03.10.1996

Crisis in the ISG - liquidation or rapprochement?

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) poses the alternatives facing the International Socialist Group

The resignation of Andy Wilson is a major blow for the International Socialist Group. In many ways Andy Wilson was the leading force in the formation of the ISG. It was his expulsion which in effect brought the ISG into existence. Andy has always been a reluctant leader, never sure whether he was pleased or dismayed that comrades were following him. But we should not dismiss the ISG as a one man band. Any small group depends very much on one or two comrades. Whereas a large group can lose a leading comrade and survive, this is much more difficult for small groups.

Obituary

If the ISG was to liquidate, we could certainly write its political obituary now. It would simply be Andy Wilson’s resignation note. It would be the longest resignation letter in the history of the SWP.

If this occurs now, the ISG will have been a complete waste of time, and not much more significant than a personal ego trip. It will leave behind nothing of any political significance. It may disillusion many comrades who followed it in good faith on the road to nowhere.

The RDG took the ISG comrades seriously. We said that criticism of the internal regime of the SWP is not enough in present conditions to sustain a political organisation. It has to say something about the world, not just about the SWP. The reason that the RDG has survived is partly because of our factional orientation to the SWP, but also because we have something to say about communist politics in general, for example on the national question, republicanism, Labourism, etc.

The RDG position was from the start that we wanted unity and if possible fusion with the ISG. It is absolutely crazy that two tiny state capitalist groups, in effect factions or dissidents from the SWP, cannot manage to unite their forces. In fact in a democratic SWP both the RDG and ISG would be members.

We have stood ready to enter serious discussions with the ISG about fusion. Only recently has this appeared possible. We have begun discussing rapprochement with the ISG’s London comrades.

The RDG has long stated that the ISG would be unlikely to survive unless it entered into serious discussion with the RDG towards unity. This was not some arrogant statement about our own importance. It was the outcome of political logic. The ISG must have a unity strategy. It must work for principled unity with other forces. Otherwise it is doomed as a sect.

The choice put starkly is either the politics of unity or the politics of sect. As soon as the ISG is serious about the unity question it can hardly avoid talking seriously with the RDG. How for example could the ISG consider unity with the non-state capitalist CPGB and not talk to the RDG, who share a common experience in the SWP?

The logic of the ISG’s political position is either liquidation or a unity strategy and hence rapprochement with the RDG. Only sectarian attitudes, left over from the lies and slanders of the Cliffites, might cloud the judgement of the ISG. But politically the logic is clear.

The most healthy development in the ISG recently is the break-out from total concentration on the issue of internal democracy, party and class. The analysis by comrade Jules of Labourism was an important step forward. In taking a different view on Labourism and elections from the SWP, the ISG is taking an important step towards rapprochement with the RDG. For we have in essence the same position.

The situation in British politics today is forcing us, despite any reservations we may have, towards closer unity. Unfortunately precisely as this opportunity opens up the ISG is faced with a serious crisis.

Liquidationism and localism

The first option is to wind up the ISG or to retreat into local activism. Campaigning on local issues, if it is not part of a national and international revolutionary perspective, is not much more than left reformism. It means we give up on revolution in practice, and then eventually abandon it in theory.

It may be that pride will not let comrades abandon the ISG just yet. But unless the ISG adopts a clear unity strategy, then it will only be delayed liquidation. In this case a quick death would be better than a long drawn out death agony.

Communist unity

The ISG has responded to unity initiatives, notably the SLP which has drawn many comrades together, and the CPGB’s rapprochement. The important words here are “responded to”. This is not good enough. The ISG must make communist unity into its own policy, a policy it is committed to and which it pursues with vigour.

The crisis in the ISG should force it to clarify this point. If liquidationism wins there will be no need for unity. But if the ISG is to survive, it must become the suitor rather than the reluctant bride.

Rapprochement with the CPGB

We are in the earliest stages of rapprochement. It is not a question of joining the CPGB and accepting its views on politics and organisation. It is a struggle. Like any struggle you have to join in without any guarantee of success.

Rapprochement is a process of discussion and clarification which may end in fusion into a single organisation. That might be the CPGB or some other organisation, as the Republican Worker Tendency and Open Polemic have suggested.

The CPGB and the RDG are involved in this process. We are engaged to be married. But we are not going to name the date of the wedding until we are agreed on the terms of the contract. It cannot be taken for granted that we will come to agreement. Nevertheless even if we do not end up getting married, I think our engagement has been beneficial to both groups. It is in this spirit that the process can advance.

But if the question is posed as an ultimatum - either liquidate or join the CPGB - this will only help those who are opposed in practice to genuine rapprochement.

Rapprochement with the RDG

Whilst the leaders of the ISG have taken the first steps towards rapprochement with the CPGB, they have not yet gone that far with the RDG. Of course the CPGB is offering a bigger dowry. But if we put ideas first, then the ISG has more in common with the RDG than it does with the CPGB.

We both come from the SWP. We share a state capitalist view of the former USSR. We are both engaged in a struggle against the Cliffites. On anybody’s scale, we should be in a more advanced state of rapprochement, than for example the ISG and CPGB, or the RDG and the CPGB.

In fact rapprochement is more advanced between the CPGB and the RDG. The failure of the ISG and the RDG to achieve more progress is not due to the RDG. We have demonstrated, especially through the pages of the Weekly Worker, that we are prepared to work for communist unity. This is something we are struggling for in practice.

The reason we have not achieved more is because of the remnants of Cliffite sectarianism in the ISG. The current crisis is now an opportunity to rectify that and do what we should have done over a year ago.

We should begin the process of rapprochement with the aim of eventually forming a single tendency. At present the ISG and RDG must maintain their separate names and identities. But we could begin to act together as if we are factions of a single tendency.

In practical terms this means the right to meet separately and publish separately. But representatives of both organisations could meet to coordinate our work. We would hold joint aggregates and produce a monthly joint newsletter, and occasional joint pamphlets like Taste of honey.

We might consider the slogan, “For revolutionary workers’ democracy and international socialism”, to encapsulate this process. We would need to work on a common perspective towards the SWP, the Socialist Labour Party and a common approach to the CPGB. None of this can be done instantly. But we could agree in principle to seriously examine it, and work to bring it about.