man warsnai makes a simole ano diaus sounding case: the ex-Workers Fight Intolerant lutionary organisations (and he cites arsh criticisms of the IMG, the USFI Inal WEl must be / intolerant of the least political ice within our own ranks. And that ns why the WF-WP fusion ended -rs - in ine suooression or internal anyone who disagrees with you is sen as a revolutionary but a "Brandentrist", a aaroonate oroanisational meinoos What this boils down to is that • who calls things by their right must be a suppressor of democn1 depend on sweet language. That accused by the new ders Power and now John Marshall Pros anger But to sav that the MG bottom' on the EEC referendum dapted to Tribunite nationalism is ent, pontical characterisation, op it is arguable in terms of ideas, and argued Hds nothing soeverto do wiin sander.
Nor have the political characterisations we have made of those who split from the - wnal eise our deseners car call people who run away from political discussion and refuse even to come to a conterence To ments? What else is it but •political suicide to bolt headlong out of the only chaanisalon nev principled agreement with, to an existence which, they have admitted, rules out ane anocaror resources uney argued so hotly the I-CL should adopt?
Those who split from the I-CL knew better, in fact, than to make such bald allegations. Not once were they able to make cernie alecations mar we Janet to circulate a single document, or that we falsified minutes and reports of discussornat ne arrancements or te Conference or any other meeting were in way improper. They make many ally insinuations now aooul orcanisdi tional procedures in the I-CL. Never once in the I-CL did they propose changes in procedure - reorganisation or re-elec of committees, postponement of modification agenda, baruculal comrades from particular positions. cha nged arrangements for minute-keeping. John marshalls talk of suppression of interna democracv is a staiont sander which he should prove or retract. We know of one attempt to suppress internal cemocracv in me -or. nree memoers Hughes, Stocking and King - attempted to set themselves above the authority of ine -• Conerence. nar was dean wit What other attempt to suppress internal democracy can John Marshall cite? The RCP. in the 1940s. made an offer of £50 to anyone who could find a page in one of the CP's anti-Trotskyist pamphlets which did not contain at least one lie. We will offer the IMG £50 if they can produce one proven example of suppression of interna democracy in ine ol The slanderous premise for John Marshall's whole argument simply doesn't exist. rar wom ocing intoiciant. we wort political differences were easily containable within the I-CL, secondar to me malor areas or ouncio led agreement. Far from demanding that an opponent should abandon factional memnoos (wnich Jonn Marsnau imones we did), we suggested that they form a faction or tendency on a clear political -DasIs.
What we did oppose was their sliding around from minute to minute, changing neir contical areument ane stance out retaining their circle intact through al One these shifts. And what we could Dermi was mne anemo ov mnese peopie to re-define the I-CL as a federation and place themselves above the democraticcentranst norms wnich mey temselves had agreed to when the I-CL was formed.
John Marshall's logic is: fusions and As an I-CL member formerly part of the IS Left Faction/ Workers Power, I have been Tollowing your commentary on the split in the I-CL with interest. Sadly, it seems that your 'analysis' of the split is based on me same promise do your Faction series.
revolutionary place oneself outside its British section on any grounds oner than a crossing ol its class lines by the IMG is to condemn oneself to existence as a nationalist sect. Dollical project of an 'all-inclusive party' Finally, hypocrisy of comrade Marshall. Recently the IMG nas publisned a long series o articles devoted to the idea that splits on une eare only extreme cases. If John Marshall took his own ideas seriously, he would be obliged to start his analysis of the WP split by saying that the split was not justified that the comrades involved should have stayed in the I-CL to fight for their ideas. of the new WP, he correctness of their split. All this based on ine casual insinuation proved, not even itemised openly and cicany internal democracy to an extent ina forced the WP comrades to get out come Wildl Idy refers plain speaking any day. MAXIN LANDIS (For the Political Committee o tne I-CL.-