17.04.1997

Dishonest silence

Our call for an active boycott of Labour’s rigged referendum has been received with interest by many voters in Dundee West.

However, at least one comrade in Scottish Militant Labour has expressed concern, even opposition to our use of Committee for Genuine Self-Determination leaflets during the election campaign. This is despite the fact that an agreement was made between SML and CPGB comrades before the election that both organisations’ independent political views could co-exist alongside Scottish Socialist Alliance propaganda.

Indeed it has been Militant Labour’s own practice to use its own publications when involved in broader campaigns. As ML (now the Socialist Party) members insisted to Arthur Scargill in the Hemsworth by-election, they would both campaign for SLP candidate Brenda Nixon and at the same time put forward their own views. They argued that there was no contradiction in that. I agree.

CPGB comrades made it clear from the beginning that the view of Mary Ward and the CPGB is that we should boycott Labour’s rigged referendum. In that we are supported by some other groups and members of the Alliance. We use our own independent political material to make the call for a boycott. If SML comrades so wished they could have put the SSA’s (and their own) official policy for a ‘yes, yes’ vote for Labour’s parliament in all their election material, not to mention their own paper.

They have not done so. This is their own political fudge, which I will comment on later. But even if they want to keep their mouths shut on this vital question, there is no reason for us to follow suit in the interests of some spurious ‘political harmony’. In fact for us to say nothing would be the grossest dishonesty and political opportunism. We have a duty to say what we think openly to the class and to use whatever opportunity we get to do so. There is no question of going behind SML’s back. As I and others have made clear, we actively want to have the discussion with you, comrades.

One of the arguments that has been used against us is that we are wrecking the ‘united front’. Firstly, to clarify a misconception: the united front was a specific tactic used by the Communist International in a period of setback for the revolution in the early 1920s in order to win workers from reformist illusions. It was a tactic specifically designed for minority communist parties at that time to win over the mass of social democratic workers by fighting with them and at the same time exposing their leaders. The Scottish Socialist Alliance has for us some of the features of a united front from above - being, as it is, a bloc of organisations as well as individuals. Today’s period is clearly different. Nevertheless, lessons can be learned from the 1920s.

For instance Comintern made it clear that in pursuit of the united front revolutionaries must “retain both the right and the opportunity to voice - not only before and after, but if necessary during actions - their opinion on the politics of all the organisations of the working class without exception ... Communists cannot in any circumstances refrain from putting forward their views ...”(‘Theses on United Front’, December 1921, in A Adler Theses, resolutions and manifestos of the first four congresses of the Third International London 1983). And on the question of affiliation to the Labour Party Lenin was uncompromisingly clear that the young CPGB “must never enter into negotiations with bodies without demanding full freedom of action” (The Communist December 2 1920). The united front clearly represents a tactic of a very different kind of unity to that imagined by some SML comrades.

Just as communists in the 1920s were committed to exposing the reformism of the Labour Party, we too are committed to such a fight: to expose Labour’s sop and also the left reformism and nationalism of SML and others. Any notion that this will somehow confuse the working class must be dispelled.

Workers must be able to see clearly and decide whose views and actions to follow. They must not be treated like sheep. We are talking about developing through struggle a class fit to run society.

The more independent views can compete, the more workers will realise their own independent role and be educated in the most advanced ideas. Workers must not be treated by the left as some sort of revolutionary cannon fodder. That is the politics of cynicism.

Another less than honest trend which we have detected is the tendency of SML - in Dundee at least - to fudge their official policy of ‘yes, yes’ to Labour’s sop. I questioned Philip Stott, North East Scotland organiser on this at a press conference last week. He replied that the reason the official policy for a ‘yes, yes’ vote did not find its way into the Dundee East election address was lack of room. This is at the very least disingenuous. A broadsheet is being produced in Dundee East, where SML member Harvey Duke is standing for the Alliance - it has four A3 pages!

In contrast to this political manoeuvring, leading SML member Alan McCombes argued in the internal document printed in last week’s Weekly Worker (April 10) that “if the Alliance is to be taken seriously as a credible force in Scottish politics, it must be prepared to tackle not just the broad constitutional questions facing Scotland, but also the detailed questions which will repeatedly arise in the heat of the corning general election”. For comrade McCombes that means being absolutely clear about the necessity of a ‘yes, yes’ vote. So why is Dundee SML avoiding these “detailed questions”?

Stott also said that Dundee SML had decided to place its emphasis on the positive demand for a parliament with full powers. This I believe brings us nearer the truth. In McCombes’ internal document he makes it clear that SML thinks that radicalised sections of the working class are moving towards ideas of independence and specifically the Scottish National Party. He says that there is an increasing section of the advanced working class for whom “the attraction of independence is that the socialist movement would be a much more powerful force in an independent Scotland”. In order to undermine the SNP he believes the best move is to support independence above devolution in order to

“weaken the grip of the SNP and ... ensure that in cities like Glasgow, where we have a sizeable influence, the demand for independence would be given a certain socialist and internationalist content” (ibid).

Putting the reactionary and nationalistic nature of such a stance aside, the advocacy of a ‘yes, yes’ vote for a Blairite parish council, in circumstances where leading sections of the class are actively rejecting such an insult, gives SML a problem. My hunch is that at least a section of SML’s leadership has realised the danger of losing out to the SNP on this question. This is not a comfortable position to be in, especially given Salmond’s leftist tendencies - see his promises on welfare, nuclear disarmament and nationalisation.

Salmond has become a prominent figure both in Scottish and British politics in recent weeks, as the debate has heightened. This importance has little to do with the SNP’s electoral weight - only four out of a total of 72 Scottish MPs and more to do with the growing fluidity the prospect of a Tory defeat is causing. It is not automatic that the SNP will come out with a ‘yes, yes’ vote on Labour’s sop. Salmond himself says that the constituency for independence is far larger than those who will vote SNP. He knows he will lose a lot if he does not make his politics distinctive on this question.

Of course such jostling for position has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with opportunism. But it is notable that SML has been wrong-footed in its reformist approach. Even the Scottish Constitutional Convention sounds far more radical. In an open letter to Tony Blair Doug Chalmers and others say: “We have waited too long and worked too hard for the establishment of this Scottish parliament to be satisfied with anything less” than a body which expresses “the legitimate and justifiable demand of the Scots for democratic control of their own affairs” (The Scotsman April 13).

Even liberals like Chalmers seem more determined than SML to resist Blair’s attempt to buy off the democratic aspirations of the Scottish people. It seems clear that the recognition of this weakness on such an issue is forcing at least some sections of SML to stay quiet in its electoral propaganda. It is of course a dishonest silence.

But without principle nothing can be gained, except for careerists with their eyes on the carving up of a devolved or independent Scotland. Alex Salmond is using the democratic aspirations of the Scottish people to feather his own nest.

Falling in behind him or the Labour Party does nothing but deceive the working class into thinking that its interests lie with reformism and nationalism. The break-up of the working class of Britain into nationalist enclaves is reactionary and must be fought. Our call for and organisation of an active boycott in the fight for a parliament with full powers must be continued with the fight for the revolutionary unity of the British working class against the British state. That is why our call for a federal republic is so crucial in the present period. We must not give an inch on this question.

Anne Murphy