Scottish Socialist Party and Big Business

international | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis

Wednesday June 18, 2003 21:29

by John Meehan

The SSP won 6 seats in the May 1 Scottish Assembly Elections. Some left wing critics of the party's convenor Tommy Sheridan - including the Irish Socialist Party member Stephen Boyd - criticised comments made by Sheridan about big business in Scotland. The SSP has passed a resolution clarifying the disputed issues.

Below is a motion passed by the SSP National Council on the "big business" isssue, and an exchange of views between John Throne and Alan McCombes.

Tommy Sheridan was among those who voted for the motion.

--------------------

ADDITIONAL BRANCH MOTIONS
To June 2003 SSP National Council
Agenda Item 5

Amended version of Motion 2
Dundee West and Dundee Central branches

There is a minor amendment to Motion 2 previously submitted by Dundee East Branch in the 3rd last paragraph.

Note: Cathcart and Motherwell branches have also submitted the same motion as Dundee East that was circulated in the NC papers.

This branch congratulates the SSP candidates, members and branches that worked so hard to deliver the excellent result for the party on May 1st.

The tremendous breakthrough for the SSP can lay the basis for increased electoral support and the rapid building of the SSP.

There are many tasks facing the party following such a result. Central to them will be building the active membership of the SSP.

Every branch will have a large number of names of people interested in the SSP which of course need to be followed up immediately.

To assist in this we would like to suggest that the SSP organises a series of public meetings with the newly elected MSPs speaking on the socialist vision of the SSP. If finances permit, a recruitment leaflet appealing to all those who voted SSP to join the party could be produced and be used by the branches on public activity in the coming weeks.

There will be many other initiatives that the party nationally and locally can take in a drive to expand the membership of the SSP. These should be discussed urgently by the NC and the branches.

As well as these and other steps that can be taken to build the party we also require clarification on the party's position on public ownership of the economy in an independent socialist Scotland.

On a number of occasions during the election campaign on TV and the papers references were made by SSP representatives to the SSP's support for the "mixed economy" i.e. a mixture of public ownership existing alongside big business in an independent socialist Scotland.

While building the SSP in the months ahead it is important to clarify what exactly is the position of the party on this issue. The SSP should stand for the public ownership and democratic working class control of the monopolies that dominate the Scottish economy.

It is the national and multinational corporations that have a stranglehold over the Scottish economy despite the existence of a small business sector in Scotland. Unless the decisive sections of the economy are under the democrratic control of the working class as a whole then it will not be possible to eradicate poverty and inequality.

A "high wage" economy and the existence of capitalism are incompatible. We stand instead for the democratic socialist planning of the Scottish economy. We call for a discussion in the party to clarify these points.

-------------------------------------

Comrades the International Socialist movement (ISM) is a marxist platform or
group within the Scottish Socialist Party. (SSP) It evolved out of Scottish
Militant Labor which was the Scottish section of the Committee for a Worker
International. (CWI) It has provided the main leadership for setting up and taking
forward the SSP. This is a letter that Labors Militant Voice Comrades have
sent to the ISM concerning a statement made by leading ISM and SSP Comrade Tommy Sheridan. It also deals with the issue of the ISM and its future to a limited
extent. I will also post Comrade Alan McCombes response to this. And LMV will
respond in turn to Alans piece in the next days. Comradely Sean O'T.

Letter to Comrades in the International Socialist Movement (ISM)

Dear Comrades,

The breakthrough of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) in winning six seats
in the recent elections is an inspiration. This victory results from the
party's courageous fight against the attacks of capitalism on the Scottish working
class. Workers the world over are stronger for the rise of the SSP. We all
owe a debt of gratitude to the SSP Comrades and to the International Socialist
Movement (ISM) Comrades.

The revolutionary socialist/Marxist group the ISM, which grew out of a former
section of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), took the initial
steps to build the SSP and have been at the center of the Party's development
ever since. When they moved to build the SSP, they met the stiffest of
opposition from the CWI leadership, but thankfully they held their ground. These
election results more than vindicate the position they took.

As far as we understand, in building the SSP the ISM Comrades were attempting
to address issues which confront all revolutionary groups: How to take
revolutionary ideas out to the wider sections of the working class and build a semi
mass and mass base and the related issue of how to work in a united front
manner with other groups and individuals from different revolutionary traditions.
After the election results there is no doubt that real progress has been made
along both these lines. We believe that the experience of the SSP should be
studied by all.

It is in this context that we would like to raise a few issues for discussion
with the ISM Comrades. In doing so we would like to separate ourselves from
the attacks on the ISM and the SSP leadership that are coming from such sources
as the CWI leadership and some other left groups. Unlike these groups we have
always supported the building of the SSP and the work of the ISM in this
regard and we have always defended the SSP against sectarian and dishonest
criticism.

Look at the most recent dishonesty of the CWI. After the recent election in
Scotland it wrote: "The Scottish Socialist party (SSP) now has six MSPs elected
to the Scottish parliament. This important breakthrough can assist socialists
to reach a new generation who are looking for an alternative to poverty, low
pay, racism and war." So according to the CWI this is an "important
breakthrough".

But at their 1998 world congress, the CWI passed a resolution the first line
of which reads: "This world congress of the CWI places on record its
strongest possible opposition to the decision of SML to launch the Scottish Socialist
Party". (Scottish Militant Labor - SML - was at the time the name of the ISM when it was the Scottish section of the CWI). There should be no misunderstanding, if it had been up to the CWI "this important breakthrough" would never have taken place, the SSP would never have existed. Now, they fail to even mention their earlier "strongest possible opposition" to the entire SSP project.

Any criticism from the CWI has little value if it doesn't criticise its own mistake in opposing the building of the SSP.

However, this incorrect approach of the CWI leadership cannot be allowed to
prevent us from recognizing the increasing pressures that are making themselves
felt on the SSP. In this context we would like to raise with our ISM Comrades
the recent statements by comrade Tommy Sheridan when he was being interviewed
by "The Herald" and other media outlets.

We think a discussion of Tommy's comments is vital especially now because of
the recent electoral breakthrough of the SSP. This breakthrough means
increased pressures on the SSP as well as the ISM. There is now all sorts of
"friendly" advice to be more "reasonable" and "practical," which really means making compromises with capitalism. There will also be increased pressures in the future to make compromises in order to keep the seats that have been won.

As the best known voice of the SSP and the ISM Tommy is particularly targeted
by the bosses' media in this regard. For instance "The Guardian" on May 27th
wrote after the election victory: "Sheridan, too, once rallied against the
injustices of the capitalist world, but the causes he espoused were modest and
just......Now that he has been joined by five others, the SSP has the chance to
build on that, to function as devolution's social conscience. It is said that
Sheridan tried to persuade Fox to stop after one verse of Burns. He needs to
control his singing socialists. He needs to tell them that if all they bring
is disharmony, they will not have served their comrades, their constituents or
their country well."

(The reference here is to Colin Fox singing Robbie Burn's "A Man's a Man For
All That" at the swearing-in ceremony in the Scottish parliament as a protest
against having to swear allegiance to the monarchy.) It could not be much
clearer than this. The Guardian is calling on Tommy to reign in the other MSP's
of the SSP and turn the SSP into "devolution's social conscience". The
capitalist press is targeting Tommy to get him to bend the SSP to their will. To be a
"social conscience".

CONCESSIONS TO NATIONALISM AND CAPITALISM.

In raising the statements of Tommy, we recognize the heroic work Tommy has
done in helping Scottish workers and youth organize themselves to fight the
attacks of capitalism. This includes going to prison. We also know the pressures
on any public spokesperson of a revolutionary movement to popularize the ideas
and how this can lead to errors. We also know the pressures and dangers in
speaking to the big business press and the need to see things such as public
statements in context.

However, having said this, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the
statements made by Comrade Tommy Sheridan at the very least indicate a shift in the
direction of adapting to the pressures of capitalism and nationalism. To our
knowledge there has been no public statement from the SSP or ISM on Tommy's
comments. If this is the case and continues to be the case it will be difficult
not to conclude that the SSP and the ISM are moving in this direction also.

Tommy is reported as follows: "What we're saying is that in a future
independent socialist Scotland we want to work on training, on skills. We want to
offer a very highly skilled economy, a motivated work force for big business. If
that can work in places like France and Germany, where they have higher wages
and better standards, and produce better products, why can't that work here in
Scotland?" And in relation to the question: "Would you nationalize Tesco?"
Tommy said: "I don't think there's a need to nationalize right now" and "What we
would be doing is regulating business. You don't have to own it, you just
regulate it." Tesco is one of the largest supermarket chains in England, Scotland
and Wales.

Comrades, there is no other way of looking at this other than a capitulation
to the pressures of big business. If Comrade Tommy and the ISM has or does
issue a statement saying that this was a mistake then this would begin to go some
distance to rectify the position, but even if this is done the question still
has to be raised how such a statement could have been made in the first place.

We in Labors Militant Voice have agreed with the demand put forward by the
ISM and the SSP for an "independent socialist Scotland". However we have raised
that we did not agree with putting this forward without also putting forward
that a socialist Scotland could only resist the pressures of international
capitalism and solve the problems of the Scottish working class if the revolution
spread to England, Wales, Ireland etc. In other words we have been for
putting forward the demand for an independent socialist Scotland as a step towards a
socialist federation of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales as part of a Socialist united states of Europe, not putting forward this demand in isolation.

Not only is the demand for an independent socialist Scotland continually put
forward in isolation by the SSP but we also have the statement on the SSP web
site quoting the SSP manifesto; "We reject the scare mongering of those who
claim that Scotland is too small, too weak, or too poor to go it alone and defy
the new world order of the global millionaires. We repudiate the fictional
claim that in the new globalized economy an independent Scotland would be
powerless to tax the rich, wipe out poverty or initiate large-scale investment in
public services". And to add to this Tommy talks approvingly of the situation in
Norway, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany. Comrades we should note here
specifically that the SSP manifesto claims it could "wipe out poverty" within the
borders of Scotland.

Comrades, it seems to us that the tendency can be seen in these comments of
Comrade Tommy to increasingly see the SSP's day to day politics within the
boundaries of Scotland itself and within the boundaries of capitalism. It seems
to us that the ISM and the SSP should be arguing exactly the opposite than from
where they say that Scotland can "go it alone". Yes the Scottish working
class can win certain partial and temporary reforms by organizing and fighting.
However, a solution to the problems cannot be won within the borders of
Scotland, within the confines of capitalism, or by the Scottish working class acting
alone.

It seems to us that the work of the SSP on the ground in Scotland, while
fighting for every reform that can be won, should also intimately link these
struggles with an explanation of how the fundamental problems cannot be fully
resolved within the confines of capitalism or within the borders of Scotland. That
is, the SSP should be explaining how these struggles must be linked with the
struggle of the international working class to challenge capitalism
internationally. What we are raising here, comrades, is that there appears to be a
retreat from internationalism as the central core of the practical day to day
politics of the SSP/ISM.

It is useful to think more about building an international working class
movement in the context of what Tommy says about Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway - countries he holds up as examples. It is likely that these countries
do not appear much of an example to the working class in these countries.
Also, from what Tommy says, he envisages Scotland competing with these countries
for investment. How could the SSP/ISM build an international with the workers
from these countries on this approach, competing with them for investment?

It also appears that increasingly the central role of the Scottish working
class acting independently as a class is not being explained in the approach
reflected in Tommy's statements. Missing is any idea of workers' control or that
capitalism should be ended and replaced by a democratic plan of production
based on the democratic decisions and organizations of the working class. There
is no hint in any way of the new economy being based on new workers' councils
and structures and the democratic decisions of control and management by the
working class through these bodies. Instead it is talk of offering a "motivated
workforce for big business." This last statement by Tommy is almost
unbelievable.

The approach seems to be to explain and fight for what can be implemented
within the laws of the Scottish parliament and within a Scotland with a majority
SSP government in the Scottish parliament. And what this can achieve is
explained as being within the context of capitalism such as exists in France,
Germany, Denmark, etc. No matter what way you look at it, this is incorrect.
Leaving aside any socialist principles, the history of the last few decades of
"global capitalism" shows that capital - that is, investment - will seek out the
areas with the lowest wages, low taxes, and least environmental regulations.
Tommy's "motivated workforce" will also have to be low paid and prepared to work
in any conditions.

The approach implied by Tommy's statements leads inevitably to the policy of
encouraging the working class of one country or region to compete with workers
in another region for who will work cheapest. This is the race to the bottom
and cuts across class solidarity. It is what the offensive of global
capitalism wants every worker to accept. Compete against other workers to attract
investment. And of course Tommy's position flies in the face of fact. Europe is
currently mired in an economic slowdown, and the German economy is experiencing
double digit unemployment and actually contracted in the last quarter. In
other words, Tommy's approach is not "working".

Comrades, we are raising the following for discussion: Do the statements of
Tommy not reflect a retreat from internationalism as the central core of the
day-to-day practical politics of the SSP and the ISM? Do they not reflect a
retreat from the explanation that only the working class organized
internationally can carry out the policies of ending capitalism and solving the
fundamental problems of Scottish society?

We would also like to discuss these issues in the context of the transitional
method. Does Tommy's statements not reflect a full scale retreat from the
transitional method which as we understand it is to make a connection between
existing consciousness and the need to end capitalism and build a new socialist
society. The SSP is showing itself to be very skillful in making a connection
with the existing consciousness, in taking up the day-to-day struggles that are
to the front of working class peoples' minds. But it seems to us that Tommy's
statements show that the connection is not being made with the role of
capitalism and the need to end capitalism in Scotland and internationally. Instead
the connection is being made to how things can be improved under capitalism and
under capitalism within Scotland.

THE ISM, IS IT FUNCTIONING AS A REVOLUTIONARY MARXIST CURRENT?

Of course the statements of Tommy are not the responsibility of Tommy alone.
They are also the responsibility of the ISM. In this context we would like to
raise issues that we have raised in the past with some of the leading ISM
comrades. We have been worried for some time that insufficient attention was being
given to building the ISM as a revolutionary Marxist group within the SSP.
We have been worried that the ISM was less and less functioning as a
revolutionary Marxist group as opposed to being a left pressure group inside the SSP.

We have raised that as the SSP grows and develops so will the reformist for
ces within it and on it. And that in this situation if the ISM is not built and
is not functioning as a healthy revolutionary Marxist group, then the most
likely development would be that the ISM would stagnate and eventually cease to
exist to all practical purposes. This would make more likely the capitulation
of the SSP to the pressures of global capitalism.

We are very worried that our worst fears are being realized when we read
Tommy's statements. In light of these statements being made by its best known
member, how can the ISM be functioning as a revolutionary Marxist group? Tommy is
the best known member of the SSP and of the ISM. The bourgeois have clearly
set their sights on influencing Tommy and through Tommy influencing the SSP. See
the "Herald" quote above. The pressures on Tommy and all the comrades in the
parliament are set to intensify enormously. Standing against these will only
be possible if there is a healthy functioning revolutionary Marxist
organization to give support and clarity, that is to help these comrades. From Tommy's statements it is very, very difficult to see how this could be happening.

The comrades on the front line such as Tommy, need to be able to be part of
and get the support of the ISM as a functioning revolutionary organization in
order to withstand the pressure. This means an organization based on
revolutionary Marxist theory, continually discussing the issues of the day in this
context and continually recruiting and developing and collectively discussing and
making decisions. Looking at things from afar it is impossible not to question
the degree to which these comrades have this support at this time. It is very
difficult not to conclude that the ISM is not carrying out the functions of a
revolutionary Marxist organization.

Tommy's views on issues are well known to the ISM and SSP membership and
wider layers of the working class. These ideas did not just appear on May 27th. So
how has the ISM responded to the development of Tommy's position along these
lines over the past period? We find it impossible to believe that the ISM is
united in agreement with Tommy's statements. If we are right on this, then has
there been a debate and a struggle within the ISM on these issues?

If the ISM is functioning as a revolutionary Marxist organization it would be
impossible for Tommy to come to these positions without a major political and
theoretical struggle inside the ISM. If this did take place and it was kept
secret then this was a mistake. The old, overly secretive methods of the past,
including those of the CWI, are not correct. The working class should have
access to the debates taking place in the revolutionary organizations. These
debates should be explained in the open publications and web sites of the
revolutionary group and the working class who read these asked to participate and
help clarify the issues.

But if, as appears to be the case from afar, such a theoretical and political
struggle did not take place in the ISM, then this raises in the most stark fas
hion to what extent the ISM is functioning as a revolutionary Marxist group.
To repeat, Tommy's statements did not dawn on him the moment he sat down to
give the interview to "The Herald". They had to have been developing for some
time. How then could the ISM, if it was a functioning revolutionary Marxist
organization, not have taken up a major struggle against these ideas?

Comrades, to be blunt, what Tommy's statement indicates is that the ISM is no
longer functioning as a revolutionary Marxist group inside the SSP. If
Comrades think this is too strong then please consider how Tommy's positions have
developed without a major theoretical and political struggle and how Tommy has
been able to make these statements without an outcry inside the ISM and an
alternative position being put forward.

One of our arguments has been that as the SSP grows so will the pressures of
reformism increase. Thus the more the SSP grows, the more need for the
building of the ISM to counter these pressures. But what seems to be the case at
present is that far from the ISM being built as a functioning revolutionary
Marxist group, including recruiting new members, and standing against the reformist
pressures, these pressures are actually being articulated by the best known ISM member and without being contradicted in any way by the ISM.

We see that in the last few days Rosie Kane has come out for nationalization
of some major companies. We welcome these statements from this comrade. We do
not know if this is an effort by others in the ISM to counter Tommy's
statements. We hope it is, but even if this is so it is insufficient. Tommy's
statements need to be openly discussed in the ISM and the SSP, with this discussion
shared through the ISM and SSP publications and web site with the working class.
Leading ISM comrades have made the case in the past that openness of the
revolutionary organizations is vital especially in this period. This is the time
now to see this open debate and struggle inside the ISM and the SSP.

The ISM correctly challenged some of the incorrect methods of the CWI.
However there is one tradition of the old CWI that may still be with the comrades:
When there was a difference in the CWI, there was tendency in the membership to
wait for a section of the leadership to take this up and open up debate. We
hope that this tradition is not alive in the ISM. We hope that the members of
the ISM, when they hear Tommy's statements, are not shrugging their shoulders
and getting on with their work locally and not taking the issue up directly. We
hope that there is not the tendency, conscious or unconscious, to wait until
a section of the ISM leadership takes up the issue meanwhile locally "we will
get on with our work". This would be a major mistake.

Comrades, all members of the ISM no matter how inexperienced they may be,
have to participate fully in the internal life. They must not simply look to the
leadership for the general position while they get on with the work on the
ground. If there are comrades in the ISM who have differences with Tommy's
positions, and we cannot believe there is not, they have to speak out. If they do
not, they are contributing to the development of Tommy's positions. That is they
are contributing to the concessions he is making to nationalism and
capitalism.

For the health of the SSP and of the ISM there has to be an open debate and
struggle over these issues involving the entire membership. The longer this is
postponed the more difficult it will be to combat these ideas. This means that
all members, including members with less experience have the duty to insist
on this debate. They must not as tended to be the case in the old CWI wait on a
section of the leadership to take up the issues.

The SSP initiative has been of great interest to activists internationally
and a source of hope. In the course of its development the ISM Comrades have
explained their position and policies publicly to all. If this initiative were to
end in a reformist swamp without at the very least having contributed to the
development of a large international Marxist current, then this would be a
severe blow to all working class activists. As they have done in the past, ISM
and SSP activists have the duty to debate these issues openly. If this is done
then the entire movement can benefit, if not then real damage can be done.

John Throne on behalf of Labor's Militant Voice

Chicago, IL, USA

6/1/03

Dear John,

I have no time to deal with all the issues you raise or to carry on a polemic. I'm not surprised at your specific criticism of Tommy's quote. The leadership of the SSP, including Tommy himself, would have similar criticisms of the statement. People do make mistakes, and I will attempt to put the comment in context.

I have to confess, however, to being disappointed that you should so readily leap to such sweeping conclusions based on a single isolated quote. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I'm afraid you are drawing general conclusions and offering misplaced advice based on an extremely limited understanding of the SSP and the ISM. If you were simply seeking clarification that would be fair enough. But you have clearly discussed these conclusions in detail within your group prior to asking for clarification. It appears you have already circulated this letter quite widely, though I stand corrected on that point. Unfortunately your email contains a number of quite serious insinuations, including suggestions that the SSP leadership has shifted "in the direction of adapting to the pressures of capitalism and nationalism"; that we have a "tendency to increasingly see the SSP's day to day politics within the boundaries of Scotland itself and within the boundaries of capitalism"; that we are engaged in "a retreat from internationalism"; that we are "encouraging the working class of one country or region to compete with workers in another region for who will work cheapest." All of this is based on a single quote which does not in any way reflect the position of either Tommy, the ISM or the SSP leadership.
At an SSP National Council this week, Tommy himself supported a resolution (from the CWI, as it happens) which expressed criticism of the remark and restated the SSPs support for democratic public ownership of the economy. But let's get a few points clear. There is a myth perpetrated by some sectarians internationally - notably the CWI - which I'm afraid you appear to have swallowed whole. According to this myth, the SSP is good at local campaigning and agitational work but neglects the big issues such as challenging the ideology of capitalism and promoting the case for socialism. This is utter garbage. Tommy alone has probably spoken at 1000 public meeting over the last four years on the case against capitalism and for socialism in Scotland and worldwide. We have produced a book, Imagine - no doubt you have criticisms of it - which has sold many thousands of copies in Scotland (pro ata to the population the equivalent of 500,000 sales in the USA) and which has converted countless young people and workers to the cause of socialism. We have also sold and distributed thousands of manifestos raising our socialist and internationalist vision. Prior to this election we distributed door-to-door half a million copies of a four-page newspaper presenting the case against war and imperialism and the case for socialism as well as explaining some of our detailed policies for wealth redistribution, against privatisation etc. I could go on and on. But the fact is, few parties anywhere in the world have had a bigger impact in challenging capitalist ideology and converting huge swathes of the working class to socialism. And, I would add, few individuals anywhere in the world have done more than Tommy Sheridan to help shape socialist consciousness on a mass scale. Tommy, with the assistance of myself and others, has written weekly columns in several mass circulation newspapers over the last four years. These have dealt with all sorts of issues - including globalisation and the race to the bottom, which you refer to. We have also dealt with issues such as war and imperialism, racism, independence and internationalism, the profit system etc etc. I do not see any of these any of these articles circulating on international email lists. That's because, inconveniently for critics of the SSP, they illustrate that neither Tommy, the ISM, nor the SSP has sold out to reformism, capitalism or nationalism. They illustrate exactly the opposite.
It is exasperating that individuals and organisations internationally should so gleefully seize on a single quote and distribute it across the world, when the quote in question stands in contradiction to the millions of other
words that Tommy and other leaders of the SSP have spoken and written in opposition to big business and capitalism, including during the recent election campaign. In that sense your professed support for the work of the SSP appears similar to that of a football fan whose team has had a superb season, whose striker has scored a barrowload of goals, but then makes one mistake - and that mistake is subsequently brandished as evidence that the striker is useless and the that the team is on the downward slide.
I'll also put the quote in a more specific context. This was not just a straightforward interview with a journalist. This was an interrogation in front of an audience of several hundred people who were also involved in questioning Tommy.The entire event lasted several hours with the transcript subsequently edited down to a fraction of its original length, distorting the significance of the quote in question. Tommy is an outstanding representative of the SSP. He is also a human being - and like all human beings can occasionally make mistakes, especially in the course of a difficult verbal exchange. During the interview, most of Tommy comments were directed towards putting the case for public ownership and for socialism. I don't have time to go into all the details here, but I'm afraid when you are trying to deal concretely with what a socialist government would do in power in a small country like Scotland in the context of a globalised economy, the issues become more complex than can be answered by simply regurgitating slogans from the past.
We touched on this in the book, Imagine, and in some of the documents we wrote in reply to the CWI. Yes, we can talk about the need for global socialism. But when you're dealing with a mass audience - as we are doing day in and day out - a long term and abstract vision of the future is not enough. We need to also be able to say what we will do in the meantime. That is especially acute in Scotland, where, because of the role of the SSP socialist consciousness is far in advance of England, Wales and Ireland, most of Europe and indeed most of the world. Our supporters, and those beginning to think about our ideas, rightluy want to know what we would do in power in Scotland.
So what do we do? Frankly we don't have all the answers right now. Old slogans from the 70s and 80s are not adequate to deal with, for example, the problems that would face a transitional socialist regime in a small country like Scotland operating temporarily within a global capitalist environment.
Yes, we can take the main levers of the economy including land, oil, energy, transport, finance and big swathes of industry into public ownership under democratic workers control. But there are problem areas and that's what Tommy misleadingly tried to deal with. For example, what do you do about certain branch assembly plants of multinationals? What do you do about call centres? There are tens of thousands of call centre workers in Glasgow alone. These are essentially offices with banks of telephones operated by low paid workers on behalf of companies based outside Scotland? How do we win these workers to socialism? We have many call centre workers in the SSP and they will tell you the difficulties of applying general slogans about public ownership to specific companies in that sector. For those sections of the economy which would be difficult or inappropriate to bring into public ownership, including the small business sector, many call centres and electronic branch assembly plants, our emphasis instead should be in laying down legislation enforcing minimum standards, including a minimum wage, trade union rights, a shorter working week and better conditions of employment. We've also raised that any company closing a plant would be legally forced to pay three years wages in compensation to the workforce to allow for retraining etc. Of course, we know that faced with these regulations by a socialist government in Scotland, the companies which own these call centres etc will pull out (indeed they will pull out long before we reach that stage. We also know that the ruling classes will try to use the state to crush any movement towards socialism. But part of the task of winning millions to the struggle for socialism is to skilfully expose and shift the blame onto the other side, just as workers on strike will emphasise how reasonable and moderate their own demands are and how unreasonable their employers are. In my view, that is an attempt to deal transitionally with the complex task involved in establishing a transitional regime. Even the Bolsheviks in the early stages of the Russian Revolution did not take full control over the economy. Moreover, in Andrew Glynn's polemical pamphlet for Militant in the early 1980s attacking the reformist Alternative Economic Strategy he points out that some multinational branch assembly plants may have to be have to be left in private hands under a socialist plan of production.
Of course, globalisation means that today capital can much more easily just pull out. But it is distortion to claim that Tommy advocated that we support a race to the bottom, offering low wages etc. Exactly the opposite. What he was trying to suggest was that those businesses we could not take into public ownership would at the very least be legally forced to ensure the same wages and conditions as would exist in the public sector. In the past Militant raised the slogan of nationalisation of the top 200 monopolies. Today the Socialist Party calls for the nationalisation of the top 150 monopolies across Britain. This slogan is absolutely inadequate.
It
would mean just three or four Scottish companies being taken over, because that's the number of Scottish companies that are in the top 150. We have tried to go way beyond this old slogan, to deal concretely with what is possible in the short term in a socialist Scotland. Unfortunately because of the retreats and defeats of the past 20 years, the socialist movement generally has been on the defensive. It has developed an effective critique of capitalism, but has been less convincing in spelling out the alternative: what socialism would mean, how it would work in the conditions of the 21st century, what could be done and what can't be done at national level etc. Very little theoretical work has been done on this anywhere, to my knowledge, since the 1980s, even though the world has changed and the jigsaw can't jut be put back together again. This failure is inevitable given the weakness of socialism internationally. But we are under increasing pressure in Scotland to explain exactly what we would do in power. That pressure does not come from big business as you assert. It comes from the working class and from our own growing army of supporters who want more than slogans or vague promises about a future socialist world. In the passing, your references to some newspaper articles in the Herald and Guardian were way wide of the mark. These are just local journalists with some confused liberal opinions expressing their opinions. We know these people - they are hardly even political, let alone conscious representatives of the bourgeois. Much more serious and more typical has been the stream of hysterical articles and editorials frenziedly attacked the SSP, denouncing us as Trotskyist revolutionaries, anarchists, Marxists etc whose programme would impoverish Scotland, drag it back into the dark ages etc. The old tales of Liverpool redundancy notices, of Militant entryism etc have been resurrected with a vengeance since the election. That is real attitude of the bourgeois. The suggestion that the establishment want to gently influence the SSP in a more moderate direction is ludicrous, as is the inference that Tommy represents some kind of weak link that the ruling classes are seeking to exploit. There are no fundamental political divisions within ISM or within the leadership of the SSP, although some people, perhaps including you, evidently wish there were. None of this is to justify the wording of the partial quote from Tommy. But it is to show that it is not easy to deal in media sound bites with complicated explanations, and in the event Tommy tried to be too clever. Tommy does not make policy. His main role is to sell it to the public. Because of the demands upon him, he does not have the time to read and discuss as much as he would like. He recognises that. I have moved over from working on the Socialist Voice to concentrate on discussing and developing policy and strategy with our MSPs and with the party as a whole, including of course Tommy. With all due respect we don't need lectures from afar on the pressures we will come under. Some of us are quite long in the tooth. Moreover, the language you use, such as "the need for a major struggle" (against Tommy's ideas) is divisive and smacks of the old sectarian methods of the left which invariably seek to magnify differences, leading to a situation in a number of countries - and I respectfully include the USA in this - where there are almost as many socialist parties and groups as there are socialists. Our method, in contrast, is to retain a sense of proportion and to help one another correct our mistakes rather than cast suspicion on people or launch faction fights at the first sign of a deviant phrase. I have many other disagreements with your comments. For example, you criticise our manifesto by selectively quoting references to Denmark and Norway. In our 2001 manifesto, we made the point that in Britain under Thatcher, there was a top rate of taxation between 1979 and 1988 of 63 per cent which under New Labour is now just 40 per cent. Does that make us Thatcherites? Does that mean we are holding up Thatcher as a model for a socialist Scotland? Of course not.
What you fail to acknowledge is that in the context of these references, we explicitly make the point both Denmark and Norway are not socialist - indeed we spell out that they are monarchies, capitalist countries with right wing governments currently in power trying to roll back earlier reforms. It would be impossible to read this manifesto with open eyes and draw the conclusion that we are holding up Denmark and Norway as models for a future socialist Scotland. The same section of the manifesto which contains the references to Denmark and Norway specifically states that "our goal is to build a harmoniously integrated economy based on democratic social ownership of land, industry, energy, transport, and finance." The whole manifesto is throwing down a gauntlet to capitalism and setting out to convince people to join the fight for socialism in Scotland andinternationally. Even the SWP praised the manifestoI'm afraid your approach, no matter how much you distance yourself from the CWI, is precisely the same pedantic, nitpicking approach that concentrates in hunting for "incorrect formulations" rather than seeing and understanding the big picture that we are trying to create. I also have fundamental disagreements with you on the national question and find offensive your suggestion that we are capitulating to nationalism and lacking an internationalist approach.
This is ill informed. As it happens, we are heavily involved in international solidarity work. Over the past few years we have initiated, along with the LPP, solidarity work with the Afghan left; we have been involved in solidarity work with Colombian trade unionists (this week I had a meeting with the leader of the Colombian miners); SSP members lead the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Scotland; one of the key Muslim organisations in Scotland called for an SSP vote in the recent election because of our solidarity work on Palestine and our leading role in the movement against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are also at the heart of developing a pan-European anti-capitalist left political movement which involves a wide range of organisations across Europe. This coming week, I'm attending a conference in Athens of the developing European Anti-Capitalist Left of which we are one of the four founding parties; I have been asked on behalf of the SSP to open the main discussion at the conference on the anti-war movement and the movement for social justice internationally, which in indication of the role and stature of the SSP across Europe.
We have a multitude of connections across the globe. Our manifesto that you criticise has a thread of internationalism running through it from the first page to the last, even though it was a manifesto drawn up specifically for the Scottish Parliament which has no powers over foreign affairs defence etc. It talks of solidarity with those resisting oppression and injustice across the globe including the Palestinians and the Kurds. In popular language it denounces war and imperialism, and comments on a range of international issues including starvation in Africa, the looming global environmental catastrophe, and globalisation. It proudly proclaims the SSP
"an internationalist party that stands on the side of the poor, the oppressed, the exploited across the world" and which is part of a worldwide movement against capitalism and war. Yet you talk about a "retreat from internationalism" and a "tendency to see the SSP's day to day policies within the boundaries of Scotland and within the boundaries of capitalism". I'm afraid few people in Scotland - and few people internationally beyond the usual collection of ultra-left, sectarian grouplets - would recognise such a description. But your remarks do point to an important difference in emphasis. It is quite easy to make general propaganda in favour of international socialism.
There is nothing especially revolutionary about it; the old Socialist Party of Great Britain for a century has carried out abstract propaganda in favour of a socialist world, while standing aloof from any participation in the real struggles of working people. Many people would agree with the general sentiments of a new world free of greed and poverty and inequality. John Lennon's song continues to be popular - it's a form of idealism. There are 1000 Marxist sects across the world that do nothing but proclaim their vision of a socialist world. But it's much more difficult is convincing people to become involved in the concrete struggle for socialism at home. The march of globalisation has been deliberately played up by the ruling classes to create a climate of defeatism. The ruling classes, the New Labour leaders and the media bombard people daily with the message that capitalism is all-powerful because it's global; that you're up against forces that you can never defeat; that it is futile to struggle even for reforms, let alone for socialism. Our role in Scotland has been to challenge that mood of passive resignation which is consciously stirred up by the ruling establishment and especially by the right wing of the labour movement. Our emphasis is to convince people, not that removing capitalism from Scotland would solve all their problems, but that a victory for socialism in Scotland would be a huge leap forward. Indeed it would be the biggest single contribution that we could ever hope to make in the struggle for international socialism, because of course a socialist breakthrough in any one country - especially in a world of satellite TV, the Internet etc - would have immediate repercussions internationally. Scotland is a small country. . But it is 15 times richer than, for example Cuba - and probably 150 times wealthier than Cuba at the time of the 1959 revolution. It has 80 per cent of the European Union's oil reserves. It has an abundance of natural resources. Edinburgh is the third biggest financial centre in Europe. You in the past wrote material and delivered speeches calling for a socialist Ireland - and of course Ireland is the same size as Scotland. Of course, you did not leave it there - and neither do we. We state repeatedly that we don't want to build a new Hadrian's Wall; we want to spread socialism far and wide. That is so elementary it almost goes without saying. But the other side of the coin is that our role is to inspire young people and workers with the confidence to take the lead - not to sow doubts and fear by emphasising only the difficulties and obstacles. Some socialist groups in England have talked about how a socialist Scotland would be crushed by military intervention. That whole approach is almost designed to paralyse and demobilise the socialist left. The fact is almost 2 million people recently marched in England to stop an invasion of a far-flung country led by a brutal tyrant who was supposed to have weapons of mass destruction ready for use against the West. It is almost impossible to overstate the opposition that would erupt across Europe if there were an attempt in the future to invade a democratic socialist Scotland. Far from mobilising troops at the Scottish border, the ruling powers of Europe would be preoccupied with trying to stop the contagion spreading within their own country. I would also make the point that over a number of years we have considered and rejected the slogan used by the Socialist Party in Northern Ireland for a federation of Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales and eventually Europe. First because it is confusing. The idea of a federation is already promoted in Scotland by the Lib Dems and even by sections of the Tory Party as an alternative to independence. The right wing of the SNP are also now prevaricating on independence. Our slogans have to be clear and unambiguous; in Scotland the idea of a federation is seen as contradicting the idea of independence. States such as Germany, the USA and Canada define themselves as federations (and in Canada the confederal state has faced a serious national movement for three decades). The terminology is also overly prescriptive. We don't know the transitional configurations that may occur in the process of building international socialism. Right now, the influence of the left is weaker in England than it is anywhere in Europe, while the influence of the left in Scotland is perhaps strongest. There are Scandinavian countries like Norway, which have similarities to Scotland, including a similar size population, and an economy heavily based on North Sea oil, and a strong socialist left current in society. Parts of northern Scotland have more links with Norway than with England. It is not far-fetched - though it would similarly be too prescriptive - to visualise a future confederation of Northern socialist states as a prelude to a victory of socialism in England and other parts of Europe. We cannot anticipate exactly how events will unfold, so we put forward our internationalism in a much more open-ended way than you and the CWI suggest. Incidentally, the CWI members in Scotland would never use the terminology of a socialist federation of Scotland, England, Ireland, and Wales, because they have some understanding of the difficulties I have just outlined.
The final point I want to take up is your criticism of the way the ISM operates inside the SSP. You talk about "being worried for some considerable time that insufficient attention is given to building the ISM as a revolutionary Marxist group within the SSP". I'd suggest you should have more important things to worry about, such as how to unify the forces of anti-capitalism and socialism in the USA, the belly of the beast of imperialism. As for us, we have been involved in discussing this for five years. This was the subject of a long debate between the CWI and ourselves and was indeed one of the central issues in the debate leading up to our split from the CWI. You are entitled to agree with the CWI on this; but with all due respect, we have more than four years experience of working in and leading the SSP and I'd suggest we are in a well-placed position to assess what works and what doesn't. You prescribe that we act like the CWI and the SW platforms within the SSP who emphasise the building of their own narrow group - and as a result are regarded with suspicion and hostility by the broad membership of the SSP. In contrast, the ISM and its members have concentrated more on building, leading, galvanising and educating the SSP at every level because we see the SSP as the vehicle which has the potential to lead the struggle for socialism in Scotland. Because of the way in which the ISM has operated, our influence within the party as a whole has grown. The ISM and its activists are held in huge respect by the membership of the SSP. Your comments about Rosie Kane illustrate the difficulties of trying to judge the role of the ISM etc from afar. You quote Rosie approvingly, contrasting her remarks on nationalisation favourably to Tommy's supposed backsliding. Yet Rosie is not a member of the ISM. Neither are two of our other new MSPs. There are no ideological differences separating the six Scottish Socialist MSPs, which reflects the general position within the party. At least 90 per cent of SSP members are in no platform; most joined in the period since the party was established and support the strategy and programme of the leadership. For us, developing that party - which over the next few months is likely to reach 5000 members (again to use a pro-rata example, the equivalent of 250,000 members in the USA) - is our primary task. The ISM continues to play an important role in discussing and developing ideas, publishing a magazine etc. But we have sought to infuse the party as a whole with Marxist ideas, rather than sought to preserve them as the exclusive property of a single group. I'm afraid that the points you raise on this, as on other questions, are no different from those raised repeatedly by the CWI. You are entitled to your opinion. But I'm afraid we have to disagree. If we were to try and set the record straight on every distortion or falsification of our position, we would be permanently paralysed. But I have taken a lot of time to answer your letter because of personal friendship, because I have respect for you, because of the role you've played in the past, because of your talents and experience. That's why I'm especially disappointed at this letter, which, notwithstanding your professed support of the SSP, betrays the same type of arrogance that is a hallmark of the CWI. We are always ready and willing to listen to criticism, including from outside Scotland; but most of those internationally who genuinely support our project tend to raise their questions in a more open-minded and constructive way than you have done. I am especially saddened at your patronising insinuation that members of the ISM or SSP are unwilling or unable to "debate issues openly". The SSP is by far the most democratic party that I have ever been part of. We debate all issues openly. The leadership of the SSP, including ISM members within the leadership, have openly thrashed out our disagreements with one another within the structures not just of the ISM, but also of the SSP - including National Councils and National Conferences - on a range of issues, from Palestine to Cuba, from gender equality to the shape of the party structures. It is frankly ignorant to suggest that we fear open debate and discussion. Feel free to reply to this. But I am afraid it is impossible to enter into a long distance polemic, given the scale of the political work we are involved in. In any case, we did discuss in one form or another most of these issues interminably with the CWI before we agreed to disagree and parted company. If my tone is sharp, please do not take it personally as I'm sure you'll understand the disappointment and exasperation that gives rise to this reply. I'm not asking you or expecting you to agree with everything in this reply. Indeed, you may not agree with anything in this reply and that is your prerogative. As with our differences with the CWI, the IST etc, only time and events will verify which approach is correct. My only request is that you distribute this reply to all those who have been sent your original letter. Meanwhile, we will distribute your letter and my reply to members of the ISM.

Alan McCombes

save preference

Comments (28 of 28)

Jump To Comment:

nothing here!

by Scot on tour

Wed Jun 18, 2003 23:07

Great another motion which calls for talk, talk talk talk. Say one thing while thinking the other may also be possible.

Socalists suck, Scottish or not.

does john throne ever stop?

by long live the king

Wed Jun 18, 2003 23:53

or is he like the energizer bunny of socialism?

John Was Making Valid Points

by pat c

Thu Jun 19, 2003 11:07

The fact that he was answered at length proves this.

So now election results justify a position?

by Mark - SP

Thu Jun 19, 2003 14:25

If we said that there would be uproar on here.
The rest of Tommy's comments I think justify our position. (on big business, the national question etc.) We welcome any gains for Socialist policies in elections but warn against the abandonment of a Marxist-Internationalist outlook.
Just because we have criticisms of the SSP doesn't mean we want them to lose in elections, in fact we still have a tendency within the SSP.

Hey Mark

by But

Thu Jun 19, 2003 14:32

It was the CWI tendency that suggested the SSP stand down in Dundee East in favour of the Labour candidate.

So much for no illusionin or support for 'Labour the Bosses Party'. How come it wasnt a Bosses Party in Dundee?

Hee! Hee!

by The Joker

Thu Jun 19, 2003 14:38

SP support International Marxism? How? Why by saying the cops were well behaved at Evian!
Those terrible people in Amnesty lie and claim that the cops attacked peaceful demonstrators.
How dare they!

To Mark

by Matthew

Thu Jun 19, 2003 15:45

"We welcome any gains for Socialist policies in elections but warn against the abandonment of a Marxist-Internationalist outlook."

So when Alan talks of the internationalist outlook of the ISM and the SSP and mentions their involvment in the anti-capitalist left iniaitve, do you just ignore or dismiss this.

The fact that you had a rep at the recent meeting in Athens would make it hard for you to do so.

One other thing when is McAllion joining the SSP or even leaving the Labour party (the real party of big business)or was that just pre-election hype?

Disingenous

by William Wallace

Thu Jun 19, 2003 16:57

CWI attacks on the SSP are completely disingenous:

Marxists, as opposed to cultists, judge a political organisation, not on the basis of a few sentences of an interview by a party rep, but on the overall nature of that party:

1. The class basis of the party: The SSP has expanded rapidly in recent years with an influx of overwhelmingly working class new members. In comparison with most so called left organisations it is in reality a party of the working class.

2. Internal structure: Unlike the CWI and its sections the SSP is an open and democratic organisation, where individuals and tendencies win people over or lose them to their ideas by open and honest debate, not by subterfuge and name calling. It is a membership led, botttom up, not elitist top down organisation.

3. The Party programme: This clearly commits the party to a socialist transformation of Scottish society. It also commits the party to transitional demands and short term demands that can be achieved in current circumstances.

4. Activities: The SSP is a campaigning, activist party. Its branches are continously involved in initiating campaigns to defend the interests of ordinary people and popularise the ideas of socialism. Nor are they constrained, unlike some of the toytown revolutionaries who inhabit the cults, in engaging in direct action, and this includes their public reps.

Finally, regarding the CWIs objection to an Independent Scottish Socialist Republic, why did they not oppose this position when it was adopted as the policy of the SSP?

Instead of attacking the SSP at every oppurtunity (which as not the same as constructive criticism,which no party inc. the SSP should be above), the CWI and their new friends in the SWP should concentrate on asking themselves why they have singularly failed, everywhere, in doing what the SSP has done: building a mass socialist party.

Oh and by the way, where would the capital of this Federation of Britain, Ireland, Scotland and Wales be? Lets see...oh how about London!

The ISM and Tommy Sheridan

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party

Thu Jun 19, 2003 18:49

info at socialistparty dot net

Philip Stott, International Socialists, CWI Scotland

The International Socialists play an active role in the SSP. We are committed to building the SSP into a mass force with a clear socialist programme. We are also the Scottish section of the worldwide socialist and Marxist movement the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) which is active in 35 countries. Up until 2001 many of the leading members of the SSP including Tommy Sheridan MSP and Alan McCombes, who is the editor of the Scottish Socialist Voice (paper of the SSP) and drafted the SSP manifesto, were members of the CWI.

They left after a lengthy debate about the need to build support for a Marxist organisation and programme while also building the SSP. They rejected that idea. Unfortunately the ideas put forward by many of the SSP's leadership today represent a decisive break with Marxism and the programme of the CWI.

Both the SSP’s manifesto and statements made by SSP MSP Tommy Sheridan during the election campaign have confirmed that a significant change is taking place in the political position of the SSP's leadership. Moreover, they are now arguing in favour of ideas that they would have vehemently opposed in the past. In responding to these ideas we do so in an effort to clarify the programme that we believe is necessary to achieve the overthrow of capitalism and establish a socialist society, in Scotland and internationally.

The SSP stood at the recent elections on a platform of five "fast track" pledges all of which the International Socialists supported. They were the scrapping of the Council tax and its replacement with a wealth tax, the introduction of free school meals for all pupils, a higher minimum wage and a shorter working week for public sector workers, the scrapping of PFI and PPP privatisation schemes. These are likely to form the main legislative bills that SSP MSP’s will put forward in the Scottish parliament.

At the same time the SSP’s manifesto outlined a further 200 demands that could be implemented under the current powers of the parliament. They covered the main areas that the Scottish Parliament is responsible for such as healths, education, transport, housing, local government, the legal system etc. Again the International Socialists supported the vast majority of these proposals.

So what are the differences between the approach of the International Socialists (CWI) and that of the SSP leadership towards the drawing up of a socialist programme for Scotland?
Tax the rich

The SSP’s election manifesto included a section entitled "For a free socialist republic". In that section the manifesto argued that countries like Norway and Denmark, while still being free market economies, nevertheless prove that: "Yes, you can tax the rich. Yes, you can have public ownership of North Sea oil and other profitable industries. Yes, you can impose higher taxes on big business. Yes, you can invest in high quality public services".

Developing this idea further Tommy Sheridan, the convenor of the SSP, explained in an interview on the BBC (20 April 2003) that: "…there are a number of countries which have a successful mix of public ownership and high taxation...like Norway and Denmark they manage to combine high levels of public ownership with high taxation for the wealthy."

These quotes, and many others of a similar vein, are a clear example of the changing position of the SSP leadership. They believe that by taxing the rich and big business, without ending capitalism, it is possible to at least significantly, and for the long term, reduce the levels of poverty and inequality in Scotland.

Of course the International Socialists supports demands of the SSP for increased corporation tax on big business and increased personal tax on the wealthy. We support, for example, the scrapping of the council tax and it's replacement with a wealth tax that would be heavily weighted towards making the rich pay substantially more towards local government services.

These measures form part of our programme that aims to eradicate poverty and low pay permanently but only if they are linked to the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist society based on workers control and management of the economy and a democratic plan of production.

The lessons of left and radical governments that have come to power but failed to bring the economy and the state under the control of the working class proves that limited action against the power and privilege of the capitalist class cannot provide a long term solution.

This was the lesson of the Socialist Party government of Francois Mitterand who won power in 1981 in France. They promised increases in employment, more money for health and education health and increased taxes on big business. Under immense pressure from the International Monetary Fund and French big business who threatened a ‘strike of capital’, they eventually ended up carrying through counter reforms against the interests of the French working and middle classes. This was a consequence of the Mitterand government’s refusal to break with capitalism. This has also been the experience of some of the radical governments that have come to power in Latin America with mass support among the population such as Chavez in Venezuela in 1998 and the Nicaraguan Sandanistas who came to power after the 1979 revolution.
Fighting for reforms

The CWI has an uncompromising record of fighting for every advance for the working class that can be wrung out of capitalism and big business governments. After all it was the Militant (the forerunner of the Socialist Party in Britain) that played a leading role in the Liverpool City Council struggle of the 1980's. This movement, involving of tens of thousands of council workers and sections of the wider working class, took on and defeated the Tory government and won significant improvements in housing, education, nursery provision and the like.

Militant, in Scotland and Britain, whose membership included Tommy Sheridan and Alan McCombes and others, were central to the building of the mass anti-poll tax non-payment campaign that defeated the poll tax and removed Thatcher from power.

In Ireland we led the mass campaign that defeated the water charges imposed on communities around Dublin by the right wing governments in the 1990's.

While leading these class battles we have always sought to explain that while victories can be won and reforms gained for working class people unless, and until, capitalism is overthrown, the ruling class will return again and again to try and remove the past gains made by the working class movement. What they are forced to give up with the right hand they will attempt to take back with the left. Therefore, reforms under capitalism can turn into counter reforms. That is why we tie the struggle for immediate reforms to the idea of the socialist transformation of society.

Therefore we sought at all times, and still do seek, to build the membership of our marxist organisation because we believe that a mass party armed with a Marxist programme is essential for the overthrow of capitalism and the building of a socialist society.

Despite the victories in Liverpool in the 1980's the issues of poverty, low pay and social deprivation have not been resolved. While the mass movement removed the poll tax from the statute books, its replacement, the council tax, has proved to be an intolerable burden on working class families.

A consistently socialist position- a Marxist programme- requires an approach that explains fighting for reforms on their own is not enough. Reforms won under capitalism still leaves the economy in the hands of the capitalist class. We have always sought to put demands such as a wealth tax in the context of advancing the need for workers control and management over the economy as a whole.

This can only be done by bringing into public ownership the multinational corporations that dominate the economy under the democratic control and management of the working class.

The capitalist class has, and will continue to, resist paying increased tax on their personal wealth and that of the businesses they own and control. They will also resort to intricate maneuvers of tax avoidance, hidden and offshore bank accounts and the like, as well as threatening the removal of funds from the economy if their interests are threatened i.e. a ‘strike of capital’ Such a tactic was even threatened against Harold Wilson’s’ Labour government (1964-1969), when they proposed relatively mild tax hikes on big business and the rich.

It is true that during the first couple of decades after the Second World War there were significant reforms won by the working class in countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark - as there was in Scotland and Britain. This was during a period of unprecedented economic upswing, the post war capitalist boom, which came to an end by the mid-1970’s.
Economic crisis

The return of economic crisis, stagnation and recession forced a change in the policies of the ruling class. Not the Scandinavian model but the "British model" - led by Thatcher - of neo-liberal policies, the slashing of welfare spending, casualisation of work, privatisation and social cuts became the new policy of the ruling class internationally.

It is, moreover, a position which has now been adopted by the Swedish, German and other European capitalist governments. Both by parties of the Conservative and Christian Democrats, the traditional parties of the ruling class, and by the former workers’ parties for example New Labour and the German and Swedish Social Democrats.

This policy is based on the objective crisis that capitalism now faces. Falling profits and low growth necessitate an assault on the previously won gains of the working class.

Rather than the whim of one individual it is a policy of the capitalist class internationally in an attempt to undermine the gains won by the working class in a previous period.

The SSP’s manifesto argues the opposite when it states "It is not economics, but politics that dictates that big business in Scotland and across the UK makes sky-high profits while poverty runs rampant and public services disintegrate."

In reality it is the economic crisis of capitalism that ultimately drives the political policy of governments. Of course the strength and cohesion of the working class and the role of the trade unions and the political parties of the working class have a critical role to play in preventing and holding back such attacks. That’s why we campaign to build powerful trade unions with fighting policies and new mass workers parties that can defend the working class and prepare a movement to end capitalism.

However while capitalism continues to exist there can be no permanent eradication of poverty, exploitation or inequality.

By making comparison with Norway and Denmark the SSP manifesto can create illusions that higher taxes on the rich and limited public ownership could lead to a significant and long term reduction of poverty.
A high wage economy?

Interview with Tommy Sheridan, BBC, 20 April 2003
"If you create an environment for business then our environment would be better for business that the one we have right now. In our environment pensioners would have more money to spend, low paid workers would have more money to spend, average workers would have more money to spend. They would therefore be able to increase demand in relation to the supply from businesses. So we would actually create a good environment."

Interview with Tommy Sheridan, The Herald, 30 April 2003
"What we're saying is that in a future independent, socialist Scotland, we want to work on training, on skills. We want to offer a very high-skilled economy, a motivated workforce for big business. If that can work in places like Germany and France, where they have higher wages, better standards, and produce better products, why can't that work here in Scotland?"

The idea of a consistent high wage capitalist economy is a myth in today’s economic conditions. The Gerhard Schroeder government in Germany has launched a vicious assault on German workers. This policy is dictated by the low growth and profits crisis in German capitalism and Schroeder’s determination to make the working class pay for the crisis. Tommy Sheridan’s idea that high wages benefit big business by allowing more money to be spent in the economy is turning Marxism on its head.

Capitalist profits are the unpaid labour of the working class. Workers’ wages represent only part of the value that the working class produces. The working class never receives the full value in wages of the commodities that they make. Therefore they cannot collectively buy back the goods they do produce. The capitalists overcome this contradiction, for a period, by investing a portion of the profits in re-tooling and developing new technology, but eventually the demand dries up and the economy goes into a recession. This is one of the factors that leads to a profits crisis and the capitalists closing factories and workplaces, as they cannot sell the goods they manufacture.

Neo-liberal policies are being used to cut the collective social wage of the working class in an attempt to salvage the falling profits of the capitalists. A high wage economy, high quality public services, and low poverty rates and the existence capitalism are today mutually exclusive.

Multinational capitalism will always seek to maximize its profits by undermining workers wages and conditions. Capitalist globalisation has increased the ability of companies to move to low wage economies. Scotland is seeing a similar experience in regards to the call centre sector where thousands of jobs could be moving to the Indian subcontinent where wages and much lower.

The chances of these companies operating in a "high wage" Scotland at a time of falling profitability and economic crisis are unlikely to say the least. The experience of Silicon Glen over the last three years shows that the electronics sector has been decimated by the slump in that industry. Every job gained is temporary and is under threat as a result of the economic crisis that is inherent in capitalism. Only by bringing these corporations into public ownership under democratic working class control and management could high wages and decent conditions be guaranteed. At the same time that does not prevent workers from fighting for increased wages and improved working conditions against the wishes of the bosses. However, until the profit system is abolished there is no job or wage rise that will not be under threat.
A mixed economy

Interview with Tommy Sheridan, The Herald, 30 April 2003
Alf Young, The Herald: Isn't there an ultimate condition that you're seeking to reach, one where the market has no role to play, that the state can do everything?
Tommy Sheridan: No. We very much believe in a mixed economy
AY: It doesn't sound like it, Tommy.
TS: Well, our mix is different from New Labour's mix. Labour would like to add a wee drop of whisky to the Atlantic ocean and say that's a mixed economy. We think that's wrong. We think there's a larger role for the public sector to play.

The idea of a mixed economy i.e. public ownership of some sectors of the economy existing alongside a "regulated" big business sector is not new. It is just another variant of capitalism. These ideas have existed in the working class and socialist movement since its inception. They are reformist in that they seek to reform capitalism or achieve socialism through the gradual changes in the operation of capitalism.

Marxism has consistently defended an alternative position. What you don’t own, you don’t control. To limit your demands to the democratic public ownership of a limited part of the economy is to leave most of it in the hands of the capitalists. For example, if an SSP government came to power and decided to nationalise 20% of the economy, but left 80% in private hands it would be the 80% that would dictate terms to the 20% not the other way around. Marxists struggle to build a party and a movement armed with a clear socialist programme. This programme stands for the public ownership of the decisive sections of the economy under democratic working class control.

Interview with Tommy Sheridan, The Herald, 30 April 2003
Alf Young, Herald: Would you nationalise Tesco?
TS: I don't think there's a need to nationalise Tesco right now. What I think there's a need for is to impose on Tesco proper wages and employment conditions. What we would be doing is regulating business. You don't have to own it, you just regulate it.

Tesco is a multi-million pound, supermarket chain. It made profits of over £1 billion last year. How would it be possible to stop the massive mark-up on food bought by consumers; prevent the rip-off of small farmers and other small food producers who are being driven to ruin by the supermarket chains that dominate the food industry; guarantee decent wages for Tesco workers unless Tesco and the other food giants are brought into public ownership?

The same goes for every other sector of the economy. Whether it’s banking and finance, electronics, manufacturing, construction, oil, land, service industries, pharmaceutical companies etc the "commanding heights" of the economy must be owned and controlled by society as a whole through a socialist plan of production.

Interview with Tommy Sheridan, The Herald, 30 April 2003
"It's worth remembering that 99.9% of the Scottish economy is small business."

The logic of this argument is that 99.9% of the economy would remain in private hands under an SSP government. Yet the Scottish economy is dominated by big business both indigenous to Scotland and foreign owned corporations. For example Scotland's publicly traded companies reached a market value of £101.2 billion at the end of April. These included the Royal Bank of Scotland - up by 15% since March, adding £6 billion to its value. Once you add on the non-publicly traded companies and foreign owned multinationals a thousand threads tie the Scottish economy to big international capitalism. The small business sector is totally reliant on big business for markets to sell their goods.
The national question

Underpinning the SSP's leadership political shift towards reformist ideas is their view that the struggle for socialism in Scotland will be taking place isolated from the rest of the world. The manifesto states, "We repudiate the fictional claim that in the new globalised economy an independent Scotland would be powerless to tax the rich, wipe out poverty." Firstly, we have never accepted that an independent Scotland would be capable of "wiping out poverty" unless capitalism was ended and a socialist Scotland established. We have argued for an independent socialist Scotland that would link up, in a voluntary socialist confederation, with other socialist states.

Secondly, in order to stand up to the globalised economy i.e. a hostile international capitalist class that would seek to crush a socialist society wherever it existed, it is essential to view that struggle from an international standpoint. That is to appeal to the working class internationally, starting in the rest of Britain and Ireland for support and for the overthrow of capitalism in other countries.

Tommy Sheridan's statement about not nationalising Tesco flows from the idea that it is not possible to deal with multinational companies in a Scottish context, other than to "regulate" them. It is a recognition that within the limits of an isolated Scotland there would be limits on what could be achieved. But it is wrong to view it in that way. If the socialist transformation of society were to take place in Scotland first, and that is by no means certain, the long-term survival of a socialist Scotland would depend on the spreading of a socialist revolution internationally.

Globalisation has further accelerated the concentration of capitalist wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. This process has unfolded for over 150 years. There are approximately 150 corporations that dominate the British economy. Around 500 transnational corporations control 90% of world trade. We are fighting to build a mass movement that would bring those economic colossi into the hands of the world’s workers and poor masses. This would release the resources to transform the lives of billions of people. This can only be done by ending capitalism internationally.

A socialist society would plan production, rather than the environmentally damaging and destructive anarchy of capitalism, through the setting up of democratically elected committees involving the workers in those industries and across the country.

Through these bodies organized on a local, regional and national and international basis it would be possible to work out a plan for the economy, based on need, where production for profit would be ended. A socialist plan of production would consist of working out an overall plan of what goods and resources society required. This would involve an agreement on what was needed for investment in health, education, housing and other public services. On that basis it would be possible to end the enormous waste and duplication that is endemic under the capitalist mode of production. A socialist society would harness the wealth and productive potential that does exist to eradicate poverty and hunger both in Scotland and internationally.

Socialist nationalisation therefore has nothing in common with nationalisation of, for example, the Norwegian oil industry. That is a capitalist state run industry, and like nationalisation in Britain in the past, the railways, the mining industry etc, is not under the control of the working class, nor are its profits used primarily to improve the lives of the trade unionists, young people or pensioners.

By fighting for a socialist plan of production both in Scotland and internationally which would utilise the wealth and productive potential of society the world could be transformed.

Capitalism with all its advances in science and technology and the massive accumulation of wealth has created the means to abolish hunger and poverty and disease for all of humankind. A new Scotland and a new world are possible. It has to be a socialist one.
* Re-nationalise the privatised railways, gas, electricity, telecoms etc.
* For the public ownership of the major monopolies that dominate the Scottish economy under democratic working class control and management.
* Seize the assets of multinational companies that pull out of Scotland.
* For a socialist plan of production that would link Scotland with England, Wales and Ireland as part of a socialist plan internationally.

Committee for a Workers' International, PO Box 3688, London, Britain, E11 1YE, Tel: ++ 44 20 8988 8760, Fax: ++ 44 20 8988 8793, cwi@worldsoc.co.uk

Why Did Boyd Post That Rehash?

by Curious

Thu Jun 19, 2003 18:54

The SSP statemeny answers the old points in it. Do the SP think that they will grind people down by repeating the same stuff time after time? mIt answers none of the points raised in the comments

Stephen

by Blackrod

Thu Jun 19, 2003 18:58

What about Michael O'Briens article on Evian, why does it say the State held back , while everyone else, including Amnesty International says the cops ran riot?

And dont forget your CWI friends in the SSP calling for a vote for Labour in Dundee. Explain how Labour is a Capitalist party in the rest of Scotland but not in Dundee.

Why do you oppose Scottish independence?

SSP National Council

Thu Jun 19, 2003 19:10

As Alan McCombes points out in his above statement the motion (contained in John Meehan's original posting) was proposed to the SSP National Council by the CWI, not the ISM. What Alan McCombes doesn't state is that he argued that this motion should be remitted and that a section of the ISM voted against the resolution.
In reply to Curious, I have posted the above article as it states the position of the CWI in relation to statements made by Tommy Sheridan during the election campaign and also comments on related matters pertinent to this debate.

A couple of questions

Thu Jun 19, 2003 19:18

How many members of the ISM voted against the motion and what reasons did they give?

Otherwise there's as much proof there as the Black Block being infiltrated by the filth.

Oh and has McAllion joined yet?

the cwi refuses to explain its own mistake and the reason for it.

by john throne - labors militant voice

Thu Jun 19, 2003 19:42

loughfinn at aol dot com

I would lie to respond to Alan Mc'Combes remarks in the next few days. meanwhile i would like to raise one issue with the CWI contributorsd. Stephen Boyd seems to be the main spokesperson. Stephen how can you expect people to take the CWI as honest contributors to this discussion when you refuse to explain that the CWI totally opposed the setting up of the SSP. Revolutionaries debate issues for a number of reasons. One is so that we all can learn and also that the working class can have a chance to participate and to draw conclusions and learn along with us. When any of us refuse to acknowledge our own mistakes and refuuse to debate these and expalin why we make them we damage this process. That is we damage the consciousness and struggle of the working class. I am interested in the CWI's explanation of its position on the Tommy Sheridan interviews. But I am also interested in what concclusions the CWI has drawn over its absolute opposition to the building of the SSP initially and its immediate steps to split the then Scottish section and set up its own small section in Scotland. A section that would go along with it in not recognizing the mistakes of the CWI.

Stephen and CWI members I repeat my point how do you expect people to take the CWI's input seriously when it refuses to look at its own mistakes. The refusal of the CWI to openly accept and discuss its own mistakes is distorting and corrupting the internal life of this organization which in so many areas of working class struggle plays such a positive role. John Throne

The issue of mistakes by the CWI

by left observer

Thu Jun 19, 2003 23:12

Following on from Stephen Boyd and John Throne's comments can I ask Stephen and other SP members this: what really MAJOR mistakes are you prepared to admit have been made by the CWI in the past few decades??? I am thinking of mistakes in programme, perspective and internal organisation. It would I would think be madness to claim that no person or no organisation active in politics has been prone to mistakes: to be human is to be fallible. And we learn from our mistakes, at least if we acknowledge them. Otherwise, we repeat and deepen them.

It seems to me that this deepening of mistakes and a pretension to infallibility has been the trajectory with the CWI, and for that matter with many other organisations within the Trotskyist or Leninist tradition. So how about some honest accounting, in the interests of learning from experience? I repeat: what MAJOR mistakes is Stehen prepared to own up to, in programme, perspective and internal organisation? I will be very interested in his reply.

The SSP

by Brian Cahill

Fri Jun 20, 2003 03:03

I'm not sure why John seems to feel the need to keep claiming that the CWI was opposed to the establishment of the Scottish Socialist Party. In fact, the CWI made two proposals to Scottish Militant Labour, known as proposal A and proposal B.

The first proposal was that Scottish Militant Labour should relaunch itself as the Scottish Socialist Party. The second proposal was the SML should launch the SSP as a broad party while also building SML as a serious Marxist organisation within it.

What the CWI objected to was the decision by the majority of SML to launch the SSP as a broad organisation - one which "leaves open the question of revolution or reform" - without seeking to maintain and build a revolutionary organisation within the broader party.

Anyone who is interested in the ins and outs of the arguments at the time can read the major documents produced by all sides in the prolonged dispute. They are all publically available on the CWI's marxist resource website, linked to below. As an aside, the ISM (the present name of the former SML majority) only saw fit to publish one side of the discussion.

The CWI in Scotland remains an integral part of the SSP and works to help build the SSP into a mass party while also trying to assemble a revolutionary organisation within the party.

Bringing this back to the original article, I thought that the exchange between John and Alan was very interesting, at least if you filter out the predictable petty attacks on the CWI. Some of the points which John made are of course echoes of points which the CWI has been making for some time. Alan's response is to brag about electoral successes (which are welcome). And that's about it.

And Jay, Gerry Healy was the Irish answer to Gerry Healy.

Thanks Irritable

by Bertram Wolfe

Fri Jun 20, 2003 10:25

Cheers Brian

You can always be relied on to be up at 2am to reply on the minutiatie of the Left.

"Bringing this back to the original article, I thought that the exchange between John and Alan was very interesting, at least if you filter out the predictable petty attacks on the CWI. Some of the points which John made are of course echoes of points which the CWI has been making for some time. Alan's response is to brag about electoral successes (which are welcome). And that's about it."

Spoken like a typical myopic Leninist. You are telling us who read this article that all Alan's responses amount to are bragging about electoral succcesses. Its not my reading of it. That must have been some filtering that you did.

Anyway - Hows Dermot?

Bertram

Tommy's comments

Fri Jun 20, 2003 18:49

So Tommy's comments were an accident? Are we to presume he, as a spokesperson for the SSP made these very specific programatic points without his own knowledge?
Now no-one is disputing the amount of work Tommy has dedicated to Socialism down through the years but for him to say he this quote was taken out of proportion is ludicrous. He has stated - Tesco would not be taken into public ownership, that scottish branches of multinationals would not be taken into public ownership and that he was very much in favour of a mixed economy! There is no ambiguity there, even if he just said those things in passing, he still said them as a spokesperson for the SSP (and the ISM I might add). He has also in the past refered to Cuba as Socialist! In a detailed correspondence between the CWI and the ISM, all documents (from both sides) were distributed to CWI members internationaly for branch discussions ( these can be viewed at http://www.marxist.net ) no such distribution or discussion took place within the ISM (or SSP). No amount of petty sniping at the CWI can cover up these facts.

Mark Brian Stephen

Fri Jun 20, 2003 20:00

You still have questions to answer:

What about Michael O'Briens article on Evian, why does it say the State held back , while everyone else, including Amnesty International says the cops ran riot?

And dont forget your CWI friends in the SSP calling for a vote for Labour in Dundee. Explain how Labour is a Capitalist party in the rest of Scotland but not in Dundee.

Why do you oppose Scottish independence?

Is it just minutae?

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice

Sun Jun 22, 2003 01:48

wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

It can seem like irrelevant details to discuss who said what, when and where. But these debates amongst what are still relatively small forces (in the case of the SSP) and tiny groupings still do show some things and lead to some general conclusions.

First of all, to be taken seriously, one must own up to one's own mistakes. And draw the conclusions. A CWI defender claims that the CWI did not oppose the setting up of the SSP. Yet he fails to deal with the following staement, passed at the CWI's 1998 world congress: "This world congress of the CWI places on record its
strongest possible opposition to the decision of SML to launch the Scottish Socialist
Party".

More important is how the entire issue was presented throughout the CWI during that period. This is important because, although the CWI has degenerated into little more than a sect (a far cry from its heyday!), their mistakes are not theirs alone.

A former member of the CWI in Germany reports that there, the issue of a mass workers' party was put this way by the CWI leadership: It was said that in the capitalist world today, real reforms are no longer possible due to the crisis of capitalism. Therefore, for a mass workers' party to produce reforms, it would have to lead the overthrow capitalism, or be a revolutionary party in other words. Therefore, the task of building a mass reformist workers party and the task of building a revolutionary workers' party are one and the same.

Yes, but there is one "little" detail that is ignored here: The view of the masses of workers. If they don't see it this way, if they will move to build a mass workers' party, then these tasks, and reform and revolution, are NOT one and the same.

Lenin dealt rather extensively with this childishly simplistic view, a view which discounts that which is outside our own consciousness, in a well known little book. It's called "Left Wing Communism - an Infantile Disorder." The CWI defenders should read it.

But I must say, the points that Alan McCoombes makes are not totally convincing. I say this with all due respect for the job he and his comrades have done struggling to build the beginnings of a mass workers' party.

The comments of Tommy Sheridan do not have the ring of just some off hand, mistaken comment, a careless phrase or carelessly worded explanation. This being the case, it does seem that this has been developing for some time.

In that case, how has this been dealt with?

Another question: It sounds to me that the SSP is doing a lot in regard to international solidarity work. However, there is one field that is not mentioned and that I'd think would be important. This is in the trade union field. Since most union members in Scotland would be in the same unions as in the rest of Britain, it would seem to me that a natural link could be made here. Given the proximity to Ireland, the same is the case. This could be related to a struggle to transform the unions. I understand that a series of more left union leaders have been elected in Britain. I don't know on exactly what program or what role they are playing, but it would be very interesting to know how the ISM is relating to this development.

John Reimann
Oakland CA, USA

Blackrod

Sun Jun 22, 2003 20:42

Really, if you are interested in the debate between us an the SSP, go to the link I posted. All the documents that passed between our organisations on the matter are there. If you read them, you couldn't say we opposed Scottish self-determination.

Mark

Mon Jun 23, 2003 11:34

You still dont deal with the fact that Brian Cahill lied about your attitude to the SSP here:

"A CWI defender claims that the CWI did not oppose the setting up of the SSP. Yet he fails to deal with the following staement, passed at the CWI's 1998 world congress: "This world congress of the CWI places on record its
strongest possible opposition to the decision of SML to launch the Scottish Socialist
Party"."

If you are going to enter debate on thread its not good enough to refer people to links whenever you are confronted with an awkward question.

A reply to John Throne

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party (CWI)

Tue Jun 24, 2003 13:11

John Throne in his above postings makes the following points:

“Stephen how can you expect people to take the CWI as honest contributors to this discussion when you refuse to explain that the CWI totally opposed the setting up of the SSP.... But at their 1998 world congress, the CWI passed a resolution the first line of which reads: "This world congress of the CWI places on record its
strongest possible opposition to the decision of SML to launch the Scottish Socialist Party".

John Throne and others repeat the theme of these points; that the CWI opposed the establishment of the SSP and that our method of debate is dishonest and John Throne also asserts that the CWI is an undemocratic organisation.

These claims are completely and absolutely false. The line quoted by John Throne from Resolution 6 to the 7th World Congress of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) does not refer to the establishment of what we know now as the SSP, it refers to the future nature of the Scottish Section of the CWI. The full resolution follows.

Resolution Six (November 1998)
Scotland

This World Congress of the CWI places on record its strongest possible opposition to the decision of SML to launch the Scottish Socialist Party. The CWI rejects the political justification for this step and the methods that have been used by the leadership of SML during this debate.
The political argumentation has not been based on the application of the method of Marxism and Bolshevism to the specific conditions that exist in Scotland today. Neither has it drawn upon the historical international experience of the revolutionary Marxist movement.
The decision of SML EC to proceed with this step, before a national conference of the all British section and the World Congress (despite appeals not to do so by the British EC and the IS), goes against the principles and spirit of democratic centralism/unity. This step has denied the membership of the British section and all other sections of the CWI, from fully and collectively taking a decision on crucial tactical and strategical issues which can determine the fate of the revolutionary movement, together with the Scottish comrades.
The CWI expresses its deep disappointment at the attitude that has been adopted by the SML. We appeal to all comrades in Scotland to fully reappraise the decision that has been taken and the reasoning that has been used to justify it.
This Congress does not believe that the proposals put forward by the SML EC for the organisation of its members in Scotland are adequate for the functioning of a cohesive revolutionary organisation based upon the policy, programme and methods supported by the CWI and its sections.
However, to allow all comrades in Scotland time to re-consider the issues posed, this Congress, with the greatest possible reluctance, accepts that the SML has gone ahead and implemented its proposals, and therefore recognises the CWI group in the SSP as a full section.
The proposed date by the leadership of SML for the founding congress of the new section (May or June 1999) is, in the opinion of this World Congress, an unacceptable delay. We therefore propose that SML discuss this question with the IS with a view to organise a founding conference of the new section at an earlier date.
This Congress stresses that the political, programmatical and organisational questions that have arisen during this debate have not been resolved and the discussion with comrades in Scotland on these issues is not closed.
Congress instructs the IEC/IS, in conjunction with the British section, to closely monitor and discuss the political and organisational development of the new section in Scotland and to review the situation in twelve months.
Congress appeals to all comrades in Scotland to fully participate in this process with a view to correcting what the CWI believes is a major political and organisational mistake.
International Secretariat 16/11/1998.

The debate that took place in the CWI regarding these questions was not about the formation of a broad based party but in fact centred around the question of how to build a revolutionary party in Scotland and internationally. Subsequent events have proven the CWI position to be correct. John Throne’s statement in reality backs the position of the CWI, that the majority of the ISM were pursuing a path of liquidationism of the revolutionary party.
The ISM has ceased to function as a cohesive revolutionary tendency within the SSP. The ISM has abandoned a principled revolutionary marxist programme, as is shown by Tommy Sheridan’s statements and Alan McCombes piece above. Not only on the important issues outlined but also in relation to the national question in Scotland, Ireland and Palestine/Israel.
The CWI supports the building of broad based working class parties in Scotland, England & Wales and Ireland. The real essence of this debate is around the need to also build revolutionary Bolshevik type parties. Alan McCombes and what is left of the ISM has abandoned this task, they have instead chosen the road of liquidationism and now falsely believe that the SSP will be the vehicle for revolutionary struggle in Scotland. The falseness of this “theory” is shown in the numerous failed revolutions of the 20th century and is written in the blood of the millions who died because of the false ideas and methods of left reformism and centrism.
John Throne claims that the CWI fails to admit its mistakes. Throne also claims that the CWI is undemocratic. On the first point, the CWI has a consistent record of openly admitting when mistakes in perspectives, tactics and strategy have been made. For example the CWI has acknowledged that it made a mistake in relation to perspectives for the re-unification and the capitalist counter-revolution in the former East Germany. This is just one example, another is in relation to the timing of the ending of the tactic of entrism within sections of the old social democracy.
The debate around Scotland shows that John Throne’s claim on the undemocratic nature of the CWI to be also wrong.
This debate consisted of an exchange of over 36 articles, many very substantial and wide-ranging, beginning with an exchange of articles in four Members’ Bulletins published by the Socialist Party, the England and Wales section of the CWI, in five months of 1998, and continuing over two years with documents and innumerable discussions at every level of the Scottish, British and international organisations of the CWI. Debates were organised whenever the members requested them. Members put forward their views, in writing and verbally. Debates were organised at a London aggregate (11th May 2000) and a Socialist Party National Committee meeting (13-14 May 2000). These debates were requested by the International Socialist Movement comrades who wanted to put forward their criticism of the perspective, policy and tactics adopted by the Socialist Party.
In addition to these meetings, two meetings of the International Executive Committee, two meetings of the European Bureau, the 1998 European school, and the 7th World Congress discussed Scotland. As well as this Scotland was discussed in every branch of the CWI in every section of our international.
It defies credibility to try and claim that this level of extensive debate is a sign of an undemocratic international.
All of the written material on the debate in Scotland can be read at www.marxist.net

Dialogue - what next?

Tue Jun 24, 2003 17:18

Stephen Boyd actually trying to address some points on this site! I am amazed - what next? Maybe Stephen and his colleagues will venture forth from their bunkers rather more frequently and debate and address a whole variety of questions. It seems to have dawned on them that by pulling down the hatches they only discredit themselves and look shifty - in fact, rather like a cult (as has been alleged elsewhere).

On the SSP - it still seems to me that the resolution Stephen quotes does oppose its creation. And the CWI is more rather than less critical of what the SSP does. I am somewhat puzzled as to why it doesn't just come out and say so, give its reasons and defend its position. This rather looks like facing both ways at once.

Stephen Boyd and his "reply" to john throne.

Tue Jun 24, 2003 21:55

A reply to John Throne.

Thank you Stephen Boyd for responding to some points I made about the CWI, about its way of dealing with its mistakes and its internal life.

I met Stephen Boyd a long time. Over twenty years or so. When I developed a different view on some issues and formed a faction in the CWI in the mid 1990’s Stephen wrote to advise me. His advise was direct and blunt, it was for me to accept whatever was necessary to stay in the CWI. I explained that this was not a principled approach. I had to do as I had done thus far in my life, that is speak out for what I believed, and this included speaking out in the organization I belonged to. I explained that I was being prevented from attending the branch of the CWI to which I was a member, I was not allowed to sell the paper any more and I was being slandered left right and center. (Later I found out that secret trips were made, Hadden to the US to tell how I had always been a bad a person, and a US member to Ireland to explain that the John Throne the Irish Comrades had known no longer existed. I had degenerated you see.) I received no answer from Stephen, no advise from Stephen, on how to deal with these concrete realities that faced me. Stephen’s silence showed me that Stephen had decided to take his own advise. Do whatever was necessary to stay in the CWI. And he is still doing this. This is a sad commentary on Stephen and the CWI organization.

It is also interesting that Stephen comes into discussion on indymedia to defend the internal life of the CWI on this issue of the debate with the then Scottish section. It would have been good to hear Stephen defend the CWI and specifically its Irish section of which he is a leading member in their denial of the right of our faction to speak against our expulsion at the Irish CC and conference. Please Stephen and this applies to all the leading members of the CWI, maneuvering and twisting and telling lies, or telling only part of the truth, these will not solve the fundamental problems in the internal culture of the CWI. In fact they damage further the CWI. The harsh truth is that you Stephen Boyd, and the Haddens and McLaughlins and Taaffes, are seriously damaging the CWI by your approach.

The fundamental problem in terms of the internal regime in the CWI remains this: The CWI cannot become a mass revolutionary organization with the present internal culture. A mass organization especially in this period of great confusion and flux will only be possible if there is a genuine acceptance of factions and sustained factional struggle. This does not exist in the CWI. Members like me who raise these issues and who have fought to change things are driven out. But in fact we have the good of the CWI more at heart than Stephen and those like Stephen, and Hadden and McLaughlin, who will do whatever is necessary to stay in the CWI and hold onto their full time positions. It will be very interesting to see which approach time deals most kindly with. I am confident.

The CWI Stephen says admits its mistakes. He says that they admitted that they were wrong in “perspectives for the re unification and the capitalist counter revolution in the former Eastern German”. I think that it was a bit more than that Stephen. I was a member of the IS of the CWI over this period and for a decade or so before and I accept equal responsibility for the mistakes with other IS members of the CWI. But the mistake was a bit different from what Stephen says. In the biggest change in world relations for a century we were wrong. This is the nature, the magnitude, of the mistake we made. Not just a mistake in relation to half a country. We had maintained up to it actually took place that capitalism could not go back to the stalinist world. This mistake was rooted in an under estimation of the situation of world capitalism as well as an under estimation of the degeneration of stalinism. We did not see the extent of the growth in capitalism in the 1980’s and 1990’s and we did not see the importance of new technology and how it would affect capitalist world economy and the relationship between stalinism and capitalism.

Stephen also says that we were wrong on the timing of the end of entryism. It was much more than that. We had argued that the working class would move to their traditional organizations and in most countries in which we were working this was the social democracy. We were wrong on this major issue of perspectives and tactics, it was not a question of timing. I am pretty clear on this as I argued the position of the CWI very strongly for many many years and more than anybody else was responsible for building the base for the CWI in the social democracy in Ireland. Stephen, by claiming that the mistakes were what you described you confirm my position that the CWI cannot admit to and face up to its mistakes.These were fundamental and major mistakes. Not secondary details Stephen as you wish to give the impression. I am afraid Stephen your claim that the CWI admits its mistakes looks a little threadbare. As we can see here even when the CWI “admits” its mistakes it cannot admit them.

The truth is that these major mistakes have been played down and in fact not mentioned unless some trouble maker like myself forces them onto the agenda. There has been no attempt to explain how these major mistakes related to the internal life of the CWI. These major mistakes are not explained to new members and no organizational conclusions are drawn. Such as for example leading members who have been responsible for such major mistakes should show a bit more humility and sense of proportion. The internal life of the revolutionary organization, especially in the period of the re establishment of capitalism in the stalinist world and since , should have been leaning much more in the direction of input from the membership rather than pontification from the leadership. The criteria for a good member should be a member who while intervening in the working class and building the organization is continually assessing and constructively questioning the positions of the organization. If this had been the case then the mistakes we were making would have been caught much earlier. Stephen Boyd unfortunately continues with the worst traditions of the CWI leadership.

These mistakes involved a mistaken analysis of the objective situation, but they were also related to the nature of the internal regime. One factor was that the leadership was seriously over confident when it came to perspectives. Another was that the internal culture did not encourage a continual questioning of the fundamental perspectives. In fact the opposite, the membership came to think that a good member was a member who was loyal to the leadership. As a result the CWI went on making these fundamental mistakes much longer than would have been the case if the internal regime had been more open. There was also the problem that any difference of any significance that arose led to splits and expulsions. Behind this was the mistaken idea that the organization should be monolithic, should be united on all issues, and this wrong policy of the organization led people like the Grant/Woods group to split off so they could have “their own” monolithic organization, just as the present CWI leadership believed and believes it has to have a monolithic organization and so there is no room for people like myself in the CWI. The truth is that these mistakes have never been faced up to and conclusions relating to the organizations internal life have never been drawn. In fact the making of these mistakes and the refusal to face up them have made the internal regime worse.

Democratic regime? Stephen answers in the affirmative. See here are the documents etc, both sides were heard etc etc. Well that is not what happened in my experience. If the CWI leadership thinks that it is in danger of losing the debate as it was with the minority faction in the US, and if it thinks it can get away with it then it will use whatever undemocratic moves that it thinks are useful. This is why we were denied our right to speak throughout the international. In the case of a big section like the Scottish then it was much harder to be so blatant. Of course Stephen does not mention a small detail. That from the beginning of this process he describes the IS of the CWI used a personal contact to set up a small faction, initially secretly, in the Scottish section with a view to splitting the Scottish section.

I enclose here an article along these lines that I wrote about a book review written by Peter Taaffe. They give an indication of how I think the approach on some of these issues is flawed and not just for the CWI but for many of the revolutionary socialist organizations.

John Throne.

For more in the internal regime etc. see laborsmilitantvoice.com Articles under the sub heading CWI and one titled “Internal regime.”

The CWI and its internal life. A review.

by john throne - labos militant voice

Tue Jun 24, 2003 22:12

Subject: P. Taaffe's answer to Rob Sewell. Review By John Throne. P Taaffe was writing about a history of the British militant and the CWI written by the Grant/Woods group. There was small appendix by Tony Aitman praising Peter Taaffe.

Trying to draw lessons. John Throne.

I was interested to read the responses of PT and TA to Rob Sewell on the

history of the militant. But the more I read the less I got out of it.
A lot
of the material is dealing with the past 15 years or so. The CWI made a
catastrophic mistake and all of us, PT and TG included, who were in the
CWI
are responsible, this mistake was the failure to see that capitalism
would
return to the stalinist countries. The biggest change in world relations

since 1917 and we were totally wrong. This is reduced in PT's material a

debate on the issue of did somebody see it in 1988 or 1999 or did
somebody
set a hare running. By the way i was on the IS at this time and the IEC
and
saw no hares running nor any Comrades including myself saying that
capitalism
was going to be restored to the stalinist world. This approach of
arguing who
said what first on this issue, whether 1988 or later, helps cover up the

essense of the issue which is that all of us for decades unquestionably
believed that capitalism could not go back to the stalinist countries.
And
that all of us were responsible for this mistake and the more leading
position we had in the CWI the greater our responsibility is. I am
sorry to
say that no side in this debate faces up to this issue.

PT also speaks correctly about the mistake we made on underestimating
the
boom of the 1980's. Again we are all responsible for this mistake. But
what
about the underestimation of the boom of the 1990's and the
underestimation
of the affect of new technology on the world economy and also on the
demoralization of the stalinist regimes who for political reasons could
not
utilize the new technology to the degree the capitalist world could do
so.
Ted G and co were not in the CWI from 1991 on so this mistake in
relation to
the 1990's boom was all our own work. (I was still in the CWI at this
time
and helped made this mistake).

Then there is the litany of weaknesses of Ted G and A W, and R. S and of
course there is the litany of weakenesses of PT etc., from RS and AW
and TG.
Yet all these Comrades were for decades in the leadership and in the
united
leadership of the CWI. Is there not something wrong here Comrades. This
is a
very petty approach.

Instead of trying to prove that one Comrade did more than the other
should
there not be a discussion on the nature of the internal life of the
revolutionary organization as practized by the CWI. Comrades will be
aware
that I believe that the internal life of the CWI does not correspond to
the
internal life of the Bolsheviks. Unlike the Bolsheviks there is no place
for
factions in the CWI, there is no place for sustained struggle of
different
views inside the organization.

Look at the US CP before stalinism crushed it in the late 1920's. This
party
had three factions on a more or less permanent basis. If my memory is
correct
one controlled the paper, one the trade union work and one the
apparatus.
There was no question of expelling one or other of the factions, there
was no
resignation of a faction. This was seen as a norm for a healthy party.
Comr
ades it is impossible to imagine the present leadership of the CWI never
mind
Ted G and co tolerating such a situation. Comrades use your imagination
and
you will see that the present leadershop of the CWI are utterly
incapable of
accepting such a situation.

The truth is that the CWI has long since broken from Bolshevism in its
internal life. This is what is very sad about both the sides in this
argument
over who built the British Militant. Both sides are totally blind to the
main
issue that has to be addressed. This is that any mass revolutionary
organization that develops will be an organization of factions and
struggles
and sustained battles over issues. This is absolutely inevitable.
Neither
the leadership of the CWI nor of the Socialist Appeal group understand
this
nor are they able to tolerate this. What this means is that neither of
these
organizations can become mass organizations. The larger they get the
closer
to new splits and expulsions and crisis.

This would be a great issue to discuss. This is the organizational issue
that
has to be discussed, not who did what. The issue to say it again is that
the
CWI is not bolshevik in its internal life.

And to look at this further. PT quotes Trotsky about the revolution and
how
Lenin was crucial in 1917 if the revolution was to succeed. That it
would
have succeeded if Trotsky had not been there but not if Lenin had not
been
there. This represents an extreme weakness of the revolutionary
organization.
That all depended on one person. But it is clear that Both Ted G and PT
see
this in the light of their own role and as an example to be followed.
Rather
this should be seen in the light of what was wrong with the work of the
time
that the ridiculous situation developed that all depended on one person. And
how
can we organize differently today to see that a real collective
leadership
develops.

Comrades I visited the Irish SP conference in Dundalk two weekends ago.
I
applied to be allowed to attend as a visitor. PH gave a ten minute
attack on
me, calling me an enemy of the organization, why I could not be invited,
and
then the vote was taken. It did not even seem strange to anybody as far
as I
can see that nobody was given the chance to put the other side before
the
vote was taken. I spent the weekend outside giving out my open letter to
the
SP. Then when I came home I read the statement below by Tony A. writing
an
appendix to Peter Taaffes piece against Ted G and co. As far as I can
see
Tony A was invited to write this appendix for only one reason. It does
not
seem so self serving when he gives the very laudatory quotes for Peter T
as
if Peter T did this himself.

Anyway Aitman writes: "But waving the brush of Stalinism, Sewell has
consigned Lynn Walsh, Keith Dickenson and Clare Doyle to become the
non-people of history." Aitman is quite right peoples role should be
recognized. Let me say here and now I learnt a lot from all the people
mentioned here and who were active in the Militant. But Comrade Aitmans

statement above jumped out at me after my weekend at the Irish
conference.
Because on a number of occasions young Comrades new to the Irish SP told
me
that they had been told that Dermot C was the first member of the
organization in Souuthern Ireland. The CWI is doing exactly what it correctly
condemns
in Sewell and the Ted G group. Consigning people to be non people. What
happens Comrades when the Irish SP has to write its history. Comrades as

Aitman introduces stalinism it is useful to remember that stalinism did
not
start out as stalinism.

On saturday night at the Irish conference I was banned from the bar
where the
Comrades were having a drink. I was told at the door that the the NC had

voted that only members could come in. I pointed out a few non members I

could see inside. But it was just repeated again and again that the NC
had
decided etc. I spent a very enjoyable evening of discussions outside
with
Comrades and non Comrades of the CWI bringing me out some small whiskeys
as I
could not go in and buy a drink. I had some
excellent
discussions with Comrades and non Comrades who came out to join
me.

But of a more serious character two union activists from the area spent
the
night there with me. They had been invited to attend the saturday
evening
social in the bar would not go in because I was not allowed in. One of

these had been a member 20 years before and I knew him but the other was
a
local union activist and shop steward. He said that this was worse than
his
union, he was referring to banning somebody from the bar. It made me think about how
revolutionary
organizations with the kind of internal life as the CWI are seen by even
the
best union activists. It made me think how in the LP when it was
expelling
the Comrades they were given a chance to state their case to the
national
conference and how ourselves in the US faction were not allowed to appeal against
our
expulsion in the organization as was our right.

Comrades the CWI since the split with Ted G and co has rebuilt into its
foundations all the organizational mistakes that the old organization
had.
Look at the Irish conference. Would it not have been great to have
initiated
and provoked a debate on the perspectives for China and Russia, is there
any
chance that they can modernize sufficiently to give a new lease of life
to
capitalism. None of the reasons of the permanent revolution apply to
these
countries so why can they not. I know I have lots of answers why not,
but I
also know that all my training pushes me to go for the idea that
capitalism
cannot etc. These are the sort of issues that should be convulsing the
CWI
now not the rigid line of the leadership.

Look at the Irish conference led from the top down in the most
centralized
fashion. I now believe that at conferences of the organization during
the
running of the conferences that the NC and EC should be stood down. Sure
this
may not be correct at some later time. But at this time when all the
sections
of the CWI are tiny, when all left groups are tiny this would help build
into
these organizations an internal life of much greater debate and with
each
member thinking for themselves. But this would challenge the incorrect
view
of leadership and internal life that is held by the leadership of the CWI.

Comrades it is correct that peoples role should be recognized but there
is a
certain pathetic aspect to the material here from PT and TA. However it
is
more serious than that. Neither is facing up to the big issues that the
past
decade and a half have put in front of the revolutionary movement. And
they
tolerate even worse in their own organization than what they condemn in
others. I
was the first member of the organization in Southern Ireland and the
forst
full time organizer in Ireland as a whole but now the party line is that
I do
not exist.

Comradely John Throne. (A non Person).

Doublethink in action

by Dissenter

Wed Jun 25, 2003 22:07

Like John Throne, I also met Stephen Boyd many years ago, when he was a fresh member of the then Militant Tendency in Northern Ireland. I am very sad to see that he has wasted his time defending the indefensible, maintaining that undemocratic practices are democratic, that catastrophic mistakes are minor errors of timing, and that the CWI is a vibrant, healthy organisation rather than a degenerate sect. The Stephen of 20 years ago would have been appalled by such things. The Stephen of today seems more concerned to demonstrate his loyalty to the Taaffe/ Hadden leadership and shore up his own position than deal with reality. Stephen, what you belong to today bears no relationship to the hopes you had when you joined, to what you thought it would become, and to what is needed to change society.

It occurs to me that if half of what he claims about the supposedly healthy internal regime of the CWi were correct, Stephen himself would have been leading a series of arguments against the organisation's leadership over the years. No group of people agree with each other all the time, unless some of them are brain dead and have surrendered their capacity to think to others. Where is the record of his dispiutes with Taaffe, Hadden et al?? And if it exists, why hasn't it been made public? There is something unmistakeably rotten about all this, and something utterly unconvincing.

It doesn't seem to occur to Stephen that precisely one of the reasons the CWI is a tiny sect with diminishing influence is that most people are completely repelled and disgusted by its internal regime. The spectacle of unanimity when there is so much to discuss, the spectacle of internal dissent being crushed, and above all the absolutely unfounded arrogance of a leadership pretending to infallibility will never, never, never attract the mass of workers who want a better society. Is this so hard to understand? When people spend too much time talking only to each other they end up like Stephen - utterly out of touch with reality.

It is sad.

response to Alan McCombes

Sat Jun 28, 2003 03:47

Comrade Alan, After reading your reply to our letter to the ISM concerning Tommy S's comments I feel that our letter remains a reasonanble and constructive statement seeking to discuss the issues involved. I will not repeat the points made in it. I do not believe your responses make that necessary. I would just like to say a couple of things.

You say that the statement of Tommy's that the SSP wanted to offer a "motivated workforce for big business" was just a slip of the tongue. You say that Tommy himself voted for a resolution for public ownership at an SSP meeting shortly afterwards. You then move quickly away from this statement and make many interesting points about how to build a new party, the program etc. Many of these points I agree with and made in my open letter to the Irish Socialist Party.

It is not convincing Comrade to remove Tommys statement out of the discussion by just saying it was a mistake and then going on to other issues. It is very hard to see how a tongue would slip into making the complex statement that the SSP position was "providing a motivated workforce for big business."

It is also not reassuring about the way the ISM functions when it appears that the way the ISM dealt with this statement of Tommy's was to vote for a CWI motion for public ownership. I do not know if it is correct that you wanted this motion referred back or not and that not all the ISM Comrades voted for it. But it seems to me that the way this should have been dealt with was through a discussion throughout the ISM and the SSP and ISM Comrades taking up and explaining the issue throughout the SSP.

The tone of your letter is to paint myself as a sectarian and being no different from the CWI. I have great respect for the Comrades who formed the ISM and their struggle inside the CWI. From the beginning I have supported and continue to support the work of building the SSP. However Comrade it was not just the Scottish Comrades who took up the false method of the CWI.

I also took up the struggle against the wrong polcies and method of the CWI and in fact was expelled for this up to five years before the Scottish Comrades parted company with the CWI. I do not think that it helps much to try and portray me as coming from the CWI position. I also find it somewhat difficult to respond to this in a calm tone as all during the time of my expulsion and my effort to get the right to appeal against my expulsion the Scottish Comrades refused to oppose my expulsion or to support my right to appeal.

Comradely John Throne.

My comments on the statement of Tommy Sheridan:

In raising the statements of Tommy, we recognize the heroic work Tommy has
done in helping Scottish workers and youth organize themselves to fight the
attacks of capitalism. This includes going to prison. We also know the pressures
on any public spokesperson of a revolutionary movement to popularize the ideas
and how this can lead to errors. We also know the pressures and dangers in
speaking to the big business press and the need to see things such as public
statements in context.

However, having said this, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the
statements made by Comrade Tommy Sheridan at the very least indicate a shift in the
direction of adapting to the pressures of capitalism and nationalism. To our
knowledge there has been no public statement from the SSP or ISM on Tommy's
comments. If this is the case and continues to be the case it will be difficult
not to conclude that the SSP and the ISM are moving in this direction also.

Tommy is reported as follows: "What we're saying is that in a future
independent socialist Scotland we want to work on training, on skills. We want to
offer a very highly skilled economy, a motivated work force for big business. If
that can work in places like France and Germany, where they have higher wages
and better standards, and produce better products, why can't that work here in
Scotland?" And in relation to the question: "Would you nationalize Tesco?"
Tommy said: "I don't think there's a need to nationalize right now" and "What we
would be doing is regulating business. You don't have to own it, you just
regulate it." Tesco is one of the largest supermarket chains in England, Scotland
and Wales.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Scottish Socialist Party and Big Business

Comments (28 of 28)