Marxism & Scottish Socialist Party

international | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis Saturday June 28, 2003 15:48 by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

reply to Alan McCombes

Recently there was an exchange of letters between Labor's Militant Voice and Alan McCombes of the Scottish Socialist Party. (Letters can be seen on web site www.laborsmilitantvoice.com) The following is a reply to Alan McCombes and takes up some of the issues he raises in his letter.

Dear Alan,

Thank you for your reply to our letter to you and your comrades. We hope that this will be the start of a more regular communication between ourselves. We believe that such communication would be very beneficial for the members of both our groups, as well as to others seriously committed to the struggle against global capitalism. On the one hand, the election of the six SSP representatives will mean all sorts of interesting and complex questions that you will be dealing with. We here in the United States (our group as well as the wider anti-capitalist forces) can learn much from your coming experiences. On the other hand, despite the large differences in size as well as the objective role played, our group here in the United States is not exactly without experience also. We believe that there is no other group on the socialist/Trotskyist left in the United States that has the serious orientation to the working class that we do. We led what was probably the largest wildcat strike in decades here. We led what was probably the most left wing union local for a period. We are doing serious anti-poverty and anti-landlord direct action organizing at the present time. We believe that the combination of these experiences as well as a serious approach to perspectives means that we, too, have something to offer.

We raise these points for another reason. You refer repeatedly to the sectarian attacks on the ISM and the SSP. We agree that such attacks, including those of the CWI, are not to be taken too seriously, given that the authors of such attacks never have to deal with the issues with which you struggle. In addition, such attacks usually come from a desire to continually seek out grounds for criticism (which can always be found for anybody, including ourselves), rather than balancing it with recognizing the strengths. We think that our previous letter was not unbalanced in this regard. It did openly recognize the important contributions the ISM has made up until this point. However, just because the sectarians are disengenuously attacking you does not mean that there may not be some valid questions to be raised.

You seemed to be saying that we were "gleefully" pointing to the statements of Tommy Sheridan. If anything in the tone of our letter seemed to take this approach, we apologize. This certainly is not what we feel. We have great respect for the pioneering work that Tommy and the other comrades have done. We recognize the sacrifices Tommy has made as well as the pressures he's under in a very complex situation. We eagerly anticipate reading about the struggles that all the MSP's of your party will be leading. We tried to make this view clear in our previous letter, but if this didn't come through sufficiently, we would like to state this for the record now.

We would like to comment on a few other points you raise in your letter:

In the first place, regarding the objective situation your MSP's will be facing, you point to the series of semi-hysterical attacks on the SSP from the bourgeois media. This is always a good sign, of course, and we congratulate you for these attacks upon yourselves. However, you go on to draw the conclusion that "suggestion that the establishment wants to gently influence the SSP in a more moderate direction is ludicrous." We would not agree that this conclusion follows. The bourgeois is almost always capable of playing both roles - "good cop/bad cop" we call it here in the United States. We think that this is important to consider because your MSP's as well as the entire SSP membership should be prepared for the "good cop" face of the bourgeois.

You seemed to be saying that we were seeking to sow divisions within the leadership there and within the SSP. You go on to say that there are no ideological differences amongst the six MSP's of the SSP. We are not sure how to interpret this. Of course, we expect that all six of these MSP's are deeply committed to socialism, to the working class, to internationalism, etc. However, you also point out that half of these MSP's are not members of the ISM. You also explain that there is a similar situation amongst the membership of the SSP as a whole. This raises a serious and complex question:

While working within and helping to lead a larger working class organization (whether it be a political party such as the SSP, a union, or some campaigning anti-poverty organization), what role does a serious Marxist group play? We think that there would be agreement that this is not a simple question. We would agree that we cannot simply subject the wider body with a flood of "Marxist" propaganda, nor manipulate to control every decision made. We believe there is also agreement that there may be more that unites us with those outside our smaller, Marxist group than separates us in many ways. However, there are also some clear and distinct differences and we would not want to blur these lines too much. We continue to believe that Marxism is distinguished by a rigorous approach to theory, perspectives and program. This includes the necessity of building a mass, revolutionary leadership if the working class is to take power. While being part of the working class, these characteristics also distinguish us as being a bit "different" also; it gives us a distinctive approach. In other words, Marxists' ideas - their ideology - is different.

We do not raise these points in order to caste any doubt on your commitment to Marxism. However, we do think that there must be some things that differentiate the ISM MSP's from the the SSP's other MSPs. Again, we want to stress that we feel that there may well be far more that unites them, but it was not clear from your comments whether the particular role that Marxism plays is sufficiently recognized.

This is not just an issue for the MSP's alone, but for the ISM in relation to the entire SSP membership. Of course, such differences are inevitable and healthy in any genuine working class organization, especially a larger party of the working class, such as the SSP is becoming. We all recognize this fact, which stems from the differences within the working class as a whole. We would argue that it is the role of the Marxists to help clarify these differences. Again, we think that there is agreement that this must be done in a careful and diplomatic way. It also must not be overemphasized. But it must be done nevertheless.

It was not clear from your comment what is your orientation in this regard. Again, we are raising this not from the point of view of seeking to attack or "magnify differences" but to explore a very complicated and difficult issue. We believe that in the process of such an exploration we will all learn a lot.

Comrade, you seem to be saying that the comments from Tommy Sheridan represent some simple mistake, a slip of the tongue if you like, on his part. We accept that all of us make such slips from time to time. Let us repeat here some of what Tommy said.

He said: "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 high-skilled economy, a motivated work force for big business. If that can work in places like Germany and France, where they have higher wages, better standards, and produce better products, why can't that work here in Scotland?... We very much believe in a mixed economy. "

We recognize that this is not all Tommy said, and that there is much of what he said to be supported. However, we also have to have a frank assessment of the dangers inherent in the above comments.

Tommy is an experienced organizer and public speaker. He has dealt with the different approaches for years. The above comment does not have the ring of some mere careless phrasing. It is the type of statement that we hear repeatedly from those within the working class movement who are continually seeking to align the needs of the working class with those of the capitalist class. Tommy, himself, must have heard such comments on many occasions. He must have considered what lies behind such comments. He, as well as the entire ISM and the SSP, must have discussed this approach and recognized it for what it is.

In other words, with all due respect, it does not seem likely that this was some simple slip of the tongue or merely a mistaken way of explaining something.

You also repeatedly point to the manifesto of the SSP. This is not at issue in regard to Tommy's comments. What is at issue is the orientation and views of the best known public representative of the SSP as well as of the ISM and what these views represent within the ISM and the SSP. The development of such trends within the SSP are not surprising, nor are they really a problem necessarily; rather, they are to be expected in the growth of any wider party with a genuine base in the working class. Where the problem arises is if this is pictured as a mere momentary lapse. In that case, such a trend cannot be fully understood by the membership as a whole, nor adequately debated and combated. It is for this reason that we think a genuine concern is justified in regard to how you picture the comments. That this trend comes from within the ISM - Marxist wing of the SSP - is of even greater concern if it is not fully debated.

In your reply to our letter you make the point that mere general slogans for socialism are inadequate, especially given the position that the SSP is in. You explain that it is necessary to raise concrete alternatives, to explain how specific work places would be dealt with under socialism. This is a very interesting point, and we would like to hear more about the details of how you deal with this - what sorts of questions and issues workers raise in these work places, etc. We think that the entire anti-capitalist left could benefit from such explanations.

However, again, this was not what was at issue. We believe that Tommy's comments represent a general orientation and that this orientation deserves open recognition and debate. This is the issue.

You also raise the point about seeking to inspire and enthuse the Scottish workers and working class youth with their potential power. Again, we accept that this is a valid point. However, what we would like to raise is this: Is there not a danger that one can go too far while struggling to keep these things in mind? Is there not a danger that one can lose sight of the larger picture also?

Take for instance something you raise in your letter. You write:
"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."

Of course, the emphasis you place is that of ourselves also. We want to enthuse and inspire people. We want to encourage their imagination. However, the second part of this statement can be interpreted in different ways. Is there not a danger that some might interpret this sort of statement to mean that if Cuba can survive all these years, alone and semi-isolated, then so could Scotland? Is there not a danger, then, for some to conclude that Cuba would be a model for what you are struggling towards? We note that Tommy claims that Cuba is a socialist state. We also note that we are told that at least one long time activist of the ISM and the SSP has compared a future independent socialist Scotland to Cuba, that he sees this as a possible perspective.
We agree with the implication of your letter that it would be a disastrous mistake to subject the SSP to a daily barrage of propaganda explaining the necessity for a socialist revolution, for the international overthrow of capitalism, for the building of a mass, international revolutionary leadership, etc. etc. We do not take this approach here in our work. On the other hand, what we are just starting to enter into a discussion around here is this question: Is there a possibility that we have not sufficiently raised our ideas in our daily work? Is there a possibility that we have gone too far in the other direction?

This struggle for the proper balance is continual. We would raise this question with regard to yourselves, especially the trend of thought that Tommy Sheridan appears to represent.

There is another issue we would like to raise: You gave a thorough description of the international solidarity work you engage in. This work is admirable, considering the strains that must exist on your resources. However, one issue that was not dealt with in your letter was the trade union question. We think that this arena is absolutely vital. We would be most interested in hearing how the ISM is dealing with the new layer of more left union leaders that is arising throughout Britain. We assume that the SSP as well as the ISM have a significant base within some of the trade unions in Scotland. How is this being utilized? It would be most helpful for all the anti-capitalist forces, as well as for serious union militants, to hear more on this, to get a clearer picture of how you in the ISM and the SSP are using this base to build a struggle to transform the union movement. As we say, this is linked with how you are relating to the new layer of more left union leaders.

This is related to the "international" question for this reason: The Scottish workers are directly linked with their counterparts in England and Wales through their common unions, if for no other reason. It would seem to us that there would be a natural tendency to broaden your struggle for the transformation of the unions through this and to thereby build concrete links with workers throughout Britain. We would assume that for reasons of history, culture, etc. that there would also be a natural tendency regarding the Irish working class. You also make an interesting point regarding Norway. In that case, we would think that the same questions apply there.

You also make some interesting points regarding the slogan of a "socialist Scotland as part of a socialist federation of Britain and Ireland." It would be interesting to discuss this further. We accept that this particular slogan may not be appropriate. However, what lies behind the slogan is a different matter. We assume that there is no disagreement with the belief that Scotland could not survive very long as an isolated, independent, truly socialist nation. We think this has to be reflected in the the fundamental slogans that are advanced. What we would like to raise for consideration is whether this is done sufficiently, including in your slogans and your daily program as well as the SSP's manifesto.

You also write:
"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."

You raise a valid point when you explain that you want to help struggle against the general fear and intimidation that is sowed by the bourgeois. Again, however, we would like to raise the question of whether it is not possible that you have gone a bit too far in this effort. We agree that it would be very difficult (although not ruled out) for imperialism to militarily invade a socialist Scotland. However, this is not the end of the question. There is also the issue of economic strangulation. This would be the first line of attack, and it would certainly have its effects. Would this not be a serious danger, especially combined with elements of support for capitalism that would remain in Scotland?

Is there not a danger, then, that the way you picture matters could lead some to conclude that an isolated, independent socialist Scotland could survive as a healthy, workers' democracy for a protracted period? We note again Tommy Sheridan's claim that Cuba is socialist. We assume that this represents a certain train of thought in the ISM, that he is not totally alone in this view. Is there not a possibility that this train of thought could flow from the way the issues are raised above? Is there not a possibility that such a national perspective could develop within the SSP and that this is not sufficiently discussed and debated?

In fact, given the SSP's wider base, it would seem to us that it is most likely that such illusions would develop. Again, the issue is openly recognizing these illusions and discussing them in a friendly but systematic way.

To connect the two issues: We would be most interested in hearing what sorts of direct links you are building at the ground level amongst workers, especially through the unions, both within Britain as a whole as well as internationally. We would also be most interested in hearing how this struggle to build such links is connected with the struggle to transform the unions as a whole. What sorts of campaigns does the SSP help lead within the unions to build a more combative approach within the work places, and how do such campaigns help Scottish workers link up with their counterparts outside of Scotland?

We would like to raise an aside on this issue: As you are probably aware, three leading members of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty - OCAP - were recently tried for "riot" and other alleged crimes. After a hung jury, the charges against two of those comrades were dropped, but John Clarke will be retried. He faces a possible five years in prison if convicted. John Clarke and OCAP have played an amazing role in Canada. Their approach is not so different from the approach of Tommy Sheridan and the direct action struggles that he and others there led. We hope that the SSP will help publicize the threat to John Clarke and to OCAP and include this issue in your international solidarity work. If you would like more information on OCAP and on his case, we would refer you to their web site: www.OCAP.ca.

Comrade, these are some concerns we would like to raise. We do not raise these issues as some sort of maneuver such as the CWI leadership carries out continually, as you seem to suspect. We are deeply committed to the approach of open and comradely exploration of differences, both within our group as well as outside. While not wanting to misrepresent different ways of explaining a complex question, this also has to involve looking beneath the surface in an honest fashion. This, of course, is the total opposite of the approach of the CWI leadership, with which we both have long experiences.

Our raising these issues is not an attempt to "magnify difference" (as you wrote in your previous letter). We think that the serious anti-capitalist forces internationally have much to gain from an open and comradely exchange of ideas and experiences. This is particularly so for those with a genuine orientation towards the working class and towards the newer layers of young people who are just now entering the struggle against global capitalism. Of course, the size of the group is not irrelevant; the larger a group is, the more experiences it will have. However, size of a political group is not the only consideration. We recognize that we have much in common, both in terms of our origins as well as in our orientation to the working class and towards direct action. We also recognize the differences, both historical as well as in terms of our present situations. We think that our respective groups also have something to gain from such an exchange and we hope that this is not the end of it. We also think that the wider, anti-capitalist movement would gain from this. We also hope that it is not limited to mere letters, but will also include visits both ways in the future. We look forward to hearing your thoughts, as well as those of others in the ISM.

John Reimann
on behalf of Labor's Militant Voice