04.12.1997
Liquidationist confusion
Jack Conrad replies to comrades Nick Clarke and Mary Ward
Periods of reaction are characterised, amongst other things, by the spread of reactionary ideas, not only in their crude and overt forms - eg, neo-liberalism and Blairism - but also by a more subtle form: namely, the growth of pessimistic and liquidationist sentiments among revolutionary organisations.
Comrades Nick Clarke and Mary Ward, in their last article, only increase my concern for their political mood and direction (Weekly Worker November 27 1997). Obviously the comrades are sincere. They also themselves claim to be rather confused and nonplussed. For the life of them the comrades cannot understand why I have connected their point of view with right liquidationism. Anyway they must be innocent. After all there is no such danger. Right liquidationism is a cynical invention of Jack Conrad deployed to crush anyone who dares raise a critical voice. Our gallant would-be reformers of the CPGB are not to be intimidated and object to such bullying and slander. Hence in the article ‘Phantom liquidationism’ they focus on Jack Conrad as a personality. Those who are hurt have an awkward, though predictable, tendency to attack what they perceive as the cause of their pain. However, this has an unmistakable advantage for the comrades. It obscures the existence of a clear Party majority and a united leadership. I do nevertheless take full responsibility for first issuing the warning that there exists a right liquidationist wavering within our ranks.
Unfortunately we find neither opposition to nor even mention of the proposal to close the Weekly Worker. Nor is there any criticism of Linda Addison’s shameful call for a retreat from political practice and engagement (Weekly Worker October 9 1997). Can that be an oversight? Is not such liquidationism not to be met with resolute condemnation? Our two authors do not clamour for the immediate death of the Weekly Worker. Their line of argument is perhaps more pernicious. The comrades merely want to ‘correct’ the polemical ‘excesses’ of the Weekly Worker and encourage a more ‘tolerant’ internal culture.
Frankly the comrades should have presented a draft for internal discussion before going into the public realm. That would have given them the opportunity to take advantage of the experience, advice and suggestions of fellow comrades. Time also allows reflection. Exactly what is at stake might then be fully appreciated. Personally I do not think the comrades’ November 27 article adds anything to our struggle for communism. It is thoroughly eclectic, not programmatic-theoretical. Comrades, what you have put together consists of muddled repetition, contradictory borrowings and new petty resentments hatched from old. However, in spite of the right liquidationist direction there still exists an underlying Party spirit. That convinces me that the comrades will soon regain their trust in our membership and its elected leadership.
Anyway as the editor decided in his wisdom to publish their homily, a reply becomes an unfortunate necessity. I will answer the comrades in detail. Point by painful point. That the reader might well find taxing. But the numerous minor and secondary questions that have arisen must be cleared away if we are to get to grips with what is really at issue - the right liquidationist danger.
1. The comrades say my November 13 report in the Weekly Worker of the last aggregate of Communist Party members is “awash with inaccuracies, aunt sallies and the odd shoal or three of red herrings”. In all honesty I find no evidence to back or substantiate this charge in the comrades’ article. By implication the comrades criticise me for “using clever debating devices” in order, of all things, to “prove” my “infallibility”. They on the other hand shun anything so low as “using clever debating devices”. Instead they high-mindedly “aim ... to explore the concrete objective and subjective conditions and to critically evaluate” our Campaign for Genuine Self-Determination which we launched against Blair’s September 11 referendum in Scotland. There is no ironic linguistic juxtaposition here. They would seriously have us believe that on the one side are those who seek “to find the truth” - themselves. And that on the other side those who use “inaccuracies, aunt sallies and the odd shoal or three of red herrings” and other “clever debating tactics” to win an overwhelming majority simply in order to puff up a personality - Jack Conrad. Such a construction could simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand. That would be mistaken however. We have before us, albeit in embryonic form, the anarchistic loathing of elected leadership and putting the part before the whole.
2. It is asked whether or not “all those that abstained or voted for any of the amendments” presented to the November 9 aggregate by the two Dundee comrades were right liquidation-ist? As I explained in the Weekly Worker there was a “backward and fluctuating minority” that supported one or more of their 11 amendments. In my view the amendments themselves stem from a right liquidationist pessimism. Those who voted for them were certainly irresponsible.
3. Our two comrades fancy that the right liquidationist charge has been invented to intimidate comrades. The “message to the rest of the membership”, say the comrades, is that if you “express support” for any of the amendments “you too will be tinted by the same yellow shade of rightwing liquidationism”. Their formulation is clumsy. Not to say funny. Nevertheless what is being said is straightforward. The internal regime of the CPGB is unhealthy. Jack Conrad is a bully and charlatan. The majority cowed. I flatly reject all three charges. Our internal regime is healthy. Right liquidationism is no invention - the danger is real. As to the majority it deserves and demands respect. It is red, not yellow.
4. “Conrad” - not ‘comrade Conrad’ - “both in his report and at the [aggregate] itself, attempted to muddy the waters” by merging “our assessment of the CGSD in Scotland with our criticisms of the Weekly Worker”. No, comrades, I am not trying to muddy the waters. Grant just for one moment, that I am actually genuinely concerned about your political direction, and that your direction is rightist. Then it is surely not surprising that I detect the same deviation in your other document submitted to the same November 9 meeting on our perspectives for 1998. Likewise it would be perfectly consistent for you to widen, to generalise your attack on the Provisional Central Committee and the majority of CPGB members if you think we are defending an intolerable regime. The notion that an intolerable regime affects one single question alone is untenable. Your “assessment” of the CGSD and your “criticisms” of the Weekly Worker derive from the same politics. Your contributions can be dealt with separately. However, there is nothing dishonest or reprehensible about linking them.
5. The comrades scoff at the “monolithic” PCC. They gleefully point out that in the weeks up to the November 9 aggregate “two current PCC members had expressed differences with Conrad’s perspective”. Perspective is the not the right word. What I presume the comrades mean is Jack Conrad’s assessment of the September 11 results and the boycott campaign. Yes, you are right. There has been an open debate in aggregates, seminars and in the Weekly Worker. In my opinion a number of leading comrades did express mistaken views. Needless to say, they were won round in the course of argument. Just as I hope you will be won round in the course of argument too.
6. The comrades suggest that PCC members have not expressed themselves freely, “at least in front of the membership”. Evidently this is as unfounded as it is insulting both to PCC members and all CPGB comrades. We relate to each other in all our work and dealings in the open and frank manner that befits revolutionaries. Clearly you mistrust the elected leadership of your organisation. You irresponsibly present it as dishonest and therefore presumably unfit for the tasks that lie ahead. If that is really the case, and I will readily admit I am not sure exactly what you are saying, then you should try and cohere around yourselves an alternative leadership. Take up the burden and responsibilities of leadership. That would be the serious and proper thing to do.
7. The amendments the comrades submitted attempted to remove “all polemical references” from the PCC’s theses - fact. Jack Conrad is then quoted as speculating that the “prime concern” of comrades Clarke and Ward “seems to be to shield themselves and their perceived allies”. “What does this mean and whom is he referring to?” they indignantly ask. Comrades, I mean what I say. Your attempt to remove all polemical references seems designed for the sole purpose of shielding yourselves and “perceived allies”: ie, those like comrade Linda Addison who have expressed similar pessimistic views to yourselves.
8. We are then, accurately, told that the PCC’s theses “removed from the original draft the names attributed to the quotes in thesis three”. The comrades demand to know “Why?” They also say that surely “the same ‘stinging’ accusation can therefore be aimed back at the PCC”. Frankly I find this stuff gruesomely tiresome. But I suppose one must reply. Removing names from a public thesis on the September 11 referendum is no big deal. The comrades were for the record Anne Murphy and Linda Addison. Some of the polemic in the theses derived from published statements emanating from these two comrades. So what? The intention of the theses was not dealing with individuals but politics which found a broader expression. The amendments of comrades Clarke and Ward would have removed the politics. The “accusation” cannot “be aimed back at the PCC”.
9. The comrades ridicule Jack Conrad because in his wild “imagination” he comes to the “conclusion that there was some link between “the attempt to remove all polemical references and “what he described as a ‘coordinated attack on robust internal polemics’”. This “undoubtedly refers to the criticisms we make in a document on the Weekly Worker”. The comrades reckon rightly. Though “a full discussion ... has not taken place” yet on this document, “Conrad appears to want to drag it into the debate around the referendum and our campaign”. Comrades, what is so strange about coupling an attempt to remove all polemical references from a CPGB theses and an attack on the polemical practice of the Weekly Worker? You submitted the one. You submitted the other. No one has to “drag” them together. They flow from the same source. On the contrary then, it would be strange, it would be stupid, it would be politically cretinous, if Jack Conrad did not make such a link.
10. The “real difference between ourselves and Conrad is the validity of his ‘artistic’ interpretation” of the results of the September 11 referendum. Evidently this is a fallacy. There are other very real differences. It should also be stressed that a clear majority voted for the theses so detested by comrades Clarke and Ward. However convenient you might find it in terms of polemic, your differences are with the PCC and the Party majority.
11. According to you Jack Conrad “seems preoccupied with quantifying the percentage or numbers that abstained directly due to the influence of the CGSD campaign”. Comrades Clarke and Ward on the other hand insist “from our present limited information” no numerical assessment can be made. We “should not deceive ourselves or waste our time with some mythical, statistical abstraction”. “We believe our campaign had a peripheral, but real, impact on the masses in parts of Scotland”. Quite correctly the comrades say that when considering the overall abstention on September 11 other factors have to be considered as well. Labour sleaze in “Glasgow and Paisley”. The “outdated electoral register”. “Labour’s resounding general election victory”. “Conrad” supposedly chides the comrades for raising these factors. Jack Conrad supposedly says that by raising these factors they “were attempting to do everything to deny our mass impact”.
12. Let us be quite clear, comrades. I have not the least problem with analysing or dissecting the mass abstention on September 11. I think such a project would be a splendid idea. Obviously the factors mentioned above had an important effect. That is hardly news to me. It is no more than common sense. I would therefore welcome some estimate of what percentage was accounted for by corruption. I am sure there would have been a disproportionate effect in Glasgow and Paisley. But I am also convinced that it must have had an all-Scotland effect, because sleaze became the main propaganda weapon of the Tories and Think Twice. Any psephologist worth their salt could present a rough figure given past voting patterns, etc. The same goes for the old electoral register and the Labour’s general election victory. But our two comrades almost boastfully say “we do not attempt to put figures” on such factors. Why on earth not?
13. It is not Jack Conrad, the PCC and the majority of members who are “preoccupied” with estimating our impact, but comrades Clarke and Ward who are “preoccupied” with not estimating our impact. It is they who are wasting “our time”. There were over 1.5 million abstentions. In Glasgow 49% abstained. If our campaign “had a peripheral, but real, impact on the masses in parts of Scotland”, why when faced with the language of figures, cannot that impact be translated, illustrated, estimated in the language of figures? Comrade Lee-Anne Bates also routinely talks of our impact on a “certain portion” of the Scottish population who “would have been aware of, and influenced by our active boycott campaign”. Can I ask the comrades what they mean by “real”, or what they understand by the word “portion” in relationship to 1.5 million abstentions? Technically one person is a “portion”, but against 1.5 million hardly a “real” impact or achievement. When we use the elastic, open-ended and self-evidently artistic term “tens of thousands” in our theses we are hardly engaging in hyperbole. It can amount to much less than one percent of the electorate. Nevertheless even such a small figure does give the flavour of mass politics for an organisation with the present limited resources and base of the CPGB. It conveys not in itself a “real” impact on a “portion” of the Scottish population, but what is for us a “real” impact on “a portion” of the Scottish population.
14. The comrades appear fond of footballing metaphors and similes. Very well. If an experienced, respected and knowledgeable sports journalist said of Paul Gasgoigne that he was a player of 75% inspiration and 25% perspiration would the comrades write in and object like some nincompoop who moans that no such calculation can be proved statistically? I am sure they would do no such thing. What if Dundee United beat Rangers 5-4 at home? If the Dundee Courier said the enthusiasm and encouragement of the capacity crowd meant that the local team had 12 not 11 men on the field would the comrades pedantically dismiss such talk as rank stupidity as everyone knew there were only 11 on each side? One hopes not. Why then, when politicians like ourselves look at the results of September 11 and use the language of figures, do the comrades get so hot and bothered? The formulation “tens of thousands” is admittedly artistic, but that does not mean it is plucked out of thin air. We know the voting patterns and records. We know how many CGSD leaflets were distributed. How we opened offices in Glasgow. How we used our May 1 general election campaign to agitate for an all-Scotland boycott of Blair’s proposed ‘rigged referendum’. How we intervened at mass meetings and managed to get our message into the mass media up to September 11. TV debates, press interviews, radio, etc.
15. So no one criticises the comrades for “raising ... other factors” that went together to produce the 1.5 million abstentions. But I would criticise them for not trying to assess what weight to attribute to the various factors. If for example some bright spark said sleaze could have accounted for three, 33, or 33,000 abstentions, the comrades would presumably not say it was “impossible” to estimate, but rather dismiss the first two figures as simply not on, given what they know of Scottish politics.
16. It is therefore patently false that by raising factors other than the boycott campaign the comrades are accused of “attempting to deny our mass impact”. Neither Jack Conrad nor any other comrade has suggested any such thing. Never mind formal logic - the comrades “really should” do what they urge others to do and read and listen to what is actually being said. Nevertheless, like shyster lawyers, by deploying “other factors” the demonstrable effect of their practice was to deny our mass impact. Their failed amendments included a list of the former but would have deleted or watered down all references to the latter - ie, “our mass impact”.
17. “At the [aggregate] no one stated that it was impossible to achieve an active boycott of the referendum following the SSA majority committing itself to campaigning for a ‘yes, yes’ vote”. I am glad that both the two Dundee comrades imply an opposition to such dire pessimism. It is to your credit. But the statement is no “phantom”, as you maintain. A number of comrades did indeed suggest that an active boycott was impossible. That is why the example of Hands off Russia! in 1920 was so germane to the debate. It also explains why the theses includes a formulation about fighting for what is necessary and “possible” - something you comrades wanted to delete. The comrades might also care to re-read the article by comrade Addison. She does not seem to grasp that the boycott campaign was about practical politics. Almost like an anarchist, it was for her a moral posture designed to educate the masses in the “method” they need to adopt if they are to liberate themselves. Sad to say, comrades Clarke and Ward repeat her formulation of the CGSD showing “the correct method” almost word for word.
18. “The main objective of the CGSD was not to ‘win votes for abstention’ and have people stay at home on referendum day. We explicitly called for an active boycott through strikes, demonstrations and civil disobedience to win a parliament with full powers - ie, self-determination, nothing less.” Comrades, the only agitational call made by the CGSD was for a boycott of Blair’s rigged referendum. Of course, we made general propaganda about how self-determination could be gained using proletarian methods. But it should be recognised that even if some crisis had sparked off “strikes, demonstrations and civil disobedience” and Scotland had got its “parliament with full powers”, this would for communists be evaluated and re-articulated in terms of fulfilling our minimum programme of overthrowing the existing state. Our demands are inherently transitional. Once achieved, new practical tasks and possibilities immediately present themselves. In this context till we fulfil our minimum programme everything we achieve is in relative terms a ‘failure’. Even when the forces of communism have gained influence and political weight - as was the case with the CGSD.
19. “We agree with Craig: we should congratulate the 49% in Glasgow and the 1.5 million nationally who abstained and were not bought off by Blair’s proposal nor enticed by the dinosaurs of the ‘no, no’ campaign”. I have stressed time and time again that the CPGB does not, and would be mad to claim all the September 11 abstentions (that has not stopped dishonest critics from putting such an utterance in my mouth - a libel that still awaits retraction). But this is exactly what comrades Clarke and Ward are now incongruously and rashly proposing. Eclectically they lay hold of whatever weapon that appears in front of their nose in order to attack their leadership - even Craigism. Comrade Craig was concerned to be on the “right side of the class divide” on September 11. He sought to identify with “those who went ‘on strike’ against Blair’s referendum, and against the bourgeois plan for a reformed monarchy” (Weekly Worker November 20 1997). A worthy aim. But it is also a passive method. In Scotland the CPGB did have a possibility of mass action (no matter how remote). Our slogans and tactics were designed to put us into contact with, and in the leadership of, those who wanted more than what Blair had on offer.
20. That explains why comrade Craig, wants to ‘congratulate’ or at least highlight the absolute numbers of abstentions, although it does not explain the reasoning of comrades Clarke and Ward. Comrade Craig seeks to gain strength from this bloc. On the other hand, the fact that we were determined to actually change things explains why the CPGB is concerned to underline and characterise our mass impact on this bloc. Though needing qualification in that it was marginal, our impact was real. Our main slogan from May 1 to September 11 was self-determination. We correctly linked the overwhelming desire of the Scottish people for self-determination with the means previously advocated by the SSA and SML through which it could be exercised: that is, a parliament with full powers. It would certainly be inept to place such a demand on the UK state in the midst of an unfolding revolutionary situation. Then we communists would almost certainly stress the role of working class organs like the councils of action produced by the upsurges in 1920 and 1926. In order to convene a Scottish constituent assembly, they, the workers organised in their soviets across the whole of Britain, should take power. Then on the ruins of the old state the Scottish people can freely and democratically decide their own future up to and including independence. The CPGB would, of course, fight for the unity of the peoples of England, Scotland and Wales, international revolution and working class power in a commune-like semi-state.
21. The fact of the matter is that of the 1.5 million who abstained on September 11 a majority habitually never vote (the comrades can attack such ‘speculation’ if they so wish). This section of the population is demoralised, thoroughly alienated, apathetic and suffering from social decay. At present they would not vote for anything or anybody. We definitely should not “congratulate” them. The CPGB and the CGSD fought for an active boycott of Blair’s ‘rigged referendum’. Intransigently we stood by the SSA’s founding principles of self-determination and a sovereign parliament with full - ie, constitutional - powers. Significantly unlike May 1, there was a wide and palpable gap between what masses of people aspired to and what Labour was proposing. If there was a potential crisis of expectations - of any sort - it existed in Scotland. Even amongst those who believed that there was no realistic option other than a ‘yes, yes’ vote there was a deep-felt disgust that Blair was offering nothing more than a sop (before the referendum 30% of the population in Scotland were reported as favouring complete independence). The CPGB and CGSD therefore objectively spoke on behalf of “hundreds of thousands” in Scotland at the very least (comrades Clarke and Ward wanted to delete that formulation). Given luck and single-minded commitment, we were well placed to ride spontaneity and imbue the masses with a conscious revolutionary perspective: ie, our programme.
22. The “slogan ‘For a federal republic’ should have featured more prominently in the CGSD, particularly when we did not win other organised forces to the campaign. This would have helped prevent any caricature of our campaign as ‘extremist nationalist’ (The Times). By placing more emphasis on the voluntary unity of the working class through a federal republic of Scotland, England and Wales as a valid and democratic outcome of genuine self-determination, we could have more effectively challenged the nationalism of an independent Scotland that a ‘parliament with full powers’ can conjure up.” Here the comrades descend into political illiteracy. We were correct to feature in CGSD propaganda the demand for a ‘republic’. Our stratagem was to attract and engage the leftwing nationalist and working class current in Scottish politics. But to have featured the slogan a ‘federal republic’ would have fatally holed the chance of the CGSD becoming a united front. That is why we did not ‘feature’ the slogan ‘federal republic’ in CGSD propaganda. Obviously the comrades fail to see the strategic wood for the trees. It was not so much the slogan ‘a parliament with full powers’ that led The Times, and many ordinary people, to think we were advocating separation but the slogan ‘self-determination - nothing less’. Because of the weakness of communist forces the demand for self-determination has become synonymous in the popular mind with separation. But our perspective between May 1 and September 11 was not so much to “challenge” nationalism but to ride with spontaneity.
22. To have featured the slogan ‘federal republic’ in CGSD, as opposed to CPGB, propaganda would have been utterly mistaken. In their desire to “prevent” some crass, bumbling journalist on The Times misreporting our politics, the comrades thoughtlessly reject the democratically agreed perspective we had for the CGSD. Post factum the comrades say we should have stood against spontaneity. They visibly fail to appreciate the opportunities that had temporarily presented themselves. Communists could flow with and seek to articulate the democratic sentiments of those in Scotland who viewed Blair’s sop with contempt. The SNP, SML and the SSA majority had deserted or shelved the principled demand for self-determination in favour of Blair’s monarchist sop. Between May 1 and September 11 the field was clear for the CPGB and CGSD.
23. Even comrade Craig called for a republican boycott - note, despite all his strictures, not a federal republican boycott. Naturally in CPGB propaganda we maintained our distinct position for a federal republic. The CPGB wished to keep in view its continued loyalty to the principle of working class unity and the necessity of overthrowing, not breaking up, the existing state. But the CPGB is not and was not the CGSD. There was a deliberate broadness and therefore ambiguity in the CGSD. Slogans depend on concrete circumstances. Between May 1 and September 11 it was correct to place greater emphasis on self-determination than the demand for a federal republic. After September 11 it is the other way round. Now we must bring to the fore working class unity and firmly stand against spontaneity.
24. There was “no manifestation” of the CGSD “south of the border”. The Weekly Worker “carried many articles promoting the campaign in Scotland and pushing the need for a federal republic, but despite worthy intentions expressed by comrades there was no organisational form of the CGSD in England”. The comrades say this supposed failing “should not be brushed under the carpet”. Given the political situation in England and our resources, I consider it perfectly correct to have concentrated on Scotland. We pumped large amounts of cash into Scotland and sent a leading comrade to work full-time for the boycott campaign. Whatever comrades Clarke and Ward may have been told in conversation, there was never a PCC intention nor plan to launch the CGSD in England. It would have made no mass impact.
25. The comrades reject my charge that they organised a “coordinated attack on robust internal polemics per se”. I mockingly suggested that what they were after could be summed up as an “amalgam of a hole in the wall debating society, a Quaker gathering and US-style political correctness”. Not surprisingly they assure us they do not “favour” any such thing. But is it true? What they want, in their own words, is “respect” for “comrades and their opinions”. “We must develop,” they say, “a culture within the organisation where comrades feel they can voice their opinions without fear of humiliation or derision.” The inference is clear. At present “comrades and their opinions” are not treated with “respect”. Comrades fear “humiliation or derision”. What terrible things are said? Apparently the “repeated” use of terms such as “stupid” and “foolish” gets us nowhere “apart from discrediting the target of the description without having to defeat their ideas”. This is nothing but “the use of gratuitous insults”. The comrades claim communists are easily hurt. They cannot cope with words like “stupid” and “foolish”. Well, comrades, I can tell you that communists are made of sterner stuff. Communists fear neither sticks nor stones nor nasty words like “stupid” and “foolish”. The Leninists of the CPGB were accused of being all manner of things - CIA agents, UDM scabs and attorneys for the IRA. So what! In our culture we have made it a principle to defend freedom of speech. Comrades are allowed to insult each other if they see fit. I unapologetically defend that right. But that does not mean at our meetings comrades ‘gratuitously’ fling insults around on a regular basis. The atmosphere is in general very cordial, congenial and certainly comradely. However, ideas and the comrades expressing those ideas are treated seriously - as adults, not children or social inadequates. If you had your way, comrades, that would change. Your appeal is to the backward, not the advanced. What you objectively want to do is to protect not simply those easily bruised individuals promoting backward ideas. But the backward ideas themselves. People and their ideas constitute a unity. That is ABC. Hence when we criticise an idea inevitably that tends to be associated with those who voice or promote it. That is why in the course of history many representative individuals are given as ‘ism’ - insulting at first - after their names ... from Plato to Plekhanov, from Bonaparte to Benn, from Lassalle to Lenin.
26. If the comrades so fear “humiliation or derision” they should not be in politics. Communists live and want to live in the real world, not some sanitised dystopia, as advocated by hole-in-the-wall debaters, Quakers and the US ‘political correctness’ bureaucracy. Our enemies will do everything they can to humiliate and deride us ... and more. Friends of mine from Turkey and Iran have endured extreme torture simply for being communists. We communists hate the capitalist system and its representatives like Tony Blair and his government. As a writer I will do everything I can to generalise that hatred amongst the population. That will include using the Weekly Worker. The comrades say our paper “needs to tell the truth, be sharp, polemical, etc - not insulting, rude and sneering”. Well, comrades, sometimes to tell the truth you need to be insulting, rude and sneering. For example those who cover for Blair and capitalism from the left, in the name of Marxism should be spared nothing in terms of polemical invective. I will, when the occasion demands, insult, be rude and sneer at opportunists and opportunism.
27. I am proud of the Weekly Worker and the CPGB. Comrade Clarke and Ward are not so sure. Faced with an unprincipled assault on our paper and organisation by SML and the SSA majority over the use of the scientific term ‘national socialism’ to describe the programmes of reformist and nationalist socialism, the comrades are wrong-footed. They stoutly defended our right to use the term … but. The “longer the Weekly Worker kept bashing away at the right to use the phrase, so the phrase eclipsed the real argument about the nature of socialism, etc. Sadly the debate ... over ‘national socialism’ has allowed SML ... to divert the debate from the national question itself to the nature of the Weekly Worker and the methodology of CPGB polemics.” No, comrades, the brouhaha around ‘national socialism’ has actually brought into the open the profound difference between our revolutionary, internationalist and self-liberatory conception of socialism and SML’s reformist, nationalist and bureaucratic version of ‘socialism’. The term ‘national socialism’ did not eclipse the debate. It began it.
28. Nor is it “sad” that debate has included the “nature of the Weekly Worker and the methodology of CPGB polemics”. It is excellent. We are on very firm ground. The Weekly Worker is widely read. Officially and unofficially SML comrades have published their views using our pages. That we welcome. Not simply for its own sake, but because we are for open political struggle. We do not keep differences between trend, shade and faction hidden away from the working class. We seek clarity and enlightenment through the polemical clash of opposites. That is our methodology ... and will continue to be so if I have anything to do with it.