IT IS appropriate that a great ideological ferment is going on inside British socialism as the 1980s get underway. While open warfare has erupted in the Labour Party, the far left is going through an important recomposition and debate.
On a number of sides the relevance of trying to build a new socialist party on the Leninist model is being challenged. Many comrades believe that the best chance for socialism now lies through the Labour Party — by renewing it, building it into a mass, campaigning party, winning it to left-wing policies, or splitting it.
For many people it isn't the desirability of an alternative socialist party, but the possibility of its construction which is in doubt.
Other people, particularly those who look to Beyond the Fragments and accept many of the ideas and objectives of the organised far left, now believe that the objective of building a revolutionary party is undesirable because of Leninism's alleged inability to comprehend the scope of socialism's objectives.
They prefer to put their energies into knitting together the 'new' movements — the anti-racist movement, the anti-nuclear and ecology movements, the women's movement and so on. Often they see Leninism as restrictive and authoritarian.
In some senses, these arguments seem reasonable at first glance. Why should the idea of creating a new party on the basis of a model dreamt up in Russia in 1902 have any relevance? Isn't it true that the revolutionary, 'Leninist' organisations are tiny and dogmatic?
Elitist
Undoubtedly, the crucial argument for most worker militants is that the Labour Party can be won to left policies, and this is the way to get socialism. The fight for democracy in the Labour Party — which is incidentally a thousand times more authoritarian and élitist than the far left organisations — then becomes the crucial issue. Through committing a Labour government to conference decisions, they hope, socialism can be achieved.
Socialist Challenge's response to this is not the 'Labour Party is rubbish' argument of Socialist Worker. We support all those fighting for socialist policies in the Labour Party — they will have to go through the experiences of testing this course out in practice. But while supporting their fight, we believe that ultimately another course will be necessary.
It is true that Benn is not the same as Callaghan, and a government with Bennite policies of reflation and planning agreements would bring many benefits to ordinary people. But we doubt that it would bring socialism.
The Labour left doesn't stand for breaking up the existing system, but for radical reforms within it. These objectives are admirable in intent, yet the last Labour government was elected on a similar programme.
It didn't implement that programme because it was sabotaged by the Labour right — who didn't want to implement it — and the big corporations and the Civil Service.
A Labour government which wanted to implement a radical programme would have to force the big companies into planning agreements to secure productive investments and to plan production; it would have to push through planning of trade; it would have a massive battle against entrenched interests to cut arms spending, soak the rich, and so on.
Just like Allende in Chile, to really force through a radical programme, which must ultimately involve sweeping nationalisations, it is necessary to confront big capital and its state apparatus.
You can't make a social revolution by agreement with the capitalists. You have to mobilise the working class for revolutionary mass action to take political power, forcibly if necessary, from the big corporations and their police force, their army, and the rest.
You can't do that without a policy of revolutionary mobilisation and mass initiative. But it is inconceivable that the Labour Party would adopt a revolutionary policy.
Its whole ideology, the strength of its established bureaucracy, and its methods of organisation prevent that. It would split a long time before revolutionary policies won out. A new party is needed which is based on a revolutionary perspective. Neither the Labour Party, nor any knitting together of 'movements' can substitute for such a party.
Yet can such an alternative party really be built? British capitalism is entering a truly momentous crisis, economically and politically. Millions of workers will be radicalised by unemployment, falling living standards, and the threat of war.
Any argument which says that there won't be an extensive radicalisation is in fact saying that capitalism will be able to solve its problems without a massive crisis. But not even the bourgeoisie believes there is no crisis, or that it is getting better.
Refreshing
It seems certain the large majority of those radicalised, looking for political solutions, will look to the Labour left. But the more militant minority, especially young workers, can be won directly to building a revolutionary alternative.
Contrary to the assertions of Peter Hain in his new pamphlet Refreshing the Parts Others Cannot Reach, the revolutionary left is growing. Through the unity of its forces, especially of the International Marxist Group and the Socialist Workers Party, it would be possible to quickly see the building of a small revolutionary party, which would challenge the Communist Party as the main force to the left of Labour.
This is a realistic, achievable objective. The building of a revolutionary party in the '80s is possible because of the depth of the crisis which is developing. It will put massive pressure on all the existing political alignments. It is in periods such as the present that revolutionary parties are built.
Is it true, though, that the Leninist left is authoritarian, dogmatic and incapable of responding to new movements and issues? As a criticism of those sectarian 'Leninists' who believe that the commandist model of a secret underground party in Czarist Russia is adequate for Europe today, there is some truth in this.
We will not build a mass revolutionary party in this country or any other country if we assume that commandism and preaching to people is the way to go about things.
We have to be ambitious in our goals and aim for a party that is broad enough to incorporate differences of opinion within a revolutionary framework — Parliamentary deputies would be accountable to that framework.
The heritage of Stalinism and years of isolation weigh heavily on modern Marxists. Monolithism is seen as effective. Debate, division over the smallest matters, a hindrance. This frightens away many potential supporters.
Sterile
It affects attitudes to unity in action. The Anti Nazi League and the National Abortion Campaign broke out of this sterile approach and drew in thousands of young people and thousands of women, through their openness to debate and the range of forces actively involved.
Mass extra-Parliamentary action will continue to be the far left's domain on social issues for a long time to come. But to build a mass party, the far left has to become an attractive force for those it wishes to attract most — the industrial working class.
Unity in struggle with members of the Labour Party and the Communist Party will be essential to this aim. But we must go further. To present an attractive alternative to the lefts in the Labour Party the politics of Leninism — not the organisational fetishes — must be broadcast as far and wide as possible.
Within our ranks what unites us is far greater than what divides us: for workers' control as opposed to workers' participation in the running of capitalist industry; for the extension of Parliamentary democracy to direct control through workers' councils; for international unity among workers.
The rallying cry of the Bennites will not seduce a large number of British workers. Too many Labour leaders have raised their hopes only to dash them when they are in power.
Revolutionary socialists in the 1980s have to provide a positive alternative, a rallying point, for all those who reject reformist socialism.
The bickering must come to an end. Revolutionary socialists who see the need for a new party in Britain must come together and discuss. The choice is clear. Benn's road or ours.