15.05.2002
Ongoing debate
CPGB members travelled from Scotland, Wales, and several regions of England on May 11 for a Party aggregate in London, followed by the launch meeting of the 2002 Summer Offensive. At the aggregate, two draft resolutions were debated: in the first session 26 theses on Israel-Palestine, submitted by Darrell Goodliffe and Jack Conrad (see back page); then the draft of a new 'What we fight for' column, proposed by the Provisional Central Committee. A number of comrades had prepared comments that contributed to constructive debates on both texts. Comrade Goodliffe introduced the Israel-Palestine theses with a speech outlining the history of Zionism and the state of Israel. He emphasised the importance of distinguishing between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism, and of rediscovering progressive anti-Zionism. Comrade Goodliffe raised a number of controversial questions. First, are the Israeli jews a nation? They clearly have a common culture, language and territory, he said, yet many on the left do not accept the right of Israel to exist. Some equate the jews in Israel with the whites in apartheid South Africa. Comrade Goodliffe said this is incorrect, as nowhere in South Africa do the whites form anything like a majority - they have no 'common territory' in that sense. Having established that the Israeli jews are indeed a nation, he went on to reiterate that the right to self-determination does not only apply to the oppressed. The demand is essentially one for the equality of nations. The comrade criticised the one-sided historiography of much of the left. They are blind to the faults of Arab despots who use anti-Zionism to shore up their own regimes. He stated that Zionism could only be defeated by the Israeli working class itself, not by conquering Arab armies. At present Israeli jews are tied to nationalism because of the threats they face, but they can have a progressive role. A mass movement could shake Israel, but for this to happen workers on both sides of the Israel-Palestine divide need to be armed with a progressive and internationalist programme. The right of the Israeli jewish nation to self-determination has to be accepted by the Palestinians - just as the right of the Palestinians to their own state has to be championed by Israeli working class. It is utopian to imagine a single state - imposed by conquest - could lead to working class unity. A two-state solution is needed if the cause of voluntary unity is to be advanced. Finally, comrade Goodliffe spoke about the contentious issue of the Palestinian right to return, mentioned in thesis 20. Of course, we are in favour of free movement of peoples, and clearly individuals and family units must decide for themselves whether they wish to move to areas where they or their parents/grandparents once lived. This means we do not support a nationalist-organised mass migration, intended to deny Israeli jewish national rights. Opposing the theses, comrade John Pearson described them as completely wrong-tracked, and an "illegitimate narrative" on a key question of world politics: the struggle of the Palestinian people against occupation. Quoting Weekly Worker articles from the past which supported the Palestinian struggle and condemned the Oslo accord, he said the "non-materialist, moralistic hand-wringing" on the question of Hamas we see in recent articles is a new phenomenon in the paper. Comrades who argue a different position today need to explain to the readership and the working class why they have changed their minds. He referred to a front-page headline, 'For the KLA, against the Serbian army' (Weekly Worker January 28 1999) and wanted to know where were the headlines, 'For the PLO, against the Israeli army' today. Communists fight all nationalism and separatism, but these theses fail to do so, comrade Pearson claimed. He also disagreed with comrade Goodliffe's description of a one-state solution as utopian. Communists fight for what is necessary, not for what seems possible under current conditions. He said we should not accept the mass expulsion of Arabs from Palestine in 1948 and 1967 as a fait accompli. Responding to comrade Pearson's criticisms, John Bridge stated that the Party is still anti-Zionist and still against the Oslo accord, because that accord sought to impose an unjust solution from above - the West Bank is occupied by 400,000 settlers who with the help of the Israeli Defence Force control nearly half the territory. We are in favour of a democratic solution from below, to overcome the antagonism between the two peoples. He argued that we do indeed - at a certain point - accept historical injustice as a fait accompli. The USA, Australia, New Zealand, etc were all founded on the basis of historical crimes against the indigenous peoples. There can be justice - but no reversal of history. Anne Mc Shane accepted that the 'line' of the Weekly Worker might have changed, as comrade Pearson alleged. She said this was a good thing: we have strengthened our politics in recent years by more consistently advocating democratic solutions. She also challenged comrade Pearson to provide an alternative to the theses. Ian Donovan pointed out that none of the advocates of a single state have explained how to bridge the gap between this goal and the present situation of murderous hatred, which is strong enough to provoke suicide bombings on the one side and justify a policy of murderous oppression on the other. The position held by the many on the left - not least the Socialist Workers Party - came in for considerable criticism. Comrades pointed out that the SWP seems to regard Israeli workers as an irredeemable labour aristocracy, incapable of playing a progressive role. Therefore, since Israel can never be anything but reactionary, only its destruction can offer progress. Comrade Sarah MacDonald said that after listening to the debate she had altered her views. Formerly she had been in favour of calling for a single state now, but the arguments put forward in the theses made sense to her. She said the Scottish Socialist Party calls for the separate Scotland as a solution to the very mild national antagonisms in Britain. So why not call for two states in Israel-Palestine, where the national antagonisms are far more serious? We cannot force people to unite. At the demonstration in Glasgow two weeks previously people calling themselves socialists were justifying acts of individual terrorism by Hamas, she said. But she agreed with comrade Pearson on the importance of recognising the violence of the oppressors and the oppressed - a distinction that should not be blurred, she argued. Comrade Anne Mc Shane agreed with this, and proposed deleting the sentence, "In fact Hamas and Sharon are twins", from thesis 24. The Israeli government is an oppressor with a reactionary programme. Hamas presents a reactionary programme for an oppressed people. She said she did not wish to excuse Hamas, which has an anti-human policy of killing or expelling all jews, but it was important to recognise this difference. In the voting at the end of the debate this amendment was accepted, and the theses as amended were adopted by a large majority. The chair emphasised, however, that this vote does not mean the end of the debate. After lunch comrade Bridge introduced the draft reformulation of the 'What we fight for' column on behalf of the Provisional Central Committee. The column is intended to be a pithy summation of our aims and perspectives, derived from the Party programme and easily understandable by any readers wanting to know what we stand for. It should be constantly reviewed and updated, but in fact has hardly changed since the days of The Leninist - forerunner of the Weekly Worker. The current version, referred to as a "fossil" by comrade Bridge, is lacking in two areas in particular: it makes no mention either of the Socialist Alliance or of the European question. Theses one and five in the new draft seek to correct this deficiency. Alternative drafts, differing in emphasis and content from the PCC version, were submitted by two comrades, James Bull and Christopher Pike. Other speakers reinforced many of their comments. But the fiercest critic of the PCC line was again comrade Pearson, who called the new draft a "move to the right" that breaks the link with the CPGB founded in 1920. Comrades in Manchester were suspicious, he said, of the motives of the PCC, fearing the new draft is a "capitulation to the demands of the AWL". This was clear to comrade Pearson in the removal of reference to "the Communist Party of Great Britain" and its replacement with "a Communist Party" in thesis 2. The change concerning Ireland (point 9) and the sentence in favour of using parliament (point 8) were cited by comrade Pearson as further examples of the rightward drift. He approved of the statement in point 4 about the right to form factions, but said that the new draft had lost all passion. Several comrades concurred with this last point. Cameron Richards said the 'What we fight for' column needs to be as attractive as possible to new readers. The new draft is "a bit SWPish in parts" and is not clear as to why someone should join the CPGB rather than some other group, he claimed. Both alternative drafts reversed the order of points one and two - a change supported by other comrades, who agreed the 'What we fight for' column should start on a positive note. Alan Stevens, referring to the "confessional sects" of point 1, said that our small size, and our need to relate to the sects, means that we occasionally lapse into sect-like behaviour ourselves, but, unlike the groups who rejoice in being sects, we constantly strive to overcome this weakness. In point 4 the use of the phrase "democracy and centralism" provoked some debate. Comrade Pike in his draft had retained "democratic centralism" which, said comrade Stevens, is not two things, but a single unity - with democracy and centralism interpenetrating. If you try to separate them, he said, they lose their effectiveness and become open to bureaucratic distortions. There were also differing views regarding references to the Socialist Alliance. Anne Mc Shane approved of the way the draft orients people to the idea of the SA. However, comrade Bull thought that the SA should be in a section easy to excise if it collapsed. Ronnie Mejka and others pointed out that the Scottish Socialist Party should also be mentioned. Point 8 provoked some controversy, particularly in regard to the statement that communists "favour using parliament" and the phrase, "peacefully if we can". Some comrades felt there was insufficient emphasis on the role of the state and the importance of smashing it. Bob Paul said the bourgeoisie will never give up peacefully, and comrade Stevens said even if the revolution were peaceful the bourgeois state would still have to be demolished. The term "extreme democracy" in point 9 was criticised by some. Comrade Paul said "fullest democracy" would be clearer. Comrade Cooke said "extreme" sounds odd, and 'maximum' would be better. In his reply, comrade Bridge said readers confused by the term "extreme democracy" would find it explained in articles and, as we live in a state which calls itself democratic, it is useful to have words which provoke people into thinking. "Extreme" carries the correct connotation that we constantly seek to extend the boundaries of democracy to their limits. Replying to comrade Pearson, comrade Bridge said there is no conspiracy to appease the AWL, and the PCC is not moving to the right. In any event, he said, if a leadership is moving to the right, a motion or amendment would not have the power to stop it: only constant testing and scrutiny from the membership, which is what the PCC encourages, could do that. Responding to criticisms concerning communists and parliament, comrade Bridge reiterated that socialism cannot be legislated into being through parliament, but we most certainly are in favour of winning the majority of the population to our side. No votes were taken on the drafts of the 'What we stand for' column. The PCC accepted suggestions that it looks again at its draft in the light of discussions at this aggregate - on the CPGB discussion lists, and in the pages of the Weekly Worker. Comrade Bridge repeated that the intention was to keep the column under review and update it as regularly as necessary. He said he was keen to replace the current version as soon as possible. Mary Godwin
Worker