A reply to SWP's Chris Harman
Left abstention would have boosted ballot share for Le Pen
Alex Callinicos’s article entitled "Unity in Diversity" in April’s Socialist Review raises a number of interesting issues which are the subject of debate on the left in Britain today. He discusses the various radical movements that have been thrown up both in response to capitalist globalisation since Seattle, and against the US war drive since September 11th, and then goes on to discusses the role of the left, and the far-left, within these movements. He focuses, in particular, on the united front tactic – or as he puts it "the relevance of the united front today".
This article certainly reflects the positive development the SWP has made in recent years in seeking to break from a sectarian and isolationist past. It is a development which has come, most importantly, through the SWP’s involvement in the Socialist Alliance, the Scottish Socialist Party and Globalise Resistance (GR).
The article also reflects, however, some of the SWP’s ambivalence as to the longer-term development of those organisations, particularly the Socialist Alliance. It is therefore an important discussion, since, given its size and resources (as well as its positive development) the SWP occupies a pivotal position on the British left, and carries a prime responsibility for its future.
Alex Callinicos characterises the political period we are currently in as "a new era of mass movements" which developed during the 1990s. This is true, but it needs more definition.
In fact the new period arises out of changes in economic conditions in the mid-1970s (the end of the post war boom), which created a more defensive situation for the working class internationally. This was followed by the rise of neo-liberalism under Reagan and Thatcher in the second half of the 1980s.
The early 1990s then saw the fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the USSR, the crisis of most of the Western Communist Parties, and the rightward march of European Social Democracy – which accepted the neo liberal agenda whole-sale under pressure from European integration and the Maastricht project.
Most of the left, internationally, was disoriented by the collapse of Stalinism, but began to regenerate by the mid-1990s. This process was boosted, in Europe, by mass strikes in France at the end of 1995, which were followed by further major actions across Europe mostly in response to the Maastricht criteria.
In the mid-1990s the recomposition of the left was reflected in the emergence of important formations such as Rifondazione Communista (PCR) in Italy and the United Left in Spain – both of which emerged from the break-up of mass Communist Parties. This came alongside the emergence of new, post Stalinist, resistance movements in the third world, most importantly the Zapatistas in Mexico.
The growing resistance to the neo-liberal agenda in Europe was reflected in the success of the European Marches in 1997. The Marches originated from various points around Europe (including in Britain) culminating in a 50,000 strong demonstration in Amsterdam. It was reflected in a similar size demonstration in Cologne the following year.
The SWP were not involved in these demonstrations. They did sponsor the 1997 Marches in Britain, but did not give practical support. Yet the European Marches were the forerunner of the anti-globalisation movement that emerged a few years latter.
Further developments in the recomposition of European left were reflected in the emergence of other new left formations: the Left Block in Portugal, the Red Green Alliance in Denmark, and the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and later the Socialist Alliances (SAs) in England and Wales.
By the end of the 90s, Social Democratic parties held power in 13 of the 15 countries of the EU. Every single one took the radical neo-liberal road and launched attacks on the working class. Recently we have seen the consequences (or "blow back" as it is being called) from this in the defeat of centre left governments in a number of countries and a polarisation of European politics.
In the Presidential elections in France in May this resulted not just in an advance by the far right but a massive 3 million votes for far-left candidates and the collapse of the vote for the Communist Party. This opens up the prospect of a new party of the left – which the LCR has already called for.
The rise in the level of class struggle in Europe in the second half of the 1990s was not reflected in Britain, since the defeats of the 1980s, particularly, the miners, had been far more profound than anywhere else in Europe.
The political developments on the left in Britain, however, followed a not so different pattern to the rest of Europe. The Communist Party disintegrated and the Labour left suffered a huge decline.
Blairism emerged as the radical (rightist) wing of European social democracy, reflecting the defeats of the 1980s. It is now in alliance with the most right-wing and reactionary governments and political leaders in the EU, including Italy’s Berlusconi and Spain’s Aznar.
The rightward march of Blairism and the reshaping of the Labour Party under Blair (including the destruction of its democracy), have alienated the Labour Party’s traditional base of support in the working class and opened up space to its left which is there to be filled.
Fortunately this was recognised by the bulk of the far-left in Britain and became the political driving force behind the emergence of the SSP in Scotland and the Socialist Alliances in England and Wales.
The demise of the Communist Party and the decline of the Labour left have resulted in the British far-left becoming stronger, relatively speaking, than at any other time in the post-war period. It is able, therefore, to be the driving force behind major initiatives (such as the strong anti-war movement) that in the past would have been the prerogative of the Labour left and the Stalinists with the far left kept on the sidelines.
It was not only the crisis of Stalinism and reformism, however, which shaped the end of the 1990s, but the emergence of the anti-globalisation movement, on a new level after Seattle.
The SWP responded strongly to this growing movement and launched Globalise Resistance 2 years ago. GR went on to become the most important component of the anti-globalisation movement in Britain, mobilising large delegations for all the European anti-capitalist demonstrations, starting with Nice and then Genoa.
Although there have been many legitimate criticisms of the way the SWP have used their influence and superiority of numbers in Globalise Resistance, it was and is far more open than previous such initiatives, again reflecting the positive political evolution of the SWP.
After September 11th US imperialism responded with a war drive designed to reshape the world in its own strategic interests. We now have a single super-power with virtually unchallengeable military force to back up its neo-liberal offensive and a world-wide attack on democratic and civil rights and the world is a much more dangerous place.
Crucially, however, this has not demobilised the anti-globalisation movement. The events at Porto Alegre were twice as big this year, and 500,000 people demonstrated in Barcelona. In Italy we have seen the huge success of the Genoa Social Forum reflected in massive demonstrations in defence of trade union rights and a 13 million-strong general strike. Even in the USA the movement is regrouping.
The fight-back against the US war drive is led by the tremendous resistance of the Palestinians, alongside the ant-war movement itself – which has partly merged with the anti-globalisation movement. In Britain there have been a series of major demonstrations against the war and in solidarity with the Palestinians.
We, therefore, face a contradictory situation today. The world is a much more dangerous place, with US imperialism more dominant than any imperial power in history. Yet, certainly in Britain, there is an important radicalisation, particularly amongst young people. This reflects itself in the various, and diverse, resistance movements: in particular the anti-war movement, the anti-globalisation movement, and solidarity with the Palestinians.
The potential for the growth and recomposition of the left is, therefore, enormous. Whether this potential is realised, however, depends to a great extent on the organisations of left itself.
This is why it is important that the current direction of the SWP, in working with the rest of the left, continues. A reversal to the old isolationism would be a disaster. This is why the debate on the issue of the united front, raised by Alex Callinicos, is so important. It is the issue around which the next stage of this development is being debated.
The nub of the debate has been whether the Socialist Alliance is a developing political organisation (a crypto-party) en route to becoming a full blown political party, or whether it is one of a number of united fronts with its specialised slot (election interventions) within the overall spectrum of activity.
At its own last conference the SWP took the position that the SA is simply one of a number of currently existing united fronts – the others being Globalise Resistance, the Anti-Nazi League, and the Campaign for Palestinian Rights.
This view has rightly been hotly disputed within the SA by most of the non-SWP forces.
It is a view which is difficult to defend, since the SA is clearly a political organisation with an extensive programme covering the full range of political issues. It could hardly be less of a single-issue united front campaign.
The aim of the SA is not to campaign around a single issue, but to build a political alternative to Blairism. How can a political alternative to Blairism, if it is to be effective, remain at the level of a united front?
Even the SA’s structure is more that of a party than a united front campaign. The election of its leadership is not just based on the requirements of campaigning activism but on the political considerations of running a political organisation.
Alex Callinicos’s purpose, in this article, therefore, seems to be to modify the SWP’s line on this in an attempt to make it more defensible.
His answer is to argue that whilst the SA is indeed a united front, it is a united front of a special kind. Whilst some of the new "mass movements" of today – such as Globalise Resistance and the Anti-Nazi League – correspond to the classical united front advocated by Leon Trotsky in the early days of the Communist International (Comintern), he argues, the SA is different – but only in so far as it is a "united front of a special kind".
This doesn’t hold water. The classical tactic of the united front as argued by Trotsky, as Callinicos rightly points out, involved the formation of united fronts between mass parties – communist and social democratic – in defence of the working class, or against the threat of fascism.
Such mass communist parties do not in general exist today – and where they do, such as with the Communist Party in France, it has been in coalition with social democracy attacking the working class.
Callinicos also argues, to sustain this point, that the parties of the Comintern were also minorities. But this misses the point. The parties of the Comintern in the early 1920s had the massive authority of the Russian Revolution, then only 4 or 5 years old, behind them. Much of social democracy had been forced to the left by the revolution and the Comintern could address them in a way which is inconceivable with today’s movements.
The issue, however, is not what corresponds today to the classic united front as advocated by the Comintern of the early 1920s, or fought for by Trotsky against fascism in Germany in the early 1930s – when the German Communist Party certainly was a mass party. We can draw the general lessons from those experiences, but we cannot replicate them today.
The united front, as developed by the far left in the post-war period, has not been based specifically on united front alliances with the mass parties of social democracy but alliances between revolutionary organisations and reformist currents on the left of social democracy or with non-revolutionary forces outside of social democracy. The same principles apply – "march separately; strike together" – but the forces involved are more limited because we are in different political conditions.
So where does this leave the debate? The united front as we understand it today – the non-classical united front if you like – is a coalition of forces, reformist and revolutionary, organised around a particular issue, and based on a democratic and inclusive framework.
This fits the ANL (although many would question the democratic framework), Globalise Resistance, and the Campaign for Palestinian Rights.
It does not fit the Socialist Alliance or the SSP. As argued above, the SA is a political organisation with an extensive political platform covering the full range of political issues. It does not just mobilise in elections, but also in the trade unions and on a full range of campaigning issues.
"March separately strike together" makes no sense as a policy for a political organisation – only for a singe issue campaign.
Even Globalise Resistance – which sets itself against global capital – is a single issue campaign in this sense. It does not have a manifesto like a political organisation. It does not offer a solution – other than "we want a different world". And it is not ideological, in that you don’t have to be a socialist to join it – as you do the SA.
So why do Alex Callinicos and the SWP stick so hard on this point? The answer lies in the future. The development of the SA into a full blown political party is seen an incompatible with the existence and functioning of the SWP itself. Callinicos wants to defend the "organisational independence" which a united front provides, rather than the organisational integration which a new party implies.
Callinicos is rightly very positive about the Scottish Socialist Party, which SWP members in Scotland joined a year ago. He rejects the SSP, however, as a model for England since it requires the agitational activity of the component parts to go though the SSP. SWP members in Scotland, for example, sell Scottish Socialist Voice publicly, and not Socialist Worker.
Alex Callinicos says that the problem with the SSP model is that the SWP in England is too big for it! It is true that the relationship is different and therefore the exact model may not fit. But the idea that the main problem is that the SWP is too big makes no sense.
To argue that if the SWP in England was, for example, 1,000 members, it would be all right to have a new party of the left, but because it is five or six thousand it is wrong, is hardly a political argument. The logic of this position is that in the end it will be the SWP which will itself build an alternative to Blairism, and not a broad party.
It is true that the SSP is not the only model for a new party of this type. It was shaped for the specific situation in Scotland, just as the Italian equivalent, the PCR was shaped by Italian realities. But there are some general principles that apply to the building of such parties that are not so specific to the local situation.
There has to be a democratic and inclusive structure – which allows the existing revolutionary organisations to be structured into it. Democracy must not be seen as a luxury, or a secondary issue, but an essential prerequisite for effective coalition building.
This means transparency in decision-making, the accountability of leaders and the space for political debate as to the tactics and strategy for the movement. In the SSP this is achieved by means of political platforms, whilst in the SA it is achieved by means of a protocol on their inclusion on the executive committee at the time of elections.
There needs to be a centralisation of agitational work. It may take time to achieve this – and the route may not be the same or as quick as in Scotland – where the Scottish Socialist Alliance had built a reputation through mass campaigns such as that over water tax – but it is essential it happens.
Such a party needs to have a publication or publications. It may be difficult to go quickly to a single paper sold publicly, as with the SSP, given the greater diversity of revolutionary groups in the SA and the greater overall weight of the SWP. But if the Alliance is deprived of its own paper it is also deprived of the political developments, discussion and common experience which the production and maintenance of a newspaper provides.
There needs to be a regular forum for political discussions, at every level of the organisation, as issues come up, and a paper can help provide that. There is an ongoing debate on this between the SWP and the other forces in the SA on this issue.
The SA in England is not ready yet to become a full-blown party. It has moved significantly in that direction, but further development is necessary. But becoming a party needs to be seen as the next goal we are working towards. In the end an organisation like the SA will have to go forward or will be forced to go backwards.
Alex Callinicos is right to argue that the SA or the SSP should not become revolutionary parties at the present time, since in the current political conditions this would simply reduce them back to their revolutionary components.
He is right to stress that the best way to win those in the Alliance today who are not revolutionaries to a revolutionary position is to work with them within a broader formation.
Those left groups within the SA who argue that it should become a revolutionary party immediately potentially jeopardise the existence of the Alliance – since of they were successful it would break up.
But this does not mean that the revolutionaries within the SA do not want it to become a revolutionary party when that becomes possible. It is essential that they remain organised in the SA as in the SSP, otherwise the revolutionary component can be lost. The aim of revolutionaries must be to win the whole party to revolutionary Marxism when political conditions are ready for that.
And that means remaining organised inside such a party in order to play an organised political role in the development of the organisation and in order to make the difficult decision as to when to propose that it adopts a revolutionary programme.
The dynamic of recomposition which creates the SA and the SSP is also a dynamic towards revolutionary unity. And the evolution of the SWP points in that direction as well. There is no previous example, that I am aware of, of an organisation of the size and importance of the SWP breaking from an isolationist past in the way the SWP is attempting to do.
At the same time many of the issues which have traditionally divided the British far left – in particular the class nature of the USSR and entry into the Labour Party which were the main divides on the British far left for 50 years – are losing their significance.
The USSR no longer exists, and the vast bulk of the far-left is outside of the Labour Party.
The ISG in Britain has had discussions with the SWP, the IST (the international grouping of the SWP) is having discussions with the Fourth International. Even the exchange of views represented by these articles represent a new level of engagement between the various components of the far left. (1)
Further developments will not happen overnight. But times are changing and opportunities must not be missed when they present themselves. Meanwhile the task is to reshape the left and build new broad parties that can be useful to the working class in today’s conditions.
In practical terms the SWP leadership made clear after the local elections that it did not want a repeat of the difficulties after the General Election – where the dynamic created by the campaign was allowed to recede because local Alliances did not function.
Today the Alliance is maintaining a much higher profile at a national and local level – around a whole myriad of political questions. The recent decisions of the National Council to hold a trade union activists’ meeting, a conference on Europe and a conference on world politics aimed mainly at young people will strengthen that healthy trajectory. In practice the Alliance will become more and more of a party.
The SWP needs to grasp the nettle on the future of the Socialist Alliance – and support that development in theory as well as sometimes in practice.
(1) Versions of this article and the Callinicos piece have been published in Critique Communiste – the theoretical magazine of the LCR, French section of the Fourth International.