Click on the headline to link to an American Left History blog entry-From The "In Defense Of Marxism" Website Via "Renegade Eye"- On The British Labour Party- A Guest Commentary, dated Sunday July 18, 2010, for the article mentioned below and my comment.
Markin comment:
I had not intended my comment about the IMT leader Sewell’s “In Defense Of Marxism” British Labour Party article to be anything other than a short commentary. However, someone here has asked me to fill in the blanks a little about the task of revolutionaries in entering (or, alternatively, at least seriously challenging from the outside) the British Labour Party for leadership of its working class mass constituency. I mentioned in that previous comment (see linked article above)the notion of splitting that party into its component parts, reformist and revolutionary, in order to drive the class struggle in Great Britain forward. The following are a few thoughts on that issue:
Look, today, in the post-Soviet “death of communism” political landscape that we are just coming out of, despite the overwhelming objective economic situation which cries out, and cries out to high heaven, for socialist solutions we revolutionaries who follow the banner, seriously follow the banner, of Marxism, especially as it follows its Trotskyist line through the history of the international working class movement are as scarce as hen’s teeth. We pose, and rightly so, as champions of the historic needs (and historic destiny, as well) of the working class. In that sense we oppose, and oppose vigorously, all reformist roadblocks, both inside that movement and out, but mainly today inside. But our forces are small, our needs are great, and our maneuverability limited.
Nevertheless we are not without tactical possibilities. And here is where the notion of “entry” (as opposed to the formal, politically obligatory, membership of individual militants) into the British Labour Party comes into play, if such a tactic is warranted today given the political trajectory of that party. While, as stated in my previous commentary, it is not at all clear to me that there is any motion that warrants such “entry” rather than working from the outside I was asked about the rationale for doing so and that is what this comment is about.
In a perfect working class universe under conditions of bourgeois rule we would want, and we would expect, given the viciousness of our blood-drenched opponent, to have one mass party, one mass revolutionary, party to confront the enemy. The history of our movement, however, even before Marx and his seminal work, and clarion call, The Communist Manifesto, in the 19th century has, repeatedly, demonstrated that such a situation is the exception rather than the rule. (The Manifesto itself, in its third part, is a nothing less than an intense polemical battle against those other socialist tendencies of the time for the “soul” of the European working class.)
Periodically the great divide between the prevailing, essentially parliamentary, reformist notions of the working class coming to power and an understanding of the necessity of a revolutionary takeover has created conditions where the advanced workers (and others, in their wake) follow the revolutionary party. That is our great shining example of the October Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917. Even there, the Bolsheviks had to fight, tooth and nail, against the Menshevik tendency (the reformist branch of the Russian working class movement of the time, although they, at least some elements of it, were not necessarily aware of it at the time given conditions in Czarist Russia) to break the workers movement from bourgeois society.
So how do those lessons help serve revolutionaries in Great Britain today. Whether the “entry” tactic is called for, or not, today the hard reality, and the hard reality especially in Great Britain, given the dead weight of the Labour party as an obstacle to revolution (hell, even to reform lately), is that one cannot reasonably expect to split that party without a life or death fight against the reformist, no, sub-reformist leadership of that party. Trying to be an organic part of Labour, to merely attempt to push it to the left (a little) and be "militant", just will not do. Generations of British revolutionaries have broken their teeth on that concept.
And as a final caveat take this: Without a perspective, as broadly outlined above, history has also shown, and shown painfully at times, that merely trying to be an organic part of the Labour Party is the kiss of death, the "kiss of the spider woman” for revolutionaries and their organizations. Look to the example of earlier generations of British revolutionaries (and not that far back either, look at the 1980s) who were spit out, and spit out unceremoniously, when the deal went down. Whether those revolutionaries explained things to the workers, patiently and soberly, or not.
The Militant Caucus could have survived the redbaiting. It couldn't survive the split in its own ranks. The IMT grew from a group that meets in one room, to several thousand members. The group that became CWI, believed they were strong enough to form their own party. That's where things died.
ReplyDeleteThe IMT doesn't actually practice entryism. They were in involved in the Labour Party maybe 50 years. We formed the Workers Party in Brazil, and were involved with the PPP in Pakistan since its inception. I can go on. In France, Italy and Spain we are in the Communist Party.
In the US on Labor day we're forming a campaign for the labor party in the US. It's the embryo of the embryo.
Water doesn't flow upwards. When British workers move, the Labour Party is first stop.