Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join 

The Scottish debate

Scotland, France and the International

The Programme, The Party And The International

A Reply To Murray Smith (France), From The International Secretariat (...continued)

[Back] [Next]

What type of Scottish Socialist Party? The Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's original proposal for a Scottish Socialist Party

66. The debate developed rapidly between March and September but it is still necessary to remember what the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee originally were proposing in Initial Proposals (IP). As Frances Curran's 27 March letter (published in British MB 28) explains, "Initial Proposals" was a document, written on 6 March, which the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee was submitting to the 28/29 March Scottish Militant Labour Conference. Originally the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's timetable allowed only three weeks pre-Conference discussion for their document to be considered by the membership.

67. This Conference document argues for the creation of a "merged Scottish Socialist Party" (paragraph 1). It explains "we are proposing that, provided we can reach agreement with other forces, the apparatus of Scottish Militant Labour, including our paper, our finances, our membership, our premises and or full time staff would be transferred to a new Scottish Socialist Party... It is not possible to gauge at this stage whether or not it will be necessary to retain a separate Scottish Militant Labour structure, at least as a transitional arrangement. That would depend upon the degree of political and organisational cohesion that could be achieved ". (paragraph 22). "It may be desirable to retain an organised structure" (paragraph 24), "that is one possible variant; another is to throw everything into the new party", (paragraph 25).

68. For Murray Smith to write in paragraph 5 of his document, that the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's March Conference document treats the question of the Committee for a Workers' International "rather superficially" is a gross understatement. As the above quotations show the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee were not only putting their organised relationship with the Committee for a Workers' International into question, but raising the possibility of not having an organised Marxist tendency within a "new broad socialist party" (IP, paragraph 19). If this last "variant" had been implemented it would have meant the Committee for a Workers' International organisation, the Scottish Militant Labour, handing over its "apparatus" and dissolving into a "broad socialist party".

69. Originally Murray Smith opposed "Initial Proposals". At the 16 March meeting between Scottish Militant Labour leaders and representatives of some European Committee for a Workers' International sections Murray Smith stated that it should be given a "decent burial". But, as far as we know, "Initial Proposals" was not put out of its misery at any time during this debate.

70. Apart from an alteration to paragraph 20, the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee has not withdrawn this document. While in subsequent material the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee has argued different positions, it is not clear whether or not this original Conference document still stands as an expression of the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's opinion.

71. Certainly it is clear that only the energetic intervention of the British Executive Committee and International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International prevented the adoption of "Initial Proposals" by the March Scottish Militant Labour Conference. The limited strengthening of the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's political position and the abandonment of the idea of throwing "everything into the new party" (paragraph 25) is directly the result of the debate.

Scottish Militant Labour's Scottish Socialist Party and Scargill's Scottish Labour Party

72. Murray Smith's use of a quotation from the December 1995 issue of Socialism Today discussing Scargill's launch of the Socialist Labour Party is irrelevant to the discussion on the Scottish Militant Labour's Executive Committee proposals.

73. This is because the British section, then called Militant Labour, was approaching the forces around Scargill to discuss the basis for a new, broad socialist party. This is something totally different from what the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee have been proposing.

74. Originally the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee explained that "we would like to approach for discussions about the formation of a new socialist party ... the Communist Party of Scotland, the Socialist Labour Party, the Communist Party of Britain, the Socialist Workers Party; and socialists within the Labour Party, the Scottish National Party and the Green Party" (IP paragraph 1). However it soon became clear that none of these, sometimes very small, groupings would join the planned new party. In reality only a small number of non Committee for a Workers' International members would be initially involved in the new party proposed by the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee and, probably at first, Committee for a Workers' International members would be in a majority in this party.

75. Naturally there would be a completely different approach towards the Scottish Labour Party launched by Scargill and others, and a party which, fundamentally, we ourselves would be founding. However there is an important lesson to be remembered from Militant Labour's attitude to the Scottish Labour Party, namely that the British comrades were not proposing either "enter" the Scottish Labour Party or to wind up their organisation in order to join the Scottish Labour Party as individuals. "Socialism Today" in December 1995 called for the Scottish Labour Party to adopt a similar approach to that taken by the PRC in Italy and IU in Spain, allowing "the right of different political trends and organisations ... to participate within a party framework". This was not only to allow ML to participate but, also to create an attractive force.

76. In February 1996 Socialism Today drew a balance sheet of Scargill's narrow conception of the Scottish Labour Party. The editorial explained: "we strongly support the idea of a new, broadly based socialist party - and we will continue to work for this. But there is no question of us abandoning Militant Labour as an independent organisation. We are very willing to work with other socialist organisations and radical campaigns. We are ready to participate in a broad, democratic socialist party on the basis of a mutually agreed platform. We would participate in an electoral alliance on a broad socialist platform. But we are not willing to abandon our political identity - our coherent ideological tradition, our capacity to struggle, and our authority amongst workers".

77. This was not the same as the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's first proposals and, despite the changes which have been made since, our fear remains that in practice the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's plans would mean the Committee for a Workers' International comrades losing their political identity and organisational cohesion within a broad formation.

"Broad forces" and "Broad appeals"

78. Significantly, Murray Smith rejects the British Executive Committee's Option 2 because "it is predicated on the existence of broad forces that no one including the British Executive Committee pretends exist at this stage" (paragraph 13). This point is indeed an essential difference between the possibilities that existed around the' 1995 launch of the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's plans now.

79. However paragraph 13's claim of non-existence of "broad forces" today seems to be contradicted in paragraph 11 of Murray Smith's document. There Murray Smith sympathetically writes that the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee "explain that there is a political constituency for such a party... (and) argue that this party has to have as broad appeal as possible and that therefore it should comprise the forces of the Alliance and indeed wider forces which would respond positively to the project and could come from the Labour Party, the unions and the Scottish National Party".

80. The Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee itself, in "For a Bold Step Forward", argued that "a serious possibility is now presented of creating a sizeable socialist party in Scotland with significant forces, some trade union links, a clear revolutionary programme and outstanding electoral potential" ( paragraph 108 ). It is not clear how a party with "significant forces" and "outstanding electoral potential" can be created "now" if, as Murray Smith wrote in his paragraph 13, "broad forces" do not currently exist ?

81. Unfortunately the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee are, as the British Executive Committee point out in "In Defence of the Revolutionary Party" exaggerating both the objective situation and the character of the Scottish Socialist Alliance's programme. If there was currently the possibility of creating in Scotland a "sizeable socialist party ... with a revolutionary programme" then some of the issues in this debate would be posed differently.

82. Naturally Marxists approach other forces for joint work, whether in united front style campaigns or in building a broad socialist party, if it is demanded by the concrete situation that exists. This is what the British comrades attempted to do with Scargill around the Scottish Labour Party launch in 1995. Scargill, because of his position in the British labour movement, could have mobilised a wide layer towards the Scottish Labour Party if an open and inclusive approach had been developed. But in Scotland currently there are no such significant, or potentially significant forces to work in a broad party like those Scargill could have attracted to the Scottish Labour Party at the time of its launch.

83. Apparently Murray Smith's proposal is fundamentally for the comrades themselves (and a few other individuals) to form a party that would then try to recruit other forces. This recruitment would be on the basis of a "broad appeal as possible", the exact character of which is unclear.

84. In order to launch this party with as "broad appeal as possible" Murray Smith argues against the Committee for a Workers' International "starving the new party of the subs of some of its most active members and keeping a large part of its potential full-time team for the Committee for a Workers' International tendency" (paragraph 56). What as "broad appeal as possible" means for the day to day political work is not spelt out by Murray Smith. Nor does he even try to justify the need for a "broad appeal as possible" when, according to the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's "For a Bold Step Forward" the Scottish Militant Labour has already "established our programme as the programme of the emerging left in Scotland" (paragraph 55).

85. Murray Smith's material is a mass of contradictions. The underlying idea seems to be that the Scottish Militant Labour should sink most of its resources and work into launching a "broad party" today, in order to gain wider support sometime in the future. There is no explanation why the Scottish Militant Labour cannot work today to build its own revolutionary organisation (i.e. the SP Executive Committee's option 1) while maintaining united front style alliances with others. When the situation changes or new forces begin to develop we could adopt the necessary changes in our tactics.

86. An organisation's strength can be judged either in terms of programme or support, but according to Murray Smith himself the Scottish Militant Labour's proposed Scottish Socialist Party would at first neither have a Marxist programme or large scale support.

87. The aim of the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's proposed Scottish Socialist Party would be to attract new forces in the future. But, even if we accept this idea, it still leaves unanswered the question - how would the struggle against left reformist and centrist ideas and practices be actually waged inside such a party? In paragraph 31 Murray Smith correctly writes about the key role of a "solid Marxist core of our comrades", but the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's current proposals for the running of the Committee for a Workers' International section fall far short of that.

88. Murray Smith does not deal with the possible political effect on Committee for a Workers' International members of working for a period to build a party with as "broad appeal as possible", i.e. left reformist or centrist, when the Marxists have a loose structure without frequent Marxist meetings or regular journal. How concretely would the pressures towards adaptation to non-Marxist ideas and methods be combated? This pressure is a danger which is present whenever working in either mass movements or other organisations.

89. While trying to strengthen his case Murray Smith actually confuses two issues when he writes that the British Executive Committee and International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International as being "fundamentally opposed to our Scottish comrades creating a party which would not be a section, of the Committee for a Workers' International" (paragraph 46).

90. There would be no objection to creating a broad socialist party if there were genuine forces with which to do it. The British Executive Committee and International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International have raised the crucial issues of the programme of our own comrades and the need for a properly functioning Committee for a Workers' International section irrespective of which tactic is employed.

91. These questions also arise from paragraph 113 where Murray Smith deals with the tactics Lutte Ouvriere should have adopted following their electoral success in 1995. Yes, any new party attracting broad layers would have been "hybrid". However an essential point would have been for the Trotskyists to have remained an organised force within it, and not even consider dissolving their organisation, something the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee contemplated in their March Conference document.

92. Murray Smith may argue that the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee are now, as distinct from in their March Conference document, proposing the maintenance of a Committee for a Workers' International section. This welcome step is a result of the intervention by the British Executive Committee and International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International and subsequent debate, but the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's proposals are still for a loose organisation, with only a quarterly journal of its own.

A Tactic for the Elections?

93. Murray Smith asks the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's opponents "if the comrades are afraid that the Scottish Socialist Party would only be electoralist, on what are their fears based?" (paragraph 17). No one has said that the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee are proposing to restrict political activity only to standing in elections. But the 1999 elections were the driving force in their March Conference document, "Initial Proposals".

94. Murray Smith, in his attempt to argue for the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee, tries to skip over this by writing that in "Initial Proposals" the "project of launching the Scottish Socialist Party seemed to be justified more by conjunctural factors (the coming elections) rather than fundamental reasons" (paragraph 5). This echoes what the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee wrote in "Political Justification" that "the elections in 1999 are a factor an important one at that, but we could live with the alliance (the existing Scottish Socialist Alliance) if that were the only issue at stake. Yet that is not the only or even the most important question" (paragraph 32). Both these are really poor attempts to gloss over what was really being originally proposed.

95. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of "Initial Proposals" make it very clear that the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's plans were motivated by the 1999 elections to the new Scottish Parliament. To remind Murray Smith the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee wrote: "1999 will be a decisive year for the socialist left. Three separate sets of elections will take place in Scotland during the first half of 1999" (paragraph 2),.. "the stakes are sky high: if the socialist left in these elections fails to make a breakthrough, the advance of socialism could be slowed down" (paragraph 3), "important in determining whether socialism can make a breakthrough in 1999 will be the calibre and cohesion of the socialist opposition itself. The specific form of Proportional Representation under which both the Scottish and European elections will be conducted poses sharply the need for socialist unity...under the Additional Member System that will operate in Scotland there is absolutely no room or political justification for two or more socialist parties to stand in opposition to one another", (paragraph 4).

96. There can be no doubt that in this Conference document the 1999 elections were main political reason for the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's proposal to approach five other parties and "socialists within the Labour party, the Scottish National Party and the Green party" for "discussions about the formation of a new socialist party" (paragraph 1).

97. On the same day, 28 March, that the Scottish Militant Labour held the Conference for which Initial Proposals document was written, a leading Scottish newspaper, the Glasgow Herald, published interviews with two Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee members, Frances Curran and Tommy Sheridan, and Allan Green, the non-Scottish Militant Labour member who is Scottish Socialist Alliance/Scottish Socialist Party National Secretary. The article explained that the background to the idea for a broad Scottish Socialist Party was the November 1997 Paisley South by-election. In this election the Scottish Socialist Alliance won 306 votes while a "Scottish Independent Labour" candidate got 155 and the Scottish Labour Party 153 votes. The Labour Party won the seat with 10,346 votes and the Scottish National Party came second with 7,615. The Glasgow Herald wrote that the "Scottish Socialist Alliance believes the lesson from that contest is that a single party of the left is a prerequisite if socialists are to achieve any electoral breakthrough". As far as we know the Scottish Militant Labour comrades have not protested about this article and, when asked, they did not critically comment on it at the European School. Therefore we can assume that it reflected the thinking of the comrades who were interviewed.

98. Marxists have always acknowledged that the electoral field is one of the most difficult to fight on. A correct policy does not always mean a good electoral result. The number of votes is not necessarily the main target. Often we are standing in elections with the aim of sinking deeper roots in an area, widening our periphery and, most importantly, winning new members.

99. The recent surge in support for the Scottish National Party has undoubtedly complicated the situation for the Scottish Militant Labour. This was seen in August in the Fossil council by-election in Glasgow. A massive swing to the Scottish National Party cut the Labour Party's majority from 1400 to 34. Nevertheless the Scottish Socialist Alliance had a good result, coming third with 150 votes, 9.6% of the total. However four years earlier, in 1994, the Scottish Militant Labour won 519 votes (28.2%) in another council by-election in part of the same area. In 1994 the Scottish National Party won 282 votes, compared with 658 this year. This fall in votes mainly reflects the rise of the Scottish National Party. It shows the pressures which the Scottish comrades are under. But it would be a mistake to try to escape from these pressures by watering down our independent political profile in a "broad" party with a "broad appeal".

100. This very brief look at "Initial Proposals" provides an answer to especially Murray Smith's question "on what are their fears based?" (paragraph 17). Murray Smith may argue that the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee, in "Political Justification", especially paragraph 32, have moved away from "Initial Proposals". But the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee have not withdrawn "Initial Proposals" and the 20 June Scottish Socialist Alliance Conference agreed a document, "Time for a Scottish Socialist Party", which said that "there would be a clear advantage for socialists in Scotland to have structures in place by the time of the 1999 elections".

101. In our opinion it is these coming elections, plus the fear of the Scottish Socialist Alliance vote being squeezed between the Scottish National Party and Labour that are the main explanation of the Scottish comrades' haste to implement their plans.

An International Sectarian Turn?

102. From the outset of his critique Murray Smith tries to paint the picture that the debate over the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee's proposals is internationally "between partisans of a conservative and potentially sectarian conception of party-building, which in essence boils down to the linear growth of our own organisations, and those who advocate a more dynamic conception, involving, fusions, regroupments and new parties", (paragraph 7).

103. Later Murray Smith asserts that there has been "a clear retreat by the International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International on the question of fusions, regroupments, new parties and relations with other revolutionary forces". ( paragraph 81). While mentioning this year's European School ("Leuven") in this regard a number of times, Murray Smith does not give any direct indicators from the School itself. This is surprising given that this issue featured in a number of its discussions, particularly the plenary session on Organisation where both the International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International report and reply dealt with both the UIT and regroupment in general.

104. It is clear from the context that Murray Smith is not referring to our activity with new forces or formations developing within the workers' movement. Obviously Murray Smith is particularly concerned with our relations with the UIT, something which is understandable given our French comrades joint work with La Commune, the UIT's French section.

105. Murray Smith poses the question generally that in the Committee for a Workers' International "The problem arises when it is a question of building parties with other forces", (paragraph 82). But this general question itself immediately poses the next questions of which "forces" should we build parties with and what type of parties would we then be building?

106. In paragraph 92 Murray Smith quotes from Cannon's History of American Trotskyism that the Trotskyists "campaigned for the new party. Our great advantage over the other groups - the advantage which assured our hegemony'- was that we knew what we wanted. We had a clearly defined programme and that gave us a certain aggressiveness". (1972 edition, page 116). We will just here note in passing that the Trotskyists had "a clearly defined programme", quite unlike the Scottish Socialist Party's new "Manifesto".

107. But, more fundamentally, as is the case with most of his quotations, Murray Smith does not give the context which Cannon was referring to. In the preceding pages of The History of American Trotskyism (110 to 116, 1972 Edition) to those referred to by Murray Smith, Cannon is describing the situation after Hitler's 1933 victory when the Trotskyists internationally had declared "It is necessary to rebuild the Communist Parties and an International anew". (Writings of Trotsky 1932-33, page 304). At that time there was a radicalisation and the development of a whole series of new political formations in the USA. Cannon lists some of these developments like the growth of membership and radicalism in Socialist Party, the creation of Muste's Conference for Progressive Labor Action, the CP intellectuals in New York who joined the Trotskyists as a group, the split of Benjamin Gitlow from the Lovestoneites etc. etc. This is very different from the "broad" Scottish Socialist Party which is being formed now. As Murray Smith has used this quotation from Cannon he should inform the International where today are we missing similar developments in the workers' movement?

108. Earlier in his document Murray Smith approvingly quoted the British comrades' approach towards Scargill when he launched the Scottish Labour Party, but then he gives no other examples of "building parties with other forces" apart from the planned Scottish Socialist Party and the "realistic perspective" of the Gauche Revolutionnaire fusing with La Commune (paragraph 86). But as we have already shown the Scottish Socialist Party is different, especially given that the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee proposes that the Committee for a Workers' International provides the bulk of the resources, both human and material, to launch this "broad" party.

109. The International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International is opposed to a fusion in France with La Commune because the political basis does not exist for it. There has not been adequate political discussion throughout both organisations on the fundamental and contentious national and international issues. There is not agreement on these questions between Gauche Revolutionnaire and La Commune or between the Committee for a Workers' International and the UIT.

110. The crucial question of international affiliation and the deteriorating relations between the UIT leaders and ourselves because of their wrong methods have not been fully discussed and resolved.

111. There is a big difference between forming a "new broad socialist party" and fusing with another Trotskyist tendency.

The role of the Committee for a Workers' International

112. Murray Smith claims that "Over the last period the whole orientation towards regroupment has been replaced by the insistence on building our own sections" (paragraph 93) and warns against the "current trend towards self-affirmation".

113. Developing his critique Murray Smith writes that "We are told now that the Committee for a Workers' International is not only a revolutionary international but the revolutionary international" (paragraph 93). What does this criticism actually mean? Does Murray Smith think that the Committee for a Workers' International is, in a sectarian way, cutting itself off from either revolutionary or radicalising forces? Does Murray Smith think that the Committee for a Workers' International should present itself simply as one revolutionary current among many?

114. Politically the Committee for a Workers' International has been the only International in the 1990s which has been capable of correctly analysing the new world situation and the consequent tasks for Marxists. This does not mean that there are not genuine revolutionary forces in other tendencies or that we cannot learn from them. However, which other force has emerged from this period with such a clear analysis and conclusions for Trotskyism and the working class? Committee for a Workers' International members have a responsibility to work to win support for our programme and analysis, and also continue to build an organisation to fight for these ideas.

115. During the 1990s we have discussed with the other major international tendencies, namely the LIT, UIT and USFI, as well as other smaller or national groupings. In every case we have found that they did not have a rounded, scientific analysis of the major aspects of the world situation. Leaving aside the USFI, whose majority has effectively abandoned the idea of building a Trotskyist international, both the UIT and LIT have fundamental political weaknesses and do not understand the situation that developed since the collapse of Stalinism. Both have been wrong or extremely one sided on all of the major events that have taken place in the new period that began with the collapse of the former Stalinist regimes.

The Politics of the UIT

116. When we first met the UIT the Committee for a Workers' International enthusiastically began to explore what the prospects were for the unification of our two international organisations. The Committee for a Workers' International stressed from the outset that any unification could only be accomplished successfully if it was carried out on a principled basis. This must involve open and honest discussion about differences of a political, organisational and historical character. International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International members who met the UIT leaders and some of their rank and file reported on their serious, fighting qualities and proletarian composition especially in Latin America.

117. The prospect that we would be part of a unified international with some forces in Spain and an important influence in some Latin America countries enthused many members of our sections. However, this enthusiasm did not result in the International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International ignoring the political disagreements we had, or the need for us to find out more about the UIT's history and its methods.

118. After exploring these discussions with the UIT it is clear that there is not the political basis that would permit the unification of both international organisations. Moreover, it is clear that the leaders of this organisation have conducted themselves in a dishonest manner that has revealed a wrong method.

119. The UIT leaders rather than concretely analysing complicated situations retreat into formulae in order to fit an a priori schema. Concrete political and organisational differences and realities are evaded and glossed over with appeals for joint activity. This method, despite all of the events that have taken place, has resulted in the majority of the UIT still denying that there has been a process of counterrevolution and capitalist restoration in the former USSR!

120. At the September meeting of the French National Committee Murray Smith himself listed some of the political weaknesses and mistakes of the UIT. Murray Smith mentioned:

• the collapse of Stalinism and the UIT's view that capitalism has not been restored in the former USSR.

• the UIT's "very optimistic perspective" that there is currently an international revolutionary situation.

• the UIT's denial of the consequences of the fall of Stalinism on consciousness.

• the UIT's view of the national question, for example in Bosnia.

• the UIT's ignoring of the complications of the situation in Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

121. To these the International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International added other mistakes and wrong positions defended by La Commune and the UIT:

• the characterisation of the current government in France as a Popular Front.

• the characterisation of France as being in a revolutionary situation.

• the estimation of the strike movement in 1995 in France as on a higher level than 1968.

• the call for a "Black Republic" in South Africa.

• every aspect of the crisis that has erupted throughout the Balkans.

122. The International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International asks Murray Smith and the leading comrades in France, who argue that they should proceed towards unification - where and on what political issues do we agree with La Commune and the UIT? The comrades accept that the differences exist and then proceed to brush them aside. Like Doctor Pangloss in Voltaire's novel, Candide, they only "wish for the best in the best of all possible worlds".

123. How will it be possible for the French section to launch a joint paper with the UIT's French section La Commune as the comrades are discussing? The comrades have replied that where there are differences both positions can be published in a joint paper. A public discussion can take place on some issues in a paper of a revolutionary organisation. However, the differences involved will mean two positions being put on all of the issues listed above and more. Such a recipe will only confuse and disorientate those fresh uncommitted workers and youth that we reach with the paper.

124. If differences of this magnitude are ignored and brushed over in order to fuse it will inevitably lead to a tendency to search for a "compromise" formulae to mask the differences.

125. Gauche Revolutionnaire has produced a number of joint leaflets with La Commune. One of these leaflets was fur the September "Fete de 1'Humanite", the annual festival the French Communist Party organises under the name of its daily paper. The four page joint leaflet mainly dealt with the situation in France. However, when mentioning the crisis in Russia, the leaflet did not refer to it as a result of the restoration of capitalism, presumably because the UIT do not agree with us on that. The leaflet only wrote generally in defence of socialism that "We are not speaking about the experience of the PS (Socialist Party) which is only socialist in name, neither the tragic experience of the East which has ended in the return of savagery in the current chaos".

126. This political weakness regarding Russia in a leaflet, written by two Trotskyist organisations for distribution at a Communist Party event, is quite striking. It is not a question of simply making denunciations of Stalinism but of trying to show what happened in the USSR, the results of capitalist restoration and explaining the need now for a genuine socialist revolution in the former USSR. Unfortunately this leaflet did not indicate this programme. The question which immediately comes to mind is; what will be the position on the former USSR of any joint paper of Gauche Revolutionnaire and La Commune? This is not an unimportant question in a country like France which still has a large Communist Party.

127. The main disagreements with the UIT were known to the International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International when we started the discussions last year. What we agreed then was to open a "period of collaboration and discussion between both organisations ... with the objective to explore the possibility of unifying our own organisations" (Joint Declaration by the Committee for a Workers' International/UIT, November 1997). We then proceeded to do this. However, we did not ignore or blur the political differences in order to rush into unification. During the process of discussion the dishonest methods of the UIT leadership have become clear in the disputes that developed between us regarding their history and Germany. (Discussed later).

The Committee for a Workers' International and Regroupment

128. We make no apology for working to build the Committee for a Workers' International. This does not mean that we adopt a sectarian attitude to revolutionary socialists in other formations. The British Executive Committee clearly outlined this approach to the USFI, Australian DSP, LIT and UIT in their document "In Defence of a Revolutionary Party" which concluded that "while exploring the possibility of international regroupment, including in the shorter term some kind of federation of international groups, our commitment is to building the Committee for a Workers' International" (paragraph 84). Murray Smith does not even refer to this position.

129. If it is possible to reach a principled political agreement with a group on an honest basis then the International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers' International would support such a fusion. This as we have explained many times does not mean that it is necessary to reach 100% agreement on all questions. Indeed that was not the case when we fused with the French comrades. However, it is essential that during a process of fusion there must be honesty and transparency without which a fusion cannot be successful.

130. In this debate it was the Scottish Militant Labour Executive Committee which bluntly wrote, in "Scottish Socialist Party -A Political Justification", that "The Committee for a Workers' International is the revolutionary international. The Committee for a Workers' International represents, even if only in outline at this stage, the future mass world party of the working class" (paragraph 8). But again Murray Smith makes no comment on this.

131. Murray Smith's arguments concerning "fusions, regroupments" seem to only apply to existing organisations and currents. Certainly "fusions, regroupments" may take place with such groupings in some cases. But when we are discussing the building of larger organisations they will, in the main, be built from newly radicalised forces, which may not even be actually organised into parties. But "exploring the possibility of international regroupment" with tendencies like the UIT does not answer question of building a mass International, something which will only come from large scale developments within the working class.

132. Generally when discussing regroupment, one must ask at each occasion with whom and on what basis? For example, there is a difference between "regrouping" with a few individuals and with a grouping like Muste's AWP, with whom the US Trotskyists fused in 1934, which had a record of participation in and of leading class struggles.

133. The Committee for a Workers' International has never had a "whole orientation towards regroupment", in the sense of us mainly working towards existing members of other Trotskyist or revolutionary socialist organisations. That has never been our main field of work internationally. Murray Smith once correctly explained our orientation when, in the "Report on the Militant Tendency", he wrote "The Militant tendency ... has always been concerned with understanding how the consciousness and combativity of workers would develop, how to approach different layers of the working class and youth, and how to win the best and most combative elements to their tendency" (International Information Bulletin, no. 19, page 9).

[Continue...]