Entryism and the CWI-IMT split

[Sentinel]

While I'm certainly not new to leftism, there are wide gaps in my knowledge about Trotskyist organisations, and how they differ from each other ideologically. So, could some patient comrades -- from both camps if possible -- please explain to me the reasons behind the split between the Committee for a Workers International (CWI) and International Marxist Tendency (IMT).

I know the absolute basics; that there in the 1990's were differing opinions on the strategy of entryism into the social democrat labour parties of the west. The CWI had decided that the social democrats with their 'third way' had become capitalist and no longer were worth infiltrating, and that marxists should therefore take part in politics with parties of their own. Ted Grant and his supporters, who later formed the IMT, continued to support entryism as a valid strategy despite the change of the nature of social democracy, and this led to the split.

So, I'd be interested to hear both sides of the story of the split, and the pros and cons of entryism vs partaking in politics under a banner of our own. I'd also like to hear whether or not the CWI still supports any forms of entryism, and if so into what kind of organisations, or if the concept has been entirely abandoned?

Finally, I hope that everyone does their best to keep the discussion respectful and civil. :)

[Q]

I point you to these documents on the "open turn" discussion (http://www.marxist.net/resources.html) back in 1991.

The background of this was the rightwing shift and consequent expulsions in the Labour party since the early 1980's. This process was given more speed after the defeat of the miners strike and the defeat of the Liverpool council which was dominated by Militant. Another factor was the growing of the anti-poll tax campaign, which largely played outside of the Labour party, in which Militant also played a key role. The Grant-Woods tendency dogmatically clung to the "40 years of work" inside the Labour party and eventually they left the organisation after finding they only had a tiny minority behind them in the UK membership.

Sadly this triggered an international split, the CWI lost the Spanish section to Grant-Woods (Alan Woods had long time ties with the Spanish section and was a fulltimer there for years), other sections lost parts of up to half the membership.

The resulting years have been mixed. I believe that overall the CWI was correct in taking a more independent stance in several countries. In Belgium for example, where the split had been exactly through the middle, we have grown to about 10 times the original group after the split (from ~30 to about 300). Vonk, the IMT section, which stayed in the social-democracy, has been stagnant for many years and in recent months saw another split. It would surprise me if they have more than 15 members left.

I disagree with the CWI reasoning behind leaving the old social-democratic parties though. All of a sudden all social-democratic parties would have transformed from "bourgeois workers" to simply bourgeois parties, across western Europe. I believe this to be simplistic.

What actually happened, I believe, is that the fall of the USSR and neoliberal onslaught caused the social-democracy in the west to move to the right (no disagreement there btw), and that this caused in many countries to have, what I would like to call, "organic splits" in these parties. What I mean by this is that while you didn't see formal splits in many countries, you did see new formations to spring up in the period from 1990 to about 2005. I'm thinking of the SP in the Netherlands, Die Linke in Germany, the PRC in Italy, Syriza in Greece, etc.

These new formations attracted what amounted to the leftwing of the old social-democracy, the grassroot activists, and it was correct for the CWI to start working in these formations as opposed to the old social-democratic parties.

However, such a split has not occured in all countries, most notably (and somewhat ironically) the Labour party in the UK. Any project to build a new leftwing alternative to the left of that party - the Socialist Labour Party, Socialist Alliance, Respect, the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition - consistently failed to attract vast layers of the class or any real layer of activists. Subsequently Labour, who got into opposition again earlier this year, saw an influx of new members and activists. For this reason I believe that Labour still is an important area for us to fight in.

To put it more simply and crudely: the CWI was right internationally, the IMT was right in the UK. But this is too simple as well as the IMT in the UK is no larger than 100 members, whereas the Socialist Party, the CWI section in England and Wales, has around 1500 members. I believe we'll see the Labour party swing to the left again in the coming years, which will force us to rethink the Labour party question. In other countries the situation differs.

I hope this helps :)

[Aurora]

Subsequently Labour, who got into opposition again earlier this year, saw an influx of new members and activists. For this reason I believe that Labour still is an important area for us to fight in.
I haven't heard about an influx of new members and activists at all do you have a source by any chance?, they may grow in popularity now that the Tories are in government but i really cant see them attracting workers.

I believe we'll see the Labour party swing to the left again in the coming years, which will force us to rethink the Labour party question. In other countries the situation differs.
This was(is?) the IMT line, that after Labour got defeated in the elections they would swing to the left, i havent seen any evidence of this yet, on the contrary i think the Labour leader elections show that they are just as right-wing as ever. With even the nominaly left candidates not doing well and the unions voting for Ed Milliband:
"That's not how I would see my leadership. It's not about a lurch to the left – absolutely not. I'm for the centre ground of politics but it's about defining where that centre ground is."

[Die Neue Zeit]

The obstacle in the UK is the electoral system. Fix that up somewhat, and you will see a larger left-of-Labour formation. Whether that formation will at least break with Labourism, however, is another story.

[Tower of Bebel]

Labour "swings" to the left to facilitate a rightist policy. That's hardly new to me. Even Bukharin managed to take up a leftist position while ending up with a more rightist strategy.

So I don't think the IMT "was right in the UK". What would be wrong is the abandonment of (the "perspective" of) Labour as a site of struggle, not the tactic of entryism.

The problems facing us (like the reasonings behind the turn) are more complex. It's important to - for example - address the electoral system too. Like Jacob Richter did. And it's not only a question of splits too. Parties based on the trade unions are rightist formation because either the bureaucracy has direct control over the organisation, or those who set up parties tie themselves to the trade unions.

A new "broad formation" will have to be the work of the working class. A new party can only arise from layers of workers becoming politically conscious. But this also asks for serious propaganda from outside the traditional labour movement (marxism).

In that case it all comes down to the relationship between ideas and (revolutionary) practice. The so called objective conditions carries but cannot give us the solution. Socialism or barbarism they say. And I think everyone agrees that for a lot of people the cuts already carry a lot of barbarism with them.

Revolutionaries will have to reach a certain stage in which they can change the world around them. You can only propagate something decent when you know where, how and when to strike. In turn this way of striking can only be clarified through freedom of discussion and the continuous bundling of experience; ergo the need for genuine (dialectic) democratic centralism.

But the current sectarianism seems to me the opposite of that, and we'll have to get around it one way or another.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To put it more simply and crudely: the CWI was right internationally, the IMT was right in the UK.

Was/is the CWI right in Venezuela, too? :D

[blake 3:17]

What's the CWI line on Venezuela? Chaves is effed up because the IMT support him?

[Tower of Bebel]

I don't know much about Venezuela. The CWI does not call it a revolution nor a (pre)revolutionary situation and has pointed out many times that Chavez could loose everything because the country has to deal with a capitalist offensive (due to the current crisis). I think the CWI's part of the PSUV, but we're not very welcome.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's because your section there isn't "focusing on Venezuela solidarity and cheerleading for Hugo Chávez" enough, to quote Macnair's article last week (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004157). ;)

Seriously, I wouldn't go as far as the IMT in its cheerleading, but I would incorporate elements of its argument: pointing fingers at "those around him" (certainly at the likes of the PCV, for example), limiting criticism of Chavez himself to education articles, etc. Agitation articles are, for the moment, no place to criticize Venezuela's incarnation of the Julius Caesar of people's history, his Proudhon-Lassalle-Bismarck program, and even his lack of anti-opposition spine relative to someone like Putin.