Our Programme and Transitional Demands

Revolution?

If it was based upon consciousness alone, particularly of the mass, we would not be putting forward the idea of socialism at this stage. The consciousness of the working class has been thrown back in terms of support for socialism. But we must still argue the case for socialism.

On the other hand, the sectarians put forward their ideas and programme in a most unskilful fashion. For them there are only two colours in the political spectrum, red and black. Life and politics however is made up of shadings as well as the bright colours. This raises the question of the slogan of "revolution" on which some discussions have already taken place both in Britain and on a world scale.

There is nothing wrong with bold language, of trying to explain the ideas of Marxism in a new and more exciting fashion.

Moreover, we are revolutionaries, we stand for revolution. Some sections of our international, such as in France and Pakistan, include the term "revolution" into the very name of their organisation: It is necessary both in terms of the name of an organisation and its programme to take into account the concrete national and social traditions of every country. We also use arguments in favour of revolution in theoretical articles, in our paper and in our monthly magazine. We do the same in special bulletins, leaflets, pamphlets etc. where we are aiming at a specific audience of young workers or students who, to some extent, are ahead of the great majority of the proletariat on some issues.

But to advocate that we would put forward the idea of "revolution" as a slogan for a mass workers' audience, very baldly without explanation and without elaboration, is to run ahead of events. It goes too far. Put in a bald way it can be completely misunderstood and moreover can give a wrong impression of what we stand for.

We need to clarify this question not just for today but, more importantly, for the future when we are a much more important mass force. Then the bourgeois will attempt, as they did in the past in the case of the Liverpool city council struggle, to raise a mental barrier in the minds of workers to the ideas we are putting forward.

Therefore, it is necessary to formulate our ideas with care and not to set up unnecessary obstacles in the minds of workers. As in the past the bourgeois will attempt to picture us as "wild men and women with knives between our teeth".

Violence

We have always approached the question of "revolution" at this stage, in a careful and defensive fashion.

When questioned on the issue of 'revolution' we never usually give a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. We invariably seek to explain the social content of such a demand along the lines of "if you mean by revolution a 30-35 hour week, a minimum wage of £200 a week, the taking over of the 200 monopolies; if this is your perception of revolution then of course we accept that idea."

Today it is better to advance the idea of socialism, of a democratic socialist plan of production etc. If anything, given the collapse of Stalinism, and the throwing back of consciousness in relation to socialism, it is both necessary and more possible to explain this idea than the bald one of 'revolution', to a mass audience.

Some comrades have invoked the example of the overthrow of the Stalinist regimes in 1989. Then the idea of 'revolution' in Eastern Europe was much in vogue. We had to make it clear then, and subsequently that when the bourgeois deployed the term, 'revolution', they were not talking about a socialist revolution. Of course there was an element of this - political revolution - in the beginning. But the net outcome of this movement was a social counter-revolution, the restoration of capitalism.

We have to recognise that at the present time the very term 'revolution' is both over used and devalued. It is put forward as an idea of sweeping political change, within the confines of capitalism. Even Blair and his acolytes talk about the "unfinished revolution" in the Labour Party. In effect there is a counter-revolution against the programme and democratic rights of the labour movement built up over generations.

Some sections, even of workers, can quite easily embrace the concept of 'revolution' which they associate with their own personal circumstances without going outside the framework of capitalism. For instance many blacks, even the radicalised sections, can quite easily accept the need for a 'revolution' but at the same time reject the idea of socialism. The discussion on the programme should not take the form of hair-splitting. But, use of wrong formulations can create a wrong impression of what we are aiming for. If the term 'revolution' has to be used we must specify the class character.

It would be logical to call for a 'socialist revolution'. We believe that this runs ahead of events, for the reasons explained above, and it is better to express the same idea in the more popularised form of the "socialist transformation of society", "public ownership" of the commanding heights of a specific number of companies.

People's Power

This issue is linked to the use of the term "people's power", and the description of our organisation as a "people's party", or our leading spokespersons as "people's Champion".

Such terms have crept into our journals and into public statements and propaganda of our organisation. To some extent this was excusable in the immediate post-1989 period. But it is a thoroughly unscientific term. The working class is included in an undifferentiated mass of "people". If necessary it is preferable to use the term "working class" or "working people". The latter term was deployed by Lenin to encompass the working class and the lowest strata of the petty bourgeois, working peasants, oppressed small business people etc.

Some verbal discussions have taken place on these issues which have largely clarified the questions.

Election tactics

But one of the most controversial questions in all sections of the CWI is the issue of elections and tactics we should deploy. Strictly speaking this does not belong to an examination of the programme. But it is not possible to build a Chinese wall between the programme and the tactics and slogans that flow from this.

It has to be recognised that in this period it is exceptionally difficult to strike the right balance in the formulation of correct slogans in relation to the traditional organisations. This arises from the different levels of consciousness and the different layers we are appealing to. This is allied to the unprecedented decay of the traditional organisations.

We were initially very cautious when we launched the turn, and also on the perspectives for the traditional parties. It is now clear that the process of 'bourgeoisification' is a trend, not just in Britain but on a European and to some extent on a world scale. Some traditional parties, such as in Spain, the PSOE, have already been transformed into, or are in the process of being transformed into, bourgeois parties. It has to be added here that the majority of the Spanish comrades do not agree that the process has been completed. There is room to discuss this issue in more detail but the trend is clear. The PSOE, given the utter discrediting of the Gonzalez leadership which may be reflected in the victory for the right wing party (PP) in the general election in the next period, could lead to its disappearance like the Italian Socialist Party.

The former Italian Communist Party, (now called the Democratic Party of Socialism), seems also to be heading in the same direction of becoming another bourgeois party. It invited to its conference not just Berlusconi, standard bearer of the right in Italy, but Fini the ex-fascist leader of the ex-fascist party, the National Alliance.

The Japanese Socialist Party first of all changed to the Social Democrat Party and has now has just dissolved itself into the "Democratic League".

In Britain Blair is-determined to carry through his "project", which even some on the left now complain, represents an internal coup largely of ex-members of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) around Blair, against the Labour Party itself. Blair himself boasted on his jaunt to Murdoch's island in Australia, that by the time of the next election the Labour Party would be a "new Party".

Even more distance will be put between the Labour Party and the trade unions, leading possibly to a complete separation.

A new socialist party?

All of this is preparing the ground for splits within the Labour Party - the basis for which we have explained in previous issues of the bulletin. This in turn means that we must raise the idea of a new Socialist Party in Britain.

There is a difference between a slogan, which is a part of your programme which can be fought for now, and a perspective for future developments. We do not as yet advance the slogan of a new Socialist Party. The basis for such a party is likely to be created only after the next general election. That does not prevent us from preparing for such a development today through propaganda, articles in our press, etc.

Is this not in contradiction to the idea of building our own organisation? On the contrary we must energetically build Militant Labour and draw into our ranks the more advanced sections of the working class. But there is an important layer who sympathise with our ideas, and support what we do in action who would find it difficult to join what they perceive as a relatively small organisation at this stage.

If however a large formation, with a specific socialist orientation, was to develop in Britain hundreds of thousands would flood into such a party. For the ten or 20 or hundreds who would join us there would be hundreds and thousands who would join such a larger formation. We are for the creation of a mass Marxist force in Britain. We do not advocate a new reformist party - "Labour Party Mark Two". We advocate that our programme should be adopted by such a mass formation. It is highly unlikely that we would be initially successful. Nevertheless, the creation of such a force would provide a much more favourable milieu for the development of revolutionary ideas, the strengthening and the building of a revolutionary tendency.

We do not as yet advance this idea as a slogan but following a general election, depending on the outcome of events, we could do so in an energetic fashion.

In some areas preparatory steps have been taken in this direction, as with the "Socialist Forum" in Scotland. For England and Wales it is necessary at this stage to emphasise the degeneration of the Labour Party, which has gone much further than even we anticipated. The idea that a left would develop within the Labour Party in the next period can be virtually ruled out. 'Conditionality' can be taken too far. Every perspective is a working hypothesis

It is necessary to determine what is the most likely development of events and to orientate the organisation in this direction. The most likely perspective is that the Labour Party will continue to evolve even further towards the right, to become more and more "bourgeoisified", and break its links with the organised trade union movement. It is therefore necessary to orientate our comrades towards the building of Militant Labour and at the same time arm them with the perspective (and the slogans at a later stage) of a new mass socialist force in Britain.

General election slogans

In the immediate period it is clear that in the general election we must base our approach upon the mass revulsion against the Tories. If, however, we just advance the slogan "Tories Out" it opens the door to "tactical voting" which is a concession to the idea that it is necessary to vote for the Liberals. Therefore, even if it creates a problem with some of the advanced layers of the working class, our demands in the general election is likely to be "Vote Militant Labour" where we are standing and "vote Labour elsewhere". This must be linked to the idea of the struggle for socialism irrespective of the outcome of the election.

In Britain this is a relatively simple problem compared to the complexities facing some of our sister organisations, particularly in Europe.