Anyone for the vanguard? (1993)

From the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

This month the SWP holds its Conference but it won't be like the Conference of a working- class organization, with delegates, resolutions and contested elections. The SWP is not that kind of organization. As a Leninist vanguard it is a top-down organization controlled by its leaders, not its members.

Power in the SWP is in the hands of a small Central Committee whose members are all full time officials of the organization. Nominally the Central Committee is elected by the Conference but in practice it is a self- perpetuating body whose membership is renewed by co-optation.

What happens is that the outgoing Central Committee proposes its own slate of candidates for the incoming committee. This allows them to continue in office as long as they like, while being able to exclude any of their number who may have become awkward and to include any promising leadership material they have spotted and consider worthy of elevation to their ranks.

The rulebook does allow Conference delegates to vote against, but this never happens. One disillusioned SWPer has complained:

   "Have you ever had a vote on who should be the leader of the SWP or on the Central Committee? The way this is decided on at SWP conference is very dubious. You 're given a list of the new proposed CC and asked whether you agree or disagree. I’ve never heard of anyone not agreeing"! (Republican Marxist Bulletin, Nov-Dec 1992).

So the official list is always rubber-stamped. Just like in Russia under Brezhnev and in the late unlamented Communist Party. This is how Bob Darke, who was a CP borough councillor in Hackney in Stalin's day, writing in 1952 described the way the local borough Secretariat was chosen:

   "Each year the existing Secretariat draws up its own panel of names for the new Secretarial. It does this after it has consulted with the London District Committee (which is the coordinating authority of all branches in the London area). The Secretariat is often so satisfied with its work during the past year that it suggests that it should be re-elected en bloc. Of course, the London District may not agreed, in which case changes will be made in the list.
   "The panel is then placed before the aggregate meeting and comrades are invited to vote on it. They have absolute freedom of choice. They may vote Yes or No. Of course No would be a wasted vote, for there is no alternative to the panel. They are entitled to reject the suggested panel out of hand and suggest an entirely new one. I say they are at liberty to do this — but I have never known of it being done." (The Communist Technique in Britain, p. 23).

The likeness is not accidental and explodes the SWP's claim that Lenin did not lead to Stalin. The fact is that the emergence of a self-perpetuating leadership is an inevitable consequence — indeed, is one of the aims — of Leninist organizational principles.

The SWP Conference is completely dominated by the Central Committee which, quite literally, sets the agenda. Once again, on paper branches have the right to put down resolutions but are strongly discouraged from doing so:

   "Branches can submit resolutions if they wish, and these may be voted on. But in recent years the practice of sending resolutions to conference has virtually ceased" (Socialist Review, September 1983).

What the delegates discuss are not resolutions coming from the membership organized in branches, but a report submitted by the Central Committee on the political "perspectives". This is a document of pamphlet length and is the main item on the agenda. It is discussed section by section; at the end of each discussion a committee is elected to draw up a report which the delegates then vote on. This is said to make resolutions unnecessary:

  "The advantage of this procedure is that conference does not have to proceed by resolution like a trade union conference. “

This is not the only trade union procedure that the SWP rejects:

  "Delegates should not be mandated . . . Mandating is a trade union practice, with no place in a revolutionary party."

The idea of deciding some important issue by holding a ballot of the whole membership is equally obnoxious to the SWP. In the first volume of his hagiography of Lenin, SWP leader Tony Cliff wrote:

   "In January 1907, Lenin went so far as to argue for the institution of a referendum of all party members on the issues facing the party — certainly a suggestion which ran counter to the whole idea of democratic centralism" (T. Cliff, Lenin, Volume I. Building the Party, p. 280).

It certainly did, but Lenin only proposed this because at that time he didn’t control the Central Committee.

Mandating delegates, voting on resolutions and membership ballots are not just trade union practices; they are democratic practices for ensuring that the members of an organization control that organization and as such key procedures in any organization genuinely seeking socialism. Socialism can only be a fully democratic society in which everybody will have an equal say in the ways things are run. This means that it can only come about democratically, both in the sense of being the expressed will of the working class and in the sense of the working class being organized democratically — without leaders, but with mandated delegates — to achieve it.

In rejecting these procedures what the SWP is saying is that the working class should not organize itself democratically, but should instead follow a self-appointed, undemocratically organized elite. This is pure Lenin. According to him, left to themselves workers were only capable of developing what he contemptuously called a "trade union consciousness"; to go beyond this they had to be led by professional revolutionaries taking orders from an all-powerful centre. This is the model the SWP is following.

So, if you have a low assessment, like Lenin, of the intellectual and organizational abilities of your class, join the SWP! If you want to be in an organization where you’ll never mandate a delegate, put forward a resolution for conference or vote in a ballot of members, join the SWP! If you are prepared to be a follower in a leadership-run organization, join the SWP! On the other hand, if you want to organize democratically to get socialism, look no further . . . 

Adam Buick

The Demand for "Workers" Control (1945)

From the December 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reynolds News (4th November, 1945) published the following letter:—

   "I am surprised that Mr. Shinwell says he does not subscribe to the doctrine of workers' control of industry. Surely this has always been one of the basic principles of the Trade Union Movement.
   It appears that, instead of applying Socialism, many of our leaders are endeavouring to find a way out of or around the problem. Only a planned economy of workers' control can realise a full Socialist State.

B. Darke

London, E.9.

Mr. Darke's view is that of many supporters of the Labour Party.

It is completely divergent from the intentions of the Labour Government.

The idea has also been expressed by strikes recently.

The idea is a plausible one: simply this, that if a Government of "workers' representatives" (Labour leaders) are in office it is "Workers' control" of industry.

That therefore things will be run increasingly to the benefit of the workers—correspondingly to the detriment of the capitalists, realising, eventually, planned economy in a "full Socialist State".

Wherein lies Mr. Darke's error? First of all, workers' control is not Socialism. Socialism abolishes classes and therefore the working class. Socialism is democratic control of production by the whole community—not by a section of it.

Secondly, and more importantly, neither is a Labour Government "workers' control."

First, "workers control" in the sense of operating production is universal to-day. But if by "workers' control" is meant control of the ownership and distribution of the wealth the workers produce, it obviously cannot be under capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on private ownership; so long as capitalists own, they control.

Where Mr. Darke is confused is that he believes, like so many workers, that a Government composed of men who one worked with their hands, Labour leaders who are ex-dockers, miners, grocers' boys and milk-float drivers, necessarily makes the policy and intentions of that Government different. It does not.

The Labour Party is elected on a programme for the retention of capitalism. It has deluded many electors that its nationalisation schemes are Socialism. They are not.

It urges the workers now to work harder and tighten their belts to increase exports as a step to "Socialism." It is not.

Horatio.

The "Picture Post" Revelations (1952)

From the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

A constant problem to small political parties is the finding of opportunities for nation-wide publicity. One organization which can have no complaints in this direction at the present time, however, is the Communist Party. Most popular newspapers and magazines have had in the past twelve months articles telling "the truth" about the Communist Party's activities, and "Picture Post" has lately weighed in with a series of articles in which the "inside story" is presented.

The author of these articles is Bob Darke, who left the Communist Party in 1951. In the course of eighteen years' membership, he held various positions in and on behalf of the Party, including that of a Borough Councillor; he has now joined the procession of apostates who have scarcely allowed the ink to dry on their resignations before bellowing their condemnation of the Party they so lately, and so long, embraced. One cannot, in fact, resist suspicion of the many whose "seeing the light" has coincided with the Communists becoming the villains of the contemporary political scene. It is worth considering also that Bob Darke admits having thought and behaved irrationally and deliberately misrepresent facts for eighteen years; on his own evidence, his story and his judgements should be treated with more than a little reserve.

In fact, there is little in Bob Darke's "inside story" that has not already been told in similar articles in other publications. Serious consideration of the Communist Party's aims or the theoretical suppositions on which its case rests is completely avoided. The articles deal principally with the Party itself. Bob Darke shows it is an organization with a relentless discipline, in which members are required to follow the "Party line" blindly and subjugate their individual ideas to those which are imposed on them by the Party. That this is true is well known. Its significance, however, is considerably deeper than is shown by Bob Darke.

The question of the organization and methods of the Communist Party is as old as its Russian parent body. The basic concept of a centralised, disciplined party was that which Lenin, after the revolution of 1917, tried to extend all over the world; it was the concept which led to the formation of the Bolshevik Party. It was first expounded by Lenin in 1902, in "What is to be Done?" and in 1903, at the second congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party, it was embodied in his draft for the Party's statute. The draft was rejected in favour of Martov's, which aimed at a broad party of sympathisers, but when the delegates of the Bund, the Jewish organisation, withdrew, Lenin's supporters were left with the balance of voting power and used it to carry out their own wishes over the Party's constitution. Thus originated the Bolshevik-Menshevik feud, with its root in the Bolsheviks' conception of themselves as the highly organized Party leading the masses.

Was, and is, this concept a socialist one? Lenin did not draw it from his study of Marx. In one of his early pamphlets, he extolled the organization which was his model for a political party: Narodnaya Volya, the 19th century terrorist group with which the fanatical Nichaev was associated. The adoption of the idea of leadership of the workers by such an organization was, in fact, a rejection of the basic contention of Marxism. Marx saw the working class, through the development of industrialization and the constant increase in exploitation, becoming revolutionary; indeed, without this there could be no working-class revolution. Lenin, on the other hand, contended that the workers would never become revolutionary, and thus saw a necessity for his Party to be designed only as a group of leaders. It is interesting to note that at the 1903 congress the opponents of Lenin's concept stigmatised it as the prelude to dictatorship; the events in Russia from 1917 onwards, with many of those leaders holding political power, have borne out the prophecy.

Thus, the Communist Party's conception of the nature of a working-class political party was formulated in contradistinction from that of Marx. The behaviour of the Bolsheviks, in the years before they came to power, in many respects resembles that of Britain's Communists to-day. The Bolshevik cause was promoted by any means that appeared useful, and changes of policy were justified by Lenin's insistence that marx must be interpreted "dialectically." Any kind of dissent was branded with the word "Menshevism," just as present-day opponents are labelled "Fascists" or "Trotskyites."

At its inception in 1920, the Communist Party of Great Britain was committed, by its affiliation to the Third International, to a type of organization and methods which both were dictatorial. The "Statutes and Conditions of Affiliation" of the International included armed struggle and secret organization as clearly stated aims. The assumption of Lenin that the working class would never become revolutionary, was accepted; indeed, so far from seeking to spread understanding of capitalism among the workers, the founders of the English Communist Party believed that the capitalist economic system had broken down. This was frankly admitted in an article in "The Communist" in 1921, and for the next decade the Party's leaders continued to believe at every moment that capitalism was collapsing. The policy and administration of the Party became concentrated in a few hands, following the Russian model, until the membership was deprived of any opportunity to participate in the running of the Party and became, as it is now, an obedient rank-and-file. "Theirs not to reason why" is no less true of the Communists than it was of the Light Brigade.

Bob Darke shows his former self and his fellow-members as such obedient and devoted workers for their cause, accepting the unreasoning and often malicious discipline imposed on them; he fails, however, to make any suggestion as to why this should be. The key-word is "understanding"—or the lack of it. In spite of its Marxian pretensions, the Communist Party has thrived on lack of understanding. The supposition that the working class is incapable of becoming consciously revolutionary has provided a convenient justification for this; in fact, it is extremely well illustrated by Bob Darke's description of the methods by which Communist factions gain control of trade union branches. Far from making any endeavour to stimulate class-consciousness in the unions, the Communist tactic is to exploit the lack of it. In Darke's own words" "Our greatest ally was the apathy and indifference of the ordinary Trade Unionists."

Other examples are given to show how the Party membership itself is instructed to act without knowing the reasons for its actions. Perhaps here the hoary myth may be exploded that Communists are people who are more knowledgeable about society than most other workers. In fact, there is no reason for considering them to be superior in this respect to the members of, for example, the Labour Party or the Church of England; they have often identified themselves with the former, and at least one prominent Communist is a member of the latter. The leaders of the Communist Party are dependent upon the political ignorance of the membership as much as upon the political ignorance of the working class as a whole.

It must not be imagined, however, that Bob Darke is concerned with this aspect of the Communist Party. As was noted at the beginning, his articles are devoid of any serious consideration of Communist theory. Much of his "criticism" consists of the painting of unfavourable personal pictures of well-known Communists and even of allegations against them—for instance, that one member misuses money entrusted to him by his workmates. That is political warfare on its abysmal lowest level, and the only thing which might be said in excuse for Bob Darke's using it is that he probably learned it in the Communist Party.

Taken all in all, the "Picture Post" articles can hardly be said live up to one's normal expectations from "revelations." The only really valuable revelation of the Communist Party is the exposure of its fallacies and misrepresentations; and should "Picture Post" ever decide to do that, it need not concern itself with finding the latest adherent to the lengthening procession of penitent ex-worshippers of "the god that failed." The Socialist Party of Great Britain has maintained an attitude of analytical opposition to the Communist Party from the day of that Party's foundation. It has pointed out that the system in Russia is the same capitalism which causes the degradation of the workers in this country and elsewhere; that the aims of the Communists, if they were realised, would bring nothing but the continuation of the same economic and social problems; that leaders—would-be revolutionaries as well as the rest—can offer nothing to the working class. A party which bases its policy on the workers' lack of political understanding is, by that very fact, an anti-working-class party.

At the present time, the Communist Party is this country's scapegoat in the precipitate rush towards war. Capitalism has always to find scapegoats because the workers must always be persuaded to accept war, crises and hard times. The Socialist Party's criticism of the Communists has remained the same, whether the Russians have been "gallant allies" and their supporters have basked in reflected glory, or whether they have been regarded as villains of the deepest dye. The socialist case is one of opposition to capitalism and the political organisations which support capitalism; that opposition extends no less to the Communists than to those who now attack them to further the ends of British capitalism.

Robert Barltrop