www.cpgb.org.uk/red

Website of the RED Platfrom of the Communist Party of Great Britain: for Republicanism, Equality, and Democracy!

democracy

Statement of protest

The history of the following exposition of the Red Platform's position on party democracy is not without its irony.

It was written for submission to Weekly Worker May 19, and was to be published in our ‘seeing red’ column.

Additionally, the editor comrade Peter Manson, accepted and listed for publication a second Red Platform article: a reply by comrade Cameron Richards to the editor’s own criticism of our politics in the previous issue (Weekly Worker May 12, “Fighting capacity”).

On Sunday evening, the editor called comrade Manny Neira to tell him that he had been mandated by the Provisional Central Committee to limit us to a single article – we would have to choose which we wished to have published.

He gave the reason that there had been “rather too much Red Platform” in the previous issue. Comrade Neira expressed surprise: we had published only our regular ‘seeing red’ column, covering less than half a page, and a short letter.

However, it turned out he was including in this “rather too much” letters written by correspondents on the subject of our politics (as if we were somehow taking advantage of the paper by promoting discussion, and indeed support, outside our control) and (unbelievably) his own article criticising us!

Comrade Neira pointed out that the Red Platform represented more than a tenth of the party’s membership. The democratic norm of proportional representation in the paper would suggest over a page every week. We had not sought anywhere near that much: but this week, because of the criticism he himself had written and chosen to publish, we needed one page to run both our stories, as previously agreed.

Comrade Manson insisted that with an important demonstration coming up, the majority needed the space to convey its own politics. Comrade Neira countered that after allowing the Red Platform one page, the majority might still be able to squeeze its politics into the remaining 11: did it have to have 11.5?

It later transpired that there had been no meeting of the Provisional Central Committee on Sunday. Comrade Manson, and three other members, had arrived at the conclusion that there had been "too much Red Platform" during a discussion after a party seminar, and comrade Manson had simply used his authority as editor to implement their wishes. He has since apologised for saying he had been mandated by the PCC, but it remains a strange thing to have said.

The Red Platform protest in the strongest possible terms not merely the decision, but the bizarre way in which it was taken and communicated. We call on our comrades to check out the facts explained above for themselves, and add their voices to that protest.

CPGB Red Platform

The unending battle for democracy

As socialists, we wish to create a genuine democracy.

We mean democracy in the fullest sense of the word: a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (a phrase which as been appallingly misunderstood in recent times), a government of the people.

There can be no real, living democracy in a class society, because democracy implies placing political power in the hands of the whole people, whereas classes reserve real power to a minority. That is not to say that British society is not relatively freer than many, but what freedoms exist were forced from the ruling class by the working class. They are valuable. They must be defended. Every struggle to expand them must be supported. But while society remains divided between classes, they will always be contingent and precarious.

Democracy, therefore, lies at the heart of our politics. It is for this reason that the Communist Party of Great Britain have always laid stress, for instance, on the question of republicanism: it directly challenges those elements of class rule actually embedded into our unwritten constitution. It goes beyond the important but ultimately limited struggles to win a larger slice of the cake. It raises the demand to run the bakery. The CPGB’s demand that the ‘R’ in Respect should stand for ‘Republicanism’ was rejected at the coalition’s founding conference: it was not by accident that we chose to include it as the ‘R’ in Red when naming our platform.

Working class people, though, may be forgiven for wondering if British socialists really mean what they say. The democratic culture inside the left is indeed a culture: rotting and mouldy. In the name of Lenin’s demand for “democratic centralism”, groups which disagree on almost nothing else nevertheless consistently establish regimes which are merely centralist: that is to say, bureaucratic centralist.

As an independent member of the Socialist Alliance, I remember clearly the dilemma I faced in deciding whether or not to join one of its supporting organisations, and if I did, which one. Naturally, they all claimed to encourage internal democracy, so there were no clues to be had there. Two organisations, though, actually carried some real discussion, some real criticism, on the pages of their journals: the CPGB in the Weekly Worker, and the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty in Solidarity. This fact alone, beyond the detail of individual policy decisions, led me to find out more about each group. In the end, of course, I joined the CPGB.

I still believe that I was right. The CPGB has a relatively healthier democratic culture than that which is common to most of the left. However, this is merely to pick out the liveliest patient on the ward: none of them are well.

Democracy goes beyond merely delivering eulogies on the importance of discussion or creating an apparently open system of rules. It lives, or dies, in the real, day to day practice of an organisation. It is tested, above all, by internal opposition.

* Does the leadership do everything in its power to encourage an open discussion within the organisation before adopting its positions?

* Are critics routinely subjected to questioning of their loyalty, their motives, and even their honesty?

* Is dissent not merely allowed, but positively nurtured and encouraged as the duty of every member?

* Are newer, younger, or quieter members likely to be intimidated by a debate conducted in terms so fierce that they fear standing out of line, so that opposition is reduced to only those who have the stomach for it?

* Is representation on committees and in journals scrupulously managed, with an awareness of the risk that minorities may be under-represented, particularly as these organs are under direct control of the majority, and the leadership?

* Perhaps most telling of all: does the organisation have a comfortable belief that it is completely democratic?

In this last case, the problem arises if the answer is yes. Marx explained that the dominant ideology in each age was the ideology of the ruling class. A constant battle must therefore be fought inside every revolutionary group to challenge and seek out the untroubled assumptions which we carry with us from our wider existence as oppressed people in an undemocratic society. The clear tendency, demonstrated throughout the British left, is towards bureaucratic centralism. Any group which believes it is simply above that danger is threatened by it.

Centralism does not stand counterposed to democracy in Lenin’s formulation. They are a dialectical unity. The highest unity in action is compatible with the freest political debate. Without that debate, the action suffers too: from myopia, intransigence, and insularity. It is not a question of striking a balance between the collective and the factional. Any genuine faction is a living, working part of the collective.

The CPGB has a relatively open culture, but should never forget the poor base with which it is comparing itself. Specifically:

* The Provisional Central Committee has failed to ensure adequate discussion before adopting or recommending positions. Comrades on all sides of the debate were caught out by the presentation of the resolution calling for the “biggest possible vote” for Respect at the March 21 aggregate.

* The reporting of meetings of the PCC is inadequate and late. A nominal power of recall is meaningless unless the membership is fully and promptly aware of its actions.

* The Weekly Worker congratulates itself too freely on being more open than, say, the Socialist Worker or The Socialist. It’s not much of a standard of comparison. While the editor naturally needs to authority to determine the contents of each issue, his decisions do not provide justification for themselves: they must be measured against the aim of representing the entire party. If the majority does not feel pinched, it is unlikely the minority is receiving adequate publication.

After a shaky start during the debate leading up to the formation of our platform, the PCC deserves credit for the openness of its dealings with our group. The space we have been allowed on the party’s website, and our column in the paper, have remained under our editorial control as promised. The debate inside the party has been reasonable. There even seems to be some awareness that we represent a pole of attraction to comrades outside our group who favour our basic partyist programme, but disagree with the majority on Respect, as the Red Platform does.

More importantly, we would argue that our platform is a sign of how things should be: a clear demonstration in practice, and not pious statements of principle, that dissent and debate are alive in the CPGB, and consequently the organisation is alive and not a dead sect. It is a good first step, but we would argue that democracy is a destination never safely arrived at, and always to be sought.

Manny Neira

top of page - home page - contact us - join us