The
Annual Conference of the Scottish Socialist Party meets this weekend to
discuss a draft manifesto for the European elections and debate other
issues against the background of the recent events in Spain.
“The
Scottish Socialist Party is Scotland’s newest, fastest growing and most
radical political party”, states the draft manifesto. “Just six years
old, the SSP now has six MSPs in the Scottish Parliament and a network
of scores of branches in every corner of Scotland, from Stromness to
Stranraer, from Selkirk to Stornoway.”
Yet
despite these real successes, within the ranks of the party there is a
growing concern – if not alarm – at the political direction in which
the SSP leadership is currently moving. A layer of comrades, who joined
the party believing it would become a bold socialist alternative to
Blairism, are deeply worried by its sharp turn towards nationalist and
reformist politics.
Previously,
many of the leaders of the SSP proudly called themselves Marxists. The
bulk of them had come from the old Militant Tendency. Tommy Sheridan
was well known as the leader of the anti-Poll Tax campaign in Scotland,
and was imprisoned for his beliefs. The launch of the SSP north of the
border was supposed to herald the building of a mass Marxist-led
opposition to New Labour.
This
perspective was reinforced by the success of the SSP in the elections
to the Scottish Parliament. As time went on the party was gaining in
support and publicity. The party also began to make an impact on the
local elections, which, on the basis of PR would herald substantial
gains. With the New Labour leaders continuing to move further to the
right the growth and success of the SSP would surely continue.
However,
the pronouncements and actions of the SSP leadership soon gave cause
for alarm. There was a distinct shift towards reformist policies and a
deliberate attempt to water down the programme to gain more electoral
support. Favourable comparisons for instance were made between an
‘independent’ Scotland and ‘independent’ Denmark and Norway, in much
the same way as the right wing reformists in the past looked to the
social democratic model of Sweden and Germany.
This
shift towards opportunism placed the SSP leaders on a slippery slope.
Their “out of date” Marxist past was abandoned in favour of pragmatism.
For them, the “real” world demanded “real” solutions, more suitable to
winning votes at elections. The policies of the party, which became
increasingly made on the hoof by selected individuals, became a mixture
of reformism and nationalism.
The
leaders of the SSP have embraced Scottish nationalism and, along with
the SNP, now advocate Scottish independence as a step forward. “An
independent Scotland would mark an important democratic advance”,
states Alan McCombes, the SSP’s National Policy and Publicity
Co-ordinator. “The break-up of the United Kingdom might not mean
instant socialism, but would mean a decisive shift in the balance of
ideological and class forces.” This nationalist view, dressed up in
radical language, is an attempt to appeal to the left nationalists
within the SNP, such as Lloyd Quinan, a former MSP for the Scottish
Nationalist Party and actor, who has been welcomed with open arms into
the SSP.
This
new recruit, who now has high hopes of being selected as a SSP
candidate in the European elections, was given a full page within the
party’s paper ‘Scottish Socialist Voice’ (20/2/04) to expound his
nationalist views. The preamble to the interview graphically revealed
the SSP leaders’ hopes and aspirations: “Lloyd Quinan’s departure from
a party whose radical wing is in the advanced stages of disintegration
is likely to be the first of many such defections.”
However,
instead of winning nationalists to genuine socialism, the SSP leaders
have themselves been won over to left nationalism. Revealingly, Lloyd
Quinan spells out the difference as he sees it between the SSP and SNP:
“They (the SNP) feel they need the Scottish business community behind
them. It’s misguided. The business community is a transnational
community that doesn’t care about Scottish sovereignty.” The SSP, by
contrast, “takes a broader approach. It is visionary, idealistic. It’s
about winning hearts and minds, not pandering to people’s wallets.”
Quinan
says he held back from joining the SSP because “I was sceptical of its
commitment to independence.” This is clearly no longer the case. The
article continued: “He believes there is no British route to socialism
and that independence is a necessary transitional stage. A point he
felt was lost on the traditional British left.”
“The
UK can’t sustain its nuclear arsenal without US subsidy. Which, for the
sake of world peace, makes it absolutely necessary to break up the UK
at the earliest possible opportunity”, says Lloyd.
The
article concludes: “Lloyd believes we should now be ‘seeking
cooperation across Europe for nationalist movements on the same journey
as us. Those seeking restoration of sovereignty.
‘The
more United Nations members there are, the better. There should be a
confederacy, not of banking states, but based upon mutual respect for
each other’s cultural diversity.
‘This
debate has being going on in Europe for a long time. We’ve not been a
party to it, which points up the crippling insularity of the British
left.
‘Nationalism is a revolutionary, internationalist idea.’”
It
is absolutely clear to Quinan which “journey” the SSP is embarked on:
the road of nationalism. He feels very much at home in the SSP, whose
leadership have now whole-heartedly embraced the call for capitalist
independence. Nowhere in the ‘Voice’ was there a word of criticism of
this article. The only conclusion one can draw from this silence is
that the editors are in full agreement with this openly pro-nationalist
line.
This
disastrous evolution of the SSP leadership is no accident. It is rooted
in an abandonment of Marxism and the class approach to questions. The
ex-SML leaders have been seeking a shortcut to success for more than a
decade by adapting to nationalism. As has been shown by this
experience, once you abandon the class approach above all in relation
to the national question you can end up in the swamp of opportunism and
petty bourgeois nationalism.
Our
opposition to the SNP is not only about their tail-ending of business,
which is inevitable in this epoch, but the fact that the SNP is a petty
bourgeois nationalist party that falsely parades Scottish independence
as a solution to our problems and seeks to divide the working class on
nationalist lines. Despite claims to the opposite, Scottish
independence would open the way to splitting the British trade unions
on national lines. In this way nationalism acts as a reactionary
barrier to class unity and the struggle for socialism.
Quinan’s
illusions in the dis-United Nations are typical of a layer who are
incapable of seeing things in class terms. The UN is not some worldly
body standing above society, but made up of the political
representatives of capitalist powers, big and small. It is “a thieves’
kitchen”, to quote Lenin, like the League of Nations before the war.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq demonstrates that as soon as the UN
gets in the way of the main imperialist powers, it is simply cast
aside. It is an irrelevance as a body for world peace, as on a
capitalist basis, it is utopian to think there can be “mutual respect”
between capitalist nations, anymore than there is respect between
gangsters. Similarly “world peace” will not be enhanced one iota by
Scottish independence, but only by eradicating the root cause of war
and national antagonisms – international capitalism.
The
idea that Scottish nationalism is somehow a “revolutionary,
internationalist idea” is false from beginning to end. Narrow petit
bourgeois nationalism is the very antithesis of socialist
internationalism. Unfortunately, there are those in the leadership of
the SSP that are busy promoting this reactionary idea. To the idea of
“internationalist nationalism” we must counterpoise the maximum unity
of the working class of Europe, struggling not just for political
autonomy but also for social and economic emancipation through a
Socialist United States of Europe. Again, while opposing a “British
road to socialism”, Quinan the ‘internationalist’, counterpoises a
“Scottish road” through Scottish independence.
In
reality, there is no separate Scottish, Welsh or English road to
socialism. The struggle of the Scottish working class for emancipation
is inseparable from the struggle of the rest of the British working
class, and the working class internationally for that matter. It is one
worldwide struggle, arising from the global character of capitalism.
The interests of the working class nationally and internationally are
ultimately the same. While being extremely sensitive to national
aspirations, genuine Marxism will continue to fight for socialist
internationalism abroad and class unity at home.
Unfortunately,
the chauvinist views of Quinan are given credence by the SSP leaders.
Tommy Sheridan, National Convenor, and Alan McCombes have expounded
their “Scottish road to socialism” in a book called ‘Imagine’. While
the book provides valuable ammunition to attack capitalism, its
arguments and conclusions are based upon a mixture of left reformism
and Scottish nationalism. Echoing the nationalists, they argue:
“New
Labour and the Tories repeatedly insist that an independent Scotland
would be uneconomic, that it would have a deficit of billions. But an
independent Scotland that owned and controlled the revenues flooding in
from North Sea oil would have a surplus of anything between £10 billion
to £15 billion a year, depending upon fluctuations in world oil prices.
It would allow for the greatest expansion of public services that this
country has ever seen.” (p.97)
In
Norway, Malaysia, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, South Korea, and across
the Middle East, oil is publicly owned, they state. “In a country like
Mexico, the publicly owned oil company Pemex generates up to 40% of all
government revenues.”
However,
the public ownership of the oil industry, while a step forward, does
not solve the problems of the working class in Scotland or elsewhere,
as can be seen from the list of countries above. In Mexico, for
example, despite a state owned oil industry, 40,000 children live on
the streets. Even the Norwegian government is engaged in a programme of
savage cuts. The problem lies not with the state ownership of oil, but
with the ills of the capitalist system as a whole.
Sheridan
and McCombes go on to argue, “devolution has accelerated the momentum
towards the break-up of the UK. The SNP is in a stronger position than
ever before in its 66-year history.” Astonishingly, they welcome this
with open arms, effectively ending up as political attorneys for
Scottish nationalism: “For those fighting back against capitalism, the
disintegration of the United Kingdom should be a cause for celebration
rather than for mourning.” (p.122-3)
Amazingly, they revert to nationalist demagogy in an attempt to boost their arguments for independence:
“One
of the most powerful arguments in favour of Scottish independence is
precisely that it would remove a central cause of anti-English
prejudice… could eventually pave the way for the demise of anglophobia.”
“An
independent Scotland would be forced to take responsibility for its own
actions and could begin to forge a co-operative relationship with
England on a free and equal basis rather than a subordinate
relationship based upon coercion and resentment. Socialists should be
prepared to support such a step, even on a non-socialist basis as
promoted by the SNP… It is not England that oppresses Scotland and
stifles its political development; it is the British state…” (p.183-4)
Again,
“The secession of Scotland from the Union would be a shattering defeat
for British capitalism, as potent in its historic symbolism as the
break-up of the Soviet Union.” (p.124)
Leaving
aside the fact that the break-up of the USSR led to a series of bloody
wars of ethnic cleansing and strife, and has proved a nightmare for the
peoples of the former Soviet Union, the break-up of Britain would not
defeat British capitalism. The British bourgeois would rule Scotland,
as they do now, through their capital and finance. An independent
Scotland would be completely dependent on British capital and decisions
in London, Bonn, New York and Tokyo. As James Connolly explained, “even
if you hoisted the tricolour above Dublin Castle, the English bourgeois
will rule us through their capital.” Such a development would, however,
also serve to sow divisions and disunity within the working class and
the Labour movement. The continuing capitalist crisis in Scotland and
south of the border would exacerbate the problems of the ruling
classes, who would constantly attempt to pit worker against worker. In
any case, the British ruling class will not stand idly by while the SSP
introduced socialism through Holyrood.
These
SSP leaders believe that “…the British state is not a step towards a
socialist world. It is essentially a reactionary and conservative
institution, which acts as a gigantic brake on social and political
progress…”
Clearly
the authors have taken this argument from Marx, but have placed it on
its head. Marx long ago explained that under capitalism the nation
state (as well as private property) acts as a gigantic fetter on the
development of the productive forces. This point was rammed home by
Lenin and Trotsky, who explained the First World War and the deep
crisis of the inter-war period were rooted in this contradiction.
Capitalism was only able to partially overcome this contradiction
through the development of world trade (‘globalisation’). However this
has now reached its limits.
Incidentally,
the creation of the Common Market was not simply a political
counterweight to American imperialism, but reflected an attempt to
overcome this contradiction: the revolt of the productive forces within
the constraints of the separate national economies of Europe. That is
why the Marxists have counterpoised to the capitalist EU the idea of a
Socialist United States of Europe, as a step towards a world Socialist
Federation.
The
SSP manifesto neither mentions nor offers any alternative to this
impasse created by capitalism and the nation state. It blandly states
that, “A future Scottish Socialist government would act completely
independently of the Bank of England and the European Central Bank, of
Westminster and Strasbourg, of Whitehall and Brussels”, but fails to
explain how this tiny island of socialism would survive in this ocean
of capitalism.
Apparently,
rather than issuing a revolutionary internationalist appeal for workers
to follow suit, a Scottish Socialist government “would work with
progressive forces across Europe, including trade unions, the European
Social Forum and left parties, to develop a common political framework
for a social Europe. This would be based on criteria that aimed
to level up the quality of life rather than reduce standards down to
the lowest common denominator.” (our emphasis)
“As
a first step in that direction, we would propose a congress of peoples
of Europe, to be elected by ballot, country by country. This congress
would then have the task of drawing up a draft constitution, which
would then be voted upon country by country…” states the Draft
Manifesto for the European Elections.
As
a start it is completely false to believe that a socialist revolution
can develop simply within the confines of Scotland. The movement to
overthrow capitalism in Scotland cannot be separated from the same
processes that would inevitably unfold in England and Wales. It would
be a process affecting the British working class as a whole.
Revolutionary developments in Glasgow and Edinburgh would inevitably be
mirrored by the same developments in Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester
and Cardiff. The working class has developed on an all-British level,
reflected in the historical development of the British trade unions and
Labour Party. Therefore the struggle will inevitably unfold on an
all-British scale, whether we wish to recognise it or not. To believe
otherwise is to look at developments in a completely narrow and
artificial fashion.
The
draft envisages a Scottish Socialist government in complete isolation
and makes no reference whatsoever to the British working class, as if
it did not exist. Instead, there will be an appeal to “the peoples of
Europe” to elect a congress over the heads of their governments to….
draw up a new draft constitution. But what is the purpose of
such a new constitution? Presumably if the European workers were strong
enough to call such a congress, they would be strong enough to
overthrow their European governments and establish a Socialist United
States of Europe.
The
central problem with the SSP is that it is based upon a nationalist
perspective. Despite all the lip service to internationalism, the whole
approach of the SSP leaders is bogged down in narrow nationalism. This
is at a time when the world has never before been so integrated, when
the world market has never had such a crushing preponderance. We are in
the epoch of world politics, world economy, and world diplomacy. We
have also entered an epoch of world crisis and world revolution, as can
be graphically illustrated by events on all continents. That must be
the starting point for all those looking to change society.
“In
our epoch, which is the epoch of imperialism, i.e., of world economy
and world politics under the hegemony of finance capital, not a single
communist party can establish its programme by proceeding solely or
mainly from conditions and tendencies of developments in its own
country”, wrote Leon Trotsky in 1928. “In the present epoch, to a much
larger extent than in the past, the national orientation of the
proletariat must and can flow only from a world orientation and not
vice versa. Herein lies the basic and primary difference between
communist internationalism and all varieties of national socialism.”
The
success of the British revolution, for that is what it would be, given
the historic unity of the working class, could not be sustained within
these shores. The coming to power of the British working class is only
the beginning of the question. In order to survive, the socialist
revolution will have to be extended internationally. This will mean a
revolutionary appeal to the workers of Europe to come to our aid and
follow our example. Not the creation of some lame “social Europe”
(whatever that means), or a commonwealth of independent states, which
can serve only to Balkanise Europe, but a Socialist United States of
Europe, with democratic planning in the hands of the European working
class as the only way forward.
All
the great teachers of Marxism explained that the task of the socialist
revolution was not only the elimination of private ownership but also
the nation state. It is not only the British state that is a
reactionary “gigantic brake” on society, but the very existence of the
nation state itself. The idea of a future Scottish Socialist
government, acting in splendid isolation, is a utopian idea.
“Scotland
is a fabulously wealthy country… The material foundations already exist
in Scotland for a thriving, blossoming socialist democracy, which would
be an inspiration to the working class, the young, the poor and the
dispossessed the world over”, state Sheridan and McCombes.
“We
have land, water, fish, timber, oil, gas and electricity in abundance.
We have a moderate climate, where floods, droughts, and hurricanes are
almost unknown. The winds that howl in from the Atlantic have
phenomenal potential to provide a new source of permanent energy which
does not pollute the planet… We have a clean environment and tens of
thousands of miles of coastline that can be utilised for trade, fishing
and tourism. We have a highly skilled workforce and an educated
population.” (p.189)
Despite
this impressive list of natural resources, the material basis for “a
thriving, blossoming socialist democracy” certainly does not reside in
the confines of Scotland. Even a socialist state in the United States,
on the basis of the most advanced capitalism, could not immediately
provide everyone with all their needs, and would therefore be compelled
to spur everyone to produce as much as possible.
Such
resources only exist on a world scale, and have been brought about by
capitalism. This is the historical justification of capitalism, to
develop the productive forces on a world scale, through the world
division of labour, which would prepare the material basis for the
abolition of classes. Even within the Soviet Union, which covered
one-sixth of the world’s surface and was teeming with natural
resources, there did not exist the material basis for a socialist
society. ‘Socialism in one country’ was the argument of the Stalinists
in order to justify their abandonment of world revolution. The collapse
of the USSR proved that this false idea was impossible. The thought is
even more laughable within the borders of Scotland when the capitalist
world economy holds such a crushing preponderance for all countries.
The
reference made in the book to John MacLean, the great Scottish Marxist,
and his call a few years before his death for a Scottish Workers’
Republic, is predictable. (p.181) Unfortunately, those nationalists who
praise him today base themselves on MacLean’s mistakes and weaknesses
and not on his strengths. MacLean was a brilliant Marxist propagandist
and defender of the Bolshevik Revolution. He worked energetically for
the British socialist revolution as part of the world revolution.
Unfortunately, towards the end of his life he made the mistake of not
joining the British Communist Party. He grew despondent at the lagging
behind of the English workers and adopted the erroneous slogan of a
Scottish Workers’ Republic, a position rejected by the Communist
movement at the time. Events were also to prove him wrong with the
magnificent General Strike of 1926.
Today
it has become fashionable to resurrect MacLean’s mistake in the form of
an independent Socialist Scotland – while his strong side, his stress
on Marxist education, propaganda and theory, has been completely
ignored.
The
authors of the book have a very mechanical view of the class struggle.
They continually stress how different Scotland is from England and are
blinded to the fact that the working class in Scotland, England and
Wales is fundamentally the same. We face the same enemies. We have
common united class organisations in the form of the trade unions and
Labour Party. Given this situation, the class struggle tends to unfold
on an all-British level. The recent strikes of civil servants and
firefighters took a national, or all-British form, and did not develop
on separate Welsh, Scottish and English lines. Such a development would
be madness from the point of view of the interests of the class
struggle. Historically, what we have is a British working class and a
British labour movement, composed of English, Scottish and Welsh. This
unity of the working class on an all-British level has evolved over
more than 200 years. It is not a weakness, but a colossal strength, a
historic conquest, which will serve us well in the unfolding struggles
of the future.
“The
working men have no country”, stated the ‘Communist Manifesto’. “We
cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat
must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the
leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.”
While
we are fundamentally opposed to Scottish nationalism, which seeks to
divide the working class, we are sensitive to the national aspirations
of the Scottish (and Welsh) people. We are in favour of genuine
automony for both Scotland and Wales. We stand for the right of
national self-determination, even to the point of separation. It is a
democratic right. But we are not evangels of separation or the creation
of small nations. In the modern world there is no room for genuinely
‘independent’ small nations, which are in reality dependent on the big
capitalist powers and super-powers. The answer is not nationalism, but
internationalism. Not divisions, but the maximum unity of working
people.
We
appeal to comrades of the SSP to examine where the party is going. The
road of nationalism and reformism offers no way forward for the working
class in Scotland or elsewhere. The struggle for socialism is
international or it is nothing. We must learn the lessons of the past
so that we may prepare for the future.
Issued by the In Defence of Marxism website
