urbanrevolt
New Member
Part 2:
We know that as a result of the current split many comrades will shake
their heads and ask, how has it come to this? We know that some
comrades who share many of our concerns and criticisms will
nevertheless believe that perhaps we are responsible for the
destruction of the League as any sort of effective organisation. These
views may be strengthened by the publication of the faction’s e-mail
correspondence by the IS alongside the guide to that correspondence
provided in a recent document by Richard B, his “evidence of a split”
document.
This document from Richard is a remarkable piece of hypocrisy. Any
document referring to the potential for a split in Workers Power would
surely have to begin by referring to the person who first raised the
issue of separate organisations. It would begin by pointing to the
source of all of the split talk. It would begin by asking how we could
have got ourselves into a situation where comrades with many years,
often decades, of active service in both WPB and the League could
consider leaving the organisation?
In which case, all comrades should know that on the Saturday afternoon
of 10th June, prior to the faction holding its meeting, at a session of
the WPB pre-congress aggregate Richard B was the first person to call
for a split. The very person who now stands on a soap box and spouts
rubbish about how to split would be a crime told the WPB aggregate that
the WPB faction members “belonged in another organisation”. They did
not belong in WPB or the LFI, according to Richard B, because they
objected to the IS’ right to have access to private e-mails regarding
the Austrian affair.
It seemed to many of us, at that moment in the aggregate, as though the
IS, or at least its inner core of Richard and Dave S, had decided they
wanted us out – in advance of the faction ever considering leaving the
organisation. It is remarkable that they wanted us out over such an
issue. To challenge the IS’ authoritarian and unconstitutional decree
was deemed by Richard B as sufficient justification for us to be “in
another organisation”. It is ironic that this latter day lord of
discipline was issuing such decrees. This was a comrade who the WPB PC,
in the late 1990s, had to threaten with expulsion in order to get him
to pay even a fraction of the money he owed to the organisation in
subscriptions. This is a comrade whose lack of involvement, for many
years now, in any regular political activity beyond “IS work” is a
standing joke, even amongst his followers.
But leaving such considerations aside, is it any wonder that when a
majority start issuing threats such as this a faction starts to discuss
its alternatives? No it isn’t. We were being faced with the prospect of
a split, a split urged by Richard B publicly at the aggregate and
politically prepared by Dave S in documents prior to the aggregate.
The political preparation consisted of the decision by the majority to
re-run the dispute as the Cannon-Shactman faction fight, this time with
Dave S and Richard B fighting off the “petit bourgeois” faction. They
chose 1939/40 – as opposed to 1932 – precisely because it involved a
split. Undoubtedly they had their endgame in mind – they wanted to be
rid of a “conservative” and “petit-bourgeois” tendency that they
believed politically obstructed their “new turn” towards mass
agitation. The fact they could not wait to be rid of us was
demonstrated by the purge of 33 comrades whether or not they had been
involved in the “crime” of discussing leaving the LFI.
By casting today’s split in terms of 1939/40 Dave S hoped that breaking
with a “petit bourgeois rebellion” would be comprehensible to his
supporters. In other words, the first split moves were made clearly,
publicly and decisively by the majority. Instead of recognising – as we
did throughout – that we were debating political differences that could
still be resolved by debate within the organisation, the majority
decided to stigmatise us as “petit bourgeois”, “centrist” and
liquidationist”. Such characterisations, as everyone who has any
experience in politics knows, close the door on any possibility of a
collective resolution of the differences. There is no way out. You
either admit that your criticisms were petit bourgeois and submit or
you leave.
They are characterisations of the faction that could only mean split.
Why? Because if the opposition denies it is any of these things it will
necessarily find itself condemned to being involved in a permanent
factional struggle. Factions may well be a necessary evil. But
permanent factions are a recipe for the break up of organisations.
After all, members of the opposition did not join the LFI to be
oppositionists. They joined it to fight capitalism. If that fight is
hampered by permanent factionalism a choice will have to be made –
leave and address the working class directly or stay and carry on a
potentially endless internal argument.
By deliberately turning an inner party struggle into a class struggle
against what Dave S described as a “petit bourgeois rebellion” he was,
quite consciously, paving the way for a split. Issues did not have to
be resolved; a rebellion had to be put down. This is split talk, and
Dave S knows it as well as we do. The only disadvantage we are at in
saying this is that unlike the majority we are unable to send someone
to hack into the IS/PC’s private e-mails to furnish you with the proof.
Finally, all comrades of the League should know that two separate
witch-hunts against faction members were underway by the majority prior
to the 10 June faction meeting. The context of these witch-hunts was
the transformation of the WPB PC into a factional weapon of the
majority. Despite loyal co-operation for over a year by tendency
members on both the PC and the NC the majority excluded any members of
the WPB faction from the new post-conference weekly meeting leadership.
That leadership set about creating, in effect, parallel organisations
in WPB, sealing the youth off from the faction. It carried through a
cold split in the organisation in advance of the hot one its IS mentors
were preparing.
This PC launched a ludicrous commission of enquiry into the Manchester
branch. One of its members was alleged by a majority member to have
discussed our internal affairs with an SWP organiser. The charge was
baseless. Even the majority had to accept that and the commission found
no evidence. Undeterred they then immediately transformed the
commission into an enquiry into all of the faction members of the
branch on a whole range of vague charges concerning bullying and
oppressive behaviour. When the bureaucracy do this sort of thing to
leftists we treat them as witch-hunts and fight them accordingly. When
the leadership of your organisation does it to you is it any surprise
that you fight back?
The second witch–hunt was waged against Stuart, Keith H, Dave E and
Kirstie, over the Austrian affair. Despite the fact that these comrades
did absolutely nothing disloyal or untoward during the Austrian affair
they were denounced by the IS advocate Richard B, in his “Incitement”
document and called before the IS. Their only crime was to oppose the
IS’ authoritarianism in demanding access to private e-mails. For this
they were summoned to face unspecified charges by the IS. Indeed the
WPB pre-congress aggregate rejected this outrageous IS demand with a
resolution to congress – it had yet to be published in the LFI when we
were expelled.
These witch-hunts alerted faction members to the growing crisis in the
organisation and the bureaucratic measures being planned by its
leadership. Not surprisingly some faction members started to consider
alternatives. We knew very well these disciplinary measures were only
“on hold” until after congress when they would have been renewed with
intensity.
And this brings us to the e-mails pilfered by the IS’ resident cat
burglar. Did the faction discuss the option of splitting? Yes. Did it
take a final decision on this? No. We were in the middle of a
democratic vote when we were expelled. Does a faction have the right to
discuss collectively resigning from a voluntary organisation?
Absolutely, yes. Is it right that it can have those discussions
privately? Yes. There is nothing in the constitution that forbids such
a discussion. In fact the privacy of such discussions is vital.
So, we were expelled for discussing an option and planning for the
possibility that we would have to start an organisation from ground
zero. And these people have the temerity to suggest that a regime run
by us would be “despotic”!
Did comrades, in the course of the discussion, express their views
vigorously? Yes. Does this mean that they were moral degenerates? No.
Mark H, is singled out for particular abuse because he advocated a
scorched earth policy towards WPB. Two things need to be said about
this:
We know that as a result of the current split many comrades will shake
their heads and ask, how has it come to this? We know that some
comrades who share many of our concerns and criticisms will
nevertheless believe that perhaps we are responsible for the
destruction of the League as any sort of effective organisation. These
views may be strengthened by the publication of the faction’s e-mail
correspondence by the IS alongside the guide to that correspondence
provided in a recent document by Richard B, his “evidence of a split”
document.
This document from Richard is a remarkable piece of hypocrisy. Any
document referring to the potential for a split in Workers Power would
surely have to begin by referring to the person who first raised the
issue of separate organisations. It would begin by pointing to the
source of all of the split talk. It would begin by asking how we could
have got ourselves into a situation where comrades with many years,
often decades, of active service in both WPB and the League could
consider leaving the organisation?
In which case, all comrades should know that on the Saturday afternoon
of 10th June, prior to the faction holding its meeting, at a session of
the WPB pre-congress aggregate Richard B was the first person to call
for a split. The very person who now stands on a soap box and spouts
rubbish about how to split would be a crime told the WPB aggregate that
the WPB faction members “belonged in another organisation”. They did
not belong in WPB or the LFI, according to Richard B, because they
objected to the IS’ right to have access to private e-mails regarding
the Austrian affair.
It seemed to many of us, at that moment in the aggregate, as though the
IS, or at least its inner core of Richard and Dave S, had decided they
wanted us out – in advance of the faction ever considering leaving the
organisation. It is remarkable that they wanted us out over such an
issue. To challenge the IS’ authoritarian and unconstitutional decree
was deemed by Richard B as sufficient justification for us to be “in
another organisation”. It is ironic that this latter day lord of
discipline was issuing such decrees. This was a comrade who the WPB PC,
in the late 1990s, had to threaten with expulsion in order to get him
to pay even a fraction of the money he owed to the organisation in
subscriptions. This is a comrade whose lack of involvement, for many
years now, in any regular political activity beyond “IS work” is a
standing joke, even amongst his followers.
But leaving such considerations aside, is it any wonder that when a
majority start issuing threats such as this a faction starts to discuss
its alternatives? No it isn’t. We were being faced with the prospect of
a split, a split urged by Richard B publicly at the aggregate and
politically prepared by Dave S in documents prior to the aggregate.
The political preparation consisted of the decision by the majority to
re-run the dispute as the Cannon-Shactman faction fight, this time with
Dave S and Richard B fighting off the “petit bourgeois” faction. They
chose 1939/40 – as opposed to 1932 – precisely because it involved a
split. Undoubtedly they had their endgame in mind – they wanted to be
rid of a “conservative” and “petit-bourgeois” tendency that they
believed politically obstructed their “new turn” towards mass
agitation. The fact they could not wait to be rid of us was
demonstrated by the purge of 33 comrades whether or not they had been
involved in the “crime” of discussing leaving the LFI.
By casting today’s split in terms of 1939/40 Dave S hoped that breaking
with a “petit bourgeois rebellion” would be comprehensible to his
supporters. In other words, the first split moves were made clearly,
publicly and decisively by the majority. Instead of recognising – as we
did throughout – that we were debating political differences that could
still be resolved by debate within the organisation, the majority
decided to stigmatise us as “petit bourgeois”, “centrist” and
liquidationist”. Such characterisations, as everyone who has any
experience in politics knows, close the door on any possibility of a
collective resolution of the differences. There is no way out. You
either admit that your criticisms were petit bourgeois and submit or
you leave.
They are characterisations of the faction that could only mean split.
Why? Because if the opposition denies it is any of these things it will
necessarily find itself condemned to being involved in a permanent
factional struggle. Factions may well be a necessary evil. But
permanent factions are a recipe for the break up of organisations.
After all, members of the opposition did not join the LFI to be
oppositionists. They joined it to fight capitalism. If that fight is
hampered by permanent factionalism a choice will have to be made –
leave and address the working class directly or stay and carry on a
potentially endless internal argument.
By deliberately turning an inner party struggle into a class struggle
against what Dave S described as a “petit bourgeois rebellion” he was,
quite consciously, paving the way for a split. Issues did not have to
be resolved; a rebellion had to be put down. This is split talk, and
Dave S knows it as well as we do. The only disadvantage we are at in
saying this is that unlike the majority we are unable to send someone
to hack into the IS/PC’s private e-mails to furnish you with the proof.
Finally, all comrades of the League should know that two separate
witch-hunts against faction members were underway by the majority prior
to the 10 June faction meeting. The context of these witch-hunts was
the transformation of the WPB PC into a factional weapon of the
majority. Despite loyal co-operation for over a year by tendency
members on both the PC and the NC the majority excluded any members of
the WPB faction from the new post-conference weekly meeting leadership.
That leadership set about creating, in effect, parallel organisations
in WPB, sealing the youth off from the faction. It carried through a
cold split in the organisation in advance of the hot one its IS mentors
were preparing.
This PC launched a ludicrous commission of enquiry into the Manchester
branch. One of its members was alleged by a majority member to have
discussed our internal affairs with an SWP organiser. The charge was
baseless. Even the majority had to accept that and the commission found
no evidence. Undeterred they then immediately transformed the
commission into an enquiry into all of the faction members of the
branch on a whole range of vague charges concerning bullying and
oppressive behaviour. When the bureaucracy do this sort of thing to
leftists we treat them as witch-hunts and fight them accordingly. When
the leadership of your organisation does it to you is it any surprise
that you fight back?
The second witch–hunt was waged against Stuart, Keith H, Dave E and
Kirstie, over the Austrian affair. Despite the fact that these comrades
did absolutely nothing disloyal or untoward during the Austrian affair
they were denounced by the IS advocate Richard B, in his “Incitement”
document and called before the IS. Their only crime was to oppose the
IS’ authoritarianism in demanding access to private e-mails. For this
they were summoned to face unspecified charges by the IS. Indeed the
WPB pre-congress aggregate rejected this outrageous IS demand with a
resolution to congress – it had yet to be published in the LFI when we
were expelled.
These witch-hunts alerted faction members to the growing crisis in the
organisation and the bureaucratic measures being planned by its
leadership. Not surprisingly some faction members started to consider
alternatives. We knew very well these disciplinary measures were only
“on hold” until after congress when they would have been renewed with
intensity.
And this brings us to the e-mails pilfered by the IS’ resident cat
burglar. Did the faction discuss the option of splitting? Yes. Did it
take a final decision on this? No. We were in the middle of a
democratic vote when we were expelled. Does a faction have the right to
discuss collectively resigning from a voluntary organisation?
Absolutely, yes. Is it right that it can have those discussions
privately? Yes. There is nothing in the constitution that forbids such
a discussion. In fact the privacy of such discussions is vital.
So, we were expelled for discussing an option and planning for the
possibility that we would have to start an organisation from ground
zero. And these people have the temerity to suggest that a regime run
by us would be “despotic”!
Did comrades, in the course of the discussion, express their views
vigorously? Yes. Does this mean that they were moral degenerates? No.
Mark H, is singled out for particular abuse because he advocated a
scorched earth policy towards WPB. Two things need to be said about
this:
