09.05.2001

Tommy?s tug of war

Time and time again the national question has proved a powerful force in splitting working class organisations. In Britain the old Militant Tendency, now the Socialist Party, split into separate national organisations. The main left opponents of New Labour, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Socialist Alliance, are now divided on national lines. The Socialist Workers Party is in danger of going down the same road.

As reported in Weekly Worker (April 12), the Republican Communist Network is now also tending towards a split along national lines. History shows we cannot avoid such an eventuality by ignoring or avoiding the national question. This simply stores up the pressure for a bigger bang later. The only chance we have is to pursue a correct policy with utmost vigour.

The central issue that divides the RCN is in the arguments between the federal republicans and the Scottish workers? republicans. A motion and debate had been scheduled on the federal republic. But it was not discussed for the second successive aggregate and held over until October.

There is little doubt that a majority of the RCN are in favour of a federal republic. But we made it clear that the Scottish workers? republicans were free to openly advocate their own views and criticise the federal republic. As we are a network, not a party, they did not have to act in support of a federal republic. Minorities and their democratic rights would be protected. If they did not believe that, they had a responsibility as communists to ?suck it and see?.

The struggle between the federal republicans and the Scottish workers? republicans was fought out over organisational matters. The first was whether we should adopt a democratic constitution. Not surprisingly the Scottish workers? republicans did not want majority decision-making on policies concerned with the national question.

The second issue was an expanded editorial board. A bloc between the Scottish workers? republicans and the CPGB defeated the Revolutionary Democratic Group?s motion for a four-person board. With five seats agreed, a Scottish workers? republican was re-elected with the support of federal republicans. But the RDG secured a seat and the CPGB gained an additional seat. This meant that federal republicans secured four of the five seats.

Whilst the Scottish workers? republicans were losing power, they were clearly not being ousted. Yet in response, there were the signs and signals of a split. Towards the end of the meeting, a bizarre incident took place. Just when the CPGB were making a concession to the Scottish workers? republicans, one of their supporters, Phil Sharpe, stormed out in protest. Even though he was not supported by his allies, this action was the first clear manifestation of a splitting tendency.

This meeting was followed by an RCN (Scotland) meeting where the question of a split was the main item on the agenda. No split took place. A majority were against it. But the position was now clear. The leading advocates of a Scottish workers? republic, the Communist Tendency, were in favour of a split. If that is true, it is simply a matter of the timing and the issue. If at first they don?t succeed, we can expect them to try and try again. They will likely succeed unless they change their policy and their attitude.

The RDG is totally opposed to a split. We are certainly prepared to talk, negotiate and make compromises, as we have shown on a number of occasions. We will not compromise on majority decision-making nor seek to withdraw the motion we sponsored on the federal republic. The interests of the working class are best served by the democratic method.

We cannot stop the CT splitting the RCN. The responsibility for that rests with Allan Armstrong of the CT. However, the nature, extent and timing of the split depends in part on the policy of the CPGB and the RDG. The purpose of this article is to examine the apparent differences between the CPGB and RDG at this time.

Before we can examine this, we need to see the bigger picture. The current and future relations between England and Scotland are reflected in three ideological trends - British nationalism, Scottish nationalism and proletarian internationalism. Each represents differing class interests and perspectives.

British nationalism is the ideology of the ruling class, promoted by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. These parties all promote ?unionism?: that is, national unity under the crown. ?Old Labour? is the ?left wing? of British nationalism. Economistic Marxism, which ignores the national question, is implicitly unionist, without even realising it.

Whilst the SNP is the vanguard of Scottish nationalism, the SSP now provides nationalism with a left wing. At the core of left nationalism is Tommy Sheridan?s International Socialist Movement (ISM). They have now adopted the Scottish workers? republic in all but name. This slogan is supported by the overtly nationalist Scottish Republican Socialist Movement (SRSM) and the CT.

The ?third camp? is working class internationalism. The internationalists are fighting for the political unity of the English and Scottish working class. This means vigorously opposing all forms of nationalist ideology, with revolutionary democratic ideas and policies. In pursuing this aim, we do not crudely equate British nationalism with Scottish nationalism. The latter reflects a popular democratic impulse. The policy that most clearly and correctly concretises working class internationalism is the demand for a voluntary federal republic with guaranteed constitutional rights to separation.

The RCN has a majority of federal republicans. Yet within and around our ranks, we have the Workers? Unity platform of the SSP and the CT. One stands for British unionism and the other for Scottish independence. They are the mirror image of each other. They are a testament to the strength of British and Scottish nationalist ideas in the working class movement.

Unionism and separatism carry little weight among genuine communists. So they appear in our ranks, disguised by the slogan for a workers? republic. Whilst all communists are in favour of a workers? republic, we are strongly hostile to any misuse of this slogan, for left posturing, left sectarianism and misleading the working class.

RCN internationalists must have a consistent policy towards the CT and the Workers? Unity platform. Should we fight to bring them in, or keep them in, the RCN? Or should we try to drive them out? Here there seems to be a difference between the RDG and the CPGB. The RDG wants both groups in the RCN. We are for the maximum principled unity and against unprincipled splits. The official position of the CPGB is much less clear and needs to be clarified.

Certainly some CPGB comrades seem to have a macho view of the situation. The CPGB are ?hard? and therefore want the CT to clear off. The RDG are ?soft? conciliators, because we want the CT to remain on board. This is the only interpretation of the suggestion of comrades John Bridge and Sarah McDonald in the Weekly Worker (April 19) that there are ?conciliators? in the RCN (England).

It is too crude to simply characterise the RDG as fighting to keep the CT in the RCN, and the CPGB fighting to get them out. The truth is more complex and contradictory than that. Nevertheless this caricature is a useful starting point to draw out the contradictions.

Let us consider the RDG view of the contradictory position of the CT. They ?belong? in a united front with the ISM and the SRSM opposing the RCN internationalist majority. But in fact they are ?in? a bloc with us in the RCN. Political and ideological logic suggests they should leave the RCN and align themselves with the ?Scottish workers? republican bloc?.

Two images spring to mind. First is the picture of Tommy Sheridan running off with a little Allan Armstrong under his arm. We are standing at the door of the RCN waving goodbye with our white handkerchiefs, and shedding an appropriate number of crocodile tears. Why not let the ISM steal the CT and split the RCN? Do we really want to see the ISM dancing with joy around the funeral pyre of the RCN? When the internationalists split along national lines, who will gain from that?

My second image is of Tommy Sheridan holding Allan Armstrong by the arms and pulling in one direction, whilst the RDG is pulling in the opposite direction hanging onto his legs. It is a tug of war. Will Allan shake himself free from Tommy? Will Allan split down the middle? Will we be dragged by Tommy? superior strength onto the side of nationalism? Perhaps. But fortunately we are anchored to the rock of the federal republic and through that to internationalism and the working class.

Our fight is primarily with the ISM and its allies. The current issue is whether the CT realigns itself with its natural ISM allies or remains within the RCN. We have to contest this every inch of the way. This means that at present the fight with the ISM is primarily inside the RCN. In effect we are on the defensive, fighting in our own backyard. In truth we are unable to fight nationalism effectively inside the SSP. But we can defeat the ISM, if we recognise the proxy war inside the RCN.

We can win if we adopt the correct tactics. It would be a small but significant victory. The battleground would shift back into the SSP. If we fail to win the arguments, or deploy the wrong tactics the RCN will split. The position of the ISM will be strengthened. So much hangs on this that we cannot afford to make silly mistakes.

The ISM would like to see the RCN burn down. They may be aware that the CT has matches and is attempting to start a fire. They may think the CPGB have turned up with a can of petrol. They might notice that the RDG is trying to get the hose pipe to work. So does water or petrol amount to conciliationism with pyromaniacs?

What constitutes victory and defeat in this battle? Victory for the ISM would be signalled by a split in the RCN along national lines. The biggest victory over the ISM would be persuading Allan Armstrong to come back onto our side. After all he was one of the original federal republicans. Tommy Sheridan would then face a reunited and more purposeful RCN.

If the CT are out for a split, nothing can really stop them. The split will be confined to them. But if the CPGB is openly or covertly pursuing a splitting policy then in truth there is a majority for a split. Inevitably the split will be wider and deeper and more destructive. It would be the fusion and interaction of both sets of splitting policies that would build the funeral pyre that much higher.

We must, however, recognise that there is a second source of a split, in the practical work of the RCN. The RCN (Scotland) is an interventionist organisation. It is seeking to build a republican communist wing of the SSP. The RCN (England) is more of a debating society and has hardly intervened in the Socialist Alliance.

These differences in activity reflect the different pace of development of the working class movement in England and Scotland. The RCN started in Scotland on the basis of practical work in the Scottish Socialist Alliance. The RCN in England was not the product of the SA. It was started for ideological reasons. The RCN (Britain), which might help to understand and unify us, has failed to do this. We are in reality two separate organisations. These differences in practical activity sow the seeds of friction and prepare the ground for a split.

The line of the CPGB is that the RCN (Scotland) should intervene more effectively in the SSP. Recently the CPGB offered some constructive proposals for intervention in Scotland, but offered no proposals for England. The problem with this is that instead of uniting England and Scotland in common activity, it tends to divide us along national lines. This can create resentment in Scotland, if this is perceived as RCN (England) telling RCN (Scotland) what to do, whilst not doing anything itself.

As communists our task is to overcome these differences, by bringing us up to the highest level. It is a concession to nationalism to argue that the RCN (Scotland) should be interventionist and the RCN (England) should simply be a debating society. It would be equivalent to declaring that the national question was a problem in Scotland, but not in England.

Separate perspectives for Scotland and England are a form of separatism. When it comes to activity, the RCN is a separatist organisation. Separation is built in the RCN?s national approach to politics. The CPGB is attacking separatism in theory. But it is promoting a separate perspective in practice.

We must seek to unite the RCN (Scotland) and RCN (England) on the basis of an all-Britain perspective and all-Britain activity. If such a perspective is sound, then we can build a strong and united organisation. If such a perspective is weak or non-existent then we fall back to national sections, separatism and eventually splits.

An anti-splitting or anti-nationalist policy comprises in essence of developing an all-Britain perspective. This is a common perspective carried out on both sides of the border. It must be carried out and adapted to local circumstances by the RCN (Scotland) and RCN (England) on the basis of their own experience.

What should comprise an all-Britain perspective? First, we have to develop an all-Britain Republican Communist journal. Originally the journal was based in Scotland and the editorial team was composed of editors living in Scotland. Now the composition has changed. We have two comrades from England and three from Scotland.

Second, we need a common position on the national question. If we support Scottish independence or a federal republic, we should do so on both sides of the border. Since we cannot get unanimity, we have to decide by majority decision. Nothing can be imposed on republican communists in Scotland or for that matter England. If we do not get a common position both sides of the border, then something is wrong with our internationalism.

Third, we have to campaign and promote republicanism in the SSP and in the SA. Here is an example of how the same perspective of promoting republicanism might be carried out differently in Scotland than in England. In Scotland the question should be whether the SSP should prioritise republicanism or independence. In the SA it is between old Labourism and republicanism.

Fourth, we need all-Britain campaigns. We have just begun discussing the oath of allegiance, which the RCN (Scotland) had already taken up. Perhaps we might develop an all-Britain campaign. We need an all-Britain speakers list so that we can bring Scotland speakers to England and England speakers to Scotland.

Finally, we must promote an all-Britain party. We should argue for discussions and merger talks between the SSP and the SA. The RCN could play a very important role in the fight for unity. But imagine making a case for an all-Britain party when the RCN (Britain) has just split along national lines.

In conclusion the RCN is in reality two separate organisations pulling in different directions. Unless the RCN develops an all-Britain perspective, it is heading for a split along national lines. The ideological dispute with the ISM will deliver the split along these practical divisions. The tactical line of the CPGB is at best unclear and at worst wrong. This is playing into the hands of Tommy Sheridan?s ISM. It is enabling the CT to play an anti-CPGB card.

The RDG is against a split and for an all-Britain perspective. We have to ask the CT and CPGB if they agree with us. Then we will know who the nationalist splitters are.

Dave Craig (RDG)