We also have a vital role to play in the workers’ movement on the issue of working-class political representation.
We have been raising the demand for a new mass workers’ party for more than a quarter of a century.
Inevitably this can raise questions in comrades’ minds about whether it remains relevant.
It is always useful to reassess aspects of our programme, and to update it in the light of developments.
However, in the view of the National Committee this particular demand will be a more vital part of our transitional approach in the period after the general election than ever before.
It also remains vital pre-election.
Raising this demand should not be seen as being in contradiction to our central priority: building our party with a clear Marxist programme.
Regardless of if and when new ‘broad’ workers’ parties develop, our aim in all circumstances is to grow as much as we can, both in terms of our membership and our influence in the workers’ movement.
A new mass workers’ party would be, above all, a chance for us to win broader sections of the working class to support for our programme.
But equally, if, as is possible, there are further delays in the development of a broader formation, we have to boldly fight to take the opportunity to win as many as we can to our party.
Crucially, however, this demand is part of our transitional approach, which is absolutely essential for our party to build roots in the working class and mass support in the future.
In the Transitional Programme Trotsky talks about how we aim “in the process of the daily struggle to find the bridge between present demands and the socialist programme of the revolution.” The importance of our transitional approach in this period – including a wide variety of demands – will be vital in reaching the most advanced layers of the working class and the new activists and stewards created by the industrial action over the past 18 months.
The socialist revolution requires the working-class conquering power, so clearly a programme needs to include demands that start from existing consciousness but point towards the need for the working class to increase its strength and cohesion; a prerequisite to it being able to take power.
Where mass political organisations that the working class see as their own already exist, we raise different demands – pointing to what is needed to make those organisations effective tools to take the working class to power and to meet the problems it would then face through socialist measures.
Where – as today in Britain and many countries – the working class has no mass party of its own, we need to raise the need for one as a means for the working class to come together and to begin to see itself as a cohesive force and a potential governmental alternative.
In doing so we are not prescribing what the programme of a future party will be, but we are open that we will fight for it to adopt our programme.
The fact that for a whole historical period there have not been qualitative steps towards one or more mass workers’ parties in Britain is a reflection of the very difficult period for Marxism in the decades after the collapse of Stalinism.
The gap between the objective crisis of capitalism and the levels of consciousness, combativity and organisation of the working class was greater than ever before.
It is to the enormous credit of our small forces, in Britain and internationally, that we succeeded in maintaining our revolutionary party, without bowing to either sectarianism or opportunism through one of the most difficult periods for Trotskyism in history.
However, things have not stood still for the last quarter of a century and the outlook of the working class – with all its heterogeneity – has already developed under the impact of events.
The ground is being prepared for major struggles on the question of working-class political representation in Britain.
They will come to the fore under the next government.
In some other European countries, the impact of the Great Recession led to the foundation or development of new left parties.
They were generally not rooted in the working class, with only passive electoral support from workers.
Nonetheless they made rapid electoral gains.
Famously, Syriza in Greece went from 4.6% of the vote in 2009 – an election won by PASOK, in a sweeping victory, with 43.9% of the vote – to winning the general election in 2015.
Its subsequent betrayal and defeat will inevitably have led to a mood of demoralisation among wide sections of the working class and young people.
That does not, of course, equate to support for the existing order; on the contrary, according to Pew Research, 80% of people in Greece are reported to want ‘complete reform of the political system’ and 84% want the same for the ‘economic system’.
There has already been some resurgence in industrial action in Greece, and at a certain stage discussion will emerge in the Greek workers’ movement on how they can develop their own political voice and we, when we have a CWI section there, will have to patiently explain the necessity of doing so.
In Britain, of course, events took a different course.
Corbyn himself correctly said that his election as Labour leader was the delayed consequence of the Great Recession.
Corbynism was our version of the search for a left political voice that took place in other ways in other countries.
An accident of history allowed young people and workers outside of Labour to thrust him into the leadership of the party.
His election was the unintended result of a 2014 Labour rule change, which was meant to weaken further the power of the affiliated unions, which allowed ‘registered supporters’ to vote in the 2015 leadership election for £3.
Clearly Corbynism has been defeated within Labour, and that led to a mood among sections of workers and young people of temporarily turning away from the electoral arena as ‘too difficult.’ Nonetheless, there was not the depths of disillusionment that took place in countries like Greece.
Corbyn never even got into government, and millions of those who were enthused by his leadership of Labour and were then disappointed at his defeat, are extremely open to the idea of building a new party in opposition to Starmer’s New Labour.
As we have repeatedly pointed out, the half a million people who joined ‘Enough is Enough’ was an indication of the objective potential for a new party.
Starmer’s position on the Gaza conflict has led to an increase in those looking for an alternative to Labour, particularly – but not only – in Muslim communities.
Were such a party to be formed before the general election it could gain significant support and elect a bloc of MPs able to exert pressure on Starmer from the left.
The power of mass movements to pressurise capitalist politicians has been demonstrated in the anti-war movement, with both the sacking of Suella Braverman after the gigantic Palestinian protest on 11 November, and the pressure on Labour politicians over the question of a ceasefire.
But many of the protesters can see that their pressure would be significantly increased if there was a bloc of MPs fighting for their demands.
However, there have been no significant moves towards a new party to date, and it is most likely that there will not be before the general election.
No trade union leaders have taken steps in that direction.
At the Unite rules conference, Sharon Graham successfully argued to maintain the union’s affiliation to Labour.
In the non-affiliated unions, at the RMT AGM there was unanimous support for the motion we had initiated to support Jeremy Corbyn if he stood as an independent.
However, Mick Lynch used his authority to argue strongly that Labour was the only ‘show in town’.
The smaller BFAWU, which disaffiliated from Labour in 2021, is also not proposing to take any electoral steps at this stage.
While there is no enthusiasm for Starmer’s Labour among trade unionists, union leaders can still utilise the deep, visceral desire to get rid of the Tories in order to justify their failure to act on this question.
Nonetheless, the possibility exists of the RMT and Bakers Union backing independent workers’ candidates at the general election, including under the banner of TUSC.
We are correctly campaigning for the idea of the broadest possible workers’ list at the general election.
It is still possible we will be able to act as a lever for a significant list of candidates.
As the current anti-war movement is demonstrating, events can push the issue forward.
The likelihood of Corbyn declaring he is standing as an independent, alongside some other Corbynite suspended or ex-MPs like Emma Dent Coad, will also have an effect.
However, it is most likely that – if the election is in May 2024 or earlier – we will succeed in mobilising quite limited forces beyond our ranks and will ourselves stand a modest number of candidates.
Even so, our campaign on this issue, including mounting some challenge in the general and local elections, is vital preparation for what is coming under the next government.
We cannot predict exactly how and when mass opposition to a Labour-led government will develop.
It is possible, although not certain, that mass struggles and strikes will develop before the issue of a new party to the left of Labour is posed. However, we can say with certainty that union funding of Labour, and the need for the unions to instead found a new party, will become a sharp debate in the trade union movement.
