17.01.2002
Paper commitment
At a fringe meeting after the December 1 Socialist Alliance conference, CPGB comrades proposed the creation of a Socialist Alliance paper by pro-party forces within the alliance. The Provisional Central Committee of the CPGB is ready to embark on negotiations with other pro-party forces over conditions under which the CPGB would close down the Weekly Worker and commit its technical, human and financial resources to this new journal. This would be a big step for the Party, and not surprisingly almost the whole six hours of January's aggregate of CPGB members was taken up by a wide-ranging and intense debate on the question. All comrades were in favour of a new paper in principle, but some reservations were voiced that our own specifically communist voice might be diminished or watered down. Concerns were also expressed about where failure of a new publication would leave the CPGB: would the idea of an SA paper and even the pro-party project be fatally discredited? And how easy would it be to resurrect the Weekly Worker if necessary? If a Socialist Alliance paper becomes a reality, should the CPGB continue to publish its own separate journal? Opinion was at first sharply divided on the question. Some comrades insisted that before the CPGB closes down the Weekly Worker it must obtain a firm commitment from other groups involved - especially the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, with whom discussions are being held - that they will also cease publication of their own papers. Others said that this was not necessary - what was important was a demonstration of commitment to the new journal. All comrades were, however, agreed that there must be an absolute guarantee that an SA paper would publish articles reflecting our pro-party and revolutionary politics, with no censorship from other elements of a putative joint editorial board. There was general agreement that, although such a project could only get off the ground with the backing of existing organisations like the CPGB and AWL, the role of independents in the Socialist Alliance would be crucial. However, there were differences over the likely extent and influence of independents over the project. Comrade Tina Becker opened the aggregate with a presentation on the question. She pointed out that no firm decision has as yet been taken - that would depend on agreement with others. A conference is planned, hopefully involving the AWL and the International Socialist Group, along with forces from the independents. An SA paper is urgently needed, said the comrade. Up to 40% of those present at the December 1 SA conference voted in favour of such a publication. The Socialist Workers Party is intent on turning the SA on and off as befits its own political requirements and is clearly against the notion of producing an SA journal. Therefore it is essential to use the SA paper as a vehicle for challenging the SWP's leadership, for cohering pro-party forces and combating sectarianism. The Weekly Worker has great strengths as a critical, open paper but it also has weaknesses: it functions as an educator but less effectively as an agitator or organiser. Giving up publication of the Weekly Worker would be difficult, but above all else we must look at what the working class needs. Even the name CPGB, which we would argue is a scientifically correct one, is a secondary question, when it comes to the need to build a party. What forces are there to operate with? Small groups which would be reluctant to give up their own group name and publication. From the SWP there has been no response. The ISG may not come in without the SWP. Workers Power is opposed to an SA paper, regarding it as a "tower of Babel". The AWL, with its staunchly pro-SA wing, is the most positive, and might help initiate a paper. Comrade Becker described the best possible scenario. The AWL, the ISG and a number of independents will attend the conference and elect an editorial board consisting of all these elements. Organisations would commit resources and agree to close down their own publications. The idea would be to create an open, democratic paper, with polemical exchange, agitational pieces and longer theoretical articles, building on the strengths of the group publications it superseded. It would certainly not be an SWP-bashing paper, but neither should it shy away from criticism when this important group acted in a narrow manner which harmed the project. SWP comrades would be invited to contribute like everyone else. The programmatic basis of the new paper would be the SA manifesto People before profit - this document, despite its deficiencies, is the base line. If forces could be cohered to write for, produce and distribute the paper across the country, a party-like structure could emerge, something that the SWP would recognise the need to engage with. The paper would de facto become the voice of the SA and perhaps eventually be transformed into its official organ. The worst possible outcome would be the failure of the project to get off the ground. To abandon it or to pursue it half-heartedly would have serious consequences in terms of discrediting the idea of an SA paper. It would weaken both the position of the CPGB and the prospect of pro-partyism within the SA. The most important thing, said comrade Becker, was to fight for the project's success. A lengthy and animated debate followed. Darrell Goodliffe pointed out that, given the nature of the period, we have to accept that our primary focus must remain on relating to other forces on the left, rather than the class as a whole. The period is one of preparation for, rather than actually building, a party. Our orientation to the left must take into account the fact that the left itself is still riddled with opportunism. Derek Goodliffe expressed grave doubts about the prospect of liquidating the Weekly Worker, and thus essentially losing our identity. To dissolve our own paper in favour of a project that would probably fail would be to make a serious mistake, he said. We have to be flexible, said Anne Mc Shane, or we risk becoming like the other sects, focused on preserving our own existence at all costs. She saw the putative paper as effectively a merger between the CPGB and the AWL, something of which she is in principle in favour, though depending on what basis. The period since the general election has been marked by setbacks: not just the Socialist Party's walkout, but the continued marginalising of the SA by the SWP in relation to the anti-war movement, where the SA was relegated to the role of a secondary front. Although continued publication of the Weekly Worker alongside a new pro-party SA journal would be wrong, said comrade Mc Shane, a separate CPGB publication is still important - possibly a quarterly with a more theoretical edge. Lee Rock saw the involvement of a significant number of independents as crucial. He also thought it would be a mistake to close down the Weekly Worker until we saw if the new paper would work. To be placed in a position of having to restart the Weekly Worker would be an admission of failure, he said. In contrast, Comrade Sarah McDonald thought that resurrecting the Weekly Worker in the event of failure was not a problem. In any event, sustaining two papers simultaneously was not a serious option from the financial point of view. Andy Hannah agreed. A paper that was a mixture of the Weekly Worker and Action for Solidarity would be a step forward if there were an open editorial board with a commitment to involve the independents. To run the Weekly Worker in tandem with the new publication would send the signal that the CPGB was half-hearted about the project. Even if it did fail, we would have deepened our credibility as a pro-party force if we had to resume publication of the Weekly Worker. In the eyes of comrade John Pearson, the idea of an SA paper represented a commendable and important project. Perhaps independents, many of whom are good writers and working journalists, could get involved, but they would be unlikely to come forward until the venture was up and running. An SA weekly paper that featured articles from many more writers would free up some of our comrades to concentrate on their theoretical work, which should find a place in a new CPGB publication. The comrade disagreed with those who claimed it would be an easy matter to bring the Weekly Worker back to life, having lost its subscriber base. Weekly Worker editor Peter Manson said there were two central, interconnected aspects that needed to be grasped: first, what kind of paper would it be and, secondly, who would pay for it. If on December 1 the SA had voted to establish an alliance paper, then clearly the SA as a whole would have had to finance it and its contents would perhaps have borne the stamp of the largest group, the SWP. In one sense, this could have ended up as a setback because it might well have led to an anodyne journal, rather than the sort of incisive paper that can really take the party debate forward. However, comrade Manson went on, since the SWP has rejected the whole idea, financing the new paper would devolve mainly onto the CPGB and the AWL, who would also have to take responsibility for most of the work. That is why he was confident that the new paper would not only retain all that is best about the Weekly Worker but would also overcome our weaknesses in such things as coverage of trade union activity. There was no grounds for concern that the end of the Weekly Worker would mean the end of our fight for a Communist Party. Quite the opposite, in fact. At present there are neither the material, technical nor human resources for two papers, comrade Michael Malkin pointed out. Hence a choice must be made. Before abandoning the Weekly Worker, the CPGB should engage in careful negotiations designed to achieve what he saw as two absolute preconditions: first, all organisations should commit themselves wholeheartedly to the project - hence the suspension of existing publications; secondly, participating organisations should be guaranteed the freedom to put forward their own politics in the new paper. This would not be a "Tower of Babel" but an organ of open, free and democratic debate. The desirability of having an SA paper that voices the views of pro-party forces is self-evident, but it is necessary to proceed with caution. If we are serious about making the SA into the party the working class needs, then we must also be serious about providing that party with the paper it needs, argued comrade Jim Gilbert. This paper would disseminate our politics more widely than just among the members of the SA: hopefully it would recruit people to the SA on the basis of our politics. Comrade Gilbert did not accept the need for a theoretical journal in addition to the SA paper. He said liquidating the Weekly Worker would not mean liquidating the politics of the CPGB. The new paper must be a class fighter with short agitational pieces, but it must also have room for long theoretical articles. Any major organisational turn contains dangers, but there are also dangers in fearing to take opportunities when they arise, said Ian Donovan. Our primary purpose is not to produce an 'interesting journal': it is to move the Socialist Alliance, and with it the fight for a united working class party, forward. The SA paper could act as a real agitator. Most left papers try to fake agitation. Comrade Donovan rejected the counterposing of theory and agitation, saying the left has not yet learned to write true agitational material, which can contain quite complex ideas. Comrade Cameron Richards opened up a new line of discussion by insisting on honesty towards the people we are trying to attract. There must be no different 'line' for independents as compared to CPGB and AWL comrades: that is, we must be clear that we are proposing an unequivocally communist and revolutionary paper. If we lie to the independents, we risk becoming mired in localism and economism. Some independents are reformists or centrists, and comrade Richards was not in favour of letting their contributions change the nature of the type of paper produced. Comrade Lee Rock warned against "wishful thinking": most independents in the Socialist Alliance are firmly against the idea of a revolutionary party. He described a contradiction - if the CPGB controls the new paper it will be seen as a CPGB front and will fail for lack of support. If the CPGB does not control it, we will risk being prevented from publishing our views. Either way, we should not liquidate our own paper, at least without firm guarantees from other forces. The Weekly Worker is our organiser: most people approach and join the CPGB through reading it. A joint paper produced by two groups retaining their differences but working openly and democratically together would be an important political statement which could attract a lot of support, declared comrade Mark Fischer. The Socialist Alliance needs such an impetus. The CPGB is the champion of open, democratic, revolutionary politics, and would not accept a "gagging order" on our articles from a joint editorial board. But if space and emphasis considerations meant some of our material could not be included, it could be published separately. However, it would be totally wrong to commit the Party to a separate journal, comrade Fischer argued. We must be seen as the most consistent advocates of both a Socialist Alliance paper and a Socialist Alliance party. Replying to the debate, comrade Tina Becker reiterated that nothing concrete has yet been decided, and confirmed that the leadership will not enter into any agreements without further debate within the Party. She agreed with those comrades who had advocated a formal contract with the AWL about finance and editorial control. As to the independents, it would be necessary to look at them concretely and individually, to see who is willing to commit time, effort and money. At the end of the debate, the following motion was proposed by comrade Peter Manson: "This aggregate welcomes moves towards a Socialist Alliance paper and calls upon other forces to join with us in making this a reality. The CPGB is prepared to close down the Weekly Worker and put its resources into such a paper, provided our views find full reflection in the pages of the new journal." This motion was overwhelmingly carried with no votes against and six abstentions. Mary Godwin
Worker