04.09.1997

Raise the republican flag

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) reviews Jack Conrad’s pamphlet, Blair’s rigged referendum and Scotland’s right to self-determination

In September 11 1997, the Scottish people will divide three ways: ‘no, no’, ‘yes, yes’ and abstain (plus other combinations). The right will claim the ‘no’ votes. The centre will claim the ‘yeses’. The left will claim the abstentions.

Well, not quite. The political meaning of the abstentions will be contested. What for example is the political meaning of a low ‘no’ vote, a bigger ‘yes’ vote and a significant abstention? It would mean another crushing defeat for the Tories, a victory for Blair (but not a very decisive one). It would mean that the Scottish people want a parliament, but are not convinced by what Blair has offered them. It would keep the debate on Scotland’s future alive.

If on the other hand we have a low ‘no’ vote, an overwhelming ‘yes’ and only a few abstentions, then the dominance of the Blair project will be massively enhanced and legitimised. The question of Scotland’s constitutional future will be closed, at least for a period. The left will be further marginalised. It will encourage Blairism and more attacks on the left, in or out of the Labour Party. The prospects of Tommy Sheridan being elected to the new parliament will diminish perhaps significantly. If I was in Scottish Militant Labour, I would be secretly praying for a tiny ‘no’ and a large abstention.

In this context, how will the abstention vote be interpreted? According to Gordon Morgan of the Scottish Socialist Alliance (Weekly Worker August 28), the Tories will claim abstention as support for them. Can you blame them? SML will agree with the Tories in order to frighten everybody into voting ‘yes’. The SNP will also try to claim them. They will say that abstentions mean that people really want independence and not Blair. Labour might say the abstentions have no political meaning, and represent apathetic people and should be ignored.

We should remember that abstention is a kind of vote. It is a vote of no confidence in what is on offer. None of the above parties have campaigned for abstentions. Whatever spin doctoring they can pull, there are no facts to support the claim that the abstentions support them. There is only one campaign (possibly two) that has gone out to win support for abstention. That is the Campaign for Genuine Self-Determination. Because of their activity and vigorous campaigning work, these are the only political forces who have a political stake in the size of the abstention. Unlike the other parties, these comrades have a basis for claiming the abstention votes for the left. That claim would be much stronger if it wasn’t for the news blackout of the campaign by the bourgeois media, and the failure of SML.

SML deserted the left for the centre bloc. They are backing the centre in Scottish politics and giving it left socialist credentials. The logic of this is to hand the abstention votes to the Tories. That is something for which William Hague, and the rest of that gang, will be eternally grateful. It is only the actions of the Campaign for Self-Determination that can paint those votes red and not blue.

It is in the context of campaigning for a mass abstention vote that the pamphlet by Jack Conrad is to be welcomed. It helps to prove that the most militant part of the communist movement is urging the Scottish people to abstain. No part of the Tory Party can do that or prove that. Of course we don’t know the thinking behind every abstention vote. We cannot claim they all read Jack Conrad’s pamphlet first. But we can claim that, because of this activity, that abstention has political content. The communists are the most politically conscious part of the abstentionist masses.

The pamphlet is well written and contains much that I agree with and support. It calls for a federal republic. It urges Scottish voters to boycott the referendum. It criticises the national socialist perspective of the SML. All this is correct. My main criticism, at least on the surface, is the continued use of the term, ‘bourgeois workers’ party’ to describe Labour. This is the weapon of those Marxists, who act as left apologists for what is clearly in class terms a bourgeois party.

Gordon Morgan’s critical review of the pamphlet (Weekly Worker August 28) goes to the heart of the debate by rejecting Jack Conrad’s argument for a federal republic. Gordon attacks the “bizarre counter-position of a mythical federal republic of the British Isles to the actual chance to advance democracy by voting in the referendum”. First a minor correction - it is a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales, rather than the British Isles. Is this “mythical” or buried under the surface waiting to be mined? Opinion polls indicate that there is a majority in Scotland in favour of a republic, in favour of a parliament and against separation from England. Taken together these three things mean a federal republic. Scotland is probably the only part of the ‘kingdom’ where such a majority exists - at least in latent form.

Clearly if there was a militant political party in Scotland which openly advocated this policy, it could galvanise those latent majorities into a political force. The problem is not the federal republic. It is the mythical militant republican socialist party. It is not the spontaneous consciousness of the Scottish people that is lacking, but the political consciousness of the so-called vanguard (ie, SML). The reason why SML cannot see what is under their noses is because they have tied themselves in knots with bogus aspects of Trotskyism.

Why should “counterposing” a republic (federal or otherwise) to a reformed constitutional monarchy be considered by Gordon to be “bizarre”? When in 1906 the tsar counterposed a constitutional monarchy to a democratic republic, was this “bizarre” or practical? When the Bolsheviks made the argument from the opposite end, were they also “bizarre”? When Jack Conrad argues for a republic and Tony Blair for a reformed constitutional monarchy, is it only Jack who is “counterposing”? Obviously not. It takes two to tango and two to “counterpose”. Why is it that only Jack is considered “bizarre” and not Blair? Could it be that Gordon’s brain is so soaked in British culture that without thinking the word ‘bizarre’ leaps onto the page at the mention of the word ‘republic’. Surely it is the constitutional monarchy, reformed or not, that is truly “bizarre”.

I can hear Gordon objecting that it was only Jack Conrad and not Tony Blair who is guilty of “counterposing”. Tony Blair never mentioned the word ‘republic’. Blair is a clever man. He has learnt to “counterpose” without giving republicanism a plug. In addition it is better for fooling the Gordon Morgans of this world on the question of who is counterposing what to what.

Finally, Gordon claims that it is “practical” to advance democracy by voting in the referendum. Jack would argue that we can advance democracy much further by not voting in the referendum. This is a equally practical but potentially much more productive.

I would like to make some critical comments in the spirit of strengthening the pamphlet. Here I have some agreement with Gordon, albeit from the opposite angle. It seems to me that the real title of the pamphlet is ‘The case against SML’. SML is the main topic in the introduction and in chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, and is a significant element in chapters 7 and 8. Ironically I think this makes the case against SML less effective.

I think that the real title (as opposed to the formal title on the front cover) of the pamphlet should have been ‘The case for a federal republic’. More emphasis on this and less on SML would have made a stronger case. Gordon’s “mythical federal republic” would have been destroyed before he had chance to write about it. And if that case is made strongly, we don’t need so many words against SML. Readers will be able to work out for themselves why SML have failed to measure up as militant republicans.

The pamphlet is not primarily directed to a mass audience, but rather to politically conscious socialists in and around the SSA. That is a valid target audience. The first chapter, ‘Who is uniting with the Tories?’, sets the scene for the main arguments. I would not want to change it. But the second chapter should have then made the case for a federal republic. This could have dealt with the nature of the economic, social and political crisis arising from the world crisis of capitalism and the degeneration of the British ‘social monarchy’. This could have discussed the historical development of the modern state power in the UK. The argument for a federal republic is made in Jack’s pamphlet, but not until chapter 7 (especially paragraph 8). Here we find out that the CPGB is for a federal republic and united Ireland. So whilst chapter 6 is called ‘The importance of programme’, this doesn’t seem reflected in the structure of the pamphlet. The programme is so important that it needs explaining at the beginning rather than tacked towards the end.

A third chapter could and should have developed the arguments that follow on, over the relationship between republicanism, socialism and communism. This would need to deal with the connection between republicanism and soviets and between soviets and the international socialist revolution. These points are not developed in the pamphlet. The fact that this was missing was shown when Jack had to defend his pamphlet with an excellent article in the Weekly Worker (August 21)on the issue of national and international socialism. This article (with some additions) was really the missing chapter 3.

On a republican foundation a chapter 4 can then deal with tactics. In fact Jack’s chapter 4, ‘Boycott: active and passive’, is also about tactics. We arrive at the same point but with different foundations. Having established a strong republican case, it is now possible to argue that the boycott tactic is a weapon in the struggle for a republic and hence for soviets and socialism. When we examine Jack’s chapter 4, this is missing. In fact the word ‘republic’ doesn’t appear in the chapter. You might be forgiven for thinking that the CPGB decided to boycott the referendum and then began a search for some idea why.

This chapter is therefore the weakest part of the pamphlet. Having disconnected boycott from republicanism and hence from socialism, you have to search for the reason for the boycott. It is not easy to find. At first, Jim Sillars, deputy leader of the SNP, is quoted as calling for a boycott because it is a fraud. Nothing to do with republicanism or socialism there. Unfortunately not blessing fraud seems to be the only argument Jack advances. But he does this is a negative way by attacking SML, who have spotted the moralism, but are firing blanks. SML argue that if the CPGB are boycotting the referendum because it is a fraud, they should also boycott normal elections which are also frauds. Jack shoots this down. He says the referendum is a different kind of fraud: it is “a catch 22, a dictatorial device worthy of Hitler, Mussolini or Franco.”(p17)

Boycotting the referendum because it is a fraud or is “rigged” leads inevitably to a kind of moralism. Jack is aware of this and specifically denies it is true. He says: “Neither the CGSD nor the CPGB advocates a boycott merely due to some sense of moral disapproval, because it is rigged.” Unfortunately this denial has no substance. It flies in the face of the fact that the chapter comes up with no other argument for boycott.

The last part of this chapter calls for an active rather than a passive boycott. No disagreement with this. We want an active republican boycott, not an active moralistic one. We want political strikes for a republic, rather than political strikes against cheating. Any hint that we are boycotting to keep our hands clean, a sort of Scottish version of Pontius Pilate, will only let SML off the hook.

At this point, in my version of the structure, the pamphlet could end. So far SML needn’t have been mentioned. The case stands on its own two feet and doesn’t need the crutches of the mistakes of SML to prop it up. Without mentioning SML the pamphlet would do what Gordon Morgan claimed he wanted it to do.

However, if we want to steam into SML - and there is every good reason why we should - we could add some more chapters focusing on them. Clearly SML is not fighting for a federal republic to unite the English, Scottish and Welsh workers. Consequently it cannot lead us to soviets or an international socialist revolution. The only way socialists can get there is by ignoring the politics of SML. The only way SML will get there is by changing its politics.

Meanwhile Tommy Sheridan wants a seat in a Scottish parliament and that is why he is voting ‘yes, yes’.