Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join 

The Scottish debate

Click here to read the CWI's reply to this document

[Next]

In this discussion there are two primary and many secondary issues. The primary questions under dispute are firstly, the development of the Scottish Socialist Party, its programme, its character and its likely future evolution. The other key question is the relationship of our organisation, the International Socialist Movement, to the Scottish Socialist Party.

Let's remember, against a background of ferocious opposition of the Committee for a Workers’ International leadership both at international level and in the national sections, the Scottish organisation with a belief in the correctness of our analysis courageously decided (with other groups and individuals) to launch the Scottish Socialist Party. This decision has been completely vindicated in the objective situation in Scotland today. If we had accepted the position of the Committee for a Workers’ International World Conference, the active forces of socialism would be much weaker today.

We would not have made the electoral impact we have achieved. The influence of socialist and Marxist ideas within Scottish society would be much weaker. Concrete gains for the working class such as the abolition of poindings and warrant sales would not have been achieved.

Moreover, the active membership of the International Socialist Movement would be much smaller. In contrast to the steep decline of the active Socialist Party membership in England and Wales over the past 18 months, there are more International Socialist Movement/Committee for a Workers’ International members actively involved in politics in one form or another, fighting for the ideas of Marxism within the Scottish Socialist Party, the trade unions, the communities and the workplaces.

Let's also clear up a myth that seems to have taken flight around the International and is repeated in the statements of the faction: at no stage has the International Socialist Movement leadership ever defined the Scottish Socialist Party as a "revolutionary party." Our contention is - and has been all along - that the Scottish Socialist Party is a hybrid party, a party in transition, a party whose final character has not yet been settled and may not yet be settled for some time.

Whether it will develop into a revolutionary party in the future (i.e. a vehicle capable of leading the Scottish working class to power) will be determined in the course of events. Equally, whether the Socialist Party in England and Wales, or any other section of the Committee for a Workers’ International will be capable of leading the working class to power will also be determined in the course of future events.

A year after the launch of the Scottish Socialist Party we gave more detailed content to our definition of the Scottish Socialist Party on the basis of real experience. As Philip acknowledges in his August 1999 statement - (The Scottish Socialist Party One Year On): "Prior to the launching of the Scottish Socialist Party there was a lot of discussion as to the character of the party and its programme. At the time we described the party as having a hybrid character, i.e. part revolutionary and part broad. This reflected the fact that the party was still to be launched and it was not certain how it would develop or what forces it would attract. Clearly now almost one year on we are in a better position to make any adjustments to that formulation in the light of the concrete experience of our involvement in the Scottish Socialist Party".

We agree with this statement. And last year everyone -including Philip - agreed with the characterisation of the Scottish Socialist Party stated in the same document: "The Scottish Socialist Party is a class struggle based broad socialist party with a strong revolutionary core in its leadership."

Why then do the comrades muddy the waters by stating in the conference review statement that "the Scottish Socialist Party is not a revolutionary party" - with the clear inference that the rest of us claim that the Scottish Socialist Party is "a revolutionary party?"

Where have we said this? Please provide evidence. And why do the comrades retreat completely to the position put forward by the Socialist Party EC during the debate in 1998 and repeatedly describe the Scottish Socialist Party as "a broad party"- a definition which is so vague that it is open to almost any interpretation. The Labour Party for example could equally be described as "a broad party". Such a description is totally inadequate because it tells us precisely nothing about the political make-up of the party the balance of forces within it, the direction in which it is travelling.

For that reason we would ask the faction comrades to clarify their position further. Do they accept our definition of the Scottish Socialist Party as a class-struggle based broad socialist party with an overwhelmingly working class composition and a strong revolutionary core in its leadership and membership? And if the comrades no longer accept this definition, what has changed?

[Continue...]

Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join