28.05.1998

Rapprochement stalled

At the end of January, the Revolutionary Democratic Communist Tendency was established at its founding meeting in London. Since then very little progress has been made. But last week we received good news. The Dundee Group within the Scottish Socialist Alliance confirmed their support for the tendency in a leaflet given out to Alliance members.

There are now three autonomous groups within the tendency - Dundee, the RDG and the CPGB. This was a welcome boost for a rapprochement process that has effectively stalled. We need a better understanding of the problems. The current impasse has its roots not only in the low level of class struggle, but in the policies of organisations both within and outside the tendency. Those communists who are committed to genuine rapprochement will be doing everything we can to solve these problems and to try and get the process moving again.

The first problem has been the crisis within the CPGB. Their intervention in the Scottish referendum created real internal tensions and led to the resignations of the editor of the Weekly Worker and the CPGB’s Scottish Committee. This has not yet been satisfactorily explained by the Weekly Worker. One reason is that we have not heard from the comrades who resigned. We have to hear their view of the problems if we are to take an all-round view of the situation.

Mark Fischer and Anne Murphy have put the official view in the Weekly Worker. Anne explained that times are hard and things go wrong. A number of comrades had personal problems and have gone off to spend more time with their families (April 23). I did not believe this when it happened to Tory ministers, and we should be equally sceptical when this fate befalls good communists. Anne assured us that there have been mistakes. ‘And who doesn’t make mistakes?’ I can hear her say. But as to precisely what these “mistakes” were, or Anne thought they were, the Weekly Worker has given us very little clue.

The fact that the letters from Mary Ward and Nick Clarke, two of the comrades who had resigned, were not printed, has blown a big hole in the policy of ‘openness’. Yet without hearing directly from these comrades, we cannot begin to work out where things have gone wrong.

Rapprochement between the CPGB and the RDG is hardly likely to be moving forwards when rapprochement within the CPGB has been going backwards. Unless of course those comrades who resigned were opposed to unity with the RDG. In which case their departure would make the process easier. However, knowing these comrades over the last few years, there is nothing to suggest that was the case. The fact that the Dundee Group has now confirmed its support for the ‘rapprochement tendency’ surely proves it.

The crisis within the CPGB has had its impact on the RDG. It has placed us on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand we have sought to maintain principled relations with both the Provisional Central Committee and the dissidents. To interfere in the internal relations of the CPGB or do anything to cause or widen the split would seriously damage rapprochement. We have had to keep a certain distance from these events. On the other hand, as communists, it is our right and duty to comment on matters which are of concern to all communists. I have certainly voiced my concerns at CPGB aggregates. It should be said that the CPGB have not tried to exclude me or other RDG comrades from those internal discussions. Our comments have been taken in a positive spirit. Nevertheless it has been a difficult line to tread.

Now the high tension of the crisis has begun to wane. The fog of battle has begun to clear. We need to take stock of where we have reached. There will certainly be new matters arising from this crisis that will need to be thrashed out. The agenda for rapprochement has surely shifted. Exactly where, it is too early to say. But, for example, the question of openness, which was not on the previous agenda, will need discussion. What we had previously thought was a common understanding is now open to doubt.

None of this explains the policies of the other Marxist groups we have been trying to encourage to join the rapprochement tendency, such as Open Polemic, the Republican Worker Tendency, Marxist Bulletin, the Socialist Democracy Group, Socialist Perspectives and, we should add, the Trotskyist Unity Group. These are all organisations that we have worked with in some form or other over the past period. We invited all of them to attend the founding conference.

Since the founding conference we have sought no more than to clarify their views on the revolutionary democratic communist platform. So far, and for a variety of reasons, none of these groups has been able to state their views. However, I am hopeful that this might change. Refusal to comment on revolutionary democratic communism is in itself a statement of definite politics. The problem is trying to guess what those politics are. So I will put forward my best guestimates, and hopefully these comrades will write to the Weekly Worker to explain their reasons in their own words.

The RWT and Open Polemic have so far been silent on the statement. The RWT has refused to state its views because it is protesting against comments by Jack Conrad in his pamphlet, Blair’s rigged referendum and Scotland’s right to self-determination. OP has also avoided direct comment on the statement. They do make an extensive criticism of the thesis on factions (see Open Polemic No5, February 1998). That is positive. But they dismiss ‘revolutionary democratic communism’ as too narrow. They put forward an alternative proposal for a ‘communist tendency’. It would appear they are not too keen on revolutionary democracy. The RWT quite independently took a similar position. They changed their name to the Communist Tendency. If I was a betting man, I would guess that both these organisations would have a problem with the rejection of ‘socialism in one country’. I am sure that eventually they will come out of hiding and clarify where they stand.

The Marxist Bulletin does not have a problem with ‘socialism in one country’. They have been very reluctant to say where they stand. But it was reported to me that recently Barbara Duke and the rest of the comrades have said they agree with the revolutionary democratic communist platform. Perhaps ‘don’t disagree with it’ would be a safer guess. Barbara has been a bit worried in case saying they agree with these basic points means that we will force them to join our tendency. No, we won’t. They are not keen on clarifying points where we agree. They continually want to emphasise why we disagree. Ian Dudley, former supporter of the Marxist Bulletin and now editor of a new journal, Revolution and Truth, does not agree with point 1. He has promised to provide us with critical comments.

We have had no reply from the Socialist Democracy Group. Ian Driver has said he is in agreement and intends to find out what the others think. But so far nobody has been able to enlighten us. Finally Socialist Perspectives has not replied yet. There are two reasons for this. First I suspect some of this group are not communists. Even to discuss the document would create internal divisions and it might even split them. Added to self-preservation is the fact that Martin Wicks does not like the CPGB. None of this is a sound basis for serious politics.

Despite these setbacks and failures, the new tendency has passed its first test. The split within the CPGB has been partially contained within the tendency. The very existence of the tendency has meant that the divisions have been less damaging that they might have been. The internal problems of the CPGB are now the collective property of the tendency as a whole. The RDG, CPGB and the Dundee Group remain committed to revolutionary democratic communism. We have seen at first hand many practical difficulties of building communist unity. Not least of which is the fact that small Marxist groups seem reluctant to say openly where they stand in relation to our tendency.

Dave Craig

(RDG - faction of the SWP)

Revolutionary democratic communism

1. For revolutionary democracy
We hold a revolutionary democratic attitude to all questions of bourgeois democracy (eg, civil liberties, women’s rights, national question, racism, constitutional change, etc). We utilise bourgeois democracy, defend it against all anti-democratic forces, including the capitalists and the fascists. We seek to extend all democratic rights by mass struggle and revolutionary action. We consider the working class is the only genuinely democratic class under capitalism. We consider that the working class can become the leading force in society by championing the struggle for democracy.

2. For workers’ power
We support the democratic self-organisation of the working class in trade unions, workplaces and communities. We are in favour of workers’ control of all industries and services. We are in favour of replacing parliamentary democracy with a more advanced form of democracy, based on workplace councils electing delegates to a workers’ parliament. This must be defended by an armed working class organised as the state (ie, the dictatorship of the proletariat).

3. For international socialism
Socialism must be developed by the international organisation of the working class. Socialism is the transitional period between world capitalism and communism.

4. For world communism
Our aim is to abolish the world market system of capitalism and replace it by world communism. Communist society is a classless worldwide community based on global planning, cooperation and mutual solidarity between the people of the world