'Militant tendency' and offshoots; sociological analysis

[A.J.]

One of the things I've noticed about that militant tendency and, more specifically it's offshoots(particulary the scottish socialist party and some pretentiously named "commitee of the workers international"),
is that they regularly get all prolier-than-thou with their sectarian rivals. For example, they're often pointing out the fact that the membership of their fellow trotskyites the SWP(Gt. Britain) consist mainly of middle class students.

This may be true, however, are they particularly "prolie" themselves?

One interesting sociological observation I have made about it's offshoot the scottish socialist party is that a lot of their members are a bit on the lumpen-ish side(and have some rather serious personal hygiene issues, if I may say so!). A stratum of British society not traditionally receptive to socialism-communism.
This is in sharp contrast to, for instance, the long since liquidated Communist Party of Great Britain, which was largely a movement of the skilled manual working class("a party of tradesmen" as I someone was once described it as being).

I turn my labour aristocratic nose up at the scottish socialist party.

[Futility Personified]

Well i've been caught shoplifting and i've had a shit in public before so i'm more lumpen than you which means you aren't allowed to participate in anything because you are obviously bourgeois and shifty.

Yeah, I can recall a person or two in the CWI slagging off the SWPers for being students, but I also recall that the organisation held quite a few teachers. Of course there is value in ascertaining the class of your membership (or rather the strata of your membership) but really you just have to look where an organisation promotes itself most and gains a hold most. Other than that, it's just snide pointless sectarian sniping that people should be ashamed of. It helps nothing.

Not that any of it really matters, because there isn't a single socialist group in the UK that can say it has the ear of the working class or speaks for it.

[Rudolf]

I always think the prolier than thou attitude is pathetic. Having said that i do think what roles members do outside the organisation is important as obviously there are roles in society incompatible with our aims. You don't want cops, landlords, capitalists or hell those whose primary role at work is to discipline the workforce in your organisation because if your organisation is worth a damn it must be involved in class struggle. But students? Fucking hell, the biggest problem with students is they tend to move away after a few years.

[Q]

... and some pretentiously named "commitee of the workers international"
Just as an aside: It's Committee for a Workers' International. That is, they see that there is no mass international today (duh) and they claim to be an organisation dedicated to found one.

In practice, this really means recruitment ad infinitum into their own ranks. Just like any other sect. They are not willing to unite with the left, which is "just a bunch of sects" in their eyes (and mostly correct too, but they too are of course part of it).


is that they regularly get all prolier-than-thou with their sectarian rivals. For example, they're often pointing out the fact that the membership of their fellow trotskyites the SWP(Gt. Britain) consist mainly of middle class students.I think this is a result of their particular brand of economism. They put a huge focus on trade unions, see them as prime vehicles to organise our class into action. The broad strategy is based on the premise that via 'struggle' the class will learn that capitalism offers no way out and, thereby, it takes revolutionary socialist conclusions. The role of the party in this is to bring out the 'correct slogans' at each point in order to maximise 'the struggle'.

Sociologically speaking, this might explain the disdain for students.


This may be true, however, are they particularly "prolie" themselves?In general, not at all. The organisation has, broadly speaking, two main age groups: The young, which are studying in college, university or are still in high school. These people are full of energy, enthusiasm and have the relative luxury of having time to be politically active. The second age group are the older cadre. This consists of a (very) small fraction of the organisation which has been a member for many years, sometimes decades. These layers often make up the leadership.

Most young activists drop off as soon as they move on with life: Get a job, have a family, need to pay a mortgage... And no longer have the luxury of time to sell papers on rainy Saturday mornings.


This is in sharp contrast to, for instance, the long since liquidated Communist Party of Great Britain, which was largely a movement of the skilled manual working class("a party of tradesmen" as I someone was once described it as being).The leftwing of Labour in many ways indeed. I've heard anecdotes of leftwing Labour leaders being very much influenced by what the CPGB was saying and doing, but this does give an interesting other dimension to these anecdotes.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I guess it's different in different sections of the world and different branches within those sections but in general I've found the CWI not to have too many academic-types and have more workers. It's part of the reason I joined, it seemed like it was composed of some genuinely working class people. The branch I belong to, of about 15ish members, has only 2 students, one of whom is a mature student who works as well and one university lecturer of medicine. Myself, I'm a retail shop worker. This is all anecdotal evidence, of course, and I couldn't give you a full breakdown of the party's membership. Most Marxist groups have a large academic segment but smugness is smugness so if you come across CWI members being all 'prolier-than-thou' then give them a slap from me.