31.07.2002

Centralism and the SA

Arecent debate on the Socialist Alliance discussion e-list around the pivotal question of democratic centralism has revealed a semi-anarchist fear of centralism amongst some sections of the SA. Independent Dave Parks kicked off the debate. He bemoaned the fact that the SA supporting organisations vote in predetermined blocs at alliance conferences. Dave starts his contribution with a rather doubtful (in view of his own definition - see below) claim: "I understand theoretical arguments about democratic centralism" (SA discussion list, July 22). However, his key point is this: "The sects interpret democratic centralism as meaning full discussion with discipline in voting against the enemy. But what does this mean for the partyists within the SA? As far as I am concerned, members of various groups within the SA are not the enemy. What is more, workers who get involved in conferences who see blocs of activists acting as 'DC' cannon fodder, regardless of the merits of the debate and the arguments, come away feeling they have taken part in rigged conferences "¦ The arguments for democratic centralism for the groups within the SA become an argument against genuine democracy and against discipline as a whole of the SA against our common enemies." Jim Gilbert drew out the logic of this pious nonsense when he wrote that the problem was that "the open debate and discussion "¦ of a faction/group of the SA ends as soon as a vote is in the offing. Why should it be an issue if after, say, the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, the CPGB or the SWP discussed a question within their discrete ranks (whether or not this was published in the respective publication), comrades within these organisations were to vote according to a minority discussion viewpoint rather than the majority one?" (SA discussion list, July 22). Given what faces us in the SA today, this is a pernicious idea. It is worrying that it seems to have been taken up by a section of our organisation. On July 30, the Manchester branch of the CPGB passed a resolution calling for a free vote at the forthcoming SA conference on the euro in October. (Leading Manchester comrade John Pearson has already anticipated this type of anarcho-federalist approach in a contribution on an internal CPGB list, where he defined the duty of minorities under democratic centralism as the agreement not actively to "disrupt" the actions of the majority). Naturally, various sad people have latched onto this debate to throw some nasty anti-Bolshevik dirt. (Mick Hall - idiotically - has suggested that Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mugabe are practitioners of their various versions of 'democratic centralism'. This sort of thing washes off easily - shit is water-soluble). The essential arguments of the more serious 'free spirits' are: * That the contemporary SA scene is characterised by "conflicting democratic centralisms five times over", not "just democratic centralism once". The mutual antipathy between "one or the other central committee", each believing it has "a monopoly on the truth" effectively paralyses the project (Dave Osler, SA discussion list, July 22). * That, as a result, a crisis looms in the SA. A bold move is required to save the project. As John Pearson of Manchester CPGB put it, "We're in the pressure cooker and if we refuse to be cooked, we are going to lose it all back to the born-again (old) Labourites" (July 22). * That the groups hold the key to progress - a tacit recognition of the practical irrelevance of the independents to the future development of the project. As Dave Parks rather confusingly puts it, "Until the groups are prepared to consider such changes in approach, we will not have reached the stage of development necessary for them to change" (July 24). Firstly, there is a great deal of disingenuous nonsense being written here. Comrade Osler, for example, knows rather better than to dub what exists in most organisations in the SA as "democratic centralism". Equally dishonestly, Dave Parks describes democratic centralism, as practised by the organisations, as containing "open discussion within a group" (my emphasis - not open, public discussion). Yet he is well aware that there is no genuine "open discussion" in the Socialist Workers Party - the largest group in the SA. Two important organisations in the alliance do allow public expression of dissenting views - the CPGB and the AWL. Squeezing "the groups" together into a single undifferentiated lump like this is profoundly dishonest. But it does seem to reveal that what such comrades are allergic to is not simply the existing components groups of the SA, but organisation in general. Similarly, comrade Jim Gilbert's suggestion that disciplined voting in conferences "removes nuance and subtlety from plenary sessions" is at best short-sighted (July 22). If the debate that preceded a line being set has been open, democratic and transparent, then the movement as a whole will have had the ability to be conversant with the differences inside an organisation, even as it votes in a disciplined way in some conference. In effect, these comrades are advocating liquidationism. They would degrade the discipline of the revolutionary party to the level of a picket line, a strike or a demonstration. Both Dave Parks and Jim Gilbert stumble into this desperately wrong position through their rather tender concern for the sensibilities of minorities. Comrade Gilbert finds the idea that the minority should be subordinate to the majority in "an action" such as "striking, going on a demo, or taking on the state or the class enemy in any number of ways" just about tolerable (ibid). However, when it came to "votes in working class organisations", different standards apply. These "are (or should be) the culmination of a process of discussion and therefore part and parcel of the free and frank exchange of opinions that democratic centralism can only encourage, not squash". I presume the comrade is talking about "working class organisations" such as trade unions, cooperatives, campaigns or soviets? The implication seems clear that in such bodies - in contradiction to the practice of the Bolsheviks' history - a revolutionary party should not vote in a disciplined manner. Presumably all issues should be decided by individual 'free votes'? Dave Parks demonstrates how the morbid sensitivity of an individual bruised by a roughing up in some sect in his past leads him into essentially reactionary, anti-party positions when he writes: "I will not join a group that instructs me how to vote all the time", as this means turning "intelligent socialists into nothing more than voting machines" (July 24). Of course, the notion that a revolutionary organisation would tell its members how to vote "all the time", reducing them to arm-raising dolts, is a diversion. It acts as a cover for a form of anarchist liquidationism - it allows unity in action at the level of a strike or picket - something the working class itself spontaneously achieves. But it would outlaw a working class party or trend ever voting in a disciplined way in a trade union, a conference or a campaign. In effect, it would negate the role of a revolutionary party altogether. Despite Dave Parks' assurance that "I don't demand the groups dissolve themselves", the call for any SA organisation to desist from "voting as a block" under present conditions is in effect precisely that (ibid). It is a demand that the members of organised groups in the SA reduce themselves to the same level of impotence and confusion as the so-called 'independents'. Communists should have nothing to do such reactionary claptrap. The debate has revealed that the position of even the better of the independents is totally invidious. They can only wish away the present circumstances, but make no positive contribution to overcoming the concrete reality that confronts us - that is, a left dominated by sects and sectarianism. In this sense, while the majority of the organisations that comprise the SA are part of the problem, they are simultaneously key components of the solution. We work for their withering away as separate organisations through the extension of the democratic structures and remit of SA work. This struggle takes the form of a fight between established, disciplined and centralised groups within the Socialist Alliance. We do not wistfully demand their abolition, as this would be both impotent utopianism and reactionary. An organisation is a form of mediation between theory and practice. The groups that litter today's left are therefore not simply fortuitously grouped accidents of history. They are also the organisational expressions of the programmatic crisis that embroiled our movement in the 20th century. This is true in both positive and negative senses. The origins of many are in healthy rebellions against the opportunism of either the world communist movement or official Trotskyism. Yet most atrophied into sects and their theoretical insights ossified into dogma. Nevertheless, what we are dealing with in this sense is the fractured vanguard of the class itself. The revolutionary left and the workers it influences constitute the advanced layers of our movement. The notion that debate, polemic and intervention amongst this layer is not 'talking to the class' is philistine rubbish. It implies that the 'real' working class is simply some 'dark continent' out there, while the individual member of the SWP, AWL or Workers Power in front of you is an alien of some sort. Genuine working class partisans want to see that vanguard organised. We want to overcome the fragmentation of the advanced layer at a higher level, by uniting it into a genuine party-type formation. We would fight tooth and nail against seeing this layer degraded to the level of the lost souls of the so-called SA independents. Central to the struggle for this higher unity is the fight for genuine democratic centralism. In contrast to the deliberately misleading nonsense from Dave Osler that we have "conflicting democratic centralisms five times over", we see the SA groups split. On one side we have two organisations - the CPGB and the AWL - that seek to adhere to the principle of 'freedom of debate, unity in action'. On the other hand, we have the rest - all, to one degree or another, guilty of bureaucratic centralism. But the essence of democratic centralism is something more than having a relatively 'nice' regime in comparison with the sects. Democratic centralism is not simply a set of prescribed relationships between higher and lower committees in the party, or rules concerning the rights and duties of individual members. It is a process by which unity around a revolutionary programme is achieved and defended. Diktat cannot achieve this. In truth, the fullest and most open discussion offers the best conditions for winning this unity and with it the ability to centralise our activities more completely. The CPGB is the most consistent and single-minded advocate of centralism in the alliance. But we are also the stoutest defenders of SA democracy - and not because democracy is simply a guarantee that Tom, Dick or Harry will not be treated like they were in the old WRP. Centralism made the SA possible. It allowed our ambitious intervention in the last general election. It means that talk of the possibility of an SA paper is not just pointless yak. It means that we have the possibility to intervene effectively in the trade unions to argue for the democratisation of the political fund. The fight to truly centralise the SA is actually the fight for its very survival. The Communist Party has decided to openly debate the question of democratic centralism at its forthcoming Communist University, both to draw out potential differences in our own ranks and to arm comrades with arguments to take on the poisonous arguments of those independents who identify 'democratic centralism', not the lack of it, as the main obstacle in the SA. The debate is not a Party action. There will be no disciplined majority to be defended. It will be open in front of friends and opponents alike. We will tape the event and plan to feature reports of the discussion and argument in our press and elsewhere. We are confidant that, rather than impair our ability to democratically unite for future actions, this robust democracy will actually greatly enhance it. That, comrade 'free spirits', is called democratic centralism. Mark Fischer