THE ELECTION FOR LONDON'S MAYOR.

On 4 May 2000, the election took place of the first Mayor of London.

Abstention?

Some of those who claim to be on the Left -- even to be Marxist-Leninists -- maintained that since the London mayoralty forms part of British 'parliamentary democracy', Socialists should abstain from voting on the grounds that parliamentary democracy is obsolete. It was this pseudo-left political line which Lenin denounced in 1920 in '"Left-wing" Communism', saying:

"How can one say that 'parliamentarism is politically obsolete' when 'millions' and 'legions' of proletarians are not only in favour of parliamentarism in general, but are downright counter-revolutionary!? Clearly, parliamentarism . . . is not yet politically obsolete. . . . We must not regard what is obsolete for us . . . as being obsolete for the masses".

(Vladimir I. Lenin: '"Left-wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 10; London; 1946; p. 99).

Marxist-Leninists have no illusions about the spurious nature of 'parliamentary democracy'. They have, for example, no illusions that socialism can be established through parliamentary channels. Nevertheless, they defend bourgeois-democratic liberties against efforts from the right to reduce or eliminate them.

The formulations of the 7th World Congress of the Communist International, held in August 1935, certainly manifested certain deviations from Marxist-Leninist principles, as, for example, in that which called for the unification of Communist Parties with the Social-Democratic Parties:

"The Communist Parties, basing themselves on the growing urge of the workers for a unification of the Social-Democratic Parties . . . with the Communist Parties, must firmly and confidently take the initiative in this unification".

(Georgi Dimitrov: Report to the 7th World Congress of the Communist International, in: 'The United Front: The Struggle against Fascism and War'; London; 1938; p. 87).

Nevertheless, on the question of the need to defend 'parliamentary democracy' against attempts from the Right to diminish or abolish it, the line of the 7th World Congress cannot be faulted:

"In the capitalist countries, we defend and shall continue to defend every inch of bourgeois-democratic liberties, which are being attacked by . . . bourgeois reaction, because the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat so dictate". (Georgi Dimitrov: ibid.; p. 34).

Abstention from voting in any election repudiates this principle, carrying the inescapable implication that bourgeois-democratic liberties are of no value, are not worth defending.

Abstention could be justifiable only if all the candidates in a particular election were exactly equally reactionary, if the election of one candidate instead of another would make not the slightest difference to the condition of the working people.

For example, Marxist-Leninists fight racism by any means open to them, including the ballot box. One of the eleven nominated candidates for the office of mayor of London is Michael Newland of the racist 'British National Party'. ('Guardian', 6 April 2000; p. 12). Can it be said that the independent candidate Ken Livingstone is as reactionary as Newland? If this cannot be said -- and it cannot! -- then failure to vote against Newland is to assist racism.

Analysing the Candidates.

Nominations for mayor have now closed, and there is among the candidates no one who claims to be a Marxist-Leninist. The task of Marxist-Lenininists in connection with the mayoral election, therefore, is to make an objective analysis of the merits and demerits of the candidates and parties participating in order to determine the election of which candidate will most benefit, and least disadvantage, the progressive movement.

One question of importance to all Londoners is that of public transport, and particularly the state of the crumbling and expensive Underground. In contrast to the official Labour Party, Livingstone has taken a decisive stand against privatisation of the Underground, and for a reduction in fares.

('Times', 4 August 1998; p. 8).

On this point alone, therefore,a vote for Livingstone is in the interests of working people.

Disunity among the Left.

As on many other questions, in the absence of a Marxist-Leninist Party in Britain there was no agreement on the Left -- even among those who claim to be Marxist-Leninists -- as to what to do on 4 May.

The Position of 'Lalkar'.

'Lalkar' which is edited by Harpal Brar, Chairman of the Stalin Society, claims to be a Marxist-Leninist journal. It advises Indian revisionists, for instance, that they must go " . . . back to the bases of Marxism-Leninism or perish".

('Lalkar', November/December 1999; p. &).

On the mayoral election, 'Lalkar' correctly points out that the Labour Party's selection process " . . . was a blatant carve-up",('Lalkar', March/April 2000;p.1) designed " . . . with only one thing in mind . . . keeping Ken Livingstone out",('Lalkar', March/April 2000; p. 1).

This does not mean, however, that 'Lalkar' advises its readers to vote for Livingstone. On the contrary, in an article headlined 'LONDON MAYOR ELECTION AND THE FAKE LEFT', it says:

"The only party . . . which deserves the support of the working class is the SLP. 'LALKAR' calls upon its readers and supporters to vote and work for the Socialist Labour Party during the London election".

('Lalkar', March/April 2000; p. 3).

Supporters of 'Lalkar' who call themselves Marxist-Leninists claim that their policy of 'entrism' in relation to the SLP is based on the possibility that the SLP can be transformed from a social-democratic party into a Marxist-Leninist Party. In his book 'Social Democracy: The Enemy Within', Harpal Brar scathingly and correctly ridicules those pseudo-left elements who advocated a similar policy of 'entrism' in relation to another social-democratic party, the Labour Party: "A whole number of Trotskyist groups adopted the tactics of entrism into the Labour Party allegedly to replace the right-wing leadership of this allegedly working-class party and get elected a Labour Government committed to socialist policies. The result, instead of getting Labour committed to socialism, has been either the periodical wholesale expulsion of the dim-witted Trotskyist renegades to socialism or their inevitable conversion to ordinary social-democrats".

(Harpal Brar: 'Social Democracy: The Enemy Within'; Southall; 1995; p. 83). In its issue of January/February 2000, 'Lalkar' reports that a motion was put to the 3rd Congress of the 'Socialist Labour Party' in November 1999 recognising the

" . . . achievements of the workers' states", (SLP Congress: Amendment to Motion 19, in: 'Lalkar', January/February 2000; p. 4). and recognising Marxism ". . . as the comprehensive science of consistent materialism", (SLP Congress: Amendment to Motion 19, in: 'Lalkar', January/February 2000: p. 4).

The Congress " . . . rejected Motion 19, as well as the amendment to it".

(SLP Congress: Amendment to Motion 19, in: 'Lalkar', January/February 2000: p.4).

It is interesting that, rather than admit the bankruptcy of its policy of standing aside from the movement to build a genuine Marxist-Leninist Party, 'Lalkar' in its next issue of March/April 2000, implies that the movement to transform the SLP into a Marxist-Leninist Party has 'already succeeded'. It declares, quite contrary to fact, that

" . . . the SLP proudly pledges itself to the ideology of Marxism".

('Lalkar', March/April 2000: p. 13).

But to present the 'Socialist Labour Party' as 'Marxist' at a time when its Congress has just rejected a motion to this effect is to stand reality on its head. To present wishful thinking as reality is to deny reality, is to attempt to deceive the working class, and a Marxist Party cannot be built on such deceit. Since 'Lalkar' expresses the view that

" . . . the only party taking part in these elections which deserves the support of the working class is the SLP",

('Lalkar', March/April 2000; p. 3).

and since no candidate from the SLP is standing for mayor ('Guardian', 6 April 2000; p. 12), one must presume that 'Lalkar's advice to its readers is that they should abstain from voting.

The Position of the 'Morning Star'

The daily 'Morning Star' is the organ of the 'Communist Party of Britain'. Although this party carries on the revisionist 'parliamentary road to socialism' line of the old 'Communist Party of Great Britain' (now dissolved) its attitude to the London mayoral election is -- compared with that of 'Lalkar' -- a model of consistency and correctness. Writing in the 'Morning Star' on 29 March 2000, the General Secretary of the 'Communist Party of Britain', Robert Griffiths, says:

"Victory for Livingstone would deal a bloody nose to Blair and his coterie of wide-boys and PR parasites"

('Morning Star', 29 March 2000; p. 10).

On these grounds, therefore, " . . . the Communist Party supports a vote for Ken Livingstone for mayor".

('Morning Star', 29 March 2000; p. 10)

CONCLUSION

On this issue we agree with the 'Morning Star',

What distinguishes Livingstone from the other nominated candidates is not that he is a Marxist-Leninist. He is not! What distinguishes him is, above all, that he carried on a consistent struggle against the efforts of the Thatcher government to abolish the Greater London Council.

LIVINGSTONE SYMBOLISES PROGRESSIVE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE REACTIONARY BUREAUCRACY OF BOTH THATCHERISM AND 'NEW LABOUR'. A HIGH VOTE FOR LIVINGSTONE WOULD DEMONSTRATE TO WORKING PEOPLE THAT STRUGGLE AGAINST THIS BUREAUCRACY OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM CAN SUCCEED. FOR THIS REASON, THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR MARXIST-LENINIST UNITY ADVISED A VOTE FOR LIVINGSTONE AS MAYOR OF LONDON.