Appendix I: A Turning Point

/ A Turning Point Letter from Lassalle to Marx June 1852, ... Party struggles lend a party strength and vitality; the greatest proof of a party's weakness is its diffuseness and the blurring of clear demarcations; a party becomes stronger by purging itself...'

(Lenin: What is to be Done, Preface) 'The draft June NAO report in a one-sided way seeks to blame the minority side of the day school debate for recent examples of a conservative approach to activity in the organisation. The arguments on both sides at the dayschool were diffuse. This was partly a result of the fact that more concrete discussions on our areas of work were not first arranged. Before the discussions are complete, it is not possible to speak in terms of a stable majority/ minority of the PC, as such a situation may not exist. To continue •to speak in these terms is to fuel artificial discussions in the organisation. (June PC minutes: proposal supported by FR and CD) A turning point... In the IBs since February 1976 a clear perspective for the work of the group was laid down. This perspective was developed in opposition to those comrades (FR and CD) who had an orientation towards the radical left. Their standpoint was one in favour of 'joint work' with radical left tendencies. Against this the majority argued that the concept of 'joint work' lacked any serious political content. Our main orientation was not to the radical left but to reformist workers and at this time, the Communist Party. It was argued that, 'propaganda directed at the Communist Party should become a vital part of our work. This is not only because the Communist Party has a working class base, but also because it offers the clearest and consistent expression of left reformism. The Communist Party will be the main 'radical' force attempting to contain the development of any mass struggles in the coming period. (At What Stage are we at, April 1976 |B supplement p22).

It was the need to intervene on the basis of an independent working class standpoint in the struggles of the class that do arise, which was at the root of the majority's rejection of the concept of 'joint work'. The June National Activities Report posed the question before the organisation; 'can the RCG begin the process of taking its politics into the working class movement? That is, can we find ways of influencing and winning those sections of the movement who are beginning to recognise the seriouș content of our ideas...'(June IB 1976 p1). This question suggests a new orientation for the group, a new attitude to carrying out our work. At each stage of the development of an organisation the immediate priorities do change.

However comrades are very slow to recognise this and continue for quite a period of time in the old way.

In the early period of the group the essential requirement was to develop and establish the independent basis for our existence as an organisation. We rejected the methods of the radical left and began to lay the foundation for a marxist standpoint in the British movement. It was a hard and difficult struggle but we succeeded.

45 That basis has been laid. We have the political arguments to begin the struggle to build a revolutionary movement in Britain and make Marxism an acceptable standpoint within the labour movement. The task now is to translate these arguments into a concrete political practice. As the February IB put it, We must have the capability and means to win over the potential vanguard as the crisis deepens and the deteriorațing material conditions eventually force the working class into conflict with a Labour government whch is driving down its living standards...

Let us reiterate what we have done. Our break with the radical left was expressed through the articles written in RC1 and 2 on IS and Centrism, and on the Fourth International. An independent class standpoint began to be established at the same time on the issue of Britain and the irish Revolution. It was consolidated in the acticles in RC3/4 on the Crisis and Productive and Unproductive Labour. Those articles gave us the political arguments to intervene in many of the present discussions within the labour movement. They laid the foundation for the article on Women's Oppression Under Capitalism and the position developed on South Africa and Solidarity Work in RC5. While we must clarify and develop our positions on the Communist Parties world-wide and begin an analysis of the Soviet Union etc. We have already.

developed a method of work which will politically enable us to intervene in any major developments which involve such issues The task now is to develop a cadre which can intervene and influence struggles of the working class with this standpoint.

However the road ahead is not without its dangers.

Sectarianism _ a new danger to the group 'Joint work' represented an opportunist impatience with the working class movement and with the need for the RCG to carry out theoretical, educational and contact work to consolidate our gains. The malaise of the radical left, its inability to influence any struggles within the labour movement has somewhat altered the terrain. Opportunism has little fertile ground within which to sow its seed. The dangers now facing us are those of sectarianism.

This expresses itself as a refusal to come to terms with the tactical and strategical adjustments needed to take our positions into the working class movement. It is a position which puts the RCG before the overall interests of the working class.

The attitude of comrades JH and CD to the Conference called by the South African Liberation movement through the AAM on 'South Africa and the British Labour movement' illustrates this tendency within our group. The comrades did not agree with the EC/PC decision not to intervene at the Conference and instead to attend and observe as well as sell our literature. Both JH and CD wanted, to intervene at the Conference. CD thought that we should do this on all occasions when our politics allow us to counter anti-working class views which are not being countered by others and this could be the case at this conference.

This was a conference called by the South African movement asking for actions of solidarity from the British Labour Movement.

Comrades JH and CD not only wanted to tell the South African movement at this conference what posítion to adopt, but also expressed a complete lack of confidence in the South African left.

They further wished to use this conference for the purpose of attacking the position of the CPGB, so furthering the 'interests' of the RCG. This we had no right to do. An intervention of the kind supported by these comrades would not only have been a sure way of destroying the possibilities of the left gaining ground in the South African movement, but also would have strengthened the hand of the liberals in the movement. They would be able to point to the British Left's chauvinist approach to their struggle - with the British left utilising the liberation struggle to further its own interests. As it so happens anyone reading recent material on South Africa or having attended the conference would realise that the South African left is just as able as we are. It was the South African comrades who managed to have the tendency of the rate of profit to fall discussed in an audience of over 300 British trade union and labour movement delegates - a task we ourselves have yet to accomplish. The fact that these views are teken up in a particular way in the South African movement lies beyond our immediate consideration. At the present stage we should be heartened that steps have been taken towards the strengthening

of a left-wing tendency in the South African liberation movement.

And further that at this conference a basis has been laid for our own journal article on South Africa and Solidarity work to make an impact in the British movement. Internationalism is not telling other movements how to conduct their struggles or attempting to use their struggles for our own ends.

A remark by one comrade on the fact that the tendency of the rate of profit to fall had been the centre of political discussion at the conference really characterises the dangers here. It was said that this was great but the problem was that the ideas would not be associated with the RCG. Comrades, the RCG did not discover the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Marx did that. Further, as we have said, it was left to South African revolutionaries to raise it in front of an audience of over 300 British Trade union delegates and get a hearing. The fact that through the Good and Williams pamphlet Marxism was influencing the debates in the labour movement was an enormous step forward for the movement.

Anyone who denies this is not only sectarian but thoroughly chauvinist. They have forgotten that our aim is to reestablish a marxist tradition in the movement.

There were other less important reasons for not intervening. We had not discussed the position in the organisation. Further our own views will be coming out in a journal article and this will allow our arguments to be presented precisely and clearly and as part of a debate in the British movement.

The same attitude existed in relation to the journal article 'South Africa: International Solidarity and the British working class'. This article took up the issue of solidarity work and the question of the CPGB. Its devastating criticism of the two main tendencies in the CPGB could not be denied. And yet 3 PC members (FR, CD, JH) could not support that article because it acknowledged the longstanding relation of the CPGB with the ANC (South Africa). It was said that this standpoint 'fails to confront the standpoint of the CPGB on South Africa'. But not to start from this relation, and from there to show it cannot assume real meaning unless on the basis of proletarian internationalism is ultra-leftism, the form sectarianism is beginning to take in our group. You cannot confront the CPGB. unless you start from the real existing concrete relations. Preaching to the CPGB, announcing our own purity on the question, will enable the CPGB to dismiss our criticism as ultra left and sectarian, and what is more to convince others that this is the case. Many CP members have devoted themselves to the South African liberation movement. Many CP members are in prison or exile because of this.Not to acknowledge this shows the political insecurity of our comrades. We can acknowledge it. We have the political strength both to recognise this contribution and at the same time show how politically it cannot 'assume real meaning' unless on the basis of proletarian internationalism. The debate in the organisation on the CPGB will be a vital one for the development of our organisation. The CPGB is split into several factions. Howevar the political positions we have so far taken up are those of the Purdyites and the leadership. The Purdyites are a bourgeois tendency within the CP. Our attitude to them has been to regard them as outside the ranks of the working class. We argue this to the 'opportunists' within the CP..- a characterisation that adequately covers the leadership tendency which adapts to the moods of the working class. The Editorial in Revolutionary Communist 3/4 - an editorial which has not been criticised by FR, JH, CD — expresses this position very clearly. It asks the CP how it can have anti-working class views like those of Purdy in its organisation/publications etc. Our articles have treated, as did the editorial, the opportunists in the ranks of the CPGB differently from the Purdyites. While sharply criticising them, we have attempted to ferment the split in the CPGB by urging them to fight against the views of the Purdyites. That the leadership of the CPGB is no more capable of doing this than IS or IMG is of no consequence. That split has to be brought about to offer a revolutionary tendency like ours some fertile ground to argue our standpoint in the labour movement. What the likely developments are in the next period will be part of the coming discussion, as will our relation to the CPB and its different tendencies. However we should be clear what has been done so far. We have never treated these two tendencies politically in the same way. To do so would have been to go against the fundamental interest we have in seeing a split in the CPGB. The 46 positions of JH, CD, FR on the South African article therefore, oppose directly the previous practice of the group. This has to be made clear. There is little point in repeating again what has been said in early National Activities reports. We have to get our material in a form where it can be taken up in the labour movement. This is the most difficult task. It requires a deeper political experience and theoretical development than most comrades have at present.

Theoretical work was to be a priority in the last period. This has not been the case, Without comrades being much more at ease with our positions our contributions will tend to have a formal and inflexible character. Because we are so isolated and inexperienced there is a danger of learning to repeat the truths we have reached so far by rote. The article in the June IB warned against this, 'We must avoid the danger of becoming so used to our isolation that it becomes an acceptable part of our make-up and manner of arguing.' (p.21). This means that our theoretical work in future must become more our immediate intervention in the labour directly related to movement. We have to discuss how we can get material in a form that is directly related to the struggles of the working class and The Bulletins on Ireland, offers a perspective for our work.

Woren and the Public Sector will be vital in this respect. They should take up the ongoing developments in the movement, as well as, in more popular form, putting over our basic theoretical standpoint. At the same time articles must be written for the journal. More and more we will need articles like that on 'Meriden and Workers Control' which should be based on Inflation the Crisis, and the Post War Boom. We will require material on the health service, the cuts in education etc, based on the position in Productive and Unproductive Labour. We shall continue to work on basic material for the movement - on the State, the Soviet Union etc. - this is central. But we need to utilise the very significant advances made in Revolutionary Communist so far.

That is the task facing us in the next period. It will require not less but much more theoretical work than is being done at present.

I now want to go on to discuss how this can be brought about and at the same time take up the very damaging disputes which have been occuring recently at PC and EC meetings. I will put forward various suggestions for making sure that in future the political perspective embodied in the decision of the Weekend School in April and in the National Activities Reports, February .

July, are put into practice.

Work groups and caucuses The time has come to bring about a basic unity between work groups and caucuses. For most comrades it is impossible to be in a work group and caucus covering different areas of work. In the end both aspects of their work suffer, and they despair of ever completing adequately the tasks they face. The proposal, I wish to put forward is to have work groups responsible for the overall theoretical and propaganda work of the caucuses. They. will provide and discuss material for the Bulletins and the journal.

They will* regularly discuss perspectives for work in the area concerned and guide the caucuses in their work. Each work group can have sub groups if required concerned with a particular political task eg the Working class and its Leadership work group will have a sub group basically concerned with public sector work and so on. The PC or work group can decide to commission an article (subject to ratification by the PC), on a particular topic relevant to our work. It will ask for comrades from the relevant work group(s) to carry this out.

The proposal is for 3 work groups and, at present, three nationa!

Each caucus will have a national caucuses as part of them.

sub-committee to direct our work, drawn from the relevant work group and elected by the PC. Where a bulletin is being produced an editorial board will be elected by the PC. The work group concerned and relevant committees will be: 1 Ireland work group National sub committee NISC London based exécutive committee of the sub committee LISC Editorial board of the bulletin 2 Working class and its leadership work group National Public sector sub committee NPSSC

London based public sector sub committee LPSSC There should be three main areas under discussion in this work group and perspectives need to be drawn up for such work: (a) The Labour Party and Communist Parties of GB. Perspectives for work in relation to them.

(b) Public Sector work group.

(c) More general work on Stalinism and Social democracy, Trade Unions and the State. This perspective means that the Stalinism work group is again subsumed under the larger work group. The reasons for this are as follows. 1 The work on the question must be directly related to our perspective for work in relation to the CPGB. Otherwise the work will have an academic character. 2 It is important that there is a regular exchange of positions with the comrades doing work on the Labour Party and Social Democracy in Britain.

The perspective for work in the movement cannot be separated artificially into two areas as has been the case at present. It is not surprising that two completely different standpoints seem to have been developed in relation to the CP in the two work groups. The work group will discuss and develop our perspectives generally for work in the labour movement organisations. Eventually we could consider a joint Bulletin to cover both this area of work and our intervention in the Public sector struggles. 3 That many of the comrades in the Stalinism sub group are heavily involved in other areas of work. We should now rationalise this and use the opportunity to see that, if possible, their caucus work and work group work are in the same area.

3 Women's Oppression work group National sub committee NWSC London based sub committee LWSC Editorial board to prepare for a bulletin A number of comrades should be directed if resources permit to continue work on the Soviet Union etc. This should be done through book reviews etc. We should consider the question of work on South Africa and work on racism in Britain as our resources increase. Meanwhile files should be kept on these two issues. The Political Committee and Democratic Contralism A number of issues have arisen recently which have led to wide divisions in the PC. There is a certain consistency to these positions in the case of FR and CD. The issue of JH is a separate one and will be dealt with separately. However, at present, she does support the standpoint of FR and CD and this might confuse comrades into drawing a much closer connection than is merited between their political standpoints. FR and CD have a consistent position. It took the form of 'joint-work' at one stage opportunism, and now with the malaise in the radical left as explained earlier it assumes a new form - sectarianism.

The comrades, however, are entitled to their standpoint. What they are not entitled to do as part of the collective political leadership of the organisation is continually to challenge the majority standpoint both inside and outside the PC without organising themselves as a faction. Otherwise this means disruption of our work while the reasons for this are unclear to the organisation. This opposition to the majority positions has recently taken a more harmful form and, therefore, needs to be directly challenged. The comrades are continually accusing the PC majority of an undemocratic practice. However it is easy to - show that their concept of democracy is a bourgeois one and that continually they have been supporting a standpoint which undermines democratic centralist practice and has led to the souring of relations within the PC.

We begin with the June PC. In the National Activities Report of June it was felt necessary to attack once again the 'joint work' position which had been heavily defeated in the organisation and point out how it had confused comrades in London to the extent of hindering our intervention in a number of disputes. However there was another reason for doing this. In spite of the fact that the 'joint-work' position had been heavily defeated in April, it reappears again in exactly the same form only dealing with the question of Ireland, in the May I.B. Two of the articles were written by members of a PC subcommittee with one being a PC member. Clearly the point had not got across.

'Joint work' was not part of our perspective and the attempt to raise it again barely 47 a month after the day-school went against basic principles of democratic centralism. In respect of this the response of FR and CD to the National Activities Report of June is instructive. Far from recognising the right and need of the majority to drive home a position of. the organisation they had the following points to make: "(The NAR was) a cheap attempt to find a convenient scapegoat (for the conservative approach to activity) ... implicit in this view is the notion that there is a majority position on the PC, which has the answer for all questions facing the group for all time..' lour emphasis) For: 1 FR (CD abstained).

Another proposal was supported by both FR and CD. It included the following: '... Before the discussions are complete it is not possible to speak in terms of a stable majority/minority of the PC, as such a situation may not exist. To continue to speak in these terms is to fuel artificial discussions in the organisation. ' The comrades want it both ways. They develop a position on 'joint-work' and have it discussed at a day-school of the organisation. It is soundly defeated. They then want to continue the discussion and complain if the majority of the PC wants to make it clear to the organisation that not only was the position defeated but it still is having an effect in undermining our work.

Comrades, the PC majority is too lax. It should not have allowed CD and PT, members of the NISC, to reraise the issue in the way they did without resigning from the NISC, and in the case of CD, from the PC. It is impossible to run a revolutionary organisation along bourgeois democratic lines. All revolutionary procedures were adhered to in having the debate. It was CD and PT who did not accept the consequences of a democratically reached decision. However, the language of their objection is instructive. This was the beginning of the deterioration in relations on the PC. It was the continual attempts of comrades to reraise issues in London Branch/Cell in particular, which had been decided on, which led to the following motion in the July PC Minutes.

'That PC members always put forward the collective position of the PC at meetings of the organisation outside the PC unless given explicit permission by the PC to do otherwise.

That any minority is entitled to minute its position in the PC Minutes providing this statement is accepted by the PC as a correct representation of their position. No further clarification of these motions or statements which would involve a rediscussion of the issues can be given at meetings outside the PC except via PC Minutes or with the explicit permission of the PC. PC members are entitled to outline their position, in the I.B. if permission is given by the PC.

Does this not suggest a minority-majority position? And as it was passed unanimously did not all comrades of the PC recognise this? However, comrades CD and FR would have us believe differently. They want to have their cake and eat it. That is, to remain on the PC. and continually raise a minority position thạt has been rejected by the organisation. That comrades, is liberalism, not democratic centralism.

During a recent dispute the PC majority was accused again in the EC of stifling discussion, by JH. Let us examine this point in some detail. An item was placed on the agenda of the Stalinism workgroup to discuss a motion sent to the PC by Manchester Branch on the question of commissioning an article on the new edition of the British Road to Socialism due out early next year.

The PC has discussed it briefly and decided a fuller discussion in the PC was necessary based on a written contribution by the two opposing sides, FR and Manchester Branch. This matter rested with the PC and yet FR was attempting to have it discussed at the Stalinism workgroup before the PC could meet. The discussion was not prepared and given that it is normal for the PC to direct discussion on issues brought before it, the EC asked for the item to be struck off the agenda. Comrades should be reminded of a motion passed by the PC on workgroups: 'It was agreed that in future all work group convenors should inform DY of dates and agendas for meetings well in advance, and if the material is not ready well in advance for comrades to read, then the meeting should not take place...

Let me say that no agenda was received well in advance of this meeting and in fact it had to be asked for. But this is unimportant and only indicates sloppy organisation. What is at issue was that the workgroup would be confronted with a discussion for which it had no documentation, not even the minimum requirements which the PC itself had insisted on. What kind of democratic debate then was going to take place. None at all. Rather the workgroup would be confronted with the views of FR and those who consistently support him.

Instead of waiting for the PC to direct the discussion in a democratic way, FR, for reasons which he can explain, was attempting to preempt the discussion of the PC and this before he had put down his own views in writing. JH and CD voted against a motion of the EC directing the convenor of the Stalinism workgroup to take the item off the agenda. JH was dishonest enough to put a minute to this motion arguing it was 'an attempt to stifle discussion on a matter which should be discussed at the Stalinism workgroup.' What in fact was at issue was FR's attempt to have a discussion on the issue before the basis for a democratic discussion had been laid.

A third item further indicates the uncomradely behaviour of comrades JH and CD. This concerned the Journal. Because JH had been unable to write the sections on domestic work in the article on Women's Oppression under Capitalism - a point that had not and would not have been communicated to the organisation in other circumstances - comrade DY had to be brought in to be involved in a major way in the writing of the article. The absence of a journal for one year was becoming a serious threat to the organisation. A date for production had to be decided on and kept to. In this context it was possible that normal procedures would not be kept to for publishing articles in the journal, although all comrades were doing their best by working extremely long hours to make this possible. The PC however fully discussed an earlier draft of the main article with the JEB present.

The EC later passed a motion which reflected this position.

'That all JEB members be given final drafts of all articles to read and comment on but that a JEB is only called where possible (given the dates that have already been set for typesetting and printing), or if a majority of JEB members wish to have a meeting. That if the PC accepts JH's motion..., then we cancel the dates already booked.!

CD and JH voted against this position and yet were not prepared to say that the dates be changed. JH went so far as to accuse the EC/PC of breaking the constitution in her motion which said 'That the JEB meets to discuss the final draft of all the articles for this Journal, as is laid down in the RCG Constitution para 4(2) and that all PC members are consulted about this resolution.'

CD more or less insisted on the same position but less honestly by the amendment which said a JEB should be called if any member wanted it. He knew and so did we all that one member would The comrades, one of whom (JH) was certainly call for it. mainly responsible for the situation we found ourselves in, insisted on being 'formal' and by so doing threatened to disrupt the production schedule for the Journal. FR took a principled stand on this issue. In fact the full JEB did meet to discuss the article on women's oppression.

It is instructive to compare the attitude of the same comrades to the production of the Irish Bulletin. At the September PC a proposal was passed saying that The PC wishes to see the contents of the Bulletin before it is produced. And at a later PC meeting (October) saying that the "following EC will discuss the final draft of the Bulletin.'

This was not done, as part of an article, - the Editorial - was not complete and one article had not been written. DY raised this in the EC (9.11.76) and made it clear that this was in no way meant as a criticism of the Editorial Board. He said that he was raising it to make it clear to the organisation that sometimes it was not possible to keep to the letter of a motion or even the Constitution once certain overal! decisions like producing a Journal or Bulletin by a certain date had been made. This point needed to be made because of the attitude CD and JH had adopted to the Journal EB and he hoped that this new experience would drive home the essential point. CD instead of taking this point in the comradely and educative fashion it had been presented in, proceeded to insist that everything was different in the case of the Bulletin as the PC had only wished to 'see' it not discuss it. This latter point was blatantly false and in fact cannot explain the fact that the PC had read and discussed thoroughly an earlier draft and insisted the EC see the final draft. DY said he regarded CD's view as factional and dishonest. This led to comrades wishing to put various 'minutes' in the EC minutes which would all have needed to be countered by a further minute. To save the time and energy of the PC Secretary, the EC decided that all 'minutes' should be withdrawn and DY and CD should write up their positions for the PC. This was regarded as undemocratic by JH and CD. Comrades will by now have seen how difficult it has become to carry out work through the EC/PC due to the factional behaviour of comrades CD, FR and JH. The organisation has to be aware of this because it is beginning to affect our overall capacity to work.

The PC will have to take measures to prevent further occurrences of such behaviour. This will be discussed at the PC this weekend.

London Branch JH is organiser of London Branch. This is a very difficult task which would fully tax the capacity of a comrade of much more political experience. Many problems exist for London Branch and the failure to resolve these is due to the relations JH has with other PC members in London. This will be taken up later. Here we should briefly examine the problems besetting the Branch.

The The Branch Committee is very inexperienced politically.

comrades were chosen to be on it to relieve others, and PC members, in particular, of that work and as part of the process of developing a new political leadership for the Branch. This has not occurred. Branch committee members play little role in the political discussions of the Branch. The meetings have very little political direction and the contribution of BC members is usually of an organisational character. The reasons for this are very clear.

The comrades on the BC are not doing theoretical work and have and all in all are little or no time to prepare for meetings, overloaded with work. Further, much of the discussion which should take place in the cell or branch takes place in the BC or in meetings preparing for it.

The meetings of London branch are therefore disjointed without any continuity or political direction. There is no leadership in the Branch and leading comrades of the organisation are forced to play much too prominent a role in Branch meetings. This leads to all too frequent disputes with the BC, and creates a certain hostility between comrades which makes it very difficult to change things. The lack of political discussion in meetings leads to a very formal approach to work. This in turn can lead to a 'sectarian' attitude to other comrades outside the group and to those who come to our meetings and raise questions. We have to get away from preaching to our audiences and this requires the kind of political discussion and maturity that is not being promoted in London Branch. The formal nature of our work on the question of selling literature has led to sympathiser members complaining that they are being used as selling fodder and having no time to carry out theoretical work. This is really serious, comrades, and suggests we are failing to train our future members. Very little theoretical work has been done by all comrades and indicates that the perspectives for work laid down in previous National Activities Reports have not been adhered to. The PC needs to examine what has gone wrong in London Branch. We therefore propose an inquiry into the running of the Branch to be conducted by DY who will in future attend all BC meetings. The task will be to ensure that the branch is run in line with the perspectives laid down by the PC.

JH's role in the debate It would not be correct to locate JH's position in these disputes as belonging to a particular faction, in spite of the ever greater consistency with which she supports FR and CD. We have to seek the roots of the opposition to the PC majority in her sheer 48

egoism combined with the lack of any firm political perspective.

On arriving in London to take over as London and National Activities Organiser, JH needed to come to terms with her own lack of political experience, and to draw on the advice and help of other comrades. She needed to learn to give a sense of political direction to the whole organisation, and to lead the development of London Branch in such a way that the political priorities of the organisation were fully understood and acted upon by the comrades in London. Her inability to give London this political lead has been demonstrated. Her hostility to any comradely criticism or advice has led to continual disruption of EC meetings, where she has had to be repeatedly called to order by the chair for abusive and intolerable behaviour. At the EC meeting of 2.11.76, her temper flared with a vengeance in attacks directed particularly at SM for criticising the role she played over the election of London Branch treasurer. Among the torrent of abuse, JH called the EC majority a 'sectarian petit bourgeois clique', engaged in "factionalism', who were stifling certain comrades' political development and who represented a 'danger to London Branch'. By the next EC we had also become - no less - 'political cowards'. This kind of behaviour makes comradely political discussion and activity impossible. JH has even gone so far as to neglect to carry out the majority decision of the EC with which she did not agree. The EC having decided that our comrades should not speak at the South Africa Conference for very explicit reasons which were thoroughly discussed, JH did not explain these reasons to B. who was attending as Trade Union delegate. The explanation he was given was that we had not yet fully developed our position on South Africa, which he found unsatisfactory. He was also not informed of the significance of this Conference and particularly of the afternoon session when Michael Williams'.

paper was being discussed. He therefore found it quite acceptable to be sent by JH to a workgroup meeting rather than attend the afternoon session.

When the matter was raised at the end of the last EC, JH could only respond with a fit of temper, banging her fist on the table, and marching out of the room before the discussion had ended.

Unfortunately this was the sort of response that the EC has become accustomed to over the past few weeks. It cannot be allowed to continue if the leadership of the organisation is to function at all. The effect on London Branch JH's petty defensiveness ovér her own role as London organiser has unfortunately been reflected in a similar defensiveness by the London BC to criticisms in the Branch and cell. The impossible pressures placed on a relatively inexperienced body of comrades, by an ill-thought-out strategy for Branch activity, has given rise to an unhealthy us-and-them attitude which does not encourage the political development of the BC comrades. The election of London Branch treasurer is the most striking example of the way JH has misled the BC and through it the Branch. Having discussed the matter of a new treasurer informally with two other PC members and having informed A. from this discussion that she would be proposing her as treasurer JH then changed her.

mind without informing any of these comrades. She allowed the BC to have its 'election': accepting one comrade's own. nomination and rejecting A. who was raised as a possibility for the post. She found it acceptable to then call the item on the agenda 'BC proposal for Branch Treasurer, rather than 'election of Branch Treasurer'. And for reasons known only to herself but devoid of political content, she refused to vote for A. (the only candidate since the comrade proposed by the BC withdrew his nomination, having been asked to do so by DY.) What must be of even more concern to the PC is that the BC as a whole (with the exception of C) similarty refused to vote for A. Having misled the BC over the procedure to be followed and the political importance of the election, she could in no way show members of the BC that this was an experience to be learnt from rather than a slight to their 'credibility' - since she herself could only see it as 'undermining her credibility in the Cell'. Yes comrades, political credibility is undermined when a comrade's stubborn egoism and arrogance prevents her from developing i in political stature through successes, and failures, praise and criticism. This is something which JH has not grasped.

The National Tasks If we turn now to the way. JH has carried out her two national tasks, we have to point to a certain lack of priority. Inordinate time has been devoted to the preparation for BC meetings in comparison with the potential that exists for a fulltime NAO to inspire the branches with a sense of where they are going. Her decision to work at home, coming in to the office to pick up the post only 2 or 3 times a week for a few minutes, has meant that a good. deal of the trivial aspects of London and national organisation has fallen on SM, whose tasks as National Administrator, PC Secretary and External Literature Organiser are already more than enough to fill a working week. The London Organiser must be in the office regularly to deal with Branch matters that crop up. The National Organiser must do more than take weekly phone-ins and write monthly of an reports organisational nature. And both these jobs must be carried out in complete cooperation with the other full-timers. This is the only way a firm political perspective can be reinforced in the organisation: when the fulltimers carry out their tasks together and in common accord not puiling against each other or remaining isolated from each other.

We have to establish clearly that SM's task as Administrator is to run RCG Publications Ltd, while JH's task as NAO is to deal with all matters concerning the Revolutionary Communist Group. Our publications are expanding, our accounts are growing more complicated, and our correspondence is increasing weekly. The RCG is at a turning-point; its isolation is ending - its propagation of Marxist ideas is being seized upon by an ever-increasing number of people in many parts of the world. It is SM's job to make sure that we have the organisational structures and methods adequate to meet the flood of orders and correspond ence that will come in the next few months and years. It is also her job to seize the opportunities that arise for political gains to be made. To do this she needs assistance in the office from contacts and members alike, and she cannot be continually interrupted by problems connected with London and national organisation. JH's role is key here: not only can she prevent the interruptions but also she should be precisely the one to have an overall view of the organisation and all its workings.

JH must overcome her petty egoism and the political conse quences of this attitude, if she is to fulfil her role as National Activities Organiser and play a constructive part in meetings of the EC and PC. If she fails to do this, she will simply continue to disrupt the leadership of the organisation, and will become an obstacle to the healthy development of the RCG.

DY 11.11.76