Even a cursory read of the book will show this to be the
case. If proof were needed, then it can be found in the opening of the book
which carries a quote from the political scoundrel Tariq Ali who says "the
only real alternative to capitalist policies is provided by the revolutionary
left groups as a whole. Despite their smallness and their many failings,
they represent the only way forward".[1]
Not only do the authors agree with Ali's political
opportunism, but they also excuse his betrayal and other left groups as well. Ali is an expert in political opportunism as demonstrated by
his decades-long political record. The editors have produced a book that is nothing
more than an apology for the political perspectives of the various pseudo-left
organisations in Britain. A book by radicals for radicals. Alternatively, as
Mark Perryman describes as "one for the activists, the old hands for the
nostalgia trip of reading of old battles, the new wave to read of past mistakes
and dream of not repeating them."
If there is a theme running through this book, it is to
boost the credentials of Tariq Ali and all the Pseudo Left, Stalinist and
Anarchist groups. It is also a thinly veiled polemic against orthodox
Trotskyism whether represented by Socialist Labour League under Gerry Healy or
the Socialist Equality Party(SEP).
Firstly a correction is needed. Evans and Worley state "The
genesis of post-war British Trotskyism can be traced back to the Revolutionary
Communist Party (RCP), which contained all of the subsequent leading figures of
the Trotskyist movement and held the position of the official British
representative of the Fourth International between 1944 and 1949. The RCP made
some headway in the rank and file of the trade unions, particularly by
supporting strikes when the CPGB was still promoting co-operation with the
government, as well as in the anti-fascist activism against Mosley's newly-formed
Union Movement. However, the RCP soon split over questions concerning entrism
within the Labour Party and how the Fourth International should view the 'People's
Democracies' of Eastern Europe". [2]
This quote is misleading because it leaves out the main
reason for disagreement being whether national sections would subordinate their
program to that of the Fourth International or as Trotsky put it "The
construction of a revolutionary tendency is possible only on the basis of an
internationalist perspective. As Leon Trotsky insisted in 1928: "In our
epoch, which is the epoch of imperialism, i.e., of the world economy and world
politics under the hegemony of finance capital, not a single communist party
can establish its programme by proceeding solely or mainly from conditions and
tendencies of developments in its own country. In the present epoch, to a much
larger extent than in the past, the national orientation of the proletariat
must and can flow only from a world orientation and not vice versa. Herein lies
the basic and primary difference between communist internationalism and all
varieties of national socialism".[3]
This intellectual sloppiness sets the tone for the rest of
the book in that all the authors are either hostile or indifferent to orthodox
Marxism. The fact that the Fourth International in its modern form the (ICFI)
International Committee of the Fourth International and the parties belonging
to it rarely get much of a mention is indicative of the political persuasion of
the editors. Why, for instance, does Red Action get a whole chapter and the
history of the International Committee of the Fourth International in Britain
does not get a single mention.
Chapter I Movements- Engaging with Trotsky: The influence of
Trotskyism in Britain (pp. 25-44)John Callaghan.John Callaghan's chapter discusses the attitude of some
leading British intellectuals towards Leon Trotsky. One such intellectual
Bertrand Russell while noting Trotsky's 'lightning intelligence', said he
was "vane although had charisma". He did not regard Trotsky as Lenin's
equal.
It comes as no surprise that Trotsky was attacked by
the already Stalinist dominated Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who
depicted Trotsky's work "as disruptive factionalism".Callaghan produces some interesting analysis of George
Orwell's response to the Russian Revolution and its co-leader Leon Trotsky.
However, I do not agree with his assertion that Orwell did not think Trotsky's
analysis of the Stalinism was accurate. While Orwell it is true did not agree
with everything Leon Trotsky wrote he was influenced enough to write Animal
Farm and 1984. Without Trotsky, these books would not have been written or
would have taken very different forms.
As Andy Reiss writes "Orwell's book is a skilful
metaphor about the degeneration of the Soviet Union which accords in many
respects to Trotsky's analysis. Thus when Snowball (that is, Trotsky) after the
great battle demands that pigeons are sent to neighbouring farms—to
bring about revolutions there as well—Napoleon (Stalin) disagrees. This refers to
Trotsky's insistence on world revolution, to which Stalin opposed his concept
of "Socialism in one country".[4]
Chapter 2 The New Left: Beyond Stalinism and social
democracy? (pp. 45-61) Paul Blackledge
According to Blackledge "The British New Left emerged
in 1956 as a response to a global ideological crisis that opened with
Khrushchev's secret speech, but which came to fruition when the revolutionary
workers' movement in Hungary was suppressed by Russian tanks on the same
weekend that Anglo-French troops invaded Egypt. Together these events created a
space for a critique of the world system as a totality".
An alternative scenario is that the collapse of Stalinism
and Khrushchev's secret speech condemning Stalin caught the majority of the
pseudo-left groups by surprise and unprepared. The majority of these groups had
adapted their politics on the basis that the Stalinist regimes would last
forever and that Stalinism would dominate world politics for a long time to
come.
The most open expression of this accommodation was the
development of Pabloism. "Pabloism replaced the Trotskyist movement's
characterisation of Stalinism as counter-revolutionary with a theory that
attributed to the Kremlin bureaucracy and its agencies a historically
progressive and revolutionary role. Rather than working for the overthrow of
the Stalinist regimes in a series of political revolutions, the Pabloites
foresaw a process of bureaucratic self-reform, with Trotskyists acting as
advisers to the Stalinist leaders, urging them toward a more left-wing course.
The "deformed workers states" of Eastern Europe, ruled by the local
Stalinist agents of the Kremlin regime, were destined, according to Pablo and
Mandel, to last for centuries.[5].
It is no surprise that Blackledge in this chapter at no
point discusses the analysis put forward by the orthodox Trotskyist group The Socialist
Labour League (SLL). Blackledge spends much time Discussing Edward P Thompson's
response to the crisis of Stalinism. Thompson spent most of his academic
career distancing himself from his life in the British Communist Party.
His criticism of Stalinism was not from an orthodox Marxist position. Instead,
he advocated a "socialist humanism" approach. Thompson at an early
age rejected classical Marxism represented by Leon Trotsky despite later
breaking with Stalinism it is clear that Thompsons' subsequent historical and political
writings to a lesser extent were still imbued with Stalinist influences.
While the Communist Party of Britain did attract a large
number of distinguished historians, this was still an appalling training school
and E P Thompson never entirely abandoned all that he learned there. For the orthodox Marxists or Trotskyists in the Fourth
International which was led in Britain by Gerry Healy of the Socialist Labour
League (SLL), the crisis within the British Communist party was an opportunity
to insist on the counter-revolutionary nature of Stalinism. Many of the best
figures from the CP — Cliff Slaughter, Tom Kemp and Peter Fryer
were won to orthodox or classical Marxism.
Thompson was not one of them despite being portrayed as
being at the centre of a "Marxist revival." Marxists inside the SLL
were hostile to the New Reasoner's politics but were open to debate. In an
article from Labour Review October –November 1959 Healy was mindful of the
sharp polemics that Thompson had been involved in sought in his article called
- The New left Must Look to the Working Class to open a debate with Thompson
and his supporters.
Healy did not mince his words when he said "What
strikes one immediately on reading E P Thompson's article is that he entirely
omits the working class; consequently there is no attempt to analyse the
relationship between the Left of today and the working class. One would imagine
that the New Left had just arrived and existed in a world of its own. The
opposite, of course, is the case. The New Left is not just a grouping of people
around some new ideas that they have developed independently.
This new
development on the Left reflects a particular phase in the elaboration of the
crisis of capitalism, which for socialists is the crisis of the working-class
movement. Like movements among intellectuals and students in the past, the
recent emergence of the new Left is the advance warning of a resurgence of the
working class as an active political force in Britain. The crisis, which is the
basis of such action finds its first reflection in the battle of ideas."
From the early years of Thompson's magazine New Reasoner, it
was clear that he did not intend to have a debate with the Trotskyists. Despite
Healy trying to have cordial relations with Thompson and his supporters it
became increasingly clear that Thompson did not see the Trotskyist's around
Healy as being a part of the working class. Healy's response was to say that "Comrade
Thompson seems to have cast away all the luggage, he was equipped within the
Communist Party except one soiled old suitcase labelled anti-Trotskyism."
Thompson's response to the SLL was to accuse it of factionalism. An epithet I
might add that has been levelled at the Trotskyist movement throughout its
history.
Chapter 4 Marching separately, seldom together: The
political history of two principal trends in British Trotskyism, 1945–2009-Phil
Burton-Cartledge.Burton-Cartledge writes "Their opponents in the
International Marxist Group and the Socialist Labour League/Workers' Revolutionary
Party (SLL/WRP) each met limited success and influence in the labour movement
and The broader social movements, but by the end of the 1980s both had
splintered into very small competing groups".
Like many other academics who write on the Trotskyist
movement, Burton-Cartledge believes that a group's worth is measured not in
defence of principles or what program or history they represent and defend but
in numbers. At no point does he offer a serious examination of the
political relationship between both the SWP and SP and their respective
relationship to the Communist Party and the Labour Party. As Chris Marsden
points out "The SWP has for many years calculated that the rightward
course of the Labour government would lead to a split-off by a section of the
Labour Party and the trade unions, for which it could serve as "left"
adviser.
However, the attempt to constitute a new party on such a perspective
has ended in abject failure because, to date, no significant section of the
bureaucracy has broken with Labour". One example, which is not in the book of the duplicity of
these organisations is their support for the demand that WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange be extradited to Sweden.
Both the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party go
along with the propaganda of the media that Assange should face rape charges.
The purpose of frame-up is in order for the United States, Britain, Sweden and
other governments to silence him and destroy WikiLeaks.
Opposition in slow motion: The CPGB's 'anti-revisionists' in
the 1960s and 1970s (pp. 98-114) Lawrence Parker.One of the remits given by the editors of this book seems to
find the most obscure political development and write about it. Why else would
Parker be given a chapter in the book on this group of hard-line Stalinists?
Chapter 7 British anarchism in the era of Thatcherism (pp.
133-152)-Rich Cross
As Cross brings out in this chapter, the rise of Thatcher
also corresponded with the growth anarchism. It would be a mistake which to his
credit Cross does not make to say that it represented a movement of the working
class. While there was a significant movement of the working class whose high
and low point was the miner's struggle in 1984-85 it should be noted that all
the anarchist groups at the time and now reject an orientation to the working
as this is rooted in their petty-bourgeois scepticism towards the revolutionary
capacity of the working class.
Stuart Hall
As is mentioned in the book this period from a theoretical
standpoint was dominated by two essays, Stuart Hall's 'The Great Moving Right Show' and
Eric Hobsbawm's 'The Forward March of Labour Halted?' (published in Marxism
Today in late 1978)
Hall should be remembered as being credited with inventing
the term Thatcherism". A large amount of Hall's work appeared in Marxism
Today, the journal associated with the Euro-communist wing of the CPGB. In that
journal, Hall had a fondness for attacking orthodox Trotskyism and usually used
Antonio Gramsci to make his point. His essay 'The Great Moving Right Show' is
no exception he writes "One also encounters in this discussion
variants of "revolutionary optimism" and "revolutionary
pessimism". The pessimists argue that we must not rock the boat, or
demoralise the already dispersed forces of the Left. To them, one can only
reply with Gramsci's injunction: to address ourselves "violently"
towards the present as it is if we are serious about transforming it. The
optimists cast doubt on the doubters: look for the points of resistance—the
class struggle continues. Of course, in one sense, they are right. We must look
behind the surface phenomena; we must find the points of intervention; we must
not underestimate the capacity for resistance and struggle. However, if we are
correct about the depth of the rightward turn, then our interventions need to
be pertinent, decisive and effective. Whistling in the dark is an occupational
hazard not altogether unknown to the British Left".[6]
Gramsci was attractive to Hall not only because of his
cultural writings but as Paul Bond writes in his essay on Hall "for his
attacks on economic determinism, his explicit rejection of the theory of
Permanent Revolution and his justification of the nationalist orientation of
Stalinism: As Gramsci declared, "To be sure, the line of development is
toward internationalism, but the point of departure is 'national'—and it
is from this point of departure that one must begin".
Hobsbawm
While Hall was not a Stalinist Hobsbawm was. It would
not be an overstatement to say that Marxism Today was fanatically hostile
to orthodox Marxism. The journal played a huge role in bringing New Labour to
power. The historian Eric Hobsbawm played no small part in that development.
It did not come as a surprise that Hobsbawm's writing on
Labour history brought him closer to the Labour Party. He was made a Companion
of Honour. A rarity for a historian especially of his political persuasion.
Hobsbawm was lauded from both sides of bourgeois democracy in Britain. Labour
leader Ed Miliband said Prof Hobsbawm was "an extraordinary historian, a
man passionate about his politics and a great friend of his family". His
historical works brought hundreds of years of British history to hundreds of
thousands of people. He brought history out of the ivory tower and into
people's lives. However, he was not simply academic; he cared deeply about the
political direction of the country. Indeed, he was one of the first people to
recognise the challenges to Labour in the late 1970s and 1980s from the
changing nature of our society."
In this respect, Milliband says more than he intended.
Hobsbawm was a primary theoretical architect of the right-wing shift of New
Labour. During his membership of the "Eurocommunist" wing of the CPGB
and his time with the Marxism Today theoretical journal, he wrote many articles
urging Labour to adopt a more right-wing trajectory. In 1978 he wrote the essay
"The Forward March of Labour Halted". Which, in many ways, laid the
basis for Labours future development? "If anything, I was an extremely
right-wing Communist and generally attacked by the leftists, including the
leftists in the Labour Party".
Hobsbawm relationship with the origins of New Labour is
explored in an article by Chris Marsden, which reveals Stalinism's role in
spawning new Labour. Marsden said the Communist Party of Great Britain "Euro-Communist"
tendency acted as the midwife of New Labour." Marsden continues with the
observation that Marxism Today of which Hobsbawm was a frequent writer for laid
the "ideological framework for what was to become New Labour was first
established in the editorial offices of Marxism Today. Moreover, it was mostly
made possible to implement the project so defined due above all to the
liquidation of the Soviet Union".
Something new under the sun: The revolutionary Left and gay
politics (pp. 173-189) Graham Willett- Anti-racism and the socialist Left,
1968–79
(pp. 209-228)Satnam Virdee and 'Vicarious pleasure'? The British far left and
the third world, 1956–79 (pp.
190-208)-Ian Birchall- Anti-racism
and the socialist Left, 1968–79. Narratives of radical lives: The
roots of 1960s activism and the making of the British Left (pp. 62-79) Celia
Hughes- Anti-fascism in Britain, 1997–2012 (pp. 247-263)-David
Renton
From an editorial viewpoint, these chapters of the book should
have been dealt with separately, but from a theoretical sense, they should be
discussed together because they all come under the field of Cultural studies.
One of the leading proponents of this revisionist field was Stuart Hall. Many
of the genres above are a branch of the Cultural studies tree. From the start,
Cultural Studies was opposed to revolutionary Marxism primarily in the form of
its contemporary expression, Trotskyism. As Paul Bond writes "The academic
field sought to shift the focus of social criticism away from class and onto
other social formations, thus promoting the development of identity politics.
Its establishment, in the final analysis, was a hostile response to the gains
made by the Trotskyist movement in Britain from the 1950s onwards".
Conclusion
It is hard to know where to begin with these concluding
remarks. While this book and the sequel have undoubtedly been attacked from the
right, this review is an attack from the Left. My question to the authors is
how far did you go to get an orthodox Marxist to write a chapter in allowing
the record to be set straight. It would appear from both books not very far.
[1] The Coming British Revolution:
Tariq Ali
[2] Against the Grain: the British
Far Left from 1956. Edited by Evan Smith and Matthew Worley. Manchester
University Press, 2014. 272 pp. ISBN 978-0-7190-9590-0
[3] Leon Trotsky (1972) The Third
International After Lenin, Pathfinder Press
[4]Animal Farm: a new version on US
television by Andy Reiss 12 November 1999 - https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/11/anim-n12.html
[5] Preface to the
thirtieth-anniversary edition of The Heritage We Defend
By David North -21 June 2018
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/06/21/heri-j21.html
[6] 'The Great Moving Right Show' http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/79_01_hall.pdf
