Marxist Film Director Peter Mullan blasts the SSP

[Donna Ferentes]

Alternatively, we could throw them in the pond and see if they float.

 

[belboid]

Only those who really are squeaky clean, orwho have the ability to keep the trust of all around them- and thus their misdemeanours from the public- or who can survive detailed public scrutiny of their fallibilities are fit to hold power.

??!! I'd say the squeaky clean are probably the people least fit to hold power. If only for their lack of imagination!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And the uptight are likely to be psychopaths.

 

[newbie]

we could, if you think that's a sensible way to work out who's fit and who not.

Tommy S has risen to a point of prominence, where what he says matters, he can influence what people think, and have some influence on society at large. Maybe he's capable of going all the way, and can demonstrate the ability to become a seriously important figure on his national stage. Or maybe not, if he can't hold the support and trust of those around him when the going gets rough. Balir, to take an obvious example, has got what it takes (as shown by his ability to hold his cabinet more or less together over Iraq, by no means a foregone conclusion). Sheridan looks from here as though he's made too many enemies where he should have made allies (ie inside the various factions of his own party), so when the going got rough, the knives came out.

Scandals serve to determine those qualities.

 

[newbie]

??!! I'd say the squeaky clean are probably the people least fit to hold power. If only for their lack of imagination!

there's certainly truth in that.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Yes, but on the other hand does it really help if everybody else weighs in with their ill-informed and sanctimonious commentary?

It's a grey area. But if someone is treating their partner like shit and emotionally abusing through having affairs then I don't think that is just a private affair and a socialist organisation might decide they don't want someone like that as their leader.

I know fuck all about the Sheridan incident, so I'm not commenting on that, just making a general point.

 

[newbie]

It's a grey area. But if someone is treating their partner like shit and emotionally abusing through having affairs then I don't think that is just a private affair and a socialist organisation might decide they don't want someone like that as their leader.

I know fuck all about the Sheridan incident, so I'm not commenting on that, just making a general point.

But 'having affairs' doesn't necessarily imply emotional abuse and we shouldn't make assumptions one way or another. Sexual behaviour is adult and complicated and only a relatively small number of the narrow minded expect it to be clear cut and simple good/bad. And although there may be a political dimension to sexual behaviour (dub mentioned hypocrisy, you've brought up abuse) it's not necessary. It may well be that the political content of the scandal is completely irrelevent, but the political reaction to it is very important.

I know nothing about Sheridan either, my comments are equally general.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I didn't say having an affair equates to emotional abuse - for instance if an abused wife has an affair, I doubt anyone would have any problems with that. And I agree that things are often complicated.

But often affairs do end up emotionally scarring people and does involve emotional abuse, and I'd guess that more often than not it's men doing it to women. Obviously things are clear cut but if someone is treated their partner like shit by lying to them and going behind their back then a socialist organisation might have something to say about it if their leader is doing it.

And I don't think people should be able to get away with that kind of behaviour by saying it is private.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

What is the official Workers Power position on affairs? Didn't Trotsky have one with Frido Kahlo, the wife of Diego Rivera whilst exiled in Mexico. Lenin had one with Inessa Armand .Did their wives suffer emotional abuse or was it revolutionary for the time?

 

[newbie]

lol


I don't think significant politicians should be able to get away with any kind of behaviour by saying it is private.

 

[tollbar]

For 5 years or so, TS used every media outlet in scotland to put himself across, not just as a political figure but also as a personality. The public persona can be summed up as straight talking working class boy from Pollock with a somewhat glamorous, but undoubtedly formidable wife an equally formidable mother and as a non smoking, non drinking, amatuer footballer having also the widespread Glasgow working class addicion to suntanning. He was in colour magazines, sports programmes, gameshows anything to get the SSP (and Tommy) publicity. Unfortunately, besides pissing off party members who saw the SSP as something a bit more then an extension of Tommy, he also forgot the basic rule that the media do not necessarily keep the spotlight on those parts of your private life that you want publicised. When another SSP msp, Carolyn Leckie, was questioned about her private life she told the media basically to fuck off, which they did largely because they had no previous relationship with her. The same applies to Colin Fox.

 

[cockneyrebel]

What is the official Workers Power position on affairs? Didn't Trotsky have one with Frido Kahlo, the wife of Diego Rivera whilst exiled in Mexico. Lenin had one with Inessa Armand .Did their wives suffer emotional abuse or was it revolutionary for the time?

There isn't one.

As usual Chuck comes in with his desperate attempts to be humourous. Were you not given enough attention by your peers at school Mr Wilson?

And if Lenin or Trotsky might have emotionally abused their wives, I haven't got a clue one way or the other. And Marx for that matter as well.

As said, if someone is emotionally abusing their partner then I don't think this should just be swept under the carpet as a private affair and it could be a reason enough to remove someone from a leadership postion.

 

[belboid]

What is the official Workers Power position on affairs? Didn't Trotsky have one with Frido Kahlo, the wife of Diego Rivera whilst exiled in Mexico. Lenin had one with Inessa Armand .Did their wives suffer emotional abuse or was it revolutionary for the time?

did a WP member have an affair with your wife or summat Chuck?

 

[Chuck Wilson]

There isn't one.

As usual Chuck comes in with his desperate attempts to be humourous. Were you not given enough attention by your peers at school Mr Wilson?

And if Lenin or Trotsky might have emotionally abused their wives, I haven't got a clue one way or the other. And Marx for that matter as well.

As said, if someone is emotionally abusing their partner then I don't think this should just be swept under the carpet as a private affair and it could be a reason enough to remove someone from a leadership postion.

There isn't one???!!! That explains wht I couldn't find one on your website.
Well don't you think there should be, otherwise who knows what is being swept underneath the carpet in Workers Power? Its all right you lot holding teach ins on Womens Liberation and stuff like that but you need to practise what you preach. We don't want another Gerry Healey situation developing in Workers Power do we?

What about those not in leadership positions like yourself? No double standards in the organisation Cockers, regardless of position revolutionaries should be role models including yourself.

by the way its Comrade Wilson to you.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

did a WP member have an affair with your wife or summat Chuck?

I don't know she has never mentioned it but I will ask her tonite at the quiz. I have never seen a copy of Workers Power amongst the copies of Bella or Hello or Amateur Plastic Surgery . If one had and they had been part of the leadership of Workers Power then Cockers says that they could have neen removed from that position. Is it possible to se a list of members of Workers Power who have been removed from positions of resposibility? How many are there Cockers?

 

[cockneyrebel]

I think I'll stick with Mr Wilson if you don't mind.

So whats the IWCAs position on this then?

In all seriousness though, obviously an organisation can't have a "position" on this but if someone is emotionally abusing someone then I could see why an organisation might have something to say to that person about it. Including saying we don't want you as leader any more. Or do you think stuff like that should just be ignored chuck or made a joke out of?

 

[hibee]

There isn't one.


And if Lenin or Trotsky might have emotionally abused their wives, I haven't got a clue one way or the other. And Marx for that matter as well.

Charlie knocked up the housekeeper iirc, which would count to me as "emotional abuse" of Mrs Marx.

On a more serious not I agree with tollbar that Shridan invaded his own privacy enough that he should have seen it coming.

 

[sevenstars]

No. The CWI has been a part of the Scottish Socialist Party since its foundation, and before that was a part of the Scottish Socialist Alliance.

Yes, but werent the CWI oppossed to the creation of the SSP in the first place? I thought thats why there was the split.

 

[cathal marcs]

Although did the allegations not also claim Tmm forced members out of the party when the allegations surfaced and that Tommy called those making the allegations something along the lines of 'mentally ill' fanatics?

 

[Chuck Wilson]

I think I'll stick with Mr Wilson if you don't mind.

So whats the IWCAs position on this then?

In all seriousness though, obviously an organisation can't have a "position" on this but if someone is emotionally abusing someone then I could see why an organisation might have something to say to that person about it. Including saying we don't want you as leader any more. Or do you think stuff like that should just be ignored chuck or made a joke out of?

Are there anymore options for answers or are there just three in the multiple choice you have given me? And how many leaders have been removed in Workers Power for this sort of thing?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Yes, but werent the CWI oppossed to the creation of the SSP in the first place? I thought thats why there was the split.

No.

The CWI was opposed to the creation of the SSP without a coherent revolutionary organisation within it. Instead it put forward two proposals:

Option A was that Scottish Militant Labour would launch the SSP as a revolutionary party, while inviting other revolutionaries to join as factions/platforms. Option B was that the SSP would be launched as a broad party, but SML would continue to build a revolutionary wing inside the SSP. The central area of disagreement, the cause of the split, was over the need or otherwise for a revolutionary organisation to be built.

All of the documents from the discussions of the time are available on the CWI's marxist archive site, by the way. You might find them interesting although, it should be pointed out that they were originally internal documents which means that they can be a bit jargon heavy.
http://www.marxist.net

 

[Joe Reilly]

I think I'll stick with Mr Wilson if you don't mind.

So whats the IWCAs position on this then?

In all seriousness though, obviously an organisation can't have a "position" on this but if someone is emotionally abusing someone then I could see why an organisation might have something to say to that person about it. Including saying we don't want you as leader any more. Or do you think stuff like that should just be ignored chuck or made a joke out of?

Well what about inter-generational relationship say? Plenty scope for 'emotional abuse' there you would have thought and yet WP members used to, and possibly still do, for all I know give it the theoritical thumbs up. As long at it occurs outside of the hated 'nuclear family' presumably.

 

[sevenstars]

No. The CWI was opposed to the creation of the SSP without a coherent revolutionary organisation within it.

Thanks, I have a vague momemory of that debate and had a quick look at this. It still reads to me though that the CWI's main objection was the idea that the new SSP would not be an affiliate of itself.

I remember SML as an organisation apparently in decline from the mid 1990's, without being prepared to compromise with other left forces and activists the SSP would not have made the impact it has so far.

Also I'm really not sure what a 'coherent revolutionary organisation' is. I do know that dogmatic sects often give themselves such a decsription to justify their internal regimes and exaggerate their political relevance. I couldnt say if that applies to the CWI, having never been part of it, but these days I wouldnt join any group whose main selling point was ideological and organisational purity

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Thanks, I have a vague momemory of that debate and had a quick look at this. It still reads to me though that the CWI's main objection was the idea that the new SSP would not be an affiliate of itself.

Again, not really.

This became an issue because of the confused way in which the SML majority were putting forward their arguments. The central point is that they were losing track of what exactly a revolutionary organisation is and what it is for. They were very unclear about what type of party they were intending to launch - would it be a revolutionary party? would it be a broad party containing both revolutionaries and reformists? And because of this lack of clarity, the approach which Marxists should take within the party, how they should organise, what they should argue for, itself became a point of further confusion.

The CWI felt that if the SSP was to be launched as a revolutionary party then Marxists should push for it to have their full political programme (international affiliations being one part of that). If it was to be a broad party, then Marxists would need to organise themselves as a distinct revolutionary trend within the party. The SML majority rejected this approach and instead launched the SSP as a broad party containing all kinds of political views without simultaneously trying to build a revolutionary organisation within it.

The negative consequences of that decision are all too clear: Nationalist and reformist ideas have grown within the SSP leadership circles. Meanwhile, the successor organisation to SML, the ISM, gradually fell away to become little more than a loose leadership caucus, which has itself now all but fallen apart. Real political education amongst the SSP membership is limited in the extreme. These are all serious problems which could have been avoided had the SML majority retained its commitment to Marxist ideas and its necessary adjunct, Marxist organisation.

There is no inherent contradiction between working to build a broad party and at the same time trying to build a distinct revolutionary group within it. That's the work which the former SML minority, now the CWI platform, is engaged in. And incidentally from a small start, it is the only one of the major platforms to have grown.

Sorry everyone for all the acronyms by the way.

 

[sevenstars]

Any broad democratic socialist party with a substantial membership would be open to such criticisms, it doesnt make returning to sect politics a better alternative though.

Of the main platforms the ISM doesnt seem to need to build itself sepreately, as it effectively leads the SSP and measures its success on the partys standing as a whole. The SWP seems to operarate more around its own campaign groups and priorities so I wouldnt dispute that the CWI has grown a little bit, but the significance of that is perhaps another matter.

Given your criticism whats the CWI position towards the discussion about creating a new Marxist platform from the ISM? Would you join it or would the sticking point be CWI affiliation?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Any broad democratic socialist party with a substantial membership would be open to such criticisms, it doesnt make returning to sect politics a better alternative though.

The alternative however isn't "sect politics" but revolutionary ones. The SSP has made some very important gains, that's something which we all appreciate. The thing is that these gains have been accompanied by serious problems - which are all too rarely acknowledged by the SSP leadership. It is a fact - at least as far as Marxists are concerned - that there can be no successful socialist transformation of society without the creation of a mass revolutionary party. The SSP in many ways represents a step forward for the workers movement in Scotland, but Marxists have to remember what the longer term goal is - not to have a biggish party which can fight on some important issues, important though that is, but the destruction of capitalism and the creation of a socialist society.

Of the main platforms the ISM doesnt seem to need to build itself sepreately, as it effectively leads the SSP and measures its success on the partys standing as a whole.

But that's just the point. Without building itself as a coherent Marxist organisation, the ISM has found itself crumbling organisationally and unable to resist reformist or nationalist ideas. The SSP has grown, but that isn't enough. Not only is perpetual growth unlikely - as the last period shows - but even growth brings its own problems. Politics matter.

I wish I could say that the ISM's current thrashing about, looking to form a new platform, was based on a recognition of the mistakes that have been made and a real willingness to change course. I don't think that's true however. The ISM has disintegrated so thoroughly that it can't even accomplish its two existing self imposed tasks - as a leadership caucus and a kind of educational and debating society. So a section of it is trying to put together an organisation better able to accomplish those tasks. Those tasks, not the creation of a revolutionary organisation.

In order to do so it's talking about including people whose politics are openly left nationalist rather than Marxist (eg the SRSM) and quite frankly I think that a reorganised ISM will have little beneficial impact on the SSP's politics. The CWI's predictions about where the ISM was headed have unfortunately been entirely borne out. I really do think that there has been a political rot amongst the SSP's leadership. The arseing about over Sheridan and the extended and bizarrely apolitical leadership election are just two symptoms of a wider problem, some of which was touched on in tollbar's contribution.

As a final aside, the SWP are something of an irrelevance. They joined the SSP expecting to be able to establish themselves firstly as the main "left" opposition to the leadership and then to be quickly contesting for leadership of the organisation. That was a wildly wrong estimation of the situation. They have been sitting around, steadily losing members and unsure of where to go ever since. They are now kind of semi-detached SSP members at best. Gregor Gall's in depth analysis of them is pretty sharp, despite the man's dubious politics.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

There is no inherent contradiction between working to build a broad party and at the same time trying to build a distinct revolutionary group within it.

Well, that's arguable. The distinct group do have a tendency to get on the nerves of the rest of the broad party.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Well, that's arguable. The distinct group do have a tendency to get on the nerves of the rest of the broad party.

Sometimes they do. And sometimes its necessary to do so.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well yes, but then it sometimes becomes necessary for the broad party to say that the distinct group should be distinct elsewhere.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

In which case you end up talking about a "broad" party which is only broad enough to include those who don't organise themselves and those who don't challenge mistaken policies. A lot like a reformist version of the kind of "monolith" some people imagine revolutionaries want to construct.

Revolutionaries within a broader organisation have to have the right to organise themselves. It does have to be said however, that revolutionaries owe responsibilities to the broader party as well. CWI sections are part of mass parties or broader formations in a large number of countries around the world. Sometimes the leadership of those parties welcomes their presence, sometimes it does not (for an example of the latter, see the ongoing witchhunts in the new left party in Germany). Those circumstances play an important part in determining what exactly revolutionaries can do, but at all times it is vital that we do our best to build the broader organisation as well as the revolutionary one.