Piers Mostyn wrote this piece for the current issue of Socialist Resistance.

Here’s an example of the sort of thing Piers may have had in mind. I’ve changed some names but you can follow the link to the original source.

“Each area there needs to be a plan to ensure there are materials on EVERY coach and comrades using them. Each coach needs: papers, petitions, recruitment forms, the new Review, appeal forms, publicity for our our rallies and branch meetings….

Collect for the appeal on the coaches

This Sunday will be an ideal opportunity for the appeal – with captive audiences of people sympathetic to Our Organisation travelling up to Birmingham with us.  We could do very well – from both members and non-members.  But make sure we pitch the appeal right – with a speech about the importance of Our Paper followed by comrades going up and down the coach having individual conversations with people about how much they can give.  Use the appeal publicity and card payment forms.  Many people will be prepared to do more than chuck a bit of shrapnel into a comrade’s grotty beret – but we have to ask.”

How to build a united mass movement is a key question for any successful resistance to the onslaught on jobs, wages and services, just as it is for the campaign against fascism or to get the troops out of Afghanistan. Winning a majority for a fundamental transformation of society towards socialism, poses the question on a more profound level. But how is this unity in action to be achieved?

A united working class has never been created spontaneously. Capitalism creates divisions and competition, particularly in times of crisis. Obvious examples are those along national, racial, gender and regional lines. But divisions between workers as employees and consumers, tax payers and welfare recipients are also encouraged. And a frenzy is presently being whipped up over which job or service should be cut or maintained, which part of the welfare state is less and more valued – pitting the interests of one section of the class against another.

That there should be different experiences within the class should come as no surprise therefore, nor that these give rise to different political perspectives. Marxists view the capitalist economic system as both wholly responsible for the global misery being inflicted due to the present crisis and functionally incapable of restructuring itself in a way that will prevent it re-occurring at regular intervals in the future. And yet this hasn’t let to a mass conversion to revolutionary socialism. That’s because, historically the overwhelming majority of the working class in this country has considerable faith in the potential for reforming capitalism to meet its needs. It will take more than an economic crisis and a bit of propaganda for that to change.

Overcoming disunity and winning a majority for socialism, or a particular campaign, cannot be achieved simply by proclamation. Nor can it be achieved by setting up small formations, pretending they are broadly representative and then excluding or marginalising all whom disagree. Posed in this way both methods sound ludicrous, but they are hardly uncommon practices in the British revolutionary left.

It is largely through their own experience of struggle that the many sections of the working class will develop the unity and perspectives required. This happens through a process in which collective consciousness is raised and self-confidence strengthened. At times this can occur very quickly.

But this will never happen unless methods of organising bring together all the different sectors, experiences and perspectives. This is turn entails not just a fundamental respect for different tendencies and currents, but a positive understanding of the necessity for pluralism in any successful movement.

Democracy and transparency

By definition true pluralism requires democracy and transparency to create trust. People want that reassurance if they are to invest their precious time and money in a joint activity with others whom they have disagreements. There is always a concern to know who is involved, how structures are accountable and who controls the resources.

In the 1920s and 1930s there was an ongoing debate in the international Communist movement and later in the left opposition about the United Front. Initially this was in response to a ultraleftism in the early 1920s during a period of defeat or decline following an initial post-war and post-Russian revolution upsurge. Communists in some countries over-estimated their own strength and the extent to which the mass of workers might readily break from reformism.

The Communist Third International under Stalin then lurched through a series of zig zags that went from a strategic alliance with the social democratic trade union bureaucracies even through bitter betrayals like the British General Strike of 1926; to the ultra-left “third period” in which the need to defeat “social fascist” social democratic parties was posed as a pre-condition for the defeat of fascism itself; to the popular frontism of the 1930s in which the defeat and roll back of class militancy was the price to be paid for participation in government and unity with the “liberal” bourgeoisie.

What immediately comes across from these debates is that the united front is not an abstract off-the-shelf formula that can be downloaded and applied for any given situation. It’s application is always a concrete issue dependent on the political context and the class balance of forces. Nonetheless there are lessons to be learnt.

Rather than rigidly applying particular slogans or organisational forms, or making a fetish about exactly who is involved, the guiding consideration should be a broader assessment as to whether the united front has a dynamic towards strengthening the consciousness, combativity, organisation and independence of the class. This is best achieved by a focus on common actions with specific goals, rather than vague long term aspirations.

The United Front is an organic and sensitive process that cannot be achieved by ultimatums or artificial preconditions, abstract or schematic approaches. In particular any mechanical counterposition of the strategic goals of revolutionary Marxists to the need for such unity will prove disastrous.

In Britain there has been no mass communist or revolutionary tradition. So the issue has been differently posed historically. Primarily it has involved a recognition of the hegemonic position of the Labour Party and its leadership in defining the political landscape of the working class.

Successful mass social and political movements

In the early 1930s Trotsky described the British Communist Party as compromising “an insignificant portion of the proletariat” and referred to it’s “extreme weakness”. He criticised Communists for trying to impose their own fronts instead of understanding that the masses will only come to revolutionary consciousness through the experience of struggle, something that will only occur through being drawn into a united front.

80 years on, the revolutionary left finds itself in a weaker position – not just because of small numbers, but due to a historically low level of class struggle in the past two decades. De
spite this it is still possible for movements and struggles to be built using united front methods.

Successful mass social and political movements have been built in the last three decades. The Anti-Nazi League, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Anti-Poll Tax campaign and Stop the War were all, to varying degrees, action focussed mass campaigns that were pluralistic, based on autonomous grass roots activism and democratic national structures. These features were key to their success. And despite its ultimate defeat, the movement in support of the 1984-5 miner’s strike was similarly a model united front.

The anti-cuts and rate capping fights of the 1980s are perhaps the most recent example of an anti-austerity struggle. They were largely organised around and led by the Labour left, focussed in particular local government strongholds. This aspect is very unlikely to be replicated today.

But even if there are no signs that local Labour Parties will lead a fightback today, the involvement of individual Labour councillors, MPs, members and party structures is essential if the broadest possible campaign is to be build. Trade unionists and the local communities at the brunt of the attacks are likely to be the core building blocks this time around. And much of the strength of any struggle will be at the level of local actions.

But “localism” on its own will not be sufficient. In every campaign against cuts and job losses it will be impossible to build sufficient momentum without confronting fundamental political questions of national governmental policy: concerning the causes of the economic crisis and who should pay for it. And local campaigns, whilst retaining their autonomy, will need to co-ordinate in a national democratic structure.

Combining the need for a national, highly politicised approached that addresses these issues, whilst remaining as broad as possible, rooted in local activism and focussing on simple and specific concrete goals will be a very difficult balancing exercise. Getting it right will lie at the heart of any successful resistance.

Original source