Formal majority'

Scan page 13

that Marxism differs from Blanquism"

Naturally, when Lenin, or any other Marxist, spoke of the necessity of the revolutionary party having the support of the majority, he meant the real majority, whose sentiments are ascertainable in various ways besides the ballot box of the bourgeois state. On the eve of the insurrection he wrote his devastating attack on Zinovier and Kamenev who opposed the insurrection on the ground, among other things, that "we do not enjoy a majority among the people, and in the absence of that condition insurrection is hopeless".

Lenin, in 'A Letter to the Comrades', written on October 29-30, scornfully dismisses the authors of this statement as "either distorters of the truth or pedants who desire at all Lenin costs, without the slightest regard for the true circumstances of the revolution, to have a guarantee in advance that the Bolshevik Party throughout the coun try has received exactly one half the number of votes plus one" . Nevertheless, he took pains to prove the Bolsheviks had the majority by "facts":

"The elections of August 20 in Petrograd". •The elections to the Borough Dumas in Moscow in September" •The new elections to the Soviets" • The majority of the Peasants' Soviets" who had 'expressed their opposition to the coalition" ''The mass of the soldiers" "Finally, the revolt of the peasantry" • He concluded his argument on this point by saying: "No, to doubt now that the majority of the people are following and will follow the Bolsheviks is shameful vacillation"

Once again disavowing Blanquism, he wrote in his polemic against Zinoviev and Kamenev:

"A military conspiracy is Blanquism IF it is not organised by the party of a definite class; IF its organisers have not reckoned with the political situation in general and the international situation in particular; IF the party in question does not enjoy the sympathy of the majority of the people, as proved by definite facts.

He was not worried about a 'formal' majority: "no revolution ever waits for this". But he was sure of the real majority. He insisted upon the revolution "right now", as he expressed it, not sooner and not later, because:

"'The majority of the people is with us. This has been proven by the long and difficult road from May 19 to August 12 and September 25: the majority in the Soviets of the capitals is the result of the people's progress to our side. The vacillation of the SocialistRevolutionaries and Mensheviks, and the strengthening of internationalists among them, is proof of the same thing"

The prosecution at the Minneapolis trial attempted to convict us, as charged in the indietment, of an actual "conspiracy to overthrow the government by force and violence" • We successfully refuted this accusation, and the indictment covering this point was rejected by the jury.

The most effective element of our refutation of this absurd charge against our small party was our exposition of the democratic basis of the proletarian programme, of the party's reliance on the majority to realise its programme, and its corresponding obligation, while it remains in the i minority, to 'submit to the majority'.

In making this exposition we had a legal purpose, but not only a legal purpose, in mind. As with all the testimony, it was designed primarily to explain and simplify our views and aims to the workers who would be future readers of the published court record.

We also thought a restatement of the Marxist position in this respect would not be wasted on the members of our own movement, and might even be needed. The discussion which has arisen on this question only proves that we were more correct in this latter assumption than we realised at the time.

Socialism is a democratic movement and its programme, the programme of the vanguard party, can be realised only with the support of the majority.

The party's basic task, while it remains in the minority, is "propaganda to win over the majority":

To state this was not capitulation to the prejudices of the jury; it is the teaching of Marx and Lenin, as has been shown in the foregoing references. Labour and Tory in recent by-elections, and also collecting some of the most ereepy Labour right-wingers ever to walk the earth.

The SDP's success seems to have little to do with its policies - which is not surprising as they don't have many. MORI polls of SDP voters taken in Crosby at the time of the by-election show both huge ignorance of what the SDP stands for (for example, only 51 per cent knew that the SDP favoured Britain staying in the EEC), and that their support was based more on negative views about the Tories and Labour than anything positive about the SDP.

The SDP's electoral support is based on its carefully-nurtured 'new' image and 'dynamic' style, together with well-orchestrated. support in Fleet Street. As Liberal MP David Penhaligon put it, the SDP-Liberal Alliance represents the 'Stuff 'em all Party"

The Sunday Times also referred scathingly to the SDP's appeal as 'moderate chie'.

Protest.

Yet the SDP is more than just a 'media party' or a means of registering a protest vote. It represents an articulation of people who feel threatened by the new "extremism' in British politics, represented both by a shaken up Labour Party and a Thatcherite government. It reflects a wish to return to the consensus politics of the '50s and '60s, where class conflict could be smoothed over by a limited level of government intervention and spending, and by. a certain amount of social reform.

(This is not entirely new.

In 1973-4 when Heath was moving towards a showdown with the labour movement, the votes for the Liberals and for the Scottish Nationalists reached levels close to the SDP today. This was reflected in the February 1974 election).

Mould

In this respect, the SDP is deeply conservative. Far from breaking the mould of British politics', the SDP represents lexcepi on proportional representation)

precisely those policies which formed the mould of British polities for the 25 years after 1950. After all, the Gang of 4 sat in Labour governments for a good part of that time.

Thus the SDP supports incomes policy, enforced by means of taxation on high wage settlements. It supports legal shackles on Rodgers and Owen - moderate Nov. 1979: • Roy Jenkins launches a call for a new centre party.

Jan. 1981: Wembley Labour Party conference decides on 40-30-30 division of electoral college. Owen's 'one member, one vote' proposal overwhelmingly defeated. The Gang of Four launch the 'Council for Social Democracy. March 1981: Williams, Owen, Rodgers, and 11 MPs leave the Labour Party and found the SDP. They are soon joined by Tory MP Brocklebank-Fowler. Mid-April: SDP claims 43,566 members.

July: Warringion by-election: Williams decides not to run, and Roy Jenkins comes second to Labour with a 33% swing to the SDP.

September: SDP travelling conference. Liberal Assembly agrees to alliance with SDP:

October: Craydon by-olect00 won by kyi Pa hera Alliance on 30% swing. November: Williams overthrows 19,272 majority in Crosby, winning by over 5,000 votes.

December: Heath willingness to join with SDP.

the unions - forcing payment of the political levy onto a contracting-in basis, secret ballots, and protection for scabs who refuse to join a closed shop. It supports continued British membership of the EEC and NATO, and opposes unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Gloss

The radical gloss on this is provided by minor items such as Shirley Williams' alleged willingness to get rid of private education -which she did nothing about in the last Labour government and kept quiet about in Crosby.

The SDP's attachment to proportional representation, its alliance with the Liberals, and its aversion to class conflict, make it a natural party of 'national chic' government' or some other form of coalition. Add to this their anti-union attitudes and their support for 'workers' participation' (by which they mean locking workers into a system in which they lose their independence of action), and you get a highly authoritarian policy, where workers must depend on lobbying the state rather than independent action.

Incompatible Shortly before the SDP was launched, a group of writers most of whom have now joined the SDP published a collection of essays in memory of Anthony Crosland - in which they šadly concluded that sucial democracy and free trade unions were incompatible so free trade unions would have to go.

Middle-class Not surprisingly, the SDP membership comes largely from the professional middle class 157%; as against 10% white collar and 7% manual workers). As Alan Watkins put it in the Observer, it is becoming increasingly difficult for nice people to be active Conservatives.. The SDP is the residents' association writ large, the middle classes on the march"

The SDP is a party of unresolved contradictions, made up of people who have joined for widely differing reasons. On the one hand, there are those attracted to the SDP because it offers something new (unspecified), either apparently radical or apparently conservative. Many of these are the political virgins', as they are contemptuously called by the Liberals.

Uncomfortable

On the other hand, there are the old right wing Labour Party machine politicians who joined because they lost control locally, or because they felt uncomfortable about reselection and accountability.

How the respectable middle classes will get on with the likes of Michael U Halloran promises to provide an interesting spectacle. Many of the questions and issues that divide left and right in the Labour Party are already raising their heads in the SDP: who should elect the leader, what relationship should exist between the MPs and the party as whole, and whether sitting MPs should have to face re-selection.

Instability These differences only emphasise the complete instability. of the SDP - its lack of any clearly agreed political programme, its lack of a stable political base. It is dependent for its present support on the fact that it has yet to take on any responsibility for government and remains 'untested. It may yet lose support as quickly ORGAN help, become a card-carrying supporter.

c/o 28 Middle Lane, London N8.

Organiser supporterO Name Address CLP .....

it has gained it.

More importantly, the SDP is likely to follow whatever direction it thinks will give it popularity and a chance of power. There are already signs of this. For example, Owen and Williams are more and more dropping their ritual references to socialism - in Owen's case, carefully cutting them from the second edition of his book, 'Face the Future' Their real constituency lies well to the right in British politics, and the SDP already shows signs of moving in that direction. Their combination of demagogy, corporatism, and opposition to class conflict makes them more than just an electoral danger for the labour movement - they could prove more successful than Thatcher in pushing through anti working class measures.

Phone

Scan page 14

M 19 Saturday December 19, from 18 26 1.30pm at Northgate Hall, December 16