Often someone has to step in and say "cool it

Scan page 10

"Yes, there are times when Ken needs keeping on the rails, but I think we've done more of this than anyone... CHRIS KNIGHT of Briefing replies to the 'Open Letter to London Labour Briefing' which we published last week from Brighton Labour Briefing and others. The Open Letter criticised LLB for political accommo dation to 'former comrades now in leading positions' and Tudging issues for the sake of formal unity. This reply was written as a letter to Dave Lowney, one of the signatories of the Open Letter.

Dear Dave, Between Graham and myself on the one hand, and Tony Greenstein on the other (with supporters on each side), we seem to have got ourselves locked into a fight over "principle' which is threatening to blow up out of all proportion, as such conflicts tend to do. It would seem to me ludicrous to allow a 'split' which begins in personal incompatibility between Greenstein and Bash and then flows outwards to turn into anything remotely like a split between you and your comrades in Brighton and myself and my comrades up here. I'm not writing to you to try and fob you off or 'mollify' you all in Brighton as Tony as alleged I'm offering to do. The fact is that at the last LLB Editorial Board I offered to try and see if matters could be cooled a bit by you and I corresponding and perhaps arranging a meeting between us. My idea is to by-pass Graham and Tony, who seem to be driving each other crazy. I also want to make sure that your joint Open Letter' to Briefing is published by us, as I think it must be (I don't think there is any dispute about that on the E.B.: I will come to what happened there later).

Fissiparous

Let me explain what 1 think the dispute is about. It concerns a contlict beiween two "principles, each of which is absolutely conect. The first is programmatic; the second is organizadonal. It's like the difference between speaking in a meting and trying to convene and chair the meeting so that it takes place. Graham frels that he has to be the caps' in order that the 1ssl2 ous tendencies of af.et the Briefing alliance is co mposed hold together. • 'netimes the chair has to = ery frm and just shut sopte up if they've gone on isr ton long or if an issue is 'sesi ind somebody's still 2:= = ın the bonnet a=: : ard isess cesurrect125, March 24, 1983, Page ing it. Sometimes a whole meeting can get completely derailed because a singie individual is allowed by a weak chair to dominate the whole thing, to the exasperation of everyone else who had thought the meeting was supposed to be about something quite different. You know the sort of thing I mean, I'm sure. The two principles, then, are 'free speech' on the one hand, and firm structuring of discussion by an impartial 'chair' on the other.

Individual view

Tony's problem is that he doesn't see the need for a "chair'. • He wants the 'chair' to state openly and explicitly that he takes one hundred per cent one individual's -Tony Greenstein's, to be precise - side in an argument between two factions present at the meeting. It is no secret that the two factions in this dispute are really Socialist Organiser on the one hand and Socialist Challenge on the other. That's what it's really all about. If you openly: I feel and always have felt immeasurably closer to SO than SC.

It so happens that I know that this has usually been Graham's position, too, in terms of policies and politics. But as 'chair" , would it be right for Graham to state that and to say that in his capacity as editor of Briefing these are the positions held? Please be clear about this: it is precisely this that Tony is demanding. Instead of presenting the arguments on his own behalf and within the framework of a properlychaired discussion, Tony is insisting that Briefing itself adopts his own line' ' in the context of a dispute between two factions within which this line' follows consistently one side. In eftect, this is demanding that one faction occupy the chair.

When bitter disputes blow up out of small boginnings, there is often a need for someone - it doesn't really matter who - to step in and say 'Cool it!' This is so even when it is clear as daylight that one side is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong. If both factions are part of the movement and we need them both, then someone just has to act fairly toughly to make them calm down. There is no question in my mind as to who was right or who was wrong as between Tony Greenstein and Ted Knight in the Labour Committee on Palestine Conference. Neither Graham, noranyone else on the Briefing EB, except, of course, for the Socialist Challenge comrades, entertained any doubt on this score. We made this clear enough, even to the extent, unusually, of inserting in LLB an editor's note to that eitect. My own personal view is that, because Knight's was: such .a scandalous violation of democratic procedure, Graham should not have changed the word 'outrageous to 'regrettable' as he did. But please give Graham the benefit of the doubt here, instead on tunging accusations at him in the way Tony is doing. In trying to 'chair' the discussions in Briefing on this issue, Graham just wanted to cool things down a bit. He also wanted to protect his own position as 'chair' ', in order to protect the formal relative "impartiality' of Briefing itself. If Tony doesn't understand the need for this impartiality in form, he really understands nothing of the secret which has enabled Briefing to be so successful in the past, and nothing of the method we will need if Socialist Urganiser and Socialist Challenge are to fuse - as we hope can be achieved - to enable a really powerful united revolutionary organization and paper to be built in the period immediately ahead.

Warning

Tony's 'open Letter" . In the form in which he demanded its publication at the meeting last week, contained: 1. A useful political to us and a criticism of our relative 'lack of direction' in Briefing. This point is taken. 2. A criticism of our 'inability to adopt any position or perspective' in relation to the acrimonious debate over rates' '. This is a valid viewpoint, although I don't share it. Our position is perfectly clear: unless or until we can find some other source of finance (e.g. expropriating the bank vaults the City through armed insurrection) then we must ensure that local services are financed and employment maintained within the system to the extent that the Tories remain unable to prevent us. Our commitment to no cuts is absolute: Those of us controlling Labour Councils will listen to comrades' suggestions regarding alternative sources of finance other than the rates, but they must show us that the money will be available before pay-day at the end of this week. If we were to offer the local authority work-force 'socialist campaigns and "programmes' in place of their wage-packets in this present political climate and situation we should get a boot up the arse from the trade unions and dead right. This is what we think. We could have made all this the line' of Briefing, as Tony in other contexts demands. In the interests of a fair discussion, however, we have tried not to do this but have published articles expressing our viewpoint alongside others with a different line.

Courageous

3. An attack on Ken Livingstone's contribution at the Briefing Conference. Tony speaks mock-pityingly of Ken's 'harrowing tale' of being under fire from all sides at County Hall. Ken Livingstone is among the most couragcous leading classfighters this country has so far produced, in my opinion, and 1 must say | value Bricting's links with Ken's supporters throughout London and beyond even more than I value my links with. Tony Greenstein of Brighion Lafres bour Briefing. Yes, there are times when Ken needs keeping on the rails, but (a) I think we've done more of this than anyone in the movement anyway and (b) Tony's comments sound like cheap sneering and wouldn't have the slightest positive effect with Ken's supporters whom, presumably, is lonv's intention to try ana reach.

4. An attack on us for not having taken up Jeremy Corbyn's appeal for us all to take trade union work more seriously. I grant Tony's right to make comments like this, but still I find it irritaing when people keep telling other people to take ine trade unions seriously' instead of giving up their teaching jobs, etc., and doing it themselves. The letter is an 'Open Letter' from Brighton Labour Briefing as a whole. Is it that somehow, BLB feels angry that we have little industrial coverage and involvement compared with what you have in Brighton? I would have thought it was the other way around, but we don't write 'Open Letters' to you complaining that you are too much studentbased' , etc. These are matters for comradely discussion amongst ourselves, not for flinging down public gauntlets. Unless, of course, we are political oponents trying to 'expose' one another in public. I was utterly astonished to learn at the Editorial Board meeting that this was, indeed, how Tony felt things should proceed. It came completely out of the blue.

An attack on the 'highly original' proposal of Socialist Challenge to set up a Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory' • 1 presume that the barb about 'highly original' proposals refers to the fact that we set up - i.e. Workers' Action and the Chartists as we then were -the first 'Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory' in 1978 and 1979. Why complain when SC flip on their backs, change ther pelicies. admit that we were right and try to make themselves feel good by taking the initiative' in doing something which they knew we were poised to do anyway? Why on earth assume, from this, that SC are going to run the thing?' Nothing has been decided regarding this, and it's really up to Socialist Organiser and the rest of us to make sure Socialist Challenge don't get away with the soggy, mainly CND campaign which they perhaps lean towards if they were left on their own.

Syndication

6. 'Brighton Labour Briefing's proposals for syndicating articles was ignored' at our 'for a National Network Conference.' That is really rich. I remember speaking at Brighton Labour Briefing's founding meeting about the desirability of syndicating articles nationally, and repeating this suggestion at several joint meetings with BLB after that. It was invariably BLB who seemed most anxious to preserve autonomy and not to synchronise production times with Or between us. We respected that, and ever since then, have tried to be very tentative, tactful, cautious and sensitive about mentioning anything suggestive of nation-wide integration and tightening up of structure. But if you've all changed your minds - great! Let's start! But why on earth was not a word of this said at the Conference itself?

The points about Ted Knight and the Palestine Committee refer to a correspondence we have decided to close. That's all. We've decided to say: This correspondence is now closed', and that's it. We're fed up with it and so is nearly everyone who reads Briefing in London. In any long drawn out wrangle in the correspondence columns of a paper, there comes a point when this sort of thing has to be This has nothing to do with done and we've done it.

our political position. just the sort of thing you have to do if you find yourself in the chair. To Tony I would just say: don't keep challenging the Chair's rulings unless you are really moving a vote of no confidence and have got an alternative chair in mind who could do better. Shut up and sit down. I'm as angry as Graham over this, and fully behind him. 8. A complaint about the fact that one article, a very long one, among the many long articles submitted to us by Tony Greenstein, was actually not published in the last issue of Briefing. We just hadn't the space for it. It's going in the next issue. It's on Women and Zionism, and seems to me to be wellargued and essentially COITect. Instead of shortening it oursleves, we asked Tony to do his own editing-down and I believe he's agreed. This saved us having to chop it down or say 'No' to the atticle as a whole. But why on earth make our earlier decision to delay publication an item in an 'Open 'Letter' from Brighton Labour Briefing as a whole? Who the hell does Tony think he is? 9. An accusation that we want 'unity at all costs' with the extent of abandoning Socialist Challenge', even to our principles and politics. can't understand why Tony To take only two points. On personal politics and feminism, we are miles apart from Socialist Challenge. Socialist Oganiser al c much more open-minded, think. Equally on the question of Clause 4 as central to a 'Socialist Campaign for Labour Victory' (Socialist Cliallenge don't want to stress it). On most issues, , we are much closer to Brighton Labour Briefing, and also to Socialist Organiser, than we are to Socialist Challenge wav accuse ine cnal or be ing in league with the other side all the time just because he/she doesn't want two separate meetings in place of one? 10. An accusation that we becoming 'increasingly irrelevant, retreating "down the road to oblivion. But in that case. why does Tony keep wanting to publish his long articles in . our paper? Or is it that he realises that if ne alant budasn nis arucies in London Labour Briefing They would unlikely actually to be read?

Let me explain now that at the Editorial Board meeting we did agree to publish Tony's letter, but asked him to take account of what we had said at that meeting in taking it back to you ir Brighton and seeing if you wanted it re-drafted at all. We just couldn't believe that this letter was the considered verdict of all of you, thrashed out and discussed at a proper Editorial Board meeting Brighton Labour Briefing. If the letter had been signca in lony s own name alone, then of course it would have been published in full and without question, as we publish all letters submitted to us as a matter of other dragged People's names al C principle But when (a)

into a letter, when know these people personally and when (b) the collective name of Briefing as such is used, we have to make the proper checks.

Real debate Dave, please tell me: is this letter really yours?

lished, I can guarantee you that it will go in Briefing be cause that is what we are for If you really insist on reply. ing only with the draft rejected the last Editorial Board you would give us a a real headache although I vote for it own view is that it would be far more productive for all of us if a real debate were to take place, and if the ques tion of form in these matters was given a certain amount of weight. Tony really didn't give us a chance, He just said he wasn't changing faced is with han lettea and point-blank. It turned out that this ultimatum was: either we agreed, or he'd publish it in Socialist Organier. Faced with that kind o hing, all we can say is 'Ge Stuffed!' Since Tony pushed it to a vote, we had to say: No, we're not publishing the letter until you've taken it back to the Brighton comrades for their re-drafting in the light of our own response I think I'll leave it there.

Warmest comradely greetin shris

Scan page 11

125, March 24,