“We stand at a historic crossroads: socialism or barbarism. The stakes could not be higher. We have no choice but to win.”
These are the words of Zarah Sultana at a recent rally. She is right. We are living in an era of profound capitalist crisis, affecting every aspect of society. Its manifestations include the horrifying genocide in Gaza, the impending ecological castastrophe, the brewing cold war between the US and China, the widening gap between the rich and poor, and the return of far-right and fascistic politics to the political mainstream from the White House, to the Kremlin, to Reform UK knocking on the door of 10 Downing Street. The situation is extremely serious, with prospects that are terrifying – for all working people but particularly for migrants and trans people, who are the main targets of the far right’s attacks.
All of these are on the bleaker side of the processes flowing from the capitalist crisis. But there are others, which offer hope and optimism, including the radicalisation happening among a growing section of people, particularly younger people, in the face of the injustices and threats mentioned – particularly the Gaza genocide. Radicalisation to the left, which has been fermenting for over a decade and a half since the 2008 financial crisis, is once again being reflected in political organisation. This process, and the challenges and opportunities it poses, is the focus of this article.
New left initiatives
In Britain, this radicalisation has tried to find different political homes. Ten years ago it was reflected in the movement around Jermey Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, decades after that party ceased to be a political organisation of the working class in any meaningful sense. Corbyn was a marginal but principled figure on the left of the party, but because he represented a ‘different kind of politics’ (from that of the pro-capitalist Labour Party itself), tens of thousands flocked to join the party and transform it by putting Corbyn at its head. Corbyn’s reign saw many ups and downs, including winning more votes than any other Labour leader this century, but ended in defeat (partly caused by serious mistakes) and Keir Starmer’s backstabbing takeover.
Today the radicalisation in Britain is reflected politically in two key ways. One is the massive enthusiasm around Corbyn and Sultana’s launch of a new party (called ‘Your Party’ at the time of writing), which has had over 800,000 people register an interest in joining, the founding conference of which is taking place in November. The other is the victory of the left-wing candidate Zack Polanski in the recent Green Party England and Wales leadership election. Since his victory, Green Party membership has increased by over 50% to more than 170,000, and support in opinion polls has surged to a record 16%.
Similar processes have been evident internationally since 2008, after the onset of the great recession. From the rapid rise of Syriza in Greece (and its even more rapid fall after ditching its popular anti-austerity programme in the face of threats from the EU and IMF), to a new generation in the US mobilising around Bernie Sanders’s various primary campaigns and joining the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which between 2016 and 2021 grew from 6,000 to 90,000 members while its average age fell from 68 to 33. We have also seen important electoral gains for the left in France (La France Insoumise) and in Germany (Die Linke), both in the context of a growing far-right threat. This reflects a reality that the main establishment parties are in serious crisis, and have nothing to offer the vast majority when it comes to solving the crises we face. In many instances, their response to dwindling support bases has been to try and out-right the far right. But working-class people are increasingly coming to understand that the far-right threat will not be defeated by holding one’s nose and voting for these discredited parties. At best this will only hold off the far right for a period, but will ultimately result in them coming back stronger if an alternative is not built that can redirect the discontent in society which they feed off.
Recent examples of this trend are the successful elections of self-described socialists Catherine Connolly as President of Ireland and Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City. Mamdani, running on the Democratic Party ticket, mobilised 100,000 volunteers in a campaign that rocked that party’s establishment, shocked the super-wealthy elite who run the City, and incurred the wrath of President Trump. It shows what’s possible in the US – in the unofficial capital of the American ruling class, which saw the biggest increase in Trump’s vote last Autumn. Even here, it’s possible to build a left-wing movement to take on the capitalist establishment.
Mamdani is under immense pressure from the Democratic establishment to moderate his programme of free bus travel, universal childcare, a $30/h minimum wage and a freeze on rents, and Trump has previously threatened that his victory would be met with financial sanctions and armed, racist invasions by ICE and the National Guard on the model of Portland and Chicago. These threats, which can be delayed but not defeated through polite meetings in the Oval Office, will require mobilising a mass movement of working-class and young people into consistent activity and organisation, and breaking with the Democrats – a party of US capitalism and imperialism. The experience of Bernie Sanders and the left-leaning ‘Squad’ who were elected to Congress in 2018-2019 has shown that the path of self-described socialists working inside the Democrats can only be counterproductive. On numerous key questions, particularly the genocide in Gaza and Palestinian repression, Sanders and AOC have unfortunately buckled under pressure from the Democratic Party leadership, in a vain attempt to maintain an influence on the party’s direction.
All of these important examples relate to left parties and figures whose politics are reformist rather than revolutionary. This means that they seek to gradually reform the capitalist system from within, rather than bring about a fundamental rupture with it. The anarchic, contradictory and brutal nature of this system, makes this unworkable in practice, and proves this approach to be a total dead end. A system built in the exploitation and oppression of the vast majority of people and the natural world we live in, can never be made to work in our interests. The struggle to end genocide, ecocide, imperialist war, and wealth inequality is invariably bound up with the need to overthrow this system.
Yet it would be the worst kind of sectarianism for revolutionary socialists to watch these inspiring struggles unfold and just criticise from the sidelines. Instead, what’s needed is to join in the struggles, become part of the movements, and in doing so patiently and clearly make the case for anti-capitalism and socialism as the programme that’s needed, and working-class struggle from below as the vital means to achieve both reforms on key issues and revolutionary transformation of society.
Basic minimums of a new party
For this reason all socialist should engage in discussions around Your Party (YP) in Britain. One of the fundamental issues facing YP is what programme it adopts. Inevitably, given the weight of the key figures involved, but also a large section of the members, including those who have come from the Labour Party, reformist ideas predominate. As revolutionary Marxists we want to push for the programme to be as radical as possible, and patiently try to convince more party activists of the need for a revolutionary approach. In an era of deepening capitalist crisis, the ruling class will only make concessions to a militant and united movement of all those they oppress and exploit. As James Connolly put it: “it may seem a paradox to say so, there is no party so incapable of achieving practical results as an orthodox political party; and there is no party so certain of placing moderate reforms to its credit as an extreme – a revolutionary party.”
One way to think about the question of a programme for a new party like YP, is to consider what are the absolute red lines it needs to put in place. The ‘draft political statement’ is a good start, but of course needs to be fleshed out and concretised in a fuller programme. Below are some points that could be added to the discussion.
The statement recognises that “Billionaires and corporations are now in control of our country.” One thing this means is that workers and poor people should not pay one penny towards the crisis of the British capitalist economy, i.e. reject all austerity measures. Elected reps of YP should refuse to implement cuts at any level, from councils up to Westminster. Too often, smaller parties, including Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland and Green representatives on English councils and in the Scottish Government, claim to have no choice but to implement austerity that comes from above. But they should refuse to do so, even if that means breaking the law by setting needs-based budgets, and fighting for extra resources by mobilising people into action. This also points to the need to go after the wealth of the billionaire elite through real wealth and corporate taxes.
The programme of Corbyn, particularly of renationalising water and rail, building public housing, scrapping tuition fees etc, is also a useful starting point, and despite the media and right wing’s propaganda since, this was key to Corbyn nearly winning in 2017. But ultimately it will be necessary to go much further.
Secondly, in this era of attacks on trans people, migrants and other minorities it is absolutely essential that the YP unequivocally stands with those under attack. Already there has been some debate on these issues, with at least two independent MPs making transphobic arguments and Sultana articulating the need to support trans liberation. The rather generic comment on these issues in the political statement, “Your Party is committed to equality across society and opposed to all forms of prejudice, discrimination and scapegoating, which are weaponised by the ruling elites to divide people and communities” is not enough. It’s necessary to name the problems and be unequivocal that you support trans people, migrants, and all oppressed people. Similar socially-conservative or economistic approaches are not only disgusting, they have been tried and failed repeatedly by parties that purport to be in some sense on the left, such as with Sahra Wagenknecht’s split from Die Linke in Germany or George Galloway’s Workers Party of Britain. For many young people, this issue is correctly a red line and it would be a serious mistake to equivocate on such – particularly as Labour have echoed far right attacks on both migrants and trans people.
Over the last two years, the horrific genocide in Gaza has had a major effect on the consciousness of many workers and young people, especially those who are open to a new left party. It is essential the party stands for the breaking of all diplomatic links with the Zionist State and the ending of all arms to Israel. In the context of an aggressive drive by the ruling class to further militarise society, any left party should be unequivocal in its opposition to war and militarism and articulate the need for funding for “Welfare not Warfare.” A left party should also be clear about the need to leave NATO. Mistakenly, Corbyn, despite his record over years, didn’t argue to leave NATO as Labour leader. In fact, he reaffirmed that a Labour government would meet NATO requirements to spend 2% of GDP on militarisation. Even the Greens’ left wing has argued for staying in a reformed NATO. More generally, it means developing a broader anti-imperialist approach, opposing all the imperialist powers and supporting the struggles of ordinary people and for real action on the climate crisis.
The statement is clear in arguing the new party is against “the war economy and the neoliberal capitalist order” and stands for the “socialist transformation” of society, including “public and community ownership of key economic sectors and services.” This is a strong starting point for the new party but it will be necessary to ensure that it is embodied in the daily life and broader programme of the party, not just something that is in the constitution but not acted upon like Labour’s old ‘Clause 4’, which called for the public ownership of industry. A recent speech by Sultana talked about fighting for socialism, where “workers control the means of production and wealth is controlled by our communities.” This is a positive indication of what is needed.
Democracy – not an optional extra
Unfortunately, even before the founding conference, the party has seen very public clashes between its two key figures, Corbyn and Sultana. At their core they reflect very different ways of operating. Corbyn and those around him have had a heavy reliance on secretive committees and a painfully slow approach to implementing democratically agreed decisions. He at least initially argued for a federal approach to building a new party which would give MPs more power and hold them less accountable to a left programme. For Sultana and those around her, they seem much more alienated by such an approach and correctly expect decisions to be properly implemented. While an MP, Sultana is reflective of her generation, less schooled in the bureaucracy of Labour and more radicalised by the crisis of capitalism. Her approach focuses on building in communities rather than having any illusions in Westminster. This is exactly what is needed.
The infighting over resources has continued to be fought out in public, including disgracefully in a statement issued in the name of the Independent Alliance MPs, including Corbyn, just as Sultana was taking part in BBCs Question Time, a major opportunity to present a clear left alternative – which Sultana excelled in. For the record, there should be no issue with the formation of different caucuses, especially if this serves to clarify and politicise the debates within the party. Likewise, there should be no ban on various left organisations joining and having dual membership.
There is also an issue of what is the relationship between the new party and the Independent Alliance MPs. They were elected primarily on opposition to the genocide in Gaza, but on other issues have reflected a conservative approach, including transphobia, landlordism and even calling for the army to be used against Birmingham bin strikers. There is no problem in principle with working with MPs who oppose the genocide in Gaza on related issues, but it is a mistake to mix that up with a political party which implies an agreement in a much broader programme. Already, two Independent Alliance MPs have withdrawn from Your Party.
Sortition, the random selection of delegates by lottery, points away from the type of democracy we need where delegates to conferences are selected and held accountable by branches. It is understandable this was done for the founding conference, but if chosen as a mechanism going forward it will restrict party democracy.
The fight for democracy is not just an internal issue, it is an important principle. Socialists must be consistent democrats and fight to expand democracy in all areas of life . That of course means supporting the extension of the vote to 16-year-olds, fighting to change our electoral system to abolish the undemocratic and broken ‘first past the post’ system, and for the abolition of the Monarchy and House of Lords. More fundamentally, it means fighting for democracy and control in our workplaces. It also means having a democratic approach to national rights. At a minimum, Your Party must advocate a new referendum on independence in Scotland (something Corbyn opposed as Labour leader), and begin a discussion on what to argue in Wales. Likewise in Northern Ireland, where a programme would have to take up the question of national rights from an anti-sectarian, working-class perspective capable of winning support in both communities, although it is currently unclear whether the party even intends to build in Northern Ireland. It can only do so on a genuine anti-sectarian basis. Capitalist rule in all four of the nations of these isles is becoming increasingly centralist, militarist, and authoritarian – trampling on civil, democratic, and national rights. YP can only win the support of the whole working class if it advances a clear socialist alternative.
The rifts at the top of Your Party are not mere personal spats, but reflect important political differences. Sultana has correctly sought to embody the best aspects of Corbynism while learning lessons from past weakness. In a recent interview she stated
“We have to build on the strengths of Corbynism – its energy, mass appeal and bold policy platform – and we also have to recognise its limitations. It capitulated to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which famously equates it with anti-Zionism, and which even its lead author Kenneth Stern has now publicly criticised. It triangulated on Brexit, which alienated huge numbers of voters. It abandoned mandatory reselection of MPs for the trigger ballot compromise, keeping many of the party’s undemocratic structures in place. It didn’t make a real effort to channel its mass membership into the labour movement or tenants unions, which would have enriched the party’s social base. When it came under attack from the state and the media, it should have fought back, recognising that these are our class enemies. But instead it was frightened and far too conciliatory. This was a serious mistake. If we’re contesting state power, we’re going to face a major backlash, and we need to have the institutional resilience to withstand it. You cannot give these people an inch.”
This echoes the central points Marxists made during the Corbyn era. In reality, he and those around him tried to avoid confrontation with those in the Labour Party committed to opposing the left. No doubt if Corbyn took the approach Sultana points to above, on issues such as Zionism, Brexit and mandatory reselection of MPs, it would have accelerated the attacks and probably brought things to a head quicker but on a more politically clear basis. Corbyn should also not have waited so long to launch a new party. Had something been built in the context of Corbyn being defeated it would have been more of a point of reference and the organisation would have had the capacity to intervene in the turbulent events of the last few years, including the Covid crisis, the strikes on cost-of-living that followed, the movement against the genocide in Gaza, and countless other lost opportunities.
The failure to take such an initiative earlier means the search for a left alternative has gone in different directions, including as mentioned the Green Party. The increase in support for Polanski’s left-wing agenda should be welcomed, including his popularising of things like wealth taxes on the billionaires and corporations. But at the same time, it remains necessary to build YP as a different type of party rooted in the struggles of the working-class and oppressed, not least because there is a long history of Greens internationally joining coalitions with the right-wing forces, including in Germany, Ireland, and Scotland. In England and Wales, they joined coalitions at local level which have implemented cuts, and Polanski has refused so far to articulate a different strategy for councillors. The first priority for YP is to establish itself on the right basis. However, some form of alliance, for example an agreement in areas not to stand against each other, is desirable.
Any such alliance should be based on firm opposition to the establishment political parties and the far-right Reform UK, but also the billionaire class, the mainstream media, and the system they all represent. There must be a non-negotiable agreement on consistent opposition towards austerity, racism, transphobia, sexism, homophobia, imperialism, and wars. This potential coalition should be achieved by establishing a proper democratic setup, which includes rank and file members of both YP and the Green Party, with full freedom to express differences. Socialists in and around such initiatives should seek to push them further to the left, and deepen the connection with working-class communities and campaigns.
Reformism in an era of capitalist crisis
The failure to take such an initiative earlier in part reflects the conservative nature of reformists, who often have a tendency to lag behind events. Reformist ideas have always existed on the left and usually are the dominant ideas. Marxists often quote Leon Trotsky’s point that “inherent in reformism is betrayal.” This is ultimately true but as Trotsky himself pointed out:
“The possibility of betrayal is always contained in reformism. But this does not mean to say that reformism and betrayal are one and the same thing at every moment. Not quite. Temporary agreements may be made with the reformists whenever they take a step forward.”
In other words, when reformists move to the left, revolutionaries should support them and seek to push them further, but when they capitulate, it is essential to call them out and at all times seek to build a revolutionary pole.
To do so means being clear: there is no reformist road to breaking with capitalism. When it has been tried, the results have been a disaster. Capitalism has at times been prepared to tolerate reforms, such as the creation of the welfare state and NHS post-World War 2. It did so because the alternative was a revolution. Faced with a powerful, organised workers movement, the ruling class risked losing their wealth and privileged place in society. Crucially, underpinning its conceding of reforms was significant economic growth where capitalists making massive profits could afford to pass on a few crumbs. Even where this went furthest, in places like Sweden, it was reliant on private profits, with only 5% of industry in public hands in 1976, while the 15 richest families owned a majority of Swedish economy. This was reflected in the idea that, “What was good for Volvo also seemed good for Sweden”.
Crucially, however, faced with a slowdown in their rate of growth in the 1960s and 70s, capitalists were less prepared to grant concessions. In fact they went on the offensive to restore their profits. The neo-liberal programme of cuts, privatisation, and breaking the unions was actually about capitalists increasing their share of profits. The lack of space for such reform was seen in the election of President Mitterrand in France. He was elected on a left-Keynesian programme known as the “110 propositions for France”. This included the nationalisation of banks and some industries with the goal of stimulating growth. When this was implemented, the response of international and domestic capitalism was a $5 billion flight of capital, causing the Government to u-turn and implement austerity policies.
The tendency for a slow rate of growth was further compounded by the Great Recession of 2008. For example, average growth in the 1950s and 60s was 4 to 5%. This fell to an average of 2 or 3% in the 1970s and, since the Great Recession, 1%. Across Europe the growth rates were very different with Germany seeing stronger growth, Britain lagging behind, and countries like Italy or Greece facing very serious crises. Alongside that, the collapse of the Stalinist Soviet Union resulted in a shift to the right amongst workers’ organisations and a weakening of the class consciousness of workers.
Greece is where austerity went furthest, imposed by EU/IMF troika bailout conditions and implemented by the establishment parties – both New Democracy and PASOK. This led to the growth of the left alternative in SYRIZA, from a small party to taking power in a matter of years in the context of massive resistance to austerity, including six 24-hour general strikes and two 48-hour general strikes. SYRIZA took power on a moderate political programme of refusing to implement austerity, but not going so far as to break with the Euro, which meant they had no control over currency. Capitalism again responded with a massive flight of capital. €270 billion was taken out of the country between December 2014 and May 2015. Faced with brutal negotiations with the Troika of the EU, ECB and IMF, SYRIZA called a referendum on the new conditions for a bailout, which was courageously rejected by the Greek people by 61% to 39%, with the “Oxi/No” vote winning in all of Greece’s regions. This was a major opportunity for SYRIZA to take things further – breaking with austerity, the Euro and all the policies that flow from the logic of capitalism. But scandalously, within days SYRIZA capitulated, with Prime Minister Tsipras accepting a deal that was actually worse than the one rejected in the referendum.
There were those, including the finance minister Yanis Varoufakis and some MPs in SYRIZA’s left faction who left, arguing it was a capitulation. They favoured implementing ‘Plan B’, leaving the Euro and establishing their own currency alongside other measures like capital controls. This would have created some space but would not have solved things. In order to do that it required going much further, breaking with capitalism – refusing to pay the loans, introducing currency and capital controls, nationalising banks and large companies, and appealing for support from workers in the rest of Europe. That obviously didn’t happen, and the forces arguing for such a programme were small. But there was a different path, one based on a revolutionary rupture with the system and mobilising workers and the poor masses in a struggle to take power from below.
Need for revolutionary rupture today
These points are not a question of historical interest but are live issues which should inform the type of party we need today. It is right to support and even call for wealth taxes, but it is necessary to go much further especially when confronted with the idea that the rich will leave the country in response. History tells us that a section of the capitalist class can and will. Our response should be that we will not give in to capitalism’s blackmail, and that the billionaires’ assets and industries should be seized and brought into democratic public ownership.
It also underlines that parties that were once a vehicle for struggle can be turned into the opposite if they fail to confront the system and have a programme to take it on. Reformists often make points about the possibility of implementing reforms, and reference how it was done historically, without rooting it in an understanding of the capitalist system and the stage it is now at. Capitalism was never able to implement permanent reforms. That’s why our NHS is consistently under attack. In this era of capitalist crisis, that is even more the case, and it is essential we develop a clear programme based on breaking with capitalism and implementing the socialist transformation of society.
That means, while it is necessary for socialists to take elections and any platforms that can be won by the left seriously, ultimately it must be used as a tool to organise from below. Moreover, we should have no illusions that winning government means taking power. In order to take power it is necessary to mobilise workers to take on the running of society and be prepared to dismantle the capitalist state. Failure to do that has led to disasters, for example in Chile, where the democratically elected Allende government was violently overthrown by the CIA in 1973. Closer to home, British soldiers were photographed shooting posters of Corbyn when he was Labour leader in 2019.
Inevitably, many of those interested in YP will not agree with all these points. That is precisely why revolutionaries need to organise separately, while also intervening into broader organisations. The development of YP at least in Britain creates space where these ideas and others can be discussed. There is a need for a similar movement in the North of Ireland, ideally under YP or backed by them. But if the leadership is unprepared to do so, then an anti-sectarian left alternative should be developed that can tap into that sentiment.