Ted Grant

[spartafc]

I'd be very critical of his approach to lots of topics - including the Labour party - but at the same time I find it interesting exploring his work. Has anyone here read any Ted Grant?

[jabra nicola]

Yes. And...

[Faceless]

yes I have, to some extent. May I ask what it is exactly you oppose in his view to the labour party? I'm guessing it's pretty obvious but this is my way of provoking an arguement. :P

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I've read a bit here and there . . . I think his critique of the theory of state-capitalism is shallow.

[DJFreiheit]

I think Grant work has a lot of relevance today. Its his method which I find very thorough and easy to follow.I think he has been a proud servant of Marxism.
I dont quite agree with the comrade from the CWI though.But I am glad he is still reading his works.Its a shame the rest of his comrade seem to think Grant is some kind of demon. :blink:

[joshdavies]

I've read a little of Ted Grant. But I think the fact that the Grantists in Britain (Socialist Appeal) are still engaged in entrism into the Labour Party says a lot about the conclusions and bankruptcy of Pabloism.

[Dante]

I think the split between Taafe and Grant was the split between the organisers and the theory wing of the old militant.

Also it is a typlical centrist method that he can write about a very good analysis of a revolution taking place in a south american country, but then come across as totally reformist in the UK, through adapting to the already exisiting conciousness of the reformist British TU leaders and workers.

[jabra nicola]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 02:22 PM
I've read a little of Ted Grant. But I think the fact that the Grantists in Britain (Socialist Appeal) are still engaged in entrism into the Labour Party says a lot about the conclusions and bankruptcy of Pabloism.
According to the Workers Power booklet on the Fourth International Grant was not a supporter of Pablo.

Indeed Grant and Haston of the RCP opposed the Mandel/Pablo leadership of the FI with regard to their position on Yugoslavia. This ensured that Grant had been expelled from the FI by the time that your group considers that Pabloism triumphed in the FI.

Why then describe Grant as a Pabloite?

[joshdavies]

Why then describe Grant as a Pabloite?

Because of his method. The strategy of deep entryism into large workers organisations for a long period of time is one which flows from the incorrect perspectives drawn up from the FI by Trotsky before his death which went uncorrected. It might be better to say that Grantism is proof of the opportunism in the FI after Trotsky's death resulting from a wrong analysis of the world situation, it is I admit a bit lazy just to call him a Pabloite but the errors of Pablo and Grant stem from the same place and both lead to opportunism - albeit with the emphasis being on the Labour Party rather than every single group which might be pushed to the left by 'the process'.

[jabra nicola]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:50 PM
[QUOTE]Because of his method. The strategy of deep entryism into large workers organisations for a long period of time is one which flows from the incorrect perspectives drawn up from the FI by Trotsky before his death which went uncorrected. It might be better to say that Grantism is proof of the opportunism in the FI after Trotsky's death resulting from a wrong analysis of the world situation, it is I admit a bit lazy just to call him a Pabloite but the errors of Pablo and Grant stem from the same place and both lead to opportunism - albeit with the emphasis being on the Labour Party rather than every single group which might be pushed to the left by 'the process'.
Comrade you are heaping confusion on confusion. Its positive that you admit that your describing Grant as a Pabloite was wrong but in an effort to cover your tracks you simply confuse yourself. Worse you make some basic errors that I woukld not normally associate with Workers Power.

First Pabloism was not the result of a failure to correct Trotskys dated perspectives after 1945. Pabloism developed as a result of a real and genuine attempt to update those perspectives.

Pablos idea was that there would be a prolonged period in which the Stalinist states and parties would hegemonise the working class. Moreover he postulated a scenario in which Stalinism could reform itself and even lead revolutionary overturns of capitalism. This latter a total revision of Marxism but based on the idea that Stalinism had overthrown capitalism in Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia (later China and Cuba of course). This mean that the Trotskyists should seek to make contact with the advanced layers of the class in the Stalinist parties and seek the reform of those parties.

I note that Workers Power agrees with much of the above. In which case is Workers Power Pabloite? I would suggest in a certain sense that it is. Of course WP does not accept the liquidationist logic of Pabloism but neither did many of the Pabloites or else the USFI would be long gone and they are not. And in fact the USFI did not go the whole hog and liquidate its organisations. What did happen was that it generalised the tailist method of pabloism from Stalinism to Labourism/Social democracy, then to Guerillas in Latin America, Feminism, etc. in short it came to act as a permanent tail of whatever was fashionable and down graded the working class. WP does somethng similar with the largely mythical anti-capitalism movement.

The Grantites ironically opposed Pablo on yugoslavia and opposed entry. It was only in the late 1950s that they went over to deep entrism and then for the good reason that they wished to be as close as possible to the working class whose mass party Labour then was. They later generalised this method, which is similar to that underlying Pabloism as you wrote, to other mass parties including mass populist parties.

At root of this methoddology is the belief that forces other than the revolutionary working class can ovethrow capitalist rule. A mrethodology which WP shares with the Pabloites (rip), Mandelites and Grantites.

[Poum_1936]

The strategy of deep entryism into large workers organisations for a long period of time is one which flows from the incorrect perspectives drawn up from the FI by Trotsky before his death which went uncorrected.

Ney, it was Lenins idea.

"The strategy of deep entryism into large workers organisations for a long period of time is one which flows from the incorrect perspectives drawn up from the FI by Trotsky before his death which went uncorrected."

"This ridiculous 'theory' that Communists should not work in reactionary trade unions reveals with the utmost clarity the frivolous attitude of the 'Left' Communists toward the question of influencing the 'masses' and their misuse of clamour about the 'masses.' If you want to help the 'masses' and win the sympathy and support of the 'masses', you should not fear the difficulties, or pinpricks, chicanery, insults and persecution from the 'leaders' (who, being oppertunists and social chauvinists, are in most cases directly or indirectly connected with the bourgeoisie and the police), but must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be ofund. You must be capable of, any sacrifice, of overcoming the greatest obstacles, in order to carry on agitation and propaganda, systematicaly, preserveringly, persistently and patiently in those institutions, societies and associations - event the most reactionary - in which proletarian or semi-proletarian masses are to be found."

-Lenin, Left Wing Communism

Also as for Grant, his book Russia, From Revolution to Counter Revolution (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp) is a great read on the subject or the October Revolution along with Lenin and Trotsky: What they Really Stood For (http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky). Whatever you may think of Socialist Appeal and the "Grantists" or the "Woods Cult" (Ive been hearing that one lately) the aforementioned books are still nifty reads about a timeless classic, the october revolution and the two men who stood out the most.

[joshdavies]

Participating in Trade Unions and practicing deep entry into the Labour Party are totally different!

It'd be totally un-Marxist to refuse to take account of the changes that occur within working class consciousness. For example, arguing for a critical vote for Labour (which, again is entirely different from entering it) in 1997 or 2001 has the aim of breaking workers' illusions in them. 8 years of Labour in power and the RMT and FBU (two of the most active unions in Britain) have broken away from them (the Grantites always go on about how the RMT were expelled but tend to ignore the reason why) and in other unions there is a debate as to where the political fund goes, together with this their vote is down. Rather than take into account that putting Labour into power has broken a lot of illusions in them and seeing that workers are looking for a new answer (a lot of workers turned towards the middle class parties like the Lib Dems and RESPECT in the last elections because they were anti war but there is no working class anti war party) they just stay in the LP out of habit.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lenin
You must be capable of any sacrifice, of overcoming the greatest obstacles, in order to carry on agitation and propaganda, systematicaly, perserveringly, persistently and patiently in those institutions, societies and associations - even the most reactionary - in which proletarian or semi-proletarian masses are to be found. -- emphasis added.

Whereupon the good Leninist joined the largest church in his working class neighborhood and offered to his new comrades the idea that "Jesus was the first communist".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif

[DJFreiheit]

I cant see any evidence that Grant support entrism in the LP now. My emphasis here is at the moment.The conditions that require entrism as laid down by Trotsky arent there.The supporters of IDOM seem to be doing most of their campaigns in such things like the Hands Off Venezuela campaign.Outside the LP.
There are no real socialist workers parties in the uk at the moment.The SSP is heavily in debt.It did badly in the last round of elections. RESPECT is a joke.All the calls for a new workers party have fallen on deaf ears.Also, all the tiny socialist groups calling for a new workers party seem to hate each other so much there will never be any real unity.
Grant believed that when the working class move , they move through their traditional organisations; first through the unions and then through their existing workers party, in this case the LP, however bourgieous its leadership is.