The present period of capitalist crisis and instability has found its reflection in a profound disorientation of the far left. The failure of the major organisations (IMG, SWP(IS), WRP) to address programmatically the developing class struggle has resulted in a whole series of splits over questions of strategy and tactics. Such fragmentation of subjectively revolutionary forces is obviously unfortunate and in certain senses counter-productive. We should be clear, however, that there are no magic short cuts to regroupment, no magic formulas which can immediately regenerate and reunify the far left. Only the most intransigent struggle around key aspects of communist strategy and tactics can provide a firm basis for pulling together the far left. Over the last year or so a number of organisations have addressed themselves to problems of increasing fragmentation of the left. Unfortunately the approaches taken have been at best mistaken or at worst downright opportunist, only serving to add further to the already existing confusion.
The IMG have been the most persistent and vocal of the unifiers. They argue that the political basis for regroupment already exists. None of the organisations to the left of the Communist Party have yet crossed class lines and whilst differences of tactics, ‘style’ and theory exist, all these organisations stand within the tradition of revolutionary marxism. In practice this apparently plausible and non-sectarian approach can lead in only one direction — to the liquidation of revolutionary marxism. Regroupment on the basis espoused by the IMG could only result in an uneasy alliance of competing centrist tendencies liable to fly apart at its first serious test in the class struggle. The IMG reveal the opportunist nature of their unity drive very clearly in their analysis of the SWP(GB).
The IMG does not try to pretend that it has no differences with the SWP but these differences we are told are of a secondary nature. They should not in themselves be a barrier to unity. Since the SWP is a revolutionary organisation, paradoxically in Socialist Challenge no. 29 we find the following analysis:
‘The dominant tradition of the Marxist left in Britain is one which was best summed up in a speech delivered at the recent conference of the SWP’s “Rank and File Movement”. The speaker concerned declared, to loud applause, “if you look after the little things the big things look after themselves”.’
The article goes on: ‘… This tradition can be defined as national, economist sectarianism,’ and that: ‘The economist strategy can provide no answers’.
So whilst the SWP are a group of ‘national, economist sectarians’ who have ‘no answers’ they are still revolutionary marxists. In fact economism refers to a trend in the workers movement which has a chronic tendency to tail the trade union activity of the class. Such a trend, whilst it may use marxist terminology, has nothing in common with revolutionary marxism other than a subjective desire for socialism.
In an earlier article on the SWP the IMG argue: ‘… the denial of the fact that the USSR is a workers state does not in itself lead to an abandonment of the interest of the working class. It is not equivalent to theories like Popular Frontism which do lead directly to renegacy.’
So the IMG understand perfectly clearly that Popular Frontism is objectively anti-working class. But how did the IMG react to SWP’s attempt to build an all-class alliance against fascism (ie the Anti-Nazi League)? Rather than risk cutting themselves off from the possibilities of regroupment with the SWP, the IMG, mesmerised by the sight of 80,000 people on the streets, made a wholesale capitulation to this disastrous strategy. The editorial in Socialist Challenge no. 44 (following the ANL carnival) was headed ‘Hats off to the SWP’ and in it we were informed (in relation to the forthcoming ANL conference):
‘A conference devoted to discussing whether or not the ANL is a “popular front” or similar rubbish would, in our opinion, be disasterous.’
We see here how the IMG’s unity at any price approach renders it impotent in the face of a dramatic right turn by the SWP. And here two aspects of the IMG and ‘unity’ are highlighted. Firstly, their wish to regroup with non-marxist organisations means that it must mute its criticisms or soften them by arguing that the issues involved are only secondary ones; secondly, the IMG’s attempt to build ‘broad alliances’ in the name of the class struggle leads the IMG to a point where the unity itself is of greater importance than its political basis. Thus the IMG can ride the wave of the ANL without understanding that in essence it is a bourgeois political formation.
But, the IMG will counter, did we not publish a full statement on the basis for revolutionary unity in Socialist Challenge no. 16? And, indeed, the IMG did publish such a document. If however we look at it closely, we find that rather than a strategy for the working class, it is a series of abstract principles and general truisms which could indeed be adhered to by a number of organisations to the left of the CP.
Having stated that ‘we do not believe that unity will be brought about simply by agreement on immediate tasks confronting us today’, the IMG’s basis for unity goes on to cover over or avoid key questions of revolutionary strategy and tactics that are crucial to arming the working class against the capitalist onslaught. For instance the IMG’s conception of standing candidates on ‘Class Struggle’ (ie non-revolutionary) programmes does not receive a mention, no mention is made of the fake ‘lefts’ in the labour movement nor is any united front strategy outlined to combat workers illusions in them. The project for ‘building a mass women’s movement’ diplomatically leaves aside the question of whether this will be an ‘all class’, ‘autonomous’ movement or a working class women’s movement built around a fighting programme. These issues and others are not just tactical questions — they determine the way forward a revolutionary grouping argues for the working class to achieve the overthrow of capitalism. It is this failure to fight for regroupment on the basis of a communist, transitional programme which is the root of the IMG’s opportunism.
The IMG show this clearly in the ‘Battle of Ideas’ (2 February 1978). Of particular interest is the section which lists the ‘tactics’ the IMG would fight for inside a unified organisation. Centrally we find ‘transitional demands’ relegated to a tactic — indeed a ‘tactic’ which may never see the light of day in this rather peculiar formation. For Workers Power transitional demands are the bedrock of the strategy for the working class seizure of power. The methodology developed by Lenin and the first four congresses of the Comintern and consolidated by Trotsky is the only basis upon which a revolutionary strategy can be elaborated. Lenin explicitly rejected the splitting of principles, strategy and tactics. Principles without strategy are maximalist, strategy without principles is directionless and the two without tactics are inoperable. The rejection of programme dooms any organisation — to the left and right it zig-zags and ultimately to either wholesale capitulation or sectarian irrelevance. However, the IMG’s projected unity with anti-Trotskyist groupings such as Big Flame, SWP or the International Socialist Alliance means that it is not possible for this cornerstone of Marxism to be a condition of that unity.
Given that the IMG do not believe that organisations need to be won to the basic precepts of Trotskyism it is not surprising that they are prepared to unite with organisations who have no conception of internationalism, or, to be more precise, of the need for an international revolutionary organisation. This is reflected in the IMG’s new found ‘modesty’ regarding the USFI in its unity statement: ‘Such a (unified revolutionary) organisation must seek to build and become part of a revolutionary international.’ Membership of the USFI would not then be a condition on which unity would be accepted or rejected: ‘We would therefore argue that a unified organisation after a period of discussion and experience, applies to affiliate to the FI.’ (Battle of Ideas 2 February 1978.) And if the organisation decides not to affiliate would the IMG have to split (heaven forbid!)? If so was the unity principled in the first place? If not it merely indicates the contempt the IMG has for the USFI and its complete dishonesty with regard to its own membership — many dissident elements have remained within the IMG on the basis (or more often excuse) that it is affiliated to the USFI. Clearly the present leadership don’t take this affiliation very seriously.
Given that the IMG are prepared to join an organisation which has no position on programme, the united front, socialist democracy or internationalism (re above article) it is hardly surprising that when its Socialist Unity electoral bloc moves into action it should be on a basis indistinguishable from left social democracy. Socialist Unity is not a united front, it is a rotten electoral bloc based on left reformist politics which offers no real alternative to the Labour Party.
The IMG are not the only organisation talking about unity. Having rejected Trotskyism as the basis for unity the IMG have been able to attract the fallen angels of the International Socialist Alliance who, having been cast out of the SWP(GB), are busy looking for a new home. (Or as a recent article in Socialist Challenge more candidly put it, an organisation ‘in search of an early grave’ — something the IMG can undoubtedly provide them with.) Prominent in this new formation is Martin Shaw who attacks the SWP on the mistaken basis that it has broken from the hallowed IS tradition. In fact Shaw has simply noticed, rather late in the day, that the SWP is a bureaucratically deformed, sectarian organisation. Inside the SWP Shaw called for a return to the positions of the late ’60s when the SWP (IS), on paper at least, saw the need for regroupment in terms not altogether distinct from those used by the IMG today. So Shaw, on finding himself outside the SWP, has little choice but to argue that the next step in the ‘IS tradition’ (as embodied by the founding ISA conference) is to join the IMG. The majority of the ISA rejected immediate fusion with the IMG not on any clear political basis but rather on the basis of a suspicion of the IMG/USFI acquired inside the SWP/IS. However, sections of this grouping are attracted to the IMG by the softest positions on the unity campaign. Thus Martin Shaw congratulates the IMG on its ‘commitment to non-exclusive class struggle tendencies in the unions… as well as work in other movements — such as the women’s movement.’ (Battle of Ideas 13 April 1978.)
The ‘non-exclusive class struggle tendencies in the unions’ are of course designed to encompass all those, particularly the ‘left leaders’, who are ‘willing to fight’ the government’s anti-working class policies (or at least who say they are willing to fight). Such tendencies have to be based on left reformist programmes with a minimum commitment to action in order not to drive away these ‘class fighters’. In the women’s movement the IMG capitulate to both ‘revolutionary’ and socialist feminism placing the ‘unity’ of the women’s movement above a serious fight for communist politics. Thus with reference to gays and the women’s movement the IMG inform us:
‘… we do insist that these movements have an autonomous role and cannot be subordinated politically (our emphasis — WP) or organisationally to the revolutionary movement.’ (Battle of Ideas 2 February 1978.)
So Martin Shaw, having failed to realise that the ‘IS tradition’ is rotten to the core, is drawn inexorably to the latest manifestation of that rottenness in the IMG. Similarly we find that the Workers League (who in many respects embody the most backward, economistic notions of the SWP) are attracted to the IMG for the same reasons. Stephen Marks (WL) praised the IMG for its ‘modesty’ regarding the USFI, for breaking from ‘… traditional obsessions with putting socialist demands on labour’ (Battle of Ideas 15 April 1978) and because IMG formulations on transitional demands are so hazy as to resemble the WL’s conception of ‘transitional politics’ as a series of systematic concessions to reformism. Richard Kirkwood (WL) has argued in Socialist Challenge that the sort of newspaper required by a united organisation should be one that sounds suspiciously like the Socialist Worker of a few years ago which far from being a communist newspaper, was little more than a scrapbook of strikes. The various groupings around the ISA are looking to the IMG as the reincarnation of all the worst aspects of their beloved ‘IS tradition’.
The I-CL have a rather more critical approach to the IMG unity offensive — although it is often very confused. At one level the I-CL offer a view of unity identical (if rather more to the left) to that of the IMG. The I-CL argue: ‘It is the major issues, the issues which concentrate the minds of revolutionaries which should decide fusions, splits and organisation demarcations.’ (Theses on Revolutionary Unity, International Communist no. 7), and: ‘… it is the duty of revolutionaries to actively seek out the links in the chain of events which will organise the maximum number of revolutionary militants around a programme that is minimally adequate.’ (reference as above.)
We are informed that the major organisations to the left of the CP are all revolutionary in essence but have, by virtue of a series of blunders, obscured their revolutionary nature with ‘fakery’: ‘The major groups of the revolutionary left — IMG, SWP, WSL in Britain, and nearly all the Trotskyist current internationally — have fallen into fakery on particular issues: yet their political positions as such would not prevent revolutionary unity with them’ (our emphasis — WP) (reference as above).
So far the I-CL have put a position virtually identical to that of the IMG. If, however, we look elsewhere we find a different trend interwoven. The article ‘For revolutionary unity on a revolutionary programme’ (IC no. 7) is a reply to the IMG’s ‘The Basis for Revolutionary Unity’. Here we find the major weakness of the I-CL’s approach. The I-CL fail to tackle the IMG’s unity offensive in its entirety but prefer to present a number of suggestions for how it can be improved. However, the article does recognise the centrality of key tactics for revolutionary unity. In particular the document takes up the questions of a revolutionary orientation to reformism and the general strike as well as a number of principles such as solidarity with the Republican struggle in Ireland. The positive side of the I-CL’s approach is an empirical recognition of the interwoven nature of principles, strategy and tactics — but because this is not understood methodologically (ie the I-CL can only understand programme as a series of timeless truisms and a jumble of tactics — WP 5) they fail to break free from the IMG’s problematic. Thus in IC no. 8 we find ridiculous statements like:
‘… the IMG is a revolutionary organisation in the general sense (?) but one which persistently makes opportunist errors, often serious ones.’
The I-CL are beginning to step back from characterising the IMG as centrist, and are at a crossroads as regards their notions of unity. Either the I-CL will understand that unity cannot be forged on the basis of abstract principle alone or they run the risk of becoming the left wing in the IMG’s version of ‘Socialist Unity’.
Having pointed to the erroneous nature of the IMG/ISA/I-CL approach to unity it remains to lay down a number of guidelines. Unity cannot be consolidated on a politically inadequate basis; a revolutionary organisation cannot hold itself together unless it is capable of providing answers to all the major problems facing the working class. These ‘answers’ are what constitute the backbone of a revolutionary programme. The programme is structured around a series of communist principles (eg opposition to class collaboration), strategic goals (eg the dictatorship of the proletariat) and key notions for achieving these goals (eg united front, ‘rank and file’ movements). These three aspects of programme cannot be arbitrarily separated. No amount of tactical expediency can make up for a lack of communist principles, or failure to understand strategy — the ‘Eurocommunists’ are probably the best example. Having ditched internationalism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, they now seek to introduce socialism via the capitalist state. Neither will a lack of tactical expertise be overcome by an ever more rigid adherence to principle — this is the road of ultimatism.
The IMG relegate tactics to a secondary place. In practice this allows the IMG to duck the major issues. The IMG fight to build ‘class struggle tendencies’ in the unions. This they would say was a tactic to draw wider forces into a struggle against capitalism. In actual fact this tactic results in the IMG capitulating to the left bureaucrats and failing to fight for a communist fraction in the unions. (WP’s approach to ‘rank and filism’ will be dealt with in detail in our next journal.) Thus the tactical approach of the IMG in the TUs means that they opt out of a principled fight against reformism — in fact, they become complicit in the construction of reformist rather than communist fractions in the unions. Similarly in the struggle against fascism the IMG with its unity ‘tactic’ has collapsed into an alliance based on purely bourgeois politics — the Anti-Nazi League. Once again, the IMG’s tactics (those secondary features) have resulted in a failure to fight for communist politics.
Workers Power have always argued that key tactics must play a major part in regroupment. Such tactics, however, are subordinate to the strategic goal and are only useful if they assist in the struggle for socialism. If two organisations cannot agree on how to fight fascism, construct a communist current in the unions, win women to communist politics, orientate to reformism, construct an international revolutionary organisation or indeed a national one, then certainly these organisations have little or no basis for unity. That is not to say that differences cannot exist within a revolutionary organisation or that a revolutionary organisation could not make a mistake or even a series of blunders. However, a simple recognition of the fallibility of human beings should not be allowed to draw up into philistinism. Where erroneous practices become systemised they signify a move away from marxism. In the case of the IMG this centrism has been demonstrated by its persistent adaptation to non-communist movements and its consequent failure to fight for revolutionary positions. This practice is reflected in the IMG’s new opportunist tactic — a tactic based on accommodation to anti-Trotskyist forces.
For Workers Power the key to regroupment is a hard fight around key aspects of communist strategy and tactics to break existing organisations from their centrist and/or opportunist practices.
