04.02.1999

Strained relations

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group takes issue with some recent reporting in the Weekly Worker

Jack Conrad’s article, ‘Political problems and political solutions’ (Weekly Worker January 21) draws our attention to positive and negative aspects of the rapprochement process.  On the positive side, this was the first time our joint tendency debated an issue of common concern - what view to take on the position of Roy Bull as vice-president of the SLP. Whilst I do not want to spend much more time on this, I would like to make a couple of points.

The alignment of the ex-Fourth International Supporters Caucus (Fisc), RDG and CPGB was politically inevitable. It is Brian Heron’s worst nightmare. As a ‘post-sectarian’ he hates all small groups (except Fisc) with a vengeance. The political logic that would force us together was predicted in the Weekly Worker at a time when Fisc was working hand in glove with Scargill against the SLP left. Thanks largely to the sectarian methods of Brian Heron, we were kept divided long enough for Scargillism to triumph and the SLP to be destroyed.

The RDG is therefore not in the least frightened of appearing to be lined up with the ex-Fisc. We, along with the CPGB, have consistently defended democratic methods in the SLP from the start. So it is Fisc now lining up with us, whilst trying to pretend otherwise. Therefore Jack Conrad fires a cheap shot when he tries to suggest that the RDG has shifted its position to line up behind the ex-Fisc. He says: “Comrade Craig’s approach neatly squares with the organisational demands of the Fisc.” The only thing that is new in this is simply that the election of Bull has forced everybody, including our tendency, to clarify their position in the light of new circumstances.

By the same token the CPGB’s opposition to expelling Bull lined them up with Scargill and Bull. Of course if Scargill now changes his mind, the CPGB will be on its own in trying to help Bull keep his job. Pointing to a temporary alignment of CPGB-Scargill-Bull versus Fisc-RDG is also a cheap shot. So it is much more enlightening to consider the differences.

The CPGB’s position is similar to Scargill’s only at the most superficial level. The CPGB would like Bull to write more articles on the subject of gay politics and then expose him. Scargill, on the other hand, demands that Bull simply shuts up. Similarly there is a huge difference between a bureaucratic expulsion and one that is the result of a democratic process. We are not in favour of Scargill stitching up Bull in some kangaroo court. Yet when Fisc refused to stand candidates in London they were trying to get Scargill to do this. Unfortunately Jack is so busy trying to paint a picture of the RDG following Fisc that he neglects to explain the differences on matters of principle and democratic political method.

The SLP is not a communist party. It is certainly no vanguard party. On this we are all agreed. But there are still communists and communist sympathisers in it. The most useful thing we can do to assist these comrades is to offer sensible advice, based on clear communist principles. Even if we are not members of the SLP, we must ‘stand in the shoes’ of those comrades, if we wish to be taken seriously.

Jack says that in a communist party “anyone whose main purpose consisted of propagating backward prejudices would quickly be shown the door”. Why should communists in the SLP have any different attitude? Should we actually advocate a lower standard for the SLP? Do we say to racists and homophobes that we will show you the door if you try to join our party, but we’ll fight to the death for you to be allowed to remain in left reformist and centrist parties? If Jack could stand in the shoes of communists in the SLP, he would immediately see why the ‘hard’ line he seems to adopt for a communist party and the ‘soft’ line for the SLP would be treated with suspicion. Why does Jack Conrad want us to tolerate something in the Socialist Labour Party that he wouldn’t tolerate in his own?

So Jack and myself are in agreement that it is quite valid to show racists and homophobes the exit door. When it comes to the facts, Jack seems clear about the nature of Bull’s views on gay politics. He describes them as “reactionary”, “unscientific” and “prejudiced”. If he is serious about this and not indulging in demagogy, then he must admit that these are the type of views that have the words ‘exit sign’ written all over them.

However, and I must emphasise this, the RDG is opposed to Arthur Scargill, Jack Conrad, Dave Craig or Brian Heron showing anybody to the door. There must be a democratic process, in which an informed membership makes the decision to expel a comrade or simply remove him or her from office. And if Bull was innocent, or being unfairly maligned, the collective views of the membership and their congress representatives is the best safeguard any unjustly treated comrade can have.

This was the main point of my argument. It is the main point that differentiates us from the methods of Scargill and Fisc. Anybody who listens carefully will understand that we are not calling on Scargill to expel Bull. We are calling for a special congress, so that the rank and file members can decide the question. We are calling for an immediate investigation and report to be presented to that congress. On the basis of our current information, there is no doubt what we would urge that congress to do. We do not want Scargill to expel Bull: we want to do it ourselves. What we consistently defend is the democratic method.

Overall I am very pleased to see the tendency having its first debate. I hope this will be the first of many debates as we try to coordinate our work and establish ever closer unity. However, we should not hide some of the problems. There is hidden friction over whether the RDG was “embarrassed” by the first aggregate or whether the CPGB is deliberately trying to embarrass us. Is the RDG too sensitive or the CPGB too insensitive? We need to give this an airing.

In correspondence, the Provisional Central Committee suggested that recent proposals from the RDG “are an attempt to avoid the situation where an organisation is embarrassed by a split vote or disagreement in its ranks”. In his article, Jack tells readers that at the aggregate an amendment from comrade Bridge “united the CPGB and was carried by a big majority. The RDG split down the middle when it came to the final vote.” This is factually accurate, but somewhat overdramatic. It tells us very little about what politics the RDG “split” over. By failing to explain the issues it presents the CPGB in a good light and the RDG less favourably.

In itself the fact that Jack should tell readers that the RDG “split” is not significant. The problem is that RDG comrades have come to view the CPGB’s reporting of events with suspicion. So whilst Jack Conrad’s comments are innocent in themselves in a wider context, they are adding to our comrades’ slight irritation. Some of us are wondering if the CPGB have come up with a new tactic of trying to embarrass us into joining them or that they are wanting to pull back.

The first attempt to develop ongoing discussions occurred last September when I proposed three motions to a CPGB aggregate. I put them forward in the belief that debating our differences over, for example, the right of reply, would help the rapprochement process. But it was soon clear that this was divisive in the worst sense of the word. Some comrades felt this was not legitimate. At the start of the meeting, I immediately withdrew the motions. This was not the proper forum for the important task of clarifying our politics.

Nevertheless, the aggregate decided to discuss the motions anyway. So I sat there while the motions were attacked by all and sundry. Comrades had a lot of fun ‘proving’ not only how wrong they were, but speculating why I put the motions forward in the first place. A report was given of this in the Weekly Worker (September 24 1998) by Ian Mahoney. There were follow-up letters from myself and James Frazer. The upshot of this was that the CPGB majority accused the CPGB minority of acting out of a desire to “punish” or humiliate me. To which the minority from Manchester replied (October 8) that it wasn’t them: it was the other lot that were so motivated. Neither myself nor other RDG comrades were sure who to believe. In January 1999 we made a new attempt at coordination. Two RDG representatives attended a CPGB aggregate. Under the auspices of our joint Revolutionary Democratic Communist Tendency, we agreed to debate the situation in the SLP. A motion was proposed. We agreed on virtually all points, except we differed on what to do about Bull. It was anticipated before the meeting that the CPGB and RDG would disagree and felt that it would be useful to clarify our views. This was the main debate. However, another amendment was proposed which called on SLP members to join the Socialist Alliances. Both RDG comrades spontaneously voted against this. We did know of this amendment before we arrived. We did not caucus, nor did we deliberately vote the same way. We voted the same way independently, instinctively sensing that far from strengthening the fight against Bull and Scargill, it tended to weaken it.

The reason we opposed this amendment is specific to the current situation in the SLP. We want members to remain in the SLP and challenge the party’s current disastrous direction. This is especially true when the more class conscious members are thinking of dropping out or just resigning in an individualistic fashion. The call to join the Socialist Alliances could be interpreted as a call to leave the SLP and join an alternative. Whilst there might be a time when this is correct, we must not encourage comrades to walk away now. If there is to be struggle, it is all hands on deck, not some on deck and others leaping into lifeboats.

This amendment was overwhelmingly carried. RDG comrades voted against. However, when the new amended motion was voted on, I voted for it and comrade May voted against. I wanted to support the main parts of the motion, despite the amendment. Comrade May saw the amendment as the CPGB pushing forward its own interests, which are weighted towards the SAs, rather than what was necessary for communists in the SLP. In other words he perceived the amendment as sectarian. He therefore voted against the whole motion. It should be noted that neither of us spoke against this pro-Socialist Alliance amendment for quite different reasons. Comrade May came to the first meeting of our tendency more as an observer, open to be persuaded that it could be useful, rather than an active participant. My reasons were different. I did not speak against it. But then nobody else spoke for it or against it either. It got ‘lost’ or ‘forgotten’ because the debate focused almost entirely on Bull. I spoke possibly three times on that. I had more than my fair share of speaking. We were only reminded of the Socialist Alliance amendment when we were called to the vote. I would have had to start objecting and demanding a new round of debate. It had been a long meeting, especially for CPGB comrades. It would have tried some comrades’ patience to start up again. Clearly I should have spoken up, but in the context of this first meeting, I am sure comrades will understand my error in not doing so.

Now let us turn to the reporting of this meeting (Weekly Worker December 17 1998) in which the RDG “split”. The report informs us that “RDG members present voted against this amendment, although nobody from the group spoke in the debate to explain why they opposed it”. This is factually accurate, with the proviso that there was no debate on this particular point at all.

However, the article goes on to give readers the benefit of the writer’s inside information. We are informed that this behaviour was contradictory because “RDG comrades are themselves working in the SAs”. If you think that was strange, we are told that “Even stranger, one RDG member subsequently voted against the whole motion”. Here the facts are being spun. The writer does not know the reasons for the behaviour of the RDG comrades. Nevertheless in the spirit of fearless investigative journalism, he decides to report his ignorance as to our strange behaviour.

CPGB comrades may think our behaviour was “strange” and beyond rational explanation. RDG comrades think it is equally “strange” that you should choose to report the meeting in this way rather than find out the truth and report that. We are not asking you to cover up the facts for some pseudo-diplomacy. But if something is not explained, then we would request that you do us the courtesy of asking for our explanation and reporting that. The advantage of this method is that it would get the truth to your readers more quickly and accurately. It would save precious time in not having to reply. And it would help to create a greater degree of trust between those publicly claiming to be allies.

The apparent contradiction between RDG comrades “working in the Socialist Alliances” and our opposition to the amendment calling on SLP members to join the SAs’ is a figment of the writer’s imagination. RDG comrades are supportive of the SAs but we are not “working” in them. Some comrades have attend a couple of meetings and paid some subs. We did this for limited objectives: for example to support the CPGB against a possible witch hunt and on another occasion to demand the right for Scottish socialists to be allowed to join the SAs.

I know of no individual comrades who are doing serious work in both the SLP and the SAs. It is definitely not a priority for communists in the SLP to become paper or token members of the SAs. Talk of joining the SAs is either a call for more paper members or for comrades to abandon the SLP to do serious work in the SAs. If the CPGB wants the latter at what is a crucial time for the SLP, then you should be honest enough to say so. If the CPGB has any active supporters in the SLP there is one priority - and that is the fight to save the SLP from Scargill’s megalomania.

What is my conclusion? The first joint aggregate and the debate was potentially an important step forward for our joint tendency, regardless of the content of the debate. I hope we can build on that. But it has also revealed some strains in our relations that need to be ironed out. I hope that representatives of the RDG and CPGB can meet soon to discuss these matters about creating a greater level of confidence and trust on both sides.