23.03.2000

Scottish Socialist Party conference

Review and conclusions We print the latest broadside fired by Phil Stott's Dundee faction against the majority CWI group in Scotland led by Alan McCombes, Tommy Sheridan et al. A split appears imminent

This document has been written following the SSP conference that took place on February 26-27 2000. Comrades who have signed this document saw the conference, and specifically the lack of an organised intervention by the International Socialist Movement, as a turning point in the debate we have had in the CWI Scotland over the last nine months. It was also, however, the logic of the fundamentally wrong position the majority of the leadership have taken during the debate about how we organise within the SSP.

During the discussion which led up to the CWI conference on February 6 2000 we repeatedly warned that if the comrades pressed ahead with the attempt to turn our organisation into a loose Marxist grouping it would have serious repercussions for our work within the broad SSP. Sadly these warnings have gone unheeded and the continuing disintegration of our revolutionary organisation is the result.

The EC resolution passed at the CWI conference left open the type of organisation we were trying to build - in other words it could be interpreted in two differing ways: we were either building the type of organisation perceived as necessary by us, or the looser ideological group, as envisaged by the leadership majority. We said at the time that none of the issues under debate had been resolved, including the character of the SSP, its, and our, programme and perspectives for the development of left reformism.

We went further and wrote: "Central to these discussions will be the clarification of the character of the organisation we are building. In our view we still require a cohesive revolutionary organisation based on the principle of democratic centralism ... we expect that these issues will continue to form part of our discussions" (statement from Dundee CWI to February 6 conference). This statement, following the events in and around the recent SSP conference, forms another urgent contribution to this debate.

We have drawn the conclusion that the majority have, by their actions, made it clear that the type of organisation we have argued we need is not on their agenda. We wrote during the debate that, "The discussion we have had so far in this debate has exposed two main trends within the organisation in Scotland. One trend seeks to abandon the building of an independent revolutionary organisation within the SSP ... The other trend stands for the continuation of the building of our revolutionary organisation as a vital prerequisite for the future success of the SSP" (Harvey Duke's reply to Murray Smith and Nicky McKerrell). The implementation of the majority's strategy has had profound consequences for our work in the SSP and, if continued, can only ensure the complete disorientation of our already weakened forces, and will ensure the SSP becomes incapable of facing up to the enormous tasks ahead.

We appeal to the comrades, even now, to reconsider their position and return to the building of the type of organisation that is essential for the success of the socialist revolution in Scotland.

SSP conference

The recent SSP national conference was an important event in the ongoing development of the party and a turning point for the CWI in Scotland. The conference itself was clearly a success for the SSP, with 190 people registering on the Saturday and only slightly fewer on the Sunday. The vast majority of those who attended were SSP members representing ** branches [sic]. This shows the growing factor the SSP has become in Scottish politics. Comrades reported that there are currently 47 branches of the party with 2,000 members. The conference was also attended by representatives of the Left Bloc (Portugal), Red Alliance (Norway), Red/Green Alliance (Denmark), Socialist Party (Ireland), LCR (France), DSP (Australia), CPGB/London Socialist Alliance and the CWI.

The conference was widely covered on television with a major portion of a political current affairs programme on Sunday covering the conference with interviews with Tommy Sheridan and others. The conference was the first following the party's breakthrough at the Scottish elections last May. MSP Tommy Sheridan opened the conference and the conference proper began with a discussion on SSP's economic programme and the plans for a new Scottish service tax to replace the council tax. There were debates on many issues, from the NHS to the environment to internationalism. Conference ran out of time and two key policy papers/amendments on Europe and drugs were remitted.

The debates were, of necessity, very restricted by time and the need for the SSP to come forward with policies on a very wide-ranging number of issues. The SSP policy papers have a very clear socialist content but, as we have explained in previous material, there is no agreement on how this programme would be implemented or even, in practice, if it is necessary to implement the full paper programme of the SSP.

A broad party

The SSP is not a revolutionary party. The interviews in the Scottish Socialist Voice with some of the international visitors brought out their impressions that this was a party that involved people from different traditions. We have described the SSP as a broad party within which the CWI needs to organise as a distinct faction. The conference could have left no one in any doubt that the SSP is indeed a broad socialist party with competing trends and tendencies.

We can go further now and say that there is a significant reformist tendency within the SSP. The support given to the party in the Ayr by-election by former Labour MEPs Alex Smith and Henry McCubbin - who stand on the reformist wing of the socialist movement - adds yet more evidence of the evolution of the SSP as an emerging party in Scotland that embraces significant reformist tendencies already.

The overall programme of the SSP, while clearly an explicit socialist one, is not and cannot be a revolutionary or a transitional programme. On the contrary there is the clear development of growing left reformist trends from a national standpoint. We have dealt with these issues in previous written material, but it is vital that the conclusions are drawn on these issues as rapidly as possible by the CWI in Scotland.

Lack of ISM intervention

There are, in our opinion, a number of dangers facing us at present despite the advances of the SSP as a whole. Not least of these dangers is the continuing atomisation of our forces within the broad party. There was a very limited ISM intervention at the conference. The comrades from Dundee were the only ones who openly sold the journal (30 copies sold; the bookstall also sold an encouraging amount of CWI material). There was no meeting prior to the conference to plan our intervention, or a drive to attract our own members and potential members of the ISM to the fringe meeting. As a result the meeting was only partially successful with around 30 in attendance and one new comrade approaching us to join. Only Frances [Curran] (who spoke at the meeting) and Philip [Stott] attended the meeting from the former CWI executive.

The lack of any organised intervention was seen on the conference floor itself. No one identified themselves as members of the ISM/CWI (this criticism applies to the Dundee comrades as well). Comrades were at certain points voting against each other, in particular during the discussion on the constitution, where a heated debate took place. We do not insist that on all issues the ISM must have a 'line', but unfortunately the position of some comrades is our members should simply decide on the day how to vote. The very concept of democratic centralism has clearly been abandoned. This has been done without any consultation with the members of the CWI in Scotland.

It has been reported to us that Alan [McCombes], in conversation with Mary Ward, a leading member of the Republican Communist Network, said that we do not have democratic centralism in the ISM and this was agreed at our recent conference. This was clearly not the case. Some comrades did question the need for democratic centralism and said it was something that needed further discussion. It was clear after our conference that there were a number of unresolved issues and, while supporting the EC resolution, it was always going to be a question of how it was implemented. The formal abandonment of democratic centralism was not agreed in the resolution, but comrades have to be completely open about their position on this key question which goes to the heart of the type of organisation we are attempting to build.

In our view the ideas inherent in the original 'Marxism in the new millennium' document are in reality currently being implemented: that is, the transformation of the revolutionary organisation into a looser ideological current which will be completely incapable of playing the role that we believe is essential for us within the SSP.

Democratic centralism

Democratic centralism is not just an essential ingredient to ensure a disciplined and effective intervention into the SSP - it is also the best method of ensuring party democracy. Particularly in acting as a check on the leadership. The original papers that were drafted for the SSP conference were written by our leading comrades as individuals. None of them were discussed at any level of our organisation prior to them being presented to the SSP branches as executive papers. There is [sic] real dangers in a situation where our leading members are no longer accountable to the CWI membership in Scotland - even if they are in leading positions in the SSP as well. If this goes unchecked the ideological and political pressures of operating in a broad, non-revolutionary party and the pressures of parliamentary work can affect all of us, including the leadership. Democratic centralism is vital for a serious Marxist force in ensuring a powerful anchor that can act as a counter to these very real dangers.

We propose a discussion on the need for our organisation to stand on the principle of democratic centralism be opened up. We will write material on this question to assist in this. The RCN themselves made a far more high-profile intervention - albeit with an ultra-left programme. We could and should have made a far greater impact than we did at the conference.

If this was only a question of organisation it would not be so serious but, on the contrary, the weakness of the ISM intervention was only a reflection of the way the forces of the CWI have largely become absorbed into the SSP. At the same time our distinct, democratic centralist, revolutionary organisation, to a great extent, no longer exists. This adaptation to the SSP is also being more and more reflected in the political positions we are taking within the broad party.

Ireland

At the meeting of the CWI national committee in January it was agreed, without dissent, to come forward with a resolution on the issues not contained in the SSP draft: in particular a class position on parades - which was sure to be the main issue the ultra-left would push - and related issues. This was done to ensure the CWI position was heard on the floor of conference. A written statement was to be drawn up for distribution at the conference. This was subsequently overturned with no discussion at any level within the CWI.

The comrades from Ireland asked for some amendments to the statement to be considered; again this was dismissed as unnecessary. In the end our comrade who moved and replied to the discussion argued the case contained in the amendments, including on parades, and overwhelmingly carried the day on the conference floor. Without any doubt we could have incorporated the amendments from the comrades in Ireland, which would have improved the statement dramatically, and won that position at the conference. In reality we made an unnecessary concession to an unclear position on the Good Friday agreement and a set of bullet points in the resolution that are at odds to the position argued out by Richie [Venton] at the conference. Alan Green's position - with whom we made a compromise before any discussion in the CWI - is one of illusions in the agreement aka Sinn Féin, with a united Ireland the outcome of the process over a long period of time.

This approach - of a compromise deal behind closed doors - is in stark contrast to the position in 1996 at the Scottish Socialist Alliance special conference on Ireland, where we came forward with a resolution on our position and argued it in front of the membership. Only then did we come to a principled concession with others in the SSA. Given that this was the first time the SSP had discussed Ireland, it was even more important to clearly differentiate ourselves from other ideas - not just verbally, but also through resolutions/amendments.

In the end the comrades from Ireland had to bring a written statement and distribute it themselves. If that were not bad enough, there was opposition from Frances [Curran] to Peter Hadden even speaking on Ireland at our own fringe meeting in case the RCN were there. In truth our position on the North is one of the most attractive for people looking for answers to the sectarian nightmare of politics in Ireland.

This is not simply an isolated point. In our view it represents a tendency that is resulting in us adapting our distinct Marxist programme to the broad SSP: ie, a non-revolutionary party. It is evident on a number of other issues as well.

Cuba

The resolution passed by conference correctly called for the defence of Cuba from the embargo by US imperialism, but it also described Cuba as a socialist country. This is not the position of the CWI, who describe the Cuban regime as a deformed workers' state. Socialism, as we know, would require an international overturn of capitalism in at least a significant number of countries in the advanced capitalist world for socialism to begin to take root. Prior to that, at best a workers' state could be established: a transitional state that would require the victory of the international revolution to allow the transition to socialism to take place. This applies to Scotland today as much as Cuba in 1956 [1959].

A healthy workers' state would be based on workers' democracy - the democratic ownership and control of industry, finance and land by the working class as a whole through elected committees or modern-day 'soviets'. Participation in these committees would be based on the immediate right of recall, rotation of positions and the principle of workers' representatives on a workers' wage.

The Cuban regime does not stand on that basis. There is limited genuine participation in the running of society by the workers and peasants of Cuba and no participation in the running of the state itself - in that sense Cuba has nothing in common with genuine workers' democracy: ie, control and management of the economy and the state.

That does not mean we do not defend Cuba against the imperialist blockade of the US, or salute the tremendous advances made since the revolution in health, education, literacy, etc. We do argue that to safeguard these gains, and prevent the re-introduction of the capitalist market in Cuba, what is needed is the implementation of workers' and peasants' democracy and the spreading of the revolution internationally.

The representative of the Cuban government avoided mentioning the economic blockade of his country by US imperialism; he did not call for the international revolution. There are bound to be different attitudes to the Cuban regime within the SSP. However, it was not acceptable that our comrade who moved the resolution said it was unimportant how we characterise Cuba and that it should be supported uncritically. And that perhaps Cuba was not a democratic or pluralist society, but maybe people in Cuba did not want free trade unions, etc.

There were comrades who took up the ban on free trade unions and the persecution of gays and the treatment of AIDS sufferers within Cuba - this was to be applauded - but none of our comrades dealt with the character of the Cuban state or called for workers' democracy and genuine socialism. It is essential that we explain some of these points within the SSP to clarify the tasks facing the working class both in Cuba and internationally. Depending on how events unfold in Cuba - whether the capitalist market is re-introduced or a deformed workers' state is maintained - a new revolution is essential to put the working class and the poor peasants into power to lay the basis for genuine socialism in Cuba.

Economy

Although the amendments from Dundee were accepted there is a clear need to have a discussion on where we stand on the economy, globalisation and the perspectives for a socialist Scotland. In the original document on the Scottish economy there were some formulations that raise serious questions for discussion. This is doubly the case, given the book that is currently being written on Scotland and socialism. We would ask for a discussion on the material in the book be opened up in the ISM to seek clarification on what is being proposed in the book itself.

The original draft of the economy statement called for "a sweeping redistribution of wealth from the rich to the working class and the poor through the wholesale re-organisation of the taxation system and the welfare state". At the CWI NC in January comrades from Dundee made the point that is was impossible to carry through "sweeping redistribution" without the expropriation of the capitalist class itself. This was accepted and the term "through social ownership" was added in. But are we in danger of falling into the same trap over the Scottish service tax and sowing reformist illusions through the SSP's economic programme?

The new Scottish service tax is proposed by the SSP to replace the council tax. It would levy a higher level of local taxation on the richest in Scotland, and would represent a redistribution of wealth to a limited extent. It is a progressive change to the taxation system and would be welcomed, given that the parliament has only limited fiscal powers - no control over corporation tax or the higher rate of income tax, etc. The material in the Scottish Socialist Voice No24 does, however, contain some material that, to put it bluntly, is not a Marxist position on what is a wealth tax by another name: statements like, "This proposal would go to the heart of social inequality in Scotland" (front page); and "This represents the biggest redistribution of wealth since World War II" (Tommy's column). Both these claims are exaggerated, even if you take into account the need to announce this proposal with a fanfare.

The Scottish service tax would not benefit the unemployed, single parents or pensioners on state benefits, as they are exempt from council tax anyway (although exemption would be automatic rather than having to apply for it first). The biggest gainers would be low paid workers who currently pay full council tax and on the whole would benefit by up to around œ15 a week maximum. Middle class families would in most cases be worse off under the figures as they currently stand.

In general we would not oppose such a tax reform but it would largely be ineffective in combating poverty and social deprivation. It is incomparable to the transfer of wealth to the social wage of the working class throughout the 60s and 70s through the NHS, the modern welfare state and free education - which of course were based on the long gone post-war boom. Even this demand will be fiercely resisted by the political establishment, who will not want the idea of even limited wealth redistribution to become something the parliament gets an appetite for. Even if introduced, the rich elite would attempt to sabotage the collection of such a tax by disguising their income and even moving residences across the border. In the 1960s when Harold Wilson proposed a wealth tax on company directors he was met with accusations of being the Lenin of the Labour government and a strike of capital was threatened.

We have always argued that these sort of tax reforms - which in the past were demands of the reformist left - had to be linked to the nationalisation of wealth, the banks, business, etc. These points should be made in the paper when dealing with such a proposal to help to show how even a modest reform like the Scottish service tax would be opposed, sabotaged and undermined by the ruling class as a whole and help point workers and youth in the direction of the idea of the need to overthrow capitalism.

Similarly the points in the economy resolution that announced that a socialist government in Scotland would not nationalise factories that were "branch assembly plants" for foreign multinationals or call centres, etc. Now we have agreed to have more discussion on these issues, but it does raise concerns as to how rapidly the economic programme of the SSP could move in a reformist direction. In a party like the SSP this would be a very likely trend, given its non-revolutionary character - but our role would be to point out the mistaken ideas contained in such material, not help reinforce such illusions ourselves.

International

The SSP has been able to use its breakthrough to begin some tentative discussions with other left formations in Europe. It is correct to do this. The possibility of establishing a socialist alliance in Europe could develop with the opportunity for our comrades through the SSP and the SP in Ireland and other sections of our international to make an impact for the ideas of the CWI. It is vital, as with the SSP, we consider our responsibilities to the dual task: developing broader formations and building the forces of the revolutionary party through such work. Unfortunately, in this case, international tactics are merely a repetition of domestic politics. It is clear to us that the enthusiasm of Frances [Curran] and Murray [Smith], the comrades who were elected as the international officers of the SSP, for the building of a new socialist international is in inverse proportion to their attitude to building the ranks of the CWI.

Both these comrades are entitled to their views expressed in some detail in the document on new workers' parties, presented to the IEC from the Scottish EC majority back in November. But, as with other comrades in the leadership in Scotland, there really is only one tactic: that of developing broad formations in which we act as a loose ideological current. Such an approach is fatal for the revolutionary movement, the consequences of which are unfolding before our eyes here in Scotland.

The comrades (Frances and Murray) organised a meeting of the international visitors on the Sunday. Peter [Taaffe] and Niall [Mulholland] reported that as representatives of the CWI they were not informed and only found out from the comrade from the Left Bloc in Portugal. Only after the meeting had gone on for a period did the comrades come back to tell Peter and Niall of the meeting.

On the Sunday morning, as all the international visitors were addressing the conference, it became clear that the CWI were not on the list to speak. Only a last-minute intervention by a comrade from Dundee ensured that the CWI were allowed to address the conference. It is also noticeable that the SSV is carrying interviews with all the international visitors except those of the CWI.

Comrades might argue these are minor questions, but we think that there is an attitude in Scotland that the CWI is not worth a candle: it is sectarian, undemocratic and a burden on our work in Scotland. We ask the comrades to make clear their attitude to the CWI and the building of our international.

Conclusion

The SSP conference was a very positive, lively event that demonstrated the vitality and potential that exists for this party in Scotland. There are some outstanding individuals in the ranks of the party. Genuine leaders of the working class - from the unions, the youth and the communities. Many of these comrades are outside the ranks of the CWI at present. It is vital we address the question of how to turn our organisation into one that can attract, train and develop a new generation of revolutionaries.

The current situation cannot go on. The more the SSP develops and grows - especially in the current vacuum on the left in Scotland - the more the pressures of reformism will express itself within the SSP and potentially within our own ranks. We appeal to all comrades to re-read the documents produced last year during the debate and consider who gave the most accurate analysis on all the issues we discussed.

We ask the political committee and the membership of the ISM to consider this report with a view to drawing the necessary conclusions and return to a disciplined, cohesive revolutionary organisation and programme, based on democratic centralism, that can help ensure the working class of Scotland has the leadership it deserves.