30.11.1995

The equivocator

Bob Smith - For a Permanent Party Polemic Committee

SOME clarity at last? The editor of the Weekly Worker has gone into print as the editor. So has the national organiser, albeit in the strange capacity as a letter writer to the Weekly Worker. Will this be a weekly affair? I hope so. Now, how about the PCC getting into the weekly habit. It’s time to stop shadow boxing. Let’s have some clear lines of demarcation. Put an end to this I/we charade. If an article is expressing a PCC view let’s say so clearly. If it’s an individual view let it be differentiated as such. If it’s a factional view declare yourself openly and put your view on the line.

The Open Polemic representatives have endeavoured to do this from the start. We know what we want. We say what we want in print. We argue for what we want in all party forums. No confusion on our part. And just for the benefit of the occasional Weekly Worker reader let me recap.

Three Open Polemic representatives entered into the CPGB organisation and organised themselves into a faction, our immediate goal being to establish a Permanent Polemic Committee (PPC) whose function would be to promote a multanimous communist party, to combat leader centralism and to enhance collectivity within the Party. In short, our brief was to uphold and develop democratic centralism within the future Marxist-Leninist party. Our faction is strongly supportive of communist rapprochement from whatever quarter it is advanced. We entered the CPGB organisation because we believed it to be, along with Open Polemic, in the forefront of communist rapprochement and because it declared itself, like Open Polemic, in favour of multanimity (ie, for a non-ideological party). We believed, and so did the CPGB, that you cannot rebuild a communist party based on a particular historical view of the now extinct Soviet Union.

Having reiterated our position, I must now say, somewhat regrettably, that there are indications that the PCC is retreating from both communist rapprochement and multanimity. Perhaps ‘retreating’ is too strong a word. Perhaps equivocating is more apt. A year ago the CPGB picked up the banner of communist rapprochement but they seem reluctant to run with it. OK, they still use the language of rapprochement but the content seems lacking.

With respect to rapprochement, the CPGB is highly selective. They rejected Open Polemic’s endeavour to establish scientific criteria for communist rapprochement, preferring instead their own pick and choose method. Perhaps not yet a definite trend, this sectarian subjectivity is certainly an incipient impulse running through all their deliberations. Clearly communist rapprochement CPGB-style is being approached from a vanguardist standpoint (Some would argue this was the case from the very start). Join us. Accept our existing rules. Discuss our draft programme. Work within our strategic plan. All this smacks of vanguardism. Other initiatives for communist united front work are quickly dismissed as ‘anti-party’. Only the CPGB has a pro-party orientation. Only CPGB mass work is serious - everybody else is beneath contempt. This is hardly creating a climate conducive for communist rapprochement.

With respect to ‘multanimity’ the CPGB seems equally equivocal. On the question of the Soviet Union one cadre’s half-formed theory of ‘bureaucratic socialism’ permeates the organisation. All other views are dismissed as ‘Trotskyite’ or ‘Stalinist’. To have a definite view is a good thing. To make it prematurely the view of an embryonic party is detrimental to communist rapprochement. To put it into a draft programme is outright sectarianism.

Has the CPGB communist rapprochement come to an irretrievable halt? Let’s just say it’s stalled. What is needed now is to kick start the thing back into life. And, to be fair, the responsibility for this cannot rest solely with the CPGB. It is incumbent on all communists, all Marxist-Leninist circles, to either support the CPGB initiative or initiate their own. The RDG has been exemplary in its attitude to rapprochement. Others must follow.

As a practical first step, all Marxist-Leninist circles should consider sending a representative to work with the PCC This will require no loss of independence, no compromise of positions, no acceptance of the PCC line. I must add that it is not easy to work with the PCC - it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. But the fact remains that the CPGB along with the Open Polemic faction represents surely the highest point of Marxist-Leninist unity in Britain today. But that is not saying much. All other initiatives to date are sterile attempts to unite communists around a particular set of dates, individuals and interpretations of the Soviet Union. Quite useless as the basis for a future communist party.

Open Polemic representatives have sought to work with the PCC to get the rapprochement process on a firmer footing. We have had little or no response. We are putting our proposals to the whole membership who will then have an opportunity to respond more positively. Whatever the immediate outcome we are sure the answer to communist disunity is not to be found by running headlong into the left social democratic politics of a future ‘Socialist Labour Party’. That would simply be introducing into the SLP the sectarian vanguardism that currently bedevils our infantile communist movement.