Striking Åireci textile workers in Gaziantep [Photo: birlesiktekstil/Twitter]
On August 14, the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) reported an incident in which the trade union bureaucracy of the Cankaya Municipality in Turkey threatened and attacked the workers when they protested against the betrayal of the trade union leadership.
Workers were attacked when they went to the union office to question the fraudulent way the unions are concealing from the workers the agreement signed between the union and the management. Workers accused them of having agreed to a meager salary and not including in the signed agreement the terms agreed upon with the workers.
Colombo Action Committee for People’s Struggles (CACPS) strongly condemns the brutal attack by the bureaucrats of the Genel-Ä°Å trade union affiliated to the Turkish DÄ°SK trade union, against the workers of Cankaya municipality and extends its fraternal arms of solidarity with the workers.
The thuggery of Turkey’s treacherous union bureaucracy against its members, is a part of the conspiracies of union bureaucrats, who have aligned themselves with governments and corporations around the world to quell workersâ struggles. CACPS, convinced that the only way the workers can fight against these regressive movements around the world is through a conscious fight for the unity of the working class around the world, calls on the working people to march forward to mobilize the support of the international working class.
The CACPS was built during a struggle to build a genuine workersâ movement, independent of the right-wing, within the people’s movement that ousted the former Executive President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka. It is built on the foundation of the calling of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) to build rank-and-file committees of workers, as centers of workers’ power, independent of all capitalist class organizations and trade unionism.
Our committee stands in defense of the Turkish workers as an organization with experience in fighting for the social and democratic rights of the working people against the attacks of the capitalist class in Sri Lanka.
The crisis of the Turkish ruling class, which has been exacerbated by the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine, is being burdened onto the shoulders of working people through inflation, job slashings and welfare cuts. Against this assault, tens of thousands of working people across Turkey have started a counteroffensive through protests and strikes. It is in such a backdrop that bourgeois lackyes and pseudo leftists including trade unions have launched rounds of physical attacks against the workers.
The workers of Sri Lanka too are experiencing the same conditions. The austerity measures of the Ranil Wickremesinghe government and their beastly attacks on the democratic rights are being intensified on a daily basis, enjoying the generous assistance from trade unions who do not raise even a finger against them. Earlier this year, more than half a million petroleum, electricity, water and health care workers responded to cuts and privatization with strikes and protests.
The government’s day-to-day response to these protests by workers and students has been to impose court bans and disperse them with the use of the military police. The brutal crackdown by the government shows that they are not prepared to allow even a shade of democratic rights to the working class.
Trade union bureaucracies are more and more aligning themselves with the plans of their governments. This experience is shared by workers in Turkey as well as in Sri Lanka. The Ceylon Electricity Workers’ Union (CEWU), facing the privatization of the Ceylon Electricity Board, demands that the ârestructuring should be done to suit the current situation of the country”. The CEWU is not alone in their assistance offered to the governmentâs plans for privatization. Everywhere the government institutions are threatened with privatization, including in the Colombo port and Petroleum Corporation, the Trade Unions are extending their hands of assistance to the ruling class.
The trade union movement is unable to lead the working class to face the deadly attacks of the capitalist system, immersed in a grave crisis of international proportions. Before the 1980s, when production was relatively confined to national boundaries, the trade union movements around the world were in a position to lead struggles to win certain reforms for the working class, acting as mediators between the capitalist class and the working class. That era is now gone and an era of globalized production has dawned, hence pushing all national programs, including those of national trade unions, into an irrevocable crisis. Now, the attacks on the working class, though they are launched on a national scale, have their roots in the global crisis of the productive forces and the workers all over the world are facing them. In the absence of any national program capable of countering these attacks, the trade unions are now forced to abandon their role of mediation and winning ‘relief’ for the working class, and largely becoming a defensive bulwark of capitalist rule. Thus, the workers worldover are experiencing the readiness of their unions to go to any length against them, as the co-partner of the capitalist order, in its deadly struggle for survival. This is the objective truth behind the attacks on the workers of Cankaya Municipality.
The CACPS understands that safeguarding workersâ jobs, wages and rights can only be achieved through a struggle against Capitalism and its guardians in the form of trade unions. It recognizes that it is crucially important to establish independent action Committees of the working class (Rank-and-file committees), based on working class democracy, that would expose the unholy and treacherous alliance maintained by the trade unions and middle class organizations with the capitalist state and companies. These committees, representing the economic, political, social interests and all basic needs of the working class and the oppressed people, and operating under their democratic will, spares no room for capitalist class and its agents including trade union bureaucrats. Such independent, genuinely democratic organizations of the working class are mandatory in defeating betrayals and carrying out the struggle to the final victory.
For this reason, CACPS extends its fullest support and expresses its adherence to the call of ICFI through WSWS, to build independent rank-and-file workersâ committees and establish an international alliance among such committees around the world to strengthen the objective unity of the working class. In recent times, there were several occasions in which the ICFI affiliated Socialist Equality Party (SEP) activists have been physically assaulted, verbally threatened and obstructed by the trade unionists, when the SEP activists were campaigning for this very program. CACPS always defended the SEP and independent workers against such attacks.
CACPS calls upon Turkish workers, as well as workers in Sri Lanka and all over the world, to build rank-and-file committees as their own centers of political power, independent of the trade unions who are acting as a labor police force of the corporates and capitalist governments. It also calls upon all such committees to unite on both national and international spheres, and to join hands in the struggle to establish their own control on the matters. The working class has no other path to freedom.
Turkish workers, form independent Action committees!
Build the democratic and socialist congress of workers and the poor of Sri Lanka!
Forward to build the International Workers Alliance of Rank-and-File Committees!
The letter posted below was sent on October 28, 2022 by the comrades of the Left Faction of Sri Lanka Socialist Equality Party (SEP), Chilaw branch, to its General Secretary Deepal Jayasekara, to defend the party from the anti-democratic and conspiratorial activities of the party leadership. Such efforts by the members were frowned upon by the party bureaucracy and led to the party leadershipâs disastrous decision that there was no other option but to expel a large number of comrades. It should be noted that the first time even the party members were reading this letter was when this was published originally in Sinhala language here on August 7, 2023. Dozens of letters sent by the SEP-SL left faction to the party leadership were thrown into the dustbin without any discussion within the membership.
***
Deepal Jayasekara,
General Secretary, Socialist Equality Party- Sri Lanka.
Dear Comrade,
Three months have passed since the membership of comrades Nandana, Sanjay and Ananda Wakkumbura has been suspended, but up to date no political issue has been raised regarding these three.
There must be political reasons for a dispute in the revolutionary party. They must be irreconcilable class antagonisms, not mere âreasonsâ. We categorically state in all seriousness that you have no such reasons to offer.
We are engaged in a continuous struggle in our branch opposing the undemocratic suspension of the party membership of these comrades. The branch leadership says that raising this issue itself is against the centralism of the party. Establishing centralism against democracy is the practice of the party regime. As against this, every effort made to examine the historical experience of the world Marxist movement was opposed by the party regime including the branch leadership. It is a sign that the political health of the party has deteriorated.
In analyzing the issues that arise within the party, the policy based on dialectical materialism is to call upon the historical wisdom of our movement. But it is difficult to get the majority of the membership towards this approach. Even under these circumstances, we the undersigned, Wijesinghe, Punyawardena and Nihal in the Chilaw branch are fighting without let up against this anti-democratic action taken by the party.
Engaging in political struggle or trying to develop discussions for political clarity are the real reasons for suspending the membership of these comrades. The leadership has worked to carry out their actions without facing serious opposition in the party membership although they were done without any discussion with the three comrades and without giving them an opportunity to present the facts. This was achieved by a campaign of lies and accusations against these comrades. For example, the propaganda that they have rejected the party’s invitations to negotiate. Another one is the propaganda that comrade Nandana chases away those who come to join the party saying they are police spies.
Nihal raised this question in his intervention at the members’ meeting last attended by Comrade Wijay in last July.
He quoted this passage taken from the Declination of the Bolshevik Party from Trotsky’s brilliant work âRevolution Betrayedâ ” The inner regime of the Bolshevik party was characterized by the method of democratic centralism. The combination of these two concepts, democracy and centralism, is not in the least contradictory. The party took watchful care not only that its boundaries should always be strictly defined, but also that all those who entered these boundaries should enjoy the actual right to define the direction of the party policy.
Freedom of criticism and intellectual struggle was an irrevocable content of the party democracy. The present doctrine that Bolshevism does not tolerate factions is a myth of epoch decline. In reality the history of Bolshevism is a history of the struggle of factions. And, indeed, how could a genuinely revolutionary organization, setting itself the task of overthrowing the world and uniting under its banner the most audacious iconoclasts, fighters and insurgents, live and develop without intellectual conflicts, without groupings and temporary factional formations? The farsightedness of the Bolshevik leadership often made it possible to soften conflicts and shorten the duration of factional struggle, but no more than that. The Central Committee relied upon this seething democratic support. From this it derived the audacity to make decisions and give orders. The obvious correctness of the leadership at all critical stages gave it that high authority which is the priceless moral capital of centralism.â (Chapter 2: The Degeneration of the Bolshevik Party; 2nd Paragraph – Revolution Betrayed)
After this long quote, he asked Comrade Wijay to re-assess the decision taken against these comrades who are well experienced and very close to the International Committee, placing it in this context.
Taking this struggle forward when Comrade Nihal raised the question about these comrades in the Chilaw branch, Comrade Quintin threateningly requested the local secretary Kapila to call for a vote and throw him out, Kapila said that he would not hesitate to do so.
It was the Ratnasiri leadership of the Ambalangoda branch who first conducted this vote taking. Comrade Nandana accused the party leadership of using gimmicks during the recent party congress. He requested a discussion about the congress to solve these problems. Solely on this matter, when three members of the committee including Nandana were absent, Ratnasiri the local secretary, a member of the partyâs political committee, confirmed the allegation by Nandana’s that the party leadership is resorting to gimmicks, by calling for a vote and banning Nandanaâs membership. The political committee suspended his membership without any discussion.
We allege that there are threats to implement the same policy in other branches in which, there are members fighting for the suspended comrades. ie. Ambalangoda, Kandy, Kolonnawa and Chilaw.
In the Chilaw branch we continuously fought to consider these questions based on the historical knowledge of our own Trotskyist movement. But the branch leadership always declared that this is a petty bourgeois tendency and will be purged from the party. The party has not made any political explanation up to date of this so-called petty bourgeois tendency. Even if we accept that this is such a tendency for a moment, we cannot agree to the behavior of the leadership at all.
Comrade Nihal brought forth an example from Trotsky’s ” In Defense of Marxism” to inform the branch members about how the Trotskyist movement fought with petty bourgeois tendencies. This was not regarding a bogus charge of âpetty bourgeois tendencyâ that is thrust upon on Nandana, Wakkumbura and Sanjay by the leadership, but of an actual petty bourgeois tendency that arose in the Socialist Workers Party in 1939. âThe following question can be posed: If the opposition is a petty-bourgeois tendency does that signify further unity is impossible? Then how reconcile the petty-bourgeois tendency with the proletarian? To pose the question like this means to judge one-sidedly, undialectically and thus falsely. In the present discussion the opposition has clearly manifested its petty-bourgeois features. But this does not mean that the opposition has no other features. The majority of the members of the opposition are doubly devoted to the cause of the proletariat and are capable of learning. Tied today to a petty-bourgeois milieu they can tomorrow tie themselves to the proletariat. The inconsistent ones, under the influence of experience, can become more consistent. When the party embraces thousands of workers even the professional factionalists can re-educate themselves in the spirit of proletarian discipline. It is necessary to give them time for this. That is why comrade Cannonâs proposal to keep the discussion free from any threats of split, expulsions, etc., was absolutely correct and in place.â
Trotsky’s attitude towards the Burnham, Shatman and Abern group, which clearly showed petty bourgeois characteristics in the Trotskyist movement, is clear.
Moreover, let us consider by a short excerpt, how Comrade North used Trotsky’s explanations in âIn defense of Marxismâ in the work, âhow did the Workers Revolutionary Party betray Trotskyismâ, in his struggle. âTo make matters worse, the political differences raised by Thornett, to the extent that they had been developed in the autumn of 1974, had not reached the level at which a split could be justified in front of the working class. It was not sufficient for Healy and Banda to have a hunch, no matter how astute, that Thornett was functioning as an agent of the OCI. In 1940 Trotsky had warned Cannon not to take premature organizational measures against the minority, insisting that âyou must act not only on the basis of your subjective appreciations, as correct as they may be, but on the basis of objective facts available to everyoneâ And he cautioned that organizational impatience âis not infrequently connected with theoretical indifference.â (In Defense of Marxism, New Park, p. 198)
It is clear that the party has resorted to a policy of those who turned their backs to Trotskyism instead that of Trotskyism. It is a matter that needs to be examined. We are working on it and we think the party leadership will consider it seriously.
For that, we suggest that the party leadership, including you, should re-assess this organizational step in this historical context.
Over the past period, the entire party revolved around secondary issues, and as a result, the party failed to anticipate the class struggle that started in Sri Lanka in April and is still going on, and to make a successful intervention in it. In order to cut through the party’s past political setbacks and make a revolutionary intervention in the class struggle implementing the perspective of developing Action Committees and proceeding towards a congress of Action Committees in keeping with the perspectives of the International Committee, the internal problems of the party must first be resolved. This is because the International Committee has very clearly and brilliantly identified that this decade as the decade of revolutions and wars, and identified this as a unique period for the world Trotskyist movement. The political setback of our party is taking place in this context.
The leadership did not undertake the task of understanding the idea of building Action committees through a serious discussion within the cadre. In a discussion about action committees in the Chilaw branch, we presented a quote from Trotsky’s âDeath agony of Capitalismâ. ” Soviets are not limited to an a priori party program. They throw open their doors to all the exploited. Through these doors pass representatives of all strata, drawn into the general current of the struggle. The organization, broadening out together with the movement, is renewed again and again in its womb. All political currents of the proletariat can struggle for leadership of the soviets on the basis of the widest democracy. The slogan of soviets, therefore, crowns the program of transitional demands.” (The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International; Chapter 14 â The Soviets â Paragraph 3) On these occasions, the branch secretary Comrade Kapila said, “We are not building them so that each and every person could walk through these doors.” This exposes the party leadership’s idea about working committees.
These differences of opinion call for a genuine democratic discussion to consider the responsibilities our party in facing the current class struggle.
In the book âThe Russian Revolution and the Unfinished Twentieth Centuryâ, Comrade Noth’s explanation about internal party democracy, ” The importance of inner-party democracy was not simply one of abstract principle, nor was its practical significance limited to its direct impact on the field of economic policy. What was ultimately at stake in the struggle waged by Trotsky in defense of Soviet democracy was the fate of the entire heritage of socialist culture and revolutionary thought as it had developed in the international workers movement over the previous century. The bureaucracy dealt with Marxism as it did with Leninâs corpse: it was mummified and made the object of ritualistic and semimystical incantations. After 1927 Marxism, for all intents and purposes, ceased to play any role whatsoever in the formulation of Soviet policy. The defeat of the Opposition sounded the death knell for the development of critical thought in virtually every sphere of intellectual and cultural activity.â
Drawing your attention to the points we explained in this letter, the suspension of the party membership of the three comrades should be removed, and this discussion should be resolved within the party. If there is a reason for not doing so, please explain.
The letter posted below was sent on November 16, 2022 by Comrade Udayaprema of the Ambalangoda branch of the Sri Lanka Socialist Equality Party (SEP) to its General Secretary Deepal Jayasekara to defend the party from the anti-democratic and conspiratorial activities of the party leadership. Such efforts by the members were frowned upon by the party bureaucracy and led to the party leadership’s disastrous decision that there was no other option but to expel a large number of comrades. It should be noted that the first time even the party members were reading this letter was when this was published originally in Sinhala language here on August 7, 2023. Dozens of letters sent by the SEP-SL left faction to the party leadership were thrown into the dustbin without any discussion within the membership.
***
Comrade Jayasekara,
Regarding the expulsion of Comrade Amaratunga of the Ambalangoda Local Council by Comrade Ratnasiri, the secretary of the Local, abusing his authority
Comrade Ratnasiri, claiming that comrade Amaratunga has left the party, has barred comrade Amaratungaâs participation in the Local meetings since 7th July 2022. Comrade Ratnasiri considers a statement made by comrade Amarathunga protesting the arbitrary suspension of the three comrades Nandana, Sanjaya and Wakkumbura as the reason for this criminal act, which was carried out arbitrarily without any discussion in the Local assembly. What Comrade Amaratunga said was, “If things are being done this way, there is no point in being in this party any longer”.
As reported to the local council, Ratnasiri’s action was approved by the political committee without any inquiry!
The conflict between Amaratunga and Ratnasiri arose out of Ratnasiri’s continuous wrong political practices in the Local. To understand these differences of opinion, let us bring to your attention of 3 incidents.
It is unconstitutional for the Political Committee to suspend Comrade Nandana’s membership while he was a member of the party Central Committee. Comrade Udayprema cited our constitution and raised these issues in the local assembly. Ratnasiri making a phone call to Amaratunga specifically for this purpose said that there is no such paragraph in the constitution. Later at a subsequent discussion of the Local, Ratnasiri had to admit that what he said was a lie. Amaratunga intervened on that occasion condemning this irresponsible act.
Despite the fact that there were many issues that needed to be resolved, the leadership’s attempt to hold the party conference, without allowing for a discussion, in violation of the constitution, led to a controversy in the Ambalangoda Local committee.
Ratnasiri said that the constitution is not decisive. To confirm this, he lied that Lenin did not implement the April thesis following a decision in a congress. He further argued that the October Revolution would not have happened if conferences had to be held like that. We pointed out that the above thesis was presented to the Bolshevik Central Committee on 6th April, 1917 and to the Party Congress on April 10 and was adopted by the Congress, but Ratnasiri continued to defend his incorrect position.
Three members, including Comrade Nandana, requested that the Local commitee, which was to be held on 15 th June, be convened on another day as they were not in a position to attend. Despite this , secretary Ratnasiri assembled the Local commitee without the relevant comrades and proceeded to pass a resolution to suspend Comrade Nandana. Condemning this anti-democratic act, Comrade Amaratunga insisted that he is against holding this vote and therefore will not participate in it. Later, he informed the political committee that the Ratnasiriâs resolution was approved by a majority vote and that Amaratunga was neutral and the political committee implemented that decision. Amaratunga was not neutral, but was opposed to holding the vote.
Amaratunga, like many other comrades, was confused by this provocation which the party leadership consciously implemented. Amaratunga suggested to the committee to take steps for political clarity in order to correct these mistakes. Under these circumstances only, came Amaratungaâs remarks that he could no longer continue under this leadership. But Ratnasiri took this as an opportunity to advance the current situation in which actions are being taken to hunt down the party members who do not support anti-democratic, anti-tradition and anti-theoretical actions.
Through the intervention of Udayaprema and Geetha in the local committee, a consensus was reached that the problem should be resolved by discussing with Amaratunga.
Accordingly, Udayaprema was assigned to meet Amaratunga. Amaratunga told Udaya that there is no solution (politically speaking) other than the party; and that he is waiting for the date of the local committee meeting to be announced. It was reported to the local assembly, but Ratnasiri did not agree to invite him. He said that Amaratunga should make a written request to join the party as a new member. Ratnasiri rejected that Amaratunga did not leave the party.
Our party had a tradition of trying to solve problems such as this by sending a representative of the political committee to participate in the local committee. Such practices have been abandoned since many years. Now this is another example of uprooting the traditions and accepted practices needed for gaining political clarity. An important fact here is that the leadership worked to sweep away like dust a worker with a continuous history of 46 years in the party. When Amaratunga was working as a miner, he came forward to oppose the betrayal by the LSSP trade union and, the union leadership and the employers conspired together to sack him. He lost his job. He turned to RCL with this experience. The party has now given him the same treatment as the leaders of that trade union. He was greatly shocked and it affected his health. If not for our intervention and explanations made at the request of his family members, even his life would have been endangered.
He fought tirelessly against the 30-year war and against the JVP’s tyranny. He is a much respected and loved fighter in the area as well as within the party. He has a record of being true to the International Committee and the Party at all times. Since 1989, he has been suffering from a severe heart disease and he did not consider this condition as an obstacle to any of party work. Neighbors regard him as a leader because of the life he spent as a man who does not bow down to backwardness and always standing by principles.
When in 1978 Basil Fernando and Siriwardena rejected party perspectives outright, the RCL discussed with them for 6 months and tried to get political clarity. Such actions were
based on the decisive lessons of the struggle that Trotsky and Cannon had with Burnham Shatman group. When we raised these issues, Ratnasiri denounced this historical experience as mistakes made during the time of Healy. These statements, and the dismissal, shows the petty bourgeoise disregard for the history of the movement. This fact has been confirmed by the way in which the comrades Nandana, Sanjaya and Vakkambura have been treated as well as Amaratunga. What is important is to develop the party and thereby intensify the class struggle by raising the issues regarding perspectives and programme and clarifying them. Instead of that, such behaviors open the doors of the party to petty bourgeoise opportunism. We insist that it is necessary to realize this without delay.
In the first local meeting after 3rd Party conference (on 25.5.2022), Comrade Ratnasiri tried to appoint office bearers, keeping Comrades Nandana, Geetha and Udayaprema away. This has been informed to you by Comrade Nandana in his letter dated 29.5.2022, but you have chosen to ignore it.
Comrade Ratnasiri had informed the above comrades that the meeting would be started at 7.30 PM and, started it at 7 PM informing only the other members of the branch. After that, officials were appointed before the political discussion with an anti-traditional haste. Comrade Nandana’s opposition in this regard was introduced as sabotage. Comrade Amaratunga and the above three comrades left the meeting opposing the suppression of discussion and threatening of the local leadership.
We warn that it is extremely dangerous for the leadership to continue to disregard the old traditions and constitution of the party in the current intense class struggle, and to expel the comrades who have been members of the party for a long time without any discussion is opening the door to the reaction.
Comrade Missaka, who was a member of the Central Committee until he left the party, and a young Comrade Hirun, who demanded a discussion about the arbitrary actions of the party leadership have left the party, because even the 3rd Party Congress last year too defended these actions. Even though they have made written submissions to the leadership, no discussion whatsoever had been held within the party regarding them up to this date.
Dismissal of political, theoretical and organizational issues emerging within the acute situation of the contemporary class struggle, without any assessment or clarification is a clear indication that the party is being driven by pragmatism. For this reason, we understand that, it is required to have a genuine democratic discussion on the problems that have arisen regarding the comrades who have been kept away from the party including Amaratunga, which would be an essential requirement in order to understand the tasks of the party at a higher level and to create the necessary organizational preparations in implementing them. For that, we propose all four comrades mentioned here should be reinstated as members immediately.
We suggest that this letter should be shared among the party membership and a discussion should be commenced.
The letter posted below was sent on November 16, 2022 by Comrade Udayaprema of the Ambalangoda branch of the Sri Lanka Socialist Equality Party (SEP) to its General Secretary Deepal Jayasekara to defend the party from the anti-democratic and conspiratorial activities of the party leadership. Such efforts by the members were frowned upon by the party bureaucracy and led to the party leadership’s disastrous decision that there was no other option but to expel a large number of comrades. It should be noted that the first time even the party members were reading this letter was when this was published originally in Sinhala language here on August 7, 2023. Dozens of letters sent by the SEP-SL left faction to the party leadership were thrown into the dustbin without any discussion within the membership.
***
Comrade Jayasekara,
Regarding the expulsion of Comrade Amaratunga of the Ambalangoda Local Council by Comrade Ratnasiri, the secretary of the Local, abusing his authority
Comrade Ratnasiri, claiming that comrade Amaratunga has left the party, has barred comrade Amaratungaâs participation in the Local meetings since 7th July 2022. Comrade Ratnasiri considers a statement made by comrade Amarathunga protesting the arbitrary suspension of the three comrades Nandana, Sanjaya and Wakkumbura as the reason for this criminal act, which was carried out arbitrarily without any discussion in the Local assembly. What Comrade Amaratunga said was, “If things are being done this way, there is no point in being in this party any longer”.
As reported to the local council, Ratnasiri’s action was approved by the political committee without any inquiry!
The conflict between Amaratunga and Ratnasiri arose out of Ratnasiri’s continuous wrong political practices in the Local. To understand these differences of opinion, let us bring to your attention of 3 incidents.
It is unconstitutional for the Political Committee to suspend Comrade Nandana’s membership while he was a member of the party Central Committee. Comrade Udayprema cited our constitution and raised these issues in the local assembly. Ratnasiri making a phone call to Amaratunga specifically for this purpose said that there is no such paragraph in the constitution. Later at a subsequent discussion of the Local, Ratnasiri had to admit that what he said was a lie. Amaratunga intervened on that occasion condemning this irresponsible act.
Despite the fact that there were many issues that needed to be resolved, the leadership’s attempt to hold the party conference, without allowing for a discussion, in violation of the constitution, led to a controversy in the Ambalangoda Local committee.
Ratnasiri said that the constitution is not decisive. To confirm this, he lied that Lenin did not implement the April thesis following a decision in a congress. He further argued that the October Revolution would not have happened if conferences had to be held like that. We pointed out that the above thesis was presented to the Bolshevik Central Committee on 6th April, 1917 and to the Party Congress on April 10 and was adopted by the Congress, but Ratnasiri continued to defend his incorrect position.
Three members, including Comrade Nandana, requested that the Local commitee, which was to be held on 15 th June, be convened on another day as they were not in a position to attend. Despite this , secretary Ratnasiri assembled the Local commitee without the relevant comrades and proceeded to pass a resolution to suspend Comrade Nandana. Condemning this anti-democratic act, Comrade Amaratunga insisted that he is against holding this vote and therefore will not participate in it. Later, he informed the political committee that the Ratnasiriâs resolution was approved by a majority vote and that Amaratunga was neutral and the political committee implemented that decision. Amaratunga was not neutral, but was opposed to holding the vote.
Amaratunga, like many other comrades, was confused by this provocation which the party leadership consciously implemented. Amaratunga suggested to the committee to take steps for political clarity in order to correct these mistakes. Under these circumstances only, came Amaratungaâs remarks that he could no longer continue under this leadership. But Ratnasiri took this as an opportunity to advance the current situation in which actions are being taken to hunt down the party members who do not support anti-democratic, anti-tradition and anti-theoretical actions.
Through the intervention of Udayaprema and Geetha in the local committee, a consensus was reached that the problem should be resolved by discussing with Amaratunga.
Accordingly, Udayaprema was assigned to meet Amaratunga. Amaratunga told Udaya that there is no solution (politically speaking) other than the party; and that he is waiting for the date of the local committee meeting to be announced. It was reported to the local assembly, but Ratnasiri did not agree to invite him. He said that Amaratunga should make a written request to join the party as a new member. Ratnasiri rejected that Amaratunga did not leave the party.
Our party had a tradition of trying to solve problems such as this by sending a representative of the political committee to participate in the local committee. Such practices have been abandoned since many years. Now this is another example of uprooting the traditions and accepted practices needed for gaining political clarity. An important fact here is that the leadership worked to sweep away like dust a worker with a continuous history of 46 years in the party. When Amaratunga was working as a miner, he came forward to oppose the betrayal by the LSSP trade union and, the union leadership and the employers conspired together to sack him. He lost his job. He turned to RCL with this experience. The party has now given him the same treatment as the leaders of that trade union. He was greatly shocked and it affected his health. If not for our intervention and explanations made at the request of his family members, even his life would have been endangered.
He fought tirelessly against the 30-year war and against the JVP’s tyranny. He is a much respected and loved fighter in the area as well as within the party. He has a record of being true to the International Committee and the Party at all times. Since 1989, he has been suffering from a severe heart disease and he did not consider this condition as an obstacle to any of party work. Neighbors regard him as a leader because of the life he spent as a man who does not bow down to backwardness and always standing by principles.
When in 1978 Basil Fernando and Siriwardena rejected party perspectives outright, the RCL discussed with them for 6 months and tried to get political clarity. Such actions were
based on the decisive lessons of the struggle that Trotsky and Cannon had with Burnham Shatman group. When we raised these issues, Ratnasiri denounced this historical experience as mistakes made during the time of Healy. These statements, and the dismissal, shows the petty bourgeoise disregard for the history of the movement. This fact has been confirmed by the way in which the comrades Nandana, Sanjaya and Vakkambura have been treated as well as Amaratunga. What is important is to develop the party and thereby intensify the class struggle by raising the issues regarding perspectives and programme and clarifying them. Instead of that, such behaviors open the doors of the party to petty bourgeoise opportunism. We insist that it is necessary to realize this without delay.
In the first local meeting after 3rd Party conference (on 25.5.2022), Comrade Ratnasiri tried to appoint office bearers, keeping Comrades Nandana, Geetha and Udayaprema away. This has been informed to you by Comrade Nandana in his letter dated 29.5.2022, but you have chosen to ignore it.
Comrade Ratnasiri had informed the above comrades that the meeting would be started at 7.30 PM and, started it at 7 PM informing only the other members of the branch. After that, officials were appointed before the political discussion with an anti-traditional haste. Comrade Nandana’s opposition in this regard was introduced as sabotage. Comrade Amaratunga and the above three comrades left the meeting opposing the suppression of discussion and threatening of the local leadership.
We warn that it is extremely dangerous for the leadership to continue to disregard the old traditions and constitution of the party in the current intense class struggle, and to expel the comrades who have been members of the party for a long time without any discussion is opening the door to the reaction.
Comrade Missaka, who was a member of the Central Committee until he left the party, and a young Comrade Hirun, who demanded a discussion about the arbitrary actions of the party leadership have left the party, because even the 3rd Party Congress last year too defended these actions. Even though they have made written submissions to the leadership, no discussion whatsoever had been held within the party regarding them up to this date.
Dismissal of political, theoretical and organizational issues emerging within the acute situation of the contemporary class struggle, without any assessment or clarification is a clear indication that the party is being driven by pragmatism. For this reason, we understand that, it is required to have a genuine democratic discussion on the problems that have arisen regarding the comrades who have been kept away from the party including Amaratunga, which would be an essential requirement in order to understand the tasks of the party at a higher level and to create the necessary organizational preparations in implementing them. For that, we propose all four comrades mentioned here should be reinstated as members immediately.
We suggest that this letter should be shared among the party membership and a discussion should be commenced.
