01.11.2001

Left nationalists split Network

The AGM of the Republican Communist Network in Edinburgh last Saturday proved to be a somewhat tortuous affair and the opportunity that existed for members to debate RCN politics and tactics in this current period of hightend political activity largely failed to occur. The narrow nationalist ?distrust? of the CPGB that is now ingrained amongst one wing of the RCN (Scotland) meant that problems (which undoubtedly exist) in the network generally were pushed to the forefront of debate and that the whole project is in danger of ignominious collapse.

The secretaries for RCN Scotland and England opened the meeting by reporting on work in each kingdom. It was their reports which set the framework for discussion during the rest of the day.

Comrade Mary Ward began by outlining how a view existed in Scotland which somehow believed that the RCN Scotland was being ?hampered? by the relationship with the RCN in England. Comrades in England were not building the RCN. Those in Scotland were - despite a drop in membership. It should also be pointed out that the RCN is a network. In Scotland it functions as a recognised SSP platform. In England there is no party - nevertheless those in the RCN network have over the year made tremendous progress. Something which should be a source of strength and inspiration. Nevertheless the RCN in Britain, she claimed, was not working as it currently stood.

Comrade Steve Freeman agreed that there were differences in tempo and focus between the two bodies but emphasised the need for ongoing debate if problems were to be correctly addressed and overcome. His comments were made against the background of a split motion by RCN Edinburgh, which, although it was not due to be voted upon at the AGM, will be debated by the RCN in Scotland this month. That motion calls for the ?breaking of formal links between RCN Scotland and England?.

The nationalist reasoning behind this motion was made perfectly explicit. Those who speak in the name of an abstract Scottish workers republic and who want to split the historically constituted working class in Britain have to concoct in their fetid imaginations a national oppressor. Comrade Ian Robertson, RCN treasurer, argued for a split. The RCN (England) was not ?real? because it was ?run by the CPGB and RDG? who ?impose? (or try to impose) their specific politics on others. All independents in England had been driven out by the CPGB, which ?deliberately? plotted their exclusion. The CPGB?s ?abusive? polemics was wheeled out as another reason for separation - the comrade appears to ?forget? that we have members and supporters in both kingdoms (besides Wales).

Comrade Allan Armstrong also moaned on about the ?conduct? of the CPGB at meetings. On top of that there was an almost endless catalogue of hurts, petty complaints and half-invented incidents.

In fact there are no problems between the RCN England and Scotland. What exists is a nationalist wing in the RCN Scotland which finds itself rattled after suffering a string of defeats in debates and votes on an all-Britain basis. Intolerable for those so-called ?democrats?. Politically bankrupt, they search for any excuse to retreat into the snug position as an SSP left-nationalist ginger group.

Perhaps the most pathetic excuse invented by the RCN Scotland?s left nationalist wing is the CPGB?s supposedly ?abusive? polemical style. CPGB members and supporters at the meeting pointed out that everyone must have the right to say what they want in the manner they choose during debate. Often there are going to be times when some easily bruised  individual will interpret what is said as ?abusive?. But what is wrong with abuse? Attempts to get rid of it are far worse, far more sinister, than the injured egos of certain would-be left nationalist politicians.

What became apparent during the AGM, however, was that the left nationalist wing is were not only complaining about the ?manner? of debate, but the fact that they find themselves in a small minority - we only sent three comrades up from England and they still lost every vote.

Although there were five motions tabled for discussion, only two were actually debated. Apart from the RCN Edinburgh?s motion calling for the ?breaking of formal links?, the motion on ?the war?, moved by comrade Sarah McDonald, was carried by 10 votes to four (with an amendment from comrade Ward). There was one abstention. Comrade Armstrong - a member of the SSP?s international committee - voted against the motion on the grounds that it included the commitment for the RCN in Scotland, England and Wales to fight for a single all-Britain party. Desperate for a ?principled? excuse, this left nationalist latched upon internationalism. ?If anything?, the comrade stated, ?we need a new international from below?. Comrade Bridge pointed out that we need first of all to organise against the state that actually exists. This does not contradict the need to organise internationally. The first is a precondition for the other.

The narrowness and dishonesty of the left nationalist minority have infected the RCN?s conciliators and spilled over to the election of members to the editorial board of Republican Communist. Comrade Armstrong proposed that ?to avoid problems?  there should be an all Scottish editorial board. A wonderful example of a nationalist solution to the problems he and his fellow nationalists had in no small part created. Responding to this, comrade Bridge proposed that he would like to see an editorial board representing the all-Britain organisation: two from England, three or four from Scotland. Comrade Ward, ?anticipating a split in the RCN?, proposed that all those elected should be provisional and all live in Scotland. Bob Goupillot, RCN chair and left nationalist, announced he would not work with the comrades from England. A number of votes being taken for each proposal. Only on the second attempt did the meeting narrowly agree (7 votes to 6) to continue with the existing editorial board minus Bob Goupillot.

Bob Paul