“We have to break with the Ideology of Growth. We must exchange the growth of consumption with more time for all those activities that are outside working life. Why must thousands of people be unemployed while thousands of people work much more than they can manage?

We must also ask ourselves if our planet can survive the quest for growth. We need a radical green change of our society, and we need to fight for a shorter work week, for a working life that does not break us down.”

This was one of the key messages in the main political speech at the annual conference of the Danish left wing party “Enhedslisten” (Red Green Alliance – RGA). The speech as given by the main spokesperson of the party, MP Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen, at the beginning of the conference and as usually broadly quoted in the national media.

350 delegates and about 100 guests participated on May 16-18 in the conference which celebrated the 25^th anniversary of the party. It was originally established in 1989 by the Danish CP, the Danish “new-left” party VS and the Danish section of the FI, SAP. It has had elected MP’s since 1994. Over the last 3-4 years it has grown considerably. Today there are 10.000 members (but far less active members), 12 MP’s (6.7 %), and opinion polls this last year have been around 10 %.

Apart from the reduction of working time Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen did not present anti-capitalist measures to cope with climate change. But the anticapitalist approach on the other hand was very clearly stated in the new party platform, “Program of Principles” that the conference adopted after a two year discussion period.

Without using the phrase “eco-socialist” the drift is clear in the new platform of the party. In the chapter analysing capitalism it says:

”Capitalism is about to burst through the framework of nature. (…) What basically causes the crisis of climate and environment is the principle of production for profit and the principle of eternal growth. (…) The economy of growth is not ecological sustainable. The consumption of natural ressources and its impact on nature as such that is going on in the rich countries of the world already exceeds what nature can endure.”

The analysis also points to the fact that the consequences of the environmental destruction hit the poorest people the most, both in Denmark and globally. And it stresses that “Green Growth” is no solution; it is only a way to create new profitable markets.

About the changes needed, the “Program of Principles” declares:

“We will have to reduce material consumption and at the same time expand life quality. Instead of baking a bigger cake – hoping that everybody will have a bigger piece – we must implement a radical redistribution of consumption to ensure that the poor people of the planet – including the poor people of the rich countries – can improve their living standards. As well in Denmark as in other rich countries our primary goal is to improve life through a less working, less waste, better and more durable products plus growth in non-material goods as nature, knowledge, health, social relations and cultural fulfillment.

To obtain this democratic planning is necessary – a planning where long term environmental and social concerns have priority in contrast to short term profits and the demand of growth.”

And a final quote: “Climate and environmental policies is one area where the day-to-day defensive struggle necessarily poses the question of the power over agriculture, transport and production and in that way must attack the core of capitalism.”

The discrepancy in the level of radicalism between the speech of the party spokesperson and the party platform is no coincidence. While the RGA – especially the MP’s – have had a success in popularising basic social and democratic issues, the party has invested far less ressources into developing anticapitalist demands and solutions. At the same time very little priority has been given to agitation and propaganda of those anticapitalist proposals that conferences and the national leadership already have developed and approved at over the years.

This problem was openly stated in the written activity report that the National Leadership presented and had approved by the delegates. As a representative of the National Leadership I presented this balance sheet at the conference. I referred to the dissatisfaction and anger that is looming in big parts of the Danish population and said:

“Dissatisfaction and anger is not enough. We must create hope. We must show other directions and alternatives. As socialists we are an alternative, and we have produced alternative proposals. But we must show them to people and we must convince more people about them. For example:

• When companies refuse to invest their accumulated wealth, we must be ready with proposals that force them to invest or to give up their money”

Though the ”Program of Principles” was finally adopted by a very big majority, heated debates took place on important issues before that.
A major issue was the role of the bourgeois state/the welfare state/the public sector. In the proposal supported by a small majority of the National Leadership the public sector and it welfare activities and institutions was described in very positive phrases, romanticising it – as many critics stated. The anti-working class distortions and disciplinary elements that affect measures like social security, unemployment benefit, education and health when it becomes part of the state apparatus was downplayed. And these parts of the bourgeois state were described as an inspiration for socialism, even the germs of socialism.

An amendment proposal from three NL-members, myself included, acknowledged that the working class has fought and won important victories on free public health, education and on social security and pensions, but the amendment on the other hand pinpointed the distortions taken place in the state apparatus and the limits of a public sector dependent on a capitalist economy.

The amendment also acknowledged the importance of fighting privatisation, but it looked for the germs of socialism in the fight and organisation for these goals rather than in the institutions of the state.

This amendment was carried with a majority that was surprisingly big (no count of votes), considering that a NL-majority had proposed the other version.

Another amendment actually implied a complete redefinition of the DNA of the party. The background of the amendment is the fact that two other traditional labour parties, Social Democrats and Socialist Peoples’ Party has been losing support at an incredible speed since they took over government together with the Social Liberal Party after the 2011 elections. Actually their decline even started before elections. The disappointment with the new government and the drain of members and supporters of these two parties in opinion polls is a major factor in the growth of the RGA.

The authors of this amendment want to make the RGA even more open to dissatisfied supporters of the two other labour parties, to members that are looking for party like their former party in their mind used to be some years ago. They proposed to define the RGA as a party for people who want to fight neo-liberalism and defend welfare. In that way they implied - without clearly stating it - that people do not need to consider themselves anticapitalists or socialists to join the party.

Even though major figures of the party were among the authors, including Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen, the amendment was clearly defeated.
Some members claim that this “Program of Principles” made the RGA “less revolutionary”, some even say “reformist”. True it is that the “Program of Principles” that was adopted 11 years ago defined in very many details what was close to a traditional revolutionary Marxist strategy, including organs of dual power, confrontation with the bourgeois state, the need for arming the working class, complete dissolution of the army and the police force, etc., etc.

These elements are not included the new platform. But to comprehend the consequences of this one must understand that the 2003-platform lived a very secret life. Many members were not aware of it. There was no systematic introduction of it to new members. Confronted with it many members would certainly not agree to the more revolutionary elements of it. It did not work as the basis of policy development. All in all it was formally the platform of the party, but it did not affect party policies and activities at all.

In that sense I do not consider the changes in that area as a real setback. Big differences about how socialism will come about have been openly debated, while preparing the new “Program of Principles”. Important parts of the membership and of the leadership have illusions in the possibility of a purely democratic, even parliamentary, and step-by-step road to socialism without major confrontations with the ruling class.

Members of the SAP (Fourth International) have argued that at this stage the RGA do not need a clear cut revolutionary strategy to fulfil its role as an anticapitalist political force. Even if it was possible to impose such a strategy on the party with a small minority, it would imply the risk of a completely unnecessary split. On the other hand we also insisted that the “Program of Principles” should not and could not codify a reformist, purely parliamentary and stagiest strategy.

In the end most members of all views on strategy agreed – explicit or implicit – that the party should adopt a “Program of principles”:

1) That is clearly and un equivocally anti capitalist

2) That stresses popular mobilisation as the driving force of change

3) That leaves the question of the transition to socialism open.

And this is the type of platform that the conference adopted.

Michael Voss, May 27, 2014

* For background information on the RGA, you may link to my contribution to the book New Parties of the Left - Experiences from Europe published by Socialist Resistance (Britain) and the International Institute for Research and Education (Amsterdam) in July 2011. Contribution available on ESSF (article 23199), The Red-Green Alliance in Denmark