26.03.1998

Leaving the Party

Party notes

I regret to inform comrades of a number of resignations from our organisation over the recent period. While the number is not large, significant comrades have gone. In particular, I wish to concentrate on the departure of our two leading members in Scotland, a loss that represents a serious setback for the work of reforging the Party. In effect, this temporarily stops our practical intervention in a very fluid and potentially rewarding political situation. There exists a layer of supporters, but for the moment we can do little more in Scotland than make propaganda through our paper.

In all forums that have discussed this situation, a deep sense of regret has been palpable. Not only for the Party, but for the individual comrades concerned. The departees have raised no principled or programmatic differences with the majority of Party members. In fact, when confronted with criticisms, the comrades have been at pains to emphasise their agreement, that disagreement is that of nuance or style.

Thus I remind readers - and the comrades themselves - of their shocked outrage when accused by comrade Jack Conrad of “pessimism” and “liquidationism” (Weekly Worker October 23 1997/November 13 1997). These charges were “aunt sallies”, “red herrings”, a “phantom” of Jack’s febrile imagination (Nick Clarke and Mary Ward Weekly Worker November 27 1997). It is tragic that the comrades now negatively confirm Conrad’s characterisation by dejectedly resigning, without a political fight, thus liquidating an important arena of Party intervention in the process.

None of these comrades can really expect sympathy for the manner of their leaving, but we are not sectarians who brand every resignation a desertion by ‘traitors’. Sadly, these comrades have ‘betrayed’ themselves - who they once were, what they once stood for - rather than the Party.

Fundamentally, what we are seeing is the surrender of communists in a period of reaction. We have consistently warned of this problem and even suggested that we were “perhaps a little blasé with our characterisation” (‘Party Notes’ October 16 1997). The problems that the Party is currently facing up to underline how wrong it was of some comrades “to believe that our correct characterisation of the period renders us immune to its corrosive effects” (ibid).

The loss of our ability to practically intervene in Scotland is a major setback and we should not underestimate its potential effect. Now, whatever the abstract strength of our arguments against Scottish Militant Labour’s growing nationalism, the McCombes leadership is able to point to the implosion of one of their most prominent opponents as evidence against the fight for all-British unity. The SML leadership, as astute opportunist politicians, were aware of the tensions between the Provisional Central Committee and its Scottish comrades and had already attempted to utilise them. Therefore, our forced retreat is a gift to SML and provides further ammunition to the national socialists in its ranks.

And this at a time when the rifts are beginning to open up between SML and the London leadership of the Socialist Party. At its last National Committee meeting, SP’s Lynne Walsh denounced moves for a breakaway in Scotland, complaining that he has not spent decades building a national organisation to see it destroyed by petty nationalism. Walsh - number two in the organisation - would not have made such a move without the approval of Taaffe and the SP’s leadership faction. Thus - at last - the SP leadership appears to be moving into battle against the nationalist drift of SML. This is bound to produce tensions and opportunities within SML as well as the SP. The chance for a positive resolution in Scotland - without the conscious, organised intervention of communists - is now more difficult however.

Over the years, we have seen too many times comrades leave saying ‘we have no political differences’ only for a self justifying ‘theory’ to be conjured up subsequently. Nevertheless a retrospective rationalisation of deeds carries little weight, however. I believe that the comrades are well aware that their course of action is unjustifiable. That is why they are actually - incredibly - telling others to “stay in and keep struggling” even as they attempt to justify surrendering to the perverted morality of bourgeois society. That is why they evidence a pronounced reluctance to even speak to the leaders of our organisation.

There are already some common themes of criticisms emerging at least in outline form. These are:

• The “rampant optimism” of the PCC, notably leading comrade, Jack Conrad;
• That we are attempting to “run before we can walk”;
• That we have the name of the Party, not the reality;
• That practical tasks “get in the way” of the education of our comrades, so vital in this period of reaction.

Were these criticisms 100% correct - and they are not - none justify abandoning the project of human liberation. The weaknesses of our organisation are very easy to point to, far harder to produce collective, communist solutions for. It is deeply disappointing that instead of trying to engage critically with their comrades in order to produce such a collective analysis and plan of action, the comrades now seem to be parroting the arguments of those who have defined themselves historically by their opposition to the fight of our organisation. They also seem to have adopted the method of such groups - practical abstention from the fight to reforge the Party in the here and now.

We will do our utmost to maintain relations. They will be treated firmly, but comradely. Their place is in the Party, warts and all, theirs and ours.

Mark Fischer
national organiser