Letters

Marxist forum

The first of a series of meetings planned by the Glasgow Marxist Forum took place on February 25 in Partick Burgh Hall. Approximately 30 people attended a discussion on the topic of ‘what is socialism and how can it be achieved?’, introduced by Hillel Ticktin.

Comrade Ticktin‘s introduction, based on his article in Critique 25, entitled ‘What will a socialist society be like?’, stressed that the  demise of Stalinism and the decay of social democracy helps the struggle for the development of an authentic movement for socialism. He emphasised the international, democratic and egalitarian nature of the socialist project and the fact that the objective potential for the realisation of socialism was continuing to develop.

The objective tendency of society is towards a situation where machines make machines and thus towards the elimination of the law of value - ie, the move towards production to meet human need rather than production based on the extraction of surplus value from the proletariat. The representatives of capital attempt various delaying tactics to prevent the objective potential for socialism being realised but in the last analysis, baring a highly unlikely accident, socialism is inevitable. The bourgeoisie’s delaying tactics can however cause immense suffering to the majority of the world’s population.

After a lively discussion and many questions comrade Ticktin again stressed that the movement to socialism had to be international and although the working class could take power in one country, it could only successfully counter the forces of capital if the revolution quickly spread to take root in the advanced countries of the world. He also stated that the failure of the workers’ movement to realise socialism was not simply a failure of consciousness or the  subjective factor but was a result of objective features capital  developed or supported in order to prevent the workers forming a collectivity - eg, imperialism, social democracy, nationalism, Stalinism, etc. These objective features or subjective features have prevented the working class from forming a collectivity. Since these features are in decline, the objective potential for the workers to form a class is again on the agenda. The formation of such a collectivity would sound the death knell for capital.

The Glasgow Marxist Forum was initiated by the Socialist Labour Party (Glasgow) and is jointly sponsored by the SLP and the Scottish Socialist Alliance. The purpose of the forum is to stimulate debate on the left and encourage working class activists towards a critical assimilation of the basic categories of Marxism in order to clarify the nature of the attacks we face from the forces of capital and identify the potential that presently exists to take forward the struggle for socialism. The forum is open to all those on the left who wish to engage in an honest debate on where we are and how we can move forward. The forum aims to meet on a fortnightly basis. A draft program of 16 discussion topics has been produced and it is hoped that relevant reading material will be made available prior to each meeting to encourage informed discussion.

The next forum is entitled ‘The labour theory of value’ and will be held on Wednesday March 25 in the Partick Burgh Hall at 7.30pm. The suggested reading suggested is chapter one of Capital volume I.

Sandy McBurney
Glasgow

Nation or class

If the majority of the Scottish people ever unambiguously support independence, no socialist would dream of standing against the tide. But what is being proposed by Alan McCombes, Scottish Socialist Voice editor, goes well beyond this. The SSA is being encouraged to actively promote the independence option. I for one am far from convinced. Although I am opposed to this course of action for principled as well as tactical reasons, I will confine myself for the moment to the latter.

While Alan has denied (The Herald February 27) that his is a stages theory, one which would postpone the struggle for socialism until after independence is achieved, there is a logic underlying his position which would relentlessly push the SSA in precisely this direction.

We need to appreciate that while some of the elections we will be contesting will soon be fought under some limited form of proportional representation, many will not. Were we to adopt Alan’s position in parliamentary by-elections and local council elections, our candidates would be condemned for splitting the pro-independence vote, handing victory to those people we ourselves have identified as the principle enemies of the Scottish people. This would be a charge our members would find impossible to refute. There would thus be intense pressure on our local branches to give the SNP a free run in many, if not most, seats.

Not only would we spectacularly undermine our ability to mop up the SNP’s soft periphery, a layer which has gravitated towards them principally out of revulsion at New Labour, but also as a result of a decade plus of pre-Tony Blair Labour Party betrayals. We would also, insanely, be throwing hundreds of thousands of workers’ votes, workers who ought to be our strong supporters, in the direction of the pro-independence party with the best prospects (in most cases the only credible prospects) of defeating New Labour candidates.

We would also be squandering the potential we once had to unite the anti-capitalist left. Arthur Scargill’s SLP in particular is far less likely to respond positively to overtures for an electoral agreement with us. Sectarians within the SLP (whose grip, we must hope, is more precarious than it looks) would be delighted to see us turn our backs on, and hand them on a plate, the significant constituency of pro-worker, pro-common ownership socialists, which regards Scottish nationalism as an insidious poison dissolving bonds of solidarity between workers on opposite sides of some arbitrary border.

For so long as we maintain neutrality on Scottish independence, these workers can join us and vote for our candidates. If however we drop this neutrality, we will not just be throwing away an invaluable potential base of support, we will be helping to crystallise the present unhappy situation of having not one but two poles of attraction fighting each other for workers disenfranchised by Tony Blair’s post-clause four New Labour. (It goes without saying, I hope, that by “neutrality”, I am not suggesting we do not fight the irrational prejudices of Scottish workers who believe they cannot coexist peacefully, in a single state, with their English counterparts; nor am I arguing that if Scotland does become independent, we should bow down before this, acknowledging it as the “settled will of the people” rather than taking it as a stage on the road to a federal Britain.)

As if capitulation (unconscious though it undoubtedly is) to the present split in the socialist vote was not bad enough, Alan’s proposal, should it become Alliance policy, will almost certainly prove a recipe for splitting our potential vote not just two ways, but three.

Since Socialist Worker supporters are probably just months away from entering electoral politics, this is hardly the time for the Alliance to refine its policies in a manner calculated to rule out their possible affiliation, or that of any other significant anti-capitalist force. This party (by far the largest on the far left) should face up to its responsibilities by playing a key role in pressurising Arthur Scargill to agree to the standing of a single socialist candidate, is in danger of being pushed in an altogether less friendly direction. For a brief period they might be prepared to stand on the sidelines, satisfied with trying to play the part of ‘king maker’ by endorsing our candidates or those of our SLP competitor. Given however that they will be robbed of any influence in the selection of either set of candidates, or of our respective campaigns, this is most unlikely to prove a stable set of affairs. Sooner or later, out of exasperation at our mistakes, or what they perceive to be mistakes, they too will throw their hat into the ring.

There cannot be the slightest doubt that were the Alliance to follow the path proposed by Alan, the SWP will not long resist the temptation to transform the competition for the socialist vote from a two- into a three-horse race. This is turn will kill off, once and for all, the prospect of any of us making the major breakthrough we so badly need.

While a truce might eventually be reached by all three parties, it is impossible to predict in advance just how much time and energy will have been wasted in fruitless and bitter internecine warfare. And even if a truce is reached (and this is by no means a certainty), massive damage will have been inflicted in the interim on the credibility of all of us genuinely fighting for a non-sectarian alternative to all the pro-capitalist parties, north and south of the border.

All SSA members need to think very carefully before we abandon our original project of working for unity between the anti-capitalist left. Socialist Worker’s editor could, incidentally, help us make the right decision by immediately confirming that the SWP will be standing candidates in the not too distant future.

Tom Delargy
Paisley

Dislocated

I want to thank Jack Conrad for his kind words (Letters, February 19), but flattery will get him nowhere in relation to the disputed philosophic issues.

Since Althusser it has not been possible to impose a single, monolithic or authentic reading of the Marxist text. There are no more innocent readings. A text is the site of contradiction and disputed interpretation. Indeed, this is why Jack Conrad disputed my particular reading of John Maclean at the 1997 CPGB summer school. He challenged my apparent imposition of left communist (Bukharinist) themes onto Maclean, with regards to the question of the Scottish workers republic. So how then do we evaluate between two competing views of the text? My own answer would be to suggest that what is principled and explanatory can provide the objective criteria without descending into relativism. Hence Maclean’s call for a Scottish workers’ republic is not a nationalist deviation and instead links with Luxemburg’s perspective that no national question can be resolved outside of proletarian revolution.

The point can be illustrated most forcefully in relation to the Soviet party dispute about socialism in one country. Both Bukharin and Stalin were able to use articles and quotes from Lenin in order to prove he was a supporter of socialism in one country. Bukharin used the article ‘On co-operation’ and Stalin used the 1915 criticism of the slogan for a united states of Europe. Yet the result is a caricatured Lenin, a Lenin dislocated from his standpoint of world proletarian revolution. The point being made here is not that it is necessary to search for the authentic Marx, Lenin, etc, but rather how do we situate them in a manner which facilitates the most principled development of historical materialism and political practice.

Phil Sharpe
Nottingham