21.10.1999

Living Marxist theory

CPGB aggregate votes on British-Irish theses

The October aggregate of the CPGB took place in London on Sunday October 17. After five hours of productive and stimulating debate on the controversial British-Irish question, comrades voted by a substantial majority for an amended version of the 20 theses on ‘Ireland and the British Irish’ (Weekly Worker August 26).

Two amendments were agreed: a passage from the Manchester majority alternative theses - based on the CPGB Draft programme - was incorporated; and the words, “not expelling Northern Ireland from the union”, were deleted from thesis 10. The discussion was conducted in a comradely and constructive spirit, and all comrades learned from the exchange. It was acknowledged by both sides that the vote for the 20 theses does not mean an end to debate, which can continue within the Party and openly in the Weekly Worker.

The 20 theses were submitted to the aggregate as a motion from the Provisional Central Committee. An alternative motion, ‘Irish freedom and socialist revolution’, drafted by comrade John Pearson was submitted by the Manchester branch majority. Part one of the Manchester motion quoted the paragraph on Ireland in the CPGB’s Draft programme, and it was an amended form of this section that the meeting voted to accept as a preamble to the 20 theses. Part two of the Manchester motion discussed Marx’s writings on Ireland, part three analysed the material basis for sectarianism in Ireland, and specifically the role of British imperialism; and part four called for working class leadership of the national liberation struggle and insisted, “It is vital that the Communist Party does not retreat into opportunism. The primary immediate political task is the reforging of Communist Parties of Great Britain and of Ireland.”

After quoting the Draft programme on Ireland, the Manchester motion stated: “This formulation remains an accurate and adequate statement of the tasks of the working class in relation to the Irish question. It requires no revision.” Comrade Jack Conrad said he agreed with most of the section, but proposed deleting the words, “It requires no revision”, and substituting: “in as far as it goes. However, as with all programmatic formulations, it requires elaboration and further development. This is especially so in relationship to the British-Irish.” It was in this amended form that part one became the preamble to the 20 theses. Parts two, three and four were defeated.

Proposing his amendment, comrade Conrad said that to claim any programme “requires no revision” fails to understand the nature of a Communist Party programme. It is the bare bones of principle expressed in a highly condensed form, frequently needing substantial elaboration or development according to different circumstances. The comrade said this is especially true of the section on Ireland in our Draft programme: it is acceptable as far as it goes, but fails to even mention the British-Irish question.

Introducing the motion submitted by the Manchester branch, comrade John Pearson described as “worrying” some of the things written by comrade Conrad in recent issues of the Weekly Worker. For example, in ‘Bolshevism and consistent democracy’(October 7) comrade Conrad estimates that “on a nought-to-100 index, from non-nation to full nation, the British-Irish would score, say, 75”. This, said comrade Pearson, is just a baseless assertion with no evidence to support it, and contradicts the Leninist heritage of thought. Specifically it also contradicts comrade Conrad’s own supplements on Ireland published in The Leninist in 1984, which contained substantive and elaborated Marxist analysis proving Ireland is one nation and not two. Comrade Pearson was also disturbed by the implication that the Party should accept the protestant veto on Irish unity contained in the article, ‘British-Irish once again’ (Weekly Worker September 23): ie, that Jack Conrad would countenance a British-Irish province on condition that “the statelet of Northern Ireland has been democratically abolished”. Nothing more is said about how it should be democratically abolished - it implies that the British-Irish, or as comrade Pearson and his co-thinkers prefer to call them “orangeists” or “loyalists”, should agree to it. Comrade Pearson wondered where the Party would go next if these theses were accepted. He was most alarmed by comrade Conrad’s remarks about the “historically established Jewish population” in Israel - that they should not be driven into the sea. To advocate national rights for Jews in Israel would be an abomination, comrade Pearson said.

Turning to the Manchester motion itself, comrade Pearson reiterated that in his view the CPGB Draft programme is an expression of Marxism-Leninism and to change it would be opportunist. It includes the line, “We communists in Britain unconditionally support the right of Ireland to reunite”. If the PCC theses were accepted, comrade Pearson argued, this would have to be changed. He said the quotes from Marx and Lenin in the Manchester majority motion demonstrated that for them democracy was important but did not override socialism or the interests of the working class. Comrade Pearson reiterated what he said at the September aggregate: that where Lenin uses class-laden terms the leadership of the CPGB prefers terms free of any class content. Constant emphasis on democracy, and playing down socialism, communism and class, has frequently been a precursor to liquidationism. The comrade said he hopes this is not the case with the CPGB.

Comrade Jack Conrad proposed the PCC motion, noting how the debate on the British-Irish question has moved forward since it began at Communist University ’99. He summarised and replied to many of the arguments CPGB members and other comrades have made against the 20 theses in the pages of the Weekly Worker. These arguments included claims that only full nations should have the right to self-determination, that only oppressed nations should have this right, that the advocates of the Conrad theses are siding with Paisleyite reaction, and that the British-Irish are just a religion. Comrade Conrad answered those charges, and reiterated that our aim as communists must be working class self-liberation, and the voluntary union of people. Communists who start with the good intention of coercing historically constituted peoples into unity, supposedly in order to further the cause of socialism, will soon change into their opposite and become bureaucratic socialists.

In the debate, there were some minor doubts expressed about the PCC theses. Comrades questioned the real extent of the progressive side to the protestant tradition (thesis 4), and also how precise and definite the exact geographical area which should be granted the right of self-determination ought to be (thesis 15), However, the only amendment put forward to the theses themselves was from comrade Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group - who has speaking, but not voting rights at CPGB aggregates. It was he who argued for the deletion of the words, “not expelling Northern Ireland from the union”, from thesis 10.

Most of the debate explored themes flowing from the Manchester motion. Several supporters of the PCC theses claimed that the Manchester motion reiterates perceived existing truths rather than dealing with concrete realities. But crucially the Manchester motion, and the 1984 supplements from The Leninist which it quotes approvingly, fail to seriously address the question of the British-Irish.

Comrade Marcus Larsen said that those who see a contradiction between the goal of a united Ireland and the right of the British-Irish to self-determination fail to allow for the possibility of British-Irish workers being won away from reactionary sectarianism. Comrade Peter Manson said that what is being written now, in and about the 20 theses, is a substantial advance on what was written in the supplements 15 years ago, but does not radically depart from it. Comrade Michael Malkin said the Manchester motion is antiquarian in method: “We cannot take categories from 80 or 150 years ago and simply impose them on current reality,” the comrade said. Such an approach was unscientific and undialectical, and the very opposite of Marxism. To claim, as the Manchester theses do, that it is neither “proper” nor “permissible” to describe the protestants of the north of Ireland as anything other than “an integral part of the Irish nation” was plain wrong. The question is whether the British-Irish, objectively and subjectively, constitute a collectivity. The comrade claimed that they do, and that the fundamental fault in Manchester’s approach was a failure to differentiate between orangeism and the protestant working class as a whole. Our task is to win the mass of the British-Irish working class away from reaction. He denied the charge that the Party is taking a liquidationist turn, reassuring comrade Pearson that “not talking about socialism with every breath does not mean you are about to turn into the Democratic Left”.

Supporting the Manchester motion, comrade James Frazer said he was not convinced that the British-Irish are objectively a nation even if they think they are subjectively. He claimed that comrade Conrad has not proved anything to justify his change of mind.

Comrade Phil Watson - a minority in Manchester - defended the CPGB majority against charges of opportunism. He argued against turning the works of Marxism into a lifeless heritage museum. Similarly, comrade Conrad said our ideas constantly develop and we should critically examine everything, not least what he wrote in 1984.

The comrade said there was far less confusion than at the September aggregate and therefore he proposed voting on the 20 theses as a whole. An overwhelming majority of comrades voted for the theses as amended, including the addition of the preamble derived from section one of the Manchester motion with comrade Conrad’s amendment.

After the debate on the British-Irish question the aggregate heard a brief report on the work of the new Party cell which has the special task of updating and radically extending the Party’s website and associated electronic communications. At the end of the meeting, James Frazer presented a cheque for £1,000, raised by the Manchester branch in support of the Party’s election work.

Mary Godwin