Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join

The Scottish debate

Party, Programme, Reformism and the International

Militant Tendency

The International Socialist Movement majority tries to avoid admitting that reformist illusions exist amongst Scottish Socialist Party members. They write "If anything, the general membership of the Scottish Socialist Party is probably at a much higher level of political consciousness about the tasks that lie ahead than the membership of the old Militant Tendency when we operated in the Labour Party. In the mid-1980s in particular, many workers joined Militant under the impression that it was the left wing of the Labour Party" (paragraph 136-137).

The clear implication here is that the consciousness of Scottish Socialist Party members is more revolutionary than that of the British section when it worked as an entrist organisation in the British Labour Party. The comrades repeat some of the criticism of the Committee for a Workers' International made by some ultra-left groups which have accused us of centrism and having parliamentary illusions.

The International Socialist Movement majority leadership are ex post facto trying to denigrate the work and ideas of the British section - ideas and work which they themselves defended in the past of members of the British section at the time. Those who joined Militant at the time were becoming members of a revolutionary party. Of course, there were some who joined who were not fully clear on all Militants policies but became acquainted with our methods, perspectives and analysis soon after joining.

A small layer succumbed to reformist pressures. It was necessary to wage a constant struggle against these influences. To do this a coherent revolutionary organisation was necessary. The situation is different for new Scottish Socialist Party members. They are joining a broad party where a Marxist organisation has been largely dissolved to accommodate reformist ideas in the Scottish Socialist Party.

The comrades themselves admit that Scottish Socialist Party members do not have a position on the question of revolution and are unclear on the role of parliament and the state. The British section had a clear position on the question of the state during its period of entrism.

Militant and the State

After unfavourably comparing the political consciousness of the Militant membership to the Scottish Socialist Party, the International Socialist Movement majority comrades then go on to imply that this was because of the programme advocated by the British section.

In paragraph 137 they write "This impression [that Militant was the left wing of the Labour Party - International Secretariat] was if anything reinforced by aspects of the Militant programme at that stage - for example the insistence that the nationalisation of the top 200 monopolies could be achieved by a Labour government introducing an enabling act through parliament".

They quote from a pamphlet 'Militant: What we stand for' (Peter Taaffe, December 1981). As usual, the International Socialist Movement majority quotes selectively, which give a very dishonest picture of the real situation.

Militant had a clear position on the role of the state and the necessity of an extra-Parliamentary mass movement to bring about socialist change. The same pamphlet states

"We have sufficient evidence...to show how capitalists would act if they ever felt that their rule was in jeopardy ...the capitalists are preparing for a head-on military confrontation with the working class in the next few decades... However, all the scheming and conspiracies of the capitalists can come to nothing on the basis of a bold socialist policy backed up by mass mobilisation of the labour movement.

An entirely peaceful transformation of society is possible in Britain, but only on condition that the full power of the labour movement is boldly used to affect this change. Prevarication, half measures, tinkering will play right info the hands of the capitalists.

In Chile the measures of the Allende government did not satisfy the working class but allowed the capitalists the time to mobilise support amongst the middle class to crush the Allende government when the time was ripe" ('Militant: What We Stand For', Peter Taaffe, December 1981).

Murray Smith, in June 1993, seemed to understand our position. Just before Gauche Revolutionnaire joined the Committee for a Workers' International, he took up the question of our attitude towards the state.

He wrote:

"In some of their [Militant's] writings there are undoubtedly precautions taken in terms of language... made necessary by the constraints of entrism... But, undoubtedly, that isn't the main reason... The basis of it is that they wish to emphasise the fact that the socialist revolution isn't a minority putsch, that it is based on the action of masses, and that the role of the revolutionary party isn't to take on the state alone, but to win the support of the majority of the working class and draw along other layers of society....So, let's summarise the story so far: It is necessary to have a revolution, to destroy the bourgeois state, to build a workers' state:

Violence doesn't come from us, but it certainly will come from the other side.. .There are four main ideas which recur in their material: a) The power of the mass movement to neutralise the state apparatus; b) The need to break up the armed forces; c) The need to arm the proletariat; d) The need to break the economic and political power of the capitalists quickly, against any idea of 'gradualism'" (Report on the Militant Tendency, June 1993).

Incredibly, the International Socialist Movement PC document also states "If, at the recent Scottish Socialist Party conference, the leadership had put forward a resolution which contained such a clause (the call for the nationalisation of the top 200 monopolies by a Labour government - International Secretariat), there would have been mutiny among the rank and file" (paragraph 138).

This is sheer demagogy. This demand, for the nationalisation of the monopolies, was formulated because of the conditions in which we then operated within the Labour Party. We had to take account of the widespread illusions of Labour Party workers, and the mass of the working class, in "democracy" and particularly in parliament. We needed to answer the objections they raised to this demand in the course of a dialogue.

We could not - and we might add still cannot - baldly by-pass Parliament. We have to pose issues in a transitional fashion. We first suggest action in Parliament to take over the monopolies, but as Murray Smith points out, we did not just leave it at that. The Labour leaders invariably answer us by pointing out that "parliamentary procedure" means that each separate industry would require a Bill for it to be nationalised.

This would mean that only a handful could be taken over in a single parliament. We countered this by suggesting an Enabling Bill which would give a "socialist Labour government" powers to enact swift Parliamentary measures to take over the 'commanding heights.' To the demagogic objections of the Labour leaders that "Enabling legislation" was used by Hitler in 1933, we then suggested that "Emergency Powers" could replace the more controversial term, "Enabling". But we did not leave it at that. Again as Murray Smith pointed out, we linked this demand to extra-parliamentary measures.

Contradictions

There are major contradictions in the comrades' arguments about how reformist pressure will affect the Scottish Socialist Party. In their reply they write "The problem is not whether those joining the Scottish Socialist Party today have some reformist ideas in their heads: the problem is what kind of party they come into" [paragraph 149]. They then go on to quote a document by the Swedish section written in 1996 to defend themselves:

"A new workers' party will not mean the re-establishment of Social Democracy. Even if reformist ideas, probably expressed in the form of real social democracy, predominate in the first stages, this will be on an entirely different basis from the past" (paragraph 149).

Again, the comrades use a quotation out of context. This section of the Swedish document compares the nature of the Swedish Social Democratic Party at different times in its existence. The Swedish comrades go on to say

"Social Democracy itself was a different organisation in 1900, than it was in 1918, let alone in 1960. The early social democratic party pioneers built the movement through struggle and personal sacrifice...Social Democratic leaders, even those who later became right-wingers, like Branting, were imprisoned and persecuted by the state" (The Crisis of Capitalism and the New Workers Party, 1996).

Yet, in the same document, the Swedish comrades say, "Reformism in its classical form, including left reformism, will reappear as a mass phenomenon. Among the mass of workers reformist ideas express the first stages of radicalisation, a desire to stop injustices, without realising that the only way to secure even the old reforms is by breaking the power of the capitalists. Especially older groups of workers will regard these as 'real social democratic' ideas. These ideas exist in a latent form within the working class as a whole, and will acquire a more organised expression in the coming struggles".

In one part of the PC's document, the comrades do admit that reformist pressures will have an effect on the Scottish Socialist Party. They say:

"Serious reformist trends are more likely to develop in the Labour Party, the SNP and the unions and around individuals like Ken Livingstone in London rather than within the Scottish Socialist Party. But reformism will exert a pressure on the Scottish Socialist Party from the outside. This would be the case even if the Scottish Socialist Party was a 22-carat revolutionary party, even if it was affiliated to the Committee for a Workers' International" (paragraph 152).

What the comrades are implying is that the Scottish Socialist Party is immune to reformist ideas gaining influence within the party. Are the comrades suggesting that some sort of political decontamination chamber, that will destroy all the reformist ideas of those passing through it, will precede entry into Scottish Socialist Party meetings? When reformist illusions gather strength in society they will not only exert a pressure from outside the Scottish Socialist Party but also from inside the party.

In order to challenge reformist ideas, the comrades first have to accept that these illusions exist in a serious way within the Scottish Socialist Party. The International Socialist Movement majority does not do this.

Having accepted the existence of such illusions, then the only way "Marxist ideas can be taken into the Scottish Socialist Party" is by a coherent, disciplined revolutionary Marxist organisation challenging these ideas in the party. A loose ideological platform is not sufficient.

[Continue...]

Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join