Marxists and the British

Labour Party

Introduction

The Labour Party

In 1944 the British Trotskyist groups the Workers International League and the Revolutionary Socialist League formed the Revolutionary Communist Party.

'Problems of Entrism' makes clear that after the Second World War:

...illusions in Reformism were strengthened within the organised working class. Thus the opposite condition prevailed than had prevailed with a Labour Government working under conditions of slump.

Under such conditions, the revolutionary tendency tended to become isolated. This is not the time nor the place for an analysis of the mistakes of the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Movement generally at that time. But one thing has been demonstrated by historical events; the conditions for entry, as worked out by Trotsky in the past, did not apply.

('Problems of Entrism')

One of the mistakes of a section of the Revolutionary Communist Party alluded to here was that they argued for immediate entry into the Labour Party, despite the fact that none of the conditions summarised above for entry into a reformist or centrist party existed at that time. Supported by the leadership of the Fourth International this grouping, led by Gerry Healy, left the Revolutionary Communist Party in October 1947 in order to carry out this tactic.

This decision, which was opposed by the majority of RCP members, was based on a false perspective. Healy argued that a "Pre-revolutionary or revolutionary situation" and "the possibility of the rapid crystallisation of the revolutionary tendency" was imminent. In reality this perspective was based on a mechanical interpretation of Trotsky's pre-war prognosis - of a rapidly developing revolutionary wave - in total disregard of the actually existing circumstances developing then in post-war Britain.

Those opposing entry into the Labour Party argued that there was no short-cut to quick growth at that time and that, in those circumstances, the open party should be maintained as there were no better prospects inside the Labour Party than outside it. However the general difficulties of that period, combined with tiredness, led, in 1949, to the majority of the Revolutionary Communist Party leadership recommending entering the Labour Party.

While Ted Grant, one of the founders of the Militant, opposed this policy he refused to campaign against it amongst the RCP members. This was a mistake. Grant argued at the time that it would not make much difference whether or not the Trotskyists were inside or outside the Labour Party, and that furthermore he did not wish to lead a struggle against his fellow Revolutionary Communist Party leaders. Really this was a rationalisation of Grant's reluctance to struggle on this issue. It would have better at that time for the Trotskyists to have remained as an independent organisation outside the Labour Party, with an orientation to the trade unions. In reality, there was nothing to gain by entering the Labour Party at that stage.

Just over forty years later Grant was one of the leaders of the opposition to the 'Open Turn' (the 'turn' to work 'openly as an independent party' outside the Labour Party) and a leader of the subsequent split in the Militant and CWI. By the time of the 'Open Turn' debate, as we shall see in the next section of this introduction, Grant and his followers considered that "The workers regarded us as an integral part of the Labour Party," describing the link between the Militant, a revolutionary Trotskyist organisation, and the Labour Party as an "umbilical cord."

The flexible, tactical approach demonstrated in the 1959 "Problems of Entrism" document referred to above had been abandoned for a rigid, dogmatic adherence to the tactic of "long-term work in the Labour party" irrespective of developments. By way of historical comparison with the current position of the "Ted Grant Tendency", we have included on this site "A note on Ted Grant's explanation of Entrism in the 1940s" in "The Experience of Entrism" section of this site.

After the Revolutionary Communist Party decided, in June 1949, to dissolve itself, practically all the Trotskyists in Britain were in the Labour Party.

As one of the main Majority documents (presented on this website) commented in 1991:

How did entrism come about in 1949? ...because of the disintegration of the Revolutionary Communist Part, and because the majority of the Revolutionary Communist Party leaders went over to Labour Party entry under the pressure of the strengthening of reformism and Stalinism which took place at the beginning of the post-war period. (For the Scottish Turn para 40.)

Nevertheless, starting out by necessity rather than by design, entry into the Labour Party became a tactic which lasted for four decades.

The 'Open Turn' debate of 1991 was a debate about ending this latter period of entrism. In 1991 a minority opposed the 'Open Turn' for reasons explained later.

Up to the period of the 'Open Turn' in 1991 the parties or sections of the Committee for a Workers' International largely orientated to the traditional workers' parties of the Second International or Communist Parties where they existed because they carried the aspirations of the working class, and had significant working class roots, despite their bourgeois or reformist leaderships.

This did not mean that it was possible or appropriate for the various sections of the Committee for a Workers' International to pursue the same entrist tactic: for example in the early 1970's

...the Swedish Social Democratic Youth [the SSU] was a large organisation and the bureaucracy had learned from the experience of Britain. They, therefore, very quickly moved to expel us from the SSU ...In effect, we could not pursue effective entry work as most of our forces were outside the SSU and, subsequently, outside the Social Democratic Party. (Comment from Arne Johansson of the Swedish section of the CWI in 'History of the CWI')

[Continue...]