16.07.1998

Revolutionary democrats and a right of reply

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) takes issue with the CPGB’s national organiser

Does the Weekly Worker have a policy based on a ‘right of reply’? I say ‘yes’ (or at least it should) and Mark Fischer says ‘no’ (see ‘Party notes’, July 2). The significance of this exchange is the beginnings of the first real debate within the new proto-tendency between the RDG and the CPGB.

The issues that need to be addressed are: the Scottish referendum campaign; openness and a right of reply; method of polemics; communist organisation.

We have certainly had debates around the first three questions. I could dig out plenty of back copies of the Weekly Worker to illustrate past skirmishes. But so far we have not drawn any definite conclusions. These same issues are mentioned by Nick Clarke and Mary Ward in their letters. Consequently Mark deals with openness, methods of polemics and organisation in his document replying to them.

The Dundee comrades did not leave because they had a different programme. Everybody is agreed on that. Depending on who you choose to believe, they left because they lost confidence in the Provisional Central Committee or because they wanted a quiet life. Was something wrong with the PCC or was something wrong with the Dundee comrades? When the issues are posed like that you can see a recipe for much anger and bitterness.

We need to relocate the debate within the new tendency. These are issues which reflect a division of opinion between the RDG and the CPGB: that is, amongst revolutionary democratic communists. Posed in this way we are more likely to concentrate on political issues and not ‘who betrayed who’? The debate is important not to settle old scores, but in order to build - that is, strengthen and unite - the tendency. We want to debate these questions not for something to do, but to draw definite conclusions and lessons and implement them.

It is important to remind ourselves why we want to strengthen the tendency. First there is no genuine (ie, revolutionary democratic) communist party rooted within the advanced section of the working class. The SWP and the Socialist Party are the two main rival tendencies who claim to lay the basis for such a party. They are not. The SP has a revolutionary programme which has adapted to liberal reformism. The SWP programme is totally confused - a ragbag of ideas thrown together. Formally of course the SWP has no programme and adopts an anti-programme position.

If these ‘parties’ would allow other communists to join and work under their leadership with factional rights, then we would join. The RDG remains formally a “faction of the SWP”. This is more of an aim than a reality. It expresses not only our origins as ‘state capitalists’ who oppose the anarchism and economism of the Cliffites. It also expresses the location of the main ideological battleground if such a party is ever to be built.

The call for a new tendency means that we do not intend to wait until the SWP or the SP invite us to join them. We intend to built an alternative now. This is why we are calling on all revolutionary democratic communists to work closely together to establish a new tendency within the Marxist movement. Such a tendency would promote rapprochement and provide an alternative pole of attraction to the SWP and the Socialist Party.

Before such a tendency can become a real factor within the communist movement it must be politically centralised around a draft programme. It must develop a common perspective. The idea that the new tendency can be built by gathering together any individual who calls themselves a communist is nonsense.

At present there is no new tendency. What we have is a proto-tendency based around a revolutionary democratic communist platform. This is supported by the RDG, CPGB, Marxist Bulletin,and the Campaign for a Federal Republic which is affiliated to the Scottish Socialist Alliance. Of these four organisations, only the CPGB and RDG are formally part of the proto-tendency.

The purpose of the platform is to identify the allies of Leninism and its opponents. It is not to ‘unite’ all and sundry in some spurious unity. It is to unite some and separate them from others. It is a litmus test. Some turn red and others, the centrists and ultra-lefts, turn blue.

The most immediate opponents of revolutionary democratic communism seem to be Open Polemic, the Communist Tendency (formally RWT) and Ian Donovan’s new publication Revolution and Truth. Ian is the only one so far who dares to criticise the platform. In this he exposed a conservative and anti-working class attitude to bourgeois and proletarian democracy which he shares with the centrists and leftists.

I have heard, but it is yet to be confirmed, that the CT are opposed to the platform because of its rejection of ‘socialism in one country’ and advocacy of “world communism”. Of course we would much rather hear it precisely ‘from the horse’s mouth’. As for Open Polemic they have adopted a policy of boycotting the platform. Bob Smith of Open Polemic did attend the founding conference and expressed his opposition to the formulation on international socialism. But the Open Polemic editorial board have refused to say where they stand. The last issue does provide a critique of the thesis on factions. But that is a secondary question to whether they are in our camp as revolutionary democratic communists or not. We have to assume that their ideological boycott of the platform means that they are lining up with the Socialist Democracy Group and Socialist Perspectives.

The RDG and the CPGB now face each other as two parts of the same revolutionary democratic communist tendency. We stand together, despite our differences, against our common opponents. The CPGB is the majority and the RDG is the minority. Scotland has been one of the questions that have shown up our differences. As is well known to the readers of the Weekly Worker, the RDG and CPGB had some quite sharp but comradely exchanges in the Weekly Worker over Scotland. After the referendum there was a three-sided debate over the interpretation of the results involving myself, Jack Conrad and Lee-Anne Bates.

Unfortunately this debate took place in the era of post-referendum ‘triumphalism’ when the general message was ‘didn’t we do well?’ Now we can see that we did not do well. Far from the tendency gaining new members as a result, we lost the ones we already had. Scotland heated up the CPGB to boiling point. Then the boiler suddenly went bang with the publication of an article by Lee-Anne Bates. This led inexorably into an internal debate on the issue of openness and then resignations by the Scottish comrades. Yet nobody has drawn any conclusions that make sense. The question of Scotland has to be debated again in the cold light of day. Triumphalism is deflated and a sober reflection is needed.

So it was that, whilst I was rummaging around in the dustbin of history looking for some clues, the question of a ‘right of reply’ came onto the agenda. For we all need to know whether the Dundee comrades can give us any insights. Mark assures us that the letters are without merit, yet it has caused him to write a major and serious reply.

A right of reply is one aspect of a policy of ideological openness. My view is that it is a basic democratic principle that should guide the policy of the Weekly Worker. Mark suggests that it is not a principle for a communist paper. Mark has a more pragmatic approach and only prints what he believes will help the Party (ie, the CPGB).

To argue that a right of reply is a principle does not convert it into some absolute law. Consider the principle of democratic centralism. We know there are exceptions to every rule. There may be situations in which we advocate federalism. However we know it is a departure from principle and a definite political justification must be given. The fact that we depart from principle does not mean that we now say there is no principle. That would be to slip into opportunism.

The democratic principle of a right of reply does not mean that we cannot depart from it. But there must be a valid - that is, openly contestable - reason. For example if a fascist replies to some attack in the Weekly Worker you would probably refuse to print it. The political reason for departing from our principle might be that to print it would provide a platform for fascism, or that printing it might weaken or divide the anti-fascist movement. Equally it might be correct to print the letter and give an anti-fascist reply. It would be a matter of political judgement to deal with the exception rather than the rule.

Recently we had the example of Lee Rock being compared with Stalin’s secret policeman, Yagoda. This was unjust and slanderous because it was not based on the facts of the situation. Lee was urged to exercise his right of reply. Cynics claimed that the CPGB enjoyed slandering people and would not print his letter. His letter was printed and further debate took place in the Weekly Worker. At the end of this Lee was satisfied that he had been given a fair opportunity to state his case.

At a recent London Socialist Alliance meeting, Lee Rock made a strong speech in defence of the CPGB. The right of reply had meant that we had politicised rather than embittered relations between Lee and the CPGB. A principled approach to a right of reply enables every working class militant to build greater trust in the Weekly Worker and its truthfulness and honesty. A principled right of reply means that mistakes cannot be easily covered up. It raises the standards of truth and honesty by building in an obvious “check and balance”.

The letters from Nick Clarke and Mary Ward were replies to Mark’s explanation in his ‘Party notes’ column of why they had resigned from the CPGB. Was the decision not to print these letters a departure from a democratic principle? In which case what was the political reason? Mark explains: “When it comes to the specifics of the particular decision ... I reiterate that none of our recently departed comrades have raised a single issue of substance.” This is not true. But in any case it hardly amounts to a serious political reason to depart from principle. So far no such reason has been forthcoming.

Let us examine the arguments put forward by Mark. First is the mode of polemic. It is claimed without any evidence that I am “agonising” and “in pain”. This is a pathetic attempt to put a spin on the debate. Hard men don’t agonise, but wimps do. I am placed in the category of some whinger who goes on and on about absolutely nothing. If not a whinger then a neurotic, who is worrying himself to death. How tiresome.

I have had reason to complain about this mode of polemic, for example against Lee-Anne Bates. Communist polemic should stick to the political issues and not concern itself about the supposed mental health of its opponents. Perhaps it was Mark’s own agony in writing 15,000 words on the subject rather than my “agonising” which has disturbed him?

Mark then throws up a few red herrings. First he claims I contradict myself by saying that “openness does not and cannot mean that any and everything must be printed in the central organ” and then claiming a right of reply. There is no contradiction. The editors must make political decisions about what articles and letters to publish. But this freedom is proscribed by the political priorities of the CPGB, by the exercise of a right of reply and by the exercise of faction rights by internal factions. It does not mean that “any organisation has an automatic right to use our paper as a bulletin board for their own particular hobby horse.” Of course it doesn’t, but then I have never suggested this and nor does right of reply imply such a use.

Mark points out that, “If comrades have left our organisation, they can have no rights or claims on it.” That is true, except that they have the same rights as other non-members. I cannot see why comrades who leave the CPGB should be any more disadvantaged than the millions of workers who never joined it. The working class do not have the rights and duties that come with membership. But they do have a right to demand truth and justice from a party which claims to belong to them. The democratic right of reply is a recognition of that right.

Finally we need to deal with the fact that Mark wheels out Lenin to oppose a right of reply. I was pleased to see Jim Higgins join the fray and I support what he says. I want to add some further thoughts. Lenin attacked the Vpered group in the Bolshevik paper. Bogdanov sent a reply which was published by the editors. Lenin was furious and attacked the editors. According to Mark this proves that Lenin did not support a right of reply (see VI Lenin CW vol 19, p173).

To be honest I do not know whether Lenin supported a right of reply or not. As a revolutionary democrat I suspect that he did. I do not go along with the idea that he was bit of a ‘Stalinist’ and would have been against it. However, I can read the text that Mark gives as an example and it does not support Mark’s claim.

Lenin says that it was scandalous to print Bogdanov’s letter. The next thing Lenin says is:

“In my article there was not a word against Mr Bogdanov (who is not a member of the Vpered group); there was not a word of censure in general. As cautiously as possible I stated a fact - that the trend condemned unanimously by the entire party was ‘connected with the Vpered line’. Not a word more. Nor could Mr Bogdanov quote anything himself.”

The implication of this is surely obvious. Lenin is saying he did not attack Bogdanov and therefore the question of a right of reply does not arise. By making this point, Lenin implies a recognition of this right. Indeed at the end of the article Lenin himself says: “I demand categorically that the enclosed article be printed in full ... If you do not print it, pass it on to Prosveshcheniye.” Lenin is here demanding a right of reply. Otherwise he will get it printed in another paper.

What reason did the editors have for printing Bogdanov’s letter? The reason given was “for the sake of impartiality”. We need therefore to distinguish between a democratic right of reply, which Lenin seems to accept, and the liberal ‘question of balance’, which Lenin totally rejects. My preliminary conclusion from reading Mark’s quote is that Lenin was a (revolutionary) democrat and not a ‘Stalinist’ or a liberal.