 |
|
Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join The Scottish debateParty, Programme, Reformism and the InternationalIrelandMany of the points made by the International Socialist Movement PC on Ireland repeat those made earlier by Frances Curran in a letter to Peter Hadden. After the Scottish Socialist Party conference Peter Hadden wrote a detailed reply and asked that it be circulated to International Socialist Movement comrades in Scotland. Not only was this not done, the same points are now being repeated without any reference to the information given in the reply. This is no way to conduct a discussion. To simply repeat points that have already been answered with no reference to the reply amounts to misinformation. If the majority comrades disagree with the points contained in the reply they should answer and not ignore them. Otherwise the debate cannot progress. Our criticisms of the statement on Ireland adopted at the Scottish Socialist Party conference are set out in Peter Hadden's letter. His letter answers the claim made by in the latest International Socialist Movement majority document that the Scottish Socialist Party's position "incorporates all of our main analysis. The statement is a class analysis and a socialist programme on the very complex national question in Ireland, the Peace Process, repression, policing, the development of class politics and a united socialist alternative" (paragraph 267). In fact the Scottish Socialist Party statement falls short of a rounded-out class position. An example is its analysis of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). There are formulations in the statement that sow illusions in this agreement. The majority refute this arguing that it is
Yes, the statement uses the words 'arising from' but the comrades neglect to point out that it then goes on to clarify what the 'positive features arising from the Agreement' are. Of the three listed, the last one refers to the openings for the class struggle. However, the first two are in a different vein. They state, "It calls for respect and equality, rights historically lacking in Northern Ireland" and "It declares Britain's acceptance that the future of Ireland will be determined by the people of Ireland." These claims for the Agreement sow illusions in what it can deliver as well as in the democratic credentials of the British ruling class. This is reinforced by an earlier section which quotes verbatim whole chunks of it as evidence of "the compromises inherent in the Good Friday Agreement." The fact that some of the criticisms we have made of the Agreement are also included in other parts of the statement only means that it is, at best, contradictory and confused. It is not a rounded "class analysis" or a "socialist programme". There are other weaknesses in the statement. The bullet points at the end are unbalanced. They deal with repression and British withdrawal. However, they make no criticism of the para-militaries and fail to call for working class unity. There is no demand for a new working class party to challenge the sectarian parties. As they stand, and especially given the language used, the overall impression they give the programme is that of a left republican tinge. The comrades argue that these broader points are contained in the statement. This is true but, given the fact that the conference statement is confused and contradictory, it is not a small matter that they are omitted from the campaigning programme at the end. Given the complexity of the national question and the sensitivities involved it is essential that the demands we raise and the language we use are precise and balanced. The majority document goes on to argue that the position adopted by the Scottish Socialist Party is an advance on that agreed by the Scottish Socialist Alliance two years earlier. This is simply asserted with no argument or evidence to back the claim. In fact the previous Scottish Socialist Alliance document - given the political context in which it was written - while not a fully worked out class position, was better and clearer than this year's Scottish Socialist Party statement. In other words rather than an 'evolution’ of the discussion we have seen a retreat. This is both in terms of political accommodation - and in terms of the methods used to arrive at this accommodation. To be specific the earlier Scottish Socialist Alliance document is sharper in a number of respects. Written at the outset of the peace talks it does not hint that the governments or major parties can offer anything positive. It calls for the obstacles to all parties entering the talks to be removed. It also calls for the talks to be open to allow "trade unions, community, women's and youth organisation, to give a direct voice to the communities in pursuit of solutions." This is the position that was advocated by the comrades in Northern Ireland at the time. It is a consistent class position - unlike the analysis of the Good Friday Agreement contained in the later Scottish Socialist Party statement. On the national question the majority comrades have become increasingly reluctant to put forward any formulation that advocates close links between an independent socialist Scotland and a socialist England and Wales. This is reflected in the difference between the two statements. The Scottish Socialist Alliance statement calls for a "socialist federation of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, on a free equal and voluntary basis, as part of a socialist federation of Europe." The later Scottish Socialist Party statement amends this to "close co-operation between Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales on a free, equal, voluntary basis as part of a socialist alliance of Europe." There can be a legitimate discussion about whether the term "alliance" or "federation" or 'confederation’ is the best term to describe the linkage between socialist states we have always advocated. However, this latest shift is more than a matter of terminological clarification. The failure to advocate any formal link between a socialist Scotland and socialist states in England, Wales and Ireland is an unjustified concession to Scottish nationalism. It is not enough to call for "close co-operation". The earlier Scottish Socialist Alliance statement puts a much clearer position. What the comrades have now agreed represents an ideological retreat and an unprincipled concession to nationalism. The Scottish Socialist Alliance statement is also superior in that the final bullet points are more balanced. Unlike the Scottish Socialist Party statement this specifies that the Scottish Socialist Alliance will campaign for this programme "in the trade unions and the communities". It begins with the class demand for the opening up of the talks to working class organisations. Whereas the Scottish Socialist Party statement demands an "immediate de-militarisation of Northern Ireland by the British government" the earlier version called for "a complete de-militarisation of the North of Ireland and a cease-fire by all parties to the conflict." The comrades may well argue that the cease-fire call is now redundant since the paramilitary campaigns have ended, but why has the current issue of disarmament by the para-militaries not been included instead? There has been a retreat not just in programme but also in method. When the Scottish Socialist Alliance statement was agreed there was no ambiguity about whether it was a broad compromise programme. In the discussion leading up to the special one-day Scottish Socialist Alliance conference on Ireland our comrades in Scottish Militant Labour produced their own material putting our ideas. This was circulated within the Alliance and was on the conference agenda. At the Scottish Socialist Alliance conference, the comrades agreed a compromise position rather than force our full position through by weight of numbers. This was entirely correct. No one from the International or the minority has suggested that, in a party as broad as the Scottish Socialist Party, we should not be prepared to make some policy compromises in order to preserve unity. The condition is that we put forward our own ideas in the debate and that we fight for as much of our programme as possible to be adopted. In addition to these points, we should continue to argue for all of our ideas within the party and in public even after a compromise has been reached. The majority comrades did none of this in the drafting of the Scottish Socialist Party programme. Rather than put forward and argue for our ideas in the public forum of the Scottish Socialist Party a compromise position - the document as eventually adopted - was drafted in advance. This was done in a private discussion between the Scottish Socialist Party secretary, Allan Green and Richard Venton. Our views were not argued publicly. Scottish Socialist Party members were unaware of the differences between our programme and the policy adopted. The objections of the Socialist Party in Ireland were ignored. Amendments, which they drafted and submitted to the International Socialist Movement leadership, were opposed. This, they claimed was because "any attempt at this late stage to usurp the agreement we have already arrived at by introducing further amendments could only complicate the task of achieving a good class and socialist programme." (Frances Curran letter to Peter Hadden) These amendments were not circulated to the International Socialist Movement membership for their views. In fact the whole accommodation of ideas was arrived at without even any discussion within the International Socialist Movement. Committee for a Workers’ International members in Scotland were given no say over the abandonment of elements of the programme developed by the comrades in Ireland over a whole historical period. The comparisons with the programme of the Labour Coalition in Northern Ireland are thrown in to confuse rather than clarify the debate. The points made in the majority document were made in Frances Curran's earlier letter and have already been answered in Peter Hadden's reply. Yet this response and the factual information it provides have been simply ignored. It is therefore necessary to restate the facts that the majority seem to want to forget. The Labour Coalition was a broad formation put together for the specific purpose of fighting the election for top up places at the N.I. peace talks. A minimum programme was agreed around the basic premise that delegates to the talks would approach all issues from the "standpoint of the common interests of the working class", a good formulation which our comrades were able to accept. There was an agreement that the members of the Coalition could put forward their own ideas provided that they did not contradict the common platform. In the five constituencies where the comrades conducted the election they produced their own manifesto putting our ideas. The Coalition lasted about seven months. By the end the comrades had strengthened the common programme and won agreement from all activists that one comrade and one sympathiser should be the Coalition representatives in the talks. It was during these months that the debate was conducted within the organisation on the name of our party and a decision taken to change from Militant Labour to Socialist Party. This experience has nothing in common with the approach adopted by the majority comrades to the Scottish Socialist Party. A compromise programme has been accepted that amounts to a concession to left republican / reformist trends in the Scottish Socialist Party. This has been done alongside declarations that the Scottish Socialist Party is 'our' party and that, outside the Scottish Socialist Party, our comrades will argue for and defend only the common compromise programme. When the International Socialist Movement majority accuses the minority of wanting "to have their cake and eat it", insisting, on the one hand, that the Scottish Socialist Party is a broad, hetrogenous party, while on the other, insisting "that we railroad through a policy on Ireland with every nuance straightened out to the satisfaction of the Irish leadership" (paragraph 274) they would do better examining the contradiction of their own argument. On the one hand, they insist that the Scottish Socialist Party is "our" party and that we do not need any other public instrument. Yet on the other, they argue that we cannot ask it to adopt our programme on Ireland because of the sharply divergent views within it! The International Socialist Movement PC comrades accept that the Scottish Socialist Party programme is not fully our position. They say that it is "open to slightly different nuances of interpretation by difference people on some issues" and that it can "evolve and develop over time". In that case the onus is on them to explain its ambiguities, clarify its weaknesses and show where and it what way it needs to evolve. Yet in the document, and in all the correspondence on this issue, there is not a word of specific criticism of the Scottish Socialist Party programme. Rather it is praised as a "class analysis and a socialist programme." Alongside this praise there is repeated implicit and sometimes explicit criticism of the programme of the Irish section and the Committee for a Workers’ International. It argues
The same idea is repeated several times. There is the clear inference that the Committee for a Workers’ International and the Irish comrades present "pure" ideas in a sectarian manner that cuts us off from any real influence.
The International Socialist Movement majority think that drawing up the Scottish Socialist Party programme
Clearly, from their position that the Scottish Socialist Party programme is a necessary compromise which can 'evolve', the International Socialist Movement PC have come round to the position that this is a better programme than that of the Irish Socialist Party and of the Committee for a Workers’ International because it is welded to "living movements and real consciousness." In making such criticisms the comrades should be specific and point to the formulations and demands of the comrades in Ireland that conflict with consciousness and suggest alternatives. This is not done except by innuendo. There is a reference to the "identikit slogans that the International leadership seem to insist upon" but with no explanation of what slogans they have in mind. Earlier the call for "workers' unity and socialism" is described as "age-old" and less concrete than the formulations of the Scottish Socialist Party statement. All of this is a crude distortion of the position of the Irish comrades and of the Committee for a Workers’ International as a whole. It is in line with the overall attempt to paint the Committee for a Workers’ International as a sect out of touch with the real needs of the working class. The working class, according to the majority, are for 'regroupment’ into broad organisations. The majority document is not a defence of a revolutionary programme but an argument for a broad, compromise programme. Through the thirty years of the Troubles the comrades in Northern Ireland have developed their programme in line with the constantly shifting consciousness of the working class. They have always taken into account the differences in the outlook of Protestant and Catholic workers. A detailed programme has been worked out on the national question, on parades, on policing, on the para-militaries and on many other questions as they have arisen. Much of this has been borrowed by the majority comrades when drafting of the Scottish Socialist Party programme. The difference is that in Ireland every important development of the programme has been debated extensively through the entire party. The most recent updating of the demands on the national question came after a lengthy internal debate and was followed by the publication of a book to explain the change outside the party ranks. The implication that the Socialist Party in Ireland behaves like a 'pure’ sect isolated from living movements is fantasy. In the South our comrades led the mass movement which defeated the government on water rates. They are currently leading similar movements against the imposition of service charges. The election of Joe Higgins to a Council seat and to the Dail and of Clare Daly to the Dublin Council shows the real social roots that have been sunk. Northern Ireland has on many occasions been a difficult issue in the south. At times an emotive nationalism has developed with a much greater ferocity than in Scotland. Nonetheless the comrades there have been able to defend our programme without the kind of compromises made by the Scottish majority and without surrendering their mass influence. In the north it is true that the Socialist Party remains relatively small, although it is the biggest and by far the most influential force on the left. The obstacle has been the very difficult objective situation and not, as the majority document suggests, that we have held onto a correct but "pure" programme. Our small party has had an influence far beyond its numbers. This has come through bold and timely initiatives and because of the correctness of the ideas and slogans put forward. The comrades have been able to initiate strikes against sectarian killings, even organising regional general strikes. The "No Going Back" campaign helped spark the huge movement that followed the Canary Wharf bomb and our slogan and banner became the symbol of the entire movement. Currently the party is in the leadership of a number of important strikes, its Low Pay Campaign is known and applauded by thousands of workers. An initiative taken last year has also placed us in the leadership of a potential mass movement against attempts to close rural hospitals. In intervening in the class struggle every section of the Committee for a Workers’ International attempts to present our ideas in as accessible a form as possible. The difference with the Scottish majority is not over this. The case made in their document is not for a more living expression of our programme against doctrinaire purity. It is for the watering down of our ideas to accommodate more easily with broader, non-revolutionary forces. The complaint made against the Irish section is that it has not followed the route taken by the Scottish majority. The fact that it has managed to make an electoral breakthrough akin to that of the Scottish Socialist Party, but without any 'regroupment', is simply ignored. Frances Curran, in the most recent International Socialist Movement debates, has gone so far as to state that the idea of us building a small mass party in Ireland is "off the agenda". At the English and Welsh Socialist Party National Committee meeting on 14th May 2000 she stated; "In Ireland we've got the Socialist Party, we've got our own organisation, and there is potential for the Socialist Party in Ireland to develop the position that the NSSP developed in Sri Lanka, i.e. a small mass party of a Trotskyist organisation or revolutionary organisation, in the next period. Now I think this is off the agenda as well, and the reason it is off the agenda is because it does not correspond to the objective needs of the working class at this stage; and what is taking place is alliances, formations, regroupment, not on a revolutionary basis, regroupment on the basis of the workers' movement. That's what's posed" The Irish comrades, she has asserted, will face the same choices as the Scottish comrades and will have to follow their lead. However, the choice of launching a broad party was there at the time of Joe Higgins' election. The comrades discussed this as a possibility, but not in the manner that it was done in Scotland. There would have been no question of us surrendering our resources and our ideas. It was rejected, not on principle, but because the genuine forces to make up a broad mass party were and are still not there. Instead, the comrades have concentrated on building our own party. Our electoral successes, won under our own banner, and the shift to the right of other political forces, leave us poised to make further gains. The declaration that it is impossible for the comrades to build a small mass party is akin to raising the white flag of surrender before the first troops have entered the field of battle. There is no single tactic, no straight line of development, that will transform out current forces into a mass revolutionary party. Even now in Ireland our comrades are considering an Anti-Corruption Alliance in which we would run along with other lefts in the coming general election. Within this we would run as the Socialist Party, with the possibility of increasing our representation. This tactical flexibility is in stark contrast to the current stance of the Scottish majority who have elevated the idea of 'regroupment', that is of an unprincipled organisational and political merger with other forces, to a point of principle. As Marxists we begin by examining the concrete situation and from this work out our tactics. Our attitude to alliances - and to the future possibility of principled fusion as opposed to unprincipled 'regroupment' is first to consider whether the forces exist for this at present. The method of the Scottish majority is different. They begin with the tactic, arguing that in every European country, at the very least, the only way forward is through 'regroupment’. Then they work back to the concrete to try to find the forces to allow this to take place. The falsity of this method is apparent in relation to Ireland. With regard to the south it has not been explained who the comrades should link with to follow the Scottish Socialist Party road. However, in relation to the north they have not been so reticent. In debates around Scotland Frances Curran has argued that the Northern Ireland comrades should have taken the initiative to build a broad party. She thinks this should include our forces in Northern Ireland, the PUP, the Women's Coalition, and the left in Sinn Fein. It is a case of an argument and a method taken to its absurd extreme. These three groupings agree on practically nothing. Not one of them is explicitly socialist, let alone revolutionary. The case of Ireland exposes the direction the majority comrades are headed. It also shows that there is an alternative way of building the force of the Committee for a Workers’ International which does not involve the abandonment of ideas, methods and structures.
Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join
|