Re: Scottish Socialist Party: ISM leaves CWI

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>==========================================
>Weekly Worker 367 Thursday January 18 2001
>==========================================
>   The ISM leadership says that the final parting of the ways "follows a
>   protracted, three-year debate centring on the future of the SSP and
>   the role of Marxists in creating new parties of the working class"
>   (International Socialist Online January 15). The ISM was indeed
>   opposed to Taaffe's model of a bureaucratic "small mass workers'
>   party" sect. But in its place it posed a broader organisational form,
>   wholeheartedly embracing nationalism and overt reformism.

What is the deal with this "small mass workers' party" thing. Didn't Tony
Cliff use a formulation similar to this when he threw his sect into a
do-or-die campaign to turn itself into a "small mass revolutionary" party.
Maybe, I am dense or something but--hello--"small" and "mass" do not go
together.

>   Workers Unity tendency (Weekly Worker January 11). These included
>   threats of violence against those who have had the temerity to oppose
>   the SSP's call for an "independent socialist Scotland" - in reality
>   Scottish independence pure and simple - and to campaign for working
>   class organisation on an all-Britain basis.

Threats of violence? Can you document this?

>   But this total embrace of Scottish nationalism is not restricted to
>   former members of the CWI. Apart from those around the Workers Unity
>   tendency and a few other notable exceptions, the SSP as a whole is now
>   a million miles away from a principled position on working class unity
>   against the UK state. In its headlong rush towards separatism the SSP
>   views cooperation amongst socialists throughout Britain as purely a
>   question of diplomatic nicety. It is all very well for comrades in
>   Scotland to express solidarity with struggles in England and Wales,
>   but a single organisation to unite and advance them is considered
>   beyond the pale.

Maybe it is you who are beyond the pale. I myself would rather get root
canal surgery than belong to a group that was being fought over by British
ultraleft sectarians, like buzzards over a carcass.

>   In December the Socialist Alliance Liaison Committee unanimously
>   adopted a CPGB motion calling for negotiations with the SSP and Welsh
>   Socialist Alliance with a view to forging a joint general election
>   campaign. This would open up the possibility of a party political
>   broadcast to be relayed to millions across the United Kingdom, thus
>   demonstrating in a powerful way that a viable all-Britain working
>   class movement could be constructed. In addition the motion invited
>   the SSP and WSA to take up seats on the SA Liaison Committee.

What is the SA Liaison Committe, a front group?

>   However, far from welcoming this initiative, the SSP leadership
>   apparently regards it as a devious Brit plot to subvert its autonomy.

I guess it is.

>   Comrade Green even goes so far as to write: "...can I suggest that it
>   might be more productive in future if there is an explicit recognition
>   that our respective organisations operate in different countries and,
>   although we are striving to build stronger links, we are organised
>   separately?"

Wine for Comrade Green and water for his horses!

>   Although England and Scotland can be described by those who wish to
>   stress divergent nationalist roads as "separate countries", they are
>   obviously part and parcel of the same state.

Maybe that's the problem.

>   Although we are the most consistent advocates of national
>   self-determination, we favour separation only in the most exceptional
>   circumstances - ie, when objective circumstances effectively preclude
>   working class unity in the same state. In general we are for the
>   largest possible state formations and, reflecting this, the closest
>   possible working class organisational unity.

So what is the CPGB's position on Scottish nationalism?

>   But the Socialist Alliance is hardly proposing a quick merger. Of all
>   the SA components only the CPGB is at present campaigning for the
>   alliance project to form the basis for the coming together of all
>   socialists in England, Wales and Scotland in a single democratic and
>   centralised party. But we are not so foolish as to be unaware that for
>   the moment we are all "organised separately". And the proposals for a
>   joint campaign are hardly a recipe for the involuntary absorption of
>   the SSP by an English chauvinist monster.

English chauvinist monster? I think I understand your position now.

>   We do not like the fact that for the moment communists and socialists
>   are not organised as a powerful united force to smash the UK state.

I know. Why don't you use militant "in-group" language like "smash the UK
state" to compensate for your political impotence. And make sure to festoon
your newspaper with hammers-and-sickles. Rhetorical devices go a long way
according to the postmodernists.

>   If, for one moment, comrade Green could put aside his nationalist
>   prejudices, then surely he would be able to see that a joint campaign
>   could make us both "stronger than the sum of our parts". Let us
>   examine ways in which both an SSP broadcast in Scotland and a joint
>   UK-wide broadcast could be won. This would almost certainly mean the
>   adoption of a single electoral name across Britain, but would still
>   allow separate and distinct propaganda.
>
>   Peter Manson

"Put aside his nationalist prejudices"? When you write obnoxious garbage
like this, why would anybody want to work with you.


>                             _________________
>
>SSP replys to SA
>
>   December 31 2000
>   To Pete McLaren and John Nicholson,
>   Joint convenors, Network of Socialist Alliances
>
>   Dear comrades
>
>   The SSP would like to congratulate the Preston Socialist Alliance for
>   their recent by-election success. The continued growth and development
>   of the Socialist Alliances in England have also encouraged us.
>
>   Thank you for your letter of December 11, which asked the SSP to
>   consider an SA Liaison meeting motion on the general election and TV
>   election broadcasts. Given that the SSP has already come to an
>   understanding with the Socialist Alliances in England and the Welsh
>   Socialist Alliance over the general election, I have to say that I
>   found the references to "national" in the motion ambiguous.
>   Consequently, it is not easy to understand exactly what is being
>   proposed and why.
>
>   The SSP already operate on a national basis and are preparing,
>   finances permitting, a nation wide electoral challenge. The SSP will
>   qualify for a national TV broadcast in Scotland. The SSP simply could
>   not contemplate not having a national SSP electoral broadcast. As a
>   party, we have developed a strong base of support across the country,
>   a nation wide branch structure, a strong national profile and we have
>   already twice had national TV broadcasts. We would be very surprised
>   if you were asking us not to have an SSP broadcast in favour of a
>   looser UK-wide broadcast.
>
>   Perhaps you were thinking about a UK-wide broadcast in addition to a
>   Scottish one? In principle, of course, the SSP would be open to this.
>   However, the broadcasting companies are highly unlikely to be
>   responsive to such an approach. It is very probable that they will
>   simply look at the number of seats being contested in each country -
>   eg, in Scotland the threshold is likely to be 12. It may be more
>   productive for the Socialist Alliances in England to find out what the
>   threshold for a broadcast in will be England (as opposed to the UK as
>   a whole) and start planning accordingly.
>
>   You also said that the SSP is invited to send representatives to
>   meetings of the Socialist Alliances in England Liaison Committee. We
>   are not sure what is being asked of the SSP here, and why. The motion
>   again is neither clear nor detailed, but it does refer to a committee
>   to coordinate election campaigns. Is this why the SSP is being invited
>   to the Socialist Alliances in England Liaison Committee?
>
>   We appreciate that the Socialist Alliances in England are approaching
>   the SSP in the spirit of developing further cooperation. In this
>   spirit, can I suggest that it might be more productive in future if
>   there is an explicit recognition that our respective organisations
>   operate in different countries and, although we are striving to build
>   stronger links, we are organised separately?
>
>   In any event, it might be more productive for office-bearers from our
>   respective organisations, initially, to open discussions on
>   cooperation around the elections rather than one side or another being
>   presented with a set of organisational conclusions before the
>   political dialogue is underway.
>
>   We value our links with the Socialist Alliances in England and we look
>   forward to further cooperation and collaboration. Perhaps you could
>   get in touch by phone and we could discuss ways of taking forward our
>   cooperation for the general election campaign.
>
>   Yours for socialism
>
>   Allan Green
>   national secretary
>

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/