Marxists and the British

Labour Party

Two Trends: The Political Roots Of The Breakaway

Majority Document

Political veto

EG in his reply rubbished BB and WJ with the withering comment: "The trouble with the Bristol comrades is that they are thick". This is not the only example of the brutal intolerance, the attempt to impose a political veto on all ideas except his own, which has been the hallmark of EG for as long as the older generation can remember.

On this occasion, as on many others, it was PT and other leaders of the present majority who, after the meeting, condemned EG for his behaviour. Later, BL painstakingly edited EG's article so that it could be circulated internationally.

It is extremely distasteful to recount some of these details. Nevertheless, the distortion of the real situation in the leadership of the tendency and its history, currently perpetrated by the minority, will not go on unanswered.

For decades, leading comrades strove to work with EG, in the interests of the tendency, despite his unacceptable approach and behaviour on occasions. This put an enormous strain on comrades' nervous systems over years and decades. But how has this loyalty of comrades to EG been repaid? By insults and denunciations of them as "gangsters", "Stalinists", "bureaucrats". We have not and will not stoop to the same level. However, what is absolutely clear, by their documents, their speeches, and the hysteria which they direct against the majority, is that they have completely lost their political bearings. The charges levelled at the majority leaders will have not the slightest effect. Lenin, was posthumously blamed, by all kinds of shallow "theoreticians", for the monstrous crimes of Stalinism...

The degeneration of the Bolshevik party had clear material foundations. It arose from the isolation of the Russian revolution, the cultural backwardness of that society, the delay of the world revolution and given these factors the inevitable crystallisation of a bureaucracy which found its expression within the party in the person of Stalin. Not even this shallow former minority is suggesting, it is hoped, that the same material foundations exist here in Britain.

Insofar as they make a feeble attempt to trace the objective roots of our alleged degeneration, it is over the period of the last ten years. It is not at all accidental that they have lighted on this time-frame. It is precisely in this period that the tendency began to break out of the limits of a propaganda group. The limited propagandist and discussion-group outlook which still afflicts the present leaders of the former minority was left behind as we began to engage for the first time in mass work.

During the last ten years, we organised and led the mighty battle in Liverpool as well as the poll tax struggle. It was in this period that we made a magnificent contribution to the miners' strike. It was within the last ten to 12 years that we were able to use the youth organisation to penetrate ever-wider layers of the youth and the proletariat in Britain. This intervention would not have been possible without combating the circle mentality which afflicted many comrades in the period preceding the late 1970s and 80s.

We had many who were quite comfortable to sit in Labour Parties, debating and passing resolutions. They were in every sense of the term "resolutionaries" rather than revolutionaries. The prospect of mass work, of "dirtying their hands" in reaching new layers of the proletariat outside the "traditional organisations", undoubtedly frightened many of these "Marxists" who gradually distanced themselves from the organisation. Their loss was more than compensated for by the new, combative elements who were drawn into the ranks of the tendency.

In their heart of hearts, the former minority leaders, as their present whimperings demonstrate, did not like the new political complexion of the organisation. They did not, of course, object to the larger organisation and therefore bigger audiences for their speeches and articles. But the need to present Marxist ideas in a new and quite different fashion from the preceding period in order to attract and hold these layers was a difficult and increasingly irksome task for them.

We hear much from them about the need for "theory". The present majority leadership have made not a little contribution to the development of the tendency in the realm of theory. However, the perception of EG and AW of theory and the role of "theorists" was that of "master and pupil". Other comrades were merely empty vessels, receptacles into which these theoreticians could pour their "ideas".

Pressing questions

This approach, of course, cut no ice with the majority leaders when set against the background of the increasing incapacity of these theoreticians to answer the pressing questions of contemporary politics in Britain and internationally. It was left to others to rearm the tendency in the complex new situation confronting us.

Does this mean that the present leadership has made no mistakes? "Show me someone who has made no mistakes and I'll show you a fool." Of course, there have been many mistakes by the present leadership on perspectives, on the likely tempo of events, on the possibilities of various strike movements, on events internationally. But in the discussion on all the big events of the last decade, nine times out of ten, right was on the side of the present majority...

In the aftermath of the miners' strike, the majority of the NEB concluded that, given the economic upswing, the objective situation would not be the most favourable period for the development of the tendency. We therefore sought to readjust the tendency's sights, including targets, to correspond more to the reality facing the tendency.

This did not mean that we should passively adapt to this "objective" situation as BMcK, a prominent supporter of the minority, consistently argued. In essence, he believed that until the boom had exhausted itself very little was possible either on the industrial or political plane and it was therefore necessary to sit tight and raise our "level of understanding" in cosy branch meetings and discussion groups.

Favourable period

The minority in toto have now gone over to this position. We, on the contrary, argued that although this was not the most favourable period in history, there were still big possibilities inherent in the situation.

Moreover, it is entirely false, one-sided and undialectical not to recognise that even in a boom huge clashes between the classes can take place. The passive, quiescent position of BMcK would have led to the conclusion that we should not have participated in the Liverpool battle or the mighty poll tax struggle. Both these struggles, it should be remembered, took place during an economic upswing. However, the attempt of the present majority leadership to introduce the necessary readjustments in targets, and in streamlining the organisation, met with the brick wall of resistance, precisely from EG.

We were accused of "underestimating" the capacity of the proletariat to struggle, accommodating ourselves to a temporary economic conjuncture, etc. However, reality intruded into the blinkered world of EG and the pressure within the ranks necessitated a readjustment. EG, although still insisting that we were in, if not the most favourable period in history, at least one of the most favourable periods, was forced to bow the knee to this pressure.

It was, however, the present majority leaders who proposed the necessary readjustments at the NEB. This was met with a sigh of relief on the part of the comrades in leading positions in the regions...

We will produce a proper objective history, a political history of the tendency. [See for instance Rise of Militant - editor] We will produce written material for the rearming theoretically and organisationally of the forces of Marxism for the battles to come.

In the last eight months, we have been compelled to turn inwards, to devote an excessive proportion of our efforts to answering the arguments of the minority and too little to the necessary involvement in the labour movement, the penetration of the new layers of the proletariat, and so on.

This must now come to an end, following their desertion from our ranks. The vast majority of the time of the tendency will now be devoted to politically clarifying and sharpening the understanding of the marvellous cadres we have assembled under our banner. We face an exciting period, both in Britain and internationally. The approaching general election provides us with the opportunity to reach fresh layers of the proletariat. No matter what the outcome of the election, an entirely new and disturbed period will open up in Britain and on an international scale.

We must aim to win and integrate the fresh layers of the proletariat. We must strengthen our base in the trade union, the industrial field, and to consolidate and involve in the tendency the excellent Black and Asian contacts who have been drawn towards us. We must step up the marvellous work undertaken particularly in the last six months in the women's field. In this way, we will prepare for the theoretical and organisational extension of the forces of Marxism.

PT, 29 January, 1992

[Continue to the historic documents referred to in this debate...]