[Marxism] On mostly open "internal" discussions (was: RE: The Australian argument and international readers)

[Joaquín Bustelo <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris Latham writes, "While other list members will disagree with me, as
is their right, I think the present situation indicates the problem with
having a policy of always making public internal discussions that an
organisation is having, as it will undermine the internal democracy of
political groups, as members will not be able to say what they really
think in order to avoid what they say being used against either their
own organisation specifically, or groups they are intervening into."

Is it true that the DSP has adopted a policy of making all their
internal discussions open? 

I was under the impression that actually, the Percy quotes were from the
internal bulletin that was supposedly open only to members of the
grouping. And if that is right, then this incident shows one of the
problems with such a policy, which is that things that are meant to be
exclusively internal do, in fact, leak out. 

I think a very focused consciousness of that might have led John Percy
to formulate his political point somewhat differently, which is a
perfectly valid point, in such a way as to not to be so easily
manipulated. And perhaps even led him to reformulate it in his own mind
less in terms of the rivalry between DSP and ISO, which comes through
very strongly and I think *ought not* in general be a central concern in
left groups. 

The idea that for there to be "internal" democracy in a group, it must
hide its most significant policy debates from those it collaborates with
most closely strikes me as unsound and even counterproductive, because
it is inevitably going to raise questions about what the comrades are
really up to and plant a seed of mistrust. It leaves the "internalist"
group constantly open to accusations that it has a secret agenda, that
it is being less than completely honest and forthcoming and transparent
in its positions and proposals.

If the DSP has positions or approaches that really are something that
*must not* be said in front of others within the SA, or the left
generally, I would urge comrades a) Never to put such a thing in an
"internal" bulletin because those bulletins *always* get out and b) ask
themselves very carefully whether there isn't really a bigger political
problem or issue revolving around the relationship between the DSP and
the rest of the SA or the rest of the left that leads the DSP to treat
them as fundamentally hostile forces. 

I think inevitably there are *some* things that *any* grouping will keep
private. Either because they could easily be misconstrued; because it
violates the privacy rights and needs of militants in specific
situations, opening them up to red-baiting and victimizations; because
it is an action or initiative that by its nature requires that it become
public only at the right time; or simply because it isn't anyone else's
business. 

Thus for example, Lenin's big complaint against Zinoviev and Kamenev in
October of 1917 is that they had "outed" a Central Committee decision
that was private, unpublished, namely, the decision to set out on an
insurrectionary path. Moreover by the very nature of the decision it
wasn't something that could be discussed publicly. So the Bolsheviks
certainly understood the need to keep *some* things private, like a plan
for a concerted action against the class enemy, which makes even more
striking that they chose to have all their general political
discussions, including their organizational fisticuffs inside the RSDLP
and then later the RCP(B), in public.

The default mode of Bolshevik discussion was public, even though Lenin
understood that *some* things should be private, at least for a time.
But it is striking that in motivating his proposal to expel "Mr.
Zinoviev" and "Mr. Kamenev," Lenin did not appeal to a special
discipline or need for privacy in a revolutionary party, on the
contrary, he rested his entire case on an analogy with a union calling a
surprise strike against the bosses and what would be done to a member of
the union executive board that then went public criticizing this
decision before the action. It wasn't a specific, "Leninist Party"
discipline that Lenin insisted was applicable, but rather the generic
discipline of ANY working class or progressive organization preparing an
initiative against the class enemy that involves the element of
surprise.

It is also striking that so strong was the Bolshevik tradition of
discussing party policy before God and everybody that Lenin could not
get an echo for his proposal to expel the two "ex comrades" inside the
Bolshevik leadership, and was forced to drop it and resume comradely
collaboration with Zinoviev and Kamenev.

But the kinds of discussions that tend to happen in the "internal"
bulletins of left groups are neither of those specific kinds, or things
that properly viewed are simply the business of the group an nobody
else, like an internal financial report, restructuring branches or the
apparatus, etc. They are on general political, theoretical, programmatic
questions, on an evaluation of the overall political situation, on
relations with others on the left, things which in no sense are
exclusively "internal" to the group.

Now, the suggestion is made that openness and transparency in such
discussions is the enemy of democracy, that for there to be a free and
open discussion on something like the character of the period this must
be kept hidden, so comrades don't feel "inhibited." I can't for the life
of me understand this. If you're willing to take the risk of appearing
foolish or mistaken in front of all your closest comrades and
collaborators, why should you feel inhibited because the ISO, or the
Morenistas, or the CPGB will see it too? 

It does, I admit, make more difficult this idea that all members of the
group have to present the same position on, say, what happened in Spain
in the 1930's as if they agreed with it, even when they don't. But I
think that is a tremendously bad tradition. One effect of it is that you
can never fully 100% take the individual probity of someone in such a
group for granted. You have to assume you are ALWAYS dealing with a
representative of the collective, never an individual.

My group, Solidarity, has a different norm that is much better, I think.
We ask members of the group to tell people what the group's position is
when that comes up. So if a Soli comrade had been asked in the October
of 2004 what we were saying about the elections, I would have expected
every last one to say that Solidarity was calling for a vote for Nader
and Camejo. But I would not have expected comrades who didn't agree with
this to keep their disagreement some deep dark "internal" secret,
especially since we had part of the debate about what to do openly in
the pages of ATC, and in the framework of a broader collection of
articles on the left and the elections. And, yes, we would have expected
members who didn't agree with the majority decision to abstain from
campaigning for a different position, but not at all to take the lead as
individuals in promoting the Nader campaign.

Another angle on the "internal democracy" argument is that by taking it
public, OTHER groups will "intervene" in the discussion and that is
undemocratic. First, if I am right that the Percy quotes were pulled
from a members-only bulletin, the reality is that this happens anyways,
as this case shows. Second, if it happens, I don't think it is
necessarily a bad thing from the point of view of a group that's subject
to such "interventions." It tends to project you as an important group,
one whose discussions and decisions merit the attention of the entire
left -- even halfway around the world! And, of course, we should
remember what Ben Franklin said, which is that our critics are our
friends, for they point out the weaknesses in our positions. We may well
learn something from the "outside" interventions, even if only how to
formulate arguments in a better way. And finally, it will help groups
understand each other better, why they have the positions they do, what
the internal political situation is in a group that a leadership has to
deal with that constrains or shapes its actions or positions. But it
will also show both that the discussions you have in your own group
aren't all that different from everyone else's, and that there are
additional arguments, positions or nuances on a subject that no one in
your group may be raising.

In the end, what I hope is that it will lead towards discussions
becoming more of a single common conversation among revolutionary
socialists of a variety of different groups and no group, laying the
basis for further progress in unifying those forces.

And on the very specific case of the DSP and its relations to the SA, I
think the DSP being open about its discussions may well have an
additional positive side, which is "outside" comments influencing the
decision that the DSP itself makes. Those comments will reveal something
about the attitude of the other affiliates as well as individual,
non-affiliate members of the Socialist Alliance. I would imagine those
attitudes would be one of the paramount factors that DSP comrades will
take into account in charting a course. And by allowing the rest of the
comrades in SA to see more fully the concerns of the DSP, not as one
block, but of various currents and even individual members, it will help
others in the SA interested in continuing a fruitful collaboration or
fostering a more developed regroupment to chart their own course towards
those objectives on a more realistic basis.

It may also help in sectarians exposing themselves for what they are,
although --frankly-- those comrades don't seem to need much help, they
seem to be doing it quite effectively all by themselves, to judge from
the material that's been brought to my attention on this list.

One last point, since it's been brought out that John Percy represents a
minority point of view in the DSP leadership. And that is that I think
the same kinds of considerations that argue for mostly open discussions
by a group like the DSP are *applicable* to internal formations within
groups. This idea of the ultra-private caucus that is completely opaque
to the rest of the membership that some comrades in some left groups
have is not a good one. I have no idea whether John's grouping is
organized on that basis or organized at all within the DSP, this isn't
meant to be a veiled critique of what he and his friends are doing, and
how *exactly* to apply the general concept in a concrete case depends on
the history and traditions of the given group, its internal regime and
so on. But I do believe the underlying concepts are applicable.

Joaquín



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism