18.01.2001

Scottish Socialist Party

ISM leaves CWI

The International Socialist Move ment - formerly Scottish Militant Labour - has finally completed its break with Peter Taaffe's Committee for a Workers' International. On January 14 the ISM conference formalised the situation that had in effect been the reality for almost three years.

Taaffe himself had sanctioned the division of the CWI's British section into two organisational units in the mid-90s. In England and Wales Militant Labour changed its name to the Socialist Party after a somewhat fraught and highly secretive internal debate in 1996-97, while in Scotland the organisation retained the name, Scottish Militant Labour. However, SML's increasingly nationalist orientation and unwillingness to submit to Taffeite diktat served to deepen the divisions, which flared up in a bitter row over the transformation of the Scottish Socialist Alliance into the Scottish Socialist Party in September 1998.

The SP general secretary insisted that SML should remain intact as a "revolutionary Marxist" organisation (that is, a grouping under his control) within the newly formed SSP. Alan McCombes, Tommy Sheridan, etc declined the invitation, preferring to go their own separate way. Although the CWI in Scotland still existed in formal terms in the shape of the ISM (the "Marxist Platform of the SSP" which grouped former Militant members), in practice it had all but ceased to exist. SML was effectively wound up and its paper, Scottish Socialist Voice, became the organ of the broader, more influential SSP.

So last weekend's decision was merely the final act in a long drawn out divorce. All that remains of what was once one of the CWI's most flourishing sections is the small, Dundee-based, pro-Taaffe loyalist minority - about 16 members in all.

Leading SSPer Catriona Grant states: "We, the ISM, will produce a statement on why we came to leave - ie, we were effectively expelled, as the majority comrades were ignored by the international secretariat. They stated that they could only collaborate with the minority faction of the CWI in Scotland. The only reason they did not expel us was because they were not brave enough to expel their Scottish section" (International Socialist discussion list, January 15). Comrade Grant also announces the intention to set up a website "with all the documents, statements, etc, so comrades throughout the world can read for themselves".

The ISM leadership says that the final parting of the ways "follows a protracted, three-year debate centring on the future of the SSP and the role of Marxists in creating new parties of the working class" (International Socialist Online January 15). The ISM was indeed opposed to Taaffe's model of a bureaucratic "small mass workers' party" sect. But in its place it posed a broader organisational form, wholeheartedly embracing nationalism and overt reformism.

In fact nationalism is the specific path that the ISM has chosen on its long march away from the Trotskyite version of internationalism: ie, the international unity of cloned sects. As we reported last week, comrade Grant has welcomed as "a breath of fresh air" polemics written by SSP nationalist extremists against the CPGB and supporters of the Workers Unity tendency (Weekly Worker January 11). These included threats of violence against those who have had the temerity to oppose the SSP's call for an "independent socialist Scotland" - in reality Scottish independence pure and simple - and to campaign for working class organisation on an all-Britain basis.

But this total embrace of Scottish nationalism is not restricted to former members of the CWI. Apart from those around the Workers Unity tendency and a few other notable exceptions, the SSP as a whole is now a million miles away from a principled position on working class unity against the UK state. In its headlong rush towards separatism the SSP views cooperation amongst socialists throughout Britain as purely a question of diplomatic nicety. It is all very well for comrades in Scotland to express solidarity with struggles in England and Wales, but a single organisation to unite and advance them is considered beyond the pale.

In December the Socialist Alliance Liaison Committee unanimously adopted a CPGB motion calling for negotiations with the SSP and Welsh Socialist Alliance with a view to forging a joint general election campaign. This would open up the possibility of a party political broadcast to be relayed to millions across the United Kingdom, thus demonstrating in a powerful way that a viable all-Britain working class movement could be constructed. In addition the motion invited the SSP and WSA to take up seats on the SA Liaison Committee.

However, far from welcoming this initiative, the SSP leadership apparently regards it as a devious Brit plot to subvert its autonomy. In his letter of reply SSP national secretary Allan Green pretends not to understand what is being proposed. He ticks off the SA convenors for 'misusing' the term 'national' - which of course in the eyes of such comrades can only be used in a British context when referring to Scotland, Wales and England, and never Britain itself.

Comrade Green even goes so far as to write: ""¦can I suggest that it might be more productive in future if there is an explicit recognition that our respective organisations operate in different countries and, although we are striving to build stronger links, we are organised separately?"

Although England and Scotland can be described by those who wish to stress divergent nationalist roads as "separate countries", they are obviously part and parcel of the same state. It is ABC for Marxists that we must unite to defeat our common enemy. That is why the principles of the early Third International - to which the SSP leadership formally still adheres - stressed the obligation on communists to organise along the lines of 'one state, one party'. Although we are the most consistent advocates of national self-determination, we favour separation only in the most exceptional circumstances - ie, when objective circumstances effectively preclude working class unity in the same state. In general we are for the largest possible state formations and, reflecting this, the closest possible working class organisational unity.

But the Socialist Alliance is hardly proposing a quick merger. Of all the SA components only the CPGB is at present campaigning for the alliance project to form the basis for the coming together of all socialists in England, Wales and Scotland in a single democratic and centralised party. But we are not so foolish as to be unaware that for the moment we are all "organised separately". And the proposals for a joint campaign are hardly a recipe for the involuntary absorption of the SSP by an English chauvinist monster.

We do not like the fact that for the moment communists and socialists are not organised as a powerful united force to smash the UK state. But we accept that unity must come through consent, through the recognition that only in this way can the cause of the working class be advanced. However, for comrade Green separate organisation ought not only to be recognised as a fact, but should be regarded as a positive virtue. Even separate election broadcasts would be preferable (although there is no facility for an England-only broadcast, as he seems to believe). We have to ask, just what is the purpose of building "stronger links" if, to all intents and purposes, even joint action around an election cannot be countenanced?

True, comrade Green does not rule out "taking forward our cooperation for the general election campaign". But, since he seems to regard the mere suggestion that the SSP be invited to attend meetings of the "Socialist Alliances in England" as an affront to his Scottishness, it is difficult to envisage how this could extend beyond the expression of pious good wishes.

If, for one moment, comrade Green could put aside his nationalist prejudices, then surely he would be able to see that a joint campaign could make us both "stronger than the sum of our parts". Let us examine ways in which both an SSP broadcast in Scotland and a joint UK-wide broadcast could be won. This would almost certainly mean the adoption of a single electoral name across Britain, but would still allow separate and distinct propaganda.

Peter Manson

SSP replys to SA

December 31 2000
To Pete McLaren and John Nicholson,
Joint convenors, Network of Socialist Alliances

Dear comrades

The SSP would like to congratulate the Preston Socialist Alliance for their recent by-election success. The continued growth and development of the Socialist Alliances in England have also encouraged us.

Thank you for your letter of December 11, which asked the SSP to consider an SA Liaison meeting motion on the general election and TV election broadcasts. Given that the SSP has already come to an understanding with the Socialist Alliances in England and the Welsh Socialist Alliance over the general election, I have to say that I found the references to "national" in the motion ambiguous. Consequently, it is not easy to understand exactly what is being proposed and why.

The SSP already operate on a national basis and are preparing, finances permitting, a nation wide electoral challenge. The SSP will qualify for a national TV broadcast in Scotland. The SSP simply could not contemplate not having a national SSP electoral broadcast. As a party, we have developed a strong base of support across the country, a nation wide branch structure, a strong national profile and we have already twice had national TV broadcasts. We would be very surprised if you were asking us not to have an SSP broadcast in favour of a looser UK-wide broadcast.

Perhaps you were thinking about a UK-wide broadcast in addition to a Scottish one? In principle, of course, the SSP would be open to this. However, the broadcasting companies are highly unlikely to be responsive to such an approach. It is very probable that they will simply look at the number of seats being contested in each country - eg, in Scotland the threshold is likely to be 12. It may be more productive for the Socialist Alliances in England to find out what the threshold for a broadcast in will be England (as opposed to the UK as a whole) and start planning accordingly.

You also said that the SSP is invited to send representatives to meetings of the Socialist Alliances in England Liaison Committee. We are not sure what is being asked of the SSP here, and why. The motion again is neither clear nor detailed, but it does refer to a committee to coordinate election campaigns. Is this why the SSP is being invited to the Socialist Alliances in England Liaison Committee?

We appreciate that the Socialist Alliances in England are approaching the SSP in the spirit of developing further cooperation. In this spirit, can I suggest that it might be more productive in future if there is an explicit recognition that our respective organisations operate in different countries and, although we are striving to build stronger links, we are organised separately?

In any event, it might be more productive for office-bearers from our respective organisations, initially, to open discussions on cooperation around the elections rather than one side or another being presented with a set of organisational conclusions before the political dialogue is underway.

We value our links with the Socialist Alliances in England and we look forward to further cooperation and collaboration. Perhaps you could get in touch by phone and we could discuss ways of taking forward our cooperation for the general election campaign.

Yours for socialism

Allan Green
national secretary