Why is the CWI defending Tommy Sheridan?

[Gravedigger01]

Just a question that has puzzled me for some time. Why is the CWI defending Tommy Sheridan? I know that the Socialist Party Scotland has aligned themselves with Sheridan and Solidarity Scotland but why is this?

I understand that he is a past member of Militant Tendency and it is undeniable that he was a great fighter for the Scottish working class but I have read up on the case and I believe that Sheridan put his on ego ahead of the movement like when he went on Big Brother.

I do recognise that because of his dispute with the News of the World meant that he was heavily biased against but I feel that the CWI has defended Sheridan without taking his mistakes into account.I am a supporter of the CWI but this decision confuses me.

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4586
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4748

Thank you very much:D

[Olentzero]

Well, at its base it is about a committed socialist getting the shit end of the stick from a billionaire hard-right media mogul. Anyone with an ounce of feeling of solidarity shouldn't find it difficult to say "Yes, he should be defended".

We can't simply decide not to defend someone because they have made mistakes. If we waited to defend only those who were pure as the driven snow we'd be waiting a long, long time. Which mistakes do you think need to be taken into consideration?

[Magdalen]

At the same time, one could argue that Tommy Sheridan has given his former comrades the 'shit end of the stick' by bringing majority of the Scottish Left to near ruin with his antics.

[Sam_b]

it is undeniable that he was a great fighter for the Scottish working class

Congrats on answering your own question.

[Gravedigger01]

Congrats on answering your own question.

I said "was". I think that his antics have destroyed the Scottish left which he spent years building up thus cancelling these out which is why I'm so suprised why groups such as Socialist Party Scotland are willing to back him.

[Magdalen]

I said "was". I think that his antics have destroyed the Scottish left which he spent years building up thus cancelling these out which is why I'm so suprised why groups such as Socialist Party Scotland are willing to back him.

From what I know of Socialist Party Scotland (a renaming which presumably will have upset the SSP), they're a very small organisation. The area where I live is apparently their main centre, and must admit that I see very little of them compared to the SSP, SWP or even the RCG. I suspect that it may all boil down to the allegiances of one or two senior members.

[Sam_b]

I said "was". I think that his antics have destroyed the Scottish left which he spent years building up thus cancelling these out which is why I'm so suprised why groups such as Socialist Party Scotland are willing to back him.

I'm disappointed that someone in the Socialist Party prefesses such a simplistic analysis of the break-up of the SSP (note I say 'SSP' instead of 'left', I would not wish to be as sectarian-minded to label the Party as the left in Scotland). The split in the party was much deeper than Sheridan alone, and had much to do with the platform structure of the Party, in which some of its block constituents, eg the CWI Platform and the Socialist Worker Platform, had serious grievances with. Much of this was around the question of platform independence, being able to overtly be CWI for instance instead of SSP, platform public meetings etc. This was indeed the backbone to problems that some of us had with the organisation. Also the relationship with united fronts was a key concern to me personally (and to the SW Platform, I cannot speak for the CWI on this).

The Sheridan trial was one, however, that these groups did not have control over; but pushed into the situation it became clear that sound analysis would prevail, i.e the choice to either support a working-class socialist or to support a tabloid ruled by the millionaires; that is sexist, xenophonic and anti-union to its very core. That you cite Big Brother as one of your main objections to Sheridan reeks, in my opinion, of trivialising the issues; to the extent that it construes that Tommy's years in the struggle can all be undone by a television show.

I hope some of the CWI comrades can come into this thread and set the record straight.

[Gravedigger01]

I've already said that Sheridan was a good fighter for the Scottish working class and I do agree that it was unfair because the media were biased against him but I don't see why there has to be just 2 choices "the choice to either support a working-class socialist or to support a tabloid ruled by the millionaires".I know split was more complex than the actions of one man but I'm asking why are the CWI supporting him fully instead of taking a third way position as they do on othyer issues such as Cuba where they neither fully support it or criticise without recognising Cuba's successes.

Why is it that they are fully backing Sheridan without mentioning his mistakes????

[Gravedigger01]

What I'm saying is that this is not black and white. Sheridan is not all good. He made a hell of a lot of mistakes so why are CWI taking and black and white position of defending Sheridan without recognising his mistakes when they usually give a colourful view which aptly recognises the good and the bad aspects of a certain subject?

[Sam_b]

TBH, I think it's telling why you have to say this out to Revleft rather than consulting your organisation, but so be it.


I've already said that Sheridan was a good fighter for the Scottish working class

What do you mean was?


I don't see why there has to be just 2 choices "the choice to either support a working-class socialist or to support a tabloid ruled by the millionaires"

In a courtroom, you do not get the choice of a third camp. You either defend the millionaires and their racism, anti-working class agenda, or you stand up for a class fighter.


I know split was more complex than the actions of one man but I'm asking why are the CWI supporting him fully instead of taking a third way position as they do on othyer issues such as Cuba where they neither fully support it or criticise without recognising Cuba's successes.


I'm sorry, but this is just dumb. What you are advocating is not supporting a working class organiser and fighter because his line on the issues is not 100% yours. It's akin to taking a third position on the Iraq war because the resistanc eisn't 100% pro-CWI, for instance.



Why is it that they are fully backing Sheridan without mentioning his mistakes????

Oh for fucks sake. The CWI do highlight their disagreements with Tommy, but this does not get in the way of supporting him against a multinational corporation of the rich. Isn't this obvious?


He made a hell of a lot of mistakes

The only one of which you've really pointed out is Celebrity Big Brother. Am I supposed to take this seriously?

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Comrade Ruaidhi Garvey, I think, with all due honesty. that you should take the misgivings you have over the Tommy Sheridan, TS, issue and why the CWI still stands by him and discuss them within your local branch and with the more experienced members of the SP and CWI. I would like to suggest that you go onto the CWI website and go onto the MarxistNet site and look on the site called “Party, Programme, Reformism and the International – The Scottish Debate” where you will see all the documents, from both sides, relating to the debate that started in 1998 to 2001 that led to a number of Scottish comrades, TS among them, leaving the CWI. All the political ‘mistakes’ by TS and the others are answered in these documents. If you also go onto the CWI site and go into ‘sitemap’ and link into Scotland you will see a number of articles relating to TS, the SSP and Solidarity that may help you in your understanding why we, the CWI, defend TS in the actions by the Murdoch Company and the reasons for the ‘split’ after the first court case and the formation of Solidarity. And yes the CWI in Scotland, amongst others, did have discussions with TS on a whole number of issues relating to the court cases and the formation of Solidarity. I was not privy to those discussions because I was not in Scotland at the time, but I know they took place.

Nevertheless, Are you really saying that a socialist, who was a member of the CWI for many years, who has stood up for the working class in Glasgow, Scotland and in Britain for over 20 years and who was hounded by the Labour establishment, the Scottish establishment, the British establishment and the international media should not be defended by the CWI when they attack him. On this issue I do not believe there is a third way, well there is that is standing in the middle of the road where one will get knocked down. What is important is that TS is given the moral and political support by the CWI, and others, so that when he comes out of prison he will become involved in the workers movement again.

I would like to ask you a couple of questions: what mistakes are you talking about and what sources have you read on the case itself?