Die Neue Zeit
23rd May 2009, 00:35
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/770/letters.html
Prole goal
It would seem that the CPGB, like many other left organisations, has a confused line about the formation of a Marxist party. Whether the social-corporatist Labour Party is a “bourgeois workers’ party” is irrelevant (‘Yes to internationalism, yes to republican democracy’, May 14 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/769/yesto.html)). It would seem that Dave Craig has a more correct, two-stage approach (‘No2 EU-UK, yes to a European republic’, May 7 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/768/no2eu.htm)).
What is needed, based on the historical precedent established by the 19th century worker-class movement (as opposed to mere ‘worker movements’), is what Marx and Engels called a proletarian party. This party, while by no means espousing communist end goals as a necessity, is nevertheless distinguished from a mere bourgeois workers’ party primarily by its political and ideological independence from the bourgeois and petty bourgeois hegemony.
Even the Lassalleans and Eisenachers, for all their errors, were leaps and miles ahead of old Labour during its already compromised inception. Why? Because they strove to create a proletarian party in the form of the Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany.
The basic lessons of class struggle, class independence, organisational democracy (preferably the demarchic/lottery form that limits the election of individuals to mere recalls), class rule guided by those three principles, and the Bordigist transnationalism of going ‘beyond nations’ (as opposed to mere internationalism) are all five of the principles of this transnational proletarian party, even if said party doesn’t have a communist end goal.
Jacob Richter
E-mail
In addition to my letter above, I would like to quote Jack Conrad and Dave Craig to confirm my assertion:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/770/republicandemocracy.html
Despite Tony Blair, New Labour and the marginalisation of the left, the Labour Party is still a bourgeois workers’ party. That is the agreed assessment of the CPGB and its Draft programme. Most of the big trade unions are affiliated and most workers with some level of class-consciousness continue to give their vote to Labour candidates.
For communists the Labour Party remains a key site of intervention and struggle. It is one of the battlegrounds where we must learn how to fight. Not, it should be emphasised, in order to persuade Labour machine politicians to lead the socialist transformation in Britain, but, on the contrary, in order to win the working class base away from the trade union and labour bureaucracy.
SPEW refuses any longer to accept the scientific designation of the Labour Party that seeks to capture its contradictions as a political formation: ie, a bourgeois workers’ party (a term that originates with Engels). Indeed Peter Taaffe’s organisation has gone from deep entry and auto-Labourism when it was Militant to auto-anti-Labourism now that it is SPEW. Nowadays SPEW lumps the Labour Party together with the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. They are all bourgeois parties. In response SPEW sponsored the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party (though it proved stillborn).
The CPB is divided down the middle on this strategic question. The Griffiths wing vaguely talks of a “new party of labour”, as does comrade Crow (the RMT was disaffiliated from the Labour Party in 2004). Meanwhile, the slightly larger traditionalist wing of the CPB, grouped around international secretary John Foster and Anita Halpin, the millionaire backer of the Morning Star, remain doggedly loyal to the old BRS perspective of gaining sway over the Labour Party through bringing to bear the full weight of the trade unions.
Quite clearly No2EU is a testing ground for a “new party of labour”. And, typical of such projects, it is envisaged to be a Labour Party mark two. Organisationally it will resemble old Labour and politically it will resemble old Labour too. Towards that end both the CPB and SPEW shift the face they present to the public further and further to the right.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/770/republic.html
The main enemies of a republican socialist workers party have been and remain the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party. The CPGB belongs in the same camp, using different arguments for the same outcome. All in their different ways defend the ideas of Labourism, either by supporting the Labour Party or defending non-republican or anti-republican socialism. Of course, the CPGB promotes republicanism, but then opposes a working class-based republican party.
The left in England is a long way from where we need to be. We are currently lining up with the Rail, Maritime and Transport workers union’s No2EU campaign or wondering what to do about it. Shall we destroy it or jump on board? In March the Weekly Worker said: “No support for Bob Crow’s stunt” (March 12). Now “the CPGB will … recommend a No2EU vote”, providing the top candidates in a given region come out for internationalism (No to Fortress Britain and Fortress Europe) and for republican democracy in the UK (May 14).
No2EU is a ‘temporary workers’ party’ based on working class and socialist organisations. We should argue for it to become a permanent, democratically organised, membership-based party. The ideas and policies of republican democracy and internationalism should be prominent, as proposed by the CPGB. In other words, it should become a republican socialist party. It is encouraging that the CPGB is not demanding that No2EU becomes a national Marxist Party.
Prole goal
It would seem that the CPGB, like many other left organisations, has a confused line about the formation of a Marxist party. Whether the social-corporatist Labour Party is a “bourgeois workers’ party” is irrelevant (‘Yes to internationalism, yes to republican democracy’, May 14 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/769/yesto.html)). It would seem that Dave Craig has a more correct, two-stage approach (‘No2 EU-UK, yes to a European republic’, May 7 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/768/no2eu.htm)).
What is needed, based on the historical precedent established by the 19th century worker-class movement (as opposed to mere ‘worker movements’), is what Marx and Engels called a proletarian party. This party, while by no means espousing communist end goals as a necessity, is nevertheless distinguished from a mere bourgeois workers’ party primarily by its political and ideological independence from the bourgeois and petty bourgeois hegemony.
Even the Lassalleans and Eisenachers, for all their errors, were leaps and miles ahead of old Labour during its already compromised inception. Why? Because they strove to create a proletarian party in the form of the Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany.
The basic lessons of class struggle, class independence, organisational democracy (preferably the demarchic/lottery form that limits the election of individuals to mere recalls), class rule guided by those three principles, and the Bordigist transnationalism of going ‘beyond nations’ (as opposed to mere internationalism) are all five of the principles of this transnational proletarian party, even if said party doesn’t have a communist end goal.
Jacob Richter
In addition to my letter above, I would like to quote Jack Conrad and Dave Craig to confirm my assertion:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/770/republicandemocracy.html
Despite Tony Blair, New Labour and the marginalisation of the left, the Labour Party is still a bourgeois workers’ party. That is the agreed assessment of the CPGB and its Draft programme. Most of the big trade unions are affiliated and most workers with some level of class-consciousness continue to give their vote to Labour candidates.
For communists the Labour Party remains a key site of intervention and struggle. It is one of the battlegrounds where we must learn how to fight. Not, it should be emphasised, in order to persuade Labour machine politicians to lead the socialist transformation in Britain, but, on the contrary, in order to win the working class base away from the trade union and labour bureaucracy.
SPEW refuses any longer to accept the scientific designation of the Labour Party that seeks to capture its contradictions as a political formation: ie, a bourgeois workers’ party (a term that originates with Engels). Indeed Peter Taaffe’s organisation has gone from deep entry and auto-Labourism when it was Militant to auto-anti-Labourism now that it is SPEW. Nowadays SPEW lumps the Labour Party together with the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. They are all bourgeois parties. In response SPEW sponsored the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party (though it proved stillborn).
The CPB is divided down the middle on this strategic question. The Griffiths wing vaguely talks of a “new party of labour”, as does comrade Crow (the RMT was disaffiliated from the Labour Party in 2004). Meanwhile, the slightly larger traditionalist wing of the CPB, grouped around international secretary John Foster and Anita Halpin, the millionaire backer of the Morning Star, remain doggedly loyal to the old BRS perspective of gaining sway over the Labour Party through bringing to bear the full weight of the trade unions.
Quite clearly No2EU is a testing ground for a “new party of labour”. And, typical of such projects, it is envisaged to be a Labour Party mark two. Organisationally it will resemble old Labour and politically it will resemble old Labour too. Towards that end both the CPB and SPEW shift the face they present to the public further and further to the right.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/770/republic.html
The main enemies of a republican socialist workers party have been and remain the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party. The CPGB belongs in the same camp, using different arguments for the same outcome. All in their different ways defend the ideas of Labourism, either by supporting the Labour Party or defending non-republican or anti-republican socialism. Of course, the CPGB promotes republicanism, but then opposes a working class-based republican party.
The left in England is a long way from where we need to be. We are currently lining up with the Rail, Maritime and Transport workers union’s No2EU campaign or wondering what to do about it. Shall we destroy it or jump on board? In March the Weekly Worker said: “No support for Bob Crow’s stunt” (March 12). Now “the CPGB will … recommend a No2EU vote”, providing the top candidates in a given region come out for internationalism (No to Fortress Britain and Fortress Europe) and for republican democracy in the UK (May 14).
No2EU is a ‘temporary workers’ party’ based on working class and socialist organisations. We should argue for it to become a permanent, democratically organised, membership-based party. The ideas and policies of republican democracy and internationalism should be prominent, as proposed by the CPGB. In other words, it should become a republican socialist party. It is encouraging that the CPGB is not demanding that No2EU becomes a national Marxist Party.