{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1 \deff0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;} {\f27\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;}{\f248\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f249\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f251\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;} {\f252\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f253\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f254\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f255\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;} {\f256\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f257\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}{\f259\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}{\f260\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f261\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);} {\f262\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f263\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f464\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f465\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}{\f467\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;} {\f468\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f469\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);}{\f470\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f471\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255; \red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0; \red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;\red204\green204\blue204;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\s1\ql \li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs32\lang2057\langfe2057\kerning32\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{ \s2\ql \li0\ri0\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext15 header;}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 page number;}{ \s18\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f27\fs16\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext18 Balloon Text;}{\s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext0 Date;}{\s20\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext20 Body Text;} {\*\cs21 \additive \ul\cf2 \sbasedon10 Hyperlink;}{\*\cs22 \additive \ul\cf12 \sbasedon10 FollowedHyperlink;}}{\info{\title Reply to Grant and Sewell}{\author mannythain}{\operator Peter Mason}{\creatim\yr2002\mo11\dy13\hr21\min41} {\revtim\yr2002\mo11\dy13\hr21\min41}{\printim\yr2002\mo11\dy5\hr11\min46}{\version2}{\edmins1}{\nofpages46}{\nofwords25314}{\nofchars144295}{\*\company SOCIALISTPARTY}{\nofcharsws177204}{\vern8247}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule \fet0\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl {\header \pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\field{\*\fldinst {\b\fs20 FILENAME }}{\fldrslt {\b\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof Introduction}}}{\b\fs20 \tab }{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\b\fs20 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs17\b\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof 20}}}{\b\fs20 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\b\fs32 Militant\rquote s Real History \par }\pard\plain \s2\ql \li0\ri0\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {In Reply to Ted Grant and Rob Sewell \par }\pard\plain \s18\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f27\fs16\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\f0 This is a reply to Rob Sewell\rquote s Postscript to Ted Grant\rquote s History of British Trotskyism. This reply is written by Peter Taaffe, General Secretary of the Socialist Party. It has the full support of the Socialist Party Executive Committee. \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {Ted Grant is a longstanding Trotskyist who was part of the leadership of M ilitant (forerunner of the Socialist Party) and the Committee for a Workers International (CWI) until he left with Rob Sewell and Alan Woods in 1991. This was after they and a small number of others were decisively defeated in the political discussions wi t hin the ranks of Militant and the CWI over the period of a year. They received seven per cent of the vote at a special conference of Militant convened to discuss the outstanding political differences between the two trends, the majority in Britain and the CWI, and the Grant-Woods-Sewell minority. Since then, they have largely disappeared as a significant tendency within the labour movement in Britain and internationally. \par Now, however, they have \lquote resurfaced\rquote and have published a book by Ted Grant, which claims to be a \'93history of British Trotskyism\'94. It is not, as others like the ex-Trotskyist Harry Ratner have commented (in an }{\field{\*\fldinst { HYPERLINK "http://mysite.freeserve.com/whatnext/Pages.htm/Back.htm/Wnext23.htm/Grant.htm" }{{\*\datafield 00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000003000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b9c00000068007400740070003a002f002f006d00790073006900740065002e006600720065006500730065007200760065002e0063006f006d002f0077006800610074006e006500780074002f005000610067006500 73002e00680074006d002f004200610063006b002e00680074006d002f0057006e00650078007400320033002e00680074006d002f004700720061006e0074002e00680074006d000000006d22}}}{\fldrslt {\cs21\ul\cf2 article}}}{ on the }{\field{\*\fldinst {\i HYPERLINK "http://mysit e.freeserve.com/whatnext" }{\i {\*\datafield 00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000003000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b4a00000068007400740070003a002f002f006d00790073006900740065002e006600720065006500730065007200760065002e0063006f006d002f0077006800610074006e00650078007400000000}}}{\fldrslt { \cs21\i\ul\cf2 What Next?}}}{ website). It is the memoir of Grant, and a slanted one at that, which seeks to enhance his role at the expense of others. Apart from commenting on one or two points, where Grant has changed his position on his own hi story since leaving the CWI, we do not deal with his book. We leave that to others like Tony Aitman in his informative and telling piece, which we carry as an appendix. \par Most of our comments are directed towards the }{\i Postscript}{ of Rob Sewell, which pretends to deal with the \lquote history\rquote of the Trotskyist movement from 1950 to the present day. It does nothing of the kind. It is virtually denuded of political arguments. (It does not even deserve to be described as \lquote Trotskyist\rquote in character, having more in common with the Stalinist school of falsification of other people\rquote s, and particularly our, ideas and actions.) \par \'93Why reply to a tiny grouping and at such length?\'94 will no doubt be the reaction of many, given the character of Sewell\rquote s }{\i Postscript}{ . After all, we are used to a campaign of almost continuous distortion of our ideas from every conceivable sectarian organisation. This has had as much effect on us as a drop of water on a hot stove. We have not even deigned to answer what appeared at som e times to be an avalanche of personal attacks directed against the leadership of the Socialist Party and the CWI. Moreover, since he left our ranks, Grant has periodically issued an \lquote Open Letter\rquote to our members predicting our imminent demise, which we have not even bothered to reply to. \par For some reason the Grant group still consider themselves important. They are a perfect example of the peculiar law which seems to operate with tiny \lquote revolutionary\rquote groups; their awareness of their importance is in inverse p roportion to what they actually represent. \par Rather than deal with them, we would much prefer to deal more extensively than we have with the tumultuous worldwide events and the role of Marxism in shaping the socialist future. But as the journal of bourgeois finance capital, }{\i The Economist}{ , once put it: \'93Who controls the past greatly influences the present\'94. \par It is necessary, as we have consistently done, to defend from a Marxist standpoint those historically progressive and working class movements in history, i n order to pass on the lessons of these events to the new generation. This is even more important when what is involved is the real history of the Marxist and Trotskyist movement. In the 1980s, Militant was the biggest and most influential Trotskyist orga nisation in Britain, and one of the largest Trotskyist organisations in Europe since the International Left Opposition in the 1930s. \par In our book }{\i The Rise of Militant}{ we sought to chart out how this was achieved and the role which individuals played in this . We gave due merit to those who made a contribution to the building of our organisation, including those like Ted Grant and Alan Woods who had parted company with us. No serious challenge was made to this history. Sewell\rquote s account \endash clearly with the approval of Grant and Woods \endash now seeks belatedly to undermine our interpretation of this history. He seeks to bolster not just Grant\rquote s but his own role, as well as his brother\rquote s, in the building of Militant to the detriment of others. \par We have decided to answer this. Our reply seeks to explain the political roots of our differences with this group but we are also compelled to reply to their organisational \lquote criticisms\rquote . This, of necessity, means going into some detail. Even this can serve to illustrate how honest socialists and Marxists should approach history, and the difference between a genuine Marxist organisation capable of attracting the best of the working class, and those condemned to forever remain on the margins of the labour movement. \par }{\b Peter Taaffe, October 2002 \par \par \par }{\b\fs32 Insults in place of Politics \par }{\b Chapter one \par }{Even Harry Ratner, a British ex-Trotskyist, in his article on the website }{\i What Next?}{ is scathing about the method employed by Sewell in his truly awful }{\i Postscript}{. Ratner writes: \'93 By 1991, Militant was in serious decline, and by January 1992 it had split and Grant and Sewell had been expelled. A majority left the Labour Party and went on to set up the Socialist Party and the Scottish Socialist Party. So what went wrong? Sewell \rquote s explanation is superficial and far from satisfactory. Almost seven whole paragraphs are devoted to casting me as the main villain who organised a faction against Grant. According to Sewell, Taaffe and his group \lquote deliberately sabotaged \rquote , were \lquote already pursuing their own agenda\rquote . \lquote A very ambitious man with a mortal fear of rivals, actual or potential, Taaffe decided that his talents were not sufficiently appreciated\'85 He surrounded hims elf with a group of yes-men\'85 Resorted to behind the scenes manoeuvres to isolate Ted, spread rumours about his allegedly impossible character, and worse\rquote \'85 etcetera. Sewell seems to allot the real political context to a minor role.\'94 (Ratner\rquote s criticisms are significant in view of the fact that Sewell himself quotes him to justify some of his criticisms of others.) \par However, Ratner, if anything, understates the complete avoidance of any attempts to explain the political context of why the split of 1991 took place. He is also wrong to argue that Militant was in \'93serious decline\'94 at this stage. Yet he at least tries to explain the political and objective basis of the split, something Sewell fails to do. There were objective difficulties which made it harder for us to make the progress that we had made in the previous decade. The post-miners\rquote strike effects, with the shift towards the right at the top of the Labour Party and the trade unions, the continuation of the 1980s boom, and the collapse of Stalinism, which allowed the capitalists to pursue an ideological campaign against \lquote socialism\rquote , complicated the position for us. However, these difficulties were enormously compounded by a failure of the leadership of Militant \endash above all Grant \endash to react early enough to the change in the objective situation. Militant had a considerable history behind it and a reputation earned in the successful struggles in Liverpool and against the poll tax. \par But the Labour Party had become a barren and futile arena of activity for any serious socialist organisation which sought to actively intervene in the worker\rquote s struggles. The strongholds of Militant within the Labour Party had either been purged or closed down by the right wing. The Labour Party Young Socialists (LPYS) \endash the most vibr ant and active section of the Labour Party in the 1980s, because of the influence of Militant within it \endash had been closed down. The Liverpool Labour Party was a shadow of the powerful force for working class action which it had been in the 1980s. \par People were being expelled for advocating \lquote non-payment\rquote of the poll tax. Some \endash a lot earlier than 1991 \endash were striving to break out of the ideological and organisational prison which the Labour Party meant for us at that stage. In 1987, we had even raised the poss ibility of launching an independent organisation in Liverpool following the expulsion of the Liverpool Militants just previously. This was vehemently opposed by Ted Grant above all, and even by some of the leading Liverpool comrades themselves. By 1991, h owever, the situation had become untenable, particularly in key areas of the country where we had led successful mass struggles, such as in Scotland on the poll tax. \par For a Marxist, serious divisions within an organisation do not drop from the sky. Personal factors can play a role but where it involves substantial forces these are of a secondary character. Sewell, Grant and Woods elevate the personal and other incidental factors to the main causes of the split of 1991. We on the other hand, from the beginnin g sought to explain the political roots of the divergent tendencies within Militant. \par A widening political gulf developed between an ossified conservative grouping around Grant and those who were prepared to face up to the new political situation which took shape in the run-up to 1991. We have dealt with these differences in our book }{\i The Rise of Militant}{, on issues such as South Africa, Namibia, the Gulf War, the Labour Party and perspectives for the mass organisations, and the perspectives for Stalinism. The reader can acquaint themselves with the in-depth criticisms we make of Grant in this book, which is in contrast to the approach of Sewell. Here, we will give a brief summary. \par }{\b\fs32 \lquote Catastrophist\rquote perspective of Grant on the world economy}{ \par Important political differences occurred over the world financial crisis in 1987. As soon as the 1987 share crash took place, Grant was predicting a world economic slump, \'93within six months\'94 , along the lines of 1929-32. His thinking was unfortunately, reflected in the pages of Militant. In its initial comments on these developments it stated: \'93A major slump in production and trade is assured, perhaps even before the summer of 1988\'94 . His co-thinker, Michael Roberts, stated that the October crash \'93is a barometer predicting the impending storm that will exceed anything experienced by capitalism in the post-war period, possibly matching the great slump of the 1930s\'94. \par This approach was vigorously opposed by me and Lynn Walsh in the British Executive and National Committees, and by me , Tony Saunois and Bob Labi in the International Executive Committee of the CWI. As usual, Woods slavishly supported Grant. It was not possible to have a dialogue with Grant on this issue. Instead, there were bitter denunciations of Bob Labi, for instance , for daring to question this analysis, earning Bob the reprimand from Grant that \'93he did not understand the ABC of Marxism\'94 . We argued that the huge reserves of Japan and West Germany could allow the bourgeois, at the cost of storing up difficulties for later, to temporarily bale out the economy and thereby world capitalism. Grant\rquote s approach would completely disorientate our members in Britain and internationally. If his astronomical, not to say astrological, prediction did not come to pass it would set in a mood of disappointment, if not dejection, amongst our members. \par It was necessary to approach this issue in a balanced way, something foreign to Grant, Woods and Sewell. World capitalism still possessed huge layers of fat, which it could eat into, in order to stave off an immediate crisis. We argued that short-term measures could be taken, which would only have the effect of piling up problems and aggravating the crisis at a later stage. Contrary to the analysis of Grant, this is exactly what happened. A r e vival of world capitalism took place in the aftermath of the October 1987 crisis. Indeed, the huge injection of credit fuelled a growth of world capitalism at a greater rate than the period prior to the crash. This ended with the recession of the early 19 90s. \par But timing in politics and, it should be added, in the art of political economy, is important. Grant had made a habit of criticising Gerry Healy \endash which he repeats in his book \endash for continually predicting a new 1929 over a period of decades, but he made the same \lquote catastrophist\rquote error in 1987. No doubt, if a new 1929-type crisis should occur, he will declare he was right all along! Even a permanently stopped clock is right twice a day. This approach allows the capitalist ideologists a field day in pictu ring the Marxists as incapable of analysing real processes in a balanced fashion. \par These theoretical blunders of Grant have to be taken against the background of his assertion that he was \'93the only one\'94 who was capable of interpreting Marx\rquote s economic ideas and applying them to the modern era. It is a matter of public record that he completely failed the test on this occasion. Of course, he denounced those who were correct on this issue for having an \'93eclectic\'94 approach because we did not support his one-dimensional approach. We, on the other hand, contrasted his approach to that of Trotsky who, in the }{\i Third Period of the Comintern\rquote s Errors}{ written in December 1929, advanced the prognosis that there were at that time four possibilities in the economic sphere: a slow-down in the rate of growth; a recession with a small drop in production; a severe slump; or a combination of these three! \par Trotsky did not come down for any one of these variants. In the eyes of Grant and Woods he was an \'93empiricist\'94 and \'93eclectic\'94! Marxism is a science, but science is based on the analysis of real processes, not }{\i a priori}{ predictions made with the false confidence of an astrologer. Yet it was approached in precisely this fashion by Grant and Woods. Not satisfied with a broad analysis of major trends, they attempted to impose a ridiculous timescale of six months for the coming slump. This was even carried over into the written material of Grant, both in Britain and internationally. When the long-predicted slump failed to materialise, this undoubtedly disorientated a whole layer of comrades in Britain and internationally. \par Grant made a similar mistake on Namibia, arguing that the South African forces present in the country would not withdraw, and on South Africa itself where, similarly, Grant argued that it was impossible for an agreement to take place between de Klerk \rquote s National Party and Mandela\rquote s ANC, which would lead to the dismantling of the apartheid regime and the introduction of a form of bourgeois democracy. \par }{\b\fs32 At sea on Stalinism}{ \par An even worse blunder centred on perspectives for Stalinism in the USSR and the possibility of capitalist restoration. Militant and the CWI had underestimated the possibility of capitalist restoration in the USSR and Eastern Europe. This was partly explained by our lack of a base within the Stalinist states and, thereby, the absence of a gauge with which to measure fully the degeneration of the Stalinist regimes. However, it was those \endash who subsequently became the majority of Militant \endash who first raised the possibility of capitalist restoration. This was fervently denied by Grant and Woods, who operated, and still do, with an outmoded perception of the real situation which existed. \par Following Thatcher\rquote s visit to Poland in 1988 and the tumultuous support that she received in Gdansk, we began to pose the possibility of bourgeois restoration. In fact, pro-capitalist features were strongly represented in the movement of 1980-81 around Solidarity and, going further back, even in the events in Czechosl ovakia in 1968. At that stage, however, the possibility of \lquote reform\rquote , of Dubcek\rquote s \'93Socialism with a human face\'94 , was still quite strong. The boom of the 1980s and the further collapse of the Stalinist states contributed, particularly in Poland after the supp ression of the movement of 1980-81, to a pronounced pro-capitalist mood, reflected in the support Thatcher and George Bush senior received in visits to Poland. The 1980s boom helped to reinforce this mood in all the Stalinist states. \par We therefore posed tentatively, too tentatively as it turned out, at the CWI\rquote s World Congress of 1988, the possibility of capitalist restoration in Poland and the rest of the Stalinist world. This was before the collapse of the Berlin Wall, but it was quite evident that there w as growing opposition to the Stalinist regimes then. Such a possibility was vehemently denied by Grant. In a lead-off on Stalinism in 1988, I \lquote set a hare running\rquote by posing the issue of bourgeois restoration. This caused a certain amount of controversy at the congress but Grant as the so-called \'93leading theoretician\'94 , refused to speak. He confided privately that it was because he disagreed with my lead-off but was not prepared to take the floor to answer it. \par This was not the case later when an increasing divergence developed between the two trends on the issue of Stalinism. We sent delegations to Eastern Europe \endash particularly to Poland \endash who reported back on the mass sentiment for a return to capitalism. Grant refused to recognise this and condemned those who gave the report as \'93being out of touch\'94 . The same thing happened when comrades spent a period in Russia and reported on a growing pro-capitalist mood. \par \par }{\b\fs32 1991 coup \par }{The differences on this issue came to the fore over the August 1991 coup in the Soviet Union. On 19}{\super th}{ and 20}{\super th}{ August, the old guard \lquote conservative\rquote wing of the bureaucracy organised a coup against Gorbachev. Grant and Co leaned towards \'93critical support\'94 for the organisers of the coup! They subsequently denied this because of the embarrassment of seeming to side with the pro-Stalinist wing of the bureaucracy. But in a document they put forward as part of the internal discussion within Militant they stated: \'93 If, as was entirely possible, the regime had been compelled to carry out a policy based on recentralisation and the planned economy, accompanied by terror, this would also give a certain impetus to the productive forces for a period of time.\'94 [}{\i The Truth about the Coup.}{] \par Woods and Grant clung to their outmoded position until the late 1990s. In Ted Grant\rquote s book, }{\i Russia \endash from Revolution to Counter-Revolution, }{Alan Woods, in his introduction, writes: \'93 It is worth recalling that twenty-five years ago Ted Grant had correctly analysed the reasons for the crisis of Stalinism, and predicted its collapse. Moreover, he was the only one to do so.\'94 \par This is a breathtaking re-writing of history as all Militant supporters, including the leadership, which included ourselves, had this position, based upon our readings of the works of Trotsky. Moreover, Ted Grant was not the only one to analyse the reasons why we expected the collapse of Stalinism to take place. But then Woods writes: \'93 The only correction that has to be introduced concerns the perspective for a return to capitalism in Russia. For a long time, the author considered that such a development was ruled out. That has been shown to be incorrect.\'94 \par We in common with Ted Grant also expected that Russia would not return to capitalism, for the reasons that we have explained more fully elsewhere (see }{\i The Rise of Militant}{ pp321-414). But when faced with the reality of what was taking place in Poland and elsewhere in the Stalinist world we did alter our perspective, anticipating a return back to capitalism beginning in Poland and, following the collapse of the Berl in Wall, in Eastern Europe and in Russia itself. \par Ted Grant, unfortunately, stubbornly resisted drawing this conclusion, refusing to face up to facts and believing that the attempts to return back to capitalism were of purely a temporary character. He pers isted with this method right up to 1997 and beyond, as Woods admits: \'93It is the contention of the author [Grant] that the movement towards capitalism in Russia has not yet been carried to a definitive conclusion, and may yet be reversed.\'94 \par Now, in their current }{\i Prospects for the World Revolution}{, they confess: \'93 We have to admit that things have not turned out as we expected a few years ago. We did not expect that the crisis of world capitalism would be postponed for as long as it has been. This has given Rus sian capitalism sufficient time to establish itself. The movement towards capitalism has lasted for ten years. The new productive system and its property relations have had time to penetrate the consciousness of the masses. This process has lasted much lo nger than we expected. The main responsibility lies with the Stalinists who have capitulated on everything\'85 \par \'93Ten years is sufficient time to judge. We have to say that the Rubicon has now been passed. The movement towards capitalism has been contradictory, with many cross-currents, but after every crisis the process has continued with renewed force.\'94 \par Compare Grant\rquote s method today as indicated by these lines in relation to the ex-Stalinist states and the position he took in relation to China and Eastern Europe in the 1940s. Along with the rest of the leadership of the Revolutionary Communist Party, he recognised what was taking place, a virtually unstoppable process \endash given the relationship of world forces \endash towards the establishment of Stalinist states. Belatedly, the International Secretariat of the Fourth International (ISFI \endash forerunners of the United Secretariat) recognised this in 1953! Grant was not hesitant in using this to show the false method of the ISFI leadership. Yet now he made the same kind of mis take only in an opposite sense, of this time failing to understand the process of capitalist restoration in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Given the national and international background against which these processes were developing, there wa s no possibility of a short-term \lquote reversal\rquote of the process of capitalist restoration, a social counter-revolution, which was taking place in Russia in the 1990s. \par Today in Eastern Europe (and tomorrow in Russia as well) the beginning of an opposition to this is under way. But that does not cancel out the fact that in the early 1990s, faced with the reality of capitalist restoration, Woods and Grant buried their heads in the sand, in the same way as the leadership of the ISFI did in the late 1940s. This is il lustrated by what Grant wrote in the latter part of his book: \'93As a matter of fact, even now the class nature of the Russian state has not been decisively determined\'85 It is a question of what property form will ultimately prevail \endash nationalisation or private property. This struggle is still unfolding, but the result is not yet decided.\'94 [Page 38.] This shows just how out of touch Grant and Woods were, and are, in relation to a serious analysis of processes in the former Stalinist states. At the time that the above was written, 1997, a social counter-revolution was in full swing, a \lquote fast track\rquote route to capitalism. \par \par }{\b\fs32 Re-establishment of Stalinist regime \par }{Their perspective in 1991 was for the re-establishment of a Stalinist regime, resting on the planned economy, if the coup organisers had succeeded. Moreover, they had argued that this was the most likely outcome of the coup. The previous December, Woods had argued in a discussion on Stalinism: \'93 Let us be clear, even if there is a struggle between rival wings of the bureaucracy, one wing openly pro-capitalist and another wing \endash for their own purposes \endash trying to defend the basis of the nationalised economy, it would be a fundamental mistake to think that we would be neutral in that situation, even if you had a situation where sections of workers were supporting the other wing.\'94 He continued: \'93 Trotsky said that in principle you couldn\rquote t rule out in advance the possibility of a united front, a temporary and partial united front, between the Trotskyists and the Stalini st bureaucracy, if it came to an open civil war and an attempt to restore capitalism in the USSR\'94 [Woods addressing an international meeting of Militant, quoted in }{\i The Collapse of Stalinism, part 2}{ ]. And as we have seen, they clung to this false perspective for years afterwards. \par We, on the other hand, argued that there was a fundamental difference between the situation in the Soviet Union in 1991 and the period when Trotsky had envisaged a position of \'93critical support\'94 for a section of the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy had completely degenerated, with the great majority abandoning support for central planning and the old system. They had embraced capitalism as the way forward. There was no significant wing of the bureaucracy, in the period leading up to 199 1, which still adhered to the planned economy. Grant was so convinced that the coup would succeed that, as the TV reports came through on the collapse of the coup on Wednesday 21 August, he denounced them as \'93lies\'94 and \'93bourgeois propaganda\'94. \par He and Woods failed to grasp that even if the coup had succeeded this would not have led to a restoration of the Stalinist regimes. The \lquote old guard\rquote regimes would have been re-established but not the planned economy. Jaruselski had tried this in Poland in 1981 but subsequently admitted: \'93Our greatest mistake was to keep the party\rquote s monopoly on power, defend nationalised industry and the class struggle\'94. He accordingly moved towards an openly pro-capitalist position, paving the way for the coming to power of Solidarity and Walesa. And yet, Woods and Grant, in their document }{ \i The Truth about the Coup}{, argued: \'93What would have happened for example if Yanayaev and Co [the main organisers of the coup] had seized power? Is it a foregone conclusion that they would have carried out their stated aim of moving towards a \lquote market economy\rquote albeit at a more gradual pace? For the majority of the International Secretariat, this is a simple question to answer: in today\rquote s situation, \lquote objectively\'85 Yes. \rquote But that does not exhaust the question .\'94 \par They then advanced the idea that the coup organisers would have been compelled to re-establish the elements of the planned economy, completely ignoring the experience of Jaruselski and the evolution of the Chinese Stalinists in the aftermath of Tiananme n Square. They, of course, attempted to cover their tracks by accusing us of tail-ending Yeltsin in the August coup. This was despite the fact that we publicly distanced ourselves from the pro-capitalist Yeltsinites, some of whom flooded towards the defen ce of their hero at the White House in Moscow. \par The mass of the population in the Soviet Union was opposed to the coup. Some had illusions in Yeltsin, the majority were opposed because of a fear that the elementary democratic rights they had gained since 19 89 would be snuffed out if the coup succeeded. That is why a series of strikes took place in Moscow, the Ukraine and elsewhere (see pp. 449-451 in }{\i The Rise of Militant}{ for a fuller explanation). \par }{\b\fs32 Gulf War: \'93Some of you will be killed\'94}{ \par The position taken by Grant and Woods on the August events in Russia alienated them further from the great majority of our members. Grant\rquote s authority had already been severely undermined \endash not by the wicked Taaffe and his \'93clique\'94 \endash but by his own lamentable performance during the Gulf War. There were serious differences within the Militant leadership over the war which had been simmering behind the scenes, which then broke out into the open, necessitating the calling of a Special Conference to discuss the Gulf War in January 1991 (held at the London School of Economics). \par Again, Grant wanted to predict exact time scales, arguing that if a land war was to break out it would last for a minimum of six months and probably for two years. This unqualified statement was repeated in the Spanish organisation of the CWI, clearly due to the influence of Woods. However, in Britain, Militant never once carried such a statement. There was not a single other member of the Executive Committee, including Sewell, who adopted this approach apart f rom Grant himself. \par Yet nothing demonstrated his false approach more clearly than his position on conscription. At a rally at the LSE before the special conference on the Gulf War, he made this statement: \'93 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.\'94 \par This statement was greeted with stunned disbelief and anger. It was made despite the fact that a clear majority of the leadership disagreed with Grant\rquote s proposals and had attempted to dissuade him from these ideas publicly. Prominent in expressing this was none other than Sewell himself, who did not hesitate to make disparaging remarks about Grant\rquote s incapacity, usually behind his back. However, his best efforts were of no avail. \par After the meeting, Grant was besieged by young people opposing his views. Despite this, at the conference the nex t day he made exactly the same points in the course of introducing the discussion on the Gulf War. This produced a near revolt from the floor, with the majority clearly opposed to his statement. I intervened in the discussion, attempting to save him, as h ad been done on previous occasions, from the ire of Militant\rquote s membership. It was pointed out that, in the event of conscription, which we considered so unlikely that it was effectively ruled out, we would call a special conference to determine our attitude. \par It was also pointed out that it was wrong to merely repeat Trotsky\rquote s position at the time of the Second World War, as Grant and Woods did. At that time, the outlook of the mass of the working class was determined by the threat of invasion from a foreign fascist power, with all that implied: the destruction of democratic rights and the workers\rquote organisations. In 1990-91, the Marxists were faced with a colonial war of intervention by imperialism in the Gulf. If Grant\rquote s position of, in effect, adapting to c onscription and going into the army had become the public position of Militant, it would have made it virtually impossible for us to participate in the growing antiwar movements. Such movements were initially bound to have pacifist overtones. Marxists are not pacifists. But at all times Marxists distinguish between the false hypocritical \lquote pacifism\rquote of the capitalists and their reformist shadows within the labour movement, which invariably acts as a cover for war and the genuine antiwar mood of the youth. \par W e argued that, in the unlikely event of conscription being introduced, this would not mean that young people would passively go into a conscripted army. We could have seen the same kind of revolt that took place at the time of the Vietnam War, with mass o p position and a mass refusal to participate in this war. The short duration of the Gulf War, contrary to all the expectations of Grant and Woods, saved us and them from further embarrassment on this issue. This dispute was a skirmish between the growing di verging tendencies within the ranks of Militant, which was to break out into open divisions just a few months later. It did not however, prevent a serious intervention in the antiwar movement, both in Britain and internationally. \par }{\b\fs32 The split of 1991}{ \par The month of April 1991 was a decisive one in the evolution of Militant. The national leadership unanimously decided to support the setting up of an independent organisation in Scotland to take account of the favourable situation which had developed for us there. Grant subsequently maintained that this was the issue which destroyed \'9340 years of work\'94 \endash now repeated by Sewell \endash and was the pretext for breaking away from Militant. Yet, it is a matter of record that both Grant and Sewell voted in favour of this decision. We give the details in chapter 44 of }{\i The Rise of Militant}{ . Indeed, they both enthusiastically spoke in favour of the proposal and voted for it at a National Committee. They did not then complain that this decision was \'93rushed through\'94. If this was the case how were two experienced and allegedly \'93wily \'94 operators such as Grant and Sewell rushed into taking such an important decision, which represented such a historic departure? \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \cbpat8 {The truth is that they accepted the decision because of the pressure which had been exerted on the leadership of Militant by the complete collapse and emptying out of the Labour Party. For months and years before this decision, the ranks of our party were }{\chshdng0\chcfpat0\chcbpat8 discussing the taking of such an initiative. Indeed, Tony Mu lhearn maintains that in 1983, at the time of the expulsion of the Militant Editorial Board, Grant in a discussion with him, had raised the possibility of us setting up an independent organisation with the name \lquote Socialist Labour Party\rquote . He never, at any time, shared}{\chshdng0\chcfpat0\chcbpat17 }{\chshdng0\chcfpat0\chcbpat8 these views with the leadership of Militant.}{ \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {Rejected on the issue of a \'93clique\'94 he, Woods and subsequently Sewell then moved on to political issues, which involved dogmatically defending past positions which were no longer relevant in the chang ed situation of the late 1980s, never mind the 1990s. Even before the setting up of an independent organisation in Scotland we had supported local unofficial Labour candidates in Liverpool against the right-wing group that had hijacked the Labour party th e re. The truth is, rather than in 1991, it would have been more correct in 1987 to have launched an open, independent organisation, in Liverpool first rather than in Scotland. In fact, I did raise this possibility but was vehemently opposed by Grant and fo u nd opposition even from some leading Liverpool comrades. If we had launched an independent organisation in 1987 we would have been better poised to intervene in the battle against the expulsion of the Liverpool Militant leadership and also in the huge mas s campaign we conducted against the poll tax. \par Nevertheless, belatedly, we did recognise the changed situation, the emptying out of the Labour Party, which Grant, Woods and Sewell refused to accept. They summed up their arguments in a lengthy document submi tted for discussion within the ranks of Militant. They argued: \'93Our work in the mass organisations of the British working class was of a long-term character\'94 and should be continued. They failed to consider the changes that had taken place in the outlook of significant sections of the workers to what we always considered in the past to be the \lquote traditional organisations\rquote of the working class. \par \par }{\b\fs32 The Labour Party \par }{These \lquote dialecticians\rquote refused to recognise changes even when they struck them on the nose. Grant argued that the internal position of the Labour Party had not fundamentally changed: \'93 In the 1950s, the internal regime was marked by witch-hunts against the Bevanite left, bans and proscriptions, the repeated closure of the Labour youth organisation\'94. Howe ver, we stressed that the Labour Party of the 1990s was far to the right than that of the 1950s. While attacks had been made on the left in the earlier period, the right had never succeeded in completely destroying the left within the constituencies. Inde ed, in the 1950s the Bevanite left dominated the majority of Constituency Labour Party seats on the National Executive Committee. \par Through Kinnock, however, then through Smith and now through Blair the Labour Party\rquote s internal democracy, particularly in the local parties, has been well nigh destroyed. That process has been taken much further in the 1990s. Only stick-in-the-mud dogmatists could intone in this period that \'93nothing had changed\'94 . Not only has the Labour Party changed internally but its position in the consciousness of the working class has undergone dramatic changes, since the early 1990s. Even in the 1997 general election, many workers \'93held their noses\'94 and voted Labour, not through any enthusiasm but as a means of getting rid of the Tories. Now there is a wide perception amongst workers that this party no longer represents them. \par This mood is even more pronounced within the trade unions. Active trade unionists have long disengaged from involvement in the Labour Party at local level. The activist s of the local Labour parties consist of councillors and other participants in the Labour machine, seasoned, perhaps, with a few disorientated members of \lquote revolutionary\rquote groups and ex-revolutionaries who have adapted to the ex-social democrats. \par Our turn to more independent work in the 1990s did not initially mean a change in our analysis of the Labour Party as a bourgeois workers\rquote party. However, the further move towards the right: the abandonment of Clause IV, the complete dismantling of internal democracy, the pro-bourgeois position of Blair \endash he is more at ease in the company of Berlusconi and Aznar, and George Bush junior than with the ex-social democratic leaders of France or Germany \endash all contributed to the change in our analysis. We drew the conclus ion that the Labour Party was a bourgeois party and was no longer a viable field of work for genuine socialists, never mind Marxists or revolutionaries. This allowed us to intervene successfully in the struggles of the working class in Britain and Europe w hich were taking place outside and in opposition to New Labour. We took initiatives such as Youth against Racism in Europe (YRE), which had a profound effect in the early 1990s and organised the biggest-ever Europe-wide demonstration of youth against fasc ism. We have also successfully intervened in the anti-capitalist movement and continue to expand our influence within the trade unions. \par The Socialist Party and the CWI have been in this period a recognised important part of the left and has been successful in attracting some of the best of the new generation of young people and workers to our banner. We have sought to provide an alternative, socialist pole of attraction by standing in elections and in Britain is the most successful organisation to the left of Labour \endash with councillors \endash who have rallied opposition to New Labour-dominated local councils which have carried out cuts in services, sackings, etc. The Grant group have been utterly lifeless and moribund, sitting in empty Labour parties \endash so far as any parties meet \endash proposing resolutions but not having the slightest effect on the course of events within the workers\rquote movement. \par }{\b\fs32 Perspectives for the Labour Party now}{ \par We have also advanced the idea of a new mass workers\rquote party and predicted the developmen t of a mood amongst workers, particularly trade unionists, to separate themselves from the capitalist New Labour party. Witness the series of resolutions proposed at British union conferences to weaken or break the link between the trade unions and the La bour Party. \par Some trade union leaders in the past period, it is true, have proposed to \lquote reclaim the Labour Party\rquote . We have no fetish for organisational forms of struggle for the working class. History knows all kinds of changes, as Lenin pointed out. There have been occasions when bourgeois parties, or parts of them, have evolved towards the left, ending up as new formations of the working class. This was the case in Greece with Andreas Papandreou taking some workers out of the liberal bourgeois Centre Unio n led by his father George, as well as winning new, fresh layers to found PASOK, which became a powerful socialist party in Greece. PASOK has also shifted dramatically towards the right and is recognised as hardly any different to the other bourgeois parti es. We predicted this in a debate with Grant and Woods in Greece in 1992. Now, ten years later, a section of his Greek supporters who opposed us then have belatedly come to the same conclusion. \par It can never be theoretically discounted \endash nor have we ever said this on any occasion \endash that an ex-workers\rquote party which has degenerated into a bourgeois formation could, under the impact of mighty economic and political events, begin to shift once more towards the left and transform itself into a vehicle for workers. It is not theoretically excluded that the same thing could happen to the Labour Party in Britain, with Blairism being rejected, a big shift towards the left taking place and a new arena of struggle opening up for socialists and Marxists. This, however, is definitively not possible through the present feeble attempts by some union leaders to \lquote reclaim the Labour Party\rquote . At most, they wish for a little bit more influence, \'93a cup of tea at 10 Downing Street\'94 with Blair, rather than a root and branch counter-movement against Blair \endash a programme to clear out these capitalist agents and a return of Labour to its socialist aspirations. \par The Grantites completely exaggerate developments in the Labour Party. This was indicated by their role in the Labour Party conference in September/October 2002 in Blackpool. Predictably, the \lquote Grant Tendency\rquote , on their website, hails this conference as indicating that \'93the old traditions of the Labour Party are not dead at all\'94. They accordingly give a false picture of Blair at the conference as close to defeat on the Private Finance Initiative (PFI \endash privatisation of public services), and on \'93his plans to wage war on Iraq\'94. In reality, all that Blair conceded on PFI was that a \'93review\'94 should take place, which the union leaders acceded to. On Iraq, a resolution was accepted that \'93war\'94 could be waged through the United Nations if \'93proof\'94 of Iraq\rquote s guilt was obtained. After the conference, the right wing boasted that they won by \'93four to one\'94 during it. The most that can be said about this conference was that, even in the highly sanitised New Labour party \endash with most of the delegates from the constituencies supporting the right wing \endash the pressures outside were reflected in a distorted fashion. The conference was a very pale echo of the anti-war mood amongst young people and more thinking workers. \par The expectations of the \lquote Grant Tendency\rquote amount to \'93more next year and in the future\'94. They write: \'93On this basis, next year\rquote s TUC congress and Labour Party conference will see even greater opposition\'94 . They even go on to prettify what the Labour Party represented in the past by writing: \'93He [Blair] is paving the way for the struggle between the classes that will see the Labour Party reclaimed, transformed, and restored as a }{\i political fighting organisation}{ of the working class\'94 (our emphasis). This is a gross opportunist interpretation of what the Labour Party represented historically. When has the Labour Party ever been a clear \'93 political fighting organisation of the working class\'94? We always pointe d to its dual character, bourgeois at the top but with a working class base and subjected to the pressure and the power of the working class outside. This sometimes compelled the Labour leaders and even Labour governments to undertake radical measures but never was it a \'93political fighting organisation of the working class\'94 in a clear socialist or Marxist sense. \par \par }{\b\fs32 Reclaim the Labour Party? \par }{This is just one indication of the opportunist adaptation of this organisation. They were shipwrecked by the change in the character of the Labour Party in the late 1980s and 1990s. The effects of the defeat of the miners\rquote strike were added to in the 1990s by the collapse of Stalinism and, with it, the planned economies of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. This gave the possibility for the bourgeois internationally to conduct a colossal ideological offensive against socialism and in favour of the \lquote market\rquote . The CWI was the only Trotskyist organisation that analysed this process in a balanced fashion, pointing to the inevi table effects of this in strengthening the bourgeois and weakening the working class but not in the same sense as happened in the interwar period with the triumph of fascism in Italy, Germany and Spain. The potential power of the working class largely rem ains intact and this will be demonstrated even more clearly under the hammer blows of the economic recession and in a war against Iraq. \par Contrast this with the pathetic statements of the \lquote Grantites\rquote , which pass as serious analysis. Quite incredibly, in the article on the Labour Party conference, they can write: \'93 The past twenty years or so were years of lull in the movement\'94. In these last two decades we have witnessed in Britain alone, the miners\rquote strike, the events in Liverpool, the poll tax struggle and th e defeat of Thatcher, as well as the rise of a powerful Trotskyist organisation around Militant. These tumultuous events it is clear, bypassed this conservative and largely office-bound tendency. \par The union leaders have been pushed into semi-opposition to B lair because of the mounting hatred amongst workers for New Labour and what it represents. There is an increasing demand that no further trade union finance should go to this anti-working class party. In China the unfortunate families of people executed b y the state are compelled to pay for the executioner\rquote s bullets. This \lquote tendency\rquote advocates a similar compliance by British trade unionists: continue paying a levy to a party which seeks to \lquote mow them down\rquote through privatisation, attacks on education, welfare, etc. Such advice is rejected by workers and trade unionists as they increasingly move away from New Labour and demand that the precious resources of the unions should no longer be wasted on this capitalist party. \par The trade union leaders want to deflect this movement into one \lquote last\rquote effort to \lquote reclaim\rquote the Labour Party. Yet the preferred \lquote left\rquote candidate of the union leaders to Blair is Gordon Brown, whose economic policies, bourgeois to a fault, have served as the backbone to Blairism since it has been in government. The fact that Brown has partially increased public expenditure \endash to a level that is not yet up to that of the Tory Major government \endash has increased his \lquote left\rquote credentials, has conjured up the vision of \lquote Old Labour\rquote , amongst the right-wing trade union leaders and even some new left leaders. It will prove to be a chimera. So worried are the Blairites at the pressure from below to separate the unions from the Labour Party that they are even considering repe aling one part of the Tories\rquote anti-trade union legislation \endash compulsory ballots over political funds. This is because of the fear that there will be a mass rejection of the link to Labour by trade unionists in these ballots (see }{\i Socialism Today}{, September 2002). \par \par }{\b\fs32 Can Labour move to the left? \par }{If there was a serious prospect of shifting Labour towards the left, so that it became once more an instrument of struggle for working people, then no serious Marxist would or could stand aside from this. Unlike Woods a nd Grant we are not dogmatists. We have to follow the march of events, the inevitable shifts and turns in the situation to determine Marxist policy, including strategy and tactics towards mass organisations of the working class. However, it is not a serio us Marxist policy to continue with a tactic which is barren and fruitless, which means that all you do is intone the same mantra that \lquote nothing has changed\rquote . This will only isolate the Marxists from any real movement which takes place. Even if, in 1991, it c ould be conceded that some time in the future the Labour Party might change, this was no justification for adopting the sterile position that, therefore, Marxists should just sit on their hands, \lquote wait\rquote , not try to actively prepare forces for the current and future battles. \par Timescale is not unimportant in politics as in warfare. Taking opportunities in situations when the time is ripe is an art which is only acquired and honed in a constant discourse within a healthy Marxist organisation and in a dialogue wi th the working class. In 1991, we took the decision to embark on a different tactic. This has been successful in consolidating the points of support which Marxism built up in the past in Britain and internationally. \par On this issue in the past even Grant was not so dogmatic. As he points out in his book, in 1941 the Workers\rquote International League (WIL), of which he was part, had concluded: \'93 that there was not much going on in the Labour Party; that the activity, in so far as it took place, on the part of the working class, was industrial activity\'85 we convinced ourselves that nothing much could be gained by maintaining the position of entrism at that stage.\'94 In 1941, this was an issue of tactics and not a principle. Why, therefore, had it become a principled que stion in 1991 and allegedly threatened \'9340 years of work\'94? \par Later on, in the 1950s, Grant would write about the \'93problems of tactics as tactics, and not as once and for all fetishes\'94 [}{\i Problems of Entrism}{]. In 1957, he also stated: \'93The situation demands abo ve all flexible tactics. Entry must not be a fetish, any more than the concept of open work. Our tactic at a given time is dictated by the opportunities open to us and the possibilities of results.\'94 The tactically \lquote flexible\rquote Grant of the 1940s and 1950s had become the ossified dogmatist in the 1990s, along with Woods. \par }{\b\fs32 Woods on \lquote independent work\rquote in Spain \par }{The latter, however, prior to 1991, was moving in exactly the same direction as the majority of Militant leaders, particularly in relation to the problems of building a base in Spain. Alan Woods had played an important role in developing the CWI organisation in Spain, which had led some important struggles. However, it was confronting the same problems as in Britain in still being tied to the socialist part y PSOE. This had led to discussion on the future orientation of the organisation. In March 1989, he reported in a written form on the discussions of tactics within the leading body of the Spanish organisation. He stated that there was \'93 a widespread mood amongst workers and especially the UGT [socialist trade union federation] activists against voting for PSOE [Spanish Socialist Workers\rquote Party \endash now the ex-social democracy]. \par He went on to say that \'93PSOE itself is an empty shell [and] support for PSOE is virtually seen as support for the police, torturers and Spanish domination [of the Basques] among wide layers, especially the youth.\'94 He pointed to a leading Spanish comrade, \lquote Rati\rquote , arguing for the Spanish organisation to put up its own candidates against PSOE and commented on the difficulty of convincing members of the Spanish organisation to advocate \'93 a vote for PSOE on the grounds that we would be isolated. Not even the rank and file of the organisation would participate.\'94 (In fact, we had this experience in 1987 in Alava, when the Spanish Centre managed to convince the Basque comrades to support PSOE against their wishes.) There was formal acceptance; the rank and file \'93voted with their feet\'94. \par What then was the answer of Woods to the dilemma which confronted the Spanish organisation? He wrote: \'93 However, given the rottenness of the existing traditional organisations, if ever there was a case for independent (or semi-independent) work, this is it. While it is necessary to stress and repeat the need to orientate towards the mass organisation, there is in my view a danger of overlooking opportunities which exist for winning workers and youth directly to our organisation under the banner of Marxism.\'94 \par So Woods was in favour of considering independent work outside of the \lquote rotten\rquote traditional organisations. Yet any later attempt to move in this direction in Britain or in Scotland was condemned as pure heresy. Conditions had not changed but Woods had because it was necessary for him and Grant to move away from the issue of the \lquote clique\rquote \endash which had been totally discredited in discussions \endash to seek some political justification for the continued opposition to the majority. For these \lquote principled\rquote , would-be leaders, if that meant repudiating previous positions, so be it. \par }{\b\fs32 Double standards on \lquote independent organisation\rquote }{ \par Grant and Sewell voted in favour of the setting up of an independent organisation, both in the Executive Committee and in a National Committee. Sewell dismissed our tentative proposals for such an organisation in Scotland alone, with loud calls for the setting up of a \lquote revolutionary party\rquote on an all-Britain scale. When he moved over into the camp of Grant and his brother, this \lquote baggage\rquote was unceremoniously dropped. Now any departure from an increasingly empty Labour Party towards independent or semi-independent work was viciously attacked. The proposal to stand \endash not as a \lquote Militant\rquote candidate (as Sewell wrongly asserts) but as a \lquote Real Labour\rquote candidate in the Walton by-election, as Harry Ratner pointed out \endash was denounced as \lquote suicide\rquote . Our candidate, Leslie Mahmoud, received 2,613 votes, a highly commendable achievement in the circumstances. This was despite the vicious campaign of character assassination conducted against her and Militant in general at that stage. \par T his was denounced by Sewell, Woods and Grant. Their stand was just another example of their double standards. The vote of the RCP in the Neath by-election was 1,781, which Grant commends as a great success. Yet the 2,613 votes for our candidate in Walton was characterised as a \'93disaster\'94. \par But others more usually prone to criticise Militant praised the campaign. Paul Foot, columnist in }{\i The Guardian}{ and then of the }{\i Daily Mirror}{, wrote in the SWP\rquote s journal, }{\i Socialist Worker}{: \'93I read every word that Leslie Mahm oud was \lquote humiliated\rquote in the Walton by-election, but I can write from long experience of humiliations at by-elections.\'94 He gave examples of five candidates of the SWP who stood for parliament in the 1970s and added: \'93 But I can say that the total vote for all candidates was less than the 2,600 which Leslie Mahmoud won at Walton\'85 I think that\rquote s a good vote in the circumstances. It\rquote s a reasonable base on which to continue the fight for jobs in Liverpool. \'94 \par \par }{\b\fs32 Can\rquote t reclaim RMT flat \par }{What a contrast to the sneering tone of Woods, Sewell and Grant after the by-election! It cut no ice with the vast majority of Militant supporters. Incredibly, this tiny organisation has intoned year after year that nothing has changed in the character of the Labour Party, that the mass es will turn to the Labour Party, the right will be defeated and the new mass left wing will arise in the Labour Party. \par Woods himself wrote in 1988 }{\i apropos}{ Spain: \'93No one can say how long it will take before there is the development of a mass leftwing in PSOE. It could take a couple of years or it could be next month.\'94 His timescale is out by at least 14 years as no left wing has arisen in PSOE and it is doubtful that it will in the immediate future given the bourgeoisification of this party, as with the other ex-\lquote traditional organisations\rquote of the ex-social democracy throughout Western Europe. Like barnacles they cling to the Labour Party \endash although very few of them are active within it for the very good reason that there is no activity within the Labour Party \endash while others have never been near the Labour Party since they separated from us. But rather than recognising their errors and engaging in fruitful work outside the Labour Party, they have retreated to the study. \par In the early 1990s it was necessary to a rgue about the class character of the Labour Party. However, since then its degeneration has developed at such a pace and scale that only ossified groupings which cling to outmoded formulae could possibly justify the characterisation of the Labour Party, as we once did, as a \lquote bourgeois workers\rquote party\rquote . \par The socialist rank and file has long gone from the Labour Party. The membership is increasingly middle class and the internal democracy and structures of the Labour Party have been all but destroyed by Blair and Mandelson\rquote s \lquote project\rquote . The National Executive Committee of the Labour Party has recently taken the decision that no policy issues will be discussed by this body but by special \lquote forums\rquote . Well-known left-wing journalist John Pilger estimated that there w ere no more than five MPs, out of 412 in the Parliamentary Labour Party, who could be described as consistently \lquote left wing\rquote . \par The Blair leadership is not even considered now to be \lquote radical\rquote , let alone socialist. An Italian MP has described Blair correctly, not as the leader of the \lquote centre-left\rquote , but as the key leader of the \lquote centre-right \rquote in Europe at the present time. He is in a bloc with Aznar in Spain and Berlusconi in Italy to push forward the \lquote Anglo-Saxon/US\rquote model of neo-liberalism. \par The fact that some workers \endash an increasingly diminishing number \endash would still vote Labour in a general election is not of decisive significance in measuring the class character of this party. In the US many workers would vote for the Democrats \endash seen traditionally as a more \lquote worker-friendly\rquote and radical bourgeois party (although this was severely undermined by Clinton) \endash than the openly bourgeois Republican Party. With no mass alternative in existence, the bulk of the workers who vote may still do so for the ex-social democra tic parties as a means of blocking the road to the right-wing bourgeois parties and, in some cases, to block the far right. But this does not mean that the masses still view these parties as they did in the past, as \lquote their party\rquote . \par Nor is it likely that the trade unions \endash whose power and influence has been dramatically reduced and will be reduced even further \endash will move in and transform these parties. The mechanism for doing this has been obliterated over the last ten years. Some unions, like the Rail, Mari time and Transport union (RMT) and the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) are presently in a halfway house situation. They have withdrawn some funds from right-wing MPs and transferred some of it to left MPs, and have raised the vague notion of moving in to reclai m the Labour Party. However, Bob Crow, RMT leader, has admitted: \'93Reclaim the Labour Party? We [the RMT] can\rquote t even reclaim our flat!\'94 (John Prescott, New Labour Deputy Prime Minister, presently lives in an RMT-owned apartment.) \par But this mood is largely con fined to the tops of the unions. At the base there is a growing and determined mood for the unions to stop paying money and separate themselves from the Labour Party, which attacks them while in government and which is now seen as no different, and in som e cases worse, than the previous Tory government. \par \par }{\b\fs32 A similar blunder on Italy \par }{The responsibility of Marxists and socialists is not to repeat the outmoded formulas of the past but to understand the changed situation, particularly the consciousness of the mas s of the working class, and the direction in which this is likely to move. Our demand for a new mass workers\rquote party is one that will be embraced by the mass of the working class in the future. Between now and that situation, all kinds of transitional forma tions are possible, of alliances between groups of workers, socialists and Marxists who are prepared to offer an electoral challenge as a means of rallying workers against the neo-liberal programme of the Blair government and also its involvement in the l ooming imperialist plans for further attacks on Iraq. \par The only solution to be offered by Grant and Woods is to quiescently sit on their haunches and wait for a future illusory move into the Labour Party. Their activity is largely of a literary character, and a vapid, vacuous kind at that. It is painful to re ad the same old phrases, the warmed-up ideas and stale language which have not changed for decades. \par A similar blunder was made by this group over perspectives for Italy in the early 1990s. In the debate over tactics towards the \lquote traditional organisations\rquote i n Italy at the time of the split in 1991-92, which reveals most clearly the political myopia of Woods, their opportunism in switching tactics and the dishonest fashion in which this was done. There was a clear difference between Grant, Woods and their Ita l ian supporters, and the majority of the International Secretariat of the CWI. The IS argued that the split of the Rifondazione Comunista (RC) from the ex-Communist Party Democratic Left (PDS) represented a clear opportunity for our Italian comrades to par ticipate in its ranks. This was initially rejected by Woods and his Italian supporters. They argued that the formation of the RC was a mistake and would melt away. This is clear from the written exchange on the issue. \par The IS majority \endash in a document written by Peter Hadden after a visit to Italy - raised clearly the need for the very small forces, of about 100 members \endash mostly youth \endash to concentrate the majority of their forces within the RC. This was completely rejected by the Italian Executive Committee, backed up by Woods and Grant. In a document of theirs, which was a reply to an IS statement, they wrote: \'93 If the RC had attracted thousands of youth, or if it had become an important pole of attraction for a few thousand young workers and shop stewards, whi ch would in itself have created the conditions for debate within it, in other words if the IS majority statements in the RC were not just wishful thinking, then it would have been possible to consider a temporary orientation with all our small forces to r ecruit the maximum number of comrades. But, comrades, which RC are you talking about? Which country are you talking about? What historical conditions are you talking about?\'94 \par \par }{\b\fs32 Wrong perspectives for Rifondazione \par }{Four years later the leaders of this organisat ion had seen the futility of remaining within the PDS and were within the RC. When recently confronted by some of their ex-members that they had been wrong and that the IS majority had been correct the lame excuse was that \'93 we were young, and we had dust in our eyes\'94. But the IS majority did not have \lquote dust in their eyes\rquote but spelt out clearly in a statement in January 1992 \endash }{\i The tactics and orientation of the Italian section}{ \endash the incorrect methods employed in Italy at the time of the split in the RC from the PDS and the subsequent approach towards this important mass formation. It pointed out: \'93 The RC attracted 150,000 members and, with its communist banner and symbols, appeared to stand on the left of the PDS. This situation demands a similar tactical flex ibility as in the past. At the very least, a thorough discussion and review of existing tactics involving the entire membership was called for. No such discussion was held.\'94 \par In their perspectives document, the leaders of the Italian organisation wrote: \'93If the split referred to in the pages of the newspapers takes place, he [Cossuta \endash one of the original leaders of the RC] will not enjoy great support. Of course he may find a few thousand members, but what then? At the end of the day the majority of the cur rent Cossuta supporters will end up either abandoning political activity or in some small group like DP [Democratica Proletaria].\'94 \par The IS commented: \'93The perspectives held by the comrades were of a small split which would not be long lasting, the majority of Cossuta supporters ending up either out of politics or in a sectarian group like the DP\'85 Events have clearly overtaken and contradicted this analysis. There has not been a period of opportunity in the PDS. Instead, comrades in virtually all areas report that both the PDS and the Left Youth are largely empty and do not provide an arena for fruitful work in the short term. On the other hand, the split has been on a much broader scale than we envisaged\'85 The RC membership not only rose to 150,000 but has rem ained at this figure. The EC claimed that only 15,000 are active. Even this is a significant figure especially given the lack of activity in the PDS at this stage. In some areas, for example Rome, Turin, the RC has taken on considerable flesh, in others, for example Sicily, the comrades have reported that it is the main force\'85 The 1990 perspectives were clearly wrong on the question of the RC.\'94 \par We did not just remain at the level of criticising past positions but advocated a definite turn: \'93When the split took place our best option would have been to take the bulk of our forces, including the paper, into the RC\'85 To take such a step would not have been a new departure for our tendency internationally.\'94 \par We also then examined what the Italian group actually did: \'93 We chose to remain within the PDS, not even seriously considering the possibility of going with the split. With our perspective of a short-lived formation, our starting point was to oppose the split. The \lquote special\rquote [of the Italian paper] we produced on the RC-PDS in April refers to the split as a \lquote mistake and damaging\rquote . This and other material explained that \lquote this division favours the bureaucrats, the careerists and the bosses\rquote .\'94 \par We went on then to comment: \'93Not surprisingly, we did encounter problems with the [mistaken] approach. Comrades in Bologna reported examples of RC workers who refused to buy the paper because of its unmistakable orientation to the PDS\'85 In Rome [on a demonstration] workers who found out that we intended to stay with the PDS accused us of being opportunist and demanded to know who we would support.\'94 \par In fact, the Italian organisation adopted a completely sectarian approach towards the RC. The IS majority advocated that the Italian organisation should immediately seek to be part of the RC. What was the reply of the Italian EC? We will quote here only the most prominent of the many incorrect statements about the RC. They said of the RC: \'93 The split off attracted a part of the old PCI (with an average age of about 50) and various sects, the biggest of which is DP (Proletarian Democracy)\'85 Nine months have gone by and in the last few days the RC has held its congress. We can say that the RC has not been, and is even less today, a pole of attraction for the youth, particularly the young worker s who have entered the factories in the last five years.\'94 \par Going on to criticise the deficiencies of the political programme of the RC leadership, the Italian EC declared: \'93With positions like this and with the clash which developed in its congresses, the R C cannot become a credible force for the mass of workers.\'94 It goes on to say that it is \'93 impossible to define the new party as left reformist, never mind centrist. It is a small reformist party, openly opposed to a planned economy, that wishes to preserve, as the PCI did in the past, the communist names and symbols\'85 The RC can recruit old members of the PCI and students already on the left, but is incapable of making headway among the new layers of young workers.\'94 \par They also wrote: \'93It is important to remember that the leader of the \lquote Asera Sindicato\rquote , the leftwing of the CGIL, is Bertinotti, a leader of the PDS!\'94 Bertinotti, of course, left the PDS to become now the most well known leader of the RC. So much for \lquote foresight\rquote over astonishment! \par \par }{\b\fs32 Forced to change \par }{A couple of lines later the comrades declare: \'93The more the objective situation turns in our favour the more the RC will enter into crisis.\'94 The RC was dismissed as \'93too small\'94 and, in conclusion, the Italian EC declared: \'93 A temporary turn to the RC could be justified if it were capable of giving good short-term results. A long-term orientation to the RC would be justified only if we drew the conclusion that the RC could become a pole of attraction for the masses once they began to move. But we would excl u de both these possibilities. We have dedicated a part of our work to the RC because it seemed to us that this could give us better results where the RC had a certain base. Experience has shown that we could attract some individuals but there had been no p ossibilities of big growth.\'94 \par Criticising the IS majority they also declared: \'93The whole discussion, not just this document [referring to the majority\rquote s proposals for the bulk of our forces to be in the RC], has had a certain aura of unreality, almost as if it were taking place outside the real political world.\'94 \par This organisation applied later the \lquote unreal\rquote arguments of the IS majority without recognising this or giving credit to those who proposed it in the first place. In the beginning, however, the Italian EC dug in and compounded their mistakes. But given the pressure of the situation and obviously the effects of our arguments within their ranks, they were forced to do an about turn. \par }{\b\fs32 Wrong advice on Sri Lanka}{ \par Ted Grant was fond of stating in the past that if you make a mistake you should recognise and correct it openly. Our experience generally was that he never heeded his own advice, but stressed that he had been \lquote right all along\rquote , even when it had been patently demonstrated that he was not. Is this not another case of the completely false method of the \lquote Grant tendency\rquote ? \par In judging all political formations, even the tiny ones like this, it is necessary to heed Trotsky\rquote s advice: \'93It is not so much what is done, but who does it, why they do it, and how they do it.\'94 Having stumbled belatedly into the RC, without a clear explanation of their past mistakes, this guarantees that they will make further mistakes in the future and will act in an unprincipled fashion. \par It is not just in the past that the Grant/Woods duo has made fundamental errors. Their false position on the \lquote traditional organisations\rquote has assumed gross proportions in the recent period as, for instance, in Sri Lanka. After a visit to Sri Lanka, Woods wrote a letter to Vasudeva Nanayaka, an important figure on the left in the Sri Lankan workers\rquote movement who participated in the CWI in the past. This letter advocated that all Marxists should work within the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) which in the past was the main workers\rquote party in Sri Lanka, but has s hrunk to a shell because of the opportunist and nationalist degeneration of the leaders of this organisation over a period of time. He wrote: \'93We have everything to gain by sticking firmly to the LSSP\'85 It is really incredible how the masses stick to these organisations in spite of everything. Just look at the Labour Party in Britain!\'94 \par Comrade Siritunga, the leader of the United Socialist Party, the Sri Lankan section of the CWI, commented on this letter: \'93I got this letter written by Alan Woods in April 200 0 from a member of the LSSP majority faction a long time ago. I did not think it was all that important because it is clear that they are simply living at least a few decades back. The letter bears little relation to the represent Sri Lankan situation at all. After the [October 2000] general election, Vasu\rquote s group, together with the \lquote LSSP majority faction\rquote (all now outside the LSSP!) met to discuss about their political perspectives and future tactics\'85 In that discussion, one of the Woods/Grant followers pr oposed that everyone who came out of the LSSP in protest at their disastrous coalition politics should rejoin the LSSP. This was ludicrous, especially when considering the fact that Vasu sacrificed his position as an MP and crossed over to the opposition. \par \'93In the election itself the LSSP was wiped out of parliamentary politics and could not win a single seat in the parliament. In that situation anybody campaigning that Vasu should go back into the LSSP politics clearly must be mad\'85 \par \'93In this situation, no one will take Alan Woods\rquote s letter seriously since he is suggesting Vasu and the others should rejoin the LSSP. This is really a ridiculous perspective; anyone who understands simple politics can see this. In reality the LSSP is no more. If anybody is thinkin g of doing an entry tactic into the LSSP, he should go to the graveyard (cemetery)! The LSSP does not function as a party any more.\'94 \par The letter, which was passed around amongst the left in Sri Lanka, made Woods into a laughing stock. The LSSP now has less than 100 members and its only MP is a Buddhist monk. There is more possibility of resurrecting Lazarus than the LSSP. \par A change in the situation in Sri Lanka, however, has opened a space for the possibility of developing a new radical formation which could in time lead to a new mass party. All of this is a closed book to Woods and Grant. This is just one further example of how formulas, correct at one stage in history, can turn into their opposite when conditions change and can become a barrier to the Marxi st and Trotskyist movement advancing. \par A mistake made eleven or twelve years ago in relation to the changed character of the former traditional organisations, or towards perspectives for Stalinism, for instance, may not have been serious if they had been hon estly corrected in time. But to stubbornly persist, in the teeth of all the evidence proving the contrary, has condemned this organisation to the sidelines. They have retreated into the study to regurgitate, in a slightly different form, all the old argum ents and positions of the past. \par \par \par }{\b\fs32 The Party and its leadership}{ \par }\pard\plain \s2\ql \li0\ri0\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {Chapter two \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 { On the question of organisation, leadership and the method of constructing a viable Marxist organisation they are also completely out of touch. Yet few organisations have adopted such a boastful pose or such a nause ating idolisation of its leading figures as this one. Lenin was always hesitant to write about himself and his ideas in the first person and used the synonym of \lquote Bolshevism\rquote as an expression of what these ideas represented. Similarly, the term \lquote Trotskyism\rquote , was invoked first by the Stalinists, Trotsky initially rejected this, stating that those who used this term wished to give a personal name to a body of ideas which represented the continuation of Bolshevism. He also pointed out that his famous 1938 Tran sitional Programme, }{\i The Death of Agony of Capitalism}{, was \'93not the product of one man\'94 but the combined and collective thoughts and experiences of a movement, the International Left Opposition. \par \lquote Trotskyism\rquote , through usage over decades, is now synonymous with a distinct trend within the workers\rquote movement. But any hesitation about personalisation, the cult of personality to give it its right name, is foreign to this group. This is underlined by Sewell when he describes \'93Ted Grant\rquote s Militant Tendency\'94 (page 21 1). This term was never used by us before the split of 1992. It has only been used by them since then. They now call themselves officially \'93The Grant Tendency\'94. Moreover, they have a special website, \'93The Ted Grant Website\'94 , the purpose of which is the deification of the leader. \par Their approach to the issue of \lquote leadership\rquote goes to the heart of the very profound differences which exist between them and us on the concept of leadership in a revolutionary or would-be revolutionary organisation, which is fighting to become a significant and, ultimately, a mass force. It is axiomatic for Trotskyists that leadership of a party is vital at those turning points in history in which a revolution is possible. Without the presence of Lenin and Trotsky in Russia in Octobe r 1917, the Russian Revolution would not have taken place. \par In his }{\i Diary in Exile}{ \endash written primarily for his own personal use but which was published after his death \endash Trotsky, commenting on his own role, wrote: \'93Had I not been present in 1917 in Petersburg , the October Revolution would still have taken place \endash }{\i on the condition that Lenin was present and in command}{ . If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October Revolution: the leadership of the Bolshevik party would have prevented it from occurring \endash of this I have not the slightest doubt! If Lenin had not been in Petersburg, I doubt whether I could have managed to conquer the resistance of the Bolshevik leaders. The struggle with \lquote Trotskyism\rquote (that is, with the prole tarian revolution) would have commenced in May 1917, and the outcome of the revolution would have been in question. But I repeat, granted the presence of Lenin the October Revolution would have been victorious anyway.\'94 \par There is nothing \'93personal\'94 in these remarks, as a study of the successful October Revolution demonstrates. Conversely, the failure of revolutions \endash where the conditions were much more favourable \endash on numerous occasions during the 20th century also demonstrates the terrible price the working class pays for the lack of a revolutionary party and a tested and farsighted leadership. Can we therefore deduce from this that, everywhere and on all occasions, it is just one or two outstanding leaders who will make the difference between success and fa ilure in a revolution? It is possible for such a situation to occur but the aim must be to try to ensure that we avoid this situation by trying to widen the numbers and the base of the leadership, by raising the level of all to the tasks of history. \par The murder of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg in 1919 \endash particularly the latter, who was the theoretical \lquote brain\rquote of the German working class at that stage \endash shows the terrible price which is paid when the fate of a revolution depends upon one or two individua ls and, when they are removed, how the revolution can be defeated. Sometimes, this can be the result but not always under all circumstances is it inevitable. Moreover, it is the responsibility of a farsighted leadership to renew and widen its base by maki n g room and encouraging the development of the next generation. At the same time it is necessary to develop the second, third and other layers of leadership. This is no easy task. There is no easy recipe, but it must be undertaken and be to the forefront o f any leadership worthy of the name. \par }{\b\fs32 The opposite of Trotsky}{ \par Despite lip service to \'93teamwork\'94, Grant and Woods epitomised the very opposite of this idea. A continual stress on their own \'93unique\'94 and \'93special\'94 role was emphasised. This was done in order to demonstrate that they were indispensable for the future of the organisation, and even of the working class. The leaders of the myriad groups on the \lquote revolutionary left\rquote have used the words of Trotsky quoted above to underline that leadership is vital in a revolution: they are }{\i the}{ leadership, ergo they are indispensable. \par Although not expressed in as crude a fashion as this, at bottom these are the sentiments of Grant and Woods. And they adduce as evidence the \'93correctness\'94 of their ideas, particularly of Grant\rquote s, over 70 years! Leave aside, as we have demonstrated, that he has been far from correct in the last historical period. It is ridiculous for Marxists still leading small forces to claim that they are }{\i the}{ leadership, that they embody all the experience required to carry through a revolution, when they have never been tested in such a situation. \par Moreover, it is one thing to be correct in the period of assembling a force, to even engage in skirmishes \endash strikes, big campaigns, etc. \endash which are an absolutel y vital task for a real revolutionary leadership. But the real test comes in those periods of abrupt turns in the situation and, above all, in a revolutionary situation. As we have shown, Grant and Woods were found wanting \endash not in a revolution \endash but in important preparatory battles which Militant was involved in. \par Grant claims justification for his role in the documents he wrote for the WIL and the RCP. We do not want to devalue the contribution that Grant made in the development of these ideas but the fin al formulations in documents do not tell the whole story of how ideas on perspectives, programme, tactics and strategy evolve within the leadership of a serious revolutionary organisation. In a viable organisation there is a constant process of dialogue a nd discussion. Who contributes what, where the ideas of one begin, and another end, is sometimes difficult to work out. \par Trotsky highlights this when commenting on the role of Plekhanov, \lquote the father of Russian Marxism\rquote , Axelrod and Zasulich, in the early Russian Marxist movement. He wrote the following: \'93 Plekhanov and Zasulich lived generally in Geneva, Axelrod in Zurich. Axelrod concentrated on questions of tactics. He has not written a single theoretical or historical book, as is well known. He wrote very l ittle, and what he wrote almost always concerned tactical questions of socialism. In this sphere Axelrod showed independence and acuteness. In numerous conversations with him \endash I was very friendly with him and Zasulich for some time \endash I had the clear impression that much of what Plekhanov has written on questions of tactics is a fruit of collective work, and that Axelrod\rquote s part in it is considerably more important than one can prove from the printed document alone. Axelrod said more than once to Plekhanov, the undisputed and beloved leader of the \lquote group\rquote (before the break in 1903): \lquote George, you have a long snout, and take from everywhere what you need\rquote .\'94 [}{\i On Lenin}{, by Leon Trotsky.] \par Of course, there can be outstanding contributions from outstanding individua ls who receive due merit for the contribution that they make. But if this is done at the expense of tapping the galaxy of talent that is assembled in the ranks of a party, of extracting for the benefit of the whole organisation, the contributions of all i n cluding at a leadership level, then we will fail. More than at the time of the Russian Revolution, the tasks of building a mass party, never mind the taking of power, will be more difficult and much more complex. It will be a task that will be beyond just one or two people in an \lquote International Centre\rquote or in \lquote one centre\rquote on a national level. This in no way devalues the need to develop a leadership and to make room for the full blossoming of outstanding individuals. But this must be done in the context of con tinually extending the leadership and renewing it with the most promising and outstanding representatives of the new generation. \par Marxism is a science. But scientists, particularly in the modern era, learn from one another and share information in order to advance knowledge. This does not mean that amongst modern scientists there are not outstanding individuals. But the idea of teamwork, of the outstanding scientists building on the work of others, is accepted almost automatically. This kind of approach, ho wever, is foreign to Grant \endash as evidenced by his book \endash and by his supporters, Woods and Sewell. \par }{\b\fs32 Not an honest history}{ \par As others have commented, this is not a \lquote history of British Trotskyism\rquote but a personal memoir \endash and a slanted and self-serving one at that \endash which seeks to enhance his own role at the expense of others. His book centres around himself and contrasts his virtuous role to the various \lquote devils\rquote , especially Gerry Healy and to a lesser extent James Cannon, Pierre Frank, Michel Pablo and Ernest Mand el. All of these are now dead and therefore cannot answer the charges levelled against them by Grant or Sewell. Unfortunately for Ted Grant and Sewell, we are able to answer their distortions. \par We do not hold any brief for other British and international Trotskyist leaders attacked by Grant \endash many of whom made errors as well as contributions to the development of the Trotskyist movement \endash but it is wrong to wait until they are all dead and therefore cannot answer back. \par }{\chshdng0\chcfpat0\chcbpat8 Ted Grant always}{ insisted that he was the \lquote only\rquote individual in the Trotskyist movement who understood what was going on during the Second World War and afterwards. This claim was subjected to searching criticism, from a number of quarters, which has now compelled Grant and his acolytes to slig htly modify his line of political infallibility. \par Even Sewell in his introduction, now concedes that Grant was \'93not the only one\'94 to understand what was taking place during the Second World War. The American Trotskyist Felix Morrow and the French Trotskyist Rousset, it now seems, added something (see Tony Aitman\rquote s appendix). Moreover, Grant now concedes, through Sewell, that he made an \'93opportunist\'94 error in not supporting the \lquote Open Party\rquote faction in the Revolutionary Communist Party in 1949. However, this admission has only been extracted from him by the criticisms in Richardson and Bornstein\rquote s book, }{\i War and the International: A History of the Trotskyist Movement in Britain, 1937-49}{. The \lquote Open Party\rquote faction accused Grant of \'93betrayal\'94 at this time for his c omplete capitulation to Healy, who was then a stooge of the International Secretariat of the Fourth International. \par We made the same charges against him in the }{\i History of the CWI}{. His opportunist errors derailed what could have been important forces who cou ld have continued the tradition of the Revolutionary Communist Party in the period between 1949 and 1956. This was a period when Healy and, to some extent, those around Tony Cliff, the theoretician of \lquote state capitalism\rquote , completely outstripped Grant and the group around him in terms of numbers, influence, regular production of material, etc. Grant also gave the ideas of \'93state capitalism\'94 to Cliff and then rejected them. He, therefore, bears some responsibility for the modern SWP and their international organisation the International Socialist Tendency. \par Grant\rquote s attorney Sewell seeks to argue that when the split in the Communist Party of Great Britain came with the events in Hungary in 1956 none of the prominent ex-CP members moved in Grant\rquote s direction. Grant , through Sewell, mentions that this was allegedly because of their \'93low level\'94. In reality, it was because of the complete ineptitude, the disorganisation of Grant and his \lquote forces\rquote , which bordered on anarchy. Healy, with an incorrect method and wrong poli cies, as well as an internally repressive regime, nevertheless made important inroads in winning workers, a number of ex-CP members and young people to his organisation. This was something which Grant was patently incapable of doing, then and subsequently . \par Indeed, despite the efforts of young members like Keith Dickinson and Reg Lewis, the state of Grant\rquote s group in 1960 when a trickle of new young recruits came into its orbit was no different to the chaotic state it had been in 1956. Both Healy and Cliff had regular papers \endash the former with a certain influence amongst trade unionists and workers, and the latter amongst a layer of middle class students and intellectuals in the London area. Grant, on the other hand, produced a newspaper called }{\i Socialist Fight}{ , dubbed by its opponents \lquote Socialist Flight\rquote , \'93here today and gone tomorrow\'94, because it was produced on average every six months. \par Why then, did people like me and a layer of youth join the Grant group? Certainly not because of Ted Grant. It was because o f the excellent rank and file members on Merseyside, particularly workers like John McDonald, the impressive young Pat Wall, Ted Mooney and Don Hughes, that young people from a working class background joined the organisation. They were approached by Heal y\rquote s Socialist Labour League (which later became the Workers Revolutionary Party) through their Merseyside organiser Bill Hunter and had discussions with him. If it was just a question of organisation, where the SLL completely outstripped the Grant group, th en like some other young workers they would have joined the SLL. They hesitated because of disagreements with their policies and an innate suspicion of the messianic tone and structure of the SLL. They also leaned towards the method of analysis and the pr ogrammatic points which were explained to them by the Merseyside group, more than towards the SLL. \par Within a matter of three months of joining the organisation I was made the Merseyside secretary of what was admittedly a very small organisation. Together with other young comrades \endash it has to be said in opposition to the older generation who wished to pursue a more conservative, cosy existence within the Labour Party \endash the new layer re-organised the Merseyside branch, rented their own premises, revived old Tro tskyists and attracted a whole layer of new, young people. I, together with Ted Mooney, Tony Mulhearn, Terry Harrison (who had not been on Merseyside when I joined the party because of his National Service in Hong Kong), Marie Harrison, Linda Taaffe, Dave Galashan and others, they fought the \lquote Healyites\rquote within the Merseyside Young Socialists Federation. \par They received support from the national leadership of the organisation, particularly Jimmy Deane, who as well as being politically capable was also extremely welcoming, gave an impression of a dynamic approach to ideas and organisation, and looked towards the next generation. Ted Grant was not an impressive individual or speaker when you first met him. A better acquaintance with him led to a greater appreciation of his abilities at that stage. \par }{\b\fs32 Recognition of Ted Grant\rquote s role \endash spiteful insults the response}{ \par One has to contrast the generosity \endash some people would say the exaggerated generosity given his vilification of us at the time \endash with which we treat his role in our book on the history of Militant and the abusive, non-political diatribe which he has sancti oned for use by his acolyte Sewell against his former comrades. When he separated from Militant in 1991, we wrote the following: \'93 We regret that Ted Grant has split in this way. He made a vital contribution in upholding the genuine ideas of Marxism and dev eloping the theoretical legacy of Leon Trotsky in the hostile political climate of the post-war period. He played a key role in formulating the ideas and policies on which Militant was built from 1964. Those especially who worked closely with him for over three decades regret that he has now turned his back on Militant, on our great achievements in struggle and on the powerful following we have built up in Britain and internationally. It is lamentable that he has allowed his political authority to be used b y people whose main concern is not to clarify ideas but to cause the maximum damage to Militant. One unfortunate feature of political life is the spiteful urge of former activists to justify their defection by hurling allegations of heinous political crim es at their former comrades. They are wasting their time. This mini-exodus will not deflect us in the slightest from the course we have mapped out.\'94 [}{\i Militant}{, 1072, 24 January 1992.] \par In }{\i The Rise of Militant}{ we wrote: \'93Differences in approach towards strategy and tactics are common in the Marxist movement. Everybody puts forward erroneous points at some time, particularly when not all the facts are known. But Ted Grant \rquote s approach was distinguished by a dogmatic and stubborn adherence to a point of view when it was clear that he did not have the necessary feel of how a struggle was developing on the ground. Moreover, he attempted to exercise a political veto over differing views and more accurate assessments of a situation. \par Explaining this split we also gave due recognition to the role that he had played in the past: \'93 He had made a big contribution in terms of Marxist theory, particularly in defending the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, both against opportunism and ultra-leftism. But a correct theory in itself is not enough. It is necessary to translate this into programme, strategy and tactics, and relate these to the real movement of the working class. It is this which distinguished Militant from all other \'93Marxist\'94 groups, during the course of the L iverpool struggle and in the poll tax battle. Despite his past achievements, Ted Grant was sometimes found wanting, particularly in the rapidly changing situation of the 1980s. His lack of tactical awareness and flair was a source of irritation and confli ct with some of the main figures in the Liverpool drama.\'94 [}{\i The Rise of Militant }{by Peter Taaffe, p445.] \par Contrast this to the comments he and his supporters made about people he collaborated with over a period of 30 years. Sewell writes the following about me: \'93 A very ambitious man with a morbid fear of rivals, actual or potential, Taaffe decided that his talents were not sufficiently appreciated. Actually, despite a certain flair for organisation, Taaffe was never a theoretician and was deeply jealous of pe ople whom he saw as on a higher level than himself\'85 Although Taaffe was a talented speaker and a capable organiser, all his ideas were taken from Ted [Grant].\'94 \par Moreover: \'93In reality, Taaffe felt particularly threatened by Alan Woods who was certainly on a higher theoretical level and was regarded by everyone as an excellent public speaker and writer. Since Taaffe was always looking over his shoulder for rivals, he imagined (wrongly) that here was a threat to his own position.\'94 \par By elevating, in this way, th e role of Woods it allows Sewell to bask in the reflected glory of the towering talent of his half-brother. What a comment on Woods himself that he could allow these words to be written about himself! He has certainly not lost anything of the haughty, pat ronising manner, which succeeded in alienating him from so many leaders and rank and file members of Militant in its heyday. \par As to any resentment at the superior \lquote theoretician\rquote Woods, such sentiments could never occur to any of the leaders of Militant at t he time. I, Lynn Walsh, Keith Dickinson, Clare Doyle and many other leaders of Militant wrote literally dozens, even hundreds, of articles in }{\i Militant}{ and the }{\i Militant International Review}{ on the theoretical aspects and processes within the trade unions, t he General Strike, the Cultural Revolution in China, on Stalinism, the Portuguese Revolution, above all on the strategy and tactics of the mass movements around Liverpool and the poll tax. \par These were not just individual contributions but the product of ou r democratic discussion and debate, and the result of the analysis of the collective leadership and the actions and campaigns that flowed from this. This is how we were able to successfully intervene, for instance, in the poll tax battle and in Liverpool. \par }{\b\fs32 \lquote Correction\rquote from Grant?}{ \par \'93Ah, but this was when Ted Grant was able to correct Peter Taaffe and others.\'94 Ted Grant was not to the fore in either the analysis of the poll tax or the Liverpool battles, or in the implementation of the ideas which flowed from t his analysis. Sewell\rquote s extreme personality cult, as well as his lies and distortions, compel us to tell the truth. Sad to say, Grant never checked a line of many, if not most of these articles; my book on the French Revolution, for instance. Nevertheless, this is a constant theme in Grant\rquote s book and is applied not just to me. His first major collaborator, Ralph Lee, was a good bloke but \'93the theory\'94 was down to Grant himself. The same applied to Jock Haston and the whole leadership of the RCP, not just Healy but also Jimmy Deane, Pat Wall and everybody else except Ted Grant. The truth is that Grant\rquote s ideas were, originally, often totally unintelligible, incapable of being grasped unless rewritten for publication by his collaborators who invariably added to, not just the presentation, but the formulation of ideas as well. \par The denunciations of others accompanied by the assertions of theoretical supremacy of Grant and Woods cut absolutely no ice in 1991 and even less so now given their theoretical incapacity du ring the difficult and complex period of history since then. They are now embarrassed to deal with the political issues under dispute in 1991. They resort to the pathetic excuse that they lost out in a factional struggle within our ranks because of an all eged \'93clique\'94 around Peter Taaffe. Sewell admits that the split started with a \'93violent row\'94, caused by Woods and Grant with their \'93clique allegations\'94 . But then, because the evidence is so threadbare, he immediately drops the question instead of attempting to prove it. He also claims that they took \'93the main theoreticians with them\'94 , without naming a single one of them. We have answered that charge many times and it was rejected by a crushing majority of the ranks of Militant. \par However, by a curious coincidence, Grant in his book gives proof of his own tendency towards supporting a \lquote clique\rquote . In the discussion in the RCP over entry into the Labour Party or independent work in the late 1940s, he took a \lquote neutral\rquote position, although he really favoured the continuation of open work. The reasons for this, again admitted in his book, were because he wanted to \'93preserve the leadership. We wanted to maintain the leadership at all costs for the future \'94. What is this if not a clear definition of clique politics? A correct tactic was not supported by Grant because it was necessary to \'93preserve the leadership\'94. \par Of course, the leadership of a revolutionary organisation, particularly one that has been built up over a period of time, is priceless capital for the building of a powerful movement. It should not be thrown away or divided lightly. This, incidentally, is one of the reasons why \endash despite the increasing divergence between ourselves and Grant on a number of issues \endash we nevertheless strove to preserve the unity of Militant. But if you want to \'93preserve\'94 the cadres or the leadership at all costs, all you end up with is \'93preserves\'94. \par The question of entry into the Labour Party or an open party was not an incidental or secondary question but vital for the future of the RCP i n Britain. It was the divisions on this issue which helped to completely derail the RCP and led to its disintegration. The interests of the \'93clique\'94 , in this case the leadership, of the RCP, meant that Grant abandoned a principled position. Compare this to the \'93evidence\'94 for the charges that he, Sewell and Woods levelled at the majority on the issue of organising a \'93clique\'94 around me in 1991. \par The fairy tales, to the effect that I suppressed Woods\rquote s book on Bolshevism, and personally prevented him from speak ing at meetings, are beneath contempt. Suffice to say, no evidence is furnished by Sewell, no minutes of meetings or sub-committees, let alone an Executive Committee meeting, where decisions to \'93suppress\'94 the literary pearls of Woods would have been made. It is also a lie that I withheld \'93funds\'94 from the theoretical journal. I was not the National Treasurer; financial decisions were taken through the Executive Committee, of which Sewell himself was a prominent member. He never raised this charge then and it is clearly an attempt }{\i ex post facto}{, to invent the legend that there were man\'9cuvres against his brother. \par }{\b\fs32 Woods and Grant organised the 1991 split}{ \par Another typical fairy tale of Sewell\rquote s is the statement that \'93Alan\rquote s [Woods] main sin was that he was always close to Ted and consequently would never have countenanced any manoeuvres against him \endash or anybody else. Taaffe knew that it would be impossible to remove Ted without a battle with Alan Woods \endash something he feared because of the consequences, above all in the International.\'94 \par Every word of Sewell on this and other issues dealing with Militant\rquote s history is a mistake and some are two! There was no \'93plot\'94 to remove Ted Grant. In reality the real \'93plotters\'94 \endash ham-fisted and amateurish though they were \endash were Woods, Grant and their cohorts. Indeed, the leaders of what became subsequently the majority within Militant were extremely na\'efve about what was going on behind the scenes. \par Unbeknown to us, Woods and Grant had been canvassing within the CWI \endash but not widely in Britain, because their base was so weak here \endash for a \'93regime change\'94 in the leadership of the British organisation and internationally. Francois Bliki in Belgium revealed to us after the split of 1991 that he had been canvassed by Woods about such an eventuality. Such approaches were usually made at international conferences. \par It was not ourselves but Grant and Woods who themselves tried to organise a \'93coup\'94 against the leadership. The trigger for this attempt was the objections of Grant \endash this time ac companied by Woods who had opposed him on some issues such as this in the past \endash to \lquote younger\rquote comrades, such as the 32-year old Laurence Coates(!), from giving a lead-off at an upcoming international event! Tony Saunois, Bob Labi and I refused to accept this. This was sufficient to trigger charges, for the first time, of a \'93clique\'94 inside the leadership of Militant and the CWI. \par \par Woods then went outside of the International Secretariat to canvass support. The demand for a change was accompanied with an ulti matum that Tony Saunois, then acting International Secretary, should be removed because of his opposition to Woods and Grant. They generously conceded that he would not }{\b be sacked}{ as a full-timer but would be sent to the equivalent of a Siberian power station, to work in Chile! Laurence Coates was to be removed. I would be permitted to remain in my position so long as I \'93kept my place\'94 , recognised the theoretical superiority of Grant and Woods, and confined myself to organisational tasks. \par }{\b\fs32 Weakness of method}{ \par This incident highlighted the dilemma which Militant had confronted in the 1980s, particularly in the latter part of the decade. While Grant was respected by the supporters and leaders of Militant, it had been evident for some time that his best days, par ticularly on a public platform, were behind him. This was not the first time in the history of the Marxist movement that a leader could play a key pioneering role at one stage but prove to be lacking \endash in fact, become an obstacle \endash once the situation changes. The tragic example of Plekhanov, \'93father of Russian Marxism\'94 comes to mind. His role was decisive in the period when the task was to put down roots, to stubbornly defend Marxism against opportunism and ultra-leftism. But the same Plekhanov proved to be utterly helpless in the face of great events, when the rhythm of the class struggle changed. \par Entirely fresh layers had been drawn to the banner of Militant particularly to the mass public meetings that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It is no t possible to take a horse on the Grand National course first time out. It was necessary to present Militant\rquote s ideas in the most popular and accessible form, without watering down or hiding what we stood for. Other younger speakers and leaders of Militant were more able to fulfil this task than someone who was already in his late seventies and is now in his late eighties. \par Ted Grant failed to recognise the limitations age places on everyone. Experience and continuity of ideas in an organisation is essential in any Marxist organisation. But it must never become a barrier to a new generation of leaders who are the inheritors of the future and must inevitably carry the main burden of the day-to-day work of building a viable Marxist organisation. \par Grant operated with outmoded formulas, which no longer applied to the changed situation. In the post-Second World War period, processes were more drawn out, more \lquote predictable\rquote . After 1950, the working out of perspectives, although by no means ever a simple task, was easier than it was at the beginning of the 1990s or today. A certain world equilibrium existed then, with the existence of powerful Stalinist states. \par The boom of the 1980s, the emptying out of many of the workers\rquote parties, for an historical period and above all the collapse of the Stalinist regimes, ushered in an entirely new, unstable period. New tasks theoretically, new problems in the field of strategy, tactics and organisation were posed. It became necessary t o be more conditional. This did not mean that we should seek a cowardly position of false neutrality on issues. What was required, and still is, is that we discuss all contingencies and then decide on the most likely variant in any given situation. This so metimes requires the amending of a previous position, when new factors, including previously unknown ones, enter into the political equation. \par \par }{\b\fs32 \lquote Old Bolshevik\rquote \par }{This has nothing in common with \lquote empiricism\rquote , \lquote eclecticism\rquote , and \lquote impressionism\rquote , the sins attribu ted to us by Grant and Co. The approach of him, Woods and Co. increasingly took the form of astrological predictions. They took an absolutely dogmatic, black and white, undialectical approach towards political phenomena, both in Britain and internationall y. Combined with Grant\rquote s attempt to exercise a political veto over the leadership, this would have had disastrous effects for our development unless countered. \par Grant\rquote s spear carriers have incredibly sought to argue that we were \'93saved\'94 from the blunders by timely interventions by Grant. On the contrary, as we have shown, the real history of the 1980s, up to the split of 1991, was characterised by the increasingly dogmatic and intolerant approach of Grant, usually toned down, amended, and sometimes opposed w i thin the Executive Committee of Militant and within the CWI by other comrades. Grant and Woods in the complex new world and national situation, demonstrated an atrophy of thought processes, which relied on old formulae trotted out, which flew blatantly in the face of current developments. \par The same is true on organisation and on the history of Militant as well. Sewell makes the ludicrous claims that it was himself and his brother, through their base in Swansea and Brighton, in tandem with Ted Grant, which e nsured the rebirth of our organisation, which subsequently became Militant in the early 1960s. This is clearly an attempt to establish Woods\rquote s reputation as an \lquote Old Bolshevik\rquote , that he was a pioneer at the beginning of the rebirth of the organisation. He played some role, in Wales for a short time and, more importantly, in Spain later but he was not present as the organisation began to develop again in 1960. \par Contrast this with what Sewell writes about me. Sewell suggests that I had just a walk-on part at the time of the \'93launching of Militant\'94. He writes: \'93 A new young recruit from Birkenhead, was chosen to come to London on a full-time basis and help produce the paper and assist with the national work\'94. This \'93new young recruit\'94 had been active in the organis ation for a period of four years before this. I had, moreover, participated in numerous battles with our opponents in the Young Socialists, on a local and a national level, spoken at YS conferences, led an apprentices\rquote strike in Liverpool and Manchester in 1964 and been involved closely in the discussions around unification with the International Group (IG), which later became the International Marxist Group (IMG), the British section of the USFI. \par I had confronted Joe Hansen, who had been Trotsky\rquote s secreta ry at one stage, and Ernest Mandel, the theoretical leader of the USFI, at a conference we had organised to debate important political differences at Wortley Hall near Sheffield in 1963. At the so-called Unity Conference between ourselves and the IG in 19 64, I led a walk-out of the Liverpool delegation, with the majority in Liverpool in support, against the decision to railroad us into a premature unification with the IG. Therefore I was not the \'93young recruit\'94 in 1964, as Sewell suggests, but somebody who, despite my age, had a certain history behind me. \par The same could not be said of Sewell and Woods, who had not even appeared within our movement at that stage. I was elected to become the General Secretary and the official public editor of the paper, as we ll as the first full-timer, on the motion of Jimmy Deane. The latter\rquote s mistake in relation to support for unification with the IG \endash in which we opposed him much more forcefully than Grant \endash was in part motivated by the frustration of working with Grant over a period of time and in reality a complete lack of confidence that anything could be achieved by this man in building a viable Trotskyist organisation. \par Where was the Sewell-Woods combo while all this was going on? One of them, Sewell was a youngster and Woods was not yet a member of our organisation but a member of the Labour Party Young Socialists. The same \lquote airbrushing\rquote technique is deployed by Sewell in relation to the 1965 USFI World Congress held in the Taunas Mountains in West Germany. Grant\rquote s prese nce at the conference is mentioned but not my own. I was a delegate from the British organisation to this conference and spoke, both at the formal sessions and informal discussions. \par }{\b\fs32 Re-writing history \endash the inventions of Sewell}{ \par These are not just \lquote omissions\rquote by Sewell. They are a deliberate and farcical attempt to completely falsify the history of our organisation during its rebirth, especially in the early 1960s. What is incredible is that Sewell can speak in the first person plural, \'93our\'94 ; again, by his own admission he was not even a member when these events transpired. Ted Grant was and he has sanctioned this falsification, in order to downplay the role of others who came into collision with him in 1991, and what is even more \'93 unforgivable\'94, for him, actually convinced a majority of what he considered up to then as \lquote his\rquote organisation. In fact this book, Sewell \lquote s }{\i Postscript}{ and the continual sniping at the Socialist Party and the CWI since then is a very severe case of quite \lquote sour grapes\rquote on the part of this \lquote tendency\rquote . By deciding to oppose, in a most unprincipled fashion, the majority in 1991 and subsequently, they have been sidelined by history. \par By his own account, Sewell did not join our organisation until 1966, and did not play a national role for a long time after that. Apart from the false account which has been fed to him by his brother, he is in no position to know the facts. Alan Woods was not party to any decisions taken on a national level in relation to the Young Socialists, in relation to th e split with the USFI in 1965, in relation to the formation of Militant, in relation to the apprentices\rquote strikes of the early 1960s and many other issues. \par When I first became a member in 1960, Swansea branch was very small and largely ineffective, with a f ew individuals around Dave Matthews and Colin Tindley, as well as Muriel Browning. Alan Woods attempted on a few occasions, when we discussed our history, to interpret his membership of the Labour Party Young Socialists as membership of our group in Swans ea at that stage. This was not the case and, in fact, the first time we came into contact with him and Roger Silverman was at the 1964 YS conference in Brighton. \par If Woods had been a member from 1960, why is it that during the conflicts with the Cliff Group in the YS and the SLL, or the fusion with the USFI, the numerous battles at YS conferences between 1960 and 1964, he was unknown to those who were at the fore of the struggles which were taking place? We only became aware of him when he went to Brighton a nd managed to have an effect, together with Grant, on a number of students. Before this time, I, together with Ted Mooney, Tony Mulhearn and others, had visited Scotland and Nottingham, built a viable YS branch in Merseyside, won over the majority of the YS branches \endash totalling 25 in all \endash split the SLL and won some of their better types to our ranks, led the national apprentices\rquote strike of 1964, participated in the \lquote Unity\rquote conference with the International Marxist Group in 1963 and many other events both locally and nationally. \par Woods did play a role in Brighton in introducing some very able young students to Marxism. It is no accident; however, that most of these became subsequently his sternest critics. He subsequently left the area and travelled to Russia and Bulgaria, and after his return found a changed organisation not entirely to his liking. In his usual manner, he demanded automatic acceptance as the \lquote leader\rquote of the group but suffered a sharp rebuff from those such as Lynn Walsh, who (like others such as Clare Doyle, Roger Silverman, Peter Hadden and Roger Keyse who were won in Brighton) have played an important role in the development of the Trotskyist movement in Britain, and Militant stalwarts such as the worker Ray Apps. None of this, of course, i s given a mention in the account of Sewell, which passes as objective \lquote history\rquote . Later, Woods did play an important role in Spain, fully recognised in our book on Militant\rquote s history. \par Another fairy story is the importance accredited by Sewell to the fact that Woods, in the building of Militant, became our \'93first regional full-timer\'94 . In fact, Clare Doyle became a full-timer before him, in the North-East, as did Lynn Walsh in the Manchester and Lancashire area, and Terry Harrison in Merseyside. \par }{\b\fs32 Historical inaccuracies}{ \par If there were any resentments or jealousies it was not from the side of others but from Woods himself. Because of his alleged \'93theoretical\'94 talents he thought this was sufficient to guarantee his political authority. However, his incapacity to sha pe up to the new situation that was developing, which was reinforced by his reliance on Grant, meant that he was more and more out of kilter with the approach and the attitude of the majority of Militant members and of the more thinking elements in the CW I. \par Ironically, it was this self-proclaimed partisan of \lquote dialectics\rquote who demonstrated the most undialectical approach towards the political phenomena which were unfolding in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Dialectics is essentially the theory of change. Howe ver, everything in this world since 1990, particularly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, has changed except the views of Woods and Grant! The Labour Party remains the same, Russia, in the first stages, was unchanged as a workers\rquote state, demands pertaining to another era were trotted out, as with conscription during the Gulf War, irrespective of the objective situation which existed. \par During the ten years to 1991, Militant was decisive in the mighty battle in Liverpool as well as in the poll tax struggle. It was in this period that we made a magnificent contribution to the miners\rquote strike as well. It was also in this 10 to 12 year period that we were able to assemble the youth cadre which in turn managed to have an effect on ever wider layers of young people in the working class in Britain. \par This intervention would not have been possible without combating the circle mentality which afflicted many comrades in the period preceding the late 1970s and early 1980s. We had many who were quite comfortable to sit in Lab our parties, debating and passing resolutions. They were, in every sense of the term, \lquote resolutionaries\rquote rather than revolutionaries. The prospect of mass work, of \lquote dirtying their hands\rquote in reaching new layers of the working class outside of the \lquote traditional organisations\rquote , undoubtedly frightened many of these \lquote Marxists\rquote 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 our organisation. \par \par }{\b\fs32 Initiatives of ranks \par }{In their heart of hearts Ted Grant and Alan Woods 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. \par We have heard much from them about the need for \lquote theory\rquote . The pr esent leadership of the Socialist Party and of the CWI have made not a little contribution to the development of the ideas and theoretical explanations of the organisation from 1960 onwards. For instance, in Liverpool I and others independently came to th e conclusion that Cuba was a workers\rquote state, although bureaucratically deformed, in advance of Grant and the national leadership of the tiny organisation that we were at that stage. Grant subsequently came to the same conclusion as us after he visited the C uban Embassy, got some material, read it and subsequently pronounced on the issue. We based ourselves on a reading of the literature available, and in particular the articles by Ortiz in the journal of the then ISFI, }{\i Fourth International}{ , which supplied a wealth of empirical material, to draw a conclusion on this key issue well in advance of the national leadership. \par Other important tactical improvisations arose from the ranks in advance of the national leadership and that is the way it should be in a health y Trotskyist organisation with a thinking combative membership. It was not the national leadership but comrades in Glasgow who led and organised the school students\rquote strike in 1985 in Britain. This was taken up by our young comrades and developed into a na tional strike shortly after. Basing themselves upon this experience, our Spanish organisation led a strike in 1986-87, which subsequently led to the formation of the Spanish school students\rquote union. \par The perception of theory and the role of \lquote theorists\rquote of Woods and Grant is one of \lquote master and pupil\rquote , of patrician and plebs. Other comrades, even leading comrades, were empty vessels into which these theoreticians could pour their \lquote ideas\rquote . This approach, of course, cut no ice with us particularly when set agains t the increasing incapacity of these \lquote theoreticians\rquote to answer the pressing questions of contemporary politics in Britain and internationally. It was left to others to rearm the organisation in a complex new situation confronting Trotskyism in the late 198