By: Brian. S

Brian. S — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:30:06 +0000

I’m glad someone has raised the issue of the way in which SWP-US policies were transmitted into other parts of the FI. The suggestion that the “turn to industry” was a considered and thought out strategic initiative by the 11th World Congress is not my impression. World Congresses by their nature have a lot on their plate, and I can’t recall exactly how this decision was consummated nor how much explicit deliberation was devoted to it. I certainly don’t remember it featuring prominently in the pre-congress discussion in the British section. In my view, it was basically a deal agreed to by Mandel as the price for reconciliation with the SWP-US and recementing the unity of the International. It was reinforced by Ernest’s concern over the decline or stagnation of the largest sections, and a fear that the “moment of 68” was slipping away. It was a “quick fix” mistakenly calculated to solve a deep set of strategic problems.
It was fatally flawed because it substituted sociological reasoning for political judgement: the turn was to “industry” rather than the workers movement. I remember a painful discussion somewhere in the British section (Central Committee?) about whether the Post Office (where we had an embryonic but significant political nucleus) qualified as an “industry. I don’t know how this thorny issue was eventually resolved, but I fear not sensibly. (God knows how our important teachers group survived, but somewhow they seem to.) Given the open and uid character of the British labour movement, the results of this barren formula were mixed: some comrades went on to occupy senior trade union posts and make creditable contributions to the class struggle. But these were gains for the trade union movement, not the trotskyist movement. But for the most part the political impact was negligible.

Comments on: Letter in support of the U.S. SWP’s current course

By: Brian. S