LSA - a reply to Workers' Power
Where next for the LSA after May elections?
A DEBATE HAS BEEN DEVELOPING WITHIN THE LSA, and beyond, as to how it should develop after the elections on May 6th.
Workers Power, one of the components of the LSA, has published a contribution one this question in its paper which suggests that the LSA should be transformed into a revolutionary party in the short term. Anything else, it implies, would be a defeat. This is an important debate, to which ALAN THORNETT replies.
Workers Power says it "will argue for the new party to be revolutionary – in programme and in practice; not a return to old Labour, a toothless talking shop, or a bunch of revolutionaries hiding behind a reformist facade."
They also claim that Socialist Outlook "just want an open-ended alliance of reformists, revolutionists and greens."
Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. We very much want a new mass revolutionary party to be reshaped out of the current recomposition which is taking place on the left.
But to want something is not enough to create it. And to pretend that a revolutionary party can spring fully formed from the LSA as the next stage of development (with or without some discussions) is left propagandism.
Such a development would need a much more radicalised political situation, and far higher levels of class struggle than we have at the present time – as well as well as a further development among the forces of the political vanguard.
It is widely accepted within the LSA that, as new Labour alienates its traditional supporters, and moves ever further to the right, the construction of a political alternative to new Labour is not only urgently needed but increasingly possible.
This view has been strengthened by the remarkable success that the LSA has achieved so far, the degree of unity already forged, and the positive experience of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP).
It is already clear that – provided the LSA does not receive a derisory vote in the elections (which seems unlikely, but the election is an unknown quantity) – there is a growing commitment to maintain the LSA after May 6.
The constituent organisations increasingly agree it should continue both as campaigning alliance and also to undertake future electoral interventions, either in by-elections like Tottenham or in next year’s general election.
One of the issues under debate is whether the ultimate objective should be a new party of the working class to the left of Labour. The Socialist Party as well Workers Power and the ISG have such a perspective.
The SWP, however, has traditionally presented itself as the more-or-less fully formed alternative, and this is an ingrained obstacle they will have to overcome – although they do show an increasing commitment to maintaining the LSA after May.
Of course the prospects of a new party would be far more advanced if Livingstone had been prepared to launch it. The support he enjoys is potentially a major opportunity to rebuild the left, and puts a big responsibility on him given that the opportunity is in his hands.
If he were to organise his support on the left he would get a huge response, whatever form it took – an alliance, a party, or whatever. Tens of thousands would immediately join up.
Such a party would have to be democratic, have a federal structure and be pluralistic. In other words it must be inclusive of those sections of the left who want to be a part of it – with the full right of dissent, of internal debate, and of publication.
Unfortunately Livingstone ruled this out from the moment he announced his decision to stand. He pledged that he would not form a new party as a first principle.
Although his own membership of the LP was immediately suspended he called on his supporters to stay in the LP, saying that he would fight to get back into it in the future! This decision represents a massive missed opportunity to reshape British politics.
Given Livingstone’s position, what should be possible after the May elections will be to consolidate the LSA and formalise some of its structures: but it will remain an alliance – based on important elements of an action programme.
Certainly the objective political conditions do exist for a new party of the working class – for the first time since the war in fact: but that does not resolve the problem of how or when it can be created or exactly what it could be.
The diversity of the left forces which have come around the LSA, and the legacy of years of often bitter sectarian rivalry, dictate that a protracted period of political development, preparation and confidence building is necessary before such a party can be formed on a stable basis.
The negative experience of Arthur Scargill’s premature, bureaucratic and sectarian Socialist Labour Party must never be forgotten.
Furthermore, any serious new party of the left will have to be much more than just a reorganisation of the existing far left. It has to involve substantial splits from the LP and the reflection of this in the trade unions.
Such a split is in fact posed by Ken Livingstone’s candidacy, despite his own position.
However the conditions may mean that any split may now well take the form of an attrition of members rather than a dramatic rupture. The problem of what comes next is posed just the same.
It is going to require a longer period of discussion, joint experience and confidence-building before a significant new party could be launched to reach out to these forces, since there is clearly not yet agreement on what the political character of such a party is likely to be – and this is a crucial factor.
To demand – as do Workers Power – that a new party be something which it cannot be in the current conditions is to risk aborting a process which could lead to further positive development in the future.
And it is to take a sectarian attitude to those forces who are breaking from new Labour at the present time.
We are talking of a relatively small but significant new development (perhaps a few tens of thousands). This is still not a mass party, but more like the SSP. Nevertheless an organisation on this scale could begin to regroup the left and lay the basis for (hopefully) bigger developments at a later stage.
Workers Power for example denounce the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) for not being a revolutionary party at the point it was formed: This they say "is the cardinal question, because the wrong answers can lead – as they have done in Scotland – to the creation of a smaller left-reformist party (the SSP) instead of a revolutionary one".
But the SSP is not left social democratic. It is a small-mass centrist party, with a sizeable revolutionary grouping – the former Scottish Militant Labour – at its core. And the idea that it could be a revolutionary party at this stage is to misunderstand both what is possible and the dynamics of its development.
Of course the SSP could evolve in a left social democratic direction. The nature of a centrism is that it could go either way. But this is a highly premature conclusion to reach, since the signs are very much to the contrary. Its future depends on its evolution in the next period.
In our view the SSP even within its existing terms and limitations is a major gain for the working class. Whether it becomes a revolutionary party at some time in the future will depend both on the political situation in Scotland and the way that revolutionaries within it organise and conduct themselves.
It is the same with the LSA. What is most likely to emerge, after a period of preparation, is not a new revolutionary party, but a new centrist party.
This would nevertheless represent an important gain for the working class in this period. It would not be what we would advocate or prefer, but we would welcome it and seek to be a part of it. The issue would be how the far-left organisations should related to it and build it – and how they should work in order to win it to a revolutionary perspective at a later.
This is not a new debate with Workers Power, of course. They argued that even the LSA as it exists today should be a revolutionary organisation with a revolutionary programme.
They complain that: "The LSA rejected a revolutionary programme in favour of its current manifesto". This, again, is classic left propagandism.
We say that it was correct that the LSA did not adopt a revolutionary programme. Had it done it would not be the success it is today. It adopted the key elements of an action programme and it can develop through the experience of implementing this in practice.