22.11.2001

The break-up of Britain?

Last Sunday the Republican Communist Network (Scotland) met and voted to separate from the RCN (Britain). I wrote the following article last week prior to the split. I have not changed it. It records the general view of the Revolutionary Democratic Group, and provides the reader with a background to Sarah McDonald?s report of the meeting. Dave Craig (RDG)

The Republican Communist Network (Edinburgh) submitted a motion to the recent all-Britain RCN conference. It says that the ?RCN resolves to break formal constitutional links between RCN (Scotland) and RCN (England) in favour of working together on campaigns and other initiatives on a case by case basis?. The motion was not taken because it had not been submitted on time. But it will be voted on at the RCN (Scotland) meeting on November 18.

?Breaking formal constitutional links? means breaking up the RCN into two completely separate or independent organisations based on residence north or south of the border. This is not the first separation of this kind in the socialist movement. There is the example of the split between Scottish Militant Labour and the Socialist Party (England and Wales). The Scottish Socialist Party itself organises on the basis of national residence.

What is the meaning of this move? The motion does not tell us what the problem is: merely the solution. So we have to work backwards. Reverse logic suggests there is a breakdown in the general relations between English and Scottish communists. This is what most sensible people would conclude from reading the motion. Nationalists in the SSP and the SNP would take some comfort from this. If activists in the wider socialist and working class movement read this motion, they will interpret it in the obvious way.

The question will be asked as to whether this general breakdown is a product of English chauvinism. Are English communists behaving like colonial masters? Have they taken over the RCN and ousted the Scottish comrades? In fact there are no allegations of English chauvinism. The three RCN national officers are all resident in Scotland. On the editorial board, there are three from Scotland and two from England. If anything England is under-represented.

It is well known that Allan Armstrong has a strong antipathy to me. He opposed my candidature for the RCN editorial board on a number of occasions. He made repeated false claims that I had censored his articles. However, not even our fiercest critics have ever suggested that this is a problem arising from our different nationalities.

Does the move to separatism reflect Scottish nationalism rather than English chauvinism? Perhaps the Scottish comrades feel superior and therefore think they could run the show better on their own? All they need is to get rid of the comrades from England. Are they reflecting a mood of anti-Englishness in wider Scottish society? Does it reflect their own ideological predilection for the whole idea of Scottish separatism?

I am sure the comrades from RCN (Edinburgh) will say that neither English chauvinism nor Scottish nationalism is the problem. They have made no allegations of chauvinism, and strongly deny any Scottish nationalist attitudes. In which case why propose a motion whose intention is apparently to solve the national ?problem? within the RCN?

If on the other hand the problem is something else - let us say ?issue XYZ? - why not identify it? Why not propose a solution tailor-made for that? Why would anybody come forward with a national ?solution? to a non-national problem? The Edinburgh comrades cannot have it both ways. If there is a national problem within the RCN, the Edinburgh comrades have not said so. If they say there is not a national problem, then the motion is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

We still have a mystery. Why propose a national solution? Is the motion a ?cock-up? or a ?conspiracy?? The cock-up theory is that these comrades have failed to understand the real issues. Circumstantial evidence for this is their failure to produce a document outlining their view of the issues. The conspiracy theory is that, although there is no national problem, someone is playing the ?national? card. Maybe you get more votes and more allies by using ?national? arguments? Maybe it is an easier excuse or a better scapegoat?

The importance of the democratic process cannot be stressed too highly. When it is proposed to split or wind up an organisation, there should be some written papers submitted from the proposers explaining exactly why they want to take such drastic action. There should be a properly convened RCN meeting where this motion should be debated and voted on. Unilateral action by Scottish comrades to split the RCN would be a mockery of democracy. It would make a nonsense of ?revolutionary democracy and culture?.

Let us turn to the second part of the motion, which suggests the break-up of the RCN along national lines will help us to work together. The fact is that the RCN already exists to promote ?working together on campaigns and other initiatives on a case by case basis?. We have a democratic framework in which we can meet to discuss ?working together?, etc. At the recent RCN conference there were a number of motions on ?working together? on issues like the oath of allegiance and the royal jubilee.

The truth is that the Edinburgh comrades do not want to work with us. They are not leaving in order to work with us more. If they were serious about wanting to work with the rest of us, they would have shown why these problems could not be resolved or overcome within the democratic framework of one federal organisation. They would have been patient enough to wait and hear the replies to their documents. If comrades say they are too busy to produce such a document, then surely they are too busy to split.

We would be naive to take the words about ?working together on campaigns and other initiatives on a case by case basis? at face value. It could be the sort of spin that would make any doctor proud. It makes the threat of a national split appear as an act of international comradeship. Next Tony Blair will be telling us that bombing Afghanistan is for humanitarian purposes!

But just suppose these are not cynical words and that the author(s) actually mean it. In which case these comrades are not being honest with themselves. They are fooling themselves about why they are doing this. If anything, the split is more likely to worsen relations rather than improve them. In truth we are less likely to work together. No doubt the optimists amongst us will hope for something better. But we need to get real. If anything it will lead to a hardening of attitudes.

There has been a lot of talk about ?internationalism from below?. But this is not an abstract phrase. It starts in your own backyard, by fighting against national separation within the RCN. We need to begin by identifying as precisely and honestly as we can the real political problems. We do this not in order to score points against rival factions, but because we need to fight for unity and internationalism from below.

What are the political issues which divide the RCN? First and foremost and underlying everything is the issue of the federal republic versus the Scottish workers? republic. All members know this has been the main divide in the RCN. The majority is for the federal republic and a minority is in favour of a Scottish workers? republic.

The Scottish workers? republic slogan is not wrong in some absolute sense. In some circumstances, it could be a correct position to take. But at the present time, in terms of the low level of class struggle, and the growth of nationalism, it is totally and utterly incorrect. It simply provides left cover for Scottish nationalism, for Tommy Sheridan and the International Socialist Movement.

To advocate a Scottish workers? republic as an immediate demand now is to capitulate to nationalism. The RDG has not called the Communist Tendency ?left nationalist?. We accept the CT as republican communists. But their leftist method produces a nationalist deviation from international revolutionary democracy. They are still our (albeit mistaken) comrades and we have, for example, voted for them to be represented on the editorial board. We have made compromises with them, although they have not made any with us.

As we know, a scratch can become gangrene. If the CT continues to take their line to the logic of a split, they will have crossed sides. They become nationalist in practice and not just in theory. It is the actions of the CT that ultimately define them. That is why I would urge Allan Armstrong to pull back from a split and let us negotiate instead.

Tied up with this is the issue of majority voting. The CT, echoing the Socialist Party in England and Wales, has sought a minority veto on ?controversial issues?. There is no more controversial issue than the Scottish workers? republic. Even in a democratic centralist organisation the fact that they had a minority view is not a reason for a split. But the RCN is a network and not a tendency or party. If we express a majority view, nobody is bound by it. The CT do not have to advocate it. They can criticise the majority as much as they like and refuse to carry out any action that might be thought to aid the call for a federal republic.

Has the CT been ousted or prevented by majority votes from being on the leading committees of the RCN? If this was the case they might have cause to leave. The fact is that it is not the case. Nobody has tried to oust Ian Robertson as treasurer and neither has the majority tried to remove Allan Armstrong from the editorial board. It should be noted that comrade Armstrong has not reciprocated. He has tried at every opportunity to prevent a member of the RDG being elected onto the editorial board. No matter.

The second cause of friction has been a different idea about the RCN. The RDG views it as a united front of all that agree with the slogans, as the basis for working together, where we can. We do not see the RCN as a recruiting ground to bring any contacts under our hegemony. We have for example sought to involve the Alliance for Workers? Liberty. We are not doing this to recruit the AWL, who are a much bigger organisation. The CT is not interested in drawing in bigger forces, as represented by the AWL. They consider themselves to be the true communists, looking for individuals they can draw around them. From this point of view it is better to draw in a Phil Walden, who is not a republican, than try to influence the AWL. The CT attitude to other organised groups is the giveaway. Nevertheless this is not a reason to split the RCN.

The third problem is the unevenness of the political movement between England and Scotland. This creates practical strains and has resulted in for example the break-up of the Socialist Party along national lines. Nationalists see such divisions and want to widen them. Communists see the same problem and seek to overcome disunity. The practical expression of this can be found in the RCN. In Scotland the RCN is not just a network. It is a faction or platform inside the SSP. In England there is no party and there are no platforms within the Socialist Alliance. The RCN (England) has not advanced beyond a network. In this respect the RCN (England) lags behind.

Unless sectarians are seeking to score points, or nationalists are trying to exploit the differences, there is no reason within a federal structure that such differences cannot coexist. The RCN (England) is a network and the RCN (Scotland) is a network plus a faction. Comrades in Scotland have their own meetings and can take their own decisions. They are not ?held back? by England.

The fourth issue concerns the relations between the RDG and CPGB. This is a problem largely for England. Over the last period we have been pulling in different directions in the Socialist Alliance, where most of our work is now concentrated. This is not a problem as far as being a network is concerned, but a problem if we want to become a platform in the SA. What adds to this is the fact that the CPGB do not have any theory for the RCN. Their approach is very pragmatic. They have often said that they see a role for the RCN in Scotland, but not really for England. When combined with different approaches to the SA, it produces an impasse. Added to this, we need to change some of the officers and committee of the RCN (England).

I want to make clear the difference between a sectarian approach to the RCN and that taken by the RDG. A sectarian is overjoyed by such problems. It proves we cannot work together and should split. We would not dream of arguing that type of politics. If anything, the relations between the RDG and CPGB proves why we need an RCN (Britain). We need more open and honest discussion of these issues. We need this to be discussed not purely as an English issue. What we are seeking in this is a higher level of unity in action. If anybody had a ?right? to call for a split with the CPGB over the RCN, it would be the RDG in England. Significantly we are not doing that.

Finally we have had a problem with the Republican Communist editorial board. We have been arguing over the composition of the board at the last two national meetings. We have begun to make a transition from an all-Scottish editorial board to an Anglo-Scottish one. We sought to include all the major groupings on the board. As we know the new board, which I joined, took a long time to produce the first issue. I have to take my share of the blame for that. Time and space prevent further elaboration, except to say that all the problems should be addressed politically in order to overcome them.

This is my version of the problems and no doubt there are many other valid insights and perspectives. The point is that the RCN has a functioning democracy and, whilst that remains the case, we have the possibility that our democracy can find solutions. But we have to have the right communist attitude. We should begin with an honest assessment of the problems. A sectarian or anarchist would say, ?Let?s split.? A nationalist says, ?Let?s separate along national lines.? An internationalist and communist says, ?Let?s fight for unity.?

That is why I would urge every internationalist and communist to vote against the Edinburgh motion. If the motion is carried, I would urge every Scottish comrade to remain in the RCN and attend the special RCN meeting in December or January for a serious and properly prepared debate. If the CT are determined to leave, there will be a split. The exact nature of that split will not become clear until the RCN meets in a special conference. For my part I will continue to fight to prevent a dangerous and irresponsible national split between England and Scotland.