28.11.1996

What sort of voice for Scotland?

Militant Labour launches a new paper in Scotland - and weakens its fighting strength

The first issue of Scottish Socialist Voice hit the streets this week. This is Scottish Militant Labour’s new fortnightly newspaper that replaces Scottish Militant. Although “Scotland’s newest and best political newspaper” has been launched “to give a fighting alternative to the tired pro-market, pro-establishment press in Scotland”, it also represents a further indication of the break-up of ML’s British-wide organisation into smaller autonomous parts.

There is nothing wrong with a national organisation producing papers for specific nationalities or oppressed groups, or for cities or regions of Britain, for example. However, in SML’s case at this time it represents a further loosening of the ties between itself and ML in England and Wales. This is a natural progression from the ‘halfway house’ scenario of Peter Taaffe (ML’s leading theoretician), where ML in Scotland was initially given autonomy on organisational questions and finance. The justification being that the “nationalist consciousness of the Scottish people means that the form of organisation appropriate to the rest of Britain is no longer appropriate to Scotland”. Militant also hails “the first genuinely Scottish socialist newspaper for decades” (November 15).

This concession to nationalism throws into question the democratic centralist nature of the organisation as well as its ability to lead the struggle for self-determination in a revolutionary direction.

For revolutionaries it is an important principle that we organise on the basis of the state we are trying to overthrow. In our case not the Welsh, Scottish or English state, but the British state. Not to fight for this principle objectively weakens the combativity of the revolutionary party and the working class in smashing British capitalism and replacing it with socialism. It should be added that this in no way contradicts our support for the right of self-determination for the Scottish or Welsh people.

However, there is a certain logic to SML’s position, based on its reformism and opportunism. Several key articles in Scottish Socialist Voice expose SML’s project for democratic socialism that fails to address the need to smash the capitalist state - British or Scottish.

In the What we stand for column, the first point is for “a Scottish parliament carrying out radical socialist change in Scotland”. No mention of a socialist federation of Scotland, England and Wales (which apparently is Militant policy), and perhaps more importantly no mention of the working class struggle that will be needed to remove the capitalist ruling class from state power. This strategy sounds more like Labour’s old clause four or the British road to socialism, where the working class have a ‘walk on, walk off’ role.

This position is further compounded by the editorial which reinforces SML’s agnosticism and neutrality towards the British state. Any commentary on gun control, while recognising the tragedy of the Dunblane families, should be based on an objective class analysis of the Snowdrop campaign, the British state and class control of weapons. But the editorial ends up sounding like an anti-nuclear version of The Guardian:

“This paper wholeheartedly supports the Snowdrop campaigners. Their call for a total ban on handguns is in tune with the mood of the overwhelming majority of Scots.”

It goes on to accuse the Labour leadership of displaying “contemptible double standards on the issue of weapons. It supported a ban on handguns - but only after it became clear that a ban commanded mass public support. But Labour no longer opposes nuclear weapons.” So it is OK for SML to dovetail in behind the popular mood, but not for the Labour Party. Does SML support all ‘popular’ campaigns? Would it support the re-introduction of the death penalty or stricter immigration controls if the majority of the people wanted them?

Apart from nuclear weapons, this editorial fails to address the fact that the British state is armed to the teeth. Not just the army, but the police force is now equipped with a large armoury of deadly equipment, including guns, which they put to use in every major town and city when necessary, killing unarmed ‘criminals’ and ‘innocents’ alike.

The article rightly condemns the arms trade and selling of arms to the Gulf state of Qatar and other dictatorships, but British imperialism has more blood on its hands than most. From Ireland to Iraq, from India to the Falklands, the British capitalist class, both during and post-empire, has been responsible for the deaths of more children and adults than almost any other class in history.

It is utopian for SML to see democratic socialism coming to Britain without the capitalist class using this experience and every and any means to hang onto state power. For over a century working class revolutions have faced the bloody hand of capitalist counter-revolution - from the Paris Commune to the Russian Revolution; from the Iranian Revolution to Allende’s Chile.

If a socialist revolution in Britain is not to suffer the same fate, we need to learn the lessons of the past and arm ourselves theoretically and practically.

By supporting calls for the state to ban the ownership of guns, SML endorses the capitalist state’s monopoly of these weapons, while still not addressing the problem of sick individuals like Thomas Hamilton getting hold of them and terrorising communities.

Instead of taking the difficult, but essential option of fighting for what is necessary, SML ultimately fosters illusions in a reformist road to ‘socialism’, which is reflected in Scottish Socialist Voice.

While being the most consistent fighters for self-determination for the Scottish people, revolutionaries in Scotland must also be the most vigorous champions of united working class organisations throughout the British state.

The apparent break-up of SML and ML will have a seriously negative effect on its ability to act as a fist in confronting the British state. Without a clear programme for working class self-liberation, the comrades in Scotland are in danger of throwing the class into the arms of a nationalism with a reactionary agenda, such as the SNP.

Nick Clarke