Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join 

The Scottish debate

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

[Next]

The Conference Review Statement from the faction comrades claims that for Frances Curran and Murray Smith (who were elected as the two International Officers of the Scottish Socialist Party) "as with other comrades, there is only one tactic; that of developing broad formations in which we act as a loose ideological current."

Again we have to ask: where is the evidence to back up this assertion? And again, the comrades have no evidence because there is no evidence. It is, in fact, a gross falsification of our position.

Let us quote from the draft statement that we submitted to the International Executive Committee as a basis for further discussion. The statement argues that the key strategic task of the Committee for a Workers’ International in Europe should be to attempt "to regroup all those who refuse to accept that there is no alternative to capitalism and are prepared to fight for socialism". But where in the statement does it argue that our only tactic is "developing broad formations in which we act as a loose ideological current"?

In fact, the forms of organisation that will be necessary for sections of the Committee for a Workers’ International within broad formations would vary, depending on the character of these formations, our influence within them, which other forces were involved and other concrete conditions. Let us quote what the document actually says, rather than what the comrades would like it to say: 'There is not one tactic... In some countries, the regroupment of existing Trotskyist organisations will be the core of any new party. Elsewhere the forces for new parties will include those who have emerged from the wreckage of Stalinism. The majority of forces for new parties will come from a new younger generation...

"The exact political character of these new parties will depend on the dominant forces within them. In Scotland the situation has been extremely favourable for us because of the dominance of Scottish Militant Labour -a Marxist organisation - in the creation of the Scottish Socialist Party. We therefore have a clearly socialist party with quite an advanced programme.

We will have to intervene in parties or pre-parties whose programmes are weak or are confused ... Our ability to intervene will depend on many factors but particularly the strength and clarity of our own sections...

"To say that the creation of new workers parties is the key task therefore we should dissolve themselves into them would be a huge error ... The question is how to get these parties to absorb the lessons of the past 150 years of Marxism. We should promote our basic programmatic demands while seeking patiently ... to advance our full programme. Until such time as this is accepted we need to organise openly within these parties to promote and defend the ideas of Marxism. Exactly what forms that organisation will take will depend on the concrete circumstances. We are in the process of solving this question at the present stage in Scotland. The question will be posed differently in different countries. "(New emphasis added)

If that is not sufficient to lay to rest the crude distortion of our position which states that we want to apply one strategy right across the world let's quote from the second last paragraph: "We are not suggesting that the Scottish experience should be mechanically applied across Europe. Each section has to intervene in the working class movement relevant to the specific form of the movement in each country."

We would ask the comrades in this as in all other questions to deal with our real position and not a parody of our position. Indeed it is ironic that these criticisms should be levelled at the International Socialist Movement majority who have argued for the past two years precisely against the attempt by the International to regiment the sections without reference to the concrete conditions in each country.

Two years ago an international delegation from sections of the Committee for a Workers’ International arrived in Scotland to convince us where we were going wrong (fortunately we convinced one of these comrades that we were not going wrong; and at least one other comrade from that delegation now accepts, in the light of experience that our assessment of the forces that could be generated through transforming the Scottish Socialist Alliance into a new party has been proven correct).

However the main speaker on behalf of the delegation at a debate at the Scottish Militant Labour National Committee spent most of his contribution explaining that it was impossible to work in the same formation as non-members of the Committee for a Workers’ International because that had been the experience of the Swedish section. The same points were repeated to us over and over again, notably at the Euopean School in Leuven, that the Swedish model was the model to follow.

At the same Scottish Militant Labour National Committee, Committee for a Workers’ International Secretary, Tony Saunois argued that the forces of socialism and Marxism internationally were facing a period of retreat and disintegration and therefore the Scottish Socialist Party project was doomed to fail. At a British National Committee we were repeatedly told that because Socialist Alliances had been unsuccessful in various regions in England, that our strategy in Scotland was therefore wrong.

One of our main arguments was that the comrades outside Scotland were indulging in abstract generalisations rather than examining the specific conditions on the ground. Indeed, one of the problems in our opinion with the methodology of the Committee for a Workers’ International leadership is that it is over-centralised and seeks to impose strategy and tactics upon individual sections when these decisions have to be worked out concretely at national level. In the case of Scotland, the assessment of the Committee for a Workers’ International leadership - which was unfortunately was accepted by the 1998 World Congress - has proven disastrously mistaken.

We would not dream of attempting to impose exactly the same strategy we have developed in Scotland within other European countries where conditions are clearly different. However we are internationalists, we have experience in the mass movement, we have conducted a strategy which is acknowledged as a resounding success by the vast mass of Committee for a Workers’ International members in Scotland and by the vast mass of non-Committee for a Workers’ International socialist activists outside Scotland. Consequently we have a right to express our views about the general strategy of the international without the sneering misrepresentation of our position sketched out in the faction's conference review statement.

Unfortunately, the Committee or a Workers’ International / Socialist Party leadership seem to be so blinded by hostility to the Scottish Socialist Party and to the International Socialist Movement majority that they have refused to draw any positive lessons from the experience of the Scottish Socialist Party. Sadly, it has been other rival organisations that have at least drawn some of the lessons of Scottish Militant Labour, the Scottish Socialist Alliance and the Scottish Socialist Party.

In particular, the Socialist Workers Party, following the attendance by national Socialist Workers Party leaders at the Scottish Socialist Party Socialism 2000 event made an abrupt turn to the London Socialist Alliance, part of a movement initiated by the Socialist Party (then Militant Labour) in England and Wales following on from the successful launch of the Scottish Socialist Alliance.

From all accounts, this turn by the Socialist Workers Party has breathed new life into the LSA and allowed it to attract new fresh forces to the fight for socialism. The LSA was able to achieve an impressive vote in the London Assembly elections, including 7 per cent of first-past-the-post votes cast in the Euro constituency covering North East London and over 6 per cent in the Euro constituency covering South West London.

Yet the Socialist Party, with the exception of individuals such as Ian Page and Dave Nellist, has played little or no part in this development. As a result, the Socialist Party has been left marginalized in London, with the Socialist Workers Party allowed to grab the leadership of a movement which is now attracting the support of a significant minority of the working class and the youth.

We recognise that London is not Scotland. Nor does the Socialist Party in London have anything approaching the strength and influence that Scottish Militant Labour accumulated in ten years of high profile campaigning.

Nor would we suggest that the Socialist Party should have "put all its eggs in one basket" as Philip recently claimed we were suggesting. You can put all your eggs in one basket; or you can put in none. Or you can put in some.

It is not a question of 'all or nothing' but of recognising the mood for left unity that extends far beyond the existing members of left organisations, the dynamic of unity which can attract fresh forces and fresh support. We would contend that if the Socialist Party had put even some limited resources into the LSA over a period of time we would be today be in a much stronger position in London.

Recently, there has been a welcome change in attitude towards the LSA by the Socialist Party leadership, although there is a danger even here that it could be too little too late. Unfortunately, it looks to us as though the Socialist Party has already ceded a lot of ground to the Socialist Workers Party as a result of mistaken strategy and some tactical blunders.

We believe that there is an important regroupment process taking place now on an all-European scale as witnessed by developments such as the Left Bloc in Portugal, developments in some Scandinavian countries, the electoral alliance between the LCR and LO in France and other shifts. We hope that whatever other differences we may have, that Committee for a Workers’ International will add its weight to this development, and participate positively in this process.

The faction comrades repeat some false accusations regarding the treatment of representatives of the Committee for a Workers’ International at the Scottish Socialist Party conference. The first is that Peter and Niall were deliberately excluded from international discussions. That is not the case: they were explicitly invited to have a meal and discussion with the international representatives on Saturday evening and unfortunately declined. There was no question that these comrades were deliberately excluded.

It is true that, initially, no-one from the Committee for a Workers’ International was called to speak at the conference until a Dundee comrade intervened. However, there was no "list of speakers". There had been no provision for any international speakers apart from the Cuban ambassador. This was agreed unanimously, without dissent, at an Scottish Socialist Party EC attended by Philip.

However there was a gap in the agenda caused by movers of resolutions failing to appear on Sunday morning; the chair of that session (not a member of the International Socialist Movement), in order to fill that gap, took it on himself to invite some international speakers. He accidentally overlooked the Committee for a Workers’ International representative, an oversight that was immediately rectified when it was pointed out. To suggest that this was a deliberate manoeuvre is to invent a conspiracy.

The truth is that, contrary to mythology that is circulating around the international, the Committee for a Workers’ International has been a given a platform within the Scottish Socialist Party over a number of events. At the Socialism 2000 event, as well as various Scottish Committee for a Workers’ International speakers, Joe Higgins and Peter Hadden both addressed full plenary sessions, while the founding conference of the Scottish Socialist Party last year was addressed by a Chilean comrade.

However, the comrades pose the question: do we consider the Committee for a Workers’ International "not worth a candle ... sectarian...undemocratic... a burden on our work in Scotland." They ask us to make clear our attitude to the Committee for a Workers’ International.

We have to be honest and state that while we would not necessarily use the same terminology, yes - we have serious criticisms. Not, we would add, of the Committee for a Workers’ International - but of the central leadership of the Committee for a Workers’ International who have undermined their own authority within the International Socialist Movement and within the wider Scottish Socialist Party as a result of their hostility towards the whole Scottish Socialist Party project. We have already cited examples. We could cite many more. The opposition of the Socialist Party / Committee for a Workers’ International leadership is public knowledge, not just in Scotland but right across the world. Some people have point blank refused to join the International Socialist Movement because they do not understand why they should join an International which they know is implacably opposed to everything they are doing.

That is a problem not of our making. Until recently, we have concentrated almost entirely on developing our work in Scotland. But we have had no support whatsoever, not one iota of assistance from the Committee for a Workers’ International leadership.

The Committee for a Workers’ International leadership in effect refuse to recognise the acknowledged, elected leadership of the Scottish section. Their role has from the outset been to seek points of support within Scotland and to whip up hysteria the length and breadth of the International against the leadership in Scotland by providing a selective, one-sided and sometimes falsified account of what is taking place within the Scottish Socialist Party and International Socialist Movement. We believe that we are regarded as an 'enemy within' rather than as a section of the International which has legitimate political differences with the leadership.

The comrades have a right to their opinion and to their criticisms. But we would have expected critical support, rather than outright, unbridled opposition from Committee for a Workers’ International leadership. Even at this stage we ask the comrades the Committee or a Workers’ International/Socialist Party leadership to retrace their steps and withdraw their opposition to the Scottish Socialist Party project. On that basis, we believe that it is possible for constructive discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of Scotland, the strengths and weaknesses of England, the strengths and weaknesses of the International to take place.

We hope this clarifies our attitude to the Committee for a Workers’ International. But we would also ask these questions to the Committee for a Workers’ International leadership: What is your attitude towards the International Socialist Movement majority? We have no problem accommodating differences of opinion within our ranks. We have no problem collaborating with the comrades of the minority faction while debating out our differences. But does the Committee for a Workers’ International leadership have a problem accommodating the Scottish section?

Finally we ask the comrades who have joined the faction to ponder this statement made by Leon Trotsky written in October 1934: "Psychology, ideas and customs usually lag behind the developments of objective relations in society and in the class, even in the revolutionary organisations, the dead lay their hands upon the living. The preparatory period of propaganda has given us the cadres without which we could not make one step forward, but the same period, has, as a heritage, permitted the expression within the organisation of extremely abstract concepts of the construction of a new party and a new International.

In their chemically pure form these conceptions are expressed in the most complete manner by the dead sect of Bordigists, who hope that the proletarian vanguard will convince itself, by means of a hardly readable literature, of the correctness of their position and sooner or later will correctly gather around their sect.

"Often these sectarians add that revolutionary events inevitably push the working class towards us. This passive expectancy, under a cover of idealistic messianism, has nothing in common with Marxism. Revolutionary events always and inevitably pass over the heads of every sect. By means of propagandistic literature, if it is good, one can educate the first cadres, but one cannot rally the proletarian vanguard which lives neither in a circle nor in a schoolroom, but in a class society, in a factory, in the organisations of the mosses, a vanguard to whom one must know how to speak in the language of its experiences.

"The best-prepared propagandist cadres must inevitably disintegrate if they do not find contact with the daily struggle of the masses. The expectation of the Bordigists that revolutionary events will of themselves push the masses to them as a reward for their `correct' ideas represents the crudest of illusions. During revolutionary events, the masses do not inquire for the address of this or that sect, but leap over it.

"To grow more rapidly during the period of flux, during the preparatory period, one must know how to find points of contact in the consciousness of wide circles of workers. It is necessary to establish proper relations with the moss organisations. It is necessary to find the correct point of departure corresponding to the concrete conditions of the proletarian vanguard in the person of its various groupings.

"And for this it is necessary to see oneself not as a makeshift for the new party, but only as an instrument for its creation. In other words, while preserving in its totality an intransigence on principle, it is necessary to free oneself radically from sectarian hangovers which subsist as a heritage from a purely propagandist period."

May 2000

[Continue to the Committee for a Workers International reply...]

Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join