Scottish Socialist Party and Big Business

international | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis Wednesday June 18, 2003 21:29 by John Meehan

The SSP won 6 seats in the May 1 Scottish Assembly Elections. Some left wing critics of the party's convenor Tommy Sheridan - including the Irish Socialist Party member Stephen Boyd - criticised comments made by Sheridan about big business in Scotland. The SSP has passed a resolution clarifying the disputed issues.

Below is a motion passed by the SSP National Council on the "big business" isssue, and an exchange of views between John Throne and Alan McCombes.

Tommy Sheridan was among those who voted for the motion.


--------------------

ADDITIONAL BRANCH MOTIONS
To June 2003 SSP National Council
Agenda Item 5

Amended version of Motion 2
Dundee West and Dundee Central branches

There is a minor amendment to Motion 2 previously submitted by Dundee East Branch in the 3rd last paragraph.

Note: Cathcart and Motherwell branches have also submitted the same motion as Dundee East that was circulated in the NC papers.

This branch congratulates the SSP candidates, members and branches that worked so hard to deliver the excellent result for the party on May 1st.

The tremendous breakthrough for the SSP can lay the basis for increased electoral support and the rapid building of the SSP.

There are many tasks facing the party following such a result. Central to them will be building the active membership of the SSP.

Every branch will have a large number of names of people interested in the SSP which of course need to be followed up immediately.

To assist in this we would like to suggest that the SSP organises a series of public meetings with the newly elected MSPs speaking on the socialist vision of the SSP. If finances permit, a recruitment leaflet appealing to all those who voted SSP to join the party could be produced and be used by the branches on public activity in the coming weeks.

There will be many other initiatives that the party nationally and locally can take in a drive to expand the membership of the SSP. These should be discussed urgently by the NC and the branches.

As well as these and other steps that can be taken to build the party we also require clarification on the party's position on public ownership of the economy in an independent socialist Scotland.

On a number of occasions during the election campaign on TV and the papers references were made by SSP representatives to the SSP's support for the "mixed economy" i.e. a mixture of public ownership existing alongside big business in an independent socialist Scotland.

While building the SSP in the months ahead it is important to clarify what exactly is the position of the party on this issue. The SSP should stand for the public ownership and democratic working class control of the monopolies that dominate the Scottish economy.

It is the national and multinational corporations that have a stranglehold over the Scottish economy despite the existence of a small business sector in Scotland. Unless the decisive sections of the economy are under the democrratic control of the working class as a whole then it will not be possible to eradicate poverty and inequality.

A "high wage" economy and the existence of capitalism are incompatible. We stand instead for the democratic socialist planning of the Scottish economy. We call for a discussion in the party to clarify these points.

-------------------------------------

Comrades the International Socialist movement (ISM) is a marxist platform or
group within the Scottish Socialist Party. (SSP) It evolved out of Scottish
Militant Labor which was the Scottish section of the Committee for a Worker
International. (CWI) It has provided the main leadership for setting up and taking
forward the SSP. This is a letter that Labors Militant Voice Comrades have
sent to the ISM concerning a statement made by leading ISM and SSP Comrade Tommy Sheridan. It also deals with the issue of the ISM and its future to a limited
extent. I will also post Comrade Alan McCombes response to this. And LMV will
respond in turn to Alans piece in the next days. Comradely Sean O'T.

Letter to Comrades in the International Socialist Movement (ISM)


Dear Comrades,


The breakthrough of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) in winning six seats
in the recent elections is an inspiration. This victory results from the
party's courageous fight against the attacks of capitalism on the Scottish working
class. Workers the world over are stronger for the rise of the SSP. We all
owe a debt of gratitude to the SSP Comrades and to the International Socialist
Movement (ISM) Comrades.


The revolutionary socialist/Marxist group the ISM, which grew out of a former
section of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), took the initial
steps to build the SSP and have been at the center of the Party's development
ever since. When they moved to build the SSP, they met the stiffest of
opposition from the CWI leadership, but thankfully they held their ground. These
election results more than vindicate the position they took.


As far as we understand, in building the SSP the ISM Comrades were attempting
to address issues which confront all revolutionary groups: How to take
revolutionary ideas out to the wider sections of the working class and build a semi
mass and mass base and the related issue of how to work in a united front
manner with other groups and individuals from different revolutionary traditions.
After the election results there is no doubt that real progress has been made
along both these lines. We believe that the experience of the SSP should be
studied by all.


It is in this context that we would like to raise a few issues for discussion
with the ISM Comrades. In doing so we would like to separate ourselves from
the attacks on the ISM and the SSP leadership that are coming from such sources
as the CWI leadership and some other left groups. Unlike these groups we have
always supported the building of the SSP and the work of the ISM in this
regard and we have always defended the SSP against sectarian and dishonest
criticism.


Look at the most recent dishonesty of the CWI. After the recent election in
Scotland it wrote: "The Scottish Socialist party (SSP) now has six MSPs elected
to the Scottish parliament. This important breakthrough can assist socialists
to reach a new generation who are looking for an alternative to poverty, low
pay, racism and war." So according to the CWI this is an "important
breakthrough".


But at their 1998 world congress, the CWI passed a resolution the first line
of which reads: "This world congress of the CWI places on record its
strongest possible opposition to the decision of SML to launch the Scottish Socialist
Party". (Scottish Militant Labor - SML - was at the time the name of the ISM when it was the Scottish section of the CWI). There should be no misunderstanding, if it had been up to the CWI "this important breakthrough" would never have taken place, the SSP would never have existed. Now, they fail to even mention their earlier "strongest possible opposition" to the entire SSP project.

Any criticism from the CWI has little value if it doesn't criticise its own mistake in opposing the building of the SSP.


However, this incorrect approach of the CWI leadership cannot be allowed to
prevent us from recognizing the increasing pressures that are making themselves
felt on the SSP. In this context we would like to raise with our ISM Comrades
the recent statements by comrade Tommy Sheridan when he was being interviewed
by "The Herald" and other media outlets.


We think a discussion of Tommy's comments is vital especially now because of
the recent electoral breakthrough of the SSP. This breakthrough means
increased pressures on the SSP as well as the ISM. There is now all sorts of
"friendly" advice to be more "reasonable" and "practical," which really means making compromises with capitalism. There will also be increased pressures in the future to make compromises in order to keep the seats that have been won.


As the best known voice of the SSP and the ISM Tommy is particularly targeted
by the bosses' media in this regard. For instance "The Guardian" on May 27th
wrote after the election victory: "Sheridan, too, once rallied against the
injustices of the capitalist world, but the causes he espoused were modest and
just......Now that he has been joined by five others, the SSP has the chance to
build on that, to function as devolution's social conscience. It is said that
Sheridan tried to persuade Fox to stop after one verse of Burns. He needs to
control his singing socialists. He needs to tell them that if all they bring
is disharmony, they will not have served their comrades, their constituents or
their country well."


(The reference here is to Colin Fox singing Robbie Burn's "A Man's a Man For
All That" at the swearing-in ceremony in the Scottish parliament as a protest
against having to swear allegiance to the monarchy.) It could not be much
clearer than this. The Guardian is calling on Tommy to reign in the other MSP's
of the SSP and turn the SSP into "devolution's social conscience". The
capitalist press is targeting Tommy to get him to bend the SSP to their will. To be a
"social conscience".


CONCESSIONS TO NATIONALISM AND CAPITALISM.


In raising the statements of Tommy, we recognize the heroic work Tommy has
done in helping Scottish workers and youth organize themselves to fight the
attacks of capitalism. This includes going to prison. We also know the pressures
on any public spokesperson of a revolutionary movement to popularize the ideas
and how this can lead to errors. We also know the pressures and dangers in
speaking to the big business press and the need to see things such as public
statements in context.


However, having said this, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the
statements made by Comrade Tommy Sheridan at the very least indicate a shift in the
direction of adapting to the pressures of capitalism and nationalism. To our
knowledge there has been no public statement from the SSP or ISM on Tommy's
comments. If this is the case and continues to be the case it will be difficult
not to conclude that the SSP and the ISM are moving in this direction also.


Tommy is reported as follows: "What we're saying is that in a future
independent socialist Scotland we want to work on training, on skills. We want to
offer a very highly skilled economy, a motivated work force for big business. If
that can work in places like France and Germany, where they have higher wages
and better standards, and produce better products, why can't that work here in
Scotland?" And in relation to the question: "Would you nationalize Tesco?"
Tommy said: "I don't think there's a need to nationalize right now" and "What we
would be doing is regulating business. You don't have to own it, you just
regulate it." Tesco is one of the largest supermarket chains in England, Scotland
and Wales.


Comrades, there is no other way of looking at this other than a capitulation
to the pressures of big business. If Comrade Tommy and the ISM has or does
issue a statement saying that this was a mistake then this would begin to go some
distance to rectify the position, but even if this is done the question still
has to be raised how such a statement could have been made in the first place.


We in Labors Militant Voice have agreed with the demand put forward by the
ISM and the SSP for an "independent socialist Scotland". However we have raised
that we did not agree with putting this forward without also putting forward
that a socialist Scotland could only resist the pressures of international
capitalism and solve the problems of the Scottish working class if the revolution
spread to England, Wales, Ireland etc. In other words we have been for
putting forward the demand for an independent socialist Scotland as a step towards a
socialist federation of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales as part of a Socialist united states of Europe, not putting forward this demand in isolation.


Not only is the demand for an independent socialist Scotland continually put
forward in isolation by the SSP but we also have the statement on the SSP web
site quoting the SSP manifesto; "We reject the scare mongering of those who
claim that Scotland is too small, too weak, or too poor to go it alone and defy
the new world order of the global millionaires. We repudiate the fictional
claim that in the new globalized economy an independent Scotland would be
powerless to tax the rich, wipe out poverty or initiate large-scale investment in
public services". And to add to this Tommy talks approvingly of the situation in
Norway, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany. Comrades we should note here
specifically that the SSP manifesto claims it could "wipe out poverty" within the
borders of Scotland.


Comrades, it seems to us that the tendency can be seen in these comments of
Comrade Tommy to increasingly see the SSP's day to day politics within the
boundaries of Scotland itself and within the boundaries of capitalism. It seems
to us that the ISM and the SSP should be arguing exactly the opposite than from
where they say that Scotland can "go it alone". Yes the Scottish working
class can win certain partial and temporary reforms by organizing and fighting.
However, a solution to the problems cannot be won within the borders of
Scotland, within the confines of capitalism, or by the Scottish working class acting
alone.


It seems to us that the work of the SSP on the ground in Scotland, while
fighting for every reform that can be won, should also intimately link these
struggles with an explanation of how the fundamental problems cannot be fully
resolved within the confines of capitalism or within the borders of Scotland. That
is, the SSP should be explaining how these struggles must be linked with the
struggle of the international working class to challenge capitalism
internationally. What we are raising here, comrades, is that there appears to be a
retreat from internationalism as the central core of the practical day to day
politics of the SSP/ISM.


It is useful to think more about building an international working class
movement in the context of what Tommy says about Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway - countries he holds up as examples. It is likely that these countries
do not appear much of an example to the working class in these countries.
Also, from what Tommy says, he envisages Scotland competing with these countries
for investment. How could the SSP/ISM build an international with the workers
from these countries on this approach, competing with them for investment?


It also appears that increasingly the central role of the Scottish working
class acting independently as a class is not being explained in the approach
reflected in Tommy's statements. Missing is any idea of workers' control or that
capitalism should be ended and replaced by a democratic plan of production
based on the democratic decisions and organizations of the working class. There
is no hint in any way of the new economy being based on new workers' councils
and structures and the democratic decisions of control and management by the
working class through these bodies. Instead it is talk of offering a "motivated
workforce for big business." This last statement by Tommy is almost
unbelievable.


The approach seems to be to explain and fight for what can be implemented
within the laws of the Scottish parliament and within a Scotland with a majority
SSP government in the Scottish parliament. And what this can achieve is
explained as being within the context of capitalism such as exists in France,
Germany, Denmark, etc. No matter what way you look at it, this is incorrect.
Leaving aside any socialist principles, the history of the last few decades of
"global capitalism" shows that capital - that is, investment - will seek out the
areas with the lowest wages, low taxes, and least environmental regulations.
Tommy's "motivated workforce" will also have to be low paid and prepared to work
in any conditions.


The approach implied by Tommy's statements leads inevitably to the policy of
encouraging the working class of one country or region to compete with workers
in another region for who will work cheapest. This is the race to the bottom
and cuts across class solidarity. It is what the offensive of global
capitalism wants every worker to accept. Compete against other workers to attract
investment. And of course Tommy's position flies in the face of fact. Europe is
currently mired in an economic slowdown, and the German economy is experiencing
double digit unemployment and actually contracted in the last quarter. In
other words, Tommy's approach is not "working".


Comrades, we are raising the following for discussion: Do the statements of
Tommy not reflect a retreat from internationalism as the central core of the
day-to-day practical politics of the SSP and the ISM? Do they not reflect a
retreat from the explanation that only the working class organized
internationally can carry out the policies of ending capitalism and solving the
fundamental problems of Scottish society?


We would also like to discuss these issues in the context of the transitional
method. Does Tommy's statements not reflect a full scale retreat from the
transitional method which as we understand it is to make a connection between
existing consciousness and the need to end capitalism and build a new socialist
society. The SSP is showing itself to be very skillful in making a connection
with the existing consciousness, in taking up the day-to-day struggles that are
to the front of working class peoples' minds. But it seems to us that Tommy's
statements show that the connection is not being made with the role of
capitalism and the need to end capitalism in Scotland and internationally. Instead
the connection is being made to how things can be improved under capitalism and
under capitalism within Scotland.

THE ISM, IS IT FUNCTIONING AS A REVOLUTIONARY MARXIST CURRENT?


Of course the statements of Tommy are not the responsibility of Tommy alone.
They are also the responsibility of the ISM. In this context we would like to
raise issues that we have raised in the past with some of the leading ISM
comrades. We have been worried for some time that insufficient attention was being
given to building the ISM as a revolutionary Marxist group within the SSP.
We have been worried that the ISM was less and less functioning as a
revolutionary Marxist group as opposed to being a left pressure group inside the SSP.


We have raised that as the SSP grows and develops so will the reformist for
ces within it and on it. And that in this situation if the ISM is not built and
is not functioning as a healthy revolutionary Marxist group, then the most
likely development would be that the ISM would stagnate and eventually cease to
exist to all practical purposes. This would make more likely the capitulation
of the SSP to the pressures of global capitalism.


We are very worried that our worst fears are being realized when we read
Tommy's statements. In light of these statements being made by its best known
member, how can the ISM be functioning as a revolutionary Marxist group? Tommy is
the best known member of the SSP and of the ISM. The bourgeois have clearly
set their sights on influencing Tommy and through Tommy influencing the SSP. See
the "Herald" quote above. The pressures on Tommy and all the comrades in the
parliament are set to intensify enormously. Standing against these will only
be possible if there is a healthy functioning revolutionary Marxist
organization to give support and clarity, that is to help these comrades. From Tommy's statements it is very, very difficult to see how this could be happening.


The comrades on the front line such as Tommy, need to be able to be part of
and get the support of the ISM as a functioning revolutionary organization in
order to withstand the pressure. This means an organization based on
revolutionary Marxist theory, continually discussing the issues of the day in this
context and continually recruiting and developing and collectively discussing and
making decisions. Looking at things from afar it is impossible not to question
the degree to which these comrades have this support at this time. It is very
difficult not to conclude that the ISM is not carrying out the functions of a
revolutionary Marxist organization.


Tommy's views on issues are well known to the ISM and SSP membership and
wider layers of the working class. These ideas did not just appear on May 27th. So
how has the ISM responded to the development of Tommy's position along these
lines over the past period? We find it impossible to believe that the ISM is
united in agreement with Tommy's statements. If we are right on this, then has
there been a debate and a struggle within the ISM on these issues?


If the ISM is functioning as a revolutionary Marxist organization it would be
impossible for Tommy to come to these positions without a major political and
theoretical struggle inside the ISM. If this did take place and it was kept
secret then this was a mistake. The old, overly secretive methods of the past,
including those of the CWI, are not correct. The working class should have
access to the debates taking place in the revolutionary organizations. These
debates should be explained in the open publications and web sites of the
revolutionary group and the working class who read these asked to participate and
help clarify the issues.


But if, as appears to be the case from afar, such a theoretical and political
struggle did not take place in the ISM, then this raises in the most stark fas
hion to what extent the ISM is functioning as a revolutionary Marxist group.
To repeat, Tommy's statements did not dawn on him the moment he sat down to
give the interview to "The Herald". They had to have been developing for some
time. How then could the ISM, if it was a functioning revolutionary Marxist
organization, not have taken up a major struggle against these ideas?


Comrades, to be blunt, what Tommy's statement indicates is that the ISM is no
longer functioning as a revolutionary Marxist group inside the SSP. If
Comrades think this is too strong then please consider how Tommy's positions have
developed without a major theoretical and political struggle and how Tommy has
been able to make these statements without an outcry inside the ISM and an
alternative position being put forward.


One of our arguments has been that as the SSP grows so will the pressures of
reformism increase. Thus the more the SSP grows, the more need for the
building of the ISM to counter these pressures. But what seems to be the case at
present is that far from the ISM being built as a functioning revolutionary
Marxist group, including recruiting new members, and standing against the reformist
pressures, these pressures are actually being articulated by the best known ISM member and without being contradicted in any way by the ISM.


We see that in the last few days Rosie Kane has come out for nationalization
of some major companies. We welcome these statements from this comrade. We do
not know if this is an effort by others in the ISM to counter Tommy's
statements. We hope it is, but even if this is so it is insufficient. Tommy's
statements need to be openly discussed in the ISM and the SSP, with this discussion
shared through the ISM and SSP publications and web site with the working class.
Leading ISM comrades have made the case in the past that openness of the
revolutionary organizations is vital especially in this period. This is the time
now to see this open debate and struggle inside the ISM and the SSP.


The ISM correctly challenged some of the incorrect methods of the CWI.
However there is one tradition of the old CWI that may still be with the comrades:
When there was a difference in the CWI, there was tendency in the membership to
wait for a section of the leadership to take this up and open up debate. We
hope that this tradition is not alive in the ISM. We hope that the members of
the ISM, when they hear Tommy's statements, are not shrugging their shoulders
and getting on with their work locally and not taking the issue up directly. We
hope that there is not the tendency, conscious or unconscious, to wait until
a section of the ISM leadership takes up the issue meanwhile locally "we will
get on with our work". This would be a major mistake.


Comrades, all members of the ISM no matter how inexperienced they may be,
have to participate fully in the internal life. They must not simply look to the
leadership for the general position while they get on with the work on the
ground. If there are comrades in the ISM who have differences with Tommy's
positions, and we cannot believe there is not, they have to speak out. If they do
not, they are contributing to the development of Tommy's positions. That is they
are contributing to the concessions he is making to nationalism and
capitalism.

For the health of the SSP and of the ISM there has to be an open debate and
struggle over these issues involving the entire membership. The longer this is
postponed the more difficult it will be to combat these ideas. This means that
all members, including members with less experience have the duty to insist
on this debate. They must not as tended to be the case in the old CWI wait on a
section of the leadership to take up the issues.

The SSP initiative has been of great interest to activists internationally
and a source of hope. In the course of its development the ISM Comrades have
explained their position and policies publicly to all. If this initiative were to
end in a reformist swamp without at the very least having contributed to the
development of a large international Marxist current, then this would be a
severe blow to all working class activists. As they have done in the past, ISM
and SSP activists have the duty to debate these issues openly. If this is done
then the entire movement can benefit, if not then real damage can be done.

John Throne on behalf of Labor's Militant Voice

Chicago, IL, USA

6/1/03

Dear John,

I have no time to deal with all the issues you raise or to carry on a polemic. I'm not surprised at your specific criticism of Tommy's quote. The leadership of the SSP, including Tommy himself, would have similar criticisms of the statement. People do make mistakes, and I will attempt to put the comment in context.

I have to confess, however, to being disappointed that you should so readily leap to such sweeping conclusions based on a single isolated quote. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I'm afraid you are drawing general conclusions and offering misplaced advice based on an extremely limited understanding of the SSP and the ISM. If you were simply seeking clarification that would be fair enough. But you have clearly discussed these conclusions in detail within your group prior to asking for clarification. It appears you have already circulated this letter quite widely, though I stand corrected on that point. Unfortunately your email contains a number of quite serious insinuations, including suggestions that the SSP leadership has shifted "in the direction of adapting to the pressures of capitalism and nationalism"; that we have a "tendency to increasingly see the SSP's day to day politics within the boundaries of Scotland itself and within the boundaries of capitalism"; that we are engaged in "a retreat from internationalism"; that we are "encouraging the working class of one country or region to compete with workers in another region for who will work cheapest." All of this is based on a single quote which does not in any way reflect the position of either Tommy, the ISM or the SSP leadership.
At an SSP National Council this week, Tommy himself supported a resolution (from the CWI, as it happens) which expressed criticism of the remark and restated the SSPs support for democratic public ownership of the economy. But let's get a few points clear. There is a myth perpetrated by some sectarians internationally - notably the CWI - which I'm afraid you appear to have swallowed whole. According to this myth, the SSP is good at local campaigning and agitational work but neglects the big issues such as challenging the ideology of capitalism and promoting the case for socialism. This is utter garbage. Tommy alone has probably spoken at 1000 public meeting over the last four years on the case against capitalism and for socialism in Scotland and worldwide. We have produced a book, Imagine - no doubt you have criticisms of it - which has sold many thousands of copies in Scotland (pro ata to the population the equivalent of 500,000 sales in the USA) and which has converted countless young people and workers to the cause of socialism. We have also sold and distributed thousands of manifestos raising our socialist and internationalist vision. Prior to this election we distributed door-to-door half a million copies of a four-page newspaper presenting the case against war and imperialism and the case for socialism as well as explaining some of our detailed policies for wealth redistribution, against privatisation etc. I could go on and on. But the fact is, few parties anywhere in the world have had a bigger impact in challenging capitalist ideology and converting huge swathes of the working class to socialism. And, I would add, few individuals anywhere in the world have done more than Tommy Sheridan to help shape socialist consciousness on a mass scale. Tommy, with the assistance of myself and others, has written weekly columns in several mass circulation newspapers over the last four years. These have dealt with all sorts of issues - including globalisation and the race to the bottom, which you refer to. We have also dealt with issues such as war and imperialism, racism, independence and internationalism, the profit system etc etc. I do not see any of these any of these articles circulating on international email lists. That's because, inconveniently for critics of the SSP, they illustrate that neither Tommy, the ISM, nor the SSP has sold out to reformism, capitalism or nationalism. They illustrate exactly the opposite.
It is exasperating that individuals and organisations internationally should so gleefully seize on a single quote and distribute it across the world, when the quote in question stands in contradiction to the millions of other
words that Tommy and other leaders of the SSP have spoken and written in opposition to big business and capitalism, including during the recent election campaign. In that sense your professed support for the work of the SSP appears similar to that of a football fan whose team has had a superb season, whose striker has scored a barrowload of goals, but then makes one mistake - and that mistake is subsequently brandished as evidence that the striker is useless and the that the team is on the downward slide.
I'll also put the quote in a more specific context. This was not just a straightforward interview with a journalist. This was an interrogation in front of an audience of several hundred people who were also involved in questioning Tommy.The entire event lasted several hours with the transcript subsequently edited down to a fraction of its original length, distorting the significance of the quote in question. Tommy is an outstanding representative of the SSP. He is also a human being - and like all human beings can occasionally make mistakes, especially in the course of a difficult verbal exchange. During the interview, most of Tommy comments were directed towards putting the case for public ownership and for socialism. I don't have time to go into all the details here, but I'm afraid when you are trying to deal concretely with what a socialist government would do in power in a small country like Scotland in the context of a globalised economy, the issues become more complex than can be answered by simply regurgitating slogans from the past.
We touched on this in the book, Imagine, and in some of the documents we wrote in reply to the CWI. Yes, we can talk about the need for global socialism. But when you're dealing with a mass audience - as we are doing day in and day out - a long term and abstract vision of the future is not enough. We need to also be able to say what we will do in the meantime. That is especially acute in Scotland, where, because of the role of the SSP socialist consciousness is far in advance of England, Wales and Ireland, most of Europe and indeed most of the world. Our supporters, and those beginning to think about our ideas, rightluy want to know what we would do in power in Scotland.
So what do we do? Frankly we don't have all the answers right now. Old slogans from the 70s and 80s are not adequate to deal with, for example, the problems that would face a transitional socialist regime in a small country like Scotland operating temporarily within a global capitalist environment.
Yes, we can take the main levers of the economy including land, oil, energy, transport, finance and big swathes of industry into public ownership under democratic workers control. But there are problem areas and that's what Tommy misleadingly tried to deal with. For example, what do you do about certain branch assembly plants of multinationals? What do you do about call centres? There are tens of thousands of call centre workers in Glasgow alone. These are essentially offices with banks of telephones operated by low paid workers on behalf of companies based outside Scotland? How do we win these workers to socialism? We have many call centre workers in the SSP and they will tell you the difficulties of applying general slogans about public ownership to specific companies in that sector. For those sections of the economy which would be difficult or inappropriate to bring into public ownership, including the small business sector, many call centres and electronic branch assembly plants, our emphasis instead should be in laying down legislation enforcing minimum standards, including a minimum wage, trade union rights, a shorter working week and better conditions of employment. We've also raised that any company closing a plant would be legally forced to pay three years wages in compensation to the workforce to allow for retraining etc. Of course, we know that faced with these regulations by a socialist government in Scotland, the companies which own these call centres etc will pull out (indeed they will pull out long before we reach that stage. We also know that the ruling classes will try to use the state to crush any movement towards socialism. But part of the task of winning millions to the struggle for socialism is to skilfully expose and shift the blame onto the other side, just as workers on strike will emphasise how reasonable and moderate their own demands are and how unreasonable their employers are. In my view, that is an attempt to deal transitionally with the complex task involved in establishing a transitional regime. Even the Bolsheviks in the early stages of the Russian Revolution did not take full control over the economy. Moreover, in Andrew Glynn's polemical pamphlet for Militant in the early 1980s attacking the reformist Alternative Economic Strategy he points out that some multinational branch assembly plants may have to be have to be left in private hands under a socialist plan of production.
Of course, globalisation means that today capital can much more easily just pull out. But it is distortion to claim that Tommy advocated that we support a race to the bottom, offering low wages etc. Exactly the opposite. What he was trying to suggest was that those businesses we could not take into public ownership would at the very least be legally forced to ensure the same wages and conditions as would exist in the public sector. In the past Militant raised the slogan of nationalisation of the top 200 monopolies. Today the Socialist Party calls for the nationalisation of the top 150 monopolies across Britain. This slogan is absolutely inadequate.
It
would mean just three or four Scottish companies being taken over, because that's the number of Scottish companies that are in the top 150. We have tried to go way beyond this old slogan, to deal concretely with what is possible in the short term in a socialist Scotland. Unfortunately because of the retreats and defeats of the past 20 years, the socialist movement generally has been on the defensive. It has developed an effective critique of capitalism, but has been less convincing in spelling out the alternative: what socialism would mean, how it would work in the conditions of the 21st century, what could be done and what can't be done at national level etc. Very little theoretical work has been done on this anywhere, to my knowledge, since the 1980s, even though the world has changed and the jigsaw can't jut be put back together again. This failure is inevitable given the weakness of socialism internationally. But we are under increasing pressure in Scotland to explain exactly what we would do in power. That pressure does not come from big business as you assert. It comes from the working class and from our own growing army of supporters who want more than slogans or vague promises about a future socialist world. In the passing, your references to some newspaper articles in the Herald and Guardian were way wide of the mark. These are just local journalists with some confused liberal opinions expressing their opinions. We know these people - they are hardly even political, let alone conscious representatives of the bourgeois. Much more serious and more typical has been the stream of hysterical articles and editorials frenziedly attacked the SSP, denouncing us as Trotskyist revolutionaries, anarchists, Marxists etc whose programme would impoverish Scotland, drag it back into the dark ages etc. The old tales of Liverpool redundancy notices, of Militant entryism etc have been resurrected with a vengeance since the election. That is real attitude of the bourgeois. The suggestion that the establishment want to gently influence the SSP in a more moderate direction is ludicrous, as is the inference that Tommy represents some kind of weak link that the ruling classes are seeking to exploit. There are no fundamental political divisions within ISM or within the leadership of the SSP, although some people, perhaps including you, evidently wish there were. None of this is to justify the wording of the partial quote from Tommy. But it is to show that it is not easy to deal in media sound bites with complicated explanations, and in the event Tommy tried to be too clever. Tommy does not make policy. His main role is to sell it to the public. Because of the demands upon him, he does not have the time to read and discuss as much as he would like. He recognises that. I have moved over from working on the Socialist Voice to concentrate on discussing and developing policy and strategy with our MSPs and with the party as a whole, including of course Tommy. With all due respect we don't need lectures from afar on the pressures we will come under. Some of us are quite long in the tooth. Moreover, the language you use, such as "the need for a major struggle" (against Tommy's ideas) is divisive and smacks of the old sectarian methods of the left which invariably seek to magnify differences, leading to a situation in a number of countries - and I respectfully include the USA in this - where there are almost as many socialist parties and groups as there are socialists. Our method, in contrast, is to retain a sense of proportion and to help one another correct our mistakes rather than cast suspicion on people or launch faction fights at the first sign of a deviant phrase. I have many other disagreements with your comments. For example, you criticise our manifesto by selectively quoting references to Denmark and Norway. In our 2001 manifesto, we made the point that in Britain under Thatcher, there was a top rate of taxation between 1979 and 1988 of 63 per cent which under New Labour is now just 40 per cent. Does that make us Thatcherites? Does that mean we are holding up Thatcher as a model for a socialist Scotland? Of course not.
What you fail to acknowledge is that in the context of these references, we explicitly make the point both Denmark and Norway are not socialist - indeed we spell out that they are monarchies, capitalist countries with right wing governments currently in power trying to roll back earlier reforms. It would be impossible to read this manifesto with open eyes and draw the conclusion that we are holding up Denmark and Norway as models for a future socialist Scotland. The same section of the manifesto which contains the references to Denmark and Norway specifically states that "our goal is to build a harmoniously integrated economy based on democratic social ownership of land, industry, energy, transport, and finance." The whole manifesto is throwing down a gauntlet to capitalism and setting out to convince people to join the fight for socialism in Scotland andinternationally. Even the SWP praised the manifestoI'm afraid your approach, no matter how much you distance yourself from the CWI, is precisely the same pedantic, nitpicking approach that concentrates in hunting for "incorrect formulations" rather than seeing and understanding the big picture that we are trying to create. I also have fundamental disagreements with you on the national question and find offensive your suggestion that we are capitulating to nationalism and lacking an internationalist approach.
This is ill informed. As it happens, we are heavily involved in international solidarity work. Over the past few years we have initiated, along with the LPP, solidarity work with the Afghan left; we have been involved in solidarity work with Colombian trade unionists (this week I had a meeting with the leader of the Colombian miners); SSP members lead the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Scotland; one of the key Muslim organisations in Scotland called for an SSP vote in the recent election because of our solidarity work on Palestine and our leading role in the movement against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are also at the heart of developing a pan-European anti-capitalist left political movement which involves a wide range of organisations across Europe. This coming week, I'm attending a conference in Athens of the developing European Anti-Capitalist Left of which we are one of the four founding parties; I have been asked on behalf of the SSP to open the main discussion at the conference on the anti-war movement and the movement for social justice internationally, which in indication of the role and stature of the SSP across Europe.
We have a multitude of connections across the globe. Our manifesto that you criticise has a thread of internationalism running through it from the first page to the last, even though it was a manifesto drawn up specifically for the Scottish Parliament which has no powers over foreign affairs defence etc. It talks of solidarity with those resisting oppression and injustice across the globe including the Palestinians and the Kurds. In popular language it denounces war and imperialism, and comments on a range of international issues including starvation in Africa, the looming global environmental catastrophe, and globalisation. It proudly proclaims the SSP
"an internationalist party that stands on the side of the poor, the oppressed, the exploited across the world" and which is part of a worldwide movement against capitalism and war. Yet you talk about a "retreat from internationalism" and a "tendency to see the SSP's day to day policies within the boundaries of Scotland and within the boundaries of capitalism". I'm afraid few people in Scotland - and few people internationally beyond the usual collection of ultra-left, sectarian grouplets - would recognise such a description. But your remarks do point to an important difference in emphasis. It is quite easy to make general propaganda in favour of international socialism.
There is nothing especially revolutionary about it; the old Socialist Party of Great Britain for a century has carried out abstract propaganda in favour of a socialist world, while standing aloof from any participation in the real struggles of working people. Many people would agree with the general sentiments of a new world free of greed and poverty and inequality. John Lennon's song continues to be popular - it's a form of idealism. There are 1000 Marxist sects across the world that do nothing but proclaim their vision of a socialist world. But it's much more difficult is convincing people to become involved in the concrete struggle for socialism at home. The march of globalisation has been deliberately played up by the ruling classes to create a climate of defeatism. The ruling classes, the New Labour leaders and the media bombard people daily with the message that capitalism is all-powerful because it's global; that you're up against forces that you can never defeat; that it is futile to struggle even for reforms, let alone for socialism. Our role in Scotland has been to challenge that mood of passive resignation which is consciously stirred up by the ruling establishment and especially by the right wing of the labour movement. Our emphasis is to convince people, not that removing capitalism from Scotland would solve all their problems, but that a victory for socialism in Scotland would be a huge leap forward. Indeed it would be the biggest single contribution that we could ever hope to make in the struggle for international socialism, because of course a socialist breakthrough in any one country - especially in a world of satellite TV, the Internet etc - would have immediate repercussions internationally. Scotland is a small country. . But it is 15 times richer than, for example Cuba - and probably 150 times wealthier than Cuba at the time of the 1959 revolution. It has 80 per cent of the European Union's oil reserves. It has an abundance of natural resources. Edinburgh is the third biggest financial centre in Europe. You in the past wrote material and delivered speeches calling for a socialist Ireland - and of course Ireland is the same size as Scotland. Of course, you did not leave it there - and neither do we. We state repeatedly that we don't want to build a new Hadrian's Wall; we want to spread socialism far and wide. That is so elementary it almost goes without saying. But the other side of the coin is that our role is to inspire young people and workers with the confidence to take the lead - not to sow doubts and fear by emphasising only the difficulties and obstacles. Some socialist groups in England have talked about how a socialist Scotland would be crushed by military intervention. That whole approach is almost designed to paralyse and demobilise the socialist left. The fact is almost 2 million people recently marched in England to stop an invasion of a far-flung country led by a brutal tyrant who was supposed to have weapons of mass destruction ready for use against the West. It is almost impossible to overstate the opposition that would erupt across Europe if there were an attempt in the future to invade a democratic socialist Scotland. Far from mobilising troops at the Scottish border, the ruling powers of Europe would be preoccupied with trying to stop the contagion spreading within their own country. I would also make the point that over a number of years we have considered and rejected the slogan used by the Socialist Party in Northern Ireland for a federation of Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales and eventually Europe. First because it is confusing. The idea of a federation is already promoted in Scotland by the Lib Dems and even by sections of the Tory Party as an alternative to independence. The right wing of the SNP are also now prevaricating on independence. Our slogans have to be clear and unambiguous; in Scotland the idea of a federation is seen as contradicting the idea of independence. States such as Germany, the USA and Canada define themselves as federations (and in Canada the confederal state has faced a serious national movement for three decades). The terminology is also overly prescriptive. We don't know the transitional configurations that may occur in the process of building international socialism. Right now, the influence of the left is weaker in England than it is anywhere in Europe, while the influence of the left in Scotland is perhaps strongest. There are Scandinavian countries like Norway, which have similarities to Scotland, including a similar size population, and an economy heavily based on North Sea oil, and a strong socialist left current in society. Parts of northern Scotland have more links with Norway than with England. It is not far-fetched - though it would similarly be too prescriptive - to visualise a future confederation of Northern socialist states as a prelude to a victory of socialism in England and other parts of Europe. We cannot anticipate exactly how events will unfold, so we put forward our internationalism in a much more open-ended way than you and the CWI suggest. Incidentally, the CWI members in Scotland would never use the terminology of a socialist federation of Scotland, England, Ireland, and Wales, because they have some understanding of the difficulties I have just outlined.
The final point I want to take up is your criticism of the way the ISM operates inside the SSP. You talk about "being worried for some considerable time that insufficient attention is given to building the ISM as a revolutionary Marxist group within the SSP". I'd suggest you should have more important things to worry about, such as how to unify the forces of anti-capitalism and socialism in the USA, the belly of the beast of imperialism. As for us, we have been involved in discussing this for five years. This was the subject of a long debate between the CWI and ourselves and was indeed one of the central issues in the debate leading up to our split from the CWI. You are entitled to agree with the CWI on this; but with all due respect, we have more than four years experience of working in and leading the SSP and I'd suggest we are in a well-placed position to assess what works and what doesn't. You prescribe that we act like the CWI and the SW platforms within the SSP who emphasise the building of their own narrow group - and as a result are regarded with suspicion and hostility by the broad membership of the SSP. In contrast, the ISM and its members have concentrated more on building, leading, galvanising and educating the SSP at every level because we see the SSP as the vehicle which has the potential to lead the struggle for socialism in Scotland. Because of the way in which the ISM has operated, our influence within the party as a whole has grown. The ISM and its activists are held in huge respect by the membership of the SSP. Your comments about Rosie Kane illustrate the difficulties of trying to judge the role of the ISM etc from afar. You quote Rosie approvingly, contrasting her remarks on nationalisation favourably to Tommy's supposed backsliding. Yet Rosie is not a member of the ISM. Neither are two of our other new MSPs. There are no ideological differences separating the six Scottish Socialist MSPs, which reflects the general position within the party. At least 90 per cent of SSP members are in no platform; most joined in the period since the party was established and support the strategy and programme of the leadership. For us, developing that party - which over the next few months is likely to reach 5000 members (again to use a pro-rata example, the equivalent of 250,000 members in the USA) - is our primary task. The ISM continues to play an important role in discussing and developing ideas, publishing a magazine etc. But we have sought to infuse the party as a whole with Marxist ideas, rather than sought to preserve them as the exclusive property of a single group. I'm afraid that the points you raise on this, as on other questions, are no different from those raised repeatedly by the CWI. You are entitled to your opinion. But I'm afraid we have to disagree. If we were to try and set the record straight on every distortion or falsification of our position, we would be permanently paralysed. But I have taken a lot of time to answer your letter because of personal friendship, because I have respect for you, because of the role you've played in the past, because of your talents and experience. That's why I'm especially disappointed at this letter, which, notwithstanding your professed support of the SSP, betrays the same type of arrogance that is a hallmark of the CWI. We are always ready and willing to listen to criticism, including from outside Scotland; but most of those internationally who genuinely support our project tend to raise their questions in a more open-minded and constructive way than you have done. I am especially saddened at your patronising insinuation that members of the ISM or SSP are unwilling or unable to "debate issues openly". The SSP is by far the most democratic party that I have ever been part of. We debate all issues openly. The leadership of the SSP, including ISM members within the leadership, have openly thrashed out our disagreements with one another within the structures not just of the ISM, but also of the SSP - including National Councils and National Conferences - on a range of issues, from Palestine to Cuba, from gender equality to the shape of the party structures. It is frankly ignorant to suggest that we fear open debate and discussion. Feel free to reply to this. But I am afraid it is impossible to enter into a long distance polemic, given the scale of the political work we are involved in. In any case, we did discuss in one form or another most of these issues interminably with the CWI before we agreed to disagree and parted company. If my tone is sharp, please do not take it personally as I'm sure you'll understand the disappointment and exasperation that gives rise to this reply. I'm not asking you or expecting you to agree with everything in this reply. Indeed, you may not agree with anything in this reply and that is your prerogative. As with our differences with the CWI, the IST etc, only time and events will verify which approach is correct. My only request is that you distribute this reply to all those who have been sent your original letter. Meanwhile, we will distribute your letter and my reply to members of the ISM.

Alan McCombes