ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From International Socialism, No.48, June/July 1971, pp.29-30.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
|
Early in 1926 Trotsky wrote a series of letters in which he analysed the developing situation in Britain. His conclusions were far different from those of Stalin’s hatchetmen, who were increasingly dominant in the Comintern and effectively decided the line of the British CP at the time. Unfortunately the bureaucratisation of the Comintern meant that Trotsky’s counter-arguments were ignored. His analyses of the ‘lefts’ in Britain were not published (in the journal Communist International, number 22) until after the strike had been sold out. However, they predicted with typical incisiveness, the role that people like Hicks and Purcell were to play. His comments remain important today at a time when a new militancy among many workers is reflected in a new ‘leftism’ among some trade union leaders. |
The struggle for a united front is of such great significance in England because it responds to the elementary demands of the working class for a new orientation and grouping of forces. This being the case the question of the united front raises the question of leadership, ie of programme and tactics, and this means the question of the Party. But the struggle for the united front itself does not solve this problem, it only creates certain conditions for its solution. The ideological and organisational formation of a real revolutionary Party on the basis of a mass movement is only conceivable under conditions of a continuous, systematic, unwavering, untiring and naked denunciation of the muddles, compromises and indecision of the quasi-left leaders of all shades. It would be the most profound error to think that the tasks of the united front consist in securing the victory of Purcell, Lansbury, Wheatley and Kirkwood over Snowden, Webb and MacDonald (and a tendency to such a viewpoint is to be observed). Such an aim would contain an inner contradiction. The left wing muddlers are not capable of power; and if in the course of events power got into their hands, they would hasten to hand it over to their elder brothers on the right. They would act in the government in the same way as they do now in the Labour Party ... (6 January 1926)
The left fraction in the higher trade union organs has the General Council in tow on a number of questions. This is most clearly expressed in respect of the Soviet trade unions and Amsterdam (i.e. the anti-Communist, Social-Democrat trade union international – Ed.) But it would be erroneous to overestimate the influence of these left wingers over the trade unions as organisations of class struggle. This is not because the trade union masses are insufficiently radical; on the contrary the masses are immeasurably more left than the left wingers themselves. In the British labour movement international questions have always been the line of least resistance for the ‘leaders’. Regarding international matters as a means of giving vent to the radical moods of the masses, these esteemed leaders are prepared to a certain extent even to bow to a revolution (in other countries), so that they can take still, more revenge on questions of internal class struggle. The left fraction of the General Council is distinguished by its complete ideological shapelessness and therefore is incapable of organisationally reinforcing its leadership of the trade union movement ... (7 January 1926)
... Left leaders like Purcell, Cook and Bromley ... foretold that the Labour Conference would be marked by a big move to the left. Things proved to be quite the contrary: only a few weeks after the Scarborough Trade Union Congress, it gave a complete victory to MacDonald. To ignore this fact, to hush it up, to minimise it or to explain it away by chance secondary causes would mean playing the fool and going headlong towards defeat.
Fundamentally the Party has the same basis as the higher trade union organs. But the General Council, whose powers are extremely limited, has no authority over the separate unions, let alone over the whole country. The Labour Party, however, has been in power and once more is preparing to take the reins of government. There lies the crux of the matter.
The Liberal Manchester Guardian writing on the Scarborough Conference stated that the influence of Moscow was to be seen in the left wing phraseology alone, but that in practice the trade unions remain under the leadership of wise and experienced leaders. Of course, the Liberal paper needs consolation, but, nevertheless, there is no small degree of truth in its assertion. The more left the Congress decisions are, the further away they are from immediate practical tasks. Of course the leftism of the decisions is symptomatic and marks a volte face in the consciousness of the masses. But to think that the leaders of the Scarborough Congress could become leaders of a revolutionary upheaval would be lulling oneself to sleep with illusions. It is enough to recall that there were 3,802,000 votes in favour of the right of oppressed nationalities to self-determination even including separation, against only 79,000. What a revolutionary move this would appear to be! Meanwhile, for the creation of factory committees, and even then only in principle, there were altogether 2,183,000 against 1,787,000 – in other words the conference was divided practically in half. On the question of granting increased power to th General Council the left wingers suffered complete defeat. Is it surprising then if, after all these left resolutions, the General Council proved to be more right than the old one? It should be understood that leftism of this kind remains left so long as it has no practical obligations. But as soon as the question of action arises, the left wingers respectfully concede the leadership to the right. (12 January 1926)
A spontaneous radicalisation of the trade unions, marking a profound movement among the masses, is quite inadequate in itself to free the working class from the leadership of Thomas and MacDonald. In England national bourgeois ideology is a powerful force not only of public opinion, but also of institutions centuries old. ‘Radical’ trade unionism crashes against this force and will continue to do so, so long as it is led by centrists who do not carry things to their logical conclusions.
While the trade unions are fraternising with the Soviet trade unions which are led by Communists, the British Labour Party based on the same trade unions hounds the Communists out of its ranks at Liverpool (the Labour Party Conference – Ed.) thereby preparing the destruction of their organisations by the government and fascists. It would be criminal to forget for a moment that such left wingers as Brailsford and even Lansbury in substance approved the decision of the Liverpool Congress, blaming the Communists for everything. It is true that when indignation at the reactionary police spirit of Liverpool was revealed from below, the ‘left’ leaders slightly changed their course. But in order to get a proper estimate of them we must take both factors into consideration. Revolutionaries need a good memory. The ‘left’ gentlemen do not have a policy of their own. In the future also they will swing to the right under the pressure of the masses. In difficult moments these most pious Christians are always prepared to play the role, if not of Herod, at least of Pontius Pilate, and in the future many difficult moments await the British working class ... (13 January 1926)
In Great Britain, more than in all the rest of Europe, the consciousness of the working masses, particularly of the leading strata, lags behind the objective economic situation. In this direction the main difficulties and dangers now lie. All shades of leaders of the British labour movement fear action, because the historic hopelessness of British capitalism directly confronts any important problem of the British labour movement. This particularly concerns the mining industry ...
Great Britain is entering an entire historic phase of great upheavals. It is only the conservative British trade unionists who can wait for an ‘economic’ solution of the problems. But it is because the British trade unionists are directing their efforts towards an ‘economic’ (i.e. peaceful, compromising, conservative) solution of the problem (i.e. are going counter to the historic process) that the revolutionary development of the working class in Britain will have greater overhead charges in the forthcoming period than in any other country. Both the right wingers and the left wingers have the greatest fear of commencing the final action. Even when they verbally admit the inevitability of struggle and revolution, they hope in their hearts of hearts for some kind of miracle which will deliver them from this prospect. At any rate they will themselves put a brake of the movement, will evade, will wait and see, will refer to others and, in reality, will help Thomas in any important problem of the British labour movement (they are much more courageous in respect to international questions).
Here we may characterise the general situation as of follows: The economic cul-de-sac in which the country finds itself, which is most clearly expressed in the mining industry, impels it on the path of more and more acute struggle. And the first stage of the struggle inevitably reveals the inadequacy of the ‘customary’ methods of struggle. The entire present superstructure of the British working class – in all tendencies and groupings without exception – represents an apparatus acting as a brake upon the revolution. This augurs for a long period the pressure of spontaneous or semi-spontaneous movement against the framework of the old organisations.
One of the most important tasks is to aid the Communist Party of Great Britain to understand and think things out in the light of this perspective. In the trade union apparatus and in its left wing, it is necessary to select immeasurably more energetically and decisively than hitherto elements of action, i.e. those elements which are capable of understanding the inevitability of great mass struggles, of not fearing them, and of making the best of them. The united front tactic should be put forward more and more decisively in the light of this perspective ...
There is an unlimited supply of restraining elements in the apparatus of the British working class. The entire situation may be summed up by saying that the alarm, discontent and pressure of the British working masses clash all along the line against the organisational and ideological barriers of the conservative union apparatus. Under these conditions to be anxious about how we can aid impatient leaders means nothing more than pouring water into the ocean.
Everything goes to show that during the coming period (I have in view one, twp or three years) the struggle will break out in England against the will of the old organisations and with complete unpreparedness of the young organisations. Of course, even with the firm revolutionary (i.e. active) establishment of the Communist Party and the best ‘left’ elements it should not be supposed that the proletariat would come to power as a result of the first great wave. But the question is this: will the left wing come through the first revolutionary stage at the head of the working masses, as we did in 1905, or will it let slip the opportunity of the revolutionary situation as the German Party did in 1923? This latter danger is extremely real. It may be diminished only by aiding the left wing to find the proper orientation for action (the real left wing and not Lansbury or Purcell). And in order to solve this problem it must be clearly understood that all the traditions, the organisational customs and the ideas of all former groupings in the labour movement – in various forms and under various slogans – predispose them either to betrayal, or to compromise, or else to a policy of wait and see with reference to compromisers ... (5 March 1926)
ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 6.2.2008