16.10.1997
Open challenge to Taaffe
Earlier this year five - ultra-economistic - members of Labor Militant (sister organisation of the Socialist Party) were expelled from the US group, whose leadership was acting in concert with the International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers International. The expelled members included John Reiman and a leading comrade referred to as SO’T. Here we publish an extract from the US minority document, The expulsions, which calls on CWI supporters to fight for what they understand as genuine democratic centralism
Under the leadership of TG [Ted Grant] the organisation clarified the main elements in the world situation in the years following the second world war. Given the relative stability of world relations in the post-war decades, this general analysis stood the test of events for close to 40 years. One result of this was a relatively stable internal life in the organisation. Based on this analysis and with no major turns in the world situation, an authoritative leadership also emerged. There was no history of prolonged internal debate and factions. We have explained that the relative stability of the post-war decades is over. We have explained that the collapse of Stalinism ushered in a new period. What has not been done by the IS [International Secretariat] is to draw the necessary conclusions from this as far as the internal life of the organisation is concerned. The more difficult and complex objective situation makes it absolutely inevitable that the internal life of the organisation will be more turbulent, there will be more disagreements and divisions and there will be factions developing to fight for different positions.
Not only is this inevitable, but it is necessary, if the organisation is to face up to the challenges ahead, if it is to clarify the issues. Comrades should consider how the organisation has come to view factions as something to be condemned in the organisation. The IS itself and the same comrades who dominate the British EC of course carry on the most organised and cynical factionalism when they feel it is necessary, all the while denying what they are doing. But openly they create an atmosphere of extreme hostility to factions, and to anyone who seriously challenges them: in other words, hostility to the existence of any faction except their own, which they deny exists.
The leadership of the British EC - PT [Peter Taaffe] and LW [Lynn Walsh] - organised secret meetings of those EC members who supported their position on the name change in Britain and excluded those EC comrades who did not. They also went behind the back of local branch leaderships where these did not support their position and through individual discussions mobilised members in their support. This is the organising of a faction and would not be wrong in and of itself, but what is incorrect is that this is done secretly and while at the same time denying that they are a faction and condemning factions in general and putting extreme pressure on those with alternative views to stop them organising as a faction.
We ask all comrades to consider their own attitudes to factions and compare them to these words of Trotsky written in 1935: “During the 17 years when Bolshevism arose, grew, gained strength and came to power, factions were a legitimate part of Party life.” Trotsky speaks of the fact that there were even factions inside the Bolshevik faction. Engels wrote that internal conflict is the law of development of the revolutionary party. In the US CP in the 20s before it degenerated there were three factions that existed almost independently and controlled different areas of the party’s work.
Compare the internal life of these organisations with the internal life of our organisation over the past five decades. It is clear that, just as the post-war upswing and the relative stability of the Cold War world relations were aberrations from the historical norm, so also was and is the internal life of our own organisation. Unless this is recognised and the necessary changes not only made but genuinely accepted, then the more turbulent objective situation will create crisis after crisis, expulsion after expulsion, spilt after split, and if this happens the organisation will become stagnant, atrophy and no longer be a genuine functioning revolutionary organisation. The attacks against and the expulsion of the Minority in the US is in part the attempt of the IS to stand against this need to open up the organisation and instead to maintain the old internal regime behind a phraseology of more openness.
Another mistaken element in the approach of the IS is their elitist view. By this is meant that they view the development of the ideas of the organisation in a one-sided manner. They see themselves as the sole source of the correct ideas and their task is to ensure by one means or another that their views are accepted by the membership. They do not see that the ideas of the organisation are developed through a dialectical relationship between the membership and the leadership. And while it is the task of the leadership to develop ideas and policies, it also has the role of seeing that the membership has equal responsibility and opportunity in the development of the organisation’s ideas.
The economic material that has been produced recently by the IS is a clear example of the elitist approach. This is drawn by the IS from a reading of the bourgeois publications and regular discussions with at least one economist in academia who is not a member of the organisation. The information thus gained is then presented to the membership. The likely economic developments flowing from this material is likewise presented.
Nowhere in the economic writings of the organisation in the past six years is there any explanation of the basic ideas of Marxism and how these relate to the present economic situation. As a result of this omission the membership of the organisation is not assisted in obtaining a knowledge of the Marxist economic analysis and of the general laws of capitalist economy: that is, the membership of the organisation is not being equipped with the necessary analytical tools. And without these the membership itself cannot contribute to the development of the economic analysis of the organisation. But from the elitist view of the IS it is the job of the IS to hand down the ideas - so naturally the IS does not see the need for the membership to be equipped with the necessary tools to develop the ideas.
When SO’T raised this on a number of occasions on the IS, the response from PT was that he did not understand what SO’T was getting at. LW responded by saying that such an explanation would demand a whole different way of thinking on his part. A very accurate and illuminating reply. When pressed on this and on the fact that he spent more time discussing the world economy with a non-member in academia than he spent discussing this on the IS, LW said that he did not “have time to give seminars on economics to the IS”. If this comrade has this elitist view of his relationship to the rest of the IS - that is, that any discussion on economic perspectives on the IS would amount to him giving the rest of the IS a seminar - imagine what his view of his relationship to the membership as a whole must be.
This elitist view of the IS and the leadership of the British EC results in these comrades seeing any sustained alternative viewpoint in the organisation as a threat to the organisation and to their own position. As it is their job to hand down the ideas to the organisation, any alternative view is seen simply as an obstacle. They therefore feel justified in using any means, fair or foul, in keeping such views from having an equal hearing. Such different views and those who put them forward are slandered as either irrelevant, disruptive, resulting from the demoralisation, tiredness, etc, etc. Up until the struggle with the TG minority the British EC openly sought to keep other views from being presented to the organisation. If any comrade or branch had the ‘audacity’ to move a resolution to the conference of the organisation, the British EC would meet with the comrade or branch involved and pressure them to take their resolution off the agenda. This pressure was such that it was usually withdrawn. SO’T opposed this approach in discussions with LW and PT as long ago as the mid-1970s and both comrades defended it. This approach still dominates the thinking of these comrades, only they can no longer say it openly. Any alternative position that is now put forward and which they see as threatening is slandered, and any manoeuvre they can think of is used to put the expression of this view at a disadvantage. The letters in this document [The expulsions - document of the expelled US minority] from NW [Nick Wrack] and JB [John Bulaitis] make this clear.
Just take the position of the IS as expressed by LW in relation to JR [John Reiman]. While continuing to agree with and fight for the fundamental ideas of the organisation, JR raised a number of issues on the IEC [International Executive Committee] over the years. He proposed that the organisation should pay more attention to the issue of the environment, the British organisation should have been placing demands on Scargill to give leadership and he also questioned the taking of MS [Murray Smith] onto the IS. Because he raised these questions and because of his difference with the IS on the LPA [Labor Party Advocates] work in the US, LW on behalf of the IS stated that he did not know why JR was still a member of the International. It could not be clearer. Anyone who thinks independently and who carries out their duty of raising their ideas on the IEC - and if some of these ideas do not correspond with the ideas of the IS - then this comrade should no longer be in the organisation.
Along with this incorrect approach, it is the IS view that anyone who makes a sustained criticism of any aspect of the work of the leading comrades must be silenced. And not only that, but that all members of the leadership must unite and crush those making such a criticism. And any member of the leadership who refuses to do so is deemed as undermining the other members of the leadership and is effectively isolated by the rest of the leadership. Secret meetings are held excluding such comrades. This results in a culture in the leadership that selects as members of the leadership only those who will unquestionably support all other members of the leadership, no matter whether they were right or wrong. This elitist view sees the protecting of the position of the leadership as the same as the protecting of the interests of the organisation. This is a method which evolved out of the leadership of the British section and into the IS. It is a method which is not confined to the IS but is shared by the occasional comrade outside the IS and the leadership of the British EC who was recruited and trained in this false method in Britain.
It is the responsibility of the leadership to exercise self-criticism and to do so openly and in front of the membership in order that the entire organisation can learn from its mistakes. This is totally foreign to the IS and British leadership. Its obsessive refusal to ever criticise itself creates an atmosphere in the organisation where it is thought to be an essential quality of a member to always claim to have been correct. This ‘machoism’ makes a comradely re-evaluation of the work of the organisation impossible. It severely restricts the ability of the organisation to realise the full potential of the membership and to have a free-flowing, comradely debate and re-evaluation of the work. The Minority comrades in the US refused to go along with this method. They, and especially SO’T, were condemned as trying to undermine the leadership and the IS position was to drive them out of the organisation.
In words the leadership explain that they are entirely open to criticism. But whenever criticism is made, there is always something about this particular criticism that makes it unacceptable. Not only that, but behind the scenes the leadership in individual discussions explain that what is really involved here is that those making the criticisms are seeking to undermine the leadership. This means that any different view from that of the leadership is immediately made an issue of confidence in - and support or opposition to - the leadership, and so the political and general issues are distorted and obscured.
Some comrades may feel that they have raised differences and they have not been attacked by the IS or the British EC leadership in the way we describe. This can be true. But what is involved is not how a comrade here or there can be treated, but how a politically determined and organised minority, especially one that forms itself openly as a faction, and who puts up a sustained struggle, is treated. This is different from raising a difference now and then. It is also the question of the treatment that is handed out to comrades who exercise their right to criticise an area of the work of the leadership.
Another element fuelling the approach of the IS to the Minority is how it sees the British organisation’s relationship to the International, and the Minority’s refusal to accept that the British organisation is off limits to the International. The internal struggles and details of the work in the British organisation are hidden from the rest of the international leadership and membership. When on the IS, SO’T raised this on a number of occasions. This was one of the issues he raised when he resigned from the IS. This exclusion of the rest of the International from the internal developments and struggles in the British organisation is directly related to the IS and British EC leadership’s determination to defend their position in the British organisation at all costs. It also has the advantage of keeping the comrades in the British organisation who come to recognise the false methods of the British EC leadership from linking up with the comrades throughout the International who may have similar views. And more importantly it works to prevent the comrades of the International taking part in the internal struggles of the British organisation where they might agree with those members who have criticisms of the leadership.
The debate on the tone of the leadership’s attack on the minority in the British section in the name change debate is the most recent example of important issues being kept from the IEC and the International. The brazen dishonesty of the IS is seen on this issue. When the Minority raised it first in its material, the IS said there was no such problem. Then the Minority produced the Nick Wrack letter. Well, he was just worn out, etc, etc, was the reply. Then the Minority raised the attacks on the group of comrades around JB and PH [Phil Hearse]. Well, this was just some “cranks” in London. Then we raised the objections of the Scottish leadership. This was a little more difficult for the IS. They were a little worried about slandering these comrades as cranks or being worn out. At the New York NC, LW decided to pretend he was coming clean. So, LW claimed, we had a debate - where is the big secret? What is the problem? The problem is that the only reason these issues are not still secrets from the International is because the Minority insisted in bringing them out and for doing so suffered slanders and a vicious witch hunt.
At a recent meeting of the British NC there was the beginning of a debate on the Nick Wrack letter, which was reprinted in the paper of one of the Stalinist sects in Britain [Weekly Worker June 26 1997]. The British EC leadership announced their intention of replying publicly to this. One NC member, a regional secretary, rose to say that in his opinion, and in the opinion of other members of the EC from whom he had taken soundings, there was truth in the Nick Wrack letter. A leading member of the British EC itself also expressed similar opinions to the meeting. This comrade was then heckled by PT. When NC members said that the EC could not write refuting the points in the Nick Wrack letter without a full discussion on the issue, PT announced to the NC that it could not stop the EC from writing its reply and sending it to the paper of the Stalinist sect. PT’s position is totally contrary to democratic centralism, which holds the NC to be the highest body of the organisation between conventions. The NC is a higher body than the EC and can overrule the EC. PT’s outburst and position underlines the correctness of the points we have been raising on the need to change the internal regime of the organisation. It shows to the British NC members what the leadership of the British EC thinks behind its diplomatic facade.
This approach of the leadership of the British EC and of the IS must be condemned. Anything is justified in the minds of these comrades to cover up criticisms of themselves. As each dishonest cover-up is exposed, it is responded to with yet another untruth or evasion. This is an unacceptable method because it prevents the organisation as a whole, and collectively, from dealing with all the issues and developing a collective position. Evasions and dishonesty cannot be a substitute for an open and self-critical atmosphere. We circulate with this material the letter from J Bul., the former London regional secretary, in which he outlines the incorrect and undemocratic methods used by the British leadership in the name change debate. This letter is a decisive reply to the document of the British EC, which they were forced to publish because we circulated the Nick Wrack letter, and in which they tried to claim that all was well with the debate on the name change in Britain. We reprint the Nick Wrack letter also in this document.
One of the very damaging effects of this approach of the IS and British EC leadership is how it damages the developing potential future leadership of the organisation. A whole layer of talented newer comrades were brought onto the British EC and NC. But they are being trained in this false method. Loyalty to the leading members of the EC is a condition for their being treated in a comradely fashion by the EC leadership. This stunts the ideas and talents of these young comrades. There is a calculation first about what position they take in case they are portrayed as disloyal. Nick Wrack’s treatment is an object lesson for these new comrades. But also these new comrades are pushed to defend every dot and comma of the EC leadership’s position to the rank and file. This puts extreme pressure on these newer comrades and works against them developing an independent method of thinking. Subservience and help in dealing with any opposition is rewarded with promotions, praise, etc. Meanwhile their own theoretical development, their ability and willingness to think and act independently is suppressed.
What is also going on in the British organisation at this time is a conscious, determined move by the leadership of the British EC - that is, PT and LW - to remove from their positions some of the most experienced layer of leadership cadres that has been the backbone of the organisation for the past period. The enlargement of the British NC and the new comrades brought onto the British EC is to give the British EC leadership the chance to build a new base of support in the organisation. When this is done they will rest on this and move against some of the older, more experienced cadres, particularly those with the most independent outlook. Many of these older, more experienced comrades recognise the weaknesses and mistakes of the leadership of PT and LW and some are prepared to speak of these in confidence. However, the culture of the organisation is that, when faced with such a situation, comrades are pressured to not rock the boat and instead to go quietly.
LW and PT insist on playing the central role both in the British EC and the IS, leaving no room for anyone else to come forward in either area, and leaving the IS and the international department in particular the poor relative of the British EC. Consider the many extremely talented and highly experienced comrades in the British organisation, especially in the leadership of many of the regions. It is entirely false to believe that a powerful, capable EC could not be made up from these comrades. Of course, for this to happen and for this body to gel and develop cohesion, the present leadership of the British EC would have to give up their elitist approach and give these comrades room to work and responsibility for the British section. This would strengthen the International in a number of ways: the leadership of the British section would be much more broadly based, drawing in more of the experienced comrades. The elitist approach being abandoned in itself would be a big step forward, as the potential of the membership internationally would be realised to a much greater extent. It would also allow the International leadership to develop as a real International leadership, as there would no longer be the situation where the leadership of the International was also the leadership of one of the sections. SO’T has been raising the need for PT to move to full-time work in the International for well over a decade now.
Part of the false method of the organisation is dealing with issues behind the backs of the membership who are deemed ‘too inexperienced to understand’ the complex questions. It is the duty of comrades to speak up and let the entire membership hear their opinions on the issues. In the workers’ movement in general we always insist on putting the issues before the membership, but, in this false interpretation of democratic centralism practised in the organisation, difficult issues, especially organisational ones, are expected to be kept from the membership - in other words, elitism. By refusing to speak out comrades are going along with this elitist view of the leadership and strengthening the elitist methods. Some comrades in the British organisation say that things will change later of their own accord. This is false. With every day that the old methods are not openly challenged, the leadership of the EC are making gains in training the newer members in these false methods and consolidating a majority in the organisation to whom these false methods appear normal.
The truth is that the only way these false methods can be eradicated is by an open challenge and debate, an airing of the issues in front of all members. The longer this is put off, the more serious will become the crisis in the organisation. We recognise that any leading British comrade who stands up and makes any open fight on this issue will be met by the most vicious attack by the EC leadership. This leadership will immediately seek to crush them and drive them out of the organisation. Every detail in their past will be dragged up and twisted into an attack upon them. But the struggle for the revolutionary organisation is not an easy one. And any comrade who seeks to fulfil their historical responsibility as regards this task must be prepared to risk whatever has to be risked to achieve it. This point is equally relevant to the IEC members. Anyone who lets things such as the expulsion of the US Minority go by without seeking out in the most vigorous fashion the view of all sides, even if this means, as it will, being cast in the role of untrustworthy by the IS, is failing in their responsibility to the organisation.
We do not underestimate the determination that is necessary for comrades to raise their voices on this issue. A major factor in our expulsion is that we are raising the problems in the British organisation and doing so openly, and where possible we are holding discussions where we can with the British membership. But it is the duty of the membership of the organisation to raise their voice. We are not impressed by the approach which has been shared with us by a number of comrades, where we are told: ‘Yes, many things you say are correct, but they will change in time.’
The problems we are pointing to in the organisation will not change without an open debate and struggle.