Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's announcement that "a new kind of political party" is going to be launched has already resulted in over 500,000 sign-ups. This enthusiastic response has confirmed everything that the Socialist Party has been saying for years about the mood that exists to build a new mass workers’ party, a party so urgently needed to fill the political vacuum that has been left since the Labour Party became a fully-fledged party of capitalism.
Although it's very early days, discussions have already started, for example on social media, about how such a party should best be structured. But this won't be the first time that these kind of discussions have taken place. In this post, I wanted to draw attention to some relevant labour movement history that may be unknown to a new generation of socialists and perhaps forgotten by older generations too.
 |
| A proposal for a federal structure drafted in Scotland in 1995 |
A) The Labour Party was formed on a federal basis
It's definitely worth remembering that the Labour Party was first built as a federation of different unions and socialist organisations and, throughout its initial years, retained "its character as an alliance of all the trade union organisations of the working class". (a 1920 description by the Communist Party who campaigned - although unsuccessfully - to seek affiliation to the Labour Party at that time)
As Dave Nellist's recent article in "the Socialist" explains, "on 27 February 1900, 129 delegates representing 570,000 members in 41 trade unions and seven trade councils came together in Memorial Hall, London, to form the Labour Representation Committee, which later became the Labour Party. The meeting also included representatives from three socialist organisations: the Independent Labour Party, representing 13,000 members; the Social Democratic Federation, 9000; and the Fabian Society, 861 ... The LRC became the Labour Party in 1906, though you couldn’t actually join it as an individual member until 1918".
However, in the wake of the collapse of Stalinism in the 1990s, the Blairites stepped in to turn the Labour Party into just another party of big business. It's no surprise that part of their campaign was to ditch that old 'Clause 4', dropping any call for public ownership. In his autobiography, Blair spelt out that: “After the 1992 defeat ... I had formed a clear view that if ever I was leader, the constitution should be rewritten and the old commitments to nationalisation and state control should be dumped".
Peter Taaffe's history of "Blair's counter-revolution in the Labour Party", explains how, at the special national conference called in 1995 to scrap Clause 4, "the right-wing evolution ... was reflected most glaringly in the constituency delegates ... 90% of the constituency delegates voted for Blair’s abandonment of socialist principles, something that would have been absolutely unheard of in the 1950s and 1960s boom when the rank and file were consistently on the left. But the new breed of ‘delegates’ – smart suited careerists seeking a shortcut to power and influence – were far removed from worker delegates of the past. ... The unions were split with 38% in favour and almost 32% against".
B) The Trade Union Block vote
As you can see from the vote above on Clause 4, it would be a mistake to fall for the idea that trade union block voting was always just an undemocratic mechanism used by right-wing trade union leaders to undermine more left-wing rank-and-file party members.
Of course, where the right-wing union bureaucracy had control of affiliated unions, it could certainly play that role. But even right-wing trade union leaders have to reflect the pressure of their members for action on pay, jobs and all the other issues affecting the working-class. The trade union block vote reflected the roots of the Labour Party in the workers' movement. That's why, as part of their project to turn Labour into just another party of big business, the Blairites knew they had to get rid of it.
As Hannah Sell explains, "the organised working class was able to pressurise the Labour leadership via the block vote. It is true, of course, that right-wing trade union leaders often wielded the block vote against their own members’ interests. This is why Militant, the predecessor of the Socialist Party, called for democratic trade union checks over the block vote as part of our programme for democratic, fighting trade unions. Nonetheless, the reduction of the block vote was an essential part of transforming Labour into a capitalist party".
In other words, to change the character of the Labour Party for good, the Blairites didn't just move to ditch Clause 4, they also needed to get rid of the trade union roots on which the Party had been built. A pamphlet written at the time by 'Militant Labour' - which became the Socialist Party - around "the debate on Clause IV", correctly predicted "this debate is about whether the Labour Party will be an organisation of working-class people and those of the middle-class who can see that capitalism threatens not only workers but their own security and well-being. Or whether it will be a tame second party of the bosses doing their bidding, throwing crumbs to the rest of us when the bosses agree they can be spared".
The pamphlet also pointed out that "when many Militant supporters were expelled from the Labour Party in the 1980s, we warned that the expulsions were just the first steps towards loosening the links with the working class, especially organised labour in the trade unions". It added that "the distancing of the Labour Party from its trade union base has meant a constant whittling away of the proportion of votes they cast at the Party Conference. Now it's proposed that when individual membership increases to 300,000, the trade union share of the vote will fall to 50% from 70% at present".
So it was the Blairites, supported by capitalist press attacks, that moved against the "block vote", in order to stop trade unions having a key say in Labour policy. If a new party is going to be one that represents the working-class, its structures should again make sure that democratic, fighting trade unions have an important say within it. Exactly how that would be constituted should, of course, be discussed through but, in these early discussions, it's important to think through how trade unions - both as local branches and as national bodies - should be represented within it.
C) One Member One Vote - and Lessons from the Spanish State
Anyone who's had experience in properly functioning trade unions, will be used to the idea that decisions are best reached by bringing members together (usually in person, but with, where necessary, some attending online), allowing different points of view to be considered, and then for a vote to be taken and/or delegates elected to represent a particular point of view. That's always been the best traditions of workers' democracy - of making informed decisions following meeting and debate, whether it be in union branches, national conferences, or even in workers' soviets!
But, particularly to a new generation that hasn't had that experience, an alternative approach of making decisions through "One Member, One Vote" (OMOV) might seem attractive. After all, doesn't it give every member a say? But a Party has to be more than just a collection of atomised individual members making decisions without debate and discussion. And, again, the history of the Labour Party - and other parties of the Left - provides a warning.
Just as with the undermining of the trade union block vote, the introduction of OMOV was a move that came from the Right to strengthen its control of the Labour Party. Hannah's article explains how "the process of fundamentally undermining the democratic structures of the Labour Party was given impetus with John Smith's introduction of OMOV. This was a means of using the more passive members – those sitting at home and seeing debates within the party via the capitalist media – against the more active layers who participated in the democratic structures of the party."
There's also important lessons to learn from the organisational structures used in other attempts to build new parties on the Left - not least Podemos in Spain. Podemos grew massively when it was launched in 2014, as a new party promising a radical break with the capitalist policies of all the main parties - promising radical action on housing, to raise wages, lower the retirement age and nationalise key sectors of the economy. However, its membership and support has since massively declined. So what went wrong? - because we don't want the same to happen here!
An article in Socialism Today analyses the "rise and decline of Podemos" in more detail but points to the way the new party was organised through online discussions and voting, rather than having more traditional branch structures, as one of its failings.
It explains how: "Podemos presented their innovative online methods as a way of giving ordinary people control of the organisation. This seemed like a real breath of fresh air in contrast to the bureaucratic obstacles experienced by members of PSOE (equivalent to the Spanish Labour Party) and PCE (the Spanish Communist Party), let alone the memory of rule under the dictatorship. At its height, the party’s ‘Plaza Podemos’ site attracted 20,000 individual participants. Its election manifestos and its election candidates were also selected online in primaries. ..."
But the reality of Podemos’s structures, or rather lack of them, did not measure up to the rhetoric. Podemos policies were attractive to a broad range of working and middle-class people but its ‘open’ structure was especially popular with the middle classes who, because they were used to wielding some authority, better trained to communicate, and had more time to participate in it, soon dominated the leadership of the organisation. It was difficult for workers with limited time to participate meaningfully in unfocussed discussions that could continue indefinitely in Podemos ‘circles’ (branches) and there were no moves to give workers’ representatives and organisations like trade unions power in the party. As in all supposedly ‘horizontal’ organisations, in reality power was very centralised in Podemos, with few democratic controls that members could exercise over the leadership".
The article also sets out the model of representative participatory workers' democracy that our co-thinkers in the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) proposed instead: "Podemos must orientate to the enormous potential power that workers hold. We said that an approach should be made to challenge the influence that other parties have in the trade unions, and that structures should be set up that enabled working-class people – including those who worked long or unpredictable hours – to participate in the party and determine its direction. A serious and determined campaign should have been mounted to build a ‘circle’ (branch) in every working class community. At its height, Podemos had 900 circles, but coverage was patchy and circles were never decision-making bodies. We said discussions should be focussed around resolutions about the way forward for the party, and argued that circles should be gathered into district, city and regional circles whose members were elected democratically, with the input of workers’ organisations. This would have meant that any member could make a proposal, win the support of their circle/branch, and take it through the structures of the organisations to the highest level to be adopted as policy. All responsible positions should have been subject to election".
As the article also points out, "without a solid base in the working class, Podemos’ leadership was not sensitive to the moods and ideas of the masses, so less able to correctly judge tactical questions such as the attitude it should take to other political forces, especially PSOE, and more susceptible to the pressure that capitalism puts on its political opponents."
So, having roots in the working-class, and in its trade union organisations, is vital for any new mass workers' party to succeed.
D) What did Militant Labour call for at the time that the SLP was launched?
Back in the mid-90s, there was another attempt to launch a new 'party of the Left' by another authoritative workers' leader - Arthur Scargill and his launch of the "Socialist Labour Party". Scargill made the proposal to launch the SLP in response to the ditching of Clause 4 - and this was immediately welcomed by Militant Labour. However, the SLP's subsequent demise was in good part owing to its 'top-down' organisational structure, one where no other party was allowed to maintain its own identity, an approach that sadly ending up alienating nearly everyone who had placed their hopes in it. Once again, this is a history that shouldn't be repeated!
During 1995, when the potential structures for the new SLP were being discussed, 'Socialism Today' printed a number of articles explaining why Militant Labour were calling for a democratic federal structure. These were collected together in a 1996 pamphlet, which even included a rough draft outline of a possible federal structure which had been put forward by the Scottish Socialist Forum (pictured above).
The introduction to the pamphlet, although written in a different period, three decades ago, makes important historical points that are still worth considering. For example it notes that the details of any federated structure need to be thought through: "Federation has also been the experience historically in Britain. Of course a federation would have to be carefully organised and a reflection of the real significance and forces of each affiliate or component part. For example, in the second half of the 19th century, when the working class was searching for political independence from capitalist parties, especially from the Liberal Party, most organisations, such as the Independent Labour Party and the Social Democratic Federation, were federations. However, the SDF constitution, whilst federal, did not accurately reflect the makeup of the organisation. Due to industrial developments and the role played by individual socialists aligned to the SDF, its biggest organisation outside London was in Lancashire, at the time a melting pot of working class political activity. The ILP, SDF, Co-op movement, the suffrage societies and the trade unions all had large concentrations of support in the industrial centres. But the structure of the SDF denied equal access to areas outside London to decision taking and national leadership".
Other articles in the pamphlet take-up the argument that allowing different parties and trends to debate different viewpoints within the broader party would just be a distraction and that a "'stop quibbling, let's get on with it' approach may initially appear attractive to some activists". However, it then predicted, sadly correctly, that "synthetic unity, especially when imposed from above, is a recipe for splits, not unity in action". Instead, we argued that "a genuinely democratic structure would recognise the validity of different groups - the inevitable organisational expression of a plurality of ideas - and accept an open, federal structure. Participation within the party would be on the basis of agreed structures and support for a common, broad socialist programme, especially in relation to election campaigns". (This is, of course, the approach that TUSC has since taken).
I'll finish this post with the proposed draft structures put forward by the Scottish Socialist Forum in 1995 as an alternative approach to bringing together a new party on federal grounds.
In doing so, I'm not putting this forward as a recommendation that can necessarily be exactly replicated in the 'new party' being launched today, in different conditions to that of the mid-90s. [For example, it struck me that perhaps the character of the initiatives at that time were focused more on pulling together existing Left currents, rather than launching a mass workers' party - and perhaps the proposed draft didn't prioritise sufficiently the role of trade union affiliations at a national level?]
I also don't want to give any impression that this is an agreed position of the Socialist Party - after all, it's only "archive hoarders" like me that can probably still lay hands on a copy (!). Nor have I had a chance to talk to comrades in Scotland about any further discussions that took place. However, I am posting it with the same intentions of those who circulated this draft in 1995, as a "broad indication" of the kind of structures which could be considered:
Draft agreed by the Scottish Socialist Forum, 27 December 1995:
EARLY DRAFT ONLY (This draft is mainly for discussion purposes. To give a broad indication of the type of structures envisaged - further detail will need to be added after broader discussions).
1. Any individual or organisation (e.g. political group, trade union at any level, environmental group, tenants' organisation, community group, anti-nuclear group, civil rights organisation, animal rights group, anti-racist organisation, international solidarity campaign, etc.) who broadly agrees with the Aims and Objectives and agrees to abide by the constitution may join the [Party].
2. The [Party] is politically pluralistic and encourages all individuals, organisations and groups who share our socialist vision to fully participate.
3. All organisations and groups participating in [the Party] must be affiliates. Affiliation assumes a political commitment and all affiliates should also encourage individual membership from their respective organisations. All representatives from affiliated organisations must also be individual members.
4. An organisation of this type, broad and voluntary, must be open, inclusive and flexible.
5. Individual members are allowed to belong to other political organisations (whether affiliates or not) but dual membership should be declared on application/renewal of membership.
6. The [Party] will organise at a local branch level, area level (based on Euro constituencies) and national level.
7. a) Individual members will be entitled to participate in branches, based upon residency, place of work, or place of study.
7. b) Organisations (e.g. community groups, tenants' groups, hospital campaigns, etc.) can affiliate at this level.
8. a) Regular Aggregate Meetings will be held at an Area level - open to all members.
8. b) Organisations (e.g. trade union branches, anti-motorway campaigns, etc.) can also affiliate at this level.
9. Policy will be decided democratically by a National Conference, consisting of branch delegates and delegates from nationally affiliated organisations. Branches and affiliates are encouraged to seek a gender balance in their delegations.
10. There will be a monthly National Council consisting of office-bearers elected at the National Conference, branch delegates and delegates from affiliated organisations. Branches and affiliates are encouraged to seek a gender balance in their delegations.
11. The elected office-bearers will be responsible for the day-to-day running of the national organisation.
12. The [Party] allows individual members and affiliates to organise in sections (e.g. Youth Section, Women's Section, Black Section).
