Debate inside the Socialist Party
Time for a new workers' party in Scotland
A contribution to the discussion by Dave Hudson
The Socialist Party and Scottish Militant Labour, its Scottish organisation, are engaged in a major discussion about launching a new workers’ party in Scotland. This discussion is important for the whole of the socialist left in Britain, including the revolutionary Marxist organisations.
Socialist Outlook comments on this discussion because of the important issues it raises for the left within a perspective of recomposition of the workers movement. Also, because the outcome of these discussions will in the short term materially effect the development of the class struggle not only in Scotland, but across the British state.
The controversy in the Socialist Party (SP), concerns the proposition made by Scottish Militant Labour (SML), that under today’s conditions, with the present development of the Scottish Socialist Alliances, a new mass workers party to the left of Labour is both needed and can be built ("a small mass workers’ party"). This is presented as a qualitative development which would supersede the present collection of organised left groups and tendencies in Scotland.
The political framework of the Scottish Militant Labour comrades is determined by three features: First, is the existence of a right wing, bourgeois, Labour Government and Labour Party, both dominated by Blairism. The Blairite phenomenon represents for them a sharp break from social democracy, and has transformed the class character of the Party from one based on and closely linked to the working class, to one based directly on the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. The comrades of the Socialist Party sometimes say that this process of bourgeoisification is already complete, although this is sometimes left unclear.
The second feature they raise is the Scottish National Question and devolution, and the preparations for elections by PR to a Scottish Parliament, scheduled for 1999. This scenario, argues SML, represents a significant political opening if a credible left party existed that could seize the opportunity.
Third, there are higher levels of class consciousness and mobilisation in Scotland than exist in England. This is in part due to the entwining of socialist issues and the struggle for national self-determination. Linked to this are the more advanced levels of socialist organisation, particularly through the Scottish Socialist Alliances.
A breakthrough in Scotland?
The specific combination of these three features (to which the comrades would add the global crisis of both Stalinism and social democracy) creates the opportunity for a new breakthrough in Scotland. Already SML has had some preliminary and informal discussions about launching a new party, possibly called the Scottish Socialist Party, with various prominent individuals and tendencies within the Scottish Socialist Alliance (SSA).
They say in their text, Initial proposals for a new Scottish Socialist Party, (p.1) that there are other socialist organisations they would like to approach for discussions about the formation of a new socialist party. These include the Communist Party of Scotland; the Socialist Labour Party, The Communist Party of Britain, the Socialist Workers Party, and socialists within the Labour Party, the SNP and the Green Party.
They are prepared to dissolve SML into the new party, making its present offices and apparatus fully available to the new party, including handing over their newspaper. They do not demand that the new party is affiliated to SML’s international organisation (CWI), although some mechanism is proposed to maintain individual membership. These proposals have the full weight of the Scottish SML leadership behind them, but are controversial with the SP leadership.
They write that;
"The stakes are high, if the socialist left in these elections fails to make a breakthrough, the advance of socialism could be slowed down. On the other hand, socialist victories in the local elections – particularly if accompanied by the achievement of even a toehold in the new Scottish Parliament – could dramatically accelerate events.… A breakthrough of anything like that magnitude (the 15% vote for the Green Party in 1989 - DH) for the socialist left in Scotland would have earth shattering repercussions – not just in Scotland, but throughout Britain as a whole." (Ibid., p.1.)
SML argues that, after several years of political difficulties the decision to launch the SSA as a campaigning and electoral alliance is vindicated. The tide is now beginning to turn. They conclude that today in Scotland, there are only two serious contenders that offer an alternative to New Labour and the SNP. These are the SSA and the SLP. They also point to growing ferment in the Scottish Labour Party among the ‘nationalist’ left and the possibility of breakaways in the summer.
The comrades therefore argue that, unlike with the southern Irish system of a single transferable vote, where multi-party systems are liable to flourish, in Scotland, where the additional member system will operate, "there is absolutely no room or political justification for two or more socialist parties to stand in opposition to one another". The Scottish system only requires a party to get 5-6% of the vote for it to get a seat in the parliament. It is clear that the new electoral possibilities have focused the comrades’ minds.
We in Socialist Outlook are fully persuaded that the situation in Scotland is more politically advanced than in England or Wales, and with greater opportunities for socialists for broadly the same reasons that the SML outline. Allowing for some exaggeration by the comrades, we also believe that a serious electoral challenge by a class struggle or revolutionary party would be very significant and would undoubtedly change the political terrain on the left across the whole British state.
What kind of Party?
The problem for revolutionary Marxists, which needs further discussion, is what do the comrades envisage the political character of this new party will be, and what is the precise role of the Marxists? This is not simply a question of whether the new party is formally a left reformist (or centrist) or revolutionary Marxist party. The comrades are right to insist it is more complex than this.
The construction of a revolutionary party out of diverse leftward moving forces, as history has shown, will often be more dynamic and complicated than abstract formulae allow. A recomposition of the workers’ movement and revolutionary regroupment require a greater conceptual refinement than general principles presented in a lifeless fashion, even if formally correct.
In this respect we would be critical of the British Socialist Party EC response, which although making many correct criticisms of the SML proposals, fails to provide a concrete analysis of the potential in the situation or provide much positive advice.
On the other hand when we read formulations in the SML text such as; "Not only in Scotland, but internationally, the traditional ideological battle lines which divided the left have become blurred" (Ibid., pt.16, p. 4.), we find ourselves as startled as the Socialist Party EC.
Like them we feel it is necessary to ask if the comrades themselves have a vision that is not a little blurred? Clearly the collapse of Stalinism and the crisis and weakening of social democracy has led to a blurring of differences between the main traditions of reformism. But the comrades are not referring to this.
Some old divisions on "the left" may take on less significance, but the fundamental divide between reform, including left reformism, and revolution has not come down. The historic divide between reformism and revolutionary Marxism is not between those who wish to wage the class struggle against capitalism and those who don’t. The Marxist understanding of the united front is based in this contradiction. Nor is it the desire to expropriate the capitalists. Nor was it ever simply between Stalinism and Trotskyism and the analysis of the Soviet bureaucracy.
The fundamental divide is encapsulated in works such as Lenin’s famous State and Revolution or the Transitional Programme drafted by Trotsky. The divide between reformism and Marxism is parliamentarism versus revolution. Encapsulated in the Marxist programme is a perspective of a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois state power.
Some examples of blurred thinking can be found in SML’s reply to the British SP EC:
"Yet, paradoxically, the task of organisationally and ideologically delineating the forces of revolutionary Marxism from other socialist currents was, in the period 1919-1920, a much more crucial task than is the case today." (For a Bold Step Forward. A reply from the Scottish EC to the British EC. p3 )
Again, quoting a previous ‘name change’ debate:
"Trotskyism’s main task was to differentiate itself from reformism and Stalinism… [however] ‘The main task facing us now is to win support for a socialist programme and for socialist ideas generally.’ (Name Change Debate, Page 3, Socialist Party Members’ Bulletin Number 18)… we also faced the task of building a revolutionary party; however in all of the written and verbal discussions during the name change debate, the task of rehabilitating the basic programme of socialism was correctly given the strongest emphasis." (Ibid, p 4)
The first point, and we are sure the comrades will agree, is that the Bolsheviks were always engaged in delineating the forces of revolutionary Marxism from reformist socialist currents, not just in the most revolutionary conjunctures.
Bolsheviks were always engaged in delineating the forces of revolutionary Marxism from reformist socialist currents
Second, the organisation of the revolutionary Marxists was both the political expression and the means of this struggle. This is because of an understanding that a revolutionary party could not be constructed overnight, but over a period and in continuous struggle with reformism.
While we today may have the luxury of a little more time than in 1919, because we do not live in a revolutionary conjuncture in Europe, this does not mean we are relieved of the task of building a revolutionary Marxist organisation, whatever flexible tactics this may require. Propaganda for basic socialist ideas and building the party are not counterposed.
Stalinism lives
Also, the political situation could change dramatically under conditions of crisis, in part because of the organisational and political weakness of reformism and Stalinism within the working class. We recognise that a contradictory new period has opened with the collapse of Stalinism.
However, we do not subscribe to the theory of world historic defeats of the working class which has virtually erased a century of struggle and experience, in which it is necessary to pick up the pieces and begin again from scratch. The rise in struggles over the past three years in Europe should have laid these ideas to rest.
The political conditions in which these struggles have taken place suggest that there is no clean slate, but most of the old problems still exist. The historic crisis of leadership continues. The experience of regrupments like Communist Refoundation (RC) in Italy and United Left (IU) in Spain have shown this clearly, including the fact that the class collaborationist core of Stalinist politics still lives on.
The comrades continue:
"Organisations and individuals which in the past subscribed to these ideologies [Stalinism and social democracy – DH] have been forced to re-examine their positions. As a result, many former Communist Party members and Labour lefts hoisted the white flag and made their peace with capitalism. But a more principled and courageous minority moved in the opposite direction toward greater acceptance of a political programme which advocates full-blooded socialism combined with workers democracy. In the past, such a programme would have been dismissed as Trotskyism". (Initial proposals pt. 16, p4)
The last two sentences are ambiguous. We assume the full-blooded socialist programme referred to is a Marxist programme of socialist revolution. However, as far as we are aware, no significant ex-Stalinist tendency has adopted such a programme – the establishment of a socialist society and planned economy through the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist state, the expropriation of the capitalist class and the establishment of a system of workers’ democracy, self-management and control.
It could not be said that the ex-CP core of RC in Italy or IU in the Spanish state, have adopted such a programme. Even less could it be said of the ex-Stalinist layer around Scargill in the SLP. Most of these leaderships moved initially to the left and then swung back to the right. While it is true that a small minority of ex-communists and even some social democrats have continued moving to the left, this is different from breaking with reformist or narrow parliamentarist politics.
The current realities of the class struggle in Britain, which unfortunately has been at a very low ebb, never mind revolutionary, have not been conducive to the development of revolutionary politics. The decade 1985-95 in Europe has probably been the worst this century from the point of view of the class struggle and the development of the socialist project. This continues to be the case in Britain (although not in Europe as a whole), with the lowest level of strikes ever recorded here in 1997.
The fight for the revolutionary programme
It is not at the level of political analysis or an understanding of the need for flexible tactical responses where the comrades are on weak ground, but in the area of revolutionary programme and how to construct a party that is truly revolutionary in character. In their reply (For a Bold Step Forward), to the very critical text from the British SP Executive Committee the SML comrades provide many good historical examples from the Trotskyist tradition for flexible tactics in party building.
These clearly answer any mechanistic application of organisational ‘principles’ and are summed up by the phrase "organisational flexibility combined with political intransigence". However, the comrades emphasise the former and hastily skim over the meaning of ‘political intransigence’ (which of course requires Marxist organisation).
We agree that you can’t just formally counterpose "the concept of a revolutionary party to the idea of a broad socialist party in a rigid and undialectical fashion". And that "there can exist transitional formations in which the features of a revolutionary party and those of a ‘broad socialist party’ coexist side by side"(Ibid, p2).
But in such parties, as the historic examples they provide show, the two polarities are in constant struggle for dominance. The resolution of this strategic political conflict may, at any decisive juncture in the class struggle, result in a split. This happened in the example of the RSDLP in Russia. The crucial point here is that both the reformist and the revolutionary wings of this party were organised as factions very early – in reality as public factions. The ‘minority’ Bolshevik faction was openly a party within a party long before the final rupture with the RSDLP in 1912.
There is of course a dynamic, a dialectic, involved here. However, the question that must be answered clearly is the following: Do the SML comrades envisage that this new party will be a transitional formation/party, a kind of proto-party? In other words, will it be founded on a limited Action Programme, of a type discussed by Trotsky in 1935, but with the aim of its transformation, through common experience and debate over a short period, into a revolutionary party? Or, do they think the new party, which they hope will include the broad forces listed above, will be a revolutionary party from its foundation?
If it is the former, then it seems to us incumbent on the revolutionary Marxists to maintain some organisational and political independence within it, to wage the necessary political struggle. If it is the latter, then it has to be shown that the party is founded on a revolutionary programme - a very difficult task in this political conjuncture, even in Scotland.
The need for revolutionary organisation within a new party
To put it another way. The one principle that is absolutely central is that the organisational dissolution of the revolutionary Marxists into a new party first requires the political conquest of a revolutionary programme.
Or, it must be founded with the expectation, due to the rapid evolution of the forces involved, that such a programme will be adopted in the short term (this was the scenario in the USA in the late 1930s).
If, on the other hand the basis of unity of the new party is a more limited, ‘class struggle’, or ‘Action Programme’ (because of the diverse character of the forces involved – or are likely to become involved in the future), and therefore requiring considerable further development before it adopts a revolutionary programme (i.e. similar to the 1938 Transitional Programme), which seems most likely, then organisation remains essential. To genuinely dissolve under these conditions would be nothing less than the liquidation of the Marxist programme.
Organisation within a broad left-wing socialist party could take the form of a recognised tendency or faction, legitimated by the party constitution. Office resources could still be handed over to the new party as a gesture of goodwill, but the Marxists must retain the capacity and the right, if it becomes necessary, to transform themselves into a faction to fight for the leadership of the party – with the recognised consequence that if it fails, it may split, taking what it can with it. This understanding should be transparent and above board in the negotiations.
Is the SSA really revolutionary?
Faced with sharp criticism of their proposals, the comrades reply in For a Bold Step Forward that in fact the new party will be a revolutionary party. It will adopt the existing programme of the SSA which, we are assured is a "full-blooded socialist programme".
"Taken together, all of the programmatic documents of the SSA constitute nothing less than a detailed transitional programme for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of workers’ power, updated and applied to the concrete conditions that exist in Scotland." (Ibid, p5)
The problem is that this programme of the SSA is neither a revolutionary programme, nor a transitional programme like the 1938 programme, it is an ‘Action Programme’. This is fine as far as it goes, and as long as revolutionaries do not confuse it with the Marxist programme of socialist revolution.
The SML complain that the British SP EC misrepresented the political programme of the SSA and gave "a misleading impression" of what they are proposing. They quote from the main programmatic documents of the Scottish Socialist Alliance:
"The SSA stands for the socialist transformation of society. To replace the free market capitalist economy with an economic system based on democratic ownership and control of the key sectors of the economy. A system based on social need and environmental protection rather than private profit and ecological destruction." (Statement of Aims, Point 2).
Or again:
"The SSA actively promotes the International solidarity of the working class and the oppressed to defeat capitalism and imperialism. . . the SSA will build the closest possible links with socialists in other parts of Britain, across Europe and world wide. The SSA stands ultimately for a new socialist world, where poverty, starvation, environmental destruction, exploitation, war and racial hatred are eradicated". (Statement of Aims, Point 6) (Ibid., p 4-5)
These and many other demands and policies are excellent, including the demands of accountability and financial conditions upon public representatives: but they do not constitute a revolutionary programme, as the SP EC text points out.
Kautsky, Bernstein and the reformist leadership of the old Second International before World War One could easily pay lip service to this kind of socialist programme, as could Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner. The differences will soon emerge as to how this programme is to be achieved – whether through parliament or through the self-activity and mobilisation of the broad masses and the revolutionary seizure of power.
No one is arguing that a full revolutionary programme must be presented publicly at all times: that would be absurd sectarian propagandism, and is why the method of the Transitional Programme was developed by Trotsky. However, as night follows day, these quite different programmes and perspectives will condition the priorities and methods of activity of the new party, and finally decide its character as either reformist or revolutionary.
It is not clear, but this blurring of fundamental programmatic issues may ultimately derive from the comrades’ origins in the old Militant Tendency. This organisation had an emphasis on parliamentary ‘Enabling Acts’ to carry through the nationalisation of the monopolies and a socialist transformation. This kind of propaganda, which emphasises a parliamentary road to socialism, has been defended as merely a pedagogic device.
The British EC recognise that the SSA programme is not revolutionary Marxist, but without explaining clearly why, or what constitutes the core of any revolutionary programme. However this can’t be the only explanation. Today in the afternath of the collapse of stalinism, the whole of the socialist left has faced considerable pressure from the bourgeois ideological offensive.
Finally, the comrades complain that experience of the SSA shows that there are serious difficulties building two organisations, both a revolutionary current and a broader alliance. The new party is in part presented as an expedient solution to this problem.
The tactic of building the party within unitary formations, although not without its difficulties, should be basic to any revolutionary organisation that understands the united front method and builds action coalitions. In any case, a technicality is not an argument for dissolving the revolutionary organisation.
For bold steps - and revolutionary politics
To conclude. The SML has a good analysis of the Scottish political situation, a drive to take advantage of a new fruitful situation and healthy appetite for tactical flexibility. It would be a tragedy if their project could not be carried through whilst maintaining the integrity of revolutionary politics intact.
An illustration of the potential danger is Spain’s increasingly dis-united left (IU), which shows what can happen to broad left parties as the unfolding class struggle highlights the different programmes and strategies that actually lay behind formal agreements.
Here, a very sharp political struggle is taking place between a defeatist and increasingly opportunist current, ‘The Third Way’ (which has the support of the leadership of the Workers Commissions), and those who want to develop the militant struggles of the working class in both the political and trade union field. (See International Viewpoint, Feb. 1998, No 297).
What is certain about the Scottish debate, is that the establishment of a genuinely broad-based small mass party with a revolutionary current integrated into its leadership, and which adopted a developed Action Programme at its founding conference, would be a significant step forward for the Scottish working class.
Nonetheless, for such a party to play its potentially historic role in the struggle for socialism, the revolutionaries will have to continue as a distinct tendency within it in order to transform it into a revolutionary party.