Renewal or Repetition?

Mistakes and wrong turns are fertile ground for learning. However, this is only if they are subject to critical reflection. All too often they are simply repeated in renewed form. Ger Francis, former Birmingham SWP full timer but now of Respect Renewal claims to have learned his lesson, but has he? Asks Jason Travis...

Current period

The current period in left history is an interesting one. Debates formerly suppressed or kept internal have bubbled up to the surface. The internet has blown apart forever the idea of internal party secrecy and various left broad alliances have splintered. For some this is a time of exciting opportunity: for others of despair. Is it the early hours of the new dawn? Most have left the party and are safely home, others wander the streets in aimless drunkenness looking for their home, others still- perhaps the most lost- punch the air and proclaim they are the light and the way.

We may be approaching a new day but we’ve got a hell of hangover to get through first.

Over the last few weeks there’s been a spate of publications about what sort of party we need. Mark Hoskisson writing in Permanent Revolution argues for a revolutionary party, Dave Packer argues in Socialist Outlook for an anti-capitalist but non-revolutionary party (my reply here), , Hilary Wainwright argues for a new sort of party, Mark Perryman argues for a new sort of politics (as long as it isn't revolutionary- replies here)and now Ger Francis argues that revolutionaries cannot even be anti-capitalist as that would be too 'abstract'.

Exaggeration

First Ger points out that much of the recent history of the SWP has been predicated on exaggerated perspectives
"A celebratory tone and cheery optimism stood out." This could be a healthy impulse to recognise reality- to not continually ready troops for the next big thing, which becomes a recipe for continual exhaustion and demoralisation. It is important to understand where we are at, in order to rebuild at the most basic level working class movements- active union branches, active community and tenant groups, campaigning groups in the community.

However, in Ger’s analysis the reasons to be sober have a different function. It is to reject socialism or revolution as not being where we are at. Even David Packer’s action programme of limited reforms is seen as too ‘anti-capitalist" and is said to "exaggerate developments to our left, underplay those to our right’ and is dismissed as a ‘fetish.’

It’s all about where we are at now, relating to not so much real working class concerns and movements – as that might suggest radical solutions- but of relating to how we can garner votes for Respect. Because anything else would be too radical, not in the ‘real world’.

You may have thought you joined politics to change the 'real world' but in this brave new world it's all about how to best get the votes delivered.

Of course it is understandable why revolutionaries and other political activists want to get involved in elections. Elections pose questions of politics, of power, of who rules. Eelction campiangs can be used to identify and mobilsie support for the real chance of change which comes from ordinary working class people organising ourselves in our workplaces and communities, in class struggle, to take the power back. However, if the all becomes getting the most votes, sacrificing principles for short term electoral expediency then electoralism s a very different game- it is precisely about putting the needs of an electoral party before the urgent need to rebuild working class militancy in the here and now.

If this means confusing social democracy and socialism then, from the perspective of the party builders, fine. In a revealing phrase, Ger writes about the collapse of the former planned economies "If those regimes had been overthrown by forces trying to reclaim some more democratic version of socialism or even social democracy, the wider consequences might have been different." (Emphasis added).

If workers in these societies had overthrown the degenerate political bureaucracy to democratise the plan that would have been a move towards socialism and workers' power. The wider consequences would certainly have been radically different. Capitalism would not have in all likelihood have been given a new lease of life for a start by ripping into the planned economies, massively boosting capitalist output, doubling the size of the world working class subject to capitalist exploitation and, crucially, restoring capitalist rates of profit.

Instead workers who'd shown such bravery and determination in bringing about the end of bureaucratic dictatorship let capitalism be restored, in many cases without an organised fight against it. If they had had a fight to force reforms out of the new capitalism- following the path of 'social democracy' we would support their demand for reforms but say why settle for a little when you can have the lot. Ger presumably would have cheered them on and not drawn out the lessons of their probable defeat- as without revolutionary organisation, without a far reaching mobilisation of the masses, the ordinary working class, most such movements would in all likelihood go down defeated.

Ger's formulation conflates two very different class societies- socialism run by workers and capitalism with some influence by the organise working class. But hey never mind because confusions the name of the game as Ger later concludes that "social democratic model based on Keynesian economics" advocated by Naomi Klein would "represent a huge move to the left".

May be if it arose out of an explosion of working class anger, a movement within which socialists would argue against better management of capitalism in favour of working class people taking power for themselves. Unless of course those ‘socialists’ were of the Ger Francis school in which case they’d say how wonderful it all is and let the movement decline back to the current levels of defeat in which we languor.

Top-down partyism

Ger starts his arguments by saying that the common thread of those expelled from the SWP and those who left is the decision to put "Class before party"

He claims that in the Socialist Workers’ Party, in which he was a leading member for several years and a full-timer, that there was "a model of a Leninist party so top down as to engender a culture of self censorship and deference inside the SWP, massively hindering debate, self-criticism and the ability to internally readjust imbalances in perspectives."

There is some truth in this but it is far from clear how different Respect Renewal is and indeed how far they put the needs of the working class before the needs of the ‘party’ – in this case Respect Renewal.

Ger claims that "authority inside the SWP is maintained by a highly centralised leadership who employ full-timers to execute their line." He claims that if they disagree they will face almost immediate sacking and that this leads to a culture of self-censorship, deference and toeing the party line. Well he should know might be one reaction. On the other hand, as Ger is a bitter factional foe of the current SWP perhaps it would be unwise to take his word for it.

As it happens, though, anyone who has had dealings with the SWP can see that there is some truth to this allegation. In my twenty years or so of political activity I have mainly had positive relationships with SWP members- but on at least two occasions I have known campaigns wound up, membership lists disappeared and a complete lack of accountability. The British left is a small fragile affair- so just a couple of examples of this sort in many activists' experience is enough to give an impression of top-down partyism, putting party before the wider class struggle.

Added to this are the cases of knowing people who have been expelled or left. The solutions, though, seem relatively simple- maximum democracy, including the right of minorities to assemble and put our material, to have an open culture of political debate, including involving non-members in these debates, and to have any public representatives of the organisation openly accountable to the membership. In campaigns and united fronts all information should be shared and the campaigns themselves conducted democratically.

Strangely, though, Ger does not outline these simple steps, though he does rightly identify internal democracy and openness to debate as essential to building trust between members and the leadership. But why not have some simple stepping stones to this?

Perhaps, because all is not necessarily as it seems in Respect Renewal. Decisions in the new party formation are presumably made on the basis of democracy and debate but it is still heavily dependent on promoting the leader MP George Galloway. As Ger writes, "The significance of the developments that have taken place around Respect, under the leadership of George Galloway and Selma Yaqoob should not be underestimated." (Emphasis added)

How far is George Galloway accountable to the party? Why does he not work on an average workers' wage, a central demand of the socialist and workers' movement? How does democracy operate here? And beyond these formal questions how far is there a culture of open democratic debate and dissent in the party and how far is there a sense of enthrallment to the leaders?

Respect Renewal is of course a more open, more fluid and younger organisation so my comments here are not intended to write it off. Indeed they may be seen as a challenge to be answered. There are no doubt many activists in Renewal who are very genuine and very genuinely believe that they are putting the needs of class struggle, of their community, of their struggles, before the 'party'. They sincerely believe that they are expressing the stuggle, meeting the needs of working class people, through building the organisation. To such activists we join in those common struggles- even as we disagree with the political basis on which Respect Renewal is being built. We don't simply say you're wrong and walk away. We say we think differently from you on some subjects- reformism, social democracy, the need for socialism. We think we're right on this, obviously, and you may be think you're right- fair enough. Let's in common struggle we which ideas win out. Don't take our word for it- discover it for yourself. And- of course in all due humility- perhaps we'll change our minds on some things. Time - and pateint discussion and critical reflection-will tell.

Ger Francis claims that what unites those who've left the SWP is to put class before party. But the question is which class? The main question of politics is who rules? The ordinary people making our own decisions about our own lives- the millions? Or the same old same old tired elite telling us what to think and what to do and prepared to kill us if we disagree in any way that threatens their interests- the millionaires?

Class

The biggest central unresolved question is what class interests does Respect Renewal represent? It is all very well saying that we put class before party but which class? Ger sees the "emergence of Respect as an attempt to fill at least some of this space", that is "the space once occupied by social democracy increasingly vacated".

‘Social democracy’ is the name given to a political ideology that instead of wanting to replace capitalism wants to reform it, to make it slightly fairer. The central question of socialist politics is how to relate to these issues.

If workers believe that they can get reforms under capitalism and perhaps ultimately reform capitalism to work for them, what should we do?

We should endeavour to take part in every limited fight for reforms, to strengthen the organisation of the working class in every instance. Against a factory or school closure, against deportations, racist attacks, threats to civil liberties or imperialist wars we argue for the whole community, the whole workforce to take matters into its own hands. We argue for involving everyone in making decisions, for enforcing these decisions by mass action- strikes, blockades, sit down protests, mass self-defence. Socialists argue that through these actions working class people realise their own power to run society for themselves.

Capitalism cannot be reformed but we argue our case not through isolation but by getting stuck in, testing our ideas in practice.

Ger’s alternative is different. He is for blurring these class lines, for making vague inclusive statements adorned with left-wing rhetoric of ‘Marxism’, ‘working class’ ‘class before party’ when talking to a left audience and without a blink of an eye ditching these terms when talking to others. It is dishonest and patronising.

Unprecedented

Ger claims Respect is "defined by an unprecedented relationship between left and parts of the most oppressed sections of British society." (and he criticises the SWP for exaggeration!) He means predominantly those brought in by the anti-imperialist anti-war struggle. Socialists of course should take seriously the need to build an anti-war movement connected with one against racism, against the attacks on civil liberties, against attacks on all our communities and services. In Ger’s book though this becomes the opposite of what he claims because all these wider united front struggles are subsumed into building Respect.

And by staying silent on the question of class it can all too easily end up building an alliance with the middle class small business owners and other self-appointed leaders of ‘the community’.

For example, in the struggle against fascism in Oldham, Bradford, Burnley, socialists work with all workers, Black and white, Asian, Muslim, of no religion, of any religion. In my experience as a trade unionist in Oldham it was important to make sure there were mass meetings- sometimes several hundred strong, often ¾ Asian, where decisions could be made on the basis of democracy. Otherwise self-appointed leaders tried to co-opt the movement.

Of course these are always risks. In the struggles against deportation and for welfare support in the Ethiopian community in Manchester we have witnessed some political divisions with some people attempting to put forward a particular middle class politics based on ‘leaders’. Socialists are only one voice amongst others- what we fight for though is the mass, the working class to make the decisions. If we lose the vote we don’t walk away from the struggle. But unlike Ger’s model we don’t make backroom deals, drop most of our politics, to make vague positive sounding noises about ‘unprecedented’ ‘progressive politics’.

Smug

Ger of course rejects arguing for our politics because this would be arrogant. We are told that we have to "drop an attitude of smug superiority to ‘reformists’". Indeed- this is a truism. But I guess we have all met Marxist bores (and boors) who make this point bear repeating. However, in this case it is used as a point to not raise any anti-capitalist or socialist politics at all. It may be easier to take of course if Ger’s writing was not peppered with phrases and constructions such as "The tasks of Marxists...", "It is imperative..." This is the correct...." Of course, Ger is entitled to be strident- so is anyone else but it makes it harder to take a lecture on humility from someone who in a comment in his own article says he has no doubts about his role in bureaucratically excluding victimised FBU militant Steve Godward saying to him that he was ‘politically finished’.

But more than this it is deeply demeaning to working class militants who may be reformists or at least have not made up their mind on the question of how to actually get a better society. If I was anxious to build a mass antiwar movement, a mass antiracist movement or a struggle against cuts, closures or privatisations I would want maximum unity in action but I’d also want maximum debate about how we can build such a movement. I’d be deeply suspicious and even resentful to people or currents who told me that we couldn’t talk about such deep issues for fear of putting people off.

Building Respect?

Because behind all this is a perspective not actually of putting class before party but all part of "the success of Respect". The wider movement, the class struggle, working class hopes, concerns, arguments and questions have to be subsumed to party building. All the fine (and true) words about ‘testing and reining our views in the practical problems’ are not, when it comes down to it, practical problems of working class lives, but of "problems of building Respect and relating to the forces that it attracts". Now Ger of course is welcome to want to build his project and shout it from the roof-tops, fair enough, but not a the expense of and before the interests of building unity in action, of rebuilding the working class movement. However, according to him it is all about "engagement in building Respect which will define the nature of different Marxist currents".

Well thanks but no thanks.

Or rebuilding the movement?

Instead we should seek primarily to win new people, new forces, and new activists to the movement. We should seek out every struggle that needs us, to engage debate and take common action with working class activists. Not primarily to build the party or group- a group is only any good as a resource to the movement. Of course building the group and future party is fine if it is not counter-posed to building the movement and in the course of such developments if we are open and not coy or self-censoring about our politics, if we are honest and not patronising, then we can have discussions and arguments about the best ways forward for the left, revolution versus reform, how best to win people to the left and working class movement and how we can win battles. Party or organisation will be essential and indeed crucial in such battles because a revolutionary party poses the question of class ownership- who rules? Who should rule? It cannot be a party over the class- even a cross-class deceptive party- it has to be a party rotted in and run by the working class who then use it as a resource to wrest power for themselves and run society and the world for the benefit of all.

In this process, we will take part alongside Respect Renewal, the SWP, and the wider movement, the antiracist and antiwar movement. People searching for a new political home in the aftermath of the splits and splinters from the 'broad party' idea are in a more fluid state than previously and there is therefore a good chance of open dialogue and drawing in new activists to our movement.

The left is in a fertile period of re-composition and rethinking. The counter-conference to Labour in Manchester in September is just one strand of this process. I don’t have all the answers and nor does Permanent Revolution- but we don’t think the basis of thinking everything through and anew is served by being shy about discussing what we believe in- the necessity of working class self-emancipation.

By engaging in open debates and discussions in the context of common action we can begin to rebuild the basis of class struggle and socialism in the here and now, co-ordinating the struggles of activists - from different parties and no parties, to really put the class struggle before the party. Then forward from the struggles of today we can start planning actively for tomorrow.

Thu 06, March 2008 @ 15:15