Our Programme and Transitional Demands Peter Taaffe 1995, Militant Labour Members' Bulletin 13 Next FROM TIME to time it is necessary for our organisation to re-evaluate its programme, its slogans, to examine its language and to update its ideas. It is necessary to do this in Britain and on an international scale at this stage because, in the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism and the move to the right of the 'traditional' organisations, profound changes have taken place. The political terrain upon which we operate has changed fundamentally. Other organisations completely incapable of adapting to the new situation have either sunk into obscurity, or been wracked by crisis. Some, like the SWP, will face splits in the next period. In discussing the programme a key question is the mood and outlook of the working class. The consciousness of the mass of the proletariat has undoubtedly been thrown back when compared to the situation in the 1970s and early 1980s. It is true that the pendulum is now beginning to swing back. This is shown by the general strike in Italy, in the movements in France at the end of 1994 and beginning of 1995, with mass demonstrations and the singing of the Internationale, and the more recent events in Sweden, in which we have played an important part. But consciousness has not yet returned to the earlier stage when the basic idea of socialist change was accepted by big layers of the politically developed sections of the youth and working class people. Update Demands Because of this our organisation has been forced, so to speak 'on the wing', to examine some of our demands, to withdraw some which were no longer applicable, and to introduce fresh demands. We should not lightly jettison slogans and demands which have formed an important part of our programme in the past. But it would be fatal for us not to recognise the changes which have taken place and the need to readjust parts of our programme, specific demands and even some slogans we advocate. The programme of a revolutionary organisation, to paraphrase Trotsky, should not be fixed like iron but flexible. Our strategic task is the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by a socialist society. But this task is impossible without the most careful attention to all, even small and partial questions, of a tactical and programmatic character. An additional reason for re-evaluating our programme now is because of the independent revolutionary character of our work. In the 'entrist' phase, which we have to remember lasted for decades, there was always the danger of an opportunist adaptation to social democracy, particularly to the left, of reformism and centrism. Some mistakes were made but in general this tendency was corrected through internal discussion and clarification within our ranks. Now, in a phase of increasingly independent work there is perhaps the opposite danger, of ultra-leftism. At the very least a tendency could develop leading to carelessness in the formulation of demands, and gaps in the understanding of new members about the need for transitional demands. What is to be done? Is there a clear understanding within our ranks of the need, in fact a greater need today, for transitional demands and the transitional approach of Trotsky and our organisation in the past? Or is there a feeling that all that is required today is to take to the 'open seas', to put forward the 'boldest' revolutionary demands and this will guarantee us a mass audience and growth in numbers? This approach would be fatal for the future of our organisation. Another reason why we need clarity on the programme is that the very need for a programme is under attack. The radical left intelligentsia faced with a barrage of bourgeois triumphalism since 1989, is in headlong ideological retreat. They echo, quite unconsciously in most cases, the ideas of the 'Economists' which Lenin confronted at the beginning of the century in his book What is to be done? This layer argued that there is "no need" for a programme, or slogans, or even a 'party'. Solutions will arise 'spontaneously' from the working class in action. This is an attack on the dialectical interrelationship between the working class as it develops under capitalism and the role of leadership. We have always argued against the sects who echoed the wrong idea of Lenin (in the same What is to be done?) that "revolutionary consciousness is brought to the working class from the outside". On the contrary, as we have shown many times, the basic ideas of socialism developed in the ranks of the proletariat (amongst the Chartists for instance) even before Marx and Engels came onto the scene. The Paris Commune, with its outline of what a workers' state would involve, Soviets etc, were not developed by Marx and Engels or Lenin and Trotsky. These were thrown up by the working class in the course of its experiences. The great historical merit of Marxism was to generalise - to codify - this experience and to give back to the working class a rounded-out programme. This was a summing up working class experience. In Marx's words, through a correct programme the proletariat can develop "from a class in itself (which is just raw material for exploitation) to a class for itself. In other words it becomes conscious of itself as a class. The need for an organisation, specifically of a party, has been thoroughly explained by the great Marxist teachers. Trotsky's famous example in his History of the Russian Revolution is the best explanation of a party. He likens the working class to steam which is harnessed by a piston box (the party) to become a force. Without the piston box, the energy, the movement of the working class, can be dissipated. However, the piston box, that is the party, is nothing without the steam which provided the energy in the first place. The Marxist method The issue of the programme raises also the method of a genuine revolutionary organisation in contradistinction to the myriad sects. The sects always proceed firstly from an elaboration of programme and even then in a completely abstract fashion, unrelated to the real movement of the working class. We, on the other hand, have a good historical tradition of basing our programme on the elaboration of perspectives. Only then is it possible to determine our programme, as well as specific demands to be put forward etc. Sometimes in the past the elaboration of perspectives and our programme have been separated. A perspectives document was produced and a separate programme was also developed. Because of the character of this period it is necessary to integrate perspectives and the main programmatic demands, which should be put forward at each stage, as far as possible, in one document. This was the method of Trotsky, in his writings on Germany before Hitler came to power, as well as in France and in Spain in the 1930s. Before re-examining the programme it is necessary to briefly restate the general ideas which informed Trotsky's approach towards the elaboration of the Transitional Programme. Trotsky's view Trotsky pointed out that the main contradiction of the epoch was between the objective prerequisites for revolution, which had matured, and were "rotten ripe", and the immaturity of the 'superstructure', that is the consciousness of the proletariat and its vanguard - the advanced workers. Trotsky pointed towards what could and what could not be changed in working class consciousness through the programme. For us, as Marxists, the consciousness of the mass of working class people is part of the objective difficulties we face. This consciousness can be changed by events, or mainly by events. On the other hand the outlook of the advanced layers, at least a layer of them, can be changed by theory, propaganda, argument and clear demands that correspond to the situation. Therefore, it was necessary for Marxists, argued Trotsky, to elaborate a series of transitional demands as a bridge from the present level of consciousness to the idea of the socialist revolution. Sectarians of all description do not need this bridge' because, in effect, they do not intend to pass over to the other side, to win the mass of the working class to the idea of the socialist transformation of society. The pre-first world war social democracy divided its programme between a minimum and a maximum programme. However, with the exhaustion of any progressive mission by world capitalism, signified by the First World War and the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks concluded that it was necessary to advance 'transitional demands'. Some of these demands are contained in the brilliant little pamphlet of Lenin The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Avoid It. The Bolsheviks, as with the Marxists today, did not reject partial, i.e. reformist, demands. In fact, the essence of the situation, under disintegrating world capitalism, is that the struggle for 'reforms' is bound up with the need to carry through the socialist transformation of society. It would be fatal, as the sects invariably do, to put forward abstract formulas as a substitute for concrete demands, clear slogans, which arise from the experiences of the masses themselves. It was a theme of Trotsky in the discussions leading up to the writing of the Transitional Programme that even the greatest geniuses of Marxism cannot foretell every development of the working class. "No-one anticipated the development of the Congress of Industrial Organisations" (in the USA between 1933 and 1936) said Trotsky. This was a mighty movement of the US working class, of three million formerly unorganised workers into the trade unions over a three-year period. There will be many future developments that we cannot anticipate. There will be many movements which will throw up new demands, and sometimes old demands formulated in a different way, that we would need to incorporate into our programme. For the record There is another qualification that needs to be added. How we pose demands is to some extent decided by the size and the influence of the organisation. A small propaganda group, and every revolutionary organisation passes through this phase, has no need to fill out every detail in its programme. However, when an organisation becomes larger, when it becomes a factor in the situation, it is necessary to give a more precise shape to the demands that we put forward. But at ail times, what we demand, the slogans that we advance, are important. They determine the effect we have on those we are trying to win, and are also important from a historical point of view. For instance, on the issue of Northern Ireland we can point back to the position that we took in 1969 on the deployment of British troops. No other organisation can reprint the material from this period. Our material has stood the test of time. However, this does not prevent our opponents from rummaging through the store rooms of history to see whether they can find even seemingly obscure and detailed points with which to undermine our position. In Brazil, in the polemic which is taking place between the supporters of the CWI and the supporters of the LIT inside the PSTU, the LIT have dredged up how we allegedly voted on a "troops out" resolution at a conference in 1969 or 1970. This shows that even when we constitute a small organisation the position we take on issues will be raised once we become a sizeable force and a factor in the situation. Next