13.11.1997

Same old crap

Party notes

Like other Party members, I was particular intrigued by the intervention of one of the two leading Open Polemic supporters who attended our special seminar to celebrate the anniversary of the Russian Revolution.

The introductory remarks to the meeting from comrade Jack Conrad briefly examined the experience of the Bolsheviks during the period of reaction following the defeat of the 1905 revolution. Drawing a parallel with our own practice today, the debate around the results of the recent Scottish referendum was cited as an example of how a degree of demoralisation and confusion has infected our own ranks.

The debate that followed the opening was lively and frank, with the minority position defended energetically by comrades from Scotland in particular, who rejected the charge of “rightwing liquidationism” raised against them by comrade Conrad. They countered that the majority were guilty of a serious lack of sobriety when it came to assessing our impact.

The first OP comrade into the debate declared that the whole thing was an example of “the same old crap” - that is, a display of what these unhappy comrades have dubbed “leader centralism”. Despite the Communist Party’s ‘pretence’ of revolutionary openness, he thundered, here was the truth on display: the moment criticism was raised of the leadership, the transgressor would be slapped down with some trumped up charge: ‘rightwing opportunism’, ‘pessimism’ or ‘stupidity’ - it mattered little.

Our method, apparently, is “that from the Dear Great Leader downwards, the [CPGB] seem incapable of conducting a communist polemic without first insulting their adversaries” (Open Polemic Update No6, January 1997, p2). Similarly, in November 1996 the same publication was sketching dark scenes of the horror world that was inner CP life, an organisation characterised by “an iron control of the Party press by just one faction”, with “one erudite theoretician” squatting on the top, served by a “loyal handful of functionaries” - a sad coterie of losers who “cower back” from a blast of the leader’s wrath.

As I subsequently noted, two things made the above passage quite breathtaking.

First, the discrepancy between it and the truth (OP’s Bob Smith for example wrote a weekly, hyper-critical column of behalf of his faction in a Party press groaning under the “iron control” of the dominant tendency in our organisation). Second, the fact that Bob was describing the parlous state of our inner life to a chum in the Stalin Society. As I wrote in a polemic against OP,

“arbitrary exercise of personal power, bureaucratic terrorism masquerading as ‘democratic centralism’, pulverising terror against cadre - the chap must have thought Bob was describing an idyllic state of inner-party life” (Weekly Worker November 28 1996).

Of course, given its unserious nature, we can easily dismiss the criticisms of the OP group. Regular readers will know the real reason why OP scuttled away from us and then subsequently concocted a picture of our organisation as a bureaucratic hell-hole. The comrades were unable to match the levels of discipline and commitment set by the Party majority and instead of honestly admitting it to their comrades, OP’s ‘representative members’ preferred to run away.

Before this parting of the ways, Bob Smith would write lyrically of the “breath of fresh air” the Party’s regular debating forums afforded, of how comrades “say what they like without fear or favour”, how there were “no taboo areas”, meetings “free from oppressive and bureaucratic chairing”, arenas where “comrades feel confident to work through their ideas”. Indeed, “faced with straightjacketed and mechanical charades that have passed for communist polemic in the past”, Bob thought we were probably guilty of “bending the stick too far in the opposite direction” (Bob Smith Weekly Worker articles, cited in Open Polemic Update No2 undated).

I have called the OP grouplet the “traumatised child of ... abusive” ‘official communist’ movement parents and I think the string of quotes above illustrates the morbid sensitivity and proclivity to inconsistent emotive outburst characteristic of such damaged people.

Two more things need to be said about this, however. First, while Bob may believe that “we communists are anarchists at heart” (Open Polemic Update June/July 1997, p9), in fact we eschew anarchism’s puerile ‘anti-leaders’ posturing. In the debate around interpretations of the Scottish referendum results the leadership of our Party - collectively and individually - have been labelled ‘adventurists’, ‘leftists’ and ‘fantasists’.

Quite correctly, these comrades have also the right to characterise the arguments ranged against them, whether individuals agree with the designation ‘rightwing liquidationism’ or not. Anarcho-Stalinites like Bob Smith might regard it as impermissible for a leadership to respond in kind to attacks on it; communists consider that it is a duty.

Second, the sharp, critical and even angry tone that comrades may adopt with each other should in no way be taken as examples of bad faith - far from it. The robust nature of the debate in the Communist Party should be seen as evidence of the fact that what we have in front of us is a serious organisation composed of serious politicians bonded by ties of deep respect and trust, fighting to arrive at the truth.

If Bob or anyone else would like an example of a conference characterised by blandly polite ‘discussion’ and pseudo-comradeship, they should look no look further than last weekend’s Socialist Workers Party conference.

I wonder which comrades believe to be the more democratic.

Mark Fischer
national organiser