All an act

If you can pretend and play one part, why not others?

Ex-Scottish Socialist Party, now Solidarity [with] Tommy Sheridan was jailed for making up stories in court and Rab C Nesbitt creator Ian Pattison chose to write a play about the life of  Sheridan with Des McLean in the lead role. Previously in 2007, not one for modesty, Sheridan appeared on the Edinburgh Fringe, hosting a chat-show.

But now not to be out-shone, his ex-SSP comrade, Rosie Kane, who gave evidence against her one-time party leader at his perjury trial, will be taking to the stage in a show about her life.

Asked about the show, Ms Kane said:"I'm enjoying the opportunity because I'm not shy. If you stand up at parliament and you stand up at protests, then this is just another one of those things."




Both are stand-up comedians! Both led the workers a right song and dance.

And again it, fooling the public once more with fanciful made-up tales. It is what Trotskyists do. But now it is political theatre, instead of electioneering deceit.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/former-msp-rosie-swaps-holyrood-for-the-theatre.17622402
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17297993

All Change for the Council Elections

Capitalism is well past its sell-by date, and can now be replaced by its alternative: a wageless, moneyless, classless world community based on production for human need, not profit. This change can only come about once the majority understand it and want it. It won't come about by following leaders or voting for someone else to do it.

The world can now easily produce wealth sufficient to adequately house, feed, care for and educate the global population. Instead, we see hunger, disease and homelessness around the world despite the concerns of governments, charities and show-biz stars. Closer to home, in a "developed" nation like the UK, we see child poverty and an increasing gulf between rich and poor. Rates of depression and anxiety are becoming epidemic.

Capitalism is failing: it now acts as a barrier, preventing production being geared to human need. Rather than keep trying to tinker with this system we should start looking beyond it to an alternative: a wageless, moneyless, classless world community based on production for human need, not profit. This social change can only come about once the majority understand it and want it. It won't come about by following leaders or voting for someone else to do it.The candidates contesting this election (whether openly pro-capitalist or avowedly socialist) are asking you to believe that they can run this society a little bit better. We argue that history shows that the money system actually ends up running them. Their manifesto promises usually amount to nothing - it only encourages the idea that capitalism can be made better. So don't vote for them.

The one good thing about the Labour Party these days is that it no longer pretends to have anything to do with socialism. Perhaps they realise that if they did people wouldn't believe them anyway. They are not even the left-of-centre "labour" party they once were, but have stolen all the Tories's clothes. Not that "Old Labour" was any better when in government, imposing wage freezes, cutting benefits, opposing strikes just like all governments of capitalism as an economic system that imposes that profits must come before people. Socialism meant, and still means, the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, where goods and services are produced directly for use and not for profit and where every member of society has access as of right to the things they need to live and enjoy life. Nobody who wants such a society would dream of voting for the Labour Party, so don't.

The so-called "Scottish Socialist Party" (or the newly created Scottish Anti-cuts Alliance coalition) claim to stand for "socialism". In fact, the SSP stand for is a system under which all industry would be nationalised. They follow Lenin and Trotsky in thinking that workers cannot understand socialism, but must be led there by a vanguard party offering attractive reforms of capitalism (take a look at the SSP wish-list). Nationalisation and rule by a vanguard party is not of course socialism, but something called "state capitalism". It's a travesty of the word where production is to satisfy people's needs and would be on the basis of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". The Socialist Party are accused of "splitting the Left". We are not a part of this "Left". We are opposed to measures which tinker with and attempt to reform capitalism with palliatives. It has been a "Leftist" tactic in the past to hypocritically ask workers to vote for a "workers'" party to get reforms which they know they cannot obtain, on the parliamentary road which they dont support, to "socialism", which is not socialism. The Socialist Party is opposed to such trickery of workers and this cynical political opportunism. Simply, the "Left" are not socialists. Far from splitting the "Left", we oppose the "Left" for its political cowardice, (being unable or unwilling to describe socialism to workers and nail their true colours to the socialist mast), of opportunism, (interference in workers struggles and grass-roots movements to recruit and subvert them to their cause), and for its pretensions, (of assuming to know what socialism is, and presenting itself as a leadership to-wards it). If you want state capitalism, vote for the SSP. But if you want real socialism - don't cast a vote for them.

 In Scotland, the Socialist Party has not had the resources to stand any candidates and contest these local council elections. We suggest that you express your preference with a "write-in vote" for the Socialist Party as a statement that you think another world is possible. If you have confidence that humans can live and work co-operatively without need of the wages system, then write Socialist Party of Great Britain (or SPGB) across your ballot paper. And then get in touch with us to do something about changing the world.

Tartan Trots

Further to this earlier post Socialist Courier finds vindication.

Tommy Sheridan’s former press chief Hugh Kerr has resigned from Solidarity to join the SNP, claiming he wants to fight for an “independent Socialist Scotland” within Alex Salmond’s nationalists and also said he would be “delighted” to stand for the SNP as a Holyrood candidate or in the 2012 council’s elections.

Kerr said that the far left had become a “sideshow” as he resigned from Solidarity and claimed that the only way he and other Sheridan supporters could have “any influence” would be to join the SNP. He said: “The split with the SSP and other factors has meant that the far left is doomed to be a sideshow for a decade and if I’m to have any influence the truth is that this has to be in the SNP, which has the support of the majority of Scots."

Former Labour MEP Kerr told The Scotsman he had held talks with Sheridan during a prison visit to his former boss, whom he insisted was “very sympathetic” to his decision to join the SNP. He also said that there “could well be” other members of Solidarity planning to defect to the SNP, a move which could see left wingers entering Mr Salmond’s party in a similar tactic used in the 1980s and 1990s to influence Labour by far left groups such as the Militant Tendency.

The Scots Left Behind

When someone comes across the Socialist Party for the first time, a common reaction is to consider us as just another left-wing political organisation. But digging a little deeper will show that our political position is very different from that of the Scottish Socialist Party or Sheridan's Solidarity. The first difference is that of our aims, the kind of society we wish to see established. Socialists are quite clear and uncompromising on this — our aim is a society without wages, money, countries or governments.

The Scottish "Socialist" Party despite its name, does not stand for socialism but is a left-wing nationalist - a Tartan Trotskyist - party. The SSP is a direct descendant of Militant and campaigns to get elected with non-socialist votes on a programme of attractive-sounding reforms to capitalism. It is a ploy to attract a following. But it's a bad tactic that can only encourage illusions about what can be achieved under capitalism. It glosses over the fact that capitalism is not a system that can be humanised or reformed or transformed into something better. What those who want a better society should be doing – should have done – is to campaign to change people's minds, to get them to realise that they are living in an exploitative, class-divided society and that the only way out is to end capitalism and replace it by a new and different system. The SSP, for instance, advocates the break-up of the British state and the creation of a free Scottish socialist republic. But a single Socialist country in a hostile capitalist world is just impossible, and the SSP aim is Scottish state capitalism.

We don't care if Tommy Sheridan, the leader of Solidarity Scotland’s "Socialist" Movement, told lies or not about his sex life. It’s only the political aspect interests us, and he has certainly told lies about socialism. Sheridan was a Trotskyist, originally of the Militant Tendency and Trotskyists, being Leninists, hold that workers are incapable of evolving beyond a “trade union consciousness” . So, according to them, putting the straight socialist case for common ownership, democratic control and production for use not profit to workers is to cast pearls before swine. Instead, according to Trotskyists, what must be put before workers are demands that the government introduce this or that reform within capitalism. Getting workers to support such “transitional demands” is the only way they calculate they can get the mass support which, when the government fails to respond, can be used to catapult their vanguard party to power. But this requires people on the ground who are capable of winning a personal following. Normally, the Trotskyist gurus ( McCombes co-author with Sheridan of Imagine) who direct their organisation from the shadows, are not up to this. They require front men - Tommy Sheridan. The trouble, from the point of view of the Trotskyist gurus in the background, is that such front men have, because of their following, a degree of independence and can prove difficult to control. Which is what happened in Sheridan’s case.

Both parties have done so much to discredit the idea of socialism by associating it with a state-run economy. In spite of all their revolutionary posturing both parties devote their time to chasing reforms of capitalism. Scotland is only a small part of an economic system which embraces the whole world. It could never enjoy any real autonomy or self-sufficiency in the face of the world market. From day one it will be buffeted by hostile economic forces entirely beyond its control. In no time at all, Scotland will be faced with two choices—either total ruin, or the complete restoration of capitalist economics. The SSP's and Sheridan's independent socialist Scotland would be neither independent nor socialist.

Members of the Socialist Party understand well the urge to do something now, to make a change. That makes us all the more determined, however, to get the message across, to gather our fellows to clear away the barrier of the wages system, so that we can begin to build a truly human society.

The same old story - same socialist answer

Scottish Socialist Party and its split, Sheridan's Solidarity, stand for an independent Scotland and a workers republic. Socialist Courier can only answer them the same as the Socialist Party replied to John Maclean's Scottish Workers' Republican Party call for the same back in 1925.

"The chief fallacy of their position is their insistence upon a Scottish Workers' Republic. This demand is both reactionary and Utopian. The struggle of the workers of the United Kingdom must be a united one. The workers are under the domination of a class who rule by the use of a political machine which is the chief governing instrument for England, Scotland, Wales, etc. To appeal to the workers of Scotland for a Scottish Workers' Republic is to arouse and foster the narrow spirit of Nationalism, so well used by our masters. Economically the demand is Utopian, as the development of capitalism has made countries more and more dependent on each other, both through the specialisation of industry or agriculture, and also by the force controlled by the Great Powers to suppress or control the smaller nations.

The history of " independent " Hungary, Poland, and the Balkan States shows that the realisation of " political independence " by a country leaves the workers' conditions untouched and actually worsens them in many cases.

The appeal to the worker in this Manifesto to "rally to the cause of a Workers' Republic for Scotland" is made "so that we might win you away from the service of the imperialist gang who direct their activities from London" If the worker is to be won for Socialism, it is by getting him to understand the principles of Socialism, and not by appealing to him to concentrate on Scottish affairs. Socialism is international.”

This is still our position in face of those today who seek to revive the idea of a “Scottish Workers’ Republic”

Nats Whae Hae?

Nationalism is anathema to socialists. Wage and salary workers have no country. We have more in common with people like ourselves in other countries than with the privileged owning class of the country where we happen to live and work. The world-wide working class has a common interest, to end its exploitation and solve its problems, to join together to establish a world without frontiers in which the resources of the planet will have become the heritage of all, so that there can be production to meet needs and not for profit. One world, one people,where cultural differences will still be celebrated, but where we'll all be citizens of the world.

It is clear, then, why socialists don't take sides in the debate, aired in this month's elections to the Scottish Parliament, about whether it is better for workers there to be ruled from Edinburgh (as the SNP says) or from London with a little help from Edinburgh (as say the British Nationalists of the Labour, Liberal and Tory parties).

The SNP argues that the problems facing workers in Scotland are due to "Westminster rule". If only there was an independent Scotland, they say, separate from the rest of Britain, then there would be full employment, higher wages, job security, better state benefits, a healthy health service and all the other things politicians promise at election times. This view is echoed by the so-called Scottish"Socialist" Party and Tommy Sheridan's Solidarity (-with -Sheridan) party. But it is patently absurd.

This would be a purely political, not to say mere constitutional, change which would leave the basic economic structure of society unchanged. There would still be a privileged class owning and controlling the means of production with the rest having to work for them for a living. Just as now.

Maybe the pillar boxes would be painted tartan but that would be about all.

An independent Scottish government would still have to operate within the constraints of the world capitalist system. It would still have to ensure that goods produced in Scotland were competitive on world markets and that capitalists investing in Scotland were allowed to make the same level of profits as they could in other countries.

In other words, it would still be subject to the same economic pressures as the existing London-based government to promote profits and restrict wages and benefits. And as the government of Ireland,which broke away from the United Kingdom in 1922 and where things have never been any different. Not even the national state-capitalism proposed by the SSP and Sheridan would make any difference. As in Cuba, exports would still have to be competitive and popular consumption restricted to achieve this.

Since it is this class-divided, profit-motivated society that is thecause of the problems workers face in Scotland, as in England and in the rest of the world, so these problems will continue, regardless of whether Scotland separates from or remains part of the United Kingdom.

The SNP is promising a referendum in 2010. What an irrelevant waste of time and energy that would be, but it's their alibi. If they get to form the regional government of Scotland their excuse for not delivering (as capitalism won't let them) will be that their hands were tied and that their promises will only be able to be honoured after separation. Some of their naïve, lower-level members may believe thus, but we don't think too many other workers will be fooled. They will have switched their votes to them, not because they want a breakaway Scotland but as a protest against the Labour Party.

So, the SNP leaders will be the prisoner of their non-separatist voters and will have to settle down to life as regional politicians. Not that that will necessarily displease them if they get to be regional ministers. Which, as professional politicians, is probably their realistic aim anyway.

Our opposition to the SNP should not be interpreted as support for the Union or the Labour, Liberal or Tory parties that support it. We are just as opposed to them.

A plague on both their houses is what we say.

To adapt a slogan ,

Neither London nor Edinburgh, but World Socialism.

From May Socialist Standard