaucratism of what for Marxists is accurately labelled ‘centrism’ – a form of politics that is revolutionary in words, but reformist in deeds.
That is actually the root political explanation for the fragmentation and impotence of the far left, for the numerous tiny sects. Centrism, as described above, is inherently self-defeating; it lacks the inherent power of a a revolutionary programme as can be manifested in a major social crisis – the power of which has been demonstrated in the revolutions of the past. And its revolutionary verbiage means it cannot be accepted and trusted by the reformists either. Such a left is doomed to be impotent; such impotence necessarily generating seemingly pointless splits in part from frustration at this lack of political viability.
The failure of the Trotskyist left to correctly deal with the problem of post-war Stalinism and its expansion, and the widespread capitulation to reformist and Stalinist forces that resulted from that, is the root cause of this collapse into fragmented centrist currents as I understand it.
Solving this problem is very difficult, it involves trying to initiate programmatic debate and testing out strategies and tactics to re-create a proper revolutionary tradition. This cannot be done within some hermetically sealed sect either – it has to find a real relationship with the working class in struggle or it will fail.
But it certainly can’t be resolved by treating the various fragmented and decaying sects as if they were merely analogous to birds of identical species who evolved different coloured plumage because they lived on different islands. The implied conclusion is that if only the ‘geographical’ seperation could be ended, we would all get on fine because we are all the same ‘species’. Merely adding together the existing left wont solve this, we need to root out the self-defeating, opportunist and centrist politics that produced the impotence and fragmentation.
This is not easy, because defeats of the working class reinforce the cynicism that gives birth to opportunism. But a start has to be made.
Interesting thoughts in there but wrapped in the language of class struggle. How about putting these ideas into everyday language without the Marxist jargon? LU needs to make an offer to UK electors that is understandable and can win popular support. Social ownership of the railways, banks and utility companies. Decent housing, work, education and healthcare for all UK residents. Maximum wage based on a low multiple of the minimum wage. Longer term aims to move to social ownership of trade, industry and commerce. Introduction of participative democracy. If LU could get focused on policy discussions and begin community work to help individuals experiencing difficulty in the present socio-economic situation I think it would achive success.
Socialist platform must correctly support a bold socialist programme with widespread public ownership.But it must reject the weekly worker amendments to become a leninist grouping as this would be a disaster for socialist platform.
Kevin O’Connor
Islington left unity and socialist platform supporter.
CPGB – lol. Why does anyone pay this tiny group any attention? They are, after all, only a “provisional central committee” of friends who refused to join the Communist Party of Britain (Britain’s largest communist party)
The CPGB is indeed so tiny as to be barely measurable – but then the Communist Party of Britain itself has , at the very most, 900 members , Tim. Time indeed to close the lid of the Dustbin of History on all such flotsam from the disastrous era of Stalinism.
From reading the debates on the website I still think LU is in danger of an Oozlum bird outcome –
The oozlum bird is such a rare bird so that even ornithologists are quite unaware of it. This bird must not turn left when flying. If it does, then it flies around in ever decreasing circles until it disappears completely in its own a—hole in a puff of blue air. These flight characteristics explain its rarity.
I thought I was diabetic lol, is a cure for oozlam been found?
Seriously, socialism has been stolen like democracy through decades of manipulation. Now it’s time for left unity and the LPP to breathe new life into stale politics and failed ideology and write a new mass party policy of the left. This can only be done through open inclusive dialogue and building on common working class values. No one said it was going to be easy. But we need an alternative in this country now. The alternative will not be good for the majority in this country. We need to give an alternative
David wrote: “Interesting thoughts in there but wrapped in the language of class struggle. How about putting these ideas into everyday language without the Marxist jargon?”
I thought Nick’s comments were remarkably plain speaking and down to earth given they were given in a speech at a marxist gathering. This is not content for a leaflet going to door-to-door.
It strikes me that it is impossible to achieve this “everyday language” that is being demanded here. There are no big words just a reference to some quite basic conceptions. The audience is assumed to have a simple grasp of Darwinism and some very basic marxism. There is little that requires specialist knowledge although I suppose the Marx quote “From each according to ability; to each according to their needs” may assume some familiarity with the Communist Manifesto although I suspect not getting that makes next to no difference to what he is saying.
I think what is really being objected to here is not the *language* but the *concepts*. We are in the terrain of Orwellian Newspeak (Thought Control) – the attempt to control ideas by regulation of language.
Regulation of language happens all the time and it is important to be aware of this process. My thought is that the language of class struggle is boring, counter productive and not necessary. A class based analysis of the present situation leads to a divided society with some groups excluded from the debate – rather like how things are now just different groups are excluded and penalised. Left wing and other groups have their own private languages. This is not a problem for them but it is a problem for Left Unity if there is any intention or hope of building a political party in the UK.
“A class based analysis of the present situation leads to a divided society with some groups excluded from the debate – rather like how things are now just different groups are excluded and penalised.”
Its not just ‘rather like’ the way ‘things are now’. It is *exactly* how things are now in objective reality. You can banish the language of class, if you like, but class will continue to exist regardless. The only way you can change that is through the programme of revolutionary socialism, which has always had as its most fundamental objective the abolition of classes.
Banishing the ‘language’ of class struggle is simply shooting the messenger. Its also a bit like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. If the language of class struggle is ‘boring’, that could be said of many technical forms of ‘jargon’ in science, medicine, etc. They still reflect the best, objective attempts of those who know what they are about to describe reality. Class analysis plays the same role in politics.
We live in a class society. Even David admits that with his references to ‘how things are now’. He just does not seem to want to admit it – perhaps even to himself.
At least the Communist party of Britain is unafraid to stand up for socialism. I think the more the left has moved away from the politics associated with mass, militant communist parties, the smaller and less influential it has become.
You might talk about dustbins of history, but at least the communist party in Britain has a history to be proud of-leading role in trade union struggles from the Minority movement and general strike to the liaison committee for the defence of the trade unions and the pentonville five struggle, the 1972/1974 miners strike and the upper Clyde ship builders work in. Leading role in anti-fascism from recruiting for the international brigades (and losing hundreds of our best cadres) and notably to the battle of cable street and community campaigning before and beyond. A leading role in the anti-colonialist movement from people like palme dutt and the influence and experience given to leaders of independence movements all over Asia and Africa to carrying out missions in South Africa for the ANC from the 1960s to the late 1980s. What about the work done in communities from organising the national unemployed workers movement in the 1920s and 30s to organising rent strikes, occupying the bomb shelters of posh hotels in London during war and even breaking into underground stations to shelter people.
Of course communists in Britain made mistakes (and communists around the world made some horrendous mistakes and indeed crimes were carried out in our name) but this stands against the achievements of socialism in the face of imperialist attack and sabotage. Capitalists do not feel the need to constantly apologise for or condemn (or really even acknowledge its role in) the slave trade, genocide of indigenous peoples, colonialism, imperialism, racism, foul treatment of women, destruction of the environment, war, nuclear-chemical and biological weapon attacks..etc
The communist heritage is so something to be proud of and traces its roots from Wat Tyler, John Ball and the peasants revolt to the diggers, levellers, tolpuddle martyrs, Chartists, the mass trade union movement, our labour movement, the history of ordinary people fighting for a better world.
The communist party of Britain stands proudly for peace and socialism and makes no apology for that.
I agree with Mr. Penney when he alerts us to the historically disastrous and pernicious influence of Stalinism in the world labour movement. It is a cancer that needs to be burnt out of the entire organism of the labour movement if Socialism is ever again to become a pole of attraction to millions of struggling workers across the globe.
Unfortunately, Mr. Penney like many before him fails to distinguish the killer disease – Stalinism – from the normal healthy condition of the patient – Socialism – and tacitly accepts that the masses now regard Socialism and its nemesis, Stalinism, as indistinguishable and inseparable.
This is a recipe for despair, defeat, and demoralisation, and unapologetic Socialists like myself will have none of it.
As Trotsky, himself a victim of the most monstrous mass murderer the world has ever seen, pointed out, there is “a river of blood” separating Bolshevism, which is just a Russian word for genuine revolutionary Socialism, from Stalinism.
Apologists for, and supporters of, this gigantic blood stain on the good name of Socialism need to be politically reeducated and transformed if they are ever to play a constructive part in the rebirth of the left, here and abroad.
If they refuse to accept rehabilitation along these lines, then they do indeed need to be consigned to the dustbin of history, or some other place of confinement, where their toxic ideas cannot escape to contaminate others.
Long live Socialism. Death to Stalinism.
Jimmy Roberts.
Merseyside.
As I said, dangerous fighting talk of class war and revolution etc. are something most working parents will eschew because they raise ghosts of real blood, real starvation and are too risky. It amazing how many SP’ers are young, single and male (Darwin would find that predictable I think – don’t mock either, its a structural point).
We have a very big weight to shift and its only sensible to start work on it in planned phases/chunks. Surely now that means using the huge anti neo-liberal sentiment and understanding in western democracies to get back to he spirit of 45 and its work and then move on progressively from there.
We need to be steady and trustworthy and connote that in careful talking about serious matters (and that’s is not the same as not being ambitious or determined).
I’m heartened to see many responders above. Of courses we must eb aware that one effect of the SP platform is already to put off and lose more moderate participants in LU such that by the time they deem “voting” (sometimes called good chairmanship) is deemed no longer premature, there may be proportionally more radicals left on the floor. I’m going to do everything I can to help ensure we avoid SP because of this aggressive pre-voting campaign.
ATB, Gerry
it is an interesting question that wrack reduces to an issue of temptation should socialists or leftists take office in a capatalist world. whatever your opinion on it i would argue one. there is no point in standing in elections if your not going to use your representatives to influence the way the council or parliament is run 2, if you still then precede to do so and your not telling people that you have no intention of say being the leader of your council or being the first minister of scotland if you won because that would involve selling out. then you are being dishonest. but if you do that then no one will vote for you what a conudrum. i would say that if thats what wrack thinks the answer is left unity should not take up electoral activity as part of its work. and you know what i think we might have come up with a reason why no one votes tusc in the above.
A fuller explanation of the SPGB position to Left Unity can be read here
http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/09/unity-for-socialism-or-for-reformism.html
Unity based on the principles of socialism and achieved, through free discussion will be the goal of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. We need unity but do not fear dissension. The Socialist Party does not shy away from mergers with groups where there is a common identity of interests. The aim must be to effect a genuine unification on a firm and long-lasting basis. We, for our part, believe that unity would be a good thing if it is firmly based and leads to the strengthening of the socialist movement. On the other hand, a unification followed by sharp factional fights and another split would be highly injurious to the movement. We must all ask ourselves when is it sectarianism and when is it political principle? We cannot accept the “lowest common denominator” approach. A socialist movement which places greater value on tactics of political expediency than on principle has abandoned the policy of the class struggle for one of class collaboration.