11.09.1997

Socialist News controversy

Simon Harvey of the SLP

Somewhat unusually in many ways, given the generally bland and predictable nature of its contents, one of the articles in Socialist News (September/October) has sparked off a furious reaction. A step forward, you could say. The article in question is by comrade Don Hoskins, entitled ‘A ‘loss’ we can only welcome’. It deals with the recent Hong Kong handover.

In this eccentric article we are told that the return of Hong Kong to China was “a shattering blow to the capitalist economic order, which has lost its last milch-cow colonial property”, and how the representatives of British imperialism looked liked they had “just eaten tainted seafood from Victoria Harbour” - all thanks to “a China now grown great and powerful”.

Comrade Hoskins also praises Beijing’s “clever use of some capitalist trade and production methods”, even how “out-trading capitalism by its own methods for socialist ends is a good trick”. Even more controversially, comrade Hoskins writes about how in 1989 the “most brutal violence against the Chinese state” erupted in Tiananmen Square and that “dozens of police and insurrectionists were killed”. The comrade concludes that those who believe there was a massacrein Tiananmen Square are victims of “CIA slanders”, which are designed to “continually vilify the Chinese government”.

The comrade is not alone in upholding such views, remarkably enough. A certain journal edited by Stockport SLP member Royston Bull called the Economic and Philosophic Science Review - which, as we know, is freely circulated in our party with the apparent blessing of the leadership - also informs us - and in remarkably similar fashion - that the return of Hong Kong was a “humiliation for British imperialism”, forced upon it by the “mighty Chinese workers’ state”. It goes on to discuss the “non-existent ‘Tiananmen Square massacre’”, which in the opinion of this more-Stalinite-than-Stalin publication was made possible “precisely by the leniency of the Communist Party in allowing ‘pro-democracy’ anti-communists to cavort for six weeks on Beijing’s ceremonial square” (July 1 1997, original emphasis) - and so in a similar vein, condemning “criminals”, “hooligan elements”, “anarchists”, etc, as if it were an official Chinese news agency report.      

Now, comrade Hoskins is perfectly entitled to his views. It is undoubtedly true that the “western anti-working class news agencies” - as he puts it - have cynically used, abused and manipulated that grim event to promote their own anti-communist, imperialist propaganda. Conversely, SLP members are perfectly entitled to express their profound disagreements with comrade Hoskins’ analysis - particularly his farcical notion that the repressive bureaucracy in China is a “workers’ government”.

The real point though is the plain fact that the comrade is using Socialist News as a platform to articulate his particular factional views. Nothing wrong with that. But why can’t other SLP members also be allowed the ‘privilege’ of writing polemical and ‘factional’ articles? Is it because our acting general-secretary, Arthur Scargill, has similar views on the events in Tiananmen Square, or has a personal fondness for comrade Don Hoskins? We would like to know.

I have heard that Cardiff SLP members are so distressed by the nature of comrade Hoskins’ article, that they have collectively decided to boycott this issue of Socialist News - ie, they will be refusing to sell it. This is perfectly understandable. I too find the contents of comrade Hoskins’ article unpleasant. However, I feel that the Cardiff comrades are mistaken in taking this course of action. It is inevitable that within any publication of a working class party - which should be open to many views and tendencies - there will be material which you disagree with, or even strongly object to. But if you could only bear to go out onto the streets with a paper you had 100% agreement with, you would never go out at all. What would be the use of that?

An easy way round this dilemma - to make sure that we do not have any more boycotts like Cardiff SLP - is to make Socialist News an open publication, where all and any SLPers’ viewpoints can be expressed, not just those which happen to be in favour at the time with (certain) members of our NEC.

Scotland goes forward?

While we are on the subject of Socialist News, the current issue also contains an article on Scotland by comrade Chris Herriot. The comrade, with a hint of melodrama, writes that Scottish people “stand on the threshold of an historic development”. This is presumably a reference to Blair’s pseudo-parliament in Edinburgh. Still, it all depends on what you mean by “historic”, I suppose.

In a confused article, comrade Herriot writes that our party has been “campaigning around the slogan, ‘Vote double yes, but beware the double-cross’”.

Comrade Herriot argues that we have to vote double ‘yes’ because “to vote otherwise would be to reject the concept of a Scottish parliament when the majority of Scots clearly support it”. The comrade argues that the “double-cross” lies in the fact that what we are “being asked to do is vote to limit the powers of the parliament, not to extend them” . Correctly, comrade Herriot says that Socialist Labour in Scotland “supports a Scottish parliament with full powers”, but thinks there is “no alternative but to vote double ‘yes’”.

What does alarm me about comrade Herriot’s position is the unmistakable nationalist/separatist reasoning which underpins it. He dreams of a “socialist government in Scotland”, which will “act as a beacon attracting support for socialist policies throughout the UK”. He states: “If we have an opportunity to break the stranglehold of capitalism in one part of the UK before another, it would be absolute folly not to do so.”

In other words, the comrade looks forward to the ‘break-up of Britain’ along national/regional lines. The Militant Tendency also believed that they could construct ‘socialism’ within the city of Liverpool - and look at the state of Liverpool now. Not one inch closer to socialism now than it was when Derek Hatton ran the show.

Our party needs to be internationalist and revolutionary, not nationalist and reformist.

Off the agenda

This week’s TUC congress supposedly harnessed the ‘new mood of compassion’ heralded in by the popular canonisation of princess Diana. The dominant idea of the TUC leadership is that of ‘social partnership’. Indeed the theme of the congress was ‘partners for progress’. Of course, all this new-fangled terminology is old-fashioned class collaboration.

As I said in my last column, the TUC congress was an important opportunity for our party to make high profile intervention, not just against Blair’s open support for capitalism, but also against the collaboration of the TUC leadership as a whole.

In this regards, it is unfortunate that our acting general secretary was unable to move his motion to TUC congress. The NUM has been moving the same motion for a number of years demanding action for the repeal of all the ‘Tory’ (now Labour) anti-trade union laws. To the shame of congress, it always failed to gain a majority. However, this year the motion was not even debated. Scargill was not in the hall when it was called. He was outside meeting NUM members from Asfordby colliery, Leicestershire, which is threatened with the axe.

Whether this was an oversight by Scargill or whether he fell foul of bureaucratic manoeuvrings by the TUC leadership I do not know. But if it was the latter then let us hope he does not apply any lessons learnt against democrats at our own congress in December.

Unity in action

Another point of interest at the TUC was the fringe meeting organised by the Socialist Party (formerly Militant Labour). The two speakers billed to appear were Peter Taaffe, SP general secretary, and the SLP’s own Jimmy Nolan, chair of the Merseyside Port Shop Stewards Committee.

I doubt very much if Jimmy’s action was endorsed by our NEC. Ever since the SLP’s formation, for Scargill the Socialist Party has been an organisation to avoid at all costs. No electoral blocs or agreements, no joint activity on councils and no participation in the Socialist Alliances with either the SP or Scottish Militant Labour (let alone the CPGB).

Of course, informal joint activity and agreements have been going on despite the sectarian wishes of the NEC. Indeed, even NEC member Terry Dunne’s election campaign leaflet for the Churchdown seat on Lewisham council highlighted joint socialist action between the SP and SLP.

So Jimmy Nolan is to be applauded for his move. He is unlikely to be disciplined - perhaps he will receive a quiet phone call from Arthur. However, joint activity like this is exactly what we need to build a real alternative to Labour. Rather than unity in action being the privilege of high profile members, it should become the policy of our party. And those able to take such action should be championing the right of us all to do so.