Our Programme and Transitional Demands Previous A vote against the right? On a European scale the slogan of "Labour to power on a socialist programme", which served us well in Britain for decades, is now completely outdated. It looks and sounds ridiculous against the background of the Labour leadership in Britain and the Social Democratic leaders on the European continent specifically repudiating the very idea of socialism. Therefore the idea of voting against the right, in its different variants, is now the general position of our European sections. However, a layer of workers and youth are so repelled by the degenerated 'socialist' and Labour leadership that they have either turned away from politics completely or have consciously abstained. Some have even resorted to the "blank vote", to register their protest (in some countries you can officially record an abstention - the blank vote). We have to take account of this mood but if we are not careful it is possible that we can make ultra-left errors which would cut us off not just from the masses but a layer of advanced workers. Jospin v Chirac We are justifiably proud of the adherence of the French organisation to our International. We have learnt from them and they have learnt from us in the course of the common experience within one international organisation. But criticisms have been made by the leadership of the International of the tactics deployed by our French organisation in the recent presidential elections. (In a special International bulletin, the correspondence on this issue will be made available to the membership). Our comrades correctly orientated towards the Communist Party in the first round of the elections, despite the pressure exerted by the considerable layers gathered around the "revolutionary left", to back the Trotskyist Lutte Ouvriere. Our organisation refused to bend to this pressure, because of the need to approach the ranks of the Communist Party, which include probably the best elements of the French proletariat at this stage. However, the comrades also stated in advance that they would advocate a blank vote in the second round. The International Secretariat believed that this was a mistake and have entered a dialogue with the comrades for clarification of this issue. It is true that it was not a 'catastrophic mistake' but in our opinion it was a mistake as we believe that the outcome of the second round demonstrated. It is also true that the advanced layers demonstrated a big hostility to the right wing of the Socialist Party, the architects of the electoral catastrophe that has affected the Socialist Party. But the International Secretariat argued, in our opinion correctly, that notwithstanding the hostility towards the SP leaders, partly reflected in the 1.6 million who voted for the LO and the 2.6 million who voted for the CP in the first round, that in the second round there was likely to be a big class polarisation. The majority of the workers would gather around Jospin, not so much positively in favour of him, but against Chirac, the candidate of the big bourgeois and the right. Even in Spain and Belgium in recent elections, notwithstanding the 'bourgeoisification' of the SP in both countries, because of the lack of an alternative and as a means of stopping the right, the masses "holding their nose" voted for these parties. The IS argued that the same process, notwithstanding the disappointments at 14 years of Socialist rule, would be evinced during the second round. This proved to be the case. Even 95% of the CP voters opted for Jospin and 60% of those who voted for the LO lined up behind him as well. It is true that a layer, particularly around the Communist Party, refused to accept the advice of the party leaders and cast a blank vote. But the revolutionary tendency does not automatically go along with such a layer. Sometimes it seeks to educate them in how best to win over and approach the mass, particularly those who are influenced by the SP. The 'details' of Jospin's programme or of Chirac's for that matter, was not the key question posed in the second round. Much more important, particularly in the consciousness of the proletariat, was the consequences of a victory for the Right. In advance, we predicted that Chirac would go much further than even the socialists in attacks on the working class. France had in any case been relatively protected from the kind of attacks on state expenditure, particularly on welfare payments, compared to Britain and other countries in Europe. Given the overall position of French and world capitalism that situation could not last. Chirac was bound to attack the living standards of the working class, and to go over into a more open offensive against the organisations of the French workers. Even in the few months that he has been in power, this perspective has been born out. Our French comrades dispute this analysis and argue that they have not been seriously undermined by the stand that they took in the second round. This may or may not be the case, but that is not the key question. A larger organisation which through its advice inadvertently gives victory to the Right would have paid a heavy price and a loss of support amongst workers. The discussion on these issues is vital for the future of our organisation. Italy In Italy the situation is very complicated because of the sharp evolution to the right for the PDS. The PDS is breaking with 'socialism', never mind with 'communism'. It is heading in the direction of becoming another liberal bourgeois party while the Reformed Communists which at the moment has strong centrist currents within its ranks, could end up as a "Social Democratic" party. Our old slogan of "vote PDS" does not get the kind of ready support as in the past. It may now be necessary to emphasise the slogan of "vote RC" while recognising, because of the lack of an alternative, that the mass of the workers will still vote for the PDS. This is particularly the case, as opposed to France for instance, because the PDS has never been in power. These general tactical considerations are linked to the demands that we have to formulate in relation to the traditional organisations. Workers' Party? It would be inappropriate in the advanced industrial countries to advance the slogan of "workers' parties". It is more correct to demand new socialist parties, or variations of this. Before we reach the stage of the development of new mass socialist parties the question of our electoral tactics will be posed. We have made heroic efforts in Britain, Ireland, Sweden and now in Germany to appeal in a limited way for electoral support. We have done exceptionally well in some countries such as Britain, Scotland and Sweden and now in Germany. In Britain and Sweden, however, we have now raised within the ranks of our organisation the need to pose the question of a broader electoral appeal, for a wider electoral bloc, involving forces outside of our ranks. This is why we have posed the question in Scotland of a future electoral bloc encompassing ourselves, organisations such as the Socialist Movement, and even the left of the SNP (until they recently broke away from the Socialist Forum). What this represents is an element of the "united front" on the electoral plane. In the trade unions we have deployed similar methods in relation to the broad left, and there was an element of this approach in our attitude towards the anti-poll tax organisations. In general we are prepared to block with other organisations, on condition that they have roots in the working class and are prepared to struggle. Apart from the issue of tactics, the specific aspects of our programme must be thoroughly re-examined in the new situation. Forming demands The discussion so far has shown a certain confusion in how we formulate and how we put forward our demands. Take the issue of pensions. We have demanded £220 income for all workers including the pensioners, which is the European decency threshold rate. But, given the existing level of pensions, is it not "utopian" to demand that pensions should be increased to this level? But our general demand for £220 has to be complemented with demands for an immediate increase in the existing pension which would not necessarily take it to the £220 level. Such a demand would arise from dialogue and discussion with the pensioners. There is no contradiction in demanding x amount increase and £220. Firstly, the call for £220, is a transitional demand, which can only be realised fully on the basis of the reorganisation of society on socialist foundations. The other is for an immediate increase, an amelioration in the appalling conditions of pensioners. Shorter working week The same applies to the struggle for the shortening of the working week. We demand one hour off the working week, even half an hour for that matter. At the same time we demand the 35-hour week, or in some countries in western Europe a 32-hour week, and in some specific companies the 28-hour week. There is no contradiction between fighting for immediate demands for the shortening of the working week and rises in wages, no matter how partial this is, and also proposing well thought out transitional demands for a shorter working week. In relation to the shorter working week the question of how a 32-hour or a 30-hour week should be implemented over four days or five days, is an important area of discussion and debate. The exact formulation of such a demand can only be determined in a dialogue with the workers. NHS The same general approach is necessary towards the NHS. We have raised the demand for the 'nationalisation' of the NHS - that is the re-establishment of a free (at the point of use) national health service under democratic control.. In the recent period Margaret Beckett, at least in words, has offered to go down the road of renationalisation once a Labour government comes to power. At the same time it is necessary to take account of the specific conditions existing today with the establishment of Trusts. We need to argue and formulate ideas for the defence of past gains and at the same time to maintain national bargaining despite the fragmentation of the Trusts through privatisation. The same would apply to the railways if the Tories are successful in carrying through privatisation. Nationalisation Terminology is also important. Because of the experience of Stalinism, and the bureaucratic character of nationalised industries in Britain, the term 'nationalisation' is associated in the minds of many workers with a caricature of its original meaning. We have not hesitated to change our formulations in the past where they have conveyed the opposite to what we intended. For instance, we jettisoned Karl Marx's formula of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" because it conjured up the vision of Stalinism. We have substituted the much better, more explanatory and therefore more acceptable idea of "workers' democracy". In place of the term nationalisation, we should look for new ways of expressing the same idea, "public ownership" or the term that Trotsky used at one stage of "socialisation". Of course we have to add the demand for workers' control and workers' management. Immigration controls Much more controversial and difficult questions are posed in the discussion on "immigration", of drugs and of the police. I will not comment here on the question of the police or of drugs because we have separate articles on this in the bulletin. But the issue of "immigration controls" has been the source of recent controversy within our organisation. At the recent world school some discussion took place on this issue. The concrete situation differs from country to country in Europe. We are dealing here with the specific issue of immigration in Britain, although there are features similar to the rest of Europe. Our general position is well known; we oppose all restrictions imposed by decaying and outmoded capitalism. We oppose passports, we oppose the attempt to restrict the free movement of labour, the capitalists idea of "fortress Europe" etc. But truth is concrete and on this issue we have to take account of the different levels of consciousness of the proletariat. We cannot put forward, in the manner of the sects, the bald slogan of "open borders" or of "no to immigration controls" or a variant of this. The sects, a la SWP, recently advanced at the time of the introduction of the Asylum bill, the slogan of "asylum seekers welcome", which could be interpreted, and indeed was interpreted, as allowing 'everyone' to enter Britain. This approach immediately cuts you off from the majority of workers in Britain, who, despite all the arguments we use, accept the need for 'some control' over entry into the country. It is connected in the minds of most workers with their jobs, education, housing etc. We must, of course, energetically counter the false impressions which workers have on this issue. We must also show that all the capitalist controls would be unnecessary on the basis of a sane, i.e. a socialist system. But we have to recognise the level of consciousness, yes, even the backwardness, of workers on this issue. We do not accept this backwardness but seek to overcome it by skilful arguments and demands. Most workers, including the majority of black and Asian workers in Britain, do not accept the idea of an 'open door'. But they accept the idea of 'justice' and 'fairness'. The demand which we previously put forward, "No racist immigration controls", took account of the consciousness of big layers of the working class, mostly white, but certain layers in the black and Asian community as well. However, there was undoubtedly a certain ambiguity in the slogan. Our emphasis was on opposing controls and on exposing their racist character. We have also raised the demand for representatives of black and Asian workers, together with trade union representatives, to check the role of the state and fight against undemocratic, racist procedures. We also call for full rights of appeal, including to the courts, which offer more "fairness" than the arbitrary decisions of ministers and their officials. Our demand "No racist immigration controls" was correct - it enabled us to reach wide layers of white workers and older black and Asian workers who have prejudices or are influenced by racist propaganda. However, our recent work has brought us into contact with idealistic white youth, as well as a radicalised section of black and Asian youth, whose attitude is very different from the older generation. Their mood is one of implacable opposition to all immigration controls. They understandably react against the possible implication of our slogans that there could, in reality, be "fair" immigration controls under capitalism, which we have never argued and is not the purpose of the slogan. But because of the misconceptions that can arise amongst the layer we are working with at this stage, it is necessary to re-evaluate our slogans and the way that we present our ideas. This does not mean adopting the slogan of "No immigration controls", which is no different from calling for "open borders". That would completely cut us off from being able to combat racist ideas in the heads of the white working class. Many older black and Asian workers accept the idea of 'immigration controls', fearing an "influx" will aggravate their already difficult situation. Our key slogans - highlighting the main elements of our programme -should be 1) No to racist laws, 2) No deportations 3) The right to asylum 4) No break-up of families, - and other demands, such as an end to police harassment. A discussion - A dialogue We hope that the Bulletin will discuss this and the other questions of programme raised here and we can arrive at an agreed position on this. These are just some of the issues, posed in re-examining our programme. The above is in no way an exhaustive examination. We have mainly sought to elucidate some of the main points. Through the discussion we must imbue our comrades with the correct method. It is necessary also to have the widest possible discussion in Britain and in the CWI leading up to the drawing up of a programme which will allow us to intervene more successfully in workers' struggles. The International has plans for a programme on Europe, on globalisation and a manifesto for world socialism etc. In Britain in this coming period, which will be an explosive one, we must not be afraid to face up to thorough discussion which will clarify issues within our ranks. We must not hesitate to jettison or temporarily withdraw those aspects of our programme that no longer fit the needs of working class people in the present situation. In this way, linked to the issue of broad perspectives, we can prepare the organisation for the explosive period that is opening up. The programme is not an "iron law". We must be flexible, we must link the programme and specific demands to the objective situation and the mood of the masses. But if we are successful in inculcating the correct method, we can create a force capable of measuring up to the revolutionary storms which impend in Britain and on a world scale.