Letters

SSA reneges

Tom Delargy’s call for unity within the Scottish Socialist Alliance is of course laudable, but unity must be on a principled basis. CPGB members have spent time, effort and money in working to build the SSA because we believe it signified a real movement within the working class in Scotland and spearheaded a break from Labourism. It is an alliance, not a party, and does not operate under the principles of democratic centralism.           

Democratic centralism can only really exist when a party is organised around a revolutionary programme, where minority rights are protected, factions are allowed, and those factions have the right to publish their positions. If the SSA were to become this kind of party then of course we would abide by democratic decisions to provide unity in action.

At this time, we feel the SSA has not only taken a wrong turn, it has reneged on its founding principles to fight for a sovereign Scottish parliament with full powers which can determine its constitutional arrangements with the rest of Britain and the world. By supporting the call for a double ‘yes’ vote in the referendum, the SSA is opportunistically joining with Labour and Scotland Forward in fostering illusions that this parliament can deliver socialism.

The role of socialists in parliament can be very important. They can act as tribunes of the working class, but clearly far more important is extra-parliamentary struggle as only this will result in the self-liberation of the working class.

I believe that the SSA and particularly Scottish Militant Labour are losing sight of this, if not in theory then in practice. It seems like any compromises must be made in order to get Tommy (Sheridan) elected to a Scottish parliament. The recent Alliance news conference did not focus on SSA policy, but how Tommy would act in a parliament in Edinburgh.

It is interesting that Tom Delargy sees the alternative to the Stalin-like regime of the Socialist Labour Party as cosy consensus. That is not the way for revolutionaries to behave. We are surely not out to build a nationalistic left party, but the kind of party that the working class needs to fight capitalism. Comrade, that will not happen if we keep our mouths shut when we believe that fundamental mistakes are being made.

Individual members of the SSA did not agree with standing against the Labour party in the last election. They subsequently campaigned against SSA candidates. I think that they were wrong to support Labour, but I would not wish to see them kicked out of the SSA because of this. And funnily enough, no one has even suggested this. Yet because we are open about our politics, all hell breaks loose when we, as a small minority within the SSA, fight for our beliefs.

 As a candidate in the general election, I was often called to give the SSA’s view on the referendum. This I did without hesitation but always made it clear that personally I believed in an active boycott. This did not seem to confuse our working class support. Neither did it adversely effect the vote. We are rightly critical when the Labour party tries to silence Gordon Archer as a nationalist or even Tam Dalyell as a unionist within its ranks. Yet there appear to be those who want the SSA to behave in a similar way. The referendum is a fundamentally important issue. It raises questions of democracy within the SSA and it indicates where people stand in relation to nationalism and opportunism. We will not be silenced on this nor on other issues where we disagree with the majority view. We want the Alliance to grow and develop, but lack of democracy will only result in the creation of a sect.

I appreciate Tom Delargy’s openness and sincerity. I understand that he has recently joined the ranks of SML. I hope that he will continue to debate in an open way through the pages off the Weekly Worker as I believe that some in SML have already indicated their disapproval of this.

Now is not the time to silence our debates, but to strive for the truth in a manner befitting revolutionaries.

Mary Ward
Scotland

Lefts disarm

I have just returned from working with comrades in the active boycott campaign in the Scottish devolution referendum. What is noticeable is that a reluctance among the Scottish people to take up the active boycott slogan, which contrasts starkly with a widespread understanding that the referendum is indeed rigged and that Blair’s parliament will be a sham. The strength of feeling for a ‘yes, yes’ vote is overwhelming, largely because it is seen that the repercussions of a ‘no, no’ victory would be unacceptable. The majority of voices I heard in Glasgow said that they were going along with Blair because at least it was something, and as such, better than nothing.

The working class agenda is not being raised in the Scottish referendum except through the active boycott campaign. And although it is a minority campaign, it is right to raise the demand for what the working class needs.

The minority resonance which the campaign is finding will not make an active mass boycott. Supporters of the boycott are therefore urged to spoil their ballots with the slogan ‘self determination - nothing less’. These limitations were largely imposed by the failure to win the SSA. Had the majority of the SSA remained true to its slogan ‘for a parliament with full powers’ then a small but significant layer of the class could have been won to this important tactic.

There is still much to be gained, however, and every worker won to the active boycott campaign is a worker won against Labourism. The associations made during the campaign will put us on the right side of Labour’s failure to deliver in every context. We can build a strong position within the workers’ movement in Scotland from which to engage on the post referendum political terrain, whereas the ‘yes, yes’ left are busily disarming themselves and their followers.

Steve Riley
Manchester

Students fight Blairites

It is perfectly true that New Labour’s attacks on education are as serious as your article ‘Labour plans to hammer students’ suggests (Weekly Worker August 7). However, your article should have pointed out there is opposition to the Blairite-led rightwing leadership of the National Union of Students.

The Campaign for Free Education (CFE) is the biggest single force in the NUS. We stand uncompromisingly for a living grant for all students, the return of our benefit rights, opposition to tuition fees and support for workers in struggle. We have supporters at every level in the NUS.

Last year, the CFE organised the only national student demonstration in opposition to cuts, student hardship and fees - 5,000 marched with us in London on November 20 1996. This year we are already organising a big march in Newcastle against fees and cuts with Newcastle University Student Union on November 5. We have an activist conference in London on Saturday October 18 and another national demonstration called for Wednesday November 26 in London.

So, do not despair. There is an opposition. There is a fightback!

Students wanting more information can contact me on 0181-211 0002.

Mick Duncan
National co-secretary, CFE

Stalin Friends

You appear to believe that your project of a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales is going down like a lead balloon in Scotland and Wales because people do not like the term ‘republic’. Not so. It is ‘federal’ that they do not like. A constituent nation cannot pull out of a federation. A constituent nation can pull out of a confederation. So why not change ‘federal’ to ‘confederal’ if you really believe that Scotland and Wales should have the right to self-determination?

Secondly, you point out that members of the Stalin Society, the Indian Workers Association, and the Fourth International Supporters Caucus are welcome in the Socialist Labour Party, as are publishers of the Economic Philosophic and Science Review.

The Stalin Society is made up, predictably, of people who like Stalin. However, within its ranks are Labour Party members, SLP members, and members of various communist parties and groups. Many members are not politically affiliated at all. The Stalin Society is therefore not capable of acting as a faction within the SLP.

The IWA is made up of Indians of various political beliefs and affiliations. It is not capable of acting as a faction within the SLP either. The EPSR voluntarily gave up its ILWP party status. I do not know anything about Fisc. I suspect that it voluntarily gave up its Fiscian futility in order to move into the big time of the SLP.

The CPGB, on the other hand, is a highly disciplined party, fully capable of acting as a faction. Factions are very unpopular because they debate issues beforehand, all vote together, and deprive ordinary SLP party members of a say.

The CPGB is diametrically opposed to the SLP line over Europe. The SLP is, if you like, Arthur Scargill’s party, because only he had stature enough to call for its formation. Nobody would be greatly thrilled to learn that Ivor Kenna or Jack Conrad was forming a new party.

Ivor Kenna
London

Linda Addison replies

Though Ivor Kenna may disagree with the CPGB’s call for a federal republic, there is no confusion in our choice of the word. A confederation or ‘confederal’ is used to describe an alliance of separate states. We are not in favour of the break-up of Britain, but of the voluntary union of England, Scotland and Wales. In a federation the states that make up the federation are not separate but have a common central government while remaining independent in internal affairs, thus retaining the right to separate.

Linda Addison
Weekly Worker