Re: Scottish Socialist Party: ISM leaves CWI

[David Welch <david.welch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I think 'mass' is intended to imply a particular orientation, as opposed
to vanguard for example.

>
> Threats of violence? Can you document this?
>
You can examine the archives of the UK left network mailing list. My
personal view is that it's easy to get overheated in exchanges in
cyberspace and to misinterpret carelessly worded statements.

>
> 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.
>
Surgery is usually painful, but necessary, I view political struggle in
much the same way.

> >   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?
>
In a sense, the Socialist Alliance is an alliance of almost all the
revolutionary left in Britain (the Socialist Labour Party is the only
group of any significance which remains outside) and the Liaison Committee
organizes its operations (there are also annual conferences). The CPGB is
a small minority within the alliance.

> >   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?
>
The CPGB advocates that Scotland should have a parliament with full powers
including the right to independence, but that it shouldn't exercise that
right, in particular Scotland (unlike Ireland) is not an oppressed nation.

In fact Scottish nationalism is not particularly significant as one can see
from elections in Scotland and from the referendum for a Scottish
parliament, but in so far as the SSP's nationalism is undermining the
effective unity of the British working class it is reactionary.

> >   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.
>
A devastating critique! I'm not sure why 'smash the UK state' is
'in-group' language since it's meaning is perfectly clear. Indeed the
charge of 'political impotence' could easily be applied to Louis, who
hasn't taken part in political activity for several decades, will all
terms not in common parlance be stricken from your vocabulary?