Minutes:

Communist Students Founding Conference: Saturday 9th December

Conference Greeting: Ben Lewis

No objections to Ben chairing the morning’s proceedings

Apologies:

Lex Rigby (Sheffield); Amy Lane (Warwick); Jim Padmore (Leeds); Becky Crowden and Jaz Lovett (Leeds Met)

Introduction: Tina Becker

Discussed what Communist Students as an organisation actually is and what it isn’t. She described how it is an autonomous organisation, but one that shouldn’t hide its origins and its sponsorship from the CPGB. The organisation should have autonomy in the decisions it makes and the campaigns that it decides to prioritise and take up.

She emphasised that CS is about promoting the ideas of Marxism – crucial in an environment where the majority of the left organises on the basis of Labourism or Social Justice – dead ends. Marxism is the way of understanding the world and looking to change it. There are many left groups and student organisations, most of which organise undemocratically and therefore it was decided to create a new student organisation that fights for the unity of Marxists. We should encourage a culture of debate – it is not only a right but a duty that people in minorities fight for their position to become the majority outlook. These debates should be open: on the website, in other publications and in the Weekly Worker. She found it a shame that Jim Padmore, who had contributed so much to the debate around CS’s political platform, was unable to be present and hoped that he would put down his thoughts about the conference and its decisions on paper in order to further the debate.

Students are part of the working class in that they do not own or control the means of production.

There should be no “checks and balances” on democracy within the organisation’s constitutional make-up: A simple majority within a well-advertised meeting should suffice to modify the constitution.

Also pointed out that the conference should elect a small executive body to co-ordinate the organisation’s work and decide for themselves who takes over what responsibilities and tasks.

In terms of Iran we need to be clear that we not only oppose imperialist aggression, but also the theocratic regime there which is oppressing the Iranian working class.

Mark Fischer, present as an observer, highlighted that the executive needs to enshrine the idea of re-callability: actual political sovereignty lies with the majority of the membership.

Political Platform:

13 points. Ben Lewis emphasised how conference should discuss each of the 13 paragraphs and then vote on them individually, to then vote on the document as a whole.

Emily Bransom quickly introduced the platform – discussing the origins of the CS project at Communist University 2006 in August, and described what the platform was about: i.e. the objective need for Marxism on campuses and also the taking up of political questions and democracy and against crude economism.

Jim Padmore made two written suggestions to conference: 1. That CS should set up Marxist study circles 2. We should write to other left groups about the foundation of CS with a view to them getting involved.

Ben Lewis made the suggestion that these proposals should be referred to the executive to undertake. No objections were raised to this.

Paragraph 1: Jim’s Amendment:

Criticisms: Sachin Sharma: Removes emphasis of CS as an “autonomous organisation”
Emily Bransom: Doesn’t emphasise that CS is set up by CPGB members – we should be honest about it.

Support: Toby Walton – should retain Padmore’s suggestion that we stand in the tradition of Marx, Engels etc. Rowan Anderson agreed with this and said that it would emphasise our roots in Marxism

Objections:
Tina: Elements of Trotsky (Transitional Programme) and something Rosa Luxemburg wrote about (Mass Strike etc) are in her opinion wrong. Shouldn’t put too broad a label on ourselves – a commitment to Marxism and radical democracy much better than labelling ourselves under “heroic leaders”: there were many disagreements amongst them.
Carey Davies – agreed with Tina that by putting Trotsky’s name on the list that we put across support for Trotskyism, which we should avoid. Listing a set of names is a dogmatic approach and Marxism is a much richer and broader tradition than that.
Jamie Linny: Unnecessary to list names – a commitment to Marxism and revolutionary democracy should be enough.
Mark Fischer: There is no unitary tradition of Marxism – it is disputed. He argued that in many ways Luxemburg was closer to Marx and Engels than Lenin and Trotsky who “bent the stick too far” in terms of democracy.
David Sabbagh: Lenin was based on a tradition of Marxism, so we shouldn’t be based be a tradition based on a tradition
Ben Lewis: Agreed with the emphasis on democracy and a commitment to Marxism. Marxism is a living tradition and shouldn’t be bogged down by names. Can we say that Tony Cliff and others are Marxists?

Clear majority against Jim’s amendment

Amendment to paragraph 2: Passed – same.

Jim’s amendment to paragraph 3:

Emily: opposed it as this is already basically covered
Dave Isaacson: Agreed with Jim. Important questions that need to be addressed
Carey: Fine, but there are then no bullet points on Trade Unions etc
Jamie: Abortion, childcare – seems random in that part of the document, even though he actually has nothing against the demands
Tina: Amendment is o.k. but not that smoothly expressed – put it to executive to make it sexier
Ben: Would be too much to add points on all things addressed in the paragraph – too prescriptive etc

Agreed that the meeting would approve the motion and then mandate the executive to polish it up

Paragraph 4:

Toby Walton: Problems with reform “from top to bottom” – suggested that it is amended to “throughout”.
Majority then agreed to the formulation: “The entire education needs to be radically transformed.”

Paragraph 5:

Few problems with the word “dolts” but was defended as something that got across the message that people are trained to behave like robots and are designed not to think.

Paragraph 6:

Steve Cooke: “added to” implies bigger and better
Emily: “developed” doesn’t necessarily mean “improved”
David Sabbagh: “enriched” is better than “developed”
Dave Isaacson: “our” theory instead of “Marxist” is better because it is a disrupted tradition and we should distance ourselves from the dogma of the sects.
Mark: Jim is possibly attempting to broaden our approach with his amendment “Marxist” theory and that is not a bad thing. Also the emphasis on the need to develop theory is also good – not just simply about building for the next mach etc.

Paragraph 7: “most” are confessional sects – it does appear that there are a few groups with a relatively healthy culture: Permanent Revolution as an example

Rowan – Amendment smacks of “mud-slinging” and is off-putting to people new to the left
Jamie – agreed with him. Should define ourselves more positively and not in such a negative way.
Ben – passage relates to why we have started CS in the first place. We shouldn’t shy away from openly and frankly saying what we think about the state of the left.
Carey – The left’s culture is off-putting to new people and must be overcome. Should be honest about our criticism of this culture and openly call for a break with this
Tina – all left groups are supposedly “democratic” but we need to actually explain what democracy is
Rowan – Shouldn’t scare people of a low political level off
Steve – agrees that we should be honest about the left’s faults. “Most” provides a good balance
Mark: confessional sect is not a good phrase – need to describe the problem more positively – i.e. criticise other groups but make sure the door is open.

He drafted a suggestion to the conference, which was accepted unanimously:
“We stand for openness and debate and reject the idea that…”

Amendment 8: Passed as it is – one objection from David Sabbagh which was quickly withdrawn

Amendment 9: Tina: “Supporting any campaign on a revolutionary platform” is wrong – the question is: which Marxists do we support? Some may stand against Labour left candidates etc. We should keep the Chartist phrase on revolution

Steve – We can’t simply support “any campaign” we should also mention NUS elections
Rowan – shouldn’t restrict this to parliament – maybe all electoral bodies or mechanisms in society?
Carey – “Communists favour standing in elections and winning the biggest possible vote”
Tina – “working class representation in elections at all levels”
Ben – just add “in elections at all levels” – delete “all…”

Amendment 9: Remained the same

Amendment 10: Unanimously decided to keep the original

Criticisms of the amendment:

Tina: was the USSR a “workers’ state” until 1991? Stressed the need to distance ourselves from the Stalinist horrors of the 20th Century
Ben: 1871 and 1917 – two different ways of gaining power – is too dogmatic to portray these in the same light

Amendment 11:

Tina – emphasis on open borders and immigration must be included, and also Jim’s point on the unity of student organisations must be included

Amendment 12: Mentioning the BNP is too situational – should be wider than that

Tina: In areas where a lot of people vote for the BNP, what do you do? May involve debating with the fascists to expose the superiority of our ideas
Carey: To “No-Platform” may actually play into the hands of the BNP: they can portray themselves as the democrats. We need to confront these ideas
Laurie: Stressed that it is a tactical question: Should definitely retain the part on rejecting state bans – a ridiculous approach which is peddled by organisations such as UAF
Dave: Need to stress that there are occasions when No-Platforming can be a CORECT tactic – but to make a principle out of this tactical question is wrong
Mark Fischer wrote an amendment which was accepted: Stressed the need to continue the debate on fascism on the website and respond publicly to Jim’s piece on the website.

Amended version passed: “At the core of any anti-fascist fight…” Debate allowed to continue

Paragraph 13:

Alternative amendment to Jim’s put forward by Ben Lewis. This was updated, and agreed that it is flawed to refer to Iraq or Venezuela. Ben’s motion didn’t do this, but updated “have no interest” to “oppose” and “imperialist adventures” was replaced by “imperialist aggression”

No amendments to paragraph 14

Paragraph 15: should place emphasis on “acceptance” rather than “agreement” – Ben spoke to Jim on phone about this, and he said he was happy with the term “acceptance”

Constitution:

Dave I introduced the constitution, saying that we need to formalise our organisation – until recently him and Ben had done most of the work without any accountability to anyone.

He brought with him a copy of the SWP’s constitution, interestingly pointing out how within this it states that: members have to “agree with the politics of the SWP”

There was an amendment to point 2d, which Dave had brought up but forgotten to include in the document: It stated that the executive should split up tasks amongst itself to avoid presidential power i.e. in the NUS

He also looked at the right to factions. In the SWP 40 members can form factions, but these factions can be then decided out of existence by a national conference – as if the issue ends once it has been voted upon!

Toby: Executive should publish minutes and its meetings must be open to CS members
Rowan: Need to concretise accountability and the ability of conference as the sovereign body to recall the executive
Ben: Minor amendment should also include school group as well as uni/college
Voted for unanimously

Mehdi on Iran:

Comrade Mehdi Kia spoke on Iran and this was discussed. It was unanimously agreed that CS should become an affiliate to the “Hands off the people of Iran” campaign.
Other campaigns suggested were: a fight-back against the surveillance of universities; Ben warned of taking on too many campaigns with our numbers – it is disorientating and tiresome and will weaken our interventions

Executive Elections:

Jamie Linney; Ben Lewis; Dave Isaacson; Tina Becker and James Turley put themselves forward. Ben Lewis puts Jim Padmore forward in his absence.
All (except Jim) introduced themselves and answered various questions on their ideas for CS.
Carey raised a few criticisms of Tina Becker, a leading CPGB member and former PCC member. She stressed its autonomy, and that she wasn’t hiding her politics in any way at all.
Both Tina and Ben stressed their CPGB membership and the fact that they would fight for the CPGB’s politics within it.
Mark Fischer said that CPGB members in CS were independent and that disagreements would also occur between CPGB members within it.
Rowan raised two criticisms and argued that there are steps that need to be taken to assure CS’s autonomy. He highlighted the CPGB flag in the room and the fact that Mark, as an observer, had given too much to the conference. Even though he had no objections to Mark’s political input and the content thereof, he nevertheless thought that this should be the role of CS – especially its more experienced comrades. He said that he would write more on the CS list.
Given time, somebody suggested that we vote on block for the candidates as a whole. One comrade voted against the list of candidates and said that she would also articulate this opposition.

Executive Meeting:

The new Executive then met briefly. Minutes from this is are published on the Communist Students site.

Our new political platform is to be found on the "what we stand for" page.