The Causes of Capitalist Crisis

28 February 2014 Members’ Bulletin 5 The Causes of Capitalist Crisis

1 Contents

EC statement page 3 The debate on causes of capitalist crisis, democratic centralism and other issues

Resolution and amendments to the British page 10 Democratic Perspectives document moved by Steve Dobbs Centralism: Freedom of (but not passed) at West London branch, 20 Debate, Unity in Action February 2014

Statement by West London Socialist Party page 3 Setting the Record Straight

2 While the criticisms of the such individuals and small The debate on causes groups is par for the course, on this occasion the misinformation is being fuelled by a small group of party of capitalist crisis, members and so the EC feels it is necessary to produce democratic centralism a summary of the debate to date. 2. Far from trying to supress debate, the CWI and the and other issues 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 EC statement from Militant Labour to Socialist Party, led to volu- 1. For almost two years a debate has taken place in both minous members’ bulletins, with a ‘tendency’ being the England and Wales and Scottish sections of the formed and three different positions being argued. CWI between the leadership of both sections and a Some of those who formed a tendency subsequently small group of comrades (nine in England and Wales left the party – but were not expelled – and others re- and two in Scotland). The debate initially centred on mained and continue to play a vital role in the party. A the causes of the capitalist crisis, but quickly broad- few years later we had the debate with the leadership ened to other issues, including the accusation that the of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), then part of our party has moved to the right and now has a centrist international. Contrary to the myth spread at the time, approach, and that we have an undemocratic, bureau- we did not oppose the foundation of the SSP, but we cratic party regime. At the time of writing two of the did oppose the liquidation of a distinct revolutionary comrades in the opposition group – Bruce Wallace current within the SSP. This was a sharp debate, but (BW) in Scotland and Steve Dobbs (SD) in England we did not expel our comrades or even accede to their and Wales – have been suspended from membership demands for ‘an amicable divorce’, not for ‘super-dem- of the CWI. Both have publicly accused us of doing ocratic’ reasons but because we hoped to convince the so in order to prevent ‘heretics’ putting their point majority of our point of view. of view, including preventing SD from taking part in the England and Wales national congress taking place 3. The current debate has been conducted in the demo- from 8-10 March 2014. In fact SD stood for election to cratic traditions of our party, at least as far as the lead- congress as a delegate from his branch prior to his sus- ership and the majority of the membership is con- pension, but was not elected as he has not been active cerned. Unfortunately this has not been the approach with the party or attended a branch meeting between of the small opposition, which we would argue has 17 October 2013 and the meeting when elections were crystallised into a grouping hostile to the party and the held on 20 February 2014. This has not prevented vari- CWI. Despite this extensive material on the debate has ous political opponents leaping on the bandwagon1. been produced by the party. Every document submitted by the opposition grouping to the party has been 1 Nick Wrack, for example, has posted on Facebook saying that: published. So far four members’ bulletins have been “it does rather look as though [their suspension] is because they produced on the debate, with a total of 77,410 words, have criticised the SP leadership on Marxist economics.” This is 45,659 of which have been written by the opposition. disingenuous of Nick given his own experience. Nick was a member Democratic internal debates have been organised of the Executive Committee of our party who took a minority view in Yorkshire, the North West, East Midlands, London during a discussion we had in 1996 on changing our name. He (to which comrades from South East and Eastern re- resigned from the EC but, far from using bureaucratic methods to gions were also invited), South West and Wales (plus stop him raising a different point of view, the rest of the EC tried to the debates that have taken place in Scotland). All of convince him to remain a member of the body. Nick later drifted the debates have been conducted in the traditions of 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 our organisation with equal time for both sides and who have given vocal support to our current small minority – John comradely discussion. All this for a very small group Bulaitis has also joined the fray. Other political opponents have of comrades; in a party with over 2,000 members only also joined in the attack. Andrew Kliman has posted both BW’s nine comrades in England and Wales have supported and SD’s statements on his FB page, describing them as the “CWI any of the opposition’s documents, and only five have purge”. Mick Brooks has produced blog posts supporting the op- supported all the documents. Yet the leadership of the position. The left-gossip paper Weekly Worker has written an article party has gone to considerable – some would undoubt- headlined ‘CWI – a bureaucratic farce’. edly argue excessive – lengths to facilitate the debate

3 within the party. The small number of comrades who ever, this was only after discussion, initially verbally, support the opposition grouping is also illustrated by had taken place internally over a number of years. Other the fact that up until now (two weeks before our na- debates – such as the name debate referred to earlier – tional congress) not one branch has passed an amend- were conducted internally at the time, with documen- ment or resolution to the conference supporting their tation only appearing publicly – on Marxist.net – after viewpoint. Of course, this does not preclude delegates the debate had concluded. Whatever decision is taken raising points in support of the opposition at the con- on how to conduct a specific debate the priority has to gress should they wish to do so. be to try and ensure that party members have the opportunity, at least initially, to consider the issues and 4. Yet SD has dismissed the debates that have taken place contribute to the debate, without instead being forced as “pathetic” and “denunciation sessions”, and ac- to focus on defending the party from political oppo- cused us of supressing debate, saying that: “The CWI nents. And crucially, any loyal opposition would abide leadership can’t handle the polemic. So they resort by the democratic decisions of the party about how the to bureaucratic manoeuvres.” Prime amongst these debate should be conducted while of course having the alleged ‘bureaucratic manoeuvres’ is the decision by right to argue for a different approach via the structures West London branch, now endorsed by the England of the party. Instead of this the opposition grouping has and Wales EC, to suspend SD, and the decision by the systematically ignored the party’s wishes on how the Scotland EC to suspend BW. These suspensions have debate should be conducted. taken place after the debate has been going on for a year, and are not because the individuals concerned 6. Their complete misunderstanding of democratic cen- disagree with the leadership on the causes of the eco- tralism is demonstrated in the resolution on the issue nomic crisis, nor because of the wider, and fundamen- that SD unsuccessfully moved at West London branch tal, political disagreements they have gone on to raise, (appended to the end of this statement). In it SD gives but because they have systematically used social me- three quotes from Lenin which he believes demon- dia to attack the party in increasingly strident tones. strate his case: This has included all kinds of attacks on individual comrades – including on rank and file members as “‘Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Par- well as those in leading positions - as well as the party’s ty Programme must be quite free… not only at Party ideas in general. This is despite the fact that both CWI meetings, but also at public meetings.” sections have agreed that the discussion should be conducted internally at this stage and have repeatedly “The Party’s political action must be united. No ‘calls’ written to the opposition grouping asking that they that violate the unity of definite actions can be toler- abide by this decision. The fact that the England and ated either at public meetings, or at Party meetings, or Wales National Committee unanimously agreed that in the Party press…” this specific debate should be conducted internally at this point - and also generally agreed at the November “In the view of the Central Committee, it is essential 2013 NC – that: “it is not acceptable for a member or to give all party members the widest possible freedom group of members to run social media forums that are to criticise the central bodies and to attack them; the in opposition to our party’s basic ideas and actions”, Central Committee sees nothing terrible in such at- is simply dismissed by the opposition group on the tacks, provided they are not accompanied by a boycott, grounds that we have a wrong conception of demo- by standing aloof from positive work or by cutting off cratic centralism which, the comrades argue, always financial resources.” permits the public airing of differences. 7. Aside from the fact that the last quote is unintentional- 5. In fact, democratic centralism is by its very nature a ly ironic, given that both SD and BW have not been at- flexible method of organisation, where the ‘mobile bal- tending party meetings and have been “standing aloof ance’ (as Trotsky described it) between democracy and from positive work” for more than four months, while centralism varies according to concrete circumstances. some other supporters of the opposition have been in- This includes decisions on whether debates should be active for years, it shows a total incomprehension of conducted internally or publicly. The CWI has conduct- Lenin’s attitude to democratic centralism to think that ed a series of debates in a public, or semi-public, form. you can rip three quotes out of context and draw up a The debate on the class character of China, for example, general ‘formula’ for democratic centralism which ap- has taken place in the pages of Socialism Today. How- plies in all circumstances.

4 8. The final quote is taken from a letter Lenin wrote in federation, or of equality for all ‘trends’ shall be unre- 1904 on behalf of the RSDLP CC to the Menshevik- servedly rejected, and the only principle to be recog- controlled Iskra editorial board at a time when the nised shall be that of loyal submission of the minority divisions between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks to the majority.” He added that: “The existence of two were hardening into two distinct political forces. The rival newspapers in the same town or locality shall be first two quotes are from 1906 when, following the absolutely forbidden. The minority shall have the right revolution of 1905, thousands of workers had flooded to discuss before the whole Party, disagreements on into the RSDLP and the pressure of the revolutionary programme, tactics and organisation in a discussion movement had acted to push the Mensheviks to the journal especially published for the purpose, but shall left. In these conditions the 1906 Unity Conference not have the right to publish, in a rival newspaper, pro- brought the two factions together again. Nonethe- nouncements disruptive of the actions and decisions less, the united party was not a cohesive revolutionary of the majority.” The Socialist Party EC’s demands that party based on a common understanding of the tasks the opposition grouping close down their rival web- it faced but remained a party containing two distinct sites and social media, and instead raise their points political trends, the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. The via the democratic structures of the party, are a mod- Mensheviks had a majority on the Central Committee ern day equivalent to this point by Lenin. However, at elected by the Unity Conference. In order to defend a other times discussions between trends in the Bolshe- revolutionary programme and not to “permit the Men- vik party did take place publicly or semi-publicly. sheviks to lead us by the rope”,2 as Lenin put it, it was essential for the Bolsheviks to emphasise their rights of 11. In fact, initially, the discussion on the causes of capi- public criticism. talist crisis did take place publicly, with BW having letters published in four issues of Socialism Today. An 9. Today as well, we argue for a different organisational interesting and educational discussion on the causes form for a new broad workers’ party than we do for our of capitalist crisis could have continued in the pages own party. The organisational difference reflects the of Socialism Today over a period of time were it not for political differences between a broad party embracing the approach taken by the opposition grouping. BW different political trends and our party which is based launched his blog, ‘Marx returns from the grave’ on on a high degree of common understanding, and aims 13 March 2013 and his since used it to publish endless to unite the working class around a clear Marxist pro- attacks on the party. By the time the EC produced its gramme. For a broad workers’ party we argue for a first response to the opposition grouping, on 19 Sep- federal approach – with full freedom of expression for tember 2013, BW had published 73 blog posts that fo- different political trends – whereas our party operates cused on attacking the ideas of the CWI. SD published on the basis of democratic centralism. nine blog posts opposing the party’s position on the causes of capitalist crisis over the same period. In ad- 10. This does not answer, however, exactly what the bal- dition to this there were numerous public criticisms of ance should be in a revolutionary party between de- the party on Facebook and other social media, mainly, mocracy and centralism in specific circumstances. but not exclusively, by BW and SD. This wholesale at- Generally, we favour maximum discussion until a tack on the party’s ideas changed the character of the decision is arrived at, and then more emphasis on debate, from a difference on the causes of capitalist ‘centralism’ as the party drives to implement the de- crisis to also being a discussion on whether the party cisions that have been democratically agreed. How- had “a bourgeois conception of the crisis” (BW’s blog, ever, the political situation and needs of the party at a 1 June 2013), put forward “crass left reformism” (BW’s specific conjuncture also have to be weighed up along blog, 24 August 2013), and was destined to become with other factors. Generally a greater degree of pub- “the centrist underbelly of a left reformist project” lic discussion is inevitable in a mass party. However, (BW’s blog, 12 September 2013). These political points very different quotes of Lenin, emphasising the need were accompanied by endless invective. To give a few for internal rather than public debate, can be given to of hundreds of examples, BW on his blog has pub- those highlighted by SD. In 1914, for example, after the licly described two rank and file comrades who dared Bolsheviks and Mensheviks had finally split in 1912, to disagree with him as “a bit dense” and having “a Lenin stated that for the Bolsheviks: “The principle of complete ignorance of Marxist theory”. BW described the party leadership as not having “a sane, let alone a 2 Account by Lunacharsky, quoted in Lenin and the Revolutionary Marxist, analysis”, and of “delivering a complete load Party, Paul Le Blanc. of bollocks on Marxist theory”. He also asked of the lat-

5 est ‘why you should join’ pamphlet: “What idiot wrote we will go on to illustrate, have a schematic, ultra-left this nonsense?” This is not a ‘healthy debate’ as the approach to the issues the party faces. If the approach opposition claim to desire, but – on the part of BW, SD of this grouping was in danger of being adopted by a & co – a public slanging match. majority – or even a sizeable minority – of the party, the party’s leadership would have no choice but to 12. Given the relentless character of these attacks on the make the debate the central task it faces, prioritised party the EC agreed it was necessary to answer them above other things, in order to strive to prevent the publicly by publishing its initial statement on the party, or sections of it, adopting a disastrous course. causes of capitalist crisis on the Socialist Party web- However, this is not the case. On the contrary, after all site. However, in order to allow party members the the debates there are still only a tiny number of com- time to consider the issues at stake – which were now rades who support the opposition’s viewpoint. the party’s fundamental programme and approach – it was also agreed that the debate should, with the ex- 15. Ample warning has been given to the opposition that ception of publishing that first EC document, initially continuing to publicly attack the party would lead to be conducted internally with contributions from both disciplinary action. Following numerous verbal and sides published in members’ bulletins. written appeals, BW was written to by the Scotland EC on 28 October 2013 demanding that he cease publicly 13. The leadership of the party also has the duty to balance attacking the party. The Scotland EC finally suspended the amount of time given to the debate against the oth- him from membership on 12 February 2014. SD was er pressures that the party faces. The totally unfounded written to by the England and Wales EC on 10 October accusation that we have ‘supressed’ debate seems to 2013, 28 November 2013, 28 January 2014 and 11 Feb- be partly based on our refusal to make this debate the ruary 2014 making the same demand. The last letter, central issue facing the party. However, any debate has also sent to other administrators of the ‘Really Radi- overheads, which a responsible party leadership must cal CWI’ Facebook group, made explicit that the op- take into account when laying out the guidelines for a position group had to, “close down the marxistworld. given discussion. In the 1990s the party was involved in net website and, as you are not allowed to change the a series of time-consuming theoretical debates, which name of the Really Radical CWI Facebook group, close were essential to reach political clarity in a new world this down as well. In addition you all cease using social situation. However, while they were taking place the media to publicly attack the party and the CWI. If you party had no choice but to turn inwards, thereby limit- do not carry out these measures, and agree to abide ing our ability to intervene into the labour and trade by the decisions of the NC and EC on the conduct of union movement. Today, partly as a result of the de- the debate from now on, we will discuss taking disci- bates that took place then, the party has a high degree plinary action against you.” of theoretical and political unity. This has enormously increased our ability to intervene effectively into the 16. The demand that the opposition grouping close its class struggle. It would therefore be criminal to unnec- website marxistworld.net was refused by SD, we as- essarily turn the party inwards. This is not in any way to sume on behalf of the other members of the opposi- suggest that we do not want theoretical discussion; on tion (although we would be happy to hear otherwise), the contrary, we actively encourage it although, as pre- on the laughable grounds that: “this is the personal viously stated, it is generally better to explore issues via property of one individual, and it is not in our power internal discussion in the first instance. Nonetheless, a to force them to close it down.” Yet the ‘about’ section constructive debate on the role of the tendency of the of the website states that: “Marxist World is a Marx- rate of profit to fall in capitalist crisis could have taken ist resource website established in January 2014 by place in the pages of Socialism Today over a period of members of the CWI.” So far the only contributors of time, but it would have been wrong for that particular articles are three supporters of the opposition: Pete issue to have cut across the party’s work or for it to have Glover, Steve Dobbs and Bruce Wallace, plus Andrew resulted in the pushing aside of the many other issues Kliman! In addition the debate documents have been that Socialism Today has analysed in the last period. In published on it. Clearly the opposition are, at the very our view, however, only this would have satisfied the least, ‘in touch’ with the owner of the website, as they demands of BW and co. say that the individual has agreed: “to remove the debate documents from it on the basis that all the docu- 14. Instead of a constructive debate we have faced the ments from the debate are made public on the Social- crystallisation of a small opposition grouping who, as ist Party and CWI’s website, where the first document

6 from the EC has already been made public.” So why branch allowed him to move his motions, although hasn’t the individual concerned been asked by the op- they were all defeated. He has also cut his subs by over position group to close the website down as insisted 90% from their previous level. Of course, comrades upon by the EC? can be temporarily inactive or have to cut their financial contribution for personal reasons, but to find the 17. The response of SD regarding marxistworld.net is not time to launch attacks on the party while doing noth- at all serious, nor has their response been to the ques- ing to assist in building it is a clear indication of some- tion of the ‘Really Radical CWI’ FB group. The oppo- one whose trajectory is out of our ranks. The consider- sition group have set up a new group, ‘Really Radical able patience of West London branch finally reached Marxism’, which at least does not in its name imply it its limits when SD posted a letter on FB which he had represents the CWI. However, it is absolutely clear this submitted to the EC the previous August. The letter ac- has been done as a cynical manoeuvre, in order to be cused his branch secretary of ‘harassment and abuse’. able to claim to have met the EC’s demand. This was Not only did SD post this potentially very damaging demonstrated by a conversation between BW and SD letter on a public forum, he failed to mention that he which briefly appeared on the newly founded ‘Really had subsequently withdrawn it – stating in November Radical Marxism group’: BW: “Steve I suggest we add 2013, regarding his complaint, that he considered “all the rules from the RR-CWI group that we were practi- outstanding issues had been resolved”. It was this in- cally forced to shut down on pain of disciplinary ac- cident that took the considerable patience of the West tion. i.e. unwarranted censorship and top down ad- London branch to its limits, and led to them taking the mins on official CWI sites.” And SD in response: “I decision to suspend SD from membership. This deci- have but removed references to the CWI. Just so they sion has subsequently been ratified by the EC. SD of have nothing to stand on. Now I’m going to delete this, course has the right to appeal, initially to the National so new members don’t see.” Meanwhile, the essential Committee. demand of the EC that the opposition grouping “cease using social media to publicly attack the party and the 20. In our view the opposition’s insistence on raising the CWI” has not been met. On the contrary, ‘Really Radi- issues publicly reflects that their primary audience is cal Marxism’ is, if anything, more vituperative than the not the membership of the CWI but opponents of our previous group. Asked to clarify the purpose of the ‘Re- party outside of our ranks. The most recent documents ally Radical Marxism’ group SD actually posted in the written by the opposition – an attack on Peter Taaffe’s group that its aim was: “Attacking the leadership of the review of Lars T Lih by Peter Glover and a response to CWI, yes, but not attacking the CWI as a whole,” com- Geoff Jones’s piece in Members’ Bulletin 4 – have not pletely ignoring the democratic decision of the Social- even been submitted to the party for publication but ist Party, and the view of the overwhelming majority instead only published on marxistworld.net. One of of our members, that this debate should be conducted many coments from SD on Facebook illustrates that, in internally. reality, he considers himself outside of the CWI: “The CWI like to pretend that no one outside the Party ex- 18. In addition, SD’s branch, West London, has been at- ists. One comrade told me that we needed to ‘inoculate tempting for months, without success, to get SD to members against the sects’. i.e. anyone else outside the abide by its democratic decisions on how the debate CWI is a sect, because they don’t agree with the leader- should be conducted. The branch first passed a reso- ship of the CWI’s politics. Just as me and Bruce Wallace lution on 18 July 2013 insisting no member of the are labelled ‘ultra-left’ by the leadership. Of course, a branch conduct the debate publicly, particularly via serious discussion on the genuine political differences social media. SD was the only branch member to vote with either ‘the sects’ or the CWI minority is out of the against the resolution. Further emails were sent by the question.” (18 02 14). In the same conversation he goes West London branch committee to SD on 24 Novem- on to declare: “Vanguard of the class my arse.” ber 2013 and 5 December 2013, repeating these points and also stating that their branch meetings should be 21. It is absolutely false to say that we are not prepared not be secretly recorded, as SD had done on at least to debate with political opponents outside our ranks, two occasions. particularly where they represent significant forces. On the contrary, we have written a book taking up the 19. SD has repeatedly refused to abide by the democratic ideas of the SWP, and have debated with them at our decisions of his branch. He has also completely ab- Socialism event, something they have consistently re- sented himself from party activity. Despite this the fused to reciprocate. Nor do we automatically dismiss

7 other political organisations. Where we meet other more members?” (19 March 2013). So at this time SD forces with which we can find agreement on the cen- was far more unconditional than we would ever be on tral tenets of programme and method we seek to col- guaranteeing that UNITE would move further to the laborate, and if possible to merge in a common organi- left under a second Len McCluskey term or that he sation. A number of CWI sections have been formed would reconsider Labour funding. Yet a few months on this basis. But of course we defend our programme later the opposition of which he is a part is accusing us and method, not in a dogmatic way, but because we of: “Supporting McCluskey in the vague hope he may believe it offers the best means to politically arm the decide to create a new workers’ party in the indeter- working class for the struggle for socialism. SD, by con- minate future after a ‘betrayal’ by Labour is a hostage trast, clearly no longer believes this, if he ever did. On to fortune and profoundly wrong.” (Building a revolu- the same day on FB he also stated that: “the American tionary party in the 21st century, January 2013) Yet far ISO, like the Trotskyist Left in general, is falling apart, from basing ourselves on a ‘vague hope’ Len McClus- unable to reconcile the changed objective situation key might create a new workers’ party we have always with its false methods. Parties that continue with this clearly criticised his strategy to reclaim Labour and ar- sect-’Leninism’ are doomed to oblivion.” Given his gued to build support for a new workers’ party among failure to exempt the CWI from his sweeping condem- UNITE members. This, it seems, is a case of ‘physician nation of the Trotskyist left it is clear that he includes heal thyself’. us in it. 23. Nonetheless the amendment is correct to state that 22. The amendments to the British Perspectives docu- the vote for Jerry Hicks shows the radicalisation of an ments moved by SD at West London branch (ap- important layer of UNITE members, a point we made pended to the end of this document) show the almost at the time. However, we will never win radicalised complete absence of concrete conclusions drawn workers, in UNITE or elsewhere, by the approach pro- by the opposition. Not one serious difference on the posed in these amendments. SD states: “Increasingly consciousness of the working class or perspectives is industrial struggles must be seen as not simply a fight raised in the amendments. At the same time, however, over the share of the (dwindling) surplus value, but they demonstrate an ultra-left and completely rigid, fundamental struggles for control over the means of abstract approach to the class struggle and the work- production, challenging the foundation of the capital- ers’ movement. The amendments effectively argue ist system itself.” What does this actually mean? ‘Must that we should have backed Jerry Hicks in the UNITE be seen’ by whom? Is SD suggesting that we intervene general secretary election which in our view would in strikes demanding that the workers ‘must’ under- have been a serious mistake. Despite our criticisms stand that their struggle is for control over the means of Len McCluskey it was correct to give him critical of production? It has never been our approach to support in the general secretary election – based on shriek at workers about what they ‘must’ do. Anyone his record of backing strikes which has led to workers who intervened into a picket line in defence of jobs, or winning concession from the employers in the BESNA against pay cuts, with a starting point that their strug- dispute, the blacklisting campaign, the London bus gle was actually over the control of the means of pro- strike and others - and of the possibilities to build duction would receive short shrift. As we explain in the an open, democratic left in UNITE. The union lead- British Perspectives document we take a transitional ers still have enormous authority and in general our approach, always basing ourselves on what is objec- approach is to raise necessary criticisms, but to do so tively necessary, but posing it in a way that takes into in a firm but friendly and balanced way. In fact at the account the consciousness of the workers themselves. time SD went further in this direction than us! As he Our starting point in a strike over pay is how best to argued on FB in response to a call to back Jerry Hicks: win that dispute, while of course linking it to a broad- “Jerry’s programme is to the left of Len, but even if he er socialist programme, including that the only way was elected he would have zero chance of carrying out to permanently protect workers’ pay is for the work- his programme due to his hostility and complete lack ing class to take power and begin to build a social- of tact towards the leadership of the Union. Do you ist planned economy. Clearly, however, SD does not want 5 years of in-fighting under Jerry and nothing agree with this. He proposes to simply delete the para- achieved, or 5 years of moving to the Left, reconsider- graphs making these points in the British Perspectives ing the Labour funding (Len said he will back coun- document. cillors expelled from Labour for voting against cuts), supporting the call for a general strike and recruiting 24. SD, BW and co deny that they share a political outlook

8 with Andrew Kliman and his co-thinkers in the Marx- of SD and BW, however, has been an outrageous attack ist Humanist Initiative (MHI). However these amend- on the stewards at Grangemouth: “It seems that the ments are a clear step in the direction of their com- Unite stewards took the workforce to the edge of bour- pletely abstract approach, which is based on simply geois respectability but didn’t like what they saw be- ‘educating’ working class people in ‘Marxism’ while yond that, and so backed off.” (BW’s blog – co-authored waiting for capitalism to eventually collapse. Discuss- by SD - 21 October 2013). BW, based in Scotland, took ing the CWI debate in an online article, the MHI de- no part in the Grangemouth struggle, yet publishes clare: “What we object to is unions’ common practise crude attacks on the stewards from afar. The opposi- of telling workers that the company has plenty of mon- tion is as crude and simplistic on the trade union bu- ey and is denying them their ‘fair share’.” They contin- reaucracy as it is on the ‘aristocracy of labour’. In fact, ue: “Workers need to know that their getting a bigger while the trade union officialdom overall undoubtedly slice of the pie depends not only on the militancy of plays a conservative role it is not homogenous. Even their struggles, but also on whether their company’s in the most right-wing trade unions, such as UNISON, rate of profit is sufficient to pay them more without it the seemingly monolithic conservative apparatus can going bankrupt.” fracture under the pressure of the class struggle, with a section being won to a more left, fighting position. 25. SD’s amendments are equally crude on the question This is particularly the case if we are present, arguing of the trade union bureaucracy and the ‘labour aris- for the union to adopt a fighting strategy, for the elec- tocracy’, which he simplistically lumps together and tion of full-time officials on a worker’s wage, and so on. describes as being “ultimately wedded to the interests of the ruling class”. This is more akin to the ideas of syn- 27. There are other points that could be made on the po- dicalism than it is to our tradition. The concept of an litical errors of the opposition as summed up in the ‘aristocracy of labour’, first described by Marx and En- resolutions and amendments below. In the view of gels, is of a relatively privileged layer of mainly skilled the EC it is an indication of the sound theoretical and workers which the conservative trade union leaders, political foundations of our party that so few com- and the capitalist class, attempt to lean on. Today, the rades have given support to the schematic ideas of relatively privileged layer of the working class is much this tiny opposition. We believe that their ideas would smaller than in the past, as a result of the general driv- be a disaster if they were to be adopted by the party. ing down of pay and conditions over the last forty Nonetheless, they have the right to continue to argue years. In addition most of these workers, far from en- their point of view. However, with rights also come re- joying rising living standards, are suffering attacks on sponsibilities. The opposition has the right to argue its their pay and conditions, even if they remain better off point of view, but it has the responsibility to do so in than unskilled sections of the workforce. This gener- the way that the party has democratically decided. It ally makes it objectively far easier to convince them to also has the responsibility not to carry out “a boycott” unite with other sections of the working class. of party activities or to stand “aloof from positive work” or cut off “financial resources”. If the opposition group- 26. A clear example of this is the recent tube strike where ing is serious about trying to build the Socialist Party large numbers of the tube drivers, a relatively highly- and the CWI, we insist they show it by demonstrating paid section of the working class as a result of their their willingness to abide by the decisions made. This industrial strength, struck in solidarity with the more means closing the marxistworld.net website, ceasing lowly-paid station staff whose jobs, pay and conditions to attack the party publicly by any means and remov- were the ones immediately under attack. The Grange- ing previous attacks from the various social media out- mouth oil refinery workers have also been relatively lets where they have been posted, and by agreeing to highly paid. Jim Ratcliffe and INEOS, however, correct- abide by party decisions on how to conduct the debate ly understood that this powerful section of workers, far in future. It also means demonstrating a willingness to from being ‘wedded’ to the ruling classes’ interests, work constructively to build the party. If the opposi- had won a number of victories both against them and tion grouping, or members of it, are not prepared to construction industry employers. INEOS therefore set carry out these very moderate responsibilities the out to prepare to defeat the Grangemouth workers. As conclusion must be drawn that they no longer wish to we explain in the party material on Grangemouth and be part of the CWI. This is not the first debate to have the British Perspectives document, the UNITE leader- taken place in the CWI, nor will it be the last. In the fu- ship did not prepare in the same way and as a result the ture we will face disagreements of a more serious char- Grangemouth workers suffered a defeat. The approach acter. However, we are confident that, on the basis of

9 the CWI’s traditions of thorough and democratic dis- Resolution moved by Steve Dobbs (but not passed) cussion, we will be able to come through such debates at West London branch, 20 February 2014 politically strengthened. 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.

10 It is important that both sides of the debate are given a fair within the party. We therefore support the right of these to hearing, which means that if documents from the leader- exist, as an alternative is not offered by the party at present. ship are made public, so too should any documents from the minority. We oppose the decision to discontinue with the cadre schools and believe the party should develop a proper ed- Democratic Centralism, in its true Bolshevik interpreta- ucation programme for all comrades. tion, does not proscribe the criticism by comrades of its leadership publically in a principled fashion. Without a membership grounded in theory and a political education, the party will lack the next generation of cad- The following three quotes from Lenin should be the start- res for the vital task of building a mass revolutionary party ing point of the Party’s position on Democratic Centralism: capable of leading to a socialist transformation of society.

“Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Party Programme must be quite free…not only at Party meet- Amendments to British Perspectives 2014 moved ings, but also at public meetings.” by Steve Dobbs (but not passed) at West London

“The Party’s political action must be united. No “calls” branch, 20 February 2014 that violate the unity of definite actions can be toler- Point 6. Add to the end: ated either at public meetings, or at Party meetings, or in the Party press…” “This highlights the need to support rank and file move- ments within the Trade Unions, where possible independ- “In the view of the central committee, it is essential to ent of the Trade Union bureaucracy. This bureaucracy, give all party members the widest possible freedom part of what Marx described as the “labour aristocracy”, is to criticise the central bodies and to attack them; the ultimately wedded to the interests of the ruling class. The central committee sees nothing terrible in such at- bureaucracy’s privileged position is primarily based on tacks, provided they are not accompanied by a boycott, concession bargaining and negotiating between the two by standing aloof from positive work or by cutting off classes, and thus overthrowing capitalism would remove financial resources” the need for such a position. The inability of the capital- ists to produce enough surplus value, as expressed by Democratic Centralism demands unity on the basis of ac- the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, means that tion, such as programmatical action and activity, but not the window for concession bargaining has, for the most unity on theory. part, closed. The Trade Union leaders are unable to realise or accept this, and so a rank and file movement must Freedom of expression is vital for members to criticize the be built from below. For example, in the 2013 Unite Gen- position of the leadership, without fear of victimisation or eral Secretary elections, the rank and file candidate Jerry expulsion. Additionally, their level of political education Hicks gained a massive 35%, despite having no electoral should be such that they have the confidence to do so. machine, no full-time Union officials and a shoe-string budget! Whilst we would criticise Hicks’ lack of a clear pro- The leadership should welcome critical contributions on gramme, such as on the question of breaking the link with theory as this is the sign of a vibrant and democratic party. the Labour Party, an organised revolutionary grouping, on the basis of a skilled application of the United Front tactic, Although Branch Meetings are of crucial importance for could develop a combative rank and file that could show organization and democracy within the party, they do not workers the way forward on the question of industrial ac- provide enough political education in themselves. This is tion and a General Strike. The mass support for Hicks, even particularly true for smaller branches with relatively in- in a ‘left’-led union like Unite, shows the potential for de- experienced comrades. It is of vital importance that com- veloping such a movement. Increasingly, industrial strug- rades can discuss issues with other comrades through Eng- gles must been seen as not simply a fight over the share of land & Wales, and indeed internationally. To this end, the the (dwindling) surplus value, but fundamental struggles party should facilitate proper debating mechanisms. for control over the means of production, challenging the foundations of the capitalist system itself. This means that We recognise that the emergence of alternative social me- the ideas of occupation and workers’ control, where ap- dia that have been published by CWI members is a result propriate, must be clearly put forward as the basis to move of deficiencies in existing facilities for theoretical debate the struggle forward. Only a Marxist leadership of the rank

11 and file in the Trade Unions, based on Trotsky’s genuine simply ideological, although that is clearly an element. The Transitional Programme, can help workers realise this ob- logic behind austerity is to help raise the average rate of jective situation and the need for a revolutionary Party to profit by shrinking the state sector in order to lower corpo- overthrow capitalism.” ration taxes, which redistributes surplus value away from private capital. Additionally, the selling off of state assets Point 12. Delete all and replace with: and provision, like the Royal Mail, NHS and state education, at fire-sale prices relatively lowers the organic com- “Some sections of the capitalist class are raising the ques- position of capital for the private sector and thus raises the tion of the minimum wage. This reflects their erroneous rate of profit. belief that the crisis was caused by a ‘lack of aggregate demand’, and therefore an increase in workers’ incomes Delete points 24, 25 and 26. (For more information on the role would increase the market and therefore improve pros- of the Socialist Party Scotland, McCluskey and Unite at Grange- pects for economic growth. Marxists, on the other hand, mouth, see the document “Building a Revolutionary Party in the understand that a recovery to the crisis of overproduction 21st Century”). can only be brought about, as a minimum prerequisite, by sufficiently restoring the rate of profit in order to induce Point 29. Amend first two sentences as follows: the purchase of capital goods (i.e. capitalist investment). Whilst Marxists should support all calls for raising work- Delete “right-wing” from first sentence. ers’ wages, it should be done with the understanding that this presents no way out of the crisis of overproduction, Replace second sentence with: “The left leaders can only and would, in the medium-term, actually exacerbate it by be forced to take serious measures in favour of a general lowering the rate of profit(1). The primary barrier to restor- strike under mass pressure from a rank and file movement ing the rate of profit is the massive accumulation of capital which challenges their authority.” in the advanced capitalist countries. Thus, from the point of view of capitalism, the only solution is for a destruction Point 47. Replace “Social Democrats formally believed in the idea of capital and the value of capital. This could take the form of socialism – albeit as a long-term goal, and disagreeing with of another financial crash, which would be as bad, if not Marxists about how it could be achieved. Today’s Labour leader- worse, than the 2007/8 crisis. As socialists, we understand ship defends capitalism...” with: the only way out of crisis for the working class is socialist revolution.” “The Labour Party, from its outset, was a bourgeois-workers party: a working class base led by Fabian/Liberal-in- (1) Carchedi , Behind and Beyond the Crisis, 2011 http:// fluenced, i.e. bourgeois, parliamentary representatives. www.homolaicus.com/economia/fonti/carchedib.pdf” Under the pressure from its mass working class membership it was forced to formally adopt a reformist ‘socialist’ Point 13. After first sentence “Far from a ‘march of the makers’ programme, although at best it implemented Keynesian the British economy remains overwhelming reliant on finance and policies of limited state control with the goal of better man- services, which make up 78% of GDP.”, insert: aging capitalism. Our predecessor the Militant Tendency entered the Labour Party on the basis that it provided fer- “Since only workers’ labour-power creates new value, tile grounds for Marxist ideas amongst rank and file La- the expansion of the service economy in Britain from the bour members, with the hope of that the working class 1980’s has seen a decrease in productive labour jobs (e.g. base could be set against the bourgeois leadership, forcing manufacturing) and a massive expansion of unproduc- a split and the development of a mass revolutionary party. tive labour jobs (e.g. financial services, retail). As a result, Unfortunately, after the failure of Keynesianism to solve a smaller number of workers than ever before are respon- the economic crisis of the 1970s, the Labour Party leader- sible for creating the total social surplus value. Because ship rapidly moved right, witch-hunted leading Militants the finance sector is ultimately entirely dependent on the and eventually jettisoned any pretence of ‘socialism’. To- surplus value created in production, this makes the British day’s Labour Party has no mass working class base and in- economy particularly exposed to economic crises.” ternal democracy has been completely curtailed. With the impossibility of an effective internal opposition, today’s Point 18. Delete all and replace with: Labour leadership openly defends capitalism...”

“Osborne and the Tories’ continuing austerity policies – threatening a further £25 billion worth of cuts – are not

12 6. We tried to accommodate Steve’s demands. For exam- Setting the Record ple, we acceded to his request to allow his partner, a non-member, to attend the Rate of Profit debate with Straight Lynn Walsh on July 18 as he told us that he would have 1. On Thursday 20 February West London branch of the otherwise felt isolated at the meeting. Socialist Party passed a resolution suspending Steve Dobbs from branch membership. Steve has said he 7. Yet, from the outset Steve adopted an extremely hostile would appeal, but unfortunately has immediately and belligerent attitude to the branch committee, and gone public on various social media blogs and forums. took unilateral decisions with no reference to John as In doing so he has obscured the actual reason for his branch secretary. He advertised the Rate of Profit de- suspension. It has therefore been necessary to clarify bate as a public meeting, when other comrades under- why the branch has suspended him. stood that it was an internal and preliminary discussion for the branch. At the outset it should be noted that: 8. John, as branch secretary, and on behalf of the branch 2. The majority of the branch who voted for this suspen- committee, intervened to ensure that Steve ceased to sion did so extremely reluctantly and only because we advertise it as an open meeting. felt we were left with no other choice by the time of the branch meeting - which happened to be the AGM. 9. Later in the summer of 2013, we learnt that Steve had We were faced with two bad options – either voting for arranged a public debate between himself, billed as suspension, or allowing the current situation to con- representing the Socialist Party, and Gerry Downing tinue. By the time of the AGM we had concluded that – an out and out sectarian whose ‘Trotskyist’ organisa- suspension was the less bad of the options. tion probably has more initials than members. There had been no consultation with any of the branch com- 3. This decision was taken because of Steve’s conduct in mittee, and we would not have been aware of it had the months, and the days prior to the AGM, not be- not a comrade at the National Centre come across it cause of the political views he holds. As we expected, being advertised on Gerry Downing’s website. Steve has projected his suspension as being motivated by our wish to have him politically silenced, particu- 10. Once again, John, with full authorisation from the par- larly in the run up to Congress. He avoids answering ty locally, had to intervene to attempt to pull a debate the specific issues that prompted the suspension. that would have had no benefit for the party, but would only serve to boost the ego of a figure on the fringes of 4. The decision to pass the suspension motion was one the movement in Brent politics - and someone deeply taken by the branch. It was not directed or driven by hostile to us and to TUSC. the EC, or any individual member of the EC. Members of the EC were informed and discussed with in the im- 11. Some general themes started to appear in Steve’s posts mediate run up to the meeting. The approach of the on various social media: that we were undemocratic; EC at all points has been to support the branch officers that the party were frightened of debate within the la- and to offer advice, but not to pressurise us either way bour movement. 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 Three points of conflict and considered by the EC. 12. Three specific issues emerged as points of conflict between Steve and the majority of the branch. Why had relations between Steve Dobbs and the West London Branch Committee broken down? 13. The first of these was the way in which Steve was making attacks on the party, locally and nationally, on dif- 5. The branch committee, and John Boyle as branch sec- ferent social media forums for which he was respon- retary in particular, genuinely attempted, in words and sible. in practice to hold an open, democratic debate on the issues Steve started to raise in 2013. 14. We were finding that our internal branch affairs, debates and discussions were being reproduced, partial-

13 ly and inaccurately, on his blog and on Facebook sites. is true that you do not use the term ‘bullying’ in this piece, but it’s a semantic point as in the complaint you 15. At the Rate of Profit debate on 18 July a motion call- stated that he was guilty of behaviour constituting ‘har- ing for an end to the use of social media to carry such assment and abuse’. misinformation was carried at the branch by six votes to one (Steve’s) with one abstention They are serious and damaging charges. They do not have support in the branch, and have not been sup- 16. As will be apparent, Steve ignored this, and calls from ported by the EC. the party nationally on this issue. Steve set up the Re- ally Radical CWI Facebook site at the turn of the year to These are not the sort of charges to be wheeled out reach an international audience of those with an axe to whenever it suits you. grind against the party and the CWI. In spite of these unfounded allegations, John made a 17. Comrades will be familiar with many of the issues genuine and generous effort, in his email of 23 Octo- around this, but it has some specific importance to us ber, to meet with you to clear the air in order that the locally as a number of visitors to his site(s) were/are branch could go forward. You rejected this offer. locally active in Brent circles – including Labour Par- ty members, ex-members and various sectarians not In fact, in your email of 29 October you stated that well-disposed to our party. ‘there are issues to be discussed around how the branch and other members operate if there is to be a 18. Members who attended the branch might find that genuine ‘open and working relationship’ I will raise this anything that they said could later appear on-line at the next branch meeting’ without their permission. This could, and in fact did, inhibit open discussion at meetings. Despite my phone message to you on 30 October, fol- lowed by my email to you on Thursday 31 October, of- 19. The second issue was his repeated failure to try to es- fering a route forward for the airing of your grievances, tablish a reasonable working relationship with John you have failed to make any contact with myself, John and the branch committee. He maintained that John’s (obviously) Keith or Alan, or Chris or Paula at the Lon- dealings with him constituted harassment. In fact, don office for that matter. You didn’t attend either the in August he presented a formal complaint to the EC branch or the subsequent branch committee, where alleging that John was responsible for a campaign of your issues were placed as item number one of the harassment and abuse against him. Both the branch agenda. and the EC found that there was no substance to these allegations We’re left with the impression that you have no serious intention to resolve your working relations with John or 20. The events surrounding this are covered by an email the branch. sent to Steve in November. Email sent by Bob Sulatycki (Chair West London branch) on behalf You continue to refuse to have any dealings with John Of West London branch committee to Steve Dobbs 24.11.13 as branch secretary, but offer no way of seeking to re- establish a working relationship with him. 21. Steve’s reply to this was as follows :

It’s not even really clear to us what your issues are with I was surprised to receive your email as I thought all him. of the outstanding issues have been resolved! I wrote to Paula and the EC on 21st November to confirm as In July you had accused him of bullying. However you much and as I haven’t received a reply, I’ve assumed will recall that after making that allegation, you then we’re all moving on. openly withdrew it at the branch committee held at Keith’s on 24 July, assuring the members present that Email sent by Steve Dobbs to Bob Sulatycki 29.11.13 the issues had been resolved. 22. We assumed that the formal complaint of harassment You complain in your email of 29 October that you did against John was at last buried, wrongly, as later be- not use the term ‘bullying’ in your formal complaint. It came apparent.

14 23. The third issue was the unauthorised recordings of not true now, and never was in the past. The basis of branch meetings, and subsequent distribution to per- the rupture in the relationship between you and mem- sons unknown. bers of the branch lies in your conduct in the course of this debate. 24. In late November 2013, it came to the attention of the EC, and from them to the Branch Committee, that 28. This is most obviously apparent over the issue of the recordings had been distributed of a recent branch recordings of meetings. meeting held on Democratic Centralism, at which Hannah Sell had spoken. Furthermore, it was not just I note that you have conceded that you surreptitiously the lead off that had been recorded and distributed, recorded the West London branch discussion on Dem- but also the discussion with the contributions of the ocratic Centralism, which you seem to justify on the branch comrades. spurious ground that the public rally at Socialism 2013 has appeared on you tube. 25. We sought clarification from Steve on this: 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 ‘I also understand that you made a recording of the meeting at which Hannah spoke on Democratic Cen- leadoff and subsequent discussion of the branch tralism, without asking the permission of those pre- meeting at which Hannah spoke on Democratic Cen- sent. What is the justification for this? tralism, without asking the permission of those present. Is this true? This is after you had been explicitly Email sent by Bob Sulatycki (Chair West London branch) on behalf told previously, in regard to the debate with Lynn, that Of West London branch committee to Steve Dobbs 24.11.13 the branch did not want its meetings recorded or made public unless it was agreed, and explained why com- 26. Steve’s reply to this point was as follows : rades need to be able to hold internal meetings in an atmosphere of trust. We can only assume this is why I’m not aware I’ve breeched any protocols but sincerely you resorted to recording secretly. What is the justifica- regret any offence caused by my raising theoretical dif- tion for this? ‘ ferences. I understand from your letter that you are insisting that differences on theory between mem- You fail to make any serious justification. bers should not be recorded, and in that spirit it was refreshing to see Billy Hayes, the CWU General Sec- The recording of that meeting on Democratic Central- retary and Vice Chair of the National Policy Forum of ism, and its subsequent use for factional purposes, is the Labour Party speaking at Socialism 2013 breaking a fundamental breach of trust with the members of these rules. The recording of this Labour Party stalwart the branch. You did not seek permission to record the can be found here at 31mins in http://www.youtube. meeting because you knew you would be isolated in com/watch?v=WtMwPEgZZ8s . I have not submitted a any vote on the issue, but you went ahead anyway, formal complaint about the uncritical appearance of a keeping the recording device hidden from view. senior Labour Party member at our conference (and subsequently on our website). In fact, I am very happy I don’t know exactly who you’ve shared the recordings that Billy was able to communicate Labour Party val- with, but you have proved yourself in the past to be ues through Party structures as it confirms what I have happy to share sensitive (and distorted) information always thought: that we are a democratic centralist with those hostile to the SP. In one sense, the record- organisation and people are applauded, not hounded, ing will demonstrate that our meetings are conducted for different theoretical interpretations of Marxism, al- in an open and democratic manner, allowing full op- though in the case of Billy this is a stretch. portunity for everyone to argue their point of view – even when it is clearly a minority opinion in the branch. 27. In our view this was not an adequate response. Our reply was as follows : But there is a more important, overriding principle at issue, which is the right of members (and non-mem- You repeat your previously stated view that our ‘of- bers) to come to meetings on the understanding that fence’ is the result of your raising theoretical differ- they can have an open and frank discussion free of ences. However many times you raise that point, it is surveillance.

15 Your actions have caused you to forfeit the trust of the to protect the functioning of the branch unless we have comrades in the branch. You need to know that mem- a clear indication from you that you are serious about bers of the branch have expressed their lack of confi- resolving these issues. dence in having you attending meetings given that you are prepared covertly to tape them. That is a view I Email sent by Bob Sulatycki (Chair West London branch) on behalf share. Of West London branch committee to Steve Dobbs 24.11.13

Your response, and your facile comparison to the re- 35. The last line gives the lie to any idea that Steve could cordings of Socialism, suggests that you consider it a have no idea that some form of disciplinary action trivial matter, and in fact an acceptable tactic to use on might be forthcoming. 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 Was the suspension for political reasons? internal meetings without seeking permission, pre- sumably for use as you see fit. I suspect that UNITE 36. Right from the beginning of the dispute, we have fa- members would not find that acceptable. cilitated full and open debate at the branch. Steve had always been given every opportunity to put forward Email sent by Bob Sulatycki (Chair West London branch) on behalf his ideas. Even at the AGM, by which time, because Of West London branch committee to Steve Dobbs 5.12.13 of the intense provocation of the preceding months and days, our patience with Steve had been tested, at 29. Although the correspondence relates to the recording least an hour of the meeting was given over to a series and distribution of a branch meeting of Democratic of motions and amendments Steve presented to the Centralism with Hannah Sell in October 2013, in fact meeting. the issue of recording of meetings had first arisen in July 2013 before the Rate of Profit debate with Steve 37. Another member of the Group of 11 in our branch, has and Lynn Walsh. As part of the discussion over the na- been unanimously re-elected on to the branch com- ture of the meeting, Steve had been made clearly aware mittee. We welcome her contribution to the branch, beforehand that no recording was to take place there. politically and organisationally. It is not our view that not sharing the party’s position on, for example, the 30. We now believe, however, that this meeting was re- cause of capitalist crisis would preclude any comrade corded as well. A number of questions follow on: playing an important role in the party.

31. Who had access to these recordings? 38. The reality has been that over the last nine months Steve has not persuaded the majority of the branch to 32. Does this include non-party members? the validity of his ideas, and appears to have become ever more hostile to us (as with the party nationally) as 33. How many meetings were recorded? 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 evi- Did we rush to suspend? dence of a lack of democracy in the party.

34. In the November email sent to Steve, the following was 39. Over the months of the dispute, Steve had be- put to him : come less and less active in party activity. Prior to the AGM, the last branch he had at- As a branch committee, we would therefore like to dis- tended had been the meeting on Democratic cuss with you as a matter of urgency what kind of pro- Centralism; he had not been present for any other par- tocols should operate in regard to the confidentiality ty activities since then. of branch discussions and the use of social media, as well as the ongoing issues surrounding your relations with John and the branch committee. Was it an emergency?

Things cannot carry on as they are. Reluctantly, we 40. Matters finally came to a head on the evening of Mon- would need to consider the options that are open to us day 17th February. Without warning Steve uploaded

16 the entire contents of Steve’s formal complaint of har- cipitously, far from it, but by the time of the AGM we assment against John on Bruce Wallace’s Facebook concluded that enough was enough. wall, without any accompanying comment that the complaint had been withdrawn. The content was sup- 47. Bob Sulatycki 25.2.14 posedly internal, supposedly confidential. The issues had, according to Steve, been resolved, and yet here they were in view on a semi-public forum, which in- Resolution on conduct of Steve Dobbs cludes members of the Labour Party in Brent. 48. This branch believes that trust between Steve Dobbs 41. Although the charges contained on the complaint are and the branch has deteriorated to such a degree that without foundation and frankly ridiculous, the overall he should now be suspended from the membership accusation of conducting a campaign of harassment of the branch. This is due to his public attacks against and abuse is potentially seriously damaging, politi- the branch secretary, the branch, the leadership of cally as well as professionally, given that John lives and the party, the CWI, his repeated failure to heed any works in the local area. requests from the branch to stop such attacks and his secret recording of a branch meeting when members 42. On Tuesday 18th and Wednesday 19th John contacted had clearly stated that this should not happen without Branch committee members. It was agreed that we members’ consent should hold an emergency branch committee at the first opportunity in order to discuss what course of ac- Motion passed by West London branch 20.2.14 tion we should follow.

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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

46. 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 pre-