15.01.2004
Deep factional roots
The special congress of the Mornign Star/CPB will decide whether the organisation will opt for an electoral coalition with other trends on the left, or doggedly remain tied to the auto-Labourism of its British road to socialism programme. Alan Rees takes a look
On Saturday January 17, the Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain meets for what is perhaps the most important gathering in its previously undistinguished life. The special congress will decide whether the organisation will opt for an electoral coalition with other trends on the left, or doggedly remain tied to the auto-Labourism of its British road to socialism programme.
That electoral coalition is, of course, Respect, which is to be launched at its 'Convention of the left' on January 25. Though headed by George Galloway, it is staffed by the Socialist Workers Party and this makes it no-go territory for the CPB's traditionalist wing, headed by John Foster, top man in Scotland, industrial organiser Kevin Halpin and chairwoman Anita Halpin.
Comrade Foster - in a head-to-head polemic with part-time general secretary Robert Griffiths - warned of "principled differences" and alluded to forces in Respect who did no share his views on the "socialist countries" or the "national liberation movements" (Morning Star January 8). Better wait for Labour to be 'reclaimed' so that the long journey down the left reformist British road can resume. His wing of the CPB concludes that the Respect coalition is either "just a one-off", which makes it a "diversion", or, if it is "anything else", it is "dangerous" (A Halpin Morning Star January 12).
Against them stands the other wing of the CPB leadership, the so-called innovators - crucially the duumvirate of Rob Griffiths and John Haylett, Morning Star editor. Not unfairly they have been branded as revisionists by their increasingly embittered opponents. Nevertheless, delegates will debate and vote on a three-paragraph motion presented by Griffiths-Haylett, which is, in fact, skilfully extracted from the CPB's 2002 congress resolutions.
It reads: "Our own electoral strategy is the servant of our general perspective for transforming the labour movement into the main instrument and rallying point of all those seeking progressive social change.
"The Communist Party will continue to stand its own electoral candidates where this can help to contribute to a strong left challenge within the labour movement to the policies of the Blair clique and raise the case for working class struggle and socialism. Where the party's executive committee believes that local or special circumstances require it, we are open to working alongside others on the left in the electoral field, provided there is agreement on strategic perspectives for the labour movement. We are prepared to offer support to candidates who command the support of the labour and democratic movements in their area but who have been denied the right to be official Labour Party candidates by the dominant rightwing faction.
"We remain committed, however, to the return of a Labour government and to support for Labour candidates in elections where these conditions do not apply, to unity to defeat the Tories in all fields and to winning the Labour Party for socialism."
Ostensibly one might think that there should be no controversy. But the 2002 congress took place in the context of rampant Blairism on the one hand and the challenge presented by the Socialist Alliance on the other. A minority was tempted to join. The leadership therefore came up with a well drafted formulation which kept things as they were - while appearing to give a concession to the minority who were questioning, or rejecting, auto-Labourism.
Not surprisingly, after the CPB congress nothing fundamental changed - as is the norm for this dull sect. For instance, the leadership of the CPB rebuffed the approach of the SWP to form a "broad electoral alliance" in June of last year. But life moves on. Despite the advances made by the 'reclaim the Labour Party' left, the Griffiths-Haylett wing is frustrated by its own lack of progress. Morning Star circulation continues to stagnate and CPB membership is generally inactive and increasingly elderly.
It is impossible to tell how things will go on January 17. Nevertheless it is quite clear that, for all their caveats and notes of caution, the Griffiths-Haylett duumvirate appears to have been seduced by Respect. What accounts for the change? Firstly, Andrew Murray - a leading CPB member and chair of the Stop the War Coalition - is widely regarded as having 'gone native'. His enemies in the CPB whisper about him being soft on the SWP - he and the SWP's Lindsey German are like peas in a pod. Secondly, Respect has George Galloway at its head. He is not only an MP recently expelled from the Labour Party, but is known to be ideologically opposed to the SWP. In effect Galloway is an 'official communist' in exile. Essentially he shares the same world view as the CPB.
Entering a Socialist Alliance dominated by 'the Trots' does not appeal to the Griffiths-Haylett duumvirate and would anyway be hard to sell to the deeply conservative and USSR-nostalgic ranks of the CPB. Joining George Galloway's coalition is both more attractive for them and far easier to sell.
Galloway has also been keen to involve the CPB and seems to have deployed his considerable powers of charm and flattery to get it onboard. Of course, he needs an organisational counterweight of some sort against the SWP (which will numerically dominate). Replying to comrade Foster, he said it would be "strange" if the CPB chose to "cling to a broken down caboose known as New Labour". The place for "Britain's communists" - who "played such a key role in building support for the anti-war movement from which we will draw our support" - is with Respect (Morning Star January 12).
As an aside it is worth noting that the Star has been giving a fair amount of space to the Respect debate. To be ungenerous I suspect that this owes more to the fact that the CPB executive found itself paralysed - divided four ways on the issue - rather than to a sudden conversion to basic democratic norms.
Nevertheless there can be no doubt that for Galloway the Morning Star would be a real prize. A daily newspaper with a not insignificant readership amongst the Labour left and trade union apparatus is not something to be sneezed at. Thus, from the standpoint of Galloway, it may seem that the involvement of the CPB could reinforce his relationship with sections of the more mainstream workers' movement - unlike Peter Taaffe and his Socialist Party, he does not stupidly dismiss Labour now that he is out of it.
In an interview with this paper, he told us that developments in Labour remain key for the left in the coming period: "The Labour Party has millions of voters. It is known in every household in the land. It has hundreds of MPs, thousands of councillors. Even now - though we note the haemorrhaging in its ranks - it still has a couple of hundred thousand members. This is a behemoth compared to other left groups, even the most successful of them" (Weekly Worker December 4 2003).
Quite apart from any sympathies Galloway may have with the political positions of the CPB, he must surely also regard it - and the newspaper associated with it - as a point of leverage with the Labour left and trade union movement.
Galloway's motivations are one thing. The possible consequences for the CPB are another. Here is a group that was formed in 1988 (when the Communist Campaign Group "re-established" the Communist Party), which was an uneasy and inherently unstable coalition of forces. There was the wing we called right opportunist - headed by established figures such as the then editor of the Morning Star, Tony Chater, an aged Andrew Rothstein, who was celebrated as the CPGB's number one member, Star business manager Mary Rosser, and Mike Hicks, a print union official and the CPB's first general secretary.
The other wing, the centrists, came from the left of the 'official' CPGB - Photis Lysandrou, Rob Griffiths, John Haylett. They were later joined by another similar group called Communist Liaison, led by Andrew Murray and Nick Wright. In order to get their hands on the levers of power - the only politics they understand - these centrists agreed not to question the British road to socialism. In next to no time their strategy bore fruit. Chater retired and Hicks and Rosser were driven out after attempting a palace coup against Haylett, who led the Star workers out on strike and won after a bitter internal battle. Comrade Griffiths succeeded the disgraced Hicks and became the CPB's second general secretary.
Are we seeing today the final playing out of that struggle? Alan Rees