Marxism & Scottish Socialist Party

international | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis

Saturday June 28, 2003 15:48

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice

wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

reply to Alan McCombes

Recently there was an exchange of letters between Labor's Militant Voice and Alan McCombes of the Scottish Socialist Party. (Letters can be seen on web site www.laborsmilitantvoice.com) The following is a reply to Alan McCombes and takes up some of the issues he raises in his letter.

Dear Alan,

Thank you for your reply to our letter to you and your comrades. We hope that this will be the start of a more regular communication between ourselves. We believe that such communication would be very beneficial for the members of both our groups, as well as to others seriously committed to the struggle against global capitalism. On the one hand, the election of the six SSP representatives will mean all sorts of interesting and complex questions that you will be dealing with. We here in the United States (our group as well as the wider anti-capitalist forces) can learn much from your coming experiences. On the other hand, despite the large differences in size as well as the objective role played, our group here in the United States is not exactly without experience also. We believe that there is no other group on the socialist/Trotskyist left in the United States that has the serious orientation to the working class that we do. We led what was probably the largest wildcat strike in decades here. We led what was probably the most left wing union local for a period. We are doing serious anti-poverty and anti-landlord direct action organizing at the present time. We believe that the combination of these experiences as well as a serious approach to perspectives means that we, too, have something to offer.

We raise these points for another reason. You refer repeatedly to the sectarian attacks on the ISM and the SSP. We agree that such attacks, including those of the CWI, are not to be taken too seriously, given that the authors of such attacks never have to deal with the issues with which you struggle. In addition, such attacks usually come from a desire to continually seek out grounds for criticism (which can always be found for anybody, including ourselves), rather than balancing it with recognizing the strengths. We think that our previous letter was not unbalanced in this regard. It did openly recognize the important contributions the ISM has made up until this point. However, just because the sectarians are disengenuously attacking you does not mean that there may not be some valid questions to be raised.

You seemed to be saying that we were "gleefully" pointing to the statements of Tommy Sheridan. If anything in the tone of our letter seemed to take this approach, we apologize. This certainly is not what we feel. We have great respect for the pioneering work that Tommy and the other comrades have done. We recognize the sacrifices Tommy has made as well as the pressures he's under in a very complex situation. We eagerly anticipate reading about the struggles that all the MSP's of your party will be leading. We tried to make this view clear in our previous letter, but if this didn't come through sufficiently, we would like to state this for the record now.

We would like to comment on a few other points you raise in your letter:

In the first place, regarding the objective situation your MSP's will be facing, you point to the series of semi-hysterical attacks on the SSP from the bourgeois media. This is always a good sign, of course, and we congratulate you for these attacks upon yourselves. However, you go on to draw the conclusion that "suggestion that the establishment wants to gently influence the SSP in a more moderate direction is ludicrous." We would not agree that this conclusion follows. The bourgeois is almost always capable of playing both roles - "good cop/bad cop" we call it here in the United States. We think that this is important to consider because your MSP's as well as the entire SSP membership should be prepared for the "good cop" face of the bourgeois.

You seemed to be saying that we were seeking to sow divisions within the leadership there and within the SSP. You go on to say that there are no ideological differences amongst the six MSP's of the SSP. We are not sure how to interpret this. Of course, we expect that all six of these MSP's are deeply committed to socialism, to the working class, to internationalism, etc. However, you also point out that half of these MSP's are not members of the ISM. You also explain that there is a similar situation amongst the membership of the SSP as a whole. This raises a serious and complex question:

While working within and helping to lead a larger working class organization (whether it be a political party such as the SSP, a union, or some campaigning anti-poverty organization), what role does a serious Marxist group play? We think that there would be agreement that this is not a simple question. We would agree that we cannot simply subject the wider body with a flood of "Marxist" propaganda, nor manipulate to control every decision made. We believe there is also agreement that there may be more that unites us with those outside our smaller, Marxist group than separates us in many ways. However, there are also some clear and distinct differences and we would not want to blur these lines too much. We continue to believe that Marxism is distinguished by a rigorous approach to theory, perspectives and program. This includes the necessity of building a mass, revolutionary leadership if the working class is to take power. While being part of the working class, these characteristics also distinguish us as being a bit "different" also; it gives us a distinctive approach. In other words, Marxists' ideas - their ideology - is different.

We do not raise these points in order to caste any doubt on your commitment to Marxism. However, we do think that there must be some things that differentiate the ISM MSP's from the the SSP's other MSPs. Again, we want to stress that we feel that there may well be far more that unites them, but it was not clear from your comments whether the particular role that Marxism plays is sufficiently recognized.

This is not just an issue for the MSP's alone, but for the ISM in relation to the entire SSP membership. Of course, such differences are inevitable and healthy in any genuine working class organization, especially a larger party of the working class, such as the SSP is becoming. We all recognize this fact, which stems from the differences within the working class as a whole. We would argue that it is the role of the Marxists to help clarify these differences. Again, we think that there is agreement that this must be done in a careful and diplomatic way. It also must not be overemphasized. But it must be done nevertheless.

It was not clear from your comment what is your orientation in this regard. Again, we are raising this not from the point of view of seeking to attack or "magnify differences" but to explore a very complicated and difficult issue. We believe that in the process of such an exploration we will all learn a lot.

Comrade, you seem to be saying that the comments from Tommy Sheridan represent some simple mistake, a slip of the tongue if you like, on his part. We accept that all of us make such slips from time to time. Let us repeat here some of what Tommy said.

He said: "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 work force 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?... We very much believe in a mixed economy. "

We recognize that this is not all Tommy said, and that there is much of what he said to be supported. However, we also have to have a frank assessment of the dangers inherent in the above comments.

Tommy is an experienced organizer and public speaker. He has dealt with the different approaches for years. The above comment does not have the ring of some mere careless phrasing. It is the type of statement that we hear repeatedly from those within the working class movement who are continually seeking to align the needs of the working class with those of the capitalist class. Tommy, himself, must have heard such comments on many occasions. He must have considered what lies behind such comments. He, as well as the entire ISM and the SSP, must have discussed this approach and recognized it for what it is.

In other words, with all due respect, it does not seem likely that this was some simple slip of the tongue or merely a mistaken way of explaining something.

You also repeatedly point to the manifesto of the SSP. This is not at issue in regard to Tommy's comments. What is at issue is the orientation and views of the best known public representative of the SSP as well as of the ISM and what these views represent within the ISM and the SSP. The development of such trends within the SSP are not surprising, nor are they really a problem necessarily; rather, they are to be expected in the growth of any wider party with a genuine base in the working class. Where the problem arises is if this is pictured as a mere momentary lapse. In that case, such a trend cannot be fully understood by the membership as a whole, nor adequately debated and combated. It is for this reason that we think a genuine concern is justified in regard to how you picture the comments. That this trend comes from within the ISM - Marxist wing of the SSP - is of even greater concern if it is not fully debated.

In your reply to our letter you make the point that mere general slogans for socialism are inadequate, especially given the position that the SSP is in. You explain that it is necessary to raise concrete alternatives, to explain how specific work places would be dealt with under socialism. This is a very interesting point, and we would like to hear more about the details of how you deal with this - what sorts of questions and issues workers raise in these work places, etc. We think that the entire anti-capitalist left could benefit from such explanations.

However, again, this was not what was at issue. We believe that Tommy's comments represent a general orientation and that this orientation deserves open recognition and debate. This is the issue.

You also raise the point about seeking to inspire and enthuse the Scottish workers and working class youth with their potential power. Again, we accept that this is a valid point. However, what we would like to raise is this: Is there not a danger that one can go too far while struggling to keep these things in mind? Is there not a danger that one can lose sight of the larger picture also?

Take for instance something you raise in your letter. You write:
"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."

Of course, the emphasis you place is that of ourselves also. We want to enthuse and inspire people. We want to encourage their imagination. However, the second part of this statement can be interpreted in different ways. Is there not a danger that some might interpret this sort of statement to mean that if Cuba can survive all these years, alone and semi-isolated, then so could Scotland? Is there not a danger, then, for some to conclude that Cuba would be a model for what you are struggling towards? We note that Tommy claims that Cuba is a socialist state. We also note that we are told that at least one long time activist of the ISM and the SSP has compared a future independent socialist Scotland to Cuba, that he sees this as a possible perspective.
We agree with the implication of your letter that it would be a disastrous mistake to subject the SSP to a daily barrage of propaganda explaining the necessity for a socialist revolution, for the international overthrow of capitalism, for the building of a mass, international revolutionary leadership, etc. etc. We do not take this approach here in our work. On the other hand, what we are just starting to enter into a discussion around here is this question: Is there a possibility that we have not sufficiently raised our ideas in our daily work? Is there a possibility that we have gone too far in the other direction?

This struggle for the proper balance is continual. We would raise this question with regard to yourselves, especially the trend of thought that Tommy Sheridan appears to represent.

There is another issue we would like to raise: You gave a thorough description of the international solidarity work you engage in. This work is admirable, considering the strains that must exist on your resources. However, one issue that was not dealt with in your letter was the trade union question. We think that this arena is absolutely vital. We would be most interested in hearing how the ISM is dealing with the new layer of more left union leaders that is arising throughout Britain. We assume that the SSP as well as the ISM have a significant base within some of the trade unions in Scotland. How is this being utilized? It would be most helpful for all the anti-capitalist forces, as well as for serious union militants, to hear more on this, to get a clearer picture of how you in the ISM and the SSP are using this base to build a struggle to transform the union movement. As we say, this is linked with how you are relating to the new layer of more left union leaders.

This is related to the "international" question for this reason: The Scottish workers are directly linked with their counterparts in England and Wales through their common unions, if for no other reason. It would seem to us that there would be a natural tendency to broaden your struggle for the transformation of the unions through this and to thereby build concrete links with workers throughout Britain. We would assume that for reasons of history, culture, etc. that there would also be a natural tendency regarding the Irish working class. You also make an interesting point regarding Norway. In that case, we would think that the same questions apply there.

You also make some interesting points regarding the slogan of a "socialist Scotland as part of a socialist federation of Britain and Ireland." It would be interesting to discuss this further. We accept that this particular slogan may not be appropriate. However, what lies behind the slogan is a different matter. We assume that there is no disagreement with the belief that Scotland could not survive very long as an isolated, independent, truly socialist nation. We think this has to be reflected in the the fundamental slogans that are advanced. What we would like to raise for consideration is whether this is done sufficiently, including in your slogans and your daily program as well as the SSP's manifesto.

You also write:
"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."

You raise a valid point when you explain that you want to help struggle against the general fear and intimidation that is sowed by the bourgeois. Again, however, we would like to raise the question of whether it is not possible that you have gone a bit too far in this effort. We agree that it would be very difficult (although not ruled out) for imperialism to militarily invade a socialist Scotland. However, this is not the end of the question. There is also the issue of economic strangulation. This would be the first line of attack, and it would certainly have its effects. Would this not be a serious danger, especially combined with elements of support for capitalism that would remain in Scotland?

Is there not a danger, then, that the way you picture matters could lead some to conclude that an isolated, independent socialist Scotland could survive as a healthy, workers' democracy for a protracted period? We note again Tommy Sheridan's claim that Cuba is socialist. We assume that this represents a certain train of thought in the ISM, that he is not totally alone in this view. Is there not a possibility that this train of thought could flow from the way the issues are raised above? Is there not a possibility that such a national perspective could develop within the SSP and that this is not sufficiently discussed and debated?

In fact, given the SSP's wider base, it would seem to us that it is most likely that such illusions would develop. Again, the issue is openly recognizing these illusions and discussing them in a friendly but systematic way.

To connect the two issues: We would be most interested in hearing what sorts of direct links you are building at the ground level amongst workers, especially through the unions, both within Britain as a whole as well as internationally. We would also be most interested in hearing how this struggle to build such links is connected with the struggle to transform the unions as a whole. What sorts of campaigns does the SSP help lead within the unions to build a more combative approach within the work places, and how do such campaigns help Scottish workers link up with their counterparts outside of Scotland?

We would like to raise an aside on this issue: As you are probably aware, three leading members of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty - OCAP - were recently tried for "riot" and other alleged crimes. After a hung jury, the charges against two of those comrades were dropped, but John Clarke will be retried. He faces a possible five years in prison if convicted. John Clarke and OCAP have played an amazing role in Canada. Their approach is not so different from the approach of Tommy Sheridan and the direct action struggles that he and others there led. We hope that the SSP will help publicize the threat to John Clarke and to OCAP and include this issue in your international solidarity work. If you would like more information on OCAP and on his case, we would refer you to their web site: www.OCAP.ca.

Comrade, these are some concerns we would like to raise. We do not raise these issues as some sort of maneuver such as the CWI leadership carries out continually, as you seem to suspect. We are deeply committed to the approach of open and comradely exploration of differences, both within our group as well as outside. While not wanting to misrepresent different ways of explaining a complex question, this also has to involve looking beneath the surface in an honest fashion. This, of course, is the total opposite of the approach of the CWI leadership, with which we both have long experiences.

Our raising these issues is not an attempt to "magnify difference" (as you wrote in your previous letter). We think that the serious anti-capitalist forces internationally have much to gain from an open and comradely exchange of ideas and experiences. This is particularly so for those with a genuine orientation towards the working class and towards the newer layers of young people who are just now entering the struggle against global capitalism. Of course, the size of the group is not irrelevant; the larger a group is, the more experiences it will have. However, size of a political group is not the only consideration. We recognize that we have much in common, both in terms of our origins as well as in our orientation to the working class and towards direct action. We also recognize the differences, both historical as well as in terms of our present situations. We think that our respective groups also have something to gain from such an exchange and we hope that this is not the end of it. We also think that the wider, anti-capitalist movement would gain from this. We also hope that it is not limited to mere letters, but will also include visits both ways in the future. We look forward to hearing your thoughts, as well as those of others in the ISM.

John Reimann
on behalf of Labor's Militant Voice

save preference

Comments (53 of 53)

seems like once these LMV people discovered indymedia

by does it matter? - i'll only be called sp/cwi anyway

Sat Jun 28, 2003 20:20

they decided it was the best way to attack the CWI and specifically the SP.

Its been a few hours now, and there has been no comment on this article. But you can rest assured that if the article came from the SP (or the SWP for that matter) there would be a tirade of abuse. Seems to me thatm like the SA split from the SWP, the LMV are kind of regarded as heroes cos they were kicked out of the CWI and attack them on indymedia.

Now seriously, I'm not trying to defend the CWI or SWP or attack the LMV or SA here, its just a general observation on the nature of indymedia.ie. Some people seem above criticism (like the Catholic Workers), but it is heaped upon others (SP, SWP).

You hit the nail on the head

by Doesn't matter (like above I be accused of being SP)

Sat Jun 28, 2003 20:49

Hopefully others will make their voices heard too.

tirade of abuse

by john throne - labors militant voice

Sun Jun 29, 2003 04:32

loughfinn at aol dot com

Just for the record I seem to remember that I came under quite a tirade of abuse when I first put some material critical of the SP and the CWI on this indymedia.

Pathetic, sectarian, worn out, not active, etc. were some of the comments. Just to keep the record straight in relation to the comments made by the previous correspondent. See below.
John Throne.

The previous correspondent wrote: "Its been a few hours now, and there has been no comment on this article. But you can rest assured that if the article came from the SP (or the SWP for that matter) there would be a tirade of abuse. Seems to me thatm like the SA split from the SWP, the LMV are kind of regarded as heroes cos they were kicked out of the CWI and attack them on indymedia."

Re SP guys

by IMC reader

Sun Jun 29, 2003 09:36

Yes, you really hit the nail in the head: the SP and especially the SWP are very unpopular, we all know that. But why do you blame indymedia? You'd be better off having a long hard look in the mirror and try to find out why people don't like you.

Tirades of abuse have no place on indymedia

by A - TPO

Sun Jun 29, 2003 10:30

Ha Ha Ha

It's not just SP and SWP that are unpopular

by Fed up

Sun Jun 29, 2003 17:19

All the various groups from anarchists to grassroots to WSM to SP to SWP, GP and Labour have people that don't like them (and not just by those that have other political affiliations). Indymedia is supposed to be an independant news wire. The problem is that once someone comes in with a comment on a news item they are jumped on about stuff that happened months and sometimes years ago (like Throne's expulsion from the CWI). People don't stick to the topic and engage in tirades of abuse and misinformation, either just for the hell of it or in order to score political points off of others. Many people might think that indymedia would be better off without the likes of the SP. I for one don't. Everyone has something to contribute but why the hell should they bother, when every time they do they get people have a go, whether its warranted or not. Some of the personal abuse is unsavory to say the least.

John

by does it matter? - ditto

Sun Jun 29, 2003 20:43

just to clarify things - I also in no way am defending personal insults thrown around by ANYBODY, be they from the SPers, SWPers, WSMers, SFers, Pat C - see the latest ref he made to SY members - or anyone else. Indymedia doesn't need this shit. Not if it's to be taken seriously.

Gee

by pat c

Mon Jun 30, 2003 10:59

Upset about my comments on the SY? How about all the abuse I have taken from them? Ever heard of a se3nse of humour?

The reason why the SP constantly face criticism is because they avoid answering questions. They still have not told us why John Throne was denied his right of appeal to the CWI World Congress. (Thats only one of 20 outstanding questions)

Not Just Insults

by Magneto

Mon Jun 30, 2003 12:18

Lies As Well

The SP also appear to be congenital liars, they will deny that they ever said something or will try and put a spin on it. This does not help. It is another reason why old arguments keep coming back up.

The attempts of the SP to rewrite history make me wonder as to whether it is true in their reality. Perhaps they live in a parallel universe where:
a) Joe Higgins did not describe GNAW as virtual warriors.
b) Domnic Haugh did not support the Airport Police over demonstraters.
c) Domnic Haugh did not spread scare stories about the cops shooting into an unarmed crowd.
d) John Throne was allowed his appeal to the CWI.
e) The SP in QUB did not support a British Army recruiting stall, did not oppose naming a bursary after Pat Finucane, did not support naming a bursary after a loyalist.
f) Michael O'Brien did not praise the restraint of the State at Evian.

There are many more items I could raise, this will suffice for the moment.

When the SP quit their lies, maybe we can have a more rational debate on indymedia.

Pathetic

by Durutti

Mon Jun 30, 2003 12:44

The way the SP send on people pretending not to be members. "I'm not a SP member but I think anyone who criticises them is a spawn of satan and should be burned alive." "Dont bother accusing me of being a SP member but I am going to name my first born after Joe Higgins."

"does it matter" who do you think you are fooling?
Why dont the SP engage in genuine debate?

To be honest

by Andrew

Mon Jun 30, 2003 14:32

The first commentor has a bit of a point. It is after all a bit of an abuse of indymedia.IE to post a letter that is all about a US take of a row within the Scottish left. That's treating indymedia.IE as a bulletin board for you pet political axe rather then as a site for news of struggles here, struggle conntected to here and all the analysis and discussion that flows from this.

This letter belongs on the indymedia that covers Scotland (.UK at the moment) rather then here. I think from looking at the newswire though the editors are taking a more generous approach towards spam now that Oscalt (the new software) makes it easier to locate relevant articles.

BTW the lack of (libertarian) comment to this point is probably to do with the fact that the Grassroots Gathering was one all day, every day over the weekend and so none of us were online. It went VERY well for those who are curious with up to 200 attending and some great discussions and activities. Hopefully some others might post reports.

On a final note the advice (the the SP/SWP) that they should look in the mirror rather then condemning indymedia for the abuse they receive is wise. Yes other groups and people also get abuse including the WSM sometimes and although sometimes this is stupid is often is useful criticism that is worth seriously considering.

'does it matter' Is Definitely A SP Clone

by irony Is Truly Dead

Mon Jun 30, 2003 14:45

He claims "Some people seem above criticism (like the Catholic Workers),". Now this is hilarious, given the abuse the abuse and hostle demands for clarification the CWM get regarding their positions on Abortion, Divoirce even Transubstantiation! (Anything but the war)

Some of this openly from SP fuckwits like HIlda, some covert.

Get a life.

To - does it matter

by Taaffey Tuck

Mon Jun 30, 2003 14:46

"Its been a few hours now, and there has been no comment on this article. But you can rest assured that if the article came from the SP (or the SWP for that matter) there would be a tirade of abuse."

This would be a fair point if the SP involved themselves in a two way process.
On another thread http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60081
Stephen Boyd (SP) contributed to a debate. John Throne replied in detail. Stephen obviously felt the debate should only be one way (i.e I speak, you listen and take it as gospel - as is the way of the CWI today.) Some of us are still waiting for the response.

But then Stephen is a busy man these days doing his bit for left unity.

Is Stephen Boyd Awake?

by Curious

Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:14

Maybe he would answer some questions.

Popularity

by Mark - SP

Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:28

If by unpopular you mean with the half dozen or so people who regularly hit out at us hear, I can live with that. Last time I checked your opinions were only a minority of a minority of a minority (which you are entitled to, but they are hardly representative of anything). Cyberspace is like a giant magnifying glass making insignificant currents look far more important than they are.

Why Do The SP Send Monkey Mark Out?

Mon Jun 30, 2003 18:29

We want answers from the organ grinder Boyd.

Spot on Mark

by Gaucho Rivero

Mon Jun 30, 2003 18:32

"Cyberspace is like a giant magnifying glass making insignificant currents look far more important than they are."

You've hit the nail bang on the head.

You would think that the SP were making serious inroads to becoming a mass party the way people have a go at ye here.

But to be honest ye are also quite irrelevant in the scheme of things (notwithstanding the 1 TD and 2 Councillors).

In your position I wouldn't be too smug! How's the internal regime?

Its a shame but ye seem to be going backwards and not forward.

Yes Mark,

by Badman

Mon Jun 30, 2003 18:40

In the real non-cyber world, everybody loves the SP and especially the SWP. You can write it all off as the opinions of a few saddo's on the net. In fact, on my estate, at least half a dozen houses are decorated with SWP bunting most of the time. Comrade Joe's face is starting to replace the bleeding hearts on people's walls. I'd go so far as to say that the critics are obviously an imperialist plot of the international bourgeiousie. No Irish person could possibly believe that the SWP or SP are not tremendously popular among our working people.

Why don't you prove it. Go out and do a little poll. Ask 100 non-members of either party (who have heard of them) what they think - the results will undoubtedly prove you right. Better yet, ask 100 non-affiliated activists what they think - the word 'wonderful' should crop up a lot. But, whatever you do, don't look in the mirror. You might turn to stone.

i am not an 'SP clone' (whatever the fuck that means)

Mon Jun 30, 2003 19:21

in fact I'm more of a republican socialist, or left republican or whatever other pigeonhole you want to put me in.

as far as I'm concerned, my points are still valid. Indymedia can be a real pain in the hole sometimes. Especially when (like me) you try to raise these issues (peer review isn't that what ye call it?) and you are just slagged of cos you are an 'SP/SWP clone'.

On Pat C's comments about SY looking like Far Side characters. While I accept that there has been a lot of such pointless abuse between Pat and various members of the SY over the past - it seems like Pats comment were designed to specifically draw in SY members to a slagging match. Bit like if I made a comment such as Pat C looks like a dired up turd on a tick. You get my point. I think you and the SY members that you loathe so much should call a truce. Whatever about the youthful mindedness of the SY, you must be in your forties if your "25 years invoved in left-wing politics" is true.

Now, I started off this comment just by pointing out something that makes indymedia real annoying sometimes (ie constant bitching about other parties). And in return, I get lumped in with a party I'm not a member of, and abused as such. And I have to say that is somewhat typical - on all sides. "I disagree with you" - "then you must be a member of such-and-such" - "No, I'm not" - "Yes you are, and you are ugly and smelly too" - "Well I've had your wife" - "You're a paedophile" and so on.

'does it matter'

Mon Jun 30, 2003 19:28

your pleas of innocence might carry some conviction if you hadnt attacked a perfectly valid non-sectarian article. funny you find time to criticise my mild comments re SY but you never appeared before to criticse them.

you didnt even feel the need to criticise their attempts to intimidate me workwise

if you are genuine then reveal your self otherwise you are fooling no one here so why dont you just fuck off?

clarification!

Mon Jun 30, 2003 19:30

the non-sectarian article i meant is the one by John R.

"Does It Matter" - A SP Troll

by Irony Is Truly Dead

Mon Jun 30, 2003 19:35

His present mission is to divert attention from the fact that his Glorious Leader, Troikista Small Stalin Stephen Boyd is ignoring awkward questions.

His dig at the Catholic Workers was a dead give away.

If Hes Not A SPer

Mon Jun 30, 2003 20:06

Then his behaviour odd. The remarks about the SY which upset him so much were on
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=52905&results_offset=30

Now that also has remarks (not by Pat C) which suggest that Richard Barret of the SWP is a Garda informer. How come our independent friend was not incensed by this far more serious charge?

Reveal myself?

"your pleas of innocence might"

Oh I'm sorry, what am I claiming to be innocent of? Is being a member of the SP (which I am not)now a crime?

"carry some conviction if you hadnt attacked a perfectly valid non-sectarian article."

I didn't attack the article itself, I was more making a point about the lack of responses.

"funny you find time to criticise my mild comments re SY but you never appeared before to criticse them."

I don't usually post on indymedia, in the same way that I don't usually write letters to newspapers. However, more recently, with the new look site and all, I think it's time we started to take a serious look athe the future of indymedia. Scenario: You meet someone on a demo or something, and your talking about the media being controlled by vested interests. So you direct this person to indymedia - and the first thing they see when they log on is "Blah Blah SP, Blah Blah WSM, Blah Blah Sinn Fein Sligo". Is that 'passionate truth telling from the grass roots'? Or is it boring and annoying.

"you didnt even feel the need to criticise their attempts to intimidate me workwise"

Oh I know all about the "Pat C is not active in his own union" comments. But like I said, I wasn't going to get involved in spats between you and the SY. I think I made it clear in teh last posting that I think, that if its possible, both the SYers (basically OK and FK and whatever psuedonyms they are using - like I'm convinced Hilda was OK) and yourself should show some restraint.

"if you are genuine then reveal your self otherwise you are fooling no one here so why dont you just fuck off?"

I don't have to reveal myself to anyone. My name might be Tom Barry for all it matters on here.

"His present mission is to divert attention from the fact that his Glorious Leader, Troikista Small Stalin Stephen Boyd is ignoring awkward questions."

What in bejaysus are you talking about? My 'mission' is no such thing. I don't even know what Stephen Boyd looks like, nevermind come onto Indymedia to divert attention from him. And also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I though 'Little Lenin' McLaughlan was the 'Glorious Leader' of the SP? Or maybe you're just talking shite.

"His dig at the Catholic Workers was a dead give away."

Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Jenny Hannon(?) also a member of the SP/SY. Actually I have a lot of time for the CW, I was just making a point. And I do remember the 'abortion deabte', and judging by the arguments put forward by the questioners I'd say most were members of the SP or SWP. But it did take Ciaran quite a while to reveal that the CW view abortion as murder.

It Matters

Mon Jun 30, 2003 20:17

"Oh I know all about the "Pat C is not active in his own union" comments. But like I said, I wasn't going to get involved in spats between you and the SY. I think I made it clear in teh last posting that I think, that if its possible, both the SYers (basically OK and FK and whatever psuedonyms they are using - like I'm convinced Hilda was OK) and yourself should show some restraint."

I'm not talking about the unions stuff, i laugh at that. i have more than 20 years service as a shopsteward, when those fuckwits have a quarter of that i'll listen to their criticisms. i dont feel that i'm advancing the revolution or spending my time frutfully by representing middle managers.

the intimidation i meant was identifying where i work and suggesting that i am carrying out political work during my paid working hours. thats the work of touts.

i did not originally post the stuff about the SY on this thread it was on a thread which was a bit more jocular. take it in that context.

on the cwm, while i am pro-choice and have been arrested due to clashs with youth defence, i dont see how the cwms position on abortion is relevant to their involvement in anti war work.

ok, so maybe you're not in the sp! abuse withdrawn!

pat

Mon Jun 30, 2003 20:25

"the intimidation i meant was identifying where i work and suggesting that i am carrying out political work during my paid working hours. thats the work of touts"

Ok I didn't know about this.

And I know your Far Side comments were in jest, but being a lifelong fan of The Far Side, if anyone told me I looked like something out of Gary Larson's brian I would probably want to kill them.

SSP & SWP

by News

Tue Jul 01, 2003 03:57

Weekly Worker 486 Thursday June 26 2003

Scottish Socialist Party

SW platform rift

All is not well for the Scottish Socialist Party. A series of allegations have been made both by and against comrades in the Socialist Workers platform surrounding the election campaign in Fife. Complaints were made to the executive, which were then leaked to the capitalist press.

The problem centres on Linda Graham - a member of the SW platform - who was the SSP’s list candidate for the May 1 Scottish parliament elections in Mid-Scotland and Fife. Comrade Graham missed being elected by just 126 votes. She effectively blames lack of communication, stating: “The interface between the party and the campaign here was troubled and confused” (complaint to SSP executive). She goes on to make reference to “reactionaries within the party”, who “would rather not have a socialist representative than have me”.

A few weeks before the election there was a demand for a vote of no confidence to remove her as candidate. The vote was taken and lost, and comrade Graham remained the candidate. She referred to this incident as “careerism and backstabbing”, claiming that if the forces responsible were not “driven out”, the party would “fester and pollute” (ibid). Yet she sees Tommy Sheridan as being amongst those who sought to have her removed. The News of the World quoted her as saying: “His role in the vote of no confidence in a candidate a few weeks before the election needs to be examined. Personally, I did not need the convenor to play judge, jury and executioner in deciding I was not capable of representing you when the region had already made up its mind” (June 15).

Comrade Sheridan told The Scotsman: “The SSP now has over 3,000 members and it’s inevitable that, the bigger we become, the more diverse our membership, and everyone doesn’t always see eye to eye. I regret the comments made by Linda, but she was probably disappointed at failing to be elected by a mere 126 votes.

“The SSP increased its vote by over 200%, but we narrowly missed out in both Mid-Scotland and Fife and Highlands and Islands. However, I suppose the fact that an internal row now makes the news is a tribute to the development of the SSP as a political force in Scotland.

“The party and the executive are well aware of the situation and inquiries are underway” (June 16).

The problems in Fife are apparently deep-rooted and have been continuing over a long period. Comrades in the region seem unable to work together. Money is not being collected centrally, which has led to the regional organiser, Jock Penman, not being paid. Comrade Penman was one of the comrades who have apparently been on the receiving end of the attacks made by SW platform comrades. He told the News of the World: “I’ve let many negative remarks, attacks and tantrums from Linda Graham slip by unchallenged, but she has crossed the line this time. I therefore, sadly, must ask the EC to consider disciplinary action against her” (June 15).

Several complaints were made by other comrades in Fife regarding the SW platform, including from Benarty branch chair Lorna Bett, who wrote that the infighting had left her “physically sick”: “Never in my life have I seen such a vociferous, poisoned bunch of people. I never understood why people were so up in arms about the SWP joining our party. Now I know why” (complaint to executive).

These were some of the quotes that the capitalist press chose to pick up on to highlight the factional infighting. The majority of papers that covered the story used the same quotes, but the News of the World had more information and billed the story as an exclusive, which has led to speculation that someone within the party sold the story. While SSP members have the right to know the full facts of what went on in Fife, we should be able to get them from within the party, not have to rely on garbled versions in the capitalist press.

An SSP executive subcommittee has been set up to look into all the issues, but has had to be suspended, as apparently the appeals committee is now involved - on exactly what basis remains a mystery.

The situation in Fife could be part of what seems to be a more general rethinking of strategy towards the SSP on the part of the Socialist Workers Party. At last it appears to be revolting on the ground against the SSP’s position for Scottish independence. This was briefly mentioned in one of the complaints made to the EC by comrade Jack Ferguson, who said that SW comrades had been campaigning publicly against independence during the election. According to comrade Ferguson, they were doing so in a manner that gave the impression that their position - whatever it was - had the status of official party policy.

It would, of course, be a big step forward if the SW platform actually came out in a principled manner against Scottish independence, instead of keeping quiet and going along with an “independent socialist Scotland”. An open and democratic debate could potentially lead to a change for the better in the whole political direction of the SSP. However, it is not principled to back a motion at conference calling for independence to be the central campaigning issue and then, if comrade Ferguson’s claim is true, go out and do the opposite.

The SSP’s ultra-nationalists are undoubtedly out to get the SW platform. The real debate, of course, is not over who leaked internal executive documents to the capitalist press. No one is likely to own up anyway.

Allan Green, SSP national secretary, has speculated about the possibility of a split. The SW platform could walk out - and perhaps a section of the leadership in London would welcome this. Equally there could be a series of expulsions which would certainly have the ultra-nationalist wing whooping with joy.

Perhaps the SW platform’s sudden discovery of “reactionaries” in the SSP and “backstabbing” is not simply down to Neil Davidson’s pioneering latest book, Discovering the Scottish Revolution, or his savaging of the Communist Party of Britain’s hapless John Foster in the learned pages of Historical Materialism for his opportunist pandering to an entirely bogus Scottish history.

The SWP in England and Wales might have been rudely rebuffed in its negotiations with the Morning Star’s CPB. However, there still remains the Birmingham imams and the chance of ‘peace and justice’ popular front candidates. George Galloway is also still spoken of as a potential partner. He rejects the SSP’s pro-independence politics as a matter of principle and could easily find himself deselected as an MP.

The SWP believes that it alone is the “revolutionary party”. In reality it is a sect which toys with left unity when it suits its narrow interests. No matter. The best way to overcome such backward ideas is through unity in action and facilitating the widest, most open debate on all programmatic questions, not least Scottish independence. Our aim is clarity and breaking down the artificial mental barriers that sectarianism relies on for coherence and continued existence.

Sarah McDonald

SWP & Stalinists in talks

Tue Jul 01, 2003 03:59

Statement on talks

On May 19, representatives from the Communist Party met a deputation from the Socialist Workers Party at the latter’s request.

The SWP leaders outlined a number of proposals concerning the potential for a broad electoral alliance in the Greater London Assembly and European parliament elections in 2004. The Communist Party’s representatives set out our position on elections, including alliances, which reflect our strategic approach to the labour movement and the Labour Party. A full and comradely discussion ensued in which a range of views was expressed. The Communist Party’s executive committee will decide its response to the SWP’s proposals at its next meeting, on July 11-12.

Statements have been published in some quarters claiming that (1) the Communist Party seeks to construct an electoral alliance with the Liberal Democrats; and (2) the Communist Party may join the Socialist Alliance. Neither of these possibilities was discussed in the meeting on May 19, and the Communist Party has no intention of doing either.

CPB political committee
June 23

They Are 3!

Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:47

'does it matter' you should know the SP are led by a Troika.

Little Lenin Kevin MacLoughlin

Mini Mao Michael O Brien

Small Stalin Stephen Boyd

They are all equal. But Little Lenin is more equal than the other two.

Dont Forget

Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:25

They are just the day to day leadership. Supreme authority lies with Petit Pol Pot Peter Hadden.

Bye Bye Badman

Tue Jul 01, 2003 15:00

I meet plenty of people every week who are not members of the SP who genuinely support what we do. I will make no audacious claims about what inroads we are making, we will let our actions speak for themselves. And, Curious, no one sent me out. I see bullshit, I respond to it. Simple as that!

Hey Mark The Monkey!

Tue Jul 01, 2003 15:29

Why do you reckon your Organ Grinder Stephen Boyd is afraid to answer Johns Throne and Reimann?

A cult?

by Interested

Tue Jul 01, 2003 15:35

I recall a very detailed article on another posting, which argued that the CWI is a cult. It was at least an intersting viewpoint. But I don't think the SP ever bothered to try and answer it. In general, they are poor at addressing criticisms of their internal regime. Now, I will admit that I find many of the points on this thread intemperate to the point of being counter productive. Abuse conceals rather than illuminates the points that people are trying to make. It simply enables people like Boyd to reject all criticism on the (mistaken) grounds that it is only abuse. But many of the arguments about the organisation's internal regime, including those of Throne, are very well argued rather than abusive. My point here to SP members is simply to invite them to think rationally and logically about some of the genuine criticisms made (rather than the abuse): they are serious points, and should be taken on board if anything other than a sect or a cult is to be built.

Badman's onto something

by Liam

Tue Jul 01, 2003 15:52

"I meet plenty of people every week who are not members of the SP who genuinely support what we do"

I don't think anybody doubts that there are people out there who genuinely support what you do.

With the increase in cutbacks, the state of the health service, the lack of proper infrastructue, the increase in low paid jobs etc. etc. you might as well pack up and go home if people didn't genuinely support what you did.

But how many know about the way that you go about it. What would happen if those who genuinely supported you wanted to join. How would they be treated. Would they have freedom of expression. What if they disagreed with the leadership. Would the leadership be prepared to admit to mistakes they make etc. etc. All of these questions have come up here on Indymedia in the recent past. The invective from all sides has been nauseating but at the end of the day the SP haven't answered the questions asked adequately.

Its one thing to know the road but quite another to trust the vehicle. And anyway most vehicles do have mirrors.

Abuse

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party

Tue Jul 01, 2003 17:25

Irish Indmedia could be a wonderful resource - providing "passionate accurate tellings of the truth" or whatever the tag line is. On occasion, most notably around the time of the attack on the RTS party by the cops it briefly lived up to that potential.

Most of the time though it falls far short. There are a few reasons for that. One of them is the amount of bile which is thrown around here. Anybody contributing to this website is likely to find half a dozen anonymous attacks following their article, either in the form of personal abuse or in the form of vicious and often stunningly stupid attacks on whatever organisation they are a member of. I don't include in that the occasional reasoned criticisms of the views of individuals and organisations which also appear, but those are normally lost in a sea of abuse. The people throwing abuse don't seem to realise that their behaviour actually dramatically lessens the chances of anyone responding to the more reasoned criticisms.

A related but not identical problem to the poisonous atmosphere is that a tiny number of individuals with nothing better to do spend their time waging a vendetta against the Socialist Party here. Any and every thread, no matter what it as about, is likely to find itself filled with a repetition of a list of fairly bizarre lies about the Socialist Party. Not only does this practically guarantee that the few SP members who use the site will do so less and less - not in my view a good thing - but it also makes the entire site less useful for everybody who doesn't share the obsession.

You may note that nobody ever identifies themselves as an SWP member here anymore (with the very occasional exception of a flying visit from Davy Carlin) and that's a direct result of the abusive treatment they received in the earlier days of the site. As they have left the site the amount of abuse they receive has fallen dramatically. On the rare occasions when anybody from the Workers Party puts their head above the parapet they are greeted by anonymous posters making allegations of criminality. The way the site is going it won't be long before no members of the three biggest socialist organisations in the country - between them encompassing a big majority of all socialist activists - post here at all.

Ah don't go........

by Donald

Tue Jul 01, 2003 17:37

.....we'd miss priceless gems like Stephen Boyd's explanation of the socialist federation and his denounciation of the SWP as the 'liberal left'.
It won't be long now till they are your only potential allies - so go easy.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60190

Or maybe it is an exit strategy to save the forementioned Stephen from answering interesting questions that were put to him by John Throne.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60081

Brian, Why Dont The SP Answer Questions?

Tue Jul 01, 2003 18:16

Why dont the SP answer questions for a change? Stephen Boyd has plenty of time to discuss federations but he has no time to answer questions raised by John Throne and John Riemann.

Exactly which lies are you talking about?

Are you suggesting that John Throne is lying? That he was not purged by your US section? That he wasnt refused his right of appeal to the US sections Conference? That he wasnt refused his right of appeal to the CWI World Congress?

Joe Higgins called GNAW virtual warriors - just as they were being arrested. Domnic Haugh defended the Airport Cops and spread Scare Stories about cops firing into an unarmed crowd. The SP refused to support an Anti-War lobby of the ICTU Conference. They then gave 3 conflicting reasons for this. All of this is on Indymedia. Easier to track down now with the search facility. So you wont get anywhere by suggesting its untrue.

Please enlighten us as to what lies you are referring to.

Brian

Tue Jul 01, 2003 18:22

When is Stephen Boyd going to reply to the two Johns?

Life of Brian

Tue Jul 01, 2003 18:41

Do you really think you can just get away with rewriting history whenever you want. Sighhh. At least half a dozen different posters have drawn attention to Stephen Boyds failure to reply. This is not lost on the general indy audience.

Give it a rest Magneto

by Enough

Tue Jul 01, 2003 20:20

Clearly you and a couple of others are using indymedia to take swipes at the SP and nothing else. That is NOT what it is for. Do you seriously expect the SP to re-engage with the likes of John Throne or you over events that happened in the CWI years ago. Post or comment on news items please, but stop this carry-on before there is no one left except yourself on this site.

What was the purpose?

Tue Jul 01, 2003 22:00

For me, the main purpose of posting the original note that led to the following comments was not to take another swipe at the SP (as much as I might feel anger and contempt for those who have sold out what it used to be). The main point, I think, was to raise some general questions for discussion. The main one that I think we have to consider is: What is the role of revolutionaries in a broader, working class movement or party (such as the SSP)?

We all think about this issue, I suppose, but I think it needs to be discussed more and there is a constant struggle for the right balance.

John Reimann

Time to move on....

by left observer

Wed Jul 02, 2003 00:10

Can I echo John Reiman's last point? I agree with some of the substance of past criticisms that people like Magneto and Pat C have made (though not always with the way it has been made). However, these points have been aired - repeatedly. I know the SP evade answering them, but then so does everyone who reads this website.

It annoys me to open the site and see peopel shouting about fuckwits, or repeating endlessly the same small number of points. When people like Reiman or Throne post perfectly interesting questions regarding other issues, such as the political position of the SSP, it is time to discuss that and stop rehashing the same few points again and again and again. It only provides the SP with cover - the cover to write off all criticism as abuse to be ignored. Please give it over and let other peopel discuss other issues for a while. I propose a truce! Leave it out for a month, and let some threads develop a life of their own without the same points being aired repeatedly.

Interesting Development

Wed Jul 02, 2003 13:26

Brian Cahill (aka Mr Irritable) has come onto Indymedia to cry foul - enough of the vitriolic attacking of the three biggest socialist organisations in the country. (Although I'm not sure why he includes the WP in the same sentence with activists.)

A noble plea - except of course that most activists who lurk in cyber world would be aware that on occasion the aforementioned Mr. Irritable is best know as relying on one of the worst traditions of Trotskyism - slander your rivals.
It is touching to see him talk so fondly of the SWP his usual bete noire. But perhaps it is the sign of things to come. Because at the end of the day they should be natural bedfellows.

Perhaps plans are in train and this explains Stephen Boyd's recent undercover attempts at left unity.

Again.

by Brian Cahill

Wed Jul 02, 2003 14:42

Well there you go. My point proven. As if it needed to be proven again.

Questions Are Raised Again

Wed Jul 02, 2003 17:43

Because the SP avoid answering them and the SP also have a habit of rewriting history to benefit their viewpoint. I asked Brian Cahill to point to any lies. He has failed to do so because everything said about the SP on this thread is the truth.

If you are not a SP member than why do you want to aid their avoidance of awkward questions? Its funny that you launch your attack on me when it is the SP who are the true sectarians. Every single article by a Labour Party members is asavaged by the SP. The recent two SF articles which tried to opebn up a debate on the left were again attacked by the SP. Not the content of the articles - the attacks ignored that and consisted solely of a 'SF are not left rant'.

Brian might at least tell us why Stephen Boyd is refusing to answer the questions posed here and on other threads. It cant be lack of time, he drivelled on ad nauseum about Federations.

Does Stephen feel guilt over his betrayal of John Throne? Does it keep him awake at night?

Brian Cahill

Wed Jul 02, 2003 17:45

On another thread, the Island Federations one, Stephen Boyd describes the SWP as part of the Liberal Left. Do you agree with this?

Magneto you miss the point........

Wed Jul 02, 2003 18:28

......in dealing with this issue it would seem that Orwell was right - some animals are more equal than others.

Brian is myopic to SP interventions on other threads and forgets his own contributions on all sorts of lists.

And you only have to look at the comments made by Stephen Boyd on another thread. The first sentence should give you the feel for his arrogance.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60190
"The type of criticisms of the Socialist Party position on the national question are a clear reflection of the lack of understanding of the even the most basic ideas of socialism by those who are making these “attacks”."

Asking questions about why there is a need for a federation with England, Wales and Scotland (changed from Britain). Asking why not a Celtic Federation. Asking where the likely home of this federation will be etc. etc. all amounts to attacks in his eyes.

That should go down well on the doors at the next elections. Of course the public that the SP want to win over will also be labelled as lacking understanding but no matter the party knows best.
And they wonder why they come in for criticism.

Indeed there are basic ideas of socialism and not all of them are the property of the SP. Some might think the fair treatment of a comrade would count as a basic concept. But then Stephen hasn't replied or given any indication that he is not prepared to reply to John Throne - obviously because we'd all be too thick to understand his replies.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party

Wed Jul 02, 2003 19:06

So that maybe all of this nonsense might cease - Regarding the issue of the Scottish Socialist Party, which was the original topic of debate I have adequately put the position of the CWI on this issue.
In relation to the points raised by John Throne, I have replied directly to John on these issues.
If you are looking for cheap entertainment I suggest you watch Cornation Street TV3 @ 7.30pm!

discussion on indymedia

Thu Jul 03, 2003 04:35

I would like to agree with all who ask that the cheap shots and personal abuse should cease. I hope that I have not been guilty of this and if i have i apologize. But of course this will only happen if all sides or at least all the most sizeable organizations that use this medium work to stop it. I agree with the SP members who call for an end to this abuse of the SP and others. But look at what SP Comrades wrote about me when this discussion started off.

I quote from a posting I sent back then. "SP members so far have referred to me in these ways: longwinded, a crank, undemocratic, lost his sharpness, no longer active, pathetic figure, chip on my shoulder, pathetic character, any SY member could defeat me in debate, no longer active, not knowledgable, pathetic, (this seems to have some sort of special attraction as it is repeated many times), arrogant, pathetic (again), sectarian. I would just comment on one of these. That any SY member could defeat me in debate. This is very interesting in what it says about the SP attitude. I personally would like nothing better than that any SY member could defeat me in debate. This would mean that the SY would be an experienced group and this would strengthen the working class movement. To think that I would be annoyed by this is to confirm the wrong approach to leadership in the SP and the left organizations with few exceptions. Nothing gives me greater satisfaction than the rise of a new movement of youth that is able to take over from the older activists and this includes me."

This medium can be a great addition to the activist movement allowing Comrades from all over the world to discuss issues. I hope this is what happens. Actually I think that things have improved in terms of the abuse etc in the past month or so. But for real improvement all involved have to practise what they preach.

Just a detail. I do not consider that Stephen Boyd or the SP has answered the points I have raised either on the undemocratic nature of the internal life and the goings around around the expuslion of our faction or the tactics of the SP and the attitude of the CWI to the SSP.

Stephen Boyd would convince us that the CWI has always been for the building of the SSP. Then I would like to ask this. If the CWI has always been for building the SSP in Scotland including building the marxist wing within it, then why have they been so opposed to this tactic in Ireland where they have a sizeable platform. I know that things have changed a bit over the past few years and are not so simple now. But why was the SP opposed to taking similar action in Ireland to the building of the SSP back in 1997 when they were coming out of the water charges work and had just won the seat in the Dail. When they had more wind in their sails.

I think this was serious mistake the SP Comrades made and this weakened the activist movement and the working class movement in the country and weakened also the SP. This was part of the contents of the open letter I sent to the SP.

John Throne.

Thu Jul 03, 2003 14:36

Stephen Boyds undercover work for left unity? Who is he bonking?

Thu Jul 03, 2003 15:24

OK at the risk of undergoing another torrent of abuse, I would say that the conditions for the formation of a broad mass party did not exist at the time of the water charges struggle. There were no major industrial battles taking place, the water charges issue was seen by the majority to be a single issue, and at that, one that was concentrated in Dublin. In fact that battle was the first volley of the governments attacks on public services, but at the height of the boom, the class consciousness and combativity required for putting a broad mass party firmly on the agenda did not exist here in Ireland.

Good Old Mark

by Black Rod

Thu Jul 03, 2003 16:18

He faithfully follows and regurgitates the line handed down by the Troika.

Marxism and Scottish Socialist Party

by Roger Silverman

Thu Jul 03, 2003 20:37

RSilver100 at aol dot com

I would like to add a few comments to the discussion about the SSP.

Many of us will fully sympathise with the exasperation expressed by Alan. There are 101 sectarian outfits around who are indeed all poised to pounce on the first slip made by the SSP comrades to give them an excuse to denounce them as opportunist. They have a vested interest in doing so, because they imagine this might help justify their own miserable existence and excuse their own abject failure to build anything.

As Trotsky commented in another connection: "Once again we see, and with what clarity, that ultraleftism is always an opportunism which is afraid of itself and demands absolute guarantees—that is, nonexistent guarantees—that it will remain true to its flag. This type of intransigent calls to mind that type of timid and weak man who, becoming furious, shouts to his friends: “Hold me back, I’m going to do something terrible!” Give me hermetically sealed theses, put impenetrable blinkers over my eyes, or else . . . I’m going to do something terrible!"

Alan is a thousand times times right to express withering scorn for these sectarians whose "revolutionary purity" is no more than a mask for cowardice, a talisman against their own inherent tendency towards opportunism.

It was certainly not in this spirit that John Throne wrote his letter. He strongly supported the SSP project from the beginning, irrespective of the lack of reciprocity when he himself had been expelled from the CWI for challenging its false and inflexible line on the USA.

As for me, I can best illustrate my attitude towards the SSP by quoting from a recent article on our website www.movementsforsocialism.com, in which I drew a sharp distinction between the SSP on the one hand, and the SWP-dominated Socialist Alliance in England. This Socialist Alliance, by the way, is itself a perfect example of the kind of "sectarian opportunism" referred to already.

"What a contrast north of the border! Six socialists were elected members of the Scottish Parliament. What was the difference? The fact that the Scottish Socialist Party is above all a party of struggle. Twenty years of struggle, sacrifice and solidarity lie behind its victories: fighting against the poll tax, the bailiffs, evictions, water charges, nuclear bases; fighting in the courts, the jails, occupations and sit-ins. And not mere struggles alone: above all, victories! The defeat of the poll tax, the ending of distraint of debtors' goods, the building of a new party! The pioneers of the SSP had put the party first before the factional interests of its constituent political tendencies. As the most determined and articulate fighters, they had amply earned their authority and their right to claim leadership. Let no one dare compare them with those sloganising carpetbaggers of the Socialist Alliance who flippantly turned up out of nowhere at election times, insolently cadging any spare protest votes that might be going, only to scuttle straight back the next day into some alternative opportune tactical front of the day."

The SSP has enjoyed a phenomenal growth. It has spread its roots and popular support by leaps and bounds throughout Scotland. Already some trade unions are considering switching their support from Labour to the SSP. This is already a historic victory - even before the economic downturn has hit home, and while Labour remains the dominant party in Scotland as well as throughout Britain.

The historical precedents for such a party are even more exciting. Given the likely perspectives of continuing turbulence in the world economy, diplomatic and military relations, and political structures, there seems no reason why the trajectory of the SSP should not even come close to those of earlier left parties, like the German Social-Democrats at the turn of the twentieth century, which doubled its vote at each election to become a mass party; the Greek PASOK, launched in 1974, which likewise doubled its votes at each election to form a government within seven years; and the Workers' Party in Brazil, formed in the 1980s, which grew from strength to strength and has now won a majority in the presidential election. This may seem a premature conclusion, but even an SSP government in conditions of crisis after a few years obviously can't be ruled out.

This possibility underlines the heavy responsibilities lying on the comrades' shoulders. Of course there is no need to lecture the comrades about this. They are already well aware of the pressures, dangers and ominous precedents. They know as well as any of us that no one is immune from the effects of these pressures. There is no magic formula which can guarantee any of us from mistakes, or tell us in advance the correct revolutionary policy at any given moment. In Russia, to rush into insurrection in July 1917 was premature and dangerously adventuristic. To delay it beyond October (as urged by Zinoviev and Kamenev) would have spelled catastrophe. There is a narrow tightrope to be walked between ultraleftism (the comforting safety of sectarianism, which is really cowardice and an abandonment of leadership), and opportunism (which can lead in extremis to betrayal). Unfortunately no textbook has ever yet been written which can absolve us of the need to think for ourselves and exercise our own judgement. The best guidance comes from the study of historical examples, the drawing of theoretical conclusions, and the solidarity and support that can be extended by a genuinely revolutionary group towards those of its representatives who find themselves in dangerous territory or exposed positions. That requires an organisation that can offer... not control-freakery, censorship and shrill denunciation, but true comradeship.

It was not only professional sectarians who were dismayed on reading Tommy Sheridan's reported aspirations towards "a motivated work force for big business". Many genuine socialist workers who had looked with hope and inspiration to the SSP must have felt at least distinctly uneasy. Many must have felt their hearts sinking... because they have heard people without a trace of Tommy's integrity mean something very sinister by the very same words.

I fully accept that this comment was a slip made in passing under intense pressure, and that all the ISM comrades - perhaps Tommy most of all - acknowledge that it was a mistake. I have no desire to rub anyone's face in this mistake, or to draw sweeping and grandiose conclusions from it. Any one of us could have made far worse mistakes under such conditions. Nobody is acusing Tommy of having a hidden agenda or of preparing to betray the working class. What we are saying, though, is that the mistake was not a random event: it was the product of particular circumstances and particular pressures, and that it should be taken, not as a pretext for panic or despair, but as a timely warning signal; one which in itself has so far done no harm whatever, and which could even prove to be a salutary inoculation against such mistakes in the future. But this presupposes as an absolute precondition a willingness to recognise the dangers of such a statement, to examine the reasons for it, to elaborate better formulations as alternatives to it, and a readiness to ensure that its lessons are fully taken into account.

Tommy Sheridan is a genuine hero of the working class. He would be the first to recognise, however, that this gives no absolute reassurance against the possibility of future mistakes. There were many giants of the past, such as August Bebel and Largo Caballero, who without a revolutuionary nucleus around them proved unequal to their most decisive tests.

In 1890 the German Social-Democrats too were giants and heroes. When they became a mass force and won their first parliamentary seats, they stormed into parliament and used it brilliantly to win spectacular reforms and victories for the working class. Neither Rosa Luxemburg nor Leon Trotsky at that time recognised the necessity of organising a nucleus of cadres within either the German Social Democracy or the Russian SDLP. Only once the revolution had broken out around them did they compensate for this mistake. Even Lenin was taken by surprise by the betrayal of the leaders of the Socialist International. I am not for a moment predicting the degeneration of the SSP. My point is that even the most loved and respected leaders of a workers' party need the support of a revolutionary nucleus around them.

Tommy is in no way to blame for the unsolicited advice given by the Guardian on 10th May, brazenly inviting him to act as a restraining influence on his comrades. This does however demonstrate the undisguised efforts of the bourgeoisie to pressurise him into adopting a "responsible" and "mature" - i.e. treacherous - role. Such pressures would ultimately prove irresistible even by the most heroic individual, unless he had the support of a strong revolutionary organisation around him to back him up, and exert the necessary counter-pressures.

I assume that the ISM is already debating how best to resist such efforts of the bourgeoisie. I hope the comrades will not confuse the frustrated rantings of impotent sectarians with the honest concern of real friends of the ISM and SSP outside Scotland, who want to offer their theoretical and political solidarity to help maintain the health of the SSP as a brilliant asset of the international working class.

With comradely greetings,

Roger Silverman
http://www.movementsforsocialism.com

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

Marxism & Scottish Socialist Party

Comments (53 of 53)