The depth of the crisis today is such that new movements are being thrown up which purport to represent the interests of the working class. Enough is Enough is one example; it has been organising rallies and demonstrations across the country against the cost of living crisis. Yet while they are led by those who regard themselves as socialists, there is no socialism in the aims of these movements. This is at a time, however, when every political question facing the working class must be approached from the perspective of the immediate need for socialism. Socialism must not be treated as some abstract possibility, but as the only valid outcome of every struggle of the working class. This does not mean that socialism is realisable at any given moment, but its reality has to be the starting point for establishing a political perspective on every issue or struggle of importance: how does it pose the necessity for socialism, how is it to be directed towards that end?
This approach is a closed book to the vast majority of self-styled socialists, who prefer to see socialism to be a distant prospect which cannot be related to the working class struggles of today. They argue that because the working class does not understand what socialism is, or why it is necessary, there is no possibility of presenting it as the necessary objective of any struggle. Rather, alliances and their programmes or demands that these socialists set up eschew any mention of socialism, and instead present a fantasy world where a suitably-directed capitalism can seemingly solve all the problems of humanity. The political landscape is littered with these coalitions, none of which have broken the chains of reaction or taken the working class forward: the People’s Assembly, Stand up to Racism, Unite against Fascism, Keep our NHS Public, Stop the War Coalition, Coalition of Resistance (set up in 2010 to fight the cuts), and now, more recently, the Cop26 Coalition, Enough is Enough and Don’t Pay UK.
Ashamed of clearly arguing for socialism and claiming that words such as ‘imperialism’ are too difficult for ordinary people to understand, these opportunists exclude any socialist voice from the coalitions they set up. This is essential to defend their concept of a world where some force can direct capitalism towards progressive ends. Take the Cop26 Coalition, for instance, set up in 2021 to coordinate action on climate change during the Cop26 conference in Glasgow. It declares now in a What next? statement on their website that ‘justice won’t be handed to us by governments or delivered by corporations’, and that what we need instead are ‘transformative solutions.’ These seem to be really radical words, but what do they mean? What is the aim of such ‘transformative solutions’? What is their content, their economic or social basis? How are they to be realised? Despite many warm, feel-good words, there is no explanation of their substance. Least of all is there any mention of ‘capitalism’ or ‘class’, let alone ‘socialism’ as either the context or goal of these solutions.
It is the same with Enough is Enough, a reincarnation of the 2011 Coalition of Resistance by way of the People’s Assembly established in 2013. The same forces set up all three campaigns: trade union leaders such as Mark Serwotka or Len McCluskey, or RMT’s Mick Lynch, wishing to burnish their radical credentials; the left Labour MPs of the day – Tony Benn or Jeremy Corbyn, now Zara Sultana; and self-styled socialists both in and outside the Labour Party. Almost always there is an SWP or Counterfire doing the administrative work of the movement and policing it to ensure revolutionary voices are excluded. But they all have (or had) the same views on the way forward:
- Coalition of Resistance, now defunct: ‘Develop and support an alternative programme for economic and social recovery…An alternative budget would place the banks under democratic control, and raise revenue by increasing tax for the rich, plugging tax loopholes, …An alternative strategy could use these resources to: support welfare; develop homes, schools, and hospitals; and foster a green approach to public spending –investing in renewable energy and public transport, thereby creating a million jobs.’
- People’s Assembly, more or less defunct: ‘Encourages a wide debate on how to protect the welfare state and develop an alternative programme for economic and social recovery.’
- Enough is enough: ‘Make the rich pay their fair share by raising taxes on the wealthiest and the profits of big businesses. Crack down on tax avoidance and evasion…This can be done by introducing a wealth tax, raising taxes on corporate profits and on the top 5% of earners, closing tax dodging loopholes and abolishing non-dom status, increasing capital gains tax, and introducing new taxes on speculation.’
Each of them expresses their commitment to a capitalism which can be rebooted to meet the interests of the working class, to a social transformation which is not a social transformation but an illusion, where the wealthy can be forced to give up part of their wealth to help the poor. Socialism is automatically ruled out as having no practical relevance whatsoever, and fit only for dreamers and Sunday speeches. Rather, what our ‘practical realists’ imply or openly advocate is the need for us to elect a transformative Labour government. But this is for the birds: the British ruling class is never going to wait for even the mildest moves by a Labour government to encroach on its wealth – it will organise runs on the pound; it will salt away its ill-gotten gains across the world, hide its profits in overseas accounts. And that assumes it would allow such a Labour government into office in the first place.
This however is the method of opportunism – to paint a picture of a Labour government showering benefits on the working class from a position of parliamentary supremacy. Such politics express the narrow self-interest of the better-off sections of the working class and labour aristocracy who do not want to seriously challenge capitalism. Instead, they create a reactionary political framework to shackle the working class as it tries to defend its conditions.
The Don’t Pay UK campaign operates differently, but to the same end: it excludes independent working class action altogether as a means of fighting back against the stratospheric increase in the costs of household energy. Its declaration, that it seeks to get one million households to refuse to pay their energy bills and prepare to be disconnected, in practice rules out those on pre-payment meters or those with children. It presents resistance as one of individual choice, not as one of class: the better-off few charitably doing something for the many. Collective action either on the streets or in communities is not on its horizon. References it makes to the Poll Tax non-payment campaign neglect to mention the mass activity that was essential to its success. The working class just does not exist for the Don’t Pay UK campaign.
The purpose of these campaigns is to hold the working class in ideological subjection at a time when the necessity for socialism is immediate. Whatever they may say about the need to fight back, they are reactionary through and through. The job of real socialists is to challenge them, and to constantly bring to the fore how socialism is not something to be relegated to the future, but the content of every serious struggle today.
Robert Clough
