10.10.1996

Condemned to the margins

Reports from the International Socialist Group’s national meeting last week suggest a confused and stormy affair. This was unfortunately to be expected given the demoralised cynicism that characterised former leaders of the ISG, Julian Alford and Ian Land in their letter to the Weekly Worker (September 26).

The crisis in the group was further exacerbated by the fact that only one of the former leaders turned up (late) to the meeting. Ian’s resignation was reported to the meeting, though subsequently retracted. It seems he ‘merely’ did not turn up. Julian did manage to show up - but only to resign his position as national organiser.

Thus the ISG was left leaderless, though with some rank and file pressure to carry on. But to carry on doing what was the critical question.

Formally the leadership, all based in London, had been pursuing the rapprochement process with the CPGB. ‘Pursuing’ is no doubt too strong a word here; musing over and watching from a distance would be more accurate. The CPGB and the ISG have had fraternal, though rather quiet relations since the ISG’s inception.

The leading ISG comrades agreed that the Party question was key at this time. Their propaganda against the undemocratic practices of the Socialist Workers Party (from which they were expelled or resigned) was clearly not enough, but they felt that joining the CPGB in rapprochement would alienate support in the SWP.

Initially the ISG was quite successful in winning a hearing and support for its ideas in the SWP. This took a down-turn at Marxism ’96 with much of the even potential internal SWP opposition having been muted or sidelined. The ISG was now forced into a situation of having to reorientate itself to providing positive solutions to the question of Partyism, rather than simply being a reaction against the sectarian answers provided by the SWP. Without this, it simply had no raison d’être at all.

Thus the ISG began to take a closer look at the CPGB. To this day, the London comrades continue to describe our organisation as pursuing the highest expression of rapprochement and Partyism - a process which it still claims to be committed to.

It came as rather a surprise therefore that after only a few months the ISG former leadership has written off the rapprochement process. This was reported to the national meeting last week and agreed without any opposition. The ISG supporters in Wolverhampton and Derby had never been convinced by it - not surprisingly, given the lukewarm attitude of their leadership and since the comrades in Derby and Wolverhampton have never talked directly to the CPGB.

The ISG leadership have now collectively resigned, though they remain members of what seems to be some sort of loose federal alliance that constitutes the continuation of the ISG. A leading comrade in London, Andy, who had formally resigned altogether from the ISG, has now rejoined as a member - though determinedly not a leader - of this amorphous, directionless group.

In the process of writing off rapprochement, all sorts of accusations and insults have been flung at the CPGB. It has been set up as the problem rather than a solution. In their letter Ian and Julian claim that it “secretly believes it is the Party” and that it is a “redemptive esprit de corps”. In conversation we are told that democratic centralism is a premature form of organisation, and that carrying out the hard work of producing a weekly paper at this stage fails to recognise the situation of defeat and demoralisation amongst the class and the ideological dogmatism and confusion of the marginalised revolutionary left. The comrades are more ambiguous as to whether it would be a positive development to cease publication, but the disorganisation advocated would inevitably produce this result.

It is very unclear what the ISG and its national meeting wanted to put in place of the practical work of Partyism. Work which must of course be based on a publication. It must be extremely difficult to justify the liquidation of the Weekly Worker for example, given its key role in the debate around Party, in reporting the views and activity of revolutionaries and militants of the class, not least within the SLP. A genuinely open publication makes all of this the property of not just a few bureaucrats, but of the whole class.

The cynical former leadership of the ISG however does little more than ridicule the work of the CPGB. It has tried to laugh off the real achievements of this organisation, but is understandably ‘shy’ about positively advocating that we follow their ‘know nothing/do nothing’ example. They are clearly not serious about winning others to this perspective’; it is therefore by definition not a serious political position.

This has certainly not characterised its relationship with the CPGB. The ISG has only attempted rather clumsily to stick all sorts of negative labels onto the CPGB. This has been done in the absence of any discussions with us on rapprochement, Partyism, the day-to-day activity of the CPGB, Party and class, the SLP - anything of any importance.

Readers will know that the letter of September 26 was the only contribution the ISG comrades have made to our paper. It comes at a time of waving goodbye, not only to the CPGB, but in essence to their own group as well. Let me assure readers that there has been now more debate in meetings. The ISG (in the form of one comrade) has only attended one CPGB meeting and two days of Communist University ’96 since it addressed a London seminar at their formation. This has been the sum total of its engagement in the rapprochement process.

Yet apparently in pub room conversations the comrades have stored up enough criticisms, unbeknown to us, to write rapprochement off. We have never been told of these criticisms, except in the form of snide private comments, and have never been asked to answer or debate them. In short the ISG leadership has never engaged in the rapprochement process. It has carped privately, but what sort of ‘leadership’ is that?

The result of dismissing this living practical process is to retreat into what the ISG comrades rather pretentiously call the ‘long haul’. The national meeting decided to move the leadership to Wolverhampton and to continue as three separate groups in Wolverhampton, Derby and London with some sort of federal relationship. The Wolverhampton comrades will ‘continue’ working in the SLP and the Socialist Alliances. I say ‘continue’, but to date we have seen little evidence of them in the SLP.

In Derby the situation is even more problematic. The main ISG member there admits he does not have the experience to lead the ex-SWP members who are meeting together, though not as members of the ISG. They are very resistant to work in the SLP. Neither do the Wolverhampton comrades have a political perspective that can provide national leadership. They are good local activists, but, given their history in the SWP, they have never been encouraged to develop as communist cadre.

What of the London comrades? They will publish occasional articles on Party and class, Gramsci and Lukacs and other jolly pieces. Perhaps some will be thoughtful articles and generally useful. But then there are plenty of thoughtful - and less thoughtful - academics publishing today. Let us hope this is not all these comrades become or indeed want to become. When pushed, they assure us that they will play a role in politicising and developing the other comrades as communist cadres, but, given their rush to resign leadership of the group, there unfortunately seems little realistic prospect of this currently.

Is this the ‘long haul’ which we apparently all should be involved in, or is it just the ISG comrades? The ISG has not officially liquidated and the fact that it remains in politics is to be welcomed. Nevertheless the national meeting clearly amounts to liquidation as the group dissolves into local activity with no national perspective or publication.

Theoretical clarification and active influence on a fragmented and demoralised class, a small section of which is moving in the form of the SLP cannot be separated from organisation. It is our only strength. At the moment communist organisation is self-evidently lacking as a real force in society. We are condemned to marginalisation if we do not address this key question. Disorganising our forces cannot address this marginal-isation, but only exacerbate it.

ISG comrades in London have looked at the CPGB but never debated with us. Comrades in Derby and Wolverhampton have never even come that close. We are sure that there are numerous criticisms to be made of our organisation; we have enough of our own. But obviously these cannot be rectified if they are not openly addressed in discussion and, crucially, in print. I do not suggest that all the criticisms the ISG seems to have will be ironed out in a few meetings or articles - we clearly have many fundamental disagreements - but engagement in a real process of rapprochement can strengthen both our organisations. If the ISG can suggest to us a higher form of rapprochement, which it has hinted at but as yet not described, we are only too willing to listen. Comrades in the ISG have experience and skills to offer the movement. It would be a crime to fritter that away in isolated local activity and academic musings.

We urge all ISG comrades to engage actively now in the concrete process of rapprochement around the CPGB, in the process of organisation, of Partyism. As a first step, criticisms of the CPGB and perspectives on organisation would be welcome in the paper and at meetings.

Lee-Anne Bates