07.03.2002

Internationalist gestures, nationalist reality

In his address to the Scottish Socialist Party conference, convenor Tommy Sheridan once again demonstrated his powers of oratory. He delivered a forthright attack on New Labour, and "Blair's neoliberal British state", and spoke of his vision of an independent socialist Scotland, "free from poverty and injustice". Condemning the inequality and irrationality of the present, he spoke of a Scottish republic with absolutely no ties to the discredited monarchist state, of a truly democratic system, which guaranteed an enriched quality of life for every member of the working class. Comrade Sheridan claimed that independence was only a means to an end, however. Knowing how to couch left nationalism in the language of internationalism, he repeatedly referred to the SSP's proclaimed commitment to international socialism and the responsibility we have in offering "the hand of friendship" to Socialist Alliances across Europe and around the world. This was a typically rousing Tommy Sheridan delivery and was, of course, well received by delegates. A minority of SSP comrades are genuinely committed to internationalism rather than the breaking up the historic unity of workers in Britain. But unfortunately there is a tendency amongst them to fragment their forces on the basis of entirely secondary, or even personal, questions. There is also the tendency to conciliate with left nationalism. This has led to the rump of the Republican Communist Network in Scotland falling under the intellectual leadership of Allan Armstrong - a left national communist. He put forward a motion calling for the creation of a broad-based European Socialist Alliance, for example. The successful motion commits the national office-bearers to organise a Europe-wide conference of all socialist parties and alliances in order to join forces in opposing privatisation, public service cuts and increased casualisation of labour, etc. However, unity with socialist forces in England and Wales - ie, in the same capitalist state - is ignored. How can it not be after the RCN (Scotland) majority split along national lines, in effect separating themselves off from the struggle in England and Wales? Are we in favour of left cooperation for its own sake or do we see it as the first step towards organisational unity? If the Scottish Socialist Alliance was transformed into the SSP, why not a European SA party? The more the EU takes the form of a state, the more such a party becomes an objective necessity. Comrade Armstrong, of course, fights against the very idea of a united party to take on the existing United Kingdom state. His commitment to unity at a European level is therefore problematic, to say the least. Delegates had no problem in voting for the motion overwhelmingly. This, of course, is to be welcomed. It is correct to call for democratic rights and working class demands to be met all over Europe, and this position is something which can be built on. A motion from Cathcart branch on Cuba sparked off a passionate and contentious exchange of opinions. It pledged support for the campaign to remove the embargo imposed on Cuba by United States imperialism, but the sting was in the tail: ""¦. we do not believe that Cuba should be called a socialist country until there is democratic workers' control over the workplaces, the economy and the state". Ronnie Stephenson, in moving, pointed to the many examples of human rights violations in Cuba, and highlighted the oppressive nature of the regime which evolved from a national liberation movement. Fidel Castro only imposed 'socialism' on the Cuban people when his government was forced to turn to the Soviet Union. This analysis infuriated many of the Cubanophiles in the ranks of the SSP - and there are many - who obviously see Cuba as a model for an independent Scotland. Peter Murray, SSP transport spokesperson, argued that until we in this country had our own "socialist revolution" we had no right to criticise Cuba. Comrade Sheridan offered his passionate support for the magnificent efforts of the Cuban people in their achievements in medical research, health programmes, education provision and medical aid abroad. All this in the face of aggressive US imperialism. He urged the other speakers to do as he had done and "go to Cuba, talk to the people about how they defend the revolution". Tellingly he admitted, in defence of Castro, that "it will be very difficult to build socialism in one country". Difficult, but not, apparently, impossible. The motion was defeated by 106 votes to 90, demonstrating that many comrades envisage a future for Scotland along similar lines to that of Cuba. The final debate called for "the closest possibly unity of all socialists within Britain", including support for "the creation of a British-wide socialist party". Moving the motion, Sandy McBurney (Workers' Unity) warned of the dangers facing the Scottish people if they chose to break away from workers throughout the rest of the UK: we would be isolated, at the mercy of not only British capital, but European and world capital. Comrade McBurney suggested that even to preserve and improve the living standards of the working class it was necessary first to establish a party that united the working class throughout Britain. Seconding the motion, Sarah McDonald (CPGB) emphasised the strength of a united working class in an all-Britain party and the weakness and vulnerability facing our class if we severed our links with comrades south of the border. Comrade McDonald said it would be a victory for the ruling classes if we did not attempt to build links with the Socialist Alliances in England and Wales, with the aim of establishing a socialist party that united the working classes in Britain. The SSP has a responsibility to help the SA in England and Wales develop and move towards forming a party. The contribution from left nationalist Eddie Truman was unfortunate. He accused comrade McBurney of trying to sneak in his motion and create a new party at half-past four on a Sunday afternoon, as though it was the movers, not the conference arrangements committee, who had organised the order of business. Donald Anderson (Scottish Republican Socialist Movement), also speaking against, ignored the arguments put forward by comrades McBurney and McDonald, concentrating instead on fingering comrade McDonald as a CPGB member. He explained to conference his contempt for the words "Great Britain". Comrade Anderson has an elementary left nationalist problem. He equates the call for an all-Britain party with "unionism", the monarchist state imposed on the working classes, the so-called "union of the crowns". The comrade does not recognise - or pretends not to recognise - that the working class in Scotland shares the same interests as the working class in England and Wales: the destruction of the British state. The motion was lost - not because of the sophisticated arguments put by the opposers, but because the majority of delegates either aspire to a national socialist paradise along Cuban lines or, as in the case of the SWP, opportunistically conciliate to that left nationalism. Ronnie Mejka * Scottish socialists aim for 8 MSPs * Factional alignments and fights * Euro conference * Tokenism wins the day