16.02.2012

Centralism and autonomy

Michael Copestake reports from the most recent CPGB aggregate

Saturday February 11 saw CPGB members convene in London for one of the organisation’s regular aggregates. On the table for debate and voting were the interlinked issues of democratic centralism and the CPGB’s relationship to the autonomous but closely related Communist Students and the proposals for that organisation’s future put forward by Chris Strafford. Though there were two separate sessions, the essence of the aggregate as a whole was the question of the nature and extent of party discipline for CPGB members in general and especially those who are also members of Communist Students; and what this means for its autonomy when CPGB comrades comprise a majority of the CS membership.

Both debates were prompted by the proposal of comrade Strafford to transform Communist Students from a student-based organisation into a broader formation seeking to involve youth, campus workers, academics and so on. A similar proposal had been raised on the Communist Students email list before the CPGB was informed and this was viewed as a breakdown of democratic centralism by the Provisional Central Committee, which contested that such a major change should first have been brought up within the CPGB itself.

A minority of comrades held that the relationship between the CPGB and CS had not at all been made clear that comrade Strafford’s action did not represent a break with established practice, and that this was the first time the PCC had intervened so strongly in CS business. They believed that CS’s autonomy meant that CPGB members of CS were not completely under CPGB discipline. A related motion was put forward by Cat Rylance proposing that the party relax its discipline over its members of Communist Students in order to retain the organisation’s autonomy and empower non-CPGB members.

Democratic centralism

Opening for the PCC, national organiser Mark Fischer spoke in favour of the leadership’s motion on democratic centralism. In contrast to the bureaucratic centralism we see on much of the left, the motion reaffirmed the CPGB’s view that “Democratic centralism does not require the unanimity of CPGB comrades on all political, historical or theoretical issues” and that comrades who disagreed with the majority in the party had a duty to express their views. The motion affirmed that the duty of party cells, fractions, etc, to be “self-activating” and not requiring of “micro-management” by the PCC does not contradict the right of higher bodies to be consulted and ultimately decide on all matters. In between aggregates and conferences, the PCC represents the whole.

The PCC noted that the motives of comrade Strafford and the minority were not in question and that there had been genuine confusion over the relation between the part and the whole, between CPGB members in Communist Students and their duties to the party in relation to Communist Students’ own autonomy as a political organisation.

Comrade Fischer noted that every sphere of politics and organisation, from trade unions to parliamentary fractions, has its own particularities and needs, and that in each CPGB members are expected to act on their own initiative and take the appropriate decisions. But democratic centralism means that the party can instruct members in lower committees and other organisations to “act in accordance” with the decisions of higher bodies. Giving examples from the history of the communist movement, the comrade explained how at various times it has been erroneously asserted that, for example, only women should be able to vote on issues affecting women; how the Jewish Bund had attempted to monopolise decision-making in relation to Jewish RSDLP members until made to submit to democratic centralism at the RSDLP’s 2nd Congress in 1903 (which provoked a split, although the Bund rejoined on the new terms in 1906.)

In reply comrade Rylance accepted that the part was subordinate to the whole, but after the confusion apparent in the debate on the internal email list it was important for the issue to be debated at aggregate. Comrade Rylance gave an account of her own involvement in Communist Students and how she and others had come to interpret the autonomous nature of the organisation. The comrade noted that in the debate within CS on whether it should affiliate to the Labour Representation Committee CPGB comrades did not vote under instruction and actually took up differing positions. Comrade Rylance expressed concern that, lacking access to the decision-making process within the CPGB, the minority of non-CPGB CS members were now effectively only “half-members” without control over the organisation. Comrade Rylance described her view that the principal purpose of Communist Students is to develop “communist activists” and that this can only properly occur without CPGB intervention, which had appeared to her as a new development.

In the ensuing debate comrade Tina Becker called for our future educationals to have a “back to basics” character in order to allow a greater feeling of participation in party life by younger or less theoretically educated comrades and to tackle the sources of confusion such as had occurred over the issues under discussion.

Comrade Strafford referred to a motion passed at a past Communist Students conference to accept non-student youth as members, and noted that there had been no PCC uproar then even though the matter had not been raised within the CPGB prior to the decision. So why now? Asking for clarification as to the exact nature of CPGB discipline for its comrades in CS, the comrade blamed the incoherence of the PCC’s previous statements and actions for nurturing the initial confusion over the matter.

PCC member John Bridge responded by saying that the extent of CPGB discipline over its members in CS - instructing them to vote a certain way on certain fundamental issues, for example - was always an art and not a science. Given that comrade Strafford’s motion proposed a fundamental change to Communist Students - transforming it into a totally different organisation in fact - this necessarily involved the interest of the CPGB. This was rather different from the decision to allow youth who were not students to join CS. CS was to remain a student organisation and why should anyone object to non-students helping out?

On the subject of the non-CPGB minority in CS, comrade Bridge noted that in no sphere of work should political minorities be afforded special rights and the same applies to student organisations. In fact the CPGB hardly ever intervened to instruct its members in CS and there was no problem explaining this to non-CPGB members. It was entirely natural for the majority to decide, just as it was natural for that majority to apply voting discipline if that was considered appropriate. But in CS there was no reason why a minority proposal could not be adopted and there was nothing to stop the minority becoming the majority - unlike in the various student front groups of other left organisations. Comrade Dave Isaacson compared the political autonomy of CS to the Socialist Worker Students Society which lacks any political autonomy and has no genuine democracy.

Echoing these points, PCC member Mike Macnair observed that Chris’s proposals amounted to the liquidation of Communist Students and was not a minor issue, and the intervention of the PCC was completely legitimate. Restating the democratic and autonomous credentials of CS against the left’s various student fronts, comrade Macnair explained that the non-CPGB minority was not disenfranchised, except in the sense that any organisation with factions has a majority and a minority. He pointed to the “illusion” of rising above this by banning factions - in fact that only empowers the party central apparatus as the only ‘permanent faction’ allowed. He gave the example of the SWP central committee, which really does disenfranchise the membership.

The PCC motion on democratic centralism was overwhelmingly accepted by aggregate following minor amendments stating that in all organisations CPGB comrades were “under discipline” - though not necessarily “under instruction” from the appropriate party body in every instance. Comrade Rylance’s motion was overwhelmingly defeated.

CS future

The second session dealt specifically with the future of CS, with comrade Strafford presenting his motion to broaden it into a body for communist campus workers as well as students.

Speaking for the PCC, Ben Lewis proposed an alternative motion, which resolved to “oppose any attempts to change the political basis or name of Communist Students”. Comrade Lewis said that Chris’s proposal did amount to a fundamental change in the basis of CS and that the PCC’s opposition to it did not compromise the autonomy of CS. Comrade Lewis did not accept the view that Communist Students had fallen from previous lofty heights and that this necessitated broadening it out. While it had fewer activists than in the past, it was normal for student organisations in particular to gain and lose strength. The comrade noted that the student left as a whole was not benefiting massively from the current political situation and that CS has always had these ups and downs because of the very cyclical nature of student life and the competition from the large left student fronts.

Attributing comrade Strafford’s desire to broaden CS so as to include academics and campus workers to “frustration” with the situation, comrade Lewis said that the proposals were not a solution and were not practical. Academics and workers on campus ought to be active in their trade unions and the CPGB itself, not a broadened Communist Students, he said. The thirst for Marxist ideas evident in society necessitated a student-based Marxist organisation.

For his part, comrade Strafford gave an exposition of how recent movements in Britain and around the world, from student fees protests to Occupy, highlighted the role of young people and pointed to the fact that increasingly young people could be mobilised to defend their economic interests. For example, a majority of British students were in part-time work during their university courses and this meant that the old model of organisation was outdated.

The debate that followed saw criticism of the proposals outlined in comrade Strafford’s motion. Weekly Worker editor Peter Manson questioned where all of these communist academics, cleaners and campus staff were meant to come from. Unlike students, who would be recruited from among freshers who were often thirsting for new ideas, it was rather different with campus workers. It is relatively easy to get them to join a trade union, but how likely was it that they would turn up to an event with students?

Other comrades restated the need for students to have their own organisations for reasons that included the potential conflict of interest and approach with academics and the specific life-cycle position of being a student as opposed to being a worker. Comrade Isaacson noted that during political actions involving academics, campus staff and students, they could certainly form a joint “action committee”, but, as comrade Becker pointed out, surely if it was possible to pull such a wide variety of communists on campus into a single organisation, they might as well just join the CPGB.

The PCC motion was again accepted by a large majority - with a single change, which inserted the word “fundamentally” so that aggregate now resolved to “to oppose any attempts to fundamentally change the political basis or name of Communist Students”, thus emphasising the autonomous nature of CS. After a proposal to vote on comrade Strafford’s motion section by section, the move to transform CS was clearly defeated, although other parts - including the need to “maintain the relationship of political solidarity between CS and the CPGB” - were agreed.