The debate on strategy for the movement needs clarity about united fronts, parties and parliament, argues Chris Nineham

Starmer and Reeves’ hard turn towards militarised austerity has shocked millions. Their callousness towards the poor and disabled has been sickening. The way they are wearing it as a badge of honour has created a backlash across society that has registered even on mainstream media frontpages.

It was clear from the size and mood of last Wednesday’s daytime budget protest that people are angry and ready to protest. Quite rightly this situation has intensified existing discussions on the left about how to ramp up resistance to the government.  

These discussions have been taking place amongst activists at a wide array of meetings up and down the country. In London last weekend the We Demand Change conference attracted up to 2,000 partly to address these strategic questions. 

We are confronted with two key issues. The first is how do we build the strongest possible mass resistance to Labour’s new turn? This is an issue of movement building, a question of united front action involving the widest possible forces. 

The second is the question of an electoral alternative to Labour, also crucial, but strategically very different. In some of the discussions taking place there is a danger that the difference between these two types of organising is missed and that as a result the relationship between them is confused.

The mass movement 

To address how to build the widest possible resistance in action it is worth going back to the basic socialist distinction between agitation and propaganda neatly caught by Russian Marxist Georgi Plekhanov at the start of the twentieth century. “A propagandist” he wrote, “presents many ideas to one or a few persons; an agitator presents only one or a few ideas, but presents them to a mass of people.”

To create the biggest and therefore most effective possible movement we need straightforward agitational slogans and demands that are relatively narrow and connect with the immediate concerns of millions. In the current situation; no to cuts, no to austerity, against attacks on disabled people and so on. After years of austerity at a time of an ongoing cost of living crisis and under a Labour government, simple slogans like these will resonate with huge numbers of people.

With this kind of clear and limited focus it is possible to pull together a united front in which socialists can campaign alongside people from the trade unions, MPs from the left and beyond and others. This shouldn’t be a front for a particular party. It is a means to build the most effective struggle. In fact, only such campaigning with people who wouldn’t necessarily agree with a full left programme opens the possibility of mobilising a social force of hundreds of thousands that can make a difference to what happens in society. It also gives socialists the opportunity to show in practice the power of our approach. This is what the People’s Assembly is attempting, with its call for a massive demonstration against austerity on 7 June. 

Starmer’s rush to increase arms spending in tandem with his drastic social cuts has made the link between austerity at home and war abroad clear to millions. It was striking that Stop the War’s slogan ‘welfare not warfare’ semi-spontaneously became the main demand on the budget day protests. 

This call for welfare not warfare can become an important demand in a mass anti-austerity movement. Pointing up the planned hikes in arms spending has the advantage of throwing doubt on the government’s claim that cuts are an economic necessity. It also helps to challenge the jingoism Starmer hopes will dampen struggle. 

Other united fronts around other issues remain vital. We must continue to broaden and deepen the Palestine movement, currently the biggest mobiliser, and challenge the attacks on our right to protest. The anti-war movement, as well as promoting the welfare not warfare campaign, needs to keep making the arguments against sending more weapons to Ukraine and the war mongering against Russia and China. Given the rise of the right, campaigning against racism and fascism are crucial. 

Socialists and many others are of course aware these different issues are related. However, the campaigns need to remain distinct united fronts to retain their ability to mobilise the largest possible number. Most people first become active in response to a particular issue or a particular attack on their livelihoods. Political generalisation normally follows mainly as a result of getting involved in struggle. 

We are in a moment in which it should be possible for the left to connect with millions of working people in this country and become the main focus for massive discontent. We need to do everything possible to break out way beyond the existing activist base. 

The exact parameters of any united front are a matter of judgement, but any attempt to impose too many different political demands on a united front can only weaken them by restricting the number of organisations that come on board and putting extra obstacles in the way of involvement.

Political organisation 

The second issue is the important question of political organisation. Electoral parties are fundamentally different from campaigning united fronts. They must have a full political programme addressing the key issues of the day. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be taken seriously by voters. 

It’s been clear to many for years that Labour no longer represents the interest of working people and that a new electoral organisation of the left is urgent. Starmer’s shock tactics of the last few weeks have brought this home to many more. 

Electoral politics is, however, the most divisive and difficult terrain for the left. The process of developing an alternative will take time. Successful mass movements can and will accelerate that process, the dynamic Palestine movement was the main impetus behind independent challengers to Labour around the country in last year’s general election.

Organisationally, however, the two processes must be separate. The job of building an electoral alternative will be a painstaking process of forging agreement on a fairly comprehensive programme. Even after a new electoral vehicle has been set up, lots of good people will still look to Labour and vote for them. And we shouldn’t think that when, and if, an electoral alternative is established it will be a panacea. There are now a number of independent, pro-Palestine MPs in parliament, which is a welcome development, but the truth is they haven’t been able to make a huge impact in what is of course a very hostile environment. It is also the case that any new parliamentary formation’s first priority will be parliamentary politics, and it won’t foreground building mass struggle.

United fronts, on the other hand, are precisely aimed at bringing together organisations and forces in action, even if they disagree on other issues or are in different political organisations. That is why it would be a bad mistake for united fronts to back particular political parties. They would not just lose their ability to mobilise across the working class movement but could ultimately unravel.

Revolutionary organisation

If these are the two areas around which discussion is focussed, there is another crucial issue to address, which is the development of stronger revolutionary socialist organisation as part of the movement. This is needed first precisely to initiate and try and give some direction to the mass extra parliamentary movements. The kind of mass united action needed to really challenge the government isn’t automatic and has to be campaigned for, as can be seen for example in the Palestine movement in some areas of the country where it has become extremely fragmented and has as a result dwindled.

Socialists have always been central to building mass movements, but socialist organisation is also needed to help people involved in the struggle to generalise, by making the more complex socialist arguments. Plekhanov’s ‘propaganda’ is very different from ‘agitation’ but ultimately just as essential.

This task of joining the dots cannot be imposed on the movement, but it is crucial. As Marx said, ‘it is in the process of changing the world that people change themselves’. But this process must end in strengthening that organised element in the movement that is consciously revolutionary.