22.08.1996

Unanswered questions

Around the left

Communists believe that an essential prerequisite for the creation of a revolutionary working class party is full openness and the widest possible discussion of ideas - ie, open polemic in front of the class. This was certainly the view of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, even if the ‘official communist’ movement did subsequently denounce polemical and factional struggles as “Trotskyite deviationism” (or worse).

Unfortunately, many groups and organisations in the Trotskyist milieu also suffered from a fear of open debate, and this, combined with their extreme isolation from the working class, saw many of them become paranoid sects. One of the worst cases was the old Workers Revolutionary Party, where thuggery and intimidation directed against ‘dissident’ members was a normal part of party culture.

Therefore it is to be welcomed that the WRP is in the process of thoroughly discarding these old (Healyite) practices and is attempting to ‘open up’. It is also to be welcomed that as part of their call for a “new socialist party”, Worker Press (August 17) is calling for responses to this initiative. It aims to print a “selection of views on this matter” each week.

It is impossible to believe that there is not a wide spectrum of views on the WRP’s sudden decision to dissolve itself - especially as it was announced as a fait accompli in the July 13 edition of Worker Press. Where was the discussion and arguments in previous editions? Did everybody agree with this ‘liquidationist’ turn? If not, what are the views of the ‘anti-liquidationists’?

It is only natural that different tendencies - and, eventually, factions - will emerge during this period. This can be glimpsed from Workers Press, where comrade Dave Graham raises some very important points, particularly when he complains: “I see no re-examination of the fundamental approach you have taken” The comrade also goes on to raise many important questions - “Is the programme of this new organisation open to debate?”; “What conception of socialism/communism do you advocate?” and so on. All these questions need to be debated fully and openly, by the entire workers’ movement, not just inside the soon-to-be defunct WRP.

The ‘big daddy’ of all questions to be addressed in Workers Press is whether the WRP’s “new socialist party” is intended to be a ‘left’ rival to the SLP. If it is, it is inevitable that such an orientation will meet opposition. It is vital that all tendencies and proto-factions in the WRP as well as revolutionaries in other organisations - not least the SLP - use the pages of Workers Press to extend this debate fully.

Don Preston