by Stephen Morgan
Like other countries, Britain has a plethora on tiny ultra-left groups on the fringes of the labour movement, however, unlike other countries, their ingrained sectarianism has stopped them from uniting into a left coalition which might develop along the lines of those across the rest of Europe.
Now a mass left movement has developed within the LP around
Corbyn they have been dumbfounded and wrong-footed, because the overwhelming
majority of these groups had rejected the LP, characterizing it as a bourgeois
party, which could never be reformed again back into a traditional workers' party,
and in which a new left would not develop.
They pointed to the Blairite victory, the emptying out of
the LP party membership, the suppression of internal democracy, the dumping of
the socialist Clause 4 of the constitution and pro-Imperialist policies as
proof that a qualitative change had taken place and the LP was no longer the
traditional party of the working class, but a bourgeois party just like the
other capitalist parties in Britain. Unions should disaffiliate from it, they
said, and party members should leave and workers should stop voting Labour.
In doing so, they overturned the long held position of the
old CWI that Labour was the traditional party of the working class which “the
working class and youth would turn again and again towards in order to try to
transform the Labour Party in to a mass, left-wing socialist party.”
This theoretical somersault by the SP, with the aim of
building an independent workers party, was dressed up as a “new theory,” when,
in fact, it was just a warmed up dish of the same old false positions followed
by the other ultra-left groups in the post-war period. As a result, the
Socialist Party has become virtually indistinguishable from the 35 or so, other
ultra-left groups living in a make-believe world on the fringes of British
Labour movement. Now with the massive election victory of the left-winger
Jeremy Corbyn to leader of the Labour Party, they are left eating their words.
Of course, the observations and criticisms they made about
the LP were generally correct, but that didn't amount to a theory, it was just
a list of facts that anyone could see. You didn't need to be a Marxist to
understand that the LP had degenerated. Many people on the left inside the LP,
such as Jeremy Corbyn himself and Tony Benn recognized it too, but they drew a
more correct conclusion that this was simply a phase that the party was going
through and that it would be reborn as a mass left-wing movement in the future.
Speaking at a meeting of the Labour Representation Committee
back in 2004, (an organization inside the LP set up years ago to fight for
internal democracy and left policies) at which Jeremy Corbyn also spoke, the
veteran socialist leader and former Labour MP, Tony Benn said:
“Things may seem very bad in the party, but if we can
survive Ramsay MacDonald, we can survive New Labour. I urge people to stay and
fight in the Labour Party.”
Even though it took another decade for this perspective to
be vindicated, Benn's insight and conclusions proved to be far more correct
than the great Marxist “theoreticians” of the Socialist Party. In fact, they
forgot all the lessons of the UK section of the CWI – the Militant Tendency –
which had allowed to grow into an extremely powerful influential force in
British politics.
Because, the forerunner of the SP, the Militant Tendency,
had continued to orientate towards and work within the LP during the right-wing
dominated years of the 50s and 60s, they reaped massive benefits, when a new
left developed in the party in the 1970s and 80s. An unprecedented situation
where Militant took control of the Labour Youth wing, the LPYS, controlled the
executives of a large number of unions, as well countless local LP branches and
Labour councils, especially Liverpool. For the first time in British history,
there were three Militant Trotskyists elected to the Houses of Parliament.
The left became an enormous force, and Militant was able to
have a major influence on developments in society, because of its correct
analysis of the Labour Party as the traditional party of the working class and
their foresight that, despite decades of domination by the right-wing, it would
swing back to the left again. Correct perspectives led to the right tactics,
and Militant grew to around 8,000 members.
Ironically, Peter Taaffe, the leader of the SP, who
engineered the new change in position, had clearly explained the correct
approach with regards to the perspectives of the CWI, when he wrote in the 1973
introduction to an internal document on entrism;
“A great opportunity will be presented to us to develop as a
mass tendency in the conditions which will develop in Britain in the next
decade. But on one condition—that our cadres correctly absorb the lessons of
our work within the Labour Party and theoretically arm ourselves for the coming
period.”
“On the international plane we are the only tendency which
correctly understood that the first awakening of the proletariat would be
reflected through the traditional organizations.”
Looking back across the history of the Labour Party, it is
clear to see that Labour has constantly swung left and right by the influence
of developments at home and abroad. To cite Blair's policies as a unique
historical turning point, never before seen in Labour's history—which
transformed the LP into an anti-working class, bourgeois party - looks pretty
feeble when set against the treachery of previous Labour leaders. (See the discussion paper on the New Left in Europe for a more detailed explanation.)
The combination of the betrayals of right-wing Labour
governments, economic crisis and international events have always created the
conditions for a swing back to the left in the LP, while, on the other hand
economic boom, a lull in the class struggle and reactionary developments abroad
have always provided the backdrop to the growth of the right.
For example, in the 1970s and 80s, the swing to the left in
the LP came on the heels of the international development of massive
left-leaning movements around the world like the Anti-War and the civil rights
movements in the US (especially the Black Panthers), the revolutionary crisis
in France in 1968, CND, the anti-apartheid movement in S. Africa, etc. That was
then followed by the world economic crisis of 1974.
In Britain, the betrayals of the working class by right-wing
Labour governments, which had unleashed unprecedented attack on workers' rights
and draconian austerity measures caused a leftward shift in many unions and the
development of a left-wing in the LP augmented by the coming to power of
reactionary Conservative governments led by Margaret Thatcher.
It is precisely the same combination of factors which has
laid the basis for the shift left in the Labour Party now. The world economic
crisis of 2007-8, draconian austerity measures, betrayal by right-wing Labour
governments and the influence of huge left movements in Southern Europe like
SYRIZA and Podemos, left-wing governments in in Latin America, the ecology
movement, etc. Unfortunately, the SP was blind to all this, and have made an
unforgivable blunder, which shames their links to the old CWI.
The Theoretical mistakes of
the SP and CWI
In the 1990s and 2000s, the SP summoned up the ghost of
Lenin to back up their characterization of the LP as a bourgeois party, quoting
him as describing the LP as a bourgeois' party. But the fact that Lenin said
this doesn't make it necessarily true or a scientific classification.
Lenin defined the LP as such, in contrast to the other
socialist parties of the 2nd International, which were nominally
based on Marxism. However, Lenin was wrong about them also. When Lenin read in
the German SPD paper Vorwärts, that the party had given its support to the
Imperialist war in 1914, he refused to believe it, and thought it must be a
forgery by the German Army General Staff.
Lenin had considered these parties to be workers' parties,
who wouldn't betray the working class by voting for war. The point being that
his analysis of the traditional workers' parties proved to be wrong from all
aspects. You can't hail his analysis of the LP as a scientifically correct
characterization, without simultaneously recognizing his naive and erroneous
position on the other socialist parties of Europe. Citing Lenin's statements as
incontrovertible source of theoretical guidance is misleading and just plain
wrong. Lenin had a tendency to bend the stick to make a point, and on this, and
on other points, that stick often snapped.
The distinction Lenin made between the British Labour Party
and the other parties of the 2nd International was based to a large
degree on the fact that they were founded on Marxism and contained clear
socialist clauses in their constitution, while the LP did not.
However, in 1918, it adopted Clause 4 of its constitution
which called for “the common ownership of the means of production, distribution
and exchange.” The fact that this appeared later (under the influence of the
Russian Revolution) and not at its beginnings couldn't really be considered a
sound theoretical base from which to differentiate from the other parties of
the 2nd International, whose socialist clauses were worded in the
same sort of language.
Take for instance, the Belgium Socialist Party, which was a
founding member of the 2nd International. It states in its
principles, called the Charter of
Quaregnon and that its aim is,
“Of ensuring the free and unhindered use of all the means of
production. This can only be achieved in a society where individual labour is
replaced by collective work and the common ownership of the means of
production...transformation of the capitalist system into a collectivist
regime”
Why is so different in this clause that makes any more of a
genuine workers' party than the bourgeois Labour Party?
Ah! the SP replies, but now the LP has jettisoned Clause 4!
This is one of the SP's central arguments in re-characterizing it as a
bourgeois party, instead of their previous definition of it as a traditional
party of the working class.
Then we must ask, why does the CWI also characterize the
Belgium PS as a bourgeois party when its Clause 4, the “Charter of Quaregnon,”
remains in its constitution? In fact, this “bourgeois party” publicly credits
the major influence of Marxism in its foundation on its official website and
actively promotes the Charter of Quaregnon on its site as the founding aims on
which the party is based. Perhaps the SP and CWI needs to re-characterize the
PS and other European socialist parties as “bourgeois parties based on
Marxism,” with the aim of overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with
socialism! (Actually, the PS have also just posted a prominent picture on the
front page of their website of the PS party leader and former Prime Minister
warmly shaking hands with Corbyn, clearly indicating their support for his
election and policies.)
Furthermore, could Peter Taaffe please explain why he
supported the tactic of entryism into the German SDP by the CWI's German
section back in the 1970s and 80s, when the Social Democratic leaders had
already jettisoned the socialist clause in its constitution at the Godesberg
Party Conference in 1958? Regardless of this fact, Taaffe still considered it a
workers' party.
Of course, we shouldn't have any illusions in the current
leaders commitment to socialism. But the point is that the SP position is shot
through with inconsistencies and contradictions which show its analysis to be
fundamentally incorrect.
False Perspectives
The SP has been totally upended the Corbyn movement. As they say in an article recently that, “the
world has been turned upside down”. “No-one, least of all Jeremy Corbyn
...expected this outcome.”
What is amazing is the Socialist Party now claims it was, in
fact, correct in its perspectives for Labour all along. You will be excused, if
you're left a little speechless. Frantically, trying to cover their tracks, they
had to dig back 13 years into their material to find a quote to substantiate
this. They write;
“As long ago as 2002 we argued that, "under the impact
of great historic shocks - a serious economic crisis, mass social upheaval -
the ex-social democratic parties could move dramatically towards the left"
(Socialism Today September 2002).
Later in the same article, the SP tries to bolster this
argument with a more “scientific” analysis. It reads;
“History demonstrates that mass parties of the working class
can move from left to right and back again. Bourgeois parties also, or a
section of them, can break away and form the nucleus of new workers’ parties,
and former workers’ parties can metamorphose into bourgeois parties.”
These few sentences from 13 years ago sound very impressive.
But, basically all they're saying is “Anything can happen.” Following the same
logic, the Tories might also transform themselves into a party of revolutionary
socialism!
To try prove themselves correct, they point to Italy, saying:
“The Italian Socialist Party, under the corrupting influence of Craxi who laid the basis for the rise of Berlusconi, evolved into an almost completely bourgeois formation and then eventually disappeared. On the other hand, the split from the Italian Communist party in 1991 led to a new mass party in Italy, Rifondazione Comunista.”
This is also a spurious argument. Firstly, the old mass
party of the working class in Italy wasn't the Socialist Party, but the
Communist Party. As for the new mass
party of the working class, Rifondazione Communista (PRC), you'd be excused if
you ask who?
This apparently successful example of a new mass party
splitting away from the traditional workers party ended in ignominious failure.
Within a matter of a few years, the PRC went into an alliance with the
bourgeois centre coalition “The Olive Tree” in order to contest the 1996
elections. The PRC “mass" workers' party gained a miserable 8% of the
vote.
After the next elections in 2006, the PRC again entered into
a Popular Front coalition government with the center-left, bourgeois alliance,
called The Union and it wasn't so much the Italian Socialist Party which laid
the basis for the rise of Berlusconi, but the PRC by going into a centre
coalition which betrayed the working class.
The CWI's new “mass” revolutionary workers' party, the PRC,
got only 3.4% in the 2009 European elections and in the next general election
in Italy, it got only 2% of the vote and failed to get any seats in parliament.
So, this great example of the successful creation of a new independent workers'
party from a traditional socialist party, aimed at justifying the SP's strategy
of splitting the Labour Party, falls flat on its face!
But, wait for it. The article then cites “Arthur Scargill's
break away group from the LP as showing the potential for a mass workers party
to emerge from a split in the LP. In
“the 1990s”, it says, “we launched the slogan for a new mass workers’ party.
This idea was confirmed in the growing support for a break from Labour, with
steps taken by good rank and file fighters and leaders towards the formation of
such a party. Arthur Scargill’s initiative to form the Socialist Labour Party
(SLP) was welcomed by ourselves and others.” However, as we now know, Arthur
Scargill's Socialist Labour Party has disappeared into thin air proving such
adventures which the SP advocates, come to nothing.
The 2002 statement was really is, is a fits-all, get-out
clause, in case their were proven wrong - a little insurance policy in the fine
print at the bottom of their perspectives documents. Yet, despite these two
paragraphs, they took a diametrically opposite position, saying the LP had
undergone a qualitative, and could never return to becoming a traditional
worker's party and swing to the left again.
Now, speaking of their now defunct former perspectives for
the creation of a new workers' party, they admit that, “We considered it more
likely to come into being from forces outside of the Labour Party.” adding that
“a movement within the Labour Party structures was not the most likely
scenario.”
Practice should run from theory, but in, practice, the SP
has ignored and never repeated this 2002 statement and has pursued a policy in
contradiction to it for the last 13 years. If the SP has really held onto the
2002 perspective where is the strategy to show it? The proof of the pudding is
in the eating. If they really also believed it was still possible that a left
could emerge in the LP, then surely they would have followed a policy which took
this into account and encouraged the formation of a left both within and
outside the LP as two compatible parts of the same strategy. They should have
called on the unions to stay in the party and fight for its transformation,
instead of disaffiliating and have encouraged left-wing members to stay in and
not split away from it, while, at the same time, organizing a broad left
movement outside the LP to involve people disillusioned with traditional
politics.
But, even now, in the face of a movement to the left
involving hundreds of thousands of youth and workers, they cling to their old
discredited theories and refuse to join the LP and work in a united front with
the New left around Corbyn in order to transform Labour, much like the
sectarian position taken by the Stalinists in Southern Europe towards the New
Left there.
Where the ultraleft and opportunist groups in Britain have
orientated towards the Corbyn movement, it has been in an entirely sectarian
way agitating on its fringes, in order to try to recruit new members into their
groups in line with their delusions about building their own independent, mass
revolutionary parties.
Wriggling and squirming in the face of this new reality, the
tiny Socialist “Party” of England and Wales (CWI) has now attempted to explain
Corbyn by saying “there are now two parties with the LP” – the right and left
wings. They may be supporting the idea of de-selection of right-wing MPS in the
LP, but this is just hollow words. At the same they continue to calls on Corbyn
and his supporters to split from the LP and create a new workers' party – which the SP would, of course, then try to
take over. This is exactly what the Labour right-wing would also like to see
happen. Consequently, the SP's position represents an attempt to sabotage
Corbyn's movement from the left. In doing so, it has entered into a de facto
united front with the Labour right-wing.
Although not an exceptional theoretician like the old CWI
leader, Ted Grant, Peter Taaffe was undoubtedly the best tactician on the
revolution left during the post-war period. However, without the theoretical
guidance of Ted behind him he lost the compass with which to chart the right
course. His false analysis of the LP inevitably resulted in a misguided
strategy. His ultraleft theory led to organizational opportunism in an effort
to keep supporters of his faction of the CWI from dropping out. Now he will
have to pay for it as rank and file membership who are losing faith in his
powers of judgment.
Now, following some quite amazing twists and contortions,
the SP has adopted the position that there are “two parties inside the LP” and
that the left around Corbyn should split away and form a new worker's party
together with the piddling little left groups like the SP. This is entirely wrong. The left around
Corbyn should precisely the opposite and dig in to reclaim the party for the
left, and let the right-wing split away to form some center-left party or fuse
with the Liberals. If the left splits away from the LP, it will sink like a stone
just as the ILP did in the 1930s. The name and traditions of the LP would again
fall into the false arms of the right, but regardless of that workers will turn
back to it as their traditional party, ignoring any left-wing break away.
The test of a genuine leadership is to have the humility and
honesty to admit that you were wrong and from that to reassess why and what
needs to be changed. Lenin was honest and bold enough to admit to the
Bolsheviks in April 1917 that his entire perspective and the demands flowing
from it for the Russian Revolution were wrong. As they say, “pride comes before
the fall”. It is a sign of a weak leadership's desperate efforts to cling to
power.
No comments:
Post a Comment