14.01.1999

Tendency debates Bull

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group argues that SLP members should demand action against Socialist Labour’s vice-president

Arthur Scargill has a little problem with Royston Bull’s fear of gay people. The newly elected vice-president of the Socialist Labour Party was, until very recently, the editor of the Economic and Philosophic and Science Review in which he regularly gave full vent to his prejudices against homosexuals. This is no more or less a crime than if Bull was to publish ‘scientific’ articles on the inferiority of black people.

There is a second and less obvious implication of Bull’s election. It signals a change in the political character of the SLP itself. The only future for the SLP is as a broad-based party open to comrades with both Labourite and communist or Marxist views. The election of a national executive consisting almost exclusively of Bull and his EPSR cronies, along with Harpal Brar and Scargill and his close supporters means that the SLP is becoming clearly identified with one trend, namely Stalinism.

The leadership of Bull, Brar and Scargill has Stalinist instincts, methods and ideas. All it needs is for comrade Scargill to take control of the Morning Star to complete the picture. This narrowing down of the SLP project is the logical consequence of a series of defeats suffered by the SLP beginning with the witch hunt, the use of the block vote, and various attempts to silence members who have criticised this.

Many anti-Stalinist comrades have been prepared to work and cooperate with Stalinists in a broad-based party, in the interests of the working class. But such a party could only survive and prosper on a democratic and open basis. It needs of necessity the infusion of open polemic, the life blood of new ideas, theories, and programmes. It needs members contesting for their ideas in front of the membership. As such, we have no problem with Harpal Brar selling Lalkar or Roy Bull publishing the EPSR. We should defend the right to publish for all members.

However, the question of whether the SLP should contain publications that are openly racist or homophobic is a different matter. The allegation of homophobia against the vice-president Bull is highly damaging to the SLP. Most obvious is the damage to the reputation of the party amongst gays and lesbians, whether they are activists, supporters or simply voters. It reflects badly on the current leadership of the SLP that backed Bull’s election, including Scargill himself. It reflects badly on SLP members who voted Bull into office. If this situation continues it will call into question the credentials of the SLP as a socialist party.

What should be done about Bull? There are four basic options - do nothing, censor the EPSR and gag Bull, openly criticise and expose his views, or take the route of a democratic disciplinary procedure.

The London committee of the SLP has demanded instant expulsion or they will refuse to stand candidates in the Euro-elections. Arthur Scargill obviously recognised that the option of doing nothing is politically impossible. So he has decided to gag Bull and censor the EPSR. The EPSR must make no comment on the SLP or spread the word that gay people are a sad, unfortunate and inferior species. This is in effect a cover-up.

Neither the RDG nor the CPGB are part of the SLP. Nevertheless we reject the narrow view that the internal affairs of other socialist organisations are no concern of ours. However, our criticisms must not be based on narrow, sectarian self-interest and point-scoring. We must approach the question from the interests of the working class movement. We must advocate the best solution that revolutionary communist have to offer. We do not seek the ignominious collapse of the SLP project. Our proposals must be based on what is necessary to divert it from its current disastrous road to ruin.

The SLP has had a positive impact on the socialist movement. A leading trade unionist openly broke with official Labour and has tried to set up a party to fight Blair. This was positive. It changed the climate of opinion in the working class movement. There is little doubt in my mind that this has helped to persuade the SWP, for example, to stand candidates, which in turn helps to build a stronger anti-Labour current. The political impact of the SLP on the socialist and trade union movement may not yet be clear. Equally the negative impact of its demise may not be immediately obvious. Only if communists fight in a principled way can anything positive be saved. Whether communists are in the SLP or out, they have every right, responsibility and duty to propose the best way forward. They have to approach the crisis in the SLP in a constructive and principled way.

The alternative to censorship and cover-up was debated by the Revolutionary Democratic Communist Tendency at its recent meeting. There was a division of opinion. The RDG comrades have since considered the motion (see Weekly Worker December 17 1998). We support continuing the “campaign to expose Bull’s ideas on gays and lesbians”. But this does not go far enough. We are in favour of action being taken against Bull. The question is - what action and who should carry it out?

As revolutionary democratic communists we must argue the case for ‘best practice’. We want Bull dealt with in an exemplary and democratic fashion. This is the very opposite of the methods deployed by Bull himself when he plotted and engineered the expulsion of John Pearson from the SLP. We are not opposed to expulsions, provided they are politically justifiable and the result of an open and democratic process.

Libertarian communists have a quite different approach. They would not wish to expel anybody from anything. They tend to believe in the ‘party of the whole class’. Accordingly there is a place in the party for a range of views, both backward and advanced. After all, if some workers are racist, why shouldn’t this be reflected in a workers’ party? So whilst we opposed racism, we would be prepared to tolerate racist ideas, albeit critically, in a Communist Party.

Revolutionary democratic communists fight for a vanguard party, not a party of the whole class. The vanguard must be based on the most advanced scientific ideas. The party would not seek to reflect the range of views within the working class, but to combat all backward and reactionary ideas and prejudices. Such ideas would be rooted out, by a combination of ideological struggle and in some circumstances the expulsion of individuals from membership. We are not libertarians who believe in tolerating every kind of reactionary and chauvinistic prejudice. We have no problem with the principle of excluding racists, sexists and homophobes from the party.

It is therefore quite legitimate to expel someone from a Communist Party, if they hold or advocate particular reactionary views. The party is a voluntary organisation. People volunteer to join. The Party can also volunteer not to accept somebody. The voluntary nature of the organisation cuts both ways.

The issue is therefore a question of fact, interpretation and due process. Roy Bull stands accused of promoting anti-gay prejudice. He has been accused by the Weekly Worker and by many members of the SLP, including some of its leading members. This matter cannot be dismissed or simply swept under the carpet.

A party needs to investigate the facts. It needs a special body elected by the membership and charged with responsibility of gathering any evidence, interviewing witnesses, and ascertaining the facts. This includes the right of those being accused or investigated to state their views. In the SWP, for example, there was such a body, known as the control commission. The purpose of the control commission is to gather the facts, make a report and recommendations. This report serves as the basis for either action or further debate and must be open and available to all members.

It is then possible for the membership through the medium of the congress to decide what is the appropriate action to take. This does not rule out a special congress if members felt the matter of urgency warranted it, or a ballot of the entire membership. The point of a democratic procedure is that the membership decide between removal from office, temporary suspension from membership or permanent expulsion. If the members of the SLP decide that the allegations against Bull are correct, they will be able to decide at congress whether to vote him out of office or out of membership.

What role should the leadership - for example, the SLP national executive - have in this process? They should not have the power or responsibility to expel anybody. They must have the right to suspend a member - but this should be restricted to cases where there is prima facie evidence of violence or a threat of violence or fraud.

However, the national executive has the responsibility to instruct the control commission or equivalent body to carry out any investigation. This is a political decision and as such is accountable to the membership. The national executive may fail to do its duty by implementing the necessary procedures. This might be because it has failed to assess the situation correctly or because it is protecting its own allies for sectarian political motives. Either way the membership will draw their own conclusions.

The question of due process has sometimes been mistakenly polarised into ‘doing nothing’ or asking Arthur Scargill to expel Roy Bull. Posed in this way, there is a natural reluctance to call on comrade Scargill to exercise such dictatorial powers. This is a red herring. As revolutionary democrats we are not calling for such dictatorship. It is however quite right for SLP members to demand that the national executive, on which Arthur Scargill has one vote, to behave in a responsible fashion and act as a responsible leadership.

It is not responsible for either the membership or the leadership to do nothing. If the national executive sits on its hands, plugs up its ears, and puts the proverbial telescope to its blind eye, then its means that admiral Scargill is steering the ship straight onto the rocks. Many will soon be jumping onto the life rafts. Scargill is not that stupid and has opted for censorship and cover-up.

Nevertheless in a democratic procedure both the leadership and the whole membership have a role to play. But the final decision about Bull’s fate must rest with the membership. There is no doubt that, had such a democratic procedure been applied to the case of John Pearson, he would today be a member of the SLP using his talents and experience to advance the party.

Some comrades at the meeting of the RDCT argued that although Bull’s views are anti-gay, we must not publicly call on Scargill to expel him. This would give credence and legitimacy to Scargill. First, as I have already said, it is not a question of Scargill expelling Bull, but of the national executive immediately beginning the investigative process that may lead to his expulsion. Rank and file SLP members who already feel strongly about this should support the campaign for a special congress, which is the appropriate body to decide, and sooner rather than later.

Secondly the idea that it is wrong in principle for SLP members to call on their national executive to act is a false argument. It comes from the same stable as ‘We shouldn’t stand for parliament or attend bourgeois law courts because that creates illusions.’ Of course it is permissible under some circumstances to boycott parliament or law courts, etc. But we are not calling on SLP members to ‘boycott’ the national executive. SLP members will quite rightly demand that their elected executive function in a democratic fashion. This is true whether this is in relation to voiding members, using the block vote, convening the congress or dealing with an outbreak of homophobic agitation. If we adopt this leftist moralising and refuse to demand action only on the issue of gay rights, then we could be accused of double standards and being soft on homophobia.

The meeting of the RDCT was divided on what to do about Bull. The vast majority wanted to expose and criticise Bull’s ideas, but could not support calls for action against him. I opposed this but not with sufficient clarity or conviction. The RDCT majority was an accumulation of different views. There were libertarians who seemed to believe in the party of the whole class. There were those who wanted the SLP to stew in its own juice and have nothing further to do with it. There were those with ‘clean hands’ who were not against expelling Bull, but refused to call on SLP members or the national executive or Scargill to do their duty. There were those who were possibly reacting against the ex-Fisc ultimatum calling for expulsion or refusing to stand candidates in the Euro elections.

The ex-Fisc have treated the issue of Bull as a political bargaining counter in their own factional struggle. They have shown very little consideration so far for democratic processes. They have shown the same contempt for democracy over the John Pearson expulsion as they now do over Bull. It boils down to the prima donnas trying to play the political huckster with Scargill. No communist should go along with this unprincipled approach.

There is a complex range of issues and arguments that underpin the refusal of the RDCT majority to countenance disciplinary action against Bull. I would request that the CPGB (Provisional Central Committee) look at this again and clarify exactly where they stand, with a variety of different arguments.

Bull was elected under false pretences by a congress, many of whom were unaware of his anti-gay politics. Only a special congress can put that right with sufficient urgency, whether that means sacking him from his post as vice-president or expelling him from the SLP. Many communists in the SLP and readers of Weekly Worker are already well informed about Bull’s views. Whilst we are in favour of a full and open investigation into Bull’s brand of gay politics, there is no for reason for us to be shy in saying that we think a case for his expulsion already exists.

Unless or until Bull comes up with a public statement that will persuade us to change our minds, we should call for his expulsion. We should demand a proper investigation by a control commission or equivalent body which will enable members to be better informed and capable of making the correct democratic decision.