2. The open refusal of the Left Faction to accept party discipline¶
Core Argument¶
Here the chapter documents a decisive rupture within the Revolutionary Communist Party in 1944, centring on the Glasgow branch’s attempt to compel three Left Faction members to leave the Labour Party for open RCP work. The core argument is that the Left Faction, while formally inside the party, operated as an organised bloc that openly refused democratic centralist discipline, treating its own factional influence as separate from and superior to the party’s collective authority. The narrative thrust moves from a procedural dispute—a Glasgow branch vote, referral to the Scottish District Committee, and deadlock—to an outright factional challenge.
The key evidence is a letter from “TM on behalf of the Glasgow Left” to a Political Bureau member. TM admits one comrade (PK) had not attended a Labour Party meeting for two years, yet argues against removal, claiming the proposal is “merely a manoeuvre to destroy any possible influence and basis we may have or gain in the working-class movement.” The chapter’s author seizes on the phrase “possible influence and basis” as proof the Left conceived of its own standing as distinct from the party’s. The Labour Party Faction Committee then ruled unanimously that two of the three should be removed, citing the Fusion Conference’s recognition of LP work as the least important sphere, PK’s two-year inactivity, and JM’s having recently left the LP upon moving area. The PB instructed the two to leave; JM instead reapplied for LP membership.
The chapter’s polemical climax is the Glasgow branch secretary’s report of TM’s statements at JM’s expulsion meeting. TM declared JM acted on “instructions from the Left Faction to violate party discipline,” that any Left member obeying an RCP instruction would be expelled from the faction, and that JM would remain in the faction’s meetings where “internal RCP business is discussed.” This is presented as an open declaration of dual loyalty and a factional veto over party decisions. The PB’s response—reducing expulsion to suspension and deferring the problem—is depicted as a retreat that left the Glasgow Lefts “openly refusing to obey the discipline of the party.” The chapter thus argues that the Left Faction had become a party within a party, and that the leadership’s conciliatory approach only emboldened the breach.