SP, SSP, CWI, DSP

national | miscellaneous | news report Wednesday September 18, 2002 16:20 by An tOileanach

A Cháide, Please see below an illuminating discussion re SSP/SP/CWI An tOileánach

A Cháide,

Please see below an illuminating discussion from the USA
"marxism list".

It was kicked off by news of the DSP (Australia)'s canvassed
intention to become a platform/tendency of the socialist alliance in
its country.

The "irritable" Brian Cahill queried the DSP's move, and John
O'Neill opened up a discussion.  Two other comrades, Yves-Marie
Quemener and John Paramo, have joined in.

John O'Neill is a member of the Irish Socialist Network, Brian
Cahill belongs to the Irish Socialist Party.

Comrade Cahill (Irritable) relies on some of the worst traditions of
"trotskyist" debate - slander your rivals.                               

The CWI's deplorable polemic against their former comrades in the
Scottish Socialist Party (the International Socialist Movement
Marxist Platform) continues to poison the atmosphere.

*   From: John O'Neill
*   Subject: revolutionaries
*   Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 16:19:42 -0700

I have a lot of respect for Brian Cahill's organisation in Ireland the
Socialist Party, as they are largely working class with many
respected TU activists who have proven their worth in a number of
TU disputes. The SP in Ireland has a working class membership, the
SWP (the next biggest socialist party) appears largely to be based in
Universities. IMO this connection has made the SP a more
grassroots organisation, with a greater potential to grow.  I'm less
excited/interested in the CWI, particularly when they seem to
rubbish certain organisations apparantly because of their history
rather than what they are actually doing. For example the constant
labelling of the SSP as reformist pisses me off. I have read the SSP
newspaper and I will challenge anyone to tell me the activities of the
SSP are anyway different   than the SP's in Ireland. The SSP are
effectively a socialist alliance in   Scotland and now the DSP seem
to be discussing a similar alliance. It looks   to me as if  some of the
CWI leadership are worried the writing may be on   the wall.......

On the SSP and "reformism", the SSP doesn't claim to be a
revolutionary organisation. Its leadership describes it as a broad
socialist party or a militant  socialist party or even a combat socialist
party but never as a revolutionary socialist party. If our  description
annoys you John, feel free to ask the ISM for a better one :-)
Brian,

I canvassed with 20 to 30 members of the Socialist Party not one of
them described the SP to the electorate as a revolutionary party.
They talked about the needs of the area, the work record of the
canditate, the unjust bin tax and a plethora of other issues that
were/are important to the working class in Swords. They didn't talk
about revolution, or even mention the SP vision of socialist society.
I also attended a briefing meeting with the SP canditate to give us
canvassing notes, election issues etc. Once again no mention was
made of the fact that the SP was a revolutionary party.

Tommy Sheridan SSP elected representative in the Scottish
Assembly said in an interview; "Our party is clearly an anti free
market party. We believe in collective ownership and control, which
makes us unashamedly socialist" The SSP manifesto calls for
Nationalising industry in Scotland, confiscating corporate assets and
making Scotland an independent socialist republic that would be an
" international symbol of resistance to free-market explotation." TS
went on to state; "We reject the increasing anarchy of the free
market in favour of a more equitably controlled and sane economic
system where our countries vast wealth and resources are
democratically owned and controlled by the people of Scotland and
not the profiteers." - Sounds revolutionary to me!
So what is the difference between the SSP and the SP in their
activism?

If the SP/CWI argued in the past for entryism in the Labour Party
because it was the party of the working class. They have ceased with
this strategy (a SP executive member advises that this is because the
LP are no longer a working class party) then shouldn't the SP be
trying to build a party of the working class or do they argue that the
SP is the party of the working class? If so, it should accomodiate
both revolutionaries, progressives and reformists.  Your dismissal of
the DSP discussion is surprising considering the SP (England) about
turn on it's involvement in same and a choreographed move from the
(Irish) SP regarding the Left front against Nice. The London CWI
comintern has been busy!

-----------------------------------------
*   From: Nigel Irritable
*   Subject: DSP/SP/ reply to John
*   Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 08:48:30 -0700

Hi John

“ I canvassed with 20 to 30 members of the Socialist Party not one
of them described the SP to the     electorate as a revolutionary party.
They talked about the needs of the area, the work record of the
canditate, the unjust bin tax and a plethora of other issues that
were/are important to the working class in Swords.”

All that is evidence of John is that we aren't ultra-left crazies.
[snip...]  >

So what is the difference between the SSP and the SP  in their
activism?

In some ways the Socialist Party would have a very similar style of
approach to that of the Scottish Socialist Party (or at least the ISM
and those within the SSP who mimic them). After all, we have
decades of shared experience. The type of issues we get involved in
are similar.  The fundamental difference though comes down to one
thing: the SSP as an organisation leaves open the question of reform
or revolution. We do not. And for all that it might seem a minor
change, it is slowly warping the politics of the ISM. A few years
ago, for instance,  you would never have seen Tommy Sheridan
arguing for the raising of the lowest band of income tax to pay for
services - ie tax the working class.

“If the SP/CWI argued in the past for entryism in the Labour Party
because it was the party of the working class. They have ceased with
this strategy (a  SP executive member advises that this is because the
LP are no longer a working class party)”

Right.

“then shouldn't the SP be trying to build a party of the working class
or do they argue that the SP is the party of the working class? “

No, of course we don't argue that we are the party of the working
class - though really you should know this. We don't argue that we
are going to become the party of the working class either. And yes
what we want is a party of the working class. So how do we go
about building one?

Do you remember the Taxation Justice Alliance, John? That
represented a step towards forming a broad organisation and it had
some moderate successes. But we were in the middle of one of the
longest and biggest booms which any western country has been in
and class consciousness was at perhaps the lowest point it has been
in more than a century. By the time Healy's bunch starting edging
backwards we had learned a valuable lesson: a small group of
activists cannot substitute themselves for a movement of the
working class.  So we retreated, built our own forces while
continuing to work with others on individual issues - in the unions,
on the bin tax or whatever.   When we try again to launch a broad
organisation we will time it better and we will be stronger. But it
appears that you want action and you want it now. So what would
happen if we went ahead and launched an Irish left alliance next
week? We would be confronted with the question that sits there like
a turd on the carpet when anybody starts asking about an alliance -
What forces would it attract?  Well I'll tell you what it would attract
right now. The Socialist Party. Your group. The SWP. A handful of
left republicans. And fuck all else.

And with all due respect for your company John, it isn't worth
lumbering ourselves with bunch of scheming student sectarians or
with a few victory-to-the-IRA nutters. A few months of that line up
would be enough to ensure that any broad group never grew and
never survived. One step forward would have turned into two steps
back.

“If so, it should accomodiate both revolutionaries, progressives and
reformists.”

A new party of the working class? It's not even a question of
"should". If we are going to have a new party of the working class
than it is going to have to include all kinds of working class political
strands or else we won't have one at all.

“Your dismissal of the DSP discussion is surprising  considering the
SP(England) about turn on it's involvement in same”

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you talking about the
Socialist Party leaving the Socialist Alliance in England? And I
should remind you that my sceptical view of the DSP's
announcement is *my* sceptical view and not that of the Socialist
Party or the CWI (neither of which have a view on the subject).

“and a choreographed move from the (Irish) SP regarding the Left
front against Nice.”

Now I really don't know what you are talking about. Is this a
reference to the Irish Socialist Party arguing that there wasn't likely
to be any useful role for a broad left campaign on Nice, thinking
about it for a while and then reassessing the issue and deciding to
hold a meeting to

“The London CWI comintern has been busy!”

That's unworthy of you, frankly.

Is mise le meas
Brian Cahill

From: "Yves-Marie Quemener"
  To: [email protected]
Subject: Revolutionaries   Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:55:41 +0200
Nigel Irritable wrote:

>I do dispute, though, your characterisation of the >kind of parties
Bensaid and now possibly the DSP are >trying to build as "new". In
fact these ideas are very >old indeed. I strongly doubt if anyone in
this forum >is unaware that time and again socialists have raised
>the idea that a revolutionary party in unneccessary, >or has been
superceded by events.

You should be aware that people in LCR are as much avowed
revolutionaries as you are. They want to see a proletarian revolution,
to participate in it, to see it succeed, and they are also persuaded that
a revolutionary party is necessary for making it succeed.
BUT,

they also recognize that they don't know what a revolution would
look like, that they don't have a blueprint for making it arrive, that
the working class in developed countries have not been close of
making a revolution since at least 30 years, and that there are no
significant sections of the working class ready to build a
revolutionary party, unlike for example in the 20s or the 40s where
the example of actual revolutions was fresh in the head of workers,
HENCE,
their idea (and strategy) is to build the largest regroupment of anti-
capitalist people, not forcing them to have the same exact idea about
how to take power, about what to think of the USSR. The real test is
agreement on the concrete struggles of the working class. And they
hope to convince those large regroupments to behave as
revolutionary organizations and parties if revolutions in developed
countries become again actual.

Your strategy, on the contrary, seems to be to have a complete
agreement on the past and future revolutions in your organization, to
recruit people on this agreement, and to grow from this nucleus, or
embryo of the party into a full-size revolutionary party. If I have
misrepresented the strategy of your organization, please correct me.
But I believe that the strategy of USFI (and DSP, and the scottish
ISM) has got more chances of success that the caricature I have
drawn of the strategy of CWI.

When (or if) one of those organisations happens to be part of a
proletarian revolution, those strategic disagreements will be settled.

>You, Louis, may well sincerely argue that you want a >new type of
revolutionary party rather than just >another type of reformism. I
am charitable enough to >believe you. But those you choose as your
"allies", >the leadership of the USFI or the Scottish ISM are not
>so naive.

I've got the idea that real revolutionaries are people that lead (or
have led) revolutions. In that sense, the CWI is no more
revolutionary than the USFI or the ISM.
If to be revolutionary it is enough to say it, then the USFI or the ISM
are as much revolutionary than the CWI.

Yves-Marie Quemener

Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 09:36:07 -0400  From:  "John Paramo"
  Subject: DSP, Socialist Alliance,
USFI, SSP, SWP ... To: "marxmail"
Dear friends:

Few words about Brian Cahill's assumptions and characterizations.

Brian characterized the DSP before he read the letter from its
leadership as a non-revolutionary organization (Stalinist, etc) or at
least the CWI leaders did.

the "revolutionary organization" in the SA.  Well ... if the DSP was a
revolutionary organization why the CWI did not try to fuse with
them before they decide to "liquidate" their organization?  Or why
the CWI doesn't fight for the members of the DSP to save their
organization? Never mind ...

On the other hand, the DSP's letter does not indicate that they are
"dissolving" or "liquidating" their organization.  They merely wrote
that they are thinking about operating as a faction or platform inside
SA.  In other words, they want to end the agreement betwen
organizations - that is the Alliance -and launch a "broad party."  A
faction, as the CWI knows very well throught their  own experience
inside Socialdemocracy, is not  "liquidating" or "dissolving", is
merely a different  form of the party.  Now, this is not to say the
DSP is  correct or what they are doing is the best thing to  do, just
that Cahill's logic is faulty, selective and  aprioristic.

The CWI - and Cahill - leveled the same accusation  against the
CWI members who launched the SSP.  They  are "liquidating" the
revolutionary party inside the  SSP.  But the Scottish left the CWI
but continued to  be centralzied and organized as a faction inside the
SSP -- they named it ISM.  Cahill should learn that  what
differentiates a revolutionary from a  non-revolutionary is not the
form that the party  takes, but the content of its program, general
orientation and so on.  The cemetery of the revolution  is filled with
the corpses of self-proclaimed  revolutionaries, who maintained
"pure" aprties all  their lives, never joined with anyone and suffered
from "unity allergy" and were never more revolutionary  than the
DSP or the USFI, or the SSP for that matter.

Of course, for the CWI to discuss content would be  difficult since
they can show little of revolutionary  program or activity - that is
why they most often than  not they find themselves discussing just
form.

But Cahill goes further ... he challenges the honesty  and sincerity of
the DSP and says this is just a  maneuver to split the ISO and win
over what he  characterizes as "few independents."  If this is the
case, then what the DSP is doing is a maneuver, a  shortcut.  Then,
these objectives are clearly in  contradiction with "liquidating" their
party, since is  simply a maneuver, isn't it?

Of course, Cahill does no offer a shred of evidence  about the
honesty of the DSP and its proposal.  It is  just subjective "feelings",
not based in nothing  concrete he knows about the proposal, but on
the  "vibes" he seems to be receiving.

He is not done.  He also compares the SSP, DSP and the  LCR
(USFI), the British SWP and their proposals for  broader alliances
and parties - again assuming they  are for "liquidating" the
"revolutionary  organizations" (the same he does not believe are
revolutionaries) ... but he assigns honesty to the  Scottish ISM/SSP
and the USFI and dishonesty and  maneuverism to the SWP, DSP ...
again, how he  classifies the honesty and dishonesty of tendencies?
Just based on which ones he dislike the most.  Poor  Marxism, to say
the least ...

Cahill denies the caricature of his organization is  one of looking at
itself as the nuclei of the  revolutionary party that will grow
cumulatively up to  the point of becoming a "mass party."  But 60
years of  existence and without a single large organization  (let's say
4-5,000 members) and very, very few with  more than 100 active
members and the fact that they  can't even unite with themselves,
seems to prove the  caricature as truth.  The CWI even have this
ridiculous objective of a transition to such mass  party.  They call it
the "small mass party."  As the  logic he applies to judge the
"reasons" (short term  maneuvers) of the DSP to "liquidate the
revolutionary  organization" (cause and effect cancel each other),
the terms "mass" and "small" cancel each other when  talking about
the "party."

As to the revolutionary credentials of organizations, Cahill seems to
assign that category arbitrarily. Revolutionary organizations are
those with the purpose  of working for the revolution of the future
and/or  those who already participated, led, organized one. They may
wrong on their program or method, etc, but as  far as I can see the
SSP, the LCR, SWP, DSP ... all  see themselves as
"revolutionaries."  That is tested  and will continue to be tested in
theory and practice  and cannot be judged subjectively as Cahill
does.  Since the party is just a tool, not an end in itself,  and
assuming Cahill realy would like to be part of a  revolutionary
movement, maybe he would be compelled to  change organization in
the future.  As a I see little  difference between the SWP or the SP,
or the DSP and  the USFI or between the SSP and them all, Cahill
should be considering ways of closing the gaps with  proposals for
unity in one same federation or global  organization or something
rather than shooting from  the hip at everything that moves ...  Just a
thought.

JP