The English left – Oranges and Banana Splits |

Oranges and Bananas

The headline to my article entitled “No Oranges for England” published in Weekly Worker (20 November 2024) was replaced by the editor’s headline “Splitting over unity” under a hilarious picture of the ‘Banana Splits’. They added their own introduction saying, “Despite its own Labourite name, Steve Freeman, of the Republican Labour Education Forum, says there can be no unity with those whom he calls social monarchists … or even those who are committed to Socialist Unity as a label of convenience”.

Labourism

The first comment about ‘Labour’ refers to the Forum’s origins in the Left Labour Alliance and an orientation to the labour movement (i.e. Labour Party and the trade union and socialist movement). Despite the variety of political backgrounds of RLEF members in the socialist movement, we are united in highlighting the absence of republican ideas and policies in the labour movement and promoting a better understanding of the centrality of these ideas for the liberation of the working class. 

No Unity with social monarchists

The central Weekly Worker claim is “there can be no unity with those whom he (i.e. me) calls social monarchists”. This is simply a false imputation. Of course, there can be unity between social monarchists and social republicans, for example in opposing fascism, supporting the Palestinian people or striking workers. Some confessional republicans are even members of the social monarchist Labour Party!

However, tactics are about specific moments and situations. Now we are dealing with the formation of Your Party and the centrality of democratic republicanism to this project. The RLEF was represented among a broad range of left groups, including social monarchists, on the basis of fighting for a ‘party republic’. Unity was not about programme but limited to the issue of a democratic constitution for YP. On this issue alone we were in favour of a united front with social monarchists around the republican principle of the ‘sovereignty of the membership’. 

Socialist Unity Platform

However, we refused to make a programmatic agreement with the social monarchists. This would blur the distinction when it has to be exposed and highlighted. As soon as the ‘democratic platform’ began to dabble in this kind of unity it was the end of the road. The hegemony of social monarchist ideas in the Labour and trade union movement carried over into YP is a massive limiting factor on the potential of the working class. This has to be challenged, opposed and not ‘compromised’. The RLEF therefore left the renamed the Socialist Unity Platform in protest.

Weekly Worker editors admitted the unprincipled nature of the Socialist Unity Platform. They condemned the RLEF for not wanting programmatic unity “even those who are committed to Socialist Unity as a label of convenience”. This suggests that ‘Socialist Unity Platform’ is a ‘label’ used for the convenience of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

The Weekly Worker’s Carla Roberts was annoyed about the RLEF decision to leave. She called it “Even more bizarre” reasoning and “pathetic”. A member of the CPGB declared, “I think you have lost the plot, Steve”. Well if there was a plot I wasn’t in on it! Roger Silverman, a good comrade but no friend of republicanism, explained in response, “Republican Labour are being entirely consistent”. Of course that was an astute observation because it is true.  

Making tactical agreements is one thing. Making a programmatic compromise on democratic republican principles is opportunism. Yes to a united front on YP democracy with social monarchists demanding a ‘party republic’. No to a Socialist Unity general political statement that ignores the question of a democratic republic. It is like saying “We don’t want YP to become a constitutional monarchy under King Jeremy but our platform is diplomatically silent over King Charles!” Even Zara Sultana did not make that mistake.

So-called social monarchists

In defending their Socialist Unity Platform it becomes necessary for Weekly Worker to question whether ‘social monarchism’ exits as a political trend. They say I want no unity “with those whom he calls social monarchists”. Had I just invented this term to be beastly to the poor downtrodden loyalists.

The ‘social monarchy’ describes the social and constitutional contract between the Crown and the working class during and after the Second World War. We are not sugar coating it with phrases about the ‘Welfare state’. The majority of the English Labour left support that contract and want to restore it. Hence, they are social monarchists’ even as they try to conceal it from the working class with words about ‘socialism’ and ‘democratic socialism’.

It is even more criminal that at a time when Your Party is being established as a left social monarchist party, the communists should form a Socialist Unity Platform, not on the basis of condemning social monarchism but uniting with it! Carla Roberts needs to reflect on whether the words – ‘bizarre’, ‘pathetic’ and ‘lost the plot’ – are better deployed against those using ‘Socialist Unity Platform’ as a ‘label of convenience’ to unite with Orange Socialism.