document represents the political positions of the expelled 35 members, and their general view on the failure of the fusion. Both groupings, together with a number of additional supporters have since jointly conducted a wide-ranging summer school, and agreed to discuss a common framework for a new organisation, which has adopted the interim name In mid-August a preconference of the Socialist Group formally opened a 3-month period of discussion preparatory to a November founding conference of a new, democratic The Socialist Group is committed to focus centrally on work in and around the mass organisations of the working class and the oppressed, and to make a priority of solidarity of Trotskyism (of either standing aside from serious work in the mass organisations of the labour movement or of watering down the programme to adapt to the labour move- ment), and a major break from the sec- tarianism characterising so many of post- war Trotskyist organisations in Britain. expelled, Among the 35 most were former members of the old WSL, including its group of carworker militants from Bl's Cowley factories, as well as other promi- nent trade union and labour movement activists. But the Democratic Centralist Faction which fought on against the expulisions con- tinued to reflect the fusion; it brought together virtually all the other surviving ex- WSL members with a sizable number of longstanding members of the old I-CL - and labour movement trade unionists activists of some prominence — who were moved into opposition by the bureaucratic actions of their old leadership. In the course of the three years since the fusion, the core leaders of the I-Cu suc- ceeded in winning over only two isolated individuals from the old WL to support their methods, while at the same time losing
Document of the 35 expelled
an important layer of experienced members of their own organisation.
The DCF — which did not necessarily share the political disagreements of the expelled comrades — sharply attacked the expulsions as symptomatic of a sectarian abandonment of the longstanding commitment to political regroupment of the revolutionary left that had been a prominent part of the public platform of the old I-CL. They linked this with other symptoms of sectarian degeneration:
* The present WSL leaders' sectarian and dismissive stance towards other currents of the world Trotskyist movement;
* Their lack of commitment to international solidarity work, and failure to analyse developments in the world class struggle;
* Their failure to develop any strategic orientation towards the current stage of the struggle in the Labour Party;
* Their lack of co-ordinated involvement in trade union and industrial struggles;
* The failure to educate the WSL's membership and develop a healthy internal climate of collective discussion and the political development of new layers of leadership. Instead came the selection by the leadership of members to be promoted, which has more in common with a system of personal patronage than any normally accepted Bolshevik method;
* And the rejection of collective decision-making, as epitomised by the lack of any functioning Editorial Board for the
It was obvious from the behaviour of the leadership before and during the Conference that they were no more willing to tolerate our Faction as a loyal, organised opposition than they were prepared to tolerate the expelled comrades.
Throughout the pre-conference period we were subjected to vicious campaigns of slander and character assassination. course, these methods of intimidation and abuse are not new or exceptional for the leadership; they have previously been used against individuals at the Centre. But they show quite clearly that the newly re-elected WSL leadership is incapable of viewing any serious opposition as anything other than a hostile, opponent organisation. degeneration and declining political level of members THE SPLIT which is now completed in the Workers Socialist League (WL) is another damaging and discrediting episode in the post-war crisis-ridden Trotskyist ment. It contains all the features with which we have become so familiar in our movement over the past 30 years— bone-headed sectarianism, bureaucratic and manipulative practices, and a complete disregard for all norms of communist democracy.
The International Communist League (ICL), in the shape of Sean Matgamna and Chris Reynonds approached the WL for fusion discussions in the autumn of 1980, and the result was a fusion which lasted for three years — from July 1981 until the confirmation
the WL was given in the sessions of the Conference which followed the expulsions. Although notionally a "normal" annual conference, it had not been prepared and preceded by any proper discussion on perspectives, on documents or resolutions. Every nerve had been strained simply to whip members up to vote for the expulsions. Nearly half the Conference was composed of members recruited since the fusion, with a significant number brought in only in the last few months, who had never met or worked with the 35 members they were being cynically used to expel from the
In the event the main line of work in Britain (the sketchy Tasks and Perspectives document) was moved, amended, "discussed" and voted upon inside 45 minutes -
something approaching a world record in the Trotskyist movement.
The "Organisation Report", supposedly assessing the state of the WSh and its work over the last year, laid virtually all blame for any failures on the expelled comrades, and the praise for the least success on the majority. This was clearly nonsense, and DCF comrades moved the reference back of this document. The cynicism of the majority to a clear assessment and accounting shown by the fact that this reference was passed by a majority, including the author of
A new resolution on Afghanistan, never previously discussed in the WSL, was "discussed" and voted on in 45 minutes flat. A threadbare and piecemeal "International report" served chielly to underline the near total absence of serious solidarity work in the purged WSL; much of what had been done previously had been done by those now expelled or by DCF members.
Meanwhile the elections to the National Committee reinforced the majority of the old ICL core leaders, who repeatedly insisted that Conference should give the new NC a "free hand" to decide policy and perspective for the movement in the next period. The DCF took up its allocation of seats on the NC in proportion to its strength at Conference.
Meeting a week later to assess the experience of the Conference and the implications of the expulsions, the DCF drew the conclusion that it would be unprinof our expulsions in June 1984. The two groups were of almost identical size at the point of fusion, creating a fused group of about 300 members.
It was hailed at the time by both organisations as the most important fusion of British Trotskyists since the unification during
For our part in the old WL, we saw it as a blow against the fragmentation the movement has suffered in the post-war years. We regarded it as a principled fusion between two groups which were striving towards a common method of work in the labour movement, and between which there were no programmatic nor theoretical differSocialist Viewpoint, No. 1. Autumn 1984. Page 21
cipled and would achieve nothing to remain any longer in an organisation which had so radically departed from the Leninist norms of Democratic Centralism, embraced methods of personalised slander and vilification as noxious as any of the degenerated former Trotskyist sects, and firmly embarked on a sectarian course.
There was no sign of serious independent forces outside of the DCF willing to fight the leadership, which had explicitly turned its back on the fusion and on any perspective of struggle for Trotskyist regroupment in Britain or internationally.
Twenty-three members of the DCF put their names to a 4-page resignation statement declaring their intention to open discussions with the 35 expelled members and with other forces, and in any event to continue to fight for a genuine regroupment of Trotskyist forces on a principled program-
The split in the WL now seems complete. But with the cancer of sectarianism established at the very heart of the core leadership, further decline and degeneration must be the immediate prospects facing the rump, purged WSL.
This latest tragic episode in the post war history of Trotskyism is no exception: rather it is a continuity of the pattern of fragmentation and political disorientation, opportunist and sectarian confusion, that has characterised every one of the various Trotskyist currents in recent years.
Many militants will be horrified at the thought that yet another left group is being formed, moreover with apparently similar politics to the WSL (although we believe that the lack of internal democracy in the WSL will inevitably lead to further political degeneration). However, the responsibility for this rests entirely with the leadership of the WSL.
In struggling to go forward and develop an organisational and programmatic basis for regroupment and build the kind of militant, coherent Marxist vanguard parties the working class so desperately needs in its struggles worldwide, the forces recently split from the WSL will be fighting to reverse the trend towards unprincipled splits and confusion, and to play a useful role in the development of the world movement. ences which could not be contained in a single organisation, providing a healthy democratic regime could be established We knew, however, that this would require a development on both sides if it was to be achieved, since the new group would inevitably contain a higher level of differences than existed in either pre-fusion organisa-
In hindsight there were two problems with this approach. Firstly, it was not shared by the ICL leadership. It soon emerged that far from seeing it as a principled fusion, they saw it as a cynical manoeuvre designed to outsmart a rival group and to gain an advantage for themselves. They saw three possi-
ble outcomes of the exercise, each of which they would find acceptable: we could be absorbed into their political tradition (the best option); they could split us and take those who could be absorbed; or they could fragment us and destroy a rival organisation. proved to be more profound than we had understood. We soon found that not only was our knowledge of important aspects of ICL politics inadequate, but this has been compounded by their approach to the fusion discussions ... which was to play down differences or even give the impression that they had been evolving in our direction in order to get the fusion agreed at all costs.
Atlantic war came nine months after the fusion, and triggered the first major political clash over a central political issue. (Clashes had already developed over more apparently minor issues.) The ICL leadership defended a position of "self-determination for the Falklanders". Behind it was a serious difference on the nature and role of world imperialism. Although it never came out in the fusion discussion it emerged that they held (in our opinion) a variant of a post-imperialism' position, which saw the decolonisations of the post-war period not as continuing imperialist domination in a new form, but as genuine political independence — or, as they put it, as "the highest level of political independence which could be achieved under capitalism". According to them what existed now was simply big and small, strong and weak capitalist coun tries -- not imperialist and imperialist-dominated ones. The National question has been resolved and the question of the permanent revolution no longer applied in these coun
The WL National Committee majority adopted the ICL position, and we called for a special conference. This, by a narrow majority, reversed the National Committee position and adopted our position of support for Argentina in the war. Then came a problem of democracy, since that decision was never in reality accepted by the ICL leadership, who conspired to ensure that the new position never appeared in the paper.
By the summer of 1983, the full spectrum of differences had emerged. "Federalism" in Ireland and neutrality (at best) on Common Market membership were clearly both connected to their position on imperialism. Their view of the Soviet Union came up both over Poland and the Korean Jet incident where they accused and retailed the most out of the USA. It became increasingly clear that despite their claim to stand for the imperialism, this was so heavily qualified that it had very little meaning. They said, for example, that all that could be defended
was the "potentially progressive nature of the property relations", that the imperialist
deformed workers' states, since they had
One of the most serious disagreements
which came out was over our conception of
the world Trotskyist movement.
everyone outside their own
: "absolutely useless
were the nucleus from which the Fourth
International would be rebuilt. directly to a "national Trotskyist" position, and was expressed through the view that it was necessary to build a group in Britain first, and think about some links later when clones of the British group could be established (in the traditions of Healey and Grant).
In addition it became clear that there was a difference over orientation to the labour movement, not just on issues like the general strike (where they oppose the call for a general strike to bring down a government), but they appeared to us to see a strategic road through the Labour left and to play down work in the trade unions as a less
All these differences, however, did not of themselves imply a split. What it did imply was that they would have to be discussed
extended period, and that a democratic regime would be necessary in order to do it and build the group at the
What happened was quite the reverse. Our experiences of the first and second legs of last year's three-stage first annual conference of the WL told us that the regime was being consolidated in the hands of the ICL leadership and that administrative measures would be increasingly used against us. After the second stage of the conterence in April — which was the main stage where the main documents were adopted and the
— we decided to form a There were two reasons for it: to argue for our politics, and to protect ourselves against the ICL leadership which had come out of the conference as the majorty on the main documents. They were now acting effectively as an undeclared faction, and we knew we were in a vulnerable situation.
It was obvious to us that a decision was taken soon after that conference to speed up the process and force us in the medium term to either agree with their politics, or submit to their politics and stop arguing for our own, or to get out of the organisation.
The most obvious sign of this was the replacement of Chris Reynolds by Sean Matgamna as the ICL side's joint editor of the paper. The other editor was from the old WS, which had been the arrangement since the fusion. The change from the ICL Reynonds had in Matgamna's view been letting our comrade have too much political decided that this must now come to an end. From then on, Matgamna did tighten the
Apolitical control
developed, and
ginalised in the pages of the paper.
stage where the WSC co-editor (who was not a member of the faction) was not pre-
pared to continue working on the paper. He
wrote to the Executive Committee saying
that unless things changed, and in particular
unless there was a proper editorial board
established for the paper, he would not be
prepared to continue working on it from the
first edition in the new year. It quickly
became clear that the majority had no inten-
tion whatever of conceding to this, and he
left the paper. This clearly moved the expul-
sion procedure into a higher gear. Socialist Viewpoint, No. 1, Autumn 1984. Page 22
A decision was taken (probably over Christmas) to create the conditions for a split in the short term by the sudden application of stringent organisational norms. When we protested on the Executive Committee that this was deliberate harrassment for a politi-
Sean Matgamna replied by saying, "Yes, you are being harrassed," but that we would be harrassed "within the constitution". Further, we were subjected to repeated and vicious campaigns of lies, slander and character assassination, similar to the one unleashed nationalist Faction prior to their expulsion in
Not that was new from the ICL leadership, who had long used methods of personal abuse and pressure on individuals or groups of individuals who threatened their political control. What was new intensity and the way it was used directly to
In fact we were not harrassed "within the
harrassment increased but it was clearly outside the constitution. Fines were imposed contrary to the constitution; lapsings were threatened outside the constitution, not only for dues arrears but for paper money, one-year-old paper debts, old National Committee pooled fare payments, and failure to pay money in by standing order rather than in cash.
We proposed that the 1984 WSL annual conference be held in April - one year after the election of the existing Executive, in order to discuss the worsening situation, but we were refused by the National Committee majority. At the same time we were told on the Executive Committee that the open access to the paper which had been established at the time of the fusion would now be ended. The 'majority' would now control every thing which went into the paper. They would decide the extent to which we would have access to it, it would be the 'majority' political line which would now be carried on all issues, whether the group had an established position on it or
They would determine the line, for on assessment of the industrial
Faced with these organisational moves, and having been rejected by both the Executive Committee majorities whenever we raised any of these issues, we decided to take the issues to the Control Commission It was self-evidently the right place to go, faced with the existing conditions on the Executive and National Committees. (The Control Commission is an essential component of a democratic centralist regime, one of its key functions is to hear the complaints of any member who may feel that he or she has been abused by a leading committee, discriminated against or had his or her democratic rights infringed upon.)
The Control Commission is an independent body, elected directly from the membership, and ultimately responsible to it.
Sean Matgamna and Chris Reynolds accepted that access to the Control Commission was a basic democratic right which could not be qualified or denied in any way. But by the time we were ready to lay complaints in front of the Control Com-
mission, things have changed dramatically.
Matgamna and Reynolds now tried to pre-
vent free access to the Control Commission. A resolution was adopted by the Executive Committee to the effect that we were out of order in laying our complaints in front of the Control Commission, and that we required to go to the Executive Committee and National Committee before we could go to the Control Commission. In other words, we must first complain to those who were responsible for infringing our democratic rights before we could go to those who we were asking to defend us.
The astonishing grounds given by Chris majority for this undemocratic pressure was Rule 12:iii of the WSL constitution which requires members of leading committees to raise political differences on those committees first before taking them to the membership. Political differences are a very diffe rent matter to allegations of infringements of democratic rights. Of course it is right for an Executive Committee member to take political differences to the Executive and discuss them there first. The Control Commission in any case is not concerned with political differences as such dently investigate disputes of facts relating to disciplinary cases, disputes between comrades or complaints against leading
Tor functionaries which are referred to it by any of the parties in dispute, the Executive Committee or the National
The section of the mandate which was relevant in our case was "complaints against leading committees or functionaries". We raised complaints against the National Committee and the Executive Committee, and we had a clear, unambiguous right to do so under the constitution of the WSL, and this was now being interfered with.
For these reasons we told the Executive that we could not accept their ruling and would take our complaint to the Control Commission irrespective. But they did not stop there. They took a decision to ban the Control Commission from meeting, although they backed off this when it unnerved some of their supporters. They did however outrageously interfere with the working of the Commission by trying to alter the constitution by a bizarre interpretation of the punctuation: "Reynolds also gave us considerable advice both previous to the meeting and. in his submission to the meeting about the function of the Control Commission and its competence to investigate and report on the charges. He laid particular stress on trying to interpret the punctuation of the constitution in such a way as to limit the power of the Control Commission to investigate only the facts of the dispute. We do not accept his reading of the constitution, and I am yet to meet an ordinary member of the organisation who does. It seems quite clear to us that we are charged to investigate whether or not we think members' rights have been infringed by a leading committee. Questions of facts are central, but so also are the constitution and its interpretation and the established norms and practices in this and other bolshevik organisations." (Control Commission Report).
Thus the Control Commission upheld all our complaints except one. They upheld the view that we had a basic right to take com-
plaints straight to them. They upheld the right of open access to the paper.
complaint that the proposed lapsing for all the different reasons were unconstitutional, and they decided to further
whether debt collection was being carried out in an unconstitutional way. They upheld our complaint about the uncon-
That meant that all the substantial complaints we made to the Control Commission which were connected with the organisational moves to split the organisation were upheld by the Control Commission. Nor can it be said that the Control Commission came to these conclusions because they were supporters of the Faction. Far from it. As they say themselves in the report, they were two supporters of the majority and one of the Faction, and were therefore representative of the rank and file members. We believe that any three rank and file members not rendered irrational by factional heat would have come to the same conclusions.
What happened to the Control Commission report alter it was submitted to the National Committee is also important. The National Committee rejected all those parts of the report which upheld our complaints. Then they avoided circulating the report, despite a National Committee decision to do
The Control Commission report was however successful in stopping the organisational moves against us. They stopped as soon as the Commission met. It did not end the matter though; far from it. The decision was then taken to openly expel us politically. They told us this quite openly at the Executive Committee explaining that the organisational moves were far too confusing and they needed a cleaner method.
The irony was that this process was initiated at the same National Committee meeting which discussed and rejected the.
The form this took (and Sean Matgamna said at the Executive Committee that there were many ways it could be done) was a demanding that we cease to be federalist and cease disruptive agitation. We were told that if we did not give a satisfactory answer to this, we would be expelled. It was a Catch-22 situation answer that Matgamna wanted, we had to admit guilt. There was no way we could do it. In any case, we had no constitutional obligation to answer this question; our only obligation was to uphold the constitution of the WSL, and to build the group on the basis of the agreed policies. At a meeting of the West London branch, we asked Reynolds what would be acceptable as an answer to the question "Would it be acceptable, for example, to reaffirm that we would group?" "No", he said, "You will have to specifically state that you will cease to be
We also asked Chris Reynolds at that meeting to give some examples of our "disruption". The only one he could give was that we had argued a different position from the majority on the role of the TUC in the NGA dispute. So our disruption was to argue
At the next National Committee meeting, Socialist Viewpoint, No. 1, Autumn 1984. Page 23
we duly replied saying that we would uphold the constitution of the group. It was inevitably rejected, and 35 of us were expelled without being afforded any of the democratic rights contained within the Constitution, which is absolutely clear on the point.
"Any member has the right to defend himself or herself before a decision on disciplinary action is taken against him or her, except in the case of fines for absence or suspensions where the WL's security and integrity is at risk. Any member subject to discipline must have written notice of the charges against him or her, and the time and venue of the meeting." This was excused on the basis that the majority had the right to interpret the constitution, under certain conditions.
Despite the fact that the constitution is so specific and unambiguous on the matter, no charges were ever produced, and 34 of the 35 had no opportunity at all to defend them-
Some majority supporters vainly argued that it was all within the constitution. Others like Matgamna himself agreed that it was necessary. He even argued that it was legitimate because of the miners stike! Clearly once you say that, you don't have a constitution or a democratic centralist organisation.
As ' soon as we were expelled, lodged our appeals against it. A further fac tion formed inside the organisation (the Democratic Centralist Faction) to fight for
expulsion to be reversed. petitioned the membership for a special conterence, and, just as we had done before, obtained more than 25% of the organisation to call for it. Again, just as in our case, they were refused. A decision was taken instead to call the WSL annual conference for the use of June, and our appeals
In order to answer some of the growing criticism inside the WSL as to the way expulsions had been carried out, we were allowed to make a half-hour presentation to each of the area aggregates held to discuss
During the course of the preconference
— the real political characterisaSean Matgamna Reynolds had had of the old WSh prior to the fusion. It emerged that they regarded us as non-Marxists. This is a very important definition. It means in other words that we were centrists. It is true that Reynolds says that we did not have fully hardened positions, and therefore we could be educated into Marxism by him and Matgamna, but we were
This position is fundamental to any analysis of the process of fusion, since it means that the fusion, from the ICL side, was
Tand unprincipled It means that the stated position - by Matgamna and Reynolds — at the time of fusion, that the old WL was revolutionary Marxist. was nothing than a cynical lie. Equally cynical were all the statements that there were no fundamental differences between us (except that they were Marxists and we were centrists!). All the task about "building the new group on the strengths of both groups" were equally cynical tactical statements.
It was as sick and dishonest as all the
"important fusion of Trotskyist groups since the war" with a centrist group? With a centrist group, you don't have a principled fusion, but a tacroadblock to revolution. You may decide to enter them, split them, break them up or
— but you do not have a principled fusion with them on the basis of "drawing on the strengths of both groups"
This essential point was stated in this way at every aggregate meeting in this discussion. Chris Reynolds was present at most of them and never challenged the point -under conditions where he challenged everything that he wanted to challenge.
This is not to say that the whole ICL were party to that. Far from it. They were taken along with the very reasonable things that
Tand Reynolds started about the old WL once they had decided on the fusion project and began preparing the ground. But this was the approach of
Tand they ultimately determined the line of the group.
All this raises the matter of what kind of internal party regime existed within the ICL, and what they had established inside the WSL after the fusion. At the time of the fusion it was difficult for us to judge -- we probably expected (although not in a very conscious way) that the turn of the ICL towards a less sectarian approach to the labour movement would be reflected in their internal regime. We quickly found that it very definitely was not. We found a thoroughly rigid and sectarian internal regime built up around two or three people, and tailored to build a group in their own image. We also found that this was compounded rather than improved by the pressure of the fusion. As the fusion went on, they became more sectarian and more clearly bureaucratic centralist.
It is of course by no means the first time that the Workers Fight/ICL core members have been involved in this kind of intervention into another group. It is a method which is very central both to their method of party building and to the kind of party they want
Essentially, the Workers Fight/ICl lead ers have never set out to be a party of any
kind, or even a League. They had always
been a faction or a tendency belore we
"fused". They were a faction during the "fu-
sion" and they see themselves as a tendency
in the future. In other words, they want, and
intend to have, a highly centralised group,
sterilised of all significant political differ-
ences which take on any organisational form
or mount any kind of challenge
This attitude is absolutely basic to their
politics and fundamentally affects every-
thing they do - not least in the kind of
regime they want in any group they build. It
comes out as the kind of "one-person man-
agement" they have fought for in the "fused"
group; it came out in differences over the
constitution just before the fusion (which
were mostly concerned with minority or
individual rights, or the extent to which the
organisation should be vertically control-
It comes out in Matgamna's view that the
leadership should be comprised of what he
calls "professionals". But this he does not mean comrades who dedicate their lives to the movement as many comrades do, but people who are paid for working full time for
— people without other jobs. It is amazing. It excludes workers by definition.
It is an attitude which affects not just the nature of the group, but also the politics it projects, of course, like the question of the reconstruction of the Fourth International. Reynolds into a totally sectarian blind alley in relationship to the general Trotskyist movement — both in Britain and internation-
"Yes, they are really all absolutely useless," says Reynolds when challenged. The implication is pretty obvious: the only healthy Trotskyist forces in the world are in the ICL — and in the ICL there are only two people who provide the theoretical posttions of the group - therefore the reconstruction of the Fourth International (or its theoretical regeneration) is down to them. Matgamna and Reynolds are going to con-
Trotskyist movement handed. It is as crude and sectarian as that.
It comes directly out of the kind of "purity" they want. Ultimately, Matgamna and Reynolds are the only "Marxists"; anyone who disagree with them is by
Tand therefore "absolutely
It leads to national Trotskyism, since everything in the Trotskysit movement outside Britain is "absolutely useless", where do you start? If the sole source of useful theoretical knowledge amounts to two people in one country, where do you go from there? The answer is obvious first build a group in Britain. (Theoretically this does not rule out international work, but in practical terms it does, since there is no drive for international work. It ends up with a few diplomatic Reynolds and the occasional leader of
Far from providing the starting point for the "theoretical regeneration of the Fourth International", this attitude seriously distorts any theoretical contribution that Matgamna and Reynolds might make. Any serious attempt to tackle the theoretical degeneration of the Fourth International must at least draw upon the efforts and experiences of the best elements within the world movement. It must be done as a part of the mainstream debate within the world movement as a whole. It certainly cannot be done whilst cut off from those debates and whilst isolated to a national Trotskyist situation in
Britain. How can a programme be reelaborated and redeveloped for the working
class of the world from such a situation? It is ridiculous.
The attitude further distorts the theoreti
cal positions they develop, since they reject
any contribution made by anyone consider-
ing themselves Trotskyist, and are attracted
instead (at best) to the more peripheral
strands of the movement. It is a process
which takes them ever further from the
Trotskyst tradition. This has been the basic
political position of the Workers Fight/ICL
and where it has been taking the group.
These expulsions, however, bring some-
thing new into it. What we are witnessing
now is a sectarian degeneration of the group
which comes out of the past attitudes, but
going far beyond it. This means the group Socialist Viewpoint, No. I, Autumn 1984. Page 24
that Matgamna is going to establish after these expulsions are completed Is some thing more sectarian, more overcentralised and undemocratic than has been established in the "fused" group. A glimpse of this can be seen already, since Matgamna prop oses to "reorganise" the Control Commission following its role in these events. Presumably it will not have the "independence" it is supposed to have under the existing WSL constitution, and will be tailored to the requirements of life inside a faction and designed to protect the leadership against
There are other things which show what the regime will be like. The justification for suspending the constitution of the WSL in order to carry out these expulsions was that the continuation of the old Workers Fight/ ICL tradition stands higher than the constitution of the group. It is an incredible cynical thing to do — enter a fusion on the basis of a democratic centralist constitution, knowing that you will only honour that constitution as long as it serves your political ends. As soon as it doesn't, suspend it and do as you like.
"Workers Fight/ICL tradition" of Matgamna Reynolds, it means that any group they form cannot have any kind of constitution which means a thing. As soon as it conflicts with the requirements of their views, pushed aside as fast as the constitution of the WSL was pushed aside.
Some comrades were persuaded to stay with Sean Matgamna on the basis of the argument, 'Where do you stand on the political questions?" (such as Afghanistan or the EEC). They were told to decide their position on the basis of these "political questions", and not on the questions of regime, or democratic centralism — which presumably are non-political questions.
The problem is that some of these "non-political" questions are some of the most difficult political questions facing the Trotskyist movement. How does democratic tralism operate in small Trotskyist groups in today's conditions? What kind of regime Is necessary to recruit members of the working class into it? How does such a group tackle the problems of the reconstruction of the Fourth International? How does it relate to the crisis-ridden Fourth International as it
If there is no answer to all these questions, then there is not much value in having
In our opinion, the sectarian line of Mat-
gamna and Reynolds on all these issues
excludes the possibility of them building
anything serious, whatever views they project on anything else. Matgamna, in one of
his statements says for example, that "splits
are the small change of the Trotskyist move-
ment". How sectarian can you get? As we
said in the debates inside the WSL - if
splits are the "small change" of the Trotskyist
movement, let's hope we never get on to the
main problems. What is needed is a break
from the blind sectarianism represented by
the Matgamna clique and a new effort made
to tackle the problems of the movement.
BOOKS If you agree with the politics of this magazine, why not read more background material? By Leon Trotsky Whither France? Fascism and How to Fight It Revolution Betrayed Permanent Revolution History of the Russian Revolution By James P. Cannon Notebook of an Agitator First 10 Years of American Communism All are available (add 50p post and packing) from Socialist Viewpoint.
£2.25 £0.65 £3.95 £3.00 £7.95 £4.50 £3.00
nearest contact. Name Address Trade Union Labour Party Telephone
Socialist Viewpoint has supporters and sellers in many towns in England, and in Scotland. If you wish to find out more about our politics and our work in the labour movement in your area, contact Socialist Viewpoint at BCM Box 3596, London WCIN 3XX, and we will put you in touch with your Please send me further details of Socialist Viewpoint
Socialist Viewpoint