Contra o imperialismo e a monarquia britânica e pelo controle operário dos recursos energéticos escoceses!
Liga Comunista - Brasil
Tendencia Militante Bolchevique - Argentina
8 de setembro de 2014
Tendencia Militante Bolchevique - Argentina
8 de setembro de 2014
NOTA INTRODUTÓRIA DO COMITÊ DE LIGAÇÃO PELA IV
INTERNACIONAL:
As organizações do
Comitê de Ligação pela IV Internacional não chegaram a um acordo comum sobre
que tática adotar diante do plebiscito acerca da independência da Escócia. A
Liga Comunista, do Brasil, e a Tendência Militante Bolchevique, da Argentina,
defendem o voto “SIM”. O Socialist Fight, da Grã Bretanha, defende o voto “NÃO”.
Nossa jovem proto-internacional, que aspira se construir como um partido
centralizado internacional, ainda não possui estrutura interna desenvolvida o
suficiente para deliberar por votação interna a posição majoritária do CLFI
diante desta questão. Não escondemos nossas divergências internas sobre essa
tática e acreditamos que a publicação das duas posições seja a forma mais
honesta de tratar o tema diante da classe operária, dos oprimidos e de sua
vanguarda classista mundial.
Nós, portanto,
publicaremos as duas declarações em seus idiomas originais. Abaixo está a declaração do SF em inglês. Em breve
publicaremos a declaração da LC e TMB em inglês e a declaração do SF, em
português.
No próximo 18 de setembro, ocorrerá um plebiscito na Escócia
para decidir se o país se separa ou não do Reino Unido. Uma das questões
econômicas importantes que estão por trás desta decisão jurídica-política, é a
questão do petróleo do mar do norte.
“O mar territorial adjacente no Atlântico Norte e no Mar do Norte contém as maiores reservas de petróleo da União Europeia” [ 1 ].
Esta parte do oceano é, hoje, propriedade pessoal da coroa britânica. Não é por acaso que a Rainha anda “assustada” como as pesquisas que dão vitória para o SIM no plebiscito [ 2 ].
“O mar territorial adjacente no Atlântico Norte e no Mar do Norte contém as maiores reservas de petróleo da União Europeia” [ 1 ].
Esta parte do oceano é, hoje, propriedade pessoal da coroa britânica. Não é por acaso que a Rainha anda “assustada” como as pesquisas que dão vitória para o SIM no plebiscito [ 2 ].
Independente dos interesses burgueses e aspirações
imperialistas dos dirigentes da campanha pela independência, mesmo que o
Partido Nacional Escocês (SNP) seja um partido burguês de centro-direita, que
agora tenta seduzir a UE e aos EUA para ganhar simpatias para romper com seu
atual amo imperialista, não se pode de modo algum descartar o fato fundamental
de que esta ruptura poderá provocar sérios problemas energéticos para o
imperialismo britânico.
“O governo escocês, liderado pelo primeiro-ministro Alex
Salmond, disse que os 300 anos de união não servem mais e defende que se a
Escócia for independente, com sua riqueza petrolífera, seria um dos países mais
ricos do mundo. Ele diz que é o momento para o país assumir o controle de seu
próprio destino, ser livre do que ele descreve como os ‘grilhões’ de um
parlamento do Reino Unido, que tem sede em Londres. No lado oposto do debate, o
governo do Reino Unido, liderado pelo primeiro-ministro David Cameron, diz que
a Grã-Bretanha é umas das união sociais e políticas mais bem sucedidas do
mundo. Questões relacionadas aos ganhos com petróleo estão entre as principais
divergências sobre a permanência da Escócia no Reino Unido. As reservas de
petróleo e gás do Mar do Norte (ou, mais precisamente, a carga tributária que a
Escócia divide) são vitais para entender que o governo escocês defenda a
independência do país. Alex Salmond afirma que, se guardassem um décimo da
receita proveniente do petróleo - cerca de £ 1 bilhão por ano (cerca de R$ 3,8
bilhões) -, poderiam formar um fundo semelhante ao utilizado na Noruega,
criando um pote de riqueza soberana de £ 30 bilhões (cerca de R$ 114 bilhões)
ao longo de uma geração” [ 3 ].
Mesmo supondo que as receitas com o petróleo do Mar do Norte
venham a diminuir nos próximos anos, como todos os poços em exploração no mundo
hoje, o que torna o imperialismo britânico mais “assustado” diante do risco de
perder a Escócia é o fato de que já nas condições atuais, tendo a Escócia e o
mar do norte sob seu completo domínio, o capital financeiro britânico Unido
tende a enfrentar sérios problemas energéticos:
“O Departamento de Energia e Mudanças Climáticas avalia que a produção de petróleo do Reino Unido vai diminuir de 43 milhões de toneladas este ano, para 23 milhões por ano até 2030.” [ 4 ].
“O Departamento de Energia e Mudanças Climáticas avalia que a produção de petróleo do Reino Unido vai diminuir de 43 milhões de toneladas este ano, para 23 milhões por ano até 2030.” [ 4 ].
A ESCÓCIA NÃO É UM PEQUENO PAÍS IMPERIALISTA,
É UM PAÍS DEPENDENTE DO IMPERIALISMO BRITÂNICO
“As exportações da Escócia para o resto do Reino Unido (Ruk)
correspondem a 70% de suas exportações. Por sua vez, a Escócia recebe apenas
11% das exportações do Reino Unido. Assim o capitalismo escocês é fortemente
integrado no capitalismo britânico, mais do que Canadá para os EUA. Em 2012, as
exportações escocês para Ruk somaram R $ 48 bilhões, enquanto as exportações
Ruk para a Escócia foram R $ 59 bilhões. Então uma Escócia independente poderia
executar um déficit comercial com seu principal parceiro comercial, o Ruk,
exigindo, portanto, de investimento ou de crédito de fundos "no
estrangeiro" para preencher a lacuna. A Escócia seria um pequeno Estado
capitalista dependente do comércio com Ruk e pouca possibilidade de reduzir
essa dependência... A Escócia como uma pequena economia, dependente de
multinacionais para o investimento, ainda dominado por bancos britânicos e da
City de Londres e sem controle de suas próprias taxas de câmbio ou de juros,
poderia enfrentar um sucesso muito maior do que em outros lugares, em termos de
rendimentos e desemprego.” [ 5 ].
A Escócia é um país economicamente dependente do Reino Unido
e a burguesia escocesa limita-se a desejar uma maior independência política
para ficar com uma parte maior das riquezas nacionais para si (recursos
naturais, mais valia, ...). Obviamente, em sua luta pela autodeterminação da
Escócia, o proletariado não pode se contentar com uma mera mudança de amo.
Nesse processo, assim como na Ucrânia no final de 2013, os planos limitados da
burguesia escocesa podem ir pelos ares.
A independência da Escócia seria uma vantagem para o
proletariado internacional e os oprimidos de todo o mundo não pela política
burguesa e pró-imperialista do SNP mas porque debilitaria:
1) o Reino Unido, o principal aliado do Estado imperialista
hegemônico, os EUA, na Europa e em todo o planeta;
2) o principal centro do capital financeiro europeu;
3) a monarquia britânica, componente fundamental de coesão
do Reino Unido e parte importante do próprio capital financeiro britânico e
europeu;
IMPERIALISMO E CARÁTER DE CLASSE DO ESTADO
SÃO OS CRITÉRIOS PARA A DEFESA DA LUTA PELA AUTODETERMINAÇÃO
SÃO OS CRITÉRIOS PARA A DEFESA DA LUTA PELA AUTODETERMINAÇÃO
É necessário deixar claro que a autodeterminação da Escócia,
assim com a autodeterminação de Donbass e da Crimênia, na Ucrânia, debilitam o
imperialismo. Em oposição a esta situação, existem “auto-determinações” que
fortalecem o imperialismo:
a) a “independência” do Tibet, na China, visa debilitar a um
Estado capitalista não imperialista, que hoje disputa a hegemonia mundial
contra o imperialismo;
b) a “independência” das Malvinas em relação a Argentina,
tem por objetivo dar uma fachada legal de “soberania” a um enclave imperialista
britânico no Atlântico Sul;
c) em seu momento, a “independência” do Kosovo frente a
Sérvia, para tornar-se uma colônia mafiosa e narco-traficante do imperialismo e
rota comercial da heroína afegã;
d) por fim, a política de divisão de qualquer Estado
operário, em nome da luta pela “autodeterminação” como foram os processos da
Lituânia, Letônia e Estônia, são processos contrarrevolucionários, uma vez que
apontam para uma regressão do caráter de classe do Estado em questão para um
retorno ao capitalismo.
A INDEPENDENCIA DA ESCÓCIA DIVIDE A CLASSE OPERÁRIA
BRITANICA?
Várias organizações advogam que a independência da Escócia
romperia a unidade da classe operaria britânica. Nós, ao contrário, concordamos
com Lenin acerca da autodeterminação nacional e consideramos que se os
operários ingleses apoiam a independência da Escócia, ganhará a unidade do
proletariado britânico. Porque, neste caso, os operários escoceses se
identificarão mais fortemente com os operários ingleses como seus irmãos de
classe, para além da divisão dos Estados capitalistas.
“O nacionalismo avança nas classes populares mas gera aversão entre as altas, que vêem a independencia como um fator de inestabilidade e risco
financeiro.” [ 6 ].
Lenin afirmava que a socialdemocracia sueca trairia ao
proletariado se não houvesse apoiado a independência da Noruega. Em relação a
independência da Noruega da Suécia, o fundador do bolchevismo, se posicionava
assim:
“Qual foi e devia ser a posição do proletariado norueguês e
sueco no conflito provocado pela separação? Os operários conscientes da Noruega
teriam votado, naturalmente, após a separação, pela república(8*), e se houve
socialistas que votaram de outro modo, isso apenas demonstra quanto oportunismo
estúpido e filisteu há por vezes no socialismo europeu. Acerca disso não pode
haver duas opiniões, e nós referimos este ponto somente porque Rosa Luxemburg
tenta dissimular o fundo da questão com conversas fora do tema...
Não resta a menor dúvida de que a social-democrada sueca
teria traído a causa do socialismo e a causa da democracia se não tivesse
lutado com todas as forças contra a ideologia e a política tanto latifundiária
como «kokochkinista», se não tivesse defendido,além da igualdade de direitos
das nações em geral (reconhecida também pelos Kokóchkine), o direito das nações
à autodeterminação, a liberdade de separação da Noruega.
A estreita aliança dos operários noruegos e suecos, a sua
plena solidariedade fraternal de classe GANHOU com esse reconhecimento, pelos
operários suecos, do direito dos noruegueses a separação. Porque os operários
noruegueses se convenceram que os operários suecos não estavam contaminados
pelo nacionalismo sueco, de que a fraternidade com os proletários noruegueses
estava, para eles, acima dos privilégios da burguesia e da aristocracia
sueca... Os operários suecos... saberão conservar e defender a plena igualdade
de direitos e a solidariedade de classe dos operários de ambas as nações em
luta tanto contra a burguesia sueca como contra a burguesia norueguesa.” (V. I.
Lenin, Sobre os direitos das nações a autodeterminação, cap. 6; A separação da
Noruega da Suécia, abril-junho/1914). [ 7 ]
De tudo que foi dito acima, concluímos que a
autodeterminação da Escócia não deve ser vista como uma questão insular, mas
como um assunto ligado diretamente aos interesses dos povos oprimidos do
conjunto do planeta, porque a independência da Escócia debilitaria a ala
britânica do imperialismo que hoje oprime ao conjunto dos povos oprimidos da
Terra. Por sua vez, em função dos que expusemos anteriormente sobre os
interesses históricos do proletariado britânico e internacional, é evidente que
a acusação de “terceiro mundistas” aos que defendem a autodeterminação da
Escócia para debilitar ao Estado imperialista britânico, é um cretinismo
comparável a acusação de “antisemitismo”, lançada pelo sionismo contra seus
críticos.
“Os
progressos do independentismo se viram freados quando o Partido Nacional
Escocés apoiou uma moção de censura contra o governo e forçou eleições
gerais en 1979 que resultaram na vitoria da grande adversaria da
independencia, Margaret Thatcher.” [ 8 ].
A burocracia trade-unista pró-imperialista, segue a posição
política destes partidos, na questão escocesa. Por fim, o centrismo claudicante
segue a burocracia trade-unista. Todos estes agentes do imperialismo britânico
se declaram em franca oposição a independência da Escócia.
A população trabalhadora, dos cinco milhões de habitantes da
Escócia é mais propensa a votar pelo sim, em contrapartida, o empresariado se
opõe a independência do país:
“O Scottish Social Attitudes fez um estudo identificando uma
forte correlação entre o apoio à independência e a classe social. 40% das
famílias que ganham sob £ 14.300 são propensas a votar sim, enquanto os
escoceses ricos são decididamente hostis, e 72% dos líderes empresariais são
hostis à independência.” [ 9 ]..
Mas se restasse alguma dúvida do quão pode ser progressiva,
a independência da Escócia em relação ao Reino Unido, para os povos oprimidos
do planeta, o ex-secretário da OTAN e secretário de Defesa entre 1997 e 199,
durante o governo trabalhista de Tony Blair, Lord (George) Robertson tratou de
dissipar:
 |
| Uma exigência ao Partido Nacional Escocês/SNP: "SNP, nós queremos a Escócia livre da OTAN |
 |
| Torcedores do Celtic levam cartazes e faixas com os líderes da luta pela libertação nacional na Irlanda e na Escócia, Bob Sands e William Wallace, respectivamente |
Mesmo que de forma oportunista, o Partido Nacional Escocês
tenha recuado para concordar com uma adesão da Escócia a OTAN, a fim de ganhar
os votos dos setores de direita da nação, Lord Robertson, trata de esclarecer
que isso não passa de uma manobra não funcional ao imperialismo
“Lord Robertson também sugeriu postura pró-Nato de Alex Salmond foi uma ‘retificação eleitoral’, em contradição com a oposição do SNP às armas nucleares. Ele disse que os 28 membros da OTAN não permitirão que um país deseje se juntar a aliança ao mesmo tempo em que proíba a entrada em suas águas de navios da OTAN que transporte armas nucleares, como defende atualmente o SNP.” (idem).
“Lord Robertson também sugeriu postura pró-Nato de Alex Salmond foi uma ‘retificação eleitoral’, em contradição com a oposição do SNP às armas nucleares. Ele disse que os 28 membros da OTAN não permitirão que um país deseje se juntar a aliança ao mesmo tempo em que proíba a entrada em suas águas de navios da OTAN que transporte armas nucleares, como defende atualmente o SNP.” (idem).
Os revolucionários se delimitam do nacionalismo escocês que
busca a separação do Reino Unido para integrar-se aos Estados imperialistas
continentais da Europa, sob o slogan “independencia dentro da Europa”, mas,
simultaneamente acredita que é dever de todo bolchevique lutar pela
independência da Escócia.
Mas em tudo isso há um porém:
“Se a Escócia se junta a UE como um membro independente, ele estará sujeito às severas metas de austeridade fiscal agora a ser impostas aos gostos de Grécia, Portugal, Espanha e outros pela UE ao abrigo seus pactos fiscais.” [ 11 ].
Neste caso, a Escócia saltaria da forca, o Reino Unido, para a guilhotina, a UE, e o SNP pode não chegar a cumprir o que está prometendo para a UE, assim como o burguês oligarca Yanokovich declinou, na última hora, de assinar os acordos com a UE, o que gerou todo o conflito atual na Ucrânia.
“Se a Escócia se junta a UE como um membro independente, ele estará sujeito às severas metas de austeridade fiscal agora a ser impostas aos gostos de Grécia, Portugal, Espanha e outros pela UE ao abrigo seus pactos fiscais.” [ 11 ].
Neste caso, a Escócia saltaria da forca, o Reino Unido, para a guilhotina, a UE, e o SNP pode não chegar a cumprir o que está prometendo para a UE, assim como o burguês oligarca Yanokovich declinou, na última hora, de assinar os acordos com a UE, o que gerou todo o conflito atual na Ucrânia.
Hoje, o mais firme defensor da independência escocesa, o
proletariado escocês, deve preparar-se para a luta que se avizinha. Deve fazer
de sua causa, a causa do proletariado internacional e dos povos oprimidos de
todo o mundo.
Uma Escócia capitalista independente seguirá explorando os
trabalhadores em favor da concentração de capitais e dos meios de produção. “O
SNP tem como concepção de uma Escócia independente aquela em que os bancos e as
grandes empresas continuam a acumular lucros e capital; e onde a propriedade da
terra é a mais concentrado nos países desenvolvidos (metade das terras da
Escócia é de propriedade de apenas 500 pessoas). ‘Estamos agora com seis anos
em um governo SNP que não fez absolutamente nada legislativamente sobre o mais
concentrado, mais desigual, mais sistema não reformado e mais antidemocrático
propriedade da terra em todo o mundo desenvolvido’, Jim Hunter, Land Reform Review
Group.” [ 12 ].
Lutamos para que o voto pelo “SIM” pela independência
escocesa, que faz parte de um programa democrático e nacional, seja combinado
com reivindicações de um programa transitório que transformem esta luta, em uma
luta antiimperialista, socialista e revolucionária.
> Pela autodeterminação nacional da Escócia!
> Pelo fim da monarquia britânica!
> Nacionalização com controle operário dos recursos
energéticos da Escócia!
> Pela revolução agrária e por um banco único estatal
contralado pelos bancários e usuários!
> Nenhuma confiança no nacionalismo escocês, que sob o
slogan “independência dentro da Europa” busca integrar a Escócia a União
Europeia e flerta com o imperialismo estadunidenese!
> Pela federação socialista das ilhas britânicas, como
parte da unidade proletária e socialista da Europa!
Liga Comunista
Tendencia Militante Bolchevique
Notas
1. http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esc%C3%B3cia
2. http://actualidad.rt.com/ultima_hora/view/139529-reina-isabel-susto-sondeos-escocia-independencia
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/noticias/2014/08/140807_artistas_referendo_reino_unido_kb.shtml
4. http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/scotland-yes-or-no/
5. http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/scotland-yes-or-no/
6. http://www.elcorreo.com/bizkaia/internacional/201408/24/imposible-batalla-contra-crono-20140822171301-rc.html
7. https://www.marxists.org/portugues/lenin/1914/auto/cap03.htm#i6 -
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch06.htm
8. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independentismo_escoc%C3%A9s
=============================================================
9. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/23/scotland-labour-traditions-yes-vote-independence
10. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10751728/Scottish-independence-would-be-cataclysmic-for-the-world-ex-Nato-head-warns.html
11. http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/scotland-yes-or-no/
12. http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/scotland-yes-or-no/
=============================================================
Vote NO
Socialist Fight statement on the Scottish referendum on 18 September:
8 September
2014
Lenin,
Critical Remarks on the National Question:
“The demand
for a “yes” or “no” reply to the question of secession in the case of every
nation may seem a very “practical” one. In reality it is absurd; it is
metaphysical in theory, while in practice it leads to subordinating the
proletariat to the bourgeoisie’s policy. The bourgeoisie always places its
national demands in the forefront, and does so in categorical fashion. With the
proletariat, however, these demands are subordinated to the interests of the
class struggle. Theoretically, you cannot say in advance whether the
bourgeois-democratic revolution will end in a given nation seceding from
another nation, or in its equality with the latter; in either case, the
important thing for the proletariat is to ensure the development of its class.
For the bourgeoisie it is important to hamper this development by pushing the
aims of its “own” nation before those of the proletariat. That is why the
proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for
recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving guarantees to
any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another
nation… Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the
oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone else, in
favour, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of
oppression. But insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for
its own bourgeois nationalism, we stand against. We fight against the
privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way condone
strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation.” [1]
In the
light of the Lenin quote we must pose and answer certain questions to decide on
a “yes” or “no” vote.
Is Scotland
a nation? We say yes.
Is Scotland
an oppressed nation? We say no, it is an imperialist nation.
Does it
have the right to self-determination? We say yes but we are opposed to it
exercising that right.
Is
separation in the interests of the Scottish, British or international working
class? We say no.
What is
driving modern national separation movements in Imperialist countries?
Since the
defeat of Argentina in the Malvinas war of 1982, the defeat of the US air
traffic controllers and the breakup of their union (PATCO) by Ronald Regan (in
1982 also), the defeat of the miners’ strike in Britain in 1985 the neo-liberal
agenda of global finance capital has been in the ascendant. This offensive
resulted in the overthrow of Eastern Europe, Russia and China as degenerate and
deformed workers’ states in 1989-92. Following on from that the breakup of
Yugoslavia from 1990 (the dissolution of the Yugoslav Communist Party) it has
been increasingly the case that Imperialists have sponsored the break-up of
states in the semi-colonial world in order to bring the smaller states that
emerge closer and more firmly into the obit of global finance capital; Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, other former USSR republics, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia,
Serbia, Montenegro etc. In all these cases the IMF and World Bank have forced
privatisations, sell off of state assets, wage cuts, destruction of health
care, education and pensions for the elderly. The wolves of the global
transnationals hoover up the wealth generated from all this plunder.
In the
Yugoslav breakup and in some others the method was to appeal to the national
bourgeoisie of the more prosperous republics to cut loose from subsidising the
poorest republics and form direct relations with imperialism, to the extreme detriment
of the working class in these countries – life expectancy almost always fell
dramatically as a consequence of these “liberations” – the former USSR and
Yugoslavia are extreme examples. Tibet and the Uyghurs who live in the Xinjiang
Uyghur Autonomous Region of China are prime targets for the CIA intervention to
break up China.
As a
consequence the national question began to re-emerge in Imperialist nations
themselves, as the advance of neo-liberal ideology encouraged the local
bourgeois in regions of states that were historic nations to seek direct
relations with imperialism, largely but not exclusively with US imperialism and
its transnationals. The foremost regions that have begun to press fresh demands
for self-determination are Catalonia in Spain and The Basque Country in Spain
and France, the Veneto (Venetian) region of northern Italy the Flemish region
of Belgium and Scotland. The motivation of the bourgeoisie who lead all these
movements is the same, to enrich themselves by establishing closer relations
with Imperialist finance capital, to increase the super-exploitation of their
own working class and to cease to subsidise the poorer regions.
The four on
the European continent are obviously motivated by bourgeois contempt for the
poor of the southern Mezzogiorno and of Andalusia and Extremadura and rest of
Belgium which is poorer in general. The Scottish referendum is fought out on
“what’s best for Scotland”, extolling the virtues of North Sea oil and
Scotland’s relationship with Wall Street. Salmond has floundered from one
“national vision” policy to another. Before the 2008 crisis, it was that
Scotland was going to be part of a “Ring of Prosperity” on the NW of Europe
that included Norway, Iceland and Ireland. You don’t hear much of that notion
now except from his opponents. However the Flemish and Italian movement are led
by far right forces in distinction to the Spanish and Scottish movement which
do represent historic nations and are led by centre right and even more liberal
bourgeois forces. The militant Scottish working class of the mid 1980s would
not have accepted this at all and no substantial or even small far left group
in Britain, the WRP, the SWP or Militant advocated it at that time.
When the
first rumblings of the RBS crisis were heard, Salmond dismissed the rumours as
the activities of “a few spivs and speculators”. He was perhaps the last person
standing to grasp that Scotland’s banks were imploding and does not admit even
now that Scotland would have been bankrupt if they had not been bailed out by
Westminster, i.e. English taxpayers in the main. (It later emerged out that.
See e.g. London Review of Books:
That the
primary cause of this disaster, in the UK’s case, was the total recklessness of
the two main Scottish banks, RBS and HBOS, is an inconvenient truth that we
could never expect the current SNP leader to confront, especially as he was
previously employed as an economist by one of those now zombified institutions.
Even more inconveniently for Alex Salmond, the twin pillars of the once proud
Scottish banking sector are now being propped up by the British state (i.e.
largely English taxpayers). Salmond’s response to this economic earthquake has
been to blame a pair of Anglo-Scottish traitors, Gordon Brown and Alistair
Darling, for failing to regulate the financial sector properly. This skates
over the most inconvenient truth of all for the SNP: up until the crash
occurred, Salmond was calling for even lighter financial regulation than that
imposed by New Labour. In an interview with the Times on 7 April 2007, he
stated: ‘We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish
financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity.’ The reality is
that Salmond was the king of the ‘spivs and speculators’ he has been denouncing
of late and, were they living in Salmondistan rather than Broonland today, his
compatriots would be in even direr straits than the citizens of Iceland or
Greece. [2]
The next
“vision” was that Scotland would be part of the European dream as it would get
automatic membership of the EU. Challenged, Salmond said he had taken robust
legal advice on the issue. It turned out that was a bare-faced lie to the
Hollyrood Parliament which he got away with only because the Labourites didn’t
press the advantage. He not only hadn’t taken advice, no-one had even properly
researched the issue. The EU issued a flurry of statements to the effect that
Scotland would have to apply in the same manner as any other state and that
membership wouldn’t be granted in a hurry. The pertinent Member State is the
UK, of which Scotland is a region. If Scotland leaves the UK, it obviously
ceases to be a part of a Member State. It was at that point that the Spanish
government said (for Catalonically obvious reasons) that it would be minded to
veto any Scottish application.
The
entitlement and privilege which have driven this way of life in Scotland have
been built on a system that has survived almost intact since the Scottish
Reformation in 1560. The lands which bear these hunting estates belong to the
most exclusive cadre of landowners in the developed world. More than half of
Scotland is owned by fewer than 500 people. According to the academic and land
reformer, Jim Hunter, this equates to “the most concentrated pattern of land
ownership in the developed world”.
Scotland is
a minor Imperialist Nation unlike Ireland
Lenin wrote
in 1913:
“Marxists
are, of course, opposed to federation and decentralisation, for the simple
reason that capitalism requires for its development the largest and most
centralised possible states. Other conditions being equal, the class-conscious
proletariat will always stand for the larger state. It will always fight
against medieval particularism, and will always welcome the closest possible
economic amalgamation of large territories in which the proletariat’s struggle
against the bourgeoisie can develop on a broad basis.
Capitalism’s
broad and rapid development of the productive forces calls for large,
politically compact and united territories, since only here can the bourgeois
class—together with its inevitable antipode, the proletarian class—unite and
sweep away all the old, medieval, caste, parochial, petty-national, religious
and other barriers.
The right
of nations to self-determination, i. e., the right to secede and form
independent national states, will be dealt with elsewhere. But while, and
insofar as, different nations constitute a single state, Marxists will never,
under any circumstances, advocate either the federal principle or
decentralisation. The great centralised state is a tremendous historical step
forward from medieval disunity to the future socialist unity of the whole
world, and only via such a state (inseparably connected with capitalism), can
there be any road to socialism.” [3]
As this
quote has often been used by the Socialist Party CWI and others to oppose the
legitimate rights of oppressed nations to self-determination it first behoves
us to show that Scotland is an Imperialist nation, now in alliance with English
and Welsh imperialism in the British state. If Scotland secured independence it
would be a minor Imperialist state, like Belgium or Holland. Comparisons with
Ireland, which is an oppressed nation and whose six north eastern counties are
still a colony of British imperialism, are invalid. Let us see the historical
difference:
“The
Protestant Ascendancy: 18th century
The Protestants
of Ireland, triumphant in the aftermath of the battle of the Boyne (1690), soon
take steps to procure lasting advantages over their Catholic enemies… Meanwhile
penal laws severely restrict Catholic liberties in other fields. It becomes
illegal for a Catholic to sit in the Dublin parliament, to hold public office,
to keep a school, even to own a decent horse (one worth more than £5).
In spite of
the advantages thus secured for Ireland’s Protestants, they too find cause for
resentment during the 18th century. Increasingly the Protestant Ascendancy
means the ascendancy of English Protestants. The best posts, in church or
government, are given to newcomers from the other side of the Irish Sea. Irish
commerce suffers harmful tariffs and restrictions. Scotland, now in political
union with England, enjoys free trade; by contrast the Irish market is
controlled from Westminster (which forbids, for example, the export of Irish
wool).
The Irish
find much to sympathize with in the complaints of the American colonies. Irish
demands become vociferous in the years after the American Revolution.” [4]
Taking
advantage of this international upsurge of bourgeois revolution which
culminated in the French Revolution (1889-94) in Ireland Grattan’s Parliament
gained a large measure of independence. Its sway lasted from 1782 to 1800 (“I
sat by its cradle and followed its hearse” said Grattan, mourning its passing,
in 1801) and it exercised relative economic independence, the only such period
Ireland experienced between Poynings’ Act of 1495 and 1922. Ireland’s great
bourgeois revolution was crushed with utmost barbarism by Britain in 1798.
Scotland’s story was entirely different; she had her successful bourgeois
revolution in the 1640s contemporaneously with England and Wales but
nonetheless significantly separately and different to establish her as a nation
in her own right. She now enjoyed free trade, Wiki:
“(Scotland
enjoyed) seven centuries as an independent state and following Union with
England, three centuries as a country of the United Kingdom… After 1800 the
economy took off, and industrialized rapidly, with textile, coal, iron,
railroads, and most famously shipbuilding and banking. Glasgow was the centre
of the Scottish economy… The economy, long based on agriculture, began to
industrialize after 1790. At first the leading industry, based in the west, was
the spinning and weaving of cotton. In 1861 the American Civil War suddenly cut
off the supplies of raw cotton and the industry never recovered. Thanks to its
many entrepreneurs and engineers, and its large stock of easily mined coal,
Scotland became a world centre for engineering, shipbuilding, and locomotive
construction, with steel replacing iron after 1870.” [5]
Or as a
friend on Facebook summed it up more succinctly:
“Though
Scotland’s first attempt to join the slave economies (the Darien Disaster) was
a spectacular flop, it was a bulwark of the British imperial dream from at
least the mid-eighteenth century when Glasgow’s so-called “Tobacco Lords” began
to acquire their fabulous wealth. That wealth was of course based on that
cheerful little threesome, drug trading, smuggling and slavery. As the
industrial revolution got under way, the Scottish bourgeoisie continued to back
the imperial venture to the hilt, basing its manufacturing wealth on the lure
of captive markets on the one hand and the intense exploitation of the local
working class on the other.”
This is the
political and economic story of an Imperialist nation, participating in the
Empire as a full partner. Ireland, on the other, hand, rapidly deteriorated
economically after its forced union with Britain in 1801 to its low point, the
Great Famine of 1845-48 which saw 2 million disappear from its census of 1841,
half dead and half emigrated. Dublin was the second city of the Empire in 1801
but by the 1913 General Strike/Lockout the poverty and appalling housing
conditions of its workers, its life expectancy and its child mortality rates
were unparalleled in Europe on a par with Calcutta. From a population of 8.5
million in 1841 Ireland as a whole declined to approximately 4.5 in the 20th
century and began to climb again in the 60s to its present level of 6.4
million.
Despite the
efforts of Irish nationalists to excuse the Scottish and Welsh components of the
Empire for its crimes in Ireland in the “Troubles” of 1918-21 by constantly
referring to Britain as “England” or “Perfidious Albion” the King’s Own
Scottish Borderers were identified by IRA leaders as particularly brutal. In
July 1914 it was the Borderers’ Regiment that carried out the Bachelors Walk
massacre in Dublin following the Howth Gunrunning, still commemorated to this
day. In west Cork as recorded by Tom Barry in Guerrilla Days in Ireland there
was no quarter asked or given; together with the Essex and the Auxiliaries the
order was kill on sight, the IRA man was lucky if he was killed and not
captured by these. The IRA allowed other regiments to surrender; they were
disarmed and allowed to return to barracks. The Borderers were no less vicious
in the latest “Troubles” from 1968-98 in the north of Ireland. [6]
The two origins of the modern SNP: Scottish
Unionist and left nationalist; truly “tartan Tories”.
It is a
contradictory but very revealing fact that the political origins of the SNP are
in the Scottish Unionist tradition which had successfully appealed to working
class protestant voters in the main that defence of Empire was defence of
industrial jobs in the West of Scotland in particular. It took a left, social
democratic turn from 1973 to 1982, from the election of Margo MacDonald to the
expulsion of the Socialist 79 Group, which counted Alex Salmond as a member.
Salmond has been shifting the party rightwards back to its Tory roots since
becoming leader in 1990. Most remaining left members departed to join Tommy
Sheridan’s ill-fated Scottish Socialist party in 1998.
Not for
nothing were the SNP dubbed the “Tartan Tories”, only now the SNP looks slightly
more to the US imperialism than to British Imperialism. The Scottish Unionist
Party was a wing of the Conservative party until 1965, like the Ulster
Unionists until 1973. It was the main centre right political party in Scotland
between 1912 and 1965, when the Conservatives began standing in their own name.
It won between 25 and 42 percent of the votes for the Conservative
establishment in those years. As the Wikipedia article explains:
“Popular
imperial unity was the central thread of the Scottish Unionist Party’s belief
system. While it was the prospect of Irish Home Rule that set the circumstances
for the party’s creation, it was not the principle of autonomy they opposed,
but the belief that Irish independence would lead to the break-up of the British
Empire. This was demonstrated by their acceptance and support of Dominion
status for colonies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Newfoundland.
This seam in the Scottish Unionist Party’s belief system was demonstrated when
members of the party left to establish the Scottish Party, which eventually
merged with the National Party of Scotland to form the Scottish National
Party.” [7]
Scottish
millionaire and founder of the giant Stagecoach transport group Brian Souter
has been a long time supporter of the SNP. In 2000, when the Scottish Executive
were planning to abolish the homophobic Section 28 laws introduced by Margaret
Thatcher in 1988, which forbade local authorities from “intentionally promoting
homosexuality”, Souter led the openly homophobic Keep the Clause campaign. Alex
Salmond was criticised for “pandering to homophobia” in 2007 when he accepted
£500,000 from Souter. He denied any link but then the party opposed the right
for gay couples to be given equal treatment by Catholic adoption agencies.
Salmond thanked Souter for his support, calling him “one of the outstanding
entrepreneurs of his generation”. In April 2007 the SNP dropped its commitment
to re-regulate the bus network which they had made at the previous year’s
conference. Salmond implausibly denied the £500,000 donation had any link with
this decision. Again in 2011 Souter gave financial support for the SNP of up to
£500,000. He obviously expects more paybacks.
How does
the Scottish and English/Welsh working class see the referendum?
But it is
not just an economic question but how this economic reality is understood by
the mass of the working class that is important for Marxists. This is how Lenin
judges the matter in the quote at the beginning of the piece. We must severely
differentiate ourselves from the bourgeois nationalist Alex Salmond. Salmond
dictates the political content of the “yes” referendum campaign with the likes
of former Scottish Socialist Party leader Tommy Sheridan dancing to his tune to
the extent that WSWS writers Steve James and Jordan Shilton on 5 July 2014
speculated, somewhat fancifully, that he may be about to join the SNP.
“At a
recent meeting in East Kilbride, Sheridan began his speech with a reference to
Mel Gibson’s ludicrous and ahistorical Braveheart, declaring that the
referendum was about “Freedom.” Tyranny “comes in many forms,” he said, noting
that “since 1951 Scotland has had to endure 35 years of Tory government that we
never voted for”—something that could be said for many other regions of the UK
and about most British workers.
In one
speech posted on the Internet, Sheridan complained bitterly that Scotland had
been paying more to the UK for the past 32 years than it had been getting back.
This showed that people in Scotland were not beggars, “but self-sufficient.”
In a
newspaper interview Sheridan was more explicit, declaring, “We’re constantly
told how Scotland is stronger and better together as part of the United
Kingdom. But if you look at Scotland’s resources, our potential, our talent and
what we have achieved as a nation, there is absolutely no argument that can
convincingly say Scotland is better off not being an independent country.”… his
is an argument routinely employed by Italy’s Liga Nord or Belgium’s Vlams
Belang. These right wing separatist parties complain that they are subsidising
poorer regions of the country and should be free to enjoy their own
prosperity.” [8]
As Sandy
McBurney observed against ex SWP member (now RS21) Neil Davidson in his Weekly
Worker interview:
“Alex Salmond
might have been against the war on Iraq, but he supported the invasion and
occupation of Afghanistan and the bombing of Libya. He’s a great friend of
American imperialism and the dominant role of the USA in world politics. The
SNP have always made a big fuss about supporting Scottish regiments in the
British army. They might want to get rid of Trident, but they want to remain in
Nato [9] and have proposed a policy of ‘don’t ask and don’t tell’ in respect of
the presence of nuclear-armed Nato ships in Scottish waters. The idea that an
independent Scotland would be anti-imperialist is just ridiculous.
…The whole
process of splitting our forces into two different countries will seriously
weaken the solidarity that exists. It is already happening. It is quite common
now for socialists not to support the founding of a Britain-wide socialist
party – instead they advocate a separate party for Scotland with its own
separate programme. They reject the prospect and perspective of a government in
Britain controlled by the working class.
Davidson
also underestimates the real danger that a ‘yes’ vote could lead to an increase
in nationalism on both sides of the border due to disputes on the exact terms
of the ‘divorce’. If the SNP win the referendum they propose an optimistic
timetable of 18 months of negotiation with Westminster leading up to actual
independence in March 2016. This process could get very messy, with chauvinists
on both sides of the border stirring up nationalist resentment in respect of
the division of assets and liabilities. In such a situation politics on both
sides of the border could move sharply to the right and independence would
weaken the only social force that is capable of defeating imperialism: the
working class. In this context we could see what is left of the UK becoming
even more aggressively militaristic after independence than Britain currently
is.
But capital
is organised at the level of the state and by splitting up our forces many on
the left are effectively giving up this fight against capitalism as a system. I
really cannot see how you can take on internationally organised capital by
dividing our forces into ever smaller entities. Why help build a new national
prison for the working class? The fact that this increase in nationalism is
visible not just in Britain, but also in many other countries, shows that the
traditional reformist left is continuing to disintegrate and degenerate. We
need an international Marxist alternative to the old politics that still
dominate the workers’ movement.” [10]
We must stress
that there is no serious Republican campaign for a yes vote of any size or
principle, no suggestion that the Queen is to be replaced. As John Wight points
out in his blog:
“The
contents of the SNP/Yes campaign’s white paper, to date the only prospectus for
independence that exists, make this inarguable, confirming that the SNP does
not constitute a departure from the status quo but rather stands for its
continuation under a different flag. Despite its historic importance, never has
such a divisive political campaign been fought on such narrow political
terrain. Consider the evidence. If the result is No in September it will mean
that the existing head of state — the monarchy — will remain the head of state,
while if the result is yes the existing head of state — the same monarchy —
will become the new head of state.” [11]
The issue
of the Scottish currency after a “yes” vote contains all the problems of
Scottish Independence. The SNP seems never to have given serious thought as to
what currency Scotland might use, a fact brought out by Alistair Darling in the
first Television debate. Nobody seems to have consulted anybody, or discussed
with civil servants or the Bank of England and the like. Both sides are coy on
the fact that, as a new EU member (always assuming that the Spanish don’t veto
membership), Scotland would in the midterm be softened up for euro membership.
This would have immediate effects on public ownership in Scotland. It is
reasonable to assume that ScottishWater would be quickly sold off and that the
remaining publicly owned transport would be put out to tender. The viability of
Prestwick Airport, taken over by the state in November 2013, would be at risk
of closure because it lacks proper transport links to Glasgow.
http://i3.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article1750427.ece/alternates/s615/Finance-minister-John-Swinney-watches-Scottish-First-Minister-Alex-Salmond-during-First-Ministers-Questions.jpg
Finance minister John Swinney and Scottish
First Minister Alex Salmond during First Minister’s Questions
Finance
Minister John Swinney promises that the new government would borrow to fund
welfare payments but from where? Salmond says that they will repudiate
Scotland’s share of the UK’s debt if Scotland cannot use Sterling but that
would mean a default which would destroy its financial standing in the world
markets. They would have to pay prohibitive rates for any borrowing as the
southern European countries and Ireland had to a few years ago. Swinney has no
intention of borrowing to fund welfare payments and almost certainly couldn’t
even if he had. It’s only cheap propaganda designed to fool the poor;
disgracefully the middle class of press and politics connives in the deceit.
Sterling is
the British currency. The government of capitalist Britain is not obliged to
put its resources at risk simply to humour capitalist Scotland. The choice
seems to be between Sterling (making “independence” a sham as Scotland would
inevitably have to bow to Bank of England rules) or the euro. The latter would make
Sterling seem like very Heaven itself. The viability of a Scottish currency is
too much of an unknown to take seriously. In short, the one question few on the
left seem willing to ask is “Is an independent, capitalist Scotland
economically viable?”. If there is doubt on that score, what might be the
consequences for society as a whole, let alone the working class?
Is or is
not Scotland a post-industrial country? To ask that question is to answer it.
Does it have a viable financial sector? The collapse of its two major banks,
the HBOS and the taking of RBS, into British ownership (its management has
already said it will move south in the event of a “yes” vote) suggest that
there are serious issues there. So there is little industry and only little
banks. There are lots of lawyers, though.
Lastly on
this there it is very light minded to take a “yes” position because the British
capitalist establishment take a “no” position. You must make a concrete
analysis in each case. Trotsky opposed the separation of Catalonia from Spain,
so did the Spanish bourgeoisie and the dictator Francisco Franco. [12]
This is
part of Trotsky’s message on Spain in 1931:
Once more
on the subject of the timely questions of the Spanish revolution.
1) …To permit petty-bourgeois nationalism to
disguise itself under the banner of Communism means, at the same time, to
deliver a treacherous blow to the proletarian vanguard and to destroy the
progressive significance of petty- bourgeois nationalism.
2) What
does the program of separatism mean? – the economic and political dismemberment
of Spain, or in other words, the transformation of the Iberian Peninsula into a
sort of Balkan Peninsula, with independent states divided by customs barriers,
and with independent armies conducting independent Hispanic wars. Of course,
the sage Maurín will say that he does not want this. But programs have their
own logic, something Maurín doesn’t have.
3) Are the
workers and peasants of the various parties of Spain interested in the economic
dismemberment of Spain? Not at all. That is why to identify the decisive
struggle for the right to self-determination with propaganda for separatism
means to accomplish a fatal task. Our program is for Hispanic federation with
the indispensable maintenance of economic unity. We have no intention of
imposing this program upon the oppressed nationalities of Spain with the aid of
the arms of the bourgeoisie. In this sense, we are sincerely for the right to
self-determination. If Catalonia separates, the Communist minority of
Catalonia, as well as of Spain, will have to conduct a struggle for federation.
4) In the
Balkans, the old pre-war Social Democracy already put forward the slogan of the
democratic Balkan federation as the way out of the madhouse created by the
separated states. Today, the Communist slogan in the Balkans is the Balkan
Soviet Federation (by the way, the Comintern adopted the slogan of the Balkan
Soviet Federation, but at the same time it rejected this slogan for Europe!).
How can we, under these conditions, adopt the slogan of the Balkanization of
the Spanish peninsula? Isn’t it monstrous? [13]
Trotsky’
Learn to Think makes this point against my enemy’s enemy argument:
“Let us
assume that rebellion breaks out tomorrow in the French colony of Algeria under
the banner of national independence and that the Italian government, motivated
by its own imperialist interests, prepares to send weapons to the rebels. What
should the attitude of the Italian workers be in this case? I have purposely
taken an example of rebellion against a democratic imperialism with
intervention on the side of the rebels from a fascist imperialism. Should the
Italian workers prevent the shipping of arms to the Algerians? Let any
ultra-leftists dare answer this question in the affirmative. Every
revolutionist, together with the Italian workers and the rebellious Algerians,
would spurn such an answer with indignation. Even if a general maritime strike
broke out in fascist Italy at the same time, even in this case the strikers
should make an exception in favour of those ships carrying aid to the colonial
slaves in revolt; otherwise they would be no more than wretched trade unionists
– not proletarian revolutionists.” [14]
In the
event of a “yes” vote we would argue for a Socialist Federation of Britain and
a Socialist United Ireland.
The History
of the Scottish Vanguard of the British Working Class
The first
great working class movement was the Chartist in Britain (1838-48) and the
Scottish working class was in its forefront. True many of the foremost leaders
like Fergus O’Connor and Bronterre O’Brien were Irish but it had little effect
in Ireland although the Irish workers in Britain participated as part of the
British working class:
“The
depression of 1842 led to a wave of strikes, as workers responded to the wage
cuts imposed by employers. Calls for the implementation of the Charter were
soon included alongside demands for the restoration of wages to previous
levels. Working people went on strike in 14 English and 8 Scottish counties,
principally in the Midlands, Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire, and the
Strathclyde region of Scotland. Typically strikers resolved to cease work until
wages were increased ‘until the People’s charter becomes the Law of the Land’.”
Scotland
participated in the forefront of the Great Unrest from 1911-1914; one of its
most important actions was the strike of 11,000 women workers at the Singer
Sewing Machine factory in Clydebank in 1911. This laid the basis for the Red
Clydeside movement and rise of syndicalist trade union militancy post war up to
the 1930s. The whole greater Glasgow area, along the banks of the Clyde from
Clydebank to Greenock, Paisley and other towns participated. This is a very
important part of the history of the whole British working class. In contrast
the Great Dublin Lockout and General Strike of 1913 was betrayed by the British
TUC and the left syndicalist Benn Tillett in particular on a
defence-of-the-Empire basis, making the bloody fight for Irish self-determination
in 1916 and after inevitably. [15]
Trust was
lost between the Irish working class represented by its organisations and the
British labour movement, whose leaders had put defence of the Empire before
working class solidarity. That solidarity could now only be established through
separation and on the grounds of full national sovereignty, which makes
equality its first premise. British trade union problems between Scotland and
England/Wales never acquired that character, because that was not the objective
situation. Scotland’s bourgeoisie were not a “semi-oppressed, semi-oppressing
class” as Trotsky described the colonial and semi-colonial bourgeoisie; they
were and are an Imperialist bourgeoisie.
The history
of the Scottish working class since has been as the leaders of the whole
British working class. They fought in the general strike of 1926, in the great
industrial battles of the early 70s that brought down the Heath Government in
1974 and in the great miners’ strike of 1984-5. The specifically Scottish trade
unions have all but disappeared. National strikes are always fought on a
British basis and the Scottish working class has long been the vanguard of the
British working-class.
Scottish
nationalism first got its toe-hold in the Scottish working class as a
consequence of the Upper Clyde Shipyard’s dispute (1971-2) where Jimmy Reid’s
work-in abandoned the national (let alone international) solidarity of labour
in favour of a defence of capitalism in Scotland. Betrayals by a right-moving
Scottish Labour party [16] and a bogus left turn based on the economic
nationalism of the aristocracy of labour championed by the Communist Party via
Jimmy Reid got its reflection in the SNP’s reactionary “It’s Scotland’s oil”
campaign. This won 7 seats in the first and 11 in the second general election
in 1974 for the SNP. This 30.4% was their highest ever vote in a Westminster
election; the next highest was 19.9% in the 2010 election.
Significantly
all the forces that now advocate a “yes” vote supported this fundamental
betrayal by Reid who afterwards became a scab opponent of the miners’ strike of
1984-5 on behalf of the Scottish and British capitalist class. Genuine
Trotskyist like Socialist Fight assessed him far differently in our article on
of the outcome of the Grangemouth dispute:
“What was
wrong with Jimmy’s Reid’s UCS work-in?
The
Socialist Appeal, the Socialist party and the SWP put forward Jimmy Reid as the
model trade union leader. Rob Sewell says, “The example of UCS in 1971, where
the workers organised a “work-in”, became a cause celebre and an inspiration to
all those workers fighting closures and attacks”. The Socialist Party and the
Socialist Workers Party similarly point to this work-in as the way to go. That
work-in was, in fact, a political defence of capitalism as was analysed in SF
No 5, Jimmy Reid: “It cannae be Lenin — he’s deid”. [17] Reid accepted the
Rectorship of the Caledonian University of Glasgow in the famous 1972 Rat Race
speech. The New York Times printed the speech in full and described it as “the
greatest speech since President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address”.
“Reject the
values and false morality that underlie these attitudes. A rat race is for
rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings. Reject the insidious pressures in
society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening
around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you
jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement. This is how it
starts and before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid-up member of the
rat-pack. The price is too high. It entails the loss of your dignity and human
spirit. Or as Christ put it, “What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole
world and suffer the loss of his soul?”
As Tony Fox
commented on this:
“His
message to the Presbyterian students of Glasgow Caledonian University, worried
by a radicalising working class, was the rat-race can be overcome by cleansing
our souls of greed and evil and he will then guarantee their privileges against
the threat of socialist revolution. This is why Reid’s moral humbuggery went
down so well with the capitalist establishment and its defenders. It had its
origins in the crashing banalities of Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount,
delivered (or later invented to gut the message of the messianic Essenes,
Christ’s sect, of all oppositional, egalitarian content) to protect the Roman
Empire against the impending Great Jewish Revolt led by the revolutionary
Zealots (66-70 AD). Its function was to ward off threats of revolution
articulated in the main in those days, if not seriously practiced, by the
Trotskyist zealots of Gerry Healy’s SLL”.
The article
finished with the following observation:
“Lastly we
will sum up by examining the remark of the ship yard worker who misheard John
Lennon’s name when it was announced that he had given a £5,000 cheque to the
work-in and said “It cannae be Lenin — he’s deid”. That worker clearly knew who
Lenin was, he knew his spirit would be on his side in the class struggle and he
had discussed Lenin with fellow workers, no doubt as a result of attending or
taking to those who had attended CPGB meetings.
Lenin was
indeed ‘deid’ for the CPGB even if they still used his name, with a history of
some forty years of class betrayal behind them by then and he is clearly ‘deid’
for those leaders without enough class consciousness to recognise what was
wrong with what Jimmy Reid did and said back in 1971-2. But we are confident
there are enough who still understand the revolutionary heritage of Lenin and
Trotsky to forge a genuine Leninist-Trotskyist revolutionary party by learning
those lessons today”.” [18]
We
concluded our article on the betrayal of the Grangemouth workers and the Royal
Mail postal workers by Len McCluskey of Unite and Billy Hayes of the
Communication Workers Union by a rejection of economic nationalism and that is
a fitting conclusion to this article too:
“Clearly
far more concessions will need to be made at Grangemouth to protect “British”
jobs and, once the full capacity of the “new wave of giant refineries in Asia
and the Middle East” come on stream in 2017 the plant will probably close
anyway. Bob Crow’s economic nationalism and Europhobia is a pressing threat to
the entire working class movements and those who are revolutionary
internationalists must conduct a sharp political struggle against it. McCluskey
at Grangemouth and Billy Hayes at the Royal Mail in conjunction with Ed
Miliband have struck a treacherous blow at the only force that can solve this
crisis; the organised strength of the international working class led by a
reforged Fourth International. As Trotskyists we do not therefore collapse
before this global crisis but turn towards that class with renewed and urgent
struggles to build that leadership that will take forward the struggle to build
the rank and file Grass Roots movement in Unite and every other union to oust
this treacherous bureaucracy and replace them with more militant and
revolutionary leaders who will face up to the central task of overturning
capitalist property relations themselves on a global scale.” [19]
Notes
[1] V. I.
Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, February-May 1914
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch04.htm
[2] Letter
by Rob Brown in London Review of Books, May 2010:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n09/letters
[3] V. I.
Lenin, Critical Remarks on the National Question, 1913,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/crnq/6.htm
[4]http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=2925&HistoryID=ac70>rack=pthc#ixzz3C54aMmRA
[5]
Economic history of Scotland – Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Scotland
[6] Green
Left Weekly, British army terrorises Irish town, July 1, 1992,
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/3539
[7]
Unionist Party (Scotland),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionist_Party_%28Scotland%29
[8] Former
Scottish Socialist Party leader promotes nationalism in referendum campaign, By
Steve James and Jordan Shilton, 5 July 2014,
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/07/05/sher-j05.html. This does not mean we
endorse the WSWS/SEP position on self-determination in general which denies
this right, even to oppressed nations like the Tamils in Sri Lanka.
[9] In fact
they changed from anti-NATO to pro-NATO. “No Nukes, No NATO” was a 30 year-old
central plank of SNP policy from its CND leftist past but the defeat of the
Margo MacDonald left wing signified a right turn to the SNP middle-of-the-road
support. Salmond and his deputy John Swinney managed to rail-road through a
change of line at the 2012 party conference leaving much of the rank and file
furious at what they (rightly) saw as a betrayal.
[10]
Interview: Don’t march with nationalists, http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1011/interview-dont-march-with-nationalists/
[11] John
Wight, Scottish Independence Obscures the Real Divide In Society,
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-wight/scottish-independence-obscures-real-divide-_b_5714057.html
[12] Leon
Trotsky, The National Question in Catalonia, (July 1931),
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/07/spain01.htm
[13] Leon
Trotsky: The national question in Catalonia, July 13, 1931:
http://socialistfight.com/2013/04/24/leon-trotsky-the-national-question-in-catalonia/
[14] Leon
Trotsky, Learn To Think, A Friendly Suggestion to Certain Ultra-Leftists, (May
1938), ttp://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm
[15]
Socialist Fight, The North of Ireland and the Socialist Party; “Ben Tillett,
the dockers’ leader who Larkin had considered a fellow supporter, “wielded the
knife that struck the fatal blow”. This final decision not to support the
Dublin workers led to defeat and intimidation with the full weight of the state
used against the ITGWU’s members.” http://socialistfight.com/tag/dublin/
[16]
Scottish Labour holds 37 of 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament, 41 of 59
Scottish seats in the House of Commons and 2 of 6 Scottish seats in the
European Parliament. The SNP currently holds 69 seats in the Scottish
Parliament, 6 of 59 Scottish seats in the House of Commons and 2 of 6 Scottish
seats in the European Parliament.
[17]
Socialist Fight No 5. P. 9 Jimmy Reid: It cannae be Lenin — he’s deid,
http://socialistfight.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/socialist-fight-no-5.pdf
[18]
Socialist Fight: Revolutionary leadership, Grangemouth and the CWU,
http://socialistfight.com/tag/rob-sewell/
[19]Ibid.