revolutionary SOCIALIST
Working Class Monthly Published by the Revolutionary Socialist Organization
MAY DAY SUPPLEMENT
What Strategy for the Left?
In the (anti-capitalist) left, there are different political approaches. Some of them are discussed here: Reformist parties as a vehicle? Movements as a panacea? “Broad alliances” against the right? Left unity projects? Workplace interventions and cadre organization? Today the effects of the current crisis of capitalism become particularly prominent - with the (upcoming) austerity measures and massive attacks on the working class. Here the weakness of the labour movement and the (radical) left in the fight against these deteriorations becomes evident. At the same time the crisis and its consequences put the various concepts of the (radical) left to a practical test. We want to discuss various strategies and put forward our own ideas because successful resistance requires right conceptions.
T
he crisis has shown very clearly the destructive potential and the fundamental development towards crisis’s of capitalism, which is a system that works on the principle of profit maximization and demands growth without compromises. Hopes for a reform or a “restraint” have proven to be highly illusory - and will remain so in the future. The ruling class has clearly shown that it is willing to make the wageearners pay for the costs of the crisis. This can only be met with a militant movement, strikes, mass mobilizations and demonstrations. Also the class struggles have to be connected with and lead to a perspective of overcoming the system as a whole. The fights have advanced to different levels in different countries and the strength and composition of left and radical left forces shows great differences. One example is Greece, where for several months a militant movement with numerous strikes existed. And also in other countries, such as Spain, resistance against the plans of the ruling class is growing. In the German-speaking countries (and also in Britain) however the class struggle situation is (still) relatively quiet. What has to be considered is that in many countries the major cost-cutting measures have not yet come in, the crisis is not yet over therefore new slumps are quite realistic and struggles in some countries can act as a role model for others. So then, what strategies should the left now take to fight back the attacks? It is clear that the left is currently weak and largely isolated, especially in the German-speaking countries (and the same is true for Britain). Revolutionary ideas and forces have little roots in society and in the working class itself. How can this situation be overcome? And how not?
Social Democrats and unions
The social democratic parties in many countries are involved in the government and so directly take part in the passing-on of the crisis and the national debt on wage dependants. When they are in opposition they are mainly concerned with the next election. The Social Democrats happily participated in the neoliberal restructuring of society themselves for decades. They are fully absorbed into and captured in the capitalist logic and bound to the capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois state by their material interest. As they are a bureaucratized system parties we wouldn’t expect any other policy from them. The unions are dominated by reformist bureaucracies in almost every country. They are bound to capitalism by privileges and therefore act according to the intentions of the ruling class. They have internalized the capitalist logic of location and foremost pursue a policy of damage limitation for the better-off sections of the working class of each nation. Already in the last decades they shrunk back more and more when facing the “neo-liberal” attacks and they have also managed and sold various detoriations and sold them to the workers as an inevitable lesser evil. The reformist-dominated apparatus of the unions is now helpless when facing the effects of the crisis. Rather than rely on mass mobilization, they cling to the illusion of an upswing of a regulated capitalism in the interests of the bosses and they are negotiating reduced working hours, wage cuts and the mitigation of mass redundancies. Any hopes that the bureaucrats may change their course are naive. What is needed is an alternative to the established organizations of the working class and its strategies of “damage reduction” and social partnership. Some on the left want to reform the social democratic
parties from within, for example through the construction of a left wing within them or with the help of the reformist youth organizations. These experiments however have to fail because of the character of the reformist parties themselves. The reformist parties are bureaucratic system-preserving parties. Very little chance of success too have projects of building a left current within social democratic parties, which then are meant to, in the course of the escalation of class struggle secede from the reformists. Usually the label “left” remains very vague, that is, there usually is a lowest common, left-reformist, denominator that unites these projects. That such a project and its reformist programmatic basis are able to radicalize and will simply turn into a revolutionary programmatic has yet to be proven. But problems also arise elsewhere: on the one hand, many activists in such projects often themselves get tied up with the reformist party via material benefits. To stay within the reformist party structures, one usually has to give in to opportunistic adjustments and, not infrequently, to cooperate with the bureaucracy against rebellious parts of the party basis. On the other hand these reformist parties lose more and more of their political content and their activist base too. Often the left wing projects rather win people into the reformist parties than out of them. Furthermore, a certain amount of critical, leftist forces in the reformist party also has a beneficial function for the Social Democrats. Because it binds potentially radical forces to reformism, hinders the creation of a class struggle socialist pole outside, and thereby helps to preserve the social democratic hegemony in the labour movement. But how can an alternative to these reformist organizations look like? It is often said that it is necessary for leftwing forces to obtain social relevance
and influence. The proposed strategies are then also intended to be “broad” to be effective. In the current situation with the threat of austerity measures and the threat of strengthening right-wing forces, this “broad appeal” is seen as more urgent and important. These arguments are in principle correct. We can only succeed with a broad, militant movement, strikes, mass mobilizations and demonstrations. However, for many leftists they lead to short-sighted and wrong conclusions. So let us take a look at different strategies which are discussed and practiced today.
“Movements” Left
and
the
Many on the left see their central task in participation and the building of social movements. Basically, it is true that resistance to capitalism can only be successful when based on a broad movement and not by negotiation or isolated actions. Social movements therefore are important points of reference for leftwing forces. However, it is ultimately unlikely to be successful in fighting the system by limiting politics to the construction of and participation in social movements. A central feature of social movements is that they have their own dynamics: they often develop quickly and unexpectedly, and often attract many people in a short time. However, they are often (almost) over just as quickly as they began. It is therefore an illusion, that these movements can just be started by leftwing forces. Moreover, the emergence of a movement still does not guarantee its success. This depends both on the size and the broadness of it, as well as on the participating political forces and their strength. If the independent and radical forces are too weak, there often is a take over of the movement by reformist forces which are channelling the protest into negotiations and/or harmless actions. Such
www.revolutionarysocialism.blogspot.com
forces, therefore, are also a risk for the development of the class struggle because they do not see the problem in capitalism as such but only in its “neoliberal” shape. Therefore, these reformist forces are focusing protest movements on a “better functioning” of the capitalist system. In many cases due to a lack of a realistic perspective the protest movements “fall asleep” or “peter out” over time. A peculiarity of movements is that they usually are politically diffuse and heterogeneous. Many on the left celebrate this “plurality” as something “new and positive” and so make a virtue of necessity. But in order to succeed there rather needs to be clarity about the political positions and perspectives. It has also to be cosidered that movements can also end in defeat or that fresh newly politicized people in the movement withdraw themselves again from politics when their excessive hopes are unfulfilled. Not infrequently, even already politically active people exhaust themselves in such movements and might become inactive again. Therefore, the spread of illusions about the supposed strength of a movement and being silent on its weaknesses and dangers is very counter-productive. Often a movement is said to have a “mass character” even if it actually does not. The strategy to do whatever necessary to force through a “broad” movement is thus usually the (non-) admission of ones own weakness. It is clear that it is not enough that there are movements and that they can not be started voluntary. The crucial point is what political content and perspective they have. But therefore balance of power is of critical importance. Therefore, the revolutionary organizations can not limit themselves to the construction of and the intervention in such movements. The revolutionary organisations also need to utilize these movements for the growth of their own organization, ie. the strengthening of militant forces for future conflicts. This is the only way to ensure that the balance of power in new conflicts and movements is able to shifts in favour of the radical parts. The idea that any kind of movement would shift the social balance of power to the “left” is illusory and dangerous. It also needs to be asked, what is meant by the term “left”, because for radical and independent forces a strengthening of the “left” is not unilaterally positive. For when bureaucratic and reformist sections of the left gain in strength, the balance of power shifts within the left to the disadvantage of the radical parts and discouraging defeats become inevitable.
Against the “right”?
In some countries due to the crisis right(extremist) forces are gaining strength. Many on the left therefore see preventing a shift to the right as one of their most important tasks. Left and radical left forces have, of course, a fundamental interest in ensuring that right(extremist) forces are as weak as possible in society. In most cases, however, this resistance against the political right has politically problematic characteristics. Often such campaigns have, at least indirectly, an electoral orientation and are aimed primarily at the weakening of right-wing parties in elections. This on
MAY DAY SUPPLEMENT the one hand ignores that bourgeois elections do not play the decisive role in the class struggle and the overall social situation. On the other hand, such campaigns often degenerate, often for lack of alternatives, into support of established parties as a supposedly “lesser evil”. In that way forces are supported, which themselves for decades have been executing racist policies and participate in state racism and so by their betrayal are forcing workers into the hands of the rightwing. It is not unusual to “forget” to embed the resistance against the rightwing in an anticapitalist overall direction, especially in the general propaganda. One reason for this is the fact that anti-fascist and anti-racist work is often moralized in a way of being as “particularly important” and presented as “especially necessary”. However it is clear that left/leftradical forces only have certain limited options and resources. The setting of priorities in the political work should not be guided by moral criteria by which right-wing parties are presented as being “particularly bad” as compared to the normal capitalist madness and misery. Rather, we need a longer-term strategy that links the struggle against the rightwing with a revolutionary perspective and the rooting of the radical left in the working class. The reasoning of some on the left often is to use a socially controversial matter to build a “broad” front. But too often an independent, anti-capitalist profile is lost in doing so or purposely abandoned for the reason of not frightening the (bourgeois) alliance partners. Hereby the door is being widely opened to the appropriation of the movement by bourgeois forces and the integration into the official “anti racist” mainstream, which’s only goal is to conceal the racist policies and structures in society. So too illusions of the possibility of building a broad, compatible, movement, which it is then possible to politicize stronger and being able to be driven to the left, are being fuelled. Of course left and left-radical forces may also benefit from a broad movement that is putting out anti-racist propaganda. The building of such a movement, without an anti-capitalist profile, however cannot be the task of revolutionaries. Anti-racist and anti-fascist propaganda must not take place separately from an anti-capitalist orientation. Therefore stageism, which firstly is aimed at weakening the rightwing on the electoral level and to build a diffuse left-ish movement which will then sometime later (when exactly?) be radicalizing is doomed to fail. The Central point of orientation is not electoral results, some movement or creative activities, but rather the political situation within the working class itself. This can only be achieved through the continuing work and presence of the revolutionary forces in the ranks of the working class and not through the, in the last instance, support of reformist forces that work into the hands of the rightwing forces through further betrayal and disappointment.
Left unity projects?
Its fragmentation is often put forward as the key reason for the weakness of the (radical) left. The solution therefore is supposed to be the “unity” of the left. Therefore, many on the left focus on building a new left (mass) party. We are of course also in principle for a “unified” Left and also aim at building a new, broad revolutionary workers party. However, not all strategies are suitable for this end and an association of left-wing forces does not make sense at all times at any price and under all cir-
cumstances. Problems arise here in several respects. Many such projects are based on a good bit of self-overestimation. Some think following the motto “Now really!” that good will and the right ideas are sufficient to build such a new mass party. The reasons for the previous failure of such attempts are mainly sought in the mistakes of the forces involved so far and not in the fundamental nature of such a project. That the left is fragmented, is, however, not primarily due to the stubbornness of some people / groups, but the fact that different political positions and concepts within an organizational context must lead to problems. A broad leftist organization / party would turn this conflict into a permanent state. Without relevant social bases of the participating forces and / or substantial class action such a “party” all too easily degenerates and becomes an empty shell. Often in such an association violent disputes between different factions and tendencies arise. The apparently pluralist left parties prove to be very unstable and transient formations. This is also essentially due to the mostly diffuse political basis of such unity projects. In reality, this political “basis” is usually a left-reformist lowest common denominator and hardly a common understanding of and perspective on key issues. The result is that such parties do not survive the first test in practice in major social conflicts and exhaustion and de-motivation of the activists is fostered. (All or many of these points can be seen on the examples of the development of Respect, the Socialist Alliance and the Scottish Socialist Party and the current discussions within the United Left Alliance in Ireland.) Equally problematic is the idea of the development of (class) consciousness, which is expressed in such projects. In a linear, schematic understanding, it is assumed that workers would have to go through a leftreformist phase firstly. Often, even “revolutionary” or anti-capitalist forces participate in building a left reformist party, in the hope of attracting more parts of the class to it and even to create themselves a field of intervention. The party and its supporters will then be (gradually) driven to the left. The danger here is that the opportunities for a radicalization are dismissed with the arguments of “unity” and “having a broad appeal” and this certainly helps binding radical forces to reformist projects. Naive is the idea that such a left-reformist project simply could radicalize when the “the right time” has come. The targeted social relevance mostly remains a pipe dream. Instead, activists are worn down in fruitless discussions, and fail to use the time to build a stable organization, ie. organize revolutionary activists and clarify key policy issues. In general many leftist projects are often politically very diffuse. After all, who should conduct the desired struggles and participate in the movements? And to what end?
The working class and workplace interventions
We however see it necessary to have clarity, especially on these key political questions. Moving the clarification of the key policy questions to “later” must lead to future breaks and political impasses. Postponing such questions whilst engrossed in regular political work will mean that there will never be time to have such discussions. They are even less likely to be addressed during tense situations and periodsof class struggle, but especially during those intense times it is crucial which perspectives are proposed, and whether the radical forces are strong enough!
It is clear that a reformist “tinkering” can not solve the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist mode of production and therefore an anti-capitalist orientation is needed. But what does “anti-capitalism” in general mean and what does anti-capitalist political practice look like? Capitalism is certainly not “abolished” by radical proclamations of small groups and it will not collapse simply by itself. It rather has to be overcome by a deliberate political act. The only force in society capable of doing so is the working class, due to its position in the production process, because capitalism is primarily a particular mode of production. Wage earners, however, will not “automatically” start fighting in response to the crisis. And also the question of with what perspective these fights will be fought is raised. The decisive factor is the relation of forces of different political tendencies within the working class. In most countries since the Second World War reformist, socialpartnership-oriented forces have dominated the scene. In recent decades generally de-politicization can be witnessed and in some countries, rightwing / right-extremist parties can win votes among the working people. These developments are ultimately an expression of weakness and isolation of revolutionary organizations and their failure to root themselves in the ranks of the workers. To overcome this situation it certainly is not enough to simply rely on being enlightened with the “better ideas” or to expose reformists and bureaucrats. Likewise, it is insufficient to counterpose a perspective of overcoming the system to the daily demands and everyday problems of the proletariat. On the contrary, when trying to root the revolutionary ideas and forces among workers, it is crucial to reply to the immediate living conditions and problems of the workers and to link and connect them with a revolutionary perspective. It must be made clear how these everyday problems generally are associated with the capitalist system and that only an independent policy of the workers themselves can be a solution. We, the RSO, therefore try to root ourselves directly and gradually in the working class to establish stable connections. We intervene in several companies with workplace newsletters, in which in-house and industry-wide problems are addressed and public political issues are discussed regularly. We put a special emphasis on the perspective on the self-organization of our colleagues at the basis, we do not want to rely on the employee representative committees and the union bureaucrats. Such work can of course not be expected to have any short term success, but it is the only way to overcome the isolation of the revolutionary forces from the working class. In an escalation of social conflicts the struggles in the work places in the heart of capitalist profiteering will play a key role. Thereby a decisive factor will be the rooting-in and the presence of revolutionary forces and ideas in the ranks of the workers themselves - and not the existence of new, politically diffuse left “unity” projects or temporary alliances and diffuse movements.
Reform and Revolution
But isn’t the focus on the development of revolutionary organizations and rooting them in the working class inappropriate given the urgency of the current situation? Are revolutionary demands not way too abstract? Isn’t the foremost task the current fightback? The reformist apparatuses, who feel
Contact: If you want to know more about the Revolutionary Socialist Organisation, check out our website: www.revolutionarysocialism.blogspot.com or e-mail us at:
[email protected] or just simply talk to the person who sold you this paper.
themselves obliged to the administration of the capitalist misery, will, not by themselves, take any effective measures to prevent the attacks on and the passing on of the crisis on the workers. They are rather interested to keep their own bases quiet and impotent with small concessions. Under the pressure from their bases however, they may be forced to take on a quite combative rhetoric and sometimes even to some action. Even in this case they are far less interested in actual results then in their bases letting of some steam and to maintain their own bureaucratic control over the base. The decisive factor for militant activities is and will remain so, the political situation in the working class itself and the political actions it is taking - and not an influencing of the bureaucrats to “left” or their beliefs. For a successful fight against the deterioration the concepts of social partnership concept of the reformists are completely inappropriate. After they themselves are left within the “logic of location” they are not left with many options but to care for the good of the economy and to shift the crisis on the workers, however with “some mitigation”. If it comes to action and strikes they are controlled and conducted in a top-down way and often stifled by the reformist bureaucracy. But to be successful strikes and actions must be organised and conducted by the workers themselves and the control of the bureaucracy must be broken. So it becomes evident that radical and revolutionary demands and action are by no means “too abstract” or “inappropriate” given the urgency of the situation. On the contrary, a successful fightback against the attacks rather requires a radical and independent defense of the working class. With transitional demands the daily demands and struggles can be linked to a perspective of overcoming the system. Also it will become clear that already the demands of the daily battles will collide with the logic of the capitalist system. In the wake of the crisis, transitional demands could have a much broader resonance than before. It is also apparent that revolutionary politics is not just for those times in which the radical left will be strong enough. The question is how such a strength is to be built at all if not through the revolutionary work of small groups. In addition, the successful conduction of everyday struggles and the striving for overcoming the system is not an either-or issue, nor a stageist project. The reformist forces fail due to their logic of location and focus on negotiations, even in performing basic defensive fighting. So opportunities arise for revolutionary forces to profile themselves as the most resolute fighters. And in the day to to day struggles the dynamics to overcome the system can be pointed out with transistional demands. It would be fatal to postpone rooting revolutionary forces in the working class to a later date because there are now more urgent tasks. It is precisely the crisis which offers opportunities to break with the traditional organizations of the labour movement and to promote and strengthen the revolutionary forces. For it is absolutely necessary to overcome reformism as the dominant political force within the labour movement. Its influence will also in periods of revolutionary upsurge not disappear by itself. Rather, reformist organizations play a crucial role in preventing and appeasement of class struggles and revolutions because of their traditional roots in the class. While building revolutionary parties, the reformist mass organizations can not simply be ignored or “unmasked” easily. Rather there have ways and means to be found
to influence political developments in the reformist parties - not with the illusionary goal to reform these parties but to break the base of these parties from the reformist party bureaucracies and from reformism in general. For this purpose revolutionaries use the tactics of the united front, which about to pull the reformist organisations - which are under pressure from their basis - into a common struggle for specific interests of the working class and to convince the members and supporters of these organizations in the specific dispute of the inconsistency and / or the betrayal of their leadership. In all of these forms is crucial that the political independence is maintained for the revolutionary forces, that this tactic of revolutionary organization building will not be confused with a political adaptation to reformism. Conducting revolutionary politics by no means needs to be isolated from the “masses”, rather revolutionary politics are necessary, even if the revolutionary forces are still weak. How else could revolutionary forces grow in strength?
Build revolutionary organisations!
We see the key tasks of revolutionaries in the establishment of a stable revolutionary organization and rooting them in the working class. There are no shortcuts, like reformist projects or clever (election-) campaigns, to this end. There can not even be an (electoral-) campaign which would be good enough to substitute real roots in the working class. Even if such an electoral alliance or a similar project, using all kinds of the professional tricks of the bourgeois media, can manage to appear as being of some relevance for a certain it’s real influence will eventually become evident. Ultimately there is no way around the patient building of an organisation of revolutionary activists. Such a project can not rely on expectations of a short-term breakthrough, which generally quickly end in disappointment anyway. Overall, a revolutionary socialist organization can only be successful in the longer term and fulfil a function for the working class if it is based on a sturdy cadre, a layer of activists that have a deep political understanding, a clear common direction, a realistic perspective, a deep commitment to the revolutionary struggle of the working class and collective resolve. It also requires a clear perspective on the political sustainability of the organization and its ideas in the working class and practical steps in this direction. Given that the capitalist promises` more and more are exposed as empty words, we face stormy times in which the Marxist organizations will be of great importance. They and their concepts will be put to the test in the coming years. It is crucial not to miss the arising chances and not to postpone the process of radicalisation. Through the events of the class struggle and their theoretical processing, there will be not only a strengthening but also a decomposition of the revolutionary forces and displacements within the (radical) left in general. We are convinced that a new revolutionary International can only come through a process of re-groupment in this spectrum. We want to enter this future process with an organisation politically, organisationally and numerically as strong as possible and fight for our positions. by Johannes Wolf, RSO Vienna
