If there already was a mass working class democratic socialist party, it would be impossible to ignore it.
It would be loud, it would be brash, it would be irreverent, it would be clever, and it would seem all pervasive.
It would support every strike by workers – without question.
The working class must liberate ourselves. Trusting the social democrats to help us would be fatal.
The capitalist media will lie about the party every day, as they did and do with Jeremy Corbyn.
The party would have a national paper, and a continuous social media campaign.
The party would have a high degree of internal education and training.
The party web site would have a library of information and training resources for anyone to use.
With modern information technology there would be a continuous flow of information, and much discussion among members.
As an activist party, the party would be continuously active in supporting the victims of capitalism.
At least half the elected positions would be held by women.
All candidates would be selected by the members who will be working with them.
Elected positions in the party would be subject to time limits, so people do not become entrenched and immovable. It reduces empire building. It also reduces possible burn out.
There would be an elected national leadership, but there would be great local autonomy.
Whether there would be a single leader or a collective leadership is not clear.
Any single Leader tends to be put on an undeserved pedestal. Any group of leaders takes too long to decide anything, and often does not follow a consistent policy.
I favour a single leader because it is much easier to replace a failing leader than to sack a failing leadership group.
There has to be an elected National Committee.
As a mass party, there is likely to be a group of supporters and adherents who simply receive emails and tweets but who are not involved in the party. The supporters and adherents would pay a relatively low token subscription, which is designed only to meet the costs of servicing them.
The individual members are likely to be grouped geographically, but also to have wider affinity groups or caucuses based upon their immutable personal characteristics (including youth and maturity) or occupations or trade union membership.
Members would be voting online frequently on policy and practical issues.
Members will contribute “from each according to their ability”.
The poorer two thirds of the population would pay relatively low subscriptions.
High earning or wealthy people would pay significant subscriptions.
I would like to see an instant comradeship. When members and supporters meet on a bus or train, or are stood in a queue, or we meet while shopping, we talk like long lost friends. Presumably there would be a pin or other emblem that helps us to recognise each other.
There would be fundraising to raise money for strikers, families of imprisoned demonstrators, and solidarity payments to socialists abroad and at home.
I like the idea that those holding public office should have to pay to the party all income over a certain figure. Those who earn income from outside activities should pay most or all of it into the party, even if they then draw on the party for associated expenses.
What the party will not be is a polite discussion group.
We are passionate.
Some of us, in our passion, sometimes overstep the mark but unacceptable behaviour cannot be tolerated. Members attacking other individuals will be in a sin bin for an appropriate period. Repeat offenders will be told that they must not drive other socialists out of the party, and either they moderate their language or be muted or otherwise they will eventually be expelled.
How would the trade unions be represented in the working class socialist party?
Sometimes a trade union has a leadership change.
If a union’s policy changes, sometimes the entire Labour Party is forced to change with it, regardless of what most Labour Party members wish. Most of the swings on the Labour NEC have resulted from changes within the trade unions.
How to prevent that problem affecting the new socialist party?
My personal solution is to allow trade union representatives to be coopted onto the National Committee, as non-voting observers. The trade unions would be asked to get their members active in the party, and build their influence that way.
If you think about the old Clause 4 Part 4 “To secure for the workers by hand and by brain the full fruits of their labours…”
It should be “the full fruits of our labours”.
That top down approach reflected the subservience of many people at that time.
No more!
To quote Mick Lynch,
“The working class are back and we refuse to be poor any more.”
Some comrades say, “the trade unions should set up a mass working class socialist party”
Or
“Mick Lynch or Jeremy Corbyn or Zara Sultana should set up a mass socialist working class party.”
With all love and respect for those who say this, you are asking “them” to wave a magic wand.
The sheer work and time that goes into setting up a truly democratic socialist party is unimaginable.
I was involved in the Breakthrough Party almost from the outset.
I had a large part in writing the Breakthrough Party constitution.
Thousands of person hours went into drawing up the Breakthrough Party raft of Socialist policies. Policy is put to the members in online votes.
The last thing any trade union wants to do is to create a political party that then becomes a constant drain on the union’s finances.
To ask active politicians, who are already incredibly stretched, to set up a democratic socialist party in their spare time, hits the immediate problem that they do not have significant spare time, nor spare emotional energy.
Trade unions and the high profile individuals will be much happier to support a party that is getting on fine without them.
The way forward is for those of us who are less pressed, to create a democratic socialist party that trade unions, Mick, Jeremy, and Zara will support when they are ready.
This raises the opening question,
“What would a working class socialist party look like?”
A socialist party has socialist policies.
If you look at the policies of the various leftist groups around, they are all fairly similar.
We leftists are all more like each other than we are like Labour or the rightist parties.
We would all abolish the Monarchy, abolish the House of Lords, leave NATO, support Palestine, and bring in common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange as part of saving the planet. The 2017 Labour manifesto is by comparison soggy left.
The biggest difference between the left parties is in presentation.
The overtly Marxist parties understandably beat the drum for whatever strand of Marxism they represent. They present an analysis of what the political situation is today, how we got here, and what is the way forward. Too often, they seem to be writing for other Marxists than for ordinary people.
Many Marxists ignore British traditions around “William with the long beard” 1196, Wat Tyler and John Ball 1381, the Levellers, the Nottingham Cheese riots, the London Corresponding Society, the Luddites, the Chartists, the Spa Fields riots, Captain Swing, the Rebecca riots, Burston School, Cable Street, the post war squatter occupations, Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, Grunwick, Wapping, Croxteth School, the Brixton and Liverpool riots of 1981 etc.
When ordinary people in Glasgow and London, and passengers on aeroplanes, take direct action to prevent asylum seekers being deported, that is part of the British socialist tradition.
Among the non-Marxist socialist parties, the most common problem is fudging whether we are for “the working class” in the Marxist sense – which is everyone who works for a living – or the social meaning of “working class”.
For many of us, we expect to support the nurses, but we are slightly disoriented by supporting barristers and hospital doctors. We should not be.
We know that 200,000+ socialists have already left the Labour Party.
500,000 people signed up to “Enough is Enough”.
There is a potential avalanche of supporters. Most of them would join a mass working class democratic socialist party.
We have to set up a working class democratic socialist party, and build it!
Charles James writes in his personal capacity.
About Charles James
Charles James worked for Labour in every General Election from 1966 to 2019.
In 1986 Charles increased the Labour vote in Heaton ward Bradford by 80% to take the third safest Tory ward in Bradford Metropolitan District for Labour. In 1990 Charles increased his 1986 vote 47% to record the highest ever vote for any candidate in the ward. In 1991 we achieved a second Labour councillor elected in Heaton.
In 48 years membership, Charles did most unpaid jobs in the Labour Party including Secretary to two CLPs.
Charles was Secretary of a 3000+ member CLP when he resigned from the LP in December 2020.
Outside the Labour Party, Charles organised his first demonstration at the age of 17. Charles was involved in student unions.
Charles was at Grunwick.
Charles was part of JCAD the Joint Campaign Against Deportations.
Charles taught at the Croxteth School occupation.
Charles was involved in the Honeyford issue.
Charles went on demonstrations with the Bradford Asian Youth Movement.
Charles collected for the miners.
Charles helped in the Thornton View Hospital occupation.
Charles ran an immigration and political asylum solicitor practise. Charles was elected to the Council of the Law Society.
Charles taught Law and was a member of UCU.
Charles is a retired member of Unison.
Charles’ web site is www.chasjames.com .
Charles also writes for The Word www.thewordmedia.org .
Charles is currently Elections Lead for the Breakthrough Party.
Recent Comments