|
THEORY AND PRACTICE |
|
Clive Bradley of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, debated Torab,
an Iranian socialist, at a meeting held recently in London.
|
The launch of the London Socialist Alliance on 9 March was an interesting and novel event - to have various revolutionary organisations sharing a platform and being rational and constructive was positive. That is the context for this meeting. Revolutionary socialist unity, or, more broadly, socialist unity, is on the agenda.
Of course there are different levels of unity - a particular election project, or attempts at organisational unity, bringing together socialists from different organisations. It is this, latter, issue I want to concentrate on.
The general context in Britain and the starting point for our debate is this: for most of the last century British politics has been defined by the fact that we have had - basically - a two party system in which one of those parties, the Labour Party, was established by the organised labour movement. That is, from its origins the Labour Party was a groping towards an independent voice for the organised working class in politics.
Of course this voice was limited and inadequate. And this is the reflection of a number of things. Firstly the fact that the key and most decisive force in creating the Labour Party, and throughout its existence, was the trade union movement, itself bureaucratised, and the Labour Party has reflected this. Secondly, that, defining the Labour Party politically, the Labour Party has been an extension of the principle of trade unionism into politics. That is, where trade unionism bargains within the capitalist system over wages and conditions, the Labour Party is an extension of that principle into politics. So, however inadequate, the Labour Party has been a first faltering step on the road to the workers having their own political voice.
The Labour Party in power has - of course - always been a bourgeois party, acting in the interests of the ruling class. However, over the past few years and, in particular, since Blair came to power, that whole, fundamental character of the Labour Party, and therefore the shape and basic framework of British politics has been under attack. That process is not complete. The Labour Party has not been completely destroyed as an independent voice for the unions. But plainly the process is advanced.
What we are seeing is a historical regression in British politics, the increasing whittling away of the Labour Party as an organ of working class representation. We are moving back to the situation which existed a hundred years ago - of two straightforwardly bourgeois parties.
It seems to us that recognition of that fact is extremely important. As revolutionary socialists we are not indifferent to the state and the health of the broad labour movement. Quite the opposite. A revolutionary movement, a movement capable of overthrowing capitalism and beginning the transition to socialism, will come out of the transformation and radicalisation of the existing mass organisations of the working class or it will not come at all. It is not possible to construct a revolutionary movement from nothing, in parallel and in opposition to the broad existing labour movement.
The consolidation of the Blair faction in the Labour Party is a starting point. How should we respond? We cannot simply stand aside and allow Blair to have a free hand. We must reassert the idea that the workers must have their own political voice.
Now what that voice says is a matter for discussion and socialist intervention. We want a coherent socialist voice - but to have a voice at all is an important beginning. We gear everything around this task.
The idea which expresses this task is the idea of a workers' government. That is - Blair's government is a bosses' government, and what the working class needs is a government of its own, a government which will act in its interests, which will defend the rights of workers, tax the rich to restore the health service, and so on.
This must be the objective of the labour movement and, in the first instance, the objective of the socialists within the labour movement.
This orientation and strategy is a precondition for socialist unity. The point of socialists uniting is not simply to have a pleasant discussion, or to become a bit bigger, but to have a particular effect on the political outlook of the mass movement. That is - the labour movement must begin to reassert itself, fighting for its own interests against Blair.
The precise practical implications of the struggle for a workers' government is not something it is either practical or desirable to try to predict.
The battle in the Labour Party is not finally ended. On a cold assessment it seems unlikely that the unions will assert themselves and get rid of Blair. But there are all sorts of forms that fighting for an independent workers' voice can take.
For example, one direction the struggle may take is the creation of a Labour Representation Committee in the unions.
However, what is absolutely clear is that whatever shape the struggle takes - a battle in the Labour Party or the creation of a new body - the decisive place this battle will emerge from is the trade unions. So any effective socialist activity must include an orientation to the unions. This is central.
The existence of Blair gives this project an added urgency. The united Euro-elections list is simply one possible expression of our overall task.
But I want to talk specifically about revolutionary unity.
There are a huge number of revolutionary groups. And, of course, the differences between them are not entirely capricious or just bloody-minded (although there is an element of this). There are real, important disagreements, and we would like to find a way of discussing them.
I would just like to suggest how we see ourselves, how Workers' Liberty is defined.
Basically there is broad agreement on the following ideas:
I think that there are four things that determine Workers' Liberty as a distinct tendency within the general revolutionary left.
The first and most important is a view of Stalinism. Although our tendency came out of an orthodox Trotskyist background, belief in the so-called "deformed and degenerated workers' states", this was a view we rejected long ago, although in open theory, formally, a decade ago.
Looking at the left toady it strikes me strongly that the groups which have had the "workers' state" position on Stalinism - a confused and soft position - are also the groups which have fared the worst over the past 10 years. Compare the fortunes of the Militant and the SWP.
Secondly, a view of imperialism. We have rejected what we see as a rather two-dimensional and simplistic view of the way the world is organised and imperialism functions, and how that translates politically.
Two quick illustrations. In 1982, when Thatcher went to war with Argentina in common with the rest of the left we opposed Thatcher's war; however we disagreed with much of the far left that support should be given to the Argentinian junta during the war. To us this idea seems primitive - that the Argentinian rulers were some sort of anti-imperialist force.
Similarly in the Gulf War - between western imperialism and Iraq. And also in the earlier Gulf war, between Iraq and Iran. There was a point in that war when the left swung behind Iran on the grounds that imperialism was supporting Iraq - which we rejected.
Thirdly, is a view of the national question. In Britain there are distinct differences on the Middle East and Ireland.
One issue that connects all these three sets of questions together was the issue of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Although there were minorities in various international tendencies, we were pretty much isolated in the broadly-defined "orthodox" Trotskyist movement in opposing the Soviet invasion.
Many groups backed the USSR because the CIA was backing the Mujahadeen - they believed that made the Russian war an anti-imperialist struggle. A soft view of Stalinism meant the left thought that there was something progressive being achieved by the Russians. A wrong view on the national question meant much of the left did not understand that the Afghans had the right to self-determination.
The fourth issue is the question I have already touched upon, the question of orientation and strategy. We favour the building of a revolutionary party, but do not believe that this can be achieved by simply declaring it and recruiting in ones and twos, although, of course, we are very keen to recruit ones and twos! It will be built out of convulsions and a transformation of the mass workers' organisations.
I do not think that the three areas -imperialism, Stalinism and the national question - necessarily rule out having a common framework between revolutionary organisations. We would be quite prepared to be in a minority on these questions in a democratically-organised united organisation. However the second issue here, and a decisive condition for revolutionary unity - beyond an orientation to the mass organisations - is genuine democracy: i.e., that it is possible to have debate and that minority rights are respected.
Democracy means: civilised debate among people who take ideas seriously; minorities having the right to organise; not requiring minorities to argue positions they disagree with. Obviously organisations have to be able to act, and act in a decisive way. However, democratic rights are not optional, they are a basic requirement for long-term political health.
In conclusion: there is an urgency about creating socialist unity, and it would be a great step forward if the various groups on the revolutionary left were able to unite. Certainly we can unite for particular actions, but it would be better to unite in a more long-term organisational way.
What I am going to say may sound a little different. I will approach the same topic from a different angle, a different side of the question.
Obviously socialist unity requires unity on orientation towards the class struggle. I do not deny that. No one can deny that.
Although, here, orientation towards the class struggle and mass organisations of the working class - given even the levels of debate here in Britain - is not as easy a question as Clive is trying to make out. There are a lot of issues involved - exactly how do we do this? The question of Labour Party entryism and the way we work in the unions are both debatable questions. Not every question is solved; not everyone agrees on a common action programme.
But, even if we agree on all such matters, on their own they do not resolve the question of socialist unity. Socialists can only unite on a long-term basis on some strategy for socialist revolution.
Temporary unity, unity in action, unity around an action programme, no matter for how long a period, is some form of tactical agreement.
We need to agree on a strategic and programmatic basis before we can unite. And this is precisely why there is such disunity among revolutionary socialists internationally. Internationally we are in a deep, deep crisis. And unless we address the question of this deep crisis we will not be able to agree on any sensible solution to the way forward.
If we examine the question organisationally - the forces of revolutionary socialism have been decimated over the last 20 years. None of the international organisations claiming to be internationals do much more than exist on paper. The organisation I was a member of is probably one hundredth of the size it was 20 years ago. And the same goes for all sorts of other groups which existed in the 1960s and '70s. Organisationally they have been decimated.
There is no established leadership internationally. No one has the authority or prestige to claim some leadership role.
There is confusion on so many programmatic issues that every organisation that exists on an international scale has all sorts of tendencies inside them.
The same tendencies which exist in one international exist in another - at least given some differences due to historical background. Basically what this proves is that these internationals are essentially artificial. They have not resolved many of the questions relating to strategy and programme.
Even if we go beyond what Clive referred to as "orthodox Trotskyism", my own experience, in the Iranian revolution, comparing the Trotskyists to semi-Stalinists, the same types of splits which took place in the Iranian Trotskyists also took place in the semi-Stalinist groups. The same tendencies were reflected in both.
So, whatever safeguards we had as Trotskyists, against deviation, in real life, in practice, in the middle of revolution, proved not to hold much water.
The same reformist tendencies were produced inside our organisations as inside the centerist groups.
The splits over the Iranian revolution inside Iran were repeated internationally. When I came to Britain in the 1980s I was attracted to Socialist Organiser [a forerunner of Workers' Liberty] precisely because of your position on the Iranian revolution. You did not go along with the idea that support should be given to anyone who claimed to be anti-imperialist. We saw the comical outcome of this sort of anti-imperialism in the Socialist Workers' Party: one year Iraq was the agent of imperialism, and so they backed Iran; the next year Iraq was defending the interests of the revolution in the Middle East against imperialism, and the agents of imperialism were now Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
So, we have a situation where there is no established programme internationally that has authority, prestige or organisational weight to unite around itself the revolutionary socialist forces everywhere. there is no such thing.
There is a crisis in theory. Again, one of the useful things in the positions of Socialist Organiser was opposition to the "deformed and degenerated workers' states" theory. We have seen the results of this position. The groups that hold it - how wrong were they!
I will never forget an article by Ernest Mandel when the Berlin uprising [1989] was happening. He said US imperialism would invade because the political revolution was taking place. The US was going to invade East Germany and socialists everywhere should fight against it and support the workers' revolution. How wrong can they be!
This position has led to crazy political lines. And we have suffered as a result.
The question of permanent revolution. We have seen how 99% of the Trotskyist forces internationally used the theory of permanent revolution to justify support for Khomeini in Iran. The theory of permanent revolution is out of date. It no longer applies to any country in the world. Everywhere there is a bourgeois state. No longer is there any need for a democratic revolution to grow over into a socialist revolution.
I don't know, perhaps there is some hinterland, somewhere, that I don't know about, where there is still a semi-feudal or pre-capitalist state. But all the major countries in the world, including backward countries like Iran, are not like this. Iran has a capitalist state. So why do we need a gadget theory like permanent revolution? Why can't we talk straightforwardly of socialist revolution?
The third plank of the Trotskyist movement, the Transitional Programme. It is no longer a programme that can unite us, it can no longer guide us in our revolutionary activity.
Even in Marxism itself we have to resolve some of the most fundamental problems. Comrades in this room might understand Marxism as dialectical materialism. But to me this is bourgeois materialism combined with Hegelian nonsense. There are all sorts of questions and problems of theory that are now hitting us in the face.
The whole epoch has changed. We do not have any analysis that can satisfy me as a socialist which explains globalisation? What has happened to capitalism? Where are we going?
So how can we unite? We cannot unite on such shaky ground.
We have no theory. We have lost our old programme. We can fight this. We can say: I come from this tradition; this tradition has managed to hold us together; I will carry on for 20 or 30 years; we will do the same thing we have been doing.
Or, like lots of sects, we can create a new sect, the product of two or three sects uniting. It will last five or 10 years and then collapse. For the last 10 years we have seen many of this type of re-groupments, followed by degeneration.
Let's set up a new international - then collapse!
If we want to respond sensibly to this situation then we have to do certain things. Firstly, how can we approach the crisis without taking stock of our own past? We have to discuss and publish documents.
Where do we stand? Do we still call ourselves Trotskyists? Let's answer this. Is it still correct? What does it now mean? So, let us take stock of our whole experience back to the Russian revolution. Hasn't the last 20 or 30 years shown us that basing ourselves on one experience, of the Russian Revolution and Leninism, is far too narrow? It has shown its limitations already.
What do we mean by calling ourselves socialists? What exactly is this socialism we are talking about? What is this workers' state? What do we understand by programme? By "revolutionary party"?
All these questions are debatable. there is no given solution. If comrades still think that they have all the solutions to all these questions, in their own small group, you are surely mistaken. Look around, internationally, there are so many opinions on all these questions.
What we have to do, what my Iranian group has tried to do, is to take stock. We have done the following - we have not got answers to everything. But there are a certain number of minimum things we are absolutely sure about. We call this our "Minimum Platform". Let us, on this basis, go forward.
Comrades, I have not seen your group attempt to do this. What is your minimum understanding of all these programmatic questions? Why not put your understanding down in one document, so we can debate it? If we want to fight for socialist unity we must do this. Every group which is at least aware of this crisis must at least begin doing this.
Secondly, a debate requires a common journal. If four or five or six socialist groups cannot produce a common journal, talk of unity is simply artificial. We cannot simply get unity by uniting on an election to the European parliament or for London's mayor, or whatever.
Thirdly, we have to have a more flexible form of organisation in the future. I cannot ask a comrade from a particular organisation to abandon his organisation and join a discussion forum. No, we have to have a form of organisation in which we are not really yet united - some are individuals, some are members of other organisations - but they still work together to carry on a discussion.
To sum up: take stock; a common journal; flexible organisation.
The debate turned into "Are we for theory, or are we for practice?" To me this is ridiculous. We all know, as socialists, we have to practice. Every comrade who considers themselves a socialist will get involved, even as an individual, in whatever struggles they can.
In fact, precisely because of this I suggest again: a flexible form of organisation in which there is agreement between tendencies and groups to allow us all to carry out whatever activities we want.
Comrades, I've been in Britain a long time. I know about the debates over the Labour Party and unions. I know you do not all agree on one line of practice. Even among yourselves you do not agree on how to respond to the Labour Party. We can see this today, even in this meeting.
Comrades cannot just propose a couple of lines on which to unite, and leave the theoretical problems to later. Even in the simplest of questions there is a disagreement.
However, that does not mean: let's sit in a room, discuss, write, for 10 years, at which point we can emerge and get involved in practical activity. No! Practice whatever you were practising already. Do whatever appears to you to be correct. But, bear in mind that non of this practical work will - in the long-run - resolve the crisis of the socialist left, neither in Britain or internationally.
The problem of the British left is not that you are not involved in practical activity. It is that you do not understand what you mean by "socialist revolution", by "workers' party" or "workers' state". Or the relation between socialism and democracy. On none of these questions is there agreement. And nor do we even understand our disagreements.
One comrade talked of "tradition", saying that until he found something else, this would guide him through thick and thin. But it doesn't. That "tradition" is very cosy in a British situation which does not change for 60 years. But face a revolution and we have political flip-flops.
Have a major turn in the class struggle and you do not know how to respond. All this lack of theoretical clarity will come to the forefront.
If you do not discuss the fact that the theory of permanent revolution is out of date, and you enter the Iranian revolution half of you will end up supporting Khomeini. It has happened to us so many times over the past 50 years.
So we should proceed in a serious manner. We try to identify areas of agreement and areas where we are sure we a right. We are not saying comrades must just sit and debate. No.
We need a journal and flexible organisation. After the process of discussion we will have a more solid basis for socialist unity.
I agree with Torab about the theory of permanent revolution. It is confusing to talk of the theory of permanent revolution in a situation where there is a capitalist state. However I do not think that the basic problem in the Iranian revolution was that the Trotskyist movement adhered to a confusing theory of permanent revolution. I think it was to do with the entire view of the world into which this theory was fitted.
The Trotskyists came out of the Second World War into a world where they expected Stalinism to have collapsed. But it expanded. And the Trotskyists shrivelled. The orthodox Trotskyists concluded that the revolution was continuing, regardless of the workers. The revolution became a disembodied force that could take any form. It would be nice if the workers led the revolution, but the revolution had become a process with its own dynamic, divorced from workers' struggles.
Khomeini fits into this picture. The revolution is continuing regardless, and in Iran its expression was Khomeini. The origins of this problem is the entire world view of post-war Trotskyism.
On the basic programmatic issues we do have answers. We do know that the working-class revolution requires working class self-activity. We do know workers' rule requires some form of workers' councils.
Of course we do not know the precise shape of the future. But we do know that there must be a decisive conflict with the capitalist power. And it is possible to operate politically on the basis of our basic theoretical-programmatic understanding.
Three quick examples. As it happens Marx writes Capital during a long lull in the class struggle. But in 1848, before Capital had been written, he was quite prepared to take part in practical revolutionary activity on the basis of a basic understanding of where capitalism stood in history.
On the other hand the Bolsheviks were wrong about their understanding of the Russian revolution, until 1917. But it did not stop them being able to intervene.
On a more humble level: we do not have a theory of Stalinism. Comrades in the Alliance for Workers' Liberty have various theoretical approaches. But we do have programmatic agreement about the position of these societies in history, about a working class programme for the overthrow of Stalinism. It is politically adequate. That is the way to go forward.
One comrade raised the question of the London socialist slate for the Euro-elections. The reason for supporting such a slate is categorically not to do with the idea that a space is opening up to the left of the Labour Party. This has absolutely nothing to do with our position. It seem very improbable that this will emerge in the immediate future.
Our stance is this: in an election someone has to make socialist propaganda, somehow. Otherwise the political agenda is left to Blair. Standing candidates in these elections will allow large numbers of workers to hear socialist ideas, directly. If only a handful are convinced, it is a reason to stand. And it is not counterposed to a more general orientation towards the task of transforming the labour movement.
Two final points. The question of orientation is more than just a tactical question. The question is: are we trying to build a movement trying to relate to the working class movement, or not? Are we trying to relate not only to workers in struggle, but to their organisations, too. If not, unity is pointless.
We know from history that workers in struggle do not, spontaneously, know exactly what to do. The socialists organise to put forward ideas of what is necessary to take the class forward.
The socialists need to be organised for this ideological-political work.
Just throwing up the idea of unity doesn't help much. Discussions on unity become more fruitful after and during practical work.
[ Home | Publications | Links ]