I'm an activist in the Scottish Socialist Party who sees the party as a potential vehicle for moving towards libertarian socialism. I guess most of you would disagree, want to try and convince me I'm wrong? 
Jun 30 2005 08:34
Jun 30 2005 08:46
Yeah, to pick up on some of what Catch says.....
I'd want evidence that SSP was different (and I mean different) to Militant/Militant Labour/Socialist Party in England. Otherwise, I'd see the SSP as yet another self-appointed "vanguard of the working class" that has as little to do with libertarianism as it does with socialism.
Jun 30 2005 09:10
there's that many factions and platforms within the SSP though isn't there, i'm surprised they've held things together so well so far given the composition of the "party" (is it not more like an alliance?)
havn't really been following things since tommy was kicked, although there's been a fair few exhange of letters in the weekly workers between varying sects within it lately
Is their present (electoral) success not more down to the cult of tommy x proportional representation to the power of latent poll tax memories?
probably "revol68" will be along in a minute to give you a ticking off for your nationalist sentiments also
Jun 30 2005 09:26
oisleep wrote:
there's that many factions and platforms within the SSP
This is true, although that doesn't mean they're not still "democratic centralist." The IMG (& later the ISG, now tail-ending the cobwebs in Wespec') had "tendencies" & "factions" akimbo, but they were still the self-styled vanguard of the working class.
Jun 30 2005 09:36
yeah i wasn't really saying that as a justification of them (i think our posts crossed), more just an observation without any conclusion from it
it does however seem a bit of a recipe for fall out further down the line if they did gain further representation in the scot parl
also respect still failed to give a categorical refusal that they would ever stand in scotland, if they did and they got tommy and the various swappie platforms currently within the SSP, everyhing would start to fall apart even more
i quite like rosie kane though
Jun 30 2005 11:32
maybe SSP libertarian thinks the SSP can support grassroots activists from within the council/parliament? That's the attitude of the libertarian Greens I think.
Jun 30 2005 16:25
Guess it depends on how you define "libertarian socialist",
once used by David Blunkett to describe himself!
There is the old platform argument, but as soon as you are running
an independent Scotland you've gotta deal with other (private or
state) capitalist states sooner or later so you can't bring
about socialism anywhere.
Jun 30 2005 19:55
Depends what you mean by 'party' exactly, i mean in thoertical terms i don't have the problem with the word party as it van often simply stand for a revolutionay organisation, and while i see problems with tahta lien of thinking they can be extremely useful, afterall left communist and council communist parties have existed and platformist organisations can be similar to parties in a lot of ways, but the problem is that the word 'party' to most people, implies a single group that will become dominant and take the reins of power, so i'd avoid using the word.
Electoralism is another problem, while i don't have a problem with standing for local council elections as a tactic, actually standing for MP level postions and having ministers within a capitalist government, or in the extreme case the party simply being the capitalist government itself (ie The Workers Party in Brazil), is not something I would support or want to be a part of.
Personally i think a federation offers a far better approach, because that way you have a series of groups building strong and idnependent local branches, of course most of the federations as they exist today are too small to genuinely be federations, because in real terms they aren't an amalgamation of local groups.
ps In terms of parties, if it was still around now i might have gone along to the old socialist alliance meetings and helped out had it been non-electoral, or had at least only used electoralism as a tactic, but i don't think i'd want to actually join a party.
Jun 30 2005 22:11
To be fair to the SSP, they've done a lot up here in terms of progressive local work and bringing "class" back into politics. The whole broad-based idea is also nice and lets ordinary people encounter for themselves socialism and what it means. However the notion that any party or party member can be libertarian is highly dodgy, or atleast is stretching the term to its limits (actually I'd say its just plain wrong if libertarianism means anything). A political party by its very nature is a hierarchical structure accepting of the State and bourgeois democracy which, needless to say, is highly anti-libertarian. The aims and goals of the SSP and any party is not against the state, hierarchy or for application of a truly democratic, workers' society. It isn't in any sense revolutionary (despite quite a few revol. style slogans etc.) because it accepts the electioneering route and 90% see no problem with a reform-based social capitalism. Finally, that you could, through the State and minority control, guide us to "libertarian socialism" is not only bonkers it mistakes what libertarian socialism actually is, and that is made and moved by the people without leaders or parties.
I know a few members myself who proclaim to be libs, aye they may be that; in the sense of being "liberal" rather than libertarian.
PS I'm travelling with some SSPers to the G8 so I'd better be pleasant! 
Jun 30 2005 22:18
ssplibertarian wrote:
I'm an activist in the Scottish Socialist Party who sees the party as a potential vehicle for moving towards libertarian socialism. I guess most of you would disagree, want to try and convince me I'm wrong? :)
What exactly is it about the SSP that will make them avoid the well trodden electoralism -> reformism -> incorporation progression that has been the fate of pretty much every single attempt ever to reach socialism through an electoral route? Why do you think that the SSP will avoid the pitfalls that much bigger, more powerful and less electorally focused groups in the past have fallen into?
Jul 1 2005 16:25
There's a fair bit of criticism of electoralism on our site here:
Jul 2 2005 11:48
I came from a marxian background and I have repeat something similar to volin, that essentially socialist parties are a problem not a solution.
I found this by Pannekoek very profound
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/party-class.htm
Quote:
The “revolutionary party” is based on the idea that the working class needs a new group of leaders who vanquish the bourgeoisie for the workers and construct a new government—(note that the working class is not yet considered fit to reorganize and regulate production.)
Also Rockers, Anarchosyndicalism as a few anti-marxian arguements worth pursuing
Quote:
But even a far greater degree of economic equality than exists in Russia would still be no guarantee against political and social oppression. It is just this which Marxism and all the other schools of authoritarian Socialism have never understood. Even in prison, in the cloister or in the barracks one finds a fairly high degree of economic equality, as all the inmates are provided with the same dwelling, the same food, the same uniform and the same tasks. The ancient Inca state in Peru and the Jesuit state in Paraguay had brought equal economic provision for every inhabitant to a fixed system, but in spite of this the vilest despotism prevailed there, and the human being was merely the automaton of a higher will, on whose decisions he had not the slightest influence. It was not without reason that Proudhon saw in a "Socialism" without freedom the worst from of slavery.
Ask yourself these questions:
Can a party speak on behalf of the class?
How can a singular party represent the diverse and sometimes conflicting demands of the entire working class?
Parties employ coercive structures and hierarchy, even the most democratic appearances can just mean the domination of a minority by the majority. How can this move us towards a free society?
If a party structures itself is to compete within the system, for political power, doesnt this have compromises with its message and the ends it proclaims?
Isnt political activity best achieved within the working class, rather than an outside agent?
..........
Jul 4 2005 22:59
The problem is , of course, one of a confusion of terminology. The swp (boo hiss) considered itself (and to a layer of its cadre, this was a large part of its attraction) to be a libertarian version of leninism; thus the reprints of serge and rosmer, but as everyone who has come into contact with them can testify this is, of course bolox.
For the SSP, which is made up of a raft of Leninist factions playing a electoralist game. The strange and unusual experience of allowing other points of view to be expressed within the same organisation, without immediatly reaching for the big expulsion stick, must indeed feel like a breath, nay a gale of libertarian fresh air.
What first drove me on the path away from leninism was the experience of working together with other socialists in the socialist alliance, once the quaratine of ideological purity was lifted, it really was a matter of time before i gave up the opiate of the revolutionary; vanguardism. 
The groups that make up the SSP, probrably now feel that too many of their members like this state of affairsand to break it up would split their goups. this is unlikely to happen anyway as they are far too wedded to reformism, and the real arguments is over the carve up of seats in holyrood. All except the swp who I believe are trying to carve a niche for their own reformist lash up in a scottish r*sp*ct ( a far less desirable dish than the rather inoffensive SSp)
Jul 5 2005 12:33
I was in the Socialist Alliance, for what it was worth 
and found that it did push me towards libertarian politics, there were a few in there who saw themselves as syndicalists, of what stripe Im not sure. But in the end I found that vanguards are simply not up for the task of changing the political dynamic of 21st century, they operate entirely like businesses. Its like Mark Thomas said, the problem with groups like the SWP isnt that theyre too left wing but that they are too conservative.
Jul 5 2005 20:08
Dear captain,
I believe we share a mutual aquaintance in Jez in guildford?
Jul 5 2005 23:05
Quote:
How can a singular party represent the diverse and sometimes conflicting demands of the entire working class?
it is possible - you do it by building concensus in an atmospher of respect for points of view that differ from your own. it can be very noisy as passionatly held beliefs are debated and discussed but concensos can be built. we are human beings with a natural tendancy towards co-operation to achieve ends beyond the capabilities of one.
the ssp is still the same old militant tendancy - i know from personal experiance - having been kicked out of my local branch here
Jul 6 2005 13:00
Parties dont work on consensus mate, they will needlessly have structures in place which co-opt the minority for the will of the majority not unless theyre the tea party varities.
The only way parties can avoid this is by agreeing not to discuss certain issues, or the 80-20 as it was called in the SA. What this meant in pracitice is that given a singular topic you could have had 20 different postions/reponses - and since the party left are always claiming they are more organised (read monotonous), it just makes it more laughable.
Jul 16 2005 17:59
Well there aren't many alternative libertarian socialist vehicles around in Scotland just now, so would be hard to disagree. Perhaps you could tell us if you've had any success in moving the SSP towards libertarian socialism? If you have, maybe it's you who will be convincing us that you're right.....
Andrew [ http://www.afraser.com/beyond_an_ideal.htm ]
Jul 24 2007 17:23
The SSP was connected with the English Socialist Party, but the SSP has split with Tommy Sheridan (formerly the SSP top personality) who has gone off and formed Solidarity. The English SP surprise, surprise supports Sheridan their scottish bulldog. I used to be in the SP before having a massive change of heart and switching to anarchism. I saw Sheridan give a speech at the SP rally of last year and he came across like a demigod, Solidarity is basically the Tommy Sheridan show.
As for the idea that libertarian socialism can be arrived at by parliement, that is simply a joke. I know an anarchist who opted for this; it's difficult 4 even anarchists not to get hoodwinked by hypnotic ideas from time to time.
Parlamentary Politics like the Wage System by it's very nature is authoritarian, someone who stands for the position of MP will have to either employ or have volunteers running around trying to persuade people to vote 4 them, the person standing usually does nothing and even if they do, they're the boss. This is a hierarchy and that is what distinguishes anarchism from that. We believe in liberty in practice rather than just as a nice idea. How can you create a free society by creating social structures based upon people giving orders and others receiving them? That is not libertarian.
I know this from personal experience, I spent 20 hours running around like a headless cock trying to get bemussed people to vote 2 get an SP guy a seat!! We got him a seat but I don't see how that process helped to empower me, the working class or make society more free and equal.
Also just out of curiosity I would like to know SSP Libertarian about your experiences of party politics? Are your experiences anything like mine? What have they bean like? Do you feel like you get to take any initiative or do you just take orders? I'd be interesting to know. Messages on a post card. 
admin - don't post all in bold
Jul 26 2007 14:29
Can you not send your messages in bold, please
Jul 27 2007 00:59
october_lost wrote:
How can a singular party represent the diverse and sometimes conflicting demands of the entire working class?..........
i think that a statist would argue that the party is there to guide the masses down the revolutionary proletarian line, not to represent the diverse and conflicting demands of the masses. in fact, they would argue that it is because of the contradictions found in the masses that the vanguard is necessary.
Jul 27 2007 07:45
It is a shame that libertarians in Scotland are so disorganised that some of them prefer to work in a political party rather than create a real alternative. If a serious anarchist organisation existed then it could have a dialogue with SSP members without libertarians having to join the party.
I would go further and say that the recent spat of leadership battles and cults of personality should make it easier for libertarians to create a new organisation which can appeal to rank and file socialists in the SSP and, perhaps, show that their idea of socialism cannot come about via the Scottish parliament and that anarchism has a more coherent and positive vision of socialism than that associated with the SSP and Marxism in general/
And for what it is worth, here is my review of "Imagine" by Tommy Sheridan and Alan McCombes -- I know they have split, but the politics seem identical. I would say that
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/reviews/imagine.html
Can comment on articles and discussions
Do you think the SSP will be voted into power? What will they do then?
Or do you think the SSP should lead the working class during an insurrection, then maintain a centralised State to defend the revolution during a transitional period?
Happy to argue against both of those positions, but I'll need a little more information on exactly how you see them doing so. I'm not really up on the SSP but they seem a bit better than English Trotskyists.