Socialist Party/CWI issue fifth “Members Bulletin” on cause of crisis

The debate on causes of capitalist crisis, democratic centralism and other issues: Socialist Party EC Statement

1. For almost two years a debate has taken place in both the England and Wales and Scottish sections of the CWI between the leadership of both sections and a small group of comrades (nine in England and Wales and two in Scotland). The debate initially centred on the causes of the capitalist crisis, but quickly broad- ened to other issues, including the accusation that the party has moved to the right and now has a centrist approach, and that we have an undemocratic, bureau- cratic party regime. At the time of writing two of the comrades in the opposition group – Bruce Wallace (BW) in Scotland and Steve Dobbs (SD) in England and Wales – have been suspended from membership of the CWI. Both have publicly accused us of doing so in order to prevent ‘heretics’ putting their point of view, including preventing SD from taking part in the England and Wales national congress taking place from 8-10 March 2014. In fact SD stood for election to congress as a delegate from his branch prior to his suspension, but was not elected as he has not been active with the party or attended a branch meeting between 17 October 2013 and the meeting when elections were held on 20 February 2014. This has not prevented various political opponents leaping on the bandwagon (1).

(1) Nick Wrack, for example, has posted on Facebook saying that: “it does rather look as though [their suspension] is because they have criticised the SP leadership on Marxist economics.” This is disingenuous of Nick given his own experience. Nick was a member of the Executive Committee of our party who took a minority view during a discussion we had in 1996 on changing our name. He resigned from the EC but, far from using bureaucratic methods to stop him raising a different point of view, the rest of the EC tried to convince him to remain a member of the body. Nick later drifted out of the organisation and then into, and out again, the SWP. Nick Wrack is not the only one of those who left the party at this time who have given vocal support to our current small minority – John Bulaitis has also joined the fray. Other political opponents have also joined in the attack. Andrew Kliman has posted both BW’s and SD’s statements on his FB page, describing them as the “CWI purge”. Mick Brooks has produced blog posts supporting the oposition. The left-gossip paper Weekly Worker has written an article headlined ‘CWI – a bureaucratic farce’.

While the criticisms of the such individuals and small groups is par for the course, on this occasion the misinformation is being fuelled by a small group of party members and so the EC feels it is necessary to produce a summary of the debate to date.

2. Far from trying to supress debate, the CWI and the Socialist Party in England and Wales have a long his- tory of democratic discussion and debate. The ‘name debate’ in 1996, for example, over changing the name from Militant Labour to Socialist Party, led to volu- minous members’ bulletins, with a ‘tendency’ being formed and three different positions being argued. Some of those who formed a tendency subsequently left the party – but were not expelled – and others remained and continue to play a vital role in the party. A few years later we had the debate with the leadership of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), then part of our international. Contrary to the myth spread at the time, we did not oppose the foundation of the SSP, but we did oppose the liquidation of a distinct revolutionary current within the SSP. This was a sharp debate, but we did not expel our comrades or even accede to their demands for ‘an amicable divorce’, not for ‘super-democratic’ reasons but because we hoped to convince the majority of our point of view.

3. The current debate has been conducted in the democratic traditions of our party, at least as far as the leadership and the majority of the membership is concerned. Unfortunately this has not been the approach of the small opposition, which we would argue has crystallised into a grouping hostile to the party and the CWI. Despite this extensive material on the debate has been produced by the party. Every document submitted by the opposition grouping to the party has been published. So far four members’ bulletins have been produced on the debate, with a total of 77,410 words, 45,659 of which have been written by the opposition. Democratic internal debates have been organised in Yorkshire, the North West, East Midlands, London (to which comrades from South East and Eastern regions were also invited), South West and Wales (plus the debates that have taken place in Scotland). All of the debates have been conducted in the traditions of our organisation with equal time for both sides and comradely discussion. All this for a very small group of comrades; in a party with over 2,000 members only nine comrades in England and Wales have supported any of the opposition’s documents, and only five have supported all the documents. Yet the leadership of the party has gone to considerable – some would undoubtedly argue excessive – lengths to facilitate the debate within the party. The small number of comrades who support the opposition grouping is also illustrated by the fact that up until now (two weeks before our national congress) not one branch has passed an amendment or resolution to the conference supporting their viewpoint. Of course, this does not preclude delegates raising points in support of the opposition at the congress should they wish to do so.

4. Yet SD has dismissed the debates that have taken place as “pathetic” and “denunciation sessions”, and accused us of supressing debate, saying that: “The CWI leadership can’t handle the polemic. So they resort to bureaucratic manoeuvres.” Prime amongst these alleged ‘bureaucratic manoeuvres’ is the decision by West London branch, now endorsed by the England and Wales EC, to suspend SD, and the decision by the Scotland EC to suspend BW. These suspensions have taken place after the debate has been going on for a year, and are not because the individuals concerned disagree with the leadership on the causes of the economic crisis, nor because of the wider, and fundamental, political disagreements they have gone on to raise, but because they have systematically used social media to attack the party in increasingly strident tones. This has included all kinds of attacks on individual comrades – including on rank and file members as well as those in leading positions - as well as the party’s ideas in general. This is despite the fact that both CWI sections have agreed that the discussion should be conducted internally at this stage and have repeatedly written to the opposition grouping asking that they abide by this decision. The fact that the England and Wales National Committee unanimously agreed that this specific debate should be conducted internally at this point - and also generally agreed at the November 2013 NC – that: “it is not acceptable for a member or group of members to run social media forums that are in opposition to our party’s basic ideas and actions”, is simply dismissed by the opposition group on the grounds that we have a wrong conception of democratic centralism which, the comrades argue, always permits the public airing of differences.

5. In fact, democratic centralism is by its very nature a flexible method of organisation, where the ‘mobile balance’ (as Trotsky described it) between democracy and centralism varies according to concrete circumstances. This includes decisions on whether debates should be conducted internally or publicly. The CWI has conducted a series of debates in a public, or semi-public, form. The debate on the class character of China, for example, has taken place in the pages of Socialism Today. However, this was only after discussion, initially verbally, had taken place internally over a number of years. Other debates – such as the name debate referred to earlier – were conducted internally at the time, with documen- tation only appearing publicly – on Marxist.net – after the debate had concluded. Whatever decision is taken on how to conduct a specific debate the priority has to be to try and ensure that party members have the opportunity, at least initially, to consider the issues and contribute to the debate, without instead being forced to focus on defending the party from political opponents. And crucially, any loyal opposition would abide by the democratic decisions of the party about how the debate should be conducted while of course having the right to argue for a different approach via the structures of the party. Instead of this the opposition grouping has systematically ignored the party’s wishes on how the debate should be conducted.

6. Their complete misunderstanding of democratic centralism is demonstrated in the resolution on the issue that SD unsuccessfully moved at West London branch (appended to the end of this statement). In it SD gives three quotes from Lenin which he believes demonstrate his case:

“‘Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Par- ty Programme must be quite free… not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings.”

“The Party’s political action must be united. No ‘calls’ that violate the unity of definite actions can be toler- ated either at public meetings, or at Party meetings, or in the Party press…”

“In the view of the Central Committee, it is essential to give all party members the widest possible freedom to criticise the central bodies and to attack them; the Central Committee sees nothing terrible in such attacks, provided they are not accompanied by a boycott, by standing aloof from positive work or by cutting off financial resources.”

7. Aside from the fact that the last quote is unintentionally ironic, given that both SD and BW have not been attending party meetings and have been “standing aloof from positive work” for more than four months, while some other supporters of the opposition have been inactive for years, it shows a total incomprehension of Lenin’s attitude to democratic centralism to think that you can rip three quotes out of context and draw up a general ‘formula’ for democratic centralism which applies in all circumstances.

8. The final quote is taken from a letter Lenin wrote in 1904 on behalf of the RSDLP CC to the Menshevik- controlled Iskra editorial board at a time when the divisions between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were hardening into two distinct political forces. The first two quotes are from 1906 when, following the revolution of 1905, thousands of workers had flooded into the RSDLP and the pressure of the revolutionary movement had acted to push the Mensheviks to the left. In these conditions the 1906 Unity Conference brought the two factions together again. Nonetheless, the united party was not a cohesive revolutionary party based on a common understanding of the tasks it faced but remained a party containing two distinct political trends, the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. The Mensheviks had a majority on the Central Committee elected by the Unity Conference. In order to defend a revolutionary programme and not to “permit the Men- sheviks to lead us by the rope”,(2) as Lenin put it, it was essential for the Bolsheviks to emphasise their rights of public criticism.

(2) Account by Lunacharsky, quoted in Lenin and the Revolutionary Party, Paul Le Blanc.

9. Today as well, we argue for a different organisational form for a new broad workers’ party than we do for our own party. The organisational difference reflects the political differences between a broad party embracing different political trends and our party which is based on a high degree of common understanding, and aims to unite the working class around a clear Marxist programme. For a broad workers’ party we argue for a federal approach – with full freedom of expression for different political trends – whereas our party operates on the basis of democratic centralism.

10. This does not answer, however, exactly what the balance should be in a revolutionary party between democracy and centralism in specific circumstances. Generally, we favour maximum discussion until a decision is arrived at, and then more emphasis on ‘centralism’ as the party drives to implement the decisions that have been democratically agreed. How- ever, the political situation and needs of the party at a specific conjuncture also have to be weighed up along with other factors. Generally a greater degree of pub- lic discussion is inevitable in a mass party. However, very different quotes of Lenin, emphasising the need for internal rather than public debate, can be given to those highlighted by SD. In 1914, for example, after the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks had finally split in 1912, Lenin stated that for the Bolsheviks: “The principle of federation, or of equality for all ‘trends’ shall be unreservedly rejected, and the only principle to be recognised shall be that of loyal submission of the minority to the majority.” He added that: “The existence of two rival newspapers in the same town or locality shall be absolutely forbidden. The minority shall have the right to discuss before the whole Party, disagreements on programme, tactics and organisation in a discussion journal especially published for the purpose, but shall not have the right to publish, in a rival newspaper, pro-nouncements disruptive of the actions and decisions of the majority.” The Socialist Party EC’s demands that the opposition grouping close down their rival web- sites and social media, and instead raise their points via the democratic structures of the party, are a mod- ern day equivalent to this point by Lenin. However, at other times discussions between trends in the Bolshevik party did take place publicly or semi-publicly.

11. In fact, initially, the discussion on the causes of capitalist crisis did take place publicly, with BW having letters published in four issues of Socialism Today. An interesting and educational discussion on the causes of capitalist crisis could have continued in the pages of Socialism Today over a period of time were it not for the approach taken by the opposition grouping. BW launched his blog, ‘Marx returns from the grave’ on 13 March 2013 and his since used it to publish endless attacks on the party. By the time the EC produced its first response to the opposition grouping, on 19 September 2013, BW had published 73 blog posts that focused on attacking the ideas of the CWI. SD published nine blog posts opposing the party’s position on the causes of capitalist crisis over the same period. In ad- dition to this there were numerous public criticisms of the party on Facebook and other social media, mainly, but not exclusively, by BW and SD. This wholesale at- tack on the party’s ideas changed the character of the debate, from a difference on the causes of capitalist crisis to also being a discussion on whether the party had “a bourgeois conception of the crisis” (BW’s blog, 1 June 2013), put forward “crass left reformism” (BW’s blog, 24 August 2013), and was destined to become “the centrist underbelly of a left reformist project” (BW’s blog, 12 September 2013). These political points were accompanied by endless invective. To give a few of hundreds of examples, BW on his blog has publicly described two rank and file comrades who dared to disagree with him as “a bit dense” and having “a complete ignorance of Marxist theory”. BW described the party leadership as not having “a sane, let alone a Marxist, analysis”, and of “delivering a complete load of bollocks on Marxist theory”. He also asked of the latest ‘why you should join’ pamphlet: “What idiot wrote this nonsense?” This is not a ‘healthy debate’ as the opposition claim to desire, but – on the part of BW, SD & co – a public slanging match.

12. Given the relentless character of these attacks on the party the EC agreed it was necessary to answer them publicly by publishing its initial statement on the causes of capitalist crisis on the Socialist Party web- site. However, in order to allow party members the time to consider the issues at stake – which were now the party’s fundamental programme and approach – it was also agreed that the debate should, with the exception of publishing that first EC document, initially be conducted internally with contributions from both sides published in members’ bulletins.

13. The leadership of the party also has the duty to balance the amount of time given to the debate against the oth- er pressures that the party faces. The totally unfounded accusation that we have ‘supressed’ debate seems to be partly based on our refusal to make this debate the central issue facing the party. However, any debate has overheads, which a responsible party leadership must take into account when laying out the guidelines for a given discussion. In the 1990s the party was involved in a series of time-consuming theoretical debates, which were essential to reach political clarity in a new world situation. However, while they were taking place the party had no choice but to turn inwards, thereby limiting our ability to intervene into the labour and trade union movement. Today, partly as a result of the de- bates that took place then, the party has a high degree of theoretical and political unity. This has enormously increased our ability to intervene effectively into the class struggle. It would therefore be criminal to unnec- essarily turn the party inwards. This is not in any way to suggest that we do not want theoretical discussion; on the contrary, we actively encourage it although, as previously stated, it is generally better to explore issues via internal discussion in the first instance. Nonetheless, a constructive debate on the role of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall in capitalist crisis could have taken place in the pages of Socialism Today over a period of time, but it would have been wrong for that particular issue to have cut across the party’s work or for it to have resulted in the pushing aside of the many other issues that Socialism Today has analysed in the last period. In our view, however, only this would have satisfied the demands of BW and co.

14. Instead of a constructive debate we have faced the crystallisation of a small opposition grouping who, as we will go on to illustrate, have a schematic, ultra-left approach to the issues the party faces. If the approach of this grouping was in danger of being adopted by a majority – or even a sizeable minority – of the party, the party’s leadership would have no choice but to make the debate the central task it faces, prioritised above other things, in order to strive to prevent the party, or sections of it, adopting a disastrous course. However, this is not the case. On the contrary, after all the debates there are still only a tiny number of comrades who support the opposition’s viewpoint.

 

15. Ample warning has been given to the opposition that continuing to publicly attack the party would lead to disciplinary action. Following numerous verbal and written appeals, BW was written to by the Scotland EC on 28 October 2013 demanding that he cease publicly attacking the party. The Scotland EC finally suspended him from membership on 12 February 2014. SD was written to by the England and Wales EC on 10 October 2013, 28 November 2013, 28 January 2014 and 11 February 2014 making the same demand. The last letter, also sent to other administrators of the ‘Really Radical CWI’ Facebook group, made explicit that the op- position group had to, “close down the marxistworld.net website and, as you are not allowed to change the name of the Really Radical CWI Facebook group, close this down as well. In addition you all cease using social media to publicly attack the party and the CWI. If you do not carry out these measures, and agree to abide by the decisions of the NC and EC on the conduct of the debate from now on, we will discuss taking disciplinary action against you.”

16. The demand that the opposition grouping close its website marxistworld.net was refused by SD, we assume on behalf of the other members of the opposition (although we would be happy to hear otherwise), on the laughable grounds that: “this is the personal property of one individual, and it is not in our power to force them to close it down.” Yet the ‘about’ section of the website states that: “Marxist World is a Marxist resource website established in January 2014 by members of the CWI.” So far the only contributors of articles are three supporters of the opposition: Pete Glover, Steve Dobbs and Bruce Wallace, plus Andrew Kliman! In addition the debate documents have been published on it. Clearly the opposition are, at the very least, ‘in touch’ with the owner of the website, as they say that the individual has agreed: “to remove the debate documents from it on the basis that all the docu- ments from the debate are made public on the Socialist Party and CWI’s website, where the first document from the EC has already been made public.” So why hasn’t the individual concerned been asked by the opposition group to close the website down as insisted upon by the EC?

17. The response of SD regarding marxistworld.net is not at all serious, nor has their response been to the ques- tion of the ‘Really Radical CWI’ FB group. The oppo- sition group have set up a new group, ‘Really Radical Marxism’, which at least does not in its name imply it represents the CWI. However, it is absolutely clear this has been done as a cynical manoeuvre, in order to be able to claim to have met the EC’s demand. This was demonstrated by a conversation between BW and SD which briefly appeared on the newly founded ‘Really Radical Marxism group’: BW: “Steve I suggest we add the rules from the RR-CWI group that we were practi- cally forced to shut down on pain of disciplinary action. i.e. unwarranted censorship and top down admins on official CWI sites.” And SD in response: “I have but removed references to the CWI. Just so they have nothing to stand on. Now I’m going to delete this, so new members don’t see.” Meanwhile, the essential demand of the EC that the opposition grouping “cease using social media to publicly attack the party and the CWI” has not been met. On the contrary, ‘Really Radical Marxism’ is, if anything, more vituperative than the previous group. Asked to clarify the purpose of the ‘Really Radical Marxism’ group SD actually posted in the group that its aim was: “Attacking the leadership of the CWI, yes, but not attacking the CWI as a whole,” completely ignoring the democratic decision of the Socialist Party, and the view of the overwhelming majority of our members, that this debate should be conducted internally.

18. In addition, SD’s branch, West London, has been attempting for months, without success, to get SD to abide by its democratic decisions on how the debate should be conducted. The branch first passed a resolution on 18 July 2013 insisting no member of the branch conduct the debate publicly, particularly via social media. SD was the only branch member to vote against the resolution. Further emails were sent by the West London branch committee to SD on 24 November 2013 and 5 December 2013, repeating these points and also stating that their branch meetings should be not be secretly recorded, as SD had done on at least two occasions.

19. SD has repeatedly refused to abide by the democratic decisions of his branch. He has also completely absented himself from party activity. Despite this the branch allowed him to move his motions, although they were all defeated. He has also cut his subs by over 90% from their previous level. Of course, comrades can be temporarily inactive or have to cut their financial contribution for personal reasons, but to find the time to launch attacks on the party while doing nothing to assist in building it is a clear indication of some- one whose trajectory is out of our ranks. The considerable patience of West London branch finally reached its limits when SD posted a letter on FB which he had submitted to the EC the previous August. The letter accused his branch secretary of ‘harassment and abuse’. Not only did SD post this potentially very damaging letter on a public forum, he failed to mention that he had subsequently withdrawn it – stating in November 2013, regarding his complaint, that he considered “all outstanding issues had been resolved”. It was this incident that took the considerable patience of the West London branch to its limits, and led to them taking the decision to suspend SD from membership. This decision has subsequently been ratified by the EC. SD of course has the right to appeal, initially to the National Committee.

20. In our view the opposition’s insistence on raising the issues publicly reflects that their primary audience is not the membership of the CWI but opponents of our party outside of our ranks. The most recent documents written by the opposition – an attack on Peter Taaffe’s review of Lars T Lih by Peter Glover and a response to Geoff Jones’s piece in Members’ Bulletin 4 – have not even been submitted to the party for publication but instead only published on marxistworld.net. One of many coments from SD on Facebook illustrates that, in reality, he considers himself outside of the CWI: “The CWI like to pretend that no one outside the Party ex- ists. One comrade told me that we needed to ‘inoculate members against the sects’. i.e. anyone else outside the CWI is a sect, because they don’t agree with the leadership of the CWI’s politics. Just as me and Bruce Wallace are labelled ‘ultra-left’ by the leadership. Of course, a serious discussion on the genuine political differences with either ‘the sects’ or the CWI minority is out of the question.” (18 02 14). In the same conversation he goes on to declare: “Vanguard of the class my arse.”

21. It is absolutely false to say that we are not prepared to debate with political opponents outside our ranks, particularly where they represent significant forces. On the contrary, we have written a book taking up the ideas of the SWP, and have debated with them at our Socialism event, something they have consistently refused to reciprocate. Nor do we automatically dismiss other political organisations. Where we meet other forces with which we can find agreement on the cen- tral tenets of programme and method we seek to collaborate, and if possible to merge in a common organisation. A number of CWI sections have been formed on this basis. But of course we defend our programme and method, not in a dogmatic way, but because we believe it offers the best means to politically arm the working class for the struggle for socialism. SD, by contrast, clearly no longer believes this, if he ever did. On the same day on FB he also stated that: “the American ISO, like the Trotskyist Left in general, is falling apart, unable to reconcile the changed objective situation with its false methods. Parties that continue with this sect-’Leninism’ are doomed to oblivion.” Given his failure to exempt the CWI from his sweeping condemnation of the Trotskyist left it is clear that he includes us in it.

22. The amendments to the British Perspectives documents moved by SD at West London branch (appended to the end of this document) show the almost complete absence of concrete conclusions drawn by the opposition. Not one serious difference on the consciousness of the working class or perspectives is raised in the amendments. At the same time, however, they demonstrate an ultra-left and completely rigid, abstract approach to the class struggle and the workers’ movement. The amendments effectively argue that we should have backed Jerry Hicks in the UNITE general secretary election which in our view would have been a serious mistake. Despite our criticisms of Len McCluskey it was correct to give him critical support in the general secretary election – based on his record of backing strikes which has led to workers winning concession from the employers in the BESNA dispute, the blacklisting campaign, the London bus strike and others - and of the possibilities to build an open, democratic left in UNITE. The union leaders still have enormous authority and in general our approach is to raise necessary criticisms, but to do so in a firm but friendly and balanced way. In fact at the time SD went further in this direction than us! As he argued on FB in response to a call to back Jerry Hicks: “Jerry’s programme is to the left of Len, but even if he was elected he would have zero chance of carrying out his programme due to his hostility and complete lack of tact towards the leadership of the Union. Do you want 5 years of in-fighting under Jerry and nothing achieved, or 5 years of moving to the Left, reconsider- ing the Labour funding (Len said he will back councillors expelled from Labour for voting against cuts), supporting the call for a general strike and recruiting more members?” (19 March 2013). So at this time SD was far more unconditional than we would ever be on guaranteeing that UNITE would move further to the left under a second Len McCluskey term or that he would reconsider Labour funding. Yet a few months later the opposition of which he is a part is accusing us of: “Supporting McCluskey in the vague hope he may decide to create a new workers’ party in the indeterminate future after a ‘betrayal’ by Labour is a hostage to fortune and profoundly wrong.” (Building a revolutionary party in the 21st century, January 2013) Yet far from basing ourselves on a ‘vague hope’ Len McCluskey might create a new workers’ party we have always clearly criticised his strategy to reclaim Labour and argued to build support for a new workers’ party among UNITE members. This, it seems, is a case of ‘physician heal thyself ’.

23. Nonetheless the amendment is correct to state that the vote for Jerry Hicks shows the radicalisation of an important layer of UNITE members, a point we made at the time. However, we will never win radicalised workers, in UNITE or elsewhere, by the approach pro- posed in these amendments. SD states: “Increasingly industrial struggles must be seen as not simply a fight over the share of the (dwindling) surplus value, but fundamental struggles for control over the means of production, challenging the foundation of the capitalist system itself.” What does this actually mean? ‘Must be seen’ by whom? Is SD suggesting that we intervene in strikes demanding that the workers ‘must’ understand that their struggle is for control over the means of production? It has never been our approach to shriek at workers about what they ‘must’ do. Anyone who intervened into a picket line in defence of jobs, or against pay cuts, with a starting point that their strug- gle was actually over the control of the means of pro- duction would receive short shrift. As we explain in the British Perspectives document we take a transitional approach, always basing ourselves on what is objectively necessary, but posing it in a way that takes into account the consciousness of the workers themselves. Our starting point in a strike over pay is how best to win that dispute, while of course linking it to a broader socialist programme, including that the only way to permanently protect workers’ pay is for the working class to take power and begin to build a socialist planned economy. Clearly, however, SD does not agree with this. He proposes to simply delete the paragraphs making these points in the British Perspectives document.

24. SD, BW and co deny that they share a political outlook with Andrew Kliman and his co-thinkers in the Marxist Humanist Initiative (MHI). However these amend- ments are a clear step in the direction of their com- pletely abstract approach, which is based on simply

‘educating’ working class people in ‘Marxism’ while waiting for capitalism to eventually collapse. Discussing the CWI debate in an online article, the MHI declare: “What we object to is unions’ common practise of telling workers that the company has plenty of money and is denying them their ‘fair share’.” They continue: “Workers need to know that their getting a bigger slice of the pie depends not only on the militancy of their struggles, but also on whether their company’s rate of profit is sufficient to pay them more without it going bankrupt.”

25. SD’s amendments are equally crude on the question of the trade union bureaucracy and the ‘labour aristocracy’, which he simplistically lumps together and describes as being “ultimately wedded to the interests of the ruling class”. This is more akin to the ideas of syndicalism than it is to our tradition. The concept of an ‘aristocracy of labour’, first described by Marx and Engels, is of a relatively privileged layer of mainly skilled workers which the conservative trade union leaders, and the capitalist class, attempt to lean on. Today, the relatively privileged layer of the working class is much smaller than in the past, as a result of the general driv- ing down of pay and conditions over the last forty years. In addition most of these workers, far from enjoying rising living standards, are suffering attacks on their pay and conditions, even if they remain better off than unskilled sections of the workforce. This generally makes it objectively far easier to convince them to unite with other sections of the working class.

26. A clear example of this is the recent tube strike where large numbers of the tube drivers, a relatively highly- paid section of the working class as a result of their industrial strength, struck in solidarity with the more lowly-paid station staff whose jobs, pay and conditions were the ones immediately under attack. The Grangemouth oil refinery workers have also been relatively highly paid. Jim Ratcliffe and INEOS, however, correctly understood that this powerful section of workers, far from being ‘wedded’ to the ruling classes’ interests, had won a number of victories both against them and construction industry employers. INEOS therefore set out to prepare to defeat the Grangemouth workers. As we explain in the party material on Grangemouth and the British Perspectives document, the UNITE leadership did not prepare in the same way and as a result the Grangemouth workers suffered a defeat. The approach of SD and BW, however, has been an outrageous attack on the stewards at Grangemouth: “It seems that the Unite stewards took the workforce to the edge of bourgeois respectability but didn’t like what they saw beyond that, and so backed off.” (BW’s blog – co-authored by SD - 21 October 2013). BW, based in Scotland, took no part in the Grangemouth struggle, yet publishes crude attacks on the stewards from afar. The opposition is as crude and simplistic on the trade union bureaucracy as it is on the ‘aristocracy of labour’. In fact, while the trade union officialdom overall undoubtedly plays a conservative role it is not homogenous. Even in the most right-wing trade unions, such as UNISON, the seemingly monolithic conservative apparatus can fracture under the pressure of the class struggle, with a section being won to a more left, fighting position. This is particularly the case if we are present, arguing for the union to adopt a fighting strategy, for the election of full time officials on a worker’s wage, and so on.

27. There are other points that could be made on the political errors of the opposition as summed up in the resolutions and amendments below. In the view of the EC it is an indication of the sound theoretical and political foundations of our party that so few comrades have given support to the schematic ideas of this tiny opposition. We believe that their ideas would be a disaster if they were to be adopted by the party. Nonetheless, they have the right to continue to argue their point of view. However, with rights also come responsibilities. The opposition has the right to argue its point of view, but it has the responsibility to do so in the way that the party has democratically decided. It also has the responsibility not to carry out “a boycott” of party activities or to stand “aloof from positive work” or cut off “financial resources”. If the opposition grouping is serious about trying to build the Socialist Party and the CWI, we insist they show it by demonstrating their willingness to abide by the decisions made. This means closing the marxistworld.net website, ceasing to attack the party publicly by any means and removing previous attacks from the various social media outlets where they have been posted, and by agreeing to abide by party decisions on how to conduct the debate in future. It also means demonstrating a willingness to work constructively to build the party. If the opposition grouping, or members of it, are not prepared to carry out these very moderate responsibilities the conclusion must be drawn that they no longer wish to be part of the CWI. This is not the first debate to have taken place in the CWI, nor will it be the last. In the future we will face disagreements of a more serious character. However, we are confident that, on the basis of the CWI’s traditions of thorough and democratic discussion, we will be able to come through such debates politically strengthened.

Resolution moved by steve dobbs (but not passed) at west london branch, 20 february 2014 “Democratic centralism: freedom of debate, unity in action”

Healthy debate should be a pre-requisite for any Marxist revolutionary party.

The importance of theory and the political education of comrades should not be side-lined nor undervalued whilst we involve ourselves in the daily practical tasks and struggles as revolutionaries.

Without a proper grounding in theory, we will lack the political perspectives necessary to build the party and lead a successful socialist revolution.

We therefore welcome the current debate taking place in the party on the Cause of Capitalist Crisis as it has been instrumental in raising the political education of members both directly and indirectly.

The party should facilitate this, and any similar debates in a comradely, fluid, open and dialectical fashion. We believe, in addition to the important economic debate, it has highlighted some other important issues.

In 2010, Peter Taafe wrote,

“The CWI operates on the basis of democratic centralism with full rights for all its members and sections with, in fact, a greater emphasis at this stage on the need for discussion and debate rather than the formal aspects of centralism. The present split in the IMT has been kept under wraps – hidden from some of their members – up to the present time of writing. Yet all the political disputes in the CWI on a number of issues in the 1990s and the ‘noughties’ were public discussions, and documents were made public while the discussion was going on. Current debates are publically aired, for instance, in our journal ‘Socialism Today’ on such issues as China. This is done in order to allow all workers to see and, if needs be, to participate in the discussion of vital issues. Nothing like these democratic discussions takes place in the IMT.”

We support this statement, and believe that this should be applied equally to the current debate.

It is important that both sides of the debate are given a fair hearing, which means that if documents from the leadership are made public, so too should any documents from the minority.

Democratic Centralism, in its true Bolshevik interpretation, does not proscribe the criticism by comrades of its leadership publically in a principled fashion.

The following three quotes from Lenin should be the starting point of the Party’s position on Democratic Centralism:

“Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Party Programme must be quite free…not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings.”

“The Party’s political action must be united. No “calls” that violate the unity of definite actions can be tolerated either at public meetings, or at Party meetings, or in the Party press…”

“In the view of the central committee, it is essential to give all party members the widest possible freedom to criticise the central bodies and to attack them; the central committee sees nothing terrible in such attacks, provided they are not accompanied by a boycott, by standing aloof from positive work or by cutting off financial resources”

Democratic Centralism demands unity on the basis of action, such as programmatical action and activity, but not unity on theory.

Freedom of expression is vital for members to criticize the position of the leadership, without fear of victimisation or expulsion. Additionally, their level of political education should be such that they have the confidence to do so.

The leadership should welcome critical contributions on theory as this is the sign of a vibrant and democratic party.

Although Branch Meetings are of crucial importance for organization and democracy within the party, they do not provide enough political education in themselves. This is particularly true for smaller branches with relatively inexperienced comrades. It is of vital importance that comrades can discuss issues with other comrades through England & Wales, and indeed internationally. To this end, the party should facilitate proper debating mechanisms.

We recognise that the emergence of alternative social media that have been published by CWI members is a result of deficiencies in existing facilities for theoretical debate within the party. We therefore support the right of these to exist, as an alternative is not offered by the party at present.

We oppose the decision to discontinue with the cadre schools and believe the party should develop a proper education programme for all comrades.

Without a membership grounded in theory and a political education, the party will lack the next generation of cadres for the vital task of building a mass revolutionary party capable of leading to a socialist transformation of society.

Amendments to “British Perspectives 2014″ moved by Steve Dobbs (but not passed) at West London branch, 20 February 2014

Point 6. Add to the end:

“This highlights the need to support rank and file movements within the Trade Unions, where possible independent of the Trade Union bureaucracy. This bureaucracy, part of what Marx described as the “labour aristocracy”, is ultimately wedded to the interests of the ruling class. The bureaucracy’s privileged position is primarily based on concession bargaining and negotiating between the two classes, and thus overthrowing capitalism would remove the need for such a position. The inability of the capitalists to produce enough surplus value, as expressed by the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, means that the window for concession bargaining has, for the most part, closed. The Trade Union leaders are unable to realise or accept this, and so a rank and file movement must be built from below. For example, in the 2013 Unite General Secretary elections, the rank and file candidate Jerry Hicks gained a massive 35%, despite having no electoral machine, no full-time Union officials and a shoe-string budget! Whilst we would criticise Hicks’ lack of a clear programme, such as on the question of breaking the link with the Labour Party, an organised revolutionary grouping, on the basis of a skilled application of the United Front tactic, could develop a combative rank and file that could show workers the way forward on the question of industrial action and a General Strike. The mass support for Hicks, even in a ‘left’-led union like Unite, shows the potential for developing such a movement. Increasingly, industrial struggles must been seen as not simply a fight over the share of the (dwindling) surplus value, but fundamental struggles for control over the means of production, challenging the foundations of the capitalist system itself. This means that the ideas of occupation and workers’ control, where appropriate, must be clearly put forward as the basis to move the struggle forward. Only a Marxist leadership of the rank and file in the Trade Unions, based on Trotsky’s genuine Transitional Programme, can help workers realise this objective situation and the need for a revolutionary Party to overthrow capitalism.”

Point 12. Delete all and replace with:

“Some sections of the capitalist class are raising the question of the minimum wage. This reflects their erroneous belief that the crisis was caused by a ‘lack of aggregate demand’, and therefore an increase in workers’ incomes would increase the market and therefore improve prospects for economic growth. Marxists, on the other hand, understand that a recovery to the crisis of overproduction can only be brought about, as a minimum prerequisite, by sufficiently restoring the rate of profit in order to induce the purchase of capital goods (i.e. capitalist investment). Whilst Marxists should support all calls for raising workers’ wages, it should be done with the understanding that this presents no way out of the crisis of overproduction, and would, in the medium-term, actually exacerbate it by lowering the rate of profit(1). The primary barrier to restoring the rate of profit is the massive accumulation of capital in the advanced capitalist countries. Thus, from the point of view of capitalism, the only solution is for a destruction of capital and the value of capital. This could take the form of another financial crash, which would be as bad, if not worse, than the 2007/8 crisis.

(1) Carchedi , Behind and Beyond the Crisis, 2011 http://www.homolaicus.com/economia/fonti/carchedib.pdf”

Point 13. After first sentence “Far from a ‘march of the makers’ the British economy remains overwhelming reliant on finance and services, which make up 78% of GDP.”, insert:

“Since only workers’ labour-power creates new value, the expansion of the service economy in Britain from the 1980’s has seen a decrease in productive labour jobs (e.g. manufacturing) and a massive expansion of unproductive labour jobs (e.g. financial services, retail). As a result, a smaller number of workers than ever before are responsible for creating the total social surplus value. Because the finance sector is ultimately entirely dependent on the surplus value created in production, this makes the British economy particularly exposed to economic crises.”

Point 18. Delete all and replace with:

“Osborne and the Tories’ continuing austerity policies – threatening a further £25 billion worth of cuts – are not simply ideological, although that is clearly an element. The logic behind austerity is to help raise the average rate of profit by shrinking the state sector in order to lower corporation taxes, which redistributes surplus value away from private capital. Additionally, the selling off of state assets and provision, like the Royal Mail, NHS and state education, at fire-sale prices relatively lowers the organic composition of capital for the private sector and thus raises the rate of profit.

Delete points 24, 25 and 26. (For more information on the role of the Socialist Party Scotland, McCluskey and Unite at Grangemouth, see the document “Building a Revolutionary Party in the 21^st Century”).

Point 29. Amend first two sentences as follows:

Delete “right-wing” from first sentence.

Replace second sentence with: “The left leaders can only be forced to take serious measures in favour of a general strike under mass pressure from a rank and file movement which challenges their authority.”

Point 47. Replace “Social Democrats formally believed in the idea of socialism – albeit as a long-term goal, and disagreeing with Marxists about how it could be achieved. Today’s Labour leadership defends capitalism…” with:

“The Labour Party, from its outset, was a bourgeois-workers party: a working class base led by Fabian/Liberal-influenced, i.e. bourgeois, parliamentary representatives. Under the pressure from its mass working class membership it was forced to formally adopt a reformist ‘socialist’ programme, although at best it implemented Keynesian policies of limited state control with the goal of better managing capitalism. Our predecessor the Militant Tendency entered the Labour Party on the basis that it provided fertile grounds for Marxist ideas amongst rank and file Labour members, with the hope of that the working class base could be set against the bourgeois leadership, forcing a split and the development of a mass revolutionary party. Unfortunately, after the failure of Keynesianism to solve the economic crisis of the 1970s, the Labour Party leadership rapidly moved right, witch-hunted leading Militants and eventually jettisoned any pretence of ‘socialism’. Today’s Labour Party has no mass working class base and internal democracy has been completely curtailed. With the impossibility of an effective rank and file opposition, the Labour leadership openly defends capitalism…”

Setting the Record Straight (by Bob Sulatycki, chair of West London branch)

On Thursday 20 February West London branch of the Socialist Party passed a resolution suspending Steve Dobbs from branch membership. Steve has said he would appeal, but unfortunately has immediately gone public on various social media blogs and forums. In doing so he has obscured the actual reason for his suspension. It has therefore been necessary to clarify why the branch has suspended him.

At the outset it should be noted that:

1. The majority of the branch who voted for this suspension did so extremely reluctantly and only because we felt we were left with no other choice by the time of the branch meeting - which happened to be the AGM. We were faced with two bad options – either voting for suspension, or allowing the current situation to continue. By the time of the AGM we had concluded that suspension was the less bad of the options.
2. This decision was taken because of Steve’s conduct in the months, and the days prior to the AGM, not because of the political views he holds. As we expected, Steve has projected his suspension as being motivated by our wish to have him politically silenced, particularly in the run up to Congress. He avoids answering the specific issues that prompted the suspension.
3. The decision to pass the suspension motion was one taken by the branch. It was not directed or driven by the EC, or any individual member of the EC. Members of the EC were informed and discussed with in the immediate run up to the meeting. The approach of the EC at all points has been to support the branch officers and to offer advice, but not to pressurise us either way on the question of disciplinary action against Steve. A member of the EC came to the AGM, in addition to the speaker, and the motion passed will obviously be seen and considered by the EC.

Why had relations between Steve Dobbs and the West London Branch Committee broken down?

The branch committee, and John Boyle as branch secretary in particular, genuinely attempted, in words and in practice to hold an open, democratic debate on the issues Steve started to raise in 2013.

We tried to accommodate Steve’s demands. For example, we acceded to his request to allow his partner, a non-member, to attend the Rate of Profit debate with Lynn Walsh on July 18 as he told us that he would have otherwise felt isolated at the meeting.

Yet, from the outset Steve adopted an extremely hostile and belligerent attitude to the branch committee, and took unilateral decisions with no reference to John as branch secretary. He advertised the Rate of Profit debate as a public meeting, when other comrades understood that it was an internal and preliminary discussion for the branch.

John, as branch secretary, and on behalf of the branch committee, intervened to ensure that Steve ceased to advertise it as an open meeting.

Later in the summer of 2013, we learnt that Steve had arranged a public debate between himself, billed as representing the Socialist Party, and Gerry Downing – an out and out sectarian whose ‘Trotskyist’ organisation probably has more initials than members. There had been no consultation with any of the branch committee, and we would not have been aware of it had not a comrade at the National Centre come across it being advertised on Gerry Downing’s website.

Once again, John, with full authorisation from the party locally, had to intervene to attempt to pull a debate that would have had no benefit for the party, but would only serve to boost the ego of a figure on the fringes of the movement in Brent politics - and someone deeply hostile to us and to TUSC.

Some general themes started to appear in Steve’s posts on various social media: that we were undemocratic; that the party were frightened of debate within the labour movement.

Three points of conflict

Three specific issues emerged as points of conflict between Steve and the majority of the branch.

The first of these was the way in which Steve was making attacks on the party, locally and nationally, on different social media forums for which he was responsible.

We were finding that our internal branch affairs, debates and discussions were being reproduced, partially and inaccurately, on his blog and on Facebook sites.

At the Rate of Profit debate on 18 July a motion calling for an end to the use of social media to carry such misinformation was carried at the branch by six votes to one (Steve’s) with one abstention

As will be apparent, Steve ignored this, and calls from the party nationally on this issue. Steve set up the Really Radical CWI Facebook site at the turn of the year to reach an international audience of those with an axe to grind against the party and the CWI.

Comrades will be familiar with many of the issues around this, but it has some specific importance to us locally as a number of visitors to his site(s) were/are locally active in Brent circles – including Labour Party members, ex-members and various sectarians not well-disposed to our party.

Members who attended the branch might find that anything that they said could later appear on-line without their permission. This could, and in fact did, inhibit open discussion at meetings.

The second issue was his repeated failure to try to establish a reasonable working relationship with John and the branch committee. He maintained that John’s dealings with him constituted harassment. In fact, in August he presented a formal complaint to the EC alleging that John was responsible for a campaign of harassment and abuse against him. Both the branch and the EC found that there was no substance to these allegations

The events surrounding this are covered by an email sent to Steve in November.

You continue to refuse to have any dealings with John as branch secretary, but offer no way of seeking to re-establish a working relationship with him.

It’s not even really clear to us what your issues are with him.

In July you had accused him of bullying. However you will recall that after making that allegation, you then openly withdrew it at the branch committee held at Keith’s on 24 July, assuring the members present that the issues had been resolved.

You complain in your email of 29 October that you did not use the term ‘bullying’ in your formal complaint. It is true that you do not use the term ‘bullying’ in this piece, but it’s a semantic point as in the complaint you stated that he was guilty of behaviour constituting ‘harassment and abuse’.

They are serious and damaging charges. They do not have support in the branch, and have not been supported by the EC.

These are not the sort of charges to be wheeled out whenever it suits you.

In spite of these unfounded allegations, John made a genuine and generous effort, in his email of 23 October, to meet with you to clear the air in order that the branch could go forward. You rejected this offer.

In fact, in your email of 29 October you stated that ‘there are issues to be discussed around how the branch and other members operate if there is to be a genuine ‘open and working relationship’ I will raise this at the next branch meeting’

Despite my phone message to you on 30 October, followed by my email to you on Thursday 31 October, offering a route forward for the airing of your grievances, you have failed to make any contact with myself, John (obviously) Keith or Alan, or Chris or Paula at the London office for that matter. You didn’t attend either the branch or the subsequent branch committee, where your issues were placed as item number one of the agenda.

We’re left with the impression that you have no serious intention to resolve your working relations with John or the branch.

Email sent by Bob Sulatycki (Chair West London branch) on behalf Of West London branch committee to Steve Dobbs 24.11.13

Steve’s reply to this was as follows :

I was surprised to receive your email as I thought all of the outstanding issues have been resolved! I wrote to Paula and the EC on 21st November to confirm as much and as I haven’t received a reply, I’ve assumed we’re all moving on.

Email sent by Steve Dobbs to Bob Sulatycki 29.11.13

We assumed that the formal complaint of harassment against John was at last buried, wrongly, as later became apparent.

The third issue was the unauthorised recordings of branch meetings, and subsequent distribution to persons unknown.

In late November 2013, it came to the attention of the EC, and from them to the Branch Committee, that recordings had been distributed of a recent branch meeting held on Democratic Centralism, at which Hannah Sell had spoken. Furthermore, it was not just the lead off that had been recorded and distributed, but also the discussion with the contributions of the branch comrades.

We sought clarification from Steve on this

I also understand that you made a recording of the leadoff and subsequent discussion of the branch meeting at which Hannah spoke on Democratic Centralism, without asking the permission of those present. What is the justification for this?

Email sent by Bob Sulatycki (Chair West London branch) on behalf Of West London branch committee to Steve Dobbs 24.11.13

Steve’s reply to this point was as follows :

I’m not aware I’ve breeched any protocols but sincerely regret any offence caused by my raising theoretical differences. I understand from your letter that you are insisting that differences on theory between members should not be recorded, and in that spirit it was refreshing to see Billy Hayes, the CWU General Secretary and Vice Chair of the National Policy Forum of the Labour Party speaking at Socialism 2013 breaking these rules. The recording of this Labour Party stalwart can be found here at 31mins in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtMwPEgZZ8s . I have not submitted a formal complaint about the uncritical appearance of a senior Labour Party member at our conference (and subsequently on our website). In fact, I am very happy that Billy was able to communicate Labour Party values through Party structures as it confirms what I have always thought: that we are a democratic centralist organisation and people are applauded, not hounded, for different theoretical interpretations of Marxism, although in the case of Billy this is a stretch.

In our view this was not an adequate response. Our reply was as follows :

You repeat your previously stated view that our ‘offence’ is the result of your raising theoretical differences. However many times you raise that point, it is not true now, and never was in the past. The basis of the rupture in the relationship between you and members of the branch lies in your conduct in the course of this debate.

This is most obviously apparent over the issue of the recordings of meetings.

I note that you have conceded that you surreptitiously recorded the West London branch discussion on Democratic Centralism, which you seem to justify on the spurious ground that the public rally at Socialism 2013 has appeared on you tube.

As I wrote to you on 24 November:

‘I also understand that you made a recording of the leadoff and subsequent discussion of the branch meeting at which Hannah spoke on Democratic Centralism, without asking the permission of those present. Is this true? This is after you had been explicitly told previously, in regard to the debate with Lynn, that the branch did not want its meetings recorded or made public unless it was agreed, and explained why comrades need to be able to hold internal meetings in an atmosphere of trust. We can only assume this is why you resorted to recording secretly. What is the justification for this? ‘

You fail to make any serious justification.

The recording of that meeting on Democratic Centralism, and its subsequent use for factional purposes, is a fundamental breach of trust with the members of the branch. You did not seek permission to record the meeting because you knew you would be isolated in any vote on the issue, but you went ahead anyway, keeping the recording device hidden from view.

I don’t know exactly who you’ve shared the recordings with, but you have proved yourself in the past to be happy to share sensitive (and distorted) information with those hostile to the SP. In one sense, the recording will demonstrate that our meetings are conducted in an open and democratic manner, allowing full opportunity for everyone to argue their point of view – even when it is clearly a minority opinion in the branch.

But there is a more important, overriding principle at issue, which is the right of members (and non-members) to come to meetings on the understanding that they can have an open and frank discussion free of surveillance.

Your actions have caused you to forfeit the trust of the comrades in the branch. You need to know that members of the branch have expressed their lack of confidence in having you attending meetings given that you are prepared covertly to tape them. That is a view I share.

Your response, and your facile comparison to the recordings of Socialism, suggests that you consider it a trivial matter, and in fact an acceptable tactic to use on your own comrades. By this logic, if there are political differences in your UNITE branch, where you do face political opponents, you would feel entitled to record internal meetings without seeking permission, presumably for use as you see fit. I suspect that UNITE members would not find that acceptable.

Email sent by Bob Sulatycki (Chair West London branch) on behalf Of West London branch committee to Steve Dobbs 5.12.13

Although the correspondence relates to the recording and distribution of a branch meeting of Democratic Centralism with Hannah Sell in October 2013, in fact the issue of recording of meetings had first arisen in July 2013 before the Rate of Profit debate with Steve and Lynn Walsh. As part of the discussion over the nature of the meeting, Steve had been made clearly aware beforehand that no recording was to take place there.

We now believe, however, that this meeting was recorded as well. A number of questions follow on:

Who had access to these recordings?

Does this include non-party members?

How many meetings were recorded?

Did we rush to suspend?

In the November email sent to Steve, the following was put to him :

As a branch committee, we would therefore like to discuss with you as a matter of urgency what kind of protocols should operate in regard to the confidentiality of branch discussions and the use of social media, as well as the ongoing issues surrounding your relations with John and the branch committee.

Things cannot carry on as they are. Reluctantly, we would need to consider the options that are open to us to protect the functioning of the branch unless we have a clear indication from you that you are serious about resolving these issues.

Email sent by Bob Sulatycki (Chair West London branch) on behalf Of West London branch committee to Steve Dobbs 24.11.13

The last line gives the lie to any idea that Steve could have no idea that some form of disciplinary action might be forthcoming.

Was the suspension for political reasons?

Right from the beginning of the dispute, we have facilitated full and open debate at the branch. Steve had always been given every opportunity to put forward his ideas. Even at the AGM, by which time, because of the intense provocation of the preceding months and days, our patience with Steve had been tested, at least an hour of the meeting was given over to a series of motions and amendments Steve presented to the meeting.

Another member of the Group of 11 in our branch, has been unanimously re-elected on to the branch committee. We welcome her contribution to the branch, politically and organisationally. It is not our view that not sharing the party’s position on, for example, the cause of capitalist crisis would preclude any comrade playing an important role in the party.

The reality has been that over the last nine months Steve has not persuaded the majority of the branch to the validity of his ideas, and appears to have become ever more hostile to us (as with the party nationally) as time has passed. On a number of occasions it has been put to Steve that being in a minority on political issues might not be comfortable for him, but it is hardly evidence of a lack of democracy in the party.

Over the months of the dispute, Steve had become less and less active in party activity. Prior to the AGM, the last branch he had attended had been the meeting on Democratic
Centralism; he had not been present for any other party activities since then.

Was it an emergency?

Matters finally came to a head on the evening of Monday 17th February. Without warning Steve uploaded the entire contents of Steve’s formal complaint of harassment against John on Bruce Wallace’s Facebook wall, without any accompanying comment that the complaint had been withdrawn. The content was supposedly internal, supposedly confidential. The issues had, according to Steve, been resolved, and yet here they were in view on a semi-public forum, which includes members of the Labour Party in Brent.

Although the charges contained on the complaint are without foundation and frankly ridiculous, the overall accusation of conducting a campaign of harassment and abuse is potentially seriously damaging, politically as well as professionally, given that John lives and works in the local area.

On Tuesday 18^th and Wednesday 19^th John contacted Branch committee members. It was agreed that we should hold an emergency branch committee at the first opportunity in order to discuss what course of action we should follow.

Steve was notified that his conduct was to be discussed in advance of the meeting, although a decision about possible discipline awaited the Branch Committee itself.

We convened a Branch Committee at 6.30 of the evening of the AGM on Thursday 20 and agreed there to present a resolution at the end of the AGM calling for Steve’s suspension from membership of the party. This would still allow Steve to move the resolutions and amendments for Congress that he had sent through the day before.

Those who voted for the motion believe it was a question of publically defending our branch secretary. It was important to us to act immediately and decisively on this issue, as at all times John has been acting as our branch secretary with the full support of the branch. He didn’t deserve this nonsense, and we didn’t feel that he – or we – should have to continue to put with it.

Conclusion

Steve has claimed that the branch was a kangaroo court, and that he would have had more rights if he had faced the sack at work. Quite how Steve thinks he would have avoided immediate suspension on a gross misconduct charge on a dozen occasions if he had been at a workplace, shows a worrying detachment from the realities of working life. We did not act precipitously, far from it, but by the time of the AGM we concluded that enough was enough.

Bob Sulatycki 25.2.14

Resolution on conduct of Steve Dobbs

This branch believes that trust between Steve Dobbs and the branch has deteriorated to such a degree that he should now be suspended from the membership of the branch. This is due to his public attacks against the branch secretary, the branch, the leadership of the party, the CWI, his repeated failure to heed any requests from the branch to stop such attacks and his secret recording of a branch meeting when members had clearly stated that this should not happen without members’ consent

Motion passed by West London branch 20.2.14