The SSP - is the adventure in its death agonies?

[Andy Bowden]

We have afforded it - it is costly for us, and we have faced financial difficulties but the political cost of not standing in elections is much higher than standing in them

[strawbs]

Despite the fact that the SSP are now resorting to  sect like gimmicks ( Robin Hood costumes) and gesture politics  ( futile protests in the Scottish Parliament after the battle had been won and before a crucial debate involving disabled voters, which cost them them a lot of support over Scotland.), I have contributed a small amount to their fighting fund as my own protest at the disgraceful fine of wages imposed upon them not only by the major parties  in the Scottish Parliament but by their so called friends in the SNP and Greens ( lesson learned here I hope) Once again I say to  the Andy Bowens of this world - the SSP  have filled a useful void over the past period when the heads were down in the left ranks of the movement - that period is ending and so is their own usefulness. Join Socialist Appeal and join the struggle within the ranks of the labour and trade union movement!  - the signs are that the workers are on the move again after a long slumber and it is to the traditional party and trade unions that the movements will turn to - to transform and claim as their own where they  rightly belong. It is the international solidarity of workers that will beat globilisation not nationalism Andy.

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Livingstone result;

 LIVINGSTON RESULT
Jim Devine (Lab):12,319
Angela Constance (SNP):9,639
Charles Dundas (Lib Dem):4,362
Gordon Lindhurst (Cons):1,993
David Robertson (Green):529
Steve Nimmo (SSP):407
Peter Adams (UKIP):108
Melville Brown (Ind):55
John Allman (Alliance for Change):33
Brian Gardner (Socialist Party of GB):32
 
Low turn out at this election but Labour retains the seat.
The election was yesterday.

[strawbs]

Hi again, if  it is an agreed  fact that the SSP leadership have a sound grasp of marxist theory., then why do they keep pushing their Scottish Socialist Republic stuff  down our throats as their main policy when it is being rejected by the voters as shown by the ballot returns. Is it just pure dogma and a lack of confidence in internationalism or are they ditching marxism in a desperate attempt to try and gain support?  In a situation whereby if the party continues its downward slide and because the only thing that really unites them is their hatred of New Labour - they will have nowhere to go - a phantom army  - just another sect with no influence over the ruling party or the labour movement?

[Andy Bowden]

Apologies for a late response Comrades.

The SSP keeps "pushing the Scottish Socialist Republic" down peoples necks because we, like Lenin and John Maclean support the rights of nations to self-determination.

We believe Scotland to be an oppressed nation, because we do not have a parliament that can decide on the most vital questions and decisions our country must face - the most obvious being our country going to war or not.

There is also the fact that Scots make up a third of the British Army while only making up a small percentage of British subjects.

 This is despite a clear majority of Scots supporting increased powers to the Scottish Parliament, and a slight majority of Scots who support independence over the union.

There is also the fact that breaking the British State - US imperialisms biggest ally would raise cheers from those on the Bayonet end of Brit imperialism from Basra to Belfast. Im sure your comrades in the IRSP would agree with me on this!

I reject the idea that supporting Scottish Independence is somehow against internationalism. The SSP has supported the struggles of workers everywhere, whilst keeping our demand to break up the British State. There is nothing to stop workers organising across borders, and a Scottish Socialist Republic could act as a detonator for revolutionary change across all of Europe, like Russia or Revolutionary France.

As for the allegations that we are a "sect", and that we should join Socialist Appeal - I believe that the SSP is far more able to fight for Socialism outside than inside the LP. Honestly, for every Socialist Appeal member, how many right-wing LP members are they?

And even when left-wing motions are passed at LP conferences the leadership just ignores them. How can you fight for Socialism in such an institution?

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Youre probably right. But I still wouldnt join the SSP.
The whole point of this thread is that  they are in decline,
they are broke and they are losing support.
I havent said to you join the Labour Party.The point is , historically the working class move through their own organisations in times of struggle.Its obvious to even the most stupid that the class hasnt moved to the SSP. The point is that they havent moved onto the political plane yet.
There is no evidence that you have put forward that they will move through the SSP in the future.

[Andy Bowden]

The SSP did face a dissapointing electoral result. But do we disregard an organisation which has made such advances for the cause of Socialism in the face of one setback?

No, definitely not in my opinion. I don't think Militant should have left the LP in the 80's when it was still a vehicle for the working class because of the defeats of Foot.

It is true the working class have been at a lower level of class struggle compared with say under the years of Thatcher. However we all know, as Marxists and Socialists that such "honeymoon" periods never last for our class - we can see this with the upcoming pension strikes - which, if carried out will be the largest strike since 1926.

Marxists and Socialists must ensure we can put forward our case to these newly radicalised workers, so we can ensure these people become Socialists, not just trade unionists.

[strawbs]

Thanks for your reply Andy, you have made some interesting points in the tradition of marxist debate -  lets examine these points
First of all Lenin did and Marx before him and also Trotsky understood the need for the self determination of oppressed countries but Lenin also was very aware that if socialism was to be acheived in a backward country like Russia countries like Germany, Britain ( where John Mclean knew that Britain would have to go to the aid of the revolotion) and France would  also, and quickly at that time when revolution was spreading like wildfire across europe) or else Russia would never be able to move away from a transitional workers state, to socialism and then finally to communism. the failure of social Democracy in these countries and the death of Lenin led the way to Stalinism, socialism in one country and the eventual break up of the Soviet Union. Cuba which has a planned economy has never been able to acheive socialism because of its isolation. Lets take Scotland now. The SSP have no real transitional programme to acheive socialism and blame the British State for everything. So just to spite the rest of Britain, a Socialist republic would close Faslane, Rosyth, Lossiemouth and bring back the Scottish troops. The British state, still capitalist would set up another Faslane over the border in Barrow, another Rosyth in Berwick and so on. the Scottish troops would be replaced by more working class English, Irish and welsh troops recruited from liverpool, sheffield, Cardiff, Belfast etc etc ( they would obviosly thank the SSP and socialism for this!) Scotland would be isolated financially because global capital would not trade with Scotland. the oil fields taken over would be defended by Scottish troops against the soldiers from the very countries that Scotland are looking for support. Andy, Its not the bases or the fact that more Scottish soldiers are fighting in Iraq than English that is the point here, it is the system that causes the bases to built and the wars to be fought  in the first place that can only be fought through international solidarity. This is basisc marxism that Lenin and Mclean understood -so go back and study what they meant during that period. Also you contradict yourself when you say that Militant left the LP at a time when the LP were carrying out working class reforms - Only the quitters left, the Taffists whose ego was bigger than their beliefs,  and I am not one of those. When the going gets tough the tough get going and  the small snapshot of right wing gov that is the present LP can and will be changed not by setting up the quitters party or the SSP but by working hard in the party that represents the majority of working peoples aspirations - the LP.  Events will dictate the future which is unfortunately not in the SSP but in the LP . If I am wrong then I will apply to join the SSP and I will become a Hibs supporter ( I am a jambo who has supported his team through thick and thin!) - forward to socialism.

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Strawbs makes some good points.
Andy , you touch on something that all socialists have in common.
And that is the struggle for the best condition for all workers in the workplace.
That can only be achieved through socialism, and socialism can only be acheived through workers struggle through their own organisations.
How are the SSP doing this?
They only have a handful of TU branches affiliated.
RMT,CWU, a PCS supporters group, I cant remember anything else. Apart from that ,TU affiliation is pretty small, by no means a mass defection from New Labour . I would be very surprised if branch meetings of the SSP are full of these affiliated workers.
Pretty similar to the Labour Party really.
The only difference being the larger unions are still affiliated to the LP.
In other words the jury is still out with the SSP. The information in previous posts points towards a slow decline.
A death Agony.
The question remains what do we as socialists do?
Rather than folding leaflets for the next bye election , time would be better spent digging deep into the workplace via our unions and winning for our members in the workplace. As socialists we have to be examples to our fellow workers in fighting against the immediate enemy, our bosses.Isnt that what the class struggle is all about??
In the canteens and on the production lines  we should be explaining the ideas of socialsm, of Marxism and then visibly applying it in struggle.
It is only by these means can the issue of labour representation be proved to all workers. It has to be explained and clarified in detail. It can only be learned in this struggle.
It is only then , on the back of struggle can the issue of changing things via elections be raised.:)

[strawbs]

Bit puzzled to why this thread on the SSP has gone very quite over the past few months - certainly the events surrounding the SSP and the original question are as relevant as ever given the serious split within the SSP  to put it simply, between the Sheridans and the Anti -Sheridans. Putting aside the bitching within the witching, conspiracy theories, and the fiasco surrounding the News of the world article accusing Sheridan of infedelity and his own obsession with suing this horrible rag, the fact is that the SSP are reaping the results of reformism and petty bourgois nationalism as well as a woefully watered down programme which is a reflection of their lack of confidence in acheiving socialism. In fact ,they are not a socialist party never mind a marxist party despite the many honest and genuine socialists within their rank and file, many of whom are  horrified at the shennanigans of their so called leaders. The SSP  leadership actually beleive that the Scots are more radical t than their counterparts in England or Wales thus an independent Scotland can lead the way for a socialist Britain and Europe. In their  increasingly sensationalist journal "The voice" they now describe New Labour a "neo fascist" . Have they read nothing of the writing of Trotsky on this subject? This demonstrates their arrogance and stupidity -The various factions within their party, SWP communists of various trends, Maoists etc,  are lining up in an attempt to put their own bits and pieces of sectarian nonsense into  the pot. They will  all stagger from one crisis to the next because they have abondoned the principles and theory of marxism. Sad but true and we all suffer from this as a consequesnce.

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

We said it would end in tears.
It has

From the Scotsman (bourgeouis paper)

Sheridan looks for new Solidarity
LOUISE GRAY
 
TOMMY Sheridan yesterday vowed to turn his back on the Scottish Socialists and to set up his own party, after admitting he had no future in the organisation he founded.

Mr Sheridan urged those in the SSP to join him in a new movement, which his supporters said could be called the Solidarity Scottish Socialist Movement - a reference to the shipworkers' opposition movement in communist Poland.

However, rivals poured scorn on the idea of Mr Sheridan using the Solidarity label and vowed to fight any new party.

Following Mr Sheridan's successful defamation case against the News of the World, the party has been split.

Many of the "United Left" faction claimed during his libel trial that Mr Sheridan had admitted visiting swingers' clubs, and they now refuse to work with their former leader. But another faction calling themselves the "SSP Majority" want Mr Sheridan reinstalled as leader.

The two sides were due to battle it out at the party's national conference in October. However it now seems Mr Sheridan will lead his supporters in a new movement before it goes to the vote. From more than 50 branches, so far he has fewer than a dozen nominations for the leader's position.

Speaking to a radio station yesterday, Mr Sheridan said "irreconcilable differences" had formed in the SSP following his case. "The level of bile and vitriol against me has reached unprecedented levels. There is obviously a degree of hatred in terms of me," he said.

"There have been calls for me to be disciplined by the SSP, to be expelled from the SSP. It's clear to me that I probably don't have a future in the SSP."

Mr Sheridan and Rosemary Byrne, the SSP MSP for South of Scotland, have called a meeting for 3 September where party members will have the opportunity to vote on whether to form a new party.

Yesterday, Mr Sheridan made his own preference quite clear.

"The reality is there's no place for me. Some people will stay with the SSP but I hope that some will come with me and help form a new movement," he said.

Yesterday, The Scotsman revealed one of the witnesses from the defamation case, Helen Allison, has lodged a complaint with police that she was intimidated and harassed beforehand.

But Mr Sheridan dismissed the move.

He also denied reports any new party will form an alliance with George Galloway's party Respect.

"I'm sure George will support what we do here in Scotland but it won't be a version or a form or an extension of Respect."

Steve Arnott, SSP organiser of the Highlands and Islands and spokesman for the SSP Majority, said a number of suggested names had been put forward for a new party including Solidarity, the Socialist Majority, the Democratic Green Socialists or Independent Scottish Socialists.

However, no final decision will be made until a vote is put to supporters in early September.

But Mr Sheridan's rivals dismissed the idea of taking on the name of the union founded by Lech Walesa that grew to become a massive movement for change in the Eastern Bloc. One leading party activist pointed out Mr Sheridan's alleged lack of solidarity - he called many of his colleagues "political scabs" for giving evidence against him.

Colin Fox, current leader of the SSP, said there was only room for one SSP in Scotland.

"He has got it badly wrong in his belief that there is role for more than one socialist party in Scotland and seems to forget that was why the SSP was formed in the first place," he said.

"There is no basis for two socialist parties in Scotland with indistinguishable political programmes."

Mr Fox vowed to fight any new party with a united SSP.

"The SSP has huge potential. Hundreds of thousands of people wish to see it survive and thrive and take the socialist project which it uniquely promotes still further forward."