Republics and socialism: debate part 2

All republicans are republican - but some are less republican than others

This is a reply to a polemic by the AWL's Sean Matgamna entitled "Notes on the CPGB/WW". In this he devoted a section to the monarchy headed "All monarchs are monarchs, but some are less monarchical than others!". It was a criticism of the CPGB's republicanism, but could equally be directed towards the RDG.
In fact CPGB supporter, Tom Delargy, thinks that Sean is really attacking RDG arguments, which he has mistakenly attributed to the CPGB. Recently Tom has argued that the AWL and RDG are the real opponents and that the CPGB position is much closer to the AWL. He concludes that the differences between the AWL and CPGB on republicanism is "bridgeable" whereas the RDG position is "irreconcilable" with the AWL.

More debate will show whether Tom is right. But what is certain is that militant revolutionary republicanism is irreconcilable with the liberal republicanism of the SWP and those following in their wake. So if Tom calls us the 'irreconcilables', RDG comrades thank him for the complement. Whether CPGB comrades will be happy with Tom's view that they are compromisers with liberal republicanism is another matter.

Certainly the AWL have a better record on republicanism than the SWP. The mere fact that they have adopted the federal republic line shows that they are thinking about it more seriously. But they have not yet broken decisively with liberal republicanism, which is the political side of economism. The AWL must go one step further and make the theoretical break, which brings their demand for a federal republic onto the firm foundations of a theory of permanent revolution.

At first sight the argument between the AWL and RDG seems to be merely a difference of attitude or emphasis. We both want to get rid of the monarchy. But the RDG (and CPGB) 'overemphasises' the issue and the AWL 'underemphasises' it. Too much republicanism versus too little. Of course nobody can be satisfied with such a superficial view of these differences.

We have identified these differing attitudes (Weekly Worker November 14) as coming from the political assumptions of liberal republicanism and revolutionary working class republicanism. The former has its roots in the bourgeois reformist theory and the latter in the revolutionary experience of the working class. Our task here is to show this concretely with reference to definite theories and programmes.

We can start by quoting Sean himself. He says "We too, of course, want to get rid of the monarchy. (But so does Rupert Murdoch...). In a revolutionary situation, the reserve powers of the monarchy would, indeed, be a weapon for the reactionaries, etc. Even so, the British monarchy could be sloughed off tomorrow with little else of importance changing in British society. And the chance that communists could put themselves at the head of a vast anti-monarchist movement so roused up on "The Democratic Questions" that a profound social reorganization might thereby become possible, is nil. Absolutely nil!

So although the monarchy might become important during a revolution, it is not important now. This is despite the fact that over a million people turned out on the streets in celebration of the monarchy. All sections of the ruling class, the armed forces and the state, were there, reminding us that the monarchy symbolises hereditary wealth, class privilege and the unity of all the anti-working class forces.

The Jubilee shows many people feel passionate about keeping the monarchy, but nobody it seems, including Sean, feels passionate, about getting rid of it. Perhaps this is not surprising when Marxists tell us that getting rid of the monarchy won't change anything. Would the abolition of the monarchy would take place on its own, without anything else being disturbed, without class struggle, and without a major crisis? Only liberals would fantasise about getting rid of the monarchy one dark night when society was fast asleep!

Worse still is the claim that trying mobilise the working class is a waste of time. This is liberalism pure and simple. Which other class should we rely upon if not the working class? Where does this lead except to believing that we should tolerate the monarchy because we are too weak and divided to do anything about it. Only liberalism would turn weakness into a virtue, claiming that our monarchy is "less monarchical" so we can be less republican.

Sean then explains what he thinks is the theory behind the CPGB (and RDG) view. He says "I suspect that your strange vision of Britain here can only be understood in terms of the old Stalinist dogmas about a two-stage revolution, even in advanced countries - see below - and some background, or subconscious, notion that because the monarchy and other pseudo-feudal relics have survived - through three and a half centuries of bourgeois rule! - the "bourgeois-democratic revolution" has yet to be completed in Britain. This strange notion is less of an eccentric rarity than it should be. It was in circulation outside Stalinist ranks, amongst the New Left Review people, in the mid-sixties. E. P. Thompson debated it with them, and they later shamefacedly admitted that Thompson had been right."

This quote goes straight to the heart of the matter. The irreconcilable attitude of the RDG (and CPGB) seems to originate with a peculiar theory of revolution - namely the theory of bourgeois democratic revolution. I notice that Sean says that he "suspects" this. His suspicion, even if understandable, is completely wrong. The RDG does not have a theory of bourgeois democratic revolution. On the contrary our view is based on a complete rejection of this theory.

If the CPGB were the only advocates of revolutionary republicanism, then the hypothesis that this was left over from Stalinism might seem to hold water. But the RDG comes from the state capitalist tradition and our agitation for a federal republic goes back to 1980. We got our republicanism from state capitalism, not from the CPGB. This should warn us against any idea that Stalinism explains revolutionary republicanism. On the contrary I would argue that revolutionary republicanism is an important measure of the current CPGB's successful break from the Stalinist tradition..

The RDG has argued that there are three basic theories of revolution, which correspond to major ideological trends produced by the Russian revolution - Stalinism, Trotskyism and State Capitalism. We will call these Stalinist 'stageism' (two separate revolutions), Trotskyist or 'degenerate workers state permanent revolution' (DWS-PR) and 'state capitalist permanent revolution' (SC-PR).

Stalinist theory, originating in the second International, identifies two distinct types of revolution - bourgeois democratic (or republican) revolution and national socialist revolution. The former applies to 'backward' or underdeveloped countries, and the latter to advanced capitalist countries. These two distinct types of revolution are not connected. On the contrary they are separated by the whole epoch between the beginning and the end of capitalism.

Britain may seem to provide the classic proof of this theory. In the seventeenth century we had what might be called a 'bourgeois democratic revolution'. Now after 300 years we are an advanced capitalist country waiting for the 'socialist revolution' The CPGB's programme the 'British Road to Socialism' stood for this 'socialist revolution' albeit carried out by reformist parliamentary means.

Trotskyist permanent revolution (or DWS-PR) fuses the two kinds of revolution in 'underdeveloped' countries. A bourgeois democratic revolution in a backward country can grow into a national socialist revolution, under the leadership of the working class. This may become an international socialist revolution. If it doesn't spread, the workers revolution will slip back to a degenerate workers state. This is the Trotskyist interpretation of the Russian revolution.

What needs to be stressed is that both the Stalinist and Trotskyist theories rest on a distinction between 'advanced' and 'backward' countries. Both make the distinction between bourgeois democratic and national socialist revolution. In 'backward' countries, Trotsky's theory produces a very different perspective. But in a so-called advanced country, like Britain, the perspective is exactly the same - socialist revolution not bourgeois democratic revolution.

In Britain therefore it doesn't matter whether Sean uses the Stalinist or Trotskyist theory of revolution. The conclusion is the same. Britain has had its bourgeois democratic republican revolution. We are now preparing for a 'socialist' revolution. Within this framework, republicanism is largely irrelevant. It was a revolutionary issue three hundred years ago, during the epoch of bourgeois democratic revolution. But no longer. Now it can be abolished by reform, just as likely to be carried out by Rupert Murdoch and his friends.

This theory makes republicanism a question of reform not revolution. If we are going to confine ourselves to reform why concentrate on the monarchy? Surely spontaneous strike action by workers will achieve more in terms of wages or improved working conditions? Trade unionism seems to provide a more practical means of reform. This is exactly the kind of economist politics exhibited by the SWP.

When Sean says "I suspect that your strange vision of Britain here can only be understood in terms of the old Stalinist dogmas about a two-stage revolution, even in advanced countries", he is in fact talking about his own theoretical assumptions. The theories of Stalin and Trotsky predict a socialist revolution not a democratic one. Advanced capitalism and democratic revolution cannot go together. Therefore our emphasis on republicanism seems odd. Perhaps we haven't understood that Britain had a bourgeois democratic revolution, and is an advanced capitalist country with the bourgeoisie in power?

This brings us to Nairn-Anderson. They worked within the same Stalinist theoretical framework of bourgeois democratic revolution. But taking account of the uneven development of capitalism and imperialism on the UK, they concluded that we must complete the bourgeois democratic revolution, which was only half or two-thirds finished. Sean thinks that perhaps this explains our mad republicanism.

Again this is wide of the mark. Because we don't have a theory of bourgeois democratic revolution then 'completing' it has no meaning. Republicanism is not about 'completing' what Cromwell began in the seventeenth century. It is about the working class beginning to take democratic control of the system of government in the new century.

The theory of bourgeois democratic revolution is a reactionary theory. It is a bourgeois theory, which serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. It tells us that the democratic revolution must be led by the bourgeoisie. Furthermore it cannot go beyond parliamentary democracy, the rule of the bourgeoisie. Who could possibly benefit from such a theory but capital itself.

The RDG comes from the state capitalist tendency. We base our programme on the 'state capitalist theory of permanent revolution (SC-PR). This completely rejects the idea of bourgeois democratic revolution and national socialist revolution. Instead we have adopted two 'new' categories - national democratic revolution (not bourgeois democratic) and international socialist revolution ( not national socialist revolution or socialist revolution in one country).

This is permanent revolution because it posits that the democratic revolution leads directly to the international socialist revolution, providing that, in the course of the democratic revolution, the working class comes to power and establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat. The permanent revolution is the 'ongoing revolution'. It begins from to-days conditions and continues without ending until world communism. The permanent revolution begins with democratic revolution passing through the dictatorship of the proletariat and growing over into the international socialist revolution.

In the theory of SC-PR, the democratic revolution is NOT bourgeois. It is neither lead by the bourgeoisie, nor is it confined to creating bourgeois democratic institutions. Whereas Stalinist Marxism bases its democratic revolution on the French revolution, we base ours on the Russian revolution. The Russian revolution is the best example of democratic revolution lead by the working class, creating a working class democracy.

Of course no democratic revolution could abolish capitalism. Only an international socialist revolution can do that. The Russian revolution was no exception. It did not and could not abolish capitalism. It merely oversaw its transformation into state capitalism. State capitalism and democratic permanent revolution are thus tied together.

Sean then raises the question of the constitutional monarchy system. He says that "the British political system does not, whatever the constitutional conventions say, really revolve around the monarchy. It was different in Russia, where the Tzar was an absolute monarch, and then a "slightly constitutional" ruler. Lenin and the Bolsheviks related to that monarchy as what it actually was. If we follow Lenin's method instead of literally transcribing what Lenin truly said about the Russian monarchy, we will relate to Britain's monarchy as what it is, not as what Tzarism was. We will, as Lenin did, analyse our own real political world and develop politics appropriate to it".

It is true that the constitutional monarchy doesn't revolve round the queen. The fact that the monarchy is useless, dangerous and expensive, both financially and ideologically, doesn't mean we should keep it. If your house is full of junk, chuck it out quickly before you fall over and break your neck! But this is not the only point the monarchy caused Sean to miss.

In the constitutional monarchist system power is highly concentrated in the hands of the prime-minister, his civil servants and advisors. President Blair is an 'elected dictator'. There are no real democratic checks on his freedom of action. This is not to say that the queen has no power or influence behind the scenes. But the point is that Blair exercises the powers of the crown. Republicanism is directed against the constitution that gave the power and freedom to Thatcher to wage the Falklands war, smash the miners and impose the poll tax. Now Blair has that same freedom in relation to the fire-fighters, privatisation and Iraq.

Sean says that "you (CPGB) try to relate to the British monarchy, and through it to British society, in a way that would only make sense if that monarchy is something like the monarchy Lenin confronted, which it certainly is not, and if British capitalist society is something like the society Lenin confronted, and truly described as "semi-Asiatic", which it certainly is not".

That is nonsense. We do not to relate to the British monarchy as if it was the Tsar. Our analysis of British social monarchy is quite specific. If anything it is Sean that is short on concrete analysis. Democratic revolution in the UK in the 21st century will not be the same as democratic revolution in Russia in 1917. The differences are too numerous to elaborate. Of course an absolute monarchy is not the same as a constitutional monarchy and of course we are an industrial not a peasant society. At the same time the Russian democratic revolution and the revolutionary republicanism of the Bolsheviks has much to teach the working class not only in the UK but anywhere in the world.

Dave Craig RDG