Main Document Index | Trotsky Encyclopedia Home Page
John Sullivan on British Trotskyism
As Soon As This Pub Closes
THOSE who express bewilderment that presumably sane members of the left groups can continue to believe nonsense which is continually disproved are comparing their behaviour with some presumed model of rationality with which the majority of the population comply. All the evidence shows that most people, whether politically active or not, operate with assumptions which are just as magical as the members of the groups whom we have attempted sympathetically to portray.
In fact, the left groups do not exist outside history, and if we consider the context in which they live their actions are as rational as anyone else’s. If we should criticise them particularly, it is because they claim to have a superior understanding. Curiously, members of Marxist groups are particularly incensed that the Marxist criterion that social existence determines consciousness should be applied to themselves. If, for example, you are a social worker in Hackney you will almost certainly number SWP members among your friends, but if you are a canteen assistant in Scunthorpe that would be most unlikely. If existence determines consciousness, will that not have an effect on the left group? Yet left group members argue that their ideas must be examined on their own. They will accept that the social composition of their group does limit its influence, but they believe it has no significance whatever in explaining its ideas, strategy and tactics. They might accept, in theory, that their rivals’ behaviour is determined by their real position in the world, but they really prefer to see their enemies’ backsliding in terms drawn from Victorian melodrama: treachery, corruption and inordinate ambition. Members of left groups do not on waking up each morning ponder whether the group to which they belong does indeed have the right analysis, or whether their leaders are indeed far-sighted, learned and wise. Does anyone? Would not the stress provoked by the literal application of Marx’s injunction, ‘Doubt everything’, produce an unacceptable level of mental illness? Why should we be so contemptuous of loyalty to a leadership which perhaps does not deserve it, when we regard it as admirable for women to grant such loyalty to individual men? It may be objected that the left group member has to forgive not the occasional betrayal, but a constant reiteration of beliefs which are contradicted by daily experience, and the regular disappointment of predictions which fail to come true. Yet surely the test of faith is in failure and adversity? Any fool can trust a general after he leads the charge which scatters the enemy. We should judge commitment by its quality, not by the worth of its recipient.
If we move on from absolving the individual sect member from the unjustified charge of mental instability, we will examine the reason why the sect itself cannot submit its beliefs to the test of experience and modify them accordingly. The claim that a group of people engaged in a continual discussion should be able to produce a more accurate analysis than a single individual seems plausible. However, group cohesion needs a doctrine. An ongoing discussion which continually presented all the group’s fondest beliefs to a searching criticism would be a recipe for an unbearably tense existence, like that of a couple constantly on the edge of divorce. A fanatical zealot for truth might be able to live in such an atmosphere, but the average person would find it unbearable. Group discussion has a much more modest function. It fills in the detail of an outline which has already been agreed on, and allows new areas to be explored so that group members can together agree on its interpretation. If one is honest, can one claim that discussion in a mainstream church or political party is any different? The implicit agreement that discussion must not disturb accepted truths explains the common, bewildered, accusation by loyal members that the latest defector, once a leading comrade, left without ever discussing her differences. Once differences are admitted, the member may find, within weeks, that the whole paradigm which she accepted for years is an absurdity, so that to argue with people who have been valued comrades for years is like an attempt to communicate with people speaking a different language.
To the rest of the members, her abrupt departure seems light-minded, unprincipled and inexplicable. Yet few groups have deliberately created a system where questions of principle cannot be discussed because of self-censorship. In fact, there will be regular occasions when errors will be admitted with a view to correcting the line. Such sessions do not generally deal with really heavy deviations, but rather with venial sins. That is hardly surprising. A church prayer group would not expect to hear confessions of murder, robbery and orgies, so a political group discussing its errors will concentrate on matters of presentation, emphasis and efficiency. Its grosser errors will not go unnoticed as they will be pointed out by its rivals. The group’s theoreticians have the delicate task of showing that the contradictions in its politics are only apparent. If serious mistakes were acknowledged as such, the group would be exposed to the virulent abuse of its competitors.
Do not the leaders of left groups have greater freedom of manoeuvre than do bishops weighed down with centuries of dogma and congregations with no interest in intellectual inquiry? The contrast here is smaller than one might suppose. Left group leaders are stuck with the followers they have, and they well know that any drastic change will lose much of the membership, while there is no guarantee that they will be replaced by better people, although such people may well exist. A bird in the hand… Why should the groups not benefit from experience? Should not the continual test of such experience bring different group’s practice closer? That assumes that a group’s theory is devised through a careful examination of economics, politics and history. Yet consider how terribly difficult this would be! The ruling class’ analysis of the world and predictions of what is going to happen has generally been mistaken, in spite of the enormous resources and hired brains at its disposal. Is it fair to expect that a group of young people without these advantages will be able to examine the world and come to a more correct understanding? If you were Marx himself the task would be formidable. Fortunately, there is an easier way: every successful group leader’s maxim is: ‘But always remember – these rules are to help you to explain to the customers what you do after you do it, not before. When you have a project, do it exactly as you see fit; then fit the facts round the event, not the other way round.’ (Robert Scheckley, Dimension of Miracles, p.84) Don’t try to reverse the Scheckleyan formula! It would be like trying to construct a car engine from a heap of metal. Once you have decided on the programme you want, it is not too difficult to search for quotations, precedents and philosophical formulae. Not everyone is capable of doing this, or we would have more groups than we do, but it is not nearly as difficult as learning a skilled trade or profession.
Once we accept that a left group leader does not live outside history, but has to work with material and circumstances not of her choosing, many things become clear. What, for example, can be done to keep the members happy in times when little is happening? This is not a constant problem; often the group will be stretched to mount a campaign which is honestly seen as desperately important and where the leadership wish that they had ten times the forces available to put into it. Not always though. An older, established group can accept that sometimes times will be quiet, and they can concentrate on their trade union work, propaganda and political education. A younger group, lacking implantation in the labour movement, will generally be incapable of reacting in this way. For example, the (British) SWP, after the success of the Anti-Nazi League campaign of the mid-1970s, promoted a number of other campaigns, which even its own leaders cannot now remember: yet each was mounted in response to what was presented as some mortal danger. At the worst, such campaigns can be cynical attempts to keep the troops happy; modern versions of the children’s crusade, but generally the leaders will be temporarily convinced that the campaign of the month is useful and necessary.
Most other aberrations have an equally rational explanation. There is, for example, the urge not to appear chicken. If a rival group calls for a General Strike, how can we fail to do so even though we know that few of us have enough influence over our workmates to win their support for that call. Left groups are caught in a continual competition to up the ante. But does not the need to defend your ideas from the criticism of other groups sharpen the mind and help to correct errors? Not really: a specific occurrence can generally be fitted into the general theory, so that after a particular reverse in the trade union struggle, a member of the SWP will conclude that the bureaucracy have sold out once again, while a Militant member will know that further efforts must be made to acquaint the workers with the socialist programme, familiarity with which is the one sure remedy against the recurrence of such defeats.
Do Militant and SWP members in the same staff room or office refuse to talk to each other? Not at all. They will often be on the best of terms, but their political discussion will be in formalised terms, where each knows the others responses in advance, much like the conversation of Catholics with Methodists. There is a common misconception that members of left groups spend much of their time arguing with supporters of rival groups. In fact, both the larger groups and the hyperactive smaller ones provide a very comprehensive social life so that a member’s taken-for-granted thought world is seldom challenged.
Activists, when they develop differences, generally do so in a fragmented fashion as the group’s line conflicts with some aspect of their experience. When it is pointed out that the policy to which they object is in conformity with the group’s general theory, which ‘you say you agree with’, the average militant, unable to provide an alternative world view, either withdraws her criticisms or leaves the group in a state of confusion, aware that something is wrong but fearing that the fault is hers. Some of the smaller groups, unable to provide the extensive social life of the larger groups, rely on having a more rigorous theory, and do try to engage the larger groups in discussion. Unfortunately, the effect is often counterproductive. Leaders of the larger groups object to their meetings being leafleted by ‘sectarians’ and ‘parasites’. The resources built up by many years of members’ sacrifices are not to be squandered on sterile discussions on matters ‘which were settled long ago’.
Some critics of the left groups have cast the full-timers in the role of villains: older people manipulating the naive young. We think that view is mistaken. Full-timers are generally extremely loyal to their organisation. They work longer hours for less pay than the rest of their comrades, although it is fair to say that their job is generally less stressful than those on the production line or chalk face. They are often excellent comrades, but can sometimes display a lemming-like attitude to disastrous orders from above. Many of them fall into the category of stupid and industrious officers who the great General Schlieffen recommended should not be employed in any capacity whatsoever. But is the story any different for full-timers in mainstream parties?
In sum, political sects provide a refuge which many people need, either permanently or temporarily. They are the heart of a heartless world, and will disappear only when that world begins to change.
Main Document Index | Trotsky Encyclopedia Home Page
Last updated on 28.7.2007