All that was once certain now melts

According to Socialist Workers Party veteran John Molyneux, “a significant democratic upsurge is taking place in the ranks of the SWP” (www.socialistunity.com/?p=3176, December 16). His comments, published on the Socialist Unity website run by Andy Newman – a former SWPer and now a neo-Stalinist supporter of Respect – point to the numerous contributions in the SWP’s Pre-Conference Bulletin (known as the ‘internal bulletin’, or IB) which are critical of the leadership’s top-down, bureaucratic method and the absence of democratic debate.

Another healthy sign, and equally significant, is the fact that – at last – a small number of IB contributors are beginning to call into question the whole leadership strategy of the so-called “united front” – not least the “united front of a special type”, Respect. In reality, of course, Respect was a popular front and the SWP leadership has been wedded to the method of popular frontism (the dumbing down of its own revolutionary politics within alliances) ever since the formation of the Anti-Nazi League more than three decades ago.

SWP ‘democracy’

This new questioning of the leadership and its methodology has, of course, been provoked by two interconnected factors: the Respect debacle, culminating in the humiliation of the London assembly elections in May; and, flowing from that, the split on the central committee and the proposed ditching of former number one John Rees. The fact that the CC has been forced, kicking and screaming, to disclose its own divisions has opened up a space for genuine debate and provoked demands for increased democracy.

As comrade Molyneux states, “At the moment the CC, being internally divided, cannot close down the debate, but I hope that once its internal divisions are resolved it does not succumb to the temptation to try to re-impose the old conformity.” This “old conformity” has up to now produced a “CC internal united front against dissidents, which has meant that differences within the CC are kept hidden from the membership, while any critic is met with an overwhelming rebuttal.”

Comrade Molyneux has himself been a dissident, of course – in 2006 he moved an alternative slate for the CC, including himself. But he now has a number of objective allies, including some other prominent SWPers. Among them is Neil Davidson, the eminent author on Scottish political history, who has made the weightiest critique carried in the Bulletin, the only official forum for genuine, if limited, free speech within the SWP (there have been, as always, three IBs – one each for October, November and December – in the brief period of debate tolerated before the January 9-11 conference).

Comrade Davidson makes a devastating point in IB No3: “We constantly invoke the democratic freedoms of the Bolshevik Party, but actually have fewer democratic rights than its members did under conditions of autocracy, quasi-feudal barbarism and repression.” He goes on: “The impulse is always to restrict the debate, or even to refuse to admit there is a debate, in case the ‘wrong’ decision gets taken – the ‘right’ one having been decided by us in advance” – the “us” being the CC, naturally.

“Unfortunately the attitude the CC has taken to avoid the problem [of the membership taking the ‘wrong’ decision] is to suppress any debate beyond what it deems a reasonable level – which is usually about the practical or technical application of policies which members of the CC have decided among themselves.” But this inevitably leads to “cynicism, inactivity and ultimately comrades leaving the organisation. In effect it produces the situation it seeks to avoid, except that the life blood of the party is not transfused into another organisation: it simply drains away.”

Comrade Davidson claims, correctly: “Fears of a split in the organisation on the one hand and of malign external influences on the other have apparently led the leadership to believe that the membership are incapable of making decisions about the direction of the party – actually making decisions, I mean, not ratifying them in the manner described by Lukács.”

But this is hardly new. Davidson recounts how SWP founder and former guru Tony Cliff once talked about the necessity for “organised distrust of the members by the centre” (a perversion of Lenin’s phrase about how the party as a whole should operate a system of organised distrust of its parts). However, as comrade Davidson notes, “there is never any overall accounting or accountability, and attempts to secure it are generally deflected by exhortations not to dwell on the past, not to pick at old wounds, not to be inward-looking – because, after all, comrades, there are always new demonstrations to be organised, public meetings to be arranged, papers to be sold: move on, get over it. We never make mistakes.”

But surely every January the members can use their collective strength and replace the CC at conference? Isn’t that the ultimate form of accountability? Not at all, says Davidson: “… this is virtually impossible, not merely because of the stage-managed nature of conference, but because there is no obvious leadership-in-waiting capable of challenging the CC.”

In fact, the leadership is self-perpetuating: “With very few exceptions, most of the comrades who have been invited to join the CC since the early 1980s have been student and district organisers – in other words, they are drawn from the ranks of the party’s paid officials, whose job had previously been to relay the views of the leadership to the members.”

While all this makes for a thorough-going and perceptive critique, comrade Davidson’s remedy is remarkable for its lack of ambition. He calls, firstly, for a reorganisation of the CC, to include as many lay activists as party full-timers. Secondly, “We need to extend our period of internal discussion beyond conference.” His heavyweight motion, signed by 15 other comrades, criticises the fact that differences within the CC “have not been communicated to the majority of party members” and proposes, as an exceptional measure, that “the period of pre-conference discussion be continued for a further three months”. There would then be a “recall conference, at which a new strategic orientation and constitution can be agreed”.

It is highly significant that the signatories for this motion are all prominent SWPers from up and down the country. They include Ian Allinson (Manchester), a member of the Unite executive; Colin Barker (Manchester), author of several SWP books and pamphlets; Willie Black (Edinburgh), who contested the Edinburgh South Scottish parliamentary constituency for the SWP in 1999; Pete Cannell, leader of the Stop the War Coalition in Scotland; Gareth Dale (London), politics lecturer and author; James Foley (Glasgow), leading student member in Scotland; John Game (London), a prominent SWP blogger; Grace Lally (London), formerly an SWP leading figure in Ireland; China Miéville (London), fantasy fiction novelist and writer on law and Marxism; Unjum Mirza (London), political officer for the RMT union; Ray Morrell (Home Counties), leading Amicus militant; Richard Seymour (London), author and founder of the Lenin’s Tomb blog; and Pat Smith (Edinburgh), who testified for Tommy Sheridan in his defamation case against the News of the World.

Of course, within the SWP factions are banned except for during the three-month pre-conference period, but there is no doubt that these comrades will want to continue their cooperation, whether or not conference agrees to extend this period.

The failure of the CC to admit to its differences and difficulties is a common theme within the IB. For example, Gary McFarlane writes: “The removal of John Rees from electoral work suggests that there was something wrong with his approach, but not until very recently … has this been discussed. I guess there is good reason for this: the rest of the CC went along with John’s disastrous approach” (No1).

Like comrade McFarlane, five Tower Hamlets SWPers, including Paul McGarr and Shaun Doherty, express general support for leadership policies. But they complain about its secrecy: “We were also unhappy that … the political basis of these tensions and disagreements has never been openly and properly explained or discussed with the wider membership. What is clearly unacceptable is for rows to take place on the CC over a period of months and then a minority of CC members to pretend that there are no serious disagreements and that it would be somehow harmful to involve the membership as a whole in these arguments” (No3).

These comrades have, like most IB contributors who have stated an opinion, come out for the CC majority and against comrade Rees, but it is hardly accurate to criticise only the Rees “minority” for covering up “serious disagreements”. Both sides conspired to keep their differences private.

China Miéville and Richard Seymour call into question the SWP version of ‘democratic centralism’ and demand the opening up of debate permanently (something Neil Davidson has so far failed to do). Each SWP member, they write, “has every right to raise political issues and concerns and to discuss party direction directly with all members, including those who do not happen by quirk of geography to be in the same local organisation.” To deny this is “preposterous” (No2).

The comrades therefore call for a “regular, accessible IB” as “a first step towards encouraging a party culture of increasingly open discussion”. It should be made available electronically, not restricted to hard copies, as at present. This is supposed to prevent the details of SWP internal discussion ever being seen by outsiders, but Miéville and Seymour point out that the inaccessibility of the IB and other internal documents means that comrades often rely on non-SWP sources (not least the Socialist Unity website and the Weekly Worker) for their information. They declare: “The SWP must acknowledge that it is absolutely inevitable (and in our estimation a good thing) that online political discussion will take place, and will include our comrades …”

Other comrades are more tentative. According to Sabby Sagall, “Clearly we must avoid sinking into a situation of permanent debate” What? Members discussing politics with each other? But he considers a relaxation of the current restriction to be in order: “Perhaps we could put the matter to the test by extending Party Notes prior to NCs and party councils for a trial period of one year” (No3).

Candy Udwin also wants to take things gradually: “The SWP has a good tradition of avoiding Life of Brian divisions within the party, where any minor disagreement turns into a faction or split.” However, “We do need to finally get rid of the ‘not in front of the children’ mentality and have an atmosphere where we can have honest debate that we all learn from” (No3).

Elane Heffernan joins in with a call to “develop (rediscover?) the twin habits of criticism and self-criticism and of political debate – among ourselves and with those who come from different political tendencies” (No3). Not that comrade Heffernan has previously been noted for her willingness to talk to members of other left groups.

Leadership sop

The central committee has responded to all this in two ways: firstly, by defending its record; and secondly by offering a sop.

Why did the CC not tell the membership about the brewing crisis in Respect prior to the split? “… since we were playing for time [in order to hold Respect together until after Lindsey German was elected to the London assembly] and therefore trying to avoid a generalised fight, knowledge of the conflict was confined mainly to the central committee and comrades in the most affected areas” (No3). In other words, the CC admits it was prepared to play up to George Galloway and the businessmen’s wing of Respect for simple electoral expediency.

However, the CC then goes on to claim that its handling of the Rees split has been a “vindication of party democracy”. I beg your pardon? Even now, the membership has not been told the full story. The reason for the removal of comrade Rees is referred to in passing as part of the CC’s excusing the Respect disaster.

The members are told that comrade Rees’s acceptance of a large donation from a Dubai businessman on behalf of Organising For Fighting Unions “brought to a head differences that had been developing on the CC … It crystallised in the majority of its members a growing lack of confidence in John Rees’s capacity to continue in his role as Respect national secretary.” But what were those differences? They are fobbed off with “John’s tendency to personalise the conflict and a number of tactical misjudgements he committed”.

There was also a “lack of confidence in John Rees’s willingness to carry out the party’s agreed policy”. This is merely hinted at with regard to Left Alternative, the SWP rump of Respect: the CC mentions the “lavish number of placards it distributed at various demonstrations and the apparent willingness of the Left Alternative national council in June 2008 to consider standing in the May 2009 European elections …” And that is it. It is left to others, including the Sheffield district, the Hackney comrades and John Molyneux, to complain about comrade Rees’s failure sufficiently to disguise his displeasure at being forced by the CC to resign from the LA NC when it met in September.

So, clearly then, the CC has been the very epitome of openness and democracy. “But there is no reason for complacency,” its majority informs SWP members. In order to further enhance the organisation’s democratic regime, the leadership is proposing that “conference elects a commission on party democracy” which would make recommendations and report back to the SWP national council.

Incredibly, John Rees has allowed the CC to claim the high ground on the key question of party democracy. In his 8,000-word document, also published on the Socialist Unity website, he dismisses the CC proposal – not because it is an obvious sop, but because it is going too far! Ludicrously he claims that “a semi-permanent ‘democracy commission’, especially at a time when the CC has been weakened [he means by the removal of himself], will become a House of Lords for the SWP that will review the work of the CC either formally or informally. It will be resonator for the kind of factionalism that we have seen in the current debate and it will be a step towards the kind of semi-professional CC that Neil [Davidson] desires” (‘SWP – where we stand’: www.socialistunity.com/?p=3169, December 14).

“Semi-permanent”? “House of Lords”? What is he talking about? For comrade Rees, this proposal is part of “a more general move away from the traditional style of leadership in a Leninist party”. The fact that Chris Harman of the CC majority has apparently agreed with some of comrade Davidson’s extremely modest proposals is for Rees proof of the “dangerous course on which the CC majority has embarked for purely pragmatic reasons … it is being made to conciliate critics, not for principled reasons”.

Of course, comrade Rees is very concerned about his own democratic rights: “The decision to remove me from the CC slate … was taken so late in the pre-conference discussion period that there could be no written discussion on the reasons for this decision. The CC majority has since rejected the proposal of Chris Bambery and Chris Nineham that it should produce an additional bulletin to allow for this discussion before Christmas.” However, he does not say that the CC has agreed to email statements from himself and Lindsey German to all members next week (I assume it is the same statement as the one I am quoting).

Similarly, while comrade Rees would not normally favour CC discussions getting into the hands of the general membership, he is prepared to make an exception in this case: “I have always hesitated to take these arguments beyond the central committee. I remember from the internal fights in the 1970s that such debates can be damaging as well as enlightening. But I now think that we have no choice but to initiate a full and wide-ranging debate in the SWP.”

He continues: “We all deserve a full examination of this experience. But this is not what we are getting in the pre-conference period. And the debate concerns a lot more than Respect, and most comrades have been given no information about these wider disagreements … The personalised and restricted nature of the discussion so far obscures the fact that four central committee members (Lindsey German, Chris Nineham, Chris Bambery and I) have raised a number of issues that have resulted in sharp disagreements on the CC over the last year. These are: recruitment to the party, the SWP’s slow response to the recession and the CC majority’s failure to support the [People Before Profit] charter.”

As John Molyneux points out, comrade Rees gives “the odd nod in favour of democratic debate” – Rees concedes: “I’m sure there are valuable improvements that could be made to the party constitution and to party democracy.” For example, “diminishing the weight of the apparatus and its abuse of the existing democratic structures” (such as, presumably, its refusal to publish an extra IB).

And comrade Rees has suddenly noticed another defect since his demotion: “It is obvious, for instance, that the current delegate entitlement, where there are sometimes more people elected to conference than there are people in the room to elect them, needs to be reformed. But these sorts of proposals should be brought directly before conference.”

Comrade Molyneux comments: “John has never seen anything wrong with the state of democracy in the party and neither, as far as I can tell, have Lindsey or Chris B or Chris L [sic]. This may be true of other members of the CC as well, but they at least seem to be shifting their position.” He concludes: “I think the question of John’s removal from the CC is bound up with the question of improving party democracy, because it is seen by the members as asserting the principle that nobody is ‘above’ accountability and that is why it is popular in the party.”

Respect fiasco

The CC has obviously had no choice but to admit to both the Respect debacle and the existence of deep divisions at the top. It writes: “The split in Respect represented the worst crisis the Socialist Workers Party has experienced since the 1970s … The entire process generated big disagreements in the SWP from top to bottom and has left behind it a legacy of unease” (No3). The whole experience “subjected the party to a series of brutal tests from which we haven’t always emerged with flying colours”. No, not always.

A number of members are highly critical of aspects of the Respect/Left List/Left Alternative fiasco. For example, Gary McFarlane writes: “The electoral intervention by the Left List was a predictable disaster. But what I find worrisome about that is that no-one on the CC thought so. Indeed, when I suggested at a North London district meeting that setting up an organisation a few months before an election with no ‘brand recognition’ and very little support beyond our ranks would end in disaster, I was told I was a ‘poisonous cynic’” (No1).

The five Tower Hamlets comrades, including McGarr and Doherty, echo this: “… we were not realistic enough in our assessment of the likely outcome [of the May election] and it became anathema to suggest that we might not do particularly well” (No3).

While comrade Davidson thinks that the SWP was “clearly right to establish Respect” and “also right, when the crisis broke, to take the action we did – including, in my opinion, the expulsions”, he disagrees with the form Respect took from the beginning. For him, “A permanent united front is a contradiction in terms”.

He continues: “… Respect was a political party, which, by definition, must seek to intervene across the entire range of political, social and economic issues … The result was predictably unstable and divisive … this might not have mattered, had we attempted to win the non-SWP membership of Respect to revolutionary positions; but this does not appear to have happened in any consistent way.” What existed was “simply an unsustainable agreement not to mention certain issues”.

Instead, “the logic of the situation called for building a new type of political formation altogether” – what was needed was “a ‘radical left’ organisation, or New Anti-Capitalist Party on the French model”. Note that comrade Davidson fails to call for a party based on Marxism – like all his comrades he believes that party already exists in the shape of the SWP. But at least he is rejecting the popular front model.

Just as significant is the contribution from comrades Allinson, Lally, Marrell, Mirza, Bill Perry (London), Gill George (Hackney) and Pete Gillard (Hackney). They are much more blunt on Respect: “… it is not our job to set up a left-reformist political ‘home’ for people who are becoming radicalised in struggle, so we can enter it, with the distorted view that what we can do is at worst huddle together for warmth or at best debate whether we can do well enough to be a ‘player’ on the scene of bourgeois politics” (No1). Strong words indeed.

And they are equally forthright in condemning the leadership: “… we must recognise that the pull of electoralism goes beyond the individuals who left to support George Galloway. This was shown by the recent divisions within the central committee, where threats to split our organisation initially prevented the kind of far-reaching political debate which is essential in any period of crisis.”

In reply the CC merely denies the truth of the comrades’ claims, without backing up its statement in any way: “There was not a pull to the right over electoralism. Instead we stuck to our principles” (No2). And that is it.

Comrades Mirza and Lally come back again in IB No3. Demanding the immediate winding up of the “discredited (and financially draining) obstacle” that is Left Alternative, they correctly point out the only principled basis for alliances: “We seek to build unity in order to get agreement for joint action, not unity which involves permanently blurring over ideological and programmatic differences.”

And they weigh into both wings of the leadership: “The CC displayed a united position in the run-up to the disastrous May elections, but the split became increasingly apparent to party members in its aftermath and finally came out in the open at the NC in September. It emerged that the ‘minority’ had threatened, implicitly at least, to split the party if John Rees was removed or moved sideways. This is an outrage.”

Meanwhile, “The ‘majority’ … feared a split and pursued a course of manoeuvres to sideline John Rees. It is not part of our tradition to reduce political debates to bureaucratic manoeuvres in this way.” It is not part of the tradition of genuine Marxism, but it most certainly is part of the SWP tradition.

As for comrade Rees, he continues his defence of the Respect disaster – but places a large part of the blame on the membership. The CC was culpable only in as much as “we did not insist that every SWP member should fight to build the united fronts”. Also “we did not party-build systematically enough while we were involved in the united front” – ie, recruit to the SWP with sufficient vigour.

However, “a significant section of the membership, while not openly or effectively opposing the perspective, remained rooted in the old party structures and habits of mind. They felt uncomfortable with the party’s evolution, critical of a ‘move away from Leninism’ and so on.” They were “unhappy that the SWP seemed to be forgetting the truths of revolutionary socialism, as they had been taught them in an earlier phase of the struggle.” Could it be that they had a point?

Not for Rees. He makes it absolutely clear that he believes the so-called ‘united front’ strategy was, and remains, just the ticket. He criticises Alex Callinicos for concentrating too much on “socialist propaganda” at the ‘mini-Marxism’ event in early December, where “he did not mention the Stop the War Coalition, the charter or any other united front”.

Turning point

Comrade Rees states: “The SWP is now at a turning point. If the entire leadership group associated with the Stop the War Coalition is removed or silenced, it will send the message to SWP members and to the whole left that we are in full-scale retreat from united front work.” There is no indication, however, that the CC is about to ditch the STWC or any of its other areas of joint work (apart from the Left Alternative farce, of course, which must surely be dispensed with sooner rather than later).

In addition, Rees slams the CC majority not only for its “lies” about him and his allies, but for not launching a full-scale recruitment drive and for being slow to react to the economic crisis. The CC majority has not been vigorous or enthusiastic enough in promoting “the charter” – although, as comrade Allinson points out, “Even Brendan Barber … would agree with most of the demands” in it.

Comrade Allinson also remarks that “It’s hardly surprising that the charter doesn’t fit the bill – it was launched at Marxism in July for quite different purposes, and trying to morph it into a united front response to the crisis just won’t work.”

Of course, comrade Rees is able to point to the fact that “all important decisions taken during the Respect crisis were agreed, argued out and defended collectively by the central committee” and therefore it cannot be right to reduce everything to “the failures of one comrade”. He is right to say that “the CC majority need to invent a difference on this issue [running down LA] to justify their attacks on the CC minority”.

However, while it is true that the rest of the leadership must also be held to account for its dismal failure to challenge the turn to full-blown popular frontism, it is absolutely correct to remove John Rees from leading postions. But we do not think that this should be effected by his former collaborators. Hopefully, the more principled criticisms coming from the left of the party will now begin to gain ground in a democratic groundswell against the entire bureaucratic misleadership.

Every SWPer agrees that the organisation has been drastically weakened. According to comrade Rees, “the party structure and the active membership are in a worse condition than at any time since the early 1980s”. For example, “Pre-conference aggregates involved perhaps a sixth of the membership. It is unlikely that total branch attendance is any greater on average. There is a division in the membership and the active membership is in crisis.”

He continues: “The apparatus of the party has increased its weight in relation to the membership. The full-timers now often substitute for an active membership rather than being given a strategy to develop an active membership. This has, in the recent debate, created a bullying and intimidatory atmosphere.”

Absurdly, comrade Rees blames it all on the current CC majority. If only they had adopted Lindsey German’s proposals for a recruitment drive at the time of the Respect split! And what effrontery it is to pretend that the “bullying and intimidatory atmosphere” is a new development. John Molyneux has been raising it for years and now, at last, a much wider section of the membership is also raising demands on internal democracy.

But the CC and its full-time bureaucratic apparatus carries on in the same old way. Official optimism remains the order of the day. Not only is there an average of over 9,000 copies of Socialist Worker sold every week (3,900 subscriptions are claimed), but the CC declares an increase in membership – officially up to 6,155. In addition there are “just over 2,000 unregistered members” – in reality, what Neil Davidson describes as “the Orwellian concept of an ‘unregistered member’” refers to former members, who remain on the books for two years after dropping out.

Clearly the SWP is deeply divided at the top. Rees claims that he has a four-strong faction on the CC, as against Martin Smith’s and Alex Callinicos’s 10. However, the differences between these two sides are politically trivial. More about personalities, ambition, vanity, status, arrogance, grudges and ego than anything else. Respect was a popular front and the entire CC should take collective responsibility for it. And because it was one of those unpopular popular fronts it was bound to end in disaster, acrimony and widespread demoralisation. George Galloway’s antics on Big brother are neither here nor there.

Nevertheless with the CC split there has been an explosion of criticism in the SWP from below. Most clearly from the left (unlike last year). There has also been some serious thinking by some and tentative moves towards the situation where an alternative leadership could emerge. Instead of looking for a compromise with Smith, Callinicos and the CC majority, the likes of Molyneux, Allinson, Barker, Davidson, Miéville, Mirza, Lally, etc, should look to themselves. The situation is certainly ripe.

The overwhelming message is crystal clear: the SWP rank and file are demanding democracy. The democratic space which has suddenly opened up in the SWP because of the split above needs defending and greatly widening. Whether or not the rank and file will be satisfied with the CC’s democracy commission sop remains to be seen. Let us hope not. Let us hope they are won to demand more, far more.