17.05.2000

Party notes

Floundering

We have commented on the political fluidity of the present period. For those sectarian groups whose perspectives were frozen and inert, this period poses the danger of being drowned. Judging from its latest paper, the small Trotskyist group, Workers Power, is floundering badly.

Its editorial assesses the way forward for the London Socialist Alliance in the aftermath of its respectable electoral performance on May 4. Correctly, the whole tone of the piece is upbeat and optimistic. The comrades have the merit of recognising that a "tremendous window of opportunity" has been opened and that "the task of the day is to build a revolutionary party" (Workers Power May).

They contrast this view to "two broad strategies" shared by other components of the bloc: "The first sees the LSA as a small step in the fight for a new mass reformist party - a rerun of old Labour" - the Alliance for Workers' Liberty and the crisis-wracked Socialist Party are correctly cited as adherents of this (artificial) stageist perspective.

Then, however, we get this amazing passage:

"The second strategy on offer was to build a permanent alliance in the shape of a federal party ... The Communist Party of Great Britain (Weekly Worker) holds to a version of this with their idea of a 'rapprochement' of the left."

Given the relatively extensive polemics we have exchanged over the years with WP on our understanding of the party question, such a comment is more than surprising. It almost smacks of a deliberate falsehood. For the sake of our anonymous WP author - and for the umpteenth time in general - let us state our views.

We fight for a mass, unified, revolutionary workers' party with a single programme, an authoritative leadership, and strict cohesion. This has nothing to do with federalism. While there must be full and open freedom of discussion both before and after specific party interventions, we demand iron unity in action. Although we stand for the right of permanent factions in the party, we do not advocate factionalism as a good thing in itself. Rather, a permissive attitude to factions creates the best conditions for the political divisions to be overcome, for the party to be reunited around scientifically correct - that is, Leninist - politics. We stand for democratic centralism, in other words.

All of this is perfectly clear and has been repeatedly stated in polemics with WP. For instance, writing in Workers Power, Kirsty Paton suggested that the 'pet project' of the CPGB - rapprochement - amounted to little more than "constructing a loose socialist grouping" (July-August 1997). In a reply to her, I cited a developed outline of our approach to party building, which states explicitly that "as long as factions are loyal to the party and the party principle, as long as all members of the party, irrespective of faction, diligently and fully carry out agreed assignments and fulfil all their financial obligations", then the basis of party unity remains intact (J Conrad 'Party, non-ideology and faction' Weekly Worker December 15 1994). Further, such a party regime does not embody a codification of immutable differences and divisions. Through open polemic and disciplined unity in action, such a party regime would facilitate "the merger, the fusion of factions and the conversion of factional centres into centres that are only those of shade or trend". That is, our aim is both organisational and theoretical/political unity.

What we stand for is clear. But what of the sect-building perspectives of Workers Power? Clearly, the experience of the LSA has disorientated this group and exposed some of its more silly pretensions. Thus, it has attempted to project itself as standing alone on the extreme left of the bloc, with most of the others - including the CPGB - ranged against its unique revolutionary perspectives. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, it must therefore portray our trend as belonging to the swamp, as politically committed to the marshy middle ground between a revolutionary party and a re-run of old Labour. Given the hokum it has written in the past, this WP sleight of hand is understandable.

I remind readers of Colin Lloyd, a leading WP journalist, who wrote (December 1996) of the supposed Leninist organisational principle that members must "agree" with the party programme. Nonsense, of course. Lenin was at pains to stress that acceptance of the programme was the key criterion. Indeed, I suggested that the view of party discipline defended by WP bore far more relation to the discipline of a faction. A faction is an "organisation ... united, not by its place of work, language or other objective conditions, but by a particular platform of views" (VI Lenin CW Vol 17, Moscow 1977, p265).

I was gratified when Richard Brenner actually took up this idea and agreed that Workers Power and all its tiny clones scattered around various spots on the planet were indeed "like factions without a party" and that open debate of differences was a "norm" - but only for a "mass party", he added, by way of alibying WP's sectarian practice in the here and now (Weekly Worker April 2 1998).

Now - generously - WP allows that in the outcome it fights for, "Workers Power would not insist that a new party adopt every dot and comma of our international programme: we would insist on fighting for our revolutionary action programme - and (if we lost) our right to continue to argue for it within any party created" (Workers Power May).

This flatly contradicts Lloyd's sectarian nonsense, of course. It even begins to stray close to an understanding of party consistently championed by our group - dangerous terrain for WP. Clearly, the criterion for unity is not 'agreement', but the right for political minorities to fight to become party majorities. Is this also an expression of a "federal" understanding of party, comrades?

I am assured that Workers Power is about to reinstate its letters page, a section of the paper that withered and died due to combination of reader apathy and censorial editorial policy. Those that can be bothered should avail themselves of the space to put WP right.