|
|
Problems of building new workers’ parties
One of the major issues facing workers around the
world is political representation. Traditional workers’ organisations
have been moving steadily rightwards, abandoning the ideas of socialism.
Here PETER TAAFFE draws some lessons from history and from the recent
experience of Italy and Germany, while focussing on the latest
developments in Brazil.
A CENTRAL QUESTION for the worldwide workers’
movement – perhaps the most crucial at this stage – is the absence in
most countries of an independent political voice in the form of a mass
workers’ party or parties. The collapse of the Berlin wall and the
odious Stalinist regimes also witnessed the liquidation of the planned
economies. This was an important historical turning point, with major
consequences for the working class and, particularly, its consciousness.
Coinciding with the long 1990s boom and the remorseless pressure of
neo-liberal capitalism, this acted to rot the foundations of social
democracy and the ‘Communist’ parties. The former, characterised by
Lenin and Trotsky in the past as ‘bourgeois workers’ parties’, witnessed
the complete disappearance of their ‘worker’ base as they became purely
bourgeois formations. This means that, for the first time in generations
– for more than 100 years in the case of Britain – the working class is
without a mass political platform.
But this is not the first time in history that
Marxists have been confronted with such a situation. Neither Marx nor
Engels believed that the working-class movement would acquire an
independent class or socialist consciousness by agitation, propaganda or
even their powerful theoretical ideas alone. Experience would be the
greatest teacher of the working class, argued Marx, combined with the
ideas of scientific socialism. It was for this reason that Marx, while
never diluting his own theoretical treasure trove of ideas, strove to
link together in action the disparate forces of the working class, for
instance, through the establishment of the First International.
The Marxists combined with English trade unionists
and even anarchists in the work of the International. Marx always
proceeded from the existing level of organisation and consciousness of
the working class, seeking through his own priceless intervention, to
take it to a higher plane. The First International fulfilled this
colossal task but, following the defeat of the Paris Commune and the
attempted sabotage and disruption of the anarchists led by Bakunin, the
First International had exhausted its historical mission and was wound
up. This experience, however, was vital in preparing the ground for the
Second International, with the development of mass parties, the
acceptance of socialism, etc.
Engels & the Labour Party
THE SAME BASIC approach of Marx was adopted by
Engels in the latter part of the nineteenth century, in Britain, for
instance, during the working class’s ‘long winter sleep’. He patiently
propagated the idea of an ‘independent working man’s party’, in
opposition to the socialist and even ‘Marxist’ sectarian forces of the
time. He did not base himself upon the Social Democratic Federation that
formally adhered to ‘scientific socialism’, for instance, which had at
one time upwards of 10,000 members but which adopted an ultimatist and
sectarian attitude towards other forces and particularly to the idea of
combining to create an independent party of the working class. There was
no greater theoretician in the workers’ movement then than Engels,
historically second only to Marx himself, but he insisted that, given
the existing level of consciousness and political organisation of the
British working class, that if it took one ‘real step forward’, this
would be worth a dozen programmes. This was clear recognition,
vindicated later by the development of a mass Labour Party itself, that
a ‘pure’, unsullied Marxist organisation in Britain with mass roots
would not develop without the mass of the working class first passing
through the experience of its ‘own’ independent party.
Lenin adopted the same broad approach towards the
Labour Party when it came into existence, even when it did not have a
socialist clause. He argued that while the Labour Party "does not
recognise the class struggle, the class struggle will certainly
recognise the Labour Party". He was again vindicated with the sharp
shift towards the left in Britain, with pronounced revolutionary
overtones, following the Russian revolution. This was expressed within
the Labour Party with the adoption of the socialist aspiration, through
its famous Clause Four. This was only liquidated by the ‘bourgeois
entrist’ Blair in 1995.
Since then, the process of political degeneration of
‘New Labour’ has been inexorable and unalterable. This is despite the
forlorn hopes of those like Tony Benn who inhabit an isolated left
reformist outpost in a New Labour sea of neo-liberalism. This
degeneration is not just ideological in its consequences but has
materially affected the struggles of the working class. The bourgeoisie
was highly successful in using the collapse of Stalinism to conduct an
ideological counter-revolution worldwide. Its greatest effects were on
the tops of the social democracy and the trade union right-wing. Their
enthusiastic embrace of the market has strengthened the ability of the
bourgeoisie to sell its neo-liberal programme accompanied by Thatcher’s
mantra, ‘There is no alternative’. Unlike in the 1980s, when this idea
was rejected, it is now reinforced by the ex-social democratic leaders
and the trade union right-wing.
The only game in town
WHEN THERE WERE reformist, ‘bourgeois workers’
parties’, the ruling class was at least forced to look over its
shoulder. These parties were to some extent a ‘check’, at least
partially, on the bourgeoisie going ‘too far’. A glance at Germany today
reinforces this point. The emergence of the ‘Left’ Party led by Oskar
Lafontaine, even with all his and the party’s inadequacies, has
nevertheless exercised an effect on the Social Democrats (SPD). Enmeshed
in a bourgeois coalition with Merkel’s Christian Democrats, the SPD has
seen a dramatic loss in support, both electorally and in membership.
Conversely, the Left Party has drawn support away from the SPD and
presently stands at around 12% in opinion polls. This, in turn, has
compelled the social democrats to oppose some of the ‘reforms’, such as
the brutal attack on the unemployed, which they themselves accepted
previously within the coalition and the previous Schröder government.
In Britain, Thatcher’s mantra is now Brown’s. ‘What
is your alternative to New Labour?’ he intones to the trade union
leadership. Their answer is to cling to Brown’s leg like a mugging
victim, as he puts the boot in to the working class and the trade unions
themselves. Elections – with the three major parties effectively
indistinguishable from one another in the ‘muddled middle’ – are
virtually a farce now in Britain. The ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral
system, combined with the absence of ‘choice’, means that the outcome of
the next election in Britain, as Polly Toynbee of The Guardian pointed
out, will be determined by the ‘marginals’. Ultimately, a mere 20,000
‘swing voters’ in these seats decide the outcome.
This goes together with the domination of an
ossified right-wing bureaucratic caste at the top of the trade unions,
like Prentis of Unison and now others, as shown in the recent local
government ballot and the postal dispute, which acts as a giant brake on
any effective industrial action. But the colossal discontent from below
means that this situation will not be allowed to continue without a
challenge, either industrially or politically. Without a serious
challenge from the left, including the trade union left, Brown will
continue to treat the trade unions and particularly their leadership
with contempt, safe in the knowledge that ‘New Labour is the only game
in town’.
A similar dilemma confronts the French working
class, locked in an epic struggle at present with the Sarkozy
government, which is bent on smashing its rights and conditions. In the
last 15 years, each time the French bourgeoisie has sought to confront
the working class in this way it has ended either in their partial
defeat or a ‘draw’. But given their perception that they are falling
behind their capitalist competitors, both in Europe and internationally,
they are hell-bent ‘this time’ on forcing concessions from the working
class. The absence of a mass pole of attraction, in the form of a mass
party, is undoubtedly a factor weakening the struggle in France.
Sarkozy was able to win the last election with a
campaign against his own government, which, according to him, was
presiding over a ‘blocked society’. He was only able to do this because
there was no challenge whatsoever from Ségolène Royal and her now
bourgeois ‘Socialist’ Party. Paying lip service to the 35-hour week, she
immediately repudiated this after the election. Even in 1995, when the
French workers defeated the bourgeois and its ‘Juppé plan’, the lack of
a mass political alternative was palpable. The capitalists could be
forced back then but because there was no alternative government and no
mass political party to advance this, all the necessary conclusions were
not drawn.
Lessons in Brazil
THIS SITUATION DOES not exist in Brazil, because of
the formation of the Party of Socialism and Liberty (P-SoL), which was
formed in 2004, resulting from the revolt against the Lula government’s
swing towards the right following his election in 2002. The formation of
this party and its subsequent evolution is important for Brazil itself
but also holds many lessons for the workers and left movement
internationally. The establishment of P-SoL was a product of the utter
disgust felt by public-sector workers in particular at the speedy
betrayal of Lula and his Workers’ Party (PT) government in its attacks
on them at the behest of Brazilian capitalism.
Prior to this sections of the Brazilian left, even
those with Trotskyist antecedents, held out some hopes that Lula would
install a ‘left’ government in power. This was despite the fact that
Lula himself had indicated his capitulation to the ‘Washington
consensus’ of neo-liberalism – privatisation, precarious work, bending
the knee to foreign capital – prior to the election. His rightward
evolution was shown by the praise that he earned from the high priests
of ‘social-democratic’ neo-liberalism internationally. Whereas Blair and
Mandelson had attacked the PT and Lula previously, now he earned nothing
but praise. True to his word, Lula has proved to be a ‘safe pair of
hands’ for Brazilian capitalism and imperialism. The attack on the civil
servants, however, provoked opposition within the PT, expressed
forcefully by a number of PT parliamentary representatives, such as
Heloísa Helena, Baba and Luciano Genro. They were summarily expelled,
along with another MP, by Lula for opposing his ‘pension reform’
programme.
The sense of betrayal was acute, given the fact that
Lula – unlike Blair – had originally come from the depths of the
Brazilian working class. P-SoL rallied significant sections of the
fighting, militant Brazilian left. At its founding conference in 2004,
the party was markedly socialist and to the left, with most of those
participating coming from a Trotskyist background. Trotskyism has strong
roots in Latin America, particularly in Brazil and Argentina. This was
reflected in two main trends, the United Secretariat of the Fourth
International (USFI) of Ernest Mandel, and the ‘Morenoite’
organisations, led by Nahuel Moreno. ‘Morenoism’ and its international
organisation, the Liga Internacional de los Trabajadores (LIT –
International Workers’ League) represented a reaction to Mandel, who
combined ultra-left policies at one stage – including disastrous support
for urban guerrilla movements – with opportunism, which subsequently led
the USFI to fracture in Brazil. Some of his past adherents have
participated as ministers in the Lula government.
Within the Morenoite tradition, one can find
admirable, self-sacrificing workers, with many who have made big
sacrifices, some of them paying with their lives for the workers’ cause.
This was particularly the case in Argentina and Brazil. At the same
time, Moreno’s opposition to Mandel’s opportunism was expressed crudely.
Also, Moreno himself, as shown by his overestimation of the MAS in
Argentina in the 1980s, made serious mistakes of an ultra-left
character. Although the MAS in Argentina grew into a considerable force,
Moreno overestimated its capacity to ‘take power’. After his death his
heirs made many mistakes, the most important of which was over the
collapse of Stalinism. They present this in a one-sided way as
‘progressive’. Not so the bourgeoisie internationally, whose attitude
was summed up by the Wall Street Journal which declared in an editorial
that, for capitalism, ‘We won’.
The result of this was a fracturing of Morenoism
into different organisations and ‘Internationals’, ferociously competing
against one another for the support of a narrowing base of former
Morenoite militants. When confronted by opposition, rather than debating
and discussing the ideas out – as is the tradition of the Committee for
a Workers’ International (CWI) – arbitrary expulsions, as in the manner
of the British SWP, or merely an ‘invitation to leave’, are the usual
reactions of the leadership.
Early success
DESPITE THIS, MOST of those who set up P-SoL came
out of the PT and were from a Trotskyist background. In the 2006
presidential elections, Heloísa Helena, who comes from the Mandelite
tradition, as the party’s presidential candidate got almost seven
million votes as a left alternative to Lula’s alleged ‘traditional left’
government. This spectacular success of a very young party – more
successful, for instance, than the PT in its first national electoral
outing in 1982 – was a complete vindication of those, like Socialismo
Revolucionário (SR) and the CWI, who have consistently argued for a new
mass party. Consequently, SR was one of the pioneers of P-SoL – lending
its resources and offices to the party in the first period – and also
had a presence on the National Executive of the party itself. Above all,
this new party enshrined the rights of platforms and tendencies, which
ensured it was extremely democratic.
However, this party, like the Left Party in Germany,
has not been born in a period of intensified class struggle,
particularly industrial conflict, as was the case, for instance, with
the PT in the 1980s or COSATU, the South African trade union federation,
which was pronouncedly socialist and ‘revolutionary’ in its first phase
of existence. This put a certain stamp on P-SoL: it was and remains a
small mass working-class party. The new mass parties that were formed in
the aftermath of the Russian revolution came from splits in the old
organisations of the working class, the social democracy, taking with
them the great majority of the active workers in the old parties. Even
then, the social democracy, largely empty of members, still retained
residual support from inactive workers. Sometimes it was the majority of
workers who clung to these organisations through sheer historical
inertia and lack of consciousness of the need for a new revolutionary
party. This required, as Lenin and Trotsky argued, that these new
Communist parties adopt the ‘united front’ tactic to reach and influence
in action the workers still under the banner of social democracy.
However, the new formations, the Communist parties,
developed in a period of revolution, were generally large, with an
active base, and with roots within the working class. This is not the
case with the Left Party in Germany, which is mostly an electoral
phenomenon at this stage. Only a few workers and youth have been
prepared to enter its ranks – particularly in Berlin and east Germany.
In these areas it is viewed with suspicion because of the party’s
connections with Stalinism and now the coalition governments in Berlin,
in particular, and elsewhere that attack the living standards of the
working class. P-SoL in its first phase of existence was different. A
number of Trotskyist organisations were present but so also was an
important layer of workers, of ‘independents’, etc.
At the same time, the Lula government repelled more
and more of its base as it shifted towards the right. The PT-backed
president of the Brazilian Senate, Renan Calheiros, has been forced to
take leave because of a corruption scandal. It is alleged, among other
things, that he arranged for payments to be made to a female former
journalist with whom he was having an affair and by whom he has a
three-year-old daughter. Brazil is used to corruption, which is endemic
in bourgeois parties. But the saga of Renan’s misdemeanours was a
‘scandal too far’. Popular pressure forced Lula’s hand and Renan has
been ejected from office.
But Lula’s government has been dogged by charges of
corruption since May 2005. Initially, they caused serious damage, but so
inured and so ‘integrated’ into Brazilian political life is corruption
that the Brazilian people ‘expect nothing better of their politicians’.
An estimated 30% of Congress representatives have criminal proceedings
open against them. In fact, many seek office to avoid prosecution from
the courts! The cost of corruption is put by one study as equivalent to
0.5% of gross domestic product. Yet, there was a time when the PT was
perceived as ‘different’, with its socialist vision of a new society.
Now, like its counterparts the ex-social democrats and ex-Communist
party chiefs in Europe and elsewhere, having accepted capitalism it has
embraced the ‘pork barrel’ philosophy that goes with it.
The Brazilian bourgeoisie is reconciled to Lula’s
government because it is ‘doing the job’, defending capitalism’s
profits. Credit and domestic demand are booming as millions of poor
Brazilians become ‘consumers for the first time’ (Financial Times). What
happens when the bottom falls out of the US economy and has
repercussions on China, a huge market for Brazil’s commodities, is
another matter. Even a slowdown in the rate of growth of the Brazilian
economy will be a catastrophe for millions, especially of the poor, who
have looked towards the Lula government for some deliverance from the
nightmare of daily living for millions of Brazilians. Agriculture, the
service economy and even industry have experienced growth on the back of
the world economic upswing. Also, consumer spending has risen, helped by
some increase in the minimum wage and benefits for the poorest, and an
injection of credit into the economy, which has doubled in size since
2003. This is about 35% of GDP. A world economic slowdown or recession
could have a devastating effect on the millions whose hopes have been
raised by the recent growth of the economy and the creation of jobs,
albeit very low paid.
The government claims that there have been more than
1.2 million jobs created in the twelve months to July 2007. This has
meant some of the very poorest sections of the population and even
sections of the working class have gained from the Lula government.
Consequently, the underlying support electorally for the government has
not yet evaporated. The bourgeoisie tolerates Lula as the ‘best option’,
and the poor and working class have not yet, in the great majority,
withdrawn their support from the government. The middle class, on the
other hand, feels most acutely the crisis in the infrastructure,
particularly in the airline industry. It is, in its majority, opposed to
the government. The economic, social and political situation is
consequently highly volatile.
To advance further from its important but limited
base of 6% of the electorate, P-SoL should be positioning itself to
attract to its ranks the ‘heavy reserves’ of the working class which
still tentatively remain behind Lula and the PT. They will break from
this mooring once Brazil is affected by the stormy economic and social
waves which impend. But it is not at all guaranteed that they will pass
over to P-SoL, if the party itself does not embrace the policies, the
strategy and tactics to attract them.
The coalition trap
THE DEVELOPMENT OF Rifondazione Comunista (PRC) in
Italy holds many lessons and warnings for P-SoL and Brazil. The creation
of the PRC represented a giant step forward for the Italian working
class but, initially, it took with it just the most militant advanced
layers. The party, particularly under the leadership of Bertinotti, did
not seriously undermine the base of the Democrats of the Left (DS – the
bulk of the ex-Communist Party) even when the latter moved towards the
right. One of the reasons for this was the inconsistent position of the
PRC, particularly its emphasis on electoralism at the expense of a
dynamic class-struggle policy. Moreover, instead of pursuing a policy of
working-class intransigence to capitalism, the PRC leadership slid into
the swamp of coalitionism. Even before a ‘national bloc’ was formed, at
local and citywide levels the PRC was sharing power with bourgeois
parties. This invariably led to attacks on the workers and the unions at
a local level, which the PRC took responsibility for in the eyes of the
workers.
It was not a big step from this to a formal
coalition with the bourgeois parties around Prodi at a national level.
Initially, it was support from the ‘outside’ by the PRC for the ‘Olive
Tree’ government of 1996. Without even the ‘benefits’ of ministerial
portfolios and the trappings that go with them, the PRC consequently
earned the odium of association with this government’s attacks on the
working class and the trade unions. This paved the way for the return of
Berlusconi. They have gone a step further in Italy now, formally joining
Prodi’s coalition, which like Lula in Brazil is attacking pensions,
education and all the past gains of the Italian working class. Under the
baton of Bertinotti as ‘president’ of the Italian Chamber of Deputies,
the PRC is shedding its skin as a specifically separate workers’ party
to become part of a ‘red thing’, which is a mask for creating another
liberal capitalist party.
The process has not yet been fully completed within
the PRC but it is a big warning to P-SoL and all new organisations of
the working class if they embrace coalitionism. Without clear policies,
this means that these new formations, rather than being a chrysalis from
which a mass pole of attraction can form, could be smothered at birth.
P-SoL has not reached this stage as yet. But the enormous pressures of
bourgeois society to ‘conform’, to elevate the electoral profile at the
expense of intervention in the class struggle, particularly the
industrial struggle and the social movements in general, has had some
effect on the leadership of P-SoL.
Rightward drift
IT WAS REFLECTED in the elections in the playing
down of radical policies, and particularly its presidential candidate,
Heloísa Helena. This was done in order to court the maximum number of
votes. She has also opposed abortion but has come into conflict on this
issue with the bulk of P-SoL’s membership. Heloísa’s position met with
implacable opposition from the majority of delegates at the recent P-SoL
congress. But a group around her, particularly some like the MP Luciana
Genro from Rio Grande Del Sul, have sought to push P-SoL towards more
‘practical’ policies, that is a more right-wing position. They have been
reinforced by refugees from the PT, who have now entered the ranks of P-SoL.
Together, they have successfully shifted P-SoL’s
leadership in a rightward direction, which in turn has provoked a left
opposition, within which Socialismo Revolucionário works. This
opposition received just under a quarter of the votes at the P-SoL
congress. SR seeks to go beyond this in forging a united front of the
most consistent organisations on the left, through a ‘bloc of four’
within P-SoL. This has involved SR together with other groups spread
throughout Brazil, all of whom come from a Trotskyist background.
There are some historical parallels with this
development. After the victory of Hitler in 1933, without the Communist
Party undertaking serious resistance, a deep crisis of confidence in the
existing ‘Internationals’ existed. Trotsky raised the need for a new,
‘Fourth’ International. Arising from this was the formation of a ‘Bloc
of Four’ parties, described by Trotsky as "exceptionally important". The
four parties were the Trotskyist International Left Opposition, the
Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany (SAP), and two Dutch left parties,
the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) and the Independent Socialist
Party (OSP), who signed a declaration for a ‘new International’ on the
principled foundations of Marx and Lenin.
This earlier ‘bloc of four’ set itself more
grandiose targets than the present bloc of four within P-SoL but the
issues were fundamentally the same: how to maximise the potential for
the left in the working class movement. This bloc was never consolidated
into a new permanent formation because of political inconsistencies of
the leaders of the non-Trotskyist parties. The organisations in the case
of Brazil are much closer politically, with every chance, if political
clarity is attained, in forging a coherent political force within P-SoL.
P-SoL shows, as also with the earlier ‘experiment’
of the PRC in Italy, that continued success, the growth of influence and
numbers, is not automatically guaranteed if a new party shifts towards
the right. However, the left is clearer and has more potential in P-SoL
than in the PRC. This is because the Trotskyist organisations, from the
foundation of the PRC, pursued a fundamentally incorrect policy. The
USFI, led by the late Livio Maitan, was indistinguishable from
Bertinotti – they were for a long time part of the same ‘fraction’ and,
consequently, did not gain substantial forces. Others either adopted an
ultra-left position or a purely propagandistic, super-wise role of
commentators.
Brazil’s bloc of four
THE CURRENT ORGANISED left opposition in P-SoL is
much stronger politically than this. The united front of organisations,
the bloc of four within P-SoL, includes comrades from Alternativa
Revolucionária Socialista (Revolutionary Socialist Alternative – ARS),
located in particular in Belem in the north of Brazil. Another
organisation in São Paulo is the CLS (Socialist
Liberty Collective), made up of workers with a history of struggle both
in São Paulo and Minas Gerais, a very important state, where the CLS has
an important base in the social movements, particularly the landless
movement and among print workers. Two other organisations are
participating in this bloc. It is hoped that the ‘bloc of four’ will be
consolidated in a series of meetings and public activities which then
could attract other dissident groups in P-SoL.
At the same time, a process of regroupment of the
Marxist-Trotskyist left is under way. At its recent congress, attended
by representatives of groups working in the bloc of four, SR set itself
the task, together with these comrades, of building a numerically
stronger and far more influential Marxist force. Given that at this
stage P-SoL is relatively empty of new layers of the working class, this
task will not be achieved by merely concentrating activity within the
party. The battle on the industrial stage is as crucial, if not more so,
at present. But P-SoL has not exhausted its potential. The collapse of
‘Lulaism’ and the PT will result in important layers transferring their
hopes to P-SoL. One of the justifications for a new mass workers’ party
is that it offers the chance for the working class and the left to
gather together the hitherto disparate scattered forces.
Such new parties are an arena for discussion and
debate and the working out of policies that can guarantee success for
the working class in the future. The existence of a viable, Marxist-Trotskyist
spine within such a party is vital to its success. Without this, these
parties, including P-SoL, can stagnate, even decline and disappear from
the political stage, even if they have initial successes. That seems
unlikely in Brazil, given the influence of Marxism within the party.
The tasks of Marxists in Brazil, which will be
eagerly followed by Marxists throughout the world, is to intervene in
the processes unfolding in P-SoL, to delineate clearly from reformism
and the shades of centrism – revolutionary words but reformist deeds –
by bringing together the best forces of the P-SoL left. The first step
towards this goal is the creation of a powerful Trotskyist organisation,
with clear perspectives, tactics, strategy and organisation. Capitalism
is moving into crisis but this does not automatically mean that the left
will gain. To do that, it needs to create new mass workers’ parties. The
developments in P-SoL will be eagerly watched and studied by Marxists
throughout the world, in order to learn the lessons for similar
developments elsewhere.
|