18.09.1997
Diversity encouraged?
Nick Clark, for the CPGB’s Scottish Committee, replies to the allegations made by Scottish Socialist Alliance national secretary Allan Green
It is very hard to interpret Allan Green’s document in any other way than as a move to expel and/or discipline CPGB members in the SSA. This is our reply.
In the second half of 1995 political developments occurred that led to the setting up of Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party and the Scottish Socialist Alliance. The CPGB has always taken a positive attitude to these initiatives. Potentially they could unify the left and lay the basis for building a mass revolutionary party in Britain. It was on this basis that we threw ourselves wholeheartedly into building both organisations north and south of the border. We are however aware there are others in the SLP and the SSA who do not have this perspective.
While we are fully committed in theory and practice to left unity - without it there will be no successful revolution in Britain - that unity has to be on a principled basis. This cannot be a marriage of convenience, a unity of consensus or the lowest common denominator. Such cosmetic unity will shatter at its first serious test. For over a decade our organisation and its publications have fought for all political debate, on theory, strategy and tactics to be out in the open, in print before the working class movement. We believe this method must be the norm, not the exception. Like it or not, our paper, the Weekly Worker, is committed to carrying our own internal debates, as well as those in the SSA, the SLP and across the revolutionary and working class movement. It is only through engaging in such debates that we can hope to reach a correct understanding of theory and practice.
Since the inaugural meeting of the SSA, our comrades have put a great deal of time, effort and money into building the SSA both locally and nationally. We have attended almost every National Council meeting, have a representative on the Red editorial board, contributed articles and taken responsibility for distribution and played an active part in the national conferences and the Edinburgh day school. Locally in Dundee our comrades have worked hard to build the branch, which has a healthy tradition of political debate, combined with a high level of campaigning work. We regularly take part in street stalls, fundraising, branch meetings and administrative tasks. In the general election we funded the SSA’s campaign in Dundee West. In the recent Pollockshields by-election, our comrades from Scotland and other parts of Britain (up for the referendum campaign), canvassed and worked for SSA candidate Lorraine Lafferty on several occasions.
This incomplete list illustrates that despite our restricted resources, both in terms of finance and personnel, we have taken the SSA project as seriously as other larger organisations and forces in the SSA. From the very beginning we have always advertised SSA activities and Red magazine in our paper.
Answering the specific charges against us:
1. The Left Unity motion at SSA conference: Peter Manson deals with this comprehensively below. However, there are two points that should be added. Firstly, Allan Green could have resolved this by picking up the phone and speaking to either CPGB comrades in Scotland or the Weekly Worker. Secondly, the CPGB has always advocated and fought for the SWP and the SLP to get involved in the SSA and other socialist alliances throughout England and Wales. We have argued this position in print, at conferences, National Council meetings and in discussions with members from the respective organisations.
2. Campaign for Genuine Self-Determination leaflets: June’s National Council meeting made criticism of the original leaflets produced which described the campaign as being set up by members of the SSA (which it was). These leaflets were produced prior to the SSA conference decision on the referendum and were distributed in the months leading up to it. While refusing to accept that the SSA had the right to tell us how to write our leaflet, we took on board the comments. A new leaflet was produced making it clear that it involved “rebel members of the SSA” and also showed clearly what the majority position of the SSA was. Throughout that period the SSA failed to produce a leaflet articulating the majority position on the referendum. The lack of this material seems to be a big contributor to any such confusion.
3. ‘National socialist’ and SML: let us be clear. The CPGB has never accused SML of being Nazis or fascists. In articles and a pamphlet produced by the CPGB, SML’s nationalist trajectory in the current period has been described as ‘national socialist’. This is not dishonest, uncomradely or meant as an insult. It has resulted from a lengthy, developed and fully argued analysis of SML’s position on the national question in Scotland. We regard it as our duty to alert our comrades in SML and the SSA to what we regard as an incorrect turn to nationalism. The term describes SML’s nationalist turn, combined with its belief that an Edinburgh parliament could introduce socialism in Scotland. It is deliberately sharp - precisely because we want to warn SML of the dangers we see in their present orientation. We want them to take notice. If you see a friend walking in front of a car you don’t keep talking in your normal tone: you shout to alert them to the danger. That is the effect we hoped to achieve by using the term ‘national socialism’. A reply to the content of the argument would be the most constructive response.
4. The description of Richie Venton as sectarian: Again this is not meant as a personal insult. Richie’s work as industrial organiser of SML has been exemplary, particularly recently around the Liverpool dockers and Glaciers sit-in. However, the term ‘sectarian’ was directed at Richie specifically because of a position he was reported to have taken at a Socialist Party National Committee meeting, supporting the call for SML to change its name to ‘Scottish Socialist Party’ and drop the SSA. If Richie denies this then we will be happy to print his denial. The CPGB and its members have been called many things in recent years: Stalinist, sectarian, ultra-left, mad. Sometimes in print, sometimes at conferences (including the SSA’s) or public meetings. We try to answer such criticisms politically rather than take them personally. There are those, including within the SSA, who would describe us as such in private to other individuals, but never in the open where we could respond. This is dishonest and uncomradely behaviour, which needs to be combated in a political way, not through bureaucratic expulsion or gagging.
In conclusion, we do not call on comrades to necessarily agree with our perspective or analysis of the SSA or its affiliates. However, as the SSA’s constitution points out, “Members and affiliates are encouraged to recognise that different opinions are valued and diversity and dissent can be positive.”
This draft statement proposed by Allan Green can only be seen as an attempt to gag or witch hunt the CPGB from the SSA. Consequently we call on all within the SSA to defend our right to put forward our sincerely held political positions. If passed, it would set a very dangerous precedent for the SSA, its members and affiliates.
The SSA is not a democratic centralist organisation, so no member or affiliate is bound by the majority position. However, in the spirit of openness and comradeship the CPGB has always been honest about our differences with others in the SSA, including SML, while at the same time taking full part in SSA activities and campaigns that we agree with.
Through our activity and practice within the SSA, combined with our constructive criticism, we have concretely shown the “positive approach” to the Alliance that Green calls for.