Workers' Liberty

Gerry Byrne responds to Dave Spencer and 'Salma Mackenzie' on the 1984 WSL split.

See also Sects democracy and revolutionary unity

It is tempting to dismiss Dave Spencer's letters as the grumblings of a disappointed old man. Why re-open an issue nearly two decades old (literally before some of our members were born)?

There's a war on, haven't we got more important things to do? But it is precisely because of the war and the huge political ferment that has opened up, that we need to look closely at the issues.

Dave I am sure is genuine when he says:
"My main point was that Workers Fight (Clive's proto-AWL) prior to 1984 had a policy that all left groups should be in one organisation. There are no political differences which justify them being in separate groups. To me that is a non-sectarian or even anti-sectarian policy and I agree with it. In pursuit of this policy Workers Fight attempted to unite with several other left groups, which was a principled approach.
(DS: ww468)

It's an approach that seems to me to be urgently needed. But Dave is allowing himself to be used as a cover for precisely the opposite political agenda. It is much the same role as he played in 1984. There's no nice way of saying it - a dupe for those resolutely opposed to unity.

In response to my question about evidence of the AWL's sectarian degeneration since 1984, Dave says:

"let Gerry count the number of personal attacks in every one of the letters. To me personal abuse is a typically undemocratic and sectarian method and should be unacceptable in the socialist movement."
(WW 472)

Indeed.

So to call a political opponent "typically malevolent", "extremely well tutored in her organisation’s school of lies and falsifications - that or genuinely confused", "a reactionary bigot", "poison-pen dummy", "clowns 'perform[ing]' for the amusement and edification their emperors, princes and feudal lords’ might be seen as evidence of an undemocratic and sectarian method. All thrown at me in the last few weeks by leading members of the cpgb or their noms de (poison) plumes.

And Dave as far as I know has not been accused by AWL members of ‘logically’ intending the genocide of 30million mentally ill people.
Dave, I think I win hands down as the target for virulent personal abuse, and the cpgb for dishing it.

I persist despite that because I think there’s something far more important at stake than our egos. We need to unite the left in an open democratic free-thinking party. The problem is your contribution make sit less likely.

‘Another classic sectarian method is to distort what your opponent is saying. I did not call Sean Matgamna an “evil genius” or use the term “hand-raisers” - those terms are made up by Gerry Byrne.’

No, I did not make up the term ‘hand-raiser’. It is what the majority were repeatedly called by the Thornett faction, the implication being that we were incapable of independent political judgment. That same implication is surely carried by the charge ‘Gerry Byrne of the AWL is extremely well tutored in her organisation’s school of lies and falsifications - that or the woman is genuinely confused.’ (‘Alec Long’) and ‘Matgamna is the ventriloquist, Gerry Byrne the poison-pen dummy’ (‘Salma Mackenzie’). And while the actual phrase ‘evil genius’ does not appear, that is surely the import of those quotes and Jack Conrad’s repeated references to the ‘AWL patriarch’.

‘Machiavellian manoeuvres, witch-hunts, appeals to loyalty, ballot-rigging, silencing of opposition voices - all these methods have to stop. Otherwise in my opinion the vacuum on the left will not be filled by any of the present left groups.’
(Dave Spencer ww 470)

I notice that Dave, you have not responded to Jim Denham’s challenge to cite one instance of our ballot-rigging. The only ‘ballot-rigging’ I can recall is the Thornett group obtaining voting rights at conference on the basis of bounced cheques.

But for real distortion we must turn to ‘Salma Mackenzie’:

‘In short, a large minority was undemocratically bumped out on their arses in 1984 simply because of ideological disagreements with numero uno Sean Matgamna.’

They were not expelled for their political views, still less for their disagreement with Sean Matgamna (if we expelled people for that we would simply have no members). Part of the resolution expelling them reads:

‘The NC reaffirms its commitment to the democratic rights of political minorities in the WSL. Our objection to the faction is not its political views on various questions, but its disruption of the work of the League.

Comrades within the WSL who disagree with the conference or NC majority have the right of access to the Internal Bulletin; to put their views in branch, area and committee meetings and in the forthcoming pre-conference discussion period; to form factions and tendencies; to propose alternative slates and nominations for the NC, to get representation on the NC in proportion to the strength of support for points of view; etc. All these rights have been exercised, and will continue to be available. The only limitation is that such internal debate should be conducted in such a way as not to disrupt the practical work of the organisation.

We urge comrades who agree with the faction's politics yet are responsible about building the League to remain with the organisation on these terms.
National Committee, 31 March 1984’

(http://archive.workersliberty.org/publications/readings/trots/thornett.html)

And on ‘Salma’s four points of AWL sectarianism:
1. ‘setting-up the so-called ‘Leeds incident’ to inoculate AWL members against the CPGB’. The Leeds incident was ‘set up’ by Ray Gaston, and secondarily Mark Fischer and John Bridge. Dummy that I am, I opposed the Leeds incidence being given the prominence it was, both internally in the AWL and to the cpgb national organiser. MF gloated that he wanted to tell the AWL to ‘fuck right off’ and that the joint dayschool should be totally devoted to ‘Leeds’. So much for the cpgb’s commitment to unity.

2. ‘branding marching with muslims on February 15 a “popular front”’. This is a quite disgusting distortion. We have marched with Muslims on every Stop the War demo. We have, where we’ve been able to organise it, had anti-fundamentalist, ‘No to War No to Saddam’ contingents. What we will not do is concede to the small but politically organised islamist MAB that they represent ‘Muslims’. And we have said clearly that islamists are our class enemies, and we would not want them co-sponsoring our marches. In this we have been consistent. It is the cpgb who have done an about-turn.

3. ‘voting to close the Socialist Alliance’. Martin Thomas voted, along with every other EC member bar Marcus, to postpone the SA conference. Given the circumstances and the likely turn-out, he felt he had no alternative. This is hardly closing the SA, rather a recognition of its failure (largely due to the SWP) to make any independent role for itself in the anti-war movement.

4. ‘boycotting the March 12 People’s Assembly for Peace’. We didn’t boycott it. I was there. I was a delegate. We attempted to put a resolution, but were (predictably) carved out. As the person in the AWL who first raised the alarm about the People’s Assembly and argued that its lack of democracy was no way to build a working class-based anti-war movement, I should know.

What we didn’t do is get carried away with hysteria about the people’s assemblies representing proto-soviets.

So on the basis of distortions as the mark of a sect ‘Salma Mackenzie’ must surely be sectarian numero uno. Will the real ventriloquist please stand up.

.