CONSCIOUSNESS

AND

A SOCIALIST PROGRAMME

How can working-class people fight the effects of the worst economic crisis since
the 1930s? Mass lay-offs are already a feature in the major capitalist countries
and around the world. The bosses and their governments are on the offensive to
make the working class, and large sections of the middle classes, pay for the
catastrophe they have created.

World capitalism is in a blind alley and its serious representatives see no quick
exit. Take your pick; from the gloomy prognostications for the economy from
Alistair Darling, British Chancellor of the Exchequer – 'the worst for 60 years' –
to Ed Balls, schools cabinet minister in the New Labour government, who says it is
the worst in 100 years! Most capitalist commentators now agree with our analysis,
that at the very least, this is the worst economic crisis since the great
depression of the 1930s and may yet exceed it.

In a sense, this crisis is potentially even worse than then. The extent of
capitalist globalisation, which led to this crash,, is much wider and deeper than
existed in the so-called 'gilded age' before 1929. For this reason, it is already
the most internationalised, generalised economic crisis in history. The US,
western Europe, Japan, eastern Europe, Russia, Asia, Australasia and Latin
America; all have been caught up in the downward economic whirlpool. It has
certainly developed at a speed and with a severity that exceeds even the initial
phases of the 1930s depression.

The crisis then began in the stock exchanges, spreading to the financial sector
and inexorably into the so-called 'real economy'. Today's crisis was triggered by
the financial meltdown, fed into industry, and now has fed back into the financial
sector. But 1929's full effects were only felt over time – in the case of France,
two or three years after – whereas this crisis has struck with a speed and
severity that has terrified, if not demoralised, the representatives of world
capitalism. What took three years in 1929 could now unfold in a year.

This crisis is marked by overproduction; a glut of goods, which the bosses are
trying to solve through mass unemployment of the working class. But it is also
leading to 'overproduction' even amongst sections of the middle class, who are
being ejected from workplaces alongside workers. In other words, the
proletarianisation of the intermediate layers, a feature of capitalism even during
the boom, is taking a qualitative step forward. This in turn undermines the social
reserves of capitalism.

Capitulation by workers' organisations

The capitalists are trembling at the social consequences of further economic

implosions to come. Their only consolation is that they face no organised
challenge from the working class, because of the political beheading of the former
workers' organisations, at the hands of leaders like Tony Blair in Britain and
their social-democratic cousins in Europe and elsewhere. They went over lock,
stock and barrel to the side of the bourgeoisie in the aftermath of the collapse
of Stalinism and the ideological, pro-capitalist tsunami that ensued. The result
is that the mass of working-class people are politically disarmed in the teeth of
the greatest challenge to their hard-won rights and conditions in living memory.

Without leadership and organisation when the capitalists have used the cover of
the crisis to put the boot in, mass anger has poured out spontaneously both in the
factories and onto the streets. This happened in Ireland as the government sought
to eliminate health benefits for the elderly. It was followed by angry protests
including occupations or threats to do so at Waterford Crystal and Dell, as brutal
capital shut down whole factories with as little difficulty as shutting a
matchbox. The same outrageous scenes were seen in the ending of the weekend shift
at BMW's Mini plant in Cowley, Oxford, which provoked unprecedented protests
including fist fights between workers and supervisors. However, for this elemental
revolt of the working class to lead to a sustained movement, what is required is a
clear programme, including fighting slogans, and organisation.

The capitulation, also shared by the trade union leaders, actually helped to
reinforce the brutal imposition of neo-liberal policies on the working class and
the poor worldwide. The bourgeoisie, no longer forced to look over its shoulder at
an organised working class or fearful of a labour movement revolt, was therefore
unrestrained in the mad dash towards unregulated capitalism. The former leaders of
the workers' organisations proved to be a fifth wheel in the chariot of neo-
liberalism. The complete pusillanimity of the union leaders is evident in the
capitulation to the bosses and their governments as the latter seek to unload
responsibility for this crisis on to the shoulders of the working class and poor.

The masses are quite clear who are responsible. In Italy, the students, a
barometer of what is developing from below, have chanted on demonstrations: 'We
will not pay for your crisis'. What a contrast to the belly-crawling attitude of
the trade union leaders as factories close down around the ears of the working
class and all that we hear from the summits of the labour movement is the need for
'shared sacrifices'. Leon Trotsky wrote in the 1930s that the crisis facing the
working class, indeed humanity, was summed up in the crisis of leadership of the
workers' organisations. The difference today, however, is that we face not just a
crisis of leadership but also of organisation, or the lack of it, for the working
class as well as a clear programme.

Never in history has the gap – the 'scissors' – between the objective situation of
capitalism in crisis and the outlook of the working class, its absence of
organisation, particularly political mass parties, been so evident. Given the
relentless propaganda barrage, the reality of neo-liberal policies over 30 years
and the absence of a political and economic alternative, it is inevitable that
there is still, despite the severity of the crash, a residual acquiescence to the
'market', even amongst the working class. Many are stunned by the economic
collapse. There is even a lingering view amongst many workers that the present
crisis is temporary, that it will all be over by the end of next year, at the
latest, and we can then return to the sunny, economic uplands.

Bleak economic outlook

These illusions are fostered by the 'popular' press and one wing of bourgeois
economists and commentators. However, another section has drawn the conclusion
that this time the party is really over. For instance, Sean O'Grady of The
Independent declared bluntly in January: "High unemployment is here to stay". In
America's great depression, unemployment did not regain its level of 1929 until
1943 when the US economy was being dragged out of the economic mire by the
devastating second world war. This puts in perspective the efforts of the Obama
presidency as it seeks to wrestle with the avalanche of job cuts and redundancies
which are rising by 600,000 a month. Unemployment in the US and Britain could
touch 10% of the workforce in the next year or so, the effects of which in the
modern context are akin to a depression.

If anything, the position is even worse in other parts of the world, paradoxically
particularly in parts of Europe which were supposed to be immune. The
pronouncements of the European Central Bank that the eurozone would escape the
worst effects of the virus emanating from the US economy have turned to ashes. The
continent has joined the general implosion of world capitalism, as has Japan. The
latest forecasts for the latter are that gross domestic product could plunge by
almost 10%. The great export-orientated machine of Japan is grinding to a halt,
dropping by 3.3% in the last three months of 2008, an annualised rate of 12.7%. It
has been joined by Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, while the lesser
powers of the continent – Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Britain –
risk following Iceland into national bankruptcy.

For the masses, it is as if it is warm and sunny one day and bleak, dark winter
the next, without the transition of autumn. The fate of Spain which, along with
Ireland, went further than most in an orgy of a debt-fuelled construction and
housing boom, is summed up by the story of Zaragoza, featured in the Observer in
February. The collapse of the building boom means that unemployment has rocketed
in the city by 75% in a year. Spain could see unemployment shooting up from an
already unacceptable 14% (3.3 million workers) to 20% by the end of this year. The
working class is furious that it will bear the burden, with protesters coming out
onto the streets in tens of thousands demanding 'Strike! Strike! Strike!'

Spain is just one example of what could happen to a series of countries, including
Britain, which in time will provoke revolutionary explosions. If a conscious lead
is not given then riots will ensue with a section of young people even possibly
seduced into taking to the road of terrorism, which is a complete blind alley. The
explosive events in Greece revealed that anarchistic and terroristic moods amongst
a small section would be evident at a certain stage. Mass action, freed from the
paralysing influence of opportunist leaders, is the only way forward.

British oil refinery strikes: confusion and clarity

An expression of the indignation was contained even in the eruption of strikes

from below of the construction workers in the oil refineries and power stations in
Britain. This was a laboratory test in measuring the consciousness of the working
class and how different political trends faced up to this. Given the dark night of
neo-liberalism, it would be entirely utopian not to expect that elements of
nationalism and even racism would be present in the consciousness of some workers,
in some instances perhaps the majority. This, however, was not the case in this
dispute as we have demonstrated in our weekly paper, The Socialist. It was, in
essence, a strike against the capitalist 'race to the bottom' to impose slave
labour rates, orchestrated by the bosses on a European scale through the anti-
working class legislation, the European Posted Workers Directive, and the EU
itself.

This was skewed in the minds of some workers towards nationalism, expressed
through 'British jobs for British workers'. This was coined originally by prime
minister Gordon Brown in a New Labour conference speech, in an attempt to outflank
the far-right British National Party (BNP). Without clear guidance from the
leadership, such an initial reaction of the workers, not just in Britain but
elsewhere, is no surprise. But this was a minor feature of the strike, and was
soon cut across by the intervention of more conscious socialists, particularly
from the Socialist Party, who fought for the same rights, wages and conditions for
migrant workers. In the Russian revolution, the tsarist general staff feared the
presence of one Bolshevik who could act as a 'crystal in a saturated solution', as
Trotsky put it, capable in a heated atmosphere of drawing the majority to its
side. We witnessed something similar in this strike with socialists and Marxists,
some from the Socialist Party, completely cutting across any elements of
nationalism or racism. Clear solidarity was expressed with the migrant workers
including the printing of a leaflet in Italian and a resolute demand for all
workers to receive the rate for the job.

Predictably, some far-left groups without a real presence or even an ear to the
real moods of the workers in this strike took a completely false position. The
Socialist Workers Party (SWP), for instance, concentrated on criticism and
emphasised 'British jobs for British workers' as the main feature of the strike.
Pushed aside was the fact that the BNP members who turned up on the picket line
were driven off by the workers. Moreover, the strike magnificently achieved an
element of workers' control and trade union involvement in the allocation of new
jobs. Of course, one swallow does not make a summer but the workers in this
industry and elsewhere now have a living example of how to fight in defence of
workers' living standards and, at the same time, overcome national or racial
divisions in a complicated situation and actually secure a victory for the working
class.

In the aftermath of the strike, the 'conciliation' service ACAS has concluded that
the foreign-contracted workers did not receive lower rates than the British
workers. This is not true, but what is entirely forgotten is that agency workers
formally may sometimes receive the same as 'domestic' or permanent workers in
their weekly or monthly wage rates. But they do not receive payments for breaks,
holidays or the overheads which the bosses worldwide are trying to wipe out as a
means of boosting their profitability. The same applies in this dispute. This has
been covered over by ACAS and acquiesced to by the full-time trade union officials
who did not exactly cover themselves in glory while the strike was on, being
concerned to distance themselves from unofficial action which might fall foul of
Britain's draconian anti-union laws. This dispute primarily emphasised the
positive outcome and saw the secondary features of nationalism swept aside by a
combination of the experience of the workers in struggle and the intervention of
socialists and Marxists.

Most of the far-left groups have no perception of how a mass movement will evolve,
particularly given the character of the last period. This will not be in a
perfectly rounded-out fashion but, as Oliver Cromwell described himself, with
'warts and all'. If these ultra-lefts had been present at the beginning of the
1905 Russian revolution, their starting point would have been, no doubt, to
condemn Father Gapon, the priest who initially led the masses in the first
demonstration under the tsarist flag, with a petition to the 'Little Father', the
tsar. In contradistinction to Vladimir Lenin who urged participation in the
movement and even discussed and collaborated in the initial phases of the
revolution with Gapon, they would have demanded that the priest be removed from
the demonstration as a precondition for their participation! How would they have
reacted to James Larkin organising mass demonstrations of Catholic and Protestant
workers in 1907 with Orange and Green bands in the common struggle against the
bosses?

While making no concessions to racial or national prejudices, it is necessary,

above all because of the period we have just passed through, for socialists to
approach the existing political outlook of the working class in a skilful fashion.
We do not have the luxury of the Russian sage who answered the question, 'How do I
get to Moscow?' by answering, 'I would not start from here if I was you'. The
working class, particularly after a period of alleged social peace, never emerges
into struggle fully formed, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter.

Bitter class hatred

There is a gathering rage within the working class, signified by the semi-
insurrectionary mood in Greece last year and the colossal anti-Sarkozy strikes
which convulsed France on 29 January. Not so long ago, Nicolas Sarkozy jeered
that, despite his attacks on the French workers and the youth, 'where are the
strikes?' He was given his answer in the elemental revolt indicated by these
strikes, which far exceeded in scope and turnout on demonstrations what was
anticipated even by the organisers in the trade union leadership. Over two million
workers flooded the streets of the cities of France. Sarkozy, sensing the
underlying explosive mood before the strikes, immediately gave concessions to the
school students as a means of heading off the movement. This did not prevent the
strikes taking place, which indicated a whiff of 1968 itself.

There are, however, even in France, which is still politically in the vanguard of
the workers' movement in Europe, important differences in the outlook of the
French working class between 1968 and now. Paradoxically, the economic situation
is far worse for capitalism today than it was in 1968 when the greatest general
strike in history took place against the background of a continuing boom. Then,
there was a broad socialist and even a revolutionary consciousness amongst workers
and students. Given what has transpired in the last three decades combined, as we
have pointed out, with the capitulation of the leaders of the workers'
organisations to capitalism, the mood is bound to lag behind that of 1968. There
is a mixed outlook and a certain political confusion.

There is, undoubtedly, generalised bitter class hatred throughout the advanced
capitalist countries for those who are seen as the main authors of the present
economic catastrophe, namely the financiers and bankers. Semi-public trials have
unfolded in the British parliament and US Congress. The ire of the masses was
expressed in France on the streets but, noticeably even here, was initially
directed against the bankers and the figure of Sarkozy, despite his demagogic
attempts to separate himself from the bankers. If even in France there is not yet
a broad anti-capitalist consciousness, then it is perhaps even less the case in
other European countries.

In Greece, the situation is somewhat different, with pronounced elements of a pre-

revolutionary situation already present. This is reflected in the utter bankruptcy
of the Greek bourgeoisie and its state, the desperation of the mass of the working
class and the youth at their poverty-stricken condition and their preparedness to
struggle, as shown in three general strikes to now. It is also reflected in the
complete incapacity of the official parties of capitalism – New Democracy and the
ex-socialist PASOK – and the corresponding rise of a new workers' party, SYRIZA.
This is combined with the bleak economic future facing Greece. So desperate is the
economic situation that its economy has been downgraded by ratings agency Moody's,
which could presage a refusal to buy government debt by capitalist investors. This
could lead to economic collapse and, in turn, could see Greece leave or be evicted
from the eurozone.

It could also herald a series of partial or even outright national bankruptcies,

as witnessed in the 1930s in Europe and neo-colonial regions such as Latin
America. Greece could be joined very easily by Spain, Portugal and even Ireland if
bond traders go on strike and refuse to buy government debt. Faced with this
situation, the ruling class would unhesitatingly resort to even more savage
measures attacking the wages and conditions of the working class. The conditions
of the working class in this situation of decaying capitalism is like a man on a
downward escalator frantically running just to maintain his position.

Discrediting capitalism

Quite calmly and 'soberly', the ideologues of capitalism debate the merits of
deflation – falling prices, cuts in production and mass unemployment – versus
inflation – an increase in prices – as the best means of preserving their
position. Deflation and inflation are heads and tails of the same capitalist coin,
and the working class is called on to pay. This was shown by one writer in the
Financial Times who calmly declared that companies will benefit from inflation
because a portion of the debt will disappear, benefitting those companies with
fixed-interest debts. On the other hand: "Higher inflation allows more companies
and workers to agree to real wage cuts than would otherwise be the case. This is
both useful for those firms that are currently uncompetitive, and preferable for
[capitalist] society, because wage cuts are more equitable than unemployment". In
other words, the working class must pay, profits must be maintained, if not
increased, at the expense of the working class.

Clearly, capitalism and with it the working class have entered a brutal new era.
The burning question is how to close the gap between the underlying objective
situation, of the drawn-out crisis of capitalism, indeed a series of crises, and
how to make concrete the slogan of the Italian youth: 'We will not pay for your
crisis'. What is involved here – as the recent strikes at the British refineries
and the outburst of anger at Cowley at the summary dismissal of 850 workers with
an hour's notice show – is the need for a fighting programme. Obviously, the case
for a general change from outmoded capitalism to a new socialist society has to be
made.

This crisis is proof, if any were needed, that boom and bust, the economic cycle
of capitalism described by Karl Marx and so derided by the overwhelming majority
of 'intellectual' opinion in the past period, has reasserted its validity.
Inequality can no more be overcome within the framework of capitalism than could
Canute turn back the waves. Inequality is the essence of capitalism, revealed
clearly in the relationship between the workers and the capitalists. As Marx
pointed out, the capitalists buy the labour power of the working class in order to
exploit it. The working class only receives back a portion of the new value it has
created, the rest being unpaid labour, the profit that is garnered by the
capitalists. The class struggle, as Trotsky pointed out, is nothing else but the
struggle over the division of the surplus product. The more that this surplus
product is fought over – particularly when profits stagnate or decline, as is the
case now – the more intense the class struggle. The starting point of the working
class in this situation must be a determination to resist the onslaught of
capital, to defend all past gains, before going on to make new conquests.

Contrary to what the bourgeois ideologists argue, capitalism, particularly in its

neo-liberal phase, is not the best nor the most efficient vehicle to maximise
production and distribute products efficiently to the peoples of the world. The
idea that capitalism was a seamless system, not subject to abrupt breakdowns,
which was prevalent particularly following the collapse of the Berlin wall, is now
utterly discredited. Tucked away from the gaze of the working class in their
'quality' journals, the defenders of capitalism admit this: "Conservatives…
actually believe in the capitalist system. Anyone who understands capitalism knows
that it is programmed to fail from time to time. Conservative economic teachings
hold that recessions are much like the weather. It may be possible to mitigate its
effects, but impossible to change its nature". (Peter Oborne, right-wing political
columnist for the Daily Mail.)

A transitional approach

No mention of a rosy future: if capitalism breaks down we, the working class, must
pay. This is the essence of Oborne's stormy weather scenario, a world in which the
state is the umbrella for capitalism while the workers receive a soaking in the
form of mass unemployment. We are not going to pay and we must demand an entirely
more humane system. Socialism must be the policy of the working class. Even
Newsweek declared: "We are all socialists now". Unfortunately, this is not yet the
case for the overwhelming majority of the victims of this system, the working
class and the poor. Therefore, while demanding a democratic, socialist planned
economy, as a crowning idea in the programme of socialists and Marxists, it is
necessary to put forward fighting transitional demands in the current situation.

In pre-1914 social democracy, such an approach was considered unnecessary. Its

programme was divided between a maximum programme, the idea of socialism, and a
minimum day-to-day programme. That decisively changed with the onset of the first
world war which led to the revolutionary explosions in Russia and the mass
struggles and revolutionary waves which detonated in the aftermath of the 1917
revolution throughout Europe and the world. In this changed situation, the
struggle for basic reforms and even the defence of past gains, came up directly
against the limits of the system of capitalism itself. The Bolsheviks therefore
formulated a transitional programme as a bridge – taking into account the day-to-
day demands of the working class – from the existing level of consciousness to the
idea of the socialist revolution. This was necessary even during the Russian
revolution because of the differing and changing outlooks of the different
sections of the working class. This was summed up in Lenin's wonderful pamphlet,
The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Avoid It.

Following in Lenin's footsteps, Trotsky formulated for the revolutionary Fourth

International the Transitional Programme: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the
Tasks of the Fourth International. This was adopted in 1938 on the eve of what
Trotsky correctly anticipated would be a devastating world war. Out of this
conflagration would come a revolutionary wave and the transitional programme and
its demands could play a key role in this process. A revolutionary wave did ensue
but social democracy and Stalinism stepped in to save capitalism in the post-war
situation. This in turn laid the political preconditions for the boom, the
spectacular economic fireworks, which developed between 1950 and 1975.
Consequently, Trotsky's ideas, which were fashioned for a revolutionary epoch,
were never fully implemented in this period.

Some, like the SWP, therefore jettisoned both the transitional programme and the
transitional approach. We defended Trotsky's method but recognised that it was
necessary to modify some of the demands for different conditions, which the boom
represented. The current situation facing the workers' movement in Britain, Europe
and across the globe, however, means that this approach, if not all the demands of
1938, is now vital in the present struggle. In fact, it is more relevant now than
when it was written in 1938 because the conditions which are developing are akin
to the period anticipated. Trotsky demanded, for instance, 'work or full
maintenance' in the teeth of endemic mass unemployment. We demand today, 'useful
work, or a living income'. The working class refuses to shoulder the burden of
this crisis. Let the bosses pay! If they cannot guarantee a maximum existence for
the working class, we can't afford their system!

Nationalisation

It is also necessary in this explosive period to take up the partial demands of

the working class both at the level of wages and conditions but also involving
governmental action or inaction. A case in point is the burning anger directed
against the banks, not just the crooks who have been caught, like Bernard Madoff
and Allen Stanford, but the whole fraternity who have bankrupted their own
industry and threaten to drag the whole of society, including the working class,
into the abyss. They have allowed the state to step in to rescue them through
massive bailouts. Yet the defeated, right-wing Republican presidential candidate,
John McCain, is far from grateful. He has described the increase in state debt as
"generational theft". But was it not his talisman, previous right-wing vice-
president, Dick Cheney, who declared that "Reagan proved [US government] deficits
don't matter"? It has still not stopped McCain, along with other Republicans, from
considering full nationalisation of the banks.

Capitalist politicians can accept state rescue, so long as it is then run

completely along capitalist lines and with the prospect of returning the
'nationalised' industries in the future to the very same private interests which
ruined them in the first place. Some commentators in Britain envisage that banks
could be nationalised and remain in the state sector for an estimated nine years.

The hypocrisy of McCain and his touching concern for future generations is belied
by the colossal expenditure on the Iraq war, probably $3 trillion in total, which
he supported to the hilt. The corruption of Madoff is as nothing to the creaming
off of government cash by the 'privatised' construction industry to 'reconstruct
Iraq'. Patrick Cockburn in the Independent commented: "The real looting of Iraq
after the invasion was by US officials and not by the slums of Baghdad". In one
case, auditors working for the government said "that $57.8 million was sent in
'pallet upon pallet of hundred-dollar bills' to the US comptroller for south-
central Iraq… who had himself photographed standing with the mound of money".
Although the extent of the robbery will probably never be known, up to $125
billion (£88bn) has simply disappeared. This is just one example of the way that
the capitalists, not just in the US but world wide, use the state as a colossal
milch cow.

The demand, in Britain and in the US in particular, is not for bailouts for the
bankers but for the working and middle classes. Even the demand for
nationalisation – because it is aimed at the bankers who are seen as responsible
for the mess and which both Obama and the Brown government may be compelled to
carry through despite its unpalatability to them – is not as popular as in
previous periods. This is because the experience of the partial nationalisation so
far in Britain and de facto in the US has alienated mass public opinion. The
boards of these partially nationalised companies remain unreconstructedly
capitalist in character. There were no celebrations similar to those which greeted
the taking over of the mines in 1948 by the Labour government of the time, with
the flying of red flags and big hopes for the future of the working class. This is
because, for instance, Northern Rock's state takeover was marked with increased
repossessions of homes, the sacking of 4,000 workers and, latterly, lavish bonuses
for some of the capitalist crew who remain in charge of this bank. This is a form
of state capitalism, not a step in the direction of socialism, as advocated by
even reformist socialists in the Labour Party in the past, when it was a workers'
party at bottom.

The need for democratic planning

On the other hand, the 'market' offers no alternative. In Britain in 1999, for
instance, two thirds of jobs created were not in the much-vaunted
'entrepreneurial' private sector but were in the state sector. This itself is a
confession of bankruptcy by capitalism. Moreover, the structures in private
industry are not at all an example of the 'meritocracy' beloved of the upholders
of the market. Indeed, so convulsive have been the effects of the crisis that more
and more capitalist writers have revealed the real character of the conditions and
management which are such an intrinsic part of neo-liberalism. For instance, Simon
Caulkin in the Observer compares the structure of big business – including British
Telecom, which the government, it has been leaked, has contingency plans to
renationalise in the event of its collapse – as more of a mirror image of
Stalinism than a prettified picture of an ideal capitalist firm. They are,
according to him, "zombie-like in their structural and strategic similarity" with
Stalinism.
Rather rudely, he declares of management: "With their faces towards the [chief
executive officer] and their arses towards the customer" most managers are more
concerned with earnings targets than producing a worthwhile product. The world's
most efficient, conventionally managed corporation, General Electric, "spends 40%
– that is, $60 billion – of its revenues on administration and overheads… The
managers of large western corporations have much more in common with the
apparatchiks of the command economies than is recognised". How much cheaper and
efficient it would be to take over these firms, establish a system of workers'
control and management, and install a socialist planned economy!

Caulkin's article is both a concession to Marx's argument that the internal

management of even a capitalist factory – Marx was speaking about the conditions
of the nineteenth century – was an example of planning. The factory system, Marx
said, applied to the economy and the world as a whole, would represent democratic
socialist planning through the elimination of the market. Now, ironically, giant
corporations – monopolies – have a top-heavy bureaucracy on the lines of the
former Soviet Union. The solution lies not with Stalinism or with the capitalist
'market' but with democratic socialist planning. This requires the opening of the
books for inspection by representatives of the unions and working-class
organisations, small businesspeople, etc, in order to inform working people of
what is the real situation as a preparatory step for realising such a plan.

Bridging the gap

The need for a transitional programme in this era arises from the mixed
consciousness of working-class people. This consciousness will be shaken and
changed by the march of events. But the development of a rounded-out socialist
consciousness, firstly of the most politically developed layers and then of the
mass of the working class, can also be enormously facilitated by a transitional
approach and a transitional programme – by adopting the method of Leon Trotsky
brought up to date and filled out by the experience of the working class itself in
struggle. This provides the bridge from the consciousness of working people today
to the idea of socialist change. Sectarians have no need for such a bridge because
they have no intention of passing over from the study, armchair or sideline to
engage with the working class and, together with it, helping to change
consciousness and increasing identification with socialism.

We have entered an entirely new period for the working class of Britain, Europe
and the world. Even if Obama manages to put a partial cushion under US capitalism
and thereby the world through stimulus programmes – and this is not at all certain
– the situation that will arise from this crisis will be entirely different than
the one before its onset. At best, the world economy will experience anaemic
growth with the stubborn maintenance of mass unemployment. This, like fatty tissue
in the body, is a symptom of a declining organism. Capitalism, however, will not
disappear from the scene of history automatically. It is necessary to forge a
powerful mass weapon which will be assisted by raising the level of understanding
of working-class people – helped by a transitional programme – which can provide
the helping hand for this failed system to make way for socialism.

Without such an approach, there is the danger that it will not be immediately
evident to working people, even faced with the present economic catastrophe, what
is the viable alternative. In the car industry, for instance, where wages have
been slashed due to mass layoffs, there is an instinctive understanding by workers
that there is 'no market' for their present products. But, given the high
technique and skill that exists, it would take very little to convert the car
industry, with a market faced with massive overproduction and a glut, to the
production of useful goods, including green, environmentally-friendly vehicles.
These are urgently needed for the world's population, in the context of a
sustainable, environmentally-friendly transport system. Such a switch in
production was achieved at the outbreak of the second world war but is frankly
impossible given the chaos of capitalism today. This does, however, pose the
demand for an alternative socialist society.

The gap between the increasingly worsening objective situation and the
consciousness of the working class will close in the next period. Events – and
explosive events at that – will help to ensure this. On the edge of an abyss, the
mass of workers will confront the capitalist system – sometimes without a clear
idea of what can be put in its place. The journey to a socialist and revolutionary
consciousness will, however, be shortened considerably, the pain much less, if the
working class embraces the transitional method and a transitional programme
linking day-to-day struggles with the idea of socialism.

No to any burdens of the crisis of capitalism being placed on the backs of

workers! No to mass unemployment, particularly the frightening prospect of a new
generation being permanently on the dole. Nationalise the banks but with
democratic, socialist forms of organisation, including the involvement of
representatives of the working class, unions, small businesspeople, etc. A
democratic socialist state sector will itself pose the issue of going further
towards more nationalisation, encompassing the commanding heights of the economy.
On this road, hope is offered to working-class people against the dead-end of
stagnating, decaying world capitalism.