Scottish Socialist Party letter to the SWP

national | miscellaneous | news report Friday December 06, 2002 19:39 by Johann Fitzpatrick

The Scottish Socialist Party has produced a letter berating the Socialist Workers Platform for what it sees as arrogant and sectarian behaviour.

LETTER TO THE SW PLATFORM
From the SSP Executive Committee

It has always been a trademark of the SSP, and before its foundation,
the
SSA, that we have been able to bring together socialists from different
traditions into a united party. This unity has not come naturally to the
left. It involved socialists and socialist organisations making a
determined
and sustained effort over several years to work towards achieving and
maintaining unity.

The party has been pleased to eventually welcome the SW Platform into its
ranks. There is no doubting the energy, experience and commitment that
the
comrades from the SW Platform have brought to the party.

On every big issue there has been agreement on core principles – from
taking
a clear anti-imperialist position on anti-war activities to the
importance
of solidarity with the FBU. Of course, there are differences over tactics
and emphasis but these are the sort of discussions that should be easily
accommodated in an open, democratic and pluralist party like the SSP.

Given that the SWP was consistently hostile to this unity project until
shortly before the SWP members in Scotland joined the party, we have
always
been aware of the potential difficulties maintaining such a spirit of
unity.
This is why a set of guidelines was agreed on how the SW Platform should
operate within the party.
It is, therefore, with deep disappointment that we are now forced into a
position where we have to write to express our serious concerns over the
ongoing activities of the SW Platform.

BUILD UP TO THE CURRENT PROBLEMS

The SSP has been aware that the SW Platform did not have prior
experience in
working in a unified manner with others on the left. Likewise much of the
SSP had little or no experience of working with the SWP. It was always
anticipated that there would be teething problems - and there were.
However,
there was the political goodwill all round to discuss the problems and to
work to overcome them.

Now, more than 18 months after the SWP joined the party in Scotland, the
problems are of a different order. The SW Platform Steering Committee now
knows that it will considerably raise tensions in the party if it by
passes
party structures and launches independent initiatives linked to the SWP
in
England & Wales.

In October, at the request of the SSP Executive, there was an informal
meeting between representatives of the SSP Executive and the SW Platform
Steering Committee. This took place after increased tensions in the party
over the nature of SW Platform activity over the summer. The SSP EC was
concerned that the SW Platform had been operating out with the spirit of
the
unity agreement. We believed this was confirmed by the tone and approach
taken in SW Platform Notes distributed to its members.

After the informal discussion, it was then reported to the October EC
that
there was a possibility that the SW Platform would now work in closer
co-operation with the rest of the party in the build up to the May
elections. Unfortunately, this has not happened.

BACKGROUND – IMPORTANCE OF THE FBU STRUGGLE

The fire fighters strike is the most significant national trade union
struggle since the miners strike. The stakes are huge in terms of the
wider
class struggle. It is clear that the government wants to dampen down
general
expectations over public sector pay, pave the way for further
privatisations
and take on and smash one of the most organised and determined trade
unions
in the country.

The New Labour Government has itself politicised the strike by declaring
the
dispute as a litmus test for the entire public sector. Simpson’s
reference
to the fire-fighters as fascists and Raynsford’s description of them as
criminals are just the more colourful expressions of the New Labour’s
determination to crush the trade unions.

The SSP has been at the forefront of organising support for the fire
fighters. We have agreed with the FBU in Scotland a comprehensive range
of
solidarity activities that the party should be involved with building
support in workplaces, trade unions, communities and support groups. We
have
supported FBU activities and rallies and also held impressive SSP rallies
(for example around 250 attended the SSP solidarity rally in Partick
Burgh
Halls).

The trust and respect that the rank and file fire fighters and the FBU
leadership in Scotland have for the SSP is clear. The FBU have invited
Tommy
Sheridan onto their public platforms, have publicly spoken warmly of the
SSP
and are happy to speak at SSP meetings.

Indeed, the question of the trade unions breaking the Labour-union link
has
been explicitly raised from the platform of their national rally. FBU
Scottish officials have been openly speculating in the media that, due to
rank and file pressure, the FBU could ditch its links with Labour and
support the SSP. This dispute, in addition to being crucial in immediate
terms, has huge longer term significance for trade unionists and trade
unions drawing lessons about the role of the New Labour Party and the
need
for a clear socialist alternative.

At times like this it is crucial that the party takes the opportunity to
discuss its solidarity role, comes to a clear position on what should be
done and then operates in a serious, determined, coordinated and united
manner. The SSP has always been proud of its record as a class struggle
combat party that has open discussion then unites together in the
struggle.

SW PLATFORM LAUNCHES INDEPENDENT INITIATIVES

The SW Platform will certainly agree with the rest of the party on the
importance of this dispute. The SW Platform has also agreed a set of
guidelines (enclosed) which indicates how unity of the SW Platform and
the
rest of the party can best be achieved. The SW Platform participated in
the
SSP National Council where the party’s solidarity role with the fire
fighters was agreed without any opposition. On the surface then there
should
be little room for confusion and division over the solidarity work of the
party as a whole, including the SW Platform.

However, in practice, independently of the SSP, the SW Platform Steering
Committee has been organising its own parallel intervention around the
FBU
strike. The SW Platform has been organising around the Red Watch paper in
street activity, public rallies, fire station pickets and ongoing
communications with individual fire fighters. This has usually been at
the
expense of the intervention around the party paper and the SSP Bulletin
the
‘Fire fighters Voice’. The SW Platform basically is organising and
coordinating activity as if it is a separate party and one in competition
with the SSP.

SWP (ENGLAND & WALES) DISCUSSED AND PLANNED THE USE OF RED WATCH – SO WHY
WERE THE SSP MEMBERSHIP DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY?

The SW Platform did not even make an attempt to first engage in a
discussion
with the rest of the party over the use of Red Watch. At the 17 November
National Council, papers from SSP Industrial Organiser, Richie Venton,
outlining the solidarity role of the party were passed unanimously. Yet,
the
SW Platform did not seek support through party structures where it is
represented - branches, trade union committee, National Council and
Executive Committee – that the SSP should publicly promote Red Watch.
Party
members have instead turned up to public events to discover that the SW
Platform is not working with the rest of the party but is working on a
line
of its own.

SW Platform members did take part in a recent session of the SWP
(England &
Wales) Annual Conference where Red Watch was discussed and promoted as
part
of the industrial strategy of the SWP in England & Wales.

All the SSP knew about Red Watch, through having an observer at the SWP
Conference in London, prior to the SW Platform publicly distributing it
in
Scotland was that it was one of several papers promoted by the SWP at
their
annual conference. As well as Red Watch there is The Class Issue (for
teachers), The Post Worker, The Health Worker, Civil Unrest (Civil
servants)
etc.

Even where there is agreement on what to do around the fire-fighters
strike,
there have been difficulties. For example, the SSP is for building
support
groups. The recent NC agreed that there should be support groups,
co-ordinated on a city-wide basis when appropriate. Even here, SW
Platform
comrades have been centrally involved in setting up localised support
groups, without the co-ordination agreed at the NC and, incredibly,
sometimes without even prior discussion with the appropriate SSP branch
organisers. These actions breed confusion and are unnecessarily divisive.

WHY THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRIOR DISCUSSION IN THE PARTY

With regard to Red Watch, there are several points that are valid
questions
for discussion within the SSP prior to its launch.

Red Watch is a declared rank and file fire-fighters paper. But it does
not
represent an already existing organised left current within the FBU. SSP
members of the FBU were not approached about it prior to it being sold
by SW
Platform members (who by and large not members of the FBU). This is a
very
serious point – why make no effort whatsoever to consult with SSP fire
fighters before deciding how to build a rank and file movement in
Scotland?
Does the SW Platform really believe that the line on Red Watch agreed by
the
SWP Conference in England automatically takes precedence over the
opinions
of other party members and fire-fighters in Scotland?

The party has a clear position around solidarity with the FBU in
Scotland.
The SSP must always be willing to put its own position and be willing, if
necessary, to criticise any trade union leadership. But we must bear in
mind
that Tony Blair and the Labour Government have launched a direct attack
on
the entire FBU including its leadership, which it describes as
Scargillite.
Compared to many other trade union leaderships, the FBU leadership in
Scotland have a tremendous record on a wide range of trade union and
wider
political issues (eg support for Scottish Campaign against Privatisation,
Anti Nazi League, Chhokar Family Justice Campaign etc).

In these concrete circumstances, our emphasis is not to build a left
opposition inside the FBU to its leadership in Scotland. Therefore, why
should party members who are not even FBU members be making their main
intervention selling Red Watch rather then distributing the SSP’s own
Fire-fighters Voice (which is openly the bulletin of the SSP)? At the
very
least this is a point that the SW Platform comrades should have been
willing
to raise and discuss.

The SWP in England & Wales appears, in its approach to the fire fighters
dispute, to be underestimating the opportunity of building the Socialist
Alliance. The Socialist Alliance has some good leaflets and posters but,
as
will be confirmed by a quick glance through the Socialist Worker paper,
the
main emphasis of the SWP is certainly not on working through the
Socialist
Alliance.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE SW PLATFORM ACTIONS IN THE FIREFIGHTERS DISPUTE

The SW Platform does not appear to be willing to work in a unified manner
along the lines agreed in the guidelines.

The SW Platform has ensured that there has been no possibility of a
united
SSP intervention in a dispute as important as the current fire fighters’
strikes. This is unhelpful to building effective solidarity.

The SW Platform, by its action clearly believes that the line of the SWP
in
England & Wales should be implemented in Scotland. So why not try to
convince the rest of the party? Perhaps the SW Platform is not confident
that this line would stand up to scrutiny within the SSP? Maybe the SW
Platform is more concerned about getting a few more people persuaded
about
their line (and recruited to the SW Platform) rather than trying to
influence the party as a whole?

The SW Platform appears to deliberately by-pass the structures of the SSP
when it has doubts over whether the SSP will accept its position.

It as very difficult to avoid the conclusion that the SW Platform is
simply
following the position of the SWP in England & Wales as if it is still
part
of the SWP.

BREAKDOWN OF TRUST AND GROWING FRICTION WITHIN THE PARTY

Different individuals and branches will have different experiences of the
problem. Many SW Platform members on an individual basis continue to
play a
very positive role.

The problems arise when the SW Platform Steering Committee directs its
members towards a particular line of work without reference to party
structures or agreed priorities. In some cases, this has led to a severe
breakdown of trust and very difficult working relations within the party.
The unhealthy atmosphere has a negative impact on party activity as it
encourages an unofficial division of labour, with the SW Platform and
other
party members tending to concentrate on different campaigns.

Branch members around the country have been noting, and often
complaining of
SW Platform comrades working to their own agenda without reference to the
party branch or priorities. SW Platform members frequently organise
meetings
where the only SSP speakers are from the SW Platform. More and more SSP
members are being left with the impression that the SW Platform is first
and
foremost interested in building itself and the initiatives it chooses to
initiate.

There is a real danger that at a time when the party is gearing up for an
historic breakthrough in the Scottish elections in 6 months times, the
actions of the SW Platform, no matter their intention, are causing
confusion, division and poor morale.

The party is currently working to deliver one million bulletins to
Scottish
households but, with a few heroic exceptions, the SW Platform does not
appear to be throwing their weight behind this. At a time when it is more
important than ever for the party to try to pull together and work in a
systematic, co-ordinated manner the SW Platform appears to be withdrawing
co-operation with the rest of the party.

IS THE SW PLATFORM WILLING TO THINK, DISCUSS & ACT IN A SCOTTISH CONTEXT
OR
IS IT COMMITTED TO ROUTINELY FOLLOWING THE LINE OF THE SWP (ENGLAND &
WALES)?

The unity project in Scotland has formally existed at least since 1995
and,
through joint campaigning and socialist forums, the process was underway
even earlier. Through most of this time the SWP in Scotland was openly
hostile to the unity process. It ironic that the SWP in Scotland only
became
interested in joining the SSP after the SWP in England had some modest
success, achieving 1.6% of the vote across the city, working with the
London
Socialist Alliance at the Assembly elections in 2000. With the SWP
subsequently resolving to work through the Socialist Alliances in
England in
the build up to the 2001 Westminster election, the SWP finally agreed to
respond to the SSPs unity advances. Even then it was noteworthy that the
unity discussions were conducted between representatives of the SSP EC
and
the SWP London-based leadership.

There has always been a tendency for the SW Platform comrades to want to
work along the lines of the SWP in England & Wales. In many ways this is
understandable. However, as the tactics of the SWP have started to
diverge
more and more away from prioritising building the Socialist Alliance in
England towards, STW, GR, Red Watch etc this has obviously posed a
challenge
to the SW Platform. How does the SW Platform adjust when they are part
of a
unified party in Scotland?

In England & Wales, the SWP has developed a political line that says the
Socialist Alliance is one united front (albeit of a special kind) among
many
that the SWP will work through. We believe that this policy is mistaken
and
is partly responsible for the lack of development of the Socialist
Alliance
in England. There is a price to pay for the lack of a strong unified
socialist political force in England.

In Scotland the SSP has established itself as the major radical force to
the
left of the pro-business parties, achieving in opinion polls over the
last
18 months between 5% and 9% support nationally. The Socialist Alliance in
England clearly does not have the same breadth and depth of support.

In England, the Greens have been clearly out polling the Socialist
Alliance
in most elections. Far more dangerous has been the rise in support of the
nazi BNP in England whilst in Scotland they are still very marginal and
isolated.

However, if the comrades in the SW Platform believe in the superiority of
the approach of the SWP in England, they should say so. But at least the
SW
Platform should acknowledge and recognise, through its activity, that the
SSP is a political party not a united front. It is bound to create
tensions
within the SSP when the SW Platform acts as if the SSP is just the same
type
of body as the Socialist Alliance. In short, it is just not appropriate
for
the SW Platform to act along the exact same lines as the comrades in the
SWP
in England & Wales. Yet this appears to be exactly what the SW Platform
is
doing.

POLITICAL DIRECTION OF THE SW PLATFORM’S INTERNATIONAL TENDENCY

The SW Platform is part of an international tendency, the International
Socialist Tendency with the main party being the SWP England & Wales.
This
international tendency is well known for working in similar ways in
different countries. After the SWP decided to support the Socialist
Alliances in England, this approach was taken up in other countries. For
example, the International Socialist Organisation in Australia supported
the
creation of a Socialist Alliance in Australia.

However, with the SWP in England now appearing to rule out that the
Socialist Alliances should prepare for working towards a unified
pluralist
party and instead concentrate on a range of united front tactical
activity,
there has been a noticeable shift internationally and not just in
Scotland.

In Australia, the Democratic Socialist Party is the largest component of
the
Socialist Alliance. The Democratic Socialist Party has proposed that it
stops operating as a party and instead becomes a tendency inside the SA.
DSP
staff and resources would then, after discussion and agreement with the
rest
of the SA, be at the disposal of the SA. In some ways, although clearly
not
in an identical situation, this could be compared to the approach of
SML/ISM
at the time of the launch of the SSP. The Australian counterparts of the
SW
Platform has responded by saying that if the DSP votes for this at their
congress, they will pull out of the SA. Basically, it appears to be the
case
that they would prefer that the SA unity project be damaged rather than
allow a deepening of the process.

If the approach is typical of the thinking inside the international
tendency
which the SW Platform is part of, then this is a very worrying
development
for other socialists internationally, including the SSP.
SWP CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION

The SW Platform Steering Committee may not be experienced in working in a
pluralist party but it is well used to the arguments for the importance
of a
party uniting in the struggle.

The SWP England & Wales constitution states

∑ "Permanent or secret factions are not allowed". Temporary factions are
permitted during pre-conference debates but even here their documents
"must
be circulated through the National Office".

∑ "The SWP is democratic centralist because the revolutionary party must
be
a disciplined, activist, combat organisation. It is democratic in
reaching
its decisions and centralist in carrying them out."

∑ "The lower bodies of the party are subordinated to higher bodies and
all
are subordinate to the delegate conference."

∑ "A member is one who .. works within and under the direction of the
appropriate bodies of the organisation."

∑ "The branch structures .. direct the work of the branch and its members
within the framework of national policy."

Therefore, there can be little doubt that the SW Platform Steering
Committee
is well versed in the arguments in favour of unity in action. Indeed, the
SWP England & Wales would simply expel any members who, without prior
agreement within the SWP, organised campaigns on the political lines of
another party.

However, the SSP is an open, democratic and inclusive party. We prefer to
deal with problems politically rather than through bureaucratic
expulsions.

SUMMARY

In these circumstances, the SSP EC is formally asking for a written
response
from the SW Platform Steering Committee to the following points

∑ Is the SW Platform still committed to the long-term building of the
SSP as
a mass socialist party?

∑ Does the SW Platform accept that the SSP is a unified political party
and
not a united front (even one of a special kind)? If so, does the SW
Platform
accept that there are then obligations on the SW Platform to discuss
issues
through the SSP rather than automatically operating in the same way as
the
SWP in England does with the Socialist Alliance?

∑ Does the SW Platform agree to work according to the guidelines agreed
by
the SWP and SSP prior to the SW Platform joining the party?

∑ Does the SW Platform agree that it is vital for the SSP to have a
unified
and co-ordinated campaign around issues such as solidarity with the fire
fighters? Will the SW Platform agree to this?

∑ Will the SW Platform give an undertaking to discuss political issues
(eg
the use of Red Watch) within the party and not simply launch initiatives
in
Scotland that have been decided by the SWP in England & Wales?

At the Holyrood elections in 6 months, the party is poised to make an
historic advance for socialism. This will be another huge step forward in
our march towards the building of a mass party. The positive effects of a
team of socialist MSPs being elected will be felt well beyond Scotland.

We believe that the actions of the SW Platform Steering Committee are
disruptive, divisive and damaging. In the current period these actions
are
quite simply reckless.

We hope that the SW Platform will take this opportunity to carefully
reflect
on its actions and its relations with the rest of the party. We call on
the
SW Platform to adopt an honest, open and constructive approach. We
appeal to
the SW Platform to actively work for a united Scottish Socialist Party.

Allan Green
1 December 2002
APPENDIX – GUIDELINES FOR PLATFORMS AGREED BY THE SSP & SWP PRIOR TO
UNIFICATION

∑ Platform members, like any other members, main priority should be the
building of the party. Platforms should not operate as a party within a
party. Once party policy is agreed, Platforms should accept and work
according to the national campaigning priorities of the party as a whole.

∑ Platform members, like any members, have the right to dissent from
party
policy. Platforms are entitled to try to influence the direction of party
policy. However, Platforms should not organise public campaigns in
opposition to party policy.

∑ Platforms are free to distribute their own materials, including
journals,
within the party but the SSP paper, the Scottish Socialist Voice, should
be
sold on public activities rather than platform journals.

∑ Platforms should recognise that the majority of SSP members belong to
no
platform and that all party members have a right to expect open debate
and
discussion within party structures. Attempts by Platforms to enter party
discussions with a predetermined, uniform line, which all members of the
platform are forced to adhere to, will tend to breed resentment and
hostility rather than co-operation and unity.

∑ Platforms should, therefore, not operate ‘shadow’ branch structures.
It is
expected that Platform meetings will tend to be less regular than SSP
branch
meetings and tend to operate over a larger area eg city or regional
meetings.

∑ As far as possible, platform meetings should be open and transparent.
Any
organised group operating within the SSP would be expected to form a
platform.

∑ Platforms have the right to organise private meetings and it is
accepted
that private meetings will sometimes be appropriate for a Platform.