Lemons (RDG polemic against CPGB overtures to Labourism)

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://cpgb.org.uk/letters.php?issue_id=879



By Steve Freeman

Chris Stafford attacks the shift in CPGB policy of "winning the Labour Party to socialism" and says "this shift must be challenged by comrades in and beyond our ranks" (Weekly Worker August 11). If this means anything it is a call for a united front of all who want to overthrow the CPGB line on Labour. I respond positively to this call. We will see if Chris is serious. A united front doesn't mean we have the same theory of what is wrong.

In his reply to me Peter Manson says: "Comrade Freeman seems to have developed a new theory about the CPGB" (Letters, August 11). My basic thesis is that the CPGB hasn't completed its break with its Stalinist heritage. On the USSR the CPGB is roughly 'Trotskyist' in accepting that the USSR was not socialism. But on the party question the CPGB should be identified as neo-Stalinist. If Trotskyism and neo-Stalinism implies a contradictory formation, so be it. I am sure Chris Stafford won't agree with this. But it is not a barrier to a united front against Her Majesty's Labour Party and all who want to sail in her.

The hypothesis suggests that on the party question the CPGB has recently switched from its 'third period partyism' (1996-2009) to its 'popular front partyism'. This is the continuity of an ultra-left line switching to the right. Peter sees continuity in the 'before-after' CPGB line as correct-correct. I think it is wrong-wrong. We can agree on continuity. Chris thinks the current line is wrong, but it is not clear what he thinks of the 'before' period.

Of course a hypothesis is not proof. Evidence has to be gathered and mobilised to prove it. This is beyond the scope of a letter. But it is important to set out where I am coming from in discussing CPGB policy of "winning the Labour Party to socialism". However, let us park this hypothesis and move on. All CPGB members can unite in agreeing that it is wrong, ridiculous and off the wall. It doesn't matter. We can discuss the issues with or without accepting such an extreme hypothesis.

Since the 1990s in the UK a capitalist offensive has been carried out politically by the Tories and New Labour against a weakened workers' movement and fragmented communist movement. In these conditions revolutionaries must adopt a strategy with two tactics. First, there is a need for a revolutionary communist party and, second, a need for a workers' party. The first is directed to communists alone. The second is a united front slogan calling for communist and non-communist workers to unite.

The CPGB and Revolutionary Democratic Group approached these questions with different strategies, tactics and slogans. The CPGB strategy calls for a Marxist party and a reformed Labour Party. The RDG called for an international revolutionary democratic communist party and a republican socialist party. If there is to be a serious debate, then one set of strategic slogans can be contrasted with the other. If we call the two tactics 'oranges' and 'lemons', then we can compare 'oranges' and/or we can contrast 'lemons'.

I will give provisional names to the CPGB and RDG party strategies as the 'British road to socialism' and the 'republican road to world communism'. If we discuss the relative merits of the two oranges (Marxist party versus IRDCP) or two lemons (reformed Labour Party and the republican socialist party), we are having a partial debate extracted from the totality.

In its 'third period partyism' the CPGB contrasted its Marxist party orange with everybody else's lemons. It was easy to show that the CPGB orange was much sweeter than all the other lemons - variously called 'Labour Party mark two' or 'halfway house'. You would be forgiven for thinking the CPGB was all oranges and no lemons. However, this was false. When the CPGB turned to the right, it revealed its own lemon. Peter claims the CPGB lemon was there all along. In my view he is correct. But it was concealed under a smokescreen which is now banished, along with the words 'Labour Party mark two'. In the 'third period' the CPGB set the slogan of the 'Marxist party' against 'republican socialist workers party'. Now the debate must move on - the 'Labour Party mark two' or reformed Labour Party versus what Peter called a 'halfway house'.

This debate is not purely theoretical. It has practical consequences. It leads the CPGB into the Labour Party. Having ignored the lemon question for so long, the CPGB has now decided to bite the biggest, bitterest lemon at the wrong time. It leads comrades like me towards the independent, militant left.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think anyone wants to overthrow the CPGB line on anything because, frankly, nobody gives a shit.

When will these 'parties' (who, by the way DNZ, are not movements) realise that they are an absolute irrelevance. The only groups, in my experience and those of comrades and friends, that are contributing seriously to the class struggle at the moment are SWP and the anarchistic left.

[The Idler]

Funnily enough, Labour regard the SWP and anarchist left as irrelevant in a similar way.

The lesson is that when you judge contributions to the correct approach to the class struggle principally on numbers contributing, you end up in Labour or the SWP.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

My broader point - consumed in anger and a bit of an early afternoon haze - was that the CPGB are not crap because they are small, they are small because they are crap.

I can't really be bothered to elaborate, but i'm sure you get the jist. They are, to all intents and purposes, a dead organisation, contributing little or nothing to the wider working class' struggle against Capitalism. As such, neither I nor anybody else outside of a few hundred equally irrelevant people could really care - or ever will - about this programmatic shift, however shitty and idiotic it obviously is. 'Winning Labour back to Socialism'. Fucking hell.

[Tim Finnegan]

when the cpgb turned to the right...
1921?

[Susurrus]

When I read the title this is what I thought:

GuMv86Ov7-8

[FuzzypegX]

The only groups, in my experience and those of comrades and friends, that are contributing seriously to the class struggle at the moment are SWP and the anarchistic left.

In what sense do you imagine the SWP and the "anarchistic left" are contributing to the class struggle in Great Britain? True enough, both group(ing)s have a higher public profile than the CPGB - though only the SWP has any control over its public profile, since anarchism's public image is largely media-dictated - but I would dispute the idea that they are seriously involved in the class struggle. The SWP practices political opportunism, attaching itself to whatever is making headlines and distributing placards to ensure that its (equally opportunist) slogans are shown on BBC News 24. In terms of its actual relationship to class struggle, both it, and the "anarchistic left", are classic examples of "khvostism", they trail behind the spontaneous movement of the working class without any ability to steer or direct it - the tail wags the dog. Worse still, they transform this inability to lead into an ideological doctrine, "socialism from below", and preach worship of the spontaneous movement in example the same fashion that was condemned by Lenin.


....the CPGB are not crap because they are small, they are small because they are crap.

I agree, broadly, though more in the sense that I believe they are doomed to remain small, not that their current size, given the current fragmentary nature of all working class politics (and the working class itself) in Britain, is a good indicator of the correctness of their politics. As Mao reminded us, the size of the party is immaterial - armed with the correct line, the party will grow. The problem is, of course, that the CPGB does not have the correct line, and the existence of this current rightward deviation towards the Labour Party is the surest indication of this. If they cosy up to social democracy, then they will be in exactly the same position as the CPB (and the original CPGB), following the disastrous 'British Road to Socialism'.


In these conditions revolutionaries must adopt a strategy with two tactics. First, there is a need for a revolutionary communist party and, second, a need for a workers' party. The first is directed to communists alone. The second is a united front slogan calling for communist and non-communist workers to unite.

This is the same line currently being followed by the Socialist Party (England & Wales) with its "Campaign For A New Mass Workers Party". This policy has been disastrous for them. Leaving aside the practical difficulties, in essence it amounts to calling for a reconstruction of the old Labour Party and turning back of the clock to the 1920s. How would the relationship between the workers' party and the revolutionary communist party be any different? If the workers' party would be led and dominated by revolutionary communists, then what is the need for a separate party? If not, then why would the workers' party not degenerate into socialism imperialism in exactly the same way as did the Labour Party?#

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

1. Mao was wrong, or rather, his line does not apply to somewhere like the UK. It is more likely, as we have seen in the past year or so, that the class struggle will take place in the UK outside the confines of the vanguard party. In the UK in particular, it is the vanguard party's job to educate and agitate, but not necessarily to lead and organise the working class. The working class in Britain, unlike the left, is not weak, it is merely unconscious. It has shown already that it has the ability to make the establishment proverbially shit itself.

2. I am aware of the shortcomings of the SWP and do not take my statement in any way as an indication of my support for them. My point was that, perhaps because of numbers and perhaps because they have infiltrated the students particularly well, they have been able to influence action fairly well in the past year or so. Of course, they are a somewhat shoddy party theoretically and we all know about the bureaucracy, but one must say that when push came to shove, they were there in the midst of the struggle doing more than selling papers, which is what I saw some other parties doing (solely doing!).

[FuzzypegX]

1. Mao was wrong, or rather, his line does not apply to somewhere like the UK. It is more likely, as we have seen in the past year or so, that the class struggle will take place in the UK outside the confines of the vanguard party. In the UK in particular, it is the vanguard party's job to educate and agitate, but not necessarily to lead and organise the working class. The working class in Britain, unlike the left, is not weak, it is merely unconscious. It has shown already that it has the ability to make the establishment proverbially shit itself.

Again, this amounts to a theory of spontaneous revolution. How can the working class exert itself politically without organization, without leadership? How could a socialist state emerge out of a spontaneous uprising? This is a practical, as well as a theoretical, question. The fact that the class struggle has taken place "outside" (or rather, "despite the lack") of a vanguard party merely reflects the reality that no vanguard party has, as yet, emerged which is capable of leading. As Lenin reminds us: "The proletariat has no other weapon in the struggle for power except organization." And that organization requires an "organized detachment" (the vanguard party).


2. I am aware of the shortcomings of the SWP and do not take my statement in any way as an indication of my support for them. My point was that, perhaps because of numbers and perhaps because they have infiltrated the students particularly well, they have been able to influence action fairly well in the past year or so. Of course, they are a somewhat shoddy party theoretically and we all know about the bureaucracy, but one must say that when push came to shove, they were there in the midst of the struggle doing more than selling papers, which is what I saw some other parties doing (solely doing!).

They have reached their high-water mark in terms of possible influence. By appealing to the ultra-leftism of student politics they have achieved a position of prominence in the British left, but this is merely a reflection of the weakened state of genuine Marxism (Marxism-Leninism). Stalin's comment about Marxism in the late 1890's is instructive in this regard:

"Marxism became the fashion. This resulted in an influx into the Marxist organizations of throngs of young revolutionary intellectuals, who were weak in theory and inexperienced in political organization, and who had only a vague and for the most part incorrect idea of Marxism, derived from the opportunist writings of the 'legal Marxists' [those Marxists that the bourgeois state allowed to be published] with which the press was filled. This resulted in the lowering of the theoretical and political standard of the Marxist organizations, their infection with the 'legal Marxist' opportunist tendencies, and the aggravation of ideological confusion, political vacillation and organizational chaos."

Just as in the period described by Comrade Stalin, what is required is a rigorous ideological struggle to eliminate opportunist and ultra-leftist tendencies and place revolutionary Marxism on a firm footing. With that, we would see the inevitable decline of groups like the SWP....

[Tim Finnegan]

As Mao reminded us, the size of the party is immaterial - armed with the correct line, the party will grow.
lol idealism

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Again, this amounts to a theory of spontaneous revolution. How can the working class exert itself politically without organization, without leadership? How could a socialist state emerge out of a spontaneous uprising? This is a practical, as well as a theoretical, question. The fact that the class struggle has taken place "outside" (or rather, "despite the lack") of a vanguard party merely reflects the reality that no vanguard party has, as yet, emerged which is capable of leading. As Lenin reminds us: "The proletariat has no other weapon in the struggle for power except organization." And that organization requires an "organized detachment" (the vanguard party).



They have reached their high-water mark in terms of possible influence. By appealing to the ultra-leftism of student politics they have achieved a position of prominence in the British left, but this is merely a reflection of the weakened state of genuine Marxism (Marxism-Leninism). Stalin's comment about Marxism in the late 1890's is instructive in this regard:

"Marxism became the fashion. This resulted in an influx into the Marxist organizations of throngs of young revolutionary intellectuals, who were weak in theory and inexperienced in political organization, and who had only a vague and for the most part incorrect idea of Marxism, derived from the opportunist writings of the 'legal Marxists' [those Marxists that the bourgeois state allowed to be published] with which the press was filled. This resulted in the lowering of the theoretical and political standard of the Marxist organizations, their infection with the 'legal Marxist' opportunist tendencies, and the aggravation of ideological confusion, political vacillation and organizational chaos."

Just as in the period described by Comrade Stalin, what is required is a rigorous ideological struggle to eliminate opportunist and ultra-leftist tendencies and place revolutionary Marxism on a firm footing. With that, we would see the inevitable decline of groups like the SWP....

It's really difficult to debate with someone who inserts phrases like 'genuine marxism (marxism-leninism)' in their posts, but i'll give it a go.

1) Not spontaneous, one-minute, revolution. The working class is evidently able to organise itself. It is THE revolutionary class, the revolution is its own job. As I said, the most important role of Socialists is to educate and agitate amongst the working class. If we do this correctly, then when the time comes the working class will organise itself and take on the ruling class, as the student working class did last year. If we don't, then they will descend into rioting, as we saw this year.

2) There is no such thing as a 'Socialist State'. The first task of the working class upon expropriating the bourgeoisie will be to, as quickly as possible, dismantle the state - its security apparatus and its economic power - and make their own political councils and assemblies.

3) How can you say that 'no vanguard party has, as yet, emerged which is capable of leading', then quote a leader of one such party to back up such an argument? Incidentally, Lenin's quote (as well as having no context!) is wrong. The working class has far more than 'organisation'. It outnumbers the non-working class by many and it is the only revolutionary class. Pretty big advantages if you ask me.

4) Ironically, the SWP are a classic example of the failed, bureaucratic vanguard party. As Trotskyist/Cliffites, they adhere absolutely to the bureacratic centralism that has charactarised Leninism and its failures for nearly a century.

5) You should focus your target more on Capitalists than bringing out a whole spiel about 'opportunists' and 'ultra-leftists'. Anarchists, Left-Communists, Libertarian Socialists are all friends of the Socialist movement and of the working class. Obviously, that they challenge the dictatorial tendencies of Marxism-Leninism upsets you, naturally.

[FuzzypegX]

1) Not spontaneous, one-minute, revolution. The working class is evidently able to organise itself. It is THE revolutionary class, the revolution is its own job. As I said, the most important role of Socialists is to educate and agitate amongst the working class. If we do this correctly, then when the time comes the working class will organise itself and take on the ruling class, as the student working class did last year. If we don't, then they will descend into rioting, as we saw this year.

There's a big difference between a protest/riot and a revolution, even moreso the construction of a whole new political/economic system. And even the student protests were organized, they were organized by student activist groups and other similar organizations. It's very easy to point to a single protest and say "see, this proves the working class can organize itself" (although, as I just said, I'm not even sure if it does) but it's disingenuous, in my opinion, to extend that hypothesis and claim that it proves that the working class could spontaneously lead a revolution and reorganize society - particularly against the extremely well-organized bourgeoisie. When the "student working class" took on the ruling class last year - what happened? It failed to achieve even its most basic objectives. Not a single one of its demands were met, and it was violently dispersed and persecuted by the police. Why? Because it lacked organization. It was therefore easily defeated by the highly organized forces of the bourgeoisie.

I suppose its pointless to continue to quote Lenin in this regard, since I know he carries very little weight with you, but nevertheless:

"All worship of the spontaneity of the labour movement, all belittling of the role of the 'conscious element,' of the role of the party of [Socialism], means, altogether irrespective of whether the belittler likes it or not, strengthening the influence of the bourgeois ideology among the workers."

More to the point, and something that has always confused me in these type of debates, but the type of vanguard party that I am advocating is an organized detachment of the working class itself - i.e. one composed, primarily, of members of the working class. Obviously, I don't advocate a party of bourgeois intellectuals sitting atop the working class, telling them what to do - nor does any Leninist, to my knowledge.


2) There is no such thing as a 'Socialist State'. The first task of the working class upon expropriating the bourgeoisie will be to, as quickly as possible, dismantle the state - its security apparatus and its economic power - and make their own political councils and assemblies.

This is a crucial ideological difference. I adhere to the Leninist thesis of the higher and lower stages of communism and therefore I do not believe that the state should "dismantled as quickly as possible", but rather should be strenghtened as an oppressive power (the dictatorship of the proletariat) against the bourgeoisie and then, once socialism is secured, begin withering away to make way for the higher stage of communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat, furthermore, is a historical epoch. I believe these positions to be born-out in the writings of both Marx and Engels.

I don't imagine there is much I can say on this topic to persuade you.


3) How can you say that 'no vanguard party has, as yet, emerged which is capable of leading', then quote a leader of one such party to back up such an argument? Incidentally, Lenin's quote (as well as having no context!) is wrong. The working class has far more than 'organisation'. It outnumbers the non-working class by many and it is the only revolutionary class. Pretty big advantages if you ask me.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I was saying that no vanguard organization had as yet emerged in Britain. Not throughout the entire of history. To provide some context to Lenin's comment, here is a slightly more long-winded version of the same thought:

"In its struggle for power, the proletariat has no other weapon but organization. Disunited by the rule of anarchic competition in the bourgeois world, ground down by forced labour for capital, constantly thrust back to the 'lower depths' of utter destitution, savagery and degeneration, the proletariat can become, and inevitably will become, an invincible force only when its ideological unification by the principles of Marxism is consolidated by the material unity of an organization which will weld millions of toilers into an army of the working class."

This point about "material unity" is, in my opinion, crucial. We should bare in mind that Marx, as a rigorous materialist, also made much of material unity and organization, as opposed to mere ideological unity.

Also, numerical advantage is not the same, nor does it bare much relation, to organization. The proletariat in Russia was numerically insignificant, but it view of its material position in society and its high-level of organization under the Bolshevik Party, it was able to take power. The bourgeoisie is numerically much smaller than the proletariat in Britain today, yet owing to its material position society and its high-level of organization it continues to rule.


4) Ironically, the SWP are a classic example of the failed, bureaucratic vanguard party. As Trotskyist/Cliffites, they adhere absolutely to the bureacratic centralism that has charactarised Leninism and its failures for nearly a century.

I don't think there's much point in trying to debate you on this point. I'm no fan of the SWP, but this is largely hyperbole.


5) You should focus your target more on Capitalists than bringing out a whole spiel about 'opportunists' and 'ultra-leftists'. Anarchists, Left-Communists, Libertarian Socialists are all friends of the Socialist movement and of the working class. Obviously, that they challenge the dictatorial tendencies of Marxism-Leninism upsets you, naturally.

The comment about "dictatorial tendencies" is tedious and I won't bother with it. But on the broader issue, I can do no better than quote Lenin (again), at length:

“Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity. Yet, for Russian social democrats the importance of theory is enhanced by three other circumstances, which are often forgotten: first, by the fact that our party is only in process of formation, its features are only just becoming defined, and it has as yet far from settled accounts with the other trends of revolutionary thought that threaten to divert the movement from the correct path. On the contrary, precisely the very recent past was marked by a revival of non-social-democratic revolutionary trends (an eventuation regarding which Axelrod long ago warned the Economists). Under these circumstances, what at first sight appears to be an ‘unimportant’ error may lead to most deplorable consequences, and only short-sighted people can consider factional disputes and a strict differentiation between shades of opinion inopportune or superfluous. The fate of Russian social-democracy for very many years to come may depend on the strengthening of one or the other ‘shade’.”

Furthermore, given the history of proletarian revolution, which, in my opinion (as a Marxist-Leninist), has seen constant attempts to derail genuine revolutionary progress by precisely these same "friends of the Socialist movement" of which you speak, it is hardly surprising that I believe in the importance of challenging them early and often.

On a personal note, I didn't intend for this exchange of views to get as hostile as it seemingly has. We both feel strongly about our respective positions, and I think that's to our credit, but there's no reason why we can't be amicable about it.

[The Idler]

Chomsky on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism & the Soviet Union (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI)


Chomsky on Socialism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ)

[FuzzypegX]

I've seen that Chomsky Q&A session before. To be honest, even though I respect Chomsky's contribution in terms of presenting the blunt facts of imperialist foreign policy, his understanding of Russian history and of Marxism in general is poor. He is insufficiently critical of his sources (where he gives them all) and perpetuates a number of tediously stereotyped notions of Marxism.

In Defense of Marxism (marxist.com) has a decent pair of articles on Chomsky's take on Marxism, albeit marred by a strong Trotskyist slant. I would post links, but my post count is too low.

[SHORAS]

It's laughable that anyone would think the SWP are contributing to working class emancipation, more like holding it back and acting as a barrier. The CPGB might have little contact with the class but have far more to say than the fucking SWP. The CPGB at least don't pretend to be a Party of the class.

Oh by the way that oranges and apples article/letter or whatever was fucking shit, what the fuck was he on about. Probably the worst thing I've ever read in the paper.

[Q]

Oh by the way that oranges and apples article/letter or whatever was fucking shit, what the fuck was he on about. Probably the worst thing I've ever read in the paper.

Absolutely this. I had no clue what he was talking about. Just some random garbage to me really. To be honest, I think the editor should have left it out.

[Vanguard1917]

We're still waiting for evidence for Weekly Worker's assertion that, in opposition, the Labour leadership will move leftwards. Is that what we saw today at the TUC conference?

[Q]

We're still waiting for evidence for Weekly Worker's assertion that, in opposition, the Labour leadership will move leftwards. Is that what we saw today at the TUC conference?

Here is their point of view (both of their majority and minority) in their own words at the recent Communist University event:

28433876

It includes a direct answer to your question.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The CPGB at least don't pretend to be a Party of the class.


Forgive me but is that not what Vanguard Parties tend to do? Do you not think the CPGB would have the same if it had such exposure to the working class?

[Q]

Forgive me but is that not what Vanguard Parties tend to do? Do you not think the CPGB would have the same if it had such exposure to the working class?

Alas, the CPGB's argument is that a vanguard party is not a minority party (taken from your post here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/most-practical-communism-t161186/index.html?p=2233393#post2233393)), but a mass party and movement that strives to organise the whole class as a class-collective for its own through the vanguard.

In their own words (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/leaflets/party_and_programme.pdf):


What we are talking about when we refer to ‘our party’ is the sort of mass organisation envisaged by Karl Marx when he moved the resolution amending the 1st International’s rules, calling for the working class to constitute itself “into a political party”, at the Hague congress in September 1872. Otherwise the “working class cannot act as a class”.

Elsewhere (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/letters.php?issue_id=807):


Misunderstood
Benjamin Hill has misunderstood the purpose of the CPGB’s Draft programme (Letters, February 25).

He states that the introductory text is “hilarious” because it implies that the current CPGB “claims to be the same CPGB as the one established in 1920 and talks in all its grandeur as if it still has a big membership”.

We make no such claim. If comrade Hill were to turn to p11 of each issue of the Weekly Worker he would find the following: “The Provisional Central Committee organises members of the Communist Party, but there exists no real Communist Party today. There are many so-called ‘parties’ on the left. In reality they are confessional sects …” (‘What we fight for’, second bullet point).

The very first bullet point reads: “Our central aim is the organisation of communists, revolutionary socialists and all politically advanced workers into a Communist Party …” This, by the way, also answers comrade Hill’s point about there being no mention in the Draft programme of “leftist unity”. We are for the coming together of all the left groups around a Marxist programme on the basis of democratic centralism and we support all objective moves in that direction.

The absence of a Communist Party explains why the document we have published is called a draft programme. Should this redrafted version be agreed by current CPGB members later this year, it will represent the proposals we would eventually put before a congress to re-establish such a party. No doubt other groups would propose a different programme.

The fact that we are nowhere near the stage when a Communist Party can be relaunched does not remove the obligation on genuine communists to draw up a programme. It is actually a central part of the campaign to reforge that party.

Peter Manson
South London
I have my own disagreements with aspects of their particular strategy, but I do think that people taking issue with them should be aware of their actual positions.

[SHORAS]

Forgive me but is that not what Vanguard Parties tend to do? Do you not think the CPGB would have the same if it had such exposure to the working class?

I don't understand the second sentance can you rephrase it? They want to be part of the future working class Party but like many other organisations don't pretend to be it at the moment. I'm not sure they would consider themselves a 'tendency' or 'current' but I think that is the right characterisation.

It's a whole other matter regarding the role of organisations and militants in the class struggle and communist revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://cpgb.org.uk/letters.php?issue_id=881

British road

The essence of the British road to socialism is an alliance between the CPGB and a reformed or left Labour Party. The recent CPGB turn to the right and advocacy of a reformed Labour Party is no more than a reminder or revelation of this totality. This is not to claim that the current turn is exactly the same as the old idea.

If the Labour Party is a workers’ party, albeit with a degenerated bourgeois leadership, then such a CPGB-Labour Party alliance is an expression of a workers’ united front. If the Labour Party is a bourgeois party supported by a section of the trade union bureaucracy, then we have a form of popular front. In this latter case the Labour Party is an enemy party, albeit with a grip over the minds of working class people who trust or believe Labour represents them.

Hence the phrase ‘bourgeois workers’ party’ is vital, if only for its ambiguity, which conceals the class nature of the Labour Party. Labour actually has support and membership from bourgeois, middle class and working class people. But Marxism does not define the class essence of a party by its composition or who votes for it. The question is, which class does this party serve by its policies and actions, most clearly when in power? ‘What does the Labour government do?’ - not ‘What does the Labour Party say?’

The Labour Party has a proven track record as a bourgeois party. In its most recent guise as New Labour it was in league with Rupert Murdoch, as it was years ago with Robert Maxwell, the press baron, who openly supported the Labour Party and stole his workers’ pensions. This is not to claim that the Labour Party is the same as other bourgeois parties such as the Tories.

There is no equals sign between Labour and Tory. One cracks open the champers whenever the working class is shafted. The other cries buckets of crocodile tears if necessary. I will leave you to work out which is which (and the answer is not always obvious). To claim that the conservative and reactionary bourgeoisie and the liberal reformist bourgeoisie both serve the capitalist class is not to say they are the same.

Lenin treated the liberal bourgeois parties as worthy of the greatest invective. Partly this was because the liberals were posing as the friend of the workers, whilst hatching the most invidious plots and sell-outs. Workers could be deceived by the sonorous phrases of the liberals, not least when the Mensheviks were supporting and seeking popular fronts with them. Workers are not likely to be deceived by the Tories, but may have illusions in Labour.

In 1920 many saw the Labour Party as a workers’ party. It had never taken power and revealed its essence. Lenin pointed out that this ‘workers’ party’ was led by reactionaries in the service of the bourgeoisie. Lenin’s corrective, taken out of context, has been set in stone as dogma. ‘Bourgeois workers’ party’ conceals the class essence of the Labour Party. It ‘unites’ those who see it as bourgeois and those who think it is basically proletarian.

The two-party strategy of the British road is in essence a popular front. Its aim is for a left Labour government. Illusions in this are most dangerous at a time when Labour is likely to turn left. The militant workers need their own fighting party, not illusions that the Labour Party will fight rather than make left noises and sabotage any workers’ struggles.

We need a republican socialist party, not Her Majesty’s reformed Labour Party.

Steve Freeman

[Serge's Fist]

Steve Freeman letter (September 1) in Weekly Workers makes some fundamental mistakes, not least in his choice of fruit.

Communists should not be in the business of building half-way houses and social democratic organisations. These organisations tend to be small scale rip-offs of the much larger historic parties of the class. Whilst Labour was in power limited pace did open up to build a new party with militant workers. Yet the left squandered this chance with populist versions of Labourism and sectarian manoeuvrings that ruined opportunities to develop revolutionary unity. It also appears to me that RDG's call for a “republican socialist party” united-front organisation of the entire class is not too far from what the CPGB majority wish to change the Labour Party into. The method is different, the result is the same dead end.