21.09.1995
A breath of fresh air
LAST WEEK I made mention of the CPGB weekly London seminars. More needs to be said. The seminars are useful - I would recommend them to all communists living in and around London. Compared to what has passed as debate in communist circles in this country, they are a breath of fresh air.
Newcomers can say what they like without fear or favour. You can come back into the debate for as many bites of the cherry as you wish. There are no taboo areas. They are free from oppressive and bureaucratic chairing. Sounds like a touch of heaven? Well, not quite!
In keeping with the CPGB’s new found laissez-faire approach to party democracy - ie, a general free for all - the weekly seminars lack any structured chairing at all. Desperate to inculcate a culture of ‘open polemic’, comrades are free to go on and on and on. And what does the chair do? Sit there smiling benignly. The result is that dozens of points are often made in one rambling contribution and the seminar finds it difficult to focus concretely on any one point. Who is to blame for his anarchistic state of affairs? The chair of course.
It is good that comrades feel confident enough to work through their ideas in a seminar scenario, but the chair must endeavour to give some structure to the proceedings. Try and focus the discussion on a few contentious areas and allow the seminar to deal with them one at a time. The chair might even attempt to summarise the key differences that have emerged so that comrades leave the room not with their head spinning, but with a few key points that they need to further investigate.
And it is not only the chair who’s to blame. The comrade presenting the opening could certainly assist the ensuing discussion by citing three or four aspects that seem to contain grounds for contention. Perhaps the seminar should be invited to contest the interpretation offered by the opening presenter. Anything would be preferable to the current indigestible state of affairs. I don’t think I’m saying anything profound here - just reiterating what are surely the norms of debate. Faced with the straitjacketed and mechanical charades that have passed for communist polemic in the past, here is another example of the CPGB bending the stick too far in the opposite direction.
And after the weekly educational comes the weekly review of political events by the ‘general secretary’ - a stark expression of ‘leader centralism’ if ever I saw one. Just whose views are being represented it’s not clear - his own, the central committee’s, the Party’s as a whole? If it’s a personal view then why not let each of the comrades take a turn at the game. That’s how you develop cadre.
If it’s the view of the central committee - prepare a transcript so that the whole Party may assess it critically. And if it’s the view of the general secretary, then why should his/her personal viewpoint be elevated above any other cadre? Awkward questions that need clear answers.
And one final point. Please comrades, could you desist from prefacing every contribution with “As John says”, or “The other comrades have already said what I wanted to say ...” If we are going to reforge the CPGB we are going to need cadre that can think independently, critically and assertively. We don’t want a Party of clones!
Bob Smith