19.07.2006
Different roads to unity
Should 'one state, one party' be applied to Britain in current political circumstances? Bob Goupillot of the Republican Communist Network (Scotland) and the Scottish Socialist Party argues that the unity of the working class can at present best be served by a separate party for Scotland
I would like to reply to some of the points made by Jack Conrad in the article, 'Unity and the SSP' (Weekly Worker June 22) and in the letter from comrade Bob Davies (Weekly Worker July 6). I do this as part of a genuine attempt to explain some of the positions held by myself as a committed Marxist.
Jack's last response to me took the form of six points which included the following:
l "'One party, one state' is not an absolute principle "¦ Nevertheless, 'one party, one state' is a general approach for Marxists. The exceptions prove the rule. You cite Ireland. But Ireland, as you will readily acknowledge, was/is an oppressed nation with a powerful and dominating national movement. Scotland was/is an integral part of the British imperialist project."
l "Marx moved a motion on 'one state, one party' at the last congress of the First International. And that principle was "¦ taken up by the Second and Third Internationals."
Firstly, Jack's unreferenced implication that the International Working Men's Association/First International based itself on the principle of 'one state, one party' (with the Irish section being the exception which proves the rule) is contradicted by the actual rules of the IWMA/First International. It is always country (nation), not state, which is referred to and nowhere in the rules are countries (or nations) equated with states. The UK is a multinational state.
For example, the rules state that the IMWA "is established to afford a central medium of communication between workingmen's societies existing in different countries". The general council was to consist of workers from "all the different countries" represented in the IMWA and was declared to be "the international agency between the different national and local groups of the association". There were several non-state and non-national sections of the First International: eg, the Jura Federation (French-speaking Switzerland).
The rules also declared: "The members of the International Association shall use their utmost efforts to combine the disconnected workingmen's societies of their respective countries into national bodies, represented by central national organs" (my emphasis; SK Padover [ed] Karl Marx on the First International New York 1973, pp14-15).
The following quote gives a good idea of Marx's and Engels's understanding of the need for separate national (not state) sections. It was made at the 1872 meeting of the First International general council, when citizen Hales tried to bring the Irish sections of the international under the control of the London Federal Council.
In reply Engels stated: "The position of Ireland with regard to England was not that of an equal, but that of Poland with regard to Russia ... What would be said if the council called upon Polish sections to acknowledge the supremacy of a council sitting in Petersburg, or upon Prussian Polish, North Schleswig [Danish] and Alsatian sections to submit to a Federal Council in Berlin ... that was not internationalism, but simply preaching to them submission to the yoke ... and attempting to justify and perpetuate the dominion of the conqueror under the cloak of internationalism. It was sanctioning the belief, only too common amongst English [British] working men, that they were superior beings compared to the Irish, and as much an aristocracy as the mean whites of the slave states considered themselves to be with regard to the negroes.
"In a case like the Irish, true internationalism must necessarily be based upon a distinctly national organisation: the Irish, as well as other oppressed nationalities, could enter the Association [ie, the IWMA] only as equals with members of the conquering nation, and under protest at the conquest" (F Engels, 'Relations between the Irish sections and the British Federal Council' in Ireland and the Irish question Moscow 1978).
The above goes some way to removing Jacks' shield of Marxist orthodoxy so that we can debate more usefully and concretely about the correct strategy for socialists in dealing with the UK state.
When Jack writes, "We are interested in the most effective unity of the working class. We are interested in the unity of the working class on an international scale, but specifically, in the first instance, against our 'own' ruling class", I can say that I wholeheartedly agree with the principle, but at this place and time in history can envisage a different solution other than of a unitary, UK-wide party.
He concludes his second point with: "Politics moves according to a common rhythm within particular states - the working class needs to respond as one. Eg, general elections, wars, interest rates. Hence the principle of 'one party, one state'."
I would like to suggest that, largely due to Scotland's very different experience of the poll tax, the depth of organisation against it, extending to community and even street level, over a number of years which in turn created a left that was used to working together, that Scottish politics since, have moved to a different rhythm to that of the rest of Britain. The same process eventually created a layer of leaders outside the Labour Party-trade union bloc that possessed real credibility with the most advanced sections of the working class. The most well known example being, of course, Tommy Sheridan, but there were many local 'Tommy equivalents', male and female. The poll tax struggle also led to a rise in national consciousness, which among other things raised issues around democracy and self-determination.
Thus in Scotland there appeared the opportunity to unite the left in one organisation with an experienced, credible and self-confident leadership. Diluting this positive force in what from the outside appeared to be a fractured, sectarian left down south did not seem very appealing. Unity was made even less appealing by the failure of any serious grouping down south to take the debate around independence/self-determination for Scotland seriously. In this context the Scottish Socialist Alliance was launched.
To those who say that the bulk of the SSA/SSP have not put sufficient effort into strengthening links with the left in England, Wales and Ireland, I would agree. This is a product of an element of nationalism within the party and the ill-informed hostility towards the SSP emanating from the majority of the English left. The attitude being that if you will not join a British/UK-wide organisation, for whatever reason, you are, de facto, nationalists - end of debate (the people around Socialist Resistance seem to be an exception to this). Of course, there was and still remains the question, 'With whom are we to unite?'
Jack goes on to say: "3. There is nothing within Britain at the present moment that leads me to conclude that Scotland has become an oppressed nation and that antagonisms between English-Welsh workers and Scottish workers have become so intense that trade union, party, etc unity is impossible ..."
In his letter, comrade Bob Davies casts some doubt on the absoluteness of this position by quoting Jack against himself: "Neither Scotland nor Wales have the right to self-determination. There is no provision for independence in the constitution. In that sense Scotland and Wales are oppressed" (Weekly Worker May 20 1999).
Other senses in which Scotland is/has been oppressed are, I would say:
l The 1707 forced union between Scotland and England/Wales, which led to rioting in the streets of Edinburgh.
l The historical suppression and devaluation of the Scots and Gaelic languages and culture.
l The existence of a Scottish office and secretary of state for Scotland, which smacks of colonialism.
l The rigged devolution referendum in 1979.
l The misinformation campaign initiated by the British state and echoed by the Labour party concerning the economic viability of an independent Scotland during the oil boom.
l The imposition of the poll tax in Scotland one year ahead of the rest of Britain.
A section of the population, including a large portion of the working class, feel forcibly subsumed under English/Britishness and such negative feelings are reinforced, almost daily, by media references to Britain, when they actually mean England and/or Wales and to 'the nation' or 'national' when they are really referring to the UK state. This last point might appear trivial but, believe me, after a while it really gets on your nerves (and I'm English).
Of course none of the above proves decisively that Scotland is an oppressed nation. What it does show, however, is that there are serious issues felt by Scottish workers, as Scots, that need to be addressed. Dubbing those who wish to take these issues seriously as merely nationalist and trivialising their feelings around their personal identity does not aid the cause of international workers' unity.
This leads me, briefly, on to Jack's next point, where he writes: "4.Things are decided by struggle and politics. Lenin and Luxemburg - correctly in my opinion - came to oppose the Marx-Engels line on kingdom Poland: ie, for independence. Despite Poland still being an oppressed nation they favoured working class unity in the tsarist empire and fought against Joseph Pilsudski's Polish Socialist Party. This was possible not least because Russian workers opposed tsarism and stood by the principle of self-determination. Proven beyond doubt by their splendid militancy in 1905."
Can I just say that the Bolsheviks might have found it much easier to undermine Pilsudski's influence amongst workers if they had taken the Polish desire for independence more seriously instead of paying it lip service under the cover of 'supporting their right to self-determination': ie, if they had adhered to the Marx-Engels line.
This leads me on to Jack's next point: "5. That is why the CPGB stresses the necessity of workers in England/Wales taking up the Scottish national question. We do not leave it up to the Scots but champion their right to self-determination. Something that could be realised in a federal republic - which would represent a higher - ie, more democratic - form of unity "¦ Our federal republic is no less and no more concrete than the SSP's independent Scotland. Both are strategic goals."
As I say above, I agree that insufficient links have been made with the left in England, Wales and Ireland by the SSP, although quite strong links have been built with socialist organisations on the European mainland and Australia, Venezuela and Pakistan. In my experience the CPGB only champions the Scots' right to self-determination to the extent that they exercise it in favour of participating in a federal or unitary UK or British state. Any other expression of self-determination - ie, independence or confederation - you attack as 'nationalist'. In other words you 'champion' the Scottish right to self-determination as long as they express it in a way of which you approve. Some 'champions'; some 'self-determination'.
This brings me to Jack's sixth and final point: "6. Your idea that every nation must first be independent before there can be unity is clearly nationalist."
This is similar to the point made by Bob Davies in his letter, where he begins by quoting me: "In order for there to be a voluntary union the constituent nations must first experience real autonomy/independence, organise some sort of democratic and representative constituent assembly and then vote for union. This logically presupposes a period of independence of unknown length."
Comrade Davies responds: "If Scottish and Welsh parliaments won the right for self-determination then I agree that the choice for independence is possible. That, however, does not presuppose independence. Why on earth must the Welsh and the Scots have to have their respective independent states in order to exercise their self-determination?"
I feel that I have not made myself clear over this point. What I am meaning in the statement quoted above is that if the citizens of Scotland won the right to self-determination and had the power to enforce it through some genuine, democratically constituted assembly/parliament then that would have de facto achieved independence. If they then chose to exercise that right to self-determination in favour of a political union with England or anyone else then that period of independence would be short-lived. This is not merely a point of logic. It has, in my opinion, to be taken seriously if 'Scottish self-determination' is to be meaningfully expressed. Whatever the outcome, independence or unity, something like the above process cannot be avoided.
To finish, I would like to say that I agree with the following taken from an email that I received from Bob Davies in response to the ongoing debate: "Indeed, Lenin's writing on the national question (and proletarian internationalism) called for the need for a concrete historical analysis of the national question in different countries at different times. That's the important point, as you point out. But Marxists would generally argue for a centralised state and, as the CPGB's programme says, we 'do not want to see countries broken up into small nations'. I trust you agree, so we must look at the specifics of the British state and its various nations in the concrete with which to decide our present tactics."
In the spirit of looking "at the specifics of the British state and its various nations in the concrete with which to decide our present tactics" I am appealing to comrades to consider:
l Scotland's history and culture is not just that of 'north Britain'; that, whilst it has much in common with the rest of the UK and indeed Ireland, the differences as well as the similarities need to be taken into consideration. They should certainly not just be dismissed in a process of Anglo-centric abstraction.
l That, whilst being on a different scale to the Irish, Scots have experienced elements of national oppression which need to be acknowledged by others and overcome.
l That in recent history, primarily due to the poll tax, politics in Scotland have moved to a different rhythm to that in England or Wales. This has produced a different (higher?) organisational response from the left in Scotland to that currently existing in England and Wales. I and others wish that our success in unifying the left in Scotland might give hope and inspiration to others and that if we are successful in our enterprise that our spark might light a prairie fire. This was the hope of Connolly in 1916 and Lenin the following year. Comrades down south must take some responsibility for putting their own house in order. Comrades in Scotland would like to help (not that we have our own troubles to seek at the present).
l That, at this place and time in history we can explore different forms of unity against the UK state, other than a unitary British or UK party, perhaps as fraternal national parties.
I would welcome open-minded, comradely debate and constructive criticism around these issues.