British Trotskyism
Jul 9 2008
Ever since I became active in the 1970s, I've always wondered why the UK seems to have a high density of trotskyists? It seems like there are more active trotskyist groupings and parties with actual memberships in the UK than elsewhere. Can anyone speculate as why (aside from the fact they always splinter and fracture)? What is the attraction to this form of leninism over another (say, maoism of the 1970s & 1980s)?
Just curious.
Jul 9 2008
#2
Quote:
Ever since I became active in the 1970s, I've always wondered why the UK seems to have a high density of trotskyists?
I often wonder why the US has a high density of Maoists, who are virtually non-existant in the UK.
Devrim
Jul 9 2008
#3
I think Tacks is right that the density is of groups, rather than people in those groups. Last I heard the SWP had something like 1-2,000 members which is surely a lot smaller than even quite minor groups in some other countries.
Jul 9 2008
#4
US Maoists ---- probably alot to do with the "anti-revisonist" line first argued by the then Maoist Progressive Labor Party. Some has to due with national liberation/third worldism. Well, that's how I always saw their areas of attraction.
Jul 9 2008
#5
catch wrote:
I think Tacks is right that the density is of groups, rather than people in those groups. Last I heard the SWP had something like 1-2,000 members which is surely a lot smaller than even quite minor groups in some other countries.
i think thats undebatale - what would be interesting would be if france, say, had just as many sects but it didn;t characterise their movment cos the biggest ones were so dominant.
LCR run in elections don't they...?
isuppose another fact in this is eurcommunism and european CP legacies - the hard left/far left have alays had a home in mainstream politics in europe and most of the rest of the world even after the 56 and 89 revelations from russia. Thats just simply absent frm uk leftism, leaving things open for the trots.
Jul 9 2008
#6
syndicalist wrote:
US Maoists ---- probably alot to do with the "anti-revisonist" line first argued by the then Maoist Progressive Labor Party. Some has to due with national liberation/third worldism. Well, that's how I always saw their areas of attraction.
i reckon its got a lot to do with the primacy of race over class in a lot of peoples politics over there...
If not society at large...
Jul 9 2008
#7
syndicalist wrote:
US Maoists ---- probably alot to do with the "anti-revisonist" line first argued by the then Maoist Progressive Labor Party. Some has to due with national liberation/third worldism. Well, that's how I always saw their areas of attraction.
I think that there are two points.
The first is that once you have a reasonably successful group, it will split, and produce other groups. Therefore once you had one reasonably large Trotskyist group in the UK, the RCP (not Feuredi's lot the original one in the forties) you could predict the rest.
This is why the Iranian scene has many left communist groups as the WCPI is 'close' to left communism. It would also explain (and I am guessing here) why there would be more anarcho-syndicalist unions in Spain.
The second is why the original groups evolved.
Devrim
Jul 9 2008
#8
Devrim wrote:
The first is that once you have a reasonably successful group, it will split, and produce other groups.
I realize this is a differnet question, but, Dev., does this mean that the splitting process is simply "natural" (my word)? Can unity not be achived through hard work and effort?
Jul 9 2008
#9
Tacks wrote:
syndicalist wrote:
US Maoists ---- probably alot to do with the "anti-revisonist" line first argued by the then Maoist Progressive Labor Party. Some has to due with national liberation/third worldism. Well, that's how I always saw their areas of attraction.i reckon its got a lot to do with the primacy of race over class in a lot of peoples politics over there...
If not society at large...
Tacks, yes, there is a distinct dynamic to race and class questions. This is a whole other and, sometimes, for me, complicated discussion. The long & short is that the question of race and class need to be interwined on the one hand and then viewed and dealt with seperately and disticnctly on the other. Sort of a bi-level approach that is both anti-racist and pro-class struggle.
Jul 9 2008
#10
Britain has a significant number of Trotskyists, however it doesn't have as many as France or Brazil or Pakistan or at various other points Argentina, Sri Lanka etc. What makes it unusual is that it has a lot of Trotskyists while simultaneously having very little else on its far left.
The US still has an unusually large number of Maoists, even though it still has many more Trotskyists than it has Maoists. There are a few first world countries countries which for one reason or another had strong Maoist or anti-revisionist Stalinist movements in the 1970s and where that influence remains to some extent. In Belgium for instance the largest far left group is from that background, although it is slowly being overtaken by Trotskyists. In Scandinavia Maoism was historically the dominant trend on the far left and it still has some strength.
In the first world these days there are a small number of countries where anarcho-syndicalist unions are the biggest thing on the left, a small number of countries where Maoists/anti-revisionists are still the biggest thing, but most places Trotskyism is the largest far left current. The third world is a bit more complex.
Jul 9 2008
#11
syndicalist wrote:
Devrim wrote:
The first is that once you have a reasonably successful group, it will split, and produce other groups.I realize this is a differnet question, but, Dev., does this mean that the splitting process is simply "natural" (my word)? Can unity not be achived through hard work and effort?
I think it can but those who believe in the party ala Lenin/Bordiga/Trotsky might disagree. As Trotsky put it 'The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International”: "the historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of its revolutionary leadership." So all the leninist groups SP, WP, SPGB, SWP, WRP, FR, ICC, IBT, IST, IS, ABC, DEF, GHI, JKL, MNOP etc. all claim or aspire to be the revolutionary leadership. The purity and clarity of the revolutionary leadership is the primary question for leninist groups and as such whenever this purity and clarity is challenged as split occurs floowed by denunciations. This is also why most leninist groups can't get along, while almost all anarchist groups (none of whom claim to be the revolutionary leadership of the working class) do. Its also the reason why you have nutjob groups like the Sparts, the IBT and ICC who engage in little if any political activity outside of denouncing other 'false' revolutionary groups, they think the the historical crisis of mankind is the crisis of the working class's revolutionary leadership.
Jul 9 2008
#12
The SPGB aren't Leninists, their origins are in Socialist Impossibilism.
Jul 9 2008
#13
My bad 
Jul 9 2008
#14
georgestapleton wrote:
Its also the reason why you have nutjob groups like the Sparts, the IBT and ICC who engage in little if any political activity outside of denouncing other 'false' revolutionary groups, they think the the historical crisis of mankind is the crisis of the working class's revolutionary leadership.
Classic amalgamation technique. I am sure George is aware that the ICC don't believe in this theory of Trotsky's (and maybe if he isn't he should learn something about what he is talking about before he goes saying things like this). He just wants to associate the ICC with the Sparts and the IBT as most people think they are loonies. It is very politically dishonest.
georgestapleton wrote:
This is also why most leninist groups can't get along, while almost all anarchist groups (none of whom claim to be the revolutionary leadership of the working class) do.
The sort of implication here is that there aren't splits within anarchism. It is very untrue. In the two years I was a member of an anarchist organisation, there were two important splits (neither involved myself). There has recently been a split in the AF as we have seen on here. There was a split in the Platformists in Turkey recently, and of course as everyone is aware the CNT has had more than its fair share of splits.
syndicalist wrote:
I realize this is a differnet question, but, Dev., does this mean that the splitting process is simply "natural" (my word)? Can unity not be achived through hard work and effort?
Yes, it is a very different question. I think that we should work for unity. I think we should try to avoid splits particularly when they are not on a political level. I think people should try to clarify the political issues that they are splitting over in a fraternal manner (obviously this can be difficult).
Despite this though I think some splits are inevitable.
Devrim
Jul 9 2008
#15
In terms of UK Trotskyism, partly it goes back to the role of the CP during the second world war, where they became enforcers for the war effort once the Soviet Union joined the Allied side. The Trots built up some industrial strength during that time as one of the few groups prepared to back workers actions over the war effort. Given that the politicised pool of people they would recruit from would often have been in or close to the CP, it's not a big step from one variant of Leninism to another, rather than going towards anarchism or council communism.
This trend was reinforced by Orwell's writings, which I don't think had an impact outside of the English speaking world, and by Hungary 56, particularly Peter Fryer's reports which were censored by the Daily Worker, which led to him joining the SLL.
While the CP retained a lot of strength in the unions, they went into decline after this point and it's only in the last few years that there have been anyone under 30 getting involved in such politics, at least as long as I've been active. (As an aside the only CP members I met who were young were a black punk who did it to annoy his anarchist mates and a guy who couldn't work out whether he belonged in the CP or the Owenite SDP in the mid 80s and was forever swapping between them. Probably a Labour MP now 
).
In terms of membership I suspect the high points for the SLL/WRP was probably the early 70s, IS/SWP and Militant/SP both in the 80s. What is sometimes missed is that while most Trot internationals in the English speaking world centre on the UK, other countries have their own large Trot groups who have their own internationals. IIRC Workers Power relate to a South American-based group that is much larger and the LCR are in the "official" 4th international, whose British section is the ISG (Socialist Outlook), who I suspect are around the same size as SolFed (i.e. not very big). There are 21 Trotskyist internationals listed on Wikipedia, just in case anyone thought anarchist splits and delusions of grandeur were bad.
Dev - when you refer to splits, I assume you mean the DAM and the splits are AWG and Hull? I think the former was a straight political split but the latter seemed to involve more personal animosity. Or was there one I missed?
Regards,
Martin
Jul 9 2008
#16
Devrim wrote:
He just wants to associate the ICC with the Sparts and the IBT as most people think they are loonies. It is very politically dishonest.
Its not, people do see them as being on the same level of crazyness, this doesnt mean they have identical politics.
Jul 9 2008
#17
Devrim wrote:
georgestapleton wrote:
Its also the reason why you have nutjob groups like the Sparts, the IBT and ICC who engage in little if any political activity outside of denouncing other 'false' revolutionary groups, they think the the historical crisis of mankind is the crisis of the working class's revolutionary leadership.Classic amalgamation technique. I am sure George is aware that the ICC don't believe in this theory of Trotsky's (and maybe if he isn't he should learn something about what he is talking about before he goes saying things like this). He just wants to associate the ICC with the Sparts and the IBT as most people think they are loonies. It is very politically dishonest.
What theory of trotsky's? The idea that the reason there hasn't been a succesful working class is "the crisis of its revolutionary leadership" and the idea that a leninist party is the solution to that crisis? i.e. are the ICC, the IBT and the Sparts leninists? Yes. Am I making an amlgamation on the fact that the SP, WP, SWP, WRP, FR, ICC, IBT, IST, IS, are all leninists? Yes, and actually I think thats fairly reasonable amalgamation.
As for the making an amalgamtion of the ICC, the IBT and the Sparts under the fact that most of their activity comprises of denouncing other 'false' revolutionary groups again that seems to me to be a fair amalgamtion.
An amalgamtion of the ICC, the IBT and the Spartsthe general category of loonies, is not an amalgamtion that I made. It's one that you made. That said I also think its fair enough.
Quote:
georgestapleton wrote:
This is also why most leninist groups can't get along, while almost all anarchist groups (none of whom claim to be the revolutionary leadership of the working class) do.The sort of implication here is that there aren't splits within anarchism. It is very untrue. In the two years I was a member of an anarchist organisation, there were two important splits (neither involved myself). There has recently been a split in the AF as we have seen on here. There was a split in the Platformists in Turkey recently, and of course as everyone is aware the CNT has had more than its fair share of splits.
Saying there are a number of different anarchist groups and they get along does not imply that anarchist groups dont split it implies that when they split they appreciate they can get along.
If you look at a number of members of organise splitting and joining the WSM that didn't prevent them from organising common pickets of Starbucks last weekend. The AF members who are now in L&S are all very committed as is L&S to developing a close working relationship with the AF, SF and other anarchist groups. That's because no anarchist group claims to be the revolutionary leadership of the working class, nor does any anarchist group (with the possible exception of some insurrectionists and one or two nutty IWA people I've met) claim to have access to the one true anarchism. This is different to leninists who universally either claim to be the revolutionary leadership of the working class or claim to be the revolutionary leadership of the working class or claim to have access to the one true working class politics.
Jul 10 2008
#18
Rather than trying to analyse what different tendencies actually argue (i.e. political positions) this seems to be degenerating into another, 'well, they're just another bunch of loonies' thread. If you really want to understand what groups like, for example, the Spartacist League and their 'mini-me's', the International Bolshevik Tendency stand for you need to read their texts instead of applying 'pop-psychology'.
Also a historical approach is useful, for example, Maoisim was relatively popular everywhere, even in Britain - MLOB, The Committee to Defeat Revisionism For Communist Unity, CPE (ML), CPB (ML) - in the late 1960s / early 70s. But it was a response to what was happening internationally - on the imperialist level and amongst the 'official' communist movement - at the time.
Finally, I want to respond to this idea that all 'Leninists' (whatever that means) believe that the key problem facing the working class is a crisis of leadership. The ICC were clear on this when asked about it at a recent meeting:
"For example, what is the role of revolutionaries? Are they organisers of the working class? Do they teach the working class the nature of capitalism and how it can be overthrown? Are the Trotskyists right to say that the crisis of humanity is characterised by the crisis of the leadership of the proletariat? Or, as the ICC understands it, is the role of revolutionaries to participate in the struggles of the working class, in the development of its self-organisation, and in the discussions that are integral to the process of clarification within the class and in the development of class consciousness and solidarity?
Revolutionaries identify the nature of the historic period; they try to grasp the material situation in which the working class finds itself and in which its struggle must develop. But, although the activity of revolutionary minorities has an absolutely essential role to play, it cannot substitute for the conscious mass activity of the working class as a whole. In leftism we find a current that not only denies workers' self-activity and tries to enrol it behind the forces of the bourgeoisie (we referred to the example of Trotskyism's support for the Allies in World War II), but also poses as the saviour of the working class and its struggle".
From: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/307/day-of-study
Apologies for waffling but If you really want to understand different tendencies you need to go beyond this 'loony' business''. If you don't then we will see more schoolboy errors like Georgestapleton's - the SPGB, Leninists! Just make sure they don't hear you say it!
Morven
Jul 10 2008
#19
georgestapleton wrote:
My bad
and so you sgould blush sir, that a HAYOWGE faux pas in terms of lefty trainspotting!
SPGB are parliamentary anarchists, believe it or not, which is as much fun as a concept to the novice 'spotter as the posadaists saucers or the fact there are Hoxa-ites still about.
Next you'll be misjng up your RCP with the RCG and your New worker with Workers World 
Jul 10 2008
#20
Weeler wrote:
Devrim wrote:
He just wants to associate the ICC with the Sparts and the IBT as most people think they are loonies. It is very politically dishonest.Its not, people do see them as being on the same level of crazyness, this doesnt mean they have identical politics.
I think this misses the point, though. Dev's criticism of George was that he seemed to conflate the ICC with groups that have a Leninist perspective on class leadership.
Also, like Morven, I find the obsession with who is and isn't a loony perfectly pointless. After all, from the perspective of capital, we're all nutjobs 
Jul 10 2008
#21
georgestapleton wrote:
...are the ICC, the IBT and the Sparts leninists? Yes. Am I making an amlgamation on the fact that the SP, WP, SWP, WRP, FR, ICC, IBT, IST, IS, are all leninists? Yes, and actually I think thats fairly reasonable amalgamation.
But who says the ICC are Leninists. You do. They don't themselves. But then you also included the SPGB in their earlier. It really does suggest that you don't know what you are talking about.
georgestapleton wrote:
An amalgamtion of the ICC, the IBT and the Spartsthe general category of loonies, is not an amalgamtion that I made. It's one that you made.
No, you used the word 'nutjob', which obviously has a totally different meaning.
georgestapleton wrote:
Its also the reason why you have nutjob groups like the Sparts, the IBT and ICC
Devrim
Jul 10 2008
#22
Devrim wrote:
But who says the ICC are Leninists. You do. They don't themselves.
I do too.
While 'loony' might be a term thrown around to much, the particular characteristics of groups like the WRP is worthy of discussion - these are extremely unpleasant organisations for individuals to get involved with.
Jul 10 2008
#23
What is the definition of "Leninist" and how do the ICC meet it?
Jul 10 2008
#24
Devrim wrote:
But who says the ICC are Leninists. You do. They don't themselves.
Indeed:
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2
I say again, 'nut job' & 'loony' are being used in a very lazy way to say, 'I don't like' or 'I don't agree with' - stick to the politics and leave the psychology to the professionals.
Morven
Jul 10 2008
#25
Ah, isn't there enough stuff elsewhere about the ICC?
Anyway, anarchists are just as capable as splitting as is anyone else. I would agree, sometimes it will happen. If it is principled and after all efforts to work things out fail. not much else you can do.
Jul 10 2008
#26
syndicalist wrote:
Ah, isn't there enough stuff elsewhere about the ICC?
More than enough. But then I try to answer your question in what I thought was a reasonable manor, and we get called 'nutjobs'.
Devrim
Jul 10 2008
#27
Devrim wrote:
and we get called 'nutjobs'.
Who called you a nutjob, or is there some news we haven't been told?
Jul 10 2008
#28
Devrim wrote:
syndicalist wrote:
Ah, isn't there enough stuff elsewhere about the ICC?More than enough. But then I try to answer your question in what I thought was a reasonable manor, and we get called 'nutjobs'.
Devrim
I thank you Dev for answering my question directly and comradely. You always have.
On the second point, this is why most WSA members have stopped posting here. Political differences are often minimized to certain language that's less than comradely.
Ok, I agree with calling the Sparts and IBT "nutjobs", and while I really don't have much in common with the ICC, I'd at least be respectful to the many ICC posters who are on libcom. As a bear minimum, just out of common courtesy.
Jul 10 2008
#29
Demogorgon303 wrote:
What is the definition of "Leninist" and how do the ICC meet it?
I'd say they meet it pretty well, by consistently defending Lenin and claiming heritage with the bolsheviks. The two articles linked by Morven read more like "they aren't the real Leninists, we are", which if anything confirms the statement.
Jul 10 2008
#30
Hey Catch, what does "blinkered" mean? I see you use it but I have no idea what it means.
i think tuis has been done a few times on other boards and someone can probably answer you in one post, but yeh - there are far more trotlet goupuscles i the UK than elsewhere i think, and a marked absence of other forms of leninism.
Wouldn't say it had anything like the size or prestige of other countries trot scenes, just an insane volume of groups.