Letters

Petty politics

I wish to make a brief ‘reply’ to Jan Berryman’s tiresome article in last week’s Weekly Worker (March 12). It is only a ‘reply’ because comrade Berryman has deigned my article (‘Clique politics’ Weekly Worker February 26) unworthy of comment.

Apparently, I am just some ruffian doing comrade John Bridge’s ‘dirty work’. Well, if that is the case, you are doing comrade Rock’s ‘dirty work’. So, one ruffian to another … Comrade Berryman fails to address the substantive political points I raised about the nature of clique politics on the SLP left. He fails to even mention the fact that the entire Socialist Perspectives/‘Swindon statement’ project was predicated on the exclusion of suspected CPGB sympathisers in the SLP from day one.

Instead, comrade Berryman collapses into the petty politics of which he accuse John Bridge. He is responding to one “offending paragraph” in which he compares the role Carolyn Sikorski played as SLP doorkeeper to the role played by Lee Rock as Socialist Perspectives doorkeeper. The rest of the article dealt with other matters.

I return to the clique politics which prevails among the left. Apparently Jan Berryman accepts such practices. Comrade Jan points out the shenanigans of comrade Wicks in manoeuvring to have the meeting on his terms, with his agenda, against the democratic decisions of the previous Democratic Platform meeting. He then writes: “The [January 10] meeting would then split in two. Those remaining in the SLP would meet to discuss the way forward for the SLP. At the same time the ‘exit faction’ would meet to set up their new group … The plan was known to all participants at the meeting”.

Was it? You may have known, but this ‘plan’ was never outlined in the meeting. I for one, although having been at the last Democratic Platform meeting, was never even sent a mail-out by comrade Wicks. The meeting of the so-called ‘exit faction’ was billed as open to those who wanted to build a mass, pluralistic, democratic workers’ party outside the SLP - no more, no less. Comrades John and Stan attended on this basis and were excluded for factional not political reasons. Not very pluralistic.

I believe that the comrades attended with honourable intentions. If the meeting felt it necessary to secure commitments about how the meeting was reported, or not, in the pages of the Weekly Worker, that could have been discussed. Comrade Rock knows very well that it is a possible route to take. It is an undertaking he got from me when I managed to attend the Democratic Platform meetings against the wishes of its self-appointed secretary, Martin Wicks, to whom I had to lie as I have to lie to Arthur Scargill.

The comrades cannot expect us to wear the fact that they have established their broad, pluralistic organisation on the basis of excluding communists.

Terry Watts
London

In defence

Jan Berryman, who wrote recently ‘In defence of Lee Rock’ (Letters Weekly Worker March 12 1998), is sadly mistaken. There is, it has to be said, legitimate doorkeeping and there is witch hunting: Jan obscures the difference.

As someone who also attended the Reading meeting convened by the then acting secretary of the SLP Democratic Platform, Martin Wicks, my experience there of Lee Rock was decidedly unpleasant.

After the combined meeting’s ‘indicative’ vote showed a majority of participants in favour of leaving the SLP, I stayed on in the room where the majority was about to discuss its future. I wanted to engage directly and positively with those of my SLP comrades seemingly set on leaving. Surely there was nothing in the ‘indicative’ vote to prevent this. But it was not to be, at least not if comrade Rock had anything to do with it.

As the exit faction’s meeting was about to start, comrade Rock approached together with comrade Wicks, who had just been chatting amicably with me. Comrade Wicks’s manner changed; Lee Rock flatly accused me of being a sympathiser of the CPGB and they told me to leave. This accusation was a naked witch hunting action instigated by Lee Rock. Neither man was interested in hearing an explanation of my reasons for staying in the exit faction’s meeting. I was, in their view, simply a CPGB supporter and just had to go: some communists could not be tolerated, it seemed.

Comrade Rock’s initiative against me took place before any objections were made to the presence of two other communists, John and Stan, who are criticised by Jan. They had not yet entered the room, as I recollect. Disgusted at comrade Rock’s behaviour and to prevent disruption of the exit faction’s meeting due to his actions, I left. Lee Rock’s witch hunting was little different from what I have experienced in the SLP from Fiscite ultra-sectarians, who levelled exactly the same charge of ‘CPGBer’ to exclude me illegitimately from SLP meetings.

Lee Rock is in danger of becoming just as anti-communist as ex-Fiscite Martin Wicks. And these men call their project “pluralistic”! Whatever they are, whatever their pretext, and whatever their record (previously admirable in Lee Rock’s case), once they stoop to witch hunting any brand of communist – amongst whose serried and presently disunited ranks I am proud to stand – such comrades dishonour themselves and risk becoming the opposite of what they formerly espoused. You cannot target, exclude, and attempt to persecute only this or that communist, whether or not ‘tainted’ by association with the CPGB, and avoid being labelled witch hunter and anti-communist. The method is wrong, the politics are wrong, and the witch hunting ‘doorkeeper’ becomes an object of criticism for all communists, CPGB supporters or not. As the song says, ‘Which side are you on?’

Colin Ansell
East London

Plain daft

I was appalled - and not a little amused - by Jack Conrad’s front page article on the London referendum, ‘Boycott Blair referendum’ (March 12). However, I was not suprised by comrade Conrad’s arguments. Infantile leftism seems to have become the hallmark of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

The form it takes at the moment is abstentionist or boycottist mania. Firstly, in its wisdom, the CPGB PCC decides to boycott the Scottish referendum. In the pursuit of lofty and noble principles (surprise, surprise - the referendum/election was not a model of working class democracy) the CPGB comrades effectively turned their backs on the democratic aspirations of the Scottish people.

OK, OK - it did not seem that unreasonable at the time. The CPGB and the Weekly Worker reasurred that abstentionism/boycottism was not a principle. Just a tactic, right? And as we all know, tactics vary and change according to circumstances.

Then comes along the London referendum. Surely entirely different - especially if you believe the CPGB’s analysis of Scotland. In Scotland there was mass discontent and disaffection with the Blair/Dewar proposals - a “latent” anger, as the Weekly Worker put it, which could have found expression on the streets. Blair’s Scottish parliament was a sop designed to quieten the masses.

This is clearly not the case with the referendum which is proposed for London. No mass - latent or otherwise - desire for ‘London self-determination’. No anger. No self-activity. In essence, passivity reigns - therefore no sop required. It only seems logical - given these circumstances, that any change can only be for the good. A Greater London Authority is a democratic advance - of sorts. Yes, even if it is copied more or less from the United States.

Indeed, as Jack Conrad says himself: “There is no mass movement in London, latent or otherwise, which at the present time is committed, or yearns for something higher than the gimmick Blair has on offer” (March 12).

Yet, after saying that, up pops the CPGB leftism - ‘Boycott the referendum’! All this will do is reinforce the ‘anti-politics’ consciousness of Londoners. Sure, fight for an all-London Democratic Assembly, armed soviets, whatever you damned well want. Why not? But boycotting the actual May 7 referendum is plain daft. Take yourselves a bit more seriously, comrades.

It is about time that the CPGB got a dose of Leninist politics and started to reappraise its political strategy and tactics - if not its whole worldview.

Andy McPherson
Edinburgh

At any price

I would like to challenge the current lack of action by the CPGB and the Weekly Worker when we face the loss of the Morning Star. It is the only daily paper - there is no other communist/socialist daily paper - to carry on printing the workers’ news for the people to read and take action on against the capitalist bosses and management today.

It is time the CPGB and the communist movement rallied around in London and the regions to start building a communist movement for action. There is a real need for a daily paper to be back on the streets - even if it costs anything from 25p (for pensioners and unemployed) and 50p for those working, and a supporters/‘solidarity price’ (each copy could be £1?).

How much does it really cost to print and publish a newspaper of eight pages starting twice a week (Wednesday and Saturday for a weekend edition)? The time is now, the time is right to gather the communist tendency, our trade union comrades and make contact with our movement again. The poor, the unemployed, single parents, etc, deserve a stronger Communist Party in Britain.

The Star has its own dispute and problems but is still the daily paper of the left and is also run by the CPB, who do a good job to keep it going each day - but they are only a part of our communist movement. We have no Daily Worker (the daily paper of the CPGB), and not even a Daily Herald or Daily Tribune which can report on behalf of the labour movement.

Please start a ‘Daily Worker’ fighting fund/appeal to raise money for a new paper which could at least try to print and publish a few times a week, so the Communist Party can have a decent paper to help re-build our movement.

We must make this happen even if it is only a new once-a-week paper to complement the Weekly Worker - to help organise the Party. Comrades, unite and help us fund a communist daily paper to be proud of when all others have walked away - given up before they even started to try and change the world for socialism, peace and freedom.

Andrew McGarity
South London