22.02.1996

Open differences

Last Sunday Open Polemic held its conference on communist fragmentation and social democracy. Danny Hammill reports

This one-day school on ‘communist strategy and tactics towards social democracy’ turned out to be a lively affair. Despite the wildly divergent ideological traditions represented at the meeting - ranging from ‘unorthodox’ Trotskyism to unrepentant Stalinism - the atmosphere was cordial.

The debate was sharp. Comrades from Open Polemic presented the first outlines of their ‘common theoretical programme for communists’, which they hope will unite all those who call themselves ‘Marxist-Leninists’.

Significantly, the Open Polemicists contrasted this ‘common theoretical programme’ to the draft programme printed in Weekly Worker 112, under the name Jack Conrad. The OP comrades steadfastly maintained that this draft programme was in realitya factional document produced by ‘The Leninist’ group, a supposedly covert faction which controls the Provisional Central Committee.

This guaranteed that Jack Conrad’s programme would objectively play a sectarian role, as it would elaborate a particular historical interpretation and therefore place the interests of one section of the communist movement above the interests of the whole. In other words, the CPGB’s strategy of ‘going to the class’ with a programme is premature. ‘Meet the needs of the advanced workers first, the class later,’ is the OP position.

The question of the Socialist Labour Party proved controversial. Very broadly speaking, the meeting was split between ‘pro’ and ‘anti’-SLP sentiments - or, I would suggest, between a passive and an active attitude.

Comrade Phil Walden from the Trotskyist Unity Group voiced a suspicion of the SLP. He believed that the SLP was “just something ... that was bound to happen”. Furthermore, the SLP is going to become the creature of the ‘left’ section of the trade union bureaucracy. Therefore, communists should not be “positive or negative” about the SLP.

Stan Kelsey of the CPGB strongly disagreed: “We should not look a gift horse in the mouth,” Stan warned. The best way to combat reformist ideas in the working class was by being “part of this real movement”, not by lecturing advanced workers from the sidelines about the evils of social democracy. The movement developing around the SLP can only aid the process of communist rapprochement.

Members of the avowedly Stalinist group, Partisan, denounced the concept of a non-ideological party as “left opportunist”. For them the main demarcation today within the communist movement is the question of Stalin - ie, are you for or against him? All those who are “attacking Stalin” must be “agents of the bourgeoisie” in the workers’ movement. It ‘logically’ follows that Trotskyites cannot be part of the communist rapprochement process.

The Open Polemic project of uniting the comrades from TUG and the ‘Trotophobic’ members of Partisan around a ‘common theoretical programme for communists’ does seem extremely fanciful, if not idealist. Time will tell though.