Two Trends: The Political Roots Of The Breakaway

The leaders of the former minority have departed to set up a separate organisation.

Decisively defeated at all levels of the British and International organisation on the political and theoretical plane, they have taken the step of splitting from the most important Trotskyist organisation in Britain and the world.

They will end up as a sterile little sect on the outskirts of the British mass organisations, without any decisive effect on the labour movement or the working class. But they are determined to inflict as much damage on the tendency as possible as they desert our ranks...

Their attempt to explain the alleged "degeneration" of our tendency overwhelmingly consists of a vitriolic diatribe against the leaders of the majority and their "neo-stalinist methods".

However, the political and personal conduct of individuals in the leadership is not the reason for the dispute which broke out in the ranks of the tendency.

This faction fight did not drop from the sky. History attests to the fact that conflicts within the revolutionary movement (and this conflict has been particularly embittered because of the tone and approach of the minority from the outset), even on seemingly secondary organisational questions, have their roots in politics.

The split between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks began, as is well known, over the famous "Paragraph One" of the constitution of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, defining the character, rights and duties of the members. The dispute was between the 'hards' and the 'softs'. Subsequent events demonstrated that this divergence between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks was an anticipation of the future political gulf that would open up between them in the course of the three Russian revolutions that followed.

Let us recall here that when the dispute broke in May, 1991, the minority claimed that there were no political differences. The majority on the other hand argued that the roots of the differences lay in the complex objective situation nationally and internationally and in the subjective weaknesses and incapacity of the minority leaders to face up to this.

The sharp nature of the conflict, however, should not allow any comrade to shut their eyes to the great achievements of the tendency in the past in the field of theory, in which EG in particular played an outstanding role. But he was not the sole contributor to the theoretical formulation of the ideas and the implementation of these ideas within the labour movement. Other comrades on the EB and on the NEB played an important and sometimes decisive role in the dialogue and exchange of ideas without which it is impossible for even the most outstanding leaders to arrive at the correct theoretical and political conclusions. Nevertheless, in the analysis of the post-1945 developments of Stalinism and of the world economic upswing, the events in the colonial world and in other fields, EG played an important role.

Changed situation

This is not the first time that the theoretical foundations of the revolutionary movement have been laid down and heroically defended by a great pioneer or pioneers, only for these very same individuals to be found wanting in a changed situation. Such was the tragic example of Plekhanov, "the father of Russian Marxism", who when the moment for revolutionary action arrived, was on the wrong side of the barricades.

This is not to argue - as AW actually suggested in discussions with PT and others many times - that EG could be bracketed historically with Plekhanov. We have never engaged in the abuse and crude historical amalgams which are the hallmark of the former minority. According to them, some of us are worse than Stalin, as bad as Healy, etc.

The majority leaders, in fact, hoped to continue to collaborate with EG as a valued contributor with an honoured position in the collective leadership of the tendency. This was on condition that he acknowledged that their are limitations on the capacity of any 78-year-old. It also meant recognising that the old methods of formulating perspectives and behaviour were not appropriate or acceptable in the new situation nationally and internationally.

In the past, occasional differences surfaced but agreement was generally arrived at through discussion and the inevitable give and take involved in constructing any viable Marxist tendency. The 1980s, however, saw the emergence of two increasingly divergent trends, with different methods of approach and analysis.

The growing gulf arose from the changed objective situation and the way to approach this. The former minority are political dinosaurs. They operate with outmoded formulas which no longer apply. In the post-second world war period, processes were more drawn out, more 'predictable'. After 1950, the working out of perspectives, although by no means ever a simple task, was easier than now. A certain equilibrium existed, assisted by the existence of powerful Stalinist states. The boom of the 1980s, the emptying out of many of the workers' 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 to be more conditional. This did not mean that we should seek a cowardly position of false neutrality on issues. What is required is that we discuss all contingencies and then decide on the most likely variant in a given situation. This sometimes requires amending a previous position when new factors, including previously unknown factors, enter into the political equation. This has nothing in common with "empiricism", "eclecticism" and "impressionism", the sins attributed to us by the minority. The approach of the minority to perspectives increasingly took the form of astrological predictions.

[Continue...]