14.09.1995

Attack the idea - not the comrade

Bob Smith, from ‘For a Polemic Committee’, on how to conduct communist polemics

PETER MANSON of the CPGB (Weekly Worker 109), in his reply to Dave Craig of the RDG, alludes to the possibility of ‘opportunistic reasoning’ by some of his fellow CPGB members in respect to positions being advanced on the national question. An accusation which is a serious infringement of Leninist methodology if proved to be true.

As is the nature of political debate, accusations can fly both ways. Peter Manson himself has been accused by at least one other member of the CPGB of lapsing into national chauvinism on the national question. Manson requests that the charge be withdrawn. The charge stands.

The debate heats up and the various contending positions are rehearsed and re-rehearsed with increasing passion. Shouts of demagogy and browbeating are made. Pleas for comradely conduct are made. The pleas are dismissed as irrelevant to the debate. Heady stuff! Not really - just another lively CPGB weekly seminar, which have become an important component of the communist rapprochement process initiated by the CPGB.

Now communists ought not be faint-hearted when it comes to communist polemic. In the ongoing fight to establish what one holds to be correct, accusations and counter-accusations will inevitably abound. The important thing is to thoroughly air all sides of the question, all the quicker for the whole party to adopt informed and revolutionary positions. Yet the manner in which the debate is conducted is not irrelevant.

Communist unity, or - to use the current term - rapprochement, is or ought to be the key preoccupation for communists at this historical juncture. Whether it is through programmatic clarity, unity in action, ideological clarifications or some permutation of the three, sooner rather than later communists must organise themselves into a single party if they are to have any hope of providing a vanguard role to the class as a whole.

Accordingly, the process of rapprochement should not be amateurish. On the contrary, communists should conduct themselves with the utmost professionalism and thoughtfulness. This applies particularly to the process of communist polemic, which should always strive to be sharp but comradely.

There is a line, ill-defined admittedly, which comrades ought not to transgress. As a rule of thumb for polemic between comrades - attack the idea, not the comrade. This is not in order to protect some delicate wallflower from a bruising. No, our purpose must always be to nurture the embryonic rapprochement project - drawing out lines of demarcation, seeking out our common ground, re-examining what has hitherto divided us. One-upmanship and inflated egos get in the way.

Our project requires patience, humour, tolerance and, above all, humility - communist morality, to give it a name. All this requires not one ounce of retreat from dearly held principles. I am sure that sharp but comradely polemic must become the normal culture of a communist party, and what better time to inculcate that culture than at the very beginning? Those that do transgress should be pulled up abruptly.

Now, what of the charge of opportunism? There is no doubt that the RDG has had some influence in respect to the national question in the CPGB. It is perfectly proper that that should happen. It is equally proper for a serious communist party - there can be no other type - to change its position in the light of an ongoing debate.

What is not permissible is to change a position on the quiet. Admit the change, acknowledge the source, and say it publicly. That is the way the rapprochement will gain momentum. Make a change, but pretend it was always your position; make a change merely to please an erstwhile opponent - that is opportunism.

CPGB comrades will need to make up their own minds on this particularly case.