 |
|
Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join The Scottish debateParty, Programme, Reformism and the InternationalWhat is a revolutionary programme?It is unfortunately clear that the inadequacies of the Scottish Socialist Party programme do not only arise from compromises the PC have made with other forces within the Scottish Socialist Party. The PC themselves have made major, mistaken, alterations to their political opinions in the course of the last few years. This is demonstrated when they describe what they believe a revolutionary programme for the 21st century should be. As we have already quoted the PC argue that "a genuinely revolutionary programme for the 21st century will not be a regurgitation of statements drawn up at specific periods in history such as the programme of the Comintern or the Fourth International (paragraph 165). This is absolutely true. We have never suggested that we should simply regurgitate these ideas, rather we have developed them to apply to the situation today. We have done this extremely successfully in the new world situation after the collapse of Stalinism. We are constantly updating and developing our programme in response to new developments and struggles. However, we still base ourselves on the fundamental ideas of Marxism and Trotskyism. There has been no change in the nature of class society of a fundamental nature that would result in a need to call these ideas into question. The PC's document lists eight points they see as an outline of a revolutionary programme for today. We do not think that it is possible to sum up the historic experience of Marxism in eight very short paragraphs. There are many very serious omissions from this list without which it cannot be said to be based on the essential tenets of Trotskyism. For example, the nature of capitalism, the need for a planned economy, the nature of Stalinism, the national question, the role of imperialism and the theory of permanent revolution. Of course, there will be workers and youth that draw revolutionary conclusions without yet having an understanding on all these issues. However, a revolutionary programme drawn up by inexperienced sections of workers, new to revolutionary ideas, is entirely different to one drawn up by the leadership of a section of the Committee for a Workers’ International. It is incumbent on the PC to include all of the issues that they consider necessary for a Marxist revolutionary programme. In addition, the proposed programme is historical and general. Many on the left could claim to agree with it, even though, in reality, they would not agree with the correct application of a revolutionary programme today. There are many vital contemporary questions about which the Committee for a Workers’ International has used the methods of Marxism to work out a position. These include the effects of the collapse of Stalinism, the bourgeoisification of Social Democracy, the nature of the economic crisis of capitalism and our understanding of the national question. It may not be necessary to have the same position as the Committee for a Workers’ International on these issues in order to be defined in general terms as a 'revolutionary'. However, in order to intervene effectively in the current situation as a revolutionary, and to gain the ear of important sections of the working class for revolutionary ideas, we consider that it is vital to have drawn the conclusions we have on these and other issues. On parties this is all the eight points say:
This is all true, but it is not enough. One of the most important lessons of the twentieth century was that to take and consolidate power the working class needed a mass revolutionary party. Such a party can only be built in the course of revolutionary movements if it exists, at least in embryonic form, beforehand. On internationalism the eight points state:
It says nothing of the vital necessity of the international revolution or the impossibility of building socialism in one country. It says that the 'highest point' of internationalism is to build a workers' international. Yet this effectively postpones the need for an international to sometime in the future. It also does not specify what kind of workers' international. Our goal is not, for example, the recreation of the Second International. We see that it is the duty of revolutionaries, regardless of circumstances, to fight for a world party of revolution. Even when we only had members in Britain we strove to begin to build the embryo of such a party. Multinationals The effects of the weakening of the PC's understanding of what constitutes a revolutionary Marxist programme are demonstrated by some aspects of the programme of the Scottish Socialist Party. An example of this is the section of the Scottish Socialist Party's Scottish Economy document on the multinationals. The Scottish Socialist Party conference resolution on the Scottish economy, drafted by Alan McCombes, included the following statement:
Alan agreed to remit this statement - so it was not put at the Scottish Socialist Party conference. However, this statement is defended in the PC's document. Why is the PC excluding any possibility of nationalising some key sections of industry? There are many ex-lefts who argue that globalisation has made socialism and nationalisation an impossibility. Our emphasis is always to explain that there is nothing to stop the working class taking power and nationalising foreign owned companies. After all, foreign ownership does not alter the fact that the factory and machinery are in Scotland and can be taken over. At the same time, we explain that, today more than ever, a democratic workers' state could only survive on the basis of spreading the revolution to other countries. The PC try to downplay the significance of this policy by saying: "The companies involved actually employ a tiny fraction of the Scottish workforce - around three percent." This is not true. In fact, according to the Scottish Office, overseas companies employ 81,750 manufacturing workers - this is 29% of manufacturing workers in Scotland. This does not include those workers in Scotland who are employed by companies based in England or Wales. In 1996 (the last year for which figures are available) Net Capital Expenditure by overseas-owned manufacturing firms totalled £586 million - 45% of total capital expenditure. Again this does not include firms based in England or Wales. The PC may argue that they do not consider all of these factories to be "branch assembly plants". However, even if you only consider the electronics industry to which Alan specifically refers, US-owned electronics companies alone employ 7% of manufacturing workers in Scotland. We have never argued that, on taking power, the working class should nationalise the entire economy. Complete nationalisation would be unnecessary and even counter-productive. So long as decisive sectors are nationalised, small businesses could exist within the framework of a planned economy. Moreover, it is in the interests of the working class to win the support of small business people. We have always concentrated on calling for the nationalisation under workers7 control of the commanding heights of the economy as part of a socialist plan of production. On an all-Britain scale that would currently include around 150 companies. The list of exactly which companies would be nationalised and incorporated in a socialist plan would have to be drawn up on the basis of detailed information on the different sectors of the economy. This could only be achieved when full access to the books of the different companies was achieved as a result of the action of the working class. It would be a mistake to try and specify now, in advance, exactly which companies should be nationalised when the working class takes power. However, given the globalisation of the world economy today, and the particular weakness of British capitalism, it would undoubtedly include a large number of factories owned by foreign multinationals. On what basis are the PC ruling out the nationalisation of some factories? Alan implies it depends on whether they are "branch assembly plants". But what does this mean? If the working class take power in Malaysia, where a large section of industry is based on the production of microchips, which are certainly "branch assembly plants", the working class will have to take those assembly plants over. They are key sections of the economy. An international appeal would have to be made to the workforce of the multinationals concerned. Many of the factories would then have to be converted to other production. Of course the weakness of the Malaysian economy will make it doubly urgent that the revolution spreads, but the answer would certainly not be to leave the microchip plants in the hands of Siemens and the other multinationals. The PC says that, on taking power, they would do as we suggest and issue an international appeal for the working class across the world to take over the multinationals. They then go on to say: "But the suggestion that the working class internationally will rise up simultaneously against capitalism is to substitute naive idealism for a concrete and rigorous analysis of the class struggle and an honest perspective of how it is likely to unfold" (paragraph 189). They then say: "To pretend that the Scottish Socialist Party could simply issue an appeal to workers in Silicon Valley, California, for example, and wait for them to seize their companies can only disorientate, miseducate and disarm the working class in Scotland" (paragraph 191). We are pretending no such thing. But, in reality, the PC has drawn the opposite conclusion. They appear to believe it is ruled out that workers' outside Scotland could take decisive action in support of a new workers’ state in Scotland. This is a major error. Incidentally, many of the Scottish call-centres' parent companies are based far closer than California, in England and Wales. The comrades are precluding the possibility that such workers would act in support of a workers’ state a few miles away. It is clear that this is the conclusion they have drawn:
It is a major mistake, as this statement does, to set limits on what measures the working class will need to carry out when it takes power. It is not possible to lay out in advance either a blueprint for, or limitations on, the programme the working class will have to implement in order to improve living conditions and consolidate power. We are not fighting for a transitional state in Scotland, we are fighting for the working class to take power world-wide; this is the only way of building a socialist society. Of course, we understand that revolution will not develop simultaneously internationally, but rather will develop first on a national basis. However, it is not possible to predict in advance in which country the working class will take power first. There is no reason to conclude, as the PC seems to, that it will be Scotland. Regardless of the country the working class first takes power in, it will only survive if the revolution is spread internationally. That is why a world party of revolution is so vital. How long a country could survive if isolated will depend on several factors, primarily the development of the economy in the country. Of course, in order to hold out for revolution in other countries an isolated workers’ state may have to make all kinds of compromises. However, realising this may be necessary is an entirely different thing to proposing such a compromise in advance and advancing them as programmatic aims. Yet this is what the PC's document is arguing. If they persist in putting this position it will lead to even more serious mistakes in the future. The PC attempts to cloud the debate on the Scottish Socialist Party programme by attacking the What We Stand For (WWSF) programme that is featured each week on the back of The Socialist, the newspaper of the Socialist Party in England and Wales. They argue that this programme is,
It is written for England and Wales. Across the whole of Scotland, England and Wales the top 150 companies do constitute an approximation of the commanding heights of the economy. If this is not sufficient for Scotland then the comrades should work out what number would approximate the commanding heights of the economy in Scotland. In addition, given that throughout Britain we are still fighting against a single state machine and a single ruling class, the Scottish comrades should continue to raise the all-Britain demand. The National Question The PC also attacks the WWSF column because it does not include "the revolutionary demand for the break up of the British state and the establishment of a socialist Scotland, a socialist Wales, a socialist Ireland and a socialist England, within a wider European socialist alliance" (paragraph 199). They go on to say: "The failure of the Socialist Party of England and Wales to deal with the national question is in our opinion an astonishing omission..." (paragraph 200). This is a misrepresentation of reality. The WWSF column is an extremely brief list of immediate and transitional demands which does not take up every important issue facing the working class. However, the Socialist Party in England and Wales has an excellent record of accurately assessing the national question and taking up relevant demands, both today and in the past. In the 1970s the British section supported a 'yes’ vote in the referendum on devolution, against the opposition at that time of many comrades in Scotland. More recently, when the Scottish comrades first raised the possibility of adopting the demand for an independent socialist Scotland, the Socialist Party EC argued, against the initial opposition of many of the Socialist Party National Committee, that, due to the development in support for independence in Scotland, it was correct to call for an independent socialist Scotland, as part of a wider Socialist confederation of Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland. The Socialist Party EC and the IS also proposed, before the debate on the Scottish Socialist Party, that the development of the national question meant that it would be best if the comrades in Scotland became a separate section of the Committee for a Workers’ International. However, exactly what demands on the national question we raise, and the way in which we raise them, depends on the consciousness of the audience we are aiming at. It would be a mistake, in England, to raise the "revolutionary demand for the break up of the British state" in the way the International Socialist Movement PC poses it. If posed in this way it could appear that we support English nationalism, which is thoroughly reactionary. Instead, in England, we have to pose the issue positively in terms of the need to support the democratic rights of the people of Scotland and Wales. Every major article in The Socialist on the question of the Scottish Parliament has taken this approach and has raised in the course of the article the demand for an independent socialist Scotland as part of a confederation (or alliance) of Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland. In Wales it would also be wrong for the comrades to call bluntly for the break up of the British state. As the vote for the Welsh Assembly demonstrated, there is a growth in national consciousness, but there is not (at the moment) the strength of support for independence that exists in Scotland. The comrades in Wales put forward the following demand: "For a socialist Wales as part of a socialist alliance of Wales, England, Scotland and Ireland." We should at all times also raise the need for the unity of the working class and the common class interests that exist between the workers of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The International Socialist Movement PC says that they would like to debate these issues further. We would also like to do so. Although we agree that it is now correct to raise the demand for an independent socialist Scotland (provided it is linked to a wider Socialist confederation) we are concerned that the International Socialist Movement PC has too rigid an attitude to the national question. Moreover the comrades do not stress the need for unity between the workers of Scotland, Wales and England. We believe that, while it is correct to say that the general trend in Scotland will be for an increase in support for independence, it would be wrong to underestimate the degree to which the mood can ebb and flow. It would also be a mistake to imagine that there will be a straight road to an independent Scotland. The referendum on the Scottish parliament gave a glimpse of the way that the majority of the bourgeoisie will resist the break up of the British state. The recent dilution by the SNP of their position on independence demonstrates how sections of its leadership could capitulate to this pressure. It would also be a mistake to underestimate, and therefore be unprepared to counter, the elements of reactionary anti-English nationalism that can be mixed up in a support for independence. Scottish Service Tax The Scottish Service Tax (Scottish Service Tax) is being proposed by the Scottish Socialist Party to replace the council tax. The Scottish Service Tax is a steeply graduated, progressive income tax. In the past, the demand for such a tax was raised by reformists in the Labour Party and had widespread support. In the future reformism will take up this demand again on a large scale. However, in the 1990s the weakness of reformism has meant that we have been virtually the only ones who have raised the idea of progressive taxation. It is a popular idea and it is correct that we should raise it and fight for it. The PC document persists in arguing against our supposed opposition to the Scottish Service Tax. They argue that our, and the Scottish faction's, position is: "There's no point in fighting for the Scottish Parliament to use its powers to challenge the wealth of the rich because they will resist it. So let's just confine ourselves to abstract propaganda in favour of socialism" (paragraph 222). This is simply untrue. The Committee for a Workers’ International has never opposed the Scottish Service Tax. Other sections of the Committee for a Workers’ International, including the Socialist Party, also campaign in favour of similar tax increases. But unlike the SWP/IST we do not simply demand "Tax the Rich". Our criticism is not over whether the Scottish Socialist Party should campaign for the Scottish Service Tax; it is a question of ensuring that it is posed as one policy within a programme which raises the broader questions of nationalisation and economic planning. It is only correct to conduct a campaign for the Scottish Service Tax if we give the working class a realistic picture of what it can achieve, and link it to the need to take over the commanding heights of the economy. It is also crucial that we explain clearly to the rank and file of the Scottish Socialist Party the reasons we are raising this demand and the importance of linking it to broader demands. Unfortunately we think that some of the Scottish Socialist Party propaganda has exaggerated the significance of the Scottish Service Tax. Council tax currently makes up only 4% of all tax receipts (although the Scottish Service Tax would increase this percentage in Scotland). In addition it would not benefit the unemployed, or pensioners on state benefits, as they are exempt from council tax anyway (although it would make this automatic instead of, as at the moment, requiring endless paperwork). In reality the Scottish Service Tax would mean something like a £15 a week increase for low paid workers. In some of the Scottish Socialist Party's material the limitations of the Scottish Service Tax is explained quite well. For example, in the introduction "A Scottish Service Tax for Local Government"', which was passed at the last Scottish Socialist Party conference, it says: "Such gross disparities of wealth cannot be rectified within the existing political, economic and constitutional framework. The Scottish Parliament has no serious fiscal or economic powers. It does, however, have control over local government taxation. While fighting for radical socialist change nationally and globally, the Scottish Socialist Party will also campaign for the Scottish Parliament to use its limited powers to begin to challenge inequality." However, later on the same document exaggerates the potential of the Scottish Service Tax when it declares: "...(The Scottish Service Tax) would nonetheless begin to redress the balance away from the accumulation of wealth by a prosperous minority in favour of regenerating education, local amenities, social services and council housing." This is an exaggeration. An income tax can have no real effect on the accumulation of wealth of a rich minority. Personal income is not the primarily measure of wealth of the ruling class. The wealth of the ruling class essentially derives from the exploitation of the working class, the accumulation of capital and inherited wealth. However, this exaggeration is mild compared to statements that have appeared in the Scottish Socialist Voice. For example, in Issue 24, the Scottish Service Tax is describes as, "going to the heart of social inequality in Scotland"! More importantly, the comrades have failed to explain the limitations of taxation. Under capitalism it is impossible for taxation to result in a fundamental redistribution of wealth. In the 1960s, when the right-wing reformist Harold Wilson proposed a wealth tax in Britain, a strike of capital was threatened by big business. Again, in 1974 a Green Paper proposed a wealth tax, and it was met with a tidal wave of outrage from big business. Of course, the governments of the day backed off under this pressure. The bourgeoisie will always avoid paying taxes through a thousand different fiddles. If they consider a tax to threaten them they will go further, by organising a strike of capital, moving out of the country and so on. This does not mean that we oppose progressive taxation but we have to link it to the need for nationalisation. In the many articles that have appeared in the Scottish Socialist Voice about the Scottish Service Tax this has not been done once. The PC justifies the limitations of the Scottish Service Tax by arguing that it is "... a specific policy which we are fighting for within the Scottish Parliament which does not have the powers to impose a general wealth tax or take industry and finance into public ownership..." (205) But this is beside the point. It is correct to argue for reforms that the Scottish Parliament has the formal powers to carry out. However, we cannot leave it there. We have to link demands like the Scottish Service Tax to the rest of our programme. If possible, we should attempt to use the parliament to do this. When we had MPs at Westminster they found all kind of means to raise our programme. For example, they moved many Early Day Motions calling for a discussion on different issues. This could probably be done in the Scottish Parliament on the issue of nationalisation. Even if we can't do this through parliament we must raise these issues in International Socialist Movement and Scottish Socialist Party propaganda. If we don't we are misinforming the working class by giving an impression that progressive taxation can achieve more than it actually can. It is especially important that Scottish Socialist Party members understand the limitations of the Scottish Service Tax, and they see it as part of a transitional programme, and link it to more far-reaching policies. The PC argues that the faction, and ourselves, are confused on the Scottish Service Tax. They say: "The comrades are hopelessly muddled on this issue. They state in Scottish Socialist Party Conference Review that 'in general we would not oppose such a tax reform but it would be largely ineffective in combating poverty and deprivation.' They then say that 'the demand will be fiercely resisted by the political establishment who will not want the ideas even of a limited wealth redistribution to become something that the parliament gets an appetite for.' But if it was such a mild and ineffective reformist measure, why should there be resistance?" (paragraph 219, our emphasis). We find this argumentation shocking. Taxation of big business does not come much milder than in Britain at the moment, yet Rupert Murdoch has never paid a penny of it. It is quite reasonable to predict that big business in Scotland will try to avoid paying the Scottish Service Tax if it becomes law. More importantly, it is correct to predict that they could threaten more extreme measures, such as capital strikes, against this, or other, reformist measures. The PC is implying that the opposition of big business to a measure means by definition that it is not reformist. Yet we have always explained that left reformism makes the mistake of trying to reform capitalism piecemeal, and therefore enrages the bourgeoisie without taking away its power, like trying to pull out the teeth of an angry tiger one by one! It is clear from reading the Research Report by Professors Mike Danson and Geoff Whitman, who conceived the Scottish Service Tax ("Time for Redistribution of Income: The Case for a Scottish Service Tax"), that they are not socialists, but neo-Keynesians. They see the Scottish Service Tax as something which we would describe as "a mildly reformist measure". For example, in defending the need for higher taxes, they are anxious to emphasise the acceptability of such policies: "The assumptions underpinning their analysis (economists at the University of Strathclyde who argue for higher taxes) are not unduly restrictive and recognise that Scotland has a very open economy... The critical conditions to achieve this range of policies are not that stringent and would not be alien to the politics of the 1960s and 1970s, nor critically to many other member states of the EU. The PC uses the battle of Liverpool City Council to justify their position on the Scottish Service Tax. They say: "Did the Liverpool struggle pose the question of the socialist transformation of society? Of course not. In fact, it was conceded by a Tory government under pressure from a mass movement in Liverpool So was this a mildly reformist demand? Were we sowing illusions that if only Liverpool could get the £30 million the problems of the working class could be solved?" (paragraph 240). In reality, there are a number of important differences between the struggle in Liverpool and the Scottish Service Tax. The first is that we did raise our wider programme beyond the immediate struggle for the £30 million. We didn't do so in every single agitational speech or leaflet, but it was a constant theme running through our material in that period. To give one example, among many, in the MIR editorial of June 1984 we said:
Most importantly, we endeavoured to ensure that our own members understood both our tactics and the longer term strategy of the party. We did this through regular internal meetings, discussions and so on. Another difference between the Scottish Service Tax and the battle in Liverpool, or the poll tax, is that they were defensive struggles to defeat attacks on the working class. In that sense, we did not pick the terrain on which we fought. This did not alter the necessity of, as we did, raising wider demands alongside the immediate issues. Nonetheless, the Scottish Service Tax is very different. The comrades are setting the agenda themselves, and are therefore free to work out the best possible programme on the question of wealth redistribution. However, there is another side to this issue. The poll tax and Liverpool were mass movements, involving millions, led by our party. The Scottish Service Tax is a demand that the comrades are raising. As yet there has been no significant action by working class people in support of this demand. This does not mean the comrades should stop raising it; on the contrary, it is clearly a popular demand. However, we believe that at this stage it is a somewhat abstract proposal. We were able to organise mass non-payment of the poll tax primarily because the tax was unbearable for millions of working class people. It is when some aspect of the existing order becomes an intolerable burden that the mass of the working class is prepared to take decisive action. It is not possible to exactly predict in advance when, or on what issue, the potential for such action will occur. When the potential does exist we can use our programme to organise it and give it direction. However, no demand we raise will, in itself, automatically lead to mass struggle. We believe that underlying the failure of the comrades to raise our wider programme is a mistaken conception that it is unnecessary, even inadvisable, to do so at this stage. The leadership of the PC see revolutionary struggle as postponed to the dim and distant future. Therefore, they believe that we should concentrate all our energy raising general socialist propaganda and our day-to-day activity fighting on immediate demands, while the task of building a revolutionary party is left to a later stage. This is reflected in their attitude to programme. They do not think it matters whether we clearly explain to the working class the limitations of taxation as a means of changing society, because changing society is not on the agenda at this point in time. This is fundamentally incorrect. Even where it is not possible to explain our full programme to the working class, we have to ensure that the demands we raise point in the same direction as our full programme and act as a bridge towards the idea of the socialist transformation of society. If it becomes a trend that we fail to do this we are, in reality, misleading those workers who take our programme seriously. Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join
|