Letters

RWT refusal

The RDG and the CPGB agreed an Open Letter on the need for communist unity and democratic centralism addressed to the Socialist Workers Party. The Republican Worker Tendency refused to support this.

We are now trying to find out whether there is any serious political reason for this refusal or whether it is another example of sectarian attitudes which have done so much damage to the working class movement.

In essence the SWP has organisation and very little politics. The RWT has politics and very little organisation (like ourselves). The SWP thinks the RWT is ‘irrelevant’ and the RWT thinks the SWP is ‘unreformable’. The SWP refuses to talk to the RWT and the RWT refuses to talk to the SWP.

Both the CPGB and the RDG are prepared to talk to the SWP and the RWT. This is a fact established by the Open Letter. Since we have received no reply, it is now also a fact that the SWP Central Committee is not prepared to enter a political dialogue with the RDG and/or the CPGB.

Let us examine the arguments that may be put forward by the RWT to explain their refusal to support the Open Letter.

1. There was insufficient time for the RWT to consider their attitudes fully.
2. They were offended by the methods in drafting the letter.
3. They disagree with specific words in the letter.
4. They oppose the Open Letter on the grounds of the ‘unreformability’ of the SWP.

1. The RDG and the CPGB apologised to the RWT for a possible lack of time to consider the Open Letter. Last week’s letter from the RWT makes clear that this apology was unnecessary and that they had sufficient time to consider whether to support, reject or propose amendments.

2. The RWT seems to imply that they are offended by some unprincipled methods used to draft the letter.

If the RWT has been offended by ‘our methods’ let me say two things. First, being offended should not be a barrier to doing what is necessary in the fight for communist unity. Second, for our part, we would be prepared to apologise if we have given offence by unprincipled behaviour. We have already offered our (unnecessary) apologies over the time factor. We certainly would not refuse to apologise for unprincipled behaviour, especially if that was a barrier to fighting for communist unity.

If the RWT can explain concretely what “methods” they are complaining about, we would consider an apology. But at present we do not understand it. We think it is just a storm of indignation to cover up a lack of real argument.

The RDG has the right to enter bi-lateral talks with any organisation which we believe, rightly or wrongly, will further the struggle for communist unity. Let workers decide for themselves whether the RDG aggregate was right to begin discussions with the CPGB. Similarly, we reserve the right with or without the CPGB to approach third parties and seek their support. The CPGB exercises this same right as an independent organisation and so does the RWT.

In our letter to the RWT of July 23 we explained this and cited the example of the Republican Forum which is partly the result of a bi-lateral agreement between the RWT and the RDG. Now we are asking a third party, the CPGB, to support the Republican Forum. We hope they will consider this on its merits and not be ‘offended’. It seems to us that the protest of the RWT about ‘such methods’ has no substance and if anything is the pot calling the kettle black.

Was the ‘offence’ merely in the political reasons why we approached the CPGB before the RWT? If so, it is not our ‘methods’, but your egos which are the problem. We explained the political reasons for speaking first to the CPGB in our letter to the RWT on July 3. We said that the CPGB had a politically better, more correct attitude to the SWP. Naturally we sought agreement with them first. Only a political idiot would do it the other way round. We thought, rightly or wrongly, that the RWT attitude would be sectarian, which meant they would refuse to support the initiative. So far we have not been proven wrong.

Since we consider this to be the truth, we will not apologise for saying it. The RWT’s responsibility is not to get huffy, but to prove that the allegation is not true. Then we will consider an apology for having wrongly accused them. But until then, our allegation of a sectarian method stands.

3. There seems to be an objection to specific wording. I say ‘seems’ because it is not clear that this is the case. The RWT has not proposed any amendments.

There seems to be an objection to the words in the Open Letter which say “You [ie SWP] are in a position to play a very important role in uniting our movement into a communist party.”

We think this is a statement of fact. The SWP is in a position to take a lead on communist unity. Perhaps it is an unpleasant fact, because it reminds us that neither the RWT nor the RDG are in that position. But it is a fact nonetheless.

This does not mean they will take a lead. That is a matter of politics. We don’t believe they will lead any more than the CPGB or the RWT believes this. But it has to be proven in practice not merely asserted. Our Open Letter gave them that chance. Their non-response shows not only their sectarianism, but proves that they are ‘leaders’ who cannot lead. It is a political problem not an organisational one.

This leaves us with one issue - the ‘unreformability’ of the SWP. It is my intention to examine this argument in the next issue of the Weekly Worker.

David Craig
Revolutionary Democratic Group (Faction of the SWP)

Glasnost?

I welcome comrade Andy Melville’s comments (Letters, August 10), especially his enthusiastic endorsement of the Weekly Worker and his commitment to “reforming a larger and more dynamic Communist Party for challenging Labour all over Britain as a long road to future gains”. I am also heartened to learn that comrade Melville is “not the only one in the CPB who eventually wants only one Communist Party.”

However, I have to refute point blank comrade Melville’s accusations that the Weekly Worker displays “continued sectarian views against the CPB or Morning Star”. This is not the case - quite the opposite in reality. We would support the Morning Star if it supported us.

Unfortunately, the CPB/Morning Star has had a consistent policy of censoring and suppressing all references to our organisation, or any other deviant ‘leftist’ views. The only time our organisation has been mentioned in the Morning Star has been in a downright dishonest manner.

I refer to our token and entirely peaceful occupation of the Morning Star’s office in April 1992, in protest at their threat to take out a court injunction against us for daring to use the name Daily Worker. “Leninists intimidate Star women workers” reported the Morning Star, in a fashion worthy of the Daily Mail. In fact, it was one of our female comrades who was set upon by Nidge Tovey and John Haylett.

Still, let us hope bygones can be bygones, and that comrade Melville will contribute to a new found spirit of openness and ‘glasnost’ in the CPB.

Danny Hammill
South London

Defence of Maclean

Jack Conrad’s review of Robert Pitt’s pamphlet John Maclean and the CPGB (Weekly Worker 106) was interesting but scarcely persuasive.

The review struck me as an attempt to dam Maclean with faint praise and a suggestion of insanity. But after all, Maclean is a problem: a passionate opponent of World War I and friend of the October Revolution who nonetheless opposed the CPGB. It is hard to call such a man a social democrat or a reformist. But he has to be discredited somehow. So a charge of insanity is levelled.

No doubt if Maclean had been in the USSR in the late 1930s. He would have been induced by the NKVD to acknowledge that the failure to ascribe due glory to the Communist Party was because he was a paid agent of Wall Street, Hitler and the Japanese emperor. If Maclean had been beaten and threatened enough, he might perhaps have made such an admission in open court, before Judge Vishinsky himself.

But, according to Conrad, Maclean’s failure to come up with the right political answer was the result of mental imbalance rather than pro-fascist treason. We have evidently come a huge distance in the past 60 years.

Steve Kay
Reading