Justifying Entrism

That was before the Social Democrats betrayed the workers.

Well, entryism has also 'different' meanings amongst different tendencies too. Justifying entryism as elaborated by Trotsky is easier than justifying all forms of entryism that existed after WW2; for instance:

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.

Well that's IMT. Not every Trotskyist tendency supports this analysis.

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.

Revolutionaries should be where the masses are, the masses aren't in the old social-democratic parties anymore which have shifted towards full bourgeois parties since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Expecting that the working class will simply return to these parties is absurd to say the least. The working class will more likely be drawn to new initiatives, and many countries have examples that underline this point: the SP in the Netherlands, Die Linke in Germany, CAP in Belgium and many more. This is where we should be and do our work, as this is the place where the most conscious and militant layers of the working class are.

I don't see your point. Your one line responses are not helping much. Please elaborate some more.

My point was a very simple one: you cannot simply take a set of phrases from Marx written 160 years ago and try to justify a particular set of actions. That raises Marxism to dogma. Instead you have to critically analyze whether or not the statement is still valid. Hell, Marx even said this about the Manifesto himself.

Let me elaborate.

The problem many Marxists (Trots, Maoists, Stalinists, and Left Commies alike) have is that while they give lip service to dialectics, most don't understand it at all. A dialectical understanding of reality requires to understand everything within a particular context and through its development. It requires constant serious analysis to know whether or not a qualitative change has occurred.

When Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto the struggle was at a particular stage of development. Capitalism was at a particular stage of development. Would we seriously propose the ten demands today as our immediate demands? No! Because most of those demands have been won from capitalism.

Any modern activities that Marxists engage in have to be argued not merely from what the old men (and old women) wrote, but with the experience of 160 years of the revolutionary workers movement, with the knowledge of what has changed and what hasn't and whether it matters.

So what does that mean for us today. Since the First World War, social democracy has not merely played a non-revolutionary role in the working class movement, it has at times, and especially since the fall of the USSR, played a reactionary role. Today most labor parties / social democratic organizations push a neo-liberal agenda. Conditions may very, however, and we should make no dogmatic rules that apply at all times to all places.

Why do we try to organize in labor unions? Because there is a belief that that is where the most militant, most class conscious workers are. Is this true? Yes and no. Those who argue against entryism point to the reactionary role unions have played: from whites-only unions to busting commie heads to helping the CIA during the Cold War. Those who argue for entryism point to the militant activities of unions like UNITE HERE and SEIU and the Decatur, Illinois strikes.

But is this militancy enough? According to the 21 Points, communists need to be organizing solely for revolution. Many groups today consider those 21 points to be written in stone, and this again is an error. They were written at a particular moment in the history of the movement, when a revolution was raging in Russia, besieged on all sides by the imperialists and while the workers were storming the heavens around the world. That moment has passed, and we can no more rely on Lenin as an absolute guide than we can Marx (or Trotsky, Mao, etc).

Entryism, in specific organizations, has to be argued for and against, on its own terms, not in general ones. What is the specific objective? What is the role you expect to play? What are the likely prospects (not what is in our wildest dreams, but what we can actually expect). How will it be carried out? How will it aid the struggle?

When the workers move they will turn to their labour parties. We need to be there to intervene.

You keep repeating this, but don't explain why this is justified. Reality proves otherwise: there where the working class radicalises, they form new political initiatives (WASG in Germany, CAP in Belgium, etc.) or join promising parties that oust a radical sound (like the SP in the Netherlands). Nowhere do we see a return to old labour...

Also, you're turning entryist logic upside down: We should be where the masses are, not vice versa. Old labour has been left behind by the masses, but instead of following them you choose to remain behind and hope they'll come back... some day.

I never said anything to the contrary of that. We SHOULD be where the masses are. I don't support defunct parties where the workers will not turn too, but those they will join at a time of radicalization. What I'm saying is that, in some cases, labour parties are the most obvious choice because thats exactly what they are, labour parties. There are exceptions, like the bankruptcy of Labour in England.

Well, I'm not sure how old labour is in Canada, but the social-democracy has fully embraced neoliberal policies in: The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland and Sweden to name just a few. I somehow doubt Canada is an exception. Judging from the mechanisms that I see in a lot of other countries, I'm guessing the Canadian also always had a petty-bourgeois leadership but was kept "in line" by the massmembership that would cry havoc when the leadership went a bit too far. Now that the working class has left old labour, the leadership has a free hand to do whatever it wants and embraces neoliberal policies (mind that while I'm putting this very mechanically, there is of course a dialectical relationship between the right tendencies of the leadership and the working class leaving).

So, please explain: why in their right mind would anyone want to join old labour these days? Because of their name? What exactly?

Again, I reiterate, it is he apparatus that is important, and not the current leadership.

Ok, so it is the apparatus now. Bureaucratic contraptions like old labour are known for one thing: the lack of democracy on any level. In the Dutch SP the structure is very top-down, discussions simply don't happen. As a result the activity of the membership is low (about 3 to 4% in the most positive cases), which in turn strengthens the grip of the bureaucracy on the party. This is a major reason why our section is more and more leaving behind this party to focus on other groupings or do our own work independantly. It is all about discussion with people on the ground and convincing them of your programme. If all the party has to offer consists of careerists and robots, you can better try your luck elsewhere.

So yes, party structure is important, but it is the bottom-up structure that we're interested in, not the top-down. Formations like the WASG (Now Die Linke) and the CAP didn't have a crystalised party structure, with an established (reformist) leadership and ideology. There was room for different ideas, discussion, tendencies. People were looking for ideas, clarity. This is where we excell, where entryism shines. Old labour on the other hand is perhaps over-crystalised in being an organisation that is filled with carreerists. Who do you think you'll convince of your programme there?

Why don't you just do your work independantly? Right now it pretty much comes down to the same thing as working in old labour, but you get the bonus of not being associated with the "traitors". And no, this is not sectarian by definition. Sectarianism happens where you don't seek the masses at all, but think the masses will come to you because of your insights. You're perfectly able to hold meetings, organise demonstrations and work inside other parties and groupings while being an independant party/organisation.

I know one other IMT section, in Belgium. When they splitted away from the CWI, it was pretty much a 50/50 situation with both sections having about 30 members. Now, the LSP-MAS (CWI in Belgium) is having almost 300 members where Vonk (IMT in Belgium) is still having about 30 members. Clearly shedding off the old carcas of labour did some good.

See my quote again.

You shouldn't use that quote as "proof" against entryism, Trotsky was himself a huge supporter of this tactic. But yes, while working in other parties we should always uphold our programme. That's the whole point of entryism: convincing militants of our views.

Ok, so it is the apparatus now. Bureaucratic contraptions like old labour are known for one thing: the lack of democracy on any level. In the Dutch SP the structure is very top-down, discussions simply don't happen. As a result the activity of the membership is low (about 3 to 4% in the most positive cases), which in turn strengthens the grip of the bureaucracy on the party. This is a major reason why our section is more and more leaving behind this party to focus on other groupings or do our own work independantly. It is all about discussion with people on the ground and convincing them of your programme. If all the party has to offer consists of careerists and robots, you can better try your luck elsewhere.

There is no reason to restrict our work simply to the Labour party, there is such a thing as keeping one foot in the party just in case, and doing most of your work outside. This is what we do in Britain.

So yes, party structure is important, but it is the bottom-up structure that we're interested in, not the top-down. Formations like the WASG (Now Die Linke) and the CAP didn't have a crystalised party structure, with an established (reformist) leadership and ideology. There was room for different ideas, discussion, tendencies. People were looking for ideas, clarity. This is where we excell, where entryism shines. Old labour on the other hand is perhaps over-crystalised in being an organisation that is filled with carreerists. Who do you think you'll convince of your programme there?

Very few people. This is not the focus of our work in most places at the moment, but we keep our presence there, in preparation for the turn in events which will come. People will turn to these parties en masse, this is proven by historical experience. When that time comes and huge potential is proven, the parties that zig-zagged out of Labour and the mass parties (such as the CWI), will zig-zag back after years of ignoring it, and no one will admit that it was a mistake to leave in the first place.

Why don't you just do your work independantly? Right now it pretty much comes down to the same thing as working in old labour, but you get the bonus of not being associated with the "traitors". And no, this is not sectarian by definition. Sectarianism happens where you don't seek the masses at all, but think the masses will come to you because of your insights. You're perfectly able to hold meetings, organise demonstrations and work inside other parties and groupings while being an independant party/organisation.

We do work independently, we just keep a minimal presence in Labour because we understand that eventually it will be flooded with radicalized workers.

I know one other IMT section, in Belgium. When they splitted away from the CWI, it was pretty much a 50/50 situation with both sections having about 30 members. Now, the LSP-MAS (CWI in Belgium) is having almost 300 members where Vonk (IMT in Belgium) is still having about 30 members. Clearly shedding off the old carcas of labour did some good.

That's good work, but it doesn't say anything about where the masses will turn when they get radicalized. I suspect that when that happens, you won't reorient towards the traditional parties for years, because you hate them so much. That'll be the end of your growth.

People will turn to these parties en masse, this is proven by historical experience.

...

We do work independently, we just keep a minimal presence in Labour because we understand that eventually it will be flooded with radicalized workers.

...

That's good work, but it doesn't say anything about where the masses will turn when they get radicalized. I suspect that when that happens, you won't reorient towards the traditional parties for years, because you hate them so much. That'll be the end of your growth.

A few questions:
1. Could you give me some examples in the past 20 years where workers actually enmasse went back to old labour?
2. Why do you think workers will look to parties that have betrayed them for the past 20 years (if not more) by running neoliberal policies?
3. If workers form new initiatives instead of (re)joining old labour, would you join these initiatives or remain waiting where you are?

To continue on the last question, I don't remember Vonk entering the CAP initiative or ever vocally supporting it. They remain firm believers in the social-democracy, despite everything.

The CWI has a policy of using entryism wherever militant workers are, like I used in the example of the Dutch SP earlier, but also our work inside Die Linke in Germany is an example of this. So no, we're not blinded by hate against reformists.

In 1997 workers voted for the Labour party, with the expectation that Labour would use a strong parliamentary majority to restore the power of the trade unions and return the utilities to public ownership, despite the leadership's hostility towards Militant Tendency. Labour failed to meet these expectations, of course.

Actually there were very low expectations from workers regarding New Labour. Although there was a landslide victory, it was on the back of the lowest General Election turnout in the UK for seventy years and possibly the weakest Tory Party of all time*. Blair and company carefully cultivated low expectations and their victory was certainly not related to an up-swing in working class militancy - strike action was still at a low level in the mid nineties and the expectation held by the SWP and others that disillusion with New Labour would result in a radicalization of significant layers of the working class did not materialize.

Edit: *Actually the Tories had their lowest slice of the popular vote since 1832!