Weekly Worker 508 Thursday December 11 2003

Refusal to abide by CPGB rules

The second session of the aggregate was devoted to discussion of disciplinary action against comrade John Pearson, in response to his actions at the November 8 meeting of the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform. It was originally intended that this matter be the first item, but because several comrades were unavoidably delayed through transport difficulties, including comrade Pearson himself, it was taken later in the day.

The debate concluded with an overwhelming vote for the expulsion of comrade Pearson from the CPGB. This is one of the few instances that a comrade has been expelled since our open struggle to reforge the Party began in November 1981, and it was a very sad and sombre occasion. Nonetheless all but a tiny minority accepted that the correct decision had been reached, and that no other option was realistically available.

Two motions were put to the aggregate. The first, moved by comrade John Bridge, called for John Pearson’s immediate expulsion. The second, moved by comrade Cameron Richards, called for the election of a three-person control commission to adjudicate on the matter, with comrade Pearson having the right to appeal to the next aggregate against any decisions made by such a commission.

Introducing his motion, comrade Bridge began by summarising what happened at the Democracy Platform meeting (see ‘Party notes’ Weekly Worker December 4). He described how comrade Pearson voted three times in opposition to the Party and against the instructions of the leader of the action, Marcus Ström. This was after CPGB members had been caucused and told what was at stake in the meeting. Comrade Pearson did not argue against the leadership’s line or try to change our agreed position. Comrade Bridge described how when it came to the voting he loudly swore at comrade Ström and appealed to the chair to intervene against him. Although, if we had lost these crucial votes, it would have resulted in a withdrawal of the CPGB from the Democracy Platform, comrade Pearson claimed he had a “binding mandate” from Stockport Socialist Alliance. For him this excused breaking CPGB discipline and breaking our unity in action.

Comrade Bridge said that in so doing, comrade Pearson had forfeited the rights of membership. Nevertheless, comrade Bridge said he would withdraw his motion if comrade Pearson were to commit himself to abide by Party rules in the future.

Introducing his alternative motion, comrade Richards argued that if comrade Pearson were to be expelled it would be a loss, and stated that all comrades wished to see him remain as a member abiding by our rules and discipline. A control commission, taking more time than was available to the aggregate and talking to the comrade in a calm atmosphere, would be the best way to achieve a principled reconciliation.

This motion was debated first. Comrade Bridge said he would have voted for such a proposal if there had been any doubt about the facts of the case, but, as they are not in dispute, a control commission would only delay things, and a future aggregate would still have to make the same decision, based on the same information, as this one.

Comrade Becker said the motion seemed to imply that the membership as a whole could not be trusted to make the correct decision. Comrade Peter Grant spoke in favour of the motion, saying it was essential that the correct procedure be followed. A vote was taken and the motion was rejected, so then debate moved on to comrade Bridge’s substantive motion demanding immediate expulsion. Comrade Pearson intervened several times, answering specific questions and responding to various comments, and accepted at the end of the debate that he had been given ample time and opportunity to present his case.

However, he criticised the way the debate was presented, saying comrade Bridge should not have been allowed to speak on his motion until the vote on comrade Richards’ motion had been taken. He castigated comrade Bridge for not making it clear that he had already apologised for the abuse of comrade Ström, and complained that his statement containing this apology and his own account of the events of November 8, which he submitted to the Weekly Worker, had not been published.

He also condemned Jack Conrad’s description of the Stockport Socialist Alliance mandate as “entirely bogus” (‘Party notes’ Weekly Worker December 4). He said he could have shown the control commission the minutes of the Stockport meeting. More seriously, he accused comrade Ström of “setting a trap” for him at the November 8 meeting by first saying he had only a minor quibble with part of the Stockport motion, then suddenly demanding that comrade Pearson completely change his vote, breaking his mandate.

Many comrades, including the national organiser, Mark Fischer, spoke in praise of comrade Pearson’s work in the past, and appealed to him to commit himself to accept the rules of the Party so that the expulsion motion could be withdrawn. Several comrades observed that we all agree to be bound by Party rules and discipline, so we should expect the same from comrade Pearson. All organisations have rules which members agree to abide by as a condition of membership.

Under CPGB rules the membership elects a Provisional Central Committee which has the right to nominate individual leaders for specific actions. Comrades are obliged to follow the lead of that comrade, even if they think the comrade is mistaken. They are, however, encouraged to criticise anything they believe to be wrong before or after an action. Members repeatedly asked comrade Pearson to accept this rule.

In the past comrade Pearson has claimed that democratic centralism has collapsed in the CPGB. As comrade Richards said, he is wrong, but simply saying this is not a breach of discipline. But, as comrade Becker and others pointed out, there was no question of disciplining the comrade for making such statements, and in fact it was comrade Pearson himself, by refusing to carry out unity in action, who was undermining democratic centralism.

Comrade Ström gave his version of the events. He said he was not bothered about being abused, and accepted that the Stockport SA minutes might well show some sort of mandate (perhaps instigated by comrade Pearson himself). What concerned him was which discipline ought to have priority for CPGB members - that of the Stockport SA or of the Party. He said, as things stood, he could not rely on comrade Pearson’s vote, and in that sense could not regard him as a member. He too would regret losing comrade Pearson. But “he is a useless asset if we cannot rely on him”. In the course of the debate it became clear that where comrade Pearson differed from the majority of the Party and also from its rules was in his understanding of what it means to work to build the Socialist Alliance.

Comrade Pearson justified his voting against the Party in one crucial vote, and his refusal to either apologise for doing so or undertake not to repeat this action, by saying that in order to help the transformation of the SA into a party our comrades should be building its branches and encouraging it to adopt a partyist culture. For him that meant putting its discipline first. So when CPGB members like comrade Pearson become secretary of an SA branch they must be bound by its mandate. In fact they should strive to enforce the practice of mandating.

Comrade Ström pointed out that by this logic he himself ought to be bound by the discipline of the Socialist Alliance executive and its SWP majority. Such is not our method. Nor the SA’s. The SA is not a Communist Party operating under democratic centralism and to act as though it was amounted to liquidationism.

To be a CPGB member you must abide by its rules. The question of mandates, he said, has been discussed at length, including at Communist University in August 2003. It may sometimes be necessary to vote against the Party line on a minor question, when mandated by a trade union branch or other working class body, so as to retain its trust. But it should be done in consultation with the Party leadership. In general it was better for comrades to decline to be delegated rather than accept unprincipled mandates - or they should break the mandate and try to convince the delegating body that it was correct to do so. CPGB members should in general though oppose mandating and should certainly not seek to manoeuvre themselves into a position that they know is at odds with the Party’s.

During the debate many, including Bob Davies, urged comrade Pearson to accept that it was necessary in a specific action to follow the leadership and criticise afterwards. In reply comrade Pearson said he does not accept that comrade Ström or any other Party leader has the right to make decisions on the hoof. He said if he accepted that he was wrong to vote the way he did when comrade Ström “set a trap” for him, and undertook to vote the way he was directed in the future, then not only would his position in Stockport SA become untenable, but he would also make it possible for the leadership to expel himself or any other dissenter in the future simply by setting such a “trap” again.

To this, comrade Steve Cooke said that if the leadership had tricked him into breaking communist morality, he should tell the membership at an aggregate: the membership has the power to rid itself of a corrupt leadership. At this point comrade Pearson bluntly stated that he does not accept the legitimacy of the current leadership.

In the end, comrade Pearson said that if the decision of the aggregate was that he should be bound as a condition of membership to change the way he casts his mandated vote, simply on a whim, then he could not continue his work in Stockport SA and so would have to resign from the CPGB.

The overwhelming conviction underlined by the aggregate was precisely that members must follow the instructions of the Party and its elected leadership in an action, including in SA meetings and conferences, but comrade Pearson nevertheless did not offer his resignation.

As he refused to give an undertaking to abide by the rules of the Party, the aggregate was left with no choice but to vote for his immediate expulsion.

Print this page