This year\u2019s SSP<\/acronym> Conference takes place against the background of an unprecedented crisis for capitalism. Every day it becomes clearer that the problems in the economy are not just confined to the over-inflated world of finance, but are having a major impact on the productive sector, as factories face closure or short-time working. Furthermore, the large drop in government revenues, due to the big decline in economic activity, threatens huge cuts in social expenditure and provision too. Brown and Darling officially concede that we are living in an economic recession. Other analysts and commentators openly talk of a new depression, perhaps even deeper than that of the 1930\u2019s.<\/p>\n Marxists have long talked of the crisis of capitalism, albeit often only amongst themselves. What is new today is that so many economic commentators agree. The difference now lies in their proposed solutions to deal with the current economic situation. For the mainstream economists, in the various corporate funded think-tanks and university economics departments, the debate is confined to what is the best way to get the capitalist system fully up and running again. In other words how can capitalist accumulation and profitability be restored?<\/p>\n What has changed, in the thinking of business executives and politicians, is the sharp decline in their earlier belief that everything could be left to the market. When the global economy was \u2018booming\u2019, millions of workers could have their real wages and social benefits cut, whilst being offered seemingly \u2018limitless\u2019 credit as an alternative. Many more millions of peasants, throughout the world, could be uprooted and forced to seek a \u2018better life\u2019 as transient migrant labourers. However, whenever workers and peasants made any calls for government funding to address their immediate problems, they were brusquely told by neo-liberals that this would only stall the engines of economic growth. Now, in the face of the economic crisis, which threatens the rich and powerful too, recent advocates of neo-liberalism are on the defensive, as they shamefacedly look to governments to bail out their system.<\/p>\n This helps to explain the rapid rise of neo-Keynesianism, with its calls for greater government spending and state regulation of the economy. Keynesianism originally developed in the 1930\u2019s as the ideology of the capitalist system in crisis. It became economic orthodoxy after the experience of the Great Depression and the Second World War. In 1971, the then Republican US<\/acronym> President, Richard Nixon, could say By then, the majority of capitalists were in agreement over the economic mechanisms needed to keep any economic crisis at bay. However, just as an earlier Gold Standard, free market, economic orthodoxy was dealt a fatal blow by the Stock Market Crash of 1929; and just as the recent global corporate, neo-liberalism has faced its nemesis in the 2008 Credit Crunch; so too, capitalist confidence in Keynesian panaceas came to an end in the mid-1970\u2019s.<\/p>\n It had then become obvious that the maintenance of profit rates was incompatible with steadily rising wages and an expanding welfare state. Furthermore, after 1968, workers\u2019 rising expectations led to large numbers taking strike action, and even to some workers occupying their factories, to defend and advance their interests. Squeezed between declining profits and rising class struggle, capitalism was once more under threat.<\/p>\n This is why big business turned to the previously marginalised, \u2018free market\u2019 economists, such as von Hayek and Friedman, to help them overcome their latest problems. These neo-liberals opposed government intervention in the economy and believed that it could be left to \u2018the invisible hand\u2019 of the market. However, it was only with the backing of the very visible hand of the state, that the \u2018full freedoms\u2019 of the market were restored. Thousands of Chilean socialists and workers were killed after Pinochet\u2019s military coup in 1973, whilst in 1980\u2019s UK<\/acronym> and USA<\/acronym>, the Thatcher and Reagan led governments promoted mass unemployment and union-busting offensives to discipline the working class.<\/p>\n The Libertarian Right\u2019s dream of a stateless society under the free market proved to be a utopian illusion built on the false notion that capitalism can thrive best without government interference. The application of neo-liberal policies certainly led to the cutting of government spending in the field of direct social expenditure. However, indirect taxes were increased and spending was diverted to the coercive arms of the state – the armed forces, police and judiciary – to undermine the power of the working class; or given directly to the corporations through military spending and other government contracts.<\/p>\n Imperialist interventions were stepped up once more, particularly in Latin America and the Middle East. Some of these had direct economic intent \u2013 to ensure corporate control over such vital assets as oil; others were demonstrations of raw ruling class power, to remind people just who was boss, and to promote favoured clients in the \u2018Third World\u2019. Even the elimination of the USSR<\/acronym>-led \u2018state socialist\u2019 competition, after 1989, failed to reverse the rise in state expenditure in the West. \u2018Free markets\u2019 now depend on massive and continually increased government intervention and spending.<\/p>\n Thus, throughout the prolonged period of neo-liberal ascendancy, from 1979 to 2008, global corporations were benefiting from government promoted wars, and by military, police and security operations designed to break-up \u2018communities of resistance\u2019, thus creating pools of cheap flexible labour. Private capital also gained from the huge rip-offs of the tax-payer associated with PFI<\/acronym>\/PPP<\/acronym> schemes; and from the state\u2019s resort to the use of costly private agencies and overpaid consultants.<\/p>\n Far from renewing a \u2018free market\u2019 economy, with a much-reduced \u2018night-watchman state\u2019, the big corporations and their neo-liberal supporting politicians presided over the continued expansion of, and their dependency upon state power. \u2018State capitalism\u2019 was not confined to, nor did it end with the demise of the Soviet Union between 1989-91. It morphed into a new single global order with the definitive victory of the corporate executives over the party bureaucrats. On a world scale, the global corporations were now the prime beneficiaries of state power.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the demise of the Soviet Union meant that, for a certain period, the US<\/acronym> state, which fronted the largest collection of global corporations and had the most powerful armed forces in the world, could either pressure the \u2018international\u2019 UN to sanction wars in its interests (retrospectively, if necessary, as in Iraq), or just go it alone. After \u20189\/11\u2019, the US<\/acronym> state also took upon itself the role of handing out \u2018anti-terror licenses\u2019 to supportive governments so they could crush their own troublesome oppositions, e.g. Israel and the Palestinians, Sri Lanka and the Tamils. Meanwhile the arms corporations in the USA<\/acronym>, UK<\/acronym>, Europe and Israel made billions.<\/p>\n Despite all their support from the state, super-confident and arrogant corporate executives opposed any public scrutiny of their activities. They pushed for the ending of all government regulation of the economy. They demanded the protection of private companies\u2019 \u2018commercial confidentiality\u2019, even when undertaking publicly funded projects.<\/p>\n The net result of all this direct and indirect state assistance, combined with the lack of any meaningful public scrutiny and accountability, has been a massive switch of wealth to the \u2018masters of the universe\u2019. It also led to greatly increased incomes and perks for their supporters in the media, those they fund in various \u2018educational\u2019 institutions, and of course, for their apologists in government. So, by the 1990\u2019s, Clinton\u2019s Democrats and Blair\u2019s New Labour Party could easily have said, However, the current economic crisis has shown that, even in the private, privatised and deregulated sectors of the economy, over which the corporate executives declared their complete competency, they have failed spectacularly. So now they openly demand, on top of all their earlier massive, if largely publicly unacknowledged, state support, mind-boggling financial government subventions – at our expense. This is not to be done for the wider benefit of the public, who have never figured in corporate executive concerns, but to ensure that their current staggering losses are socialised, and to restore their private profits in the future.<\/p>\n As the current economic crisis deepens, even those publicly unaccountable transnational institutions, which corporate capital and its political backers have created or moulded to further their global interests \u2013 e.g. G8<\/acronym>, IMF<\/acronym>, World Bank, WTO<\/acronym>, GATT<\/acronym>, NATO<\/acronym> and the EU<\/acronym> \u2013 are being subjected to increased internal strains. An overstretched and badly bruised USA<\/acronym> can no longer command automatic support for its imperial ventures \u2013 especially when they are unsuccessful. China and Russia, and possibly even the EU<\/acronym>, or its bigger constituent states in the future, are pulling in different directions, opening up the even more dangerous prospect of inter-imperialist wars.<\/p>\n Faced with falling profits and the devaluation of their assets, competing national ruling classes are beginning to move away from their recent international capitalist cooperation and opt instead for \u2018me first and devil take the hindmost\u2019 policies. National neo-Keynesianism is linked to new protectionist drives, designed to uphold particular national capitalist interests, to set worker against worker, and to make future shooting wars between major imperialist powers more likely.<\/p>\n Furthermore, there is the chilling reality that, although several national governments pursued Keynesian policies in the 1930s, these failed to end the Great Depression. Just prior to the First World War, Rosa Luxemburg had anticipated the choice facing humanity \u2013 One worrying early example of the future likelihood of inter-imperialist wars has occurred since the last SSP<\/acronym> Conference. The nasty little conflict, which emerged in South Ossetia, last August, highlighted the growing US<\/acronym>\/Russian antagonism. In this particular case, the US<\/acronym> client government in Georgia, led by President Saakashvili, was unable to provoke the direct US<\/acronym> intervention it sought on its behalf, despite the rapid Russian reaction to his bloody invasion of South Ossetia. The USA<\/acronym> was too bogged down elsewhere to open up a new military front against such a dangerous adversary as Russia.<\/p>\n Saakashvili had to eat humble pie, as the Russian military took control of and guaranteed the \u2018independence\u2019 of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The notion that Medvedev and Putin did this for the benefit of two of the many oppressed peoples of the Caucasus would not impress many Chechenyans. Successive US<\/acronym> governments, though, have had more success in promoting their imperial aims in the one-time Warsaw Pact countries, and even in the former Soviet Baltic states. These have been drawn into NATO<\/acronym>.<\/p>\n US<\/acronym> and Russian inter-imperial competition continues, and is now focused upon Ukraine. Its shaky coalition government has recently faced threats to Russian-supplied oil and gas deliveries. This represents a warning from the Russian state not to get any closer to the West. Yet, the lengthy Russian borderlands represent just one potential shatter zone, which could become the focus of a rapid escalation of inter-imperialist wars in the future.<\/p>\n Israel represents another US<\/acronym> client state, only too eager to provoke wider wars, to provide cover for its leaders\u2019 desire to ethnically cleanse the remaining Palestinians. During the dog days of the outgoing Bush administration, Barak Obama was keen to be seen to take initiatives to deal with the crisis-ridden American economy, but he remained silent over the Israeli invasion of Gaza. The likely formation of an even further Right Zionist government in Israel, under Netanyahu, seems only to have prompted the US<\/acronym> government to attempt to further cripple the elected Hamas government in Gaza, under the guise of foreign aid, channelled through the US<\/acronym>\/EU<\/acronym>\/Israeli Palestinian Authority stooges.<\/p>\n President Obama\u2019s new administration includes nobody even remotely connected to those misguided radicals so important to the success of his election campaign. This is because they were not so crucial to his future project \u2013 the re-branding of US<\/acronym> imperialism – as those big business backers, who now determine the real direction of US<\/acronym> state policy. Obama\u2019s Cabinet now includes Republicans, Clintonites and avowed supporters of any Israel – no matter how belligerent and oppressive the government in power. He has, in effect, formed a national coalition. Obama wants to get wider international imperial assistance, after the disastrous gung-ho, go-it-alone record of Bush and his neo-liberal advisors.<\/p>\n After facing unforeseen resistance, Iraq is largely being given-up as bad job. Nevertheless, it has been left in a much weakened and balkanised state, unable any longer to play a role as a regional power. Where outright victory can not be achieved, then a legacy of massive destruction and dislocation has become the preferred US<\/acronym> policy option. Israeli operations in Lebanon and Gaza follow the same pattern. This may still provide openings for non-state terrorist organisations to operate; but if they become troublesome, then massive all-out bombing offensives can be launched, with total disregard for the wider human consequences. Increased numbers of US<\/acronym> troops are now being sent to a disunited Afghanistan to cause even more havoc and misery. Meanwhile preparations are being made for more draconian sanctions against Iran.<\/p>\n Thus, just as neo-liberalism was not merely an economic strategy, but was accompanied by massive US<\/acronym> imperial interventions throughout the world; neither is neo-Keynesianism confined to purely economic measures. It can only lead to further imperialist wars and to increased inter-imperialist competition, with dire consequences for humanity.<\/p>\n Our annual Conference is the time to take a close look at these latest developments, and to debate the policies needed to address the situation we face. The SSP<\/acronym> is a broad-based socialist party, which includes different organised platforms as well as less clearly formed tendencies. Conference resolutions are a reflection of these different approaches. The fact that self-declared revolutionary socialists may often find themselves in a minority can easily be understood in today\u2019s non-revolutionary conditions. However, as long as there is genuine democracy in the SSP<\/acronym>, the possibility of winning members (and others) to consistent republican and communist politics remains open, in the changed circumstances of the future.<\/p>\n So, what are the political tendencies to be found in the SSP<\/acronym>? After the split, overt Left nationalists have become a weaker force, with the departure of the SRSM<\/acronym> and several former SNP<\/acronym> members. Similarly, Left unionists are a diminished presence, with the departure of the CWI<\/acronym>\/IS<\/acronym>, SWP<\/acronym>, and the apparent demise of the Left Unity Platform (although one of their constituents, the Left unionist and social imperialist AWL<\/acronym>, still has members in the SSP<\/acronym>).<\/p>\n The once dominant International Socialist Movement (ISM<\/acronym>) has fragmented, leading to the rise of a variety of Left nationalist, Old Labourist, Green Left, radical\/socialist feminist, and pro-social movement, spontaneist ideas. Former ISM<\/acronym> platform members still form the majority of the SSP<\/acronym> leadership, but are less politically cohesive than they once were. This has allowed other politics, including republican socialist, to make headway in our party.<\/p>\n Although Frontline<\/cite> no longer considers itself to be organised platform of the SSP<\/acronym>, in some respects this journal represents a kind of \u2018Continuity ISM<\/acronym>\u2019, where debates between and beyond former ISM<\/acronym> members continue. The former ISM<\/acronym>\u2019s international contacts were less extensive than those of the CWI<\/acronym>, which they originally broke from, but are still valued by Frontline<\/cite> contributors. Perhaps the closest of these are to be found in the Australian Democratic Socialist Party\/Green Left and those Fourth International members, some in the French LCR<\/acronym>, and others grouped around the magazine Socialist Resistance in England and Wales. Socialist Resistance has replaced the SWP<\/acronym> as the main organised grouping in the post-split Respect Renewal. Unfortunately, Respect\u2019s leader, George Galloway, is a Left unionist. He used his Daily Record<\/cite> column to give support to New Labour in the Glasgow East and Glenrothes byelections. Worryingly, neither Frontline<\/cite> nor Socialist Resistance has publicly commented on this.<\/p>\n Since the old ISM<\/acronym> came out of the Trotskyist and CWI,<\/acronym>\/Militant traditions, it will be interesting to see how their view of the economic crisis develops. \u2018Nationalisation of the top 200 companies\u2019 was always a particular Militant shibboleth. There has been much loose talk in the media, following the effective nationalisation of several major banks by the US<\/acronym> and UK<\/acronym> governments. Some have even declared that, This equation of \u2018nationalisation\u2019 with \u2018socialism\u2019 has been the hallmark, not only of neo-liberal economists, but also of official and dissident communists (or socialists as Trotskyists prefer to call themselves in the British Isles). The last vestiges of effective workers\u2019 control of the Soviet economy had been eliminated in 1921, after the crushing of the Kronstadt Rising. After that, official and dissident communist claims that the USSR<\/acronym> was still moving towards \u2018socialism\u2019, rested either upon the continuation of Communist Party rule, or the extension of nationalised property relations. The idea of socialism became separated from that of genuine democracy or effective workers\u2019 control.<\/p>\n In the USSR<\/acronym>, the reality was that the working class had no effective control over the economy, only the ability to passively resist top-down directives – We have to be on guard against any notion of \u2018socialism\u2019 that separates state control from effective workers\u2019 and popular democratic control. Any nationalisation or large-scale government funding measures under New Labour can only be aimed at meeting the needs of Brown, Darling and Mandelson\u2019s real class backers \u2013 the global corporations.<\/p>\n Therefore, all those parties, which just voted for the government bail out of the banks, behaved in the same manner as those First World War Social Democrats who voted to provide war credits for their governments. For the decision to give trillions of dollars, pounds and euros to corporate capital amounts to a declaration of war upon the working class. We are going to be called on to pay for this through a massive austerity drive and further wars.<\/p>\n Nick McKerrall (Frontline<\/cite>) has been arguing for some time, that the SSP<\/acronym> has not yet really developed a programme, which can address the situation we face. The RCN<\/acronym> disagrees with Nick\u2019s advocacy of a temporary retreat from public politics, in favour of a period of internal education. We believe, not only that you can do both, but that theoretical and programmatic development stems from political practice as well as from internal party education. However, we do agree with Nick that a new SSP<\/acronym> programme is required. To do this though, the SSP<\/acronym> needs to undertake a serious analysis of exactly what we mean by socialism (and\/or communism) and, in particular, what role we see for the state, both today and in any revolutionary transition to a new society.<\/p>\n This is why, following on from our well-received pamphlet, Republicanism, Socialism and Democracy<\/cite>, we intend to produce another later this year, which addresses the issue of Communism and Socialism. Istvan Mezsaros\u2019 challenging new book, with its essay, Socialism in the Twenty First Century<\/cite>, makes a major contribution to the wider ongoing international debate on this largely abandoned area of theory. The RCN<\/acronym> has also been following the interesting ideas put forward in The Commune<\/em>, a new website magazine, which is also beginning to re-examine earlier ideas about what constitutes socialism\/communism.<\/p>\n There have always been some in the SSP<\/acronym> who hanker after the days of \u2018Old Labour\u2019 (albeit within a Scottish national framework). This is not surprising, given the historical strength of Labourism in Scotland, and the spectacular betrayals of New Labour. The sudden revival of officially sponsored Keynesianism could give some sustenance to those who claim that state ownership is inherently better than private ownership, regardless of who controls the state.<\/p>\n However, the renewed debate between neo-liberals and (neo)-Keynesians should be used as an opportunity to put forward a distinctive socialist challenge to both these variants of capitalist thought. If all we do is become Left Keynesians, championing the role of the capitalist state over the capitalist corporation, then this can only contribute to the rebuilding of the discredited Labour Left, and to the possible demise of the SSP<\/acronym>. Over a decade\u2019s hard work to create an independent socialist organisation will have gone to waste.<\/p>\n If the war in South Ossetia heralded possible new inter-imperialist wars, then the politically ambiguous legacy left by the recent strike at the Lindsey oil refinery, highlights the dangers of the shift to the politics of national protectionism. The defence of hard-won national contracts for all workers, whatever their nationality, is vitally important, especially since Lord Mandelson is the main promoter of \u2018drive to the bottom\u2019 in the EU<\/acronym>. However, the reactionary demand of \u2018British jobs for British workers\u2019 can not be glibly dismissed. The BNP<\/acronym> may have been seen off the picket lines, but you can bet it will be their support that grows in the forthcoming EU<\/acronym> elections, and not those of some socialist parties hailing a great victory. Furthermore, the claim that such specifically \u2018British\u2019 appeals have little purchase in Scotland, are also worrying, given the undercurrent of unionism and loyalism, which can still be found here. Union Jack caps were to be seen amongst the Grangemouth strikers.<\/p>\n At present, the main danger to workers in Scotland is not the BNP<\/acronym>, but the revived credibility of such Labour Party trade union leaders as UNITE\u2019s Derek Simpson. He jumped on to the \u2018British jobs for British workers\u2019 bandwagon to cover up his opposition to any rank and file control in the union, and to smother the recent exposes of his privileged fat-cat lifestyle, paid for by union members. It was the Broad Left leaders of UNITE who undermined earlier militant strike action by Heathrow cleaners \u2013 but they were largely Asian women workers.<\/p>\n There has also been the attempt by Bob Crow of the Broad Left led RMT<\/acronym> to play the \u2018British workers\u2019 card. He is trying to form a \u2018No2EU\u2019 electoral challenge in the forthcoming Euro-elections, with a platform defending \u2018British democracy\u2019 and opposing \u2018social dumping\u2019, i.e. migrant workers. Much of this could be accepted by the anti-EU<\/acronym> UKIP<\/acronym>.<\/p>\n The only significant strike in the last year in Scotland was that conducted by Grangemouth refinery workers to defend their pensions. Their success was linked to their key role in the economy, and has not been repeated by other workers whose pensions are under attack. Although there have been other strikes, involving civil servants and post office workers, these have been the token one day strikes used by trade union bureaucrats to let off steam. This perhaps explains the lack of motions this year to Conference addressing industrial struggle.<\/p>\n Broad Leftism, however, remains the dominant industrial strategy pushed by the SSP<\/acronym> leadership. In this there has been little movement from the old Militant tradition. Broad Leftism sees the main job of socialists in the unions as being to try and replace Right wing leaders with Left wing leaders, through winning leading posts within the union bureaucracy. The underlying problem with this strategy is highlighted by the appearance of new Broad Left campaigns to replace old Broad Left leaders who have themselves become the new Right.<\/p>\n The alternative Rank and File approach, advocated by the RCN<\/acronym>, represents an industrial republican approach. We see union sovereignty lying not in the union HQs<\/abbr>, but in the collective memberships in their workplaces. Socialists should not accept the union bureaucrats\u2019 right to dismiss workers\u2019 own actions as \u2018unofficial\u2019. When such activity occurs, this amounts to independent workers\u2019 action. When action is extended by means of mass picketing, it should still remain under the effective control of the workers involved. Elected officials, on the average pay of the members they represent, should service not control rank and file union members.<\/p>\n Furthermore, there are now large swathes of non-unionised workers in the country. A debate needs to be opened up in the SSP<\/acronym> about the possibility of building additional, new, independent rank and file controlled unions. Too often, socialists can become mere recruiting sergeants for the existing cynical dues-pocketing bureaucrats, who offer no real support to their new members. Here, the experience of the Independent Workers Union in Ireland could be valuable. Ireland is a country where trade unionists have been hamstrung, since 1987, by the bureaucrats\u2019 support for social partnerships with the government and employers.<\/p>\n As with Derek Simpson\u2019s posturing, we should also be on the look-out for other moves to hoodwink workers, who are increasingly questioning union leaders\u2019 near total commitment to New Labour and \u2018social partnership\u2019. We could well be told that, The real importance of trade unions is that they are a key part of working class self-organisation \u2013 well, when they are not the playthings of privileged officials, or instruments in the hands of the governments and employers, that is. We can exert no meaningful control over the wider economy and society if we have no effective control over our own organisations. So the strengthening of independent working class organisations is the most pressing task of all in the current crisis. It will be necessary to return to the Broad Left versus Rank and File debate in the SSP<\/acronym>.<\/p>\n If motions addressing industrial struggle are absent from the Conference agenda, a call for socialist unity has come from Renfrewshire branch. This, however, is largely confined to Scotland, with a nod and a wink to certain developments in England and Wales – such as the Convention of the Left and the RMT<\/acronym> initiative. However, the geographical scope of this motion doesn\u2019t cover the full extent of the UK<\/acronym> state, which also includes the \u2018Six Counties\u2019. Nor does it address the problem of the shared British and Irish governments\u2019 promotion of the \u2018Peace Process\u2019 and \u2018Devolution-all-round\u2019. Together these policies are designed to maintain the best political framework for the corporations\u2019 profitable operations in these islands. This common ruling class strategy has the backing of the British, Scottish and Welsh TUC<\/acronym>s, and the Irish CTU. They are all locked into the \u2018social partnerships\u2019, which have turned union leaders into a free personnel management service for the employers.<\/p>\n Since 1992, the \u2018Peace Process\u2019, originally pioneered under Major\u2019s government, has enjoyed shared Tory\/Labour support. This reflects the widespread British (and Irish) ruling class agreement, in the face of their pressing need to pacify and reassert control over the republican \u2018communities of resistance\u2019 in the \u2018Six Counties\u2019. The disillusionment with the lack of any real \u2018peace dividend\u2019 has contributed to the re-emergence of physical force republicanism, with the killing of two British soldiers and a local PSNI<\/acronym> officer by dissident republicans. In the absence of a wider political and social movement, such actions can only lead to further demoralisation and increased state repression.<\/p>\n It had already become clear that \u2018British normality\u2019 had not been established in the \u2018Six Counties\u2019. Nevertheless, the UK<\/acronym> government is now sufficiently in control that current Labour\/Tory bipartisan support is fraying, as both parties develop their own strategies to preserve the Union in the face of the wider challenges.<\/p>\n Significantly, the Conservatives and Ulster Unionists have decided to form their own alliance to contest the next UK<\/acronym> General Election. This represents the emergence of a new distinct and potentially dangerous Rightist strategy. The UUP<\/acronym> is still heavily coloured by Protestant sectarianism, with many members active in the Orange Order. As yet, even after 87 years of the \u2018Six County\u2019 statelet and the UUP<\/acronym>\u2019s existence, it has not fielded even a single \u2018Castle Catholic\u2019 parliamentary candidate. This should be a wake-up call to the SSP<\/acronym>, when Conservatives look for support in Scotland for their alliance with the UUP<\/acronym>.<\/p>\n In the past, sections of the SSP<\/acronym>, still influenced by the Militant\u2019s old Left unionist traditions, were unable to make the distinction between the Irish republican struggle to end political and religious sectarianism, breaking the link with the UK<\/acronym>, and the Ulster loyalists\u2019 defence of Protestant privilege and the British Union. This was all dismissed as a \u2018war between two tribes\u2019. Gordon Brown\u2019s call for \u2018British jobs for British workers\u2019 has been widely condemned for playing into the BNP<\/acronym>\u2019s hands. Now that the Conservatives want to give new life to Right Unionism in Scotland, it won\u2019t only be the BNP<\/acronym> who are given succour, but those supporters of the even more dangerous loyalist death squads, currently lying low over here.<\/p>\n Real headway has been made in the SSP<\/acronym> over adopting a republican socialist strategy to break-up the UK<\/acronym> and to end Irish partition, as opposed to a Left nationalist strategy for Scotland only. Nevertheless, the latter notion still enjoys some influential support in our party. The SSP<\/acronym> initiated Calton Hill Declaration of October 9th, 2004, and the Republican Socialist Convention held last November 29th, were significant landmarks in the development of socialist republicanism. However, in the face of new reactionary pressures, we will need to stand firm in our commitment to democratic republicanism and to an \u2018internationalism from below\u2019 alliance with socialists in Ireland, Wales and England.<\/p>\n Such a strategy will be needed, not only to confront Unionism in all its forms, but to make any meaningful moves towards socialism in these islands. The failure of the \u2018Peace Process\u2019 to create \u2018British normality\u2019 in the \u2018Six Counties\u2019, along with the spectacular demise of the Irish \u2018Celtic Tiger\u2019 economic model, now offer socialists a real opportunity to put forward our alternative to both the unionists and the nationalists, if we can clearly see what is at stake.<\/p>\n The Republican Socialist Convention also drew the attention of visiting socialist republicans in England, Ireland and Wales to the political significance of the centrepiece policy of the SNP<\/acronym>-led Scottish Executive \u2013 a referendum on Scotland\u2019s independence. Although the various unionist parties have been quick to see the possible dangers this represents to the future of the UK<\/acronym>, there has hardly been any discussion about this amongst the British Left. Their supporters in Scotland have probably put the issue to the very back of their minds, now that the economic crisis has taken the wind out of the SNP<\/acronym>\u2019s sails.<\/p>\n The SNP<\/acronym>\u2019s \u2018independence\u2019 project was based on the backing of key sectors of the Scottish business community, and tied to continued capitalist economic growth, led by a lightly-regulated Scottish-based finance sector. Indeed the Royal Bank of Scotland\u2019s document, Wealth Creation in Scotland, provided the economic underpinning for the SNP<\/acronym>\u2019s proposed mild social democratic measures.<\/p>\n Alex Salmond, once keen to be seen in the company of the likes of Sir George Mathewson, now keeps his distance – at least in public. Whether Donald Trump\u2019s proposed new business venture in Aberdeenshire survives the crisis remains to be seen. However, other SNP<\/acronym> big business backers such as Brian Souter, Sir Tom Farmer and Donald Macdonald recently demanded to meet Salmond. Soon afterwards, the SNP<\/acronym>\u2019s other flagship policy, the abolition of the council tax, was dropped. It probably won\u2019t be long before the independence referendum is abandoned too, in favour of the more \u2018realistic\u2019 \u2018Devolution-max\u2019 proposals emanating from the British unionists\u2019 Calman Commission, which the SNP<\/acronym> once scorned.<\/p>\n The RCN<\/acronym> has long predicted that the SNP<\/acronym> would fall fully into line with other constitutional nationalist parties, such as the Parti Quebecois, Catalan Convergence, the Basque National Party (PNV<\/acronym>) and now \u2018New\u2019 Sinn Fein too (after taking ministerial office in her majesty\u2019s Stormont government and voting in the Dail for government bailout of the Irish banks). An SNP<\/acronym>, now holding office, will follow these constitutional nationalist parties in opting for gradual political reforms acceptable to the major imperial powers, the global corporations, and in particular, to their respective national business communities. The SNP<\/acronym>\u2019s recent, openly declared support for the British monarchy is a clear indicator of the very cautious road they have adopted. It also shows us exactly whose support they are courting.<\/p>\n If the SSP<\/acronym> is to make its policy of the break-up of the imperial and unionist UK<\/acronym> a reality, this means an end to tail-ending the SNP<\/acronym> in such organisations as Independence First and the Scottish Constitutional Convention. These organisations are completely tied to the SNP<\/acronym> leadership\u2019s rate of movement \u2013 which could very soon be in a reverse direction. The precedent of the successful Calton Hill Declaration, and the new links to Ireland, Wales and England, made through the Republican Socialist Convention, offer the best basis for a campaign of radical constitutional and social change.<\/p>\n There has been general agreement within the SSP<\/acronym> that any intervention in an \u2018independence referendum\u2019 campaign would be accompanied by clearly articulated economic and social measures, which would point to the type of society that we would want to help create. The fact that a Scottish Executive launched referendum is looking more unlikely does not lessen our need to develop a programme with such policies. Indeed the current crisis of capitalism makes it even more imperative, since it will increase the strains upon the Union.<\/p>\n Two things should be clear though \u2013 any calls the SSP<\/acronym> makes for government intervention should be coupled with the demand for increased democratic control. Indeed, it is the republican demand for greater democracy, and not the nationalist desire to paint more British unionist institutions tartan, that should inform our campaign for political independence. Secondly, we can\u2019t afford to confine such a campaign to Scotland. The various unionist parties are quite capable of whipping up British chauvinist feeling within the various countries constituting the UK<\/acronym>, whilst warning an Irish government, which will be only too keen to comply, to keep its nose out.<\/p>\n The ongoing economic crisis has created divisions amongst the leaders of the EU<\/acronym>. We can take some cheer from the massive students and workers\u2019 struggles, which emerged in Greece, and the mass strike action in France. The \u2018unofficial\u2019\/independentworkers\u2019 occupation at Waterford Glass has also given the trade union bureaucrats such a nasty jolt, that it has even prodded the Irish CTU into action. They called the massive 120,000 strong, Dublin demonstration on February 21st. Significantly, the wildcat actions of those fighting for \u2018British jobs for British workers\u2019, has not been seen by the TUC<\/acronym> to represent a similar threat. The TUC<\/acronym> and STUC remain bogged down in complacent inertia, pleased to hear a few sympathetic remarks from such government ministers as Alan Johnson and Peter Hain.<\/p>\n However, mounting resistance elsewhere will not stop European capitalists from trying to offload the cost of the current crisis on to workers\u2019 shoulders. They are still trying to revive the neo-liberal Lisbon Treaty. Their attempt to browbeat the Irish into overturning their clear \u2018No\u2019 vote last year, should be met by an international campaign to back rejection once again. We hope that our Irish comrades in the Irish Socialist Network and Fourthwrite<\/cite> will consider seeking such support.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, the still divided European (and worldwide) Left is a long way from creating the new International we need to properly meet current challenges. This is one reason why the SSP<\/acronym> must participate more fully in those wider international initiatives that do exist. To this end, the RCN<\/acronym> has brought the formation of the New Anti-Capitalist Party in France, along with the European Anti-Capitalist Alliance (EACA<\/acronym>), to the attention of Conference. We also offer a suggestion on how to improve their election platform for the forthcoming Euro-election.<\/p>\n Hopefully, the South Edinburgh SSP<\/acronym> motion, which also advocates being part of the joint EACA<\/acronym> campaign in the forthcoming Euro-elections, will also be adopted by Conference. Support for such policies would highlight the SSP<\/acronym>\u2019s active participation, alongside other European socialists, in promoting international solutions to counter the austerity and war-mongering drives being promoted by European capitalists, and by the Union Jack chauvinists of the BNP<\/acronym>, UKIP<\/acronym>, the Tories and sections of the Labour Party, as well as showing those SNP<\/acronym> supporters committed to genuine independence that this can not be achieved on the coat-tails of the likes of Matthewson, Souter, et al. The purpose of the SSP<\/acronym> is not to represent the interests solely of Scottish workers, but to act as an organisation representing all workers living and working in Scotland, whatever their nationality. This can only be achieved successfully in an active international alliance with others.<\/p>\n Despite the depth of the current crisis, capitalism could still yet be given new life, in a more barbaric form, and at the expense of the vast majority of working people. However, we shouldn\u2019t underestimate its capacity, though, to bring about our complete extinction through nuclear war or man-made environmental catastrophe. Only socialists can offer an alternative future for humanity and the Earth. This is the bold challenge the SSP<\/acronym> has to face up to at its 2009 Annual Conference.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Not just a \u2018Credit Crunch\u2019 \u2013 but a \u2018Crisis of Capitalism\u2019 This year\u2019s SSP Conference takes place against the background of an unprecedented crisis for capitalism. Every day it becomes clearer that the problems in the economy are not just confined to the over-inflated world of finance, but are having a major impact on the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,290],"tags":[230,264],"class_list":["post-1339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-emancipation-liberation","category-issue-17","tag-author-allan-armstrong","tag-author-rcn"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/mastodon.scot\/@rcfscotland\/110124286981748279","error":""},"views":11714,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1339"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23436,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1339\/revisions\/23436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Neo-liberalism and neo-Keynesianism \u2013 the two faces of capitalism<\/h2>\n
We are all Keynesians now<\/q>.<\/p>\n
We are all neo-liberals now<\/q>.<\/p>\n
(Neo)-Keynesianism, national protectionism and the drive to inter-imperialist wars<\/h2>\n
Socialism or Barbarism<\/q>. However, it took two world wars, with millions dead and the massive destruction of accumulated capital, to eventually give capitalism a new lease of life after 1945. Any future world war, however, brings the very real prospect of human annihilation, whilst the increased capitalist degradation of the environment adds another twist to Luxemburg\u2019s warning. As the marxist philosopher, Istvan Mezsaros has said, the choice now lies between
Socialism or Barbarism if we are lucky!<\/q><\/p>\n
Looking at the world through different SSP<\/acronym> lenses<\/h2>\n
Orthodox Trotskyism claimed that nationalisation = socialism<\/h2>\n
We are all socialists now<\/q>.<\/p>\n
They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work<\/q>. Indeed, in the West, during the highpoint of class struggle between 1968-75, workers exerted more effective influence over the private companies they worked for, than did those workers in the East over \u2018their own\u2019 so-called \u2018Workers\u2019 States\u2019. This was because of the relative strength of workers\u2019 organisations in the West, at that time, compared to the situation workers faced in the East, where they had no independent class organisations of their own.<\/p>\n
What is socialism and communism? \u2013 The need for a widened debate in the SSP<\/acronym><\/h2>\n
The political dangers of national protectionism \u2013 \u2018British jobs for British workers\u2019<\/h2>\n
Broad Left versus Rank and File<\/h2>\n
We are all in this crisis together<\/q>, and that \u2018our\u2019 union leaders intend to push for more widely-based \u2018worker participation schemes\u2019, so that our concerns can be aired. Remember, the irregular conjugation of the verb \u2018to participate\u2019 in government\/corporate speak –
I participate; you participate; he and she participates; we participate; you participate<\/q>, but –
They decide<\/q>.<\/p>\n
Socialist unity can not be divorced from \u2018internationalism from below\u2019 in these islands<\/h2>\n
The SNP<\/acronym> retreats \u2013 the Republican Socialist Convention shows the way forward<\/h2>\n
The need for wider international contacts and campaigns<\/h2>\n