CWI split: Statement on the formation of the WASP Caucus for a United International (+ reply by EC majority, + explanation by DB)
Statement on the formation of the WASP Caucus for a United International
25 June 2019 [Signatories updated 26 June 2019]
Dear Comrades of the National Committee
1. At the Special National Committee (SNC), held on 15-17 June 2019, an ad hoc caucus was formed of comrades who – having engaged in the debates – considered the proposed resolution put forward by the Executive Committee, to align the South African section to the IDWCTCWI faction, premature and unjustified.
2. The caucus formulated and proposed an alternate resolution calling for continued, patient and comradely discussion of the important political issues posed in the hope of reaching principled agreement. It also called for WASP to recognise and participate in the IEC and World Congress. This resolution was not adopted at the SNC.
3. After the SNC, informal discussions revealed that that there was widespread concern over what the adopted resolution supporting the IDWCTCWI faction meant for the future of both WASP and the CWI. In particular comrades were not clear on the implications of the IDWCTCWI faction’s intention to split from the rest of the international. Many comrades also believed that the debate around the CWI dispute was not exhausted, as stated in the adopted resolution.
4. On Sunday, 23 June 2019, this ad hoc caucus convened a day-long meeting with comrades who were opposed to the adopted resolution or were critical but uncertain on whether this was the correct position for WASP to take. The aim of the meeting was to decide on the best way forward for comrades in the party who had dissenting or critical views of the adopted resolution.
5. As a result, the WASP Caucus for a United International has been formed.
6. The WASP Caucus for a United International bases itself upon the democratic foundations of the CWI that requires WASP to have a pedagogical and patient approach towards new layers of the party, which is the majority of our party membership. This, as Trotsky argued, is the only true meaning of party democracy.
7. We stand against a premature split in WASP and in the International as a whole and we uphold the statutes of the CWI and its leadership structures. We note that a number of sections initially belonging to the IDWCTCWI faction have already split from the international based on differences that emerged in closed sessions of the leadership in the faction.
8. Members who are not prepared to go along with the forming of a particular faction or split from the party do not automatically form “a faction”. We reject the claim by the IDWCTCWI faction that anyone participating in the IEC meeting is “placing themselves outside the ranks of the CWI”. We believe that the IEC and World Congress are the correct platforms for a debate which includes representatives of the entire international. This should be linked to patient engagements and meaningful participation of the party membership who have contributed immensely in building the CWI. This is required by the principle of democratic centralism.
Page 2 of 2
The current positions of the WASP Caucus for a United International are as follows:
a) We are not convinced that the disputes in the international cannot be resolved and we are opposed to a split in a CWI.
b) We argue that WASP should remain in the CWI, until doing so is proven to equate to a decisive and irreconcilable move away from the programme and traditions of the CWI.
c) We are opposed to personal attacks and retaliation for opposing or supporting either side of the debate.
d) We are committed to the preservation of the branch structures and will ensure that debates are organised in all branches.
We welcome comrades who are unclear about the dispute and its implications to contact any of us for further discussion.
Comradely,
1. Alex S (Cape Town Branch)
2. Austin M (NC, Tshwane Branch)
3. Carmia S (NC, Branch Secretary Cape Town)
4. Decious R (NC, Tshwane Branch)
5. Edward T (Tshwane Branch)
6. Ferron P (Cape Town Branch)
7. Japhter M (Tshwane Branch)
8. Lebohang P (EC, NC, Johannesburg Branch)
9. Mametlwe S (EC, NC, Johannesburg Branch)
10. Ndumiso N (Tshwane Branch)
11. Newton M (NC, Branch Secretary Johannesburg)
12. Phemelo M (NC, Branch Secretary Tshwane)
13. Robert K (Johannesburg Branch)
14. Sipho L (NC, Johannesburg Branch)
15. Tino G (NC, Johannesburg Branch)
16. Trevor M (NC, Bloemfontein Branch)
Reply to the “WASP Caucus For a United International”
EC Majority statement
28 June 2019
In the week following the Special NC a number of WASP members have organised themselves as a “WASP Caucus for a United International”. Unfortunately, there is not one single political argument in the statement they have issued. We are left wondering what the political basis of the “united international” they are calling for would be.
Without a political position what holds the caucus together? In our view, some actually support the NFF’s political trajectory though don’t want to openly admit it, knowing that others in the Caucus disagree. Others fear the implications for their day-to-day work in the GIWUSA union if they “go against Sebei”, the union president. Another group is driven by fear of a split in the CWI and are genuinely looking for more political clarity. Unfortunately, they won’t find it in the Caucus. Indeed, from discussions with some of the Caucus’s so-called ‘supporters’ it is clear they have not been ‘recruited’ on the basis of “patient and comradely discussion of the important political issues posed” but bamboozled into quickly adding their names on the basis of scaremongering that they didn’t understand “the implications” of the debates at the Special NC. Others have added their names without attending the Special NC (through choice in at least one case) and without having discussed with faction supporters first.
The right man for the job?
The comrades declare that they “stand against a premature split in WASP and in the international as a whole”. But the Caucus’s most senior member is Sebei. He has been campaigning to split WASP for the past five months! He even reminded comrades of this at the Special NC, declaring that “everyone knows that I am on my way out of the party”. How has this been so easily forgotten? There is absolutely no change in Sebei’s approach. As we will explain, he continues to push for a split in WASP. But comrades have organised around him... in the name of stopping a split!
Just two days after the Special NC, Sebei posted a ‘statement’ on the semi-public CWI Facebook group (with Lebo and Carmia chipping-in too). The intention was to undermine the Special NC, further polarize differences in the party, shock comrades and even intimidate them ‘back into line’. The behaviour of bad losers in other words! This was a continuation of the same methods used by Sebei & co. at the Special NC itself – including the approach they took to tabling their alternative motion and its (disguised) political content. In the Special NC Sebei attacked Weizmann (and Sheri) in almost every contribution. This poisoned the atmosphere. In the run-up to the Special NC, Sebei repeatedly threatened to collapse the meeting, arguing that instead of structured debates the comrades should just come together briefly and decide “how to go our separate ways”. How has this been so easily forgotten? The Caucus’s statement is silent on all of this. Rather, the comrades have organised with Sebei... in the name of a “pedagogical and patient approach” to more discussion!
Over the past five months Sebei has waged a destructive campaign against Weizmann (and Sheri), repeatedly threatening to “split” the party. Now we understand that Sebei has dropped this campaign entirely! Apparently a few remarks by Weizmann and Sheri in the Special NC have convinced Sebei that he can work with these comrades after all. Everyone else must have missed this beautiful moment – possibly when Sebei was demanding the addition of “the EC” to the agenda to try his luck at removing the same two comrades from the leadership. And what about Weizmann’s so-called role in facilitating Michael H’s corruption? Is Sebei admitting that this was a factionally motivated fantasy? If so, would this qualify as a months-long campaign of “bullying and blackmail” against Weizmann?
The Caucus should be extremely suspicious of Sebei’s miracle conversion. Why did he put the party through five months of hell if the issues were that easy to resolve? What sort of method is this for a ‘leader’? Have comrades also forgotten that two days after the Special NC, leaving aside his Facebook post, Sebei referred to the “lying grouplet” around Shaun on the NC WhatsApp group – surely meaning Weizmann and Sheri. All the Caucus comrades on the NC ignored this and were posting within days as if nothing happened. Are the comrades keeping quiet to maintain the ‘unity’ of the Caucus?
The real reason Sebei has changed his tune is tactical. He knows that most of the comrades who have put their names to the Caucus statement did not support his “party regime” campaign. Many were even angry with him about it. In other words, his unprincipled and dishonest campaign backfired. So he has adapted his approach, giving the comrades a ‘good story’ for why his destructive conduct can just be glossed over. Does it not occur to the comrades that something is fundamentally amiss with all of this?
In reality, Sebei is continuing to pursue a split playing on the genuine concerns of some comrades about the future of the international. This requires some ‘sleight of hand’. It is clear that the Caucus is organised around one idea at least – the false idea that the developing split in the CWI is the sole responsibility of the faction, rather than those who are breaking from the CWI’s programme, which the faction was formed to fight against.
It is also clear that the Caucus is ignoring reality – the CWI split has in effect already happened. This was explained in the Special NC and is clear in all the documents that have been circulated. It is a reality that Sebei himself acknowledged right up until the Special NC. The Caucus statement implies that this was not made clear at the Special NC. But even Liv explained that the CWI dispute was in its “endgame”! The purpose of burying this fact is to portray the Caucus as ‘politically neutral’. This is a dangerous delusion. But it makes it more comfortable for comrades to participate in it – the idea that the Caucus is some sort of innocent ‘debating club’.
But the comrades sticking their heads in the sand like ostriches will not allow them to avoid reality. Over the next few months every CWI member and section will face a choice. Upon which of two fundamentally different programmes do they want to be armed in the future struggles of the working class. The principled Trotskyist programme and method defended by the faction, or the opportunist programme and method defended by the NFF.
Supporting the faction’s politics and methods as “most in keeping with the Marxist method upon which the CWI was founded” and agreeing to support the faction’s conference and send a delegate (do not try and make the adopted resolution say more than it did comrades!) was not “premature”. Nor would it have been “premature” if Sebei & co.’s motion to place WASP under the international leadership of the NFF had passed. This very notion is un-Marxist. At the time of the Special NC every single CWI section bar one had aligned themselves either with the faction or the NFF. WASP members have had more time that anyone to form a view! If comrades did not use that time, they must take responsibility for that. But this cannot be an excuse for not making a clear-eyed political choice in the coming months.
No such thing as ‘neutrality’
The NFF raises the seductive flag of ‘unity’, ‘more debate’ and ‘more discussion’ and appeals to the faction to attend an August IEC and World Congress. They are dishonest! The idea that the NFF has an ‘open mind’ is a posture. The Caucus should be clear that the NFF has drawn far-reaching political conclusions from the debate already. In their non-platform platform the NFF says that:
It is wrong to underestimate the importance of [the] differences [revealed in the course of the debate] but we are still convinced, after five months of debate, that they are not evolving around fundamental Marxist principles and positions, and they are not of a “life or death” nature for revolutionary Marxists. (Paragraph 34) [Emphasis added].
Two paragraphs later the NFF lists the differences that they believe are not of a “life or death” nature, saying:
Differences have arisen over the issue of how to work in the trade unions; in relation to the women’s movement and erroneous claims that some sections have made concessions to identity politics; the national question and the united front; in relation to new movements like the youth movement against environment change and the way such movements should orient to the working class; and over the issue of the transitional programme and method. It also seems that there are differences over the issue of consciousness, though the faction has not clearly stated this. And there are certainly differences in the way the work of the sections was approached by the IS and the relations between the IS and IEC members over a period of time.
This is a list of virtually the entire Marxist ‘tool-kit’ for intervening in the class struggle. It sums-up the difference between a formal acknowledgement of the role of the working class, the importance of the unions, the use of the transitional method etc. and actually carrying those ideas into the living movement of the working class as a guide to action. Only an opportunist organisation could consider differences on these things as not of a “life or death nature”. Unfortunately, we have already seen the first results of the difference in approach in the severe electoral set-back in Ireland.
In their non-platform platform the NFF criticise the International Secretariat repeatedly and are clear they have considered them ‘not up to the job’ for years. (See paragraphs 38, 40, 41 and 42). From this, they admit where the CWI dispute is headed, saying:
This dispute has brought to light grave inadequacies in the political analysis and methods of the IS Majority. The differences that now exist in the IEC on questions of method and the political analysis of the current period, perspectives and programme are significant and will undoubtedly be reflected in the discussions and proceedings at both these important international meetings and the outcome of the elections at the World Congress. (Paragraph 118) [Emphasis added]
The August “IEC” is a staging-post on the way to changing the leadership of the CWI. Leaderships are changed to change the politics of an organisation; the old programme, defended by the current leadership, is to be replaced by a new programme, represented by a new leadership. What will this new programme be? The Marxist approach to unity always starts by asking the question: unity around which programme? As Trotsky explained, “The framework of the programme is at the same time the framework of democracy.”
Does the Caucus think that the faction is irredeemable? We ask this, because it is clear that the NFF certainly thinks the faction’s leadership is irredeemable. What is the Caucus’s advice to faction supporters? After being beheaded in the IS and IEC, should they agree to be a ‘loyal minority’ in a CWI that has abandoned its founding programme and principles?
The Caucus needs to wake-up. Calling for “more time”, or for WASP to recognise the August IEC and participate in a January World Congress is a political position. The NFF have made their intentions clear – in the coming months the political course of the CWI will be changed. In practice the position put forward in the Caucus statement would place WASP under the international leadership of the NFF. We remind comrades that the political programme of the NFF includes acceptance of investigations to uncover “secret oppositional groupings” (the Irish leadership’s own words); concessions to the separatist identity politics of the middle class, encouraging divisions in the working class that weaken its struggle against the bosses; “detours” from the trade unions, the basic organisations of the working class; the lowering of the profile of the revolutionary party and the watering down of our socialist programme, ultimately because it is embarrassing to be so ‘old fashioned’ in front of the petty bourgeois leaders of the ‘new’ movements.
Does the Caucus see that this is where your position leads in practise? Does the Caucus support placing WASP under the international leadership of the NFF and their politics?
Are you splitting?
At the EC on 25 June, the EC majority approached the meeting with the intention of trying to rebuild the EC’s collective leadership upon the basis of principled political agreement with Sebei & co. We drafted a resolution to chart a way forward, including proposals for a series of structured discussions ahead of the September All Members Meeting.
But we withdrew the motion when Sebei made it clear that he no longer recognises the EC. He said that there are “fundamental political differences” and WASP is now “two parties in one”. However, he could not name those political differences when asked. At some points Sebei seemed to be saying he does support the politics of the NFF, though he was far from clear about this. But Newton said that the Caucus does not believe there are fundamental political differences in WASP and does not support the politics of the NFF (yet at least). Which is it Caucus comrades? Does the Caucus agree with Sebei that there are fundamental political differences in WASP?
Sebei proposed that the EC be converted into a ‘Congress Organising Committee’, with a limited remit to prepare the September All Members meeting and nothing more. Sebei was clear that any attempt to invoke collective discipline to re-build the unity and collective functioning of the EC would lead to him (and the Caucus?) reconvening the NC to change the membership of the EC. In other words, the current EC will be permitted to exist as long as it does not act like an EC. This also seems to contradict Sebei’s claim to have dropped his “party regime” campaign. The Caucus has been primed to support this approach under the guise of opposing “retaliation for opposing or supporting either side of the debate”. This is a polarising phrase – who is talking about “retaliation”? What does that even mean? In practise it is a call to (dis)‘organise’ debate and discussion in favour of a ‘free for all’. All of this, taken together, amounts to a threat to de-recognise the EC, the result of the Special NC and in effect liquidates the party. We don’t see how in practise this position is any different to declaring a split.
This is taken further by the Caucus. With no common political basis we understand why the comrades chose not to call themselves a faction. But let us unpack the implications of ‘declaring’ a caucus. A caucus is ultimately an ad-hoc sub-committee of a formal structure – i.e. the EC, NC or a branch. The Caucus has clearly arrogated to itself the right to organise WASP’s future interaction with the CWI dispute. Until now, this has been the responsibility of the EC. Which party structure has ceded the Caucus this authority? The Caucus has stripped the EC of one of its main responsibilities and made a statement of ‘no confidence’ in the party’s full-timer who has had day-to-day responsibility for this work on behalf of the EC. The Caucus’s statement declares that the comrades will organise debates in all branches. Have all branch members been consulted if this is what they want? It sounds to us like the Caucus is imposing this on the branches.
Why did the comrades who formed the Caucus not approach the EC as a structure with a proposal for a new programme of debate and discussion? After all, it was the EC Majority’s proposal that WASP take another three months before taking any final decision on the realignment in the CWI. It was Sebei & co.’s motion which insisted on pushing through (bulldozing?) a final decision there and then. How has this been so easily forgotten?
Why did Carmia email the Caucus statement to only those comrades she had the emails of, instead of approaching the EC to reach an agreement for the structured circulation of the statement? Why was it simply ‘announced’ by Carmia that the Caucus statement was being circulated internationally with no discussion with the EC? Just like Sebei’s (and Lebo’s and Carmia’s) Facebook antics, this will polarise things even further, because the EC majority is again forced to respond on the world stage. The “free for all” has been implemented, presided over it seems by a new general secretary in Cape Town with barely two years membership!
In its few days of existence the Caucus has succeeded in creating “two parties in one”. In the adopted Special NC resolution which recognised the existence of the same situation in the CWI we made the point that:
This is not a tenable situation, even in the short term, for anyone that stands by the revolutionary Marxist principles of democratic centralism. The question of the way forward is now posed starkly.
In the name of “stopping a split” in the CWI, the Caucus is accelerating towards one in WASP. The faction has some advice for the Caucus comrades. Get your stories straight. Think through the implications of your actions. But most of all, examine your politics and the reality in the CWI. Take your stand clearly on the political issues. Sebei should give us a clear answer at the EC meeting on 4 July: are the comrades prepared to follow their position through to its logical conclusion and openly split the party now?
Trajectory
In recent material published by the EC majority we have explained that the political basis of the crisis engulfing WASP is rooted in the complicated objective situation and the opportunist pressures this exerts on our party, especially towards liquidation in the trade union bureaucracy. If the Caucus pushes ahead and splits WASP we can predict their likely political trajectory, especially under an opportunist international NFF leadership. This has nothing to do with the subjective intentions of the comrades, their sincerity or commitment to the cause of the working class. It will be a consequence of the political programme and methods that the comrades organise around.
Efforts to understand the objective pressures operating on the party will be pushed into the background with the following consequences:
Clique politics – friendships and personal loyalties – will be the main organising ‘principle’ of the group and democratic centralism abandoned in practise. Over recent months Sebei has set a fundamentally wrong example on accountability, a collective approach to leadership, party discipline etc. etc. Every aspect of Sebei’s “party regime” campaign and his antics before, during and after the Special NC, represent an abandonment of the principles of revolutionary organisation. The Caucus seems to be following this example.
At the Special NC, faction supporters explained that in recent weeks Sebei has twice raised the idea that WASP should adopt a ‘looser’ model of organisation. In a WhatsApp to Shaun on 30 May, Sebei said:
“We should talk about all other issues and how can we collaborate going forward, maybe in a looser WASP again ... I [can’t] bind myself to any form [of] discipline for the same reason I can’t with many people I can work with ... I can only work with [Weizmann] now onward on a take it or leave it basis. We have worked like that with Shah and the whole arrangement didn’t fail on our account [this is a reference to the ‘broad’ WASP tactic of 2012-14 when the CWI was organised as the DSM]. If that is not agreeable, unfortunately it means we have a major problem on our hands.”
Unfortunately, this is where Sebei’s wrong approach will take comrades. Capitalism will not be overthrown by a “looser” form of party where discipline is on a “take it or leave it basis”. The instrument for the overthrow of capitalism is a combat Bolshevik party – democratic yes, but bounded by centralism and firm discipline, characterised chiefly, as Trotsky said, by “granite hardness”. When we raise the possibility of federalism in a broad workers party, our programme is clear that this is only “a step toward the creation of a mass revolutionary party” – in other words, a united front tactic to win the advanced layers of the working class to the necessity of Bolshevik organising methods. But Sebei seems to be suggesting we bring federalism into WASP.
The tendency towards liquidation in the trade unions will accelerate. It is likely that various individuals who have passed through WASP over the years will start to reappear in paid trade union posts, recruited on the basis of personal connections but passed-off as ‘members’ that Weizmann ‘kept out of the party’. The efforts we have made to ‘draw the borders of the party’ will go into reverse.
Last winter, Sebei began exploring a re-theorisation of the role of the “neo-colonial trade union bureaucracy”. He was testing the water to see if we would accept recognising this layer as a (relatively) progressive social force in the ‘exceptional’ conditions of the neo-colonial world. This would have justified the party’s dangerous reliance on paid trade union organisers. Instead of tackling this problem head-on, it would allow us to minimise, or even dismiss it. Although low-key, and exploratory, the revelation of the direction in which Sebei was looking was decisive in accelerating the IS intervention in September 2018. We also re-wrote Revolutionary Trade Unionism (then a work in progress) to place the social basis of the trade union bureaucracy centre stage. This flirtation with the idea that the unions can be ‘taken over’ from the top-down will likely re-emerge in practise without the check of the faction supporters.
Accommodation to the reformist and neo-Stalinist trends in the trade union bureaucracy will accelerate. We would warn the Caucus of the dangerous forms this can take beyond the points we have made in previous material. Comrades will recall that last month Lebo posted a quote from Stalin on Facebook. When challenged on this he said Stalin was “on point” on some things. Last month Trevor moved a motion at a Sadtu meeting which appealed to the authority of the Communist Party. This was not a clever ‘tactic’. It misled workers by sowing illusions in ideas which WASP exists to shatter. In the short- to medium-term, a political softening with the neo-Stalinist milieu of the trade union bureaucracy may well see the Caucus seek an accommodation in some form with the neo-Stalinist SRWP. With the SRWP’s base in the trade union bureaucracy, this will relieve much of the pressure on the comrades in the summits of Saftu to uphold the unpopular ‘Trotskyist’ political line.
Accommodation to petty bourgeois nationalist ideas – a version of identity politics – will develop.
At the Special NC, Sebei in effect said that WASP’s position on racism and nationalism was in some way insufficient. Abandoning a class approach, and echoing the NFF’s approach to the global wave of women’s movements, he said that a recent strike at a GIWUSA organised workplace was a “strike against racism” and nothing more. Sebei raised his concern that the EFF – whose rhetoric leans heavily on petty bourgeois nationalism – was outmanoeuvring “us”. What can possibly flow from this? That we should adopt some of their nationalist rhetoric?
Sebei also said that our position on the land question did not, in effect, sufficiently take account of the ‘emotional’ side of the issue. Sebei tested this idea out recently, suggesting discussions to develop our land programme (now we wonder if he meant revise). What can possibly flow from this? Again, it must be the idea that we should adopt more ‘emotional’ nationalist rhetoric. Such ideas dominate the petty bourgeois milieu, including the media, but not the workers’ movement. However, there are some comrades in the Caucus who pay far too much attention to the obscure nationalist theories that exist only in the universities. These are popular with a layer of the youth, including those in the student-wing of the nationalist PAC which Sebei was previously the leader of. Some in the Caucus might be excited to orient towards this radical petty bourgeois milieu to exercise their own intellectual pretensions. But be careful comrades, gaining a “hearing” by going soft on our own programme will be deadly.
The comrades in the Caucus have placed themselves at one minute to midnight on a decision about their political futures. But it is not too late for them to place themselves on the clear and principled ground of revolutionary Marxism.
We welcome comrades who were unclear about the implications of supporting the Caucus to contact faction supporters for further discussion.
Explanation by DB (IS minority)
The document TS has just published here - mostly a character assassination against one comrade - has to be seen in context, and together with the document it is supposedly 'replying' to.
The context is that just days after the whole international was told that the South African section was endorsing the faction, sending a delegate to their split conference, a document has been written signed by the MAJORITY of the South African NC, a majority of the active members, and every branch secretary, which OPPOSES the faction's plans.
This gives insight into the real driving force behind the factions split railroad - that they are losing the debate badly, and feel the longer it goes on, the more they will lose.
At the time of writing the faction now has a majority on leading bodies in 7 countries. In at least one of those (Germany) they are opposed by the majority of the membership. In E&W, over 140 comrades have signed a letter opposing them.
As things stand their new international will have less than 500 active members, and be significantly smaller than the IMT, the IST, etc.
The question is how much more will they lose?
[Documents from the CWI split here: https://telegra.ph/More-documents-from-the-CWI-faction-fight-03-22]