Militant - What went wrong?
This version is taken from the SSN website.
The retreat to sectarian dogmatism
Socialists in many parts of the world looking for alternatives to Stalinism and social democracy will have come across groups affiliated to Trotskyist international groups based in Britain. The two most notable of these groupings are the International Socialists, based on the UK Socialist Workers Party; and the Committee for a Workers International (CWI) based on the UK Militant organisation, now known as the Socialist Party. To understand these organisations, it is necessary to look at the way the function on home ground - Britain itself - and at their basic theoretical outlook, invariably forged in Britain.
The Militant/Socialist Party is important to analyse because in the late 1970s and 1980s it became the biggest far left group in Britain, during its period of entrism in the Labour Party. In this period the Militant tendency played a leading role in the Labour Party Young Socialists, and in the struggles in Liverpool.
Now the Socialist Party, together with its international network, is in terminal crisis and decline (see the article by John Bulaitis in the British journal Socialist Democracy Feb.' 99 for up-to-date details) .
This article was originally written for discussion among former members of the organisation in Britain who are attempting to find a new way forward. Thousands of former Militant/SP members remains committed to the socialist transformation of society, but see no perspective in that organisation's retreat to sectarian dogmatism. Millions of pounds and millions of hours of activity have been contributed to building Militant/SP and its international grouplets. That the fruits of these innumerable personal sacrifices have now been so recklessly squandered by the London leadership of Peter Taaffe and Lyn Walsh is a tragedy.
Even though the international network around Militant is mainly insignificant, the lessons of what went wrong with this organisation touch on many key questions of orientation and organisation which face the whole of the international left. Militant/SP is collapsing because it retreated on the task of facing up to the problems of socialist renewal which are unavoidable in the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
important documents by former leaders of the tendency have attempted
to analyse these problems. The first, by Roger Silverman - a founder
of Militant - was published in the SP internal bulletin, and argued
that the failure lay in wrong perspectives in the 1980s, especially
in relation to the collapse of Stalinism. The second, by Dave Cotterill,
former newspaper editor and a leader of the Merseyside organisation,
took up a number of issues, but centrally identified a failure to analyse
the resilience of modern imperialism, and a consequent consistent overestimation
of revolutionary possibilities. Both these documents contain important
Equally, I don't accept the position of those who say that the problem was that Militant was Leninist and democratic centralist. I think a key problem was that in some crucial ways it produced - in common with many other Trotskyist organisations which have degenerated in a sectarian direction - a bowdlerised version of democratic centralism which owed much to ideas imported from the Stalinist movement.
Peter Taaffe and Lyn Walsh will shrug off criticisms such as those contained here with the argument that this is the same old stuff we are used to from 'the sects', which ironically is the way they refer to all other revolutionary tendencies. Anyone who is satisfied with this type of argument is - temporarily - beyond help. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "people who like that kind of thing, will like that kind of thing".
In 1983 the Labour Party bureaucracy expelled the Militant editorial board. Anyone with eyes to see could tell this was the beginning of a major purge of the Labour Party left, which would go way beyond Militant. Through the 1980s hundreds of Militant supporters were expelled. This put in question the whole tactic of entrism, and the organisation was faced with redefining its strategy, which in some ways meant redefining its identity. In any case, what were the expelled members to do?
The urgency of this question was in a sense disguised by the turn to the anti-poll tax campaign, proposed by the Scottish leadership. Margaret Thatcher's poll tax, imposed in the mid- and late 1980s, generated huge resistance among both the working and middle classes. In particular, a campaign of non-payment, organised by local community groups, developed. This campaign was an outstanding success, in part because it did not go through the structures of the labour movement and thus did not have to confront, at each stage of the struggle, the sabotage of the Labour and trade union bureaucracy. The Scottish leadership of Militant were the first on the far left to see the potential of the non-payment campaign; it put the Scottish organisation on the map, particularly through the role of Tommy Sheridan as the best known leader of the whole movement. Through this campaign Militant had found a successful focus of activity outside the Labour Party, although formally it remained an 'entrist' organisation.
In the wake of the poll tax campaign, in the early 1990s, a break with entrism was inevitable. But given the dogmatic training of the organisation discussed below, a split on the issue was also inevitable. The minority, led by Militant founder Ted Grant and by Alan Woods, were expelled and formed their own organisation - Socialist Appeal. But with the shackles of entrism thrown off, there was good reason to be optimistic that the mainstream Militant, now a public revolutionary organisation named Militant Labour, could make a substantial contribution to the British Left. Several factors made such a judgement credible. They included:
That openness was given concrete form by the response given by Militant Labour to the split from the Labour Party to form the Socialist Labour Party, led by miners' union leader Arthur Scargill in 1995. Militant proposed to go into the SLP as an organised current, but this was rejected out of hand by Scargill and his entourage. Almost immediately, the shutters cam down and the Taaffe/Walsh leadership retreated to the bunker. It was at this point that they began to argue that Militant Labour, with no more than 1000 members (and going down) could itself form a 'small mass party', a proposal which underlay the idea of changing the name to Socialist Party - but was totally excluded in the mainly unfavourable British political situation. After a limited period of opening up, and of willingness to discuss with other forces on the left in Britain and itnernationally, sectarianism and dogmatism reasserted itself. But the roots of the dogmatism and sectarianism go way back. It is to the origin of those problems which we now turn.
At the basis of Militant theory were a series of highly questionable propositions about socialist strategy and transition which, taken together, give us an insight into fundamental failings.
First was the conception of 'entrism' - working as a tendency within the Labour Party and not as a public revolutionary organisation - in the strategic plan of party building. Naturally, the security precautions of entrism meant that Militant had to use a series of disguised formulae for self-defense. But even putting these aside, there was a one-sided explanation of entrism in forming a revolutionary party. Entrism tended to be conceived as a strategy and not a tactic, inevitably posing the question of a split if entrism was abandoned. Entrism was a badge of honour, a key point of difference with others on the left. In a fatalistic and mechanical way, the evolution of Militant ("the Marxists") into the dominant force in the Labour Party (or at least the left) was seen as inevitable. When a split came in the Labour Party it would be the right wing splitting from a radicalised and Marxist-led base. But this was always highly optimistic, given the always dominant role of the Labour and trade union bureaucracy. It was mechanical and formalistic to see mass radicalisation always being channelled into the Labour Party. In fact the Militant scenario was one variant, one theoretical possibility in the curve of development, but justified in a way which didn't take account of the profound changes in the relationship between the social democratic parties and the mass of the working class which has taken place since the 1930s. Entrism, at a certain point, was not necessarily wrong - especially in relation to the LPYS. But its explanation and long-term rationale was flawed, generating huge tensions when its abandonment was posed.
Linked to the rationale for entrism was the theory of the Labour Party. Lenin called the Labour party a "bourgeois workers party". By this he meant that it was a bourgeois party politically, but with a working class base. Trotsky in his writing on Germany called the social democracy "bourgeois through and through" ( as opposed to the Communist Party, which at that time he called "a workers party, but badly led"). But in the hands of the Grant-Taaffe leadership, Lenin's theory was transformed into the idea that the class character of the Labour Party was contradictory: it was part bourgeois and part proletarian. This easily fed into the idea of a struggle to transform the Labour Party, to resolve its class character.
This in turn was linked to the theory of the Enabling Act. This posited that "at a certain point", a socialist majority in parliament, led by "the Marxists", could pass an Enabling Act nationalising the major banks and monopolies. This again fetishised one possible theoretical variant, elevating it into a dogma. But this dogma, far from being unimportant, encapsulated a certain vision of the transition to socialism, downplaying the role of mass action. Socialist revolution was not seen primarily as the activity of the working class itself; and the nature of the bourgeois state apparatus, and the need to smash it, was downplayed. The notion of socialism coming about as the result of the self-activity of the working class was sidelined in Militant dogma. In a strange way, this was illustrated by Militant's idiosyncratic ideas about the nature of third world nationalist regimes - so-called 'Proletarian Bonapartism'.
In the 1950-80 period Marxists were faced with the need to analyse all kinds of nationalist regimes, some of them very radical, which emerged out of anti-imperialist struggle in the third world. Ted Grant devised the notion of Proletarian Bonapartism to explain these regimes; they were a form of sui generis workers states, despite their highly authoritarian, often militarised, states and the repression of the working class and peasantry. In this theory the nationalisation of the means of production was festishised as the key criterion for establishing the class nature of particular regimes. This was a false method. For example, in Nasser's Egypt in the 1950s the basic means of production were nationalised, and the bourgeoisie turned into a rentier bourgeoisie, receiving profits as subventions from the state. This was genuine 'state capitalism' - nothing to do with Cliff's theory incidentally. In such regimes, and many of them were far less radical than Nasser's, the bourgeoisie remained in power and the bourgeois state intact, even if the key form of control of the social surplus, and hence profits, was the role of the state apparatus. All kinds of bourgeois and petty bourgeois nationalist regimes got dubbed "Proletarian Bonapartism" because of the one-sided and partial criterion of nationalisation.
The theory of Proletarian Bonapartism is clearly linked to the idea of the Enabling Act and the role of nationalisation as the key criterion of socialist transition. But this is a wrong - economistic - method. The key criterion is the character of the state, and which set of social relations it historically defends - which is a different question what percentage of the economy is nationalised. But the self-activity of the working class, and the central role given by Marxism to this in the socialist transition, is also inextricably linked to the transformation of the nature of the state, and the establishment of the working class's own organisations of power. In the Russian case these were called soviets. The exact nature of the organisations of working class power in future revolutions is a matter of speculation and debate. But the necessity for these organisations - and not just a left-dominated parliament carrying out nationalisations - is fundamental to the Marxist conception of the transition to socialism.
In any case, the Proletarian Bonapartism idea led to absurdities in analysing third world revolutions. Countries as diverse as Cuba (the one real post-capitalist state in the list), Mozambique, Afghanistan, Iraq(!) and Burma (!!) all became, in Militant theory, non-capitalist states. In our opinion, the Militant theory of the Labour Party, nationalisation as the key criterion of the nature of the state, the Enabling Act and Proletarian Bonapartism are all linked together. What links them is a failure to grasp the centrality of the self-organisation and self-activity of the working class, and an economistic conception of the struggle for power.
A failure to fully understand the role of the self-activity and self-organisation of the working class in the transition to socialism naturally goes hand-in-hand with a suspicion of the mass movements of the oppressed, and a self-proclamatory sectarianism. Militant's self-identity was that of the Marxist tendency, excluding all others from that label, an absurd proposition at the end of the 20th century. This in turn was reflected in sectarianism and frontism. In the poll tax campaign, Militant was absurdly sectarian to others tendencies and independents, routinely taking over 90% of leading positions on campaign committees. Even in the campaign against the witch hunt in the Labour Party, Militant was very reluctant to engage in joint activities with other socialists, despite the fact it was often their own comrades who were being defended.
This was all of a piece with the notion of campaigning bodies as being basically front organisations and recruitment forums for the 'party' - Militant - itself. Such things reached fiasco point when the YRE national committee had to endure a long afternoon's report from Peter Taaffe on his visit to South Africa. More seriously, it resulted in the split in Panther and the loss of most of the black cadre.
All the things we have touched on here have implications for the conception of the party and its relationship to the self-activity of the working class, the labour movement, and the movements of the oppressed as a whole. The type of party you build is deeply connected to your notion of socialist transition. Logically the two cannot be separated. So far, of course, there has been no successful revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. But provisional answers have to be given on key issues. For example: is the revolution primarily the work of the party, or the self-organised activity of the working class? In many bowdlerised versions of Trotskyism, the very posing of this question would be regarded as semi-anarchist heresy. Second, given the provisional answer that socialist revolution is by definition the self-activity of the working class itself, what relationship exists between party organisations and the organisations of struggle of the working class and the oppressed? Whatever the answers provided by (future) history, we can be sure that the mass movement will reject paternalistic, manipulatory and sectarian types of party organisation. Third question: is there just one version of Marxism, and is there only one Marxist tendency in the world? If the answer to both questions is 'no' (which it obviously is), then is it necessarily the case that socialist transition will be carried out in each country with only one revolutionary tendency existing?
Your general approach to these questions will have a large bearing on the type of socialist organisation that you try to build. I go into these questions more at the end of the document.
International 'made in England'
The Committee for a Workers International (CWI) crystallises many lessons on how not to go about building an International. That the workers and the oppressed need an international socialist organisation I personally do not question. But now, the hypothesis that it will emerge solely around one of the existing international formations - IS, CWI, USFI, LIT etc - is increasingly improbable. Only major developments in the international class struggle, leading to the rebuilding and renovation of working class organisations, and a substantial strengthening of the militant socialist and revolutionary forces internationally, can create the conditions for an International with substantial weight. Such a real international is unlikely to divide over secondary questions of analysis and programmatic codification; and it is likely to include forces from diverse origins. For example, we have to recognise that, especially in the third world, real revolutionary forces have emerged from Maoist origins - indeed a diverse array of living militant socialist forces have emerged from outside any of the Trotskyist traditions.
The CWI however is a grotesque caricature of an international. A real international would imply an ongoing dialogue between different socialist organisations strongly rooted in the class struggle in their own countries, and able to discuss on equal terms. The CWI is the paternalistic organisation of international supporters of the (mainly English) Taaffe-Walsh tendency. The relationship between the SP leadership, who are also the leadership of the CWI, and the national sections is politically corrupt and clientalist. For comrades in poor countries, favour with the British leadership is often needed for the allocation of money. Taaffe and Walsh feel free to intervene at will in the affairs of each national section, and trouble-shooters are routinely sent worldwide to 'sort out' dissidents. The international centre is in the SP office, and generally all but one of the full-timers is British. It is the norm for section leaderships to consult with their allocated international fulltimer before leadership meetings. And reports to international leadership meetings have to be approved by Peter and Lynn first (cf the hapless queue outside the EC corridor the day before IEC meetings).
Taaffe and Walsh think it's fine to impose tactics from London. This is not international democratic centralism - even if any variant of that is appropriate today - but a corrupt hierarchy or orders and instructions which would have even embarrassed Zinoviev, the first leader of the Communist International to impose such a regime. Naturally as soon as sections leaderships start to think for themselves, they run into trouble. If they don't back down, expulsion cannot be far away.
The methods of the London-based leadership have led to repeated problems in the last few years. Most notable is the expulsion of the large majority Pakistani Labour Party, one of the most significant organisations of the CWI. An important part of the American leadership was expelled over political differences, and clashes are looming with others.
The problems with the CWI are the same problems as with the SP in England, but transferred to an international level - where they become even more grotesque. The CWI will fall apart together with the SP, because it is not possible to build a viable international regroupment today on the basis of a single 'correct' theory, only one version of Marxism, an all-authoritative English leadership, and a high degree of homogeneity on most questions. The political conditions no longer exist for such a structure. Today, international collaboration between revolutionaries has to be on a completely different basis.
A very long document could be written outlining horror stories about the internal functioning of the SP and the behaviour of its leaders. But the important thing is not the quirks of personalities, but the structures and norms of functioning to allow political ostracism and bullying to go unchallenged, and indeed to be accepted as normal.
The central problem is a conception of leadership which sees it as the work of a couple of 'philosopher kings' with a bevy of acolytes around them - rather than an attempt to construct a genuine team leadership, capable of mutual support and mutual criticism. Constructing a team leadership in a revolutionary organisation means trying to integrate into a collective people with different skills, perspectives and emphases. It means that there will inevitably be secondary - and occasionally major - differences of opinion among members of the team. This is systematically avoided in the SP. The executive committee was for a long period Taaffe, Walsh and the department heads. Now in some circumstances department heads will be important people to integrate into a team leadership. But to do it solely that way means to construct a management committee rather than a political committee. The result is an executive of people many of whom are rewarded for selfless loyalty rather than put there for political reasons. The result is that Taaffe, who chairs every meeting and summarises every point, and Walsh, will 999 times out of 1000 get their way on the EC. When there is no unanimous vote on the EC, as happened with newspaper editor Nick Wrack over the name change and head of political education Margaret Creear on several issues, there is an explosion.
In the event of differences Taaffe and Walsh resort to politically brutal methods. The ones I would identify as most blatantly politically immoral are the 'kitchen sink' method, political ostracism and the political purge. The kitchen sink method is the use of any political argument, about any matter whatever, which happened at any conceivable time in the past, to discredit opponents. Thus for example Lynn Walsh, in 1996, in an 'information report' on differences in the American section at the National Committee, launched a tirade against John Throne, including allegations about what he had done while an international full timer years ago and when he was in Ireland. These matters were totally irrelevant to the discussion in hand, about which most people present had no information, and when John Throne himself was not present to reply. This in an 'information report' with no discussion scheduled! (The most bankrupt argument of this session, one used regularly against opponents was "We received many complaints about him and had to intervene regularly to defend his position". Which poses the question: if he was such a terrible person - why the hell did you "repeatedly" intervene to defend his position?).
Nick Wrack got the same treatment from Taaffe when he resigned as newspaper editor, and Dave Cotterill got the same, apparently, during the expulsions in Merseyside. These are not the methods of loyal debate but of political gangsterism.
Ostracism is the fate of anyone who raises differences, and this is especially true for fulltimers working at the centre. Paid a pittance, fulltimers are particularly vulnerable to the methods of gossip, innuendo and intrigue used by the occupants of the EC corridor, because to raise differences immediately puts you in conflict with other staff members and puts your job in question.
The political purge is the throwing out of fulltimers, on any pretext, who have real or imagined differences. Thus the newspaper staff was purged in early 1995 because a majority of the newspaper staff supported the conception of a popular, highly agitational, camapigning paper of the type pioneered by Dave Cotterill when he was editor. The issue is not who was right and who was wrong: the issue is whether it is correct to deal with such differences not by political discussion, but by throwing people out - on the excuse of financial difficutlies, the oldest trick in the book The opportunity for political clarification was lost; the lesson learned was "don't have an argument with Taaffe and Walsh or you will be out on your ear."
All this is a pretty unseemly story, and probably a depressingly familiar one to people from some other Trotskyist traditions. Many more examples of the use of these methods on the SP could be outlined. The point is that the whole notion of leadership embodied in these methods is fundamentally flawed. A sectarian notion of leadership goes hand in hand with a sectarian notion of the party. As Trotsky noted, the sectarians routinely erect tin-pot dictatorships in their own ranks.
In retrospect, it can be seen that the break from entrism in the early 1990s represented an opportunity for the opening up of the organisation to new methods of work, a more constructive relationship with the mass social movements and others on the left, and a less sectarian and dogmatic theoretical approach. It would have amounted to a cultural revolution, and in some ways the Scottish leadership, in its pioneering poll tax campaigning and its break with Militant's appalling sectarianism on the national question, had already announced a cultural revolution. This trend was deepened above all by the leadership of the women's work, forced to grapple with a whole series of new theoretical questions while building CADV. A completed cultural revolution would have had implications at an international level, which was prefigured by the exchanges with the Fourth International (an exchange of observers at IEC meetings) and the beginning of friendly relations with the Australian DSP.
In fact though most of these changes were initiated 'from below', or at least outside the EC corridor, and subsequently adopted, with good grace or ill, by the central leadership. Most of these things were 'add-ons', and not articulated as a generalised change of approach. As mentioned above, the key turning point in going backwards was Militant's exclusion from the SLP, a big error by Scargill and his team. Faced with this rejection, Taaffe and Walsh reached back into their sectarian past and closed the hatches. At a British level, the organisation has turned inwards to a propaganda routine around an increasingly dire newspaper; internationally, the CWI went back to its self-imposed isolation, symbolised by the resignation of Lyn Walsh from the editorial board of Links, the international journal of socialist renewal and debate, launched originally by the Australian DSP, to which socialists from many countries and backgrounds have contributed. Having contributed nothing and made no suggestions, Walsh resigned because of "lack of consultation"!
The results of the sectarian turn have been predictably disastrous. Membership has declined precipitously. The bulk of the Merseyside membership has been expelled. The organisation has lost leaders like Margaret Creear, who was central in founding CADV and developing Militant's position of women's oppression. Tensions with the Scottish leadership have amounted to a "cold split". Tensions now exist with the French leadership. The Pakistanis have been expelled. And further dissidence has apparently emerged in Manchester and other places. (For a fuller account see the article by John Bulaitis referred to above).
The Taaffe leadership will now say that the crisis is caused by a retreat from "Marxism", including inside the SP and CWI itself. The truth is very different. The real reason for the crisis is the failure of the SP leadership to turn towards the opportunities for socialist renewal and rebuilding in Britain and internationally. The future lies not with retreating to a propaganda rump defending the basics of (a very bowdlerised and dogmatic) Marxism, as if this was the 1950s or the 1930s. The future lies in rebuilding and renewing socialism internationally; in assisting the strengthening of working class struggle; and addressing the key strategic questions of class independence, self-organisation and political representation which face the whole of the working class and the left internationally.
Nothing more shows the failure of the Taaffe-Walsh approach than the debate with the Scottish leadership. The Scottish Militant Labour (SML) comrades correctly capitalised on their work from the poll tax onwards to build the Scottish Socialist Alliance, a broad coalition of socialist forces. Once the alliance became successful, and conducted joint campaigns and electoral interventions, the question of forming the Scottish Socialist Party was inevitably posed .Taaffe and Walsh instead proposed to break the alliance (which would have been disastrous) and change the name of SML to Scottish Socialist Party - which would have been seen as an outrageous sectarian stunt by all of SML's closest collaborators.
This issue encapsulates both socialist renewal and class independence. With the Labour Party now widely seen as an openly bourgeois party, the question of a new mass workers party, a new socialist party, is posed directly. In Scotland, where the relationship of forces is much more advanced than in the rest of Britain, intermediate steps towards the resolution of the question of the political representation of the working class are immediately possible. The SSP cannot immediately be a mass party, but it can have an echo in sections of the masses, and be looked to as a real potential mass leadership by sections of the workers and youth.
But this is not possible by the SML working on their own; only a socialist formation with broad appeal can do this, and that means working with other forces. Undoubtedly this poses big problems for the SML. How do you put together building the SSP and recruiting to the Marxist current at the same time. This is a problem far from unique to Scotland, and in my opinion there are two thoroughly incorrect answers to this conundrum. The first is to say like Taaffe and Walsh, they key thing is to 'build the revolutionary party', so we solve the problem by suppressing it. Get out of the SSP, build the SML, put off or ignore the question of class independence and the political representation of the working class. This sectarian course would be posing an organisational solution to a real political problem. The dilemma of how to build a broad socialist organisation (in countries where that is posed and possible), and at the same time build a Marxist leadership current, is a dilemma which exists in reality not in abstract schemas. The Scottish comrades have to both build the broad party and win people to Marxism within it, just as Marxists inside Italian Communist Refoundation have to carry out a dual tactic. Complex tactics like this, full of dangers, are imposed by the state of the workers movement internationally - as well as the state of the revolutionary left.
The second incorrect solution would be to say: build the broad socialist party, give up on building the Marxist current. All the current debates about Leninism and democratic centralism have to start with this issue: is the specific and separate organisation of Marxism, of the forces won to the Marxist programme, necessary or not? This means, in effect, does Marxism have anything specific to say, any programme to propose, different to that advocated by broad (and very heterogeneous) organisations like the RC in Italy or the United Left in Spain? I think the answer is obviously 'yes'. And if so, then the Marxists have to organise themselves in the form of a more or less formal current. Although I don't have the space to argue the point here, my own opinion is that the organisation of a Marxist current in a broad formation is perfectly compatible with an intelligent application of Leninism and democratic centralism, although it would have to be applied in a very different way to that in an open revolutionary organisation.
But debates about labels are secondary: the key thing is the tasks. Inside a broad formation, the tasks are heavily ideological and propagandistic; yes to be the leaders and organisers of the activity and win respect on that basis, but also to have a membership which is highly ideological, highly versed in Marxism and can explain Marxist ideas.
All the broad left and socialist formations in Europe are 'only' transitional steps towards the formation of new mass parties of the class. They are thus transitory and temporary steps: the programme of Marxism however is only transitory and temporary in a world-historic sense. Or to put that point in English, the Marxist current has to survive, build and go on, whatever happens to these broad currents and recomposition parties.
I have taken the Scottish example to demonstrate a more general point. In an earlier section of the text I argued that socialism can only come about as a result of the self-activity of the working class, and that this has to be reflected in our concept of socialist organisation. But it really is anarchist primitivism to counterpose the self-activity of the working class, and the necessarily drawn-out process of renewing working class struggle and self-confidence, to the task of building socialist political parties.
Let us take an example I know quite well: the contemporary situation in Mexico. The Mexican workers, rural workers, indigenous people and popular movements have not experienced defeats like those in Europe. They are incredibly combative and active. Every day brings new strikes and demonstrations. The students are massively mobilised at this time, as are electricity workers, teachers and other sectors. But there is a problem - political leadership, which does not emerge spontaneously out of the struggles. The radical-nationalist populist party, the PRD, has a near-monopoly of electoral representation of the left - despite being explicitly not a socialist or in any way anti-capitalist party. The Zapatistas, although very important for the overall development of the struggle - and very popular with the youth and other radical sectors - only have a programme for 'democracy' and the indigenous peoples. They cannot, and do not wish to, provide an overall leadership and anti-capitalist perspective for the Mexican workers. In other words, the problems is not the level of struggle, but its lack of perspective and where it ends up politically. The need to build a new party of the workers and oppressed is obvious in a country where the masses are fighting back, but where the collapse of the Soviet Union has pushed socialist consciousness back.
But who is going to build it? Will it emerge, Phoenix-like, from repeated strikes and popular struggles? Not at all. Popular radicalism and struggle, without the conscious intervention of revolutionary forces, will end up in support for Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, leader of the PRD - or worse. The only people who will fight for a new mass socialist formation are the forces of the revolutionary left, many of whom come from Maoist traditions.
But small, perfectly formed, and brain-dead sectarian propagandists will never win anyone or build anything of significance in Mexico. Only by a dialogue with the workers and popular movements, actively engaging in struggles, recognising that revolutionaries are not just your own tendency, organisation collaboration and debates on the left, having an on-going united front and united action approach - only by using the tools of intelligent Marxism can progress to be made.
Mexico well illustrates the general approach which needs to be taken up by Marxists today. The same general lessons apply in England, Wales and Scotland. The Socialist Party is however anything but a mechanism for the application of intelligent Marxism. The way forward is now the fight for a new socialist party in England and Wales which will work with the comrades in Scotland to forge a new political representation of the working class. Inside a new party the forces of organised Marxism will be irreplaceable. The Socialist Party, on the other hand, will not.
the wonderful work done by many Militant members, particularly in the
Liverpool struggle, CADV and Scotland, the Socialist Party is now a
further example of the sectarian propagandist type of organisation which
has dominated the British Trotskyist movement. The SWP is today the
supreme example of this type of approach (despite having rejected it
in its early history). The key characteristics of these organisations
are a propaganda rhythm which is divorced from, and independent of,
the struggles of the wider movements of the workers and the oppressed;
a fetishisation of an authoritarian internal regime in the name of a
totally mystified and historically inaccurate version of 'Leninism';
the elevation of certain theoretical positions (in the case of the SWP,
state capitalism) into dogmas which are meant to be - but are obviously
not - key dividing lines with the rest of the militant left; and a linked
overestimation of the significance of certain theoretical and programmatic
codifications as opposed to participation in living struggles.
When the British Communist Party was founded in 1919, its component organisations, of which the BSP (British Socialist Party) was easily the largest, were mainly of this sectarian-propagandist type. The reason for this was the isolation of Marxism, which never in Britain achieved the position it reached in France, Germany or Italy. That isolation was caused by the strength of British imperialism, and the consequent weight of the labour aristocracy. Isolation from the workers movement is the seed-bed of propagandism and sectarianism. In the late 1880s when Marxism began to find a small echo in Britain, British imperialism, although beginning its long relative decline, was still immensely powerful. The craft trade unions, the pro-imperialist labour aristocracy and the Liberal Party, exercised nearly total dominance on those workers who thought politically. Since the defeat of the radical working class Chartist movement in the 1850s, the workers had lacked an independent voice. The first British Marxist organisation, the Social Democratic Federation (from which the BSP emerged), and its leader Hyndman, were openly pro-imperialist and very theoretically weak. Almost total isolation led to Marxist organisations - the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the SLP and the SDF - whose stock in trade were street corner speeches, socialist Sunday schools, and newspaper sales - all of which had their place but are no substitute for active participation in a broader movement - which in the 1880-1910 period did not exist.
The radicalisation in the years 1910-20, caused by economic recession and the world war, in the absence of a strong Marxist tradition, led to an upsurge of anti-political syndicalism. When Lenin and the Bolsheviks sought to help build a Communist Party in Britain after the Russian revolution, it was with ultra-left syndicalists (like Sylvia Pankhurst's SDF) and people from these isolated propagandistic groups they had to work.
These traditions thus marked the early Communist Party, despite its attempts to assimilate Bolshevik theory. Theoretical weakness meant that the British Communist Party was one of the first to succumb to Stalinism. When opposition to Stalinism appeared in the form of Trotskyism in the late 1920s and early 1930s, it was always politically and organisationally weak, until the crisis in the CP in 1956, caused by Kruschev's secret speech and the anti-Stalinist political revolution in Hungary, began to open up new opportunities.
This is not to attempt to slander the efforts of thousands of British militant socialists over the decades, many of whom achieved the best that was possible in the circumstances, and laid down a tradition of leftist defiance. But often their fate was to be isolated, or marginal, in the developments of the British labour movement, dominated by the dead hand of the labour bureaucracy on the one hand, and - on the left - by the Stalinists on the other.
Despite itself, the Trotskyist movement in Britain was heavily pressurised by the traditions of Stalinism - albeit of a more 'third periodist' than popular frontist type - especially in its notion of 'democratic centralism'. To break out of this syndrome, a century long, the British left needs to utilise the resources of discussion with the international socialist movement, rather than adopt any type of imperialist arrogance which sees the font of all socialist wisdom as being Trotskyist headquarters, invariably situated in the seedier parts of east London.
|| Home | About the SSN | Articles | Contact Us | Links | Resistance ||