Marxists and the British

Labour Party

Two Trends: The Political Roots Of The Breakaway

Majority Document

Conscription

In Britain in the early 1960s, attempts to reintroduce conscription were opposed by Marxists. In a situation of national oppression, refusal to serve in the army of the oppressor state would, depending on the concrete circumstances, be given critical support by the Marxists. The minority, operating with phrases borrowed from Trotsky, used at the time of the outbreak of the second world war and in an entirely different historical context, put forward a position on conscription in Britain which would have had absolutely fatal consequences if the war had taken a drawn-out character.

EG, in particular, kept on repeating that a long war would probably necessitate the reintroduction of conscription. However, he then went on to say, again, in a completely dogmatic fashion, that in this situation, we must advocate that the youth should go into the army! Intense discussion took place at the level of the EB on this issue. The clear majority of the EB disagreed with EC's proposals and attempted to dissuade him from making these ideas public. Prominent in this task was none other than RSe.

However, his and MW's best efforts were of no avail. At the public meeting preceding the special congress called to discuss the Gulf War in January, 1991, EG made a disastrous speech which alienated the youth and many others present. When one comrade who made the financial appeal stated, quite correctly, that, as an ex-soldier on the reserve list, if he was called up to fight in the Gulf, he would not go, this was denounced by EG who was sitting on the platform at the time.

In the course of his speech, EG blurted out the astounding statement: "If conscription is introduced, let us be clear, the youth must go into the army. Of course, (directly addressing the youth in the audience) some of you will be killed. But for every one killed, ten will take your place"! Comrades at the meeting were shocked. Many had a look of stunned disbelief. EG was criticised for these remarks by the youth and others in the pubs afterwards. Despite this, he made exactly the same statement, producing a near revolt, at the special congress the next day.

The intervention of PT mitigated the damage which EG had done once more in the course of a completely crude misinterpretation of Trotsky's position on this issue. We pointed out that in the event of conscription being introduced, we would convene a special conference to determine our attitude. It would not by any means mean automatically that all young people would passively go into a conscripted army.

It was possible to envisage a situation where half, if not more, of the youth would refuse to be drafted. As was the case with the Vietnam war, we would then pursue a dual policy in the event of conscription being introduced. Some would undoubtedly go with their peers into the army, while others would participate, on a class basis, amongst those layers of youth who decided that they would not fight for imperialism.

EG and AW falsely compared the situation which existed at the time of the second world war with that existing at the time of the Gulf War. The outlook of the masses then was determined by the threat of invasion from a foreign fascist power, with all that would mean: the destruction of democratic rights and the workers' organisations. In 1990-91 we were faced with a colonial war of intervention in the Gulf. If it would have become public that the Marxists were passively accepting the idea of "conscription", it would have made it impossible for us to participate in the growing anti-war movement.

Such a movement would undoubtedly have pacifist overtones. Marxists are not pacifists. But we distinguish between the false, hypocritical pacifism of the bourgeois and reformists, which invariably acts as a cover for war, and the pacifism of the workers or peasants. Our task is not to express contempt for the "low level" of the youth, like the Spanish leadership. We start from the anti-war, 'pacifist' sentiments of the youth and by skilful propaganda and agitation seek to lead them to an understanding of the realities of class society and our programme on war, the army, conscription, etc. It is little wonder that with their haughty approach, revealed by comrade Pul above, they gained little from the magnificent anti-war movement they had initiated.

There are many other examples, which could fill whole volumes, revealing the political divergence which existed long before the factional struggle itself broke out. Moreover, it was not just on general theoretical and political questions, but in the field of strategy and tactics that differences manifested themselves. Not one supporter of the former minority, including its leadership of EG, RSe and AW (who played no role in the late 1970s and 1980s in the internal developments of the British organisation) exercised a significant influence in the two major mass struggles which our tendency participated in: the titanic Liverpool struggle and the mighty battle to defeat the poll tax. It was the present majority leaders who at each stage were responsible for developing the necessary tactics.

EC's participation usually consisted of endless repetition of broad generalisations, with little or no bearing on the issues under discussion. RSe, in general, took up no independent position on any issue, organisational or political. He played a useful role in the organisational sphere, but as subsequent revelations showed, with a tendency towards the "commandist", bullying methods he now ascribes to others....

There is nothing at all new in this. It is the fate of the Marxist leaders to face vilification, abuse and denunciations for their alleged 'dictatorial methods'.

Lenin remarked that assorted Mensheviks "inveigh against my 'monstrous' centralism" (One step forward, two steps back, p 50). In the same pamphlet (p 155) Lenin declares: "We know very well from the literature of the 'minority' that by autocratic they mean me" (Lenin's emphasis).

He goes on: "Comrade Axelrod and Co. were expressing the conviction that Plekhanov and all the members of the Central Committee 'governed the party', not in accordance with their own views of what the interests of the work required, but in accordance with the will of the autocrat, Lenin. This accusation of autocratic government necessarily and inevitably implies pronouncing all members of the governing body except the autocrat to be mere tools in the hands of another, mere pawns and agents of another's will."

Is there not a striking resemblance between the arguments deployed by the Mensheviks (minority) against Lenin and those used against us by our former minority? Even the same phrases surface. PT is denounced by the minority as a "Bonapartist". Lenin was denounced by Martov, a former close co-worker of his, and far more able than RSe and Co, as a "'Bonapartist' of the worst type". We consequently will not lose any sleep over the chatterings made by individuals who will merit less mention in history than Martov.

Lenin was denounced as a "bureaucrat", as a Robespierre, etc. He knew full well that the base charges levelled against him would cut no ice with the workers. He answers his detractors in his article 'Why I resigned from Iskra's editorial board':

"The report of the delegate for Siberia... and Martov's 'Once more on the minority' are all full of most amusing charges against Lenin of being an 'autocrat', of instituting a Robespierre guillotine regime (sic!)."

Ditto say today's minority about the leadership of the majority. And our reaction is the same detached amusement as Lenin. Incidentally, it is amusing to note that RSe denounces the alleged "nepotism" of the national leadership of the tendency. The dictionary definition of "nepotism" is "Undue patronage to one's relations." This is very ironic given that the EB of the minority organisation has two married couples on it (SJ and SN, KR and JW), two brothers (RSe and AW), and AW's ex-partner (PW)!

It is necessary, however, to reveal the motives behind these outpourings and illustrate their dishonest methods. Moreover, from the lips of EG the charge that PT could not "tolerate differences within the tendency" will evoke nothing but laughter in the ranks of the majority. Unfortunately, there is not a member of the NEB, including RSe and AW in the past, and others like BMcK, who were not subjected to a verbal "battering" if they debated in speech or writing from the preconceived 'line' which EG attempted unilaterally to lay down.

Engraved on the memories of the older generation in the tendency is an incident at a national EB in the 1970s when a present supporter of the minority, BB, from Oldham, (then based in Bristol) had the temerity, along with another comrade (WJ) from the same area, to criticise EG. He had committed the unforgivable crime of praising an article by PT in the theoretical journal and characterising EG's article on the colonial revolution as "unintelligible".

[Continue...]