Justifying Entrism

[nvm]

As Trotskyists, we are slandered, bashed and generally ridiculed from many aspects of the left.

Many other so called 'communists' claim that we are class-traitors and reformist bourgeois sympathizers when we speak of Entrism as many claim that labour unions are bourgeois institutions. I came across a quote today when examining the Communist Manifesto and right there, under everyone's very own noses, laid perhaps the greatest and simplest justification for Trotkyist's work in unions and labour parties.

Chapter 2 of the Manifesto
Opening lines.

"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party, opposed to other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement."

I believe this is grounds for work, either clandestinely or not within labour unions and parties.Any comments??.

[Luís Henrique]

Have we already come to the point in which we call working in trade unions "entryism"?

Working in the trade unions is a basic task to anyone who wants to work for the revolution.

What is usually called "entryism" - at least in countries in which free access to heroin by toddlers isn't considered a leftist cause - is the work within reformist working class parties, such as the French PS or Brazilian PT, in order to build a split. This is a completely different issue, of course.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

Luis is right. Membership of a trade union is open to any worker who plies that trade for a living. Entryism is therefore not an appropriate political strategy in this case. Revolutionary socialists should be open about there views and activity among the rank and file membership.

[Keyser]

As Trotskyists, we are slandered, bashed and generally ridiculed from many aspects of the left.


Despite the fact that every other political line on the revolutionary left (Marxist-Leninists/Maoists/Left Communists/Anarchists) are also slandered, bashed and generally ridiculed by all the different Trotskyist parties and organisations, not to mention the sectarian rants and insults thrown at many decent working class activists and communists by Trotskyist members on RevLeft.

I'm not going get into the time wasting debate about which section of the revolutionary left is more sectarian, but that Trotskyists display sectarianism on a regular basis, means that playing the 'victim' card by implying that only Trotskyists suffer from sectarianism bears no relation to reality.


Many other so called 'communists'

Your first sentence/rant was moaning on about the 'sectarianism' that Trotskyists got from other sections of the revolutionary left and now you have a go at sectarianism by implying that the sincerity of any communist who does not follow the reactionary and revisionist political line of entryism is in question.

Nice try but it won't work.


claim that we are class-traitors and reformist bourgeois sympathizers when we speak of Entrism as many claim that labour unions are bourgeois institutions.

As a revolutionary, anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist myself, I have no problems with working within trade unions, they are workers organisations and exist to defend workers from attacks on workers rights, conditions and living standards by the bourgeoisie.

I do not believe that trade unions are the institutions that the working class can politically organise in, to develop the political independence of the working class with a revolutionary communist vanguard.

I am no syndicalist or council communist.

Trade unions can defend the economic and social rights of workers, but given the historical and structural nature of trade unions, they cannot link up the day to day struggles of the working class for their social rights, the working rights and the defence of their living and working conditions with the political task of organising workers into a revolutionary communist party (the vanguard) and overturning the rule of the bourgeois state and the capitalist class.

On that issue, all of the revolutionary left (save for lunatics like the MIM) will agree with your entryist tactics for organising workers.

Where we part company is on the issue of a particular Trotskyist global organisation (the International Marxist Tendency-IMT) calling for open class collaboration by supporting bourgeois, anti-working class social democratic parties like the New Democratic Party (NDP) in Canada or the Labour Party (LP) in Britain.

Given the rotten legacy of revisionist anti-communists like Ted Grant and Alan Woods, their class treason in trying to tie the working class to the permanent rule of the bourgeoisie, all genuine communists should at all times debate with IMT members and the wider working class on the dead end of reformism, especially it's entryist variant.


I came across a quote today when examining the Communist Manifesto and right there, under everyone's very own noses, laid perhaps the greatest and simplest justification for Trotkyist's work in unions and labour parties.

Only today?

In other words, instead of reading the whole of the Communist Manifesto, linking what each part of the book says with the other pieces that you have seemed to have not bothered reading, you have not found any justification for your reformist and revisionist theories on entryism, merely a single sentence that you use, completely out of it's orgininal content, to try and win a debate you seem to be unable to wage on your own effort.

Also, Marxism-Leninism is not holy scipture and it is not dogma. Marxism-Leninism is a living science, living as it is interperated and updated by those who are around at the time and today by the conditions and changes that the world and capitalism go through.

Marx himself stated that not one of his theories should be considered out of bounds to alterations based on changes that took place long after his death.

If dogma is more your thing then I suggest that prehaps Marxism is not for you, try Catholicism instead.

[KC]

Despite the fact that every other political line on the revolutionary left (Marxist-Leninists/Maoists/Left Communists/Anarchists) are also slandered, bashed and generally ridiculed by all the different Trotskyist parties and organisations, not to mention the sectarian rants and insults thrown at many decent working class activists and communists by Trotskyist members on RevLeft.

I'm not going get into the time wasting debate about which section of the revolutionary left is more sectarian, but that Trotskyists display sectarianism on a regular basis, means that playing the 'victim' card by implying that only Trotskyists suffer from sectarianism bears no relation to reality.

I don't see this argument as really valid. I don't self-identify as a Trotskyist, am not sectarian at all and work openly with others of different ideologies. I have experienced sectarianism from people of all different kinds of ideologies. I think it's more attributable to the state of the movement than a certain ideology.

Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post.

[black magick hustla]

Have we already come to the point in which we call working in trade unions "entryism"?

Working in the trade unions is a basic task to anyone who wants to work for the revolution.

What is usually called "entryism" - at least in countries in which free access to heroin by toddlers isn't considered a leftist cause - is the work within reformist working class parties, such as the French PS or Brazilian PT, in order to build a split. This is a completely different issue, of course.

Luís Henrique

I think there is a difference between working as a trade union worker, or with unionized workers, or attending to union meetings,) than working within the confines of trade union bureacracy (for example, as an elected leader). I think it is necessary for the former, but not for the latter.

[Luís Henrique]

I think there is a difference between working as a trade union worker, or with unionized workers, or attending to union meetings,) than working within the confines of trade union bureacracy (for example, as an elected leader). I think it is necessary for the former, but not for the latter.

In any way, neither these things are "entryism".

Luís Henrique

[The Third Camp]

Comrades,

The question of entryism is vital for the marxist movement as it goes right to the root of the relationship between the party and the class. However, I think that MTLYOUTH has approached it in a poor way (to say dogmatic may be going a bit far).

Quotes are usually better used to better express a position, rather than be the position's justification – arguments and examples serve better for that.

Since the originator of the thread is from the IMT, I think it's fitting to quote Ted Grant:


How to overcome the weakness and isolation of the revolutionary movement, whilst maintaining its principles intact, is the basic task of this epoch" - Problems of Entrism (1959).

In this work, Grant outlines the arguments for entering the British Labour Party, where the IMT remain to this day – a bone of contention, clearly.

A key feature of the question of entryism is: where should marxists be?
I think we can all agree - with the proletariat. The practical implication of this can mean revolutionary parties entering mass workers' parties or even bourgeois parties that have a significant base in the working class e.g. the Labour Party in Britain throughout the 20th century.

The immediate task for Marxists in this period is to 'patiently explain' our ideas and win over the ones and twos, to build a party of cadres and to build a base in the working class. A lot of this comes down to winning over the advanced layer of workers.

Conditions determine consciousness and with the right programme and roots in the class, even a party of a handful can become a party of the millions - a fact so well shown by the Bolsheviks.

To argue, though, that entryism in these parties is a never changing approach is incorrect. The Labour Party has clearly changed in its composure over the last 20 years. The collapse of the USSR saw mass disillusionment of socialists and other lefts across the world. This was manifested in the emptying out of the Labour Party by huge layers of the most advanced workers and trade unionists. Therefore the basis for entryism in the Labour Party was removed, making the IMT's position of entryism in the Labour Party incorrect.

In countries where mass parties of the working class do not exist, the task of marxists is to work independently. The only alternative is to hide ourselves away, gradually wearing down our principles and leaping opportunistically at any short-term gains.

Nonetheless, when the working class struggles it turns to its traditional parties. Even after the sellout of the 2nd International, thousands of workers turned to the SPD during the revolutionary upheavels in Germany after WWII. Therefore, while maintaining an independent position from the bourgeois parties, marxists must try and build new mass parties of the working class.

These can quickly become the alternative that struggling workers turn to and can grow rapidly and although it is extremely unlikely that the parties will have a revolutionary programme (more likely reformist), through entryism a strong revolutionary tendency and party can be built to lead the workers of the world to victory.

Sorry about the length of this post, but there was a lot to be said. To finish, again quoting Grant from 'Problems of Entrism':


Opportunism is only the other side of adventurism. Both rise out of a false assesment of objective circumstances, or of a surrender to the immediate environment. That is why, without a firm theoretical basis and collective control of the movement, it is easy to succumb to one mistake or another...

[The Third Camp]

Comrade Keyser,

I agree with your analysis of TUs, I would just add that TUs can of course affiliate themselves with political organistaions and should not be neglected by marxists since they are workers' organisations involved in daily struggles.

However, I have to object to your position on the IMT



open class collaboration by supporting bourgeois, anti-working class social democratic parties like the New Democratic Party (NDP) in Canada or the Labour Party (LP) in Britain.

Given the rotten legacy of revisionist anti-communists like Ted Grant and Alan Woods, their class treason in trying to tie the working class to the permanent rule of the bourgeoisie, all genuine communists should at all times debate with IMT members and the wider working class on the dead end of reformism, especially it's entryist variant.


As you can see from the above post, I am no proponent of the IMT, however to say that they collaborate with and support the bourgeoisie is shocking. Their position lies in an error of revolutionary tactics, not reformism.

You seem very confused as to what entryism, itself, is. Hopefully my post above will have cleared this up. But just in case…

Entryism is not a variant of reformism – it is a tactic used to win the advanced layers over FROM reformism TO marxism – the need for revolutionary change. The forerunner of the IMT, the Militant Tendency, used this tactic to great effect when the advanced layers of the British working class were looking to the Labour Party.

[nvm]

yes the leadership of the social democrats betrayed and will always betray the workers as they are reformist bureaucrats. But when they do then we have to leave the party (if the objective conditions are met) and create a revolutionary workers party taking with us the dissatisfied rank and file workers(the majority of the party) just as lenin did when he created the Third International. He was a minority in the second international but when they supported the capitalist war (first world war) , he left taking with him the majority of the dissatisfied members thus making the revolution possible in Russia.
Look, in times of distress and economic /political problems and successive attacks by the capitalists on the working class the workers are going to turn to their traditional workers' parties not to the sects. And we should be there to shift the politics of this massive organization to the left or split and take with us the majority of the rank and file members , creating a massive revolutionary organization.
The alternative is to go on the street and shout socialism. You will get a few members to your sect by the age of 70. But that's about it

[Raisa]

I dont think working in trade unions is considered entryism, but i dont see an excuse for entryism at all.
We can enter our OWN parties into elections I believe just to show capability and gain mass support , while working on the other side of the fence doing revolutionary shit in the streets. But never should a communist organization participate in bourgeois politics just in itself alone, and never should a communist organization support a party which benifits already from borugeois politics and is not revolutionary, sorry yall but thats just bullshit.

The proliteirat wants at this point to see some shit we can get around and support.
Some shit for US.
Cause most of us really do know whats up we just dont see the point in knowing whats up because we got motherfuckers killing the revolution by telling us that it is revolutionary to vote for the Democrats in elections and shit when we damn real know its not ourselves, cause we did that shit last time!
I think people who really believe in political entryism need to get the fuck out with that shit, not for nothing.
People are ready, man we got prolitierians just talking about the world banks opressing us on the bus and shit. people arent stupid these days, and i bet if there was a place we could go and keep it real at we would go, alot of us, if someone held it down- kept it organized- like a vanguard, and invited us, instead of inviting themselves to boooooring meetings and descussing why we should entice the proliteriat ( who wasnt invited) to vote for a bourgeois party.
Fuck that. Not for nothing, yall!


Obviously a communist party will not win an election, but people are used to seeing motherfuckers they think they can believe in be able to have a campaign and hold a debate. It gives them hope.
Hugo Chavez has the poor people on his side and he is IN the government, and he will STILL spray motherfuckers out of they mess with his people. He isnt afraid, the man is a fearless leader. A gangsta and a gentleman.
I dont see anything wrong with having a party that might or even may not try to send a president, I think it should be done almost as a front, because if we represent hte proltieriat we are showing that we are the people willing to give htem a right to politics.
Obviously you cant take over the government one way because the government is a multi demnsional defence mechanism of hte bourgeoisie. But entryism into borugeois parties or entryism into bougeois politics as an only means is an insult to the people we represent.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As a revolutionary, anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist myself, I have no problems with working within trade unions, they are workers organisations and exist to defend workers from attacks on workers rights, conditions and living standards by the bourgeoisie.

I do not believe that trade unions are the institutions that the working class can politically organise in, to develop the political independence of the working class with a revolutionary communist vanguard.

I am no syndicalist or council communist.

That is also why Connolly's "One Big Union" remark has to be reinterpreted as being a mass workers' organization outside the trade unions, but not necessarily the smaller-but-still-mass social-proletocratic party.


On that issue, all of the revolutionary left (save for lunatics like the MIM) will agree with your entryist tactics for organising workers.

A more modern question for all of us: what about non-governmental organizations (NGOs)?


Where we part company is on the issue of a particular Trotskyist global organisation (the International Marxist Tendency-IMT) calling for open class collaboration by supporting bourgeois, anti-working class social democratic parties like the New Democratic Party (NDP) in Canada or the Labour Party (LP) in Britain.

I remarked in a Learning thread on the possibility of adopting "entryist" tactics towards the National Rifle Association (an NGO). Yes, it's predominantly right-wing, but the issue of workers having the right to bear arms is fundamental!


Given the rotten legacy of revisionist anti-communists like Ted Grant and Alan Woods, their class treason in trying to tie the working class to the permanent rule of the bourgeoisie, all genuine communists should at all times debate with IMT members and the wider working class on the dead end of reformism, especially it's entryist variant.

Well, I have noticed around here that the word "ultra-left" is used the most by the Grantite Trots.

[AGITprop]

I don't see this argument as really valid. I don't self-identify as a Trotskyist, am not sectarian at all and work openly with others of different ideologies. I have experienced sectarianism from people of all different kinds of ideologies. I think it's more attributable to the state of the movement than a certain ideology.

Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post.
There is a definite problem on this forum and among the left. Sectarianism does not refer to refusal of working with other groups but refusal to work with certain members of the proletariat. I won't organize with anarchists because I fundamentally do not agree with their organizational tactics. As a Trotskyist though, I am least sectarian of all, because unlike other communists, I am willing to organize in labour parties. Why? Because that is where the masses are as well. Organizing in unions though should not be discredited. When I become a worker and am unionized, it will be of vital importance to organize within my union, because not doing so would be a shame and waste of potential. But again, sectarianism has nothing to do with refusing to organize with other ideologically based groups, because let's face it, what defines us is our ideology, and there would be no point following any specific one if we sacrificed it for other ideas we do not agree with.

[The Third Camp]

Quote:
Given the rotten legacy of revisionist anti-communists like Ted Grant and Alan Woods, their class treason in trying to tie the working class to the permanent rule of the bourgeoisie, all genuine communists should at all times debate with IMT members and the wider working class on the dead end of reformism, especially it's entryist variant.
Well, I have noticed around here that the word "ultra-left" is used the most by the Grantite Trots.


So, because the Grantites are the ones that use the phrase 'ultra-left' the most that makes them revisionists. Good to see that you base yourself on politics rather than stalinist phrase-mongering.


MTLYOUTH,


yes the leadership of the social democrats betrayed and will always betray the workers as they are reformist bureaucrats. But when they do then we have to leave the party (if the objective conditions are met) and create a revolutionary workers party taking with us the dissatisfied rank and file workers(the majority of the party) just as lenin did when he created the Third International. He was a minority in the second international but when they supported the capitalist war (first world war) , he left taking with him the majority of the dissatisfied members thus making the revolution possible in Russia.


The leadership of the 'social democrats' have already betrayed the workers - the neo-liberal policies of New Labour are a prime example. The Labour Party is a party of big-business and is no longer looked to by radical layers of workers and youth.

You are so far off the mark in terms of the history of the 2nd International that it's not even funny.
1. The mass parties of the 2nd Int were not social-democratic in the modern sense of the word. They were marxist, until Kautsky's revisionism and the sellout of supporting the war.
2. Lenin took with him very, very few from the 2nd Int. When the beginings of the 3rd Int gathered in Zimmerwald in 1915, they joked that the world's internationalists could be brought together in two stage-coaches.
The 3rd Int was built through years of struggle - politically and theoretically
3. This situation is not comparable to the situation where a revolutionary tendency would leave taking the advanced layers with them.


Look, in times of distress and economic /political problems and successive attacks by the capitalists on the working class the workers are going to turn to their traditional workers' parties not to the sects. And we should be there to shift the politics of this massive organization to the left or split and take with us the majority of the rank and file members , creating a massive revolutionary organization.


This is a good point, but I have already dealt with it.
1. After years of attacks on the working class, these 'traditional' organisations have been severly undermined.
2. These organisations will continue to serve the bourgeoisie and have forced the IMT into DEEP entryism.
3. To say, then, that the most important task for marxists today is to lie in wait in these parties, waiting for the working class to catch up, is fundamentally false. As you quoted:



They do not set up sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.


Marxists must stand with the working class, every step of the way, arguing for our ideas using transitional methods. The advanced layers are looking for an alternative to Labour and the Tories in Britain, the Republicans and Democrats in the US etc.

Our task today is to help build new mass parties of the working class where they don't exist and entering ones that do, arguing for a socialist programme. As I said above, new mass workers' parties can quickly replace 'traditional' parties in the eyes of advanced workers.

To finish, let me give a scenario:

In Britain in five years time, during a period of heightened struggle, if radical workers and youth are posed with a choice between joining the Labour Party, which has been implementing cuts, backing big-business and losing the support of the most fighting trade unions OR a new party putting forward radical, socialist (even if they are reformist) slogans, linking up with militant shop stewards etc., WHO WILL THEY CHOOSE?

[Guest1]

Just as a clarification to the IMT comrades, our work in the unions is not entryism, but it is a good example of how to reach out to workers in the mass organizations. Another kind of mass organization is a labour party, which is an extension of the unions, and that is where the work in the unions and entryism in the labour parties are similar. They aren't the same thing though.

However, the attitude that leads people to reject labour parties is the same that leads people to call for the formation of new "red" unions, so in a way, you're right to bring them up.


The leadership of the 'social democrats' have already betrayed the workers - the neo-liberal policies of New Labour are a prime example. The Labour Party is a party of big-business and is no longer looked to by radical layers of workers and youth.
The leadership of the labour parties have betrayed workers time and time again. This is not the point.

The point is that Labour in the UK for example, every time its been expelled from government, has eventually become a pole of attraction to workers radicalized by Conservative government attacks, no matter the previous Labour government's crimes. This will happen if Labour goes into opposition in the coming period, and much of the New Labour right may jump like rats on a sinking ship.

It is our task to build a left-wing opposition within the Labour party during this period, when the party will enter into crisis, a socialist opposition built on revolutionary Marxist principles. The Labour rank-and-file remains working class and honest activists, though presently the party is quite empty compared to its height because of the betrayals of New Labour. This will change, as has been proven by the fall of the previous governments that were "New Labour" through and through.

They just didn't invent a nice name for it, that doesn't make Blairism something new at all. Britain has gone through similar things in the past.

As an organized tendency of thousands, you can drive the radical mood in the rank and file forward, and drive the party towards adopting a socialist platform, promising nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy and so on.

A reformist government will get elected, and you can split on a question of principle when you are tens of thousands strong. A clear political question that pits the right against the organized workers like legislating a mass general strike back to work, or something equally important, can allow you to break away with hundreds of thousands of members.

That's when you are seen as a clear alternative, when events declare you so, not when your Central Committee decides it and no worker cares.


You are so far off the mark in terms of the history of the 2nd International that it's not even funny.
1. The mass parties of the 2nd Int were not social-democratic in the modern sense of the word. They were marxist, until Kautsky's revisionism and the sellout of supporting the war.
2. Lenin took with him very, very few from the 2nd Int. When the beginings of the 3rd Int gathered in Zimmerwald in 1915, they joked that the world's internationalists could be brought together in two stage-coaches.
The 3rd Int was built through years of struggle - politically and theoretically
3. This situation is not comparable to the situation where a revolutionary tendency would leave taking the advanced layers with them.
1. Yes, they "magically" became not-marxist at that specific point when Kautsky sold-out. It came like a bolt from a clear blue sky. Be real. "Marxist" had ceased to mean anything long before Kautsky revealed the true rottenness of social-democracy. Social-democratic parties are not much different now than they were then, when it comes to their practical reality.
2. Zimmerwald was not what established the 3rd. When the 3rd was established, it was established by mass struggles in the socialist and social-democratic parties, mass splits to form mass communist parties. This is how the parties were formed in Germany, Italy, etc... In France, the Communists took over the party, and expelled the right wing!
3. This is exactly a situation where a revolutionary tendency left, taking a mass revolutionary faction with them, on the basis of a clear political question that all workers could understand.


This is a good point, but I have already dealt with it.
1. After years of attacks on the working class, these 'traditional' organisations have been severly undermined.
2. These organisations will continue to serve the bourgeoisie and have forced the IMT into DEEP entryism.
3. To say, then, that the most important task for marxists today is to lie in wait in these parties, waiting for the working class to catch up, is fundamentally false.
1. As they have time and time again, and the workers keep coming back, so long as a mass alternative is not posed.
2. They will, and always will, but the IMT does not pursue deep entryism. If we are afraid of attacks by bureaucrats, we may as well give up, because the bourgeoisie are far better organized than them. The point is not what the party will do, the point is the amount of reformist workers it draws out to political activity for the first time in their lives. These are the future Marxists of the movement, who are looking for a way to change things. That makes them worth finding and drawing to revolutionary ideas, even if their first destination is not your sect. Forgive their ignorance in not knowing you even exist, your holiness.
3. Entryism does not mean doing nothing else. When a party is dormant, as it is in the UK with Labour, there is no reason to concentrate any effort there. There is no reason you can't do a combination of entryist and open work, with the recognition that you should keep watch on the party for the changes in the situation that are coming. We need to recognize that it will not always be dormant.


Marxists must stand with the working class, every step of the way, arguing for our ideas using transitional methods. The advanced layers are looking for an alternative to Labour and the Tories in Britain, the Republicans and Democrats in the US etc.
Clearly the democrats are not a party that we are lumping in with labour parties, it is not one to enter into. Where there are no labour parties, the slogan must be to build one. But declaring yourself the revolutionary party is in no way transitional, and sets you up as an outsider to a huge amount of the workers' movement, who will turn to parties like the socialists and communists in france, etc...

You use Marx's quote to advocate being sectarian... this is very odd indeed...


Our task today is to help build new mass parties of the working class where they don't exist and entering ones that do, arguing for a socialist programme. As I said above, new mass workers' parties can quickly replace 'traditional' parties in the eyes of advanced workers.
You contradict yourself. Are we to enter mass parties that exist or are we to become new mass parties right away that replace 'traditional' mass parties?

We both agree that where they don't exist, we help build them, but why reinvent the wheel in building yet another reformist sellout party to enter into and take the disillusioned rank-and-file away from, if one already exists?


To finish, let me give a scenario:

In Britain in five years time, during a period of heightened struggle, if radical workers and youth are posed with a choice between joining the Labour Party, which has been implementing cuts, backing big-business and losing the support of the most fighting trade unions OR a new party putting forward radical, socialist (even if they are reformist) slogans, linking up with militant shop stewards etc., WHO WILL THEY CHOOSE?
The one that millions of workers join, and the one their union is affiliated to.

Labour will turn left, and then break their promises, don't formalistically expect them to look right-wing forever.

You don't think the radicalization of the unions will have any effect on the party that almost all of them have a big bloc vote in? You don't think the massive dues that the unions give to the Labour party are worth anything?

New Labour wouldn't exist one day without the active support of the right-wing union bureaucracy who like them and protect them from their own angry members.