A dual strategy for achieving socialism
by Steve Wallis
18th June 2007
In recent issues of the Weekly Worker, there has been a debate between members of the Campaign for a Marxist Party (CMP) who advocate a new party adopting Marxist policies and those who advocate some sort of “halfway house”, that would be equally welcoming to reformists as well as revolutionaries, and tending to put forward reformist policies.
In my view, the recent election results have proved that halfway houses don’t work. The Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and Solidarity were both wiped out in the Scottish Parliament, Respect made virtually no impact (if I remember correctly, Michael Lavalette held on to his seat in Preston and they won a single additional seat in Birmingham) and the Socialist Party of England and Wales (SPEW) lost the only seat they were defending (the St Michael’s ward in Coventry) and failed to win any other seats they were contesting. Shortly afterwards, the Socialist Party in the Irish Republic lost the CWI’s only MP (TD), Joe Higgins in Dublin. Although SPEW is a revolutionary party, and revolutionary politics are discussed within that party, they come across (in their newspaper, The Socialist, and in most of their leaflets including those distributed at election time) as reformist.
I was the only member of SPEW to speak in the debate at the 1998 European School of the CWI in favour of the setting up of the SSP. I still believe that was a correct position to take, but I was in favour of that party properly reflecting the political views of its members, with open revolutionary politics in its publications as well as reformist ones. The leadership of SPEW had earlier criticised an election broadsheet produced by Scottish Militant Labour (SML), containing an interview with Tommy Sheridan for pointing out that he was a revolutionary. If SML members had continued putting forward such policies when they became part of the Scottish Socialist Alliance and the SSP, the latter may not have failed so miserably.
Of course the Tommy Sheridan defamation trial and subsequent split within the SSP was a major factor in that party’s decline. However, if that incident had not happened, I strongly doubt that the SSP would have held on to all the seats it was defending, never mind making the further gains it would have needed to establish itself as a force serious enough to challenge for power. This is largely because the SSP went from one overwhelmingly genuine MSP (Tommy) to six MSPs of which only about half of which were genuine.
The strategy of putting forward politics marginally to the left of the Scottish National Party (SNP) was bound to fail, especially because the media portrayed the election as a struggle between the SNP and Labour, with them neck and neck. Despite all the Scottish mainstream newspapers opposing the SNP on election day (after some of them cynically pretending to support the SNP briefly beforehand), the SNP received over 100,000 votes more than Labour, with a share of the vote about 5.4% higher than Labour’s. The opposition of the media is an indication of the likelihood of Scottish independence leading to socialism. The fact that the SNP only won one more seat than Labour demonstrates that the form of “proportional” representation (PR) used for that parliament is not particularly proportional. This is because Labour concentrated their efforts on constituencies, whereas the SNP gained votes all across Scotland and received most of the top-up seats from the regional lists.
New Labour politicians have claimed that the SNP don’t have a mandate because of their narrow victory over their party in the Scottish elections. This is extremely hypocritical, because Labour’s share of the vote at the last general election was only about 3% higher than the SNP’s in May and Labour actually got less votes than the Tories in England at the general election, but they have a sizeable overall majority in the House of Commons!
Although I am a member of the SSP, I think it is a good thing that both socialist parties got wiped out! This is partly because either getting a seat would have resulted in the SNP and Labour having the same number of seats, almost certainly resulting in Labour staying in power (but probably as a minority government rather than as part of a coalition), due to the Liberal Democrats’ and Tories’ virulent opposition to Scottish independence. There will not be a referendum on independence until after the next Scottish parliamentary elections (in 2011 unless earlier ones are forced by a mass movement and/or legal challenges due to over 100,000 spoilt votes). If there is a mass movement in Scotland, it could spread to the rest of the UK, demanding a new general election to legitimise Gordon Brown’s position as prime minister. If such a mass movement forced that election to be carried out under PR, particularly if single transferable vote (STV) is used eliminating the need for tactical voting, the situation would be much more favourable to the left. However, such perspectives are very optimistic to say the least, but making such arguments about what should happen can give the left greater confidence and credibility than it has at present.
The other reason for the SSP’s wipeout being positive is that it will force the party to reassess its strategy. I will be encouraging a proper debate, not just in branches but also in its newspaper the Scottish Socialist Voice, about the way forward. I will be arguing for it to adopt more grass-roots activities such as non-violent direct action, rather than focussing its attention primarily on the Scottish Parliament as it has tended to do in recent years, and for it to become an openly revolutionary socialist party.
However, I am not in favour of the SSP becoming a Marxist party. I suppose I am advocating a “three-quarters-way house”! My opposition to a Marxist party is partly due to such a party’s inability to gain mass support (or even particularly significant support whatsoever judging by the lack of interest in the CMP) and partly due to my opposition to hierarchies of committees based on workplaces in a future socialist society. As I have outlined in previous Weekly Worker letters, I am in favour of a form of socialism based on proportional representation (PR) by single transferable vote (STV), and with a fairly large number of candidates being elected per constituency/ward (unlike the local elections in Scotland, for which only three or four were elected per ward). I consider myself a revolutionary socialist, in recognising that a sudden thorough change of society is necessary and that socialism cannot be achieved by a series of gradual reforms, but would prefer the socialist revolution to be carried out peacefully if possible.
However, socialism will not be achieved by a revolutionary party alone. There are good (well-intentioned even if not currently playing a positive role) and bad people in every party, and a mass revolutionary socialist party will only be achieved with the help of splits in mainstream parties. I fully supported Militant’s open turns (firstly in Scotland and later in the rest of Britain), but I now recognise that some of those who opposed those turns and launched Socialist Appeal are playing a positive role in New Labour and could aid a future split. A revolutionary party outside the main parties and action inside is the dual strategy for achieving socialism that I now advocate.
Based on her performance in the Newsnight debate between the six challengers for Labour’s deputy leadership, and her public opposition in the press beforehand to that party’s culture of spin and the proposed “stop and question” policy that was announced in the media without consultation in the Cabinet, Harriet Harman in my view is the most left-wing of the six candidates (although certainly far from perfect both in terms of policies and past record). [Her position in the Newsnight debate was to the left on other issues of the other candidates, including Jon Cruddas who is being supported by many trade union bureaucrats.] At present, the police have the right to stop and search people in the street, but you do not need to give your name. Being forced to give your name and say where you are going, or risk a £5,000 fine and criminal record, would be a massive step towards an Orwellian-style fascist society. Hazel Blears had the gall in that Newsnight debate to claim that “stop and question” could be better for civil liberties than “stop and search”!
Amazingly, the front-page article of the 2nd of June edition of Socialist Worker complained about the prospect of “new powers to allow the police to stop and search people in the streets if they suspect them of terrorism”. This is not only allowed at present, but should only be opposed by those who approve of terrorism. The Socialist Workers Party approves of it abroad in countries like Iraq, so perhaps this is an indication that they approve of it in the UK too!
In supporting a form of socialism based on STV, I no longer identify solely with the working class, but with the middle class as well. I disagree with those who write off the “bourgeois” parties such as the SNP and Liberal Democrats, rather than encouraging good people within such parties to prepare for a future split while playing a positive role within them in the meantime. Perhaps Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP’s deputy leader, health minister and MP for my constituency (Glasgow Govan) will lead a socialist split from the SNP (or a socialist majority if capitalists break away) at some point in the future, but this would most likely be after independence is achieved (which is after all the raison d’être of the SNP) and I think that their current leader Alex Salmond is actually playing an overall good role albeit encouraging big business support. In Wales, a nation where the revolutionary left is extremely weak, I would encourage socialists to join Plaid Cymru (which does describe itself as “a socialist party”) as well as forming the nucleus of a future revolutionary socialist party from the outside, with the aid of the CMP.
I am unfortunately unable to attend the forthcoming CMP conference (on the 23rd of June), but would encourage that organisation to reposition itself as a campaign for a revolutionary socialist party. Even if the campaign does not change its name, I hope that the party eventually formed by it (perhaps in conjunction with other forces) would be revolutionary socialist but not explicitly Marxist. In particular, I would hope that such a party would have a revolutionary (or mainly revolutionary) leadership, openly put forward revolutionary politics and consider using the word “revolutionary” in its name.