By Ted Grant
It is
necessary, at various stages, to re-examine and analyse the principles, policies and
tactics of the Movement both for the benefit of new members, and to consolidate and
refresh the ideas of the basic cadres. In the light of recent events
(’Newsletter’ Industrial Conference, formation of the Socialist Labour League),
and because of the relative lull in the Labour Party at the present time, this seems to be
a suitable time to re-examine some of our basic conceptions on the problems of work in
Britain.
To the
sectarian splinter groups on the edge of, or to the ‘left’ of the Fourth
International (The Workers’ League, the Socialist Workers’ Federation and other
tiny grouplets), the problem is posed in the simplest of terms: the Social Democracy and Stalinism have betrayed
the working class; therefore the ‘independent’ party of the working class must
immediately be built. They claim the ‘independence’ of the revolutionary party
as a ‘principle’, whether the party consists of two or two million.
They
do not take into account the historical development of the movement of the working class,
which conditions the tactics, while maintaining the principles of the Marxists. Without
flexible tactics it is impossible to win or train the forces which must be won before a
revolutionary party can be built.
Unfortunately,
the movement of the working class does not proceed in a straight line. Otherwise, all that
would be necessary would be to
‘proclaim’ from the street corners the need for a revolutionary party - as the
SPGB has proclaimed for 50 years the superiority of Socialism over capitalism - but with
completely barren results.
We
have to start with an understanding of the working class and the Labour Movement as it
emerges historically, with the consciousness determined by objective conditions on the one
hand, and the betrayal of Stalinism and Social Democracy, which for us are objective factors, on the other
hand; and the weakness of the revolutionary forces, which also becomes an important factor
of the historical process. How to overcome the weakness and isolation of the revolutionary
movement, whilst maintaining its principles intact, is the basic task of this epoch.
Alas!
The movement of the working class rarely moves in a straight line. Otherwise capitalism
would have been overthrown decades ago. The betrayal of the Revolution by Social Democracy
in 1914-20 led to the formation of the Communist International, which was intended as an
organ of World Revolution. The degeneration of the Revolution and the subsequent betrayal
of Stalinism had its consequence that the world proletariat was disorientated.
However,
it is one thing for the cadres of the revolutionary movement to understand the role of
Stalinism and Reformism; it is a different matter for the masses, and even for the active
advanced guard, who in general only learn by experience.
The
victory of Hitler and the failure of the CI to learn the lessons of these events, marked
the end of the CI as a weapon for the overthrow of capitalism and the inauguration of a
new society leading to the setting up of a Socialist system.
It was
this that led the Left Opposition to declare for the formation of new revolutionary
parties and the new International. Neither
the Labour Party nor the Communist Party could serve the needs of the Socialist revolution
. But it is a long way from proclaiming the need for a revolutionary party to being able
to form one with a mass basis.
Historically,
the Marxist Movement has been thrown back. It is isolated from the main currents of
opinion within the Labour Movement itself.
It was
under these conditions that the problem of Entrism was raised by Trotsky. It is
significant too, that it was first raised in relation to problems in Britain, which
perhaps is a pointer to future perspectives.
Here
we can only give a brief sketch of the history of entrism in Britain, dealing with the
most important points only, which are of interest for the purposes of clarification and
discussion.
The
question was first raised in relation to work in the Independent Labour Party.
As a
result of the experience of the Labour Government of 1929-31 and world events of that
period, the catastrophic slump, the rise of Fascism in Germany, faith in Reformism was
shattered among many sections of the movement. Opposition to the policy of surrender and
retreat of the MacDonald Government crystallised, in the Labour Party, within the ranks of
the ILP.
The
ILP split from the Labour Party (on the wrong issue, at the wrong time, And without
mobilising support in the broad Labour Movement). This meant that tens of thousands of
workers organised in the ILP were moving in a revolutionary direction, away from Reformism
and towards Marxism. At this stage their ideas were muddled; half revolutionary, half
reformist. They could be won for the revolutionary programme, be absorbed by the
perversions of Stalinism, move back to reformism, or lapse into apathy. The issue was not
at all a settled one.
IN
1932 the Trotskyists in Britain had been expelled from the Communist Party (for advocating
a United Front with the Socialists in Germany and Britain). They launched a monthly paper
but still remained isolated from the mainstream of the working class movement. Under these
conditions, Trotsky suggested to the British comrades that the most fruitful field of work
in Britain would be among the leftward moving workers in the ILP.
Unfortunately,
the most experienced leaders of the Movement resisted and tried to maintain an independent
organisation (not for very long - they soon entered the Labour Party, and later their
organisation was dissolved) and only the younger and less experienced entered the ILP.
Only modest successes were recorded. In the next period the ILP began to melt away as a
serious force due to vacillations and the confusion of the leadership.
By
1935 the Labour Movement had began to recover from the debacle of 1931. And with the
decline of the ILP and the prospect of only negligible further gains, if not losses, in
this stagnant milieu, Trotsky raised the question of entry work in the Labour Party. The
successes of the LP in the local elections, the strikes, the possibility of civil war
which seemed to loom ahead - all would have their reflection in the ranks of the LP and
make the best elements receptive to revolutionary ideas. However, they would not listen to
a tiny organisation outside the mainstream of the Labour Movement. The problems of
building the revolutionary tendency was the problem
of penetrating the Labour Movement, especially the politically-conscious
sections organised in the Labour Party. The LP, as the political expression of the
organised trade union movement, represented the organised working class and sections of
the unorganised workers as well. Thus the only way in which the work of revolutionists
would not be stultified was within the mass milieu. We must learn to express revolutionary
ideas in a language workers would understand, skillfully fighting the Reformists step by
step, but without abandoning revolutionary ideas or perspectives.
Comrade
Trotsky suggested bringing the experience of entry into the ILP to a close, and conducting
work in the Labour Party.
The
history of the subsequent period demonstrates that at that stage this was the correct
tactic.
The
working class does not come to revolutionary conclusions easily. Habits of thought,
traditions, the exceptional difficulties created by the transformation of the Socialist
and Communist traditional organisations into obstacles on the road of the revolution; all
these have put formidable obstacles in the way of creating a Marxist mass movement.
All
history demonstrates that, at the first stages of revolutionary upsurge, the masses turn
to the mass organisations to try and find a solution for their problems, especially the
young generation, entering politics for the first time. The experience of many countries
demonstrates this. In Germany, despite the fact that the Spartacists represented tens of
thousands of revolutionary workers steeled in the struggle against the First World War,
and despite the fact that the Social Democratic leadership betrayed the workers in
supporting the war and opposing the revolution
of 1918, it was to the latter that the workers first turned after the outbreak of the
revolution. It required years of revolutionary and counter-revolutionary struggles (apart
from the mistakes of the leadership) before the CP was transformed from a small party to a
mass movement.
This
experience of every revolutionary awakening in the last 50 years in Europe demonstrates
the truth of this theory. With the tiny forces we are able to mobilise at the moment, it
would be laughable to suppose that the development of the revolution in Britain will
follow any other course. Even as an independent force - if we had the forces and resources
- it would be necessary to take this process into account. How much more so when, in
relation to the problems posed by history, as yet we are a tiny handful. The task is to
convert this handful into an integrated group with roots in the mass movement and then,
from a cadre organisation, into a wider grouping ,leading to the development of a mass
organisation. How this is to be done is the main tactical consideration which dominates
the work of the organisation at this stage.
Turning
back to the historical question of entrism. From 1936-9 this problem was posed by the
developments in Britain. It is not our intention to deal with the disputes of that period
within the Movement, which are only of historical interest. But the outbreak of war in
1939 cut across the process and gave a different turn to events.
And
here the problem of tactics as tactics, and not as once-and-for-all fetishes, shows its real importance. The Labour and TU leaders
entered a coalition with the capitalist class, and at a later stage entered the government under Churchill. The Labour organisations declined
in activity and as live, functioning organisations. The youth was in the armed forces.
Later, the CP, with the entry of Russia into the war, became the most zealous
strike-breaking organisation. This gave tremendous opportunities for
‘independent’ work. The biggest successes of Trotskyism in Britain were obtained
during this period. The WIL, which formed the main part of the Revolutionary Communist
Party at the fusion of Trotskyist forces in 1944, had changed its tactics in the early
part of the war as a result of the experience of the objective situation. From the
militants in industry and the Trade unions the beginnings of a vanguard were created. But
even at the height of the successes of the RCP, in discussion of the problems of entrism,
the basic question of the probable entry of the revolutionary forces into the LP was
posed. In discussions on the question, it was explained that even if a small party of a
couple of thousands were to be created, it would not be sufficient for the tasks posed by
history. If a Left Wing of some tens of thousands were to arise in the LP under the hammer
blows of events it would be necessary, where affiliation could not be obtained, to enter
for the purpose of influencing these elements into moving in a revolutionary direction;
though, of course, at that stage the main emphasis was on the building of an independent
party.
Events
on a world scale took a different direction than was or could be foreseen by the
Trotskyists in the prewar period. Stalinism in Russia and the East, Reformism and
Stalinism in the West, were temporarily strengthened by a whole series of factors.
In
Britain, this was reflected in the victory of the Labour government. Coming to power at a
time of boom caused by the destruction of war, the Labour government of 1945 functioned
under entirely different conditions from those under the Labour government of 1929. the
ruling class had lost confidence as a result of the changed status of Britain in the
world. Nominally a victor, Britain had nothing but losses to put in its balance sheet as a result of the war. The basic industries had
been allowed to decay, with antiquated equipment, and starved of of capital. for Britain
to compete in the markets of the world she needed cheap coal , transport, steel,
electricity etc. Private enterprise would not have been willing to lay out the enormous
sums required to modernise these industries. Hence the tolerance, or lukewarm opposition
of the capitalists to the nationalisation of industries. The wave of revolutionary
awakening had spread all over Asia, including India. The ruling class realised the
impossibility of holding down these areas without a long and full scale war, which Britain
could not sustain. Hence the conceding of control to the Indian, Burmese and Ceylonese
capitalist classes. With the huge profits being made by big business, and on the basis of
expanded economic activity, crumbs could be afforded as concessions to the working
classes. On this basis, the Labour leaders, in the early years at any rate, could
introduce certain reforms, such as the National Health scheme. The loans and Marshall Aid
extended by America also bolstered up the economy. American
capitalism had no alternative than to underwrite the British Labour government. But the
fact that in large measure the Labour government had carried out its programme and that,
thanks to overtime, women working, bonus schemes and a sellers’ market with the
chronic shortage of labour, conditions improved in comparison with prewar, especially with
the disappearance of unemployment, meant that illusions in reformism were strengthened
within the organised working class. Thus the opposite condition prevailed than had
prevailed with a Labour government working under conditions of slump.
Under
such conditions, the revolutionary tendency tended to become isolated. This is not the
time nor the place for an analysis of the mistakes of the RCP and the Movement generally
at that time. But one thing has been demonstrated by historical events; the conditions for
entry, as worked out by Trotsky in the past, did not apply. These conditions can be
summarised as:
(a)
Pre-revolutionary or revolutionary situation.
(b)
Ferment in Social Democracy.
(c)
Development of a Left Wing.
(d)
the possibility of the rapid crystallisation of the revolutionary tendency.
None
of these conditions existed at the time. Healyites in the RCP first raised the question.
Their perspectives were false. By 1950 they were explaining in a document for their
Congress that the issue was Socialism or Fascism within a year. There were to be no more
general Elections, etc. Their perspective was based on a complete misjudgment of the
situation.
However,
once the RCP had dissolved and all the forces of Trotskyism were in the labour Party, the
problem of how to work in the party and with
what perspective was a very vital one. It is necessary to understand that our own forces
are too weak to create a Left wing of mass proportions. our job is to win over the most
advanced elements and create cadres within the Party. At the same time, on the basis of
our work and our political positions, gaining positions in the local Labour Parties,
Wards, General Management Committees, etc. This is all preparatory work for the major job
in the future. On the other hand, to dress ourselves in the clothes of Left Reformism over
a period would be disastrous. All the adventures of the Healyites in this respect ended
ingloriously.
In the
meantime, to launch out with the main emphasis on independent work would damage the future
work that could be conducted in the Labour Party. Thus we would obtain the worst
disadvantages of both tactics. It will not be possible to re-enter easily under conditions
of ferment in the LP, as Transport house would have a list of all prominent Trotskyists in
the past period.
In any
event, it is really an extraordinary performance when the objective situation is on the
eve of transformation in the next period both nationally and internationally, with
tremendous repercussions within the ranks of the Labour Movement, to abandon the field
just when the possibility will develop for really fruitful work. Trotsky had explained
how, in preparing for entry, people should be sent in to get the feel, see what the
possibilities were etc. our now consists of preparatory work for the next period. if we
were an independent organisation at the present time we should be preparing our forces for
entry. Far
from withdrawing, we would be sending in more and more of our forces to prepare the way
for total entry. Our forces in the LP would be able to inform us of the situation
there, and at the first signs of a gathering storm we would have entered. Under the
circumstances it is the height of folly, irresponsible ultra-leftism , to launch an
adventure at the present time: an adventure that will favour Transport House in its
endeavours to shackle the Left Wing. Nothing will be gained in the long run, and a great
deal of damage will be done to the work in the Labour Party.
In
addition, the rank and file would be entirely miseducated by these constant somersaults,
and a demoralisation of the members would
ensue. From every point of view the work is impossible without an understanding of the perspectives, whatever the momentary
situation may be. Otherwise the work proceeds purely empirically as with the Healyites, in
a series of convulsive leaps and jumps in all directions. The tendency is at the mercy of
every episodic conjuncture and turn in events, blown hither and thither by momentarily
favourable or unfavourable winds, instead of - while taking these into account in
every-day work and explaining to the membership the meaning of all event - nevertheless
fitting them into broad perspectives of the movement. it is the failure to understand the
tactic of entrism, and its application, which has resulted in the new tactics of the
Healyites. They will produce an abortion.
Our
job in the preparatory period , which still exists, is the patient winning of ones and
twos, perhaps of small groups, but certainly not the creation of a mass revolutionary
current, which is not possible at the present time. To attempt to shout louder than
ones’s voice merely results in hoarseness and ultimately the loss of voice
altogether. We have to establish ourselves as a tendency in the Labour Movement.
Opportunism
is only the other side of adventurism. Both rise out of a false assessment of objective
circumstances, or of a surrender to the immediate environment. That is why, without a firm
theoretical basis and collective control of the movement, it is easy to succumb to one
mistake or the other, from opportunist LP and TU tactics (the drive in the ETU and other
unions for the elections of officials for the sake of capturing positions, without putting
forward a clear revolutionary platform , and for horsedeals with all sorts of peculiar
elements). Having burned their fingers, it is natural for the Healyites to recoil to
ultra-leftism. The ostensible reason for rejecting any unity discussions whatsoever with
the RSL was that the latter was in favour of a certain amount of ‘open’
revolutionary work, all the work nevertheless being centred
in the LP. Now we have the foolish tactics in the South Bank strike, the hysterical and
meaningless ‘rank and file’
committees (dealt with in the statement on the Newsletter
Industrial Conference) embracing all trades and all sections of the workers. This has not
succeeded in attracting more than a small section of the militants, but it has succeeded in jeopardising the future of
work in the Labour Party.
With
the Healyites, adventurism has gone hand in hand with opportunism. The support for
splitting the dock workers in Liverpool, which has had such disastrous consequences, side
by side with the opportunist tactics in the ETU.
For a
quarter of the century or more the Labour bureaucracy has accumulated experience in
fighting entrist and fraction work by the CP. In this struggle they have built a
formidable machine skilled in fighting ‘infiltration’ . To this must be added a decade of experience in
fighting ‘Trotskyism’ in the LP. This puts quite big difficulties in the way of
organising on a national scale. That is why the tactics of the Healyites were
irresponsible in the last period. If Transport House have held their hand until recently,
only preparing for action against individuals, it is because they feel secure in their
position. At the present time, with the capitulation of the Bevanites (apart from the
ineffective ‘Victory for Socialism’ group), the bureaucracy feels itself
relatively secure. It is attempting to smother any opposition by calling for a rallying of
the membership for a campaign to defeat the Tories in the coming general Election.
For a
time it may succeed, or partially succeed, in this. The publication of the glossy pamphlet
on Labour’s election programme will secure acceptance by at least the bulk of the
membership in the hope that, with the election of the Labour Government, ‘things will
undoubtedly improve’.
It is
just at this time that entry work in the LP will assume the utmost importance. For the
first time, important gains will be possible on a national scale in the next period. Yet
it is just at this time that the Healyites have in action shown their despair at achieving
results. This arises from their previously incorrect perspectives, when they saw a mass
Left Wing in every incident which developed in the LP in the last decade.
As
things stand, it seems likely that Labour will win the next election, especially if the
economy remains stagnant and unemployment reaches a million or thereabouts during the
winter. Labour’s programme has something for everybody in it, and Gaitskell’s
demagogic speeches on the television and in the country will have been noted by the rank
and file. Should Labour win the next election, the bill will be presented by the workers
accordingly. The advanced elements in the unions and LP will demand steps in the direction
of Socialism. The capitalists will be exerting pressure in their turn on the Government,
and the Labour leaders will be left floundering, with their reformist programme in
tatters, in the middle. The political perspective
of the next Labour Government will rather be that of 1929 than that of 1945.
The
demands of the workers, in the unions and the LPs, will gather strength and momentum,
after the first period of shock and waiting watchfully for the promises of the Labour
leaders to be carried out. The mass of the working class learns only from experience. this
applies also to the more active and advanced elements in general, apart from the Marxist
wing who are guided by theoretical calculations. The bulk of the nascent Left Wing are
guided by ‘practical’ considerations, and will judge the Movement according to
the results achieved. However, they will be a receptive and attentive audience when
reformism fails to ‘deliver the goods’.
Under
conditions of crisis and struggle, there will be renewal of the entire Labour Movement.
shop stewards who have grown old and subservient to the management in those plants where
relatively good conditions have been obtained in the past period will be shouldered out
and replaced by younger militants; the local TU branch officials who do not reflect the
changed mood of the workers will be removed. Delegates to the GMCs and city LPs from the
TUs who today generally almost select themselves, because of the prevailing indifference
in the union branches, would have to reflect the mood or find themselves removed. The
wards and GMCs would reflect the new mood, and a strong, leftward moving opposition would
develop. In any case the working class will fight, and the development of struggle will
revitalise and renew the Movement; especially the youth, from whom the most gains have
been made in the past period of work, would become radicalised and look for a Left Wing
alternative.
Under
such conditions a strong Left Reformist or even Centrist current, with a mass base, would
be formed within the LP: a current similar to that which developed in the LP during the
Second Labour Government, when they moved away from reformism. Had there been a Marxist
wing, or even a strong fraction working within this milieu, the basis could have been laid
for the development of the revolutionary party. A similar opportunity will reoccur in the
new circumstances. This is the historical
justification for the policy of entrism.
We
will intervene in this current and try and fertilise it with the ideas of Marxism. The
conservative outlook of the British working class and Labour Movement, which is
historically conditioned by the developments of the last decades, can quickly disappear
under the hammer blow of events. The advanced elements will be willing to listen to
revolutionary ideas which can show a way out of the impasse in which the LP will find
itself as a result of the policies f the leadership. Reformism will appear bankrupt to
this important layer of the working class.
In
this connection there is the lesson of the experience in the post-war period. Under the
impetus of the revolutionary wave which swept Italy, the Social Democracy split between
Right and left, under Nenni. However, without any real revolutionary alternative presented
to them, the movement was captured and became a fellow-travelling satellite of the
Stalinists.
A
similar danger exists in Britain, despite the strong anti-Stalinist reaction which
followed the Hungarian events. what there is of a Left Wing is permeated by Stalinist
ideas, especially on the question of foreign policy. outside the LP, with the aid of the
large number of fellow travellers and disguised Stalinists, unless they were actively
combated within the Party, they might succeed in gaining control and stultifying the
Movement. On the other hand any opposition Left Reformist current, which might under the
hammer blow of events even split from the LP, could not maintain itself for long. It would
either make the transition to a revolutionary position, lapse back into Reformism or
rapidly disintegrate. Our epoch has no room for centrist formations of the lasting
character. That is why the perspective for the next period opens up the prospect for
entrist work to be really fruitful.
On the
other hand, if the failure of the Labour Leaders to offer a bold Socialist alternative,
even in reformist terms, to the policy and programme of Toryism; their feeble opposition
in Parliament; their failure to mobilise the workers for a real drive to get rid of the
Government, results in the unprecedented victory of the Government in three General
Elections, it will not alter perspectives in fundamentals. The struggle of the workers
will then be in extra parliamentary terms on the
industrial field. The Labour and TU bureaucrats under these circumstances would be
compelled to swing Left, and swing the Party, at least in words, for a socialist struggle
against the Tory Government. The rank and file would be thoroughly roused and critical.
Under conditions of struggle a Left Wing would rapidly be crystallised. Against an aroused
working class the Tory Government, after testing out the resistance of the workers, at a
certain stage, depending on the economic situation would, if the opposition of the working
class threatened to become too strong, with the Government losing its support, try to
bridle the masses through a Labour Government. This is to prepare the way for reaction,
and for more ruthless methods against the working class. On the other hand, if the Tories
try to ‘slug it out’ with the working class, this would be bound to be reflected
within the ranks of the working class, and thus of the LP. The rank and file would become
critical of the lack of fight of the leadership, and a ferment would commence in the
ranks, leading to the development of Left Wing and revolutionary conclusions.
In any
event the perspective is of a heightened class struggle finding its reflection within the
ranks of the Labour Movement. This must be the basic perspective that we set ourselves.
Our
day to day work within the TU branches and LP Wards and GMCs must be imbued with these
ideas. At the present time, the Transport House bureaucracy relies only on a thin stratum
of its members for its machine. The experience of the last decade has had its effect on
the rank and file. Largely it is the full time officials and councillors on whom Transport
House relies for its support. Not even on all these. Quite a big section, in various
Parties, supports the Left. Under conditions of crises, this stratum whose horizon is
bounded by the routine of local affairs, would be affected by the mood of the rank and
file. Meanwhile the weight of the bureaucracy is on this stratum, and the Wilson Report,
with its separation in many instances of Trades Council from LPs, its breaking up of City
LPs and greater emphasis on the Constituency Parties, lowers the specific weight of the TU
delegate and raises the weight of the Constituency Party machine.
The
Party requires the renovating breezes of the class struggle, which will put all shades and
gradings in the party to the test.
We
must look forward with confidence in our day to day patient work in Wards, GMCs, Trades
Councils and Shop Stewards committees. Our
general perspectives must at each stage be viewed in the light of events for the purpose
of checking, renewing, correcting or extending the basic prognoses, as the cases may be.
One
thing is sure. The present swing to the Right in France and Europe, to a certain extent
even Britain, will be succeeded by a terrific swing to the Left. Events,events,events,
will shake the LP to its foundations. The LPs and TUs will become forums for revolutionary
discussion. The stagnant atmosphere in the party and country will be transformed.
As the
result of the betrayals of the Bevanites, some of the ‘Lefts’ have become
discouraged and tend to drop out of the Party. They will be replaced by dozens, hundreds,
and thousands of militants in the period that looms ahead. the experience of a strike is a
valuable analogy. Every militant who has participated in a strike has experienced the
quickening effect on the consciousness of the workers. they learn eagerly and quickly. In
the course of action and discussion, they learn in days and weeks what might otherwise
take years.
On a
national scale, especially with Labour in power, with the remorseless pressure of the
class struggle pitilessly putting all programmes and perspectives to the test, the result
will be the same. The exceptionally favourable conditions that bolstered reformism in 1945
are extremely unlikely ever to recur in exactly the same form.
By
working with the rank and file to return a labour government, while criticising the
inadequacies of the programme, at this stage we can prepare our basis in the areas where
we work. Our day to day work must be linked with our perspectives indissolubly.
The
most vital need for all revolutionists is a proper sense of proportion. On the one hand to
have a proper sense of history - without this we are lost - on the other hand to find a
bridge to the future, taking into account the present relaxation of forces. Our present
forces and resources are extremely small. That has been the curse of the epoch. From our present forces and tasks we must work out
a day to day perspective, without succumbing to the reformist environment which presses
down on us in the present period.
The
theoretical and ‘independent’ work of education of our own forces must proceed
simultaneously with our work in the LP. The one is as important as the other. Either on
its own is inadequate if we are to fulfil the role laid on us by history.
March 1959