Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join 

The Scottish debate

Click here to read the CWI's reply to this document

[Next]

The minority faction we believe approaches the Scottish Socialist Party with a defeatist mentality. It conjures up spectres of 'reformist tendencies" which are pure imagination.

The comrades state explicitly that there "is a significant left reformist tendency within the Scottish Socialist Party". The evidence provided to justify this remarkable statement is that the Scottish Socialist Party candidate in the Ayr by election was endorsed by ex-Labour MEP's (Member of the European Parliament) Alex Smith and Henry McCubbin.

The comrades have got the argument mixed up: had the Scottish Socialist Party been supporting them, standing on their programme, then the comrades may have some cause for concern. But they were supporting the Scottish Socialist Party, on our programme.

Rather than the Scottish Socialist Party making concessions to reformism, we have here an example of reformists supporting a working class socialist party with a strong revolutionary core in its leadership.

That is a big step forward for these individuals - but it does not alter the character of the Scottish Socialist Party one iota. The comrades "evidence" is even further undermined by the fact that neither Alex Smith nor Henry McCubbin have even joined the Scottish Socialist Party at this stage. Ironically, the reason they give for refusing to join is that it is "hard left" and not sufficiently "broad"!

This argument, which cites the support of two ex-Labour Euro MPs for the Scottish Socialist Party as evidence of the Scottish Socialist Party's reformism, is quite absurd. It illustrates once again that the comrades are unaware of the history of their own organisation.

When Alan McCombes stood in a high profile regional council by election in Govan in 1992 under the banner of Scottish Militant Labour he was supported by the former Labour MP for Govan, Andy McMahon, whose background was in the Communist Party.

Unlike Henry McCubbins and Alex Smith, Andy even went on to join Scottish Militant Labour. He spoke at Scottish Militant Labour public meetings, calling not only for people to vote for Scottish Militant Labour but for people to join. Reports of his joining and the meetings he spoke at were carried in the Militant and in internal Militant circulars without a shred of criticism. Does this mean that there was a significant Stalinist/reformist trend within Scottish Militant Labour?

If there is now "significant reformist tendencies" within the Scottish Socialist Party then why were there no resolutions presenting a reformist alternative at the Scottish Socialist Party conference -especially given that the Scottish Socialist Party constitution allows each branch to submit one 'minority resolution' to ensure that all shades of opinion are heard at the conference? Why was there no concerted reformist opposition to our political position on the floor of conference? Where was this reformist trend? Hiding in the coffee bar?

Of course, there are individual members of the Scottish Socialist Party who have reformist ideas. That is completely different from suggesting that "there is a significant left reformist tendency within the Scottish Socialist Party".

In an article in the Scottish Socialist Voice at the time of the initial launch of the Scottish Socialist Party, Philip wrote: "All socialists in Scotland, irrespective of their party political allegiance should now consider joining us in building the Scottish Socialist Party. Whatever your traditions or views, if you are prepared to fight the chaos of the free market and help promote the ideas of socialism, you will be welcome in the new party. "

As these points illustrate neither Philip, nor anyone else, expected that the new party would only attract ready made revolutionaries. Any party which grows in such a rapid fashion, from a few hundred to a few thousand members (and it should be remembered that pro rata to the population the Scottish Socialist Party is the equivalent of a 20,000 strong party in England and Wales), no matter its ideological starting point, will attract a whole range of people not just with reformist ideas, but with sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and all sorts of other prejudices.

The vast bulk of the membership of the Scottish Socialist Party are not ex-Labour or ex-SNP activists. For every Scottish Socialist Party recruit from the Labour Party or the SNP, there have has been another 10 or 20 who were not previously active politically.

If you were to ask all 2,000 members of the Scottish Socialist Party if they regarded themselves as revolutionaries most would probably say that they don't know. They may not define themselves as revolutionaries at this stage; but neither would they say they were opposed to revolution. Most people joining the Scottish Socialist Party are working class socialists who are wide open to discussion on how exactly socialism will be achieved.

The reason many do not yet define themselves as revolutionaries is because they are not at this stage forced to decide exactly where they stand on questions such as parliament and the state, which in turn is a reflection of the wider objective situation, the low level of class struggle, etc.

The development of a movement such as the miners strike in 1984-85 which brought a key section of the working class into direct collision with the state allowed many of these questions to surface in a more concrete fashion than was the case before this struggle developed. The miners and their families quickly grasped an understanding of the nature of the capitalist state, not by reading Lenin, but in the course of the struggle itself. If the Scottish Socialist Party had been launched under these conditions, there would already be a more clear cut consciousness and a more developed programmatic position on the role of the state,

Unfortunately, the comrades approach the characterisation of the Scottish Socialist Party and its membership not in a dialectical fashion, but in a metaphysical fashion.

Formal logic, which breaks down everything into fixed categories was a big step forward in its time and can be a useful rough and ready day-to-day method of thought. For example, in the world of natural science it is important to distinguish and categorise different species. Rather than lumping all four-legged animals into a single category, naturalists began to separate and differentiate between dogs, horses, cats etc and award them the appropriate labels.

But formal logic has its limitations. For example, there are hundreds of different breeds of dogs. One breed can turn into another. One species can turn into another.

Dialectical analysis is a much more sophisticated method of thought which goes beyond the simple labelling of things into rigidly defined categories. Especially when it comes to analysing complex political processes, simply pigeon-holing people into crude categories is not good enough. People's ideas change and develop, especially when they begin to become active in politics.

Today's so called "reformists" can be tomorrow's revolutionaries. Equally, some of today's so-called "revolutionaries" can be tomorrow's reformists and even reactionaries. In the long term, how individuals, organisations and parties will develop will be determined by events. But in the short-to-medium term the conscious intervention of Marxist forces in a party like the Scottish Socialist Party, provided it is carried in an open, non-sectarian, and constructive fashion, can be decisive in shaping people's political outlook.

Already in the first year or so of the Scottish Socialist Party's existence, the intervention of Scottish Militant Labour (now International Socialist Movement) has had a profound impact on the political understanding of the active membership of the Scottish Socialist Party.

It is without foundation to suggest that the Scottish Socialist Party has become "broader" politically. Indeed, the position of the Socialist Party/Committee for a Workers' International leadership was constructed to ensure that if the Scottish Socialist Party failed to develop, they could claim that they were right in predicting that there were no forces to justify the launch of the party; while on the other hand, if the Scottish Socialist Party did develop and grow, they could claim that they were right all along: what was being proposed was 'a broad party'. Heads, we win, tails you lose.

In fact the estimation of the Committee or a Workers' International/Socialist Party leadership was doubly wrong. Their repeated insistence that no new forces would be attracted to the Scottish Socialist Party has proven to be a spectacular misjudgement. At the same time, the numerical growth and geographical expansion of the Scottish Socialist Party has been accompanied by a strengthening of the influence and authority of Marxism within the party largely as a result of the role of the International Socialist Movement, the Scottish Socialist Party has a more developed, coherent and potentially revolutionary set of policies than when it was founded.

The only organised opposition we face in the Scottish Socialist Party at this point in time is not from any imaginary reformist current, but from ideas that we could characterise as ultra-left (i.e. that run too far ahead of consciousness; that pose socialist and revolutionary ideas in a way that tends to alienate rather than attract ordinary working class people).

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 within 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. This impression 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. ("Militant has put forward the demand for nationalisation of the 200 monopolies, including the banks and insurance companies, with minimum compensation on the basis of proven need. At the same time the monarchy and the House of Lords should be abolished ... These measures would be carried through in Parliament by means of an Enabling Bill." - Militant: What We Stand For, by Peter Taaffe, December 1987).

If at the recent Scottish Socialist Party conference the leadership had put forward a resolution which contained such a clause, there would have been mutiny among the rank and file - and not just from the Republican Communist Network, but from International Socialist Movement members and non-aligned members.

However, over and above the issue of whether a significant reformist tendency exists today is the comrades' affirmation that reformist trends will exist in the future. This perspective can be discussed on its merits, but there is behind it another idea which is thoroughly false. That is that reformist consciousness is a necessary stage which the working class has to go through. "The ideas of left reformism are an inevitable stage in the consciousness of a big section of the working class" (Reply to "Marxism in the New Millennium").

This idea is often repeated as if it were a truism. However it is not a scientific approach to try and impose such "inevitable stages" on the development of working class consciousness. Reformist ideas, like any other ideas, have material roots. Like any other ideological or political phenomenon, reformism arose in certain historical circumstances and its origins and subsequent evolution must be understood in relation to economic, social and political developments.

Reformism, which has many variants, can be defined as the idea that socialism can be achieved via an accumulation of reforms, usually through the conquest of a parliamentary majority. Such ideas developed in the 25 years before the First World War (earlier in Britain, see Engels' writings on the question). They flowed from the strength and wealth of first of all British capitalism and then other imperialisms, which enabled them to grant concessions to the working class.

Reformism was much weaker in the inter-war period, when capitalism was unable to grant concessions and on the contrary had to savagely attack the working class. Indeed in this period not only could capitalism not afford reforms but it could not even afford bourgeois democracy. In 1939 of the major European powers only France and Britain were still democracies.

Revolution was on the agenda on several occasions in several countries. "The masses again and again enter the road of revolution. But each time they are blocked by their own conservative bureaucratic machines" , wrote Trotsky in 1938. Were they blocked by the need to go through a stage of reformist consciousness? In 1936 French workers voted for the Popular Front but what did they do then? Wait for the new government to bring in reforms? No, they occupied the factories, prompting Trotsky to declare: "The French revolution has begun". Precisely, they "entered the road of revolution".

What stopped the revolution from being victorious in France in 1936 and also in Spain was not the fact that the masses had to go through a stage of reformism. It was above all the role of the Communist Parties (only secondarily of the Social Democracy) which were able to play this role because the workers saw them as revolutionary parties, followed them as revolutionary parties and accepted their explanation that the time was not yet ripe for revolution.

Again in the 1944-47 period, before the stabilisation of capitalism and the post-war boom, socialist revolution was possible in the short term in at least France, Italy and Greece and in each case was blocked by the role of the Communist Parties. Again in 1968-75, (and we can now see that it was for the last time), the Communist Parties were able to block the danger of revolution in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal because large sections of the working class followed them in the belief that they were revolutionary parties.

The working class does of course pass through periods when its consciousness is reformist. But it also passes through stages when it is ready to take the road of revolution, and the passage from one to the other can take place with lightning speed, as in France in 1968. We should avoid like the plague trying to impose preconceived "stages" on to a living and volatile reality.

The conditions for reformist illusions existed during the post war boom, but since the mid 1970's we are operating in a dramatically different climate which involves capitalism red in tooth and claw waging war against the working class and its organisations. In the pamphlet on globalisation and new technology (in reply to a statement from Merseyside), Peter Taaffe repeatedly approvingly quotes the left bourgeois economist, John Gray, in his book False Dawn: Delusions in Global Capitalism. But Gray, a fierce critic of unregulated free market capitalism, also makes the point that "Social democracy has been removed from the agenda of history." He argues that "many of the changes produced, accelerated or reinforced by New Right policies are irreversible ... Those who imagine that there can be a return to the 'normal politics' of post-war economic management are deluding themselves and others ... Global mobility of capitalism has made the central policies of European social democracy unworkable."

Of course that does not exhaust the question. Particularly in Britain, where the workers' movement has always been dominated by reformism, reformist illusions can arise again. In a context of economic crisis and big class struggles various political forces will undertake to propose reformist solutions in order to defend the system. But since the situation of capitalism rules out any stable reformist solution, such forces will not be on firm ground. One of the key factors in such a situation will be the strength of those forces which are seeking not to reform capitalism but to overthrow it.

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. As the Swedish section of the Committee for a Workers' International wrote in 1996 ("The crisis of capitalism and the question of a new workers' party"): "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. The only way to defend even the old reforms is through militant struggle and the socialist transformation of society".

Note that the comrades say "even if" not "when" reformist ideas predominate in the first stage. That was written in relation to the perspective of a new workers' party in Sweden that didn't yet exist, and unfortunately still doesn't. But it is entirely applicable to our own situation today. The Scottish Socialist Party is precisely committed to "militant struggle and the socialist transformation of society".

If that is the kind of party we build and if we simultaneously through the International Socialist Movement build a Marxist core and systematically take the ideas of Marxism into the party, then the Scottish Socialist Party will be a very infertile terrain for reformist ideas. There will even be a context in which those who do join wanting to "defend the old reforms" can be convinced that it can only be done by breaking with capitalism in a revolutionary way.

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.

For as the Scottish Socialist Party grows, becomes a force in Parliament and in local councils, the pressures on it to be "realistic" will grow. That is what happened to social democracy before the First World War, though in an altogether different phase of capitalist development. We will come under pressure to co-operate with other parties to get things done, to get concrete results. Sometimes we will do so, as Tommy has quite correctly collaborated with Alex Neil and John McAllion on the warrant sales bill.

We will have to learn to know when and how to engage in limited actions with people who are reformists without subordinating our political line to theirs, or give critical support to measures proposed by others which are insufficient but which are of some help to the working class.

No doubt sometimes we will make mistakes under pressure. We may be confronted by these kinds of problems sooner than we think. Those are the real reformist pressures that we will have to confront, and there is no revolutionary magic charm to ward them off. The only way to prepare for such a situation is to politically develop the Scottish Socialist Party as a whole and to use the International Socialist Movement as a lever to do that.

[Continue...]

Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join