![Scottish Socialists [RedMike, please]](/img/uisvg/forum-heading/debates.svg){kind=icon}
Originally posted by RedmikeRedmike I don't know if you've actually looked at that Gonzalez article, but from the SWP's perspective, as explained by Gonzalez, the split was largely about politics. And far from wanting to be part of a small, irrelevant party, it was about wanting to be part of something much larger. Gonzalez complains that the SSP as an organisation failed to relate in any serious way to the historic G8 demonstrations in 2005, and that missing this great mass movement was symptomatic of the reasons why the SSP had fallen into decline during a decade which has seen more political radicalisation than perhaps at any time in my memory. It may still be the case that Solidarity will suffer the same fate as the Peoples Front of Judea, I'm not close enough to know how it's doing as I live in England, but what I do know is that they have an outward looking perspective and aim to build a broad party based on familiar principles such as disillusion with Labourism, support for struggle and desire for progressive change, but which is also responsive to the changing nature of the battles that we face.
OK, let me explain.
In Life of Brian, there is a part of the story where a whole range of anti-Roman groups are seen. There is the People's Front of Judea, the Judean People's Front etc etc.
This is obviously, and hilariously, taking the piss out of far left groups and their constant infighting and bickering, where it is more important to get one over ...[text shortened]... SP and Solidarity. This isn't a split about politics.
But you need to see Life of Brian.
2 edits
Originally posted by bolshevikI'm aware of Gonzales analysis, but I Strongly disagree with it, in particular in terms of the SSP's engagement with the G8 protests.
Redmike I don't know if you've actually looked at that Gonzalez article, but from the SWP's perspective, as explained by Gonzalez, the split was largely about politics. And far from wanting to be part of a small, irrelevant party, it was about wanting to be part of something much larger. Gonzalez complains that the SSP as an organisation failed to relate i ve change, but which is also responsive to the changing nature of the battles that we face.
He seems to forget, for example, that it was 4 SSP MSPs who. when the local authority threatened to outlaw all demonstrations, protested in the parliament and were a major part of the campaign to ensure we had the right to protest. Incidentally, these are the 4 MSPs who're still in the SSP. Byrne disagreed with the protest and SHeridan was on paternity leave.
Indeed, this whole notion that the SSP didn't engage with the anti-war or G8 protests was begun by the SWP shortly before they split - it is how we knew what was coming. Rose Gentle, of Military Families Against the War was so disgusted by this suggestion that she issued a statement thanking the SSP for their support. The SWP's position on this is really an Orewllian rewriting of history to justify the split.
While you say that Solidarity have an outward looking perspective and they aim to build a broad party etc, there already exists a party to do this. The SWP might not be happy with the influence they had in the SSP, but lets not kid ourselves the split was over politics - there are no political differences. This is just sheer opportunism.
Is Sheridan gets charged with perjury, or goes on Celebrity Big Brother, the SWP will ditch him and we'll see Respect standing in Scotland.
Do you support the SWP's proposal to remove the word 'socialist' from the full title of the new party?
Do you support Sheridan and Byrne's use of scab labour in their dispute with the parliamentary workers?
Incidentally, you do know that when Gonzalez was giving his evidence for SHeridan, a decision which might have serious consequences, he was asked by the why his evidence should be believed ahead of the other witnesses from the SSP. He replied that his evidence was more credible because he is a professor. Quite a man of the people is Mike Gonzalez.
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeThey had a protest in the parliament. This is not a mass protest, they didn't mobilize anyone apart from themselves, it was a stunt. I think that it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but it is not a protest that anyone other than the MSP's could take part in. Our basic criticism is that the SSP leadership substitute themselves for a more widely based movement and in the example you chose you seem to have confirmed our argument.
I'm aware of Gonzales analysis, but I Strongly disagree with it, in particular in terms of the SSP's engagement with the G8 protests.
He seems to forget, for example, that it was 4 SSP MSPs who. when the local authority threatened to outlaw all demonstrations, protested in the parliament and were a major part of the campaign to ensure we had the right to s more credible because he is a professor. Quite a man of the people is Mike Gonzalez.
You've raised some other issues that are difficult for me to talk about without doing some research first. One question though, can parliamentary researchers only be paid from MSP's allowances?
As far as Gonzales answer to the question as to why his evidence should be believed, it is not clear to me what else he should have said. A professor is one of the people you can use to sign a passport application, for example, so it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say given what he was asked.
Gonzalez doesn't forget the protest in parliament. This is what he has to say about it in his article :
"But it was the G8 meeting at Gleneagles in Scotland in July 2005 which would provide the proof of the two perspectives that were in a bitter but undeclared conflict within the SSP. In January 2005, at the regular executive meeting, Socialist Worker Platform members called for a discussion of our preparations for G8. At that meeting and at every subsequent one the SSP’s leadership refused to address the question. The people who would attend the Make Poverty History demonstration, it was argued, were middle class liberals; working class people were not interested in such issues, any more than they were concerned with the war in Iraq. Workers were interested only in ‘bread and butter questions’.
In the meantime Socialist Worker Platform members within the SSP together with a broad range of other groups and organisations had taken the initiative in setting up a committee to prepare for the Gleneagles protest on the first day of the G8, and the organisation of a counter-conference in Edinburgh on the previous Sunday. The meetings were regular, large and enthusiastic as well as very broad in character. One MSP, Frances Curran, was assigned to link up with that organising group, together with a platform member who had been deeply involved from the outset. The role of the SSP leadership in that activity was a disgrace: time and again their interventions were simply designed to block or spoil what was a broad and democratic initiative, while offering no real practical or political support to the organisers. Refusing to contribute to the Alternative Summit, beyond accepting the opportunity to speak on its platforms, those comrades stuck to the tried and well-worn formula that this was not of interest to workers and the abstention continued. On the Friday before the demonstration four of the six MSPs staged an absurd and pointless stunt in the parliament to veil their ineffectiveness and distance from the movement. The cost was £30,000 in fines and other expenses and the general scorn of the public."
1 edit
Originally posted by bolshevikThe point Gonzalez misses is that, when the protest in the parliament was staged, the planned march at Gleneagles was banned.
Gonzalez doesn't forget the protest in parliament. This is what he has to say about it in his article :
"But it was the G8 meeting at Gleneagles in Scotland in July 2005 which would provide the proof of the two perspectives that were in a bitter but undeclared conflict within the SSP. In January 2005, at the regular executive meeting, Socialist Worker P ...[text shortened]... ement. The cost was £30,000 in fines and other expenses and the general scorn of the public."
At the end of the day, if the MSPs had done nothing, the SWP would have criticised that too.
And he also seems to misunderstand the difference between the G8 protests and the Make Poverty History event.
The SSP was involved in both of these, with. I can't speak for the other event in Edinburgh, as I think this was on the same day as the MPH event. Perhaps this is why there's a perception the SSP had a low profile at the meeting - we were on the streets of Edinburgh.
I understand that there might be differences over the tactics for events like the G8. This is always going to be the case - socialists aren't robots - we have different ideas and differing priorities.
But to say the SSP leadership blocked support for the G8 events is just ludicrous. And to use this for the justification of the SWP splitting from the most succesful socialist project in Western Europe is petty and sectarian in the extreme.
It seems to me that the SWP would prefer to be in a small sect they can control than a larger, relatively succesful pluralist party which they can't.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI've addressed much of this in the other post, but the SSP mobilised thousands of people for the evnets of the G8. The reason I chose this as an example is it because it was one you would have been familiar with. You wouldn't be expected to be familiar with the many local mobilisations the lenght and breadth of Scotland.
They had a protest in the parliament. This is not a mass protest, they didn't mobilize anyone apart from themselves, it was a stunt. I think that it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but it is not a protest that anyone other than the MSP's could take part in. Our basic criticism is that the SSP leadership substitute themselves for a more widely b ...[text shortened]... lication, for example, so it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say given what he was asked.
Yes, I think researchers can only be paid from MSPs allowances. the 6 MSPs entered into a contract at the start of the parliamentary term commiting them to pay the relevant allowances into a pooled fund to employ 12 people.
In terms of the other question, the full name for the new party is Solidarity - Scotland's movement for socialism. The SWP wanted to change this to Solidarity - Scotland's movent for social justice.
I understand what your saying about Gonzalez being a professor. My point is that it is not really the answer you'd expect from a socialist. His arguement is that his evidence is better because he has a higher social status. Like a profssor is more credible than someone who empties bins.