26.02.1998

Clique politics

Socialist Perspectives

I welcome the opportunity to reply to Lee Rock’s letter to the Weekly Worker (‘Unjustified attack’, February 12). Comrade Rock raises a number of points which I dispute and others which require clarification. But first, let me make it clear the comrade’s contribution is taken in a fraternal spirit, as this reply is intended to be.

Comrade Rock notes that the meeting called by SLP Democratic Platform in Reading on January 10 divided into two after a debate on whether democrats and revolutionaries should continue SLP membership. Those deciding to remain in the SLP continue as the Democratic Platform, while those who left the party formed a new organisation, Socialist Perspectives.

Before the split occurred there was an indicative vote in which a narrow majority favoured working outside the SLP. It is worth mentioning that a motion which I passed to the chair, Martin Wicks, was not read out to the meeting and so not voted on. It read: “This meeting of SLP democrats affirms its commitment to struggle for democracy in the SLP as well as pursuing other avenues for building a working class alternative to New Labour.” But no matter.

I do not accept comrade Rock’s assertion that it was agreed “the meeting would split into two on the basis of the vote”. My understanding of the reason to hold two meetings was the division between those working inside the SLP and those party comrades who were pursuing the building of a mass-based, democratic party outside the SLP. I do not doubt that comrade Rock believes that the basis of the division was as he said, but the truth is this notion was in his head before the meeting began, not agreed by the participants

The two CPGB comrades who asked to attend the meeting of those who were quitting the SLP had been kicked out of Scargill’s party and are in favour of building a mass-based, democratic working class party outside the SLP - the publicly declared basis of the meeting that comrade Rock attended. These comrades are prevented from working in the SLP because they are communists. They were excluded from the Socialist Perspectives meeting on the same basis. The private manoeuvrings leading up to the Reading meeting support this conclusion.

It is instructive to note that Martin Wicks unilaterally called the meeting in Reading, despite the previous decision of the Democratic Platform to hold it in London. The original agenda distributed by comrade Wicks (which was not sent to all those attending the previous Democratic Platform meeting) indicated that proceedings should from the beginning take the form of two separate meetings - those wanting to leave the SLP and those wanting to stay in. As this, again, was against the decision of the previous Democratic Platform meeting, comrade Wicks was forced to change the agenda and start with a joint meeting.

As a result of the manoeuvrings before January 10, decisions and perspectives were not fully aired on the day. So comrade Rock is actually projecting previous, private discussions onto a public forum. He indicates this by stating: “I was fully aware that those leaving the SLP were adamant that they did not want the meeting to include CPGBers on this occasion.” Well, comrade, I was not aware of this, and no one brought this up at the joint meeting at which CPGBers were present. Comrade Rock knew beforehand that, no matter how CPGBers voted, we were not welcomeand acted accordingly.

And he has the cheek to write: “I was not excluding them from the meeting”! Frankly this reminds me of Carolyn Sikorski - Scargill’s mealy-mouthed doorkeeper who barred SLP members from the 1st congress in May 1996.

In his letter, comrade Rock also states: “By not being present at the discussions of Socialist Perspectives/Democratic Platform over the last 12 months it might well be the case [CPGBers] did not correctly assess the view of the people they were hoping to influence”. But why had we not attended those meetings? It was certainly not because we did not want to. We were consciously excluded from them. I was personally told by comrade Wicks that I was not welcome. On what basis? I supported the ‘Swindon’ statement on democracy, I was a member of the SLP - what other criteria for attendance was there?

I was forced to lie - as I had to lie to Scargill and Carolyn Sikorski - about my political affiliation in order to attend two Democratic Platform meetings. Comrade Rock is well aware of this. He is also well aware that I made a commitment not to publish the proceedings of those meetings in the Weekly Worker without the consent of the Democratic Platform. A commitment I upheld.

Finally, comrade Rock claims that there is a stark distinction between the reconstituted SLP Democratic Platform and Socialist Perspectives in their attitudes towards joint work. He correctly reports that “only after a heated exchange was it agreed to approach Socialist Perspectives for joint work”. He then says that his meeting “agreed, without dissension, to continue working with those comrades working in the SLP”.

That may be the case, but what was your practice? When the two separate meetings came together at the end of the afternoon, it is interesting to note that only three Socialist Perspectives members participated, while virtually all the Democratic Platform members attended. And Socialist Perspective’s commitment to joint work? We proposed two concrete activities, both of which were rejected by Socialist Perspectives. They were: a joint attendance at the Scottish Socialist Alliance national council meeting which was held the following week and collaboration in the writing and producing of Socialist Perspectives.

For me, the main lessons of this altercation is that much of the left in Britain is yet to break from clique politics. It is yet to grasp political openness. Instead, it relies on private manoeuvrings, Machiavellian doorkeeping and the withholding of information for sectional gain.

I respect comrade Rock. I believe him to be a revolutionary. We have invited Socialist Perspectives to become involved in the process of communist rapprochement - an invitation not made lightly. Yet I also want to move the comrade - along with most other fragments of the revolutionary left - away from a political method based on intrigue and clique building. I look forward to further clarification, but - more to the point - joint work and communist unity.

Terry Watts