10.07.2002
For genuine democratic centralism
"Through the fullest, most open debate we seek to achieve unity in action and a common world outlook." This statement appears in the third paragraph of the revised 'What we fight for' column. John Pearson disagrees with the party majority.
It encapsulates the Leninist approach to building a Communist Party. It describes, comprehensively and concisely, the essence of the democratic centralist model of organisation. It codifies a methodology that is vital to the project of making a revolution that is the self-activity of the working class.
It has been the platform from which our CPGB has polemicised against the plethora of opaque sects which populate the British and international left and whose methods have perpetuated disunity and held back the process of developing an organic revolutionary party of the working class.
It was excellent news indeed then, that none less than the editor of Socialist Worker, Chris Harman, has embarked upon a fight for the realisation of the principle of full and open debate within Britain's largest revolutionary organisation, the Socialist Workers Party (see Weekly Worker June 13).
If he and his allies succeed, then we could see a transformation of socialist politics in Britain, which would reverberate on the European and indeed the world stage. I know that Weekly Worker will strive to become one of comrade Harman's staunchest allies in this fight. For the first time in decades, we are excellently placed to effectively perform such a role, being politically engaged with the SWP through the Socialist Alliance.
It is of enormous importance then, now more then ever so, that the CPGB, in its own practice, should be an exemplar of the methodology of genuine democratic centralism. When we make mistakes in this respect, we must be swift to recognise and acknowledge them, to learn from them and to apply the lessons learned in perfecting our practice.
It is the view of the Manchester branch of the CPGB, on whose behalf I write, that we have made such a mistake in the very process of revising and adopting the 'What we fight for' column. In the May 2 edition of Weekly Worker, the Provisional Central Committee's first redraft of WWFF was published, together with a note expressing the view that "updating the column is long overdue" and indicating that the PCC was to submit the draft to the next CPGB membership aggregate on May 11. It was "calling for debate not only on our members e-list, but also in the pages of the Weekly Worker".
Two alternative drafts, written by comrades James Bull and Christopher Pike, were tabled at the aggregate, just over a week later. Although neither of these was published in the Weekly Worker, a report on the discussion at this meeting was carried on May 16. This reveals that there were some significant differences between comrades on what was being proposed, in particular with respect to parliament and electoral work, the prospects of peaceful revolution and the dropping of the reference to reforging the Communist Party of Great Britain. On behalf of the Manchester branch, I expressed the view that the PCC draft represented a "move to the right".
Manchester branch set about producing our own WWFF draft. This work was still ongoing when the date of the next aggregate, June 23, was set. A week before that meeting we sent a request to the PCC that it would not seek closure of the debate by asking for an early vote on its own second draft. We also indicated that, as soon as the Manchester draft was completed, it would be our intention to write a piece for the Weekly Worker explaining it. At this stage, all that had appeared in our paper on this issue was the PCC's unannotated first draft, the May aggregate report and one letter, from a Manchester comrade, Nick Redmond (May 2).
In other words, the open debate was in its infancy. Not surprisingly, the side which possessed the advantage of including the Party's full-time leadership and intellectuals was somewhat more advanced in its preparation for the debate than some of the participants who are in the immediate ranks of wage slavery. Not until the item was called, at the June aggregate meeting itself, did we receive the PCC's negative reply to our request. Sadly, the reply obtained overwhelming endorsement from the members present. My 'what's the hurry?' plea was brushed aside.
The Weekly Worker report of this aggregate informs readers that comrade John Bridge, in introducing the PCC's second draft, "repeated the point he made in May, that the old version, published every week in the Weekly Worker for many years, is badly out of date. He also gave the PCC's opinion that, with a month of debate since the previous aggregate, a new version should now be agreed. He emphasised that the new version should be kept under review and changed as necessary - for example, if a protracted war breaks out between two major world powers, obviously the WWFF column will have to be quickly revised" (Weekly Worker June 27).
It is either an exquisite use of irony, or an embarrassing accident, that comrade Bridge can cite the outbreak of protracted war between two major world powers as a possible reason for seeking a quick revision of the WWFF column, when he has just secured its quick revision in the eminently peaceful scenario whereby it has been published every week in our paper for many years and is now badly out of date. What's a few more weeks or even months after "many years"?
The same issue of the paper contained comrade Jack Conrad's post factum explanation of the changes, under a telling sub-heading: "Redrafting the Weekly Worker's 'What we fight for' column is long overdue, argues Jack Conrad. As the reader can see, at last it has been done."� Perhaps comrade Conrad will feel a warm glow whilst he is in the position of advancing an argument, of elaborating it publicly for the first time, when victory is already under his belt. Whether he does or not, it is the contention of the Manchester comrades that substantial damage has been done to the CPGB's model of democratic centralism.
Our national organiser, Mark Fischer, advised the June aggregate that Manchester's procedural motion that the vote not be put was unnecessary and that "the culture of the CPGB allows any comrades to continue to make criticisms and suggestions after any decision. He encouraged the Manchester branch to submit their finalised draft to a future aggregate" (Weekly Worker June 27). Mark has, in years gone by, roasted organisations such as the Socialist Party and Workers Power for holding their debates in camera. I recall in particular his challenge to the SP, at the time they were discussing their name change from Militant Labour. Such a discussion, by a significant working class organisation, should be regarded as a matter for the class, not a private matter, he argued.
The champions of the 'closed debate' sects must be laughing at us. I am sure that they would insist that their developed positions are published only after exhaustive internal debate. They would have a point. If openness leads to a precipitate determination of debates on the rather unconvincing grounds that discussion can continue afterwards, then it is worse than the closed model, which at least can lay claim to thoroughness and a desire to develop durable and correct political positions.
"The PCC draft aims to incorporate the key decisions and theoretical advances made over recent years," comrade Bridge told the aggregate meeting, adding that the Manchester draft failed to do this. Well, the comrade is entitled to hold this view, but isn't it a view which should be fought out in front of the working class, prior to determination of the conflict? Shouldn't the readership of Weekly Worker see the Manchester draft and be able to judge whether it agrees that the Manchester area is "a backward section" of the CPGB?
We now submit our draft and challenge our critics to explain what is wrong with the politics of it. It is still a work in progress. We are to discuss the omission of reference to the question of Europe - a valid criticism made by comrade Bridge. Paragraph 8, on oppression, is still under consideration, with some Manchester comrades disagreeing with the listing of oppressed groups, with the question, 'How do you decide when to end the list?' The draft begins with a statement of the central aim of our partyist project: ie, the reforging of the CPGB. The unbroken thread with October 1917 and July-August 1920 is something to be proud of and worth fighting for.
We have the incongruous situation in the now adopted PCC draft, that reference to forging the Communist Party of Great Britain has been deleted, at the same time that the concept of building a Communist Party of the European Union has been introduced. Our second paragraph (borrowing heavily upon the PCC first draft and the unpublished submission by comrade James Bull, in respective sentence order) defines what a Communist Party is. Then we link to the socialist revolution and communism and the indispensability of a worldwide supersession of capitalism.
From worldwide workers' unity we move to British working class unity and reference the current site of the partyist struggle: ie, the Socialist Alliances of England and Wales and Scottish Socialist Party. That takes us naturally on to parliament and elections (the central activity of those organisations at the current juncture). Here, we make explicit the communist understanding that participation in bourgeois parliaments and elections can only be for the purpose of making propaganda for revolution. We also retain reference to the replacement of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the proletariat, something which has been deleted from our old statement in the PCC's "successful" revision. These are stipulations that are essential to our prospects of avoiding bloody defeat.
As to peaceful revolution, we should remember Marx's criticisms of the methods of the Paris communards in his critique of the disaster which befell an advanced contingent of our class in our recent history. Nearer still of course, we should remember Chile. The strongest indications of the rightward moves we perceive in our leadership come out in this apparent shift towards emphasising the possibility of 'touchy-feely', gunpowderless revolution. The struggle for democracy is then widened out and its purpose - developing the working class to become the ruling class - is explained. We need to be clear that we do not use 'democracy' as a euphemism in the way that the class enemy does. On to a statement of the centrality of the fight against all forms of oppression (in its present form, lifted largely from the unpublished submission by comrade Christopher Pike). Then comes theory and party decision making and democratic centralism.
Here we explain the centrality of criticism in our party culture. Finally we preserve the old statement of what is expected of our recruits. We have had no defence from the PCC of its move towards an SWP-style 'take all-comers': a strange path to tread in an organisation looking to Leninist and Bolshevist traditions.
Manchester draft
1. Our central aim is to reforge the Communist Party of Great Britain. Without this Party the working class is nothing; with it, it is everything.
2. The Communist Party is a section of the working class and has no interests apart from the class as a whole. It is an organisation of the most politically advanced workers which will lead the masses to revolution, the overthrow of the rule of capital and the beginning of the rule of the working class: ie, socialism.
3. Socialism is the first stage of the transition from capitalism to communism, which is a classless and stateless society without alienation, exploitation, war or nations.
4. Capitalism is a global system of exploitation. Its ceaseless drive for profit puts the world at risk. We therefore fight for the unity of the working class of all countries and for the construction of a world Communist Party.
5. The working class in Britain has the duty of overthrowing the British capitalist state and needs to strike as a fist. This means all communists and revolutionary socialists should be organised into a single party. We oppose all forms of separatism, which weakens our class. The Socialist Alliances of England and Wales and the Scottish Socialist Party represent steps forward in overcoming disunity. We are committed to building these organisations with the goal of transforming them into a revolutionary party.
6. Socialism can never come through parliament. The capitalist class will not allow their wealth and power to be taken away without violent resistance. Socialism will only succeed through working class revolution and the replacement of the dictatorship of the capitalists with the dictatorship of the working class. Participation by the Communist Party in parliament and parliamentary elections is solely for the purpose of making propaganda for revolution.
7. Communists fight for the maximum extension of democracy under capitalism, in both political and economic spheres, as a means of developing the working class to become the ruling class. We are republicans and support the right of nations to self-determination. In Britain we advocate a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales and support the unification of Ireland.
8. Communists are champions of the oppressed. We fight for the liberation of racially and nationally oppressed peoples, of women and homosexuals, and for the ending of all forms of chauvinism. Oppression is a direct result of class society and will only finally be eradicated by the ending of class society.
9. Communists apply Marxist theory as a guide to practice. Marxism is not a dogma but is constantly developed and enriched from the experience of the class struggle. Marxism is a materialist philosophy, which holds that ideas are determined by social reality and not the other way around.
10. The Communist Party operates according to the principle of democratic centralism. Through the fullest, open debate we seek to achieve unity in action and a common world outlook. Our culture is one which insists upon the most vigorous criticism of our theories and our past actions. As long as they support democratically agreed actions, members of the Communist Party have the right to form temporary or permanent factions.
11. We urge all who accept these principles to join us. A Communist Party supporter reads and fights to build the circulation of the Party's publications; contributes regularly to the Party's funds and encourages others to do the same; where possible, builds and participates in the work of a Communist Party supporters group.