WeeklyWorker

16.03.2000

Why we are resigning from the CWI: A letter to the membership

We are comrades who taken together have many, many years' experience in the workers' struggle against apartheid and capitalism in South Africa from its rebirth in 1973, as well as in the South African section of the CWI.

One of us played a role in the Durban strikes of 1973 and the first rebuilding of the independent trade union movement. Another is regional secretary of the South African National Civic Organisation (Sanco) and a leading activist and shop steward in the South African Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union (Saccawu). Another of us, senior shop steward for the South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union (Sactwu) in his previous work place, has just been chosen by his new workmates as a South African Municipal Workers Union (Samwu) shop steward.

Another, a former Saccawu shop steward, despite being retrenched, continues to be looked to by insurance workers for advice in building the union. Another of us has just lost the top of his middle right hand finger in an industrial accident (the fault of the bosses). A former Sactwu shop steward, he led a work stoppage recently and as a result the collaborationist shop steward has been trying to marginalise him. Another is general secretary of the Service Employees Industrial Union, an independent union under our control, and another assists in the development of that union. Another of us has just had dropped false charges of 'corruption' brought against her and six others in court by a reactionary ANC town councillor.

We have come to this decision reluctantly and with great difficulty, but after numerous efforts to prevent comrade WH's divisive campaign, we believe a dead end has been reached. We are not prepared to be involved in a protracted and internecine debate with the International Secretariat based on lies and slander. Too much damage has already been inflicted on the organisation and morale of comrades by comrade WH. We want to get on with the business of building a revolutionary organisation, continue intervening in the struggles of the working class, and contribute to the building of a mass workers' party. We believe that at this stage, unfortunately, these tasks are best addressed outside the ranks of the CWI.

On March 12 1999 comrade WH produced a polemical document directed against comrades David Hemson (DH), Martin Legassick (ML) and Noor Nieftagodien (NN). The ideas in this document were quite new. None of them had been raised by comrade WH at the national meeting of the section held only months before, in September 1998. The change came about after comrade WH (accidentally) attended the world congress later in 1998, was nominated to the International Executive Committee and found his nomination opposed within the SA section. Comrade WH produced his document to try to discredit the comrades he believed opposed his nomination.

The document was correctly described by comrade NN in an e-mail to the IS of March 17 as the "[dishonest] ramblings of a disaffected comrade ... Comrade WH is guilty precisely of what the IS accused former comrades from the US and Pakistan of doing - of fabricating lies and distortions." Comrade NN correctly warned: "If he is allowed to continue in this way he will destroy the organisation." Now Comrade WH's antics since that time have driven more than two-thirds of the section to resign.

In that document comrade WH falsely (and slanderously) accused comrades DH, ML and NN of holding positions that "are an echo of the arguments of RP [former leader of the section and member of the IS, who caused a serious split in the organisation in 1995] who made his peace with capitalism and attempted to destroy the organisation after he capitulated."

It would appear that RP's ghost is haunting these comrades. Despite comrade WH's later denials that this was his intention, he clearly meant to accuse comrades DH, ML and NN of compromising with capitalism. If you say to someone, 'You echo your father, who is a reprehensible character', you are accusing that person of being a reprehensible character. In fact comrade WH deliberately associated the three comrades with RP to attempt to tarnish their names. He has of course never been able to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims. Comrade WH in this hoped for the support of the IS, in which he has succeeded. But if he hoped to turn the membership against the comrades he has failed. Comrade WH also falsely charged that these comrades' criticisms of the IS had demoralised the section and that comrades DH, ML and NN constituted an anti-IS faction.

A reply by ML to this document, dated March 25, refuted all these allegations. The dispute manufactured by comrade WH cut across all the decisions taken at the national meeting of September 1998 regarding the building of the organisation and quite unnecessarily damaged the work of the organisation throughout 1999. Despite this, however, we managed to produce one issue of the paper, which was welcomed by all comrades as a weapon for intervention in the class.

A very representative national meeting of the organisation held on November 12-14 1999 agreed with comrade ML's document. (Three comrades from Cape Town could not attend because finances would not permit this). It resolved by eight votes to one with five abstentions, that comrade WH's attempts to link the comrades with RP had no basis and were simply a smear. Comrade WH's other accusations were rejected by an identical vote, and the accusation that comrades constituted an anti-IS faction was identified as a slander.

Now as a result of the 'commission' held in London on November 29 to discuss the question of South Africa after the IEC, we have discovered that these slanders of comrade WH, as well as others, are supported by the IS. The IS has apparently decided to promote comrade WH as leader of the SA section and will tolerate no criticism of him, whatever he says or does. This is intolerable to us.

Comrades in SA agree with the CWI that the most likely perspective for the world economy over the next period is one of recession or even possible slump, as part of the general decline of capitalism through a series of recessions. At the same time comrades in the SA section have raised constructive criticisms of the positions of the IS, with the intention of fine-tuning our position and perspectives. They have pointed out, for example, that the IS went through a clandestine U-turn on the question of globalisation and (like the comrades in Sweden) have questioned the CWI's position on the euro and on the nation state. Comrades have not felt it necessary to write documents on these questions (as invited by the IS) because documents tend to harden the lines of discussion. Nor, to our understanding, have the comrades in Sweden written documents criticising the IS.

The effect of comrade WH's caricatured interpretations of these comrades' points has been to falsely try to turn attempts at fine-tuning into apparent principled differences. The result has been the complete stifling of constructive debate in the section. Every word and sentence spoken or written by comrades has been scrutinised and judged by comrade WH on the basis of whether it echoes RP's ideas, or meets some other false charge. To mention the words 'new technology' in a discussion on world perspectives, for example, is to invite comrade WH to accuse one of supporting RP's supposed idea of a new golden period for capitalism!

Increasingly, this makes it impossible to have any discussion on any question at all. The end result in the organisation will be silence, or rather a monologue from comrade WH. Comrades have a right to have differences with the positions of the CWI without being assaulted as compromisers with capitalism. Comrade WH's method, however has deprived us of this right.

Sometimes it is worse than merely being accused of being compromisers with capitalism. At the meeting of November 29, when making a criticism of comrades' pointing out the clandestine U-turn on globalisation, comrade WH said that comrades should show "respect and loyalty to the international leadership". No-one in the IS has yet denied the evidence presented by SA comrades from written documents of a U-turn by the IS on globalisation. Yet we are told to refuse to point these things out because they might show the fallibility of the international leadership! These are approaching the methods of Stalinism.

We also believe that comrade WH presents the perspectives of the CWI in a crude and mechanical way. His attitude to world economic perspectives, for example, is simply to reiterate again and again "there will be a slump". Comrades have pointed out that this is a caricature of the CWI's position. Comrade WH has refused to recognise that there has been a temporary recovery in the Japanese and East Asian economies. His drafts of the special issue of the paper (see later) described Japan as being in a slump.

Against this a formulation was proposed as follows: "In 1997 the collapse of the Asian economies heralded the plunging of half the world economy into recession, including Japan, second largest economy, in stagnation since the early 1990s. Only the US seemed to be keeping the world economy afloat. Now, while Asian economies including Japan are growing slowly once again, the US will certainly slow down and possibly go into recession, which could plunge the whole world economy into recession." On October 12 comrade WH responded to this in an e-mail: "I think it is wrong to say the Asian and Japanese economies are growing slowly once again." In fact anyone who argued this position was accused by comrade WH of believing in a continuous boom for capitalism! Yet the October 1999 issue of Socialism Today states: "It is true that the crisis-ridden economies in east Asia are recovering and that Japanese capitalism is performing better than expected. However, the recovery is extremely fragile and it is doubtful that it can be sustained."! Socialism Today recognised what comrade WH steadfastly refused to accept.

We believe that comrade WH's position is in fact like that criticised by Trotsky at the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern in 1922: "In 1920 there ensued - on the basis of universal capitalist decay - an acute cyclical crisis. Some comrades among the so-called 'lefts' [read comrade WH] held that this crisis must uninterruptedly deepen and sharpen up till the proletarian revolution. We, on the other hand, predicted that a break in the economic conjuncture was unavoidable in the more or less near future, bringing a partial recovery. We insisted, further, that such a break in the conjuncture would not tend to weaken the revolutionary movement but, on the contrary, to impart new vitality to it ... Some of the comrades seriously thought at the time that this prognosis mirrored a deviation toward opportunism and a tendency to find excuses for postponing the revolution indefinitely" (First five years of Comintern vol 2, pp258-9). Comrade WH has fallen into the same trap, wrongly accusing comrades of "a deviation towards opportunism".

From 1922 the upturn lasted for five years, until the great depression. At present the partial upturn is unlikely to last so long. However comrade WH is dishonest in seeking to conceal this upturn from the working class. Yet we have discovered that the IS totally endorses the unMarxist and ultra-left approach of this comrade.

On March 17 in an e-mail comrade NN called on the IS to censure comrade WH, to prevent him from destroying the SA section. Eight comrades in the organisation wrote to the IS requesting the withdrawal of comrade WH's nomination to the IEC. In fact the IS did not censure comrade WH. Officially, to the organisation, they kept completely silent on comrade WH's behaviour and on his slanders, though comrade TS did write to comrade ML informing him that the decision to nominate comrade WH to the IEC had been put 'on hold'.

In fact, comrade TS was lying. The IS has continued to treat comrade WH as a member of the IEC. As has only recently become apparent, the IS has throughout the year encouraged and conspired with comrade WH in his destructive activities.

Comrade TS, the secretary of the IS, disclosed at the meeting in London on November 29, for example, that he had had a lengthy phone call with comrade WH regarding a call for a 24-hour general strike to combat the massive retrenchments and support the public sector workers' strike in the wake of the June election. We welcome assistance to the section from the IS. However, not one other comrade was aware that this call, made probably in July, had taken place until comrade TS's disclosure of it in late November, some four months later! Comrade TS and comrade WH were in fact engaged in secret discussions and manoeuvres, to the exclusion of other comrades.

This was despite a prior agreement with the IS that all official communication between them and the SA section would be conducted through comrade NN. Comrade TS should have ensured that a communication on the most important political development since 1994 took place through comrade NN, so that it would be shared with all the comrades and not used as a vehicle for comrade WH's personal ambitions through his slanderous campaign.

The section tried to produce a special issue of the paper on the 24-hour general strike. This led to considerable differences of opinion. Conceived in July, the first draft by comrade WH was circulated to EB comrades on August 10. Discussion on the paper was conducted by e-mail between centres in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban, 800 to 1400 kilometres apart. Comments were made on the first draft immediately it was produced, and again on the production of a final draft on August 22. Due to technical problems it unfortunately could not be produced as intended for Cosatu's day of action on August 24.

Thereafter it was decided to revise it and try again. A new draft was circulated by comrade WH on September 10 and comments were again made. The discussion of these reached an impasse in Johannesburg on September 20. In the opinion of the majority of the comrades in the section, despite repeated editorial criticism, comrade WH clung stubbornly and dogmatically through a number of drafts to a number of poor formulations, including ultra-left ones. Eventually comrade WH proposed that the paper be produced as a Johannesburg paper alone, thus trying to exclude the majority of the organisation. The rest of the Johannesburg comrades to their credit rejected this as likely to cause a split.

But they then proposed to halt production of the paper. This was rejected by comrades in Cape Town and Durban and by comrade NN, who insisted that the paper go ahead. After September 20 it was edited along lines acceptable to the majority of comrades, finalised and would have been published had not the public sector dispute apparently fizzled out.

We believe that comrade WH's dogmatic refusal to accept criticism of his formulations, including ultra-left ones, was encouraged by the unconditional support being given to him by the IS.

Comrade WH used the occasion of the special to launch further false allegations against comrades DH, ML and NN. He accused at least comrades ML and NN of opposing the call for a 24-hour general strike, and of conservatism for their critique of his draft. In doing so he combined straight lying with distorting and misinterpreting an e- mail by tearing it from its immediate context. There was not time to fully discuss the production of the special at the national meeting, though the political issues involved were raised in the discussion on SA perspectives, where comrade WH's tendency to ultra- leftism was criticised.

At that meeting comrade WH under questioning stated that comrades DH, ML and NN were committed to the socialist transformation of society. Yet subsequently, at the IEC and at the meeting in London of November 29 comrade WH introduced a new critique of comrades DH, ML and NN - that they were bending under opportunist pressure to be soft on the ANC: reluctant to make sharp criticisms of it! No evidence was presented for this preposterous accusation (which was also endorsed by the IS on November 29), though comrade WH appears to have been referring to discussions over the special issue.

We wish to state categorically:

At the national meeting the point was raised that the section has not discussed perspectives since the election and that this was one of the reasons for the sharp character of the dispute over the paper. Comrade TS at the meeting of November 29 took the opportunity to castigate the comrades for not paying more attention to the perspectives document written by comrade SK in 1995. But this was a cheap point to make, which missed the point of the discussion at the national meeting. Perspectives need constant ongoing discussion, as the working out of fundamentals takes place in a constantly changing climate. South Africa, for example, has just gone through its second democratic election, with which comrade SK's document clearly did not deal.

Up to at least last December, comrade WH had been predicting that the ANC would drastically lose support in this election because of its failure to deliver. In fact the ANC increased its percentage of the vote to almost two-thirds (while losing in absolute terms perhaps a million votes). Perspectives discussions in the Western Cape since the elections noted the sudden pick-up of support by the ANC in the last three months. This was as the result of a skilful campaign by the leadership, presenting Thabo Mbeki as a "new person" instead of Nelson Mandela, presenting him as committed to more efficient delivery of services, etc, etc. Undoubtedly the ANC increased its support in this period, as reflected in the vote for it. The view of the majority of comrades is that this reflects the national question in South Africa, together with a (false) belief that the ANC will be able to deliver more.

Comrade WH on the other hand seems to dismiss this pick-up of support by the ANC. In an article in Socialism Today written immediately after the election, he attributed the pick-up of support for the ANC entirely to a "vote against the white right". More recently he has emphasised the idea that voters were voting for a 'two-thirds ANC government' which would have been able to alter the constitution (seen as an obstacle to delivery). The majority of comrades find comrade WH's argument about 'two-thirds' very abstract and academic - they do not believe that this is how workers think about voting, and there is absolutely no evidence for this position. The relevance of this to the present situation is this: there is a difference between comrade WH who apparently believes that the majority of South Africans are fed up with the ANC and most other comrades, who believe that opposition to the government is constantly faced with the contradiction of unwillingness to give up support for the ANC. It is the difference between ultra-leftism and realism.

Let us take the indirect way some of this was reflected in discussions around the paper. Comrades did object, not once or twice, but several times, to a passage which continued to appear in drafts of the special written by comrade WH. It read: "Not even the apartheid regime in the period since the formation of Cosatu dared to carry out such an outrageous assault on the working class" [as the unilateral wage increase for public sector workers imposed by the ANC government]. What about the apartheid government's bombing of Cosatu House, the restrictions on Cosatu's political activity in 1988 and the Labour Relations Act of 1988? argued other comrades. What about the arrest of 25, 000 working class people under the state of emergency? This sentence in fact read as if the Thabo Mbeki government was less democratic than that of PW Botha. It was ultra-left. It would make the CWI a laughing stock in the working class movement. But comrade WH was totally impervious to this criticism. Indeed he proceeded to include the sentence in an article he submitted to Socialism Today! Comrade ML wrote to the editor of Socialism Today objecting to the inclusion of this sentence. Comrade WH denounced comrade ML twice at the national meeting for daring to communicate with the CWI on this matter! However, in the article published in Socialism Today (November 1999) the sentence has been dropped. Yet the IS hypocritically continue to defend comrade WH, and to agree with his criticisms of comrades DH, ML and NN as soft on the ANC!

There were other issues that came up in the course of drafting the paper. For example, there was another sentence which comrades objected to several times in comrade WH's draft: "The statement by Fraser-Moleketi's [ANC minister responsible for the public sector] spokesperson, later echoed by Trevor Manuel [ANC finance minister], that '43 million people will not be held to ransom by 2-300,000 workers' is soaked in class hatred for the working class."

By the third time of drawing attention to this sentence, which remained in the draft, comrade ML had become a little impatient! In an e-mail to the Johannesburg EB on 12/9 comrade ML wrote that, "The point is not to indulge in self-righteous name-calling, to strut like a frog and denounce 'soaked in class hatred' but to reply, to point out why the public sector workers are in fact acting in the interests of the remainder of the masses. Teachers, nurses and doctors, apart from anything else, need to be paid decent wages to avoid getting demoralised and putting education, health at risk and not combating crime. Plus the fact that public sector workers are defending democratic rights, etc, etc." If this criticism of comrade WH's draft is taken as reluctance to criticise the ANC, then so be it! In his sum-up at the recent IEC's discussion on the ex-colonial countries, comrade BL of the IS said that "the public sector dispute in South Africa did not mean automatically a rejection of the ANC". Should not comrade BL also be castigated by comrade WH - as well as by the rest of the IS - for reluctance to engage in sharp criticism of the ANC? One of the other political issues under dispute in the drafting of the special was whether or not the ANC wanted to smash the power of Cosatu. Comrade WH insisted that it did - another example of his ultra-leftism. Comrade PT however pointed out on November 29 that the ANC would not last six months without Cosatu's support. This was essentially the position put forward by comrades ML and NN on this question! The government does not want to smash Cosatu, but merely to try to tame its leadership. It is ultra-left as a perspective to claim that the government wants to smash Cosatu. The IS is aware that this is the case - yet they still support comrade WH's criticisms of comrades DH, ML and NN!

In his e-mail of September 12 to the Johannesburg BE, comrade ML pointed out that, "This special tends to be written for those in the know in the manner of the sects, rather than written so that activists can explain to the ordinary worker, in the manner I have learnt from the CWI." Comrade WH disagreed with this at the national meeting, when he claimed the paper should be pitched to the consciousness of the most advanced layer of activists. We have never before heard such a conception expressed in discussions of the paper in the CWI. The paper needs to be written for the activist layer, in a language enabling that layer to explain the issues to the workers whom they are leading. Comrade WH has abandoned this position, and in doing so is abandoning the methods of Marxism. In this, unfortunately, he is also apparently being supported by the IS.

Comrade WH also made much of a critique by comrades ML and NN of his use of the phrase, "It is time for a counteroffensive", in his draft of the special. The disagreement was not about whether the working class was or was not engaging in a counteroffensive, but whether or not it should be presented as such. As put by comrade ML in an e-mail on August 22, "I have been schooled in the CWI for 20 years to always if possible argue for defensive action by the working class. This is what the front page says - Defend the unions. (Defend the right of collective bargaining would be more concrete). Why now argue for a counteroffensive? The strike if it occurs will manifest itself as such in action. Words need to defend the working class."

In the minutes of a Johannesburg meeting of comrades on September 16 (responding to a reiteration of this point in an e-mail of September 12 by comrade ML) comrade WH is reported as saying that, "On question of offensive and defensive attack, WH disagrees with this comment and observes that this is reminiscent of Rob's [ie, RP's] argument that the struggle is never offensive until the insurrection." Note comrade WH's introduction of comrade RP to try to 'prove' his point by a smear.

However, comrade WH is proved wrong - by Trotsky, who in the History of the Russian Revolution, discusses the October insurrection of which he was a leader. He makes clear that it was carried out as if in self-defence against a counterrevolutionary coup by the government and adds: "Although an insurrection can win only on the offensive, it develops better, the more it looks like self-defence" (Vol 3, chapter 7, p1055). Do not present issues as "counteroffensives", but as self-defence! That is advice not from RP, but from comrade Trotsky ... and not even "until the insurrection", but during the insurrection as well! How much more applicable to the SA section's paper at this stage of the struggle! Comrade WH displayed here his ignorance of the methods of Marxism. And yet the IS continue to defend him.

Comrade TS stated at the meeting of November 29 that, as regards the paper, even if it was wrong to call for a 24-hour general strike what did it matter.

The point with a small organisation was to intervene in the class. As it happens, the call for a 24-hour general strike was correct. But the point, taken in general, indicates a very light-minded attitude to the correctness of the paper. Why not intervene with a paper saying the earth is flat, comrade TS? What response would you get from that. All the comrades yearn for a paper as a vehicle for intervention, and the one paper produced and sold this year was a huge morale boost for the comrades. The point is that comrades want a paper they can be proud of and serious workers respond to a paper they can take seriously. This was the tradition established by the SA section with Inqaba ya Basebenzi even when we were very small. What reason is there to abandon this tradition?

Comrade WH had been pressing since his document of March 12 for a national meeting to discuss the issues of the 'dispute' he had manufactured. He called for it again after he claimed an impasse had been reached on the special issue of the paper. The national meeting was held in November. It was heated and difficult. But at its end, comrades thought they had put this period behind us and could get on with building the organisation. Comrade WH's attitude has, however, been quite different. At the start of the national meeting all comrades agreed that the meeting was representative of the section and had full powers to decide on any question it wished. Comrade WH raised no objections. However, when it came to voting on the discussions, comrade WH outrageously refused to participate - arguing that the vote was a farce! When the comrades wished to elect a national committee, he tried to insist that it be an interim body. Fundamentally he refused to accept his defeat or to accept the organisation going ahead except under his exclusive leadership.

At the meeting of November 29 in Britain, comrade WH not only repeated all his old slanders against comrades DH, ML and NN, but added, as we have seen, some new ones (to reply adequately to all of them would require a book!). He also again stated that he did not take the resolutions of the national meeting seriously. Indeed he said he regarded the meeting as the most disgraceful episode in the history of our section! In this, and in other remarks, he insulted almost every comrade who participated in that meeting! The comrades from the Western Cape, he claimed, voted the way that they did because comrade ML had "intimidated" them by threats to resign from the organisation. New comrades Fally and Joe, he claimed, should not have voted on the resolutions on the grounds that they did not know RP's views!

We regard comrade WH's accusation of intimidation against comrade ML as beneath contempt. Had it not been for the work of comrades ML and MS since the split with RP, the organisation in the Western Cape would have collapsed. Merely to get a meeting together, whether of the EB or an aggregate, has required comrades MS and ML to drive at least 150 kilometres to townships and squatter camps. If the date or time of the meeting was changed, then it was another 150-kilometre drive to inform comrades who were not on the phone. Yet comrade ML is accused of intimidating comrades! It is this sort of dishonesty and hypocrisy that so disgusts comrades about the behaviour of comrade WH. Moreover the comrades in the Western Cape wish to make it clear to comrade WH and the IS that they think for themselves. They would not tolerate intimidation by comrade ML or anyone else.

Comrade Fally has vast experience as a trade union organiser and is secretary of the independent union we launched in Natal early in 1999. Comrade Joe has been assisting him in building the union and is active in the university students' organisation, the South African Students Congress. To single out these comrades as being unaware of RP's views and criticise them for participating in the vote is an insult to them. As much as any other comrade, they were entitled to express their views on the issues which were debated. Comrade WH also criticised comrades KS and TC for threatening to resign at the national meeting. What he does not appreciate is the shock and outrage felt by these comrades at his behaviour, and yet their determination to get past the hurdle and steer the organisation along the right road.

The hope that the IS would intervene constructively to resolve the dispute manufactured by comrade WH weighed quite heavily with comrades at the national meeting. Thus every one of us was shocked to find that comrade WH's attempt to undermine the democracy and legitimacy of the national meeting received the endorsement of the IS. We are also disappointed to find that the IS apparently listens only to one point of view with regard to the SA section and has closed its ears to any other voices. We are shocked that the members of the IS drew such sweeping conclusions at the meeting of November 29 on this basis.

At the meeting on November 29 comrade PT of the IS is reported to have said that comrades with concerns need only pick up the phone to speak to him - implying that SA comrades have not previously voiced their concerns about what was happening. But what about comrade NN's e-mail to the IS on March 17 calling for the censure of comrade WH? What about the letter from eight comrades in the Western Cape asking the IS to withdraw the nomination of comrade WH as an IEC member? What about comrade ML's document of March 25 refuting the allegations of comrade WH. Not one of these documents was seriously addressed or replied to by the IS.

Comrade NN might have received one phone call from the IS during 1999 although only after a second letter of complaint about the behaviour of comrade WH. But not once during the year has there been a phone call from any comrade in the IS to comrades DH or ML or any other comrade to ascertain their views on the issues at stake. Not once has the IS attempted to phone any worker comrade to get their assessment of comrade WH's antics. Yet comrade WH and the comrades in the IS appear to have frequent communication by phone.

Even the 'commission' of November 29 was something of a kangaroo court. After comrade NN's introduction, he was assaulted by a whole host of accusations not only by comrade WH, but also from comrades SK, TS and PT. Then comrade NN, who had to catch a plane, had five minutes to reply to this assault!

The IS was concerned only to listen to the lies of comrade WH and totally ignored trying to get at the truth. The 'opinions' of comrades SK, TS and PT were based 95% on the views of comrade WH, and at most five percent on any other evidence at all, and then interpreted in a very distorted and selective way. And what kind of evidence? Comrades SK, TS and PT clutched at straws to try to indict comrades DH, ML and NN. Comrade PT recalled that when he had visited SA (in 1993?) comrade DH had agreed with the views of RP. So what? RP was a member of the organisation then. Comrade PT moreover has a very selective memory. No doubt he has forgotten commending comrade ML then for his close relations with worker comrades, arguing that this was a buttress against reformism. Comrade ML's relations with worker comrades remain as close today.

As well as this the IS and comrade WH have kept other comrades in the dark about what is going on in the organisation. Comrade NN was astounded to hear on November 29 that comrade TS and comrade WH had had a lengthy discussion on the question of the 24-hour general strike on the phone. Despite frequent discussions with comrade WH since that call in July, it had never been mentioned! Comrade NN was also astounded to hear at the IEC that the SA section was holding discussions with an organisation of young communists (in fact a group of former sectarians now operating in a branch of the South African Communist Party)! He had never heard this before either.

This dishonest lack of transparency by the IS is totally antithetical to the methods of Marxism. In manoeuvring between comrades and appearing to treat some comrades as enemies it smacks of the methods of bourgeois politics.

Let us, by the way, examine comrade WH's double standards on the question of communications with the IS. In no way does he endorse comrade PT's approach - "Phone me if you have concerns". Take for example a letter dated November 9 1999 (which he signed) from comrades in Gauteng to comrades in the Western Cape in reply to a letter from the EB in the Western Cape to comrades in Gauteng dated September 28 1999 (copies of both of which were sent to the IS). The Johannesburg letter of November 9 states: "We further object to communication with the International Secretariat in the name of the South African section on issues which have not been discussed and agreed upon by all comrades of our section." Western Cape comrades sent a copy of their letter to the IS, not in the name of the South African section, but in the name of the Western Cape EB. Yet for comrade WH there is to be no communication with the IS by comrades unless it is on matters agreed by all comrades in the section! Moreover, as we have already pointed out, comrade WH twice criticised comrade ML at the national meeting for having dared to write a letter to the editor of Socialism Today!

At the same time for comrade WH this prohibition on communication with comrades in the IS applies only to others in the section, but not to himself. Did comrade WH communicate his document of March 12 1999, with its slanders and lies against comrades DH, ML and NN, to the IS with the agreement of all other comrades in the section? Of course he did not. In the Johannesburg letter of September 28 it is stated that comrade WH "communicates with the IS in his personal capacity, at his own initiative". Personal capacity! How convenient! Well let us say that the EB in the Western Cape also communicated in their "personal capacity" with the IS, and so did comrade ML. This is the sort of wriggling and self-serving argumentation that comrades have to endure from comrade WH. And all of it finds the approval of the IS.

In their letter of September 28 the Western Cape EB queried why comrade WH appeared to have privileged communication with the IS. This was in view of a public letter he had sent off to a sect, which he copied to other comrades, remarking that he had heard of the sect in a communication from the IS. In reply to this the Johannesburg letter of November 9 states that "we understand comrade WH's communication with the IS was not on an official basis ... Our understanding is that all official communication and correspondence is with comrade NN." However, comrade NN did not receive a communication from the IS concerning this sect, clearly a communication of an official nature. Moreover comrade TS, secretary of the IS, held official discussions with comrade WH which led to the attempt to produce a special issue of the paper. The statement in the Johannesburg letter of November 9 drafted by comrade WH is a blatant lie. This is the sort of dishonesty and hypocrisy that comrades constantly have to endure from comrade WH. And yet the IS wants this comrade to be leader of our section!

Indeed, comrade KS has reported to the section that members of the IS have been wanting to impose comrade WH's exclusive leadership since well before 1999. Apparently comrade SK, when on a visit to SA in 1995-6, told comrade KS that he must be prepared to remove the 'old guard', namely comrades DH and ML, from any leadership role in the section. This is what the IS has proceeded to try and do, against the wishes of most of the comrades, and to impose comrade WH instead. This comrade SK referred to at the meeting of November 29 as the "democratic right" of the IS! In his intervention on November 29 comrade WH went further. He implied that any disagreement at all with candidates nominated for the IEC by the IS showed disrespect and disloyalty to the international leadership! In fact comrade WH has become like a tiny Thabo Mbeki: he cannot tolerate independent, thinking minds around him. That trait of his alone ensures unfortunately that the section will wither. His continued antics are likely to reduce the organisation to nothing. But the IS has committed itself to him. This is why we are resigning.

The IS probably believes that if only the 'obstacles' of comrades DH, ML and NN can be disposed of the SA section will suddenly shoot forward in membership. No doubt this is what comrade WH is telling them. It is a complete fantasy.

In his document of March 27 comrade ML wrote that the danger of comrade WH's present outburst "is that it will so damage the organisation as to leave comrade WH holding its banner on its own. That would be a disaster." Through 1999 there were in fact signs of this danger emerging. In Johannesburg, where comrade WH is situated, several comrades became inactive. Only in Natal, where comrade DH was involved in the launch of an independent union, and Cape Town, where activity at Sanlam proceeded, was there some slow growth: at least two comrades in each area. The IS may well be ignorant of this, because they have been kept in the dark by their preoccupation with comrade WH. Throughout the year comrade WH was boasting about impending rapid growth in Johannesburg to the comrades (and no doubt to the IS as well). All his boasts came to nothing. In fact it is quite laughable that comrade WH in the meeting of November 29 lies that more comrades from Johannesburg could have been brought to the national meeting! The attendance from Johannesburg at the national meeting of six comrades represented the consistent attendance throughout the year - a fall-off from preceding years moreover.

Comrade WH appears in fact to be indifferent as to whether or not the section grows so long as he rules supreme. Otherwise why did he insult virtually all the attendees at the national meeting of November? As a comrade in the Western Cape has put it, "If comrade WH wants to build the organisation, then why is he chasing people out of it?"

Comrade WH still refuses to accept that comrades in the Western Cape have minds of their own. Having heard rumours of our resignation, he phoned comrade Miriam and asked her, "Who put this idea into your heads?" Comrade M correctly explained to comrade WH that it was a collective decision, but that each comrade had made up their mind and spoken on the issue independently.

Those who have been with comrade WH through some 20 years in the organisation cannot in fact remember any occasion on which he has recruited a comrade or educated a comrade in the ideas of Marxism. Comrade WH is a phrasemonger, not a builder.

Comrade WH set out with the intention of marginalising comrades DH, ML and NN. Perhaps he - and comrades TS and SK who have done most to aid and abet him - will now dance a little dance of glee. That would be foolish in the extreme. More than two- thirds of the section are resigning. Despite two splits in the past, this is the first time that worker comrades are leaving the SA section. That should be a warning to the IS - though we fear they have become so blind that we do not expect them to heed it.

In a recent phone conversation trying to persuade comrade Roseman in the Western Cape of the correctness of his position, comrade WH accused the comrade of compromising his class independence by siding with "white intellectuals" (sic). The worker comrade was so outraged that he promptly put the phone down. For comrade WH, "white intellectuals" are clearly the enemy. There is a South African expression with which we will comment on that. Siestog, comrade WH. This remark of yours defiles the traditions of internationalism, the non-racial tradition of the workers' struggle in South Africa and the traditions of our section. The Stalinists falsely branded our organisation as a group of white intellectuals, a pretext used by them to expel and beat up our comrades. Now the same methods are employed from within our ranks. Moreover it is a symptom of the degeneration of the IS that such an 'ethnic cleansing' statement can be made by someone supported and promoted by the IS.

Comrades in SA have been at a loss to explain why the IS has placed all its hopes in comrade WH, why the ears of the comrades in the IS seem to be closed to everything other than what they are told by comrade WH.

The only explanation we can find for this is because of his sycophancy towards the IS. Throughout the 1980s he was the most sycophantic comrade in the SA section towards RP. Now he has turned away from RP to comrade PT. But the CWI is supposed to be building a cadre of independent-minded people, not sycophants. That it is not is a sign of degeneration.

The CWI has shrunk from nearly 10,000 members at the start of the 1990s to some 4,500 today. The recent IEC recorded growth in membership basically only in Nigeria, for which we congratulate the Nigerian comrades. There was stagnation everywhere else. While some of this is the result of the objective pressures of capitalism, this cannot account for all the losses. This is why comrades in the SA section have pointed to the obvious loss of political authority of the IS. The defiance of the IS in the US, Pakistan and Liverpool which provoked expulsions; the ignoring of IS advice in France and Scotland are all symptoms of this.

This is an issue which in our view the IS has refused to face up to and deal with in a proper way. Instead of looking inward to re-examine theory and perspectives, the IS has over-defensively tried to scapegoat and witch-hunt every critic. This why a premium is now being placed on sycophancy.

Unfortunately the CWI has acquired a touch of gangrene. In the case of the SA section this has moved within a year from toleration and encouragement of political dishonesty to toleration of a comrade promoting the 'ethnic cleansing' of the section. In our view if this continues, the problems of the CWI and the defections from it will continue. Scotland will most likely be next. We think it is overdue for the IS to take political and organisational stock of itself and for the CWI to take stock of the IS.

We are resigning from the CWI because we refuse to play comrade WH's games. We are not manoeuvrers, or liars, or slanderers. We continue to believe in the necessity of struggling to end capitalism and for the socialist transformation of society worldwide. We recognise the need for Marxist organisation to achieve this. We feel deeply sad that the CWI has ceased for us to be an adequate vehicle of this. With our best endeavours, we will continue to try to build such organisation. Because we are in the majority, we intend to keep the name of the organisation and of our paper, Socialist Alternative. We hope to be able to join again with the CWI in the future if and when the IS has come to its senses.

Trevor Christian, Fally, Joe Guy, Dave Hemson, Martin Legassick, Citness (Khayo) Ndovi, Noor Nieftagodien, Hilda Phoswayo, Roseman, Margaret Struthers, Karel Swartz, Miriam Tlali