 |
Publishing revolutionary democratic ideas |
Workers Republic No22 |
Jan 94 For a revolutionary socialist workers party Price if sold 20p This issue - Ireland breaking the isolation, SWP rank and file movement, SWP members expelled, Anti-racism conference, the Empires new clothes? Name change, Party censorship of Internal Bulletin, Irish SWP abandons its support for the IRA. Ireland - breaking the isolation When the British ruling class talk of peace, workers know its a cover to intensify the preparations for war. The present situation in Ireland is a concrete example. They believe that they now have a window of opportunity to smash the Republican Movement. They are attempting to use the present negotiations to isolate and split the Republicans as a prelude to a military onslaught. While Major and Mayhew pontificate about peace, MI5 and military intelligence unleash Loyalist death squads as a warning to the Nationalist people of the terrible price to be paid for continuing opposition to imperialism. They have calculated that circumstances are moving their way. After 25 years of war they believe they can manipulate the Nationalist people's longing for peace. Their sense of isolation is increased when the southern Irish middle classes, bloated by European Union subsidies, openly side with Loyalism. The Republican Movement has been forced into a corner. Events in Britain itself have also forced our ruling class to re-evaluate the economic costs of maintaining the occupation. The recent IRA bombing campaign in the City of London not only cost hundreds of millions in rebuilding and disruption, but weakened Britain's attempts to become the financial centre of the European Union. The recent decision by the EU to site the European Central Bank in Germany was a major blow for Britain's long term strategy within the EU. They calculate that now is the time to force a "peace" deal on their terms. The first major factor which allows the British room to manoeuvre is the lack of any organised opposition to the war in the UK. There are many reasons for this. Repressive laws and self-censorship by the media are obvious. More importantly is the absence of any political movement within the working class capable of harnessing any latent anti-war sentiment. Over the past 25 years only a handful of motions calling for troops out have reached union conference agendas; of these few have even been debated. Trades councils such as Tameside in the early '80s, which took a principled position on Ireland, have been viciously witchhunted by the union bureaucracy. The few national trade union campaigns, such as 'Time to Go', have been half-hearted stunts. The second major factor is the lack of any republican movements outside of Northern Ireland. The republican question cannot be solved by struggle within Northern Ireland alone. Neither can the divisions with the working class between nationalist and loyalist be overcome within an Orange political framework. The left has to fight to mobilise working class republicanism within England, Scotland and Wales and unite with the republican movement in Ireland. The development of such a united movement would greatly help to break the isolation of republicanism in Northern Ireland. Yet this is precislely what the left has failed to do, mainly because it remains tied to the coat tails of the Labour party. The record of the Left is abysmal. None have a serious long term strategy of building solidarity. Nothing reveals the sectarianism more than the left's inability to unite the common cause of troops out. Nothing exposes the economism more, than the failure to understand the connection between republicanism and socialism Socialist Worker no longer raises the demand for troops out. The SWP has no strategy, but has survived behind the troops out slogan. Now it doesn't even have that! A fine example of political flexibility when not "tied down" to a democratic programme. Ireland is not an irritating side issue to the economic struggle. Unless we support the Republican Movement and immediate British withdrawal, we increase the confidence and power of Major and Mayhew and the Republican Movement will be forced to negotiate from a position of relative weakness. The ruling class, if allowed to defeat the Republican Movement will seize the opportunity to make further attacks on the working classes of Scotland, Wales and England.
The IS\SWP rank and file movement - the first time as farce In the first part of this article (see RM No's 20 and 21) we discussed how the IS Group developed its strategy of Rank and File organisation. Over time this policy, to achieve some implantation into working class organisations, began to bear fruit. By 1973-74 approaching half of the Group's members were manual workers, quite a few of whom had years of experience and some standing in industrial and trade union struggles. If the penetration was patchy that was a measure of our low starting point and also in the sense that in several unions IS was setting the left agenda, a vindication of the essential correctness of the strategy. Just as the years of work were taking on organisational form, in the first conference of the Rank and File Movement, Cliff moved decisively to defer indefinitely the conference in favour of a membership rally and a Buyers into Sellers campaign. What is clear is that Cliff and a few of his circle had convinced themselves, despite paying lip service to building a rank and file movement, that the group was not up to the job. This is ofcourse, a perfectly respectable point of view and one that might more fruitfully been discussed a great deal earlier, if only because to build a movement requires a dedicated and united effort from the whole organisation. Unfortunately, the method used, employing Cliff's own patented brand of dialectics, was to attack the theoretical base of which idea of a rank and file movement rested: the primacy of advanced workers to a revolutionary socialist analysis. In the May 1974 Internal Bulletin Cliff wrote..."our audience is largely made up of young workers with very little political tradition and quite often with very little trade union experience. Only in these terms can our policies of the last year be justified." In the same month at the National Committee, Cliff went further claiming that the "changing locus of reformism" meant that the workers had been depoliticised and that many shop stewards were bent. The young traditionless workers should be the focus of the organsiation, who we would be educating and directing to fight for shop stewardship. This farrago of nonsense was not only dishonest, it also flew in the face of what had been written in the 1973 conference documents, with Cliff's enthusiastic support: "a revolutionary organisation with a few hundred miltants in each of the major industries could have produced a different conclusion in these struggles, that would have tipped the balance of defeat towards victory... we have to be prepared to offer them programmes of action with which they can agree, but which leads them into opposition to the vacillation of the left trade union leadership and its backers in the CP.. In the present situation the revolutionary organisation can draw a few thousand workers..." Nothing here about the changing locus of reformism. In their drastic redefining of the IS focus, Cliff's faction were not only throwing overboard 20 years of theory and praparation, but also the entire rationale behind a rank and file movement, that could build in a favourable climate. Lack of nerve led to political caprice and spelt the end of the Rank nad File movement. The Rank and File Organising Committee had only one non-IS member, Joe McGough, who left having decided it was a hollow IS front. The IS Industrial Department, staffed by graduates, with only passing experience of industry, came to substitute for the Organising Committee, which seldom met and when it did it was poorly attended. The delegates to the conference were not circulated and were lost. A paper organisation crumbled into dust. IS was back in the safe supportable world of simple arithmatic: a membership campaign here, a Right to Work march there, allied to some opportunist interventions in strikes. After three years of this, having conceeded its inability to build a rank and file movement, the IS announced itself as the SWP, the revolutionary party. As Earnest Erber said many years ago: "There is something rather risible in the idea of the small mass revolutionary party" If comrades were to ask, how one individual with his satraps could reverse a central tenet of the IS politics and tradition? They are making a serious point that bears directly on the nature of our movement. At least part of the answer lies in the physical and political climate in which the movement developed. Crushed between Stalinism and Social Democracy, small and persecuted, it had to rely on a few gifted individuals to just exist. In the 1930's Trotsky was the fountainhead of theory and policy and the final arbiter on all political differences in the movement. From the 1940's onwards, in Britain, Gerry Healy, Ted Grant and Tony Cliff were the most considerable figures in their different brands of British Trotskyism. As I have said elswhere, it is not an accident that Healey's group was always characterised by a certain thuggishness, Grant's by being outstandingly boring and Cliff's by capriciousness and short termism. I hasten to add that of the three, Cliff was the most impressive and, on a personal level, in many ways a generous and attractive human being. But his faults, which may have been necessary to build a group from 30 to 500, become the reverse when they are deployed in an organisation with some prospect of influence in the mass workers movement. A gross inability to work in a collective, unless he has won his way, makes a mockery of his dedication to democratic centralism. Even more serious is his total disregard for constitutional forms that prove inconvenient to his immediate preoccupations. Anyone brought up in the working class movement will know that militants are particularly outraged by arbitrary and undemocratic behaviour, in the work place or the unions. This trait, as one might expect, is particularly pronounced among socialist militants. Cliff's cavalier attitude to the norms of working class democracy means that he will never fully understand British workers and that the SWP will be denied the mass following he so ardently desires. It is salutary to compare the IS Conference industrial perspectives document of 1973 to that of the SWP for the 1993 conference. Even allowing for the changed circumstances of today (changes that IS were unable to change or modify by Cliff's self denying ordinance) 1973 spoke from limited but real influence with realistic hope for the future, 1993 is an example of sheer scraped out emptiness, whose verbiage ill conceals the virtually complete lack of influence and activity, finishing with the rallying cry "Sell more Socialist Workers". Truly the mountains are in labour and have given birth to a mouse. I started this article with Trotsky's description of the key role that Lenin played in the events of 1917. What we were to change that series, of class, party, and leadership, just a little. Lets us suppose that Lenin's unique prestige had been utilised to convince the cadre not to submerge themselves in the mass movement, but to recruit them in ones and twos, is it not possible that October 1917 would have been permanently postponed? Fortunately, Lenin was not Cliff, with a better prose style, nor was 1974 in any way as significant as 1917 but it was a self inflicted wound, both unnecessary and debilitating. If this article is seen as an attack on Cliff, that is certainly what it is, but it is also a crtitique of the movement that produced him. The act of joining a revolutionary movement does not mean that we to abdicate all responsibility for thought to gurus, no matter how dedicated and well meaning. We should not be attempting to recreate the history of Bolshevism, but build a movement in Britain based on the workers as they are, not how we would like them to be. The transition from the here and now to revolutionary consciousness is active intervention in real struggles of both marxists and workers. In the process, both elements learn something and the struggle is more directed, more intense and more political. I can think of no more effective way of making that transition than through the creation of a rank and file movement. Even now, the only organisation that can seriously prepare such a movement is the SWP. To reverse a well known phrase of Karl Marx, the first time was a farce another failure would be a tragedy. SWP member expelled - more to follow? Andy Wilson, ex full time organiser for the SWP in Liverpool has been expelled from the party. News of the possible expulsion had been circulating around the London branches for a few weeks. But confirmation that these rumours were true came from SWP contacts. Trouble began when a group of SWP members, including comrade Wilson, decided that they would like to publish a cultural magazine. Obviously this was not what Tony Cliff and the Central Committee had in mind. So they decided to put a stop to it. Comrade Wilson was chosen as "leader" of this cultural "conspiracy", brought before comrades Stack, German and Cliff, and ordered to desist. In doing this, the SWP Central Committee was exceeding their legitimate powers. They have no right in the name of democratic centralism to prevent SWP members from producing a cultural magazine or indeed a political magazine. But it is no surprise to us that they should attempt to do so. To his credit, Andy Wilson refused to abandon the planned magazine. On many occasions we have complained about Stalinist methods employed by the SWP leadership. But over the last two years Cliff seems to have flipped his lid. First we had the threat of expulsion against Lionel Simms over anthropology. Then we had the expulsions of Taylor and Watson in Glasgow for thinking wrong thoughts. Next we had the assault on members of "Socialist Organiser". Then during the last pre-conference discussion period the Central Committee censored the Internal Bulletin, removing references to the miners strike. The contempuous treatment of Jim Perry, secretary of Cannock Chase NUM, is no different to the way SWP members are treated if they annoy Tony Cliff. The shame of it is that most SWP members let them get away with it. Casual indifference to the fate of your own comrades means a failure to carry out your responsibilies to the party and the working class. The SWP rank and file has the power to challenge Stalinist methods, which thrive on indifference. We have to defend the principles of democratic centralism against witch-hunts and victimisations. SWP members interested in the politics of anthropology or culture have committed no crime against the working class or the party rank and file. Neither have they disrupted party activity. But if they annoy Cliff and his clique, it’s on your bike. We urge all SWP branches to find out the facts for themselves. Branches should pass motions calling for the reinstatement of comrade Wilson to full membership and for the Central Committee to make available to all branches, the statement they issued to a few selected members, in which they explain their political reasons. Anti-Racism Conferences Youth Against Racism in Europe (YRE) held its first conference on 4-5 December. It was attended by approximately 250 people. The vast majority of the conference was made up of delegates belonging to Militant Labour, who acted as a block on many of the more militant motions.It was the case that the conference agenda prevented a full discussion on all the resolutions as they had first to be debated in commissions which then gave majority and minority report backs to the full conference.The revolutionary left alternative to the reformism of Militant Labour came mainly from Workers Power and the RIL with both organisations making a serious intervention. The fact that this conference has taken place, with all its faults, has further helped to put the YRE in the forefront of the opposition to the racists and fascists. The Anti-Racist Alliance (ARA) held its second AGM on 15 January. It was attended by nearly 300 delegates. Much of the debate came back to the question of unity to defeat the fascists. The best motions were defeated by wrecking amendments, whilst a motion about the ANL/YRE Unity Demonstration of 16 October which condemned police violence and supported the right of selfdefence against police brutality and at the same time disassociated ARA from the comments of the National Secretary (Marc Wadsworth) was one of the few that was guillotined. The left at the conference was very small, which is a shame when so many on the left talk of the need to unite on this issue, with the best appearing to be the Jewish Socialist Group. Dan Yates The Empire’s New Clothes? On the 15th of December the British and Irish governments released the text of their 'Ulster Declaration'. This was the response to the Hume-Adams talks, and sought to exploit the political fallout from the Shankhill bombings to apply pressure to the Republican Movement. The declaration asks for an enormous gamble from republicans without the merest hint of a guarantee. Its talk of the United Kingdom having no selfish economic or strategic interest in Ireland is simply a repeat of the statements of the Heath Government at the start of the troubles. The significant changes are less on the republican side than on an alignment of interests in government circles. The Tories, dependant on Ulster Unionist votes, are trying to come to a mutually acceptable agreement with the political establishment in Southern Ireland. The attempt in Northern Ireland is to apply pressure and isolate Sinn Fein while separating Paisley's Democratic Unionists from the favoured Official Unionists. The declaration represents the views of the British and Irish ruling class. The interests of workers and democrats find no place in the document. The SWP response Just as the British people were informed that the policy of not talking to terrorists had always been a sham, and that the IRA and British Government had been in contact for years, the SWP line on Ireland took an unexplained turn. A policy of workers unity was advocated alongside an assault on 'sectarianism'. The new line bore practical fruit as the Socialist Workers Movement (SWM), the SWP's sister group in Ireland leafleted Harland & Wolfe after the sectarian murder of two Catholic contractors. The SWM was an active instigator of an anti-sectarian demonstration by thousands of mainly Protestant workers. The "Irish" turn has been reflected in a number of articles in Socialist Worker and Socialist Review. The new line is a break from the position identified with Eamonn McCann and from the more recent view expressed by Chris Bambury. There is nothing wrong with changing policy but the way it has been done reveals key weaknesses in the SWP's politics and it's methods. The new policy was a change from the top without discussion. The foot-soldiers of the SWP were not involved in the decision and do not even know if it was their own leadership or that of the SWM that initiated it. The PreConference discussion gave no indication of the change which emerged. For SWP members there is a choice of line in 1994, between the three strands on Ireland:
The original associated with Eamonn McCann, whose membership status has been uncertain for years. The position emphasises the continued importance of the national question, and argues that while material differences have eroded most loyalist workers will move right in a crisis. A minority can be won by a revolutionary workers movement, but only one based on a clear programme that understands the continued importance of the national question.
The line promoted by Chris Bambury which justified the reduced emphasis given by SWP to the 'Troops Out Movement'. This position identified the key as the Southern working class. If the working class began to organise and develop south of the border then workers in the loyalist camp could be broken from their political allegiances.
The current position which argues that it is in the interests of workers in both communities to oppose sectarianism. It is summed up as 'the only hope for a lasting peace lies in a working class revolt against the Tories and the bosses on all sides.' (SW 11 Dec). Stages The SWP line in the mid 1980's, developed by Kieran Allen and Chris Bambury, claimed it was a response to stageism. Republicans, including left Republicans, placed the elimination of the Northern Irish state as a precondition of workers unity. Socialist Worker argued that workers action was the only way forward. In its recent development this has become a mirror image of stagism. Only a workers republic can bring lasting peace, socialism will solve the national question in passing. The new antisectarian line proposes workers unity on basic material interests. It ignores how the politics of the sectarian state determines economic interests. It is the politics of syndicalism, counterposed to a political response to loyalism and republicanism. Militant trade unionism can coincide with reactionary politics, as was amply demonstrated in the strike led by the Ulster Workers Council in the 1970s. The national question returns The promotion of an Irish peace settlement by both the British and Irish governments will have echoes beyond Ireland. Coincident to the declaration, a Scottish Nationalist was jailed for terrorist offences. Scottish Nationalists are bound to contrast the effects of armed struggle with the constitutional path taken in Scotland. The referendum that caused the fall of the last Labour Government in 1979, showed a majority in favour of devolution. Fifteen years later Scotland is no further forward. John Major ran his campaign during the last general election as a "Unionist", based on his opposition to Scottish devolution or independance. Now this Unionist, dependant on Ulster Unionist votes, proclaims the United Kingdom has no interest in preventing a United Ireland! The succesful development of a revolutionary party in all parts of the British Isles depends on a capacity to deal with the national question. The SWP originally argued for a political response to workers disunity. A revolutionary party was the only vehicle that could unite workers by linking class struggle to the political question of the sectarian Orange State. A revolutionary party must try to win a minority of protestant workers to understand that their class interests require the destruction of the sectarian state. No one knows when or exactly how these questions will be solved. But the struggle for a united secular Irish republic must be combined with the struggle for a workers republic. This must involve the working class of England, Scotland and Wales. The process of dealing with the national question now, alongside the issues of workers unity, is how a revolutionary party will be built. Name change After a full debate, the recent RDG Aggregate voted to change the name of our bulletin from "Republican Marxist" to " Workers Republic". After the first 20 issues of our bulletin in which we have set out the basic ideas of republican marxism, it was felt that the new title would make clear our political aims in the approaching democratic revolution and thus make clearer the essence of our disagreement over the minimum programme and the demand for a Federal Republic and a United Ireland. Coincidently " Workers Republic" was the name of the paper published by the great republican marxist James Connolly, who fought for an Irish republic, seeing it as transitional to a workers Republic. Party censorship of Internal Bulletin Why is it that references to the miners struggle were censored by the SWP Central Committee? Surely open debate is a neccesary part of the class struggle, while censorship helps the class enemy. An article submitted to the Internal Bulletin 1993 No.2 had the following words deleted from it; "Indeed, the principles of united front work were well reflected in an Open letter to Tony Cliff this summer from Jim Perry, the Cannock chase NUM secretary. The comrades would be well advised to obtain a copy of this letter, and consider Jim Perry's arguments. He addresses an aspect of what we call the vacuum on the left; one which he considers our party is not confronting properly." This confirms what many observers at Marxism 93 thought - that the SWP leadership were embarrassed by Jim Perry's Open letter. They had no answers to his criticism of their role during the 1992-3 miners struggle. They didn't reply to his Open Letter and they deleted all reference to it from the IB. Irish SWP abandons its support for the IRA The Socialist Workers Movement, the Irish sister organisation of the British SWP, has adondoned its traditional position of Unconditional but critical support for the IRA. The crucial debates took place over a year ago. What a shame the debate was not reported in the UK. For years the British party has paid only the most token lip service to this position. The SWP has not supported the IRA\Sinn Fein in reality. For example it has not organised any joint demonstrations or meetings or rallies with Sinn Fein. In Cliff's "International" politics flows in one direction only, from Hackney to the rest of the world. No doubt the new policy was also manufactured in Hackney. Will we not soon be hearing that the British SWP has been reluctantly forced to follow (sic) the Irish lead. Ask your SWP branch officials and the Central Committee why the SWM debate wasn't reported in the UK and has the SWP line changed? |
Revolutionary Democratic Group: contact@rdg.org.uk
Here you can find the latest RDG articles or other articles we think may be of general interest
| Scottish Socialist Party crisis |
Siding with Murdoch - Weekly Worker Fact and Fiction - what's happened in the SSP? - Socialist Unity Network RCN Statement on the Split in the Scottish Socialist Party - Republican Communist Network |