04.11.1999

Party school

Party notes

Over the weekend of November 13-14, the Communist Party is organising a school on ‘The national question on the British Isles: lessons of the October revolution’. An educational around this time has become an annual event for our organisation, something we stage to mark the greatest blow for human freedom in world history so far, the Russian Revolution of 1917.

What is the best way to celebrate this event? We believe with a school that brings together communists to openly discuss their differences, to learn from each other and to fight for a collective understanding of their tasks. This is a common method we share with the Bolsheviks, without whom a successful revolution in Russia would have been impossible. It is a graphic expression of our understanding of democratic centralism.

The topic of this year’s school has been prompted by the debate that is currently raging in and around the ranks of the Communist Party. The national question in the British Isles - and in particular, the dynamics of the revolution in Ireland - have caused real controversy over the last three months. Sparked originally by a single sentence in a front-page article in the Weekly Worker of July 1, the arguments of the two sides of this debate have been developed in tens of thousands of words in the pages of our open press. It is far from concluded. This debate has not simply involved our own members and supporters. Comrades from a variety of political traditions and organisational affiliations have taken part in the discussion: from orthodox Trotskyites to left nationalists.

Our school is informed by precisely the same - genuinely scientific - method as the Iskraists/Bolsheviks. For example, comrade Allan Armstrong of the Scottish Socialist Party and the Republican Communist Network will open a session on ‘The break-up of Britain’, a scenario the comrade believes that the forces of the working class should actively promote and one that is bound to provoke fierce opposition.

The contrast with the rest of the left could hardly be starker. We have extensively covered the dismal ceremonies that pass for ‘schools’ and ‘educationals’ on the rest of the left over the years. Most consist of the dry-as-dust reiterations of a predetermined ‘line’ on a huge variety of political questions, ranging from the nature of the USSR to the social dynamics of human pre-history. In other words, they are nothing to do with ‘education’ at all. In fact, they bear far more resemblance to the deeply alienated process of socialisation that passes for education in mainstream bourgeois society than the genuine communist article.

We strive to introduce controversy and the clash of opinions. This is an attempt both to educate our comrades in a genuine sense - to train them as self-activating, critically-minded communist cadre - and also to fight for the truth. Thus - in contrast to the pig-ignorant comments of some of our opponents - the fact that we have a wide range of speakers presenting openings at our events is not a manifestation of our organisation’s fight for a grand theoretical truce on the left. Far from it. Simply, it creates the best possible conditions - of light, air and heat - for the correct ideas to thrive, defeat mistaken views and become strong.

With this in mind, the second issue of the Pre-conference bulletin for the forthcoming conference of the Socialist Workers Party (actually on November 13, 14 and 15, not beginning on November 6, as I and Pre-conference bulletin No1 originally reported) is interesting - mostly because of how uninteresting it is. In subsequent issues, I will review the SWP conference itself and the dismal state it reveals of this, the largest revolutionary organisation of the British left. So far in the pre-conference discussion two contributions (out of a total of 13, with just eight from individual SWPers, the rest either from the central committee or ‘party’ apparatchiks - an incredible statistic) address anything of real interest (see p5 of this issue).

Take Paul Jenkins of Barrow-in-Furness. Here is a comrade who has already been threatened and browbeaten at branch/district level before he had the temerity to put pen to paper nationally. He begins his contribution with an apology. He implores SWPers to read his piece “with an open mind and not be immediately defensive”. He writes his short contribution as “a Leninist”, “not as a member of any ‘faction’, or anything else” (pp12-13). His tame suggestions for widening SWP democracy could be branded as a “a critique of democratic centralism”, something he rightly denies.

Mike Hames from Croydon branch, has a broader point to make. Essentially, he is complaining of “a ‘party line’ on too wide a range of issues” (p15). Again, the comrade is at pains to stress that his ideas present no open challenge to the SWP establishment: he wants a situation where “in a few relatively marginal areas there is no party line” (p15).

As Bolsheviks, our approach is totally different. We are after the open exchange of ideas. We do not believe in a ‘party line’ - if that means the inability of dissenting views to express themselves - not simply on “a few relatively marginal areas”, but even on fundamental questions.

Our comrades are encouraged to speak out with boldness, to say what they think without worrying about who they upset or offend. The sessions at the school reflect this with thinking contributions not simply from comrades within, but also outside the ranks of our organisation.

Comrades are urged to attend, but are reminded that space is limited in the venue we have booked. Please let us know as soon as possible if you are able to come along.

Mark Fischer
national organiser