12.04.2000

Rapprochement step

Some 50 comrades attended the joint school of the Communist Party and the Alliance for Workers' Liberty on April 8 in central London. Comrades judged the event a qualified success, a positive contribution to the developing dialogue between our two organisations. The day was divided into two sessions - the first on economism, with Mark Fischer and Sean Matgamna, and the second on forging the party, with Jack Conrad and Cathy Nugent. The debates following both openings were lively and conducted in a fraternal manner.

However, some important areas of misunderstanding and even total incomprehension remain. I would highlight four areas in particular which need far more debate and clarification - economism, trade union work, what sort of party we are fighting for and the national question in the United Kingdom.

First, on the question of economism. The CPGB's charge of economism against much of the practice of the AWL appears to their members to be very strange. It seems axiomatic to them - along with much of the rest of the left - that one begins with the immediate economic concerns of the workers. Once struggle has been initiated around these, naturally it then becomes possible to introduce a more rounded, or "fuller" programme, as the AWL's Clive Bradley put it.

Approaching the working class now with a platform that features as its central demands the abolition of the monarchy system and a federal republic fails in some way to connect with the movement as it is, AWL comrades told us.

In other words, the comrades advocate an economistic approach. They suggest that the job of revolutionaries is to hold up a mirror to the workers, to give the prevailing consciousness of the class a left coloration. Our emphasis on the fight against this fundamental distortion of proletarian politics is not explained by some desire on our part to mechanically repeat the experience of the battles inside the Russian movement at the turn of the century, as suggested by Sean Matgamna. The art of Leninist politics is the struggle to relate each and every question of the day to 'bigger politics'. It is concerned to raise the eyes of the movement to the question of how we are ruled, of consistent revolutionary democracy.

The relative importance we attach to this is accounted for by the fact that economism is the dominant opportunist method of the contemporary left, not, unfortunately, the left of days of yore. This does not lead us to boycott work in the trade union movement - or the "class struggle", as Cathy Nugent significantly put it. The limited nature of our current intervention in trade unions is a question of priority, not principle. Mark Fischer and other comrades cited numerous examples of our group's active involvement in such struggles in the past. Clearly, our objection to economism is not an objection to communist work in the trade unions - far from it.

Perhaps the national question in the United Kingdom sparked the most contentious exchanges. AWL incomprehension was expressed at the importance the CPGB attaches to this. After all, as comrade Matgamna put it, there is no "mileage" in it from the point of view of working class politics. Indeed, the suggestion seemed to be that any attempt to seriously address the question in Scotland would itself be a slippery slope down into a form of nationalism.

In reply, Mark Fischer ridiculed comrade Matganma's idea that revolutionaries in Scotland could only outflank the nationalists by become more nationalistic themselves. The AWL evidenced almost a fear of taking up the question in a serious way - as if merely addressing the question was halfway to advocating separatism. Here, precisely, was a perfect example of the dangers of economism. When working class politics are defined as narrow economic concerns, taking up broader political questions seems to imply a tendency to tail other, non-proletarian political forces.

Fundamentally, the national rights of the Scottish or Welsh are questions for the English working class. The best argument against Welsh or Scottish separatism would be for the dominant nationality to defend self-determination for these peoples, up to and including their right to secede. This would be the most effective way to undercut the anti-English poison of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party.

Despite itself, the AWL's agnostic position on this key democratic question thus gives succour to divisive forces which threaten the integrity of the historically united working class of Britain. It is an important blind spot in AWL politics.

The question of what type of party our two organisations fight for in the here and now was raised, but not really explored in depth. Against our organisation's call, stressed by Jack Conrad, for a reforged Communist Party, the AWL's stated position is for a new Labour Representation Committee, although the comrades freely admit this had little agitational 'purchase' on the movement as currently constituted politically.

Again, implicit in these two approaches can be discerned two programmatic methods. We fight for what is required - a party capable of uniting the advanced part of our class for revolution. The AWL's stance again smacks of bowing to the existing consciousness of the movement - that is, a form of economism.

The school has certainly provided material to develop polemical exchanges between our organisations. Plus, the leaderships of our two groups remain committed to an ongoing series of meetings to explore differences. We are optimistic that a patient process of debate and clarification can promote convergence on a higher political level for both trends.