Marxist Film Director Peter Mullan blasts the SSP

[Donna Ferentes]

Not really, Nigel, it's just a broad party where everybody is prepared to put that party first. Anybody can challenge anything they feel like. But small, tightly-knit groups within larger groups - recipe for trouble, I think. I didn't use to, but I do now.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

See my edit above on this.

Other than that the problem with what you are saying is that "tightly knit" is another way of saying "well organised" and if minorities can't organise themselves there is no real democracy. As for "trouble", well that's a question of perspective. Trouble for who exactly? The idea of "putting the party first" is nonsensical as far as I am concerned. Both the broader party and a revolutionary organisation are means to the socialist end, and it's that end which has to come first before the good of either organisation. Putting their party first is the kind of thinking which leads to subjectively well intentioned people acting as fodder for Blair or on the other extreme following monsters like Healy.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

First, I don't think revolutionaries within a broader organisations do have a right to organise themselves, or not that much of a right. When they do, then other, ordinary members, rank-and-file people, feel that one group among them are always supporting and promoting each other. I think you can have loose groupings, but I don't think parties-within-parties are a good idea. This is because they piss off the other members. Which is really important.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

First, I don't think revolutionaries within a broader organisations do have a right to organise themselves, or not that much of a right.

Which is another way of saying that revolutionaries don't have the right to seriously attempt to win a broader party over to their politics and away from reformist ones. It's a respectable enough point of view I suppose, but it's not one any revolutionary could agree with you on.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Which is another way of saying that revolutionaries don't have the right to seriously attempt to win a broader party over to their politics and away from reformist ones. It's a respectable enough point of view I suppose, but it's not one any revolutionary could agree with you on.

Well, not really, because they have a right to be in a party elsewhere: in which circumstances they can try and win over whomsoever they please.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Again, a perfectly respectable point of view, but one in favour of a monolithic reformist party, not a "broad" party in any real sense. Revolutionaries welcome, as long as they don't organise for revolutionary politics...

I must confess however that I'm a little baffled by the fact that the only argument you seem to have mustered so far is that revolutionary organisation might piss off rank and file members of the broader party. Would you say this is true of any well organised oppositional strand to the leadership or only of a revolutionary one?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Again, a perfectly respectable point of view, but one in favour of a monolithic reformist party, not a "broad" party in any real sense. Revolutionaries welcome, as long as they don't organise for revolutionary politics...

I must confess however that I'm a little baffled by the fact that the only argument you seem to have mustered so far is that revolutionary organisation might piss off rank and file members of the broader party. Would you say this is true of any well organised oppositional strand to the leadership or only of a revolutionary one?

It's true of a tightly-knit one. Obviously it's far more true if said tightly-knit group is secretive rather than open.

I don't see anything monolithic in suggesting that if you're a member of a party you really need to be a member of that party and no other. It's no more monolithic than my only being allowed to play for Streatham and Brixton Chess Club in any given league.

As for organisation, it depends what you mean by organisation. There's always loose groupings, campaigns, supporters of journals, that sort of thing. All this is not only fine but good, provided it's in the open.

 

[sevenstars]

No i'd accept that groups or platforms that prefix 'revolutionary' to themselves have a right to be part of the broader party, whose membership will judge them on how useful their arguments and efforts are to the party as a whole. Thats how the SSP works and the CWI have as much right to be part of it as anyone

The alternative however isn't "sect politics" but revolutionary ones...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.

No one group has the copyright on Marxism. Given that the ISM is talking about creating a Marxist platform without adding the prefix 'revolutionary' (which SML didnt do either) its perhaps more useful to say that as far as 'some, many or even most Marxists are concerned'...etc.

As a Marxist I'd argue a revolutionary party is one which is a consistent party of struggle based on the working class, not one that just apes Trotsky's version of the Bolsheviks and judges its success by its criticisms of other socialist groups rather than its own influence.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I don't see anything monolithic in suggesting that if you're a member of a party you really need to be a member of that party and no other...All this is not only fine but good, provided it's in the open.

Which leaves me more than a little confused about the application of any of this to the SSP, where (a) revolutionaries are entitled to organise as platforms and (b) this is done on an entirely open and visible basis?

Given that the ISM is talking about creating a Marxist platform

And they can call themselves Martians if they like too. I judge them by their actions - and dissolving revolutionary organisation while adapting to nationalist and reformist ideas is far from "Marxist" in my book.

As a Marxist I'd argue a revolutionary party is one which is a consistent party of struggle based on the working class

That's an essential part of it certainly, but a party can be consistently involved in struggle and based on the working class while being entirely reformist in its goals and programme. Your remark about influence is a strawman. Influence is vital, of course, but what that influence is used for is crucial.

Left on its own your line of argument is oddly familiar: "the movement is everything, the final goal nothing".

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well, I share your confusion. But then again it's not that broad a party as yet, is it?

 

[tollbar]

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.

But are they so irrevelent ?. My analysis is that while the SWP as a platform has declined in importance, the rise of RESPECT as a force in england, combined with the organisational shambles that is the ISM is having the effect of pulling the SSP sharply tqwards the orbit of the SWP/RESPECT. You only have to look at the lineup of speakers for this years Socialism event. Galloway, Callinicos, Salma Yacoob and somebody from the SEA in the 6 counties to mention just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Do you mean "into the orbit"?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I was using SWP as an acronym for the platform, which has been in precipitous decline. You could be right that the SWP (party) and more importantly RESPECT might have some influence on the course of the SSP, as the remnants of the ISM cast about for somewhere to go politically. It's worth noting that the USFI might be just as strong an influence in this direction despite not really existing in Scotland. They are gung ho for RESPECT and have had a longstanding influence over parts of the ISM.

edited to add - I've just had a look at the SSP Socialism2005 programme and it is indeed strange. Only one or two SW Platform members speaking but a more significant number of people in RESPECT. The SEA speaker is particularly bizarre - it only exists in Derry and even there it's hardly packed with "young socialists", essentially an Eamon McCann supporters club. It's off topic I realise, but I'm still shocked at their decision to run McCann in an unwinnable ward in the council elections.

 

[sevenstars]

And they can call themselves Martians if they like too. I judge them by their actions - and dissolving revolutionary organisation while adapting to nationalist and reformist ideas is far from "Marxist" in my book.

Well you can call them whatever you like, sectarian arguments are really an indication of your own organisations weakness though.

Left on its own your line of argument is oddly familiar: "the movement is everything, the final goal nothing".[/QUOTE]

Whereas I would sum your argument with the equally familiar, and also rather odd view that 'only our small and perfectly formed sect can lead the working class to socialism'

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Well you can call them whatever you like, sectarian arguments are really an indication of your own organisations weakness though.

This is traditional "anti-sectarian" cliche - you disagree with me therefore your arguments are sectarian, you won't abandon the need for a revolutionary organisation in favour of something "broader" therefore you are a sectarian. The point I am making is not that only my small organisation can lead the working class to socialism, it is that a mass revolutionary organisation (something my group is far from) is essential for the socialist transformation of society. Now you don't have to agree with that proposition - anarchists for instance don't - but if you are going to argue against it you do at least have to engage with it rather than simply ignoring it.

It isn't enough to be big and influential. In the greater scheme of things the SSP is neither when compared with the likes of New Labour. The key issue, as always is politics, programme. Having a base in the working class and engaging in struggle, the criteria you put forward, is vital to a revolutionary organisation. But that does not by itself make an organisation revolutionary - plenty of parties and groups have met those criteria while being entirely reformist.

When I dispute the claim of the remnants of the ISM to Marxism I don't do so for sectarian reasons, I do so for very clearly outlined political reasons. I have a great deal of admiration for the activist record of a number of people who are supportive of the ISM. However, the CWI predicted where they would end up when they themselves hadn't reached the logical conclusion of their own arguments yet. The history of the ISM in the last few years has been their long attempt to fulfill every one of our predictions. Their organisation has fallen apart, when the SSP hit rough times they had no political answer, and they have been unable to resist reformist and nationalist ideas.

 

[sevenstars]

I didnt think your arguments are sectarian because you disagree with me, but because you cant accept that Marxism is open to more interpretations than that of the CWI's.

Its probably not helpful calling others 'sectarians' though. I also dont think its helpful calling others 'reformist' when they dont accept that label, it just closes the debate down.

Nothing in what you've said so far convinces me that the CWI is any more 'revolutionary' than the ISM. It seems to me that you just use the phrase to hold yourselfs together and distinguish yourselfs from comrades who have decided to do something innovative, something which doesnt require affiliation to your central body. I think re-aligning the left as a force that can re-establish socialist politics within the working class in scotland sets us on a course for social revolution. Whether we get there in the end is of course another matter.

Ever since the SSP was founded I have heard the criticism from the CWI that it was doomed to fail. So now its having some difficulties thats supposed to prove you were right all along? I dont think so. There are difficulties in every form of political strategy or tactic socialists take, there is no onwards and upwards path to socialism that I'm aware of. Indeed you might remember the collapse of your own 'Militant'? Not even, i'm sure, the perfect revolutionary programme could protect it from the difficulties of the real world of politics.

I had friends in the CWI affiliated Scottish Militant, they would always speak of 'socialist transformation'. When they were in the Labour Party this would apparently be linked in some way to a Labour governement in crisis.
They never spoke much about revolution and i could never see it in their paper either. Maybe you could explain more what your revolutionary strategy actually is ?

This is traditional "anti-sectarian" cliche -

 

[Udo Erasmus]

On a completely irrelevant note, any thoughts on the new political team in the US - Jane Fonda and George Galloway?

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=51796&ntpid=0

 

[Chuck Wilson]

On a completely irrelevant note, any thoughts on the new political team in the US - Jane Fonda and George Galloway?

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=51796&ntpid=0

Any of them perpetrators of emotional abuse through having affairs?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Its probably not helpful calling others 'sectarians' though. I also dont think its helpful calling others 'reformist' when they dont accept that label, it just closes the debate down.

And you won't find me just calling anyone a "reformist" on this thread - what you will find is me arguing that (a) the ISM have ceased to organise effectively as Marxists and that (b) they have been unable to resist nationalist and reformist ideas. This isn't "labelling" a political opponent, it's putting forward quite precise political criticisms, which so far you haven't actually disputed, except by implication. Do you honestly think that (a) is untrue? Even the ISM itself seems to agree with me, given their desperate attempts to reorganise. Do you seriously argue that the SSP has not come under nationalist and reformist pressure? From the poorly thought through independence convention, to the overemphasis on the role of the Scottish parliament, to the fawning on Castro, to the favourable comparisons with "Scandinavian model" capitalist countries, it's sort of obvious isn't it? And far from combatting this sort of nonsense, it has most often actually come from ISM leaders.

Nothing in what you've said so far convinces me that the CWI is any more 'revolutionary' than the ISM.

The CWI is a disciplined organisation, pulled together around a transitional programme, which aims to construct a mass revolutionary party. The ISM is barely an organisation at all, it has no politics seperate from those of the SSP (which in the words of Murray Smith, an ISM leader, "leaves open the question of reform or revolution") and which therefore doesn't try to win over the SSP to the goal of a revolutionary party. Again this isn't name calling for the sake of it - politics matter.

Ever since the SSP was founded I have heard the criticism from the CWI that it was doomed to fail. So now its having some difficulties thats supposed to prove you were right all along?

You obviously weren't listening very well to these criticisms you "heard". The CWI has never argued that the SSP is doomed to fail and we don't argue that its present difficulties prove us right on that score. We argue that to succeed, both in building a mass force for socialism and more importantly leading a socialist transformation of society, the SSP needs better politics. And we organise and argue for what we see as better politics within the SSP.

Our negative predictions were not of the fate of the SSP - which we think despite its problems is an important step forward - but of that of the ISM. And yes, long experience, not just the most recent dose of it has shown that we were exactly right on that. The ISM has disintegrated organisationally and has been unable to resist reformist and nationalist political ideas.

Maybe you could explain more what your revolutionary strategy actually is ?

It is impossible to outline in advance exactly how a revolution will come to pass, but the general outline as I would see it in one sentence is that: a class conscious working class, led by a mass revolutionary workers party, will overthrow the capitalist state and establish its own organs of power based on workers councils. It's a fairly "traditional" Marxist view.

 

[sevenstars]

Several questions here.

Do I think the ISM have ceased operating effectively as Marxists? Hardly, given that they have built and lead the biggest explicitly socialist working class party on these islands. Thats quite consistent with my readings of Marx.

That the ISM themselves feel the need to re-organise is a good thing too. I've never joined them mainly because they seemed to be mainly a home for the ex-millies, a new Marxist platform would have more appeal to Marxists like myself. Just as an SSP affiliated to the CWI or any 'disciplined' international would not.

Calling yourself 'revolutionary' might appeal to some groups sense of historical importance but my undersatnding of the ISM position is that the central divide in the working class movement today is not between reformists and revolutionaries, as it was in the years following the Russian revolution.

Its more between those who seek an accomodation with neo-liberalism and those prepared to oppose this and fight it, even if it puts them outside the established political consensus. From this position engaging with some of the varius political forces you describe seems to have some use as it also means you are engaging with those who look to those forces.

Of course this also opens up comrades to all sorts of influences too. Personally I'm uncomfortable with left nationalism, but its a definite current in the Scottish working class- see Peter Mullans comments above. For too long Marxists have just been talking and having sterile arguments with each other about who are the best Marxists, meanwhile our organisations and influence in the working class have shrunk. Innovative approaches that open us up to new ways of engaging and working with class conscious workers are fine by me.

Your revolutionary strategy is, as you acknowledge fairly vague given that we cant predict the future. I dont see how it is imcompatible with current SSP strategy though. It would only be 'reformist' if it was subordinating class struggle socialism to an accomodation to the existing instituions of the ruling class and the capitalist state. I cant see any evidence of that.

You obviously weren't listening very well to these criticisms you "heard".

Prominent CWI members were saying to me that the SSP was falling apart in 2001! I accept though that your criticisms were aimed at the ISM, but why your so bothered about the internal politics of a platform you dont belong to is more curious.

Clearly there is a debate emerging within the SSP about where we are going and all constructive comments and criticisms are welcome in that. If SSP members think that the CWI has better answers and can provide better leadership then it will get that opportunity, it is a democratic party. I dont see that happening myself, but there you are

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And you won't find me just calling anyone a "reformist" on this thread

Well, except me perhaps.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Do I think the ISM have ceased operating effectively as Marxists? Hardly, given that they have built and lead the biggest explicitly socialist working class party on these islands.

The SSP has been built by a wide range of forces, the ISM of course playing an important role. But plenty of people with plenty of different political outlooks have built much larger "explicitly socialist" parties over the years, reformists, Stalinists, nationalists, even ultra-lefts from time to time. Listing the good points about the SSP - which I suspect we largely agree on - is not an argument about the Marxism or otherwise of the ISM. Unless you are trying to drain the term of all meaning, I suppose.

That the ISM themselves feel the need to re-organise is a good thing too.

Again you fail to address the central point here. The ISM (or sections of it) are talking about reorganising precisely because their current organisation has fallen apart. In so far as they do reorganise, I suspect that it will only be to reform a kind of caucus supporting a section of the leadership of the SSP. If the rebranded ISM develops politics of its own seperate from those of the "broad" SSP the central dividing line will be that they will be more rather than less prone to espousing nationalist and reformist ideas - see for instance the proposed involvement of the smaller highly nationalist platforms.

but my undersatnding of the ISM position is that the central divide in the working class movement today is not between reformists and revolutionaries, as it was in the years following the Russian revolution. Its more between those who seek an accomodation with neo-liberalism and those prepared to oppose this and fight it

This is not a new idea at all. The struggle taking precedence over politics, goal, programme is a very old idea in the socialist movement, one which has always been pushed by those in the process of abandoning Marxism and revolutionary politics. I quoted Bernstein to you before, at least his argument that "the movement is everything, the final goal nothing" has the benefit of being rather more concise and powerful than the ramblings of Murray Smith and Co about "strategically non-delimited" parties. And of course he beat them to it by a century or so.

The dividing line between Marxists and the likes of the ISM (and the USFI who come up with most of the "theorising" for this sort of thing) is not that we refuse to work with reformists or that we think that the distinction between forces which will fight and those which will not is unimportant. That would be foolish. The dividing line is that we continue to believe that revolutionary and reformist politics are different, that socialism can only come about through a working class revolution and for such a revolution to succeed a mass revolutionary party is necessary.

Of course this also opens up comrades to all sorts of influences too. Personally I'm uncomfortable with left nationalism, but its a definite current in the Scottish working class- see Peter Mullans comments above.

I'm well aware that nationalism (and for that matter reformism) is a real current in the Scottish working class - the question is do Marxists adapt themselves to those currents or do we try to win people away from them, convincing them of our politics? As the ISM have disintegrated organisationally, they have found themselves being won over to these ideas, the reverse of what Marxists should intend.

For too long Marxists have just been talking and having sterile arguments with each other about who are the best Marxists, meanwhile our organisations and influence in the working class have shrunk.

This, once more, is a straw man. Is anybody suggesting that "just" talking or having "sterile" arguments is a good thing? Or that Marxist organisation in the past has been perfect? Or that the SSP doesn't in many ways represent a gain for the working class? Or that real activity in the class struggle is unimportant? Quite obviously not. So why keep repeating it as if you were arguing against something which I have said or which the CWI advocates?

I accept though that your criticisms were aimed at the ISM, but why your so bothered about the internal politics of a platform you dont belong to is more curious.

Why would it be at all curious that I am interested in the politics of an organisation which (a) dominates the leadership of the SSP (b) has argued widely for its political approach on the international left (c) was once a part of my own organisation and (d) now seems to be doing its best to act as an object lesson in the fate of revolutionary groups which abandon Marxist programme and organisation? Surely it would be much more curious if I did not take an interest.

Clearly there is a debate emerging within the SSP about where we are going and all constructive comments and criticisms are welcome in that.

And the CWI platform has been putting forward its ideas in a constructive manner since the creation of the SSP. Contrary to some of your implications, the CWI wants the SSP to succeed - it just doesn't think that success is compatible with reformist or nationalist politics, and so it argues against such ideas.

If SSP members think that the CWI has better answers and can provide better leadership then it will get that opportunity, it is a democratic party.

I wouldn't anticipate any short term switch to the approach the CWI advocates, but I do think that the CWI will continue to grow and its ideas will get more and more of a hearing inside the SSP. As an aside it is worth noting that the first (relatively minor) restrictions on internal democracy in the SSP originated when the SWP joined, presumably because the leadership wrongly overestimated their strength and thought that they might be a threat. In so far as the CWI continues to grow I wouldn't be at all surprised to see proposals put forward to limit the rights of SSP members to act as part of a platform in the future, although I have confidence that the rank and file of the party will stand against such restrictions.

Finally Donna - Did I actually call you a reformist, or did I state that your arguments were for a reformist rather than a "broad party"?

 

[sevenstars]

You re-state Bernstein's quote contrasting the movement to the goal. I've heard it many times before, its one of those quotes comrades often memorise.

Bernstein was arguing over 100 years ago that revolution was now uneccessarry as capitalism was gradually becoming more stable, less prone to crisis, and more likely to offer permanent prosperity to the working class. The state was becoming more liberal and the growing SPD should give up its commitment to social revolution as that was unneccessary, it would just be able to manage the existing system.

No-one in the ISM is arguing that of course.

The question for us is whether we make a fetish of the prefix 'revolution' at a time when this is just not a political debate in the working class. Getting socialism itself back into the general consciousness is a fight in itself. We only become reformists when the question of reform or revolution arises in our political development, and we choose to compromise or sell out class struggle socialism because we think we can live comfortably within the existing system and its instituions.

I noted previously that Militant in my experience never spoke or called in its paper for revolution, the term was always 'socialist transformation' and in my memory of it was always connected to the crisis of a labour government.

I re-state the achievements of the SSP as without the ISM taking the leadership it has I dont think they would have been achieved. I'm not an ISM member myself and accept the important contributiuons of other individuals and platforms.

I also use these achievements in raising the banner of socialism as a measure of the strength to which socialist politics have been re-established within the working class. While this itself is not the ultimate goal of our politics, it tells us how well our strategy is doing or otherwise.

In contrast you appear to measure the strength of your political organisation against the ISM as to how it relates to an abstract programme based on your organisations definition of Marxism, which is apparently the only acceptable definition not 'drained of all meaning'. My point is that there are different interpretations of Marxism.

It's curious to me that your so interested in the internal politics of the ISM, but I didnt say I didnt understand this interest. They rejected your form of organisation, and you want to prove them wrong. Fine, so you build your own revolutionary platform, you challenge for the leadership of the party by offering more useful tactics and strategy and then we can judge how successful or otherwise you are. I dont see any other way of settling these questions.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You re-state Bernstein's quote contrasting the movement to the goal. I've heard it many times before

A pity then that you seem to have learn so little from the repetition. The central point Bernstein was making was that it was unnecessary to be prepared to seize power, the struggle alone was enough. He sought to divorce Marxism from its revolutionary essence. What you accurately describe as the ISM's view that we should make no distinction between revolutionary socialism and reformism, that the cleavages in our movement lie elsewhere, is at its core an update of that view.

The precise circumstances used to justify this shift are different of course. A century ago it was changes in the nature of capitalism, now it is changes in the workers movement. The response of those moving towards reformism remains the same however - there is no need to build a revolutionary organisation. Now you are right to say that the ISM are not openly arguing for reformism at this point - their arguments are too confused for that. But that is the logic of where they are going. The logic of abandoning seperate Marxist organisation, of sucking up to Stalinist dictators, of making favourable comparisons with Scandinavian model capitalist countries, of launching the independence convention and so on.

The key division in the workers movement we are told is between those willing to fight neo-liberalism and those who are not, rather than between revolutionaries and reformists. Socialist organisation should reflect this division rather than the more "ideological" divisions which have generally concerned us. So we get parties described as "strategically non-delimited" like the SSP, parties which in Murray Smith's uncharacteristically clear words "leave open the question of reform or revolution".

The problem is that the question of "revolution or reform" isn't just a question for some distant tomorrow. In fact it is much more often posed in immediate, concrete ways. It effects every aspect of our politics and methods - what demands we put forward, what arguments we make, how we premise our case, what methods we use, where we concentrate our efforts, how we analyse the actions of the ruling class and the state. These all flow in large part from our goals. After all we don't just involve ourselves in each individual struggle as single issue activists, we have a wider agenda and what precisely that agenda is varies with the politics of the activist. We take a different route depending on where we are trying to go and how we are planning to travel. All kinds of people with all kinds of ideas will be willing to fight neo-liberalism, some of them in a very uncompromising way. That makes them valued allies, people we seek to work with, but it does not, shorn of politics, inherently make them into Marxists.

Revolution or reform is now as it has always been a key question in the workers movement. That's not an argument against working with people with different politics or against broader parties, far from it. But it does mean that revolutionaries can't simply split the difference with reformists or those with wrong politics.

As for proving the ISM wrong, I think their disintegration along with their adaption to reformist and nationalist ideas, as we predicted, has already done that for us.

 

[sevenstars]

A pity then that you seem to have learn so little from the repetition.

Revolution or reform is now as it has always been a key question in the workers movement. That's not an argument against working with people with different politics or against broader parties, far from it. But it does mean that revolutionaries can't simply split the difference with reformists or those with wrong politics.

As for proving the ISM wrong, I think their disintegration along with their adaption to reformist and nationalist ideas, as we predicted, has already done that for us.

More a pity that Marxists still debate like this, throwing insults and using historical quotes out of context.

Again, being 'revolutionary' never seemed very important to the Militant, some comrades would have criticised them for fudging the issue with calls for 'socialist transformation'. If anything the ISM are a development of this trajectory, not a deviation.

My view remains that the central issue for the CWI is their hurt in losing a section, and their belief that without their lesdership comrades cant get anything right. The 'revolutionary' emphasis seems to be just a way of giving some ideological coherence to those who remain loyal to them.

All the last point you make that proves is that you think your abstract political progrramme is better than theirs. There is no way of objectively measuring this. This may appeal to dissafected ISM members I suppose, but I cant see it appealling to anyone else outside of your tradition. The era of 'revolutionary' sects really is over. We need to build broad class struggle socialist organisations that will not compromise with capitalism or be incorporated into the state, and the SSP still fits this description.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

[snip whining about harsh language]

Again, being 'revolutionary' never seemed very important to the Militant, some comrades would have criticised them for fudging the issue with calls for 'socialist transformation'.

Maybe you missed this before, but I think I already explained that this has nothing to do with the ephithet "revolutionary". This is not a debate about terminology but about political programme, ideas, methods. Anyone can call themselves "revolutionary" or for that matter "Marxist" or as I alluded to before "Martian". That's not what matters - what matters are the politics. And the politics of the SSP, as pushed by the ISM, are that it leaves open the question of revolution or reform.

My view remains that the central issue for the CWI is their hurt in losing a section, and their belief that without their lesdership comrades cant get anything right.

Well it is at least interesting to see you admit that you view politics as being more about soap opera than political ideas. For you it appears there can be no honest disagreement or political divergence, just intrigue. In fact the reason why we criticise the ever increasing adaptions of the ISM to reformism and nationalism is precisely because these things matter, because the SSP matters. When the SSP push nationalist ideas like the "independence convention" that does matter. When the ISM abandons the idea of seperate Marxist organisation that has an impact. When SSP leaders fawn over Stalinist dictators that matters. When they draw favourable comparisons with Scandinavian capitalist states that matters. When they tell the newspapers that they want to provide "a highly skilled economy, a motivated workforce for big business" that matters too. But for you it all has to be sour grapes, nobody can ever be committed to the success of the SSP while also opposing this kind of shit and seeing its source in the political and organisational disintegration of the SSP leadership.

The era of 'revolutionary' sects really is over. We need to build broad class struggle socialist organisations that will not compromise with capitalism or be incorporated into the state, and the SSP still fits this description.

Except of course that without a revolutionary programme, every party will eventually compromise with capitalism or be incorporated into the state. Betrayal is the very heart of reformism, the ever-increasing pressure to be "reasonable", to make concessions, to reach an accomodation.

And of course you offer a false choice. The issue isn't building the SSP or building a revolutionary "sect", the need to build the SSP is something we have in common. The difference between you and I is that I don't see building a party which "leaves open the question of reform or revolution" as being enough. I don't see such a party as capable of leading a socialist transformation of society and in the long run such a party can only ever fall short, compromise with capitalism. As far as I am concerned the task of Marxists in Scotland is to both build the SSP and to build a revolutionary organisation within it.

 

[sevenstars]

You can use whatever language you like, I just dont find it a very convincing way to debate with socialists.

And I dont see politics as soap opera. I do see the politics and political culture of the many 'Marxist' sects as a bit of a tragi-comedy though. The endless search to differentiate from each other and prove through abstact debate that only they hold the true 'revolutionary' programme (or programme for 'socialist transformation' when its convenient to fudge the terminology)...thats just not serious politics to me.

What I liked best about the SSP is that you could fight for socialism in the real world without having to put up with this sort of nonsense.

Its good that we both support the SSP. The specific criticisms you raise are interesting, I'm sure we would find some common ground on many of these too.

Personally i think that ISM comrades seem to be experimenting with different currents of left thinking, having now liberated themeselves from the intellectual straightjacket of a dogmatic sect, no offence, who perhaps never answered these questions adequately for them when they were members of it. A new Marxist platform may be a good place to contest these ideas and estbalish a new idelogical coherence.

But there is no historical evidence to support your contention that your form of organisation is any more likely to lead us to socialism than that of the ISM.
The CWI would surely have done so by now if that was the case.

You can call the ISM 'reformist' if you like and lump it together with a whole range of characters that have no real resemblance to it.

But there is absolutely no evidence that it has or is likely to sell out the SSP in its struggle for socialism for the promise of a place within the established order of things. Your contention that its inevitbale they will is just not convincing. But maybe we are just not going to agree on this one

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Personally i think that ISM comrades seem to be experimenting with different currents of left thinking, having now liberated themeselves from the intellectual straightjacket of a dogmatic sect, no offence, who perhaps never answered these questions adequately for them when they were members of it.

And from my point of view, the ISM cut themselves adrift from the Marxist conceptions of organisation and programme and have been politically floundering every since. They cast about looking for an alternative and thus far have found only reformist pressures, nationalist gibberish and organisational disintegration. And I think that's only likely to get worse as time goes on.

But there is no historical evidence to support your contention that your form of organisation is any more likely to lead us to socialism than that of the ISM.
The CWI would surely have done so by now if that was the case.

This mixes together two different and important questions:

1) Is there a need for a revolutionary party, a party of a new (now quite old!) type in Lenin's phrase? I think that the example of the only succesful socialist revolution, combined with the negative examples of many revolutionary situations squandered by reformist or Stalinist leadership provides quite substantial evidence for that.

2) Why has a revolution thus far not happened elsewhere? That's a rather bigger question than simply one of the organisational model adapted by small groups of revolutionaries, you know.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

And from my point of view, the ISM cut themselves adrift from the Marxist conceptions of organisation and programme and have been politically floundering every since. .

I think this is a genuine point. I think there has been a deepening of thought within the SSP since May 03 - which was a spectacular sucess, but without the infrastructure to cope. The sucess wasnt the MSPs per se but the mandate. In terms of organisation, you cant run a mass workers organisation on the basis of "cadre" - that belongs to sects and schisms, but you have to work with rank and file workers understandings and anger.

The narrow organisationational methods traditional adopted by "Marxist" organisations are predicated on a political elite, who cascade the doctrine of demanding goals which are unachieveable under capitalism to ferment a revolution, to willing ears. We recognised that we had to look at the wider situation and quite frankly live in the real world - where party members have families, jobs and hobbies which are the major ways in which their politics are influenced and to work with their experiences to raise their conciousness. Furthermore the concept of "cadre" who look down snootily on the rank and file should have no place in a socialist organisation - all of us have ideas about what the correct path is - developing understandings of peoples immedicate experiences within the existing framework will do far more than any number of lectures on the Labour Related Theory of Value.

They cast about looking for an alternative and thus far have found only reformist pressures, nationalist gibberish and organisational disintegration. And I think that's only likely to get worse as time goes on.

Hmm... lets take them in turn - reformist pressures certainly, its difficult to run a parliamentary operation without working within the system - the committees, the media, the formal "surgeries" of politicians, we were new and inexperienced to all this and I think that we did tend to follow the lead of the big parties because they knew what to do. I think that people now recognise this, but dont know how to change it.

nationalist gibberish - nonsense. National liberation is a solid principle of the SSP - the British State is one of the most scary internationally hooking up with the US on all of its little adventures - look at Iraq and Diago Garcia and is becoming increasingly repressive domestically. An independant Scotland would pave the way for the dismantling of the British State and a damn good thing too.

organisational disintegration - I think this is very much linked with 1 - that bloody parliament had sucked in some of our most able and committed activists either to be MSPs, support workers or researchers, while the party has been neglected.

I like to think that things will turn the corner soon. Remember the old dialectics - i think the denial stage is over and out of the vacuum will come something new.
Gregor Gall (ex= SW Platform) has a really interesting article on the Socialist Unity website talking about exactly this

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Some points in response to qwerty (it's good to get a new voice in the discussion as I think that sevenstars and I were beginning to repeat ourselves):

1) I don't really use the term "cadre" very much because it strikes me as the kind of unnecessary jargon which pollutes our movement. Also I find myself laughing when someone says it too often because I associate it with a member of my organisation from the North of England drunkenly falling off a barstool while talking about it.

That said, I think that as a conception of how a party should operate it is important. When I look at your description of a party divided between "cadre" and rank and file members I think you have hit on a misconception which is all too common on the left. That's an exact inversion of how things should work. According to my political tradition, we try to encourage every member of our organisation to become "cadre", that is to educate themselves politically, to learn organisational skills and to play an active role. That at root what the term "cadre" means to us.

What's more I think that only an organisation with a politically educated, active membership can be really democratic in the long term. The alternative to doing this is to develop a passive, not particularly involved membership who inevitably end up sidelined from the real discussions and decisions. That's a much less democratic approach, and with all due respect I think it's one that the SSP with its large passive membership is in some danger of falling into.

2) I should clarify my comments about nationalism a bit. I'm in favour of an independent socialist Scotland, as part of a wider socialist federation. What I object to is the increasing tendency on the part of the SSP leadership to ditch the "socialist" part in favour of an ever greater emphasis on "independence". In this I include the declaration of Carlton Hill, the abortive attempts to set up an independence convention and endless public comments talking about the wonders which independence would supposedly deliver to Scotland. It's as if they have decided that the best way to attract SNP supporters is to try and out-nationalist the nationalists rather than by concentrating on what really should seperate the SSP from both New Labour and the SNP - the socialist and working class content of its politics.

And I don't think this is accidental, I think it flows directly from the rejection by the ISM of the idea of revolutionary organisation and programme and their subsequent casting about for alternatives.