The announcement by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana of a new party on Thursday has provoked a strong wave of support and enthusiasm.
In itself, this was not surprising. The reactionary policies pursued by the Starmer government had been a slap in the face for millions of people who voted for the Labour Party, hoping for a change.
In a remarkably short space of time, having won a landslide electoral victory, Starmer has become the most unpopular prime minister of all time.
He is particularly detested by people on the left, who rightly regard him as a traitor who is virtually indistinguishable from the Tories and Liberals.
To the left of Labour a yawning gulf has opened up, a huge political vacuum, which, sooner or later, had to be filled.
Given the weakness of the forces of genuine Marxism at the present time, that vacuum could only be filled by some kind of left reformist alternative.
It was therefore quite natural that it should be filled by former Labour leader and left reformist, Jeremy Corbyn.
To anyone with the slightest knowledge of British politics at the present time, such an outcome could not be a surprise. It was, in fact, entirely predictable.
Within hours, thousands of people were signing up to join the new party. Given the total lack of any viable alternative, this again was hardly surprising,
Mood of pessimism
For a long time, the so-called lefts in Britain and internationally have been paralysed by a mood of dejection and pessimism
They only saw reaction on all sides. Lacking any knowledge of dialectics, they could only see the surface of events, but were blind to the real processes of radicalisation that are taking place. This applies to Jeremy Corbyn as much as anyone else.
While we salute his decision finally to launch a new party, we must also add that this development was held up for a long time by his constant vacillations and hesitation to take this decisive step.
But while the left was sunk in moods of deep pessimism, among the masses, there is a mood of anger, frustration and despair that is growing in intensity all the time.
Wherever you look, you find the same sense of burning anger. It exists in all countries at the present time. The idea is rapidly gaining ground that those in power do not represent us.
This is a colossal step in the direction of a revolutionary transformation.
The situation faced by millions of people is increasingly desperate.
In their desperation, they are looking for a way out of the crisis, turning first to one option, then another.
One by one, organisations and leaders are put to the test, found to be useless – and worse than useless – and discarded.
Right-wing demagogues like Trump can arise suddenly and achieve some success for a time.
The sectarian imbeciles and left reformists who can see no further than the end of their noses interpret this as the rise of fascist reaction. It is no such thing. It is an expression of extreme volatility on the electoral plane, characterised by violent swings.
These right-wing demagogues inevitably come up against the contradictions of capitalism for which they have no answer. They will collapse as suddenly as they appeared, preparing the way for an even more violent swing to the left.
This volatility represents a serious threat to the established order. That explains the panic, bordering on hysteria, with which the strategists of capital view the present situation.
Sudden changes
Sudden and unexpected changes are implicit in the whole situation, including, above all, sudden and rapid changes in consciousness.
Powerful centrifugal forces are at work, pushing the classes into a state of open war. The reason that it does not immediately result in revolutionary developments is the lack of any viable alternative on the left.
In the absence of such an alternative, we will inevitably see violent swings on the electoral plane – both to the left and to the right.
But the movement towards socialist revolution is not a mechanical one.
Given the absolute bankruptcy of the so-called left, the frustration of the masses finds its expression in all kinds of peculiar political formations.
The weakness of the subjective factor means inevitably that, in the next period, the radicalisation of the masses will express itself in the rise and fall of new left reformist formations and leaders.
Some of them will use very radical language, but all will come up against the basic limitations of reformism: their inability to pose the basic question of the overthrow of the capitalist system and the coming to power of the working class.
The announcement of a new left party in Britain undoubtedly opens new possibilities for the communists. This fact represents the most important aspect of the present situation.
It is clear that many opportunities exist for the Revolutionary Communist Party in Britain now. We must therefore give careful consideration to it and decide what our attitude should be.
The record of left reformism
The launching of the new party opens up a new and potentially fruitful field of work for us. But whether we succeed or not depends on working out the correct tactics for it.
It should be clear to any thinking person that the tactics of the Revolutionary Communist Party cannot be determined by temporary moods of enthusiasm among the masses – moods, which may well have an ephemeral character.
We must keep a cool head at all times, and not give way to sudden impulses. Particularly in the field of tactics, it is necessary to give the matter careful thought and consideration, analysing the pros and cons before taking any decisive step.
Haste, in politics as in warfare, is always a bad counsellor.
In particular, we must firmly bear in mind the lessons of the past in relation to left reformism. We have the experience of Tsipras in Greece, Podemos in Spain, Sanders in the USA, and last but not least, Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.
In each case, these leaders emerged suddenly and achieved an enormous level of support and enthusiasm on the basis of putting forward a radical policy – at least in words.
They all enjoyed a considerable level of enthusiasm in the beginning. But in the end, it all ended in tears, because they finally capitulated to the establishment.
In the case of Britain, Jeremy Corbyn appeared from nowhere and was catapulted into the Labour leadership, simply because he put forward a fairly mild reformist programme.
His success was not at all due to his own personality, political convictions or planning ability. It was entirely due to the fact that the widespread discontent that existed in society was seeking a point of reference, and found it in his person.
It is true that the new party, before it is even properly launched, has already achieved hundreds of thousands of signatures. That is, of course, a highly significant symptom that shows the same discontent exists now that existed then.
As a matter of fact, the response he had at that time was arguably even greater than the support he is getting now. He was in a position potentially to transform the whole situation in Britain.
But he met immediately with the opposition of the right wing in the parliamentary Labour Party which immediately declared war on him, with the backing of the right-wing media.
Corbyn could have solved the problem very easily by doing what we were urgently demanding at the time: to mobilise the mass base that he had in order to crush the Parliamentary Labour Party, deselecting right-wing Labour MPs.
Yet Corbyn refused to do this. Left reformists always cling to the right reformists, fearing a split. For their part, the right reformists, who are open agents of big business in the ranks of Labour, had no such scruples.
They continued their sabotage, and eventually succeeded in defeating Corbyn, who was not prepared to carry on the fight to the finish. His defeat was therefore absolutely inevitable, and it was the direct result of his own left reformist policies.
It is absolutely necessary to bear this firmly in mind at the present time, and not allow our judgement to be clouded by the mood of enthusiasm which his announcement of a new party has generated.
As Trotsky explained, our approach is “not to distort, not to tendentiously select, not to embellish, not to sugar-coat, but honestly to say what is.”
How should we approach the new party?
What is the main task of communists in the present period? It is to participate, side by side with the masses of the working class, and connect the finished programme of socialist revolution with the unfinished yearning of the most advanced elements for a fundamental revolutionary change.
Should we support the new party? This question is easy to answer. We communists welcome the launch of a new left party in Britain with every possible enthusiasm.
It is too early to say what the actual physiognomy of the new party will be. It is very much in an embryonic stage. The first indications are that, as one would expect, it will stand for a series of radical reforms in areas such as health, housing and other areas of vital interest to the working class, all of which we are also fighting for.
But the crucial question is whether the leadership of this party really stands for a fundamental transformation of society. By this we mean the abolition of capitalism and the assumption of power by the working class.
We cannot answer this question in advance, but in all probability, the left reformist nature of the leadership will incline them to the position that it is possible to solve the problems of the working class without a radical break with capitalism and private ownership of the means of production. This is indicated by the fact that the initial statement limits itself to taxing the rich.
If that is the case, all the promised reforms will amount to very little in practice. Here we have the fundamental dividing line between genuine socialist policies advocated by the communists and the vague and ambiguous programme of left reformism.
Does that mean that an honest and fraternal collaboration between the RCP and the party is ruled out? No. It means no such thing.
The RCP stands on the programme of socialist revolution, but we also understand that without the day-to-day struggle for advances under capitalism, the socialist revolution would be an impossible utopia.
The difference between us and the reformists is not that we do not defend reforms. On the contrary, we advocate the most militant action to fight for any meaningful reform that serves the interests of the working class.
Our criticism of the right reformists is precisely that they do not fight effectively for reforms. They consistently oppose strikes and other actions of the workers to obtain improvements in their living standards. And they inevitably capitulate to the pressures of the capitalists and carry out policies of so-called austerity – that is to say, vicious cuts in living standards – counter-reforms.
The difference between the left reformists and the right reformists is that the latter stand openly for the interests of the bankers and capitalists, whereas the former believe that it is possible to achieve ambitious reforms and improvements in living standards within the limits of the capitalist system. This, however, is impossible.
Therefore, our support for the new party cannot be unconditional. We must at all times maintain a principled position, firmly upholding the programme of a root and branch transformation of society – socialist revolution.
We extend a hand of friendship to the members of the party. Since we are too weak to stand candidates in elections, we will work side-by-side with its members for the election of its candidates. And we will defend it against the attacks of the reactionary press, which will be inevitably raised against it.
But our support can never be uncritical. Indeed, the prior condition of a fruitful and honest collaboration with the left reformists is to draw clear lines of demarcation from the very beginning.
Whenever Jeremy Corbyn takes a step in the right direction, we will support him. But whenever he takes a step back, whenever he shows equivocations and vacillations (which he has done on many occasions) we reserve the right to criticise him in a firm but comradely manner.
Only in such a way can we preserve our political independence, uphold the genuine policies of communism, and enter into a fruitful dialogue with members of the new party.
We have called upon our members to support the party and to be active in and around it, to the degree that that is possible for us.
But we cannot accept any limitations whatsoever on our freedom to agitate in favour of communism and the revolutionary programme. We do not wish to prevent the left reformists from defending their positions openly and honestly, and we expect the same respect from their side.
One thing must be made absolutely clear. There is no question whatsoever of liquidating the Revolutionary Communist Party – the only real guarantee that the genuine programme of socialism will be maintained.
On this question, there can be no compromise.
Revolutionary potential
The enthusiastic response to Corbyn’s declaration is just a small indication of the real mood of society.
Beneath the apparent surface of calm, violent storms are being prepared.
The gap between rich and poor has reached an extreme that has not been seen for the last 100 years.
The recent events in Britain and other countries show that consciousness is beginning to mature, but in order to find the real path to victory, there will be many false starts.
The objective situation is increasingly mature for revolution. But the subjective factor is lagging far behind events.
Upon the solution of this contradiction the entire course of future history will depend.
London, 26 July 2025
