The notion there is just one true path, one analysis, one definition, one interpretation etc, is ridiculous. A well thought-out and thorough “World Perspectives Document” isn’t the end of the discussion; it’s just the beginning. When Marx wrote Capital, he didn’t think that was the last word. Even the “truest” account of Marxism today should create more writing, more clashes, more debate - not less. If a document is produced and there is a deafening silence, that does not signify a healthy organisation. If there is no disagreement on important issues, that can suggest the theoretical level of the cadre is too low- and whose fault is that? Not the members! It means that Party norms are set to “monolithic silence”.
Party leadership objection no. 1: “Won’t people get confused if they see two different interpretations of Marx in the same publication?”
Answer: No, there is no evidence from Marxist history to suggest that.
Party leadership objection no. 2: “The principle of democratic centralism is important- i.e. the majority position must have a monopoly in all party publication and communications, and the minority aren’t allowed access to anything the public can see.”
Answer: There were always alternative views presented in the public journals of Marxist organisations. The CWI leadership do not have the confidence to allow this alternative view to be put. This is profoundly undemocratic. Incidentally, the Members Bulletins containing our faction documents were not sent to all the members. They were sent to Branch Secretaries who were able to distribute them - or not, in some cases. There is no trace of them on any CWI website. They have been burned on the bonfires of insecurity using Lynn Walsh’s back issues of the Economist as fuel.
This behaviour reflects the insecurity of a political tendency who know they are wrong and are desperately trying to tack to the left in their analysis of the world economy in a desperate bid to preserve Papal infallibility. If their position was right, I’d want my ideas on the website to educate workers against the LTRPF fetishists.
If there are two contending views - two interpretations of Marxism - then why can’t they be afforded some space in the same journal? Are people so thick that they won’t get it? No, of course not. The real reason is that the leadership do not want to, and cannot, get rid of their monopoly power. This is not the method of Lenin. Whilst we’re on the subject, that’s why almost every Conference resolution with minor differences gets remitted (in CWI parlance, remitted actually means not allowed on the agenda because tremendous social and moral pressure is put on you, making it appear that you are a splitter or that you don’t have complete faith in the Papal Bulls of the leadership). It’s not simply that they can never be wrong on anything; it’s that the ideas of the EC can never even be amended!
The idea that the existence of factions is a negative thing is garbage. If the ideas of the faction are erroneous, the march of events will prove them to be wrong. An edict from the EC will not. The membership and the wider working class have the right to know we are serious about debates and democracy. And democracy isn’t unanimous voting year after bloody year. We had unanimous voting in the USSR and it doesn’t convey unity - it expresses boredom and brain death.
Party Leadership objection no. 3: “We’re talking to each other rather than talking with the working class. We’re wasting time writing articles addressed to each other, when we could be writing articles explaining our position to working class people. A simpler variation would be: “You people are so hung up on theory! Look at Russell Brand. He’s telling it like it really is. He’s hanging with campaigners and activists. He’s doing something, not just talking.”
Answer: Really? What do you think Russell Brand is actually doing? Talking! Expressing ideas! Most of the time using the medium of TV and social media; explaining them to an audience. It doesn’t matter how big the audience is, he’s doing the same thing. It really is all about ideas. The hypocrisy of invoking “Russell Brand” as a defence of practice over theory is rank. The leadership condemn anyone who puts our Faction line in a public forum. But they don’t allow any forum for further debate and absolutely forbid any access to party publications- you’re lucky to even get a letter published!
But in one sense there is no need for a faction. This could all be solved if the EC lifted the suspensions and opened up meaningful discussions about allowing proportionate access to the Party’s journals for all trends of opinion. But that won’t happen because there can only be one ageing sun in the EC’s sky. EC members are too frightened and too conditioned to challenge.
And while we’re at it. Why don’t we publish the NC minutes online? And the EC minutes too. Even Khruschev allowed more access to Party notes than the CWI EC does!
-Karrl Marx
Leave a Comment