It's time to create a new working class party
Workers Power | 11.06.2009 15:12 | Workers' Movements
Here is Workers Power's response to the SWP's open "Left must unite to create an alternative". You can read the original open letter at 
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18114.
Here is the response by Workers Power
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18114. Here is the response by Workers Power
http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,2017,0,0,1,0 Dear Comrades,
Workers Power welcomes the Socialist Workers Party’s "Open Letter to the Left, It’s Time to Create a Socialist Alternative."
In particular, we support your proposal “to convene a conference of all those committed to presenting candidates representing working class interests at the next election.”
We believe there is an urgent need for such a conference, which could draw in representatives from socialist groups, campaigners against fascism, antiwar activists, existing left wing electoral initiatives and above all trade unionists in struggle against the effects of the crisis and this rotten government.
There is every possibility that a conference of this type would draw support from members of unions which have broken with Labour, like the RMT, and from the PCS, whose leader Mark Serwotka has, as you note, expressed his support for electoral challenges to Labour. It could also attract support from the growing numbers in the big Labour-affiliated unions who are trying to break the link with Labour, including from the CWU which is right now debating its affiliation.
Above all, we believe that a conference of this type would be a chance to take a step which could transform the situation in the class struggle in Britain: to form a new political party of the working class.
The historic meltdown of the Labour Party’s vote was part of a general trend across Europe – a collapse in support for the established parties of Social Democracy. The reason should be clear to all socialists – in the context of a huge economic crisis threatening millions of jobs and deep cuts in services, the SPD in Germany, the SP in France, the Labour Party in Britain are all tarnished by years of carrying out pro-market, pro-capitalist policies.
Everywhere the main beneficiaries of this collapse in working class support for the traditional reformist parties were the centre right Conservative parties and even in some countries the far right and fascists.
In the UK, the rise in support for the fascist BNP and the far greater surge in support for hard right parties like UKIP were a product of this. But whereas in Germany and France a clear pole of attraction existed to the left of the Social Democracy, in Britain there did not. So in the European elections the Left Party in Germany won eight MEPs; in France the new Left Front scored over six percent and the New Anticapitalist Party won nearly five percent.
Despite the absence of a strong and well-prepared leftwing challenge, two of the leftwing lists in the UK won around 300,000 votes between them. But their message was diffuse, they were not widely recognised, they offered no unified pole of attraction. They won just under a third of the votes of the BNP, but a single nationwide campaign could surely have won many more.
The broad mass of the people do not understand non-party alliances, platforms, joint lists and blocs. In elections they vote for those organisations that have the self-assurance to constitute themselves as unified formations with a set of policies and which aim for power. That is what a political party is. The dangerous reality is that the fascists have formed a party while the socialists have not. All the socialist groups in Britain are propaganda societies, not parties: in a sense we are factions of a party that is yet to be built.
The time to build a new party is now. Labour’s collapse has hugely weakened the argument of those on the left who want to focus on reforming Labour. The shock of the BNP’s advance presses home to many thousands across the left the need to create a strong pole of our own. An initiative for a new party would – if it came from serious forces in the movement – doubtless meet with an enthusiastic response.
That is why Workers Power welcomes your call for a conference, commits itself to work hard to build the conference among workers and youth, and will attend such a conference with the aim of persuading the delegates that it is time to go beyond alliances and joint tickets. Instead we should agree to set up a new party and begin a democratic debate on its structure and above all on its political programme.
A new workers' party should by no means be just a vehicle for elections – we need a party that is so much more than this. It would give us the chance to commit many thousands across the country to campaigning on the estates and the streets against the lies of the racists and nationalists and for a working class answer to the crisis. It could prove to workers that migrants aren’t stealing jobs and that capitalism is to blame for job losses and cuts in services. It could capitalise on anger at the system and the rich elite and express it in socialist rather than nationalist terms. It would oppose the slogan ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ and fight for jobs for all. It would break the sickening situation in which the BNP is able to pose as the main anti-establishment party.
Creating a new party would also help unlock that other key element of the situation you identify in your letter: the need for ‘a united fightback to save jobs and services’. There is a jobs massacre in progress across manufacturing and the service sector, but the leaders of the biggest trade unions are blocking action and bending the knee to the employers and the government. These self same leaders are supporters of the Labour government and of Gordon Brown. A strong political challenge to Labour’s hold over our unions can only help to coordinate action against the will of these leaders where necessary, to bypass and unseat the sell-out right wing union leaders and replace them with fighters under the control of the rank and file. It could rally workers around the need for action in the here and now, for strikes and occupations against job cuts, around the slogan ‘we won’t pay for their crisis.’
In short, the need for a new party is posed not just by the elections, but by the state of the fightback against the recession and by the need for a political fight against the BNP. Your open letter deals with these three things separately. We think the formation of a new party would be a way to respond to them all and link them together.
The experience in France of the formation of the New Anticapitalist Party shows that it is possible to form a new workers’ party without waiting for the approval of the trade union leaders. By contrast, the process in which the Left Party in Germany was created gave a privileged role to former Social Democrat MPs, former East German party apparatchiks and union officials. It is no accident therefore that the NPA in France has emerged as an activist party which rejects the idea of governing in alliance with pro-market parties and which is developing a fighting policy, while the Left Party has entered a ruling coalition with the pro-market Social Democrats in Berlin, and has carried out anti-working class neoliberal policies.
In both cases, the approach socialists took to the way the party was formed had a powerful effect on the type of party they got.
Closer to home, as we know from a succession of our own experiences in Britain over recent years, giving privileged role to labour movement celebrities is not a short cut to success but a road to catastrophe.
We fully accept that it is essential for the new initiative you are proposing to draw in broader forces from the labour movement. One of the great weaknesses of the Socialist Alliance and the Scottish Socialist Party was that they began as little more than agreements between socialist groups. We think it is possible to combine a broad appeal to the most determined sections of the labour movement with an approach that does not grant existing MPs and union leaders a veto in advance over the form and policy that the new party will take.
How? Alongside your call for a conference, let’s link the campaign for a new party to the fightback right from the start. Local committees could not only spread the idea of a new party amongst wider layers, they can also lay the basis for a fighting party, by helping to co-ordinate resistance to the crisis. In the unions many of the activists who see the need for a new party also want greater coordination of the struggles too.
And while we’re at it, why not contact the other left parties in Europe facing the same economic crisis, in France, in Greece, in Portugal, invite them to share their experiences and opinions, and help create a real practical and political coordination of the socialists across national boundaries.
It is no secret that there have been several unsuccessful electoral initiatives of the left since 1997. There are many criticisms that can be raised but one point above all needs to be borne in mind. Not one of them aimed to establish a unified and democratic all-Britain political party of the working class. It would be a failure of imagination and of will if we bypass this opportunity once again.
We look forward to continuing this discussion, confirm our support for the conference proposal, and commit ourselves to working with you on this project.
Yours fraternally,
Workers Power
Workers Power
e-mail:
workerspower@btopenworld.com
Homepage:
http://www.workerspower.com
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
Opportunism
11.06.2009 15:51
The same tired old tune from the Trots
Campaign fo a new workers party.
11.06.2009 16:29
Democracy is no more then the warhorse that capitalism rides into battle.
Chris Teathan
MAKE THE MIDDLE CLASS HISTORY
11.06.2009 17:04
After the Bush-Blair war in Iraq, the SWP majority abandoned the SA for Respect and closed the SA down. However a significant minority did not accept this. In November 2005 the SA was relaunched at the London conference.
RATHER THAN OFFERING a bold political alternative to New Labour, Respect was founded on the idea that the Socialist Alliance had failed because it was overtly socialist and therefore that Respect should not follow its example. This was connected to the aim of taking more of an electoral orientation. So in Respect’s founding statement the only reference to socialism is hidden in the ‘s’ of the acronym RESPECT, and it is rarely mentioned elsewhere either in writing or verbally.
The founding statement lists goals such as an end to the occupation of Iraq, an end to all privatisation, a raising of the minimum wage and bringing back the railways and other public services into democratic public ownership. Its constitution adds: "Our overall aim is to help create a socially just and ecologically sustainable society", and then mentions the need for "common ownership and democratic control".
However, at Respect’s first conference in October 2004, of the 42 resolutions passed there were no references to common ownership or to socialism as a goal. During that conference, leading SWP member, Lindsay German, argued against a resolution which proposed that Respect should aim for a socialist society. She said that political diversity is needed in Respect, and also that the resolution was moved in ‘bad faith’ – a common argument of the SWP against resolutions it disagrees with.
The bare facts of the split in the Trotskyist group, Workers Power, (another player in the SA) (and the associated ripples through its tiny international front, the League for the Fifth International) are now well known on the left (documents from both sides of the split,On July 1, 2006 some 33 members (around a third of the total internationally) - mostly based in Britain, but also including comrades from Australia and Ireland.
They become Permanent Revolution and until now not much has been herd of Workers Power
in this open letter It is no secret that there have been several unsuccessful electoral initiatives of the left since 1997. There are many criticisms that can be raised but one point above all needs to be borne in mind. Not one of them aimed to establish a unified and democratic all-Britain political party of the working class. It would be a failure of imagination and of will if we bypass this opportunity once again. Full text of it here
The SWP is all too aware of the differences and difficulties involved in constructing such an alternative. We do not believe we have all the answers or a perfect prescription for a left wing alternative. But we do believe we have to urgently start a debate and begin planning to come together to offer such an alternative at the next election, with the awareness that Gordon Brown might not survive his full term. One simple step would be to convene a conference of all those committed to presenting candidates representing working class interests at the next election.
Nither do we forget the part anarchist have played in this from CLASS WAR NO 73 to now:
If they are to be believed, this is the last issue of CW, though no doubt someone will republish it, just as all the ageing punk bands who still provide the inspiration for one half of CW always stage comebacks - welcome to the old timers, but offering nothing new.
That said, there are positive things to say about this paper. To quote, "We need to find new ways of organising ourselves that can appeal to all the working class, male and female, young and old, black and white." We wholeheartedly agree. While we could nitpick that this is not the first time this has been said, what matters is what we have in common, and what we can achieve together. So we recommend people do go along to CW's meetings, with an open mind and clear from preconceptions, just to see if there are worthwhile common projects.
There are three areas where we can work together, in the locality, in the workplace, and around issues. Here are some of our thoughts.
Working locally is the most important and most neglected. It is in the local area where you can have the greatest impact and greatest visibility. And visibility is important, it's the only reason anyone ever joins the SWP. However, local activities do have their problems. The reason many anarchists don't prioritise local activity is often, we suspect, because they don't feel connected with the locality, especially in cities like London, where many anarchists tend to ghettoise themselves in areas like Hackney and Brixton. Allied to this, it can be dull, and will take a long time. It is fair to say that concerted local work will pay back in terms of members, success and influence after 5 to ten years, depending on conditions. For young activists that is very daunting. It is also difficult at times for people to work out what to do. Fighting for a zebra crossing isn't very glamorous, is it?
A good example of what can be done locally is the Bradford 1 in 12 Club, who have the confidence in their politics and the influence (and know a lot of the local politicians and bureaucrats because they've been around as long) that they can call meetings, demand that the council sends someone to answer questions, and the Council does! This isn't to buy them off, it's because the Council has learnt the hard way the price of ignoring them. Bad examples of local activity are legion, unfortunately.
Local groups do not have to be based around a social centre, though it obviously helps. They do need to have an understanding of what's going on in their locality, and this is one of anarchism's advantages over the 57 varieties, so why don't we make more use of it? Perhaps we're afraid of people breaking up our cosy little world, or perhaps we scare people off with jargon or the promise of loads of work as the victims of burnout see new members as an opportunity to rediscover a life.
Workplace organisation is just as essential, though obviously not everyone is in a position to do it. That many who are in such a position don't is a result of confusion about unions and their role. Put simply, there is a difference between defending your rights at work and becoming general secretary of the TUC. There is not the same opportunity here as there is in local organising, but the two are complementary. If someone is victimised at work the local group can support and help out in terms of pickets, solidarity, doing stuff for organising campaigns where the workers want to remain anonymous. With the JSA and the quick succession of temporary dead end jobs many are now faced with, having a local is vital. It is worth being a shop steward or union rep, both for the knowledge and skills you will learn as well as the satisfaction of fighting the bosses at a small but meaningful level. In our opinion union positions outside the workplace, such as branch secretary and so on, while someone needs to do them, are not the best places for anarchist militants to put their effort into.
Successful workplace organisation needs two things - local support in terms of numbers and solidarity, and solidarity and advice from others in the same industry. These require both a local organisation (see above) and an industrial network of like-minded militants.
Issue based campaigns are perhaps the most problematic. We'll start with a good example, the Anarchist Black Cross (ABC). The ABC has no problems in terms of members / supporters agreeing on political principle and on what they want to do collectively (it is a voluntary organisation after all). It is also not bound by constraints of geography or circumstances, even if you are the only anarchist on Rockall you can still write to prisoners.
What get called single issues are usually not single issues. The problems associated with them include working with other people who not only do not share your politics, but are openly hostile to them, such as Trots and Stalinists.
We are clear that we are not talking about a new organisation, there is no need for one. Should one arise it must come from the bottom up, from local groups networking. Our energy is better spent in organising than in another organisation. These meetings are to be welcomed.
Have we not been here befor? No what we need to do is MAKE THE MIDDLE CLASS HISTORY
“Anarchism, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” Emma Goldman
At this moment in time we like to go under the name of underclass rising who are a mixed bunch, between us we represent most of the various 'flavours' of anarchism; class war, anarcho-syndicalists, eco-anarchists, marxist- autonomists, stirnerites, tolstoyans, mutual-aiders, punks, etc. we meet for drinks, parties, walks, discussion (OK, fights) and activism on a (sometimes) regular basis.We don't think that a website is ever going to change the world and we'd encourage anyone living in south yorkshire to get off their arse and get physically involved in anarchist politics.send us an email wordwarfreeatrisedotnet for more,otherwise we will see you on the streets. read more about underclass rising and this project.
underclassrising.net
""Left must unite to create an alternative"
11.06.2009 17:09
Sceptical
not possible ..
11.06.2009 19:49
They know how to organize every thing including rigging the vote getting all their possee into the positions of power, they can even fake the "street creds" besides do the working classes actually exist anymore ? not so many working these days more like some kind of sub slave class with no identity who believe what the goggle box tells them ..
char lady
Socialism is dead
11.06.2009 21:01
Anarcho-brummie
Give it a rest. If Marx was alive today he'd be an anarchist.
11.06.2009 22:07
Miserablist