25.09.1997

Fear but no expulsion ... and no gagging

Sharp exchanges at SSA National Council

The majority of members attending the Scottish Socialist Alliance National Council meeting last weekend pulled back from any suggestion that the CPGB should be disciplined and/or expelled from the SSA because of allegedly “misleading and false” statements in the Weekly Worker and other CPGB publications.

A draft statement, moved by SSA national secretary Allan Green, attacked the CPGB for the polemical nature of its criticisms of the majority, while claiming to be “tolerant of minority views” (see Weekly Worker September 18 for the full motion and Nick Clarke’s reply).

While condemning the language and terminology used in our publications, Alan McCombes (Scottish Militant Labour and editor of Scottish Socialist Voice) moved an amendment to delete the final sentence of comrade Green’s motion, which read: “The national council believes the CPGB through their recent actions have placed themselves outside the normal working relations of the SSA.” This amendment was passed by 12 votes to seven, with most SML members supporting. The amended motion, still highly critical of our Party, was then passed with only the two CPGB comrades voting against it and one abstention (the SSA co-chair, Rosie Kane).

The debate centred around a list of charges, which purported to show that the CPGB had written in an uncomradely fashion about other members of the SSA and had thus damaged the SSA project. Although this was vehemently denied by CPGB comrades, many speakers insisted this was the case, particularly in the use of the term ‘national socialist’ to describe SML and ‘sectarian’ to describe Richie Venton.

Allan Green refused to accept McCombes’ amendment, arguing that his motion was not about disciplinary action or expulsion but about “drawing a line under what’s acceptable”. It was unclear what the implications of the final sentence were in practice. The majority at the meeting supported a ‘statement of disapproval’ but did not want disciplinary measures taken committing the SSA to the road of witch hunts and voidings.

Tommy Sheridan launched a tirade against the Weekly Worker, calling it “a political rag”. He felt that the debate was wasting National Council time and referred to the “political cowardice” of comrades who represented the CPGB. He then went on to vote against the McCombes amendment. Other members, notably Philip Stott from Dundee SML, praised the work of CPGB comrades within the SSA, but indicated that he felt there was a marked difference between how comrades behaved on the ground and how reports were then written in Weekly Worker. He suggested that there was a divide between comrades in Scotland and editorial control of the Weekly Worker. This was echoed by others at the meeting ... but is completely untrue. The only ‘divide’ is between the necessity for retaining comradely personal relationships and presenting uncompromising political criticism.

Despite our arguments and the explanations in our paper, SML members could not bring themselves to accept that the term ‘national socialist’ was anything other than  synonymous with Nazism, thus revealing their ignorance of orthodox Marxism, and ironically of Leon Trotsky himself (see ‘Party notes’, page 2).

In his contribution Richie Venton stated that he was wholeheartedly behind the SSA project and cited his record in building the SSA as evidence of this. Doubt was expressed as to whether he was even present at the Socialist Party meeting where he reportedly argued in favour of SML becoming the ‘Scottish Socialist Party’ and dropping the SSA. He also declared that he stood for the rights of minorities and factions in political organisations, including SML.

If this is the case, then those particular allegations of sectarianism, based on his reported position, were incorrect. But why not respond politically, instead of resorting to bureaucratic methods?

While it was positive that the SSA majority pulled back from disciplinary action, the statement that was passed must not be a prelude to an attempt to prevent affiliates or individual members from putting forward their criticism of other positions. For example, our position for an active boycott of the recent referendum was variously described within the SSA as siding with the pro-unionists, characterised as a “scabbing operation” and “sectarian”, and we were called “wreckers”. Although profoundly disagreeing with those assessments, we defend the right of comrades to use such language, because, if they feel the road we are taking is wrong, then it is their duty to tell us so as sharply as necessary. It takes two to tango, SSA comrades.

From the overall tone of the meeting it was clear that the majority of the National Council wanted the CPGB to remain in the SSA as an active minority. But we are determined to become the active majority - that is what they really fear. That is why we refuse to be silenced, refuse to be gagged. Fundamentally the argument is not about personalities or terminology, but about political direction and progamme. We defend freedom of expression and fight any attempts by the SSA to gag or censor any external or internal publication.

That provides the best conditions for the revolutionary minority to win its arguments and become the majority.

Nick Clarke and Mary Ward