Trotskyism in Britain: A brief overview and some thoughts (Rough Print)

By Darcy Luke
After spending a few days reading around the subject of British Trotskyism I arrive at a place I feel all too familiar in. This place is characterised by severe disappointment, annoyance and sheer confusion. When one is attempting to trace the history of British Trotskyism, one must be prepared for a most convoluted plot, marked by numerous schisms, instances of infighting and at points, sheer insanity. The history of the Trotskyist left in Britain is indeed a messy one, but it is one I will attempt to give a brief outline of. From this brief outline it is possible to infer causes and also solutions to this political culture of fractured multiplication, however when one examines the recent case of the Respect party split, one is simply left sighing, as it is clear that the last remaining, and meaningful, Trotskyist party- the SWP- has not learnt from the Trotskyist history of failure and marginalisation, sticking to a dogmatism that cripples the party more than it allows itself to believe. The real pity is that the SWP was once a radical reformation of the British Trotskyist orthodoxy, splitting from the despotic Healy group around issues of the Soviet Union and the Labour party, but has now descended back into Leninist anachronisms and a rigid class politics that leaves the party floundering in a society that has moved beyond it.

Trotskyism in Britain has been about since 1938, when the Fourth International was established in order to form some opposition to the Stalinist ‘red bureaucracy’ that had emerged in Russia by that period. Trotsky himself had decided that the Stalinist regime constituted a ‘deformed workers’ state’, meaning that Russia had seen a true workers’ revolution which had allowed the workers to appropriate the means of production. However, Trotsky saw that a parasitic outgrowth in the form of Stalin’s iron bureaucracy as subverting the cause of socialism, as it perverted the democratic politics that should have been established in Russia. Trotsky, therefore, stood against the Stalinists and the Communist parties of the day. It is from this oppositional stance that the Trotskyist movement was born as a marginal oppositionary force to the juggernaut of Stalinist totalitarianism.

It is near impossible for me to reproduce the history of the Trotskyist left in full, as it is an ideology which harbours a multiplicity of mini-parties that all differ from one another in some respect (usually down to some superfluous disagreement upon the tenets of their ideology), however the genesis of a real Trotskyist alternative can be traced back to the establishment of the Fourth International (FI) in 1938. This was meant to be a revolutionary continuation of Lenin’s Third International, and came to stand in opposition to the Comintern which was dominated by Moscow and used as an arm of Soviet foreign policy. The FI stood at the threshold of WWII, and had predicted that this war would present a revolutionary moment in history, whereby crisis would give way to socialism. This form of apocalyptic gesturing and reliance on tactics of Manoeuvre, I would argue, has been a permanent part of Trotskyist ideology since the inception of the movement. Trotskyists, it would seem, would do well to actually read Gramsci and learn from him, but this, of course, is an impossible request. The Trotskyist Left, despite its opposition to Soviet bureaucracy, reflects much of the dogmatic puritanism and rigid organisational principles which were characteristic of their main opponents, the Communists leashed to Moscow.

The prediction that WWII would present a moment of crisis that would be enough to destroy capitalism and open space for socialism was, of course, incorrect and just another underestimation of the tenacity of capitalism, and its entrenched, diffuse legitimacy. However, the Communist parties in Europe grew massively in the post-war era, and became the primary vessel for workers struggle in Western Europe. In Britain, the Communist party was comparatively weak, when one considers the French and Italian parties, and the Trotskyist Left was even weaker. In 1944, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) was established, a group to which all notable current Trotskyist tendencies can be traced back to. This group consisted of no more than 400 people, and was officially a national section of the FI. The RCP was a group riven with internal dispute around issues of the Soviet Union and whether it was a ‘deformed workers’ state’ or a ‘state capitalist’, and also on how to treat the Labour party. These disagreements may be what us non-Trotskyists call healthy, however the Trotskyist organisation manages to translate healthy disagreement into intense infighting and fracturing. Most democratic organisations will face disagreements if its members are imbued with any measure of cognitive faculties, however the Trotskyists seem to have trouble absorbing the shock that people disagree. Disputes, within a Trotskyist party, are not part of a democratic process, but are examples of ‘factionalism’, and any of those who are caught trying to re-theorise the dogmatism of the Leninist-Trotskyist doctrine may face banishment. This has somewhat improved, and the SWP were a step away from this kind of authoritarianism within the British Trotskyist tradition, however it is still an issue for the SWP, who still manage to translate disagreement into factionalism, and then expel people, no doubt in order to maintain the ideological purity of their vanguard.

So, this vanguard of 400 people in the 1940s disagreed, and being Trotskyists, split into opposing factions. This is where things get ridiculous. The original split in 1947 saw the RCP split into two, the RCP and The Group were then formed. This split came from a disagreement of whether or not the emphasis for Trotskyists ought to be entrism sui generis, mass entrism into the Labour Party in order to awaken the post-war working class. Setting aside the fantastical claim that 400 or so Trotskyists could subvert the whole British political tradition, this was taken seriously and was the official tactic adopted by the FI. This order split the RCP. Gerry Healy formed a group loyal to the FI within the RCP, against the official leadership. The group around Healy were the ones who integrated into the Labour Party, while the remainder of the RCP were left even weaker than before. The FI had split the RCP, as they were more concerned with ideological dogma than the reality of British politics in the period.

I will cut out a large portion of history and instead give a brief overview of the Orthodox Trotskyist tradition before moving onto the SWP. The Healy group remained loyal to the FI, as an orthodox faction within the RCP, until 1953 when an esoteric disagreement emerged around the theories of Michel Pablo, who believed that a mass war would take place in Europe and that Trotskyists need to enter the European Communist parties as left-opposition groups and attempt to steer them in the correct direction in order to achieve international revolution. Many saw liquidation within this new path, however the FI ordered entrism into Communist parties which resulted in much disagreement. The Healy group refused to move into Communist parties and denounced ‘Pabloism’ as revisionist, sending salvos of Marxist jargon along with their denunciations. Healy grew increasingly uncomfortable with the RCP, and moved his group out of the Party in1958-9 in order to establish the Socialist Labour League, justifying his move with a conjuration of yet another example of Trotskyist ‘apocalypse now’ shite, an imminent danger of fascism within Britain’s middle-classes. The SLL grew throughout the 60s, moving away from groups such as CND, which they felt did not have a concept of class-war at its core, thus rendering unworthy of the brave vanguard of the working people, a working people that were surprisingly low in number within this party, which was made up of professionals and the ‘fascist’ middle-class. By the 1970s, the group was the largest Trotskyist organisation in Britain, publishing newspapers regularly and recruiting the youth at grotesque socialist-ran discos… With the threat of declining membership, this group transformed into the Workers’ Revolutionary Party (WRP) in 1973, where it became increasingly deranged, warning of imminent military coups within Britain and supporting the Ba’athist party in Iraq after the murder of 21 communists, and supporting Khomeini in Iran even after he had ordered the destruction of the FI in Iran, claiming that Khomeini had simply removed the CIA and KGB from the country. Not surprising then, that money trails were found linking the WRP to Iraq and Iran, as well as Libya. The organisation spiralled out of control. Membership was declining, there were rumours of violent coercion within the party ordered by Healy, and finally in 1985 Healy was removed due to allegations of sexual abuse of party members. The group still exists today, but is a tiny faction that is irrelevant even for Trotskyists.

The WRP were amongst the most dogmatically orthodox Trotskyists, as well as one of the largest groups in Britain’s Trotskyist history. However, the party suffered from a lack of any democracy; a stifling personality cult around the dominant leader, Healy; increasingly deranged beliefs and a sectarianism which proved an isolatory disability. It is no shame that this organisation has fallen apart, and it is of little relevance. I believe that this is a dark chapter in Trotskyist history, however I feel that mistakes are being remade. The lack of democracy and dogmatism that came to characterise Trotskyists is still evident in the SWP, one of the biggest Revolutionary Left groups in Britain, which is not to say that it is large at all, neither is it incredibly relevant to modern struggles.

The SWP history is somewhat different, it was never an orthodox party, and still is not. Tony Cliff must be commended for his brave revision of the Trotskyist theory of the Soviet Union in his work “Russia: A Marxist Analysis”, and it is Cliff who moved away from the RCP leadership and Healy in order to establish his own group, which believed itself of the same broad tendency as the RCP, but differing on theoretical issues. In 1950 the Socialist Review Group was established by Cliff and his supporters. The group grew gradually, and in 1960 became the International Socialists, who were noted for their enthusiasm for Rosa Luxemburg as opposed to Lenin. The International Socialists achieved 1000 members by 1968, when Cliff began a turn towards Leninism and greater centralisation. This move was argued to be in response to growing membership, and perhaps happened at the worst conceivable time. 1968 was a period of mass struggle across much of the world, it represented a watershed moment in radical resistance, showing how anti-capitalism had now become as much about identity as it was about class. The mass deterritorialisation of capitalist social production meant that capitalism could no longer be targeted as a fixed phenomenon, but had become instead a diffuse form of social production that now forged the individual. Resistance to this deterritorialisation erupted in 1968, with a plurality of struggles around issues such as Gender and sexuality. The Trotskyist parties remained, as one would expect, attached to the notion of class-struggle, a theoretical position informed by the conditions of 19^th century Europe and Russia in the early 20^th century. Europe had become a very different place, but the Trotskyists were very much stood still in 1917, and still are. Cliff’s response to the 1968 burst in radicalism was one of disappointment. Not content with radical women and students, the party wanted access to Trade Unions, having abandoned Labour Party membership. Cliff instigated, along with Harman, a massive reorganisation of the party along Leninist lines.

The initial success of these moves were evidenced by increased membership and influence within the unions. Initially, members had left in response to the Bolshevisation of the party, splintering into smaller factions. However, by 1972 membership had shot up to around 2400 and the organisation had set up 40 factory branches. There was opposition to the move towards a mass party, for some obscure reason, but Cliff was determined. However, by 1974 it was discovered that the IS suffered from massive membership turn-over issues, something the modern SWP still has undeniable difficulty with. It was discovered that 48% of IS members had been members for less than a year. However, Cliff was not deterred and, in perfect Trotskyist fashion, flew in the face of reality and claimed that the IS would become a massive party of proletarianised workers. In 1975 Cliff sought to turn the IS into a Leninist workers party, which found mass opposition as the IS was understood to be a broad organisation. However, such dissidents were silenced by Cliff who reorganised the IS national committee of 40, into a central committee of 9. Cliff also reshuffled the branch system, turning branches into districts effectively reducing the oppositional basis to Cliff’s agenda. Trotskyists, the eternal friends of democracy they are not. The Socialist Workers’ Party came into existence in 1977, with no real discussion from the rank membership, as this would be far too democratic to be consistent with Leninist principles. However, the peak of the IS had passed before the forging of the SWP, and attempts by the SWP to build a rank-and-file union organisation failed miserably.

The SWP became increasingly known for a parochial and uncritical ‘workerism’, believing that increasing strike action was a reliable measure for proletariat consciousness. The SWP also came to be known for their disdain for collaboration with other socialists, arguing that they are the only party needed. Modesty and a firm grip on reality seems to escape the SWP leadership. Paradoxically, the SWP was saved from decline by the anti-racist campaigns set into motion by the Anti-Nazi League which the SWP had helped set up in 1977. An issue that lay outside factory politics, and resonated with those enthusiastic of identity politics, managed to mobilise 80,000 people at a carnival in 1978 which was a mere recruitment machine for the SWP, much like their Marxism event which is held every year and offers many stimulating meetings, alongside a truck-load of shallow theoretical engagement and mass rallies whereby everyone can stand around and applaud their mutual agreement, blocking out the fact that they stand as a marginalised group on the Left, now surpassed by non-aligned movements which the SWP continues to berate with the same hollow Marxist jargon. I, for one, have heard many a member call me an ‘autonomist’, which is a scathing condemnation from the mouths of the forever vigilant and mighty Leninist vanguard.

The SWP struggled with identity politics, shutting down its Women’s’ Voice groups in 1981, I assume because they were not ‘class-orientated’ or something. Or perhaps they could not grasp the notion of Marx’s historical materialism and the dialectic of antagonistic contradictions. But, in all seriousness, they decided that these Women’s Voice groups did not correspond to Leninist organisational principles. Yes, remember ladies your struggle may be of ultimate importance, but Comrade Lenin’s words must be heard above all others! Amen!

There is a substantial amount of history that I am going to omit for the purposes of this article, however, lest I be charged with bourgeois white-washing and an attempt to subvert the truth of the SWP, I will attach a ‘Further Reading’ section which will contain some excellent historical sources and studies which will fill in all the gaps I have omitted. What I want to discuss now is the SWP today. It is one of the largest remaining organisations of the Trotskyist variant in Britain and I was once a member of this revolving-door party. Therefore, I cannot resist the urge to comment on my experiences with the SWP.

I believe that the party is still caught up in a form of politics that has largely been surpassed in recent times by the growth of more horizontally organised movements. The recent student movements around the Con-Dem cuts and attacks on higher education have left much of the old-guard Left behind. The SWP, on my campus cannot mobilise more than 3 or 4 diehards, and their presence has been overshadowed by the Anti-fees groups on campus and a strong coalition between Friends of Palestine, People and Planet and Student Broad Left. The non-aligned Left dominates this campus’ left-wing, and the SWP are largely marginalised due to their rigidity and entrenched ‘workerism’. The plurality of radical struggle today largely undermines a centralised party which mobilises around a parochial issue. Many would argue that class-orientated politics has been surpassed, or at least stands equal, with other struggles that exist within an organic polity. Class, in my eyes, is still an essential site for resistance, however I believe that any reductionism that seeks to belittle many struggles at the expense of one will do nothing but harm a movement or party, as has been seen with the consistent decline of the Leninists. The SWP’s trouble with integrating and fighting other struggles is indicated by the recent split from Respect. During 2007-8 the SWP split from Respect, condemning many of its members of ‘communalism’. The predominance of the SWP ‘s parochial ‘workerism’ renders them unable to work together with other organisations without trying to usurp its leadership, or draw it ever closer to class-struggle. The SWP remains rigid in the face of plural and reflexive political issues, rendering it slow to react despite its centralised organisation. In many ways, the centralised nature of the party, adopted in order to allow quick manoeuvre and response, slows the party down and makes it less receptive to outside influence. As a result, the SWP becomes more and more esoteric, and members either become integrated into the parochial focus, or are ejected through either optional disengagement or expulsion.

As I mentioned before, the deterritorialisation of capitalism and social production into all facets of life have shifted capitalist exploitation into greater areas. The capitalist mode of production transcends itself and becomes diffused amongst those within the polity, it becomes an identity, an ideology, much in the same way that patriarchy does so, as well as racial issues. However, with this growing diffusion there becomes greater space for resistance. The plurality of oppressions, diffused across society, creates a multiplicity of resistance; something which cannot be easily integrated into a centralised party structure which is orientated around a singular struggle. The failure of the SWP to become open and self-critical means that it can no longer flow with the multiplicities that exist with the political, and this is why horizontal movements are proving more and more successful.

The features which hamstrung parties such as the WRP are working away within the SWP. A disregard for radical democracy, ideological puritanism, rigid systems of operation, and a parochial scope have aided in the development of a party consisting of increasingly delusion radicals that have become cut off from that which they are attempting to liberate. The SWP will become an irrelevancy, it is aware of its dwindling popularity, despite membership bursts, and now turns to the populist tactics of personalised politics. The same apocalyptic visions remain as the SWP paint an image of a world torn between socialism or Nazis. It will be a long time before a party so petrified realises how it has ceased to live and move. Much like the Soviet Union, these parties become resistant to reform and therefore fizzle out before they become an entity capable of radical change. I fear that the party will whither and die before a radical and critical implosion takes place that will transform the party. However, this will mean a radical move beyond the dogmas of old, and a new critical edge capable of remaining sharp and dangerous in the face of hegemonic forces which dictate the lives and deaths of so many.

Disclaimer – Due to the fragments of polemic within this lengthy article, I must stress that these views are my own, and do no represent the overall views of the Student Broad Left group. I worked alone! I am the culprit! I am the one to be beaten by the boot-boys of Lenin!

Further Reading:

Callaghan, John. (1987), The Far Left in British Politics, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Coates, David. (1985), ‘Parties in Pursuit of Socialism’, in Coates, D; Johnston, G; and Bush, R. (1985), A Socialist Anatomy of Britain, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 190-216.

Callaghan, John. (1984), British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Respect: Documents of the Crisis (Circulated by the Socialist Resistance who are a minute group of ageing Trotskyists bitter at the SWP, but the book is quite good!)

Guattari and Negri. (1985) Communists Like Us, New York: Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents Series