Entryism and Trotskyism

[Kadir Ateş]

Why are Trotskyists so hellbent on entryism into established unions and (certain) political parties?

Would appreciate any ideas from Trotskyists, left communists and anarchists only.

[IndependentCitizen]

I'm not entirely sure, but I would assume it would be a starting point on gaining more members and promoting marxism. As unions and political parties have a political lean, it would be easier to convert these people into marxists and recruit them than say the odd fella walking along the street who's currently apathetic.

[Tommy4ever]

The idea is to try to become a part of the existing working class movement and attempt to influence it towards a more radical and Marxist position.

Better idea than building another dozen tiny sects if you ask me, but what do I know.

[Искра]

I would like to read some Trotskyist texts on entryism first. I know why I'm against it, but I'm not sure why are they for it :D

[The Idler]

Because a Trotskyist platform has only ever had a minority appeal in the general public unless you control workers in political struggle.

[Ocean Seal]

A revolutionary programme cannot become popular outside of revolutionary times. So in order to influence the coming of revolutionary times you use entryism to make use of your time.

[Aurora]

The idea behind entryism is to go where the workers go, so if the workers go into unions to fight for better conditions the communists should be there beside them supporting them against the capitalists and against the union bureaucrats, the same goes with social-democratic parties, historically workers have moved through social-democratic organisations before turning to the extreme measure of revolutionism, communists should always be beside the workers taking their side and pushing forward more radical demands.
It seems like a fairly valid theory to me, i wouldn't expect workers to come to socialism if the socialists have only been shouting at them from the sidelines so to speak. Then again i haven't actually read Trotsky on the French Turn so my explanation and reasoning could be off.

I'd argue that a lot of Trotskyists have made a fetish for entryism and have ended up becoming invisible as a revolutionary faction like the USFI or have continued entry into organisations which workers no longer consider their own or are no longer social-democratic like the IMT.

[Q]

The question of entryism has a long history. Trotsky's position on it was of a highly tactical nature, a "grab what you can" approach in trying to rapidly build a new set of communist parties cut lose from 'official' communism. This has to be put in the context of impending doom for the working class in the form of a new world war.

Entryism later transmorphed into something else. You can't say that this was a universal feature of trotskyism, as the trotskyist movement splintered into countless groupings each with their own strategic approach, but there are some general outlines. For some it became a long term strategy and pushed this to its logical extension of operating for decades in social-democracy with their own group as a semi-underground organisation because the bureaucracy of said social-democratic parties would not allow them and expel them. This had political consequences too for many groups as they adapted their agitation to fit their long term strategic needs (ie staying within social-democracy), causing many to leave Marxist politics for Lassalean (state socialist) politics or dress Keynesian-type politics in red.

I believe the split in the Second International in the period 1914 to 1919 was correct, because exactly for the reason that the rightwing doesn't tolerate communist politics and will use bureaucratic measures to get rid of it. Communists have to organise openly. This does not mean we should stand outside the mass movement, but wherever we face bureaucrats, our fight is resolutely against them and for a unity in diversity. Only if we win political rights within the movement, can the working class develop itself as a class in a political sense. Of course, this is not a "stagist" approach, as the fight for democracy is an integral part of communist politics and exactly something opposed by the workers movement bureaucracy because their interests are to stay within the capitalist system and thus keep workers dissent within safe limits.

Should we perform underground work within the existing parties, such as Labour in the UK? This is a tactical question, but if it does occur, it should never hamper our ability to freely express our disagreements and call out on the bureaucrats, even if that goes indirectly via a different section of the communist organisation.

[RedTrackWorker]

Why are Trotskyists so hellbent on entryism into established unions and (certain) political parties?

Entryism as most commonly used refers to entering other parties. Working in unions is addressed in Lenin's Left Wing Communism pamphlet (and many other places, I could probably dig up something decent from Cannon if someone wants). But to focus on entryism "per se" (entering parties).

A tenent of Trotskyism, in some ways the tenent, is that for the working class to make its revolution, revolutionary workers have to organize themselves--this organization must be or become an international party.

In the mid-30's, there was an upturn in the struggle, but workers were not turning to the tiny Trotskyists groups but were entering into both the old Socialist parties and the Communist Parties. Trotsky proposed that as a tactic in certain situations a sect should merge or even organizationally dissolve itself into a workers' organization that was attracting workers moving toward revolutionary politics.

Two keys:
1. It was not based on an estimate of "where the workers were at" in some generic way but that workers were moving toward revolutionary class politics.
2. It was based on the fact that the Trotskyists were sects, not parties. Many--if not most--in the Trotskyist movement resisted the turn saying, "You yourself said the party is the most important thing." Trotsky said something like, "But we do not have a party. We have at best an embryo and an embryo needs a nurturing environment to grow."

In the U.S., the Trotskyists merged with the political organization that had led the Toledo auto strike. This was based on the exact same methodology. I emphasize the point because many want to paint "entryism" as some kind of sinister organization maneuver (which it surely can be as an abstract thing) but in this case it shows that the methodology and intent could be fulfilled through merger.

In Spain, where the Trotskyists didn't do an entry--youth organizations of the SP were actually asking them to join to help transform the party. I don't know if French youth made such a specific call (Spanish Trotskyists had a much higher specific weight than the French) but their various (though temporary) success in winning over youth and other elements showed I think that it was not some kind of "maneuver" in the shady sense but a real response to a certain objective situation.

Now of course the "hellbent" part you specificy I think partly comes from the terrible history of later Trotskyists applying "entryism" but without the political conditions described above--burying themselves in Labor Parties and such. That shit is such an embarrassment I think and represents yet one of many aspects of how the Trotskyist movement after WW2 started turning to forces other than the working class and lost its revolutionary course completely.

[Искра]

Could you give me some Trot texts on entryism. Just to see the line of argumentation :)

[graymouser]

One of the most significant defenses of entrism is in the book History of American Trotskyism: Report of a Participant by James P. Cannon. He discusses at some length the fact that the Workers Party was at a dead end, and workers who were radicalizing were going into the Socialist Party. So the WP went into the SP in 1936 and came out at the end of 1937 with twice as many members.

Prolonged isolation of radicals can cause their perspectives to grow detached from the masses and deformed - in bizarre and often sectarian directions. Entry into a mass party is one way to get away from this. The other side of it is the central thesis of the Transitional Program - that the crisis of the working class is a crisis of leadership. Since the social democratic mass parties are traditionally the sites of that leadership, contesting for the leadership of the workers in those parties is a concrete way of addressing this crisis.

[RedTrackWorker]

Prolonged isolation of radicals can cause their perspectives to grow detached from the masses and deformed - in bizarre and often sectarian directions. Entry into a mass party is one way to get away from this. The other side of it is the central thesis of the Transitional Program - that the crisis of the working class is a crisis of leadership. Since the social democratic mass parties are traditionally the sites of that leadership, contesting for the leadership of the workers in those parties is a concrete way of addressing this crisis.

While those are all considerations, I think's important to be very clear that they are not fundamental in any way. The fundamental is that the parties represent in some ways a mass of workers moving in a revolutionary direction. There can always be reformist parties that are bigger than isolated radicals or that represent a leadership to contend with and it would be unprincipled for a sect to enter them in the absence of a left-moving current of workers being organized by them. It's a tactic (short term thing) based on a dynamic evaluation, not a static evaluation of size/isolation.

[RedTrackWorker]

Could you give me some Trot texts on entryism. Just to see the line of argumentation :)

The single best text I know is by Shachtman--Marxist Politics or Unprincipled Combinationism? Internal Problems of the Workers Party (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/icl-spartacists/prs5-shachtman-rev/index.htm).

[S.Artesian]

I think the single best thing to read is Trotsky himself on the French turn........and make sure you keep in mind the historical context.

The era of the great depression.
The increase in workers actions.
Establishment of a united front between the PCF and the SFIO
Large numbers of younger workers and students moving to the left inside the SFIO.
Enthusiasm among that younger section for the participation of the French Trotskyists.
And the possibility of preventing the united front from becoming a popular front.

Tactically, given the fact that the French Trotskyists at that time had little presence among French workers, not a bad move.

Strategically,-- well it's a "party-building" strategy, based on the notion not just that a vanguard party is necessary, but that a vanguard party is the organization of workers as a class-for-itself. I think that's self-contradictory. Successful revolution means establishing organs of class power. The Bolsheviks did not create the soviets; they did not create the factory committees. Their popularity rose as they proved themselves the party [along with the Left-SRs] willing to defend those class-wide organs.

I find it pretty hard to understand how "vanguardists" dismiss the French turn while still maintaining the importance of the "vanguard party."

So....objections to the French turn need to confront the role the SFIO, or the role "vanguard" parties of all ideological orientations have played in the growth of those "seeds" of class wide power.

My assessment is that the role of "vanguard" parties has been that of obstacles to the development of the necessary organizations.

[S.Artesian]

While those are all considerations, I think's important to be very clear that they are not fundamental in any way. The fundamental is that the parties represent in some ways a mass of workers moving in a revolutionary direction. There can always be reformist parties that are bigger than isolated radicals or that represent a leadership to contend with and it would be unprincipled for a sect to enter them in the absence of a left-moving current of workers being organized by them. It's a tactic (short term thing) based on a dynamic evaluation, not a static evaluation of size/isolation.

Here's where I think the problem resides. In a sense, I think nobody has misunderstood Trotsky and the French turn more than the Trotskyists themselves.

RTW points out that the "parties represent in some ways a mass of workers" in movement, and that is what determines the "value" of the tactic, but what happens is that the "entryists" wind up seeing the entry as a way to recruit more "vanguardists" rather than an evaluation of the movement of the class as a whole-- and an opportunity for the class in motion to establish organs of class wide power.