Letters

LSA and Scotland

I find myself substantially in agreement with most of Jack Conrad's 'Draft theses on May 4 and after' (Weekly Worker April 6). Thesis 16 in particular needs to be debated widely on the left throughout the entire United Kingdom. Clearly the promised LSA conference needs to take a view on it (as it must discuss a democratic mechanism for selecting candidates in forthcoming by-elections, a problem given added urgency due to the death of Bernie Grant).

Stressing the fact that a general election looms on the horizon, Jack calls upon the LSA to "initiate a Socialist Alliance which would include the widest range of socialists who are prepared to fight the Labour Party in the ballot box. Naturally that would include the network headed by Dave Nellist and Dave Church, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Socialist Alliance in Wales ..."

Less than two months ago, members of the Glasgow Marxist Forum tried, unsuccessfully, to have a similar call voted on at the SSP's annual conference. As I warned comrades at the time, this call (had it reached conference) would have fallen on deaf ears. The SSP leaders have demonstrated no appetite for launching such an initiative: quite the contrary. And, alas, the rank and file have not been champing at the bit.

The problem with the GMF initiative was not that it was wrong. The problem was that it failed to differentiate between two different parts of the SSP, both of which have dismissed all talk of the creation of a British socialist party. Firstly there are those intent on safeguarding our exclusively Scottish organisation for reasons of naked patriotism: short of a road-to-Damascus conversion, these 'socialists' are lost to us. There is, however, another group. These (the majority, I believe) have rejected the idea of a British socialist party, thus far, for purely pragmatic reasons. The latter group have believed (with some justification) that there existed no potential membership for such a party south of the border. That premise is now about to be shattered, and it is this that throws up new opportunities.

There exists, for the first time, widespread recognition that the potential for socialist advances in the vitally important electoral arena need not be confined to Scotland. The fact that the SSP leaders were prepared to allow a representative of the LSA to address our conference is extremely significant. More significant still is the fact that Tommy Sheridan is advertised to address an LSA rally! Cynics might interpret these facts as simply a case of the Scottish section of the CWI wasting no opportunity to put the boot into Peter Taaffe. Probably they are more than this. They are, I hope, straws in the wind. Each could be a sign that key sections of the SSP leadership are in a mood to set aside the sectarianism (not particularly well hidden) with which they have previously dealt with the SWP and other, weaker, fragments of the revolutionary left.

What is more, the fact that Dave Nellist has (reputedly) described the LSA as the model for the Socialist Alliances in the future (which it most certainly is) and the fact that SPEW councillor Ian Page is exercising his 'free vote' to defy the sectarianism of his leadership (by endorsing the LSA slate) are yet more indications that the prize of a credible united left alternative to Blairism is on the cards.

If the fragments of the revolutionary left in London (big and small) can shake off any residual sectarianism; if then they can widen, and deepen, local and regional trade union affiliation; and if they can retain the sponsorship of such respected high-profile leftwing media 'celebrities' as Ken Loach and John Pilger, then the class-unity agnostics within the SSP will, in such circumstances, be given the practical demonstration they patently need. These doubting Thomases will then be able to see for themselves that (contrary to the theory sold to them by Alan McCombes) the Scottish people are not inherently more leftwing than the English. Demonstrate this to us, comrades, and any sectarian nationalist wing of the SSP will be left high and dry.

The only significant fragment of the revolutionary left not yet on board the SSP (the SWP) will, not before time, become part of the unity initiatives in Scotland, and sectarian nationalists in our party will, simultaneously, be dealt a mortal blow. The SWP will be forced to take up their responsibilities towards our class. No longer will they be able to carp and criticise the left electoral challenge to the Blairites, and the tartan Blairites, from the sidelines.

The precise mechanism by which the SSP becomes an integral component of the all-UK challenge to the Blairites and the state, and the precise extent of autonomy of socialists in Scotland from the rest of the all-UK organisation, cannot be set down in advance. These are questions that must be left open for negotiation.

There is a thirst for unity amongst very large numbers of working people, masses of potential class warriors that dwarf the 10,000 or so activists presently herded into half a dozen sects. Notwithstanding the poisonous fantasies of the tartan Blairites (and their leftwing fellow travellers inside the SSP), there is an attraction for a class (not nationalist), us-against-them politics. That is why there is an immense responsibility on the LSA in general and the SWP in particular. It is incumbent on you to reach out to those socialists in Scotland who have, for years, refused to grant the Blairites a blank cheque. You have a responsibility to explode the myth that the electoral advances we have made in Scotland were because we are a superior (or more progressive) 'race'. Help the internationalist wing of the SSP prove that our electoral successes are merely because we got down to business first.

The ball is now in your court, comrades. Let us all unite and go forward together.

LSA and Scotland
LSA and Scotland

Interesting times

I thought Jack's theses on post-May 4 were excellent. I look forward to Socialist Alliances in England, Wales and Ireland putting pressure on the SSP and the SWP to federate.

We live in interesting times.

Interesting times
Interesting times

Constructive

The staging of an event such as the joint CPGB-Alliance for Workers' Liberty school is a clear indication that both groups are open to constructive debate and discussion. This is a progressive feature of both organisations. The mood of the meeting was very much one of expressing differences in a constructive way, which is to be welcomed.

The actual differences themselves appeared to consist mainly of ways of working in the current situation. The AWL and the CPGB seem to view each other as 'lopsided'. On one level this is hardly surprising: both after all are not parties. The fact that both groups are cadre-based, though they are at different stages of development, means that both groups are unable to perform all of the tasks demanded of a fully fledged revolutionary party. The issue of size was raised by the CPGB as a reason for their lack of a broader labour movement orientation: this was dismissed by the AWL. It is clearly wrong in my opinion to argue that a group of 20 can operate in the same way as a group of 200. The problem comes when pursuing a single orientation becomes a brake on the growth of an organisation.

Engaging with other group's ideas is an important part of the process of development. It is in fact a sectarian practice to wall off the cadre from the ideas of other groups. The AWL and the CPGB both have an orientation to the rest of the left, the difference appearing to be in the emphasis: for the CPGB it is the main field of work; for the AWL it is not.

The fact that the two sessions produced some overlap illustrated that the differences were mainly of method. The AWL displayed some weaknesses during the session on economism: for example, the contention that Scotland is not an oppressed nation. In an objective sense this is true, but subjectively there has been a growth in a feeling of alienation from Westminster, seeing it as an English institution. This was linked to the fact that despite consistently voting Labour Scottish people got a Tory government.

The left must have something to say on these issues or else the bourgeoisie will continue to subvert what are progressive sentiments for its own ends. This does not mean tailing bourgeois nationalism: it means turning national struggle into class struggle.

The monarchy was also mentioned. Its role as a prop of capitalist reaction has to be recognised, combated and exposed to workers, especially as there is a considerable base of support within the working class for it as an institution.

Economic demands cannot be crudely counterposed to the political. They are parts of a single whole. The comrades in both organisations must realise that if they both continue to counterpose one to the other then they will achieve nothing. The opportunity to shape an organisation capable of combating capitalism on the three fronts - political, ideological and economic - is one that comrades should not miss.

Constructive
Constructive

AWL fusions

I read in the Weekly Worker that the CPGB are having discussions with the AWL about fusion. I sincerely wish you all the best with the attempt.

I was one of the original members of Workers Fight in 1967 and went through the experience of being invited into the IS/SWP as a faction in 1968 and then being expelled from IS/SWP as Workers Fight in 1971. I was on the national committee for the whole period until the split in 1984. We fused with Workers Power and there was a split. We then worked with the Chartist Minority (London Labour Briefing), but they refused fusion. We then fused with the WSL, Thornett's group that came out of the WRP. We were both about the same size, but Thornett's group was not as politically homogeneous as ours. A section of Thornett's group was hostile to the fusion, were constantly sniping and eventually left, led by Pete Flack from Leicester.

Personally I do not think Sean Matgamna had a predatory intention with any of the fusions. However, I do think in retrospect that he had changed his views on a number of issues - Ireland and the nature of the Soviet Union in particular - and he realised he could get nowhere in the group as it was. The positions of the WSL/AWL were changed almost immediately after the expulsions. He started to recruit students and these were used at the conference in 1984 as hand-raisers to expel the remaining members of Thornett's group. I don't think he retained one member from the original Thornett group. He also lost a large percentage of the NC of his own group, either in the Democratic Centralist Faction (DCF) who left after the conference, or people who were loyal but were pissed off by the whole episode.

The DCF was formed from old ICLers and the remaining old WSLers. Actually some of us were further away from Thornett's politics than Matgamna was, but the question of democratic procedures was the key principle. We came to the view that organisational methods are not secondary to political programme, as others on the NC argued: "Sean's a bastard, but his politics are correct". Democracy is not an abstract principle, but the oxygen of the movement. Later we all fused with one of the ex-IMG factions to form Socialist Outlook. If anything they were worse than Matgamna on democracy! Thereby hangs another tale.

AWL fusions
AWL fusions

Internationalist

In pursuit of clarity and openness in revolutionary democratic communist politics, I would like to make some observations. The way in which I wish to see the CPGB developing and the Weekly Worker becoming the instrument of mass communist agitation lead me to the conclusion that what is obviously at stake is much more significant than the political deficit of the collective consciousness of the working class, considering the reactionary nature of present times.

Quotations from and references to political and other scientific literature should be employed only in support of and not as a substitute for an argument. Analysis of the whole of the circumstances in which something was said, written or done is in my view the essence of Marxist methodology and political practice. Hence, knowledge and experience through historical and dialectical materialism.

We have applied thus far the principle 'one state one party', referring to the independent, autonomous political organisations, theory and activity of the working class. I believe that, in parallel with efforts to overcome the real and serious problem of large parts of the revolutionary left falling into the trap of nationalism, we should engage in the process of setting up a Communist Party of the European Union.

Wherever you look, the capitalists have in progress feasibility studies for the political extermination of the international working class. Our proletarian response should be to go quickly onto the offensive. Let us have our own 'feasibility study' for challenging capitalist politics in the next European Union elections with a Communist Party of the European Union, and its local - ie, national - branches in each member state with its own press.

Internationalist
Internationalist

CWI and USA

I read with interest a recent interview you had with Ian Page of the Socialist Party. In it, you refer to the expulsion of Committee for a Workers International members here in the United States, as well as what you consider to be a rightward turn of other groupings who are or were in the CWI. As one of those who was expelled, I would like to comment.

Although there were constant attempts to disguise the fact, the expulsion here was based on political differences. In the early 90s, a wing of the AFL-CIO leadership moved to form a Labor 'Party'. As Marxists here in the US, we had always called for this as an important step in the development of the class struggle. We also understood that this, in and of itself, would not be a panacea.

However, as the LP developed, it became clear that it was just a left cover for the AFL-CIO leadership in their continued determination to link the unions to the Democratic Party. A debate started to open up within Labor Militant (linked with the CWI). The majority faction, along with the CWI leadership, claimed at one and the same time, that we were ultra-left sectarians and that there were no significant political differences, that the debate was purely organisational.

Subsequent events have proven us to be correct and have shown the disgraceful opportunist approach of Labor Militant. In the last five years, there has not been one single candidate put forward by the Labor Party. This has been discussed and debated on-line in a members' e-mail list. Although Labor Militant members are on that list, they have totally failed to participate in the debate. They have a member who is on the national steering committee of the Labor Party, yet this individual in no way whatsoever has ever distinguished himself from the rest of the leadership. Their newspaper, Justice, continually refuses to expose this Labor Party leadership.

Recently there has been a discussion about supporting Democrats. It has been made clear that the dominant wing of the leadership is opposed to running candidates because they in reality support the Democrats. Labor Militant members have not commented on this.

Last May, some 2,000 of my fellow carpenters staged a wildcat strike here in the San Francisco Bay area. This was one of the most important events for organised labour in years as it represented the rank and file taking action against the betrayals of the leadership. Labor Militant members were totally absent from these events and their paper failed to even mention it. Subsequently I was brought up on charges by my international leadership for having helped lead this wildcat. (I am chairman of Working Carpenters for a Stronger Union, the group that helped organise the wildcatting carpenters.) I was expelled from the union for life. This is the first time such a step has been taken in decades, to my knowledge. and is an important event here. Yet Labor Militant has been silent once again.

Of course, there are probably sectarian reasons, since I was one of those expelled by them. However, there is a deeper political reason also: every sector of the AFL-CIO leadership, including that sector that forms the LP leadership, hates and fears any independent action of the rank and file. For Labor Militant to give any support at all to what we did or to my case would cause severe conflicts between them and this same conservative leadership that they are in bed with.

The last point I would like to make is this: we have raised these and similar points both during and since the debate within the CWI. At no time has any of the leaders of the CWI on the local, regional or national level ever responded to these points. They have allowed themselves to be intimidated into a herd-like silence and in so doing they are allowing the representatives of their international to betray the interests of the US working class.

CWI and USA
CWI and USA