10.09.1998

On the fantasy world of Dave Craig

When I opened the Weekly Worker (August 27) to read Anne Murphy’s article entitled ‘The fantasy world of Dave Craig’ I was a bit shocked. I had been expecting to see the open letter from the Campaign for a Federal Republic to the Socialist Party, which I had been led to believe would be published. Not only was the letter not printed, but in its place was this ‘exposé’.

My second reaction on reading the article was annoyance with the style of polemic and the political content. My third reaction was to say, ‘Well, at least we can analyse some causes of the friction occurring between the RDG and the CPGB’.

In part this goes back to the Scottish referendum campaign. The CPGB was intervening in Scotland through the medium of the Weekly Worker and its Scottish committee. The RDG gave critical support to the boycott line. Because of the CPGB policy of openness, our criticisms of the central slogans of the campaign were published and debated in the paper. After the referendum a further debate over the results took place involving myself, Lee-Anne Bates and Jack Conrad. Without the RDG and CPGB being democratically centralised, we functioned as near to that principle as possible for two independent organisations. There was a majority (CPGB) and a minority (RDG). The minority openly criticised the majority. The minority, despite reservations, supported the majority campaign. Afterwards there was a debate over what had been achieved. The only thing we have not done yet is draw some agreed lessons and conclusions.

Within a few months we formed the Revolutionary Democratic Communist Tendency. So when the Scottish comrades resigned from the CPGB earlier this year, this was a major blow not only to that organisation, but to the new tendency and hence the RDG. Not only did the CPGB lose an important part of its ability to intervene in Scotland, but so did the RDG.

The situation in Scotland is of major importance to the working class in the UK and to any group of socialists seeking to be an advanced part of that class. Hence the resignations confronted the new tendency with two immediate problems to sort out. First, how to intervene in Scotland and conduct the fight for a federal republic and against nationalism. Second, how to draw some political lessons from the setback we had suffered, and do so in a way that is consistent with the policy of openness. These two tasks are separate and must be kept so.

Soon after I contacted the Scottish comrades. They stated that they still intended to be active in the Scottish Socialist Alliance and to campaign for a federal republic. They also said that they still supported the platform of the tendency. This was significant. It meant that among the debris of the crash, there was something to be saved. Should we give the survivors oxygen or should we finish them off with a sledgehammer?

The sledgehammer was not appropriate. The class struggle in Scotland is so important that this must be our first priority. We must administer oxygen immediately and get on with the political struggle. We cannot continue crying over spilt milk. Neither should we allow spilt milk to sour our intervention. This is my approach, supported by the RDG. Some members of the CPGB were not pleased by this. Their annoyance can be seen in the article by Anne Murphy.

When I persuaded the ex-CPGB comrades that they should remain within our tendency, I did not expect the CPGB would disagree. But they raised procedural objections. In procedural terms they were correct. But politically they were wrong. It is in the political interests of the RDG and the CPGB that these comrades remain within our sphere of influence and allied as closely with us as possible.

It was said that the Scottish comrades could only be in our tendency by remaining in the CPGB or joining the RDG. This is formally correct. Of course I would like these comrades to join the RDG and sooner rather than later. I take this opportunity to call on them to do so. But it was not practical politics to simply recruit them. First they had not left the CPGB in order to join us. Neither had we done any work to recruit them before they left. As I have stated on previous occasions, attempting to poach each other’s members would go against the spirit of rapprochement.

In any case these comrades had programmatic differences with us which precluded any immediate recruitment. The only practical option was to try to seek united front work with them and use the new idea of the tendency in a practical way. So after some discussion it was agreed that the RDG and the Scottish comrades would work together.

The second problem was how to investigate the causes of this disaster. Giving oxygen to the survivors and continuing the struggle does not prevent us holding a public inquiry as to the causes of the crash. Whilst I did not think a public inquiry was necessary, once those piloting the plane started giving their version of events in the press, I certainly felt that truth and justice would be best served if the passengers had their right of reply, and sooner rather than later.

We can see the consequences of this in the documents from Mark Fischer and Mary Ward (soon to be published). After seeing the submissions from both sides, it is right and proper that as a third party, with real interests at stake in this, we should give our considered view. The third party is not Dave Craig. It is the RDG. For the RDG to take a view we need to gather in the collective wisdom (or lack of it) from all our comrades.

Demands that the RDG “should take sides” - presumably by not giving the oxygen of publicity to the survivors and issuing some ill-considered soundbites of condemnation - is counterproductive. But comrades can rest assured that the RDG will consider the situation and give our opinions and criticisms of anybody we feel deserves it.

The Tories’ view of crime, expressed repeatedly by John Major, is that we should condemn more and understand less. The working class needs the opposite. Not because the workers are do-gooding liberals. We need to understand more and condemn less in order to draw the correct political conclusions. I would rather have a cool and calm discussion of issues than some mad rush to judgement. If comrades think that means ‘siding with the enemy’, they are woefully mistaken. The two tasks of intervening in Scotland, and conducting the public inquiry into why the comrades left, must be kept separate. If the Scottish comrades had refused to allow their open letter to be published in the Weekly Worker because of their annoyance with the CPGB, then they would be guilty of putting their emotions above what is now necessary in the class struggle. But to attack the open letter and defend the Socialist Party, as Anne Murphy did, was to be guilty of precisely that.

There is one additional factor at work. The whole episode is a living experiment in openness. It is one thing to call on the rest of the left to wash their dirty linen in public. It is something else to do it yourself. First of all, this self-exposure, warts and all, has cheered up all the CPGB’s enemies. But that is the short-sightedness that comes from spending too many years under the influence of the Labour Party. Dirty washing, out in the open, cannot fester any more. It has to be washed clean. The soap powder of politics must be applied.

Meanwhile the rest of the left have cupboards full of dirty linen, which never sees the light of day. Every hour the stench grows stronger until the build-up of noxious gases leads to fatal explosions in the style of the Workers Revolutionary Party. Then dazed ex-members wander round confessing about all the crap that went on, which they knew about. Now they are forced to confess to being party to a conspiracy of silence. The theory of openness predicts that the CPGB will be weakened at first, but if proper lessons are drawn, will become much stronger in the end. Current weakness is the source of future strength. It will be interesting to see if this prediction is true.

Now let me turn to the substance of Anne Murphy’s article on ‘The fantasy world of Dave Craig’. Let us speculate on the political meaning of the headline. It could be that “Dave Craig” is simply a proxy for revolutionary Marxism. Anne has looked round for a handy weapon to bludgeon the traitors and borrowed the reactionary ideas of the Tories and the Blairites. Revolutionaries are all mad and living in a fantasy world. They are not of the real world. They do not have their feet firmly on the ground. So perhaps Anne is playing to her audience, using nothing more than bourgeois propaganda and popular prejudice against Marxists.

Perhaps not. Maybe this was declaration of war against the RDG and the open letter. My name is again being used as a proxy for the RDG. It is certainly the language of war. Accusing your allies of being on another planet is hardly the best way to enhance comradely relations between us. The RDG responded by immediately publishing a statement in support of the open letter (see Letters Weekly Worker September 3), Comrade Murphy says she does not disagree with that statement. We might conclude that she was not attacking the RDG policy or, if she was, it had been a mistake.

We are left with the third alternative. Anne was merely attacking me personally, implying that I was mad, in some fantastic world of my own. The headline is like some government health warning given out to readers. Don’t smoke these crazy Dave Craig arguments because they will seriously damage your health! As a method of polemic I find this objectionable, not simply because it is against me.

I began my article by informing readers that the Campaign for a Federal Republic, the Red Republicans and the SML were “the three main affiliated” organisations of the SSA. As a factual statement this is true. There are no others. The word “main” was included only because I was not totally sure there were no other affiliates. Of the two other possibles mentioned by comrade Murphy, the Scottish Socialist Movement has dissolved and the Communist Party of Scotland is not affiliated.

Anne then suggests that I claim or imply that the Campaign for a Federal Republic is the “third force in the SSA”. I made no such claim. I said nothing about “force”, nor did I give estimates of relative size, influence or political importance. So Anne places the words “third force” in my mouth. Then she says this is “clearly a fantasy”. Later she speculates - “What of comrade Craig’s ‘second force’ in the SSA? - the Red Republicans”. All references to second and third “forces” were invented by Anne Murphy and attributed to me. She invents a “fantasy world of Dave Craig” and then criticises me for it.

Next Anne invents the fantasy that I have denied that the SML is the “main driving force” in the SSA. Naturally I made no such denial. Still that does not stop Anne criticising me for more of the fantasies she has invented. Of course Anne, having thought up all this rubbish, feels the need to bring me down to earth. So she informs me that “any study of reality would leave you in no doubt that the SML is also in the driving seat when it comes to political questions”. Apparently I need to “study reality” in order to realise what is known to every serious Marxist and every political simpleton. Even an idiot realises that SML is the main driving force. But not poor old Dave Craig! Next comes the issue of the open letter. Anne does not appear to have acquainted herself with the tactics of open letters or indeed what was actually going on in this instance. Still she is not one to let ignorance get in the way of sneering at the letter.

She says: “Funny that Dave Craig does not consider this trajectory not only a bit of a joke, but something demanding criticism” (of the Socialist Party). When an affiliated organisation of the SSA writes to the Socialist Party they have every right to expect a proper response to the political matters raised. The SP executive considered the letter and decided to do nothing about the political points raised. They also decided not to print the letter.

Of course this demands criticism. The CPGB has never hesitated to criticise the Socialist Party in the past. Now all of a sudden Anne Murphy attacks those of us campaigning for a federal republic and defends the Socialist Party which is fighting for Scottish independence. It seems to me that Anne is so blinded by anger, that she has manoeuvred herself into the position of defending the main left party promoting Scottish nationalism.

What is she angry about? The next line reveals all: “Comrade Craig should take sides: against right liquidationism; and for Partyism.” Of course I am against these bad things. It is a question of whether we agree what these things are. Just as everybody is ‘against sectarianism’ without necessarily agreeing what it is or what constitutes examples of it.

The next four paragraphs are a denunciation of the betrayals of comrades Clarke and Ward. This, it seems to me, was the prime purpose of the article. If that means sabotaging any fight in Scotland against the formation of the SSP, so be it. I have no problem if the CPGB want to make comradely criticisms of their former comrades. But once the criticism becomes too personal and too bitter and, worse, is sabotaging the struggle in Scotland, we are descending into sectarianism, otherwise known as left liquidationism.

Anne finishes by giving me a patronising pat on the head. She says: “Dave Craig has the best of intentions, I am sure. He wants to draw these comrades back from the wilderness. But it will not be done by flattering and elevating two embittered lost souls. It is practice that shows truth, not labels.” Since this is the main conclusion of the article, it shows what the intention of the article was all about. What has been exposed to me is not the fantasy world of Dave Craig, but the truth about the polemical style and methods of comrade Anne.

Dave Craig
(RDG faction of the SWP)