Lair Of A Squirrel Red

What’s the difference between a child massacre and abortion? by korakious
May 31, 2007, 10:23 pm
Filed under: gender politics, numpties, religion

The Catholic Church provides the answer in yet another display of razor sharp sense of proportion and plain logic. The Holy Keepers of Divine Wisdom, or at least, some of them, seem to believe that abortion is equal to two child massacres a day. These words of Godly Insight came from a cardinal not from Latina America, not from Africa, not from the United States, not even from Poland, but from our very own Keith O’Brien.

In a sermon marking the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act of 1967, the pious and humble minister of god said that the daily rate of the abortion “crime” is equal to two Dunblane massacres a day. The Dunblane massacre took place 11 years ago in a little town of the same name to the North of Stirling. Sixteen children of 5 and 6 years of age were shot dead by a raving lunatic. It appears that for Mr O’Brien, killing primary school children is equal to discarding a bunch of mindless cells. I cannot even begin to imagine how offending this similitude must have been to the parents of the Dunblane victims.

O’Brien went on to instruct catholic voters to reject politicians who don’t struggle against abortion laws, while also telling catholic politicians that failure to act against the “unspeakable crime” of abortion could result in them being barred from receiving holy communion. Being from Greece, I am used to casual interventions in social and political matters by the clergy, from little stupid protests against removing “Religion” from ID cards to outright hilarious calls to “reconquer” Constantinople.

This however caught me completely off guard as, for as long as I have lived in Scotland, incidents of religious freaks going all doomsday on the media were to me tales from the far away mystical lands of US Jesusland and Poland. At least they haven’t yet targeted Homoagitating Gay Teletubbies.

Venezuela & Freedom. What would Lenin do? by korakious
May 26, 2007, 8:48 pm
Filed under: Chavez, First World Left, Freedom, Human Rights, Lenin, Theory, Venezuela

Most of you are probably familiar with the fuss kicked up on the bourgeois media when Chavez announced that the license of RCTV, an opposition station in Venezuela would not be renewed. The First World Left, including of course its vanguard, the AWL jumped on the bourgeois liberal media bandwagon, immediately concluding (or repeating their already made, age old analysis of any revolution that is not led by them) that Venezuela was heading down the road of Stalinism, state capitalism, Bonapartism and whathaveyou. Of course, neither the media, nor their “left” lackeys mentioned that the station was not being shut down, but having its license not renewed in a perfectly legal manner, as has happened a number of times in the “Free” World, without protest from either the media or our fellow revolutionary imperialist apologist brothers.

That of course is besides the point because a cursory look at RCTV’s involvement in the coup of 2002 against the democratically elected Chavez government would lead anyone but the most liberal of bourgeois liberals to conclude that the station should have been immediately shut down after the failure of the putsch. You see, the media often forgets to mention that the station was not only actively supporting the overthrow of Chavez, but also practically assisting the putschists by engaging in news blackouts. Now, perhaps the mourners of democracy should take a minute and think in what way any of the “democratic” governments of the West would have responded to a failed coup. Surely most of the participants would have been arrested and the leaders would have probably spent their lives behind bars (if not executed). What happened in Venezuela? The supreme court ruled that the military officers should not stand trial as what happened wasn’t really a coup but a… power vacuum. Oh, the brutality of authoritarian Venezuela! By the way, I would be amused to see how the very concerned about human rights left would respond to a similar situation in their own country. It is very easy to criticise little brown/red (you know, those who need our benevolent leadership; it is after all, the white man’s burden! ) people half way around the world, but it isn’t quite as simple to come up with a response to politically crucial events taking place in your own society.

Anyhow, I am ranting again. What’s interesting here is not the chauvinism-bordering-racism underlying much of the politics of the first world left, but the rush of such groups to publicly defend the democratic rights of a bourgeois media station that is owned by the ruling class, thus throwing class analysis out of the window and subscribing to Jeffersonian notions of the inalienability of rights. See for example the post made by TWP on Shiraz Socialist:

How many of us have “openly called” for the overthrow of capitalism? Well apparently Tariq Ali doesn’t see the irony in his statement about Chavez’s failure to renew a TV licence for the anti-government channel RCTV. By his logic most of the newspapers of the far left could be legitimately closed down in Britain. […]I have always argued for “no platform for fascists” and stand by that argument. However, this isn’t a “fascist” TV station – it simply opposes the government in the strongest terms. That is not a reason for shutting it down

Let’s take the arguments in reverse order. First, if a supporter of Fascism is a Fascist, then it makes sense that a TV station supporting Fascism is a Fascist TV station. One could of course try to argue that a military coup in Latin America might not lead to Fascism but to… something else. I would kindly ask them to stop reading and **** off my internets.

Now, with that out of the way, it would be useful to examine the contradiction inherent in TWP’s support for “No Platform For Fascists” and opposition to the “shutting down” of RCTV, a contradiction that runs deeper than the rather evident fact that RCTV is a Fascist supporter.

I do not wish to examine here whether the “No Platform” approach is correct or not. Let us assume it is. Why do socialists adopt a “No Platform” line on fascism? The evident and right, if a bit simplistic, response is that we do so because fascism is diametrically opposed to the interests of the working class and presents a formidable obstacle to the fight for socialism. So far, so good. But why is that we do not also call for “No Platform” for capitalists as well? Is it because we think that capitalist/liberal views are more legitimate than fascists’? Is it because capitalism is less of an obstacle to socialism and less of a danger to the working class? Of course not. If anything, capitalism has proven to be more resilient than fascism and has now become a threat not only to the working class but to the whole planet. Further, only the most stupendously half-witted liberaloleftie would dare argue that “kick them Pakis out of Britain” is a less legitimate view than “let’s bomb those terrorist A-rabs”. The reason therefore that we do not pursue a “No Platform” policy re capitalism is that we can’t. The whole purpose of “No Platform” is to prevent the poison of Fascist ideology from spreading among the working class, creating vile sectarianism, racism and other niceties. This is totally inapplicable to the hegemonic struggle of socialists against bourgeois ideology; you can’t call for “No Platform” to bourgeois ideology. Why? Because bourgeois ideology is the platform. Every single social structure is permeated by and functions according to bourgeois ideology. Hence the adoption of the Transitional Programme and the need for a War of Position, among other things. It should be clear by now, but it is worth restating. Socialists do not tolerate bourgeois ideology because it is more “legitimate” than Fascism but because not tolerating is a non starter. This brings us back to the first point made by TWP, that of legitimacy.

TWP argues that if we support Chavez’s action on the basis that RCTV supported the coup, then, it would be legitimate for, say, the British government to close down the newspapers of the far left, since they (we) have often supported the violent overthrow of capitalism. TWP here falls to the usual trap of forcing a fictitious universality onto concepts of a divided -ie partial not universal – society. Talking about legitimacy, TWP forgets to ask the crucial question: “for whom?” In a class society, questions of legitimacy, legal or moral, cannot be extracted from the context of class struggle and made into abstract, timeless dicta derived from the sky above. Therefore, if the British state decides to close down socialist newspapers, it will be a perfectly legitimate move for the class interest it represents. For socialists of course, it would be a terrible crime, not because it would take away our “freedom” but because it would severely reduce our efficiency and capability to promote our ideas. The illegitimacy of the act would not consist in a violation of our perceived human rights but in the fact that it would be an attack on socialism. In that manner, the very existence of the bourgeois state and its ideological supports is illegitiate. No action it takes can ever be considered morally acceptable by socialists, apart from that which is forced upon it by the struggle of the working class.

The same goes for human rights. The reason the left usually defends human rights is because attacks on them are made by the bourgeois state with the aim to undermine the fighting power of the working class. Indeed, “universal” human rights were won by workers after decades of painful struggle; there was no right to free speech for socialists for a large part of the 20th century (and one may very well say there won’t be a right to it again, if socialism becomes a powerful political force again), there was no right to shelter and food, no right to education. Socialists support human rights for the working class, but we have no obligation to fight for the right of RCTV owners to back fascist coups. Expecting from socialists to rise in support of freedom of speech for RCTV, is like expecting the Tories to organize demonstrations for the right to strike.

The concerned leftie will reply: “But isn’t the point of socialism to create a society where people are free? How can you increase freedom by curtailing freedom?”. To a limited extent, this is not wrong. I do not subscribe to the tanky notion that freedom in itself, is a bourgeois ideal. The fallacy of the liberalosocialist approach lies, again, in the abstractly universalistic manner it uses the concept of freedom. Like legitimacy, freedom cannot be extracted from its class context. As Lenin points out in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, one cannot discuss freedom and democracy without asking “for what class?”. The freedom of workers to go on strike restricts the freedom of capitalists to extract profit. The freedom of capitalists to own media curtails the freedom of workers to establish independent media outlets.

Freedom then, within the context of a class society is a question of which side you are on, as the amount of freedom a class has is inversely related to the amount of freedom of its antagonistic classes. Marxists are on the side of the working class and this is why we do not see anything wrong with the Chavez government shutting RCTV down. Had RCTV been a workers’ co-operative or had Chavez moved to silence an oppositional workers’ political group, he would have been on the receiving end of the harshest of criticisms from the Squirrel Vanguard. The only criticism one could level against Chavez is that instead of turning RCTV into a cooperative news outlet, he made it a state owned one. Other than that however, his democratic record with respect to the working class has been brilliant, to put it mildly. Not only has community power greatly expanded under his administration, but in what is probably a world first, the right of recall has been enshrined in the constitution and has already been used by Chavez’s opponents against him.

Perhaps the freedom-loving left (as in opposed to freedom-hating commies like me) should remember that true, universal freedom, can only be the product of a positive transcendence of alienation and therefore, achievable only in a true classless society. And since liberalosocialists don’t quite like “authoritarian” Lenin, I’ll finish this post with a quote by “libertarian” Rosa Luxemburg:

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished

Brownite opportunism by korakious
May 20, 2007, 1:00 pm
Filed under: Imperialism, UK politics

With the Tories making great gains down south and with the increasingly antagonistic mood of the SNP here, Brown is obviously getting worried. In a bid to regain support from pissed off Labour voters, as well as those supporting the SNP, the soon to be Prime Minister has started working on a withdrawal plan aiming to remove troops from Iraq before the Westminster general election.Scotland on Sunday reports:

One senior Cabinet minister, expected to play a central role in Brown’s first government, said an accelerated withdrawal from Iraq was one of the “foremost options” under consideration.

He added: “We are already committed to a withdrawal of sorts. The schedule can be altered so it is comfortably done within two years.”

Under the blueprint for withdrawal announced by Blair in February, the 7,100 British troops currently in Iraq would be reduced to 5,000 by late summer, with an aspiration to reduce gradually over the following two years.

But the military plans sparked by the looming change at the top involve cutting the British presence more rapidly: to 4,000 by late summer and perhaps 2,000 to 3,000 by the year end.

The ultimate hope is to draw down to a “nominal” force within 18 months, and a virtually complete exit within two years of Brown coming to power.

Michael Codner, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, said declining public support and demands had raised expectations of changes in the British presence.

He said: “There is a growing view that British forces in Iraq will be reduced substantially in the next 12 months, perhaps to as low as 1,500. The change of leadership is an obvious catalyst.”

Let’s see how this turns out.

Law by korakious
May 19, 2007, 7:22 pm
Filed under: law, Pashukanis, Rob, Theory

Why law?

In order to stop my fellow vanugardist from constantly heckling me about my laziness and lack of a work-ethic I have decided to make a post. Frankly, I reserve the Right to be Lazy and fear that my comrade is infected with a hideous managerial work ethic. Anyway, this will not be the normal type of post here, as I am not Scottish. I am also far too much of a student for my own good, hence the content of this post.

So basically I am interested in Marxist approaches to the law. More specifically I am not a ‘Marxist looking at the law’ or a ‘lawyer who likes Marxism’ but I make some attempt to do both (although this shouldn’t be mistaken for an attachment to the law – because I’m really not). So in this post here I basically attempt to justify my odd position (although there are certainly a few contemporary Marxist legal theorists), and say why it is we might focus on law.

So the first thing I want to say is that a there hasn’t really been a lot of Marxist work done about law as a specific phenomenon. There have been quite a few works which (of necessity) include law as an element of the social totality, but many of these haven’t really been able to grapple with the specificity of law. So a lot of the time you’ll just hear that law is an ‘expression of the will of the dominant class’ or something, which – although it might have some useful content – tells you nothing about law as a specific phenomenon.

In this respect there is really only one ‘classic’ work of Marxist legal theory – E.B. Pashukanis’ General Theory of Law and Marxism – this is a work which has influenced me quite a lot. So I suppose later on in some posts I will expand upon the some theoretical points (or rather I’ll link or re-post some old stuff) and show how taking an in-depth position on legal theory (bearing in mind there is no revolutionary movement without revolutionary theory) actually does serve at least some practical purpose.

So, here I’m just going to outline some reasons why I think it’s interesting and important to have a Marxist account of the law. Basically, I want to move from more abstract questions to concrete questions, although obviously these two factors are intimately related.

Law and Liberalism

Anyone who wants to make any sense of liberalism has to engage with the law. On one level this is obvious. Most of the classical liberals from Hobbes to Locke to Montesquieu to Rousseau all had to explicitly deal with law. In fact in many of these account the law assumes an absolutely central role (Hobbes is someone who really springs to mind in this instance).

The importance of law to liberalism isn’t just a happy accident, it’s a result of the structure of liberal thought and its presuppositions about ‘human nature’. Whilst it’s always difficult to define a political position as amorphous of liberalism one can find certain commonalities of liberalism. Firstly, liberals have a certain theory of human nature – basically this holds that (at the very least) human being have a propensity towards selfishness and individualism. Closely linked to this is the fact that liberalism starts from the‘naturally independent, autonomous’ individual.

From this perspective you come to the central problematic of liberalism (and what I think is the best way to frame this). If you have a group of individual, selfish agents who need to interact in some way how can you fit this together. Since these individuals are meant to be independent, each with their own ‘plan of life’, they can’t be unified by any broad ‘purpose’, or good, or status.

It is at this point that the law becomes useful. Law is therefore seen in a double sense. Firstly, as people like Grotius thought it served as a way of demarcated the autonomous sphere of each individual. It creates a kind of shield of interlocking rights and duties. Secondly, and this is in a more Hobbesian vein, law serves as a non-moral ‘trump’ to individual disputes. This ‘trumping’ function is also how you can ‘coordinate’ the diverse lives of these ‘autonomous individuals’, because it provides a conclusive guide to what happens when individuals come into dispute.

But in a way this begins to seem a little contradictory, law is a device which both coordinates (in its trumping sense) and dissociates (in its ‘demarcating sense’), Pashukanis notes this contradiction, saying (General Theory of Law and Marxism, p.70):

Law is simultaneously a form of external authoritative regulation and a form of subjective private autonomy. The basic and essential characteristic of the former is unconditional obligation and external coercion, while freedom is ensured and recognized within definite boundaries. Law appears both as the basis of social organization and as the means for individuals “to be disassociated, yet integrated in society”. On the one hand, law completely merges with external authority, and on the other it completely opposes every external authority not recognized by it.

Without the law liberalism (ideologically) completely falls apart. It is forced either to revise its central presuppositions about human nature, or reject the autonomy of the individual, or support a Hobbesian ‘state of nature’.

It is not accidental therefore that the radical anti-liberal critiques concentrated to a large extent on the role of law and rights within liberalism. The main example of this is Carl Schmitt, German fascist and utter bastard – yet someone who focused particularly on the intersection of law and liberalism. But there is also Marx’s famous On the Jewish Question, and numerous bits of Lenin.

Now of course, this all remains rather abstract, but I think it does address real concrete problems. Firstly, the intimate connection of law and liberalism might tell us to be slightly wary of raises slogans about the ‘rule of law’, and making paeans to it. Furthermore, we of course live in a broadly ‘liberal’ society, and as such one in which law assumes (at least at first sight) a particularly important role.

Law and Capitalism

Of course, this all seems rather airy fairy (and believe me it will remain so), stuck in the ‘idea’ of liberalism. Yet, as I have argued before, liberalism is a product of capitalism. I’ll briefly go through this connection, and then I’ll explain some other reasons why capitalism and law are deeply interconnected.

The presuppositions of liberal theory begin to make sense when you analyse the historical transition from feudalism to capitalism (bearing in mind this was a long transition). So basically (and this is very sketchy) feudalism involved individuals being placed into static, customary rules. Their ‘rights and duties’, such as they were, arose by reference to their position in the political order.

The basic point is that in the transition to capitalism this status was demolished by the commodity form. Guilds and hereditary castes were broken up; the old system of land tenure (the connection of the peasantry to the land) was destroyed. So what we have here is a situation where individuals increasingly resemble the liberal vision of them. They no longer have any status based connection with their employer/employee, instead it is a relationship based solely on a cash nexus.

But simultaneously with this you have a great drawing together of people. Increasingly, owing to capitalist manufacture people are brought together, disputes inevitably arise, demarcation needs to take place. And here is the relationship between liberalism and capitalism, the problems of liberalism are the problems of capitalism – how do increasingly disconnected individuals, who are nonetheless brought into contact find a way to be ‘dissociated yet integrated’. So, in capitalism, as with liberalism, law plays a central role.

However, and as I will make clear later, the connection between law and capitalism runs deeper than the one described above. The above description shows that law is connected to capitalism because of the ‘solution’ to some of the problems it throws up. However, I (and in fact anyone who follows Pashukanis) think that there is a more structural connection between law and capitalism. This is a topic that is beyond the confines of this (already overlong) introduction. It is something I have written about before and will write about later. However, there are some opening things I would point out.

The most important thing to first note is that central to capitalism is the commodity. The commodity is the ‘unit’ of capitalism, and through the unfolding of its internal structure, and through many mediations you will eventually reach the state of the world today. However, as Marx notes:

It is plain that commodities cannot go to market and make exchanges of their own account. We must, therefore, have recourse to their guardians, who are also their owners Commodities are things, and therefore without power of resistance against man. If they are wanting in docility he can use force; in other words, he can take possession of them. In order that these objects may enter into relation with each other as commodities, their guardians must place themselves in relation to one another, as persons whose will resides in those object, and must behave in such a way that each does not appropriate the commodity of the other, and part with his own, except by means of an act done by mutual consent. They must therefore, mutually recognise in each other the rights of private proprietors. This juridical relation, which thus expresses itself in a contract, whether such contract be part of a developed legal system or not, is a relation between two wills, and is but the reflex of the real economic relation between the two. It is this economic relation that determines the subject-matter comprised in each such juridical act.

In other words, the commodity relationship posits and presupposes the legal one, since in order to exchange a commodity (and a commodity is only characterised by exchange) one must recognise someone else as your equal. This connection is vastly important since it shows the primal connection between law and capitalism. On the level of commodity exchange (and this incidentally is why law pre-dates capitalism) the two are irrevocably and structurally linked.

This is of course central to the arguments of Lenin and Engels on the link between bourgeois ‘equality’ and the commodity form.

With this established one can go on to consider how the law is important to more concrete, everyday situations, which I’ll talk about next time I post. Also, I’ll talk about why I think my philosophical orientation is best.

SNP. Business as usual? by korakious
May 18, 2007, 11:42 am
Filed under: Scottish politics

As promised; squirrel thoughts on Salmond’s election.

So, Alex Salmond did manage to grab the First Ministership despite his supporters being in a minority. He has also now appointed the Cabinet and significantly, not a single member of the opposition chose to vote against the appointments, opting to abstain instead. Now that the MSPs have been sworn in and the Queen has signed the relevant documents, the probability of a challenge to the election results seems nil. Personally, I don’t think there ever was any chance that a challenge would be mounted, as it was in none of the big parties interests. The Tories wouldn’t possibly manage to make any gains, the Lib Dems would not like to see themselves associated with Labour given their ever hastening downfall and Labour themselves would be seen as childish sore losers if they challenged the SNPs victory. So the whole thing was pretty much an exchange of fiery rhetoric, just to keep things interesting and make the politicos feel important.

I have made a number of posts regarding the bourgeois nature of the Scottish National Party and nothing much has changed since then or happened since Salmond’s rise to power, quite understandably too, as it was yesterday. However, there have been a few signs indicating the trajectory Salmond’s minority government will follow.

For starters, Salmond’s rhetoric of ruling by consensus and in the “national interest” confirms our predictions that he will lead a government that is completely servile to the bourgeois. Scottish Labour leader Jack MacConnell also said that his party is willing to work with the SNP on an issue by issue basis and that they “will not oppose for its own sake. Translation: “We will be happy to promote the agendas of our common masters even if we might find our selves disagreeing on an issue or two”. Therefore, we should not expect to see any particular clashes over issues affecting capital; business as usual.

Things of course aren’t that simple. Battle lines are already starting to form between Holyrood and Westminster. According to the Scotsman, Gordon Brown, the ultra British soon to be New Blabour leader and Prime Minister (aye, the guy who thinks Thatcher didn’t go far enough in promoting private home ownership) has not yet called Salmond for congratulations. In fact, answering questions after a speech delivered in the London City HQ, Brown commented that Salmond does not hold an absolute majority, a subtle threat rather than a kind reminder:

“I think it’s a huge responsibility that he has taken on,” Mr Brown said of Mr Salmond, serving notice that Labour will quickly condemn as “irresponsible” any SNP move to alter the devolution settlement.

“He is the lead party in terms of numbers of parliamentary seats,” Mr Brown said, his voice drained of earlier enthusiasm. “But he doesn’t have a majority.”

He continued: “While I congratulate him and respect the decision that has been made, I remain firmly committed to the union.”

“I do not believe the vote was a vote for separation and independence.”

What makes this particularly interesting is that the ultra bigot filthy loyalist fascist that is Ian Paisley did congratulate Salmond and also stated that he would be soon meeting him in Belfast in order to discuss the possibility of reestablishing the devolved authorities’ Whitehall committee. It seems that Northern Irish loyalists are happier to work with the SNP than Gordon Brown is.

On his part, Salmond has not been slow to pick a fight with Westminster either. Yesterday, the St. Bernard’s look-alike politician attacked Westminster’s plans to shut down 2,500 post offices all over the UK come summer, vowing to use all powers at the Scottish Executive’s disposal to “soften the blow”. Given the opposition of trade unions and community group to said plan, this could very well be a maneuvre aiming to further erode Labour’s working class support and attract it to the SNP.

Overall, it might be too early to make conclusive judgments on the nature of the SNP led administration and the possibilities it will open for working class mobilization, but it seems rather evident that they are adopting a bourgeois agenda while maintaining semi-confrontational politics with unionism. While it maybe true that since, unlike Labour, the SNP doesn’t have deep roots in the working class, its right wing trajectory will definitely lead to its support plummeting, thus opening up space for the left, it might well be the case that SNP will use its minority position as an excuse for not pushing through with its progressive policies (students grants etc.). Meanwhile, it will also gain further credibility with big business, leading perhaps to even more support from capital in 2011. This, coupled with a possible victory for the Tories in the Westminster election of 2009, can possibly propel the SNP to a position of power in the next parliament. Should they manage to deliver independence then, their support will become great and more solid. I don’t like to repeat myself, but this is exactly why socialists in Scotland must act now to build hegemony for republican socialist ideas in the independence movement.

Salmond becomes First Minister by korakious
May 16, 2007, 1:23 pm
Filed under: Scottish politics

SNP leader Alex Salmond has been elected First Minister. He was supported by the Lib Dems while the Tories abstained.

BBC story here. Squirrel commentary will soon follow.

Sheridan to be charged. by korakious
May 13, 2007, 9:44 pm
Filed under: Scottish politics, Sheridan, SSP

Today’s Sunday Mail carried an exclusive piece according to witch Tommy Sheridan will face perjury charges regarding his high profile libel case against the News of the World. You know, the one that dragged the SSP through the mad and led to excellent comrades being slandered and called scabs by the Orange One; aye that one. The Mail reports:

POLICE believe they have uncovered enough evidence to charge Tommy Sheridan with perjury after quizzing staff and customers at a notorious sex club.

Detectives say they have built up a case which could see the socialist politician face serious criminal charges. The case would be heard in the High Court and Sheridan could face a jail sentence if convicted.

This comes only a few days after Edinburgh Sucks claimed to have received information indicating that Sheridan would be charged within two weeks. While this estimate seems to be false, it is quite obvious I think that the strong arm of the law is up to something. The investigation was silently moving in the background in the run up to the elections, but it appears that now that the Tangerine Man is no longer an MSP, detectives are moving in for the kill.

But I don’t really want to discuss the perjury case. I don’t really care all that much about it. He’ll certainly get no sympathy for me if gets convicted; he deserves every thing that comes to him. What concerns me most is that good comrades will possibly have to endure another torrent of lies, filth and sycophancy from Squalidarity.

At any rate, the salient issue here is that the decision of the SSP not to cave in to “the greatest asset”‘s demands is again shown to be right. If the Executive Committee had decided to lie for Sheridan (in order to cover up his inability to keep his zipper up), apart from signaling the death of the culture of honesty, integrity and truth (all bourgeois morals, I know) of the SSP, would also have meant that our comrades too, would possibly be facing charges now. This would have fatally damaged the party’s – and consequently socialism’s – image in the eyes of the working class – we’d just be yet another bunch of politrickos.

Regardless of the possibility of a perjury case and its outcome, the case remains that the SSP is the only viable vehicle for the socialist cause in Scotland. Over the next months and years, we will have to rebuild, rethink, reorganize, restructure, and many more re’s. But we most definitely won’t retreat.