What is the real IS tradition?

Does a sense of political tradition matter? In some ways no and in some ways yes. All traditions are in a sense invented: they involve retrospectively imposing a pattern on various events and developments, generally smoothing out inconvenient rough edges in the process. What you get is a selective arrangement of reality, not reality itself.

But in a way that doesn't matter (though it's useful to keep the constructed and selective nature of tradition in the back of your mind) because traditions can still be useful. They are a way of conceptualising a range of experiences. They provide some sort of order and consistency. They enable people to talk about differences and distinctiveness (different traditions represent different ideas, tendencies and practices).

Traditions allow some sort of collective identity – different people can be combined together in a shared identification with a tradition. This can, in turn, be the basis for collective organisation, and help hold people together in face of external pressures. They provide a link with the past and a sense that what we do now is part of something bigger.

 
The ‘IS tradition’

Let's think, then, about 'the International Socialists (IS) tradition'. This refers to the current of revolutionary socialism originating in work by Tony Cliff - developing an account of 'state capitalism' in Russia and eastern Europe in the late 1940s - and the split in British Trotskyism in 1950 which launched the Socialist Review Group (later the International Socialists and, later still, the Socialist Workers Party). This is a niche interest and the present blog post has no pretensions of broad appeal: if you’re reading this it’s likely you either a) identify yourself with this tradition (or have done), or b) are active in the radical left and know that this tradition is an important part of the admittedly small world in which we operate.

One answer to the question in the title of this post is 'There isn't one'. At one level that is undoubtedly the most accurate answer possible. There is no singular, coherent tradition which objectively exists in the material world. There is a range of possibilities for us to exploit.

Recognising this is no slide into postmodernist relativism - it is, instead, to grasp the contested nature of any tradition, the complexity of it, and the fact it has been (and continues to be) a dynamic, living and evolving tradition. Socialists tend to understand that traditions we are hostile to are invented – and need to be critically interrogated – but we are perhaps reluctant to approach any traditions we identify with ourselves in a reflective way.

 

Despite undermining the idea of a single tradition, however, I will outline some key elements of what I regard as integral to what’s normally thought of as the ‘IS tradition’. There are vital lessons for us to learn.

The ‘IS tradition’ was recently debated in a session, introduced by John Molyneux, at the SWP-organised Marxism 2013. I’ve watched the debate section and it’s interesting enough. There are points I agree with and some I disagree with. But it is not, truth be told, a very illuminating or useful discussion.

The debate is a case of more heat than light. This is because it’s really a displaced debate between different factions inside the SWP, so that even the oppositionists’ contributions – while generally making good points – risk being more about point-scoring than thoughtful reflection (I don’t criticise them for this – I’ve been there myself, and it is frankly difficult to do much else in a 3-minute contribution).

This post is therefore far removed from any current internal debate in the SWP – I haven’t been a member since 2009 and I no longer regard it as an effective political vehicle. It is much more concerned with reflecting on lessons from Tony Cliff in particular and some historical experiences associated with the organisation which he pioneered.

This is not to downplay the importance of organisation, or to separate political lessons from the project of building an organisation. Tony Cliff's greatest achievement wasn't the theory of state capitalism - or any other theoretical innovation - but his contribution to building an organisation of thousands of socialists. I no longer think that particular organisation is fit for purpose, and am instead committed to building Counterfire. Hopefully my comments here will be illuminating regardless of the reader’s organisational affiliation.

Ways of defining the tradition

There are four common ways for people - both within the IS tradition and outside it - to talk about the tradition.

1)    It is sometimes suggested that the IS tradition has been, for several decades, the concrete embodiment of the authentic Marxist tradition, sustaining the thread that goes back to Marx and Engels via Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky and the early Third International. This is, in my view, essentially correct: it has indeed been a continuation of that tradition. The point Cliff made perhaps more frequently than any other was that Marx had said that the emancipation of the working class was the act of the working class – and that this fundamental principle was the consistent basis of IS/SWP politics.

However, it is obviously not enough simply to stop at this. More specific characteristics and contributions need to be identified. And it is problematic because there were, and are, clearly others outside the IS tradition who can claim to have continued that tradition. There is a danger of vanity and arrogance in assuming that only a particular organisation has maintained the Marxist tradition of socialism from below and the self-emancipation of the working class.

2) The most conventional way of characterising the IS tradition is according to three particular theories – state capitalism, deflected permanent revolution and permanent arms economy – with which the International Socialists (which in 1977 became the SWP) was long associated. I don't have space here to summarise these theories, but they are discussed here. These theories retrospectively formed a ‘troika’ which, taken as a totality, provided an over-arching analysis of the post-WW2 world, though obviously their development was more complex. Tony Cliff was their principal author, but contributions by Michael Kidron, Chris Harman and others also played a part.

This was often, during the 1960s and 1970s, the way that critics of IS characterised the group. Critics – especially sectarians – emphasised the distinctive positions identified with the IS as a way of attacking it. To such people, IS were ‘the state caps’. For IS activists, however, the key contemporary theories were important but so was the inheritance of classical Marxism – and so was the not insignificant matter of what political tasks the group was actually engaged in. IS was not solely defined by a number of specific theories, even at a time when those ideas were acutely relevant and useful.

3) Discussion about the IS tradition often focuses on democratic and organisational norms. It is those outside the tradition who tend to make this their focus, but it is also a key characteristic of how some people who have broken from the SWP appear to view things.

For example, it is seen as being characterised by such things as a ban on permanent factions, the use of a slate system for electing leadership bodies, and so on. Some of this territory is interesting and significant - although much of it really is trivial - but in my view the internal characteristics of the SWP at different times is not the most useful way into considering the distinctive emphases of the tradition.

 

Similarly, while it is useful to consider such characteristic Cliff motifs as 'bending the stick', 'seizing the key link', and 'making sharp turns' (more on which below), these practices tell us very little when taken out of their context and treated as abstract organising principles. Cliff, when formulating such practices, was writing for a specific context: he was very much an 'activist historian' when writing about the Lenin and Bolsheviks, looking for lessons to be learnt, rather than endeavouring to offer the definitive scholarly and objective account.

4) Finally, the tradition is seen as entirely synonymous with a specific organisation - the British SWP - regardless of what direction it goes in. This is a common view among those currently described as 'SWP loyalists', i.e. leadership supporters in the current, on-going, factional dispute inside the SWP. Anyone who leaves the party is automatically deemed deviant from the IS tradition, whereas those who remain are loyal and faithful to that tradition.

While it's true that particular organisations embody particular traditions - and historically the IS tradition is principally a history of IS/SWP - the problems here should be glaringly obvious. It's a worldview that encourages and legitimises uncritical acceptance over critical and original thinking, and privileges an inherited body of doctrine over the challenge of developing living theory. It is also untenable when the tradition has in fact fragmented into a number of different organisations.

One danger inherent in tradition is that of ossified doctrine - a kind of tradition more appropriate to religious denominations than to revolutionary socialist currents. That is what we are dealing with when ‘loyalists’ make appeals to ‘the tradition’ as a means of silencing dissenters.

Content and method

I think the most common error in discussions of the IS tradition is to emphasise the 'troika' of state capitalism, deflected permanent revolution and the permanent arms economy over questions of method. I do think these theories were - and to a lesser extent still are - important. But I would recommend Cliff's short book 'Trotskyism after Trotsky: the origins of the International Socialists' as much as a demonstration of Marxist method as because of its specific theoretical or analytical content. Method as much as content is what we can learn from Cliff's key innovations.

The actual content was certainly once useful for building an organisation. Taken together the three theories provided a coherent analysis of what was then the contemporary world. But they were never definitive of the IS tradition - and they certainly can't be definitive today.

 

State capitalism and deflected permanent revolution retain some relevance, though less so than in the Cold War era (and permanent arms economy is really a matter of historical interest). State capitalism retains relevance partly because of its implications for thinking about the relationship between the nation state and capitalism today; partly because we need it to answer the still-prevalent question of 'What went wrong in Russia?' (Stalinism is still used to discredit Leninism). Deflected permanent revolution is still a useful framework for understanding the relationship between class and revolution, e.g. in the Arab revolutions. Incidentally, I disagree with Neil Davidson's revisionist approach to deflected permanent revolution - not because he is 'breaking from the tradition', but because I think he's wrong. Assessing the relationship between theory and reality is, as ever, crucial here.

When considering the development of new theory and analysis by Cliff, and others in the IS tradition, there are particular elements in the method that seem to me especially prominent. One would certainly be the stress on understanding the distinctive features of any particular economic and social order – e.g. what’s different about post-1945 western capitalism to what went before, or to the post-war state capitalism of the East.

Another element would be the lack of determinism and attention to how working class agency can shape history in different directions – Ian Birchall made the point in his fascinating Cliff biography that Cliff used the ‘crossroads’ metaphor on several occasions, with the implication that different routes are possible depending upon what people choose to do. This was, in turn, linked to a huge emphasis on the role of reformist, Stalinist and trade union leaders in understanding the outcomes of various forms of class struggle. 

 

Another (related) aspect is the close attention to class consciousness, and how it was shaped by a range of factors in any given period or place. For example, a number of Cliff's 1960s and 1970s books were shaped by his interviews with workplace militants and their own experiences and reflections - he was supremely attentive to the details of consciousness, how it changed, and its relationship with working class action. None of these aspects are unique to the IS tradition, but I do think they were more prominent than in most other organised Marxist currents – and I think we can learn from them.

I also have a problem with the idea that the accepted troika were the dominant three theoretical innovations made by Cliff. I’d add at least three more: the analysis of reformism (and its changing forms after 1945), the trade unions (especially the role of the union bureaucracy and its relationship to the rank and file), and the work on revolutionary organisation. All of these were practically important for revolutionaries in this country – more so, if might argued, than the account of deflected permanent revolution.

In all these areas I think that changing circumstances necessitate some significant revisions, while nonetheless retaining the theoretical core of what Cliff argued. For example, the analysis of the union bureaucracy and the rank and file remains correct and valuable, but the massive changes to union organisation and the long-term slump in strike levels also require a distinctive analysis that does more than repeat what Cliff said in the 1970s.

It is the ways in which Cliff adapted and applied Marxist theory to changing or new situations that is really valuable for us. It is what Paul Le Blanc has termed ‘open marxism’ – an openness to changing reality and determination to develop theory that fits reality (instead of distorting reality to fit an existing theory). One absolutely vital component in this is a sure grasp of the classical tradition - the firmer the knowledge of the theoretical tradition, the more skilfully and creatively it can be applied in new situations. In his memoir, 'A World to Win', Cliff recalled his in-depth reading of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky in the 1930s when he was a teenager.

The practising of a flexible, innovative 'open marxism' also implies a particular sort of temperament or disposition: irreverence towards what we inherit, an absence of dogmatism and defensiveness, and a certain humility and honesty (staring reality in the face). It also requires a degree of ruthlessness (in the best sense possible) because it means saying what is right even if it turns old comrades into enemies and requires a break with an existing organisation. It should be recalled that any distinctive IS tradition we might discuss was born out of a break from orthodox Trotskyism and its organisations - a difficult and risky experience for those involved.

Alternative emphases

I'd suggest there are a number of things which have been given particular emphasis in the tradition - all of them certainly closely identified with Tony Cliff, but much more than just his personal style. Three are especially worth thinking about. I am not suggesting that any of them were ever unique to the IS tradition, but I am suggesting they have been given special emphasis.

1. Detailed attention to the balance of class forces. It's an old-fashioned and nowadays rarely-used phrase, but the 'balance of class forces' remains a useful concept. The very attentive focus on patterns and trends in class struggle, on looking carefully at the balance between our side and their side, and drawing strategic conclusions from those observations, used to be a hallmark of the SWP. An important example is the analysis of the downturn Cliff and others developed from 1979 onwards, which underpinned the stability and modest growth of the organisation in the 1980s.

Other groups - WRP, IMG, Militant - all declined or collapsed during the same period. The failure to accurately analyse the balance of class forces - and draw the appropriate conclusions - is a big part of the explanation for their demise. In 1985 Duncan Hallas perceptively explained the WRP's implosion as originating in a very long-term failure of analysis, accentuated in the 1980s by its insistence - even during and immediately after the Miners' Strike of 1984-85 - that capitalism was on the brink of crisis and a massive working class upturn was just around the corner.

2. The economic, the political and the ideological. Cliff was fond of citing a comment by Engels that class struggle operates on three levels - economic (or industrial), political and ideological - which have different tempos and a complex, uneven relationship with each other. The application of this idea is, in my view, a far bigger part of what sustained and built the SWP than is ever acknowledged.

I am not sure exactly what Engels was getting at - or what the context for the formulation was - but in the IS tradition it developed a particular meaning. It was especially used at times of low levels of industrial struggle (or of industrial defeats), i.e. after the mid-1970s, to both honestly acknowledge the poor industrial situation (rather than bluffing and bullshitting like some on the left) and to identify more positive tendencies in other kinds of struggle or discontent, therefore preventing a slide into despair. It meant that the party grasped all sorts of opportunities other than strike action - this is something I wrote about in my article on 'movementism'. Class struggle is complex and multi-faceted, not just a series of strikes.

It has also, though, always been recognised that the low level of strike action cannot continue forever. It is unthinkable that a serious challenge to capitalism or major upturn in struggle could happen without a high level of strike action being an integral part of it. So the formulation of three levels of class struggle has always been a useful way of adapting to changing circumstances while retaining core principles and a longer-term vision.  

This may all seem fairly uncontroversial or obvious, but in the world of the far left it has been anything but. Plenty of other groups during the last several decades have over-emphasised one or other of these dimensions, or falsely separated the different levels out from each other, and they have paid the price.

3)  A strategic perspective. This is linked to - and largely follows on from - both of the above points. There is a strong tradition on the wider left of repeating the same slogans and objectives regardless of concrete circumstances. I will just mention two examples here.

 

The Socialist Party (formerly Militant) says the same two things regardless of circumstances: we need a new workers' party and the TUC should call a general strike. This is the blind repetition of dogma, not a concrete strategy based on a concrete analysis. The second example is the current Socialist Platform inside Left Unity - it is advocating the kind of founding statement that would be more applicable to a Trotskyist group than a broad left party. But it's also notable for being a document that could have been written at any time in the last several decades, give or take a few phrases.

The SWP historically had a radically different approach - so radically different that numerous critics on the radical left have frequently accused it (wrongly in my view) of opportunism, bandwagon jumping, and endlessly vacillating between different things. It is known within the left for changing and adapting its focus of activity, its orientation, far more than many other groups.

Now of course it's possible to make specific errors here, but the general approach is one I've always considered the right one. It combines principle and flexibility, and enables effective action by not getting unthinkingly stuck in certain struggles of forms of action that may no longer be relevant. It links our actions to our analysis of the world as it is.

Organisation

Now let's briefly consider question of organisation, often framed in terms of a discussion about 'Leninism'. It is comprehensively missing the point to see Cliff personally, the SWP organisationally or the IS tradition politically as defined by such things as 'bending the stick' or 'sharp turns'. There's something in the idea that such aspects of organisational practice - of Cliff's distinctive interpretation of Lenin - are important. But they need to be considered in context - to be exemplified and assessed in concrete terms - rather than asserted or rejected as principles.

A well-known such example, from after Cliff's death, is the way the SWP responded to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, playing a dynamic role in initiating and building Stop the War Coalition. That rested upon a particular set of political analyses, but it was also influenced by a certain sort of organisational style, i.e. a big emphasis on swiftly identifying a new major priority ('seizing the key link'), responding quickly and decisively to new developments (a 'sharp turn'), if necessary over-emphasising the new while temporarily relegating other things to a secondary status ('bending the stick').

This approach is not inherently good or inherently bad. It is not foolproof. It depends, of course, on the correctness and effectiveness of specific changes and initiatives. In most cases in the SWP's history, prior to it taking a decisive wrong turn from 2008 onwards, it got these right. Occasionally it got it wrong - and occasionally the general approach was right, but the balance or the details were mistaken - but this shouldn't distract from the absolute necessity of such an approach for extremely important positive developments like the commitment to building Stop the War.

Discussion of organisation also draws attention to the question of democracy. I have never agreed with those who depict the SWP as having for a very long term been undemocratic. Neither do I think it was perfect during my years as a member (1992-2009). There are several things I’d point to as less than ideal elements of a healthy internal culture. By and large such weaknesses were shaped by a long period of downturn, defeat and relative isolation, which can have a damaging effect on an organisation.

More could have been done to rectify these weaknesses, but I don’t accept the idealist, essentialist notion that they are somehow inevitable characteristics of any revolutionary organisations, mere symptoms of a universal Leninist malaise. They were historically conditioned. And there is simply no credible comparison between the largely democratic but flawed party culture of old and the awful culture which has developed in the last few years – see here for my thoughts on this (and more). A deep practical commitment to democracy is integral to any current or future efforts to renew the revolutionary left.

Concluding comments

I am not especially interested in the ‘continuity’, or the ‘recovery’, of an ‘IS tradition’ – or any other tradition – and think it’s more important to do what is right and effective, learning from historical experiences and the insights from others. Tony Cliff liked to say that we can see further on the shoulders of giants, but that we won’t see anything if our eyes are closed. Today we need to both learn from those who have much to teach us and look at the world around us, willing (as Cliff did after the Second World War) to examine assumptions and base our analysis on concrete realities.

The key thing vis-à-vis this ‘tradition’ is to learn and apply what is useful (and, where appropriate, learn from other sources too). Sanctifying it serves no useful purpose. No single organisation is the definitive embodiment of a discrete, self-contained tradition that requires preservation and protection. 

I was motivated to write this article largely because of two things. One is that aspects of what is identified as the ‘IS tradition’ have been under attack from a range of sources lately. The other trigger for writing it is that the fiercest defenders of the tradition recently (SWP ‘loyalists’) are in the wrong and, in the process of defending ‘the tradition’, they are dragging its reputation through the mud.

 

It is therefore necessary to rescue what is useful – both from enemies and ‘friends’ of the tradition under discussion. I hope this account has at least provided a starting point for doing this.

 

Recommended reading: This speech by Cliff on Engels in fact reveals an enormous amount about Cliff's own approach and methods, as well as highlighting the numerous continuities in the classical Marxist tradition.

Share

A revolutionary life

Dominic Alexander, Counterfire's books editor, has written a review of Ian Birchall's 'Tony Cliff: A Marxist for his Time' which, I think, does justice to a superb biography. It is my personal Book of the Year and - while it won't be to everyone's tastes, considering its niche subject matter - if you're active in left-wing politics then I warmly recommend you read it.

Cliff was a key figure in the international revolutionary left - especially in the UK - throughout the second half of the 20th century. Dominic concludes:

'Ian Birchall, in providing a selection of personal reminiscences on Cliff from a wide range of the people who encountered him, out of an apparently very large archive of clearly considerable value, documents vividly the many years. Moreover, the selection of these recollections appears scrupulously even-handed. This is a political work, but also a meticulously scholarly one, with the depth and breadth of research lying behind it making it of permanent value.

Opinions about Cliff, his leadership and strategies, will continue to be exchanged, and debated, but this book will surely remain the reference point, and indeed a key resource, for future discussions of the politics of Tony Cliff.'

Read the full review HERE. I also recommend Splintered Sunrise's appreciation HERE.

Share

Lenin and us: building revolutionary organisation today

I recently published a series of posts restating the case for revolutionary organisation. The article below is a slightly edited version of those posts, merged into a single text (with some video of Tony Cliff - speaking on Lenin and the revolutionary party - as an extra). It's nearly 4000 words, so I recommend you make yourself a cuppa and find a comfy seat before starting.  

This article aims to answer two questions. First, why build a revolutionary socialist organisation? Second, what is required to build such an organisation?

There are many left-wing and radical activists who take a dim view of ‘Leninism’. This is often influenced by caricatured versions of what Lenin thought, wrote and did in relation to political organisation, or by negative experiences of groups which claim to be in the Leninist tradition.

I want to clarify the Leninist tradition's relevance to the current challenges of strategy and organisation. The specific focus is therefore the need for an organisation of revolutionary socialists. This is at the heart of debates about how socialists fight to change the world.



Class consciousness and revolutionary organisation

Capitalist society is full of contradictions. It is, for example, a society in which the ugly reality of poverty and inequality contradicts the enchanting rhetoric of fairness, equal opportunities and social mobility.

There are contradictions at the heart of how the system works. Although a system of competition, capitalism depends upon people co-operating with each other to do the work necessary for it to function. Capitalism expands and transcends boundaries, yet nation states remain important for the ruling class. We live in an increasingly interconnected world, yet divisions of nationalism, racism and so on remain.

One of the most important contradictions concerns the ideas we have about the world and ourselves. Marxists argue that society is divided into classes - a ruling class, which is a tiny minority, and a working class, which is the vast majority. It is in the interests of the great majority of people to make a revolution against a wealthy, powerful ruling class, seize control of the economy, and create a society based on radically different priorities.

Karl Marx insisted that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class. Fundamental social change - moving from capitalist barbarism to a free socialist society - cannot be delivered from above. Working people must free themselves.

There's a contradiction, though, between our material interests and the fact that - most of the time, in most places - we seem to be a long way from socialist revolution. There is a contradiction between Marx's self-emancipation of the working class and another of Marx's observations - that the ruling ideas in any age are the ideas of the ruling class.

The ruling class control the media, education system and other means of spreading their views, ensuring their ideas come to be seen as a kind of 'common sense'. Yet it is never, thankfully, as simple as that. Antonio Gramsci, the Italian revolutionary, referred to 'good sense' co-existing alongside this 'common sense'. He meant that ideas more in line with workers' material interests, and opposed to capitalist ideology, were also part of working class consciousness.

There exists a mix of different ideas and worldviews inside the working class. It's also true that an individual can have a set of complex, contradictory set of ideas inside their head. They may (for example) be implacably opposed to public sector cuts but support the maintenance of the royal family, despite the monarchy being an institution that legitimises class privilege and inequality.

Consciousness is contradictory. It is uneven. This provides the starting point for discussing strategy and organisation for changing the world.

Reformism is, in normal circumstances, dominant inside the working class movement. This finds organised expression in the Labour Party, which is a reaction to the unambiguously ruling class politics of the Tories but also reflects the uneven consciousness of the working class. Some things are rejected; others are accepted.

The Labour Party seeks to unite a broad spectrum of opinion within a single organisation. It also aims to reconcile opposition to many aspects of capitalism with that very system. Lenin called Labour a "capitalist workers' party" because it appeals to workers and largely reflects their ideas, but is nonetheless dedicated to managing capitalism and working within its constraints.

Reformism isn't just about big social democratic parties like Labour. It is rooted in contradictory, uneven consciousness, and can find different expressions. When a new protest movement develops there are those who want to work within safe, established channels, or who insist on polite lobbying over direct confrontation. There will be those who seek compromise and negotiation, or who soften their demands.

Revolutionary organisations take a different approach. A revolutionary organisation seeks to bind together those in a small (often tiny) minority who consistently reject capitalist ideas and have a revolutionary socialist outlook. This organised revolutionary minority is characterised by clarity and agreement on political ideas, by consistency in rejecting the contradictory positions generally held by reformist parties.

This does not, however, mean rejecting the vast majority of working class people who look to the reformist organisations as an alternative to the ruling class and its political representatives. Revolutionaries relate to broader layers and work together in joint political and campaigning activity, in trade union struggles, and so on. Revolutionaries fight for reforms alongside those influenced by reformist ideas.

Those who characterise revolutionary groups as elitist or sectarian miss this vital element in what it means to be a revolutionary: not separating yourself off, to retain 'purity' of revolutionary commitment, but rather getting stuck into the struggle, being in the thick of it.

Revolutionary organisations can decay when they weaken their politics and make compromises with dominant ideas. But they can also decay when they retreat into inglorious sectarian isolation, standing aloof from the partial but important resistance to the system involving non-revolutionaries.

Revolutionary organisations can seem marginal most of the time, but in a revolutionary situation - and, as 2011 is demonstrating, these do happen - they can become critically important. An organisation built in advance, with roots in the wider working class, can play a decisive role when there is mass resistance and confrontations with the old order.



Revolutionaries, movements and class

Lenin argued that revolutionaries must be more than merely good activists in a particular sphere, e.g. solid trade unionists fighting for better pay, but should be 'tribunes of the people' championing a range of causes, linking them together, and challenging exploitation and injustice wherever it may be.

Every issue, every campaign, every act of resistance, is interconnected. Highlighting these connections, relentlessly promoting solidarity, forging links between groups - these are crucial tasks for revolutionaries. A revolutionary organisation, furthermore, is about (as Marx wrote) generalising from the historical and international experience of the working class.

It is the memory of that class struggle. But more than that: events are never a simple repetition of history, so theoretical distillation of experience (not just the reciting of it) is essential. It is probably too grand to refer to a revolutionary group as a "university of the working class", but at least in microcosm that's precisely what it is.

There are two constant tasks for any revolutionary organisation: to organise and to educate. These two processes inform each other. The world is constantly changing, so the lessons to be derived from our 'historical and international experience' are always evolving.

Each new situation must be analysed in its own right, though the analytical tools and intellectual framework may be inherited. What matters is what Lenin called the concrete analysis of the concrete situation.

Stale dogma is no guide to action. Marxist theory guiding concrete analysis is, however, invaluable in plotting next steps, in answering the "what is to be done" question. Constant interaction between theory and practice is essential.

What about the interaction between revolutionaries and wider movements of resistance? A sectarian stands apart from partial struggles - such struggles don't go far enough, or involvement in them requires 'diluting' political purity. The opposite is also a danger: becoming absorbed in specific struggles without any bigger picture of the need to smash capitalism altogether and build a different kind of society.

The alternative is to do two things simultaneously. The two interconnected poles of revolutionary organisation are political independence and participation in the broader class struggle. This is the basis of Leninism.

It means building a politically independent organisation, grouping together those who are committed to socialism from below, while taking part in movements, campaigns and trade unions in their efforts to defend existing conditions from attack or win specific reforms.

Revolutionaries' attitude to the unions can only be understood in this framework. It would be sectarian for a socialist group to distance itself from union organisation, which is vital for protecting workers against the ravages of an exploitative, profit-hungry system. Socialists take unions very seriously, and help build them, precisely because they bring together large numbers of working class people and - when they move into action - boost the confidence of our side to resist.

Anything which increases working class combativity is important. Anything which wins even small reforms, especially if it is through workers' own activity, is a boost. Victories, however minor, provide hope and act as a spur to further action.

Revolutionaries also recognise the limits of unions. They can win reforms but not end the system that breeds inequality, oppression and injustice. The same applies to all sorts of campaigns and protest movements. It is therefore necessary to maintain political and organisational independence.

This recognition of two fixed, mutually reinforcing, poles - political and organisational independence combined with participation in broad-based struggles - is the starting point for developing any kind of united front strategy, i.e. working with reformists in coalitions and campaigns across a range of issues. A united front approach is the way out of the twin dangers of sectarianism and opportunism.

The word 'vanguard', a military term meaning those in the front of the struggle or battle, is much-derided. Its use by the Leninist tradition is often viewed, perhaps understandably, as elitist.

But what can loosely be termed a vanguard is inevitable in capitalist society. If there is uneven consciousness, with the vast majority of working class people (in non-revolutionary times) partially accepting dominant ideas, a small minority which rejects capitalist ideas becomes an ideological vanguard.

If the working class is uneven in how it resists the system, a practical vanguard will be formed. This is true whether or not they are gathered together in an organisation. Lenin's point is that it makes sense for these anti-capitalists - those who are ideologically and practically consistent in opposing the system - to form an organisation.

Georg Lukacs wrote a short book on Lenin in the 1920s. He explained how this vanguard must constantly interact with the larger class. It must not cut itself off. Lukacs referred to how a revolutionary organisation must be 'always a step in front of the struggling masses... but only one step in front so that it always remains leader of their struggle.'

Lukacs stressed the combination of principle and flexibility, the latter being essential because the tempo and shape of struggle inevitably change. Revolutionaries' strategies, tactics and forms of organisation must inevitably change alongside changes in the course of resistance. He put it strongly: 'all dogmatism in theory and all sclerosis in organisation are disastrous for the party.' Strategy, tactics and organisation must be changeable.



What is democratic centralism?

The principles of democratic centralism are simple. An organisation needs democratic structures such as an elected leadership, annual delegate conferences and regular opportunities for thorough discussion of policies, tactics and so on. Leadership at every level must be accountable to the broader membership.

Furthermore, what is agreed through democratic decision-making should then be implemented in practice. There should be an internal culture of free and open discussion, in which criticism and disagreement are respected. All voices are heard and valued.

Most of this is widely accepted - not just in revolutionary organisations - as important for a group to function democratically. Similarly, 'centralism' is far from being exclusively the preserve of the revolutionary socialist tradition. It means that an organisation needs to co-ordinate and prioritise its resources (time, money etc), which requires centralised mechanisms. If decisions which have been made democratically and collectively are to be implemented there has to some centralism.

For example, a trade union has democratic structures but in order to implement decisions it is necessary to appoint full-time officers, hire office space, produce resources which can then be distributed widely, and so on. These things can be regarded as 'centralism'.

What is the alternative? If we take the issue of resources, the alternative is that each branch has to produce materials themselves, which is wasteful and leads to huge duplicating of effort. It makes sense to pool our resources - the time and skills we can offer - to be as effective as possible.

Take a revolutionary organisation like Counterfire, the hub of which is our website. Our elected editorial board (EB) oversees the website and all other national organisational matters. A number of us are specifically responsible for running the site. We are accountable to the wider EB and in turn the organisation's membership. We have regular all-members meetings, so if people are unhappy with aspects of the website or want to make changes they will soon let us know!

The website - like all other aspects of our work at national level - is therefore an example of democratic centralism in action. In Lenin's time, selling socialist newspapers provided the infrastructure for building the Bolshevik Party - paper sellers created networks of activists and supporters, in factories and communities, through sales of their newspapers. It was a very dynamic kind of democratic centralism.

But there are three further points worth making to understand what we mean by democratic centralism in the revolutionary tradition, as distinct from reformist parties, unions and broad-based campaigns.

Firstly, a revolutionary group lays huge stress on self-activity. In the Labour Party, and even more so in trade unions, the great majority of members are inactive or have a very low level of activity. In Labour it's a thin layer of activists who do almost everything, but in most revolutionary organisations a higher proportion of members will be active - and many of them will devote a great deal of their spare time to politics.

Local branches will be run by dedicated lay activists, with most members actively involved in some way. Routine discussion and democratic decision-making are essential for such an activist organisation to function effectively.

This is as true at local level as it is at national level. The initiative and dynamism of grassroots members is the driving force. Local members should not 'wait for instructions', but take a lead in their own locality, based on their local knowledge and expertise. This doesn't guarantee a democratic culture, but it certainly helps.

A second issue to consider is the relationship between local and national levels, which is different in the revolutionary and reformist traditions. In the Labour Party, leadership bodies will tend to have an ambivalent attitude to local initiative and democracy: they want activists to operate as a stage army for election canvassing and leafleting, but that's about it.

Labour leaders want to manage the system, not overthrow it, and operate within narrow parliamentary constraints. They are politically to the right of many Labour members and are preoccupied with the 'centre ground' of politics.

This political tension between leading members and grassroots members does not exist inside a revolutionary organisation. On the contrary: national leadership bodies will want maximum democratic participation from the full membership. The structural reasons for why Labour and trade union leaders are vulnerable to compromise aren't present in a revolutionary group.

For example, union leaders typically earn far more than their members (which can distance them from members' experiences), but that won't be the case in a revolutionary organisation. Labour MPs are professional politicians, but in a revolutionary organisation it's likely that lay members, i.e. those with normal jobs (or students, unemployed etc), will have leading roles far more than in a reformist party.

Thirdly, it is necessary to consider the specific nature and tasks of a revolutionary organisation, as distinct from a broad-based party or campaign. A group like Counterfire has a high level of political agreement: there won't be total agreement on all issues among all members, but there's still a large degree of political homogeneity.

The Labour Party, trade unions and campaigns like Stop the War and Coalition of Resistance are rather different. While they may have agreed national policies, they are far more politically heterogeneous. A consequence is that they are likely to adopt looser structures. Take the Green Party, which is a fairly broad church. It allows a fair amount of local autonomy, with local branches given more scope than you will find in most socialist organisations.

This is a consequence of being a different kind of organisation. Counterfire, for example, has distinctive politics and stands in a particular left-wing tradition. For it to be politically effective, local groups need to carry positions which have been agreed via the national organisation's democratic structures. It would be politically weaker if local groups could simply make up their own positions on issues. There's an important degree of centralism involved here, though it is centralism rooted in a highly democratic culture.

Let's return to the starting point in this section: the necessity of democracy. Lenin referred to the combination of 'freedom to criticise and unity of action'. Freedom of criticism is essential. No member should feel inhibited from expressing their views in meetings, conferences and discussions. Open, tolerant discussion and debate are the lifeblood of an organisation.

There may be instances of public criticism being inappropriate - if this undermines the organisation's 'unity in action' - but limiting that on occasions doesn't inhibit an organisation's internal democratic culture. The bottom line is that a revolutionary socialist organisation must be effective in action, which requires some version of the kind of democratic centralism I have outlined here.


Seizing the key link

A revolutionary organisation combines principle and flexibility. The politics remains consistent over time: marxist ideas, at the core of which is the self-emancipation of the working class, provide continuity and root practical activity in a general political understanding of the world.

Tactics are informed by changing political circumstances, however, as well as unchanging principles. Recall how Lenin insisted on a concrete analysis of a concrete situation - not the unthinking repetition of dogma. This concrete analysis in turn shapes choices of strategy and tactics at any given historical moment.

Specific tactics are formulated in that larger context: a political analysis of the whole of society, historical and international experience, and a strategic understanding of how to transform society.

Some critics of the Leninist tradition accuse revolutionary organisations of 'opportunism' because of this tactical flexibility, when in fact consistent political principle anchors tactical twists and turns in a larger political project. The same critics claim Leninism is fundamentalist dogma, so it's perhaps worth taking their words with a pinch of salt.

A number of practical points follow this understanding. It becomes obvious that at any given time there must be a clear grasp of priorities. Resources must be allocated according to an organisation's democratically agreed priorities, which evolve over time (and sometimes alter dramatically).

Priorities are influenced by analysis of the balance of forces in the struggle between classes: where there are weak points in their side, where breakthroughs are possible, where we are strongest and can be most effective. Small acts have to be seen as interconnected with much bigger struggles.

Lenin wrote:

'Every question 'runs in a vicious circle' because political life as a whole is an endless chain consisting of an infinite number of links. The whole art of politics lies in finding and taking as firm grip as we can of the link that is least likely to be struck from our hands, the one that is most important at the given moment, the one that most of all guarantees its possessor the possession of the whole chain of events.'

Occasionally there are events of great significance for revolutionaries, underpinning their political priorities over a fairly long term period. The terrorist atrocities of 11 September 2001, and the response of US imperialism, triggered a sharp re-orientation by many revolutionary socialists. Anti-imperialism became politically central and the priority was to build a broad, active anti-war movement. This rested upon prior analysis of imperialism in the modern world, but in practice a major shift in prioritising was needed.

Around September 2008, with the financial crash, the challenge of organising a response to the crisis of neoliberalism became especially crucial. Neoliberalism and US imperialism were, and are, both in crisis. September 2001 and September 2008 - the commencement of the 'war on terror' and a new economic crisis - are the defining events of this political period.

We can add important factors like the restructuring of the working class, the rise of Islamophobia and so on to this picture. Since May 2010 the neoliberal crisis has found more concrete forms in British politics too: a programme of mass austerity imposed by a Tory-led government.

In 2011 a further development has become vital for socialists everywhere: the Arab Spring, and its impact on imperialism and the dynamics of global politics. These contexts shape what we as revolutionaries do and, often in tiny ways, how we prioritise out tasks.

This all means it is necessary to, in Lenin's phrase, 'bend the stick' towards a particular priority at any given moment. It's not the case that all issues and tasks are equal. For a socialist organisation to be effective, there must be prioritising - which means 'bending the stick' to a course of action that can bring decisive breakthroughs.

Tony Cliff, in 'Building the Party' (his book about Lenin and the Bolsheviks), wrote:

'In real life the law of uneven development dominates. One aspect of the movement is decisive at any particular time. The key obstacle to advance may be a lack of party cadres, or, on the contrary, the conservatism of the party cadres may cause them to lag behind the advanced section of the class.'

This explains why not only political priorities but methods of organising can change, sometimes sharply change, at different times in a revolutionary organisation's development. What works at one stage may later become an obstacle to progress. Lenin's ideas, not to mention his record in leading the Bolshevik Party, thus remain invaluable guides for building a living, breathing and fighting organisation of socialists today.

Share

Tony Cliff: students, the radical left and the movement

Demonstrating against war in Vietnam

This is a short excerpt from Tony Cliff's autobiography, 'A World to Win'. Also see my Counterfire article on International Socialists in the 1960s.

'Student occupations took place in more and more colleges, from Manchester to Bristol, from Hornsey Art College to Hull and Essex. However, by far the most important focus for student activity was opposition to the Vietnam War.

IS branches in the localities helped to prepare the demonstration in October 1967. The result was some 30,000 people in Grosvenor Square (outside the US embassy), a confrontation with the police, and the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign’s name firmly on the political map (two more massive demonstrations followed, in March and October 1968). On the day before the mass demonstration on 27 October, an occupation took place in the LSE to provide sleeping accommodation and first aid facilities for thousands.

The demonstration was a very important test. Three Trotskyist groups were present, but each took a different position.

The Socialist Labour League (SLL), followers of Gerry Healy, came to the demonstration for one purpose only – to distribute a leaflet entitled ‘Why The Socialist Labour League Is Not Marching’. The argument was that it was not led by Marxists and not composed of workers: ‘The Socialist Labour League refuses ... to participate in the demonstration. Our task is to direct all young workers and students towards serious consideration for the theory and role of Trotskyism and the Fourth International towards the building of the revolutionary party’.

Then there was the International Marxist Group (IMG), whose characteristic was to overlook the revolutionary potential of the working class and look for the agents of socialism elsewhere: the national movement in the colonies, the peasantry, and now the ‘student vanguard’. The talk was about turning the universities into ‘red bases’.

The orthodox but ossified ‘Marxism’ of the SLL assumed that the question of how students would behave in 1968 was made clear by their behaviour during the 1926 General Strike, or by Trotsky’s article of 1910. If that is so one does not need theory, only memory.

For the impressionistic ‘Marxism’ of the IMG, on the other hand, everything changes completely. There is only change, no continuity. Hence one cannot have a theory, as one cannot generalise. The ideas of Marx shaped in the 1840s about the centrality of the working class in liberating itself, and liberating society, have no relevance for 1968.

IS members were deeply rooted in Marxist theory, but we did not live in an ivory tower. So we were quite conscious of the changes that took place. For us it was clear that students could not be a substitute for the working class but could only aid the working class in its liberation. We always looked to the student movement as a detonator. On the 27 October 1968 demonstration IS distributed a leaflet that aimed to link the anti-war struggle with the class struggle at home:

'... the battle against the wage freeze; against social service cuts; against bad housing and rent increases; against bad hospitals and schools; against unemployment; against the government’s racialist policies is the same as the battle against the Vietnam War ... In the factories workers are fighting against the wage freeze and unemployment. On the housing estates tenants are resisting rent increases. If we are to help the Vietnamese we must go on from Grosvenor Square to fight these struggles. ‘A blow against the boss is a blow against the Vietnam War.’

Today on Sunday we are demonstrating against the war in Vietnam. What will we do on Monday? We will have to go to the factories, the docks, the bus depots, to connect with the workers’ fight.

Out of the three Trotskyist groups – the SLL, the IMG and the IS – only IS built significantly out of the demonstration.

The SLL declaration of disdain for the demonstration would not have encouraged anyone among the demonstrators to join it. The IMG did not say anything the demonstrators disagreed with, but it did not raise any argument to convince the demonstrators to go beyond the point they were at at the beginning of the day. To say, ‘Victory to the National Liberation Front’ was obvious to anyone who came to the demonstration.

This has parallels with intervention in a strike situation. For example, you can stand on a picket line and next to you is a worker who makes racist comments. You can do one of three things. You can say, ‘I’m not standing on this picket line. I’m going home because no one makes racist remarks there.’ That is sectarianism, because if ‘the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class’, you have to stand with workers on a picket line against the boss.

The other possibility is simply avoiding the question. Someone makes a racist comment and you pretend you haven’t heard it, and you say, ‘The weather is quite nice today.’ That is opportunism.

The third position is that you argue with this person against racism, against the prevailing ideas of the ruling class. You argue and argue. If you convince them, excellent. But if you don’t, still when the scab lorry comes you link arms to stop the scabs, because ‘the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class’.

You cannot choose between activity and argument. Activity alone is blind. Argument alone is futile. Both must be combined in a dialectical unity, one with the other. To give a lead one has to go with the stream three quarters of the way, and against it a quarter of the way.

Our leaflets did not convince the 100,000 demonstrators, but they must have impressed a few thousand, made them think. IS was with the demonstrators but at the same time arguing with them.'

Share

International Socialists in the 1960s (Part 2)

See HERE for Part 1. The present article's publication is timed to coincide with the 10th anniversary (tomorrow) of the death of Tony Cliff, founding member of the International Socialists.

In 1964 Harold Wilson led Labour back into government, after 13 years of Tory rule. Around this time the small International Socialists (IS) organisation, with around 200 members, abandoned working in Labour Party's Young Socialists, which had in any case only ever been a temporary tactical orientation.

Having grown from just 60 members a few years earlier, IS was a young group in both senses: still a fairly new organisation, at least for most members, young recruits comprised a high proportion of members. It was during 1960-64 that Paul Foot and Chris Harman had both joined IS, as did Ian Birchall whose history of IS provides valuable material (as does Tony Cliff's memoir, A World to Win). They were part of a generation of recruits who went on to build an organisation that by the end of 1968 would have 1000 members and a weekly newspaper (the weekly Socialist Worker was launched in September 1968).

A crucial feature of the mid-1960s for IS was an increased orientation on the workplaces. Shop stewards organisation in the trade unions was strong at this time: rank and file militancy often won concessions from employers, without the union bureaucracy having much of a role. IS sought to relate its politics to these grassroots workplace militants. There were successes and failures in this, but there were enough successes to help IS increase its membership to over 400 by the start of 1968.

The most important single initative here was a pamphlet called 'Incomes policy, legislation and shop stewards', written by IS members Tony Cliff and Colin Barker. Despite IS only numbering in the hundreds, an estimated 10,000 copies were sold. Shop stewards themselves constituted a high proportion of those buying and reading this pamphlet, which articulated a distinctively socialist analysis of current government polices and advocated resistance through the power of organised workers.

The pamphlet was more than just a recruiting tool - it was evidently very useful in winning respect for IS from a layer of left-wing workplace reps. It helped give the organisation, which had few members in union positions, a sharper orientation on the rank and file of the trade union movement. Birchall recalls: 'The Incomes Policy book was an important step forward for IS. It was sold systematically by a process of visiting any discoverable contact in the labour movement. It was widely read and appreciated by militants and enabled IS to be recognised as part of a real movement, rather than as a group of talented but isolated theoreticians.'

The IS newspaper Labour Worker reflected the group's orientation, as indicated by the title, and served as an agitational tool. There was some success in involving workers in writing for the paper, which had a circulation of about 2000 in the middle of the decade (remarkably impressive for an organisation of that size). Together with the Incomes Policy pamphlet, the paper was clearly crucial in applying IS politics concretely and enabling a modest group to reach a much wider audience.

The more theoretical publication, International Socialism, played a central part in giving IS distinctive theoretical and political positions. Its theoretical edge was an important part of why socialists didn't just join IS but became actively involved and remained members in the long term. Birchall writes: 'By the end of 1967 the membership had increased slowly but significantly over 400 as against 200-odd when Labour came to power. More important, it was a membership geared, not simply to arguing the line, but. to making interventions, albeit usually very low-level, ones, and to servicing the ongoing struggle. Without the base, and even more importantly, the orientation established in this period, the break-through of 1968 could not have taken place.'

1968 was indeed the big breakthrough: membership more than doubled in less than a year. Just as importantly, IS members were actively involved in a mass movement - the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign mobilised tens of thousands in demonstrations. Opposition to the US war in Vietnam reached its peak, against the backdrop of political upheavals internationally that fed a radical political atmosphere amongst a layer of British youth.

In this climate IS was able to take decisive initiatives like launching a weekly newspaper, as well as intervening in anti-war protests, playing a leading role in student direct action and recruting students in large numbers. The weekly Socialist Worker launched in September was only 4 pages and had modest circulation. But by 1972 it had grown to 16 pages and circulation increased enormously.

There was nothing inevitable about IS building successfully out of the events of 1968. It required a sharp turn to organising in the colleges and thorough, non-sectarian involvement in the Vietnam solidarity movement. Tony Cliff, for example, records in his memoir that he personally spent several weeks visiting the London School of Econmoics (LSE) every day and debating with students in the canteen. Intervening in the big anti-war demonstrations meant enthusiastic particpation but also a willingness to engage in serious arguments. Simply repeating anti-war slogans wasn't enough to win increasingly radical students and young workers to revolutionary Marxism.

Some IS old-timers - which in that context meant those who had been members for 5 years or so - were unsettled by the influx of new members, worrying about the politics being liquidated and so on. There were serious tensions, as a consequence of rapid growth combined with the heady atmosphere of 1968 creating such upheaval in the organisation, but IS survived the debates and intense factional disputes.

The majority of the leadership, around Tony Cliff, argued successfully for greater centralism and cohesion. For example, the new Socialist Worker needed to carry a clear editorial line on issues of the day. This required an elected national leadership providing political direction, with a small team of journalists accountable to the organisation.

Democracy at every level was essential. Local groups of IS members had to discuss and plan local activity in a nationally-agreed framework. Free, open discussion and debate were vital. At the same time it couldn't be feasible for every headline in the newspaper to be subject to votes at members' meetings! A democratic centralist combination of free discussion and cohesive action and organisation was required.

The organisation of 1000 grew to over 3000 by 1974. During those years Socialist Worker's circulation rose to a peak of up to 40,000. IS developed, in these years of upturn for working class struggle, a significant implantation in grassroots union organisation (and at one stage there were as many as 40 factory-based branches).

The early 1970s were far more favourable times for revolutionary socialists than most of the previous decade, largely due to high levels of industrial militancy and the way in which strikes cohered to challenge the Tory government's authority. It was possible for a revolutionary organisation to take leaps forward. However, it was only in a position to do so because of the persistent work in the 1960s, transforming a tiny group of 60 into a credible organisation of 1000 by the close of 1968.

Picture: anti-Vietnam war protest, 1968

Birthday blog post: revolutionaries today

Luna17 is one year old today. I started the blog on 19 March 2009 as a means of promoting the ideas and the kinds of activism I consider important. Throughout the last year I've sought to give it a clear orientation on 'offline' campaigning, which reflects my own political activism. While I only occasionally blog directly about my own activities, I often use this blog as a platform for promoting particular events and campaigns.

My initial impetus was that I knew of no left-wing blogs in the North East of England. I intended to plug that gap, but I quickly dropped the idea of devoting lots of space to local events and issues. This was mainly because I realised that most people checking out Luna17 weren't local, so I'd be limiting its reach if I preoccupied myself with local material.

I make a point of posting a wide range of material, in terms of the topics covered but also the kind of material: news reports, commentaries, videos, links to others, the occasional theoretical piece. For this birthday posting, I thought I'd select a small number of my more analytical writings. The common theme is the revolutionary tradition and socialist strategy.

The revolutionary tradition: standing on the shoulders of giants

Tweeting Trotsky

Revolutionary leadership and democracy

The future of the revolutionary party

Lenin, Lukacs and the actuality of the revolution

Note: The first post is from my temporary blog, compiled last summer, devoted to Tony Cliff.

International Socialists in the 1960s (Part 1)

The 1960s was a decade of huge growth for the International Socialists (predecessors of the Socialist Workers Party in the UK). A thousand members by the end of the tumultuous year of 1968 may not seem special, but the organisation was tiny - around 60 members - at the start of the decade. To grow from 60 to 1000 in less than ten years is extraordinary. It is interesting to survey this period of growth and identify some crucial factors and turning points.

IS entered the 1960s as the Socialist Review Group, founded in 1950 due to a split from the main Trotskyist organisation in the country, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). It barely grew up to 1960, but then things changed. By 1964 there were at least 200 IS members (the name had changed in December 1962) and by the start of 1968 this had doubled to 400. During the course of '68 a sharp orientation on radicalised students and the anti-war movement helped enable a surge in membership.

The organisation was theoretically distinctive mainly because of its theory of state capitalism, which understood the Soviet Union and its satellite states in Eastern Europe as a particular form of capitalism - this distinguished the group even from other Trotskyists. The core idea was summed up by the line 'Neither Washington nor Moscow but international socialism', whereas most Trotskyists (never mind the broader left) viewed the Soviet Union as at least a degenerated form of workers' state. The group's theorising was primarily associated with Tony Cliff.

But just as important as the theory and political analysis was an orientation on interventions (however small) in the outside world, unlike far-left sects that tended to bicker with each other and pay little attention to what lay beyond. This reflected a deep concern with recovering the real tradition of revolutionary Marxism - the red thread of authentic socialism from below - and commitment to embodying and applying that (rather than seeking ideological purity). Theoretical clarity and an external orientation were vital in pushing the small group forward in a climate dominated by much larger forces like the Communist Party.

CND's activities in the early 60s proved a useful milieu for SR group members, but it was involvement in the newly-launched Labour Party Young Socialists that drove membership and levels of activity forward in the early 1960s. Ian Birchall, historian of IS/SWP (his biography of Cliff is forthcoming), writes: 'It is against the background of the growth of the CND that the decision by the Labour Party, in February 1960, to launch a new national youth movement, the Young Socialists, must be seen. The Labour leaders were deeply distressed by a decade out of office, a continuing inability to attract young voters, and the sight of thousands of energetic young potential canvassers wasting their time on anti-Bomb marches. They had no affection for youth movements, which were traditionally inclined to be well to the left of the Party...

So the bureaucrats gritted their teeth and launched the Young Socialists-and moreover gave it a relatively liberal constitution. In the short term it paid off – by the Spring of 1961 Transport House was claiming 726 YS branches, and the first national conference had over three hundred delegates. There was a large new spool of fresh fish, and every Trotskyist grouping in existence was getting its fishing rod ready.'

The SR group launched a new paper called Young Guard, in September 1961, to relate to this phenomenon. It wasn't exclusively the group's preserve, but SR group members were central to it. This publication and the network around it were somewhat unconventional, at the same time as remaining faithful to Marxist politics: 'It was part of the success of Young Guard that it was able to break out of the traditional milieu of revolutionary politics. The cultural atmosphere around Young Guard – characterised mainly by beer-drinking and folk-singing – may not have met the approval of revolutionary purists or puritans, but it enabled a new generation of young workers to move towards the traditions of Marxist Politics.'

One of the interesting things about this period is how different elements - Marxist ideas, class struggle, movement work - related to each other. Here's Birchall: 'The young people who were turning to socialism in this period were mainly workers – manual or white-collar – but they had no traditions of trade union organisation. The typical political evolution of a young comrade at this time was as follows: first get involved in CND demonstrations, then join the Young Socialists, and, via Young Guard, come into IS. It was probably only after this that the comrade was persuaded of the importance of going to his union branch meeting.'

It is interesting to note that young workers constituted a high proportion of new members and periphery, but they weren't from traditional union backgrounds (and this was at a time when unions were stronger, with deeper traditions of shop stewards organisation, than today). Relating systematically to a wider movement - CND, in this case - was evidently vital for SRG/IS connecting with these young workers. It is also obvious from this account that the publication, Young Guard, was vital in forging those links.

Birchall also indicates the centrality of ideas - of a high political level and theoretical clarity - in strengthening the fledgling organisation: 'Recruits were being made on the basis of ideas rather than activity. Indeed, IS did not have activity of its own, distinct from participating in the activities of the Young Socialists and CND. And the process was not, in strict terms, a radicalisation inside the Labour Party. Those who came to IS at this time, were not longstanding Labour Party members, but young people who had come in around the CND mobilisation.'

It was Marxist ideas that allowed the group to recruit and grow rapidly, despite not having its own independent activity. Immersion in broader campaigns and forums - with a highly flexible approach - combined with political clarity and distinctiveness took the group from 60 to 200 members in just a few years. By 1964 problems of sectarianism in YS, together with the Labour Party's animosity towards it, meant it was no longer a productive milieu for IS - and consequently tactics and orientation changed.

Birchall writes, of the mid-60s: 'It was during this time that the political and organisational style which was to characterise IS began to develop. This had two main features. The first was a sense of proportion, of the relative insignificance of IS as an organisation. When IS had two hundred members, and the SLL, at best, twice that many, the question at stake was not the “crisis of leadership”, the struggle for control between groups of which 98 per tent of workers had never heard. It was the much more modest task of educating those who were around to listen and of striking roots in the class in a small way where this was possible.

The second feature was an awareness that the revolutionary organisation had to be built inside the working class and not in isolation from it. The question was one of involving and developing comrades, not of building walls to preserve the purity of the embryonic party. Hence the flexible attitude to membership taken by the IS group. New comrades were involved in activity, participated in meetings and – somewhat unsystematically – were introduced to the group’s political positions. This was important in that the comrades, while being aware that they were in a tiny minority, felt themselves part of a broader movement – CND or Labour Party left – and thus never had the sense of isolation from reality so easily generated by sectarian politics.'

I quote this at length because, it seems to me, both those aspects are vitally important. The orientation on wider movements and struggles prevented a sense of isolation while keeping members in constant contact with reality. It encouraged an open, non-sectarian attitude. Part of this was a series of attempts to relate to workplace resistance, in however modest a way. A paper Industrial Worker (renamed Labour Worker shortly after) was launched in 1961 and included articles written by industrial militants. Birchall writes: 'By 1964 Labour Worker had achieved a circulation of over 2,000, and in April 1964 the first Labour Worker conference was held in London, attracting about 150 people. This put the main stress on the coming Labour government and the threat of incomes policy. Steps were being taken to prepare for the struggles to come.'

This is Part 1 of 2. The second part will take this brief history up to the end of 1968.

Picture: CND's Ban the Bomb march from Aldermaston, 1 March 1963