Nick Wrack: How can we supersede the sects?

[Q]

An article by Nick Wrack, member of the Independent Socialist Network, of a talk he held in personal capacity on a recent Communist Forum in London (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/960/nick-wrack-how-can-we-supersede-the-sects).


This discussion is part of a whole series of debates which are, in my opinion, quite rightly taking place in Britain and beyond. It concerns the question that is facing people who want to confront capitalism and the crisis, people who want to fight for a different kind of society, in which the mass of humanity is emancipated for the first time since the beginning of class society.

The discussion comes under the broad heading, ‘How do we get socialism?’ What is the vehicle, the method, for achieving this? Of course, this is a question that has confronted the working class for 200 years. It is a question that confronts us profoundly now, particularly when we see before us the nature of capitalism’s crisis, when the living and working conditions of generations to come are put at risk, economically, socially and politically. So the debates taking place on the left are of great importance.

And it is a matter of profound dismay for any serious thinker on the left to see the way in which we are compartmentalised into the panoply of organisations of Marxists and socialists, of people who want to fight this system and change it. It is an historical aberration that we have to overcome. Of course, there may well be, in certain circumstances, very good reasons for being in different organisations - when you are fighting for profoundly different things; when your approach is completely different. Possibly. But can there be any such reasons for people who base themselves on the method and the ideas of Marxism? Can there be any real reason why people in that category end up in different political organisations? Separate, split and segregated into smaller and smaller forces, which makes it ever more difficult to respond to the crisis.

In my opinion this legacy is something we have to overcome. Part of that is the belief held by too many people that if there is a difference then it means that you have to separate. It is a question of the nature of the differences that mean you have to have a separation, and the differences that allow you to stay in the same organisation.

For example, if we go back in history and we look at the differences between, say, Luxemburg and Lenin, as explained in various articles and speeches, and transpose them onto the left organisations of today, people would say that if they had those differences they could not possibly work with the equivalent of Luxemburg or Lenin, and that this would require them to be in different organisations. In my opinion this attitude is completely wrong. What we need to develop on the left is an attitude of healthy debate and discussion, critical appraisal, allowing dissent, so long as it is in the general direction of the struggle to change society.

Message and messenger

The ideas of socialism, in my opinion, are extremely simple. Most working class people can grasp intuitively, without a theoretical basis, the class nature of society. Most working class people know what class they are in. In a recent poll 60% of people self-identified as working class. They understand the hierarchy in society even if they do not understand specifically and precisely the categories and so on. But they understand that they are at the bottom of the heap; that they work. They understand that nothing happens, nothing is done without them, and the working class produce the wealth in society and, although this may be less clear, that this wealth is taken from them and is enjoyed by a different, separate class: those who rule, who represent capital, who they do not even see in the course of daily events. But they know that they exist and they benefit from the work of ordinary people.

And the idea of turning that society upside-down, of taking that wealth that is created by ordinary people and sharing it among the people who produce it, of allowing a new world to be built out of the surplus that is created by working class people - I think these are ideas that are easily comprehended. They are easily understood by the majority of people.

I think that too often the left, with its scholastic discussions, its scholastic debates, actually makes that simple message too complicated. Why can we not have the theoretical debates within the broad family of Marxism, whilst at the same time putting out the propaganda and the agitation for that strategic task: the inauguration of a new society, the abolition of classes, the end of exploitation? If we were to take those ideas out among the working class we would find a ready audience for them.

But look at the state of the left. I am sure people in this room have had the experience of selling your organisation’s paper on the street, when someone walks past and you offer them a copy. They say that they have already got one from someone selling it further up the street. Of course, we know that they are referring to a different group and a different paper and that person does not want to be hassled. The whole thing is complete lunacy.

I am here in a personal capacity only, so I am not speaking for the Independent Socialist Network. But the ISN is a group of socialists who want to see a party come into existence. We do not have any centralised positions; we are simply a space where socialists can come and discuss how they want to achieve socialism. What unifies us is the belief that we need a new socialist party.

At the moment, when we draw into activity new people who do not like what is happening - perhaps they have supported, for example, a Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition candidate who is going to fight against the cuts, who is going to fight for local working class people - they soon realise that there are rival left groups. They ask, ‘Why aren’t you all in the same organisation?’ They wonder exactly what the big problem is.

In fact, among the different left groups and the people who are in none, there is a fantastic array of talent, of skills, of education, of learning, of ability. Yet what we have is an utterly unnecessary duplication - the replication of the same tasks being carried out by different groups. Every week you can read the same sort of article on this or that event or subject in several different papers. And you wonder why this duplication of effort is necessary.

Is the theory of state capitalism so fundamentally different from the idea of a deformed or degenerate workers’ state, or a society run by a bureaucratised caste, or whatever, that they must lead people to be in different organisations? I think this is something that we really have to try to overcome.

It is extremely important that socialists and Marxists look at the state of the existing organised left. But this is only a small part of it actually. I do not know how many organised Marxists there are in Britain - a couple of thousand? Three thousand? It is a tiny figure. On the other hand, there are probably several tens of thousand of people who would call themselves some sort of Marxist. Probably many times this figure would identify as some kind of socialist. So is there an audience for socialist or Marxist ideas beyond the ranks of the existing far left? I say that there is.

For me the question is twofold. It is not just a question of trying to get the existing left together, because, frankly, I think that is extremely problematic. That will happen out of the process of trying to develop something bigger, to which the existing socialist left can contribute. That process for me does not involve watering down your ideas. It does not mean arguing for reform rather than fundamental, revolutionary change. Nothing of the sort. It means trying to find a ready audience for the ideas of a break with capitalism. I think that is the task that faces us at the moment.

The crisis is bringing home on a daily basis to millions of working class people that there is something profoundly wrong with capitalism. You cannot go to work, be on benefits, a student or whatever without being affected by the idea that something is profoundly wrong. That gains we have taken for granted are being removed. That things we thought were permanent are not going to be there in the future. That the various safety nets are all being taken away. More and more people are questioning: what is it that is wrong?

Yet the response from the left has been pitiful. Since 2008 we have had five years of financial and economic crisis, including the bailouts that have cost trillions. We are now paying for this through anti-working class measures, whereby the ruling class is using the crisis to advance its assault on working class living standards. They are facing a crisis of profitability. A crisis where their returns are not at the expected level and so they are refusing to invest. Austerity is their strategic attempt to drive down living standards, to cut down the amount of surplus that goes into the state, to cut the social wage, to boost their profits. The intention is to destroy a whole section of outdated capital, preparing the ground for a new period of investment: a new period based on having a bigger reserve army of unemployed, on breaking the ability of the working class to resist through the anti-trade union laws, attacks on civil liberties, on the right to protest. All these things are done to weaken the ability of the working class to resist.

New layers

But in the process new layers of people are pulled into struggle. Whether it is in the workplace, whether it is unemployed people, those organising around the bedroom tax, the question of workfare, the question of student grants, pensions - all of these things are driving people to question what is wrong with society and what the alternative is.

How do Marxists, how do socialists, respond to this? Now, we can, in our small groups and small networks, keep on producing our papers and producing our arguments - and I do not seek to dismiss that at all. I do not read the Weekly Worker assiduously every week, but I do try to keep up with it. And it does perform a service in terms of analysing what is going on, in terms of taking up issues, including the ‘archaeological’ work, if I can call it that, of digging out past articles and past ideas and applying them in the modern period, I think it is very important. And there is other work done by others on the left that is also very important.

So we need to try and find a way where Marxists can work together, but also a way by which the ideas of Marxism, the ideas of socialism, are taken out to more and more people, not just the existing far left. For me it’s not a question of a person being recruited from one far left group to another, which frankly would be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

The far left has been in a period of retreat for some time, yet our ideas should be becoming more and more common currency, now we are facing this crisis. But what is significant is the interest being shown in the ideas of Marx; the sales of Capital, the number of views of online videos, the blog posts and so on, a lot of which does not come through the organised far left. Actually, much of it can be explained by the fact that people look at the existing far left and are put off. Sometimes it is like walking in on a child’s birthday party where there are children screaming, there is cake on the floor and kids throwing things at each other. So I think it is incumbent on all of us to maintain a sense of proportion and a sense of perspective.

We must overcome these internecine squabbles. We have to look at how this crisis is affecting not just our class, but humanity. Whether it is the ecological disaster that could develop on the basis of the unplanned exploitation of the resources of the planet. Whether it is the vast wasteland of humanity, with people having no access to proper healthcare, education and pensions when they are elderly. This crisis should give the Marxists - the people who are meant to be the most serious thinkers - cause for thought.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I think that theory is very important - the clash of ideas generates thought and clarity, and it progresses those ideas. So a debate is absolutely necessary. But I see no need why a socialist party, a Marxist party, cannot share an understanding of class society, the method of Marx and Engels, and then accommodate the clash of ideas within that organisation.

Let us take an example from the realm of economics. There are some Marxists who would argue that the fundamental problem for capitalism is the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. There are other comrades who say it is the anarchy of capitalist production, underconsumption or whatever that causes crisis. I do not see why those arguments cannot be undertaken and developed in the same organisation. A disagreement over such questions is not a reason to split. In fact you could, and should, have within the same party articles expressing all such disagreements and taking up the different ideas. People love a good debate and a good controversy and that could help draw people into the party.

Now, it may be that most people on the left would not disagree with that in principle. But too often what passes for debate on the left is, to put it mildly, simply name-calling. It is not serious. Quite often you hear someone on the left say something perfectly reasonable, but it ends up being opposed - not because of their actual statement, but because of the organisation to which they belong. Supporting the idea may strengthen a rival group. We really do have to overcome such pettiness.

Fundamentals

The first thing that we can agree on, I think, is that this is not a crisis that can be resolved by going back to a former type of capitalism. It is a fundamental crisis that is inherent in the system itself. We must reject the idea that somehow we can achieve what people want by reforming capitalism. We have to replace it by something completely new.

There are those who talk about the ‘crisis of neoliberalism’, as if somehow we went back to the period where capitalism was a bit more regulated then things would be different. What we have to get across is that this assault on working class living standards has arisen precisely out of a structural crisis within capitalism. If they could, the capitalists would like to take us back to a time before the post-war settlement and the welfare state. It was not just the social democratic parties that attained that: the ruling class itself was petrified of what would happen if they did not make those concessions. Then there was the post-war economic upswing that came to an end in the 1970s and capitalism has been trying to deal with this ever since.

Many people in Britain have traditionally looked to the Labour Party to defend them from the attacks of the ruling class. Communists, Marxists, socialists would generally have a shared understanding about the Labour Party and its inability to fundamentally resolve crises. In my view the Labour Party has never been a socialist party - it has always been a strange mixture of liberalism and some variants of socialism. Some would call this mix ‘Labourism’, which upholds constitutionality, a reluctance to endorse activity outside of parliament.

Many people are brought up in the tradition whereby if you are working class then you vote Labour and there is something sensible and something serious in that. Working class people are not stupid: they are very practical. And they know that a Labour government, generally speaking, will be better than a Tory government. So in the next general election I think we are most likely to get a Labour victory. The many leftwing candidates, of the type I have supported in the past, who will stand in elections, will not pick up many votes at this stage, with people wanting to kick out the Tory-Liberal Democrat government and put Labour into power. But at the same time people do not expect things to really change much for the better even once this has happened. This results in a cycle where Labour gets voted out, but then it is: ‘Don’t rock the boat: we must get Labour back in’.

I know that Marxists are involved in the Labour Party, including, I am sure, people in this room. There is Socialist Appeal and others who would call themselves Marxists. And this is an important debate - where should Marxists be?

I think that we must create a party that is new and is not Labour. I have been involved in several attempts to do this. And these projects have failed for numerous different reasons. I am not arguing that we should attempt to jump over history, to achieve something before it is possible. I do not want to see a party trying to become electable by being popular, if that means watering down what it believes in. As I have said, the ideas of socialism can be popular. They strike a chord with working class people who want to see their lives change for the better. I think that socialists have a duty to take these ideas out in a popular form and draw people into discussions as to how society can be changed, how working people can run it themselves, how the product of their labour can benefit all, not just the few.

If socialists, together, organised to produce and popularise the propaganda, to deliver the agitation in combination with the activity, I believe we could build a significant socialist organisation in Britain, numbering in a very short space of time several thousands of people.

Left Unity

Now, the latest of these attempts is the call by Ken Loach for a new party of the left. I have read the articles in the Weekly Worker about this and I think I preferred Peter Manson’s to Paul Demarty’s, but my approach is that this is something that socialists should engage with. The Left Unity website has featured many articles written by people putting themselves forwards as points of contact for this project and describing themselves as socialists. There are articles arguing that there should be a new socialist, class-struggle organisation. And so far around 8,000 people have responded. Now, I do not know what is going to happen, but I will be arguing within it that Left Unity should adopt a socialist programme, that it should commit itself to the transformation of society. That is what I think all Marxists, all socialists should do.

Of course, there are all sorts of differences that will arise. What should its attitude to the Labour Party be? How do you relate to the trade unions, to the question of elections? What sort of activity should be organised? And so on. One thing that I am absolutely convinced about is that a new socialist party cannot emerge fully formed and fully armed like Athena from the head of Zeus. Zeus, of course, got a terrible headache, his forehead split open and out sprung Athena. That is not how a new party will emerge.

We have the headache, if you like, of how we construct this new party, and it may be that at the end of the Left Unity process we do not end up where most of us in this room would want to be. But what we can be absolutely certain of is that if those 8,000 people - and I think there are many more - have for one reason or another turned their back on the Labour Party, have not looked to the far left, have not looked to the Greens, then something is missing that we Marxists can help to deliver, bringing clarity of thought and ideas, ideas on the construction of a programme. I am not going to say what that programme should or should not contain - that is a question of debate.

There will be a process of debate and discussion over whether there should be a new party, and if so what sort of new party it should be. I will be arguing that this new party cannot just be a mildly more leftwing version of the politics that the 8,000 people rejected and I will be putting forward four basic proposals.

1. It should fundamentally be a party that proclaims the need to supersede capitalism with socialism. It should proclaim openly on its banner that it is a socialist organisation.

2. It should be an organisation that fights tooth and nail to defend working class living standards - in the workplace, at home, in all aspects of working class life. All the existing parties accept the logic of the market, of the profit system. By contrast we will have to argue that the root problem we are facing is the profit system, which needs to be replaced by socialism, through active class struggle.

3. We should fight wherever possible not only to defend, but to extend, working class rights, working class living standards and working class conditions. Any improvement under this system can only be obtained through struggle. It is never going to be conceded. Whereas democratic rights are being rolled back, we have to fight to extend them. If you want proportional representation, if you want to repeal the anti-union laws and restore the right to protest, you have to struggle for it.

4. The new party should be democratic. That for me means an individual-membership organisation, with everyone having equal rights and obligations. On disagreement and dissent, I hope the far-left approach is not carried over - whereby closed groups debate policy in secret, resulting in new lines appearing as if from nowhere; even if you are a participant in the debate, you are not allowed to say which side you are on. I do not think that in the tradition we look to this was ever how things worked in the past, but, even if it was, the conditions do not exist to justify such undemocratic practices today. The notion that somehow you can hide your differences is ridiculous. Through Facebook, the social media and so on, these are instantaneously spread around the world. This is a good thing! Thought progresses through the clash of ideas and, so long as they fit within the general line of march of the organisation, differences and dissent are no problem.

Party and strategy

The far left has become too used to working in isolation - maybe coming together reluctantly at a meeting someone has called and then handing out their separate leaflets. It reminds me of the finches observed by Darwin on the Galapagos islands - they underwent different mutations as a result of their separation on different islands, but they all remained finches. Whilst the idiosyncrasies of the far left may drive us to distraction, a period of working together in the same organisation would remove most of those idiosyncrasies and the rough edges would be smoothed over. Most of the differences that typically lead to splits are not matters of principle. Often they are purely tactical or analytical.

For me a party is needed in order to change society. How does the working class become the ruling class? I think all Marxists would agree that the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself - though many only pay lip service to this. It will not be an elite, a bureaucracy or a parliamentary majority acting on its own. It will be the working class through its own activity. I do not know the exact proportion made up by the working class in Britain today, but it must be 70% or 80% of the population. There is also a smaller, petty bourgeois class that looks both ways, and then a tiny ruling class at the top. So for socialism to come about requires a democratic transformation of society - the act of the majority.

So how does that majority act to become the ruling class? It has the numbers, so technically it could happen tomorrow. But the working class must become conscious that a fundamental breach with capitalism is necessary. To achieve that, to go from where we are with a myriad of competing sects and atomised individuals with no party, to a mass movement mobilising 30-40 million people is a monumental task. So it is a question of organising those people who agree now to become agitators for our ideas and persuade other people, and of those people then constituting a party.

The party exists to change society and the programme of the party outlines the strategy we need to carry through when we gain power. The working class, we need to explain, must become the power in society and implement its programme to begin to change society - beginnings which will lay the basis for a completely different form of society, without exploitation and classes.

I will finish on this point - why is it that the NHS is held by most people in such reverence and affection? I think it is because it encapsulates in a certain way the embryo of the future society, of what it could be. Everyone pays in according to what they earn and then they take out what they need. You may have been on benefits and have paid very little in terms of national insurance, but if you have cancer you get treatment. The NHS exists in the here and now, and people understand that the needs of society are much more important than the profits of the few. The NHS presages, if you like, that society that we define with the well known aphorism: “From each according to their ability; to each according to their needs”.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

"So we need to try and find a way where Marxists can work together, but also a way by which the ideas of Marxism, the ideas of socialism, are taken out to more and more people, not just the existing far left. For me it’s not a question of a person being recruited from one far left group to another, which frankly would be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic".

I think this is a very good point, what the CPGB seems to do at this moment is focus on other parties while forgetting the need of recruiting new members. I think their lack of focus on recruiting new members might explain why their membership is not only tiny but also stagnant and why their message of communist unity is largely ignored by others on the left.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If Left Unity orients itself away from trade unions and incorporates more issues of "freeters" and similar precarious workers, the CPGB will face the fork in the road of working more with the unions-based Labour Party or with a fresh Continental upstart.

[Q]

If Left Unity orients itself away from trade unions and incorporates more issues of "freeters" and similar precarious workers, the CPGB will face the fork in the road of working more with the unions-based Labour Party or with a fresh Continental upstart.

Knowing the British left, there's only a slim chance that we see a revival of Chartist traditions. But even if it would I don't see this as an either-or question: The Labour party remains a mass force and needs to be engaged with, while contributing at the same time towards a neo-Chartist formation.

[Tower of Bebel]

I don't know about these repeated efforts to propagate the supersession of the sect mentality. To try to do away with the 'sects' or to try to convene the 'Communist Party' in the here and now equals the urge to demand to 'abolish capitalism' or to 'struggle for socialism' in the here and now. While it's excellent that you express your goals, the mere declaration of these demands or goals doesn't get you anywhere. You'll need to construct bridges too and explain yourself while doing it.

[The Idler]

From a report of a meeting with Nick Wrack on 23 March 2013
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/independent-socialist-network-lets-get-party-started-23-march-2013-va#comment-5409

the chair asked those round the table to say not just who they were but who they represented. As soon as we said we were from the Socialist Party, the real one, the main speaker (Nick Wrack) interrupted to say we couldn't stay. We didn't have an objection as we had come under a misunderstanding and said so and left without creating a fuss.The explanation Wrack gave that "this is not a meeting for political parties" wasn't the real reason, at least not for him. For him (ex-Militant, ex-Socialist Alliance, ex-Respect) it would have been because we were "the SPGB". If we'd been some other party or group, I'm sure they would have been pleased to let us stay. As it was there was a representative of the "Anti-Capitalist Initiative" (a breakaway from Workers Power, it was actually, for the sake of trainspotters here, Simon Hardy himself, their main theoretician) and Lewisham People before Profits. But what was revealing was that Wrack had just given a talk in which he called for a new, open, democratic Leftwing party that wouldn't be structured like the SWP or SPEW and here he was insisting on a secret meeting. We were even asked to hand back the documents that had been on the table before us.
What we learned was that Wrack had come to the conclusion that TUSC was not going to be the new Leftwing party he wanted (because it was controlled by SPEW) and that what was needed was a new party which individual "independent socialists" could join. I'm not revealing any secret here as he's already stated this on his blog. One of the documents we'd have liked to have taken away was the Minutes of the last meeting of the TUSC Steering Committee. I can't remember what it said now but I think one of the decisions was to refuse an application to join TUSC from "Socialist Resistance (http://socialistresistance.org/)", another Trotskyist group (the old IMG). Apparently Bob Crowe and the RMT don't want more Trotskyist groups to join. Can't say I blame him as they've all got their own agenda.

[Q]

From a report of a meeting with Nick Wrack on 23 March 2013
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/independent-socialist-network-lets-get-party-started-23-march-2013-va#comment-5409

That's actually a side of Nick I haven't seen before. Where does this animosity towards the SPGB come from?

[The Idler]

That's actually a side of Nick I haven't seen before. Where does this animosity towards the SPGB come from?
Sectarianism? I am willing to be corrected on this.

[Q]

Sectarianism? I am willing to be corrected on this.

But why specifically to the SPGB, as your quote suggests?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Knowing the British left, there's only a slim chance that we see a revival of Chartist traditions. But even if it would I don't see this as an either-or question: The Labour party remains a mass force and needs to be engaged with, while contributing at the same time towards a neo-Chartist formation.

(In the context of Chartalism and Continentalism: ) Yes, but it needs to be engaged with as a (social-)corporatist political competitor, not as a potential partner. Sorry, but when even Guy Standing becomes more wary of Labourism in general (the obvious rightward trajectory, the "manual working class" tradition and stigma, and the trade union links), a substitute is required.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The Labour party remains a mass force and needs to be engaged with, while contributing at the same time towards a neo-Chartist formation.

I disagree, at this point Labour has existed for 100 years now and it's message has been so far removed from the context of class orietented politics that I think it's safe to say that they probably have a similar amount of working class members as the Tories. Besides, almost every other sect has tried this strategy of half entryism or full on entryism and it never accomplished anything other than getting the most unsavory elements of labor aristocratic ideology entrenched within the party buearcracy, such as what we saw with the tragic case of the SWP.

[helot]

The Labour party remains a mass force and needs to be engaged with, while contributing at the same time towards a neo-Chartist formation.

Why does the labour party need to be engaged with? It's a force of recuperation at best. Their aim is to dominate any movements with legitimate greivances, undermine any potential for actual struggle and channel it into votes for their pissing contest as to which party can manage capitalism better. It saddens me that this has to be spelt out to revolutionaries because the simple fact is even workers without any sort of developed class consciousness are aware the labour party doesn't give a fuck about them and never will.

[bcbm]

i just skimmed, is there anything new in this? seems like we get about a dozen of these every year

[The Idler]

But why specifically to the SPGB, as your quote suggests?
I wasn't one of the attendees and the report mentions no political criticism.

An argument could be made that by "transcending sects" Nick means "marginalising sects other than ones willing to join/support his own" but I would rather Nick answer himself.

Its kind of the reversal of most sects mentality. Most sects argue responsibility only to their members (and in some cases just their leadership). Nick is effectively arguing (I think) for a group to have responsibility to the class over and above the members. You can see how down the line, this can lead to reforms for the sake of popularity. The point is why can't you have both responsibility to members and the class? Supporting the working-class activity but being open about proposing your own policy as agreed by members.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think there's a cart before the horse type thing when it comes to a lot of arguments like this. To have a mass revolutionary party, there has to be a mass of revolutionary workers.

It's much easier to work with other Leftists when there is something we mutually want to work on. Although there was sniping and sectarian back-stabbing to an extent in Occupy among the radical left (which makes sectarianism really stand out because it's more obvious when someone is just trying to trash political opponent irregardless of value/detriment to the overall movement), the existance of a movement made political arguments much firmer and it was easier to identify who was on the same side - either momentarilly or in a larger sense. That was just a small movement, but in a larger more sustained movement with more of the working class as an independant force, will mean that our arguments will probably be more intense, but collaboration will also be more possible.

[bcbm]

it seems like this is a pretty near constant thing on the left of 'hey lets get past the bullshit and unite...' around (me/my idea/my party/whatever) and nothing ever goes anywhere because its not a real idea, but just a way to get more members to whatever bullshit formation that is, has been and will continue to be irrelevant. ill grant im coming from the most cynical, pessimistic portion of 'the left' but i just dont feel like one or a dozen moonbats from within the left trying to articulate how their clique can win mass appeal is going to ever amount to jackshit. it seems to me to be incredibly lazy and blaming what is happening within the pro-revolutionary movement on purely internal factors rather than trying to come to an understanding of the world around them

[Flying Purple People Eater]

it seems like this is a pretty near constant thing on the left of 'hey lets get past the bullshit and unite...' around (me/my idea/my party/whatever) and nothing ever goes anywhere because its not a real idea, but just a way to get more members to whatever bullshit formation that is, has been and will continue to be irrelevant. ill grant im coming from the most cynical, pessimistic portion of 'the left' but i just dont feel like one or a dozen moonbats from within the left trying to articulate how their clique can win mass appeal is going to ever amount to jackshit.

You could say this about every political movement in the world. All you'll ever be doing is fulfilling a self-made prophecy.

Besides, this is hardly the CPGB shilling for new members, especially considering how it's on the groups' little irrelevant website as you know full-well already. It's a criticism of what other groups have done historically. That's far less moonbatty then sitting in a basement, waving a plasticine red flag and 'waiting for the great simultaneous mobilisation of class-consciousness.'


it seems to me to be incredibly lazy and blaming what is happening within the pro-revolutionary movement on purely internal factors rather than trying to come to an understanding of the world around them

Could you be more specific? Because from where I'm standing, this sounds like posturing. Opinions and movements are shaped by the world around them. Does that mean you can't criticize them? If you are not a member of a mass, militant movement spanning the globe, can you not put forward a beneficial argument on the grounds of it being irrelevant?

Fucking hell, why can't we have open discussion on this without some smartarses coming along and firing salvos of repudiation and 'prolier than thou' crap in the way of a meaningful, non-condescending discussion? Even the fucking mods have a fetish for it, seems.

[bcbm]

You could say this about every political movement in the world. All you'll ever be doing is fulfilling a self-made prophecy.

my predictions make a bunch of blowhards irrelevant? doesnt seem likely, seems like the 'fault' is somewhere else to me


Besides, this is hardly the CPGB shilling for new members, especially considering how it's on the groups' little irrelevant website as you know full-well already.

actually i specifically stated i skimmed this because we see about a dozen of these every year and i doubt they have anything to offer, so i specifically asked what is 'new' in this


It's a criticism of what other groups have done historically. That's far less moonbatty then sitting in a basement, waving a plasticine red flag and 'waiting for the great simultaneous mobilisation of class-consciousness.'

except every group and their mother has a criticism of what 'other groups have done historically,' and i would never fly a red flag. and i have no idea what you're even quoting and accusing me of (??)


Could you be more specific?

everyone says 'if we do this different, we'll get results,' except (i assume from my time on the left and reviewing its history) they have been trying different approaches for decades and all of the 'strategies' to renew the left never amount to shit. why is that?


Because from where I'm standing, this sounds like posturing.

why would i need to try to 'posture' against decades of perpetual losers?


Opinions and movements are shaped by the world around them.

sometimes i wonder, actually.


Does that mean you can't criticize them? If you are not a member of a mass, militant movement spanning the globe, can you not put forward a beneficial argument on the grounds of it being irrelevant?

'beneficial'?


Fucking hell, why can't we have open discussion on this without some smartarses coming along and firing salvos of repudiation and 'prolier than thou' crap in the way of a meaningful, non-condescending discussion? Even the fucking mods have a fetish for it, seems.

god forbid reality get in the way of discussion

[Jimmie Higgins]

Could you be more specific? Because from where I'm standing, this sounds like posturing. Opinions and movements are shaped by the world around them. Does that mean you can't criticize them? If you are not a member of a mass, militant movement spanning the globe, can you not put forward a beneficial argument on the grounds of it being irrelevant?

Fucking hell, why can't we have open discussion on this without some smartarses coming along and firing salvos of repudiation and 'prolier than thou' crap in the way of a meaningful, non-condescending discussion? Even the fucking mods have a fetish for it, seems.

Although I think that I am maybe less pessimistic or nihilistic in my outlook than bcmb, I also agree with what I think he's getting at. While there are subjective things radicals might do today to make small changes to imporove their relationship to struggles and working class communities, to increase the credibility of revolutionary ideas to a small degree, the overall impasse is lack of working class movements. No matter how well we present our ideas or no matter how good of a role we might play in moving an induvidual struggle forward, a working class movement is not going to materialize out of these efforts alone.

I'd add that because of this situation that radicals have little ability to develop and test out their ideas and practice to the extent that solid generalized connections to workers are established (like in the past when people, in the US, might have thought to turn to the IWW or CP for support in fighting back) this has resulted in the "sect-ism" of the left. There are a bunch of radicals with various ideas, little connection to class struggles (not for lack of trying but for lack of advancing struggle in many places), and few ways to test and learn and generalize that learning in practical struggle; so marxists tend to group-up based on different theorehtical affinity groups and anarchist tend to group-up based on tactical affinities.

The large federations, parties, and Internationals that developed historically were part of networking existing movenents in countries where large reformist (with revolutionary sections) workers movements already existed. In the US, the Socialist Party was the networking together of trade-union forces, quazi populist middle-class socialists, and small marxist groups; the IWW was the networking of revolutionary left-Socialist Party members, anarchists, and left-union militant groups. If there were anarchist and marxist groupings today with thousands of members each and credibility with tens of thousands more allies and hundreds of thousands of sympathisers alltogether, then if there was some convergence of outlook on basic tasks a larger formation or party of some kind might be something with a much larger pull than the sum of it's parts.

[blake 3:17]

@Q -- this is what I signed up for in 94. Not word for word, but that's the point. Sweating the small differences is just insane.

There are principled reasons to split or expel or resign, but if we're in 90% agreement, move on.

@JH -- I think you're reading tea leaves here, in a way similar to folks I've given up on recently. "The conjuncture"? I know you're not like that. Relatively isolated struggles, and ones that aren't exclusively working class, can snowball into massive struggles for social justice and, hopefully, for socialism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

@JH -- I think you're reading tea leaves here, in a way similar to folks I've given up on recently. "The conjuncture"? I know you're not like that. Relatively isolated struggles, and ones that aren't exclusively working class, can snowball into massive struggles for social justice and, hopefully, for socialism.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. From skimming the article it seemed like the argument was: Objective conditions mean socialism is more necissary than ever; we are too divided and therfore people don't become socialists. I disagree with this premise (for why people aren't becoming socialists) and therefore that creating such a formation now will solve the issues it's argued to solve (lack of connection to the working class).

Many of the things suggested I totally agree with: I don't think there's a real practical difference between, for example, "beurocratic state" or "state-capitalist" ideas and we do need to be outward and trying to organically connect to what struggles there are. We can and should have more collaboration and jettison inwardness and abstract ideological "purity". There are things we can do to place radical politics in a better position, but I don't think that how we arrange the chairs will create an audience out of nothing. Basically I think sect-ness is a symptom of our isolation, not the cause of it and so I'm unconvinced of the seeming "automatic" connection to the class that re-organizing the existing left would supposedly create. It's like taking all the sails from a stranded flotilla and making one larger sail with them for a larger ship when the problem is that there's little wind to begin with.

[vizzek]

words

i think bcbm hit the nail on the head. it's a lot easier to stand up and talk about how your sect is ideologically superior to others, or how all you want is leftist unity against capitalism, or how we need a different strategy, than it is to recognize your own irrelevance. us 'cynics' (nice user title btw) have all been voluntarist at one point; we've all waved red flags, or broken windows, or sold papers thinking we could change the world. even if you could get the entire left to agree, that still wouldn't make you any more appealing to the working class. you guys just need to realize that no one cares about you anymore.


Fucking hell, why can't we have open discussion on this without some smartarses coming along and firing salvos of repudiation and 'prolier than thou' crap in the way of a meaningful, non-condescending discussion? Even the fucking mods have a fetish for it, seems.

lol, bcbm isnt spouting 'prolier than thou' crap. that's exactly what you're doing bud. the left, and especially the left unity crowd, thinks they deserve some special place in the world just because they have superior ideas and politics. there is nothing more elitist than that.

[The Idler]

I agree that division itself isn't a reason people aren't convinced - especially given that division doesn't seem to affect christian religious denominations with minor differences over biblical interpretation.

Sect-ness is not a symptom but a cause of isolation. Waiting for the tide is determinist and does not address questions of organisation.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Although I think that I am maybe less pessimistic or nihilistic in my outlook than bcmb, I also agree with what I think he's getting at. While there are subjective things radicals might do today to make small changes to imporove their relationship to struggles and working class communities, to increase the credibility of revolutionary ideas to a small degree, the overall impasse is lack of working class movements. No matter how well we present our ideas or no matter how good of a role we might play in moving an induvidual struggle forward, a working class movement is not going to materialize out of these efforts alone.

I'd add that because of this situation that radicals have little ability to develop and test out their ideas and practice to the extent that solid generalized connections to workers are established (like in the past when people, in the US, might have thought to turn to the IWW or CP for support in fighting back) this has resulted in the "sect-ism" of the left. There are a bunch of radicals with various ideas, little connection to class struggles (not for lack of trying but for lack of advancing struggle in many places), and few ways to test and learn and generalize that learning in practical struggle; so marxists tend to group-up based on different theorehtical affinity groups and anarchist tend to group-up based on tactical affinities.

The large federations, parties, and Internationals that developed historically were part of networking existing movenents in countries where large reformist (with revolutionary sections) workers movements already existed. In the US, the Socialist Party was the networking together of trade-union forces, quazi populist middle-class socialists, and small marxist groups; the IWW was the networking of revolutionary left-Socialist Party members, anarchists, and left-union militant groups. If there were anarchist and marxist groupings today with thousands of members each and credibility with tens of thousands more allies and hundreds of thousands of sympathisers alltogether, then if there was some convergence of outlook on basic tasks a larger formation or party of some kind might be something with a much larger pull than the sum of it's parts.
If anything, I think you are understating your point here, comrade. And although there was "more going on," around the beginning of the 20th century, look at where most of it went. The SPUSA was a hodgepodge of revolutionaries, reformists, populists and downright racist scoundrels. Like almost all the parties of the Second International, they were part of the problem, not the solution. As for the IWW, they have a far less tarnished reputation -- sure as hell was not a place for careerists -- but they had few answers. They led strikes fought by some very downtrodden section of the proletariat, but without any forward looking plan about what to do if the strikes succeeded (or failed). And I would agree, that we are in worse straits then at that time -- with regard to the subjective criteria for revolution.

People's frustration with the number of small sects that exist is understandable. But program is the most important thing. History is littered with many, some quite large, groupings that either did nothing for, or even sabotaged, revolution. The "movement" coming out of the sixties did shit, because it was led by reformists for the most part -- in the US most of it was simply absorbed into the Democratic Party. If you want to make a revolution start with the idea that you got a lot of work to do, there are no shortcuts, and get-rich-schemes will lead anywhere but to revolution. When the tide of revolution starts to come in, a lot of the small differences will be ironed out.

[Art Vandelay]

you guys just need to realize that no one cares about you anymore.

Do you really think anyone on the left has illusions of grandeur? Seriously we know how irrelevant we are. The difference of opinion seems to be that some of us would like to do whatever we can to attempt to change that, while others just fall into deep cynicism and nihilism (hardly productive, whatever the results the left has, its not like the cynics are doing any better).

[Fionnagáin]

Isn't the assumption that superseding the sects is something that "we" must do, something that will result from refined strategy and theory, the reason why the revolutionary left is in this ridiculous position to start with? By hanging the weight on self-appointed revolutionaries, and not on the self-organised working class, all Wrack does is reproduce the logic of the sects with a more conciliatory inflection. Social revolution isn't posed here as a matter of the self-activity of the working class, but of the policies of the left, as detached from any concrete historical agency as a libertarian plea for free-market wonderlands.

Wrack describes the development of a communist movement in terms of the need "to go from where we are with a myriad of competing sects and atomised individuals with no party, to a mass movement mobilising 30-40 million people". At best, this is historical illiteracy, an assumption that because certain major historical revolutionary movements where organised under the banner of a once-marginal organisation, it follows that those movements were the extension of that organisation to a mass-movement, and consequently that any future mass-movement means the extension of whatever revolutionary nub-parties we have to hand. At worst, its blatant substitution, the posing of "the Left" as the revolutionary agent and the working class as a mere constituency, and the "mass-movement" in question no more vital than the representative "mass" parties and unions of the bourgeois and social democratic left.

[vizzek]

Do you really think anyone on the left has illusions of grandeur?
not everyone on the left, but a lot.


Seriously we know how irrelevant we are. The difference of opinion seems to be that some of us would like to do whatever we can to attempt to change that, while others just fall into deep cynicism and nihilism (hardly productive, whatever the results the left has, its not like the cynics are doing any better).

so how do you plan on becoming relevant? putting up fliers? intervening at public events? selling papers? i've done all. i've seen people walk by without a care in the world, maybe 1 or 2 new people per year. i don't see how any left sect is going to achieve prominence anywhere in the world today. capital has constricted our lives to the point where we dont have time to care about politics, or read up on the different tendencies, or read marx, or compare and contrast revolutionary strategies, whatever the left prescribes to the working class for revolution. i think, if it ever happens, communism will come through action outside of politics. that is all that capitalism has allowed the working class.

[Fionnagáin]

(I'm sorta getting the impression that a lot of people here don't really know what "cynical" means, they just know it's vaguely associated with pessimism. Ultra-lefts are accused of being hopelessly cynical in one breath and unreasonably idealistic in the next, which doesn't really make sense. I suppose one could argue that the contradiction is in ultra-left theory rather than the critique of it, but given that one of the central points of critique is that we place too much focus on consistency of principle over practical activity, I don't think that explanation is very convincing.)

[Art Vandelay]

so how do you plan on becoming relevant? putting up fliers? intervening at public events? selling papers? i've done all. i've seen people walk by without a care in the world, maybe 1 or 2 new people per year. i don't see how any left sect is going to achieve prominence anywhere in the world today. capital has constricted our lives to the point where we dont have time to care about politics, or read up on the different tendencies, or read marx, or compare and contrast revolutionary strategies, whatever the left prescribes to the working class for revolution. i think, if it ever happens, communism will come through action outside of politics. that is all that capitalism has allowed the working class.

Fair enough, but then what is the solution? Do we just sit around and wait for the day that the revolution comes? Do we just say fuck it, nothing we can do will help, so we might as well not try? I mean that just seems incredibly pessimistic to me. As for tactics, I'm not entirely sure what we need to do. I still have lots to learn and most of that learning will come through praxis. That being said, as a member of the working class, I'm not just going to sit on my ass, despite being a class conscious Marxist, while capital continues its destruction of the planet.

I mean coming from your perspective, seeing as how as we apparently can't have any positive effect on the class struggle, it would lead me to the logical conclusion, that one should simply attempt to make their life under capitalism as comfortable as personally possible, not seek to help organize our class to overcome it.

[Fionnagáin]

There's a difference between saying that we, as "revolutionaries", cannot have any real impact on class struggle at a general level, and saying that we, as workers, cannot have any real impact on class struggle at an immediate level. It's not a choice between taking all of history onto your shoulders or retreating into fatalism, but a matter of knowing what you can do within your own life, of what real (as opposed to merely declared) action is possible. For most people, even at the best of times, that's going to limited. No sense getting pissed at people for realising that, and trying to reconcile their hatred of capitalist life with the modesty of their expectations.

You ask, "what is the solution?", but who ever said that there is such a thing as "the solution"? What there is, is class struggle, something which follows its own logic and issues its own demands, with supreme contempt for the strategic ambitions of the self-declared revolutionary.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

it seems like this is a pretty near constant thing on the left of 'hey lets get past the bullshit and unite...' around (me/my idea/my party/whatever) and nothing ever goes anywhere because its not a real idea, but just a way to get more members to whatever bullshit formation that is, has been and will continue to be irrelevant. ill grant im coming from the most cynical, pessimistic portion of 'the left' but i just dont feel like one or a dozen moonbats from within the left trying to articulate how their clique can win mass appeal is going to ever amount to jackshit. it seems to me to be incredibly lazy and blaming what is happening within the pro-revolutionary movement on purely internal factors rather than trying to come to an understanding of the world around them

Hm. Funny you didn't mention "Class", uniting the Class. Ya know, kinda the whole history beyond political Parties.

[Art Vandelay]

There's a difference between saying that we, as "revolutionaries", cannot have any real impact on class struggle at a general level, and saying that we, as workers, cannot have any real impact on class struggle at an immediate level. It's not a choice between taking all of history onto your shoulders or retreating into fatalism, but a matter of knowing what you can do within your own life, of what real (as opposed to merely declared) action is possible. For most people, even at the best of times, that's going to limited. No sense getting pissed at people for realising that, and trying to reconcile their hatred of capitalist life with the modesty of their expectations.

You ask, "what is the solution?", but who ever said that there is such a thing as "the solution"? What there is, is class struggle, something which follows its own logic and issues its own demands, with supreme contempt for the strategic ambitions of the self-declared revolutionary.

But where did I say anything that was unmodest? As I've already explicitly stated, I have no illusions of grandeur. What I do proclaim, is that I'm going to do my best to help to try and organize my class for the surpassing of the capitalist mode of production, to engage positively in the class struggle and I don't appreciate being shit on by armchair theorists, who simply want to sit in their chairs and frown upon people actually trying to make a difference. This has nothing to do with my expectations being un-modest, or me failing to realize my contribution will be limited.

[Fionnagáin]

But where did I say anything that was unmodest? As I've already explicitly stated, I have no illusions of grandeur. What I do proclaim, is that I'm going to do my best to help to try and organize my class for the surpassing of the capitalist mode of production, to engage positively in the class struggle and I don't appreciate being shit on by armchair theorists, who simply want to sit in their chairs and frown upon people actually trying to make a difference. This has nothing to do with my expectations being un-modest, or me failing to realize my contribution will be limited.
"Help to try and organize my class for the surpassing of the capitalist mode of production", "engage positively in the class struggle", "make a difference"; these aren't phrases that mean anything. They're vague aspirational slogans, they don't refer to anything concrete. How am I supposed to respond to that?


Hm. Funny you didn't mention "Class", uniting the Class. Ya know, kinda the whole history beyond political Parties.
Wasn't the absence of meaningful class politics in the "revolutionary" milieu the very point he was making?

[Martin Blank]

You cannot "supersede the sects" by simply creating a larger sect, which is what is being proposed here. All of these efforts at creating "left unity" are little more than exercises in how to more effectively impose their sectarian principles on the working class.

Internally, "left unity" is a process of maneuvering and jockeying for positions on the Central Committee, for control of the Central Organ, for "authoritative leadership" in an organization where little trust and even less political clarity exists. Externally, "left unity" seeks to impose organizational doctrine on the workers' movement, even when that doctrine bears no relation to the class itself.

“Once unified, doctrinaire ‘principles’ are not put in their proper place; they are synthesized to meet the wishes of a majority of its members and thrust upon the proletariat with renewed vigor. Doctrine is not subordinated to the demands of the class struggle, but the other way around ... and with greater strength.” — General Platform of the Workers Party in America

A lion is not a big house cat, someone once told me. And that is what is being advocated here: the birth of yet another big house cat. As we've seen with many attempts at genetic manipulation in the past, the bigger it gets, the more freakish and frightening it becomes.

What is the alternative? Consistent work in the class struggle that is consistently based on the communist program. No half-measures, no "transitional" trickery, no opportunistic coalitionism (also known as "creating a 'united front' by uniting your front groups"). Such work and organizing will draw together those elements that agree with a communist program, even if they are in different organizations. Joint activity on a communist basis will place doctrinaire differences in their proper context (i.e., subordinated to the demands of the class struggle), paving the way for a merger sometime in the future.

[Q]

What do we hope will come out of the May 11 Left Unity conference? Following Nick Wrack’s speech at the April 27 London Communist Forum, Jack Conrad replied for the CPGB (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/961/left-unity-the-spirit-of-45). This is an edited version of his response.


Nick Wrack says he agrees with much of the CPGB’s Draft programme and for my part I agree with much of what he is saying.1 So we can call this a discussion rather than a debate, because I am genuinely interested in achieving a convergence of viewpoints.

Let us begin with the Left Unity project. We have written to the organisers of Left Unity asking for observer status and speaking rights at the May 11 conference (see p3). We want to attend the conference and speak with an authoritative voice. We have not attempted to get as many delegates there as possible - that would not be the right approach. So in the spirit of left unity hopefully the comrades will welcome our request.

As Nick was saying, if a new unity project comes into being which has any sort of viability, it is obligatory for Marxists to engage with it. It has to be said that our experience has largely been negative. Disappointment and disenchantment with the Labour Party, exemplified by 8,000 signing up in support of the Left Unity statement, is hardly new. For example, when Arthur Scargill broke from the Labour Party the potential existed to immediately rally many thousands. But Scargill did not want any of the groups. He wanted to be the unchallenged labour dictator.

So when in 1996 the Socialist Labour Party was launched, Scargill began it with a witch-hunt. The first SLP conference was open to anyone - except stationed at the door were people from a curious organisation called the Fourth International Supporters Caucus. And what were they there for? To keep out members of the CPGB! Well, a lot of our comrades got in anyway - the doorkeepers did not know every face. Because of that, Scargill got a couple of prominent leftwing lawyers to write his party’s rules. The SLP’s rulebook contained clauses specifically designed to keep the communists out. Clauses which were almost borrowed word for word from Labour. So the SLP was eerily like the Labour Party, except that it banned and excluded the communists on day one rather than after 20 years.

The most farcical of the SLP’s anti-democratic practices was Scargill’s use of the bloc vote of an ‘affiliated organisation’ - the North West, Cheshire and Cumbria Miners Association, made up of retired members of the National Union of Mineworkers. If conference looked as though it would vote the ‘wrong’ way, Arthur would ensure with just a nod and a wink that the NWCCMA delegates put their 3,000 votes to good use.

But the main thing to criticise about the SLP concerns its reformist political basis. And we could make the same criticism about subsequent organisations. Namely, the Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party, Respect and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition.

Not in front of the children

There is an extraordinary paradox. As capitalism has gone into deeper and deeper into crisis, not only have we seen the Labour Party move further and further to the right, along with the whole of bourgeois society: the left itself has also been moving to the right.

And it is common sense amongst comrades on the left that, while within the privacy of our own groups we can talk about Marxism, socialism, the history of our movement and the difficult ideas it has grappled with, when it comes to the ‘children’ - that is, the working class, a class that is meant to liberate itself - we pretend, especially when standing in elections, that really we are just like Labour used to be. That we are committed to a parliamentary road to socialism, to welfarism, to some sort of Keynesian golden age: in short that we are born-again Labourites.

Now, I am not arguing that we ought to stand under a banner which simply reads ‘Revolution now!’ In fact we do stand for reforms. Quite clearly we are not in a revolutionary situation and in terms of readying our class to become the ruling class reforms are essential. We must have more democracy, we must have more power within capitalism. So it is not an argument about reform or revolution: it is an argument about what sort of reforms we want and how we go about getting them. That is the question.

Within the Socialist Alliance the CPGB put forward the proposal that our election manifesto should prioritise democratic questions - eg, annual parliaments, abolition of the monarchy and House of Lords, self-determination for Wales and Scotland, a united Ireland, opposition to immigrations controls, scrapping the standing army, establishing a system of local workers’ militias, etc. We were told that this was “too radical” (Weyman Bennett). The SWP was in firm control and it insisted on what we would call economism; ie, improving the terms and conditions of a slave class which cannot see beyond capitalism. The idea was that we should limit our demands to simple proposals, around which the working class can be mobilised into militant action: pay, hours, the NHS and other such questions. Democracy is far too complex.

Indeed, whenever the left has supported unity projects, its comrades have almost invariably put forward programmes far to the right of where they themselves formally stand. That, for me, is another paradox.

The most extreme example was Respect. The SWP killed off the Socialist Alliance just as the anti-war movement was reaching mass dimensions. It refused to countenance the Socialist Alliance alternative to war: instead it threw its weight behind what was to become Respect. A party that was initially premised on uniting socialists with greens and Muslims, crucially the Muslim Association of Britain (the British branch of the Muslim Brotherhood). Although the greens never came on board and the Muslims who did were always equivocal, that perspective says everything about how far to the right the left had gone. After all, a party which stands in elections is putting itself forward as a potential party of government. Presumably, though it has never been theorised, or even admitted, the SWP envisaged a grand coalition that would lead to a Respect stage of capitalism (only then could socialism be envisaged). The Stalinists called it a popular front that joined the working class organisations with progressive elements of the petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie. But, whether you call it a popular front or Respect, the programmatic dynamics are exactly the same.

And we all know that under the leadership of the SWP the Respect project ended up dumping one principle after another. For example, the SWP itself is historically wedded to a “democratic, secular, one-state” solution for Israel/Palestine. But come Respect we had the SWP’s Elane Heffernan get up to successfully oppose the adoption of secularism. Not only in Britain - that would supposedly put off religious people. But when it came to Israel/Palestine too.

The SWP behaved in exactly the same fashion over the question of abortion. When we put forward a resolution that would have committed Respect to a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, we were told by comrades in the SWP that this was not something that voters ‘on the doorstep’ were bringing up. True, in the end there was a political fudge and the phrase, ‘a woman’s right to choose’, was included in Respect’s election manifesto - except that what women had a right to choose was left out! The clause could be interpreted as the right of Muslim women to wear a headscarf.

Apparently Respect needed to base its programme not on what conference delegates thought and believed. No, what was important, what should decide, is what the “millions out there” will agree with. A crass form of opportunist surrender. The reality was that the SWP killed off one principle after another in order to appease Muslim clerics, MAB, George Galloway, Yvonne Ridley, Salma Yaqoob and all those who stood on the right of Respect. Not because of their voting strength at conference. At the end of the day, the right set the political agenda because of its ties with bourgeois society, because what it says echoes the media’s common sense. Of course, exactly the same happened with the popular fronts of ‘official communism’.

Indeed that has been the history of the unity projects thus far. The right wing always sets the agenda, even when the right is actually in a tiny minority. The left, rather than putting forward its own programme, agrees to water it down. That is certainly the case with Tusc. Last year, Socialism Today, the magazine of the Socialist Party in England and Wales, featured a debate between SPEW’s Clive Heemskerk and the left journalist, Owen Jones. Comrade Heemskerk boasted about the success and potential of Tusc, comparing it with the early Labour Party.

Crucial for him was the support Tusc had gathered from the trade union movement. Support which he suggested was bound to grow. And towards that end he assured the trade union bureaucrats who apparently will soon be decamping from the Labour Party and eagerly knocking on Tusc’s door, that they will be in charge. They will certainly set the programmatic limits. In his own words, “the trade union leaders that are involved in Tusc have a veto over what’s decided, because Tusc operates on a consensus basis - in other words, they have ownership of Tusc”.2 So, the RMT, Tusc’s only union affiliate, can veto any decision, just like the NWCCMA (in reality Arthur Scargill) could in the SLP. Before any policy is adopted in Tusc, SPEW has to approach RMT general secretary Bob Crow and humbly ask, ‘Is that all right, brother Bob?’

Left unity

So I am glad that comrade Wrack is going into Left Unity, just as we in the CPGB will do, armed with the idea that any Left Unity programme should explicitly state that it is about superseding capitalism. With that in mind it is also vital to stress internationalism. Socialism cannot be achieved in Britain alone. Nor can it be achieved even in Europe alone - though I think we need a bold, pan-European strategic perspective. Socialism is the task of the working class of all countries; socialism is the total transformation of all existing conditions. So, yes, we must argue in Left Unity for a clear programme that commits us to the global supersession of capitalism. Of course, we have to defend and advance the existing gains of the working class. But that can best be done through a class struggle that does not stop at the shores of Britain.

Given the negative experience of the SLP, the Socialist Alliance, Respect and Tusc, it is vital that any new party is thoroughly democratic. Not just ‘one member, one vote’: the rights of minorities to organise and to publicly express their views must be explicitly recognised. In the same spirit there must be transparency when it comes to political differences, programmatic and theoretical arguments at the top. The presently constituted left is absolutely mad. Too often it is organised into what we have dubbed ‘confessional sects’. Every member is expected to publicly ‘agree’ with the line (even if they do not).

I can remember one group changing its attitude to the Soviet Union. After the fall of the USSR the comrades debated whether or not the successor countries remained “workers’ states”. For many years the old line prevailed - yes, they were “workers’ states” because over 51% of the economy remained nationalised. A stupid idea, only rectified when the minority became the majority. But all of that was kept secret, kept internal. In other words, for years those who led what was the minority had lied to the working class (or at least those who took notice of the group’s pronouncements). However, once the minority became the majority it was now the turn of the new minority to parrot the latest ‘truth’ (even though they might still be committed to the old line). What nonsense. What an insult to the science of Marxism. How can we ever expect to be taken seriously with such a ridiculous method?

No, that is not how the left should behave. Of course, if it comes to organising an armed uprising on Wednesday at 3pm, then obviously we think such things should be kept quiet. But the nature of the Soviet Union? Such a question, like differing explanations for the present crisis, like the nature of the Labour Party, like the attitude towards feminism, ought to be debated openly. Anything else is bonkers.

So, yes, transparency in terms of debate. And the right to organise platforms, the right of those platforms to get publicity in the party’s press - for us these are basic principles.

And that is why I for one am worried. Of course, Left Unity has not even had its first conference, but at the moment it is being promoted on the basis that it is inspired by Ken Loach’s film, The spirit of ’45. Ken Loach is not just one of the initiators of Left Unity, it seems. Left Unity is the party of his film. To me this is hopeless. Looking back to 1945 is not about learning from history. It is about being determined to repeat the mistakes of the past. Such politics are bound to fail, even when it comes to defending existing gains from the ongoing attacks of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat privatisers. That does not mean that Left Unity should be dismissed as not being ‘pure’ enough. But it shows us the nature of the task we have in front of us. In other words, communists and revolutionary socialists should join with their eyes open. We have been here before and, given the balance of political forces, we should expect a hard fight.

Marxism

In terms of its fundamental propositions Marxism is extraordinarily simple. Marxism can be grasped by anyone. Marxism can be summed up by saying that the working class needs democracy in the state and its own organisations, that the whole of society must be run from below according to the principle of need, not profit. That is easy to understand.

But in terms of building a Marxist party we must begin in a fundamentally different way. A Marxist party is not built on the basis of going out and getting thousands of signatures. Nor is it built through activity for the sake of activity. Nor is it built by smoothing over differences, fudging the 20% where we differ in favour of unity around the 80% where we agree (or some such other rotten formulation). The Marxist party is built top-down. It is built through the struggle for the correct theory and the correct politics. It is built around its programme. Not, it should be emphasised, the programme of warmed over social democracy. But the sort of minimum-maximum programme the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party had. In other words, not a confession of faith, but a statement of basic principles and a practical, testable, road map which can take us from the hell hole of capitalism to the high heavens of communism and human liberation.

So Marxist parties must be built top-down, around a historically informed and fully theoretised programme.

The CPGB has its Draft programme, and the word ‘draft’ is not used accidentally. It is there in order to make a very important point. We may have the name, Communist Party of Great Britain, but we are not a party. The word ‘party’ is derived from ‘part’: ie, part of the class. And a Marxist party must by definition be based on the advanced part of the working class. At present the CPGB is simply one of many different groups on the left and, even if the existing left was to unite into single organisation, in itself that would not constitute a party in the genuine sense.

Our Draft programme is actually what we bring to all unity projects. We do so not as an ultimatum, but as a contribution. For example, comrade Wrack says he agrees with much of it, but does not particularly like some of the language. Well, we are not precious about that. If he disagreed with its internationalism and the need for a pan-European strategy, then we would have a furious argument ... an argument that could continue and gain full clarity within the space of a single organisation. All we would demand is the unrestricted right to combat and defeat all forms of opportunism: eg, Stalinism, British nationalism, left economism, general strikism, pacifism, etc.

So the Marxist party begins with the programme. Some people say that such an approach is sectarian, excludes anarchists, syndicalists and Labourite nostalgics, and is therefore bound to fail. Well, one of the advantages of studying history is that you can learn to avoid making the same mistakes again and again. However, far from providing only negative lessons, history also provides positive ones - which we must always treat critically, in context, and never mindlessly copy, of course. That said, if we apply the positive lessons of the past to our current political impasse then perhaps we can find a way forward that will bring victories instead of yet more heroic defeats.

I am thinking in particular of the mass parties of social democracy and the unity symbolised by the Second International. Not the social democracy that treacherously voted for war credits in August 1914, but the social democracy that became a mass movement across the whole of Europe, to the point where in Germany it became a ‘state within a state’. A model that was applied in Russian conditions by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. It is a myth that Lenin ‘broke’ with the SPD model in 1914 or 1917. In fact, October 1917 was the vindication of the correctness of that model.

We can argue about the particulars of the SPD and the RSDLP. But what is unarguable is that they were successful in organising the advanced part of the working class and through that not only in leading the mass of the working class, but other sections of the population too (crucially, in Russia, the peasantry). That success did not come from watering down principles, from fudging differences, from unity for the sake of unity. No, in the last analysis it came from the Marxist programme.

Transitional

I shall now turn to what frequently excuses and certainly explains the all too common rightism of the left. Whether it be the SWP’s Alex Callinicos, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty’s Sean Matgamna or Peter Taaffe of SPEW, they all say that are guided by what they call the ‘transitional method’.

The ‘transitional method’ is widely held on the left to be the highest achievement when it comes to programmatic demands. In fact, it represents a regression to a pre-Marxist conception of revolution. It certainly owes something to the anarchism of Mikhail Bakunin and general strikism. Anyway, I can well understand Leon Trotsky coming out with his Transitional programme in 1938. He knew that the world war was looming. He had seen what had happened in Spain. He knew that humanity faced the threat of fascist barbarism.

But how many people were organised under the banner of the so-called Fourth International? It was smaller in global terms than the left is today in Britain. In the absence of real forces Trotsky turned to spontaneity. Out of desperation he proposed that if his comrades put forward ‘reasonable’ demands, such as resisting factory closures and pay cuts, then in the fight to realise those ‘reasonable’ demands the logic of struggle would take the working classes one step at a time from the politics of the defensive to the politics of the offensive. Through that process the working class would eventually find its way to power. That is basically what the much vaunted ‘transitional method’ amounts to.

Here is the logic that says resisting cuts, fighting for pay demands, mobilising to save the NHS are revolutionary. Hence what the working class needs is not Marxist consciousness, not Marxist theory, not a Marxist programme, but protests, strikes, occupations. In a word, action. Of course, no Marxist would oppose resisting cuts, striking for pay demands or fighting to save the NHS. But we do emphasise consciousness and therefore polemics and the struggle of ideas.

In many cases the ‘transitional method’ results in what I would call honest rightism. Nevertheless, even the most honest rightism is thoroughly elitist. So-called ‘ordinary people’ are treated as if the only thing that motivates them is wages, conditions and the NHS. The implication is that they are incapable of anything higher and therefore the members of the revolutionary sect, especially when they are enlodged in trade unions, reformist parties and protest campaigns, should lead them by the nose, should not confuse them with factional arguments, should keep any differences safely behind locked doors. Only the members of the elect are really aware of what is going on and where things are expected to go.

As I say, I can understand why Trotsky put forward such a perspective in 1938. But it did not work, it will not work, it cannot work. No, we have tell the working class the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Sometimes that will involve difficult concepts, obscure references and fine nuances. That is why Marxists place such stress on theory. As Lenin once famously said, “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.” So we in the CPGB do not consider theory as some kind of hobby for intellectuals. The working class needs theory as much as the body needs food and drink.

So, when it comes to the nature of the Soviet Union, this is no side issue. There are those who say it was just state capitalism. If that was the case, what happened in 1991? Did the USSR go from capitalism to capitalism? If so, what was all the fuss about? What about the ‘degenerate workers’ state’ theory. Was Stalin’s mass murder regime really an example of the working class in power? Was Brezhnev’s USSR really a ‘planned’ economy superior to capitalism? What about those who remain with the Stalinite tradition and say that China, North Korea and Cuba are conquests of the working class? Do such people have anything in common with Marxism apart from a few deracinated phrases and slogans? These and other questions will not only be asked by our class enemies. They will be asked by intelligent members of the working class and we must have full, frank and honest answers.

There can be no short cuts to communism and human liberation. To become a ruling class the working class needs to master all the big political questions. That is also why we cannot compromise on the fight for democracy at every level. Without democracy leaders cannot be held to account; without democracy there can be no control from below; without democracy wrong ideas cannot be overcome.

Labour

I will finish by touching on the Labour Party. All unity projects so far have either dismissed or fundamentally belittled the importance of Labour. Of course, the Labour Party has never been a socialist party. Therefore calls to ‘reclaim’ it are historically ill-informed and politically naive. After all, when did the Labour Party go wrong? With Tony Blair? With Harold Wilson? With Clement Attlee? With Ramsay MacDonald? No, the Labour Party remains an organisation of the working class, but an organisation of the working class led and dominated by pro-capitalist reactionaries of the worst kind: that has been its nature since its formation.

Nevertheless, we need an orientation to the Labour Party because most the big trade unions are affiliated to it and because most people who self-identify as working class vote for it. So when the CPGB was in the Socialist Alliance we suggested the tactic of giving critical support to all Labour candidates who declared their support for the SA ‘priority pledges’. Today that would almost certainly include MPs such as John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn.

That is something Left Unity should seriously consider. We need to develop a dialogue, develop an intervention, develop a hearing from the Labour Party’s mass base. Without that there can only be life as a fringe group.

Notes

1. For Nick Wrack’s speech, see ‘How can we supersede the sects?’ Weekly Worker May 2.

2. Socialism Today October 2012: www.socialismtoday.org/162/representation.html.

[bcbm]

Hm. Funny you didn't mention "Class", uniting the Class. Ya know, kinda the whole history beyond political Parties.

not really that funny, because for these pieces 'uniting the class' is about uniting it behind 'me/my idea/my party/whatever'


Fair enough, but then what is the solution?

we dont know


Do we just sit around and wait for the day that the revolution comes? Do we just say fuck it, nothing we can do will help, so we might as well not try? I mean that just seems incredibly pessimistic to me. As for tactics, I'm not entirely sure what we need to do. I still have lots to learn and most of that learning will come through praxis. That being said, as a member of the working class, I'm not just going to sit on my ass, despite being a class conscious Marxist, while capital continues its destruction of the planet.

do what feels right to you or you think makes sense.


I don't appreciate being shit on by armchair theorists, who simply want to sit in their chairs and frown upon people actually trying to make a difference.

nobody is shitting on anybody but it is important to look at whether certain things are working or not and try to understand why

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

not really that funny, because for these pieces 'uniting the class' is about uniting it behind 'me/my idea/my party/whatever'




Our "idea" is to build an actual Party of the working class, which would naturally include factions. The point is to unite the class into the necessary and natural organizational form: the political Party.

[Fionnagáin]

Why is the party the necessary and natural organisational form of the working class?

[vizzek]

Fair enough, but then what is the solution? Do we just sit around and wait for the day that the revolution comes? Do we just say fuck it, nothing we can do will help, so we might as well not try? I mean that just seems incredibly pessimistic to me. As for tactics, I'm not entirely sure what we need to do. I still have lots to learn and most of that learning will come through praxis. That being said, as a member of the working class, I'm not just going to sit on my ass, despite being a class conscious Marxist, while capital continues its destruction of the planet.

I mean coming from your perspective, seeing as how as we apparently can't have any positive effect on the class struggle, it would lead me to the logical conclusion, that one should simply attempt to make their life under capitalism as comfortable as personally possible, not seek to help organize our class to overcome it.

the line I'm advocating is not as pessimistic as you might think. it's true that no individual can really predict revolution or put together a strategy for achieving it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that individuals cant play a role in class struggle. I think revolution springs organically from within the class - people organize on their own, outside of ideological sects or trade unions, or otherwise separate groups. i know its a cliche example but look at the soviets in russia, or the workers councils in france 1968. both were promising at the time, and didn't seem to require some ideological allegiance to X party or X-ism. the ancient mantra of 'the working class can only achieve trade union consciousness from within and communist consciousness from without' has been proven wrong by history and reality.

you might be interested in checking out something like communisation theory, which kind of addresses the stuff we're talking about here. other stuff like endnotes, or people like gilles dauve, are also interesting and do a pretty good job at explaining these kinds of things.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Why is the party the necessary and natural organisational form of the working class?

The political Party is certainly not the "natural" organizational form of the working class as most proletarians are not class conscious today; the political Party is however the necessary organizational form of the working class as it is the historical organizational form of classes.

[Per Levy]

The political Party is certainly not the "natural" organizational form of the working class as most proletarians are not class conscious today; the political Party is however the necessary organizational form of the working class as it is the historical organizational form of classes.

you havnt answered Fionnagáins questions though. why is the party necesarry?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

you havnt answered Fionnagáins questions though. why is the party necesarry?

Why is it necessary? Because the Proletariat needs to utilize all socially existing weapons at its disposal in its fight to overthrow the political-economic-social rule of the Bourgeoisie. Division of Labor increases productivity: the more socialisation of class conscious proletarians there is in one organization (inevitably with its internal differences, hence factions), the more productive the work of the organization. Currently, the "57 different organizations" of Socialism each direct their members to write virtually the same article on the same subject, hence needlessly duplicating effort and wasting member's labor which could be applied to build the social movement-takeover of the Proletariat in all social activities.

If the liberal or conservative Bourgeoisie are in control of the most popular Newspaper, the Proletariat has to aspire to take away that rank. As Communists we have to make it our foremost goal to create competition and social division between the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie, not amongst ourselves! When social competition and divisions within bourgeois society have met up to the material antagonisms between Worker and Capitalist, then the foremost question that will face this society will be on which side of this civilly cloaked civil war each individual will be on. Persons will be continually forced by the development of a united, antagonistic proletarian organization rooted in all social activities, to engage with the theory and reality of class struggle.

[bcbm]

Our "idea" is to build an actual Party of the working class, which would naturally include factions. The point is to unite the class into the necessary and natural organizational form: the political Party.

thats nice. not relevant to the point i was making but nice.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think that one needs to know "the solution" to something to know that something does not work. To use an analogy, if my car doesn't start, I don't need to know exactly what's wrong with it to know that it isn't starting. The left has been flailing around ineffectually for decades upon decades...I don't need to know what kind of revolutionary impetus THE CLASS needs to know that. The left has almost always looked inwardly for answers to why this has been the case, too, with maybe some passing references to outward economic restructuring (but always makes sure to add the stipulation that nothing has really changed & that now we need the Leninist vanguard more than ever, properly equipped with the lessons learned since 1917).

[Fionnagáin]

Why is it necessary? Because the Proletariat needs to utilize all socially existing weapons at its disposal in its fight to overthrow the political-economic-social rule of the Bourgeoisie. Division of Labor increases productivity: the more socialisation of class conscious proletarians there is in one organization (inevitably with its internal differences, hence factions), the more productive the work of the organization. Currently, the "57 different organizations" of Socialism each direct their members to write virtually the same article on the same subject, hence needlessly duplicating effort and wasting member's labor which could be applied to build the social movement-takeover of the Proletariat in all social activities.

If the liberal or conservative Bourgeoisie are in control of the most popular Newspaper, the Proletariat has to aspire to take away that rank. As Communists we have to make it our foremost goal to create competition and social division between the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie, not amongst ourselves! When social competition and divisions within bourgeois society have met up to the material antagonisms between Worker and Capitalist, then the foremost question that will face this society will be on which side of this civilly cloaked civil war each individual will be on. Persons will be continually forced by the development of a united, antagonistic proletarian organization rooted in all social activities, to engage with the theory and reality of class struggle.
This is gibberish. It doesn't even read as coherent prose, let alone theory.

The one nugget of sense I'm drawing from this is the idea that there has to be some sort of militant organisation to force people's hand, to force them to take one or other side of the class line. But it's still unclear why a political party is necessary for this, why this process can only occur when the organised working class is brought together into the formal structures of the mass party.